Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/02. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Merging all history from imported files (12 December 2022) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Tolerate users to upload pre-1949 Chinese books (13 November 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Indonesian laws on copyright (21 August 2020) Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

January 07

Slight issue with template acting up in image caption

See this discussion on the file page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noliscient (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

February 05

Category pages that look like quasi-Wikipedia articles

I'm not very familiar with how category pages work on Commons. One of the bullet points in COM:CAT#Creating a new category states A short description text that explains what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own. is acceptable, but I'm wondering about a category like Category:Midway Theater, Allentown, Pennsylvania which seems to be an attempt to create a quasi-Wikipedia article on Commons. The content on that category page seems, in my opinion, to go beyond what would be considered a "short-description" and basically seems to be someone's own original research. I don't know about the licensing of all of files populating the category, but most if not all of them seem to be licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. The files include newspaper advertisements and newspaper articles about the theater, these all appear to be cut-outs or clippings and there's no way of knowing whether they were covered under the copyright of the entire paper. None of the files seems to be used in any Wikipedia articles, which is another reason why I think the category page was created to be a de-facto article so to speak. My understanding is that print advertisements were required to have separate visible copyright notifications on a per ad basis, but newspaper articles (text and photos) were not required to do so and instead were covered by the copyright notice for the entire newspaper as whole. If my understanding is incorrect, then perhaps the files are OK as licensed; however, I'm not sure about the stub-like article content at the top of the page and hoping others can clarify whether it's OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Putting aside the whole copyright question and whatnot, I'll usually either shorten long descriptions to a few sentences or just delete it whole cloth depending on if it's clearly OR or not since this isn't Wikipedia. Especially if the information is only tangentially related to the category. That said, I don't think it necessarily hurts to have a basic description if it helps people understand better what the images are about. Even in cases where it's not referenced (at least if it's uncontroversial). Like if it's a category for a historic building that burned down and was rebuilt several times, cool. Have a short description about it since the information provides context for the images. Three huge paragraphs going into mostly pointless historical minutia is clearly overkill though. There's no reason that stuff can't just be added to Wikidata or the descriptions for the individual files. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The description is a bit much; if it were sourced, I'd suggest turning it into a Wikipedia article, but without that, we can't. @Atwngirl: this is basically your work. I assume you had sources. Could you consider adding appropriate citation and moving the bulk of this to en-wiki? I assume some of this can be cited from exactly the newspaper stories that are among the uploaded clippings.

Also, Atwngirl: the uploads are at least mostly yours (I didn't go through them all). U.S. newspaper content from 1936 can very well still be copyrighted until 2031 (etc. for later dates). The ads are probably good, lacking copyright notices of their own, but of course clippings of individual articles don't have "copyright markings". There is usually a single copyright notice for an entire daily newspaper. Certainly the newspaper would have been copyrighted. We'd need a specific reason to believe that copyright was not renewed. Do you have a basis for that? You appear to know what newspaper they were from. If you need some assistance if figuring that out (I'd like to keep these if we can), you can probably get that at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but please in the future sort out that sort of thing before uploading. You presumably don't want to go through this amount of effort just to have your work deleted as copyright violations. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

• The paper is The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, which did not renew any copyrights. I think the history is good, since we do not have an article. It provides search terms for someone looking for images. If it was on Wikipedia, we would just need the lede, the first few sentences, from a Wikipedia article. --RAN (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Personally I'd be all for it if the length was chopped down to one reasonably sized paragraph like in Jmabel's example. It's way to long as it is though. People shouldn't have to scroll through almost half a page before they get to the actual images. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Atwngirl has been around a long time and more or less single-mindedly has been contributing memorabilia related to Allentown, PA. She is either an enthusiastic private historian of the town, or more likely has some official connection to a historical society, library, or museum in that town with privileged access to many of these items. I have not seen any declaration to that effect, but it would be nice to know the background here, because considering the extensive history of that one building in question, there may be much more where that came from. Elizium23 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This is interesting to me because many of the photos of the South West Sydney that I’m taking are significant for their area, but may not be significant enough to entail an article in Wikipedia. However, I have found quite a lot of information on the subject of the photo. I would like to add detailed information, but I’m wondering if I might need to create a seperate resource off-wiki using a CC license as this sort of data won’t be allowed here?

