Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Is "King Of Jazz" (1930) in the public domain?

Someone from archive.org says so but I can't find that information anywhere else. Do you know any databases where I can check this? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:19, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Already answered at COM:VPC where you posted the same question. --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig Thanks. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:41, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Rosenzweig τ 19:33, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

deletion of my all images

Why delete all my uploads from User:Shonyx 136.158.60.178 01:47, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe because you are bringing a lot of unnecessary drama to the project? Maybe because you are violating copyrights? Just guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
What is going on with this user? Most of the DR's comes off as being rather unhinged Trade (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: Both user and IP are now blocked.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Creator:Robert L. Knudsen

At the template Creator:Robert L. Knudsen "Storm Lake" appears twice, how do I get rid of the second one? RAN (talk) 20:17, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Creator templates normally only fetch data from wikidata, but this one is filled out. remove the sections you find unnecessary or redundant (if they are already recorded on wikidata). RZuo (talk) 20:25, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Category for aquariums in restaurants？

  • example
    example
  • Aquarium Restaurant
    Aquarium Restaurant

not the ones for decoration but for keeping the seafood alive. commonly found in asian seafood restaurants. what should they be called? aquariums in restaurants? restaurant aquariums?

problem is there're also restaurants that use aquariums as a gimmick/theme of decoration. how to tell the two apart?--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Fish tanks in restaurants Broichmore (talk) 08:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Oswald the Lucky Rabbit ad.jpg

Hello, I noticed that the source for this image is wrong - that ad doesn't appear in "The Film Daily" in 1927 (Jan-Jun or Jul-Dec) and I can't find it anywhere else. The uploader, CokesBucks, has been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting and his main account is inactive since 2020. What should I do? Just nominate the image for deletion? Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 15:16, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@Kazachstanski nygus: By its content, it must be around that time. You could nominate it for deletion if you want to force the issue of someone else doing the research to get the source right, but it is presumably legitimately public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:50, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kazachstanski nygus: I found it in the linked source and updated our link to point to the page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:11, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2024-03

Volunteer staff changes

In February 2024, 2 sysops were elected; 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 188 sysops.

Election:

Removal:

We thank him for his service.

Other news

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 20:36, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Mixture of photographs / pictures from different eras / different buildings

Hi. I was viewing pictures from the UK House of Commons. The category mixes photographs from the current House of Commons, as it was rebuilt under Churchill's premiership, with those of pre-WWII, and even those from the early XIXth century before the fire that destroyed most of the Palace of Westminster. Shouldn't these eras be separated? David.Monniaux (talk) 12:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

@David.Monniaux: This is a sort of thing we sometimes do, and sometimes don't. Feel free to break it down into subcategories, but if you do then please provide enough description for each cat so that it should be moderately straightforward for editors to find the correct category and expect to put some time into category maintenance here over the course of years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
If it's a different room, I'd consider splitting it. What isn't really helpful in there are the crops of photos in that category where the chamber isn't visible (sample). Enhancing999 (talk) 14:37, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions on how to display a digital recreation of a statue?

I had a file that was deleted because some users believed it wasn't within scope because it only showed the digital recreation (thinking it was only fantasy). At least that's what I gather, since in the "Deletion Discussion" my questions were not answered.

How can I be able to present it in order to fall within scope and be accepted by Wikimedia guidelines?

I come here because my questions were NOT answered during the "Deletion Discussion". And I am not asking for the video to be undelete or reinstated.

The image in question is a digital recreation (a digital sculpture model if we want to be more technical) of what the indigenous statue Venus of Tamtoc would look like in real life. I made this work not only as an artist but also as an Anthropologist, so both expertise were used to show how this statue would realistically look.

The file was a seconds-long webm video, which showed a nude young woman moving.

What some users were quick to note were the following: 1) Nudity, 2) A fantasy woman, 3) A woman who would not resemble the statue, 4) lack of comparison, 5) not in scope or instructional.

One user noted that after consulting the statue it did resembled. So my first would be if I should upload a file which shows both the statue AND the recreation I did, both together. Perhaps even showing a comparison of sorts. And maybe even with text which explains the features and such (i.e. the scarifications shown by the original statue). If that's not instructional, I don't know what would be? But -- like I said -- I make this question so that I know if this type of file would fall within scope of Wikimedia.

My second question is... In case this did fall within scope, then would the image of the statue had to be free in Commons, or to what degree should it be in order for me to be able to include it in this file to be uploaded to Wikimedia? This particular part, to me, is a tricky one regarding Wikimedia guidelines. How would any of you proceed in such a case?

Perhaps I did not made the file instructional enough. Or more clearly showing the comparison in a visible manner. Although I did mention it in the description, some users still insisted in how a similarity would be hard to determine. And eventhough I am biased because it my own work, I also think there is also a bias from some users since it is not European art. For instance, I asked what if someone would upload a painted portrait of Joan of Arc. It would fall in scope because it is art and probably made by a specific artist using a specific tecnique during a specific time period. But how come this painted woman would not be considered a "fantasy woman". Again, during the "discussion" the user who requested the deletion (or other users for that matter) did NOT answered this and my other questions. This idea of a "fantasy woman" would be a dangerous precedent -- at least for non-European art that portrays non-European historical figures. No one knows how Joan of Arc looked like, or Emperor Charlemagne, and still we as a society accept art that portrays historical figures, like Christ or Moses, as being normal. But my file was deleted for being "fantasy woman".

I will not apply for undeletion. But if I keep uploading the digital recreation in a different manner (be that an image or a video) Wikimedia users may, again, delete it under the before mentioned premnices. So how to present this in a way that does fall in scope and be accepted by the Wiki community as a file that presents instructional or information. Is my idea of how to do it correct? And if there is absolutely no way the Wiki community will ever accept something like this, should we start nominating for deletion art that portrays historical figures?

For more information, the deletion "discussion" was made here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm

Thanks in advance. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 01:25, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:William Richardson

Category:William Richardson and the Wikidata entry appear to be a conflation of two or more people with the same name. An engraver from the 1700s and an author of books and a man from the 1860s. I will move the images of the 1860s man to Category:William Alexander Richardson, can someone look at the other entries and see if they are for the same person or split them into new categories and create a new Wikidata entry for them? RAN (talk) 17:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

  • I also removed "President of the Ashford Chamber of Commerce" from the entry for the illustrator. I fixed some of the errors by splitting off William Alexander Richardson, but I think what remains may still be a conflation. --RAN (talk) 00:35, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

License for Wikipedia

Is there a license that is used on Commons but may not be used in certain wikipedias?2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:997E:DB0E:63D3:1323 13:18, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Yes, we have many licenses backed by VRT permission that may not be copied except by a VRT Agent. Our well-known licenses should have analogs on the Wikipedias. Is there some license you want to use on certain Wikipedias that you can't find there? Wikidata should be able to help you look. Please be specific.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Your question is not clear, but you don't need a specific license for Wikipedia if a file is available on Commons. Except a few exceptions (see COM:VPC#Disney's early works are still protected by copyright in German-speaking countries), any file on Commons can be used on any Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 13:39, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
yes, some wikipedias do not accept some licenses on commons, but it is rare. for example, Wikipedia richtet sich nach DACH-Recht, so Template:PD-Italy ist verboten. --96.94.213.161 16:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replacement of File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg

I am OperationSakura6144. I need to replace File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg with my rectified vector version[1]. I tried to do that via "Upload a new version of this file" method but it continuously warns me "If you do not provide suitable license and source information, your upload will be deleted without further notice. Thank you for your understanding.". What info should I give in the description, so that it would freely let me upload my desired version? I am waiting for your answers. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 07:38, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/290. The proposal to "Limit file overwriting to users with autopatrol rights" was accepted with many supports and one weak oppose 15:19, 23 September 2023 (UTC). After an implementation problem in phab:T345896 and testing, Special:AbuseFilter/290 went live with the Disallow action 09:35, 28 October 2023 (UTC). Please read MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-file-overwriting. You may request COM:AP at COM:RFR when you think you are ready (once you have made more than 500 useful non-botlike edits); having that should allow you to overwrite. You may also request an exception for a particular file at COM:OWR. You may ask an Admin to merge your file into File: Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg at COM:HMS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:18, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Convenience links: File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.svg, File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture.svg

File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg[2] is being used in Vietnamese wikipedia page navboxes as a flag of Kumamoto Prefecture instead of File:Flag of Kumamoto. Prefecture.svg[3]. I would like you all to replace File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg with File:Flag of Kumamoto. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Each Wikimedia project can choose for themselves which images to use. If they want to use the jpg instead of the svg, that is up to them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you, but File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg depicts the flag of Kuma village in Kumamoto, not the Kumamoto Prefecture. I want File:Flag of Kuma Kumamoto.jpg to be replaced with File:Flag of Kumamoto Prefecture or any vector image or symbols that represents Kumamoto Prefecture, I want nothing than that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:37, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
If you want to change which image is used on the Vietnamese Wikipedia, you can edit there. Even if they are currently just plain wrong, that is not Commons' affair. - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Free speech to text tool?

i wanna put up some videos for com:motd, but i'm too lazy to transcribe them. is there a free stt tool for mandarin chinese that i can feed the commons videos in? RZuo (talk) 10:57, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category for people moving / travelling

i'm looking for a parent category of Category:People crossing borders, supposedly a category for people travelling in general? does one already exist? if not, is Category:People moving good enough for this? RZuo (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Travellers? - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
there will be problems similar to Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:People swimming.
these "-ers" categories are often used for certain people, regardless of what the actual content is.
whereas "people doing something" is meant for people engaged in that activity.--RZuo (talk) 22:27, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to delete my files.

I need to delete these files: File:Flag of Mashiki, Kumamoto.png[4] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto.png[5] File:Flag of Minamioguni, Kumamoto.png[6] File:Flag of Nankan, Kumamoto.png[7] File:Flag of Mifune, Kumamoto (rectified version).svg[8]

I have nominated for their deletions, but I don't think it can help me in this situation. Please, somebody delete those files for me or suggest a way so that I get free from this mess. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 02:13, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Hi, and welcome. Please allow the DRs to run their course per COM:DR, and use internal links. If you are in a hurry to delete your own recent uploads, you may use {{G7}} per COM:CSD#G7.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:09, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
My preceding reply was rolled back by Orchi. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
Likely just an inadvertent misclick. Files have already been deleted. --Túrelio (talk) 11:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
.....thank you very much Túrelio for the explanation of my unintentional mistake. Excuse me please. Orchi (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

I need to replace File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg.

I've just created File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg. It needs to be used in place of File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG. If you're reading this, please replace File:Flag of Nagomi Kumamoto.JPG with File:Flag of Nagomi, Kumamoto.svg in all Wikipedia pages.

Also, to mention, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms after this for a while and start my business here after that. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

  • @OperationSakura6144: By "It needs to be used in place of", do you mean in one or more Wikipedia articles? Presumably, you can edit these as readily as anyone else (and take your own responsibility for edits that might be controversial rather than asking someone else to make them for you). - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Report of the U4C Charter ratification and U4C Call for Candidates now available

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

I am writing to you today with two important pieces of information. First, the report of the comments from the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) Charter ratification is now available. Secondly, the call for candidates for the U4C is open now through April 1, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Per the charter, there are 16 seats on the U4C: eight community-at-large seats and eight regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 16:24, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

New team proposal

In the page Wikipedia/2.0, in the section “SVG logos” I noticed that the Wikipedia logos in various languages are a bit different each others, like blurry puzzle logo or not perfectly centered words, or different fonts usage, and tons of other minimal differencies. My proposal is to suggest to create a new team that rebuild all Wikipedia logos following the rules of the page https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wikimedia_trademarks//Word_mark_creation and takes care of guarantee uniformity.

This new team could be named "Wikipedia logo uniformity protection team".

It is a good proposal? --93.47.37.244 10:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

This is a copy of a conversation from 7 March above. If you want to say something more on the subject, it is best to add it there rather than start again. In answer to your question, I have no interest in this. Also, even if I was interested, I wouldn't want to take on a long term project to help an unregistered user. Your choice not to make the small effort to register doesn't inspire confidence that you intend to stick around for a long term project. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

The Great Proof of Existence.

Off topic

I have developed a truly grand proof which proves why the universe exists unfortunately the character limit of this page is too small to write it all down. I do have the answer though. The answer is that the universe is an infinite recursion cycle of infinite universes. There is no start or end. Each universe generates more universes.(I leave this as an exercise to the reader to prove.). But what about the first universe? Thats the thing. Time does not move like it does outside of our universe. The space-time is not the same. And the properties are not the same. So. the first universe can also be the TREE(42)'th one since space-time beyond space-time is something called super-space-time. It is undefinable in any human interpretable way. So order is disorder and vice verca. But what caused the generation process of recursion to start? It is very simple. The being of nothing implies the generation of everything. Now this is a difficult proof I also leave as an exercise to the reader.

Regards, ZebraCancer99 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZebraCancer99 (talk • contribs) 20:53, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Unfortunately the deadline for submission of Nobel Prize nominations has been 5 weeks ago. --Achim55 (talk) 21:13, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@ZebraCancer99: How is this relevant to Wikimedia Commons? Whose cosmology are you espousing, Douglas Adams, Lowell Cunningham, DC Comics, or Marvel Comics?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:17, 6 March 2024 (UTC)


Wikimedia Canada survey

Hi! Wikimedia Canada invites contributors living in Canada to take part in our 2024 Community Survey. The survey takes approximately five minutes to complete and closes on March 31, 2024. It is available in both French and English. To learn more, please visit the survey project page on Meta. --Chelsea Chiovelli (WMCA) (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

New team proposal

In the page Wikipedia/2.0, in the section “SVG logos” I noticed that the Wikipedia logos in various languages are a bit different each others, like blurry puzzle logo or not perfectly centered words, or different fonts usage, and tons of other minimal differencies. My proposal is to suggest to create a new team that rebuild all Wikipedia logos following the rules of the page https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Legal:Wikimedia_trademarks//Word_mark_creation and takes care of guarantee uniformity.

This new team could be named "Wikipedia logo uniformity protection team".

It is a good proposal? --2001:B07:6442:8903:5E2:5AE6:8707:E742 10:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

See Commons:Village_pump#c-From_Hill_To_Shore-20240311102700-93.47.37.244-20240311101300 below. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I have removed the "section resolved" from this thread. On the duplicated thread on 11 March, I advised them to continue this earlier discussion and marked the 11 March one as resolved. I am not comfortable with you citing my response there as the reason for closing this one too. If you have a separate reason for closing this thread, you are welcome to state it and restore the section resolved tag. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry about that, I was going to link the section, but as it has the same heading, it's not really possibly.
In any case, I agree with your point. I even think that - practically - IPs can't form teams. Besides, logos displayed on WP are handled by WMF staff, not Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Does a whole book belong here

@BahYajé e Y4guarEtã: This file contains the entire Portuguese translation (130 pages) of the 9th edition of the SI Brochure. Does such a file belong here, or should it be moved to Wikisource, but the cover page be kept in Commons? Martinvl (talk) 14:37, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Martinvl: We already have thousands of books on Commons. No problem for hosting books in the public domain or under a free license. Yann (talk) 14:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Some cleanup needed?

A lot of images in Category:Green SVG padlock icons should belong to the Category:Page Protection Padlock Redesign - Green icons‎ subcategory, which perhaps should also be split into subcategories depending on the icon, but I digress. Any idea how one could automatically move-a-lot? Aaron Liu (talk) 17:40, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Aaron Liu: see Help:Gadget-HotCat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I have that. However, AFAIK that only works on one page at a time. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Aaron Liu: Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. - Jmabel ! talk 23:26, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Nice, thanks. Aaron Liu (talk) 23:30, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

No bot rotating images

some days ago User:SteinsplitterBot/Rotatebot malfunctioned and has been shut down since then. its source code https://github.com/toollabs/Rotatebot . :/ --RZuo (talk) 20:55, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Meanwhile, just one page section above, the WMF is very busy with “U4C” and other assorted makework. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:34, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Well clearly, U4C is much more important than the mundane problems we're facing here. (Or not ...) --Rosenzweig τ 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Special shapes categories

Sometimes there are some remarkable shapes in nature. Are there categories for it?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Maybe under category:Pareidolias? Or maybe (deep) under category:Unusual? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Unusually shaped trees is perfect.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
To whom it may concern, I think we should differ the trees on wether they are shaped like this naturally (as if this is taxon's speciality) or if such curves were man-made for easier shaping in ie. sled making process. A09 (talk) 22:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Flags of Japan

I am here to address that some Wikipedia articles and WikiComms pages still use old images depicting flags of Japanese municipalities that needs to be replaced globally. Those are:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG

I have globally replaced most of the files with my vectorized versions, both manually and using GlobalReplace tool. Even though, some of them remained unreplaced after the process. Therefore, I'm leaving this job to you to replace these obsolete flags with my vectorized versions. Here are they:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif → File:Flag of Enzan,Yamanashi (1954–2005).svg

File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG → File:Flag of Himeshima, Oita.svg

File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png → File:Flag of Iwai, Ibaraki (1971–2005).svg

File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Kuroiso, Tochigi (1958–2005).svg

File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG → File:Flag of Miharu, Fukushima.svg

File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png → File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima (1955–1966).svg

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG → File:Flag of Nichinan, Tottori.svg

File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png → File:Flag of Niitsu, Niigata (1951–2005).svg

File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Nikko, Tochigi (1893–2006).svg

File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Nishimera. Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG → File:Flag of Shinjō, Okayama.svg

File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG → File:Flag of Tenryu, Shizuoka (1959–2005).svg

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg → File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1955–2006).svg

File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Tsuno, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Yamagata, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Koumi, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG → File:Flag of Yoshioka, Gunma.svg

To add, after all of this is done, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms for a while, and after the break, I will start continuing my contributions on WikiComms. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Please use internal links when making lists like this. When people omit one or two, I add the convenience links as a courtesy, but I'm not taking 5-10 minutes to clean up after an experienced user who should know how to make links. - Jmabel ! talk 08:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I thought you would recognize the filenames and do the work for me. I've added the links to the mentioned files now. Please start the replacement. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 14:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: Those are external links. Jmabel meant internal links.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Which, not to put too fine a point on it, is how we normally write names of files here, and if you are going to go around trying to tell people how to do things you would do well to first learn the basics yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 18:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I've added internal links now. It looks messy right now, but you gotta focus more on replacing the old flags with my vector versions, than to chitchat and find flaws and mistakes in my topic. Please, I don't want you angry now but you should start the replacement for me. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

REPOST: Replace the flags!!

