Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Oct	Nov	Total
CfD	0	33	33
TfD	0	5	5
MfD	0	5	5
FfD	0	0	0
RfD	2	46	48
AfD	0	0	0

Files for discussion (FfD) is for listing images and other media files which may be 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 the nominator specifically requests deletion or removal and no objections are 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.

What not to list here

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 a VRT 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

Use Twinkle. If you can't, follow these steps to do manually:

1	Edit the file page. Add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 20}}` 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. You may use this tool to quickly generate Ffd2a listings. Also, add `{{Ffd\|log=2024 November 20}}` 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:Ffd notice\|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:Ffd notice 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=2024 November 20}}` 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 1931, not 1925.
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}}.

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 claimed as a freely licensed content, but may actually be protected by copyright in either the United States or its country of origin.
NFCC violation – The file is used under a claim of fair use but does not meet the requirements.
Disputed copyright status – There is a disagreement between editors over the copyright status of a file. This includes, but is not limited to disputes about whether a file is: too simple for fair use, using the correct license tags, or accurately described by its description page.
Wrongly claimed as own – The file is under a self license, but the information on the file description pages suggests otherwise.

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.

If you have general questions about a file and/or its copyright status, then please start a new thread at Media Copyright Questions.

Instructions for discussion participation

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

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

Old discussions

Shortcut

WP:FFDO

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

For older nominations, see the archives.

Discussions approaching conclusion

Discussions with at least 6 full days since nomination. After 7 days, they may be closed.

November 13

File:Better Poland logo.png

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Keep per discussion--Ymblanter (talk) 13:27, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The logo of a political party is not a "governmental symbols and signs". — Ирука¹³ 02:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling cited does refer to the graphical signs of political parties. A political party was in fact fined for providing the relevant information about its logo in 2015. Brat Forelli🦊 05:26, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GoogleTranslate tells me they were fined for not giving him a copyright agreement for the logo and not telling him who drew it. Can you quote the law that says political party logos are in the public domain? — Ирука¹³ 05:43, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this passage is clearly in the II SAB/Wa 714/15:

Podkreślenia wymaga, iż funkcjonując w życiu publicznym (tzw. przestrzeni publicznej) partie polityczne wykorzystują znaki graficzne (loga), które ułatwiają odróżnianie danej partii od innych. Logo partii, jako element rozpoznawczy, jest wykorzystywane w materiałach wyborczych (plakatach, ulotkach), eksponowane na konferencjach prasowych, folderach reklamowych, itp. Znak graficzny partii politycznej niewątpliwie należy do domeny publicznej. Jest wykorzystywany powszechnie, posługiwanie się nim stanowi przejaw aktywności partii na zewnątrz, a środki finansowe wydatkowane na jego pozyskanie nie są tylko sprawą wewnętrzną partii politycznej.

Znak graficzny partii politycznej niewątpliwie należy do domeny publicznej is very clear on this. Brat Forelli🦊 03:35, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a link that you should be able to access normally. It contains the passage I'm citing. Brat Forelli🦊 03:38, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:World in Conflict USS Missouri (BB-63).JPG

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete; deleted by Explicit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) AnomieBOT ⚡ 02:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is a screenshot of USS Missouri (BB-63) in the game World in Conflict, where it is used to describe the warship appears in a mission of that game. There is only minimal description in the image box and in text, and the image only serves as an illustration, replicable by free images on c:Category:USS Missouri (BB-63) to illustrate such fact. One should also remember there are already 3 more fair use images in the article.

(Moreover, due to strong reflection, Commons images would be way much better in terms of graphic quality.)