I’d love some clarification in this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2: I wonder if Wikispore could be useful for this sort of project? I certainly think that more small wikis would be a good thing! :-) (I've got an idea for a local wiki at https://freo.wiki ). — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I wonder if a local history spore might be worthwhile? Lots of local history just cannot get onto en.wiki, but is still very important. It would still need to ensure that NOR and citations are used, but it would be pretty interesting! I know many local historians would likely love it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Just as an example of what I think is entirely within reason for a category about a building: Category:1012 First Avenue, Seattle. A lot of what is here is name changes, when stories were added, what was in the building, when the facade changed, all of which are likely to be useful in categorizing photos, including whether they refer to this building. guess we could have a proper en-wiki for this building, because it has Seattle Landmark status (so we'd have the notability), but what is here would still be pretty stubby for Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem likely that a non-stub about this will be written, at least in the foreseeable future. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate all of the responses my OP has received so far. Category:Melody Circle, Allentown, Pennsylvania is a similar page to the one about the Midway Theater that was also created by the same user. Again, a few sentences or even a short paragraph would seem to be OK as an introduction to the images found on the page, but these two category pages (there might be more) do, at least in my opinion, go beyond that and seem to be more of an attempt to create an English Wikipedia article about these buildings on Commons, without necessarily having to deal with all of the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia. If the content can be reliably sourced per en:WP:NOR or if the buildings are English Wikipedia notable in their own right per en:WP:NBUILDING, then there's probably a way to incorporate all or some of this content into a newly created or already existing English Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure, however, it's such a great idea to allow it on Commons just because no such articles about these buildings may currently exist. I don't think Commons was ever intended to be a en:WP:ALTERNATIVEOUTLET for English Wikipedia as a place for others to what might be considered their own "original research". If these category pages are the result of efforts on behalf of a local historical society or similar group, then perhaps the content would be best hosted on said group's own website or own wiki-site than Commons if it's not appropriate for English Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I mean, at the very least it's not in a discoverable place. Who among us, seeking encyclopedic information on an item, visits its category page on Commons? Furthermore, the polyglot nature of Commons militates against it becoming an alternate enwiki repository of this stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but at the same time this does seem to be sort of related to COM:PS#Excluded educational content, at least it seems that way to me. Would similar text content be allowed, for example, on a Commons user page per COM:PSP? I get that Commons isn't English Wikipedia and thus the latter's policies and guidelines don't apply per COM:NOTWP; however, it doesn't seem as if Commons should be the place for posting or hosting an individual's or group's original research per COM:NOT#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

I'd put the information in Category:Cinemas in Allentown, Pennsylvania in the same category. It's useful and interesting sure, but still better served by cited somewhere else. For instance Wikidata. I'm not sure most of those cinemas would qualify for individual Wikipedia articles, but that's the kicks sometimes. That said, I'm pretty sure the bar for inclusion is a lot lower for articles about geographical locations then other subjects. So I don't see why it couldn't be included in [1]. It looks like there's already a lot of overly detailed, unreferenced material in the article already. So really what's the difference at this point? There's no reason Atwngirl can't cut the article back and include whatever she wants to there instead of putting it on Commons where no one is going to see it. BTW, it looks like she hasn't even edited the article before and it's been edited thousands of times by a single user in the meantime, which is interesting. Either way, the article could definitely use more people editing it and a more diverse range of information about Allentown. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:Betzs Restaurant, Category:Allentown Trust Company and Category:Cigar Manufacturing and Marketing in Allentown, Pennsylvania are yet some other examples of this. This user has created more than a thousand new category pages since 2016. Many seem like a typical Commons category page that has mainly files and very little if any textual content. Others start out that way but then textual content is subsequently added to them through “minor” edits until they start looking like articles with image galleries. Whatever the reason for creating them, a pattern has been established and more of these category pages will probably be created in the future. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe we've indicated enough of a consensus that this stuff is (1) OR and (2) out of scope for Commons, so shall we officially discourage this user from continuing? It's been 3 days since her last edit, so I assume she's on a bit of a break and hasn't had opportunity to notice, or participate in, our discussion here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

They could just be busy and haven’t logged in recently. I’ve added a {{Please see}} to their user talk page (I should’ve done that sooner and my apologies for not doing so) to let them know about this discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It's been more than a week since Atwngirl was pinged/notified of this discussion, but they still haven't responded. Their last Commons edit was on February 4. It's quite possible they just are busy with other things, but Commons still marches on; so, perhaps it's time to figure out what if anything needs to be done here. Should these category pages just be blanked of text completely? Should only a short paragraph remain? Is only an infobox really needed for those pages that have them? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• Should these category pages just be blanked of text completely? Certainly not, though it may make sense to edit them down considerably. I think the example I gave above shows about what is appropriate. Also: where there is no equivalent en-wiki content, it would be good to save any content (beyond what is effectively covered by the remaining text or infobox) on the respective talk pages (on Common or, if there is a relevant article, on en-wiki) as potential material to flesh out for en-wiki in the future. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not so sure that we should take it upon ourselves to preserve much of this at all; if it is unsourced and original research, no Wikipedia project would accept it anyway, certainly not enwiki. If it can't be sourced and doesn't meet WP:V, then it must be removed outright. The WP:ONUS, burden of proof, is on the person adding material, so if Atwngirl is unable to do so within a short time frame here, we should absolutely, completely, remove unsourced material. Elizium23 (talk) 17:15, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Those are all Wikipedia policies, aren’t they? Do we have commons policies that she is violating? I’m not a fan of citing Wikipedia shortcuts on commons. Commons is not Wikipedia (thank god). - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:35, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  Since the text which Atwngirl has contributed would only be appropriate for inclusion on enwiki, that's the only wiki whose policies should be considered when deciding whether to retain or delete this text, right? Commons policies would dictate that we remove it all, completely, immediately; we have no use whatsoever for it here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

