Wikiversity talk:File Review

Introduction
This page will serve as a location for discussion of Wikiversity file licensing issues and inconsistencies. Categories of issues identified should be introduced under their own topic headings. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:42, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Free Media
From :


 * Hi! According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy all wikimedia projects must make sure that all files have a free license or meet the requirements of an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP).


 * The best way to do that is to add to all license templates either Free media to make files show up in Category:All free media or Non-free media to make files show up in Category:All non-free media. The license templates are protected so I can't add it.

@MGA73: Please note the license templates you would like us to add to here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig I have located these templates: --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Attribution
 * 2) Template:Cc-by-2.0
 * 3) Template:Cc-by-2.5
 * 4) Template:Cc-by-3.0
 * 5) Template:Cc-by-sa-2.0
 * 6) Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0
 * 7) Template:Cc-by-sa-2.5
 * 8) Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0
 * 9) Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0
 * 10) Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0
 * 11) Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0
 * 12) Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0
 * 13) Template:Cc-zero
 * 14) Template:Copyright by Wikimedia (they relicensed some time ago so now its free)
 * 15) Template:GFDL
 * 16) Template:GFDL-self
 * 17) Template:PD
 * 18) Template:PD1
 * 19) Template:PD-Art
 * 20) Template:PD-ineligible
 * 21) Template:PD-old
 * 22) Template:PD-self
 * 23) Template:PD-simple
 * 24) Template:PD-US (its free but if added to a photo not from US the file may be copyrighted abroad)

For some reason I missed those: --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 13:58, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:PD-US-Mil
 * 2) Template:PD-USGov
 * 3) Template:PD-USGov-NASA
 * 4) Template:Wikiversity-screenshot
 * 5) Template:Cc-by-4.0
 * 6) Template:GPL
 * 7) Template:GFDL-presumed
 * 8) Template:FAL
 * 9) Template:LGPL
 * 10) Template:PD-USGov-Military-Air Force
 * 11) Template:BSD
 * 12) Template:PD-textlogo


 * @MGA73: Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Non-Free Media
From :


 * Hi! According to wmf:Resolution:Licensing_policy all wikimedia projects must make sure that all files have a free license or meet the requirements of an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP).


 * The best way to do that is to add to all license templates either Free media to make files show up in Category:All free media or Non-free media to make files show up in Category:All non-free media. The license templates are protected so I can't add it.

@MGA73: Please note the license templates you would like us to add to here. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:47, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig I have located these templates: --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:22, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Non-free 2D art
 * 2) Template:Non-free logo


 * @MGA73: Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:07, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig one more: I thought I added a few days ago but I must have forgotten to save. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Fairuse


 * Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC-SA
From :


 * I also noticed that there are licenses like . Licenses with NonCommercial or NoDerivate are not valid free licenses so the files can only be kept if the file meet the requirements in the EDP (fair use).


 * Looking at Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 I would say that most of the files can't be used as fair use. However some of the files are there because they use so the problem can be fixed by removing the NC license.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:53, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Template:Cc-by-sa-any-3.0 was created with both CC-BY-SA and CC-BY-NC-SA licenses. These are not compatible. Because anyone using the template agreed to release their content as CC-BY-SA, the CC-BY-NC-SA from this template has been removed and the template redirected to Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 14:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The other Category:CC-BY-NC-SA-3.0 files have been reviewed and cleaned up. The files that remain were released under CC-BY-NC-SA only. Usage appears to qualify as Fair Use. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

@Dave Braunschweig I have located these templates that are not truely free: I have not checked if they are in use. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:26, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-2.0
 * 2) Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-3.0
 * 3) Template:Cc-by-nc-sa-4.0
 * 4) Template:Cc-by-nd-3.0


