Wikipedia:Files for discussion

Skip to table of contents · Skip to current discussions · Purge this page

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
	Dec	Jan	Feb	Mar	TOTAL
CfD	0	30	113	62	205
TfD	0	0	0	10	10
MfD	0	0	0	4	4
FfD	0	0	10	15	25
AfD	0	0	0	31	31

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which are unneeded or have either free content or non-free content usage concerns. Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for either deletion or removal from pages if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion or removal have been raised. To quote the non-free content criteria, "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created." For undeletion requests, first contact the administrator who deleted the file. If you are unable to resolve the issue with that administrator, the matter should be brought to deletion review.

Examples of what files you may request for discussion, deletion or change here:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in any Wikimedia project.
Low quality – The file is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree – The file is tagged with a freeness claim, but may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States or the country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
NFCC applied to free image – The file is used under a claim of fair use, but the file is either too simple, or is an image which has been wrongly labeled given evidence presented on the file description page.
Wrong license or status – The file is under one license, but the information on the file description pages suggests that a different license is more appropriate, or a clarification of status is desirable.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

If you have questions if something should be deleted, consider asking at Media Copyright Questions.

What not to list here[edit]

For concerns not listed below, if a deletion is uncontroversial, do not use this process. Instead tag a file with {{subst:prod}}. However, if the template is removed, please do not reinsert it; list the file for deletion then.
For speedy deletion candidates as well, do not use this page; instead use one of the speedy deletion templates. See the criteria for speedy deletion. These are: duplicates (where both files are on Wikipedia), thumbnails, broken files, non-existent files, non-commercial, "by permission" files and files which are not an image, sound file or video clip and have no encyclopedic use.
Files that have no source, have an unknown copyright, are unused or replaceable non-free, or are non-free without rationale can be marked so that they will be deleted after a week, and should not be listed on this page. Add one of the following to the file page:
1. {{subst:nsd}} if a file has no source indicated.
2. {{subst:nld}} if a file has a source but no licensing information.
3. {{subst:orfud}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but isn't used in any articles.
4. {{subst:rfu}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but could be replaced by a free file.
5. {{subst:dfu|reason}} if a file has a non-free copyright template but the rationale isn't sufficient or is disputed.
6. {{subst:nrd}} if a file has no non-free use rationale.
Redundant or duplicate files do not have to be listed here. Please use
1. {{db-f1|Full name of file excluding the "File:" prefix}} for speedy deletion if the other file is on Wikipedia, not on Commons
2. {{now commons|File:NEW FILENAME}} if the file now exists on Commons, or {{now commons}} for files with the same name on Commons. (Don't nominate protected images, they are usually locally uploaded and protected since they are used in an interface message or in a highly used template, thus they are high-risk.)
For blatant copyright infringements, use speedy deletion by tagging the file {{db-f9}}.
If a file is listed as public domain or under a free license, but lacks verification of this (either by an OTRS ticket number or a notice on the source website), tag it as {{subst:npd}}.
Files that are hosted on Wikimedia Commons cannot be deleted via this process. Please use the Commons deletion page instead.
Description pages with no local file, even though they are in the file namespace, should not be listed here.
1. Redirects should be treated as in any other namespace: if no speedy deletion criteria apply, they should be listed at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion.
2. Local description pages with no associated file are speedy-deletable under criterion G8; use {{db-imagepage}}.
3. Local description pages for files hosted on Commons are usually speedy-deletable under criterion F2 if there is no content relevant to Wikipedia; use {{db-fpcfail}}.
4. Any other local description pages for files hosted on Commons should be listed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion.
If a file is appropriately licensed and could be usable elsewhere, consider copying it to the Wikimedia Commons instead of listing it for deletion. Once copied to the Commons, it is eligible for speedy deletion per criterion 8 for files.
If you are the uploader of the image, tag it with {{db-author}}.

