On January 1, 2021, all works published in 1925 will enter public domain in the US. Presumably there will be files from 1925 that were previously deleted, but can be undeleted on January 1. Is there a coordinated/formal process for doing these undeletions (similar to c:COM:Public Domain Day)? Or does the normal process for undeletions apply (ask closing admin first, then go to deletion review if unresolved)? Wikiacc (¶) 22:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any coordinated process given that there's no assurances that we keep deleted files. If there are files that would happen to qualify (in which it is clear publication was 1925 or before), then either messaging the closing admin that deleted the image or failing that, asking for WP:REFUND due to the newfound PD-ness would be appropriate. --Masem (t) 22:59, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a request for a bot at WP:BOTREQ to move old WP:Files for deletion pages to WP:Files for discussion similar to the move of WP:Votes for deletion to WP:Articles for deletion. Any thoughts? P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Bot requests § Moving old WP:FFD pages. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Template:Z48[reply]

Starting RFC since no input yet. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:12, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@P,TO 19104: This is a cost/benefit question. What would be the benefit of such a move? The cost is the disruption, the effort, and either a lot of new redirects or a lot of link changes, among other things. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:16, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: You make a good point - but my proposal is merely based on precedant, specifically the move of all former VFD pages to AFD by SmackBot. In that case, yes, a move was made each time with a redirect being left behind for those (who knows how many) pages. Thus, I think at the very least we should have those Files for deletion pages redirect from Files for discussion for consistency or be moved to the former title for consistency. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I think you'll need a better justification for this proposal than that we did it once back in 2005. I wasn't trying to make any point, though – I am curious, what is the benefit? Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 00:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@L235: Let me clarify. The benefit of this move would be for archival consistency for when a new user who may not have know that Files for discussion was moved from Files for deletion and is attempting to look in the archives. Of course I don't want to be annoying, but this has also been done with the moves of WP:SSP to WP:SPI, and I think it would just help to have a consistent Files for discussion archive. Of course, FFD was also a merge of other venues, but there is still of course a running header among all FFD archives. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 01:06, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't they be able to find it in the archives? For example, the current search box on the top of WP:FFD searches through pages whose title starts with "Wikipedia:Files for d", which seems like it works well. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Since this has been sitting for a few days, I oppose for the reasons given above. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 03:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Page title consistency is almost always important. Among other things, different page names make it harder to search just within a group of pages — look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index, which has two search fields because the older arbitration cases and the newer arbitration cases had different naming. If you're at a specific "Files for discussion" page and want to go to an older one, you might be confused to see that it didn't exist, when really it just had the older naming structure. Nyttend (talk) 15:13, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings everyone!

If you work with media files — either regularly or occasionally — we want to invite you to join a research session to help us understand this process and the challenges you face during it. To participate, we ask that you first complete this short survey in which we ask you a few questions about working with media. At the end, we ask for an email address that we can use to contact you if you are selected for an interview. If selected, we will follow up with an email invitation to select a day/time to participate. As a thank you for your time and insights, we are able to offer interview participants a gift card in compensation for participation.

You can complete the survey on any internet-capable device, but in order to participate in the interview, you will need access to a computer and internet connection fast enough to support video calls.

Thank you!

(MRaish (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC))[reply]

This survey will be conducted via Google Forms, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information about privacy and data-handling, see the privacy statement for this survey.

I started a discussion about this a few years back Wikipedia talk:Files for discussion/Archive 8#Delsort tags and appreciate the comments I received from Steel1943 and Czar at the time. A recent edit made to a FFD discussion by GiantSnowman, however, makes me think that now might be a good time to revisit this subject again and reconsider whether WP:DELSORT templates can or should be used in FFD discussions. GiantSnowman is the first person I ever noticed adding a delsort template to an FFD thread, but I've always wondered why it's not something done more often.

FFD doesn't seem to attract as many participants as some of the other XFD pages do and part of this could simply just be an over all lack of interest in file related matters. Lots of editors probably just treat files as an afterthought or minor aspect of Wikipedia, and just assume file usage to be pretty much automatic in all case. Anyone who works with files knows there's more to it that this, but most people don't and the only time they might show up at a FFD discussion is when a file they uploaded or added to an article ends up being discussed. So many FFDs end up with minimal participation (sometimes just an nomination statement), and in some cases the results of these discussion end up being contested sometime down the road by someone who claims they weren't aware or the discussion or there's was insufficient participation or whatever. Some admins might treat a file deleted/removed in such a way as a sort of a WP:SOFTDELETE because of the low participation, but the FFD page actually states that files may deleted or removed after the FFD has run seven days in cases where "no objections to deletion or removal have been raised". In other XFD processes, this type of lack of participation seems to often end up being a "no-consensus keep", but the FFD instructions (particularly for non-free content) seem to imply that "no-consensus" means "delete/remove".

Another possible reason for the lack of participation at FFD might have to do with the notification processed involved. Lots of files don't have talk pages and in many cases the uploader (who might no longer be around) ends up being the only person notified when a file ends up at FFD. I personally try to use things like {{ffdc}} when I can in an article, and also try to add at least one WikiProject banner to the talk pages for files I nominate for discussion because I'm hoping this might make it easier for others (besides the uploader) to know about the discussion. I've occasionally added a {{Please see}} template to a WikiProject talk page or an article talk page, but I don't always do so.

Anyway, I'm wondering whether there's a way to enhance the notification process which at least will make it a bit easier for others to know that a file is being discussed. Delsort tags might be a good way to do this (if it's technically feesible), but there might other ways as well. I'm not necessarily suggesting notifications for individual editors who might be interested in a particular discussion, but more general notifications for article talk pages, WikiProject talk pages, etc. There's always going to be someone who complains that they weren't notified or that three people !voting isn't a consensus, but there's never going to be a fix for that. File use (particularly non-free content use) seems to be one of those things where 100% agreement is never going to be achieved, but a bit more can and should be done (at least in my opinion) to try and get more members of the community involved in these discussions. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Anything which encourages wider participation / stronger community consensus should be welcomed. GiantSnowman 14:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't have stats on which alerts/notice pages bring in the most editor traffic (or know if we track that sort of thing) but I'd wager that Article Alerts likely have more active viewers than Delsort pages. Not opposed to either. In the case of Article Alerts, it's as easy as FFD regulars using WP:Rater to tag WikiProjects while the discussion is live. In the case of Delsort, I think more technical finesse would be needed as discrete FFD discussions are sections on a shared page rather than individually transcluded pages. I imagine that wouldn't be worth the effort unless someone knows of an easy fix. Then it would potentially be as simple as extending WP:Twinkle's Delsort selector to also apply for FFDs.

Another option could be a WikiProject bot that takes the week's FFDs (if not other low-traffic XFDs) and substs them on the WikiProject's talk/noticeboard page. Like a {{please see}} but automated. Would require some discussion but I'm a fan of this use of WikiProject talk pages in general. There are some projects that might object by the sheer volume they'd receive (i.e., Biographies) but most projects would have a reasonable list posted each week, for visibility. This said, anyone particularly concerned will likely already be viewing the relevant Article Alerts. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 01:13, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also copyright rules are excessively complicated. It's not particularly surprising that there is low participation based on the accessibility of the discussion. I think that comes with the territory. But as I said nonetheless, all for more visibility. czar 01:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]