The file therefore violates WP:NFCC#1, WP:NFCC#3a and WP:NFCC#8, and should be deleted. 廣九直通車 (talk) 12:04, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it provides no critical commentary or useful info for a reader beyond what existing free photos would provide. Ed ^{[talk] [OMT]} 15:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep This image actually doesn't violate NFCC#1, as there is no free alternative. Its been suggested by the nominator that a free image could replace this one, however if you compare this image to a free image of the battleship you'd see there are no armored box launchers, harpoon launchers, or Phalanx CIWS mounts visible in the image provided, which means that simply swapping this image for a free one would result in a misleading image of the unit as portrayed in the game. (In fairness to the point though, that's often a common problem, rare is it that a game actually endeavors to get the models right. If this image was from Metal Gear Solid 4 as opposed to World in Conflict, I'd be totally down for the switch, as the former got the battleship depicted accurately as seen here.) For the same reason, an argument could also be made this position cancels the NFCC#8 argument as well since the battleship only appears in a single mission int eh solo player campaign, which means that those who do not solo play the games, didn;t finish the game, or watch matches online featuring the game units are not likely to see this unit. Unfortunately for me though, while I can shoot down an NFCC 1 or 8 argument, I can not adequately address the hitherto raised issue with NFCC#3. If there was more to be said for naval conflict in this game that may be possible, but this was a single player unit and featured only in one mission, while the other two images are a more accurate description of the battle system overall. I would trend delete, but as I note above, I have reservations about any non free image adequately capturing the unit in this game, as I feel the real life free images and the fair use on present are too different to simply swap out, but I defer to the Non Free Fair Use Content Policy for this. At any rate, having said my piece, I post and await a just and fair ruling. Thank you for inviting me to the discussion, I appreciate it, all the more so since it seems harder and harder these days for people to reach out to others and let them know about deletion discussions which may concern them. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:36, 10 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fastily 03:22, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Thank you for your comment. Per TomStar81, a reason arguing against NFCC#1 is because the ship is substantially (and fictitiously) modified, such that free and real-life images on Commons cannot replace. This point might succeed, but given that the article only made a very brief mention that players can obtain support from the battleship in the third mission. Without detailed commentary, I'm afraid that free images essentially have the same effect with the nominated file: that USS Missouri can be used in the game's third mission. I therefore believe that NFCC#8 still stands.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:55, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the presence of this image is not needed to understand the plot section. Fails WP:NFCC#8. -- Whpq (talk) 20:15, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Welkom Central Business District circa 1950.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This image is not in the public domain in the United States because it was not in the public domain in the country of its production in 1996. — Ирука¹³ 05:28, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Juventus FC (Torino, 1997) - Giraudo, Lippi, U. Agnelli, Moggi, Bettega.jpg

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more files. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete--Ymblanter (talk) 07:30, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image is in the public domain in Italy, but not in the United States. — Ирука¹³ 07:05, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the file's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

File:Thomas Hampson Baritone (3).jpg

Cropped version of photo at https://notes.gmpu.ac.at/2023/08/10/thomas-hampson-leitet-gmpu-masterclass-fuer-gesangsstudenten/. Unfortunately, the linked Flickr page has been removed, though I suspect the Flickr link is not the actual source, based ont he Flickr user name. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 20:37, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Logo.png

This image clearly falls under {{PD-textlogo}}, as it is as simpler or simpler than many other logos that were denied registration at the U.S. copyright office. Can't think of a better way to get rid of this local copy than starting a discussion; if you know of one please tell me. Mach61 21:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations

November 14

File:Memorial to Royalton Mine Disasters.jpeg

I came across this newly uploaded photo while looking at Special:NewFiles. It's a photo of a memorial/monument of undetermined en:provenance being used in Royalton, Illinois and Royalton North No. 1 Mine Explosion that might has issues per c:COM:US#Artworks and sculptures. There is no "automatic" freedom of panorama for publicly displayed 3D works of art installed after January 1, 1978 under US copyright law simply because they're installed; moreover, copyright formalities for such works were no longer required after March 1, 1989. I tagged the file with {{dw-nsd}}, notified the uploader, and tried to explain the issue and see whether they more about the the memorial itself; they removed the speedy deletion template and posted that the work is within the public domain because its in a public place. After re-adding the template to the file's page, I stated that discussing things further here at FFD was an option. Since they removed the template again, I'm bringing the file's licensing up for discussion here.

The license chosen by the uploader for the photo is fine, but the photo is a WP:Derivative work and the copyright status of the photographed memorial also needs to be assessed. There's nothing unusual about this, and it is consistent with meta:Wikilegal/Copyright of Images of Memorials in the US and c:COM:PACUSA. I also found this article about something similar posted online. Fwiw, the memorial itself seem fairly utilitarian in design and the engraved text seems primarily simple facts (i.e. a list of names); so, perhaps a license of {{PD-text}} or {{PD-shape}} is all that's needed. It would be interesting, however, to hear what others think, though, because I don't think adding a non-free {{Non-free 3D art}} license and corresponding non-free use rationale for each of the file's uses can be justified given the way it's currently being used. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Astor Theatre Melbourne sign 1935.png

An unused image that can be easily recreated if needed. — Ирука¹³ 05:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Gamma Cephei Ab.png