Instructions for listing files for discussion

To list a file:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{ffd\|log=2020 March 18}}` to the file page.
2	Create its FfD subsection. Follow this edit link and list the file using `{{subst:ffd2\|File_name.ext\|uploader= \|reason= }} ~~~~` Leave the subject heading blank. If the file has been replaced by another file, name the file that replaced it in your reason for deletion. Refer below for a list of other common reasons. For listing additional files with the same reason, edit the first file section and use `{{subst:ffd2a\|File_name.ext \|Uploader= }}` for each additional file. Also, add `{{ffd\|log=2020 March 18}}` to the top of the file page of each file other than the first one nominated.
3	Give due notice. Inform the uploader by adding a message to their talk page using `{{subst:fdw\|File_name.ext}}` Remember to replace "File_name.ext" with the name of the image or media For multiple images by the same user, use `{{subst:fdw-multi\|First_file.ext \|Second_file.ext \|Third_file.ext}} ~~~~` (can handle up to 26) If the image is in use, also consider adding `{{ffdc\|File_name.ext\|log=2020 March 18}}` to the caption(s), or adding a notice to the article talk pages. Consider also notifying relevant WikiProjects of the discussion.

State the reasons why the file should be deleted, removed, or altered. Also, state what specific action should be taken, preferably in bold text; this allows discussion participants and closers to better understand the purpose of the nomination. Some examples of nomination statements include:

Delete. Orphaned with no foreseeable encyclopedic usage.
Delete. Replaced by File:FILE2.
Free (public domain) file may actually be eligible for copyright in the United States. This photograph was actually first published in 1927, not 1921.
Remove from ARTICLE1 and ARTICLE2. The file only meets WP:NFCC#8 with its use in ARTICLE3.
Non-free file may actually be free. This logo does not seem to meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright in the United States and should actually be tagged free using {{PD-logo}}.

Some common reasons for deletion or removal from pages are:

Obsolete – The file has been replaced by a better version. Indicate the new file name.
Orphan – The file is not used on any pages in Wikipedia. (If the file is only available under "fair use", please use {{subst:orfud}} instead). Please consider moving "good" free licensed files to Commons rather than outright deleting them, other projects may find a use for them even if we have none; you can also apply {{Copy to Wikimedia Commons}}.
Unencyclopedic – The file doesn't seem likely to be useful in this encyclopedia (or for any Wikimedia project). Images used on userpages should generally not be nominated on this basis alone unless the user is violating the Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not policy by using Wikipedia to host excessive amounts unencyclopedic material (most commonly private photos).
Low quality – The image is of an extremely low resolution, distorted, or has other physical image quality concerns.
Copyright violation – The file might be used in violation of copyright.
Possibly unfree file – The file marked as free may actually be non-free. If the file is determined to be non-free, then it will be subject to the non-free content criteria in order to remain on Wikipedia.
Non-free file issues – The non-free file may not meet all requirements outlined in the non-free file use policy, or may not be necessary to retain on Wikipedia or specific articles due to either free alternatives or better non-free alternative(s) existing.
File marked as non-free may actually be free – The file is marked non-free, but may actually be free content. (Example: A logo may not eligible for copyright alone because it is not original enough, and thus the logo is considered to be in the public domain.)

These are not the only "valid" reasons to discuss a file. Any properly explained reason can be used. The above list comprises the most common and uncontroversial ones.

If you remove a file from an article, list the article from which you removed it so there can be community review of whether the file should be deleted. This is necessary because file pages do not remember the articles on which the file were previously used.

Administrator instructions

Instructions for discussion participation[edit]

In responding to the deletion nomination, consider adding your post in the format
* '''View''' - Reasoning ... -- ~~~~
where "Delete", "Keep", "Comment", or something else may replace "View". In posting their reasoning, many editors use abbreviations and cite to the following:

Wikipedia:NFCC#1 – Free equivalent is/is not available
Wikipedia:NFCC#8 – Significance
Wikipedia:Non-free content#Images 2 – Unacceptable image use

Remember that polling is not a substitute for discussion. Wikipedia's primary method of determining consensus is through editing and discussion, not voting. Although editors occasionally use straw polls in an attempt to test for consensus, polls or surveys sometimes impede rather than assist discussion. They should be used with caution, and are no more binding than any other consensus decision.

Also remember that if you believe that an image is potentially useful for other projects and should be moved to Wikimedia Commons, in lieu of responding '''Move to Commons''', you can move it there yourself. See Wikipedia:Moving files to the Commons for instructions.

