Wikipedia:Files for discussion

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

WP:FFD

XFD backlog
V	Apr	May	Jun	Total
CfD	6	16	138	160
TfD	0	1	1	2
MfD	0	0	0	0
FfD	0	0	0	0
RfD	0	9	19	28
AfD	0	0	1	1

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[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 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 June 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 June 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 June 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[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]

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[edit]

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

June 13[edit]

File:Janus Records logo.jpg[edit]

The shape may seem unusual, but it's easier to draw with a ruler or stencil or any other precisive material. Also, it's American-made most likely. Should be transferred to Commons if no objections to tag the logo as free to use. George Ho (talk) 04:51, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relicense: No clear precedence why it is copyrightable or evidence of copyrightable elements. Kys5g^talk! 13:42, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, a unique shape of the logo isn't original enough for copyright, right? George Ho (talk) 16:41, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, as long as it does not have any complex elements. Kys5g^talk! 09:23, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Slade-lets-dance-1988-remix-cheapskate-s.jpg[edit]

Recently tagged as free to use in the US. Unsure whether it's copyrighted in the UK. Should still be {{PD-ineligible-USonly}} by default if no replies have been made. George Ho (talk) 21:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Medusa-ClashofTitans.jpg[edit]

May not contextually signify both the Clash of the Titans (1981 film) and cultural depictions of Medusa and Gorgons. Plenty of Medusa depictions in pop culture, especially films. No indication that one depiction is more significant than any other. George Ho (talk) 21:15, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete from both per WP:NFCC#8. No substantial discussion of Medusa's appearance in Clash of the Titans (1981 film), except a mention of all the creatures made with stop-motion animation. It's not doing much in Cultural depictions of Medusa and Gorgons, and I've added a PD image to replace it in illustrating the "Screen" section. hinnk (talk) 01:41, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I don't think NFCC#8 supports deletion, because the depiction does help the reader visualize what is described; and the claim that there's no substantial discussion is clearly wrong, since the description explains not only how Medusa was realized, but also how that depiction differs from other versions. Clash of the Titans is a culturally-significant film, more so than most of the other examples (certainly more than a blurry image from a 1925 silent picture that hardly anybody alive has seen), and as such it benefits readers to have illustrations. The image is small and unlikely to infringe on any rights held by the film's copyright holder, or anyone else who might have copyright on the character or image. P Aculeius (talk) 08:01, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The most substantive discussion of Medusa in both articles, is as P Aculeius says, about how her portrayal differs from other versions. In particular it discusses how the CoT Medusa has "the lower body of a snake rather than legs", which isn't shown in the illustration! To argue that it passes NFCC#8 I would expect an image to illustrate the one visually distinctive thing about the character actually discussed in the article. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Caecilius. Ifly6 (talk) 05:06, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recent nominations[edit]

June 14[edit]

File:Oil portrait of Alexander Buchan, before 1769.png[edit]

Non-free file may actually be free. From what the uploader provided, this painting is likely 18th century, so {{PD-old-assumed}} would apply even though the author is unknown. Wikiacc (¶) 03:05, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The image was earlier discussed here, where Kusma wrote: "as it was first published in 1979, it may be protected by copyright". Note also that the 1979 publication was in the United Kingdom, not the United States. So I doubt this work was eligible for restoration under the URAA, but this is worth discussing. Wikiacc (¶) 03:12, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons would probably accept this image based on sloppy interpretation of rules, but I see no evidence that it is PD. From c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United Kingdom, it seems to be in copyright in the UK until 2029 or 2049, and it was not PD in 1996. —Kusma (talk) 05:09, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, unless we can establish either that the painting was in fact published before 1979, or the identity of the artist, under the UK's bizarre copyright rules it remains in copyright until 2049 here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 10:46, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other alternative would be that it was never published at all; This is because publication requires the consent of the copyright holder. So it is unlikely that it having been made available to the public in 1979 counts as publication. This would render it {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Felix QW (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This reasoning only applies to the US, of course, but that is good enough for a local file. Felix QW (talk) 13:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The painting was (and I think still is) owned by relatives of Alexander Buchan, who appear to have been involved in the 1979 publication and are also the most likely potential copyright holders. —Kusma (talk) 13:43, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Back in My Arms Again.ogg[edit]

Doesn't contextually signify the song. Doesn't justify reason that omitting this file would detriment understanding of the whole song. George Ho (talk) 22:18, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 15[edit]

File:Unchained Melody 1955 sheet music.jpg[edit]

I uploaded a sheet music cover of Unchained Melody as the lead/infobox image, but I've wondered recently whether it's needed and compliant with NFCC, especially "contextual significance" criterion. If not, then I won't object its deletion. George Ho (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:On The Radio (Belgium).jpg[edit]