  • @Elizium23: I disagree, and in fact here is an edit that you recently made along these lines (unrelated to User:Atwngirl) that I think is dead wrong. The person whose material you removed, User:Publichall, has consistently shown themself to be very knowledgable on Seattle architectural history, and while I wish they had provided a citation, the material you removed could be very useful to date specific photos of the building (or simply to identify them as this building) and/or to help someone find this building in a search for any of several businesses that were based there. Removing information about architects seems particularly odd: Commons routinely indicates information about architects of buildings, and almost no one her provides a citation when (for example) adding an architect category as a parent category for a building category. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    I think sourcing and verifiability here on Commons is more than a little bit bonkers, considering what people can get away with in terms of depicting things in images that they would never, never in a million years be able to write in prose on any Wikipedia project without a reliable source. But, you do you, I guess. Elizium23 (talk) 00:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

    I think having at least one paragraph helps cover subjects that might never meet the main wiki's notability requirements but I'll admit to getting a bit long winded for some, since the coverage of these subjects on the wiki is so severely lacking, I'm trying to link as many of these photographs together as possible for future researchers to benefit from. In most cases here it seems that linking to a Wikipedia article is the only form of citation, so it gets messy when there is nothing in the Wiki to even reference, especially when trying to justify parent categories. I'm currently putting together a full article for the building in Jmabel's linked category, and when I get around to publishing it and making a wikidata entry for it, the description can be be chopped down as needed. In the meantime It's more or less a memo for further research. Publichall (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

February 06

New details about the Private Incident Reporting System

Please help translate to your language

Hello

We have an update about the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) development.

We have created an FAQ on the project page to help answer your questions. Please check it, and give feedback, or ask additional questions if you have more.

Best regards, Trust & Safety Tools team.

STei (WMF) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Please sign your posts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. Added. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

February 07

Categorization of media representing country names

Media representing country names are trivially categorized, directly or indirectly, under the relevant country categry, usually under Category:Symbols of Country. This is now being questioned at Category talk:Rendered name of Albania, and a consensus is sought. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Well there's {{Vertical header}}, so as far as I can tell, much of "Rendered name of [country]" can be replaced and deleted.

More on-topic: I agree that "Rendered name of [country]" is consistently in "Symbols of [country]" for most countries, and that seems fine to me.

I don't see any "[...] of Albania" category that would be a better parent. TilmannR (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Aside note: I totally agree with you concerning {{Vertical header}}, too, and I think that rendered texts as a way to equip Wikipedia with legible text to make up for technical defficiencies in representing specific typesetting issues (script coverage, complex rendering, etc.) should be a thing of the past. These images were created and uploaded to Commons to fulfil a need (either actual or due to someone’s lack of tech skills), and some have been meanwhile replaced with {{Vertical header}}, I suspect. Should the ones that are unused be deleted? Maybe, but that would be a matter for a separate discussion.

Maeanwhile, however, these images are hosted in Commons and we should have a scheme to categorize them. And of course this is about Category:Rendered name of Country, where, for some values of "Country", we have an interesting palette of typographic and calligraphic variety, not just about Category:Vertically rendered name of Country, which doesn’t exist and is unnecessary.

