Talk:Suraiya

Biography: Actors and Filmmakers / Musicians

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by WikiProject Actors and Filmmakers.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians.

India Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women in Music

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women in Music, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in music on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women in MusicWikipedia:WikiProject Women in MusicTemplate:WikiProject Women in MusicWomen in music articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Fan site

The article is a serious mess, it is a mixture between a hagiography and a fansite and needs a lot of culling and clean up. At this point, I'm not even sure how to start that process! —SpacemanSpiff 11:48, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a gem:) Will be tending to, late night, provided no one arrives with an axe, aprior... ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:59, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. it's a hagiography. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:07, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images

I'm not good with image-related stuff but have just removed a bunch of images from the article because I have serious doubts regarding copyright status. The uploader is claiming that they are free of copyright in India and that may be the case but they have provided no rationale for why they are copyright free in the US, which is where the WMF servers are located. Furthermore, their sourcing is generally "got from the internet" but without saying which website etc they took it from, which may also be dodgy.

If I've got this wrong then fair enough, just revert me. - Sitush (talk) 12:24, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Geez. Umm...which images in particular are problematic? You've made a lot of edits here and...I have to install a ceiling fan. GMG ^talk 16:33, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

These. - Sitush (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's confusing. c:COM:CRT seems to contradict itself, saying both 60 years after creation, and 60 years after the death of the last author for jointly created works. Umm... User:Majora?

Well, I could say pretty much the same for Materialscientist. - Sitush (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

BU Rob13's views solicited, too:)~ Winged Blades^Godric 16:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped a note on IRC too to see if anybody knows. We don't want to keep these images around if they're copyrighted, but... I also want to amend CRT to...you know...make sense. GMG ^talk 17:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@GreenMeansGo: did anyone reply at IRC? No-one else who was pinged and/or message on WP appears to have done. If there was nothing at IRC I think I will remove them on the basis of erring on the side of caution. - Sitush (talk) 09:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I asked around and never got a response from anyone. Sorry about that. GMG ^talk 10:35, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - not your fault! Majora, do you have anything? - Sitush (talk) 10:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will never get tired of copyright questions, GreenMeansGo This is what I live for on here. Anyways, Sitush the main CRT page on Commons does need to be cleaned up. The specific page on India is much more clear and can be found here: c:Commons:Copyright rules by territory/India. If the object in question is one of the bolded terms in the "other copyright terms" section, namely photographs, films, sound recordings, anonymous works, posthumous works, or governmental works, they have specific copyright terms. All other things are 60 years pma in India. For the most part, all works on Commons are going to follow the middle section unless it is artwork of some kind which is the only thing that comes to mind right now that would not fall within those categories. So lets go through a few of the images that you removed.

File:Suraiya in the film 'Char Din' opposite Shyam in 1949.jpg: Is a screenshot from a film published in 1949. Films have a copyright term of 60 years after publication so the copyright would have expired January 1, 2010. PD in India.

File:Suraiya as a child in 1936.jpg: Is a photograph from an unknown author but it was created well before 1958. Indian copyright law changed in 1957 (effective in 1958) so that date is especially important here due to the fact that I doubt this was published by the copyright definition (personal photos rarely are and from what I can tell from Google that is what this was). So because it was created prior to 1958 we follow the old rules which don't worry about publication and are more concerned with creation. PD 50 years after creation. Fell out of copyright on January 1, 1987. PD in India.

A lot of the other ones are films so would follow the first example. If we want to really get into the thick of it I can start talking about the URAA which is its own can of worms. But that will have to wait until tonight as I don't really have time to do the in depth research necessary for that. If you have specific questions about any of the other ones please let me know and I'll take a look. Or I can just go through them one-by-one when I get back tonight. --Majora (talk) 20:44, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Majora. If something is PD in India now due to copyright expiry/lapse, how does that fit in with the US requirement, given the servers are in the US. As I understood it (and I am not good on this stuff), it is the US copyright issue that means when images are uploaded to Commons using the Upload Wizard there is a demand that a US license be supplied as well as, say, the one for UK-PD-OLD. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm glad someone likes it. I tolerate it. And as someone who's spent the last week deleting his own images on Commons because a garden gnome is technically a creative work...I'm about sick of it. Only ~300 more images to go. Flickr2Commons...sigh...with great power comes great responsibility. GMG ^talk 21:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

PD in the US depends on the URAA. Which is...complicated. Commons also has a long history with the URAA. They haven't played well with each other and the URAA cannot be used as the sole reason for deleting anything over there due to the gray area that the whole thing put the copyright world into. The WMF doesn't really seem to care one way or the other either. Enwiki has never had a policy discussion on the URAA so even if the URAA applies on a PD-India image we don't have a mandate either way. I will take a look at the US side of things tonight. --Majora (talk) 21:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So here's what I have determined, Sitush. It is possible that these images are under the URAA and not PD in the US. Even though they are public domain in their home country. So there are a couple of options here. Option A, remove all images that don't fit under our fair use policy and keep it that way. You have done so already.