 * cc-by-nc-sa-2.0 is in use on 4 files. Two were unused and one was decorative; I've tagged all three for deletion.
 * cc-by-nc-sa-3.0 is in use on 13 files, and is the target of a redirect from cc-by-nc-sa.
 * cc-by-nc-sa-4.0 in use on 22 files, all but one of which are related to Physics for beginners.
 * cc-by-nd-3.0 is unused.
 * - Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:43, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * The redirect helped but perhaps it would be better to have a bot replace the use of "Cc-by-sa-any-3.0" with "Cc-by-sa-3.0" and also remove the text in permission field with "see licensing below; see also MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any." --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 20:38, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: So should the files I modified this week that had two licenses (SA and NC-SA) be changed to MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any instead? This seems more consistent with the users' original intents. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:15, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dave Braunschweig I think it is okay to remove the NC because NC violates the vision and goals of wiki. If uploader have chosen multiple versions of CC then I usually keep them all (if 3.0, 2.0 and 1.0 for example). But I do not think its a problem if we remove older versions if it makes it easier for us. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:33, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * If the author of the content uploaded it under a free content license like CC BY-SA, updating the image page to only show that license is fine, because that's the license we're using the content under. We're under no legal or moral obligation to inform readers that the content was also released under a less free license, such as CC BY-NC-SA. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 05:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm replacing the redirect now. I also remove Category:MultiLicenseWithCC-BySA-Any from the file pages where it was added. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think all files using the redirect is now fixed. Does that mean all NC and ND that can be fixed are fixed now or are there more to do? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:03, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain and GFDL
From :


 * I noticed that there are other problems. For example File:Mok Storyboard Sheet.png it says "Public Domain" but the license added is.

Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)


 * @MGA73: Most of the work that User:Robert Elliott contributed was published as Public Domain. I'm sure the GFDL in this case is a mistake and can be removed. I'll see if I can put together a check for other similarly dual-licensed files. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 15:27, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * There are several dual-license errors. The others are single-license but with Public Domain comments. That will require a bot search. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 16:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dave Braunschweig Thank you. [moved the rest of the comment to own heading below] --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Dave Braunschweig I can change GFDL to PD-self but some files like File:Zon Tried waveform.png does not have the same user in author as user that is the uploader. Another example is File:Thumbnail Storyboard-Forbe-shot14.JPG.
 * A different problem is files like File:Quizbankqb d cp2.13.pdf. It does mention Public Domain but it also says that "...many questions were taken from OpenStax University Physics, which is licensed (CC BY-NC-SA) as described below.". So the licenses do not match.
 * So it seems that it is not easy just to replace the license on all the files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 13:15, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dave Braunschweig. I have 2 questions:
 * Should I add Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott without Robert or Elliott as author to all the uploads wheere Robert or Elliott is not mentioned as author?
 * Should I go ahead and change GFDL to PD-self for all the uploads where Robert or Elliott is mentioned as author?
 * --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: I'm not sure of the value of the category. If it would be helpful to you, that's fine. If the accepted practice at other wikis was to change GFDL (prior to 2009?) to PD-self, then you should do that here as well. Thanks! -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:29, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm now adding "|migration=relicense" and one of these 2 categories: That will solve the license migration (below). It will also gives us an idea of how many of the files are perhaps not created by Robert Elliott. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:32, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott
 * Category:Files uploaded by Robert Elliott (other)
 * Dave Braunschweig I do not know if there is a practice because it is not usual to add both PD and GFDL. But we agreed earlier that we are not obligated to keep a less free license so we removed the unacceptable NC license. Both GFDL and Cc-by-sa-3.0 are acceptable license so the safest would of course be to leave it as it is and let reusers decide if they would attribute Robert or not.
 * As for the categories they show us that Robert uploaded 595 files not created by himself. I think that on most wikis such fils would require a permission from the creator as proof that creator agreed to the license. If no permission is provided then the files would be deleted.
 * Once it has been decided what to do with the files the categories can be removed. Or they can just be hidded so they do not show up on the files unless viewer choses to see hidden categories.
 * Perhaps Omphalographer would like to comment before we decide? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 07:37, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