There are two possible sources for this image. The upload comment claims Fandom is the source, but there is no indication that it is released under a free license (Fandom's text is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, but not images). The other source, given by the {{information}} template, is c:File:Planet Gamma Cephei Ab and Star B.png, but that image is more cropped than the local one. Delete as a likely copyright violation. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 05:35, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (or move to Commons?) and indicate that it was cropped from this earlier version of c:File:Planet Gamma Cephei Ab and Star B.png, which is much larger and would allow for the creation of this image. Recon rabbit 14:41, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, image was created with Celestia, which has copyright-free images. 21 Andromedae (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: That's not necessarily true as the image uses a user-created planet texture, but indeed the original version was released under a free license by its author. (So keep.) SevenSpheres (talk) 18:39, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Italian Cruisers underway.jpg

Since there is no way to know the publication date of the photograph, it should not be considered PD-US. — Ирука¹³ 08:57, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sparviero.jpg

This photo is from "Storia militare" magazine, probably from 1994. It is unknown whether the image was published before. — Ирука¹³ 09:39, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Bleedinglovemusicvideo.jpg

Previous nomination ended in "kept" because the consensus believe that the crystal gown (or "crystal-encrusted dress") couldn't have been understood without this screenshot and possibly the critical commentary previously supported the image (oldid). However, the sources supporting the prose turned out to be unreliable, especially one now "deprecated". Now that the song article no longer contains the contested info (oldid), perhaps the current critical commentary is no longer adequate to support the nominated screenshot, which is no longer proven contextually significant to the topic (or subject of discussion) in question. I even tried to find reliable sources covering what's depicted in the image without avail. George Ho (talk) 11:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 15

File:Ecologist Greens logo simple.png

A complex logo labeled as simple. — Ирука¹³ 11:02, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:SBS 2 2015 logo.svg

A complex old logo labeled as simple. — Ирука¹³ 11:25, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Conn Colbert drilling instructor.jpg

Since neither the date of publication nor the date of death of the author is known ([1]), it is impossible to confirm the PD status. — Ирука¹³ 11:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Indian Bank logo.svg

A low-quality fake (WP:HOAX) that is not capable of replacing the original image for encyclopedic purposes (WP:NFCC# 4, 5, 8). — Ирука¹³ 19:58, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Change your own file to proper SVG file, and upload it in the old file. It would be better. VNC200 (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You could have informed me in my own chatbox such issues. I would have tried to make such changes accordingly. Is it possible to get some time to change and modify and upload it in a new form ? Please let me know. VNC200 (talk) 03:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 16

File:Indian Bank logo 2023.png

I think this logo is simple and not much different from those presented in c:COM:TOO. — Ирука¹³ 00:08, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:VPRO1970's.PNG

The logo should either be considered simple or removed for non-compliance with WP:NFCC#8. — Ирука¹³ 00:32, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Til I Die Beach Boys.ogg

Current usages in and contextual sigificance to Brian Wilson and 'Til I Die questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 23:49, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in song article because there is so much sourced, critical commentary in both the Recording and Background and composition sections that justify its inclusion thereby passing WP:NFCC#8. Aspects (talk) 16:47, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:38, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TAKRADRadioRIZ.jpg

"You can use it on Wikipedia" does not equal CC-BY. — Ирука¹³ 02:44, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The uploader should contact the author again and suggest that they contact c:COM:VRT to relicense their photo. JohnCWiesenthal (talk) 02:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rihanna - Only Girl (In the World).ogg

Removed from the song article as unrelated to content. File's contextual significance to the whole parent album questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 03:21, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rihanna - What's My Name (Feat. Drake).ogg

Removed from the song article by an IP editor (well, without rationale for removal). File's contextual significance to the whole parent album questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 03:45, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rihanna - S&M.ogg

File's contextual significance to the whole parent album and the whole song questionable. Default to delete if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 04:17, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:TwentyFour News 2023 logo.png

The logo should be removed. Either as a duplicate or as too complex. — Ирука¹³ 04:59, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Golpayegani.jpg

Since neither the date of the author's death nor the date of publication of the photograph is known, it is not possible to determine its licensing status. — Ирука¹³ 06:40, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:PHP1 Horacio dela Costa commemorative coin.png

According to the article, this coin can still be used for payment, which means that its photograph is still protected by copyright. — Ирука¹³ 08:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Platt-LePage XR-1A front.jpg

The source of the image is an amateur website. The officiality of the original publication of the photograph is also questionable. — Ирука¹³ 09:28, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 17