Instructions for closing discussions[edit]

Nominations should be processed for closing after being listed for 7 days following the steps here.

Old discussions[edit]

The following discussions are more than 7 days old and are pending processing by an administrator:

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of one or more administrators.
This notice is automatically updated by AnomieBOT (talk) and will no longer be displayed when the backlog is cleared.

March 10

File:Strange Tales 28.jpg

[edit]

Four comic covers used in Strange Tales in violation of WP:NFCC#3. Per WP:NFC#CS, "To identify a subject of discussion, depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject generally suffices, thus only a single item of non-free content meets the criterion." None of the covers are used as the main image, but one must be selected for said use and the other three deleted to satisfy policy. Ə XPLICIT 01:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, File:Strange135.jpg is additionally being used in Nick Fury and S.H.I.E.L.D., and should be removed from those articles in accordance with WP:NFC#UUI#6, as it is being used in the main article Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. (feature). Ə XPLICIT 01:55, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

In the case of a comic-book that has run since 1951 and gone through significant changes, the particular four covers here are necessary in order to give a reasonably comprehensive understanding of the changes this title experienced over decades of publication. Indeed, four is a minimal representation, as explained below.

First: These four cover illustrate the comic's origins as a 1950s "pre-Code" horror title; later in the decade, as one of early Marvel's signature Jack-Kirby-giant-monster books; later, in the following decade as the title that introduced the cornerstone character Nick Fury, Agent of SHIELD, which in addition to other significance is the single continuing thread throughout the Marvel Studios movies; and two decades later, as a superhero title.

A variety of other covers could replace that last image, since the series introduced or popularized feature characters including Brother Voodoo and Warlock, among others. But a cover to illustrate that this horror / science-fiction / espionage series became a superhero title seems needed and justifiable under fair use. Comic books are a primarily visual medium, and the visual difference between a horror title, a science-fiction title, an espionage title and a superhero title are stark and significant. --Tenebrae (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:10, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep File:Strange135.jpg in Strange Tales, remove from the other two articles and remove all other files mentioned in the nomination.

File:Strange135.jpg in Strange Tales is the only instance where one of these covers is subject to sourced critical commentary: "Nick Fury, Agent of S.H.I.E.L.D." became the first Strange Tales feature to receive its own cover logo below the main title, beginning with #135. This directly comments on what the cover looks like, and would not be possible to imagine without actually seeing it. If the points made by Tenebrae truly were important, they would be explicitly made in the articles in question. That is also the requirement of the non-free content policy. Something like "according to scholar X, the visual differences between covers Y and Z testify to the changing visual style of the decades". – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:44, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

March 9

File:The Greatest Showman Soundtrack (Alternative cover).jpg

[edit]

I have yet to find a reliable source discussing various artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack. The artwork itself fails to enhance readers' understanding of the soundtrack itself, especially when details about the artworks are not yet found. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#8. Also, it spiritually does the same purpose as the other artwork, regardless of differences between the two images, like having cast names in one cover and lacking them in the other. Therefore, it fails WP:NFCC#3a. FWIW, I prefer the one with cast names on the front cover, so this (other) artwork has to go. George Ho (talk) 00:27, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

~~More troubling is that~~ I could not find an album using this "cover" on Amazon or official Warner Music store. ~~I would suspect this image to be a fake unless I'm proven wrong.~~ George Ho (talk) 01:24, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Firstly, there are no 'various' artworks of The Greatest Showman soundtrack, it's only 2. The 'Reimagined' one is a whole nother album and has nothing to do with the soundtrack album. Secondly, about the alternative cover, it does have reliable sources including, O, The Oprah Magazine & Harpo Productions for Oprah's Favorite Things list, Smule & bsaber.com and not only the alternative cover does not fail the WP:NFCC#8, it also makes a contribution to the user's understanding of the materials from the soundtrack album, which could not practically be conveyed by words alone; it reflects the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie, and not having the cast names written on the cover is not a reason since there are a lot of album/single artworks that are textless including 25, Liberation, Hello, etc. And lastly the difference between the 1st & the alternative cover; the soundtrack album was promoted and on pre-order sale a couple of months prior to the film's premiere with this alternative cover. That's why the 2017 Oprah's Favorite Things list, published on February 2017, presented the album with this cover.^[1] then alongside with the film's premiere on December the album was released in full with the other cover and thence to iTunes, Spotify, Amazon, etc. Bionic (talk) 11:10, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

References

^ "The Greatest Showman". oprah.com. February 2, 2017.

