Wikipedia:Files for discussion

[[:|WP:IFD]]

This page is only for listing images which are duplicates or otherwise unneeded. For copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Copyright problems. For licensing issues that are not copyright infringements, use Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images.

Articles that have been listed for more than one week are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to its deletion have been raised. Such images should be dealt with as soon as possible.

As per the speedy deletion policy, administrators can delete on sight "[a]n image which is a redundant (all bits the same or scaled-down) copy of something else, either on Wikipedia or on the Commons, and as long as all inward links have been changed to the image being retained." This does not include visually similar pictures, such as PNG versions of JPEG images. Such images should be listed here instead.

Deletion guidelines for administrators -- deletion log -- List of empty images

Listing instructions

To list an image on this page, simply add it to the bottom. If it is an obsoleted image, please also list the image that it is obsoleted by, in the format "[[:Image:Foo.jpg]] - obsoleted by [[:Image:Bar.jpg]]".

If you remove an image from an article, you should list the article from which you removed it, so there can be effective community review of whether or not the image should be deleted. This is necessary because image pages do not remember the articles the images used to be used on.

Add the following message to the top of any image page listed on this page: {{ifd}}, which shows up as:

The purpose of this file is currently being discussed in accordance with Wikipedia's image use policy. The outcome of the discussion may result in the file's usage or license being changed, or possibly its deletion.

Please share your thoughts on the matter at this file's entry on the Files for discussion page.

Feel free to edit the file description page, but the page must not be blanked and this notice must not be removed until the discussion is closed.

How to list a file for discussion:
1. Add {{ffd|log=2025 June 8}} to the file description page.
2. Add {{subst:Ffd2|1=Files for discussion|uploader= |reason= }} ~~~~ to add a line to today's FfD.
3. Add {{ffdc|1=Files for discussion|log=2025 June 8}} in the caption on each page in the file links.
4. Please consider notifying the uploader by placing {{subst:ffd notice|1=Files for discussion}} on their talk page(s).

This template should only be used on file pages.

Please sign any listing or vote you add, by adding this after your comment: ~~~~

Instructions for administrators

Before deleting an image, please make sure of the following:

That the image has been listed on this page for one week or longer
That no objections to its deletion have been raised, or that a consensus to delete has been reached
That the image is not used in any articles (note that "What links here" is not currently reliable)
That the image is not currently being processed as a copyright violation

To delete an image, open the image page and click either the link, "Delete all revisions of this image" or the usual "delete" tab at the top of the page. Either will work. (This was not the case in previous versions of the software.)

Also, please specify the reason for deletion in your deletion summary. Examples:

Orphaned and obsoleted, listed on IfD since (date)

Orphaned copyright violation, listed on IfD since (date)

If you delete an image listed on this page, please remove the listing and note your removal in your edit summary.

When deleting an image because an identically named image exists in the wikipedia commons, make sure to preserve the image description. Otherwise the image will still be shown but the page will also say "This page does not exist".

What links here is not reliable!

The "What links here" tool is broken for images. Do not rely on what links here to determine whether an image is unused! You must use the Wikipedia internal search engine, with all namespaces selected, to confirm that an image is unused in the English-language Wikipedia. You should also be alert for signs that the image is used in other languages, some of which use external links to include images from en. See BUG 85 for the current status of this issue.

Listings older than one week

November 26

Kreb's cycle small; arrow pointing left and right; arrow pointing down long and short - used only in an old revision of cellular respiration --bdesham 22:18, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- It's been over a week, so I deleted Image:Kreb's cycle small.png, Image:Arrow pointing down(long).png, and Image:Arrow pointing down(short).png. But Image:Arrow pointing left.png and Image:Arrow pointing right.png are now used in Kardashev scale. So I can't really delete those without breaking that article. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

November 27

Image:Stateflag_at.jpg is now redundant, replaced by the (more correct) Image:Austria_State_flag_large.png
- The more current image doesn't seem to exist. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 01:40, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Listings less than one week old

