Template talk:PD

Deprecated in 2006 per Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2005/12#Deprecate_the_PD_tag.21

Template:PD has been template protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

Deprecated

This template is now deprecated, see discussion. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 16:27, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Permalink: [1] -Nard the Bard 00:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This template is now undeprecated, because it's illogical to do whatever Duesentrieb is after. Some things are "Public Domain", period — You can't change that, that's just the way it is sometimes. ¦ Reisio 01:22, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... nothing is PD without a reason. More specific templates help to clean up the mess we have here... -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 02:43, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no problem with more specific, but many things are specifically "Public Domain" and nothing more - I have a problem with media that has been appropriately labelled with {{PD}} coming up with giant notices about how the label is deprecated. Commons:Copyright tags is the place for usage guidelines. ¦ Reisio 03:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing can be public domain for no reason. There's always a reason like "it's too old", "its user has put it into the public domain", "it's from a us government resource" etc. Nothing can become PD out of nothing. If there is no reason for the PD tag, there is reason of doubt if the image is PD or not. No source or reason means that we cannot know if the image is in the PD or not, right? I don't see the fuss. /Grillo 10:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can see, Reisio is opposed to deprecating this tag because he uploaded about 50 images as PD, without bothering to give a reason...

Btw: it may well be that we need some more "specific" PD tags, like maybe {{PD-flag}}... but not all frags are PD, so that may be misleading... not sure what would be best in that case. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:19, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reisio is opposed to deprecating … because he uploaded … images as PD, without bothering to give a reason

That's part of it; It's my right to release my works as "Public Domain", not "I made this, and it's Public Domain". Also say you obtain a PD image you didn't create and you upload it and go ahead and use {{PD-because|the entity responsible for producing this image released it as PD}} - that's pretty redundant to just plain {{PD}}. As for {{PD-Flag}}, if you take a look at it, you'll see (as you guessed) that it's deprecated for various reasons. The best tag for my media is one that says "Public Domain" and nothing more, because that's how I release my media. ¦ Reisio 18:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should use {{PD-self}}, not just {{PD}}, for your own work. Policy is that all files must have the source indicated; otherwise they can be tagged with {{No source}} and deleted after a week. User:dbenbenn 18:29, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's my right to release my works as "Public Domain" - wrong. You are required to give source/author information. You can do so in the description tag, but i'm arguing that it's always better to use a specific tag if there is one.

About flags: as far as I know national flags are (usually) PD, but the situation is complicated, and I'd like to have some more input from somebody who knows about the legal details. Note that because of that, tagging such an image as PD without any more information is insufficient. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then reasons should be given for those images or they should be deleted. I remember some guy uploading images of Japanese politicians on svwiki and marking them as PD and a link the the English WP pics, who were also tagged as PD but with no reason. I marked those for deletion, because what use is a PD tag without a reason? Anyone can take any image in the web and upload it and write "PD", that doesn't make the images PD... I agree that the template should be deprecated, and it should be easy to change the tag for anyone, because if information is lacking, the image should simply be deleted. There are probably hundreds of copyvios uploaded to commons marked as "PD" or any other copyright status. /Grillo 13:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that using {{PD-old}} by itself is no better than using {{PD}} by itself. The same goes for {{GFDL}} or any other copyright tag. In general, for any image, we require source information that is sufficient to verify the copyright status. I don't see that deprecating the PD tag will help with that, because exactly the same problem applies to all other tags. User:dbenbenn 18:32, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that for PD, we not only require a source, but also a rationale for the image being PD. Deprecating the PD tag does not address the former, you are right about that. But I hope it increases awareness for that latter point. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 19:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is no other voice but Reisio's, I will revert back to the "deprecated version" in a few hours. --Avatar 14:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created a template suggestion for the case described by Reisio, called {{PD-users}}. / Fred Chess 03:47, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multilanguage support

How was the deal with multilanguage? Has it been implemented? Most people may understand basic English, but I don't think that is enough to understand the current tag-information, so -- if possible -- should be written in other languages. / Fred Chess 03:40, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

multi-language support for templates would be nice. I can imagine it could be done the same way as for system messages. But we don't have that yet, sadly. Also, I have never seen a good way to do it manually - I belive we shouldn't. A possible solution would be to gove a list of links with language names, pointing to some page that contains all the translations. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 03:44, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably not the most useful place to have this discussion. ¦ Reisio 04:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

Reisio, besides having reverted the template message several times, you also just reverted this file: Image:Flag of Bolivia.svg; 03:59 . . Reisio (Talk) (rv, keep your hands off my licensing)

I am not sure if you are trolling, Reisio , because I can't see how you are doing something constructive. / Fred Chess 04:13, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@Reisio: please get a grip on the most basic concepts of copyright. The flag of Bolivia is PD (probably because it's a national flag, but definitely because it's trivial) - thus, it's not your licensing! You do not have a copyright to the image, even if you created the file, because the design is PD. For that reason, you cannot license it at will - you can only state what license or copyright status applies (PD is not a license, btw).

For your own, orginal, creative work, you can chosse the license you like, and nobody except you can change it. But anyone can change the tag used, as long as the license terms stay the same. Also, if you release you work into the public domain, you are giving up all rights to it - if you want to keep control, use a different license.

