Wikipedia talk:Files for deletion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit request[edit]

I was wondering if the following could be modified.

old text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or no objections to deletion have been raised.

new text: Files that have been listed here for more than 7 days are eligible for deletion if either a consensus to do so has been reached or there is at least one vote of support and no objections to deletion have been raised.

reason: The present text says that a file can be deleted if no one objects to it, even if no one voices support for the deletion.

note: I made this request after seeing this undeletion request. If this change is accepted, is it recommended that it occurs after December 18th. --Super Goku V (talk) 21:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done - @Super Goku V: Sorry, and while I can totally see why you think this is worth doing, for FFD this isn't really appropriate. This forum handles thousands of mainly uncontroversial deletion requests (e.g. 'orphaned and unencyclopedic'), where unused files are deleted at no harm to anyone. We've already got a massive backlog as it is, so placing this extra requirement on the closing admins before being able to delete the image would just be burdensome I'm afraid, and increase the workload at no real benefit to the wiki. Sorry. :( Acather96 (click here to contact me) 17:58, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
@Acather96: Meh, it is ok. Making a backlog worse isn't a good thing. In any case, it does seem that things did get resolved in the end. Still, thanks for making a reply to this, even if it is a bit old. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

RFC at WP:PUF[edit]

There is currently an RFC at Wikipedia talk:Possibly unfree files/Header revolving around the use of {{pufc}} in the WP:PUF process. As the header talk page most likely has very few watchers, I am dropping a note here to get relevant discussion from the file namespace community. -- ТимофейЛееСуда. 14:49, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Nominating several[edit]

Hello. Sorry if this is covered somewhere, but is there a procedure for nominating several files by the same uploader, or does it have to be done one by one? Green Giant supports NonFreeWiki (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

I'm looking for some hard policy, but the general practice in my experience is to nominate them individually then combine into one nomination. -- TLSuda (talk) 19:20, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
In the instructions in the purple box on the WP:FFD main page, step two outlines how to nominate multiple files using {{subst:ffd2a}}. Step three outlines how to give notice for multiple files using: {{subst:fdw-multi}}. Cheers, -- TLSuda (talk) 19:22, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
  • When I use {{subst:ffd2a}}, I have found that it is often a good idea to use the "new section" method to edit the log page (add "?action=edit&section=new" at the end of the URL), as I won't get problems with edit conflicts. The "Uploader=" parameter is optional.
Tag all files with {{ffd|log={{subst:#time:Y F j}}|1=section header on the FFD log page}}. Parameter 1 to {{ffd}} is not mentioned in the documentation. See the template source code if you want to find out how it works.
{{subst:Fdw-multi}} does in my opinion not work very well as it doesn't specify the section header on the log page. Instead, I typically write a message manually instead.
When you add {{subst:ffd2a}} (or {{subst:puf2a}}), you include deletion links for administrators. These unfortunately have the wrong deletion reason: the section title is wrong. Maybe the template should be fixed. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Why isn't the onus on those who support deletion?[edit]

