Wikipedia talk:Untagged images

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice thing[edit]

I randomly picked a user who'd uploaded ten untagged images out of the tool's list, and it turned out to be a rather nice thing. It was a relative of someone who had been present at the SS_Morro_Castle disaster, and the relative had uploaded 10 photos of the disaster, and had provided quite clear provenance for them. I assumed, because the user name was the initals of the named copyright holder, that they were the same person, and so tagged the images as GFDL-self, per the statement on the upload form and the clear intent of the uploader to donate the photos to Wikipedia. You can see the photos at Talk:SS_Morro_Castle#Images. Sometimes we don't just have to delete everything. I'm always delighted when this happens, just thought I would share it with you all. JesseW, the juggling janitor 21:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

These images should be moved to Commons when possible. ~MDD4696 23:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Blocking problem uploaders[edit]

Have any problem uploaders been blocked, as the upload page threatens? I'm thinking User:Prin is getting into the egregious category, still doing masses of bad uploads despite all kinds of warnings. Stan 00:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I know on WP:ANI User:JesseW did block someone. Admrb♉ltz (T | C) 00:23, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You bet I did. My general procedure for this is as follows:
  1. After some user has uploaded, say 30+ bad (unsourced or unlicensed) images, and has been warned about at least 10 of them, give them a "Final warning". This basically consists of a short statement that if they upload another bad image, they will be blocked. I think I made a template for it somewhere, but it's short enough that it's easy to re-type.
  2. Check the user's uploads a week or so after leaving the final warning. If they've uploaded a bad image, block them for 24 hours. Mention in the blocked message that if they upload another bad image aftre this block, a new, and longer, block will be applied.
  3. Check again a week or so after the block expires, and re-block for double the previous block length if necesssary.
  4. Repeat until the block lengths reach 1 year, or the account stops uploading bad images.
  5. Wash the stink of dealing with such a sad, troublesome case off your hands.

Hope this helps; feel free to make it into a guideline or something... JesseW, the juggling janitor 00:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I just gave User:Preppyboy9016 a...well, kind of an unofficial warning about uploading images without tags. He uploaded a horrible amount of Dawson's Creek screenshots. I told him the proper tag and asked him to go ahead and tag the rest of them (I started on his before I realized how many there were) I don't know whether that's a good choice of action, but it seemed fair for the circumstances. Cheers, Verloren Hoop 13:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Automatic tagging[edit]

I've finished the development of the image-tagging bot described above, and I'm ready to start running the bot full-time. The plan is to run it once an hour, checking the 150 most recent uploads. As a result, almost all new untagged images will end up in a subcategory of Category:Images with no copyright tag. Any final suggestions? --Carnildo 22:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sounds good. What sort of workflows are we envisioning here? Should we make a link to that category on the main page and have people go there to tag some images, or would we rather just use the lists? Not really a question about the tagging mechanics, which I think are helpful, but about how we should deal with it. Hopefully the uploader will notice faster with this system, so maybe we should give them a little time to do that? - cohesion 18:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I kind of like having per-day cats - easier to see backlog-at-a-glance, prevents creation of giant categories that are daunting to deal with. Stan 22:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I thought I'd advertise a little-used template I just cleaned up, {{Wrong-license}}. Although just tagging images is a big task, we really should start some sort of license patrol as well. I would venture to guess that there is a substantial number of incorrectly tagged images, and this is obviously not a good thing.

So, if you ever come across an image with both source and license information, but you believe for some reason that it's wrong and should be reviewed, tag it with {{Wrong-license}}. ~MDD4696 01:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmm, I've generaly just been tagging such images with {{no license}} directly. Tagging them twise seems like a lot of extra work for very little gain (in my experience very very few of these images will actualy get fixed, either the uploader is inactive or the image is one of several unused duplicates they uploaded while learning how the system worked). Guess if we had a bot automaticaly "escalate" week old "wrong-license" tags into "no license" tags I guess it could work though, otherwise it seems like just another layer of beurocracy. --Sherool (talk) 09:00, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This isn't meant to be used in place of {{no license}}. It is for instances where an image has already been tagged, but it may have been tagged wrongly. If there is no licensing information at all, or it is blatantly wrong (tagging a screenshot of a recent film as PD), it should be tagged as no license. {{Wrong-license}} should be used as {{fairusereview}} is currently used. ~MDD4696 17:58, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dhwani1989's images[edit]

Dhwani1989 has uploaded a ton of images that probably qualify as fair use, but he/she's been tagging them as public domain. I can't help him out with getting them tagged properly right now, if anyone else could lend a hand that'd be great. I'd like to see them tagged properly instead of no-licensed.... ~MDD4696 00:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have asked on WP:ANI for intervention against this user, to no avail. This is an ongoing problem; he does not seem to care -- he's using patently false license tags and fraudulent source info. Can someone do something about this guy? /Blaxthos 09:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Admins and redundant images[edit]

Quoted from the Village Pump:

Developer Ashar Voultoiz has compiled a list of images which are possible duplicates. I'm sure there's a bunch of users out there with a master plan for dealing with this sort of thing. Have fun. Rob Church (talk) 18:40, 30 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've done a little under half of them (working from the top, the last image I did on the list was (1722137 octets) Olib2.jpg -> Olib2.JPG), so if anyone is getting a little bored with the normal image tagging and wants to help delete some duplicates, go right ahead! ~MDD4696 03:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You may prefer my wikified version (with redlinks!), located (for now), at User:JesseW/status. It looks like there are only about 150 more to do... JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
List emptied. ~MDD4696 03:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another untagged image[edit]