(I would also like to point out that there is a general Category:Symbols of countries, and among its subcats we can find Category:National symbols — which may be the kind of “official” stuff this user apparently cannot think outside of.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tangentially related, but since you acted super defensive about it, what exactly is the point in or meaning of the word "rendered" in categories like Category:Rendered name of Albania? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You can go up the chain and see it is under Category:Rendered texts. Either way, everyone on the talk page is poorly discussing the issue when the clear answer is Category:Rendered name of Albania is under Category:Symbols of Albania because Category:Rendered names of countries and every country underneath that is under Category:Symbols of countries and each respective subcategory. If this is something you want changed, do it with a discussion for all categories at the parent rather than getting into a heated argument about Albania in particular. Again, I suggest a CFD at the parent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one getting heated about it, Tuvalkin is. So if you have an issue with the tone of the conversation I'm not the one to take it up with. In the meantime, I'm aware that "rendered" goes up the chain. I specifically asked Tuvalkin's opinion about it since he's the one who took issue me saying it was obtuse. I'm obviously not going to do a CFD just so I can get an answer from Tuvalkin about what HIS issue with what I said is. Thanks though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I had to look up the meaning of "obtuse" in case I was not being fair in my inner monologue concerning your appriasal of the situation. Unless you mean geometry of strive to revive an archaism, we’re talking about «Intellectually dull or dim-witted.» Okay, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my point. And that’s also why I added this user to a thread in AN/U as, for him, the rest of the whole issue seems to be meaningless and all he cares is to remove from the one cat he’s been curating (Symbols of Albania) elements whose presence he doesn’t agree with.

Now this VP thread should be enough to ascertain wherther a separate CfD is warranted, and I opened this here presuming it’s not. The matter is trivial and if this kind of country “symbols” may unsettle people who expect to find in cats labelled as such only the officially approved, legally official symbols of any given country (*), then we should replicate for each country something akin to the subcat Category:National symbols under Category:Symbols of countries. I would be okay with that, or any other categorization solution that preserves the logical connection between any media file depicting text and the meaning of that text.

*(Some of those official national symbols include, in some countries, unexpected items — such as its capital city, or the person of head of state as such.)

Having a separate CfD page with its relatively tiny exposition, as opposed to a VP thread, would risk to become (as many CfDs have) a years long fruitless discussion while all the warnings about it plastered across dozens of subcategories would hinder their unfettered use by categorizing editors.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not trivial. There are a number of large categorization discussions that will take years to resolve but that's how it works. There is no 'logical' reason for the current system but if you simply said "Albania fits the larger structure used for every country so it's dumb to remove it here when you should be having a larger discussion", fine the talk page will have been resolved quickly. That or people would have said "Albanian rendered text is unique and should be treated differently than any other nation' which is absurd but whatever, it's an argument. Either way, once the talk page did not go anywhere useful, that is what CFDs are for. I have started some insanely broad discussions that I don't expect will be resolved until maybe 2030 but whatever, it's a wiki. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and I agree. Was hoping this VP thread would bring over a few voices saying that there’s nothing to see here, just carry on categorizing as before. But nope: Looks like we’re going to debate this for decades, and files showing rendered names of countries will never get added to (cats under) Category:Rendered names of countries. Huzzah. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to explain it it's going to be debated. As I said before, I don't understand why you have so much hostility when the actual response of "this is the way every other country is done" is an actual answer for now. We may end up moving these around but I never saw that we have had an discussion on the issue so let's start this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Rendered names of countries. If it's so obvious and correct we'll have this resolved quickly enough. It's not like people are going to be removing and removing various countries for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Knowing how CfDs work, it’s obvious and correct and we'll not have this resolved quickly. But let’s go!: Already did my explaining there (too), and the hitherto presented misconceptions are already on show there too. It does bode. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

the hitherto presented misconceptions are already on show You ever think maybe it's not faulty logic, but that people just disagree with you? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all the time. Some times, though, other people are actually wrong. Or right. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

February 08

Calidore and Pastorella

Hi. Would anyone here be able to find an original scan of this picture (the original source is a book published in 1909) and upload it to Commons? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

That could be quite a challenge, but not impossible. The artist in question died in 1952 and so, as a UK citizen, her works entered the public domain only this year. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

TinEye finds six versions. One is b&w, the others are with Bridgeman, and watermarked. Google finds none. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not all of us contribute to commons

This board is very busy, so I am just wondering if there is a better board for those of us who only visit here as consumers, not contributors?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: The discussion areas are divided by topic rather than status of the user. What sort of topics are you wanting to raise? That will dictate the best place for you to comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I for one would be very interested in hearing more about more about how consumers use and view Commons. The ultimate goal of contributors and curators I think is (or should be) to have quality media accessible and reused for educational, creative, and/or novel purposes. You may be interested in Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, or the Commons:Help desk. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would not say "quality media", but notable, important and valued media. In the end "quality" of a media is a subjective impression by the consumer, who should have the maximal choice. C.Suthorn (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

February 09

File:Articulo Meson.png

Hi, I am unsure what action to take regarding the image file File:Articulo Meson.png. I believe it should be deleted, but I am new to Commons' deletion process and I couldn't figure out if any reason for deletion at COM:D applies here (I have never had to do this before on this wiki). If it helps, I'll explain why I believe it should be deleted.

