Template talk:PD-ineligible

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Info non-talk.svg Template:PD-ineligible has been protected indefinitely because it is a highly-used or visible template. Use {{Edit request}} on this page to request an edit.

in Japan law[edit]

日本法では、そもそも創作性を有しないような画像、及び著作権法第13条の規定による著作権の目的とならないものに使用できます。Searobin 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

translation (dodgy) "Original creative characteristic, you can use for those which do not become purpose of the copyright due to the stipulation of the picture, and the Copyright Act 13th kind of provision which do not possess with the Japanese method."

Chemistry diagram[edit]

I think all chemistry diagram must be {{PD-ineligible}}.--Alex Spade 14:22, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with you. Formulas are usually neither artworks nor other kinds of protectable creative work. --S. Jähnichen 20:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Although I agree for structural formulas I disagree for "3-D" representations. Currently I see a lot of them with this tag though /Lokal_Profil 13:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah 2D formulas that for example ChemBioDraw can draw by itself should be PD. But 3D representations takes time and effort to make. Also reaction formulas shouldn't be automatically PD. – linnea (talk) 13:39, 19 May 2012 (UTC)


Do images that we claim are ineligible for copyright still required to have a source? --Iamunknown 18:18, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

New sub-tags proposed[edit]

I've drafted Template:PD-script, Template:PD-shape and Template:PD-chem. Please comment in the discussion at Commons:Village pump#Template:PD-ineligible. Thanks.--Pharos 02:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Self-made ineligible[edit]

Hi! I thought that adding an optional parametre "self" could be useful when the author thinks his work is PD-ineligible. In case it isn't, the author could with this same template say that he or she wants the image to be in the public domain. It looks like this: User:Samulili/test. Samulili 08:25, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It would be better to leave the choice of the alternative license open so that if the image is deemed copyrightable the author could choose any license. Apart from that I think it's a good idea. /Lokal_Profil 22:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that thought cross my mind. One should use switch, trick, right? And a sligth redesign of the underlying template. Samulili 16:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't really know about the technicalities. Only thought of other licenses since I've hade images under CC license which other people have retaged as ineligable and I've had to add a small comment saying "just in case it's not ingeligable it's CC" /Lokal_Profil 00:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It didn't need switch, naturally. KISS, to me. How do you like it now? Samulili 16:41, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
The abilty to choos looks good. The only problem I see is the inclusion of (rather then linking to) the template. This might give the wrong impression if someone doesen't read carefully and it also results in the image being categorised as both cc and PD. I think the same effect could be reached by just linking to the template in question. After all this only becomes a problem once someone judges the image not to be ineligable and as long as that person can clearly see the alternative license it doesn't matter if it's included or linked to. /Lokal_Profil 16:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks good now =) /Lokal_Profil 10:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please add som info about this feature to the template page so that users become aware that it exists. Thanks/Lokal_Profil 17:51, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Done. Samulili 19:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks /Lokal_Profil 19:48, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Could someone please add on the possiblility for at least one parameter to the "optional license". This is necessary when transwikiing an image which is uner one license but which gets relicensed to pd-ineligible eg. {{PD-ineligible| PD-user|Daniel Blomqvist|sv }}. /Lokal_Profil 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
My wikicode sucks - could you explain exactly which changes need to be made (and then I'll make them). Giggy 00:19, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
User:Lokal Profil/Testmall2 should work. Feel free to double check my spelling though =)./Lokal_Profil 17:30, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

✓ Done - You might want to redirect that sandbox page to this template or something so it doesn't fill up whatever categories this template is in. Giggy 05:59, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Spacing problem[edit]

What's with all the unnecessary whitespace in the bottom of this box? Can it be removed? -- Denelson83 04:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done ~ Riana 13:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Chemistry Diagrams[edit]

How about using a secific template for Chemistyr diagrams. By doing that it would become much easier to browse Category:PD ineligible for the errorously tagged images. There is already Template:PD-shape and considering that chemistry diagrams are probably one of the most frequent uses for PD-ineligible I'd say it makes more sense to have a separate template. One example of how it may look is User:Lokal Profil/Testmall. Any opinions./Lokal_Profil 00:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