GFDL license migration
GFDL is not a good license and there was a license migration that I think was not completed here (yet). See c:Commons:License Migration Task Force/Migration. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:22, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
 * To make it work you should import/copy this from English Wikipedia:
 * the templates in w:Category:Wikipedia license migration templates (you can skip warning, review and opt-out unless they turn out to be needed)
 * the code from w:Template:Self
 * w:Template:Self/migration
 * I can also copy them here but thought perhaps you would like to import. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:21, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: Now imported. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dave Braunschweig It seems to work :-)
 * We also need w:Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-migrated.
 * You might want to change Category:Wikipedia license migration candidates to Category:Wikiversity license migration candidates and to move Category:Wikipedia license migration templates to Category:Wikiversity license migration templates. Also Category:Wikipedia license migration completed and Category:Wikipedia license migration completed.
 * Templates like self-GFDL-Cc-by-sa-2.5 has to be fixed or replaced by "self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-2.5" to work. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:46, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * According to this list the top 5 users are:
 * Young1lim	- 12541 files (active)
 * Robert Elliott - 1390 files (not active)
 * Banerjee - 230 files (not active)
 * Katluvdogs - 139 files (not active)
 * JWSchmidt - 119 files (not active)
 * If Young1lim would agree to relicense all files licensed GFDL to include cc-by-sa-3.0 or 4.0 (if not allready dual licensed) it would fix most of the files. The files uploaded by Robert Elliott and Banerjee and JWSchmidt was all uploaded in 2008 or earlier so they are all eligible for a relicense. Files by Katluvdogs are probably also eligible because they were uploaded in April 2009 or earlier. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I noticed that the 2 links in Template:License migration announcement to "Wikipedia:Image_license_migration" does not work. There should be a "w:" in front to make them work.
 * I checked the files with template self-GFDL-Cc-by-sa-2.5 and only 1 file was uploaded so late that it could not be relicensed. So I fixed that manually. So a bot could now change them all to
 * If it is easier I can use my bot to fix. I just need a bot flag. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:43, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Example Special:Contributions/MGA73bot. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: Bot flag added. Please also document your bot at Bots. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dave Braunschweig Thank you. I added my bot to the page. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 10:49, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

User:Young1lim have agreed to relicense per Special:Diff/2506749 so that will take care of most of the files!

If there are other users that would like to relicense please leave a note and my bot can fix that too. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 06:20, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Users with 20+ files: If no response I will start relicense based on upload date. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 06:14, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) User:Robert Elliott	1367
 * 2) User:Katluvdogs	139
 * 3) User:EGM6341.S11.team5.cavalcanti	87
 * 4) User:JWSchmidt	84
 * 5) User:SamHB	64
 * 6) User:Kcarpent7117	53
 * 7) User:Mandepudi.k	46
 * 8) User:EML4500.f08.FEABBQ.Jayma	39
 * 9) User:Franz Kies	36
 * 10) User:Egm6341.s10.Team4.roni	25
 * 11) User:DNPROJECT	25
 * 12) User:Wsgalinaitis	21
 * I need an admin to fix two uploads by JWSchmidt: File:User_page.png and File:WinXP_warn.png. Add migration=relicense like Special:Diff/2518004. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 16:55, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:13, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

All files are now marked as relicense or not. It is mostly done with a bot. So if someone took a photo from the internet and uploaded it then the bot will not notice and say "Hey, is this file really licensed freely?". So just because the file was fixed does not mean copyright is verified. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:36, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown templates
@Dave Braunschweig I located a few templates I'm not sure what to do with (free or non-free). So I placed them here for now: We can check those later. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Template:Second Life copyright
 * 2) Template:Second Life screenshot
 * 3) Template:DPPL