File:Order of Royal Purple badge.png

The badge is used instead of a logo (WP:NFCC#5, 8, 10c). There are no reliable sources for writing the text justifying the presence of this image in the article (WP:NFCC#8, 1 (text)). The design of the object, created in 1914, is in the public domain at least (WP:FREER) in the USA. Several dozen of these badges have been issued; one of them is even in a museum = you can take a photo and release it under a free license (WP:NFCC#1). — Ирука¹³ 00:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The badge is described in the text and reliably sourced to the Canadian Museum of History's website. The image used is from the same website which is a national (federal) governmental agency. Use of this image in the Wikipedia article is consistent with the educational purposes for which the photo was originally published and does not violate any for-profit restrictions. Note that the badge includes the order's crest/logo. Rublamb (talk) 16:40, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Seal of Christ Church Cathedral, Dublin.gif

Except that a very similar image, but with thinner lines, is on the official website of the cathedral, I have not found any other information about it. — Ирука¹³ 09:31, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not understand this deletion proposal. On what basis is the nominator proposing deletion? That they cannot confirm that it is sufficiently old to be tagged as being "first published outside the United States [..] before 1978"? While, perhaps, the licence tag could be improved, there is ample evidence that the image is sufficiently old as to be out of copyright. Including this record (which includes this representation of the same seal) reputedly dating to "c.1870". Or this post about a modern company that "reworked" the logo/seal which states that the "Capitular Seal [is] a signifying marque of Christ Church dating from the 12th Century". Whether the version on Wikipedia dates from the 19th century or the 12th century, it is not copyrighted or copyrightable. Perhaps {{PD-old-assumed}} would be a better tag. But I do not see any reason for deletion (nor, from what I can tell, has the nominator offered one...) Guliolopez (talk) 10:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People see what they want to see... please scroll all the way to the top of the page and read what is written there in large print.

Now. We have a seal - a 3D object from the 12th century. And we have sketches from the 1870s. And there is a restoration in the form of a drawing on paper from the end of the twentieth, or already the 21st century? The latter is in full swing of copyright. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Arms of Bonar Law.png

The image appears to be from a deleted article. Should be moved to Commons in the appropriate category. Or, taking into account the participant’s contribution, delete it. Because only the shield is drawn here; roosters are photoshopped onto the shield; all this together is put on a wreath. — Ирука¹³ 12:21, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

File:TracyStraussHechlerDarinStrauss2011.png

This file looks like a TV grab Sreejith K (talk) 05:11, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Joe Glick, lightweight boxer in the 1920's.jpg

Until the fact of publication is proven, it is impossible to talk about the license of the file. — Ирука¹³ 06:15, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Robert Runcie 1981.jpg

Use of image in table on List of archbishops of Canterbury violates WP:NFTABLE. Thus, should be removed from that article, although use at [Robert Runcie]] article seems okay, as no non-free images look to exist of him. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Soggy Bottom Boys Feat. Dan Tyminski - I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow.ogg

Originally, I proposed speedy deletion on this file on replaceability basis, but the song's (or the recording's or version's) copyright status challenged that. Current usage in the song article and the soundtrack album one may fail NFCC. Well, I'm not re-disputing its copyright status. Indeed, as I discovered, the version of the 1913 song was done in 1950s, and its copyright was renewed then, making the copyright still intact to this date.

Actually, the main reason to nominate this file is its ability to contextually signify the song itself—popularized by the version heard in the sample—and the soundtrack containing the recording. I don't mean to challenge the accuracy and matching of the sample. I really meant that the assumption of the omission detrimenting the understanding of either topic, required by NFCC, is not yet proven.

To put this another way, I'm unconvinced that this sample is helpful to understanding the whole 20th-century song or the whole album, despite identifying/demonstrating the song or recording itself. I welcome counterarguments, especially from one who favors using the file in at least one page. Sure, the version made the song popular more than prior iterations had done, but is the sample necessary? George Ho (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It should be noted first that George Ho initially nominated this file for deletion using a false claim that this song is in the public domain when it wasn't - [2]. I provided the information that it is in fact not in the public domain because it was copyrighted in the 1950s (and someone actually paid half a million dollars for the rights to publish it when it was used in the film) in the discussion, whereupon he "discovered" (as he puts it here) that it's not in the public domain. I challenged the deletion then because it is entirely wrong to speedy delete something based on false information, but here he wants it deleted again and for me to provide counterarguments here, so here I am.