I first came across it while recategorising images in Category:Unidentified Coleoptera about a month ago, and was puzzled as it didn't appear to belong here. Translating the Spanish-language text in Google Translate confirms that it has nothing to do with Coleoptera (scientific name for beetles) whatsoever, but instead is about a village in Colombia. Digging into the history and usage of the file, it appears it was first uploaded by user Lorenapuentesca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in January 2016, and the image is used only by their user page on Spanish Wikipedia. This user also was the original one who erroneously added the file to Category:Coleoptera (in 2019 it was moved to Category:Unidentified Coleoptera and Category:Valued images of Coleoptera (what, why???!!) instead). According to the es.wiki user page's logs, this same userpage was deleted by admins twice before its current version: deletion reason messages seem show that it had the same text content as the image as far as I can tell.

So, it appears this image may purely exist for the purposes of this user's es.wiki user page, and this user hasn't made any edits on any Wikimedia wiki since uploading the image and creating the user page 7 years ago. Back to reasons to delete, would this fall under COM:NOTHOST, or COM:ADVERT? Or something else? Or is the image fine to have on Commons in the end and I should leave it be? Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I have nominated the file for deletion as being outside Commons:Project scope: "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text". MKFI (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Does that mean we have to delete all the uploaded scanned newspapers published before 1929? And delete the non-renewed ones prior to 1965? They consist of just text. Do we have to delete the more than 10,000 pdf books of text? --RAN (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The bottom paragraph of Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content answers that. Scanned texts that serve as a source and "files which embody something of value over and above raw text" are kept. TilmannR (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Value" is subjective, the rule should be rewritten so that it is objective, and can be followed by a bot. People will argue endlessly over which books and newspapers provide value. People weaponize poorly worded rules against other uploaders . --RAN (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): no action is being taken against the uploader. We're not talking here about sanctions of any sort. This is an issue about a file, not the person who uploaded it.
  • Trying to write rules so precise that a bot could take over all things that are now judgment calls is, frankly, a terrible proposal. A lot of this comes down to something along the lines of editorial judgement, which is exactly the thing of which a bot or AI is least capable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting this particular case is about weaponization, just that the rules, as written, are vague. At one time I had an obituary nominated for deletion based on the "no text" rule. I just think we can reword it a little better, perhaps by listing some good-text and bad-text examples, to make the distinction clearer. I think we are trying to discard images of text that are unpublished original-research. We want primary documents about notable people like death certificates, and published material from notable people, if in the public domain. Excluded educational content is very poorly written, it says we don't want images of text that can be hosted at Wikisource, yet Wikisource demands that an image of the text must be stored at Commons so that they can be compared to the ASCII text for errors. --RAN (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it helps this discussion at all, this raw text image file is clearly not from a newspaper or book or anything like those, instead the uploader possibly wrote the text in the image themselves. According to es.wiki's logs, it looks like the text itself broke their policy on user pages when it was placed in the user page directly, and it looks like this image was created to try and circumvent that. Though it's odd how nobody there picked up on the user page being created for the third time with the same text, except this time as an image. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Ontzak, UA31 as deleting Admins. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Articulo Meson.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 04:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you upload a file to Commons after the author has changed the license?

All of the images in this album on Flickr used to be licensed under CC BY 2.0, which is apparent by clicking on a photo, going to the bottom, and clicking "License History". Since, these images' licenses have been changed to CC BY-NC 2.0. Since CC licenses are irrevocable, is it okay to upload these files to Commons? (please ping) – Pbrks ^(t • c) 06:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, once a licence has been changed to a non-free one, it can't be added to commons..cc is only irrevocable if it gets uploaded here when it was cc.. Stemoc 07:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think the license is still valid: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but i was talking about principle here, we don't want another 'snail guy' incident but this time, we'd be the bad guys lol..as Marchjuly noted, if you really want to use those images, message the user and he may just release it again under the CC-By licence instead of doing something as cynical as this lol.. as someone who got threatened once by a photographer because i added images which was released under a free license when i uploaded it to commons, things could get worse, this licence history thing is a new feature on flickr, it helps us License Reviewers to do a check on images that may have been added to commons back when they were free but it really should not be used in a negative way..If a DR is ever submitted for such images, i'd definitely vote for deletion.. Stemoc 08:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be technically OK to do so, but most likely copyright holder changed their licensing for a reason. Maybe it would be wise to try and reach out to them first and see why. Perhaps they would be willing to revert back to the original licensing for one or two photos of their choosing. Uploading the whole bunch, even if the old original licenses are still valid, might not be considered a copyright violation per se, but it might create some bad will between the copyright holder and Commons. Why burn a bridge that doesn't really need to be burned? If the uploader's experience with Commons is positive, they might be willing to contribute more high quality images over the years. Try and imagine what might happen if the uploader figures out their photos were uploaded to Commons under their original license after the license change. They might try and get them deleted. Are these photos that great that uploading them would be worth whatever drama a DR might create? Things might be different if the licensing was changed after the files had been uploaded, and they had been used for years by various WMF projects. Some members of the Commons community might, however, be more sympathetic to the uploader if the licensing was changed prior to the files being uploaded and started being used anywhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if it's an image we could do without, then no need to spend the effort to import it. However, it is technically a free image, and would disqualify a subject from being eligible for fair-use images on English Wikipedia IMO. So if a uniquely useful image has been on Flickr with a free license for months or years, then importing a file that the copyright holder once offered under a free license is better than importing a file that the copyright holder never offered under a free license, if we're going to be illustrating that article either way. If it's only been on Flickr with a free license for a few days, then we chalk it up to a mistake (which I consider to be distinct from changing one's mind) and do not consider the license valid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. My only point is that would it be worth the hassle and any possible bad press even if it was a super good image that could legally be hosted if the copyright holder really didn't want their work to be licensed as such. If one of the points of the project is to try and encourage content creators to provide high quality images for others to more freely use, it could be counterproductive to make it seem that Commons cares little about the wishes of these providers. It would seem better to project the image of being friendly than adversarial when it comes to copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

