Template talk:GFDL-presumed

This template might be used when a new Wikiversity editor has uploaded what looks like a self-made image but tagged it improperly. --JWS 14:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * From meta:Template:GFDL presumed warning: "Hi. When you uploaded Image:, you did not specify complete source and copyright information. Another user subsequently tagged it with and, for some time, it has existed on Meta-Wiki under the assumption that you created the image and you agreed to license it under the GFDL. This assumption, however well-meaning, is not legally sufficient and the tag is being phased out. Images using it are being deleted."  --mikeu talk 12:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about this template
There is a discussion about this template at Colloquium#. --mikeu talk 13:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

"For more about the background of GFDL-presumed, see meta:Template:GFDL_presumed_warning and meta:Template:GFDL-presumed. It seems that these templates were only created to tag images uploaded before a certain date, the date on which the upload form page was modified to state that images without license info would be deleted.  Our MediaWiki:Uploadtext has stated "Images without proper information about their source and their license will be deleted." (emphasis in the original) since November 2006"

I therefore propose that GFDL-presumed be modified to include the phrase "This template is for legacy images and should not be added to images uploaded after November 2006" (insert exact date on which the upload form was modified, Nov. 15?) I believe that this is needed to prevent confusion about the legitimate usage of this license template. Please discuss below. --mikeu talk 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

At this time there has been no response to the above note that was posted at Colloqium. If there are no objections I will go ahead and change the template. --mikeu talk 18:32, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * What would you suggest we do about images that were uploaded after that date but are currently tagged with this template? Change them to nld? Adambro 19:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are not that many images in Category:Presumed_GFDL_images. A number of them lack source information, and so will need to get nld anyway.  So we should go through them and ask the uploader to supply the missing info.  I'm more concerned that we alert people that this type of tag is decprecated and it should not be used for new uploads.  --mikeu talk 19:41, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a look through the images in the category earlier. If I recall correctly only five of the 17 are actually used in the main space. Most are either unused or only used in the user namespace and so can probably be deleted, no point assuming GFDL if they aren't being used and not worth it outside the main namespace either. So, of the 17, all but five can probably be deleted without much discussion, only the five that are used, I think all in Motion - Kinematics would seem to merit any more detailed attention.


 * As you've said, many of the 17 have no details of their source so it is probably not really to assume the uploader released them under GFDL anyway since we don't actually have anything to confirm that they might actually be in a position to do so. So, if we got the contents of Category:Presumed_GFDL_images down to just the five being used and those lacked any information about their source, we could end up with no images using this template. There could however at that point still be other images lurking about which might qualify based upon their upload date. I think ideally we should work towards the position where we can delete this template. Adambro 20:19, 5 September 2009 (UTC)