This recording is without doubt the most prominent one of all the versions recorded. It won a Grammy (the soundtrack album it's in also won a Grammy), sold a million copies, and spawned numerous covers. It there is one music sample to be used in the Man Of Constant Sorrow article, this should be the one. As for contextual significance, its use can be justified per WP:NFC#CS where only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article. All recordings are unique, and it is impossible to correctly represent the song performance without using the actual music itself, for example its phrasing, arrangement, interpretation, the accompanying instrumentation, nuances, etc. Different recordings may also have different tunes (e.g. the recording by the Stanley Brothers is completely different to the ones by Joan Baez or Bob Dylan), so you can't actually use the scores from (presumably copyright-free) old recordings (e.g. by Emry Arthur) to represent the version by the Soggy Bottom Boys. They have different tunes. The only way you can correctly identify the song is by using the actual music itself. You certainly cannot use another versions to represent this version in the O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack) article. Hzh (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:NFCC#8 as currently used. Upon reviewing the text of both Man of Constant Sorrow & O Brother, Where Art Thou? (soundtrack), I found no substantial sourced critical commentary/coverage of the clip in either article. -Fastily 22:14, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why people ignore WP:NFC#CS that clearly states that commentary is just one of two ways contextual significance can be met, the other one is as quoted above - only by including such non-free content, can the reader identify an object, style, or behavior, that is a subject of discussion in the article, and I believe this sound clip meets that criterion. Hzh (talk) 08:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two "ways" are just common circumstances; well, there are more than two. Honestly, I don't think the article has sufficient due weight and balance to justify the file's significance to the topic in question.

Currently, it's used in the "Origin" section of the song article, according to mobile view. I don't see the section describing what the sample is supposed to demonstrate. If it were used in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section, as I suppose, the sample wouldn't make much difference other than doing the same thing that other materials are doing, like links and article text: drive readers into seeking (or buying) a full recording or other recordings of the song.

Song recognition (or identity or demonstration or whatever you call it) probably doesn't exemplify a depiction of a prominent aspect of the subject. I'm unsure why you think the content heard in the sample exemplifies the "prominent aspect" of the song, which existed and was (somewhat) notable for years before the version, or of the version itself, whose "prominent aspect" is yet to be determined. Why is this aspect "prominent" to the song?

Also, what about this: its omission would be detrimental to that understanding? You were implicitly assuming that readers wouldn't understand the very old song without the sample, weren't you? Unfortunately, reading the song article, I don't see how the sample helps readers contextually understand the song in one way or another, and I think readers would be fine understanding the whole song without the sample.

The sample is also used in the "Development and sound" section of the soundtrack article. However, I don't see how it depicts the "prominent aspect" of the whole soundtrack album itself, and I don't see how this aspect is "prominent" to the soundtrack in question. I'm reading just brief descriptions about the song itself over there. George Ho (talk) 12:17, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version, so the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect. The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song, and the most prominent version of a song would exemplify that song. I believe it was originally in the infobox, you can move it back, but it matters not, because that version is the most representative recording of the song and helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. Ideally we can add the older version (presumably copyright-free), so you can hear how the song has changed, but the old version is not representative of the song (no one sings that version now, it is no longer the same song), but the one by Soggy Bottom Boys is. Hzh (talk) 14:22, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The tune, lyrics, arrangement, style and performance are prominent aspects of a song, that is the very nature of any song. That's the case of using the whole recording, which automatically fails the "minimal extent of use" criterion... and the "respect for commercial opportunities" criterion.

This is the most prominent example of the song, it eclipsed all previous versions, people now associate the song with this version. Again, the whole recording. that version is the most representative recording of the song. Doesn't look like a case of a short sample but rather the whole recording.

helps people understand what the song sounds like. It is impossible to know what the song sounds like without an audio clip. I've seen others use the same argument that what a song sounds like exemplifies "contextual significance", and sometimes the argument works only when text either contains hard-to-understand words or suffices in length to justify use. I see neither in both articles.

the more pertinent question is why you think that isn't its most prominent aspect Since it's not that obvious to you, I can't help wonder whether I already said above is sufficient. In this case, I just heard a character (or George Clooney?) sing one of verses throughout most of the sample. The sample starts with the ending of a chorus. I don't see text describing the verse itself, Clooney's vocals, background music, or anything else that makes omitting the short random sample detrimental to such understanding. Using some random portion just to identify the (portion of the) song doesn't exemplify "contextual significance", IMO. George Ho (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself using your own criteria like using full song, text length or comprehensibility, and you should take that to the community for discussion first. Just like the way you use you own random criteria to argue for the deletion of files (e.g. chart positions of this song to determine if its infobox deserves an image) in other discussion, take that to the community first to gain a consensus before using such arguments. Hzh (talk) 17:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You are simply saying something no one has ever suggested using, which is the whole song. I wasn't serious about the idea. The suggestion was just sarcastic, but I see how I came across as too serious to you.