if the copyright holder really didn't want their work to be licensed as such

If there's anything we learned from Snail Guy and similar cases, it's that sometimes it's difficult to actually discern intent when there are automated processes at work, such as slapping a free license on every upload, every time.

If I recall Flickr correctly, there was a preference which amounts to your account's "default license" and so every subsequent upload is stamped with those terms, whether ARR or CC. So it's easy to forget a default and upload a whole batch that shouldn't be freely-licensed, like if you photographed someone's wedding instead of rare New Zealand snails, and then you'd have to yank the rug out from under the batch you wrongly licensed before anyone notices.

So if a license is indeed irrevocable, then it makes for a difficult judgement call when an author expresses contrary wishes, because the electronic audit trails are incontrovertible.

In the F/OSS world, I've seen the authors of repositories become upset that someone used their code that they didn't like, politically or socially, or they thought of a use that is permitted by license, but the author didn't like. Authors of computer source code can often do frightening passive-aggressive things that verge on malicious damage. Let's be thankful we're passively hosting visual/audible media here, and not source code! Elizium23 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, this is a very charitable and gentle approach, and I think it's the best. Establishing and maintaining good, trustful relationships with content creators should be top priority of Commons editors. The "snail guy" incident has already been mentioned, and it's unlikely for a good-faith photographer to go ballistic and trollish in that manner, but yes, I can see feelings being hurt if the author had indeed noticed an erroneous license, and in good faith attempted to revoke and revise it to something less free that we can't use.

If I were a content creator freely licensing my work on a third-party website, I'd be flattered if Commons reached out to me kindly and inquired about license terms. I may even be convinced to adapt the license to their needs. In fact, 15 years ago I was approached by an app developer who wanted to use a photo I'd taken and uploaded to Flickr under a CC license. I was delighted and flattered and I approved the usage.

If the author is contacted and insists that the Non-Commercial clause must apply, then no harm, no foul, we don't need to incorporate those works into Commons. But if we do contact them and they accept, then we've just earned a relationshp of trust.

It's a very true saying that It's better to ask permission, than forgiveness. Elizium23 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the images in question has been takenn in july 2011. I do not know, if it is possible to know the uplaod date at flickr. The license has been changed in october 2011. This image was available under a free license no more than 3 month, but maybe only for a minute. Since then it has been available under NC for 12 years. If it was the other way around, I would suspect, that the NC was in error. But as it is I assume, it was never meant to be free, but should be seen as NC from the start. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You can upload it, but it'll then be deleted. Although the licence remains irrevocable, you're going to have to prove that to COM:DR. It would also be very wise to do that pre-emptively at the time of upload, because DR loves to revisit old uploads, long after the uploader has ceased to be active and to then delete them without needing any of that bothersome discussion.

If it's published on a website with a free licence and there's a reliable archive site which has kept a copy (such as http://archive.org) then a link to the dated copy of that should be enough.