Also, as I said before, please provide complete source info for all your images, and a rationale for the PD claim. While I belive that most of the are PD, most are missing crucial information, and should really be tagged with {{No source}} or {{Incomplete license}}.

Since Reisio seems to be the only one opposed to changing the template, and is not giving valid reason for his behaviour, i will revert his change to the template. I suggest to block it if neccessary. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 12:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The flag of Bolivia is PD (probably because it's a national flag, but definitely because it's trivial) - thus, it's not your licensing!

Then there's no point in changing it to {{PD-self}} or {{PD-users}}.

Also, if you release you work into the public domain, you are giving up all rights to it - if you want to keep control, use a different license.

Naturally, but we being not dickheads prevents people from adding  and reuploading it as their own work. Anyways, I'm not interested in control - as I've already said, I'm interested in not having stupid warnings on a wholly appropriate template. ¦ Reisio 17:34, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reisio, would your be willing to accept a compromise where we make the template text look less like a warning and more like an advisory? For example, the warning sign could be replaced with an "info" sign, and the text could say: "It is recommended to use one of the following templates: .."--Eloquence 19:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skip it. Thanks for asking though. ¦ Reisio 21:39, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translation links

Background: User:Fred chessplayer wants to add translation links, User:Red devil 666 does not like it.

Comment from User talk:Fred chessplayer#Template:PD:

Hi! sorry, I'll rollback the edit on Template:PD. I don't see nothing to bad on it (but I am not agree), but you must aske the opinion of the comunity about this, and you must aske the traslation before to di it, for don't appear the red links. Sorry. --RED DEVIL 666 16:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

end of copy from User talk:Fred chessplayer#Template:PD

@RED DEVIL: WTF?! since when do we need a community decision to add translations links anywhere? How to internatinalized license tags was dicussed on the village pump some time ago, and the scheme Fred is using seems to have been established.

Also: red links are (usually) a good thing! They show what'S missing, and invite people to contribute. Having red translation links is likely to get the translations filled in much faster. So what's your problem? -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't rollback more, but for me the best thing would put at VP the request for traslation this tag. And for me is very difficult translate ALL tags. --RED DEVIL 666 17:31, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, noone said you have to do all the translations :) Also, I would start with translating tags that mark a problem, i.e. require people to do something.

Putting a request von the Village Pump or some other place is probably a good idea - after adding the links. Also, adding red links for all languages to all tags immediately would be overkill. But I think it's a good idea to do it for the most important language on the most important (and must used) tags. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 17:39, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question: Should the translated template be used as fully working template or just as a text translation of the template text ? AFAIR from an older discussion it should only contain translated text. --Denniss 22:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the translated versions should never be used as templates directly. They should have a text at the bottom saying so. For clarity, I would suggest to use the same layout for the transations as for the original template. I think Template:PD-Art is a good example. -- Duesentrieb^(?!) 22:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other common tags could be listed?

Perhaps PD-US should be added as another fairly common plausible tag? I spent some time trying to work out a tag for a pre-1923 image first published in the USA... finally got it sussed in the end, just surprised that PD-US wasn't a choice!

I'm going to add {{PD-1923}} to the list. Superm401 21:07, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, actually I'm not, because I'm not an admin on Commons. But someone else should, since {{PD-1923}} is different from {{PD-old}}. Superm401 21:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to really deprecate this template?

The two-year anniversary of this template becoming deprecated is coming up, and yet it still keeps getting added to new uploads. I think it's time to prevent its use in new uploads so that we can get a chance to clean up the backlog. Here's a proposal for how this could be done.

Step 1: Have a bot go through existing inclusions of this template and change them to {{PD-needs-updating}} or something to that effect, keeping the works in Category:PD tag needs updating. The purpose of this is to differentiate between existing uses of the template and new ones.

Step 2: Redirect the orphaned template to {{No source}} ({{Nsd}} would be ideal, but license templates are not usually substed).

I've tried to keep the process as simple as possible. More elaborate schemes could include the bot checking when the ambiguous PD tag was added and sorting images in subcategories of Category:PD tag needs updating based on that as well as having bots watch new uploads for inclusions of the tag to change it to {{Nsd}}.

What are your thoughts?

—LX (talk, contribs) 12:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good idea. Samulili 15:26, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes that would be nice, so we can start working on that backlog. / Fred J 21:45, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two problems: We move just one category with backlog into another category with backlog. Moreover, the latter one cannot be maintained by normal users. Code·is·poetry 17:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some action is necessary; despite Codeispoetry's reservations, the above proposal is reasonable.--Londoneye 17:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LX's suggestion sounds good. I notice how this is comment comes 2.5 months after the last one so I'm afraid that unless something happens now it's going to be another couple of years before something happens. I'd also suggest a similar treatment for PD-Flag and PD-Coa. /Lokal _Profil 18:15, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, please change the template to note that any new uploads after a given date (today's date if necessary, or use the date the tag was deprecated, almost 3 years ago) are subject to being marked as no source or no permission and deleted after 7 days if the tag is not fixed. -Nard the Bard 14:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]