The idea of using a clip is to give a true representation of what the song is like (and you can get an idea of the tune, the style, arrangement from the clip) within the limitations placed upon by all the guidelines on how to reasonably use a non-free media file. A clip might or might not give a general idea about the song... or the specific recording. Nonetheless, it may not illustrate contextual significance to the topic in question, usually a song. In this case, the clip doesn't truly identify the history of the song or the song itself, which foresaw versions and lyric alterations.

Marketers use samples in shopping websites... and (old days) music shops to drive customers into buying an album containing that content or a single. Have CD-ROM encyclopedias in the pre-Wikipedia era included samples of songs? If so, what was the amount of samples per encyclopedia? --George Ho (talk) 18:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All you have done is just keep asserting that it doesn't have contextual significance, using apparent "sarcasm" to dismiss my argument. If you argument is that it's the wrong section, that is an argument for moving to a different section, your argument is not a reason for deletion. Hzh (talk) 19:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, the use in the "Soggy Bottom Boys" section wouldn't do much either except song demonstration, which isn't all what "contextual significance" (or "significance") means. If that "significance" to the topic isn't "contextual", then that "significance" shouldn't be in the project.

The non-free file must demonstrate how text is inadequate without non-free content. As I see, the text is fine to understand and grasp without non-free content, implying that the old 20th-century song itself can be already understood without NFC. The sample doesn't do much except mere portion demonstration/identification and doesn't illustrate the song (or the branding of it), which has a long history before the version demonstrated by the sample. George Ho (talk) 20:34, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. Hzh (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You simply ignore my points and just keep asserting the same thing. When have I ever done that? I read your points and thought I was counterarguing them well, including your counterargument to Fastily's "delete" vote. George Ho (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you were referring to the one I didn't literally counterargue yet (It looks like you are arguing against WP:NFC#CS itself), then here goes: I'm not trying to ignore (or argue against) WP:NFC#CS, which is the guideline's interpretation of the "contextual significance" criterion policy. I'm either interpreting the guideline this way or using WP:GUIDES to decide whether to either follow the guideline or stick with the policy (to override the guideline).

A sound clip says more about the song than words ever could, words alone can never adequately describe music. I would go as far as saying that all music article are incomplete without audio samples. If that were true in all cases, then other samples that were deleted via FFD wouldn't have been deleted at all. Check the past nominations on .mp3 and .ogg files yourself please. George Ho (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all), I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". It is the most prominent version, therefore the most representative version of the song. You appear to have your own unique interpretation of the WP:NFC#CS, adding criteria that aren't there to argue for deletion. Since you have been found trying to delete this file using false information, this file would have already been deleted if I had not bother to challenge it (few would bother to check the validity of your information, and I only challenged it because I found what you did objectionable), I don't take previous deletions as examples of anything. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You repeatedly accused me of spreading "false information", which is a sordid accusation, and implies intent. When has information been "false" and intentionally "false"? George Ho (talk) 23:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"False information" by itself does not imply intent to deceive. Someone can use false information without knowing it is false. Don't think I have ever accused you of "spreading false information". "Disinformation" is the word for false information with intent. Hzh (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I should also note that that the song was copyrighted was mentioned twice in the article - by Carter Stanley, and by Lee and Juanita Moore. It suggests that you did not read the article properly to say that it was free of copyright. Hzh (talk) 01:26, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only alternative is that you knowingly stated false information to get the file deleted. So which would you prefer, being careless with facts by not reading the article properly so you can delete a file, or that? Hzh (talk) 04:02, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said, for example, the music sample is required to identify what is the most prominent version of the song, and you countered it with "sarcasm" that you then said wasn't meant to be serious (therefore it's no counterargument at all). When is a music sample required to identify the "prominent version"? I was trying to point out that "contextual significance" doesn't always mean illustrating what the song sounds like, but... ah, well. You always would counter-argue just to stand firm to your views, anyways.