I would also ask, why are you wanting to upload it? Why are you convinced that it has ever been freely licensed? If you have evidence of that yourself, then is that sufficient for Commons' purposes? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those things that falls under the heading of "probably legal, but certainly discourteous," and I would strongly recommend against doing it. Unless there is a lot involved that I don't see here, as an admin I'd rule in favor of deletion of an image uploaded here on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would not upload any file that has a CC-BY-* 2.0 license. Commons should add a w:black box warning on all existing 2.0 uploads. Glrx (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Glrx: That continues to be the version Flickr offers, and I can't imagine we want to stop accepting virtually all uploads from Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Pdfs for deletion

Is there a way to just search for the pdfs that are up for deletion? RAN (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You can search for PDFs that currently have a {{Delete}} template on their file page with a search like this. TilmannR (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Perfect! I want to see if I can find death dates for some of the authors. --RAN (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Apparently the "insource" search ignores the "{{", so there might be false positives of files with the word "delete" anywhere else on their file page. You can read more about this search feature at mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Insource. TilmannR (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a more accurate search using the "hastemplate" feature. TilmannR (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

to solve that problem you can search " hastemplate:delete " or " insource:/\{\{[Dd]elete/ ".--RZuo (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: Apparently that second one should be "insource:"{{delete" insource:/\{\{[Dd]elete/" for performance reasons. hastemplate certainly seems like the intended way to search for templates. TilmannR (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

February 11

DR – any eyeballs free to look over one? (buildings in Saudi Arabia)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PANO 20160923 165000.jpg

This started as an uploader request (and we all know how those can turn sour!) but it looks like it's an FoP issue anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Done I closed it as "delete". - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Two Saudi users in jail

According to these reports:

• https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report

User:OsamaK (image reviewer and rollbacker) and User:Ziad (OTRS-member) were jailed by Saudi Arabia. Butcher2021 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

File names use underscores as spacers when you download

Can that be turned off in my settings? I use the file name as the caption when I migrate an image to Findagrave, and I have to manually remove the underscores, or go back to the original and cut and paste the no-underscore version. --RAN (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm not aware of such an option in the settings. It would be possible to write a script, which iterates through all the files in a directory on your hard drive and replaces the underscores in their names with spaces. TilmannR (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): : couple of ideas. On the lines of what TilmannR suggests, you could use a script on your OS. For instance if you are on Linux/MacOS, you could use a bash script like this in the folder with the images after you download them:

for fn in *"_"*;
do
    mv "$fn" "${fn//_/ }"
done

On Windows, you could use a PowerShell script to do the same:

Dir | Rename-Item -NewName { $_.Name -Replace "_"," " }

You could also use a GUI software that does bulk renaming. On Windows, Microsoft themselves offers PowerRename.

Unfortunately, I can't think of another workaround, though maybe others are more creative then me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will give it a try. --RAN (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

February 12

Possibly misidentified

I believe we had a template to use when there was a possibility of someone being misidentified in an image, when there is not enough evidence to change the name, but we still want people to be aware of the controversy. Any ideas? --RAN (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Besides {{Fact disputed}}? Or is that what you are referring to? - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! That is it, not intuitive, I will make a few redirects. --RAN (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Nominating hundreds of files for deletion

As discussed previously (2009, 2022), most of the images in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Category:National Ignition Facility need to be deleted as copyright violations. However, this entails hundreds of images. How does one go about nominating such huge sets of images for deletion? Does anyone have experience with this or would be willing to help? Nosferattus (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• VFC is a pretty good tool for starting a mass deletion request. If you have a number of images that clearly will sink or swim togther -- where there is almost no chance that some will be deleted but others are OK -- then a mass deletion request is a good way to go. On the other hand, if there may be different issues for different images, then please try to separate them up front, because it gets really tricky to get into those image-by-image discussions in the context of a mass DR. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• E.g. in this case, if we got some images uploaded by someone claiming to represent the copyright holder, others off a Flickr account, etc., we'd want to group those separately. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• https://flickr.com/photos/37916456@N02/with/10139095874/ looks like a quite legit Flickr stream. Surely you're not thinking about nominating these? Multichill (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Good question. I guess the ones sourced to that Flickr stream are OK since the government is claiming they are public domain (even if they don't provide any author or source information). The ones from the NIF and LLNL websites need to be deleted though. Nosferattus (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 14

Eligible for copyright?