Thanks for verifying the existence of the alternative cover and confirming that the cover is a pre-order artwork. However, I still stand by the rest of my rationale. IMHO, nevertheless, even confirming the pre-order cover's existence and "the extravaganza, spectacle theme & concept of the music & movie", which the other (widely distributed) cover also does, neither would compel me to reconsider the nomination nor sufficiently explain why removing the alternative cover is harmful to the understand of the soundtrack. I must also say that, per Template:Infobox album#Template:Extra album cover, an alternative album cover must be not "essentially similar, despite differences in colouring, poses, text, etc". However, to me, the alternative cover, which has not been "widely distributed", fails to be essentially different from the (other) widely released artwork. George Ho (talk) 18:49, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, when it comes to art, 'different' could be subjective. From my point of view, it is essentially different because in terms of visual art, the imaging is unlike in nature; one is photography and the other's painting. Bionic (talk) 10:56, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - The Entire History of You.jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:45, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete as the rationale for using this copyrighted material is "Key element of the episode" without explaining how it's crucial to understanding the accompanying prose and how readers' understanding of the article prose is diminished without having this image. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 19:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep rationale just needs to be updated to indicate the nature of the relationship of the image with the implants and the article. Intrinsically linked. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:03, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:Black Mirror - The National Anthem.jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Delete There is no specific rationale on this image, or critical commentary on the specific scene to justify the use of this image. There needs to be sourced discussion for such a shot to be used. --Masem (t) 13:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep it is possible that an image of the princess on the bridge is more seminal than this in the context of the piece. However, this is also fundamental, but perhaps needs more explanation. Certainly no rationale for deletion, just a rationale for improved discussion around the significance. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:05, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

File:The Waldo Moment.jpg

[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#8: not used for critical commentary or educational value but purely for decoration in an infobox. Presence of this image does not enhance understanding enough to warrant inclusion of non-free media. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:08, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Keep: Justin has nominated this as part of a series of FFDs on Black Mirror images made with no previous discussion or notification. They should have been discussed en masse first, rather than aggressively nominated in a spammy bot-like fashion. Justin is wrong to nominate the images for deletion as they satisfy NFCC#8: the captions provide critical commentary and the images are necessary for depicting either the world or the main character(s) of an episode; further justification is given on each non-free use rationale, on several talk pages and in several GA and FA reviews. Justin also attempts to supervote here by ignoring consensus established in many GA and FA reviews, where non-free rationales have been checked by each editor who passed an article. Additionally, many individual images have specific extra reasons why they are necessary to understand a feature of the episode. I am happy to discuss any individual images on a case-by-case basis, but not to engage any further in this spam-like busywork. — Bilorv (talk) 07:16, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak keep I remember there had been a better image before but regardless, this is a case where the idea of an animated blue bear being a main candidate in a major election was the subject of discussion and that was before 2016 when we got Trump; this episode's drawn more attention since. I'm not sure if this image is the best but an image involving Waldo from this episode to show that does have fair game to be kept in this article. --Masem (t) 13:48, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
It's worth noting that this image is a promotional image released specifically to illustrate the episode. It depicts all the main characters, including Waldo. I replaced our previous image (something like this) with the new one before nominating it as a GA, as it lacked an appropriate fair use rationale. I also didn't like how the previous image obscured part of Waldo's face. Of course Waldo's animation and design is the part of the image that is discussed throughout the article so perhaps consensus would emerge for an image with Waldo more prominent, but my first choice is still the current image, where Waldo's face is still fully visible but we also see all of the main characters' roles in the episode from a single carefully chosen pose by each of them. — Bilorv (talk) 20:46, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep fulfils the role described in the fair use description. The Rambling Man (Staying alive since 2005!) 21:06, 9 March 2020 (UTC)