Displaying at least two releases may fail WP:NFCC#3a. This is a Belgian release (Discogs) and is a reverse version of the parent compilation album's front cover. Should use the other image (File:On the radio donna summer US single variant A.png) instead. George Ho (talk) 05:12, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starship Versions.jpeg[edit]

Non-free file being used as fair use, but missing fair use rationale box (not completely required) and the rationale provided is incomplete (missing WP:NFCCP#10c). This file does not meet WP:NFCCP#8 "Contextual Significance" - it is not necessary to enhance the reader's understanding of the versions of the SpaceX Starship; the different sized rockets can be visualized based on the article's content and the data could be summarized without needing to show this slide. Consigned (talk) 15:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The table has already been swapped out in SpaceX Starship#Versions (WP:NFCCP#7 fell). I've also found a transparent higher-res version of Starship V3 in an FAA publication, so WP:NFCCP#1 is gone too now since a V2 graphic could be created from File:Starship stack V3.png. HLFan (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zobel (14) Balanced Bridge T.PNG[edit]

File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_24#File:4-cube_4^4.png that files are deleted via a PROD. But the file was proposed for deletion in 2009 so I can’t do a PROD. Back then it was suggested to delete because it was obsolete and replaced by an svg. It was kept because uploader requested and it was used as a source for the svg. Now the file is moved to Commons so there is no longer any issue in deleting the file. MGA73 (talk) 19:06, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Zobel (15) Balanced Zobel half section.PNG[edit]

File is on Commons with the same name but have a keep local. However the uploader that added the keep local is deceased and therefore not active anymore. So the reason for the keep local no longer exist. It was suggested on Wikipedia:Files_for_discussion/2024_April_24#File:4-cube_4^4.png that files are deleted via a PROD. But the file was proposed for deletion in 2009 so I can’t do a PROD. Back then it was suggested to delete because it was obsolete and replaced by an svg. It was kept because uploader requested and it was used as a source for the svg. Now the file is moved to Commons so there is no longer any issue in deleting the file. MGA73 (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 16[edit]

File:Sgtpepperslonelyheartsclubbandsinglecover.jpg[edit]

The front sleeve of the 1978 single release looks similar to the Beatles' parent album Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band, but it's no longer used in the song article. It's currently used in With a Little Help from My Friends, but to me, its ability to contextually signify the whole song isn't clear. More convincing images would've been ones associated with the song, like the song title itself: e.g. a back cover or a side label of the release itself (45cat), or a side label of another (45cat). George Ho (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:With a Little Help from My Friends by Joe Cocker UK vinyl single Side-A.png[edit]

As I'm beginning to believe, the whole side label may have elements that aren't "original" enough for US copyright. Nonetheless, it may or may not be "original" enough for the (longtime) UK copyright. Should be "PD-ineligible-USonly" if no consensus has yet decided to transfer it to Commons. George Ho (talk) 07:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:NSDL Payments Bank Logo.png[edit]

Non-fee logo claimed to be used for identification in the infobox at the top of the article but is instead in a secondary infobox at the bottom of the article. The logo is not the subject of any sourced significant critical commentary. Fails WP:NFCC#8. Whpq (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:EricRudolphMugshots2003.jpg[edit]

Fails WP:NFCCP criterion 8, specifically the article does not need a photo for the reader to be able to understand that when captured Rudolph had dyed hair and a moustache, since text alone does that perfectly well. Article already contains a free imasge of Rudolph Kathleen's bike (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 17[edit]

File:Canadian Soccer Association logo.svg[edit]

This is the logo of the Canadian Soccer Association, not the national soccer teams themselves, thus this image cannot be used on the team articles. We have had many similar FFDs for sports association logos with consensus that they can't be used on team articles (WP:GETTY point 17). The CSA page is using a different version of this image, thus this version does not need to be kept, as it has no valid uses Joseph2302 (talk) 15:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this was the logo in use at the Canadian Soccer Association (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page until it was removed on June 18 [1]. Thus it should be restored to that article, with the appropriate FUR as the logo for the organization. The file page used to have the correct FUR earlier this month until it was changed on June 16 [2] by the vandal Livermento (talk · contribs) -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore to Canadian Soccer Association page per above. Idiosincrático (talk) 07:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment am fine with it being added back to Canadian Soccer Association if the mess of the non free content on there is fixed, and as long as there is a clear note that it's only allowed to be used there (and any changes to try and use it in Canada teams articles are reverted). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- So, you are saying that you only accept keeping fair use media if Wikipedia bans all once and future vandals, and vet all editors with a test for their media use behavior limits? That would be equivalent to banning all fair-use media on Wikipedia, and turning Wikipedia into the gated community of Citizendium. There is only 1 image at Canadian Soccer Association currently, and it is from COMMONS. Last year there were only two images, this logo and the image from COMMONS. So I don't see what you mean by mess of non-free media. -- 64.229.90.32 (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, I'm saying we can keep it if the correct information is on the file page, and we need to monitor it so that people don't change this with invalid non free claims. The mess is that people keep changing the file page to try and add it to Canada men's soccer team and that causes bot to remove this image from Canadian Soccer Association. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:48, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 18[edit]

