Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion

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

All three files discussed on June 3 were deleted without formally closing the nominations. –LaundryPizza03 (d) 23:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a bot called AnomieBOT (talk · contribs) that handles these situations. Some admins prefer to just delete the files and let the bot close the discussions. Ixfd64 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr now shows license history[edit]

Just wanted to make sure people are aware that Flickr now lets you see the license history of a photo as of today. This means we may be able to restore certain files that were deleted because we couldn't be sure they were freely licensed at some point in time. :-) Ixfd64 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would make sure common sense is made...if one sees a file initially uploaded as CC-BY, and the minutes later (as opposed to months or years) its changed to CC-BY-NC, we can presume the uploaded made a mistake and quickly corrected it. Masem (t) 23:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue is that the license history currently doesn't include timestamps. So it's difficult to tell whether the license was changed (say) a minute or a month after the upload. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:43, 25 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Copyrighted songs being uploaded to Commons[edit]

The YouTube account for Warner Music New Zealand is (accidentally?) uploading copyrighted songs and their snippets under a "Creative Commons" license. Commons is currently hosting an entire Nicki Minaj performance of copyrighted songs, and parts of several music videos from Dua Lipa, Charlie Puth, and Cardi B (many other artists as also seen here). This sets a dangerous precedent in my opinion as the same channel is starting to host straight-up studio verisons of copyrighted songs under a CC license as well. My deletion request was closed on Commons but I wanted to bring it to this forum's attention if someone more familiar with that site wants to take this forward.--NØ 17:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This talk page is really intended for discussing things specifically related to the FFD process, and not really a noticeboard like WP:MCQ for discussing more general media copyright related matters. However, even if it wasn't or even if you asked about it at MCQ, there's not much anyone can do about this from here since Commons and Wikipedia are separate projects. Moreover, there's also probably not much anyone other than the artists themselves can do about since the YT channel does seem to be an official channel of the record company. If the company doesn't have the authority to release the content it's uploading under such a license or is making a mistake, then Wikipedia shouldn't even be allowing links to its YT channel like the one you included in your original post per WP:COPYLINK; none of us here, however, are really in a position to make that assessment (outside of really obvious cases like a fan account uploading the songs) and it's going to be assumed that (for better or worse) the company knows what it's doing when it comes to posting content on YT or other social media platforms. You could try contacting the company itself and asking them whether someone there has made a mistake. Likewise, you could try contacting the representative of one of the artists involved to ask something similar. It's quite possible that others (maybe even YT) have noticed what you've noticed and brought it to the company's attention. If the company hasn't stopped what it's doing or tried to correct what it has already done, then it's going to continue to be assumed that it knows what it's doing. Commons (and thus the WMF) is unlikely going to do anything until the company publicly admits or someone otherwise indicates that a mistake was made. If, for example, the company removes the CC licenses from content it has already uploaded to YT, Commons might see that as an indication that the company made a mistake, but a mistake probably isn't going to be assumed until something like that happens. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FFD requests for multiple files[edit]

There are quite a number of files hosted here on the basis that they are in the public domain since they were published anonymously in a 1938 UK publication, "Film Star Who's Who on the screen" This is problematic for two reasons, as firstly Commons discussions have concluded that these images are usually taken from films, voiding the anonymous publication claim; more importantly, they would all be copyrighted in the US anyway since the URAA restored their copyright until 2034. It must have come up somewhere, but I cannot find any hints on whether it is possible (or advisable) to nominate more than one file for deletion at the same time, as it is on Commons. Or would that make it too difficult to assess potential non-free uses? Felix QW (talk) 19:32, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Felix QW: There are instructions at the top of the main FFD page on how to nominate multiple files for discussion in the "2. Create its FFD subsection". Bascially, what you do is nomintate one file for discussion using {{Ffd2}} and then add others using {{Ffd2a}}. If you use the |header= for the "Ffd2" template, you'll be able to change the name of the thread header from a file name to something else (e.g. "Film Star Who's Who on the screen files"). When you complete the "Ffd2" template, just add the name of the first file you want to discuss, and add the name of that file's uploader in the |uploader= parameter, but give the reasons why all of the files need to be discussed in the |reason= paramater. When you've done that, click "Show preview". If everything is OK, add the remaining files using the "Ffd2a" template. Click "Show preview" again and if everything looks OK, you can cut out the "Ffd2" templates, click "Publish changes", edit the thread, paste the "Ffd2" templates back into the thread right below the syntax for the first file (but above the reason), click "Show preview" and then finally click "Publish changes". I don't think there's a limit on the number of files that can be discussed at once, but the more there are the harder they might be to discuss; in addition, you can only use {{Ffd notice multi}} for 26 files at a time. Multi-file nominations tend to be easier to deal with if you break them up into smaller groups (e.g. by uploader, by reason, by time period, by format), particulary when you're talking about 10 or more files. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:42, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your explanation! I'll probably make an FfD request just for the orphaned ones first, as they should be straightforward. Felix QW (talk) 12:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]