I am here to address that some Wikipedia articles and WikiComms pages still use old images depicting flags of Japanese municipalities that needs to be replaced with their vectorized versions globally. I have globally replaced most of the files with my vectorized versions, both manually and using GlobalReplace tool. Even though, some of them remained unreplaced after the process. Therefore, I'm leaving this job to you to replace these obsolete flags with my vectorized versions. Here it follows:

File:Flag of Enzan Yamamashi.gif → File:Flag of Enzan,Yamanashi (1954–2005).svg

File:Flag of Himeshima Oita.JPG → File:Flag of Himeshima, Oita.svg

File:Flag of Iwai Ibaraki.png → File:Flag of Iwai, Ibaraki (1971–2005).svg

File:Flag of Kuroiso Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Kuroiso, Tochigi (1958–2005).svg

File:Flag of Miharu Fukushima.JPG → File:Flag of Miharu, Fukushima.svg

File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima.png → File:Flag of Nakoso, Fukushima (1955–1966).svg

File:Flag of Nichinan Tottori.JPG → File:Flag of Nichinan, Tottori.svg

File:Flag of Niitsu Niigata.png → File:Flag of Niitsu, Niigata (1951–2005).svg

File:Flag of Former Nikko Tochigi.JPG → File:Flag of Nikko, Tochigi (1893–2006).svg

File:Flag of Nishimera Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Nishimera. Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Shinjo Okayama.JPG → File:Flag of Shinjō, Okayama.svg

File:Flag of Tenryu Shizuoka.JPG → File:Flag of Tenryu, Shizuoka (1959–2005).svg

File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1959–2006).jpg → File:Flag of Tochio, Niigata (1955–2006).svg

File:Flag of Tsuno Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Tsuno, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Yamagata Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Yamagata, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Koumi Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Koumi, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Yoshiokawa Gunma.JPG → File:Flag of Yoshioka, Gunma.svg

To add, after all of this is done, I'm gonna take a break from WikiComms for a while, and after the break, I will start continuing my contributions on WikiComms. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Please stop reposting the same discussion multiple times. The previous discussion is still open above. You have asked for help and it is up to other editors to choose whether to help or not. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello Village Pump:

I am considering uploading an image that includes within the frame an exterior art installation - “Your rainbow panorama” by Ólafur Eliasson at the ARoS Aarhus Art Museum in Denmark. It is similar to a category of such images.

I have been reading about freedom of panorama for Denmark in Wikipedia and a statement on photography at the ARoS site.

It is still not clear to me if I can upload this image under CC 4.0. Can you advise? --GRDN711 (talk) 02:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

If you don't get a satisfactory answer here, you might do better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 09:21, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Your Rainbow Panorama considered such photos to be acceptable. --Rosenzweig τ 17:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That cleared my concerns. Thank you both for your comments. --GRDN711 (talk) 23:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate and explicit images

The policy states Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope. If the images are of demonstrably inferior quality, or add nothing educationally distinct to the stock of such images we hold already, they may fail the test of being realistically useful for an educational purpose. Instead there is an enormous amount of such images and videos, as confirmed by this article. Is there something we can do so that this policy is correctly implementated? Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 14 novembre (talk • contribs) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC) 14 novembre (talk) 18:38, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

an FYI: en:Special:Permalink/1212818666#Inappropriate_and_explicit_images_on_Commons ─ Aafī (talk) 18:47, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi Sorry I don't know, what does FYI mean? Thanks and kins reagards 14 novembre (talk) 18:50, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Hi @14 novembre. It means "For your information". I just left it here for others who may attempt to answer your question. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 18:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@TheAafi Ok, thanks and kind reagards again 14 novembre (talk) 18:53, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Yout article is 11 years old... Trade (talk) 19:17, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
And that article refers to a controversy long since resolved, with the images in question being deleted and (if I recall correctly) the user who commissioned the image that was clearly an implicit attack on Jimbo Wales banned.
If there are specific currently hosted images that you consider to be out of scope, please be more specific. - Jmabel ! talk 22:07, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
No, that controversy has not at all been solved and I don't know why you think it is.
It's an arbitrary example they picked in the article, equivalent images to the example are still here which is fine but they're also showing up in unexpected search results or children's games categories and so on. And I'd reject any suggestion that the latter is WMC culture, with whom the person is not familiar with, which could be how some people may interpret your below comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective: I was referring specifically to the Pricasso "paintings" and, in particular, the commissioned "portrait" of Jimbo. - Jmabel ! talk 10:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would note that User:14 novembre says they "mainly contribute on English Wikipedia," where they have less than 500 edits, all within the last eight days, with at least the vast majority being simple reverts of vandalism (and a fair number of others, e.g. at en:Sandro Tonali, being additions of rather useless links, such as linking years or repeating links to things already linked within the article). I'm not saying this to be dismissive—someone new here can have a perfectly valid opinion—but to indicate to anyone who engages here not to assume any "cultural familiarity" with Commons or even with WMF projects in general. - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel By the way, I have 1714 edits, (733 mainspace), on enwiki. Anyway yes, you're perfectly right when you say I'm not saying this to be dismissive—someone new here can have a perfectly valid opinion—but to indicate to anyone who engages here not to assume any "cultural familiarity" with Commons or even with WMF projects in general so thanks for your comments and kind regards 14 novembre (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
As usual. Category:Blackfriars Bridge has 341 images and six categories under it. It is one of 34 categories in Category:Bridges over the River Thames in London, which is one of 82 categories in Category:Bridges over the River Thames. Keep going up, and we get to Category:River Thames which has hundreds of subcategories with over 10,000 images in them. Ignoring the art categories (since it's a general practice to hold every piece of art by a notable artist if possible), Category:Nude people does not remotely have that many subcategories or images. I'm pretty sure that's not how I would rank the importance of the two subjects...--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:17, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point. Something like this has been said before which I interpreted to mean that for example, possibly mainly, the images are useful in showing human biological diversity in appearance. I noted for the same reason it would be good to have a large number of human faces if these are indeed CCBY.
Moreover, the subject is important but that doesn't justify everything, while the user seems to be concerned about the presence of these images at all, I'm only concerned about how they're part of WMC such as whether they show up directly in nudity-unrelated categories and searches. This is partly for ensuring the work of Commons contributors is useful and not for example not usable by children and not properly indexed by search engines which are given a plausible reason to do so while at the same time actually educational images are deleted because a few users voted so (if you try to be open and anti censorship then please for subjects where this is important not shallow mere nudity).
Moreover, there is an issue of tons of mundane low-quality photographs where the approach I'd propose would be making the good ones better discoverable rather than drowned in them as well as more encouraging more useful media such as illustrations and charts. There are over 600 nude photographs from just one photographer and I just checked with petscan just how many nude images we have...~240572, but I could only exclude "cat:Sex drawings" so it still includes statues and paintings (maybe somebody can rerun it with proper parameters).
And I disagree with Omaña Rojas that there is any bias against non-white nudity. If some images or videos like that were deleted it was probably due to file quality/resolution. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I would argue more about Wikimedia bias towards nudity rather than an actual nudity issue in Wikimedia. For instance, I’ve argued in several opportunities that Wikimedia (and with proof) about a tendency to be more lenient to White nudity. Not without a fight (obviously), I’ve been able to show my case and in many cases (fortunately) being able to make a change in favor of a need for non-White nudity or non-White sex-related imagery (especially to be made available for other Wikis not just for English or Europe/US-based User). In some others I’ve been unsuccessful. There’s the vicious circle of “it’s not used in Wiki pages so we delete it Wikimedia” to “it’s not in Wikimedia so we use what there is for Wiki pages”. If this is the case, then yes, there is an issue in Wikimedia. Other than that, I do not see any issue as suggested in the decade-old article. Cheers. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 03:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Prototyperspective It's an arbitrary example they picked in the article, equivalent images to the example are still here Yes, I perfectly agree 14 novembre (talk) 13:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There is a problem.

I uploaded SVG flags and emblems to replace possible files in "Top 200 symbols of municipalities in Japan images that should use vector graphics"[9]. Though I uploaded SVG symbols, I found that some Wikipedia pages still use old PNG/JPEG/GIF flags instead of replacing them with new vector ones I and my fellow contributors made, and, most of my SVG creations are left unused due to my foresaid worry. That's why I'm addressing those problems I encountered at the village pump. I would like you to fix these problems I've mentioned in my topic by urging Wikipedia editors to use SVG symbols we've made instead of obsolete PNG/JPEG/GIF ones, in the pages I've mentioned. I hope you understand me. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: no, I don't understand you. What do you want Commons to do about which images Wikipedias choose to use? Commons has no control of that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:24, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree, there is no problem. What images, users on Wikipedia choose, is their own choice. Or you can change it yourself, but I think that's a lot of work (a lot) :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:46, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
There is nothing stopping you from becoming a Wikipedia contributor, and replacing said images. Try it! - Broichmore (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Following the previous post yesterday, I'm here to call out my difficulties in replacing old PNG/JPEG/GIF Japanese municipality flags being used by Wikipedia pages with my new vectorized versions of them. I struggled to do that job but it can't help me in the long run. So, please, if you are reaading this topic, make links between old PNG/JPEG/GIF flags and my new vector flags, so that it easily replaces the former with the latter with no struggle. Please don't deny me. Please pay attention to this and simplify my job. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: No idea what you mean by "make links between" in this context, nor is it clear when you write "it easily replaces the former with the latter" what noun you mean to refer back to with "it". - Jmabel ! talk 08:19, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they refer to this type of edit diff adding {{Vector version available}} Enhancing999 (talk) 08:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, of course they are free to make such edits, and anyone else can choose to help, but I don't see why they think it would be a "struggle" for them and not for others. - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I need help to understand how to upload images on wikipedia.

I am a new member of wikipedia since 2 days, I made one post but I can't figure out how to upload an image. I've searched, did the official wiki tutorial but nothing works. It keeps saying that the image doesn't corresponde to the termes and conditions of wikipedia, even tho what I tried to post was normall images with nothing wrong on them. Not even text. I also have a bit of truble with tasks like naming the pages and basic things I have to do. Potassium12 (talk) 22:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

@Potassium12: I'm not sure exactly what you are asking, since you are talking about "Wikipedia" (whereas this is Wikimedia Commons where you are asking), but the normal tool for beginners to upload images here on Commons is Special:UploadWizard. You can also have a look at Commons:First steps. If you need further help, could you please say (1) is the image in question your own work? (2) If so, does it include any visible, copyrighted work by anyone else (e.g. a a painting on a wall)? (3) If it is not your own work, whose work is it and where did it come from? (4) Regardless of whether the work is your own or someone else's, what country is the work from? - Jmabel ! talk 22:29, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Potassium12: Hi, and welcome. I am sorry to inform you that you have triggered Special:AbuseFilter/153 by trying to cross-wiki upload png images as a new user, and Special:AbuseFilter/154 by trying to upload content that has appeared elsewhere as a new user. Such uploads of png images are not allowed at all. The following applies to each image. You indicated it's your own work. Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web. Please upload the full-size original of it per COM:HR, including any metadata, but if you were not the original image designer or photographer, that person may need to post permission on their official website or social media, or send it via VRT with a carbon copy to you. Also, it will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so you may want to upload a jpg or svg version, too. If you can't get compliant licenses, the images may still be uploaded to English Wikipedia in compliance with en:WP:F because we don't allow Fair Use here. If you use our Upload Wizard instead, you should be able to avoid filter 153. Who is the copyright holder for the "mod named I HATE FLESH"? Once you have uploaded, you may follow en:H:PIC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: «Usually when someone uploads a png image, it's a copyright violation taken from the web.» What!!??… -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
«You may want to upload a jpg» You gotta stop this nonsense, now, and go through Image File Formats 101 a bit more. You should start here. This is terrible, terrible advice. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:16, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I just checked Special:AbuseFilter/153: It indeed favours JPEG images over PNG images of the same size. This its utter nonsense: Example: A new user sees this great map in a random webpage and it’s in PNG format because it was exported from SIG or was (gasp!) drawn by hand. So, if this user tries to upload it, it’s held back (and rightly so, but just because new users have no business uploading files, anyway), but if this user saves that PNG as a JPEG file, which completely distroys the reuse potential of said great map, then it’s all peachy and the copyright issue will be spotted much later. With the added issue that the PNG original and the JPEG in Commons will not be the same pixel pattern and therefore not able to be trapped by TinEye or similar tool.
Special:AbuseFilter/153 should be re-evaluated and suspended for now, and Commons should finally develop a culture that is less photography-centered.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Steinsplitter as author of that filter, and png sensitivity in this change. I try to interpret the filter rules for the lay person (generally at COM:FILTERT), I can't edit them. See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 58#AbuseFilter for cross-wiki uploads by Nemo for background.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
The lay person should have drilled in the notion that JPEGs are great for photos and photos alone, and that PNGs are not some demonspawn files only a hacker would use. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:40, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Pinging you, too. Sorry.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Scientists CT scanned thousands of natural history specimens, which you can access for free

https://www.floridamuseum.ufl.edu/science/scientists-ct-scanned-thousands-of-natural-history-specimens-which-you-can-access-for-free/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Poking around their site and uploads (e.g. https://sketchfab.com/3d-models/fossil-banana-uf-paleobotany-15072-bae63df2f35a447686719918b877ee1d and https://www.morphosource.org/concern/media/000606231?locale=en note that at the latter, commercial use is prohibited), it seems like they are not licensed in a way that is acceptable to rehost at Commons, but it's very possible that I'm just missing something. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:31, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf: At least some of the oVert files are under Commons-compatible licences. For instance, this search finds 1,319 CC BY 4.0 files in The oVert Thematic Collections Network. --bjh21 (talk) 09:55, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for being much smarter than me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
In case anyone else is playing along: File:Perca flavescens head-000158684.stl —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback needed on proposed changes to Describe step

Hi all! As part of our work on improving UploadWizard, we are now collecting feedback on some proposed changes to its "Describe" step. Please, feel free to join our discussion in our project talk page, and share your feedback. We are looking for your opinion to improve further our suggested changes. Thanks in advance to those who will participate! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy that you've notified the people who browse the village pump as we'd get to see more feedback. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees 2024 Selection

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

This year, the term of 4 (four) Community- and Affiliate-selected Trustees on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees will come to an end [1]. The Board invites the whole movement to participate in this year’s selection process and vote to fill those seats.

The Elections Committee will oversee this process with support from Foundation staff [2]. The Board Governance Committee created a Board Selection Working Group from Trustees who cannot be candidates in the 2024 community- and affiliate-selected trustee selection process composed of Dariusz Jemielniak, Nataliia Tymkiv, Esra'a Al Shafei, Kathy Collins, and Shani Evenstein Sigalov [3]. The group is tasked with providing Board oversight for the 2024 trustee selection process, and for keeping the Board informed. More details on the roles of the Elections Committee, Board, and staff are here [4].

Here are the key planned dates:

  • May 2024: Call for candidates and call for questions
  • June 2024: Affiliates vote to shortlist 12 candidates (no shortlisting if 15 or less candidates apply) [5]
  • June-August 2024: Campaign period
  • End of August / beginning of September 2024: Two-week community voting period
  • October–November 2024: Background check of selected candidates
  • Board's Meeting in December 2024: New trustees seated

Learn more about the 2024 selection process - including the detailed timeline, the candidacy process, the campaign rules, and the voter eligibility criteria - on this Meta-wiki page, and make your plan.

Election Volunteers

Another way to be involved with the 2024 selection process is to be an Election Volunteer. Election Volunteers are a bridge between the Elections Committee and their respective community. They help ensure their community is represented and mobilize them to vote. Learn more about the program and how to join on this Meta-wiki page.

Best regards,

Dariusz Jemielniak (Governance Committee Chair, Board Selection Working Group)

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections/2021/Results#Elected

[2] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Committee:Elections_Committee_Charter

[3] https://foundation.wikimedia.org/wiki/Minutes:2023-08-15#Governance_Committee

[4] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Foundation_elections_committee/Roles

[5] Even though the ideal number is 12 candidates for 4 open seats, the shortlisting process will be triggered if there are more than 15 candidates because the 1-3 candidates that are removed might feel ostracized and it would be a lot of work for affiliates to carry out the shortlisting process to only eliminate 1-3 candidates from the candidate list.