Option B, which boils down to without actually saying it, ignore the URAA. Enwiki has never had a policy discussion on files that might have had their copyright restored under the URAA that I know of so, as far as enforcement is concerned, we have no mandate either way. The Foundation's response to the question can be found here: m:Legal/URAA Statement and they leave it to each community to decided. The Guidance section of that statement pretty much says, "if there is doubt as to whether the URAA applies, meh. Wait for a formal DMCA take down." There is usually enough doubt in URAA cases because the URAA requires that a formal copyright was never filed with the US copyright office which is hard to prove or disprove without searching through thousands of pages of registration documents and then you might just not have searched the right one. But again, we have not had that discussion on enwiki as to what to do with these images.

Option C, upload the ones that are locally hosted that are definitely PD in India to Commons and use them anyways. Both the Commons community and the admins over there are pretty bitterly divided and a détente was established to avoid ripping the project apart. The mere supposition that a file is under the URAA cannot be the sole reason for deleting a file over there. The best answer to this issue can be found here: c:Template talk:Not-PD-US-URAA#"New files should not be uploaded with this tag, or they will be deleted". They may be deleted and that all depends on the whim of the closing administrator. Admins that keep the files are totally within their right to do so based on the WMF's legal opinion and the possibility that the file doesn't actually fall under the URAA and many use that to close all DRs that only have the URAA as the reason as a keep.

So I pretty sure I have been zero help here since all I've told you were options that basically end up being "do what you want" and I'm sorry about that. It is just that this area is gray and the gray has never really been solved one way or the other. --Majora (talk) 03:03, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone here seems to be apologising to me. That's a fairly new experience and it is happening on one of the few occasions when there is no need to apologise! (You should see what goes on in relation to the caste articles.) Thanks for taking the time to explain. You may think you have been of no help but the explanation at least goes a long way to clarifying things in my mind.

My own preference would be to leave out any images that may be in doubt. That's just because it is the simplest, most cautious approach. But I have no idea what others may think and I do stress it is an entirely subjective opinion because, as you say, pretty much anything seems to be possible. - Sitush (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Potential sources

We've removed quite a few dodgy sources, including ones that seem to have perpetuated an error regarding her birthplace and one that was purportedly an interview with her. (I'm not so sure that removing the interview source was helpful, although I admit I have never heard of the magazine before.) Anyway, can we use this and this as verification for some of the unsourced stuff? While a lot of news media articles quite clearly copied from us, these are respected newspapers and should be ok. - Sitush (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The source was helpful but I don't rely on these gossip-tabloids and neither are they much prominent in the field.Anyway, there's an abundance of offline and other reliable sources, covering the subject.I will again re-indulge at the article, soon:) ~ Winged Blades^Godric 11:20, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We are going to have to do something fairly soon because people are fiddling with stuff in the early life section, some of which seemed reasonably well sourced. - Sitush (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: I've just removed a bunch of stuff, mostly added since April. Can you name any of the sources to which you were referring? - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - repinged as messed it up. - Sitush (talk) 09:21, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And it is becoming even more of a mess now. For some reason, for example, the whole idea of WP:NPOV has gone out of the window in the Early life section, with seemingly cherry-picked sources being used to give a definite birthplace. - Sitush (talk) 19:47, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Winged Blades of Godric: - Sitush (talk) 19:53, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Suraiya in an image.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Filmography page

Suraiya's filmography and discography is bulky. Hence, I think we should make a seprate page. Also her discography is incomplete, so Mork work would mean more weight here.

(2409:40D0:BD:D425:6CF3:129B:C598:4D29) (talk) 14:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

let's Discuss a Bold edit and unnecessary Revert

_{That's a joke, see, because the edit summary just said "Unnecessary".}

Will someone create Suraiya (disambiguation)? This article currently only disambiguates Suraiya (film), a 2020 Bengali short film directed by Anirudho Rasel with Shahiduzzaman Selim and Shiba Ali Khan playing the lead roles. Hatnote revisions removed any link from Suraiya to All pages with titles containing Suraiya (copy-paste from linked pages):

Suraiya Nagar, a village in the Bhopal district of Madhya Pradesh, India
Suraiya Multanikar, a Pakistani singer mostly known for her folk songs
Kamala Surayya (redirect from Kamala Suraiya), known by her one-time pen name Madhavikutty and married name Kamala Das, was an Indian poet as well as an author
Suraiya Azmin, a Bangladeshi cricketer who plays as a right-arm medium bowler
Jug Suraiya, a prominent Indian journalist, author and columnist
Suraiya Faroqhi, a German scholar, Ottoman historian and a leading authority on Ottoman history
Surriya Khanum, also spelled as Suraiya Khanum, a veteran Pakistani folk and classical singer from the Punjab
Suraiya Hasan Bose, an Indian textile conservator, textile designer, and manufacturer
Suraiya Shahab, a Pakistani newscaster, poet, and novelist
Pagli Suraiya, Sania Sultana Liza's second solo album, released on 17 July 2015
Suraiya Jatoi, a Pakistani politician who had been a member of the National Assembly of Pakistan, from March 2008 to May 2018
Suraiya Begum, a retired Bangladeshi Civil Servant and former Commissioner of the Information Commission

Done. The names should go to a separate Suraiya (name) page. Jay 💬 10:57, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]