I'm curious about our deletion policies regarding works thought to be in the public domain. Crisco 1492 recently led an effort to delete File:Are You Experienced - US cover-edit.jpg because they challenged the long-standing belief that the image is PD in the US. They did not, however, provide any evidence that the image was ever copyrighted. It was apparently published in 1967 without a CRN, and there is no reason to believe that the image was registered within ten years of its initial release. How can an image be deleted because nobody has proven that its not PD? The notion that the onus is on editors to assert a negative seems like a logic fail—how can we prove that something did not happen? I understand the practice of assuming on the safe side, but after several editors have demonstrated a degree of due diligence, why do we assume them to be wrong absent any evidence that they are wrong? Any thoughts? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 19:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Because of how US copyright law works, we need positive identification of the PD claim to call something PD. Thus, in this case, if the claim by those wanting to retail the file is that there's no copyright mark for a work where the copyright mark had to be there in the time period to retain copyright, they have to provide that evidence that that is the case.
There are probably only a handful of cases where this issue is flipped - in that a work that would otherwise clearly be considered PD may be considered non-free and need to be deleted. A hypothetical case: an image created by, as best as any source give, an anonymous individual which is 120 past its creation and published with notice is likely in the PD, but if a person believes that they know the creator and the image would still fall within the life+70 term, then there would be reason to say it's non-free. However the affirmation of who that creator is has to be made by the nominator with proof if that is otherwise going against the known wisdom of the image's history. --MASEM (t) 20:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
I guess I hear you, but how exactly does one prove that something did not happen? With images I can prove that there was no CRN on the first US pressing (although what would prevent an editor from removing it?) and that there is no evidence that a copyright on the album cover was ever renewed, but beyond that how does one prove an image is in the public domain? If we are concerned about using non-free images, then shouldn't there be some requirement that deletionists provide reasons for deletion other than: "I seriously doubt this is PD"? GabeMc (talk|contribs) 20:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Thank you, Masem. Gabe, one proves something did not happen by finding a first edition copy of the album and seeing if it had a copyright notice on it. If it did not, than that thing is likely to be free (see, for instance, the film poster for The Mummy; no notice). If something published in 1967 was not renewed, then that is usually strong evidence that the thing is probably in PD. However, the onus remains on the uploader, because all works are assumed to be copyrighted unless shown otherwise. That's why Commons has the precautionary principle, and why files without a license may be speedy deleted on the English Wikipedia. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:08, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Okay. So, are you saying that all I need to do is upload a photograph of both sides of the album to prove that there was no CPR notice for the photographs, because that was done at the deletion discussion. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:13, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • The inner covers as well (assuming that it is the original 1967 album and not a reissue), as all album covers have at least four pages on which to place a copyright notice. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Crisco, the original AYE vinyl LP came in a cardboard sleeve that had no inner pages. There's just the front and back cover. There is no printing inside the sleeve, which doesn't even open except on one side. If you look at the ones for sale on eBay you will see what I mean. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:37, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
  • From Are You Experienced#Album cover: "Ferris chose the cover's yellow background and its surreal lettering, and he intended for a textured gatefold jacket that Reprise, as a cost-saving measure, did not approve. The back of the sleeve featured a monochrome image of the Experience.[141]" GabeMc (talk|contribs) 23:46, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Given that the photograph used on the cover was shot in Britain and indeed the cover appears to have been designed there by Ferris, it should be noted that in that country copyright is inherent in a work and no notice or other assertion of copyright is actually needed, although of course it is allowed. A work has to be specifically released into the public domain, PD cannot be assumed. - Nick Thorne talk 23:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Even if it was first published in the US? In fact, this cover was never issued in the UK until many years after 1972. The film was probably first developed in the US, by Reprise. What about File:John Lennon Imagine 1971.jpg? Its a photograph of Lennon in England, but it was first published in the US. GabeMc (talk|contribs) 00:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
  • I believe US copyright law determines copyright status of a work based on country of first publication, not on the citizenship of the copyright holder; that is also how Commons treats copyright. Not sure how UK law treats the issue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Dated deletion categories?[edit]

In Category:Wikipedia possibly unfree files, we have dated categories for possibly unfree files. However, we do not have any dated categories for files for deletion. Should we have that? Today, I accidentally noticed a file, File:嘉顺皇后.jpg, which was nominated for deletion back in November last year. The file had accidentally been deleted from the daily log page by Cyberpower678 (talk · contribs), and this remained overlooked until now. With dated categories, we would have spotted this earlier as we would have had a category with files but no seemingly open discussions on the daily log page. There might be other similar examples out there somewhere which currently are hard to find. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

Everytime, you mention me, I get an email. Can you link to this deletion I made?—cyberpower ChatOnline 14:31, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
See [1]. You edited one section and deleted another section. Based on the edit summary, the section deletion seems to have been caused by a software bug. --Stefan2 (talk) 14:36, 8 May 2014 (UTC)