MPossoupe_(WMF)19:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Benjamin Franklin

Category:Benjamin Franklin has got 93 categories (24 of them red, some America-related, some United-States related). Wonder if this is the leading category in the Has-most-categories-competition? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

The categories seem to be taken from the English-language Wikipedia. This isn't a bad strategy as they tend to have generally more detailed category trees for people than the Wikimedia Commons, when making those red links blue it's probably also important to connect them with the right Wikidata item. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:28, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
A lot of those categories seem unlikely to be relevant to Commons, though. For instance, Category:84-year-old deaths, Category:English-language spelling reform advocates, and Category:Respiratory disease deaths in Pennsylvania are all focused on categorizing Franklin as a person, not categorizing the media files associated with him. Commons categories don't need to describe every property of an entity; that's what we have Wikidata and Wikipedia for. Omphalographer (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
+ 2 to that. Categories shouldn't take up a whole screen and a lot them should just be deleted. Especially the ones mentioned by Omphalographer. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Moving Category:Fort A.P. Hill

I'm working on moving Category:Fort A.P. Hill, somewhat belatedly after creating a discussion back in October. The subject of the category has been renamed Fort Walker, but currently Category:Fort Walker is a redirect to a smaller category. Is it appropriate to replace the redirect with this category via a move, and add a note to the category pointing people to the smaller category if they are looking for it? If so, what is the process for this? – OdinintheNorth (talk) 17:56, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Convenience links: Category:Fort A.P. Hill, Category:Fort Walker.
{{Distinguish}} will suffice. Make sure you do this by deleting the current Category:Fort Walker and doing a proper move of Category:Fort A.P. Hill. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing me in the right direction! I believe I've completed all the steps and Category:Fort Walker is now moved and set correctly. – OdinintheNorth (talk) 18:33, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Russian symbols and flags

Similar that to letter "Z" used by the Russian Armed Forces during the invasion of Ukraine, but I recently tagged {{Russian militarism symbol}} as a symbol used by the Russian Federation and its Armed Forces, an organization closely associated to it, or another party advocating or glorifying wars of aggression or aggressive conduct, for files can affected:

Ferretivo (talk) 11:24, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

All kinds of symbols could be used for Russian aggression, so I would be inclined to say that the third file is reasonable to tag, but the first two are so general and broad that I find it hard to believe that in Czechia it would be illegal to even display a Russian flag. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:35, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf: Including the Russian Empire and the Soviet Union flags and symbols as well? Ferretivo (talk) 11:56, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I think it depends a lot more on how they are actually used than hypothetically used: is it common that someone displaying [image] is using it to say, "Russia trying to genocide Ukrainians is cool"? If so, then I agree with adding the template. If it's just one of a raft of images that a Russian war apologists is liable to use, then no. In other words, the question is "If you see this image, is it likely that it's being used for aggression apologia?" not "Would a Russian war apologist use this media?" because the latter would apply to File:Владимир Путин (18-06-2023) (cropped).jpg or a million other images. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:59, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 Comment Yes, as long as most of the mentioned countries still continue to recognize the Moscow regime and to maintain diplomatic relations with it, showcase of Russian flag is surely not illegal there and such a disclaimer is not in place (and if it was, then we had to tag all the images from Category:Photographs of the national flag of Russia and its numerous sub-(sub-...)cats with this; not just the one SVG flag). --A.Savin 12:07, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: There is no single national symbol which would be banned all over the world, but current Russian and Communist Chinese symbols should be treated as banned symbols of Germany or Soviet Union. Eurohunter (talk) 22:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Symbols are also related to these branches of the Russian Armed Forces as a glorification of war in Ukraine. Ferretivo (talk) 04:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe they are related, however we shouldn't just broadly tag every Russian flag from every century because of the tragic war that's happening. A09 (talk) 16:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Should be such symbols banned because you said so or because current legal situation prohibits them? This is an important difference and I think we should only follow the latter of the two situations I described. A09 (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose per Justin, unless proven otherwise. Also please refrain from tagging categories of affected files with this template as it's not the template's scope. A09 (talk) 22:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose as well. Non-copyright restriction templates are generally overused, IMO. They should only be used in situations where the media itself constitutes a specific and unusual legal risk to downstream users of the content, e.g. {{Indian boundaries}}, {{ΤΑΠ}}, {{United States emergency alert tones}}, etc. They shouldn't be used simply because a piece of media is simply associated with a legally prohibited expression (e.g. the Russian national flag vs. glorification of Russian military aggression). Omphalographer (talk) 20:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

PD US Expired 1903?

It would appear that many works created in the United States before 1903 have expired copyright and thus are in the public domain [10]. English Wikipedia seems to agree. Shouldn't there be a usage tag for this case? The "PD US expired" tag does not cover this at it only deals with published works. This means some PD works (example) are left improperly tagged. -Indy beetle (talk) 03:25, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Indy beetle: Hi, and welcome. We have one, {{PD-old-assumed}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Specifically for US works which remained unpublished before 2003 and were created at least 120 years ago there is also {{PD-US-unpublished}}. Though you should really know the specific works wasn't published before 2003 to use that tag. --Rosenzweig τ 10:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Rosenzweig is correct that the section of the chart you are looking at refers to unpublished works, which are {{PD-US-unpublished}}. We don't have a lot of actually old "unpublished" works on Commons, as it is rare for a Commons uploader to have some sort of exclusive/private access to an old work (usually an old work is available to a Commons uploader because someone else previously published it somewhere). By the way, your first link is an out of date reproduction of Peter B. Hirtle's Copyright Term and the Public Domain. I've linked to the location where Hirtle keeps his up-to-date version. Commons also maintains a copy of the Hirtle chart at Commons:Hirtle chart, modified to add the corresponding Commons copyright template for each entry in the chart. —RP88 (talk) 10:48, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, we have a fair number of people with access to old family archives, etc., that contain previously unpublished work. When those are mid-20th-century, we often have a copyright muddle (a lot of orphaned works) but it is very important that 120-year-old works are OK in that context. Also, anything published in 2003 or later is subject to that rule about 120 years from creation (or 70 p.m.a. if the author is known). - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Bias?

A video I made with Anthropological rigour (I’m an Anthropologist) was deleted because according to some it was a deemed a “fantasy woman” just because she was nude (like the statue I was portraying). And yet there’s this image File:Aurignacian Woman.jpg and it is accepted by the Wikimedia community. Since during the deletion process no one answered me why it was considered “fantasy”. Can the community explain to me what would fall under the umbrella of being “fantasy”. And what is the red line, sort of speak, of scope in Wikimedia for history knowledge. Since an Anthropological work was deleted but an actual fantastic depictions remain in Wikimedia!Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 06:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You appear to be referring to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Venus de Tamtoc 2.webm. As the file is deleted, only administrators can look at it, so most readers of this page will have difficulty commenting. I'd suggest asking the people involved in the discussion to explain what they meant. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
If you wish, you can appeal a deletion at Commons:Undeletion requests. —RP88 (talk) 11:11, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
could you please link to 2 of your publications so as to verify your status as an anthropologist? RZuo (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this would be ethical or even legal in this scenario. See COM:PRIVACY. A09 (talk) 18:18, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
The Wikimedia privacy policy does not bar users from voluntarily identifying themselves. If a user makes a claim of authority like "I'm an Anthropologist", it isn't out of line for us to ask them to substantiate that claim. Omphalographer (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
  •  Comment If there is "bias" I presume it must have been mine, as I nominated the image for deletion discussion. Background: I am interested in anthropology, took graduate level courses in it, and but for rather random life events might have gone into that as a profession myself. I have a great interest in pre-Columbian Mesoamerica, and have long helped improve Wikimedia coverage of relevant topics. I was slightly familiar with the so called "Venus de Tamtoc" from coverage in online anthropology press articles. I don't recall how I first noticed the video on Commons, but my opinion of what I saw was rather different from what you describe and presumably intended (I had my say on the listing, I see no need to repeat). We apparently had a difference of opinion on how educationally useful the file was, and this particular deletion discussion went against the file. Nudity and anthropological credentials were not issues under consideration for me and don't think were relevant to the deletion discussion. As to the "Aurignacian Woman" file, I suggest you list it for deletion discussion, as an anthropologist perhaps you could do a good job of pointing out the problems - I would agree for deletion if I saw it listed. There are no doubt a great many files on Commons which are of dubious usefulness - describing such files as "accepted by the Wikimedia community" seems to me an inappropriate assumption, as I'd guess most such have generally not been widely noticed. Cheers, and with hopes in the future we can both find ways of improving coverage of Mesoamerican anthropology topics on Commons, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Search own work

i dont know if something has existed, but i just created Template:Search own work, which you can put on any page to generate an inputbox that helps you search within all own works of a given user. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I totally don't get this. I see it is intended to be used in all namespaces, so can you give an example right here of using it correctly? - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
RZuo (talk) 18:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I guess I can use it as a tool to find where people have slapped {{Own}} on my files, which is against my wishes and which I have always reverted when I noticed it! - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Painting Copy of the British Attack on Bocachica by Luis Gordillo in 1994

Hello, this painting is a copy of a lithograph from "Episodios Marítimos" (Maritime Episodes), published in Madrid in 1849. This painting was made by Luis Fernández Gordillo in 1994 (see Google Arts & Culture). Did the copyright expire? -Artanisen (talk) 21:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That is an interesting one. The copyright of the engraving will have expired. However, if this is the 1994 painting, a new derivative work with its own copyright will have been created. The copyright of the 1994 work would still be in place for several decades no matter where it was made/published. Technically, the 1994 painting might not have a new copyright if it is a slavish reproduction of the engraving, but I think the change of medium makes that unlikely. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Particular location of sculpture

Is there a name for sculptures in this particular position in a room (at the juncture of wall and ceiling)? Are they considered a type of capital? Do we have a category? - Jmabel ! talk 22:52, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Got it. They are just considered corbels, or to be more precise "corbel figures" since they are representational. - Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 06:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Old bank notes: Bulk upload opportunity

Is anyone able to run a bot or script to upload all the images of OOC banknotes from this auction? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Slowking4

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Slowking4 who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Slowking4 (2). Thank you. Seawolf35 (talk) 19:35, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Your wiki will be in read-only soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 20 March. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 March 2024.
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
  • GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF), 00:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Can I upload this image?

I want to upload one of the insignias from the right hand side of this page (https://web.archive.org/web/20130716085150/http://www.bro.gov.in/indexab.asp?projectid=9&lang=1) for the wikipedia article Project Shivalik. I believe it is allowed to be used under GODL-India. Can anyone guide me if it is allowed? Leoneix (talk) 05:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Leoneix: I would expect so, but I'm not certain. You might better ask copyright questions at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, more copyright knowledge among the regulars there. - Jmabel ! talk 08:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
A new discussion has started on the copyright board. I am marking this discussion as resolved to avoid any splits in the conversation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Sure! Leoneix (talk) 08:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

OpenRefine question

I have a question about OpenRefine. Is there a better place to ask than Commons talk:OpenRefine#Adding files to a category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Cross-posting photos to stock image sites?

I'm wondering if anyone here cross-posts photos they've uploaded here to stock image sites? I'm thinking about doing so for some of my photos, both to increase their usage (since I guess the sites have different audiences than Commons), and to recover some of the costs of my photography equipment and photo expeditions. I don't think there's any conflict with the CC licensing, provided that the stock image sites are non-exclusive ones (which excludes some sites). I'd be interested in any experience people have with this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:33, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

If you do, please leave a note on the file pages so that the files aren't misidentified as copyvios of the stock photos in the future. Omphalographer (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Picture of building, file renaming 10 years later when owner changes (as "obvious error")

If the tenant or the owner of building changes after the photo was taken, this isn't an "obvious error" in the filename. So the rename at [11] doesn't meet our criteria for "obvious errors".

An obvious error would be be a typo in the name, but this isn't the case.

I brought this to the attention of the renaming user (User_talk:Mosbatho#Rewriting_history?), but they don't want to revert it, even they don't seem to check themselves if it is an "obvious error".

What is the suggested course of action?

  • Request a rename in the opposite direction and
  • ask file renaming rights to be removed from the user's account?

