Talk:List of public domain characters

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 2008-01-07. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

[edit] Which rules?

What country's rules is this list based on? In the US copyrights last for a fixed number of years after creation, and in the EU they last 70 years after the creator's death.

There are no rules for this page, it's better to consider it an oddity of wikipedia. No orginization, other than alphebetization and no practicality whatsoever. It says Eddison's Worm of Ouroboros characters etc. are Public Domain, which is only true for Australia. It also seems to misunderstand the traps such as trademarks. This page is mostly useless to be honest, you'd have to be crazy if you use only this page as a source for public domain works. FourtySixNtwo 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

Since there was no consensus to delete this page, the next step is to try to make it conform to Wikipedia standards. WP:V says that every item on it must be independently verifiable, so anything without a citation has to go. WP:LISTV says it needs "clear, neutral, and unambiguous criteria". Because WP is an international project, "public domain" has to mean that it's in the public domain everywhere, not just in the United States. So anything whose PD status is based on the argument that it was published before 1923, that it was published without a copyright notices, or that it was not renewed (which apply only in the US) has to go. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up, redux

My deletions were consistent with the suggestions of those voting to "keep" the article, as a way to fix it. I think the premise of the article itself is fundamentally flawed, but if we're going to have it, it needs to comply with Wikipedia policies. The way to do that is to remove the undocumented (and generally unverifiable) cruft, and the items with "citations" that don't actually say anything about their copyright status, and rebuild it properly. Turned out that was everything on the list (no surprise to me). I have no objection to anyone adding documented items to the article, but the wholesale restoration of bad content is contrary to the consensus of the AfD discussion that the article as it stood was problematic. - JasonAQuest (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Removing every single item from a list is not a constructive edit. And, as I read the votes in favor of keeping, they suggested finding sources for items on the list, not deleting every unsourced item immediately following resolution of the AfD. After all, someone might want to find a source, which takes time; and not everyone lives solely to edit Wikipedia, making it take more time. We have a {{fact}} tag for this. RJC Talk Contribs 18:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, now in addition to the whole article being tagged as needing references, every item is too. - JasonAQuest (talk) 18:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)