Wikibooks:Requests for deletion/Template:GFDL-presumed

Template:GFDL-presumed
''The following discussion has concluded.  Please begin any new discussion  on the appropriate page.'' Closed as keep&mdash;until the template is deprecated and no longer in use, it isn't to be deleted. The project should immediately begin reviewing all uses, and deleting images as needed. Once there are no more uses, the template should be deleted. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 01:08, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

We shouldn't be assuming someone wants to license something under the GFDL anymore. It is a legal grey area, and although some say that there was a binding statement saying that at one point, all uploads were considered to be under the GFDL, things have changed. It has also been recently deprecated on the English Wikipedia, and is also not an acceptable license on Commons either. The deletion of this would require a more drawn out process though, sorting through the 500 images that still use it. ViperSnake151 (talk) 23:30, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Question: What did Wikipedia do to phase out the template, delete all the images? Or shift them to another license? Mattb112885 (talk to me) 01:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * To deprecate it, we first made it so that GFDL-presumed after a specific date was not a proper license. Then we made a campaign to alert users who have uploaded images marked under the license that we just assumed it was GFDL due to how it was and if you really want it to be GFDL, switch the tag to GFDL or it will be soon deleted. ViperSnake151 (talk) 13:59, 8 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. As a quick note, GFDL-Presumed is not acceptable for new uploads. There was a cutoff we implemented, although I am not sure what the date was exactly. Also keep in mind that these are 500-some images that are being used, and where possible we should look for suitable replacement images instead of just deleting them outright. What I don't want to see happen is for books to lose some quality images that were licensed properly but weren't marked properly. We have attempted to contact all the creators of these images in the past, and the images that are still GFDL-presumed are from those authors that we could not contact. So, I don't recommend that we waste time on another round of emails. I'm in favor of removing GFDL-presumed, but I would like a sincere effort to be made to replace images instead of just deleting them. --Whiteknight (Page) (Talk) 16:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * May 18th shall be our cutoff. ViperSnake151 (talk) 03:03, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As can be seen in [ this revision], the cut off date was January 1st 2006. --dark lama  03:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Symbol comment vote.svg|15px]] Comment I would think some of these images can't even be GFDL because they're already licensed (snapshots of Microsoft software) or can't be licensed (a picture demonstrating a right angle). Some images may not be even linked - anywhere.  These images can be safely removed if GFDL or other licensing can not be proven.  Any other images that have any doubt should be removed.  Presumption of GFDL is wrong.  Period.  There's a reason it's not being used anymore.  500 images isn't much to go through.  It's not like the 1000s of PD images that have deprecated templates.  -- Retropunk (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Until the template is deprecated and has no more uses, then it should be deleted. Actually deprecating it and removing all uses should be discussed at WB:CHAT or something. &mdash; Mike.lifeguard &#124; talk 00:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Symbol delete vote.svg Delete - Since noone has commuted to one outcome I take the lead. Copyright ownership and licensing are two distinct subjects, the first is a given (someone has created it) the second should never be presumed especially in a Wiki environment that accepts anonymous contributions.
 * I must also say that I will support a move for the removal of all images from Wikibooks into the Commons project. To me it is a duplication of efforts and selfish (restricting other projects from using the content). The situation seems absurd... --Panic (talk) 15:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also support only allowing fair use images at Wikibooks, but that's a discussion best continued elsewhere. -- Adrignola talk contribs 17:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Start it rolling then... --Panic (talk) 17:50, 3 August 2009 (UTC)