{{PD-chem}} - Rocket000 05:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks /Lokal_Profil 15:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Image > file[edit]

Change the following phrase from "This image is ineligible for copyright and…" to "This file is ineligible for copyright and…" as there are also other files, such as sounds, which cna be PD.--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 14:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

✓ Done (for the English version anyway). Rocket000 (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done (for the german version) --D-Kuru (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
✓ Done (for the Czech version)--Juan de Vojníkov (talk) 12:56, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Renaming to Template:PD-trivial[edit]

Partially copied from Commons:Help desk#Renaming of protected templates

<...>New one is more simple and easier memorized, especially for non-native English editors. The misprints in current name are enough frequent (inelegible, inlegible, un... (variuos), etc.). Alex Spade (talk) 11:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

  • ⇛ How about an abbreviation redirect, as PD-i? Typing errors happen really often. -- sarang사랑.svg사랑 08:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)
<...> I don't think changing an established, appropriate name is likely to reduce mistakes, though. {{PD-trivial}} and {{PD-Trivial}} already redirect to {{PD-ineligible}} (along with several others), so using any of those already work. LX (talk, contribs) 18:21, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, redirects help, but they help only editors who have already known about them. Uninformed and new editors do not look in Special:WhatLinksHere for more simple redirects. Alex Spade (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
{{PD-ineligible}} is probably not added manually by inexperienced users very often. LX (talk, contribs) 11:02, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
IMHO redirects are sufficient. In addition, ineligible [for copyright] describes the license more precisely than trivial does. --Leyo 11:45, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
I'd keep the current name; it is more accurate, and redirects are enough for me. The definition of "trivial" is a lot more subjective and in reality differs between countries; it's best if people actually learn what some of the boundaries are before actually using it, rather than applying their own understanding of what "trivial" means. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose "trivial" is far too subjective and will encourage misuse. I'm not even convinced about the redirect, but it is (since today) listed in the documentation so that people can find it. Besides, as I understand it, the template should normally not be used directly, since it's much better to have a specific PD tag. Also, and being only slightly facetious, if people can't even spell it right, they're probably not going to use the template correctly either, so let them misspell it and let that be diagnostic of "someone should check this". Rd232 (talk) 21:21, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Being slightly more helpful: additional redirects might be created from other languages, and tagged {{Redirect from translated template name}}, and listed in the documentation. Rd232 (talk) 22:06, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Not enthusiastic about such a change -- this would pretty much collapse PD-ineligible and PD-shape into a single template, and I'm not sure this would be a good thing... AnonMoos (talk) 21:32, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Unicode characters[edit]

As other symbols in common property (e.g. IPA symbols, AIGA symbol signs and many others) all thousands of images of Unicode characters are of course ineligible. Neither {{PD-shape}} nor {{PD-text}} will fit, and the explanation in {{PD-ineligible}} is not specifying properly enough.
I am thinking of a template PD-Unicode similar to {{PD-AIGA}} which can do all the proper categorizing (plus sorting within the correct sub-category) before passing control to PD-ineligible. If desired, a very small extension there could change … consists entirely of … to someting more specific like … consists entirely of Unicode … or so. -- sarang사랑.svg사랑 08:21, 27 October 2011 (UTC)


I think there should be no comma between 'domain' and 'because'. 'Because' is a subordinating conjunction and the dependent clause comes second, so there shouldn't be a comma between the two clauses. Kayau (talk) 03:32, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Mention Threshold of Originality?[edit]

{{editprotected}} To clarify things, can we wikilink "common property and contains no original authorship." to either w:Threshold of originality or Commons:Threshold of originality? ViperSnake151 (talk) 18:39, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Done. Killiondude (talk) 00:50, 28 June 2013 (UTC)


{{editprotected}} This template has a superfluous comma between "domain" and "because". Could someone excise it? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 17:25, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

✓ Done --Jarekt (talk) 01:42, 24 October 2014 (UTC)


I notice that this template is being used on images of CCTV. Would it make sense to have a separate template (e.g. {{PD-ineligible-CCTV}}) that explains when/where/why CCTV images are not eligible for copyright? Thanks. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:07, 12 April 2017 (UTC)