 * The Second Life licensing templates are currently unused and should probably be deleted.
 * DPPL is a non-free license:
 * "(4) This license agreement has the intention of strengthening the provision of information in the Internet. For this reason, Use in physical form, particularly the distribution of printed Works, and the Use of Altered Versions of the Work shall not be permitted."
 * So the single image tagged with this license (File:Memory2.png) should be deleted as non-free, and the license template deleted. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 16:39, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 23:00, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Multiple licenses
Some files have multiple licenses (example wrote on User_talk:Young1lim). Perhaps a bot could remove the extra licenses? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 15:46, 1 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Omphalographer: Are you interested in writing this one? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:35, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe! Will need a specification for which multi-license combinations need editing, though. (And will need to set up a bot account to run the edits.) Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 02:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @Omphalographer/Dave Braunschweig Depending on how many there are you could use a low tech solution and use replace.py and search for patterns like (but make sure to check before use)
 * "\{\{(cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|cc-by-sa-3.0)\}\}(.+)(cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0)\}\}" "\2\3}}"
 * The tricky part is to find all the combinations but with some skills quarry.wmcloud.org should be able to do the job :-) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I fixed a number of files manually where the duplicate license was a wrong version of the template. Example C-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 and Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,10. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 20:27, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I got most of them removed now. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Unused files
I noticed that there are thousands of unused files. If they are not usable perhaps it would be better to delete them before we work to fix the other things? It is easier to clean up when there are fewer files. And there is no need to spend time fixing stuff manually if the file is deleted anyway. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 20:40, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @MGA73: I just ran a scan and only found five or six unused Category:Fair use files. Can you give me an example of some you found so I can try to figure out what the bot is missing? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:37, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dave Braunschweig I meant all unused files and not just those uploaded as fair use. There are many at Special:UnusedFiles. Unused does not mean we have to delete but if it is unlikely that they will ever be used somewhere then I think we can delete. If it's a usable file it should be added to a page and/or be moved to Commons. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: Please start a discussion on deleting unused files at Requests for Deletion. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 22:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * @Dave Braunschweig I created Requests_for_Deletion. I hope this what you meant :-) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 12:21, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Files with no machine-readable license
@MGA73, Omphalographer:

For some reason, after I imported, all of the files are showing up in Category:Files with no machine-readable license. The template has the "licensetpl" entries in it, so I'm not seeing why it's not being recognized as machine readable. Can you take a look and see if you can tell what I'm missing? -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 00:24, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like it isn't just PD-self. Other properly licensed files are ending up in that category as well, e.g. File:08control.pdf . Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 06:10, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Omphalographer and Dave Braunschweig I think it looks good too. I thought perhaps it was because Imbox was not updated but it seems that other license templates also use Imbox without problems. So checked what the difference between PD-self and GFDL-self was and Special:Diff/2488796 seems to fix the problem. I do not know why it does not work here when it works on Wikipedia. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 06:17, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
 * @MGA73: Thanks! That does the trick. All updated. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Dave Braunschweig Great, but now the template says "false false". --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 02:23, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Update licenses and ban GFDL
I noticed that MediaWiki:Licenses/own has GFDL and non-commercial use only. If that page is still in use I think that those two should be removed. Also it should be updated to 4.0 like MediaWiki:Licenses.

Also there are pages like The GFDL and you. I think that GFDL should be avoided if possible. A few examples of other projects that have done the same:
 * Commons have banned GFDL with a few exceptions: c:Commons:Licensing
 * English Wikipedia did the same: w:Wikipedia:Image_use_policy
 * Wikivoyage also stopped using GFDL: Wikivoyage:Wikivoyage:Why_Wikivoyage_isn%27t_GFDL