Enhancing999 (talk) 13:47, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Namen sind Schall und Rauch. Names are quite meaningless. Edit wars on file names do not enhance the project. As long as the description and categorization and usage is correct, everything is fine. Just my 2 cents. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 14:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to tbe community POV, see Commons:File renaming. Obviously, file description has the same error. "InfraGO" didn't exist in 2012, but only in 2024. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:05, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Files names are very important. They should describe the file contents as well as make it findable and properly indexed in search engines, mainly the WMC search engine. I think this is too much a detailed issue to be discussed here. I don't know why you haven't proposed a file-title change with your rationale. I think it could stay as is if the file-title was correct at the time it was taken. The information about when it was taken should be well-visible in the file-description. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Ich halte das für ein ein sehr grundsätzliches Problem. In allen WMF-Projekten können alle Seiten von allen beliebig hin und her verschoben werden. Ausnahmen sind nur wenn ein Account noch sehr unerfahren ist, wenn ein Account dieses Recht individuell entzogen bekommen hat und wenn eine bestimmte Seite individuell gegen Verschieben geschützt ist. Nur Commons hat ein spezielles User-Recht für das Verschieben von Seiten, das der eine Teil der User hat und der andere nicht. Und das bezieht sich dann auch nicht auf alle Seiten, sondern einzig und allein auf den Namensraum "File:". Das ist eine bedeutende Abweichung vom gesamten sonstigen Brauch bei WMF-Projekten und ich gehe daher davon aus, dass das nicht so ist, weil mal ein Developer eine alberne Wette gegen einen anderen Developer verloren hat, oder weil einige hier glauben, das wäre sowas wie ein wirksamer Regentanz gegen die Dürre in der Sahara.
Ich gehe davon aus, dass es deshalb hier "Filemover" gibt und andere Accounts, die dieses Recht nicht haben, weil das Verschieben eines Files mit einer besonderen Verantwortung verbunden ist. Dass also die Filemover besonders verantwortungsvolle Leute sind, die in der Lage sind alle einschlägigen Regeln zu kennen und jederzeit zu beachten und die, wenn eine ihrer Entscheidungen in Frage gestellt wird, ohne weiteres diese Entscheidung selbst überprüfen, ggf overrulen und auf jeden Fall erklären. Das alles scheint hier nicht der Fall gewesen zu sein und es sollte eine Selbstverständlichkeit sein, dass in so einem Fall, der Filemover von Admins oder anderen Filemovern um eine Stellungnahme gebeten wird und wenn in einer vernünftigen Zeit keine plausible Erklärung erfolgt, das Filemover-Recht entzogen wird. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:23, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Zufällig lese ich davon, dass es hierbei um einen Move geht, den ich vollzogen habe. Man hätte mich diesbzgl. informieren sollen, was allerdings nicht erfolgt ist. Lieber C.Suthorn, das stimmt so nicht. Sehr ausführlich habe ich den Filemove erklärt und auch der Antragsteller, welcher den Filemove initiierte und die Ursprungsbegründung geliefert hatte. Also, dass da irgendetwas ohne Erklärung erfolgt sei, ist falsch. Mosbatho (talk) 17:29, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Wo hast du den Antragsteller kontaktiert? Auf User talk:Mpns sehe ich keine Diskussion. Aus welchen Gründen siehst du den Grund Nummer 3 hier gegeben? GPSLeo (talk) 18:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Das stimmt so nicht. Auf meiner Diskussion erfolgte darüber ein ausgiebiger Austausch, auch User:Mpns hat sich dabei ausführlich geäußert. Das Verschieben von Dateien hat immer mit großer Sorgfalt zu tun, weshalb ich dem Antrag sehr wohl sehr detailliert vor dem Verschieben nachgegangen bin. Dabei gehört natürlich dazu, den Sachverhalt einzuordnen, diesen abzuwägen und natürlich zu überprüfen. Das Verschiebekriterium 3 ("misidentified objects") sah ich als erfüllt: das Unternehmen, das das Gebäude beherbergt, gibt es so nicht mehr, es heißt nun anders; das Gebäude selbst sieht heute genauso aus wie damals und davor - zumindest von diesem Blickwinkel aus. Dies kann einfach - wie vor dem Verschieben geschehen - mit Google Street View verifiziert werden. In der Fotobeschreibung wird diesem Umstand Rechnung getragen und auf DB InfraGO eingegangen. Dem Verschieben steht gemäß Commons:FRNOT nichts entgegen. Mosbatho (talk) 14:13, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Mir fehlt jedes Verständnis dafür, warum @Enhancing999 hier ein solches Fass aufmacht. Inhaltlich sehe ich hier auf seiner Seite keinerlei wirklichen Argumente. Was ich zu dem Fall zu sagen habe, habe ich auf der BD von @Mosbatho bereits dazu geäußert und werde mich hier nicht weiter durch diese Aktion von Enhancing belästigen lassen. Sorry, aber das geht mir eindeutig zu Weit! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 14:46, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
criterion 3 is, "To correct obvious errors..."
was there an error in the original filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
no.
so the move was improper.
on the contrary, is there an error in the current filename "File:Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg"?
yes. there's no "InfraGO" on "9.1.2012". RZuo (talk) 15:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
What's your Problems in here? Does the picture show an building of DB Netz? No, it shows a building of DB InfraGO!!!
Why should the filename containing DB Netz so should be right? Only, cause the picture was taken 2012? It couldn't be the correct name. ...
A filename containing DB Netz isn't correct scince the company never exists anymore. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:15, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Category:Deutsche Reichsbahn doesnt exist either. just redirect it to Category:Deutsche Bahn.
does File:01. Saalfeld Bahnhof - DR Deutsche Reichsbahn. (5993111605).jpg show a building of Reichsbahn? no, it shows Category:Bahnhof Saalfeld (Saale) operated by Category:DB Station&Service.
how about that? RZuo (talk) 16:26, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
At the age of 3 or 4 years my parents told me: you couldn't and mustn't excuse your mistakes by other people mistakes. Or, often used at german wikipedia: "Es gibt kein gleiches Recht im Unrecht".
Without looking at Saalfeld: If the station today looks similar like shown at the picture the name could be false.
But now i'm leaving this kindergarten. do what you want.... mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 16:34, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
File:Stahlschwelle Thyssen, 1927.jpg
there's no more "Firma Thyssen" but only ThyssenKrupp in 2022. why do you keep a mistake on your filename? RZuo (talk) 16:59, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Oha, jetzt fangen wir an, Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen? Die besagte Stahlschwelle wurde ausschließlich von Thyssen Krupp produziert. Es gibt kein Nachfolgeunternehmen, welches genau diese Schwelle mit dieser Inschrift produziert hat. Also ist es auch heute noch eine Schwelle von ThyssenKrupp. Wenn jetzt die Firma Hösch die Schwelle überarbeitet hätte und aus der Aufschrift "Thyssen" eine neue Aufschrift "Hoesch" gemacht hätte, dann würde dein (in meinen Augen lächerlicher) Vergleich nicht so hinken, wie er es so macht.
Außerdem hatte @Mosbatho mit dieser Bearbeitung eine in meinen Augen sehr gute Lösung gefunden: Das Bild zeigt den heutigen Haupteingang der Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO, zum Zeitpunkt der Erstellung des Bildes war dort noch die DB Netz AG untergebracht, wie man mittlerweile in der Bildbeschreibung lesen kann.
Alles in allem: Ich halte diese Diskussion hier für absolut lächerlich und an jedem sinnvollen Argument gegen eine Umbenennung vorbei geführt. Vor allem merkt hier scheinbar keiner, wie lächerlich eure Argumentation ist.
Aber ich sagte auch: Macht damit doch, was ihr wollt. Und, auch auf die Gefahr, hier auf Commons für solch eine Bemerkung sanktioniert zu werden: Ich komme mir vor, wie im Kindergarten und verliere durch solch lächerliche Aktionen immer mehr die Lust, mich hier konstruktiv zu beteiligen! mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 17:58, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nochmal dazu: Es IST (heute) der Haupteingang der DB InfraGO - gleichgültig, wann das Bild aufgenommen wurde. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:00, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Nach diesem Prinzip müssten wir auch alles in Category:Reichsluftfahrtministerium in Bundesministerium der Finanzen umbenennen. Fotos sollten das so benannt werden wie das was sie zeigen. Wurde etwas umbenannt wird das Foto nicht umbenannt, es zeigt ja einen historischen Stand von etwas. Wir schmeißen auch nicht das Bundeskanzlerin aus dem Titel von Fotos von Merkel aus der Zeit wo sie Bundeskanzlerin war weil sie jetzt keine Bundeskanzlerin mehr ist. GPSLeo (talk) 18:08, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Fotografiere ich heute den Haupteingang noch einmal, aus gleicher Perspektive und mit gleichem Ausschnitt und lade dann das neue Foto als "Haupteingang InfraGO" hoch, wäre demnach der richtige Weg - trotz der entstehenden bildlichen Redundanz?
Vielleicht haben wir hier alle den falschen Ansatz. Das Bild sollte vielleicht noch ein weiteres mal umbenannt werden in "Haupteingang Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4" mit der Bildbeschreibung "2012, bei Entstehen des Bildes, Betriebszentrale der DB Netz AG, heute Betriebszentrale der DB InfraGO"?
Dann wäre in meinen Augen alles Stimmig. Und das ich die Umbennenung nicht in genau dieser Form beantragt hatte, dass (!) lasse ich auch zu meinem ursprünglichen Antrag als angemessene Kritik gelten.
Wobei ich aber Bleibe: Das Bild als "Haupteingang der DB Netz AG" zu benennen, ist aus heutiger Sicht vollkommen falsch. Letztendlich stellt das Bild ja auch kein Unternehmen sondern ein Gebäude dar - insofern wäre ja (nach meiner vorstehenden Betrachtung) der ursprüngliche Dateiname ebenfalls falsch gewesen.
Um noch die Parallele zum Bahnhof Saalfeld (siehe oben) zu ziehen: Ein Bild aus der DR-Zeit stellt genauso den Bahnhof dar, wie ein Bild aus heutiger Zeit. Die Datei darf dann auch nur "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr xyz" heißen, dann aber gerne in der Beschreibung darauf verweisen, dass es zur Zeit der DR aufgenommen wurde. Ein anderes Bild "Bahnhof Saalfeld im Jahr 2024" müsste dann in der Beschreibung als "Ein Bahnhof der zum Zeitpunkt der Aufnahme durch die DB InfraGO betrieben wurde" ausgewiesen werden. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:33, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Ob das obige Bild tatsächlich eine DR-Liegenschaft zeigt, sollte erst einmal geklärt werden. Oftmals waren Bahnhöfen der DR Gebäude anderer VEBs angegliedert, z.B. der Logistik, die nicht mit der DR in Verbindung standen. Msb (talk) 16:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3AFile_renaming&oldid=857801315#Revisionism
i had made a similar post about this. too many filemovers do not pay enough attention to these problems. RZuo (talk) 15:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Initially, I had assumed it was a mere error and the filemover would fix it fairly quickly when I first brought it up, but apparently the requestor's intent is shared. Anyways, I don't think it concerns the requestor much as it's really an issue of the filemover renaming other contributors uploads inappropriately. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:45, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
This is not true. I request you to stop your harrassment. Msb (talk) 16:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Enhancing999 is not harassing you. All discussion contributions of Enhancing999 are in an appropriate manor. GPSLeo (talk) 16:25, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Auch für mich sieht dies hier nach einer persönlichen Fehde aus, in die ich nur zufällig hineingeraten bin. Ich kann mir zwar den Hintergrund dazu nicht erklären, habe aber ganz klar genau diesen Eindruck. mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 18:35, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Bis dato hatte ich keine Interaktionen mit diesem Benutzer - just for the records. Msb (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mosbatho&oldid=858485598#Rewriting_history?
User:Mosbatho should be removed as filemover. s/he's tone deaf about the wrong rename despite the long discussion on the user talk page and here, and is now accusing critics of harassment. RZuo (talk) 19:58, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Your tone is quite rude and you keep focussing on stating accusations instead of finding solutions and a clear Modus vivendi for such cases. Msb (talk) 15:07, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Please remain civil and avoid personal attacks such as "s/he's tone deaf". —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - contributions} 17:41, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
basically when db rebrands again or another company moves in to that building probably in less than 30 years (db netz was founded in 2007) i expect to see User:Mpns come and ask for a rename of his then erroneous filename again and User:Mosbatho will just do it again. who knows? maybe it's tomorrow. RZuo (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
I would not do that file move again due to this discussion. I now see that there is a broad consensus that name updates of older photographs of buildings are not obvious errors. Msb (talk) 15:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I made a request at Commons:Requests_for_rights#Mosbatho_(remove_right). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

This entire discussion has led me to realize that both the original filename "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" and the filename that emerged from my renaming request "Frankfurt am Main- Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO- Haupteingang 9.1.2012.jpg" are incorrect.

Essentially, in my view, the file should be renamed once again to "Frankfurt am Main - Pfarrer-Perabo-Platz 4 - Haupteingang - 9.1.2012.jpg," and the file properties should indicate that until December 27, 2023, it housed the "Betriebszentrale DB Netz des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB Netz," and since the rebranding, it has been home to the "Betriebszentrale DB InfraGO des Regionalbereichs Mitte und Netzleitzentrale DB InfraGO."

This, in my eyes, would be the only correct naming, as it does justice to both states, i.e., the historical condition (DB Netz) and the current situation (DB InfraGO). Furthermore, the filename would still be applicable even if a company named "Welcome-2-World" were housed there the day after tomorrow.

The insistence on adhering to rulesets while accepting content errors, as is the case here, is, to me, in no way understandable, nor is it constructive or beneficial to Wikipedia as a whole. (Translation by ChatGPT). --mfG - Martin (Rede gerne mit mir) 13:43, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

@Mpns:
  1. you are probably right (now) about what the best name would be, but…
  2. the original name was fine, and should not have been changed.
  3. the current name is fine, and should not be changed.
We should keep filenames stable when possible. We should not be changing good names to get better names. It should not have been moved before, but it also should not be moved now. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: so you think the images in the category mentioned above could have been named "German Finance ministry building"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999:
  1. It would be odd to capitalize "Finance" but not "Minstry".
  2. I think that given that we have subcats for Category:Detlev-Rohwedder-Haus that would be a bit odd.
  3. I don't see anything in the case currently at hand rising to the level of difference between a use of the building by the Nazis and by the Bundesrepublik. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
It's a ministry of the same country. I don't recall categorization having an impact on filenames. Did you just make that up?
Similar to the name for the file you supported, if you look in google streetview, it may still look the same. In both cases, the filename wouldn't be appropriate given the time the photos were taken. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Works named after protagonists

When it comes to works named after their protagonist which should have priority when it comes to category titles? Should the category name "Duke Nukem" be reserved for the protagonist of the video game series or the video game series itself? Same with Harry Potter, Johnny Bravo, Serious Sam and similar. --Trade (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that when someone hears "Harry Potter" that person is thinking of the media franchise at large more than the specific character. I'd be inclined to make the media franchise the standard and have a category of "[x] (character)" for the fictional character. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
What about Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo? Trade (talk) 20:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Reckon the same. Particularly since in those cases, there is an actual piece of media called that thing. (I don't think there is a thing that is called "Harry Potter", but I could be wrong.) I think if you say "I like Johnny Bravo", someone will think you mean that you like the program, not the character nine times out of 10. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:37, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll wager if someone were search for "cosplay of Harry Potter/Duke Nukem/Johnny Bravo" they would be looking for the character itself, not just any character from the work Trade (talk) 10:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
It depends. Harry Potter is such a broad category with so many items that its main category on Commons refers to the Harry Potter franchise (and it'll redirect to that). Duke Nukem and Johnny Bravo on the other hand are tiny categories where this distinction isn't needed yet. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images?

To what extent am I required to leave in place talk-page comments on my images? For example, I find this inappropriate. If it were on my user talk page, probably I would simply delete it, but I realize I don't "own" the talk page of the image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking at their edits, they are just looking for a reaction. I have reverted them and I don't think it is worth wasting any more time on them. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Sock tagging prior to blocking

Hello, your input is welcome at Template talk:Sockpuppet#Tagging suspected accounts prior to blocking. Best regards, ─ Aafī (talk) 14:14, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:White women of the United States

Kinda amazing this cat only have two people in it Trade (talk) 23:19, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

An interesting category tree created two days ago by an IP user. Is any of it useful? From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Depends what makes someone"white" i suppose Trade (talk) 00:56, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I’ve been wanting to create a cat for White people of Mexico, especially after an interesting debate was brought up in the Wikipedia article (where they were cleaning the over abundance of images in the article). But I’ve been sitting on it for months now. Is it OK to do it? Especially when the Wikipedia article argues the actual article is not the place to fill it up with photos of examples. The same would apply for Black people of Mexico. But since you brought up a similar case, would like to hear opinions before creating it. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 03:10, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm generally opposed to "white people" categories. There is no good definition of who is and is not "white", and we normally use ethnic designations only for people who actively so identify. I'll admit that as a Jew born in the U.S. in 1954, I have an interesting angle on this. My grandparents, born circa 1900, were certainly not counted as white in their childhood and youth. That inclusion was borderline for me growing up (there were still many organizations and neighborhoods in the U.S. that excluded Jews on an essentially racial basis; even as late as when I started college in 1972, many leading universities had anti-Jewish quotas); at this point, Jewish Americans (at least the Ashkenazim) are counted as "white" (an inclusion I personally find uncomfortable, but it certainly does grant me the proverbial "white privilege"). But you can't look at a picture of some unknown person in an uncertain context and say that they are "white" in any sense other than phenotype, and even there it can be problematic (light-skinned Arabs in France, for example, or dark-skinned Spaniards in the U.S.).
It's fine if we can call someone "European" or "European American" or something more specific like "Romanian American", but "white" is problematic. - Jmabel ! talk 11:01, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
We already have plenty of photos describing subjects as "White Americans" so a category doesn't seem like a huge stretch Trade (talk) 13:42, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Got to agree with Jmabel here. It's not really clear what qualifies someone as a "white person" or not and the designation is rather transitory to begin with. "European" or "European American" seems fine though and I'd probably support the category (or similar ones) in countries where "white people" (or anyone else with a different skin color) are the minority. It just seems weird and pointless to have categories for white people in America when they are around 71% of the population. It's not like there are similar categories either. For instance neither Category:Black women of Africa or Category:Russian women of Russia exist. So what's so special about "white people" or "white women" in the United States that they deserve a special category based on skin color when we don't have them for other groups or countries? --Adamant1 (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Please read again what I wrote. “a cat of White people of Mexico”. :P I didn’t say anything about the United States. I even mentioned also the intention of mine of a cat for Black people of Mexico. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 20:26, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas: My comment had nothing to do with you. The original category was literally called "White women of the United States" though, which is why I brought it up. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
English Wikipedia learned many painful lessons about categorizing people by race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Along the way, Wikipedia was severely pilloried by the media on multiple occasions, e.g. [12]. I hope we don't make the same mistakes that English Wikipedia made. My suggestion would be to basically emulate English Wikipedia's current guidelines, which are much better polished at this point: en:Wikipedia:Categorizing articles about people#EGRS. One suggestion that is relevant to the specific discussion here: "Do not create categories that intersect a particular topic (such as occupation, place of residence, or other such characteristics), with an ethnicity, gender, religion, sexual orientation, or disability, unless these characteristics are relevant to that topic." This seems like sensible guidance. Nosferattus (talk) 02:29, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
From what I remember there use to be a real problem in Wikipedia of users categorizing people based on their religion or some other characteristics when it either wasn't notable or couldn't be verified. Anyway, Commons should probably stay away from doing the same and only add such categories when they are clearly relevant and verifiable. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Someone a while ago was creating "flat lists" that created a category that contained all the people in the subcategories. It was very useful if you did not know the gender or ethnicity or religion of the person and just wanted to find a name without looking in each subcategory. --RAN (talk) 04:48, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Painting or sculpture?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Wood carvings? Wouter (talk) 16:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: An interesting artwork. Is there any indication of the original creator or the time period it was made? If not, we would need to check compliance with COM:FOP Austria - probably the key point of those rules will be around permanence. Is this engraving always in "The Shakespeare Pub"? From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I never have been there before, so I cant say if was there permenantly. It looks like any painting hanging on the wal and suppose it could easily be moved elsewhere. I do not have any information about the artwork. I suppose it is locally produced. I could be old. The scene depicted looks 19th century or older. One figure is using a sword. Maybe ask an Austrian art expert? Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Such carved pictures may be based on old paintings but usually they are modern day productions, mostly tourist kitsch sold at souvenir shops all over the Alps. Another popular version are decorative plates like those [13]. The creators are barely known and in most cases the works are not old enough for PD. Herbert Ortner (talk) 09:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
It's been sculpted therefore its a sculpture. A painting is composed of brush marks. This is elementary. -Broichmore (talk) 15:20, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Plushies, dolls or toys based on fictional characters

Could i get some feedback on this modeling? Trade (talk) 14:28, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Why the need for three different topics in one category? It's super redundant. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Didn't see a need for further splitting Trade (talk) 16:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
a figurine (made of plastic) like https://www.pokemon.cn/goods/plush-toys/230414160049_copy.html and a stuffed animal like https://www.reddit.com/r/90s_kid/comments/wjbajj/jumbo_pikachu_plush_1999/ should be in different categories. RZuo (talk) 16:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
They already are? Trade (talk) 22:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Dolls and plushies are toys. A category name like "Plushies, dolls or toys" kind of makes it seem like they aren't. And really, why stop there? We could endlessly create "X, Y, or Z" categories once we allow for them. But personally, I don't think we should. -Adamant1 (talk) 16:58, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What are we supposed to do with the subcategories then? Trade (talk) 22:42, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: What's wrong with ReneeWrites suggestion? That's what I'd do if it were me. Just have separate categories for toys, dolls, or plushies, depending on which one it is. It's not like there isn't Category:Toys and Category:Dolls already either. So I don't see what the issue is. Otherwise you risk someone putting an image of a normal toy based on a fictional character in this category when the category is a child of Category:Dolls, which you'd have to agree wouldn't follow policy. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Plushies are a type of doll, and dolls are a type of toy. It should be named either "Toys", "Dolls" or "Plushies based on fictional characters". The subcategories themselves are fine, possible copyright issues they invite notwithstanding. See COM:CATPRI for Commons category naming guidelines - this one violates most of them. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: I've nominated the cats for discussion and tagged the files as copyvios per COM:TOYS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:49, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

What happened to EditWatchlist/raw?