I said if you think it is in the wrong section you can move it, yet you keep repeating about "history". I will move the sample if the result is "keep"; I was trying to argue how pointless the moving would be if otherwise. George Ho (talk) 02:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole I-mean-what-I-didn't-say argument is always an interesting one. Hzh (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Whpq (talk) 16:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: provided it's not in breach of copyright, I can't think of a better way of "illustrating" any song to the reader (i.e. listener) than by providing a recording or an extract of that song. But given it's current placement in the article under "Origin", and the fact that a full recording of that version is linked to in the infobox for the Soggy Bottom Boys section, one might easily argue it's misplaced and/or redundant. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:38, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 19

File:Charli XCX - Unlock It.png

I don't believe this is the actual cover art for the single. Released on 11 December 2017, the Internet Archive shows the Pop 2 artwork being used on the single on the 12th when the mixtape wasn't released until the 15th. Laun chba ller 00:08, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:La sopera, María Izquierdo, 1929.jpg

The painting was published in 1929 and is not in the public domain in the United States. It cannot be used as non-free under 8 paragraph WP:NFCC. — Ирука¹³ 08:26, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting was published before 1930 so it is public domain in the United States DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DogeGamer2015MZT: I think you've made an off-by-one error. WP:PD says that In the US, any work published before January 1, 1929, anywhere in the world is in the public domain. On the bright side, it'll enter the public domain in just six weeks. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:59, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep not worth deleting for only one month DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ahmad Madaani.jpg

Since neither the author nor the date of original publication is known, it is not possible to determine the licensing status of the photograph in the United States or Iran. — Ирука¹³ 09:16, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Map of NYSPHSAA sections.png

Fails WP:NFCC#1, as a freely licenced map of these areas could easily be created. Also WP:NFCC#3a- minimal number of non-free images in an article (as we already have the logo File:New York State Public High School Athletic Association logo.svg). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:09, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 22:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – I think it's under the threshold of originality for maps, making it public-domain. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:15, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Torun unesco poland.JPG

A small unused image with a caption and a sufficient number of high-quality replacements, including from the same angle. — Ирука¹³ 11:51, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move to commons DogeGamer2015MZT (talk) 21:01, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:The badge of the Military Order of the Serpent.png

Ref to Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Member_badge, this is a replaceable fair use file where a free version of the file can be duplicated --Min☠︎rax^«¦talk¦» 12:11, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minorax, was this intended? In the line above you referenced a discussion about another badge. "Wolf's Head" vs. the "Military Order of the Serpent". In both cases I have clarified the irreplicable claim, have commented on the relevant Talk pages, and in the case of the Serpent, I reduced the image further, Jax MN (talk) 18:31, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.svg

No source, looks significantly different from File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.png which does have a source (see the edges of the colored letters), contains a large chunk of raster graphics, possibly previously deleted at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2021 July_22#File:2026 Winter Paralympics logo.svg. — Alexis Jazz (talk or ping me) 15:58, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 20

File:Franciszek Ksawery Branicki (1730-1819) 1.jpg

Orphaned, superseded by File:Jan Chrzciciel Lampi - Franciszek Ksawery Branicki with his sons, Aleksander and Władysław - MP 4418 MNW - National Museum in Warsaw.jpg on Commons. ✗plicit 00:04, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Sosumi.mp3

This is a complete edition of the Sosumi sound. It's not a sample of Sosumi. It's the entire Sosumi sound file. Sosumi originated as a sample of another song is true, but is irrelevant. The Sosumi sound is its own thing, with its own name, and Wikipedia article Sosumi, and news coverage. GreenC 02:39, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, I'll fix it right away. In the meantime, I put it as a "sample" because it was listed as a sample of a xylophone. Although, I completely understand what you're saying, so what should I label it as instead? Please let me know ASAP. Thank you. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:07, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't know how to label an Apple OS sound file, maybe just that? How the sound file was composed or obtained is sort of secondary. In any case, it is not Fair Use to use the entire work, to be Fair Use would require a "sample of a sample", but it's so short, it is not practical. Possibly there is a replica somewhere that is machine generated and thus not copyrightable? -- GreenC 15:15, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I labeled it as "trademark", will that work? If not, please tell me because I may have to delete it myself before someone else does. Jibblesnark86 (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jibblesnark86. Suggest we ask WP:Media copyright questions, they are knowledgeable on obscure copyright issues. I opened a question at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Sosumi_sound_file. Let's follow up there, and come back here, if there is consensus to delete. -- GreenC 15:29, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I hope there is some good news soon, because I really don't wanna get in trouble or something! Thank you for assisting! Jibblesnark86 (talk) 06:03, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody responded yet. I usually get help there. -- GreenC 01:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The YouTube clip of the whole Sosumi sound effect sounds clearer than the mp3 version. Has the mp3 format downgraded the quality of the sound effect in any way? George Ho (talk) 05:38, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 00:37, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Stereo MCs - Connected excerpt.ogg