I created this simplified and vectorized version of this original video game logo to be able to upload it as pd-textlogo. I'd appreciate the assessment by users with more experience regarding the threshold of copyrightability. Was it worth the effort or could I have uploaded the original without worries? The textures and bullet holes is what made me decide against. Or is my version possibly still to original? I'd like to have more opinions before spending time on similar designs. Best regards. Emberwit (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Two comments. First I think the little stars probably push it over the threshold of originality. You should remove those. Second, what is the purpose of this file? Since it isn't the actual logo, it should not be used on any Wikipedia articles about the game. If a Wikipedia needs a logo for this game, they need to allow fair use files. This pattern of using pseudo-logos on non-fair-use wikis is a terrible idea and shouldn't be allowed. We could probably be sued for diluting their trademarks. Nosferattus (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My intention was that if we cannot display a logo as a significant and recognizable characteristic of a product of its time to still try to convey it’s idea as originally as possible. The logo, a product of its time itself, is an essential part of the outline of a cultural work. Honestly I did not think about your point that a non-original logo should maybe not be used at all before. It’s a good point and I will consider it. In that relation, what do you think about vectorized, digitized or any other reproduced versions of original (non-eligible) logos? Aren’t those just approximations as well? Is it about the conscious omission of details? Regards, Emberwit (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Emberwit. You might want to ask about this at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games before uploading anything. Commons is primarily concerned with the copyright status and the COM:SCOPE of the content it hosts. It's not really too concerned with how this content is being used on other Wikimedia Foundation Projects like English Wikipedia. Often many local projects have their own community-wide policies and guidelines that apply to all images and then sometimes additional supplementary policies and guidelines established by local WikiProjects related to certain genre of articles. I would imagine that in most cases a logo being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a video game would be expected to be the actual logo being used by the game's creator, but you'd probably should ask those more familiar with video game articles about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Category:1

Hi, This category contains several misplaced subcategories, which should be in Category:1 (number), but I can't find where the issue comes from. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

They all seem to be categorized automatically through Template:Groups. Category:2 seems to have the same problem. Pinging @Joshbaumgartner ... El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

An easier to use HELP section on Wikimedia Commons would be useful.

Forgive me, as new user here, but I do think that there could be an easier way of asking questions on the Commons set up. It seems to me, from what I am seeing as new user at least, a bit difficult to find where you can ask questions or receive responses. May I suggest a simple 'box' or even Speech bubble icon that you can enter questions, which will then hyperlink or whatever, for all admin to be able to respond to? And they can answer if they wish to. This would avoid having to encode in a complex format, and encourage I believe more responsiveness in community interaction. This is not a criticism just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayswonder (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alwayswonder when you signed up to Commons today, you got an message on your talk page (and a notification that you got a message on your talk pages with a link to the message on your talk page). The message consists of four friendly colored boxes, one of them comes with the icon of a question mark and contains a link to the help desk where you can ask anything and users (admins among them) will answer. You can also ask here and will get an answer from users (admins among them). There are millions of things that could become better here, but I seems difficult, to make it even easier to ask for help, as it already is. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like @Alwayswonder is struggling with the wiki markup - which is understandable. Back in the days, it was simple and modern compared to the alternatives, but today it is ancient technology. Trying to start a new discussion at the village pump using the button you'll find at the top of the page will lead you here, which is the old-fashioned way of doing things (including manually signing your post, and you're not even told to do so). We're used to it, but that's a pretty crappy user experience for anyone new. It would probably be a good idea to figure out how to use the full suite of new talk page technology on non-talk page pages. El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, there is one of those new "Add topic" tabs at the top of the page. Why on earth do we still have the old "start a new discussion" button doing it the old-fashioned way? El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

File:-2020-11-20 Brass, Lady Ann Heydon (died 1561), Saint Mary’s, Baconsthorpe, Norfolk.JPG

Can I get a check on whether this over-quotes its documentation? It has a pretty massive quote in its description. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Seems a bit much to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

February 15

Photo challenge December results

Under the hood: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	carburetor Solex 31PIC7	Motore di un pullman non funzionante, fermo nel traffico di Roma	Honda Heritage Museum (Marysville,Ohio) - Accord 3.5L SOHC i-VTEC V6 EarthDreams engine and transmission
Author	KaiBorgeest	Albarubescens	Nheyob
Score	10	8	8

Breaking the rules: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Angular brick in a wall at Uelzen main station, Germany	An upside down room at Museum of Illusions, Hamburg	Breaking the prohibition against diving into the water.
Author	Mozzihh	Lusi Lindwurm	Tabrus
Score	16	11	9

Congratulations to Mozzihh, Lusi Lindwurm, Tabrus, KaiBorgeest, Albarubescens and Nheyob. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Video game trailers

• c:File:Hogwarts Legacy Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm
• c:File:Gotham Knights - Official Cinematic Launch Trailer.webm
• c:File:MK11 Official Spawn Gameplay Trailer.webm
• c:File:MultiVersus – Official Cinematic Trailer - "You're with Me!".webm

Maybe it's just me but i find it hard to believe that whoever's behind the YouTube channel actually managed to get permission from the publishers to release their titles (trailers) under a license that explicitly allows for commercial use by anyone for anything.

Anyone got a clue what happened? Are they really that charitable or is there some bug that causes channel operators to change to the "Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)" by mistake?--Trade (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

• It certainly does seem to be an official YouTube channel. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

  The question is more whether or not their social media manager are actually authorized to licence their Warner Brother's property out Trade (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2023 (UTC)