November 30

Image:Nevada-Tan.jpg
- This image is the Japanese girl who killed her friend. It was sensational, and the image is widely spread on the Internet. But in terms of privacy, the image should not be on wikipedia, and Japanese gorvernment also demand not to put the image on the net. (Sorry for my bad English.)--Mochi 13:09, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
- I disagree. This is a difficult case, but I'm not sure we should delete an image just because the Japanese government demands it. The government of Iran would probably demand we delete a whole lot of images, but I don't think we should. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 17:56, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)
  - It is indeed a difficult case. I agree that the demands of the Japanese government should not come into play in our decision making. However, there are some other things that should be considered:
    1. The copyright status of the image is hazy. There is no such thing as the public domain in Japan, so the copyright should belong to someone (the school?). It is probably usable on a fair use rationale in the U.S.
    2. Wikipedia is forced to listen to the United States government. Are there any laws about publishing personal details about alleged minor perpetrators of crimes in the U.S. Even foreign kids?
    3. The article is not clear on who "believes" that this girl was the pereptrator, nor why.
  - I've started a general discussion about divulging personal details. Whether minors should be given different treatment could be discussed there. A related case is the case of a minor accused of murder being tried as an adult in a U.S. court. See: Rachelle Waterman and talk. — David Remahl 18:13, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
  - The crime was happened when she was 11 years old or so, about half year ago. Japanese law "Shonen-hou" (law for children who commited crimes)" prohibit massmedias (newspaper, tv, radio, magazines so on) from publishing information about the criminal child's name, age, job, address, portrait, if the information can easily identify the child. This is because children are regarded as to have an immature sense of responsibility and judgment. That's why even she is a criminal, she is protected under law in Japan and the gorvernment demanded to delete. Wikipedia is not a newssite and not a Japanese site, so I know the law has no effect. But I'm sure the image should be deleted.--Mochi 18:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
    - No. This is an U.S.-based encyclopedia and we don't have any obligation—legal, moral, or otherwise—to follow arbitrary Japanese law. The article doesn't reveal anyon's name, much less personal identifing information. Keep. [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/^talk]] 02:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
Simply put, there is no way that anyone can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that child in the photo is the criminal as she is currently protected by numerous laws in Japan. Unlike James Bulger case in UK by a pair of ten years old, the picture was not released by police and it is not a part of evidence from this case. The image can probably be used with discriptions but the rest of article should be more like Mary Bell case which has links to photo and caricatured images. Revth 05:15, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I've made up my mind, finally. Keep. Wikipedia doesn't have the responsibility to prove anything beyond reasonable doubt. We reflect reality, and reality is that a lot of people believe that this girl did this. External links disappear. We're writing an encyclopaedia for the future, not just for the 2000s. If the image can be included as fair use, I think we should. Any privacy for this child has been destroyed already, so there would be no further damage done. — David Remahl 14:06, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- "Any privacy for this child has been destroyed already, so there would be no further damage done.". I do not agree to this comment. Her privacy has been destroyed, but people will forget this image someday, and her privacy will recovery. If Wikipedia records this image forever, her privacy will be kept destroyed forever, and Wikipedia will be a victimizer of destroying her privacy.
- There seem to be copyright problems.
1. The left portrait photo can not be a public domain under Japanese copyright law. Somebody who ignore the law may have posted the image on the Internet. Copyright of the photographer still remains for at least 50 years.
2. About the right artwork, the painter of the image says notihng about his/her copyright. The image was probably uploaded on a uploader BBS several months ago, so it is hard to identify the copyright holder.One person says it it his/her artwork on 2ch BBS,so I'm trying to ask him/her about copyright.--Mochi 15:57, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete, on moral grounds. We have to weigh the girl's right for privacy against the interests of the Wikipedia readers. I don't agree with Neutrality that there is no problem since we don't reveal her name, because the picture by itself identifies her, nor do I agree with David that her privacy has already been destoyed completely (I wouldn't have seen the picture if it hadn't been put here). The readers' interest seems to be that the picture illustrates the fact that the cartoon character is derived from the real-world photograph. On balance, I think the right for privacy is more important and hence that we should delete at least the photograph (the drawing in the right half can be retained if there are no legal problems). -- Jitse Niesen 17:35, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

PS: I put a link to this discussion on Talk:Nevada-Tan.

