Category talk:User-created public domain files

Odd?[edit]

Images tagged with {{PD-user|username}}) get links to this category, but don't seem to be listed (or I can't find them). All the listed images seem to just be the ones with {{PD-self}} Splarka 00:21, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Refining category[edit]

This category should somehow weed out the items which have both a fair use template and a PD-self template. I have seen a few where people release their modifications as PD but their is underlying copyrights that would make the image unacceptable at Commons.--BirgitteSB 01:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No timestamp category[edit]

Almost every file is timestamped now. Would be nice to have the files without a timestamp in a subcategory instead of ending up here in the main category. Opinions? multichill (talk) 18:57, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Would also be nice if some users help look for copyvios etc. :-) --MGA73 (talk) 22:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep local files[edit]

Some users tag the files with a {{Keep local}} and that makes it impossible to empty and delete the dated categories. I think it would be nice if we get those files out of the ordinary categories so we can finally empty and delete some categories.

I made an example here Category:User-created public domain images from 2012 with a keep local with this file.

I suggest we only sort by year instead of month. --MGA73 (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An even better solution would be to get rid of {{Keep local}} altogether, but that would be more controversial. The problem is not only with {{Keep local}} but also with other templates such as {{FoP-USonly}} and {{Non-free 3D art}} which may be combined with {{PD-self}}. Instead of a special set of {{Keep local}} categories, there should probably be categories for all Commons-ineligible images. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:30, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes a good idea... --MGA73 (talk) 12:20, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are staring at a backlog of keep local because there is a lack of understanding regarding the template or its actual intended use.See this for an example of how users tag their uploaded files without leaving a particular reason.I believe completely removing this category will be a harsh decision because there might be genuine problems with the file and having a local copy will help in the long run.Just my comments.BTW I would really love to nuke this category.Vivekananda De--tAlK 16:05, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing that counts is whether or not there is a legal reason that prohibits images being transferred to Commons. --Leyo 18:02, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that 1) many files have been moved to Commons without proper information and the files was therefore deleted and 2) some Commons admins did not manage to explain the problem in a good way. So now we have some users that do not like Commons and therefore invented this template.

To make it easy for our selv we should probably not take the fight now but just ignore the "keep local files". Hopefully it will be better in the future when we get better to transfer the files to Commons so they do not get deleted.

Personally I would also like to see the keep local deleted but if someone starts the discussion the result will probably be keep because the users that want to keep the template are better to comment than users that want to delete it. --MGA73 (talk) 19:09, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If files are not transferred to Commons correctly (for example, by not including all necessary information), they should not be deleted here in the first place. In that case, files should either be corrected on Commons (so that it is safe to delete them here) or deleted on Commons (so that they can be transferred properly instead). --Stefan2 (talk) 23:21, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. But much was done wrong in the past. --MGA73 (talk) 00:00, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that we put the files in Category:User-created public domain images from 2012 - no Commons or better name if anyone has one? --MGA73 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And 3) some Commons admins will do incredibly stupid things (e.g. [1]). In some cases, the won't even admit their mistake but will try to argue their action was somehow correct (I don't know whether that applies to the linked case, but I've seen it happen before). And 4) users can't trust that some obscure aspect of some other country's laws won't be used to repeatedly attempt to delete images that have nothing to do with that country. And 5) we have enough strange politics to deal with here, without dealing with the byzantine politics on Commons too. Anomie ⚔ 13:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And 6) for high-risk images used in the interface, global CSS, or otherwise widely used, I'm told we can't trust Commons not to move, remove, unprotect, or oddly edit the images. See Wikipedia talk:Cascade-protected items#About high-risk images. Anomie ⚔ 14:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) Yes mistakes happens on Commons - but probably also on en-wiki ;-)

4) Yes copyrights can be hard to find out and if uploader provides all relevant information when uploading the file or when a DR is started then the file would normally be kept. If you check puf on en-wiki you will notice that often old copyvios show up so en-wiki can't claim to have everything sorted out.

5) There is no reason to handle strange politics on en-wiki. Just upload all free files to Commons and prove that they are free. Then all we need to handle here is non-free or "semi-free" files ;-) Uploading copyvios and tag them with a {{Keep local}} is not a good solution.

6) Yes sadly there are some users that think we should move a lot of files to get a better name. But that is not only on Commons that happens. En-wiki seems to have a more "relaxed" rename standard than Commons do. Or at least some of the file movers / admins on enwiki does. But high-risk images are generally protected on Commons or they could be if someone asks the Commons admins and give a good reason. If you check the files with a keep local only a small part of these images are high-risk and in many cases there is no reason provided when the tag is added. --MGA73 (talk) 18:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Swedish and Spanish Wikipedias have no problems having the high-risk images on Commons (and only on Commons) so why would the English Wikipedia have a problem with this? --Stefan2 (talk) 20:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea about those other projects. But it has historically been a problem here, so we do have a problem with it. Anomie ⚔ 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

3) When the mistakes keep happening on a large scale, and no one seems to care about preventing them from happening again, why should we be forced to put up with it?

4) Your reply is a non sequitur.

5) What, we can write articles and deal with WP:N issues and such on Commons now? No? I thought not. So we can't avoid strange enwiki politics by uploading images to Commons, we just get ourselves into a different and stranger set of Commons politics.

6) Historically we've had problems with Commons keeping them protected and such, so the promises that they'll do better this time are not entirely convincing. As for the non-high-risk {{Keep locals}}, those are outside the scope of this bullet point.

Anomie ⚔ 22:06, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Arguments above like "on a large scale, and no one seems to care about" is hard to discuss. Because there is no link to what happend, who did it etc. But I can say that "I care". If there are problems they should be fixed. And "Historically" could also mean "There was problems but they are not there anymore".

Anyway I think that discussion belong somewhere else. The discussion here should be about separating files in files we can move and delete and files we can not move and delete. --MGA73 (talk) 22:27, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that seems to be the general opinion. The name looks a bit long and complex, but I'm not sure how to make it look better. --Stefan2 (talk) 11:12, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. The first part of the name (User-created public domain images from) is a created by the teplate. --MGA73 (talk) 12:28, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The next MtC Drive starts on March 1 so unless there is any last "No wait" or better ideas I think we should go ahead now. --MGA73 (talk) 10:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the template and created the category with a slightly different name: Category:User-created public domain images (no Commons) from February 2012 This allows it to follow the same format as almost every other similar category structure. If it is really important that the categories be annual then that is not hard to achieve, but special cases do make for longer term problems. Undated would not be a significant problem. The "no Commons" category is triggered by setting the "no Commons" parameter. Rich Farmbrough, 11:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

That would also work for me. But it is not a real backlog because there is nothing we can do about the files. But that could of course be changed. --MGA73 (talk) 18:14, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, luckily there's an undocumented parameter for the parent category template "clean-up=no" which suppresses the backlog notice.

Rich Farmbrough, 20:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC).[reply]

Cool... I'll have a look later. I fixed the unfree files (I hope). The keep local files are not fixed yet (almost 400 files). --MGA73 (talk) 22:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]