User talk:Cnbrb

Archives

/Archive/2006, /Archive/2007, /Archive/2008, /Archive/2009, /Archive/2010
/Archive/2011, /Archive/2012, /Archive/2013, /Archive/2014, /Archive/2015

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 28 days are automatically archived 1 or more at a time by if there are more than 4.

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Ann Elizabeth Hodges.jpg

A tag has been placed on File:Ann Elizabeth Hodges.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. $999$ REAL 💬 ⬆ 23:14, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the notification. Given that I received notification at 11 at night during the Christmas holidays, and that the file was deleted 11 minutes after notification, it's difficult for me to comment. The problem with Speedy Deletion is that it eradicates all descriptions, article usage and Fair Use Rationale, thus closing down any discussion. However, a search on the Internet Archive reveals that the photograph in question was the lede image on the article Ann Elizabeth Fowler Hodges and apparently had a very robust Fair Use Rationale: copyright owner is duly credited, use in article is justified, no free alternatives are available - all of which appears to comply with WP:NFCC. So it's a mystery why an image properly credited on-line with Wikipedia's rules should suddenly be treated as a violation. Cnbrb (talk) 10:56, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Speedy deletion#F7

999

REAL 💬 ⬆ 15:12, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Cnbrb (talk) 15:32, 28 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for February 24

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Registered battlefield, a link pointing to the disambiguation page Crossed swords was added.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 23:55, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking support for standardizing the use of posters instead of title cards for miniseries articles

I’m reaching out to get your thoughts on a proposal I’ve made regarding the visual standards for miniseries and limited series articles. Currently, MOS:TVIMAGE allows for either a title card or a promotional poster, but common practice has leaned toward title cards by default. This has led to many miniseries articles only using title cards instead of posters.

I am proposing we standardize the use of promotional posters for miniseries articles. The logic is two-fold:

Unlike ongoing series, miniseries have no "Season" articles to house their posters. The poster is the only asset that identifies the cast, setting, and genre at a glance—context a text-based title card lacks.
By standardizing this for miniseries, we remove the need for future "Title Card vs. Poster" discussions like this one.

I’m trying to build consensus to make the guidelines more definitive so editors don't have to keep re-litigating this for other miniseries. If you're interested in supporting this cause, voice out your opinions here. TheVoicelessWriter (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Logo St George’s Church, Barcelona.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Logo St George’s Church, Barcelona.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:02, 18 May 2026 (UTC)[reply]