I was used to the fact that my EditWatchlist/raw was sorted more or less by date. Then I could easily remove a selection of my oldest changes from it. But suddenly the sorting is not from old to new anymore, but alphabetically. How can I get the sorting from old to new again? JopkeB (talk) 05:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Special:EditWatchlist/raw. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Sorting is again like it was. JopkeB (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Gps allowed in structured data

Can we change it so that gps coordinates are allowed in structured data? It is set to only allow in a Wikidata entry, but we have many more locatatable images in Commons than have photo entries in Wikidata. See: File:Guests at a 1925 breakfast party for Langston Hughes, hosted by Regina Andrews (then Anderson) and Ethel Nance (then Ray) at 580 St. Nicholas Avenue.jpg RAN (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Most of the time, the coordinate types relevant to photos are coordinates of the point of view (P1259) (camera location) and/or coordinates of depicted place (P9149) (location of the depicted subject). Considering these two types, I assume the generic coordinate location coordinate location (P625) is too unspecific for use with photos. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Photo challenge January results

Silos: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Garfield Grain Elevator and
Silos Garfield Washington USA		 Feed silos in Hirschbrunn
near Burgebrach		 Silos of the Hannoversche Portland
-Cementfabrik (abandoned in 1986)
Author DaveGinOly Ermell Hgrobe
Score 19 13 8
Masks: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Narrentag 2024 -
Elzacher Schuttig		 Kirchseoner Perchtenlauf
- old winter parade
tradition in Bavaria.
Mask of type "Klaubauf"		 Taken in Dublin, march 2014
Author Rainer Halama Würmchen-vom-Mölchlein Oncewerecolours
Score 13 13 10

Congratulations to DaveGinOly, Ermell, Hgrobe, Rainer Halama, Würmchen and Oncewerecolours. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:13, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Overlapping map categories

In many Wikipedia articles about US cities, there is a image in the infobox containing two maps: one highlighting the city within the county, and one highlighting the county within the state. Many of these are in Category:Maps of Incorporated and Unincorporated areas by county in the United States. But many are not. For example, many of the images in subcats of Category:Locator maps of cities in California are in the same style. We ought to have a consistent classification system for these images, but this will require mass categorization changes. Kk.urban (talk) 04:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

We should also have a category for dot maps, another common style, such as File:CAMap-doton-Durham.png and File:MAMap-doton-Springfield.PNG. Kk.urban (talk) 04:41, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

 Support Agreed, we ought to have a category for similar map styles, once there is a sufficient mass of files that use the same style which is different from some other style. --Enyavar (talk) 11:54, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Is someone willing to help move these categories? Kk.urban (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:Abusive people

I dont feel like Trolls should be placed in the same category as the people who commited the biggest act of cruelty in human history for obvious reasons. Any complaints if i remove the cat? Trade (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that should be a category at all. "Abusive" is a subjective term which could apply to anything from war criminals to people who cheat at Monopoly; most of the subcategories are already better categorized e.g. under Category:Criminals by crime.
As it stands, though, I'd agree that it should be removed. Most of the category, as it exists right now, revolves around morally abhorrent behavior; Internet trolling doesn't seem to fit in. Omphalographer (talk) 01:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
And it's a bit strange to say that anyone with two spouses is automatically abusive. Kk.urban (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Steinsplitterbot FUBAR: How to remove images from the queue?

Hi there, it appears the rotatebot, Steinsplitterbot, is in an indefinitely broken state. I have manually rotated a file and reuploaded it, but it appears it is still in the queue and I'm afraid that if Steinsplitterbot might get resuscitated, it will rotate again. How do I remove it from the queue? Milliped (talk) 14:08, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Milliped: Just edit the description ("Edit" link at the top of the page in the default interface) and remove the {{rotate|270}} from the top. --bjh21 (talk) 14:33, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Milliped (talk) 14:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

General categorization of old maps

Hi, "old maps" is a topic with a huge range, both in extent of locations and spans of time. There are various categorization models, here a few examples from "Old maps of cities in France":

  • "Maps of Provins": All (20) maps of the city are in the same cat~, no subcat~. Only 4 of these maps would be classified as "old" (current year minus 70).
  • "Old maps of Nice": All (56) old maps are sitting in one cat~, which is a subcat~ of "Maps of...".
  • "Old maps of Marseille" (by-century): There are five subcat~s, each holdings multiple maps from 16th, 17th, 18th, 19th and 20th century.
  • "Old maps of Paris" (by-century, then by-decade): Yes, Paris is actually more complicated than that, but if you want to find a map from a specific timeframe, you can use by decade; each of the decade-categories is also sorted inside the by-century cat~s. This is also the sorting scheme for London: First by-century, then by-decade".
  • "Old maps of Brest" (by-century, then by-year): Most years are not covered, there is no by-decade middle structure, and resulting cat~s are very small.

But, this first thing is just the timespan in which a map was originally created. The second thing is the geographical location and extent: If I can very accurately date a map of the region of Lorraine to 1819... in which category does it belong? Is "19th-century maps of Lorraine|1819" okay? Once there are enough maps, we move it into "1810s maps of Lorraine|1819", as detailed above. But we could ALSO place the Lorraine-map simultaneously in 1819 maps of France! Here I see a problem: How many users are expecting maps of Lorraine in a "maps of France" cat~? What I would expect in that category, is real maps of France (in total, or at least large parts), not regional maps or city-maps. A savvy person who searches a map of France might look up in 1810s maps of France, where they can find 1 map of whole France there. Clicking through all the by-year sub-cat~s, I find another 15 supra-regional maps from the 1810s, and also three that were made in the 2010s - but mostly maps that (in my opinion) don't really belong there. All the other maps and plans (of cities, or regions, of forests, of rivulets, of castles) should in my opinion get categorized in their own old-maps-tree: "17th-century maps of Brest". "1830s maps of Lorraine". "Old maps of Forêt du Bois". "Old maps of Château Noblesse". These cat~s should then in turn get nested into the larger geographical units: "Old maps of château de Brest" within "Old maps of Brest" within "Old maps of Bretagne" within "Old maps of France".

If you categorize strictly by-year and also strictly by-location, you are rewarded with something like "Old maps of Werbach" (a small town in Germany: maps were categorized by-location, by-century, by-decade, by-year), to the point where single maps are placed in the single by-year cat~ in the single by-decade cat~ of a by-century cat~. Right now, Werbach has 25 old maps, they could have been organized in a single "Old maps of Werbach" cat~. Instead, they are organized in at least 32 cat~s, and yes that means more categories than files which have to be organized.

So, how should we organize the "Old maps" here in Commons? People who like to have their structure first, would probably prefer all places to be organized like Werbach - from the most-mapped cities in the world like London, New York and Paris (by-year could possibly make sense there), down to maps of Peruvian and Mongolian hamlets. There are some advantages: there are many other by-year cat~structures that make a LOT of sense to meticulously arrange by-year, so by-year-maps are fitting in there just nicely. Also, it apparently helps with our search function? Other people have been rejecting that, and argue with usability first, to allow comfortable browsing within the categories. Someone who browses through the categories may spot errors more easily. Oh right - I have not yet written about errors and fuzzy data, which very often lead to miscategorizations.

  • The publication year of most old maps is not the year the map was made. Crews of geographs made measurements for years and decades, and usually this can be found in the work descriptions: "...études en France les années 1751-1761, publiées 1765..." --> Is this a 1765 map? Is it even a 1760s map? Is it both a 1760s and 1750s map? Is it too unclear, and has to be placed as a 18th-century map?
  • Maps were in print for decades: Original from 1595, still in print 1633 (the underlying map data was collected until 1587...). Again, is that a 1633 map, is it a 17th-century map, is it a 16th-century map?
  • take a 19th-century reprint of 16th-century map: I'd say it is still a 16th-century map, but I have seen arguments for either and both.
  • Then again, many maps from less famous cartographers cannot be dated precisely at all: sometimes we can't even pinpoint the exact century a map was produced.

As a result: Yes of course, we should still try to date the maps on Commons as exactly as possible, but that is first of all a task for the description (dates are a must there!) and for structured data.

So, my own first experiences were with the structured approaches: I found lots and lots of the most tiny cat~s, and added uncategorized "old maps" into by-year. I was never comfortable with it, but saw it as inevitable for correct sorting, until this village-pump thread. It was an epiphany, to see other editors tell me: Maps of <location> by <year> categories should be burned with fire. - everything finer than "by century" should go - Let's not make more narrow category trees... Or in a CfD thread, I got: classic case of excess fineness undermining the usefulness of the category tree, so there was an advocate for by-decade cat~s, like I am today.

Since that time, my own approach in sorting the old maps, was to sort them as "old maps of location" first, then break down "old" into "by-century" cat~s as needed, and then into "by-decade" as needed. Where these cat~s didn't exist, I created them. Only in the rarest of all cases is there such an abundance of maps in a by-decade cat~, that one should think about further splits. But those make more sense to go by title (by-work): 1880s in London has 39 files directly in the cat~, and about 150 files in four related subcat~s. - In the same while, I have also been at work to dissolve excessively tiny by-year categories. When encountering by-year-cat~s with just a handful of maps, I move the contents up to the by-decade level (or to a different geographical location level), and then nominate the by-year category for speedy-Del. At least some by-year-cat~s make sense, so I'm not axing at them blindly; and all my work is manual and slow. I am still believing that my actions (with regards to by-year cat~s) over the last year should have been uncontroversial and appropriate. Yet, I got notice that despite my own firm beliefs, @GPSLeo: thinks that recategorizing content in the way I do, appears to be lacking broader community approval. So here we go.

Another note: The first of the by-year-cat~s were created around 2016, and then the big mass-creation of by-year-cat~s started in 2018. I don't know how much community approval there was in favor of mass-creation of the by-year cat~s, so if someone remembers particular threads, I would be thankful. I think that some of the "by-year"-advocates include: @Themightyquill: , @AnRo0002: , @An Errant Knight: , @Skim127: , @Triplec85: I do hope that my portrayal of what I am calling "structuralism" here, was fair? Did I miss potential benefits?

This is all a lot to take in, but I'm here to ask: structure first or usability first? Where should we strike the balance, both in granularity by-year, as well as in granularity by-location?
Thanks, --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
As you hint, usability is the answer. Going beyond that, can only be justified, if we have so many items the human brain can’t cope with it, and I doubt that's really the case here. Search functions are the appropriate mechanism for getting the kind of granularity wished for here.
Usability comes from seeing items within a minimum amount of categories (pages), rather than single files buried in sub categories where they can't be seen without drilling down. -Broichmore (talk) 19:30, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:People of the United States Department of State

under Category:People of the United States Department of State are

what's the difference? any example of a person who belongs to only 1 of the 2 cats? RZuo (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on US government structures but "Diplomats" would only cover those empowered to represent their government when speaking to another country. "Officials" would include people in support functions that keep the department running but who don't have direct interaction with foreign governments. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
makes sense. like the auditor within the department is not a diplomat.
but is it correct to assume that all Diplomats of the United States are officials of the DOS? so Diplomats of the United States should be a subcat of Officials of the United States Department of State? RZuo (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
No, while it is true that all U.S. diplomats are U.S. officials, not all U.S. diplomats are officials of the Department of State. A classic example is a U.S. military attaché attached to a diplomatic mission. They are U.S. diplomats, however they are usually serving U.S. military officers under the Department of Defense instead of officials of the U.S. Department of State. Another example would be the Indian agents who represented the U.S. to the sovereign American Indian tribes in the 18th-19th century. They were originally officials of the Department of War and later the Department of the Interior. —RP88 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
in that case Diplomats of the United States should be removed from Category:People of the United States Department of State?
i also just remember the United States Special Envoys, which may or may not be under the DOS? RZuo (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I think Diplomats of the United States is fine in Category:People of the United States Department of State. Being a subcategory is not a strict "is-a" relationship. Categories are meant as an aid for people trying to find things, not as an abstract exercise in ontology, and this is a likely path someone would follow in trying to find something. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
then i'll put Diplomats of the United States under officials of DOS. RZuo (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Much of what people with the titles President, Vice President, and First Lady in the US have done can qualify as diplomacy, should those titles also be categorized in this way?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates

There are various ways that coordinates appear on Commons, mainly in "Template:location", "Template:object location", "Template:Wikidata infobox". Likely it's determined in various ways and on also changes based on the maps being used.

It seems to me that the default zoom is always way too far. Before tying to figure out more of the technical details, I just want to check if it's not just an impression of mine. What do you think? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I have had the feeling it depends on the precision of the coordinates, like how many decimals are used in decimal coordinate notation, but I might be totally wrong. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Camel?

Would people agree that that sculpture here (center-left) is intended to represent a camel? - Jmabel ! talk 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

I see a lion (look at the paw) --MHM (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree Broichmore (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I see a turtle. Wouter (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like there is enough ambiguity that I should not caption it in this respect unless there is an expert opinion to be had somewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
That are lions, probably made around 1700, or later, and given to the church by (rich) visitors. Oak wood, painted thick. (if I'm right) - Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I would have said Gargoyles, and leave it at that, but wikipedia wants to include a water spout in the definition! Perhaps a Grotesque (architecture), or as the ancients would call it just a beast. -Broichmore (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Inscription

Can anyone work out the inscription here? (You will certainly have to click through, not legible in thumbnail.) Seems to be a mix of Old Catalan, maybe some Castillian, and Latin (e.g. "TRASLADA HIC"), using quite a few abbreviations (e.g. "ANO DNI" for "Anno Domini"; "MOASTIO" for "Monasterio") and some unusual forms of certain letters (e.g. "OLZE?O" where "?" represents a letter I can't decipher). Way beyond me in language terms. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: If nothing else, this page about the monastery has a contact link at the bottom. Maybe they could/would help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
If it helps someone decipher this, given that the photo was taken in the Chapter House of the Monastery of Pedralbes, I combined that information with one of the names that appears in the inscription and found Pedralbes Monastery, chapter house which mentions "The chapter house contains the tomb of the first abbess, Sobriana d'Olzet, as well as those of nine other early abbesses and some noblewomen who lived in the convent." —RP88 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This is typical medieval Latin with LOTS of abbreviations and sigla. I had a try, but there quite some gaps I am not sure about:

VII K(A)L(ENDA)S MAII AN(N)O D(OMI)NI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT¿S?
VEN(ER)ABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLIZETO Q' D(E)
MO(N)AST(ER)IO S(AN)C(T)I ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCH(ENO)N(A) AD MONAST(ER)IU(M)
IST()D TRA(N)SLATA FUIT C()A P(O)P(U)LATIO(N)IS EI(US)DE(M) DIE ...
S(AN)C(T)E C(RU)CIS ANN(O) D(OMINI) M CCC XX VII Q()Q(UE) EAD()... DUE P()S()ETIB(US)
EXC(E)LL(E)NTIS(IMM)IS D(OMI)NO REGE IACOBO & D(OMI)NA REGINA
ELICSE(N)D(A) EIUS CO(N)SORTE I() P()M()A AB()AM) D()CI TE
NOBII EL(E)CTA EXTITIT & CONF()MTA CUM A(L)IA RE.....

The first part is about Sobriana d'Olzet, who died on 25 April (=7th calends of May) 1336. If I am not mistaken, it then continues to say her remains were transferred from the monstery of St. Anthony to the current one. Then something about king James II (Iacob) of Aragon and his wife Elisenda and then it becomes rather illegible. It almost feels like the creator ran out of space :D --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Mentioned here I think as Soberana? : https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Saportella —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Also mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisenda_of_Montcada as Sobirana d'Olzet. And this is about here I think https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadessa_Olzet so wikidata:Q19289368 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, excellent findings, these really help understanding the inscription! So she switched monasteries while alive, not after passing away; my bad... With the context in mind, my reading of the inscription is thus:
Inscription Unabbreviated Translation

VII KLS MAII ANO DNI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT
VENABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLZETO Q D
MOASTIO SCI ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCHN AD MONASTIU
ISTD TRASLATA FUIT CA PPLATIOIS EIDE DIE IVETIOIS
SCE CCIS ANN D M CCC XX VII QQ³ EADE DIE PSETIB
EXCLLNTISIS DNO REGE IACOBO Z DDA REGINA
ELICSED EIUS COSORTE I PMA ABAM DCI CE
NOBII ELCTA EXTITIT Z 9FMTA C AIA REQESCAT I PACE AM

VII kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit
venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto quae de
Monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium
istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem Die Inventionis
Sanctae Crucis Anno Domini MCCCXXVII quoque eadem die praesentibus
excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina
Elicsenda eius consorte in primam abatissam dicti ce-
nobii electa extitit & conformata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.

On the 7th calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away
the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from
the Monastery of Saint Anthony of the City of Barcelona to this monastery
because of the same people. On the Day of the Finding of the
True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327] - also the same day that were present
the most excellent lord King James & lady Queen
Elisenda, his consort - [Subirana] was elected and formed first abbess of said
convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen.