Delete: We have no ways to make sure that the picture is the person who murdered her friend or didn't for the both police and mass medias does not publicated any of her pictures. If this photo is not the one of Nevada-tan, we are providing incorrect information. --Ramendra 12:02, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Delete It is impossible to verify whether the picture is of the person it claims to be of, all moral issues aside. (And if the case were in the U.S., BTW, U.S. law would prohibit identifying the alleged perpetrator. Japanese law is not binding on us, but U.S. society does consider such publication immoral.) —Tkinias 13:30, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Delete This is a really difficult one, I can't decide on the moral/privacy issue. Fortunately I don't have to. If the police and newspapers haven't published a picture then the identity of the girl in the pic is unverifyable. Therefore we can delete it under "original research". I'm fine with the right hand picture staying as long as copyright isn't infringed. Theresa Knott (The snott rake) 11:27, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

December 3

The Union Jack: orphan~~s Image:GB1603.gif and~~ Image:GB1603.png are both obsoleted by the correct Image:Uk flag large.png. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 02:22, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)
- Keep. Image:GB1603.png was the flag of the Kingdom of Great Britain until 1800, whereas Image:Uk flag large.png was the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and is the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Both images are needed by Wikipedia. However, you could delete Image:Uk flag 1606.png which has rather horrible borders. Gdr 16:43, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

December 5

Isis and Horus: orphan Image:IsisAndHorus20BC.gif (except for an uneditable protected page) which is obsoleted by the replacement image Image:IsisAndHorus20BC.JPG a slightly different image (and in a different format) CheeseDreams 13:59, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Your replacement image doesn't have a license tag, and I can't find anything regarding copyright on the source site you link (it's pretty badly organized... someone needs a competent Web designer). —Tkinias 01:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
A couple of images of ships uploaded under the wrong filenames: Image:HMS Berkeley Castle (K634).jpg actually shows HMS St. Austell Bay; Image:HMS Javelin (F61).jpg actually shows HMS Llandaff; and Image:HMS Vidette (D78).jpg has the wrong pennant number. I will re-upload these under the correct names, but the wrongly-named images should be deleted. Gdr 14:42, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Image:Spc.gif - replaced by Image:Genesis_in_collection_mode.jpg from the commons. Thue | talk 17:14, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Note: It is fine to speedily-delete images that have been copied to the commons, but these are not the exact same image Therefor it was appropriate to list it here. I vote to delete. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
Image:UPS azoto.gif - orphan. Uploader stated "these images come from my teacher's lecture notes; I asked him, but he cannot remember where he took pictures. You can delete them." – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 18:00, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
- User:Quadell, I didn't get a response from the user on the other images from 29 Nov (above); did he say it's OK to delete them all or just this one? —Tkinias 01:10, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
  - It's unclear. I think he meant just this one, but he may have meant all of them. Perhaps you could list them here, and leave a note on his talk page to that effect? – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:04, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
Image:Commonwealth-flag.png and Image:Commonwealth flag.png are now duplicates of Image:Commonwealth-Flag.png Urhixidur 22:49, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)
Image:Oprahwinfrey.BMP. replaced by Image:Oprahwinfrey.jpg. [[User:Norm|Norman Rogers\^talk]] 23:08, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Image:Mycomp.PNG not fair use.
- Why not??? (and in the future please sign your posts using ~~~~ or we won't know who you are) Secfan 05:25, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
  - Fair use would, for example, be the use of a company's logo in article about that company as a demonstration of what their logo is. At the same time it would not be fair use to use a copyrighted image on all "computer stub" pages simply because it is nifty eye candy. That is the sort of thing people need to pay the copyright holder to do. Fair use in Wikipedia is shaky given its goal and the use of a Microsoft-copyrighted icon across dozens of pages is IMO a clear abuse of fair use. 66.167.236.158 08:23, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- If it's not, then there are a whole lot of images in trouble. It's correctly tagged AFAICT. —Tkinias 05:44, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- I think the image would be fair use in an article about Windows XP, but it's on shaky ground in an article that's not about the product. We should replace the image with a free one, but I wouldn't delete it until we have a replacement. – Quadell ^{(talk) (help)}[[]] 14:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I found some possible replacements here, here, and here. These images are Public Domain (license). Any preferenece?
  - Well I just used the Win XP one as the previous icon was "deleted" without it being replaced with a suitable one. A lot of them on that site look like Microsoft ones anyway, so I suggest one that clearly has a plain screen computer monitor, heavy symbolism for a computer. The current one looks too sophisticated anyway. Secfan 15:08, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)
- I just uploaded Image:Gnome-system.png, which is GPL from GNOME; I was bold and used it in Template:compu-stub since that was missing an icon and this one is fully legal (and IMO better looking since it is properly transparent). I also uploaded Stock notebook.png, also GPL from GNOME, in case someone prefers it. —Tkinias 20:29, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)