So perhaps make it a formal policy that GFDL is not allowed as the only acceptable license on a file (with same exceptions as on Wikipedia/Commons). --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It looks like MediaWiki:Licenses controls what actually shows up on the upload page. I don't see any of the additional licenses from MediaWiki:Licenses/own on there; it looks as though they were removed by Mu301 in 2018. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 17:49, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Omphalographer, yes MediaWiki:Licenses controls what you see when you upload files. But if there is an upload wizard then pages like MediaWiki:Licenses/own could be used. Wikipedia have w:Wikipedia:Upload/Own_work and if you try to upload a file and insist on uploading it locally you will eventually land there. I could not see something similar here.
 * Uploading files and other pages suggest to use GFDL. As mentioned GFDL is not a good license for files so I suggest that GFDL is no longer suggested as a license. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 08:02, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * GFDL removed from the Upload instructions. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Unlicensed files
I have added a list of files that does not seem to have a license to User:MGA73/NoLicense. There are some "ghosted" files that are does not show up unless someone make an edit to the page and force an update. It is enough to click edit and save but the problem is to find the files to "poke". It can also be fixed with touch.py --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 09:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I've added licenses where the original intent was clear and where it wasn't. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 21:01, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I poked all files with touch.py (except 4 protected files: File:User_page.png, File:Various-110-1000cf.jpg, File:WinXP_warn.png and File:Wikiversite-banner-2.jpg).
 * Then I ran the query again and updated the list. I think those files were allready checked. So there should be no more old/forgotten files without a license. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 05:48, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

NowCommons
There are a few files in Category:NowCommons. On many wikis such files are deleted but it seems that Wikiversity does not delete those files. If all relevant information has been transferred to Commons and the file is in use then files should not be deleted on Commons unless they are proven to be copyrighted. So I see no reason why it should not be possible to delete such files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 07:26, 7 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Deleted. -- Dave Braunschweig (discuss • contribs) 01:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Files from Flickr
Some files are copied from Flickr. User:Adambro/To do list have a search link (and other ideas to check) but the bot should also be able to find files that have "flickr" on the file page. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm a rebel so adding to Category:Files from Flickr :-) --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 18:09, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * And, perhaps unsurprisingly, it looks as though a lot of those files have incorrect licensing templates. Sigh. There's also a substantial number of "Flickrwashed" images - that is, images which were clearly sourced from somewhere else, then uploaded to Flickr with an incorrect license. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 18:26, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Lol, no surprise. But some are okay and can be moved to Commons. I moved one as a test: File:Caseless.jpg. So guess its just to check the file once someone have nothing else to do :-) Once checked should the category be removed? Or changed to "... checked" or should it stay? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have moved a few more files and nominated a few other files for deletion. I'm not familiar with the deletion proces here I just added "Delete" and some reason :-) I think files moved to Commons can be deleted. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:38, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD
This template is depreciated on Commons and many versions of Wikipedia because it is not clear why the file is PD. It should be replaced by PD-self or another template that matches the reason why the file is PD. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:21, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Fish and Belytschko
I noticed that some files mention "Fish and Belytschko" as the source. For example File:HW 6 FB 6.1.pdf and File:Fe1.s11.tm7.HW3.fig3.2.1.jpg. Should there not be a more specific source? Or how are we supposed to verify that "Fish and Belytschko" licensed their work as CC/GFDL/PD? --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * "Fish and Belytschko" almost certainly refers to "A First Course in Finite Elements" by Jacob Fish and Ted Belytschko (ISBN 0470035803), a textbook used in University of Florida/Eml5526. The images aren't actually sourced from the textbook; they're part of solutions to exercises posed by the textbook.
 * The educational value of these files is low, and they should probably be deleted if they aren't used in any mainspace resources. Omphalographer (discuss • contribs) 20:36, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Aha! In that case they are not a copyviolation. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 14:37, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

USGS
On Requests_for_Deletion there was a long discussion about invalid fair use. It was suggested that perhaps the files from USGS were not fair use but actually PD. I added files that mention USGS to Category:Files from USGS. Once the bot is finished it should be possible to see how many files there are and if any of those can be saved.

Also see Requests_for_Deletion where I suggest to delete userpages and drafts to orphan non-free files. That would affect at least one of the USGS-files. --MGA73 (discuss • contribs) 17:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)