--HyperGaruda (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda and Jmabel: This is really excellent work, HyperGaruda. I agree with almost all of your readings and your general interpretation. I do, however, have a few small changes to suggest, which I think improve the text and translation:
  • The phrase causa populationis eiusdem means, I think, "for the purpose of populating it" (i.e., to provide the first group of nuns to inhabit it). The word populatio, like other Latin words ending in -atio, is an abstract noun denoting an action; its usual meaning in classical Latin is "looting, plundering" (from the verb populari), but it can also mean "peopling" or "causing to inhabit", and that's pretty clearly the sense here. The monastery at Pedralbas was entirely new and it needed to be "peopled", which is why Sobirana and her colleagues were brought there from the monastery of St. Anthony.
  • I would not punctuate between this phrase and the date that follows, since this date (3 May 1327) was both the date of the dedication of the new monastery and the date of the arrival of the first residents (i.e., the date on which Sobirana translata fuit).
  • The abbreviation QQᴈ, which you expand as quoque, should, I think, be expanded as quaeque, parallel with the quae in the first line and referring again to Sobirana. This is the subject of the verb extitit in the last line.
  • The abbreviated word 9FMTA, which you expand as conformata, I would expand as confirmata.
With these points in mind, here is my slightly revised text and suggested translation:
VII Kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto, quae de monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem die inventionis Sanctae Crucis anno Domini MCCCXXVII, quaeque eadem die, praesentibus excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina Elicsenda eius consorte, in primam abatissam dicti cenobii electa extitit et confirmata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.
"On the 7th day before the calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from the monastery of Saint Anthony of the city of Barcelona to this monastery for the purpose of populating it on the day of the discovery of the True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327], and who on the same day, in the presence of their excellencies the lord King James and lady Queen Elisenda his consort, was elected and confirmed the first abbess of said convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen."
— Crawdad Blues (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
@Crawdad Blues: sounds to me like you know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to edit & improve on the photo description. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
HyperGaruda did all the heavy lifting. I just walked through the house after he was done and straightened a couple of picture frames. Crawdad Blues (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Crawdad Blues, those were indeed points I had second thoughts about. It makes much more sense now! --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Great job, but please use proper characters for scribal abbreviations such as "Ꝫ", instead of the digit "3", or "Ꝯ", instead of the digit "9". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Stools

In the Category:Stools there two files wich dont belong there: File:Cholera patient rice water stool.jpg File:Cholera patient stool.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Perhaps put two files in a new Category:Stools (medical). We could also disambiguate Category:Stools and put most of the content in a new Category:Stools (furniture), but that seems like overkill.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Moved to Category:Human feces for now, as I'm not sure this fits into Category:Stool tests. Maybe better reserve that for actual tests and create Category:Stool samples for this poop in tubes. El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I think the disambiguation cat should be created. It's important to have both kinds of stools in Commons, and that should be more important than any other concern, but it costs nothing to avvert unwanted visualisations. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey

Hello everyone, there is new information concerning the redesign of the Community Wishlist Survey.

Firstly, in case you missed them earlier, the updates we have provided so far are:

Update 1: Early decisions on the future of the Wishlist.

Update 2: Introducing Jack Wheeler the new Community Tech Manager, also responsible for redesigning the Wishlist.

Update 3: How we can define a "wish".

Currently, we have two newer updates:

Update 4: Since we are planning on keeping the Wishlist open all year and also looking at how the community have participated in vetting/refining wishes, should wishes be editable?

Update 5: We have shared a preview of the new Wishlist.

Please have a look at any of the updates that interest you, particularly Update 4 and 5.

To keep the conversation in one place, please leave your feedback on the central talk page for all the updates (preferably). However, you can leave comments under this post too.

On behalf of Community Tech, STei (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Here's my wish: Stop messing whith Cat-a-lot. Thanks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bagel Effect

Hello, I am Rorth. I would like to create an article about the "Bagel Effect", a term coined by the internet to describe temporal and multiversal events sparked by a seemingly inconsequential action, for example, throwing a bagel at a nameless goon's head, which sparks a series of events that lead to him becoming a vengeful dimensional threat.

Would this make for an article in line with your purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorth Onno (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

@Rorth Onno: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a site responsible for storing images and other files that meet our scope. We don't host articles here, you may want to ask your question on one of the language versions of Wikipedia. As you asked your question in English, I'll direct you to a useful page on the English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Articles for creation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
@Rorth Onno: Like FHTS said, Commons is just for hosting files, if you want to write an article you have to go to Wikipedia proper for it. Having said that, this just sounds like another way to describe the Butterfly Effect to me? ReneeWrites (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

{{Redacted}} source

Is this allowed under Commons policy? Trade (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I believe other things with relation to this organization have been discussed before with the decision to keep. What would be your basis for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Raher than deletion, I think Trade is asking if this edit is allowed. I am not going to comment myself; if that site is the type I think it is, I am not going near any related issues. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
For obvious reasons hiding the source of files kind of goes against the spirit of Commons, even if it is below TOO Trade (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Mixed feelings. It is still easily discoverable for someone who really wants to know. I can see why someone might choose not to link that site, though I would not have redacted it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 10:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: Please link to diffs as [[Special:Diff/826565883]] instead of pasting a complete url. I clicked on it, with that pesky .m., and was hit with a Commons mobile screen layout, which I really rather avoid. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Please convince the developers to improve the mobile interface so mobile users can create links in your preferred format. Expecting users on a mobile touch screen to comply with your specific preferences is your problem. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: it is almost exactly as easy for a mobile user to create an internal link as for a user on a PC (though, personally, I have no problem with the way you did the diff). - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
To make that link on a desktop computer: I select the portion of a link in the address bar with my mouse, use keyboard short cuts to copy and paste into the edit window, position the cursor with my mouse and then type in the text Tuvalkin suggested (if not available in the special commands list in the wiki interface).
To complete the same action in the mobile interface: I select the whole url and hold it until I get a pop up offering me the option to copy, I then position my cursor in the edit window, press and hold until it offers me an option to paste (and hope that the cursor didn't move during the press and hold action), I then move my cursor to the first half of the pasted url to delete the text before the difference code (this is difficult as I have to place the cursor by touch on exactly the right character without applying enough pressure for the interface to decide I am trying to select the whole url), I then move the cursor to the end of the url to delete the characters after the difference code. With the difference code extracted, I manually type in (using a touch screen keyboard) the code suggested by Tuvalkin as the mobile interface has no shortcut list of wiki code.
On desktop, I could probably perform the sequence of actions within 30 seconds. On the mobile interface, I would be lucky to finish in 3 minutes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Just a suggestion: If the mobile interface is not suitable for proper editing (which is not), then maybe you could use your mobile time to browse Tiktoks or Insta or whatever you people do, and wait until you're properly sitting at proper computer to do grownups' work. (Funny thing, too, that you deride proper local hyperlinking as my own quaint «preferred format». It's indeed a neverending September.)
I don't expect the Mediawiki developers to make it so the mobile interface is suitable for any minimally serious work, just like I don't expect unicycle builders to create a model that's suitable for a doctor to perform microsurgeries while riding it.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I am going to assume you are just having a bad day and your personal attack there was unintentional (for the record, I finished my "growing up" over 20 years ago). I have completed thousands of productive edits that improve Commons and other Wikimedia sites through the mobile interface and I am not going to stop because a single editor is in a bad mood. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
You're more or less right in your assumptions (not a bad day today, it's just this timeline is terrible in general), but I still have a point. Thanks for your painfully accurate description of the Rube-Goldberg thingamajig that's needed for something as simple as editing text in a "smart"phone: It's horrible, but don't blame me for it. I had a similar experience recently when I needed to send someone an url via Android IM and that once was enough: I did battle with clunky interfaces in the mid 1980s, I did, but back then there were reasons for that clunkiness. A pocket computer more powerful than what I had on a desk just a few years ago should not make me feel like I did back then in front of a green-on-black screen. And yet it does. Anyway, sorry about my grumpiness, it's not your fault and your edits are sweet — even those made from needlessly unsuitable platforms. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: I disagree with you here. While I'm guessing that User:From Hill To Shore has access—at least sometimes—to a PC, there are tens (hundreds?) of millions of people in the world who have only a mobile phone, and probably millions more who have a tablet (with only the mobile interface) and not a PC. The system should be made usable for them, and their contributions should not be disparaged. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
PCs last a decade or two, are less expensive and more evironmentally impactful than than any mobile device, and are also more conductive to a proper working environment than a mobile device, by itself. I'm not disparaging anyone's contributions, per se, the same way I could only congratulate the unicycle-riding surgeon, but I wish the social and economical situation behind the ubiquitization of mobile devices was different. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The relative price you describe might be true for where you live - are you sure it is the same everywhere on the world? Also ... smartphones can be used and are almost mandatory for a lot of usecases you can't do with a PC - and paying for both devices is definitely more expensive than just buying one. Kritzolina (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Welp, i reverted the change so if anyone wanna argue for the source to be hidden now is the time--Trade (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Pseudomummies

We don't seem to have any category for pseudomummies, nor even an existing image identified as such (at least not identified as such in English). Nothing obvious on Wikipedia, either, but plenty of hits on respectable sites (e.g. [14], [15], [16] and I have an image I want to upload. Am I missing something under another name, or do we really have none? - Jmabel ! talk 10:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Is the preferred term, Psuedo-mummy or Psuedo mummy? Broichmore (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Pseudomummy or pseudo-mummy are both acceptable. I suppose pseudo mummy is OK, but I'd consider it the least acceptable of the three. - Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm familiar with possibly related objects called corn mummies. Maybe they're a subtype of pseudo-mummy? See [17]. —RP88 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, it looks like Commons has a cat for these at Category:Ancient Egyptian corn mummies. Adding cat to image linked by en.WP article now... —RP88 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@RP88: The one in question is not a corn mummy, nor are most pseudomummies. Please see the three links I posted initially. - Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting (with supporting link) that the existing corn mummy category on Commons might be a subtype of pseudo-mummy, ie. if you choose to add a new pseudo-mummy category it should include Category:Ancient Egyptian corn mummies as a subcategory. —RP88 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

Just a reminder that after a few of us got Special:UncategorizedCategories almost to zero, it has been slowly growing again. I, for one, am way too busy with other stuff the next 5 weeks or so to have any significant time to put into it (besides "real life", I'm backlogged about 1500 pictures to describe and upload), so it would be really good if someone else would give this a few hours. Ideally this would be an admin (so they can delete empty categories) but anyone else can mark those for deletion, as described at {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Appending a reminder that categories that only have nonexisting redcategories set don't show up on this report and there is still this open request to have a separate report for these and one other type of effectively or usually uncategorized cats: Special reports request: Categories with only redcats or WD-Infobox cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Scope of Commons

I have read Commons:Project scope and Commons:What Commons is not. My questions are:

  1. Is Wikimedia an archive for historical images from other archives?
    • I have seen many categories that are comprised entirely of images uploaded in bulk from such sources. Not very useful when searching for images.
  2. Are these images considered / treated the same as others?
  3. Can (or should) these images be modified: cropping backgrounds, small rotations, color correction, etc.?
  4. Do these modifictions require a new version be created?
    • I have repeatedly read Commons:Overwriting existing files since it changes often. But what is considered minor and major is personal judgement. Examples are great but not a substitute for specifics.

User-duck (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes, Commons readily accepts PD and appropriately-licensed images from other archives. I'm sorry if you personally do not find it useful to have this content screened by us for copyright compliance, categorized usefully (which, in my experience few archives do) and very often curated much more carefully than in the original archive (see for example User:Jmabel/Final draft of talk for WikiConference North America). I imagine there is no content here that is of use to every user. The fact that you are not the relevant user for this content does not make it useless.
  • These images are treated basically the same as others. Derivative works are welcome, but content from GLAMs should almost never be overwritten, except possibly cropping excessive borders, and even that is a judgement call. Think of this as being along the same lines as that you typically shouldn't alter the work of another Commons user without their consent: the GLAM is in no position to monitor your edits to the image and revert if they disagree, so upload your derivative work under a different filename. This is particularly important on older images, where the way a particular individual chose to print a negative may be significant. (See, for example, File:Aftermath of Seattle fire of June 6, 1889, showing remains of Dexter Horton & Co bank, 1st Ave S and S Washington St, with John (CURTIS 2104).jpg, where we have different versions where people presumably printing from the same negative made different choices.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, we often bring together (in a category) images from numerous archives. Since most archives only post what they physically own, there are few places on the web that do this. This often results in finding inconsistencies in claims made by various archives. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Correct, correct, and correct again. GLAM files (GLAM, an acronym for galleries, libraries, archives, and museums,) are reference files and should never be overwritten. Anywhere where the esteemed Duck has oerwritten them, then they need to go back and correct such. Broichmore (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    "never" is a exaggerated. We can't really make use of files with 30% borders WMF sites. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    Incorrect, a border may be part of the artistic composition. There are always exceptions to every rule of course. However reference files are just that, they are uncontaminated by any revision, any change to them introduces the possibility of degradation of one sort or another.
    The background to this discussion was the cropping of a historical artefact.
    Who is "we"?, thats not commons; it might be Wikipedia, I grant you.
    Again, if you want to crop, a GLAM file thats your choice, but generally speaking the original will still be the Wikiipedia preferred option. Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    I suppose it's really up to Wikipedia and files in use are likely not cropped. Obviously, the topic "borders" needs an uncropped border. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
    The one time I can think of that we routinely crop files from a GLAM is when it is clear that someone scanned something badly (e.g. 2% at right with nothing but transparent alpha channel; obviously wrong orientation for a "portrait-orientated" photo leaving massive white-space at left and right) and it is clearly not a conscious aesthetic or scholarly choice on the part of the GLAM. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Image seems to have been deleted against consensus, also questions about keeping ai generated images in scope

I believe here Commons:Deletion requests/File:Poolcore.png an image was deleted against consensus. The deleting administrator stated that it was deleted based on the strength of the argument.

I do not believe poolcore would fulfill the GNG, but to my knowledge the GNG does not apply to wikimedia commons. But we do have this article en:WP:Internet aesthetic and poolcore could definitely have a place in that article, or perhaps in this one en:WP:Liminal space (aesthetic) of which it is sometimes seen as a sub-aesthetic of.

I do not intend on adding it to those articles immediately, but might want to do so later if it is undeleted. Generally will an ai image be considered within scope if I immediately add it to a wikipedia article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

In a case such as this, with multiple "keep" and multiple "delete" votes indicating no clear consensus, it is the responsibility of the closing admin to apply Commons policy to decide whether an image should remain on Commons. In such cases, it's best to indicate the reason rather than using the default "per nomination" or "no valid reason for deletion" text; Bedivere correctly did so.
While an image that is in use is generally assumed to be in scope, adding an image to an article merely to claim it is in scope is frowned upon. Given that the word "poolcore" does not currently appear anywhere on enwiki, and that a quick search finds nothing meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss the "poolcore" aesthetic, I highly doubt that it would be appropriate to add this image to enwiki. I agree with Bedivere's close and see no reason to undelete this image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535 in the future would it be appropriate to request the undeletion of the image in the event that reliable sources get added to english wikipedia about poolcore? How long are deleted images stored before they need to be reuploaded? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
"Deleted" images are not actually deleted from servers; the file is still there, just accessible only to admins. If reliable sources emerge, and an editor in good standing adds them, and for some reason none of the thousands of photos of actual pools on Commons cannot be used, then an undeletion request can be entertained. But that's a whole lot of ifs, and I find it extremely doubtful that there will ever be a reason to undelete the file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I share this concern of Immanuelle and don't think Bedivere acted according to WMC policy by overriding the debate conclusion / consensus according to whatever the admin saw fit. It's not a big problem since the file was not in use and the subject is rather minor and niche. I think something should be done once this occurs more frequently than now already or for subjects that are more clearly within scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Deletion requests aren't fielded by consensus, it even says so at the top of the page. Bedivere did nothing wrong. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't implying that they are. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

File:RuizPineda.jpg

Hi. I wanted to ask which was the file's date of File:RuizPineda.jpg included in the original upload. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

The date added as date of creation was the upload date. GPSLeo (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

I have seen on Commons many (mostly black and white) photographs of famous people taken from school "yearbooks" with the claim "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." Many of these are in Category:High school yearbook headshots.

