Commons talk:Grandfathered old files

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search

Propose that COM:GRANDFATHER becomes a guideline[edit]

I wrote the essay Commons:Grandfathered old files (abbreviated as COM:GRANDFATHER or COM:GOF) a few months ago for using it in future discussions about files which predate the OTRS system (ca. 2006). This sometimes turns up at (un)deletion discussions. See e.g. Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#File:Talbot_Tagora_2.2_green_profile.jpg. It would be useful to have this as a general guideline. I hope to hear your input about this. SpeakFree (talk) 23:49, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

  • I support this idea, but it will need to be at least mentioned on a noticeboard so that consensus can be obtained. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Beef up context[edit]

I think it's not quite ready for guideline status. I've just added one sentence, but I think it also needs something about how to label the files so that editors know that they are in some sense special. --99of9 (talk) 05:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your additions. IMHO the files could be labelled with a template (like the copyright templates) which shows their special status. With of course a disclaimer on it that the template should only be used when there is no reasonable doubt about the permission. SpeakFree (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2012 (UTC)
Grandfathered files should definitely have a template to identify them, I think. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I've created Commons:Verifying permissions as a first draft of a proposed guideline on verifying permissions. Mentioning the grandfathering principle there may be enough for the purposes of proving "look, the principle is accepted", and the detail left in this essay; or we could merge the entire (fairly short) essay into that guideline. I'd prefer the former, I think, certainly at the early drafting stage. Rd232 (talk) 14:42, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I would like to see it become (part of) a guideline eventually. But this will do for now. Length doesn't matter as long as it says what needs to be mentioned. COM:PRP is only 3 lines long (with 5 examples) and that's a policy. But feel free to expand on COM:GRANDFATHER if you think it needs more. SpeakFree (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Commons:Permissions threads much of the same ground as your draft. I think it would be better to add your draft to that page, which is also a guideline draft. That page deals with getting permissions for new uploads, yours deals with verifying permissions for existing uploads. It would be useful to have both on one page and it wouldn't make the page too long. SpeakFree (talk) 18:38, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Hm, thanks, I didn't know about that. I might take elements of it into the new proposal, bearing in mind talkpage comments; too much of it seems like an essay. Rd232 (talk) 18:50, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
I've changed my mind. Your draft needs some more work (and you should really think about integrating it with Commons:Permissions). But the issue of grandfathered old files should be dealt with in an official manner as it involves lots of files which possibly risk deletion. SpeakFree (talk) 01:59, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

After discussion here and at the Village Pump which indicated that there is support for this proposal I would like to ask the community to consider that Commons:Grandfathered old files becomes an official guideline on Wikimedia Commons. SpeakFree (talk) 01:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Please comment at Commons:Requests for comment/Grandfathered old files SpeakFree (talk) 22:36, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Wikivoyage file migration[edit]

Please comment there if you are interested.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:50, 29 October 2012 (UTC)