File:Eastern Airlines N819EA.jpg[edit]

We already have multiple free image equivalents of Eastern Airlines Boeing 727s that can be used to show what the aircraft involved looked like. These images can be used to show what the aircraft looked like without having the need to use a copyrighted image. Aviationwikiflight (talk) 13:47, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Mother boxart.png[edit]

Fails WP:NFCC#1 due to File:MOTHER 1989 Boxart (Nintendo).png. (Oinkers42) (talk) 17:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have my doubts that the one on Commons is in the public domain. The uploader of the Commons image is indeffed here for being a sock. SWinxy (talk) 21:44, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that account name looked familiar. Regardless, the image seems to simply be a combination of already PD Simple assets and this image, which seems to be a derivative work of this NASA image with very little changed about it. (Oinkers42) (talk) 16:04, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Keep At least for now, as the copyright status of the Commons version is unclear and was uploaded by a known disruptive editor. I have nominated it for deletion on Commons. If there is consensus to keep the Commons version, I would have no problem with a new discussion leading to deletion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 07:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Pending result of Commons file.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ✗plicit 23:50, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 19[edit]

File:2023 ICC Women's T20 World Cup Asia Qualifier logo.png[edit]

This looks to be a generic logo, not a logo specifically for the 2023 event, and thus violates WP:GETTY point 14 and WP:NFCC#8. Nothing on this logo is 2023 specific as it has no reference to the year 2023 on it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But it is the logo specific to the event, whether it states the year in the logo or not. The 2022 logo looks different, as far as I can tell, https://www.jagranjosh.com/current-affairs/icc-world-cup-2022-schedule-get-full-womens-world-cup-schedule-indian-team-fixtures-date-result-here-1608020469-1 MüllerMarcus (talk) 14:50, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's a generic logo used in 2023 that could be used again should the ICC choose to, as nothing ties it to 2023 only (even the sponsor could be the same in 2025, so they could use this logo again). Many similar logos with no year references have been deleted too. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep: We don't know what will happen in 2025 for sure (WP:CRYSTAL); If the same logo is used in 2025, then only we should delete it; otherwise it should be kept. Vestrian24Bio (TALK) 13:33, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pavlov's Dog - Julia.mp3[edit]

File:Pavlov's_Dog_-_Julia.mp3 is a lower-quality version of File:Pavlov's_Dog_-_Julia.opus(same file base name, .opus extension). The original MP3 was so badly compressed (not only low bitrate, inadequate encoder or encoder configuration) that the point of illustrating what the Song/Album/Artist "sounds like" was completely missed. A re-encoding from the original file with a less catastrophic coder was inevitable to justify its inclusion. Sadly, that can't be done using the "new version of this file" dialog.

The one Wikipedia usage, Pampered Menial, has been updated to use the non-catastrophic version of the snippet (all 19.8s of it). So, the original MP3 is redundant and can only not be nominated for speedy deletion because it's not the same file format. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MüllerMarcus (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 20[edit]

File:Rod Stewart - Your Song.png[edit]

Cover art of modestly or less successful (or lesser known) cover recording, despite being charted, of an Elton John song. Unconvinced that the cover art improves understanding of the previously recorded song or the cover recording itself. Unconvinced that omitting this image would impact such understanding. May not contextually signify the song at all. George Ho (talk) 05:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Franz Ferdinand - Right Thoughts Right Words Right Action-cover.jpg[edit]

File:Franz Ferdinand - Right Thoughts Right Words Right Action-cover.jpg (delete | talk | history | links | logs)

Fair use album cover. Text on arrows is likely between pretty high US and wery low UK TOO (Franz Ferdinand is British band.) Michalg95 (talk) 14:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Re-license as "PD-ineligible-USonly" – Doesn't appear to meet the US's originality standards for copyright. Nonetheless, uncertain whether it meets UK's (low) standards, but I'll treat it as such by default. —George Ho (talk) 16:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Footer[edit]

Today is June 20 2024. Put new nominations in Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2024 June 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 "===June 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 Version 1.0 Editorial Team 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 votings	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