Is it really true that these yearbooks were published without a copyright notice? Of course this is difficult to know without access to every one of these... I'm so used to any company or nonprofit snapping a copyright sign on just any website or publication they provide that it seems to me odd that, say, school or alumni associations, or whatever contractor they used, did not put any copyright notice. David.Monniaux (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, it was quite common to not include a notice/renewal/registration. Not every school in the United States had copyright on their mind when making these or publishing them, mainly for their student population, not wider dissemination. I would guess that most of these issues pre-1989 are probably Public Domain. However, assuming that any and every headshot from before 1989 is Public Domain is foolish. There are certainly some schools that did include one. The best way to find out is to see the yearbook in its entirety and look for a notice. These headshots should only be uploaded if it can be proven there's no notice. Here's a random example from 1967, with no notices: https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/1000242792?page=72 PascalHD (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
What can we do about this? Ask the uploader to provide proof that there is no notice? This would entail uploading the full volume.. Or maybe ask him/her to assert the absence of copyright notice? David.Monniaux (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
In the era when U.S. copyright required explicit notice, it was very rare for U.S. high school yearbooks to be copyrighted: rare enough that I would expect to see positive evidence that a given yearbook was copyrighted, rather than vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
It may be more complicated. The school would announce that school pictures would be taken on a certain day. A professional photographer would show up and take the photos with his equipment and backdrop. Then parents would be given an opportunity to purchase copies of the photos from the photographer (not from the school). That sale would be publication, and there might be a copyright notice with that sale. Sometime later, the school yearbook is published. If the sale had a copyright notice but the yearbook did not, then what is the legal result? Glrx (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
For that matter: even if a high school yearbook was copyrighted, it would most likely be considered a collective work given that it's made up of independent contributions from many different authors. Even if the school or some other entity had a copyright claim on the work as a whole, that would probably be distinct from the rights to the individual photos it contained. Omphalographer (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
How would yearbooks be any different then something like a newspaper or magazine where the complete work is either copyrighted or PD, and therefore each individual element would have the same status, regardless of if it's considered a collective work or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Yearbooks usually consist in large part of content which was made by students, not employees, and which thus aren't works for hire. Omphalographer (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Consider the photographer. He may have a contract with the school that says he owns the copyright on all the photos (he's going to sell copies to the parents). The contract also allows the school and students to publish the photos in the yearbook. The school then publishes the yearbook, but it neglects to state the photographer's copyright. That is not the photographer's error; it is the school's. Why should the photographer lose his copyright because a third party published his photos? In theory, the photographer could sue the school for failing to state his copyright. Does the photographer have a duty to inspect the yearbook and make sure his copyright is stated? Compare that to a newspaper. The employees write the text, and the employees take photos. The newspaper has the copyright to much of what it publishes (but not, for example, the wire services' content). Glrx (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a problem that would upstream of the project. Just like it would be if any random company has someone create a work on the their behalf and then it turned out years later the contract wasn't valid or something for whatever reason. What does that have to do with us? Or are we suppose to not host any work for hire just because there's an extremely small chance the organization didn't cross all their Ts and dot all their Is properly? I don't buy the idea that the photographer necessarily creates the photographs for a yearbook to resale to family members. Usually it's either different photographs or the photographer at least knows the photos are going to be published in the yearbook. You can't really take back the lack of a notice or change the copyright status once something is published either. In otherwards, if the photographer agrees their photographs will be included in the yearbook then that's that. We aren't here to second guess things and it's reasonable to assume a published photograph has been released into the public under the assumption that it is or eventually will be PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
"that would probably be distinct from the rights to the individual photos it contained" No. It's authorized publication without a copyright notice, which would have sufficed at the time to place U.S. work in the public domain. Not to mention that in virtually all cases we can be confident it is the first publication. - Jmabel ! talk 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Outside (non-student) photographers made their made their money selling copies of the photos to the families of the individuals depicted. No payment from the school. And as far as I know, none of them ever put copyright notices on those pictures, either. Certainly not in my high school, or for any others I've ever seen. - Jmabel ! talk 09:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
If the school put a copyright notice in their name on the book, it might cover the photographer's work. If the contract with the school said that they had to put a copyright notice in the book, and they didn't, then the photographer could sue the school. But if virtually all copies of the work are without copyright, then the work lost copyright.
Why should the photographer lose his copyright because a third party published his photos? Because how many people publish their own stuff? It would negate the value of the copyright notice, of informing the public of copyright, to make virtually all (e.g.) novels to not need a notice, since the copyright owner is not the publisher.
For a large part of this period, until the 1964 yearbooks, a copyright notice wouldn't have been enough; they would have needed a renewal after 28 years, renewals that are pretty scarce, especially on stuff like this, and certainly would have been the photographer's responsibility.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

The question I ask is quite simple. I've very used to anything published in any form by any US corporation, including nonprofit, to include a little (c) Copyright line somewhere discreet that it seems a bit weird to me that some nonprofit alumni association or similar structure would not include one. I'd be curious to see a typical full yearbook of, say, 1967. David.Monniaux (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

  • As a subscriber to Ancestry that scans yearbooks, I have not seem a copyright notice yet. That would cover yearbooks up to 1989. I agree the default is no copyright until proven. We have a similar rule of thumb for publicity images, we do find that around 1980 some studios added a copyright notice, and when we find it we mention it in the category, along with the year. The market for a yearbook is very small, and the chance for sales after the graduating class buys theirs is almost zero. --RAN (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@David.Monniaux: I own several from roughly that era (I was in high school 1968-1972), and they absolutely do not contain copyright notices, but I have no idea how I could show you a 200+ page hardback that is not online. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Oh, no, no, I'm just content that somebody actually looked into the issue. Thanks! David.Monniaux (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Raiden (Mortal Komat) vs. Raiden (Metal Gear)

Which character do you think most people will think of when the name "Raiden" is brought up?--Trade (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Most people won't ever have heard of either. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Raiden Shogun. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

File:Crocus City Hall attack, Moscow, Russia (2024-03-23-06-26-46 UMBRA-06).tiff

Does this file display for anyone here, or should it be deleted as "corrupt or empty" and replaced by the JPG version? Thanks --A.Savin 12:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

The file is fine only the thumbnail engine seems to have a problem with large geotiff files. As this is a MediaWiki software problem and not a problem with the file we should keep the file and wait for the bug to be fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

A building in Carcassonne

Does anyone know the name or address of this building in Carcassonne? It shows up in every photo in Category:Place Auguste Pierre Pont that is not already specifically categorized to another building on the square. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

I worked it out myself. It was Chéz Saskia as can be seen in this 2010 photo that didn't mention the plaza. Now closed; it was affiliated with the Hôtel de la Cité on the adjacent side of the plaza. Until it gets another name, that will do for a category name. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It is the southern tip of this way on OSM, which does not appear to have a name. "Chéz Saskia" was likely the name of the occupying business. Looking at the location on WikiShootMe, it has no Wikidata entry (yet!).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Help with artist's signature

Can anyone make out the signature of the artist in these two engravings:

The name is probably French, and it looks as if it may be printed in reverse (if the artist signed from left to right on the metal plate, the signature will run from right to left in the print). I've looked at it both ways, and I just can't figure it out. I don't need it to determine copyright status — the engravings were both published in 1876 and so are certainly PD — but I like to give credit where it's due, and I hate using the {{unknown engraver}} tag when the engraver clearly is known and the signature is right there staring me in the face. (No attribution in the text of the publication itself, as far as I can see.)

Any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Choliamb (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@Choliamb: It's in mirror writing, and appears to be "Bosteyon. S." - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Jmabel. Bosteyon was actually one of the various Bo[---]on combinations that I searched for, but I was unable to find any trace of an engraver with that name. I agree that it seems like the most likely reading, and I've added it to the image pages. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Think it's Bosreyon. That S suffix is more likely to be short for Sculptor, than a christian name initial. - Broichmore (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
Think this plate, offers further proof of that. Broichmore (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
A belated thanks for this, Broichmore. I've updated the image pages with your reading, and I see that you've already added them to a new Bosreyon category. But I can't see a signature on the third engraving that you uploaded and linked above. Am I just overlooking it? Choliamb (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Something of a stretch here, I feel there is a signature on the left hand, broken shoulder. When I have the time and facilities to go through all the pages of the Gazette that we currently have, I'm sure we will find more works by this engraver, and possible confirmation that I'm right about this alternative signature. That alternative signature, if it's correct, may indicate, that aside from being the engraver, he may also have been the original artist. If another similar signature can be found, think it will adequately prove it.
I'm at least 4-6 weeks away from starting such an exercise, If you want to dip in, feel free... Broichmore (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, yes, that is a bit of a stretch, though you might be able to convince me that it's a signature. But easier confirmation of your reading of the name can be found in this engraving from the same volume of the Gazette, which clearly shows an R rather than a T after the S. As for Bosreyon being the original artist rather than just the engraver, I think that's unlikely, at least in the case of the Apollo from Entrains. The author of the article associated with this plate says that he received the drawing on which the engraving was based from a M. Limoges in Entrains, who was the owner of the statue until the Limoges collection was acquired by the Musée d'archéologie nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Bosreyon, on the other hand, was apparently working in Paris for Lenormant and J. de Witte, the editors of the Gazette archéologique. He prepared plates of objects from a number of sites in different parts of the country, most of which he probably did not see in person.
If you'd like to exercise your deciphering powers on the signature of a different artist who also worked for the Gazette, have a look at File:Bas-relief decouvert a Lyon (Gazette archeologique 1876, pl 10).jpg. I'm pretty sure this is P. Sellier, who illustrated a number of French publications in the second half of the 19th century, but I'd be happy to hear your opinion – Choliamb (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the good work revising my upload. Very welcome. I have uploaded a slightly rotated version of your new find, that requies similar treatment.
Meanwhile for the other picture I'm inclined towards Sellier as you are, but I know next to nothing of him.
What we desperately need is an expansion of the descriptions included in the nine pdf's we have of the Gazette. All we show is Volume numbers. This would be useful before extracting images from same. Do these 9 files represent the totality of the Gazette's publications?
The fr:Gazette archéologique wiki article, could do with filling out too, even if it only details out some of the history, scope, dates and contributors of the publications. Broichmore (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
A total of 14 volumes of the Gazette archéologique were published between 1875 and 1889. The nine volumes already in the Commons (uploaded from IA, scanned from copies in the Getty Center) are the first nine (1875–1884; 1881–1882 was a single volume). The other five are available at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France and at the library of the University of Heidelberg, both of which have complete runs independently scanned from their own copies. You can probably find them elsewhere as well, but those are two sources that I use regularly for old archaeological literature. Choliamb (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
P. Sellier is most likely Paul Sellier (Q123068789). From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, well done. Thank you. Choliamb (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese)

Can someone interpret the inscription here? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I interpret the text as "佐々木藤五郎之墓", "Sasaki Tōgorō no haka", in English "Togoro Sasaki's grave". —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I think there are a few possible readings of the name here. The family name could be read as Sasaki, Ishida or Niikura. The personal name could be read either as Togoro or Fujigoro. Someone better at Japanese than me may be able to advise that a particular combination is more likely. However, a fairly trustworthy online translation tool (Deepl) only offers "Sasaki" as a translation for the family name but can't decide whether it is "Togoro" or "Fujigoro." Without additional context, it may be misleading to settle on a particular translation.
@RP88: How certain are you with your reading here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm definitely over my skis, both with the transcription of the kanji and the translation. Perhaps it's my ignorance showing, but I'm pretty sure the family name is Sasaki, I don't think Ishida is at all likely. Assuming Sasaki as the family name, you're correct that 藤五郎 is ambiguous — it could be Fujigorō instead of Tōgorō. Honestly, when trying to decide between the two, I used Nazkuke Pon and familiarity with Koike Tōgorō (小池藤五郎) to select the later as more likely. —RP88 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)
The alternative name readings come from WWWJDIC.[18] WWWJDIC includes a substantial names database, so will give you both common and uncommon readings of names. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Hello, 佐々木 as a family name is almost always "Sasaki". 藤五郎 as a man's name is perhaps more than 90% "Togoro" (ex.[19]) (sometimes spelled as "Tougorou" or "Tōgorō").--miya (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for clarification on the name and pointing out that interesting link. The grave under discussion is in the Lake View Cemetery in Seattle. Seattle is in King County, Washington. So, with a little searching:
Looking at other images of the section of Lake View Cemetery in which this gavestone is located, it appears the graves nearby are all from the turn of the century. It seems plausible that this gravestone might be for the Togoro Sasaki who died sometime late 1906/early 1907 whose body was found in Puget Sound on 22 January 1907 near the Great Northern docks in Seattle. —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
I hope anyone in Seattle would look at the back side of this grave - to see if the death year of Sasaki is carved there.--miya (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Viewmaster 3D images of the moon

I stumbled upon 3 discs with 21 viewmaster images of the US moon landing. So the NASA made 3D images of the Apollo program! But it does not seem, that this images are on commons? @VasuVR @Askeuhd C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Curious whether there would be copyright issues. I have many reels of viewmaster images (about 50?) which includes real locations, as well as fiction cartoons (like Mickey mouse & Donald duck). I have scanners too - but have not scanned any so far. Will look for responses and suggestions here. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Threre are two types: Images that were made on earth (rocket start, control center) and images made in space ( moon from orbiting lander, earth from moon, astronaut raising a flag on moon). The first one's can have been made by a Viewmaster employee -then Viewmaster has the copyright. The second one's can only have been made by astronauts. Austronauts work for the US Government (the NASA) and all work by US Government is PD. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Are we sure that the latter type are NASA photographs, and not artists' impressions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
The images, I have seen on Viewmaster are fotographs and the discs have been acquried in the 1980s, long before digital image manipulation was available. But: As they come from NASA, they should also be available at the NASA website, without needing to use the tiny ViewMaster prints? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Interesting - as this is the first time I have heard about these images, my gut feeling tells me they have been recreated from the official stills, most likely Hasselblad, but I will look over the equipment lists again tomorrow, however from memory I do not recall any stereoscopic photography equipment, other than the automatic ITEK camera in the sim bay on 15, 16 and 17. A number of panoramas were shot on the surface using the Hasselblads, which could be rendered to pseudo-stereoscopic imagery, I believe, as the quality and resolution of those stills are just incredible, even in a modern context. Askeuhd (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
@VasuVR Maybe you can send @Askeuhd scans of the ViewMaster images for comparing to known NASA images? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
It is also possible that the fotos were made with a Hasselblad and a mirror system mounted in front of the lens, so that two images are made with a single lens. If the mirror adapter was fastened to the camera with magnets, the astronauts could have mounted and unmounted it between shots making 2D and 3D images. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Rendering of File:Serbian tricolor from the First Serbian Uprising.svg

I'm having an issue with File:Serbian tricolor from the First Serbian Uprising.svg - the file is not rendering correctly and no matter what I try doing to fix it, it keeps clipping out parts of it ImStevan (talk) 10:39, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@ImStevan: I notice that multiple versions of the file have been uploaded. That can cause problems with yor browser cache where you see an earlier version of the upload rather than the latest version. I'd suggest following, Help:Purge as a first step to make sure you are seeing the latest version.
That may not fix your core issue though about "clipping." What part of the image is clipped that you would expect to see? From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: I probably worded it wrong. The flag is a red-blue-red tri-color, with a coat of arms consisting of a cross surrounded by 4 red cyrilic С letters, itself being surrounded by two ferns on either side, with a crown and a cross above it, a pin-sort-of-thing below it and a sword on top of the entire coat of arms. I've tried emptying my browser cache, purging the file page etc, but whenever I look at the file or try reuploading it, it keeps missing the left fern and the cross. If it appears normal to you, then great, if it's not only me, then idk how to fix it ImStevan (talk) 11:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@ImStevan At first blush, from the thumbnails, only Savasampion's first version of 20:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC) has all the elements you mention, but I don't see any letters. This may just be a rendering problem. Have you reviewed COM:SVG?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
There shouldn't be any letters on it, apart from the stylized cyrilic which already appears in the render. The fern and the cross are missing. I reviewed COMSVG and didn't find a solution ImStevan (talk) 13:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolved
ImStevan (talk) 13:45, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Marie Turner

Hi, I am looking for information about Marie Turner, the photographer of File:Marion Post Wolcott, 1940.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: I found one who may fit through Ancestry. Maiden name Roberts, a superintendent for the county schools aged 40 in the 1940 US Census, married to Ervine Turner aged 51, a lawyer for the steam railroad, living at 153 Highland Avenue, Jackson, Breathitt County, Kentucky on 13 April, 1940, with 3 kids, a live-in cook, and her mother Ronie Roberts aged 69.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:30, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Link? Is there any information about employment by the Farm Security Administration? I could find only 4 pictures taken by her. [20] doesn't mention that. Yann (talk) 16:18, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Alternatives to file verification

After my proposal for file verification, in Commons technical needs survey, was unsuccesful (it received only 3 votes, including mine), I'd like to talk here about the problem I was trying to solve. If I am not wrong, now, every user (even an unlogged o recently registered one) may edit a file page and remove its attribution template. For some files, the attribution template can be a true safeguard to avoid the file being deleted by mistake (for example, as I said in my proposal, if the file itself includes an "all rights reserved" copyright tag, with a recent date, but was re-licensed by its author after original publication). With file verification not seeming to be a viable solution, I'm thinking about several alternatives:

  • Preventing unregistered and/or unprivileged users from removing attribution templates from files (especially from files uploaded by other users).
  • Allowing attribution template removal to all or part of the users mentioned in the previous point, but having the action to be subsequently reviewed by an administrator or privileged user. This wouldn't be the same as usual edit patrolling, but a much more prioritized list where all editions should be reviewed soon (there shouldn't be many attribution template removals in a day, so it wouldn't take much time to review it).
  • Having an official list of safe sources. Files from those sources are highly unlikely to be copyright violations, so, if one is nominated, it won't be deleted unless it's clearly proven that it doesn't come from the said source, or that it's a rare exception where the free license or public domain doesn't apply. For every copyvio nomination, this list should be looked at before proceeding.
  • I'm being too paranoid. If somebody vandalizes a file page, by removing its attribution template, the file will never be deleted even if nominated, because file history will always be carefully checked before deletion, and the past presence of the template will be detected.