File:Robland coat of arms Okay, I requested the coat of arms of Robland in a mail to the royal palace, because it is nowhere to be found. I even said I was going to upload it to Wikipedia, and the responder said practically nothing. It has no copyright, but the only option is something with a us agency. So yes, this is a stupid question. What should I do?!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Killbrain1 (talkcontribs) 19:10, May 5, 2006

Media can now be undeleted[edit]

In case anyone missed the good news. See [1]. It only affects media deleted after the change, which is about 4:30 UTC 16 June. Yipee! - cohesion 05:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bot-generated Lists?[edit]

The page has had a notice for some time indicating that the bot generating lists is down. Does anyone know anything more about this bot, who was running it, or why it went down? --Matthew 04:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It wasn't actually a bot, but different scripts residing on the m:Toolserver. The toolserver is no longer being syncronized with english wikipedia, so it can't help us anymore. There are various reasons for why it's not working anymore, but none of them are particularly good. :) For more information see m:Toolserver/news - cohesion 19:34, 6 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The toolserver is currently up, functioning properly, and only a few weeks behind. It would probably be worth generating a new set of lists, since I know OrphanBot hasn't spotted all the untagged images that have been uploaded. --Carnildo 20:53, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked yesterday and the toolserver was only eleven hours behind.--Balloonguy 23:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
time since last known edit to 28 days, 13 hours, 36 minutes, 45 seconds, when choosing EN in untaggedimages. --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:59, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons-related issues[edit]

I am unable to understand the text in the Commons-related issues section of the article. I think it needs to be rewritten. Please edit and then add the following to bring out what the 'Commons-related issues' is saying:

Sometimes you may find an image page with an image but no link to an image, no description, and no file history. There may be a This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons infobox, which means that there is an identically named image on the commons. An example (at least until it is deleted) is Image:William-Adolphe Bouguereau (1825-1905) - Day (1881).jpg. The problem with this blank image description page is that there is no link to an image, no description, and no file history. The correct course of action is to mark the image description page with {{subst:ifd}} and list it on WP:IFD with a reason of NI (no image)... or else speedy it with {{db|Empty image page not linked to an image. Image is on the commons.}}. Note, however, that some blank image pages are used to categorise the image so that it can be found within a category listing - example being Image:Hoggar1.jpg which is found in Category:Images of Algeria.
-- Jreferee 20:08, 10 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It was bad advice (from me). I've deleted it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

New to wiki and editing[edit]

I added some of the correct tags to some images in the list, but it says that I should delete them from the list. How do I delete them from the list? I'm sorry if this sounds stupid, but hey you have ask questions some time. thanks. Kolrobie 02:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC) kolrobieReply[reply]

Now that the page is using categories, you shouldn't have to do anything to remove it from the list. Superm401 - Talk 07:58, 26 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category Question[edit]

What is the difference between Category:Images with no copyright tag and Category:Images with unknown copyright status (along with the related dated categories)? The "no copyright tag" categories are the ones listed on the project page for project contributors to go through, yet images are placed into the "copyright status unknown" category when tagged with {{subst:nld}} (which is also on the project page). Thanks in advance. --NickContact/Contribs 23:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"No copyright tag" images are ones that have been flagged by OrphanBot. Since the bot can't understand anything other than the standard tags, these should be checked by a human. Images in "unknown copyright status" presumably have been checked by a human, and the person doing the checking couldn't figure out the copyright status. --Carnildo 06:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I noticed some images that on their description page all it said something like "I took this picture, no copyright". Should I tag it as pd-self?--Balloonguy 22:47, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

yup --Tagishsimon (talk)
Thanks--Balloonguy 22:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another question. If a picture does not have a copyright tag, but it is an orphaned vanity picture, should I pd-self it and nominate for deletion?--Balloonguy 21:56, 3 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd suggest just nominate it for deletion. --Tagishsimon (talk)
Thanks!--Balloonguy 21:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Question on procedure[edit]

If a photo has been tagged and is placed here but has a statement which claims the uploader took the picture, should we tag it for deletion because there is no copyright tag? I would appreciate someone looking over these images and see if I have done the right thing. [[2]] [[3]] [[4]] I'll await someone's remarks here before doing any more. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by JodyB (talkcontribs) 23:17, 5 May 2007 (UTC).Reply[reply]

I'm going to go ahead and give you my take on it. Hopefully others will chime in if they disagree. OrphanBot has already tagged those 3 images for deletion based on the lack of information. If you can provide the information, great - do it. If you can't, changing the tag to {{nld}} doesn't change what is going to happen to the image. In either case, at some point the tag will expire, an admin will look at the image and confirm that there is no copyright tag, and delete the image. In general, I would recommend only removing tags if you are able to fix the problem the tag points to, or if the tag is incorrect. I hope this helps. ~ BigrTex 16:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


If anyone still watches this page, Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2007_August_4#Template:Suspect_image and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_August_4#Category:New_images_to_be_reviewed is a new plan by an editor to tag new images at upload as needing review. Please comment. - cohesion 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]