Its contextual significance to the parent album and the whole song questionable. Default to deletion if no one opposes. George Ho (talk) 03:10, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely excerpt.ogg

Its contextual significance to the whole song and the singer who performed the content heard in the file questionable. Default to deletion if no one objects. George Ho (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Monsoon - Ever So Lonely.jpg

There's already a cover art (for the same recording but under a different format). Also, its contextual significance to the song questionable. George Ho (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Morgan Schaller.jpg

The photo is copyrighted by Morgan Schaller. There is no confirmation that he published the photo under this license. — Ирука¹³ 11:56, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhodesia 10 - 8 New Zealand.jpg

"A Zimbabwean work that is in the public domain in Zimbabwe according to this rule is in the public domain in the U.S. only if it was in the public domain in Zimbabwe in 1996, e.g. if it was published before 1946" — Ирука¹³ 12:19, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As per the template which clearly says it is PD if: "It is a collective, audiovisual or photographic work, and 50 years have passed since the date of its publication (or creation, whatever date is the latest)". The C of E God Save the King! (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD where? — Ирука¹³ 12:39, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fiorenzuola 1992-93.jpg

The photo was taken in 1992-93, meaning it did not enter the public domain in Italy before 1996, and therefore still under copyright in the United States. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:35, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like all of the user’s other uploads were published in Italy after 1976 and therefore still under copyright in the United States. Adeletron 3030 (talk • edits) 12:38, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today is November 20 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 November 20 – (new nomination)

If the current date's page has been started without the header, apply {{subst:Ffd log}} to the top of the day's page.

Please ensure "===November 20===" is at the very top of the new page so that internal page links from the main Files for discussion page (the one you're on now) work.

The page Wikipedia:Files for discussion/Today will always show today's log.

v t e Wikipedia community
For a listing of current collaborations, tasks, and news, see the Community portal. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the Dashboard.
General community topics	Administration News The Signpost Goings-on In the media Meetups Mailing lists Wikipedians Statistics The Wikipedia Library Centralized discussion Village pump Idea lab Policy Proposals Technical Miscellaneous WMF Holidays Bots
Contents and grading	Requested articles Most-wanted articles Images needing articles Articles needing images Articles for creation WP:AFC/R WP:AFC/C Creation Help Vital articles Articles for improvement Peer review Good article nominations Featured article candidates Lists Pictures Topics Article translation Pages Main Page Errors
WikiProjects and collaborations	Directory Culture and the arts Geographical History and society Science, technology and engineering Wikipedia assistance and tasks Patrols Recent changes Counter-Vandalism Unit Accessibility Organizations category
Awards and feedback	Reward board Contests A nice cup of tea and a sit down Charitableness WikiLove Compliment before criticism Kindness Campaign Thanks!
Maintenance tasks	Task Center Open tasks Backlog Category Admin category Edit requests Category Database reports Category tracker Dusty articles Special pages New pages Recent changes Controversial issues
Administrators and noticeboards	Administrators' noticeboard Incidents Edit warring Vandalism Admin dashboard Admin requests Closure Page protection User permissions Sockpuppets Open proxies Revision deletion Oversight Request Usernames Changing Title blacklist OTRS Bureaucrats' Requests for adminship and bureaucratship Arbitration Committee Requests Enforcement
Content dispute resolution	Requests for comment Third opinion Dispute resolution noticeboard Biographies of living persons Conflict of interest External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view No original research Reliable sources
Other noticeboards and assistance	Regional notice boards Requests for help Category Asking questions Teahouse Help desk Reference desk Adopt-a-user Copyright assistance Copyright investigations Text problems Media questions Resource requests Mergers History mergers Moves Page importation Spam Blacklist Whitelist Bots Education General sanctions Editor sanctions Long-term abuse
Deletion discussions	Guide Admin Today Articles Templates Files Categories Redirects Miscellany Speedy Proposed BLP Review Undeletion Arguments to avoid Arguments to make Article Rescue
Elections and voting	Requests for comment (meta) Wikimedia Foundation elections WP Democracy Voting is not evil Milestones
Directories, indexes, and summaries	Departments Edit summary legend Editor's index Essays FAQs Glossary Abbreviations Help Manual of Style Simplified Rules Five pillars Policies Guidelines Shortcuts Templates Citation templates Tips Today Tools Wiki markup
Media Category Templates

What not to list here

Instructions for discussion participation

Instructions for closing discussions

Old discussions

Discussions approaching conclusion

November 13

Recent nominations

November 14

November 15

November 16

November 17

November 18

November 19

November 20

Footer