Of course, if the last point is right, there wouldn't be any need to do anything. Otherwise, I think things should be improved to avoid risking to lose valuable content. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This seems to me like one of those; how much complexity do you want to add just to counter something that rarely happens. We have a history of every single change to a page. (Almost) Everything that was deleted could be brought back if needed. So we have transparency and can correct. Is adding a lot of verification that is going to require a ton of changes for everyone to comply with, really needed to deal with the rarely occurring issues that you point out ? I think most people won't think that is needed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@TheDJ: We have a history of every single change to a page. Unless the file has already been deleted: then, file history is available no more (at least, publicly; that's why I worry so much about that: it isn't as easy as reverting a wiki edit, and a deleted file isn't available for users to have a look at it).
really needed to deal with the rarely occurring issues that you point out: I hope this basically means that my last point was right: I'm too paranoid about this. I understand that it's remotely possible for mistaken deletions to happen, but (I hope) we don't need to be obsessed about it, especially if the file has been around for a while, the uploader hasn't a bad user history, and the uploaded work is from a source that has lots of other works in Commons. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a solution to which there is almost no problem. Might there very occasionally be a wrong deletion of this sort? Sure, anything can happen. But DR nominations by people who are unregistered of recently registered tend to be closely checked; the uploader has a chance to weigh in; and admins can still look at the history even after the file was deleted, so an undeletion request is always a possibility. Further, very often, the history on a source site can be checked with the Internet Archive.
Can you bring forth any examples of when you think something like this has happened? Because my gut is that this would be a lousy place to expend scarce resources. - Jmabel ! talk 08:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, yes, I think this confirms that it's only paranoia on my part. I have no examples, but I've just thought that, if a file shows an "all rights reserved" notice, then there's some risk of it being deleted at any moment, unless an attribution template is present. This partly comes from a experience when a Wikipedia (not Commons) user said me (or at least seemed to say) that anything with a copyright notice couldn't be CC-licensed, while that isn't true (a CC-licensed work isn't public domain, it's copyrighted, and released under a free license, and a © tag itself doesn't exclude free licensing). This made me overly concerned about misunderstandings that could result in mistaken content removal, especially if an old "all rights reserved" text is present in a now freely licensed work (as is in many files I uploaded).
Because my gut is that this would be a lousy place to expend scarce resources: that's why now I'm not suggesting file verification, but restricting attribution template removal (especially from uploads by other users) to priviliged users, if it's feasible.
Further, very often, the history on a source site can be checked with the Internet Archive.: yes, I understand that it's carefully checked before deleting a file, especially if the uploader has a good history, and there are lots of other files from the same source. I was probably undervaluing this due to the said bad experience in Wikipedia. Well, I don't keep on nagging about this, if it really isn't a problem at all. MGeog2022 (talk) 12:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
As a data point, my watchlist includes Commons:Batch uploading/Geograph/Deletion requests, which means I see every deletion request for one of the 6 million or so files uploaded by GeographBot. I also have some searches that I run every few days that will catch many cases of people removing the permission templates from those files. The searches do occasionally catch (accidental) removals, which I fix. I don't think I've ever seen a GeographBot upload nominated for deletion just because its permission template has been removed. So yes, I think this is a largely theoretical problem. --bjh21 (talk) 08:38, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21, thanks, I probably underestimated the automatic tools and revision work that it's done to avoid those things from happening.
I don't think I've ever seen a GeographBot upload nominated for deletion just because its permission template has been removed.: I was thinking especially about maps that show, in the image itself, something like "© 2011 IGN. All rights reserved", that were later released under a CC license. That's when I feared that, having no attribution template (because someone hypothetically removed it) and including such a tag, they could be nominated for deletion, and even deleted, but your explanations and Jmabel's ones reassure me somewhat. MGeog2022 (talk) 13:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Mothers and children

Hi, I am sorting out files from Category:Mothers and children, and I came across File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-07921, Berlin, Ausstellung "Mutter und Kind".jpg. This is very weird, as (at least) on the right and left, they are not children, but dolls. Any idea what's that? Yann (talk) 16:11, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

In Commons' logic, would it be "Mothers and children in art"? Enhancing999 (talk) 16:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
According to the description, It's a depiction of what a family should like (according to Montessori principles it seems) at a healthcenter. Probably for education/propaganda reasons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:20, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. This seems to be a set up for a horror movie... Yann (talk) 16:24, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The description is straight forward: It is a display from a (first) exhibition in a Berlin health center in 1929 meant to teach young women how best to take care of their children (according to the Montesossri principles). The room is described as coffee table in a light sunny breakfast room. All four "people" are mannequins/puppets in life size. The horror movie started four years later when Hitler assumed power. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 16:57, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the young woman is a doll as well though, as the text only mentions "Kinderpuppen in natürlicher Grösse" (life-size child dolls). --Rosenzweig τ 23:00, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, agreed. What category do you suggest, as "Mothers and children" is not OK, IMO? Yann (talk) 23:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
That's still what it portrays; it's just that it's not a simple photograph of reality. It's more like (for example) a photograph of a diorama. - Jmabel ! talk 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

London questions

Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is still a pub as of 2024, see their official website.
The English Wikipedia article on en:Mornington Crescent tube station says the architect was Leslie Green. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:12, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I used the information and I added another exterior tube station category: Category:Camden Town tube station exterior.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
PS: Is the Camden Town tube station building also a Category:Grade II listed buildings in the London Borough of Camden building?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

PD-shape

Hi. I meant to ask, could the logo from this profile picture fall under public domain for being simple geometric shapes? Many thanks in advance. NoonIcarus (talk) 17:01, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: Looks much too complicated to me, though of course laws vary from country to country. If you need people with expertise on precedent in various jurisdictions, you'd do better to ask at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@NoonIcarus and Jmabel: Heads up that the last ping was malformed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:34, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@Koavf and Jmabel: Excellent, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

NARA personnel record documents: individual pages as .JPG vs series as .PDF

Hello, recently I have started to categorize a large amount of uploads from the US National Archives (uploaded as part of the DPLA uploads). And what I have noticed is that we have an incredibily large amount of scanned documents, where indivual pages belonging together are uploaded as individual .JPG files - the ~300,000 files in Category:Media contributed by National Archives at College Park - Textual Reference are just the tip of the iceberg.

An example of what this means: Category:US National Archives series: Muster Rolls and Personnel Diaries, Januar 1941 - Dezember 1980. See the subcategories of this category - I just started those, the files within were previously only categorized within the massive "textual reference" category linked above. Those categories and the ~1,5k files within each are essentially one giant list of people and their assignments to military units.

So far, I have categorized ~20,000 files into their respective NARA file unit/subcategory. My search suggests, we have ~250,000 files belonging to this NARA record series currently on Commons. And this entire NARA record series (those personnel records) consists of 5,000,400 pages, so those 200k files make up only 10% of the entire collection! And those 5,000,000 files are only the personel records of the US Marine Corps - there are, for example the digitized/online 24,000,000 records of the Buerau of Naval Personnel, and millions upon millions more of such records from various parts of the military. (and that 24M Naval Personnel is only 4%, the entire collection including non-digitized stuff contains 490,000,000 pages)

Now my questions:

1) Are those files within Commons scope? I'd personally would probably say a weak yes. The only thing those massive amounts of records are useful for is likely genealogy, and I don't think people go to commons or wikisource if they want to do that, but okay.

2) Is it nessescary to upload those documents as individual image files? As pointed out above, the amount of those documents (speaking of personel records) is incredibly large. And this makes incredibly hard to maintain those files - for little benefit. Commons:File_types#Scanned_text_documents_(DjVu,_PDF) dosen't even mention uploading scanned files as single images, and while I understand to do this in order to preserve quality - it only makes sense when dealing with scans where many illustrations of images are included, where a high quality scan is very important. However, this is not the case for those personel records - as long as you can read the text without magnifying glasses (or more importantly search the text using OCR), it's fine.

I suggest that instead of uploading millions of those files as .jpg, the corrospondenting NARA file series should be uploaded as PDF. Example: The "Muster Rolls and Personnel Diaries" NARA collection, which consists of 5,000,000 pages, is sub-categorized into 3707 file units - each of those units represents one microfilm "Reel" in the archive, and contains 1000-2000 pages. Example I think that instead of uploading 5M individual images, the 3K PDF files are preferrable for those types of document.

(Note also that the 200k files of this series already on Commons have PD-US (pre 1929) as licence tag, which is not exactly correct - someone can replace this using VFC to PS-US-Navy, and that's already the issue with high maintenance effort - 200k files need to be edited instead of potentially ~150 PDFs containing those files)

Another issue is that the file description pages lack sortkeys, so the pages show up completely mixed up and in the wrong order within categories.

TheImaCow (talk) 21:59, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Please be aware that quality is better than quantity. A large amount of files from GLAMs were uploaded without proper author, date, source, or even license. Example: File:Migrant family looking for work in the pea fields of California - NARA - 196057.tif: the first version is a small copy, had no author, wrong date, wrong license, and not the original source, cf. [21]. Now it is a pain to fix them all. Yann (talk) 08:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Amateur drawings

Is it fine to upload amateur drawings like these?

File:Portrait Aissa Edon.jpg

In my opinion, the terrible quality of these works not only doesn't help illustrate the content, but in some cases may offend the person who is depicted in such a way. --Quick1984 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is some reason the artist is notable (possibly not related to their art), these would seem to me to be out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Jmabel, I'm afraid some would comment in use = in scope when nominated. --Quick1984 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I looked into that and these are in use solely through edits by two people, User:Hibrideacus (uploader) and User:MHM55, adding the images to Wikidata. Wikidata has then automatically used them in multiple language Wikipedias through the use of Infobox templates. Yes, COM:INUSE is a valid argument but the apparent use on multiple projects is very misleading. If there was consensus to remove each image from a single Wikidata page, they would no longer be in use. Commons should not make that judgement on behalf of Wikidata, so I'll initiate a discussion at Wikidata to see if they can reach consensus separate to any considerations of deletion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Discussion started at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Check of consensus for use of amateur drawings on items about living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
(after edit conflict) While we can assume good faith by the uploader/creator, these are all amateur depictions of living people. As a bare minimum, we should be considering the moral issues presented in COM:DIGNITY, COM:PHOTOCONSENT (as far as these two sections can be applied to art rather than photography) and WMF resolution on biographies of living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
On my side, it is only a matter of emptying the Category:Les sans images, and harmonizing with the many other portraits made for other women. I understand your point and clearly there should be a kind of decision on the opportunity of sharing those works. I'm happy if other Wikipedians take on and make the necessary changes. For the future, I don't want to judge on the quality of images, therefore we need a kind of procedure... I may stop to add the portraits in Wikidata – but then it will be for all pictures. MHM (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
@MHM55: At this point we have usage by two editors and concerns from three editors. I wouldn't say there is a clear consensus yet to rule either way on whether use of these images is right or wrong. Your choice of future editing is up to you, but I wouldn't let this single discussion influence you too much. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that if the drawings of famous people are made by not notable artist, then such stuff should be deleted. And if we have real images of such famous people (drawed by notable artist!), then drawings to be replaced by real images (e.g. in Wikidata or in enwiki). I also know that in etwiki there was a related project, see Category:Tartupedia images from Tartu Art School project. Also notifying @Kruusamägi Estopedist1 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It is unreasonable to demand that drawings of famous people have to be made by notable artists. One does not need to be a notable artist to produce excellent quality. Or should we also delete all photos from Commons, that are not made by people who themselves are not notable photographers?
We should expect that some quality standards are met to keep the images, let alone to use them in articles, but if a person is clearly recognizable from the image and the image does not have obvious problems, then it is perfectly fine.
It someone deletes those Tartupedia images or even removes them from articles, then that person should be permanently banned from editing. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) 
High enough quality drawings are welcome, regardless of who drew them. Drawings by famous people are welcome, regardless of our opinion of their quality. Bad drawings by non-notable people are not welcome. These are poor drawings by non-notable people. And, no, the people are basically not recognizable from these drawings. Compare the portrait of Sevidzem Ernestine Leikeki to any picture of her you can find online. The image is somewhere in the range from useless to insulting. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Actually, the Leikeki is identifiably (if poorly) based on a pre-existing image, to the point that it might be considered copyvio. I'll file a DR. DS (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
And the Edon is, I'm very confident, based on an image from a BBC interview. I would not be surprised if all of the uploader's handmade illustrations are identifiably based on specific pre-existing images (although I'm not confident enough of that to launch a blanket DR). DS (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Just FWIW: I've done similar things myself (better, I hope), but would not put them on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
This is where common sense would be invaluable. Yes, we need some amateur art examples. We probably have more than enough already. Unfortunately for every Picasso there are a trillion clueless idiots with no artistic skills whatever. IMO, unless there is a notable justification for amateur picture such as these, they should not be uploaded. I cant actually disagree with Jmabel's earlier comments.
Before uploading an image ask yourelf the question, who (other than your mother) would want to use this image to illustrate anything. -Broichmore (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
If they are not in use, they should be deleted as out of scope. Undoubtedly. Many of these illustrations seem to be outrightly insulting to the biographed women, and actually a disservice to the cause they claim to serve. The ones that are found to be derived can be deleted independently of their use, as copyvios. Darwin Ahoy! 21:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
As noted above, these images spread across WM projects after being added to Wikidata items by just two people - the uploader and another one who had already replied that they wouldn't do it again. Are there enough opponents of the use of these drawings here to simply undo these edits and thereby solve the 'in use' problem? Quick1984 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons shall be no host for private drawings. Providing personal pieces of art is basically a good thing but Commons is the wrong place for it. Commons hosts only files that are realistically useful for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:A542:7EF5:7069:64F5 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

These are not "private drawings", these are images drawn specifically for the purpose to illustrate Wikipedia BECAUSE overly strict regulations prohibit the illustration with actual photographs. So, photos of person X are under copyright. Photos of public statues of person X are under copyright. Photos of high-quality and photorealistic public graffiti about person X are under copyright. The article about person X cannot be illustrated in Wikipedia, but every blog and newspaper have hundreds of images in their archives, to illustrate their content. Only Wikipedia may not use any illustrations of people who lived in the 20th century.
unknown artist, rough sketch, but okay because it has a patina?
SURELY, an artistically skilled editor can be allowed to create a drawing of the person, and upload a copyright-free digital copy for the purpose of finally help out "Les sans images". The images were created for the educational purpose. ... But User:DragonflySixtyseven also states a valid concern: if an actual photograph (automatically under copyright) is identified as the possible original of the artist's drawing, this means that the artist must cede all rights of the image he drew, to the previous photographer - even if the artist claims that the photo was not even used! The face of a person, for some reason, just looks similar in art and on photos! May the artist look at six or sixty photos and make their own interpretation, not using either? Presumably also no (the law usually says 'yes' by the way, but after all, we're trying to create impossible standards for Commons, so PCP means no). So nobody DARE to provide a qualitative good or even semi-realistic artwork (like US court sketchers draw): any kind of quality must automatically be assumed to be AI-generated. Because AI-artwork? Big No for copyright reasons again: neither artist nor AI may illustrate WP.
Only real idealists still create artwork under this kind of conditions. Kudos to the creators of the example images: please DO refine your artistic skills, but also please continue.
User:Broichmore's rule-of-thumb advice to these idealists is reasonable though: Have a second (and a third) opinion, before uploading. --Enyavar (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
  1. Sure, as long as artistically skilled is taken seriously and that it is a type art that involves accurate representation. If you are non-notable, we don't want your cubist rendition.
  2. Go out and take some photos of notable people. Most notable people often appear in public. I don't even mostly photograph people, but I've done a fair share of this. - Jmabel ! talk 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
    Your first point is the problem! I totally agree with you! Also your second point is absolutely striking. There shall be certain rules for drawings! 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:8597:CF9F:E1FB:A555 10:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
the go-out-approach" is a good idea, but only works for living people who are still in public. A huge bunch of those-without-images are dead or retired. --Enyavar (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)
Why do articles need to be illustrated anyway? The last time I checked it's not a requirement, and where's the limit if not low quality, inaccurate drawings that look nothing like the people they are suppose to represent? Like should articles about historical towns be illustrated based child's drawings of buildings that look nothing like the place? "Hey, we don't have a photograph of a car model from the early 1900s that's in the public domain and I'm to lazy to take one, but we do have this drawing of a Hot Wheels from a 10 year old that has the same style of doors. So screw it!" Come on. It's pretty simple. Just don't illustrate an article if there isn't a good, legible picture of the subject. Period. There's no excuse for using amateur artwork just because someone can't be bothered to find a real image. Especially with articles about living people. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. I'm sure if someone were to write a wiki article about an alive person, or someone just passed, they to write to them or their estate for a donated PD selfie. Job done. Broichmore (talk) 10:23, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Adamant, (architecture and automotives are off-topic? Who has attempted what you describe?) you are right that biographical articles don't have to be illustrated - having an image is just a welcome addition. IF it depicts the person in a recognizable manner. What I dislike is the categorical stance of "the community must make rules against amateur artwork": That is the vibe of this whole thread, and that is what I argue against. Good-faith-bad-artwork must be dealt with on an individual basis: prove why each one is a copyvio or a bad rendition of the subject; argue against them with com:dignity and whatever; make them irrelevant by providing good artwork or a good photo, then replace and delete.
It sucks to say to one user: "sorry you're a bad artist, improve or stop", but that is still better than to proclaim to everyone: "sorry no art is acceptable because there has been bad art from others", with regards to user-created artworks. Hey, if a hypothetical "no-name" user-artist has a consistent style that recognizably captures the persons, and they make a series of hundreds of portraits, I would welcome that to be uploaded and used, even if there was 'too anime' or some other flaw. --Enyavar (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
@Enyavar: It's called an example. There have been instances of people trying to illustrate other types of articles besides biographies with AI generated artwork, which I'd put in the same category. It's also a slippery slope, where if we allow it for biographical articles then there's no reason people do the same for ones on other subjects. Although I agree with you in theory that it wouldn't be as much of a problem IF the image depicts the subject in a recognizable manner, but that's pretty subjective and out of project scope IMO. As we aren't here to be art critics. I don't think anyone is saying no art is acceptable though. I'm certainly not. Just confine it to a small subset of subjects and uses that don't include living people or the images being used in Wikipedia articles. There's nothing wrong with having basic standards and we shouldn't forgo them just because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
Estopedist1 said so right above: Non-notable artist --> delete the artwork. Yet I see that you also want to exclude living people from being drawn? That is, again, unreasonable. Please see some more examples below; several of these drawings were each created because there was no other image available. --Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
@Enyavar: No one cares about high quality drawings of living (or dead) people by notable artists. I certainly don't. That's not what the discussion about. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
The NY Times artist in your example is notable in their own right. Usually, newspapers employ a gifted professional to do this kind of work on an ongoing salary basis, so that they become a part of a house style. the work we're discussing here is a million miles away from the indifferent work that we're talking about here.
At one point (earlier) much was made of filling in gaps in Wikipedia, I can tell you now that these pictures would be rejected in time, for lack of notability reasons, never mind that they are largely non-contemporaneous.
With the Foundation's funds, they could quite easily hire a professional to supply a coherent style of work to suffice, if required; which it isn't.
The artist discussed here, and the artwork discussed here, satisfies no notability criteria. Broichmore (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there were artists hired by WMF, please see Category:Wiki Unseen; the artists are however notable. I don't think the project has seen much progress, there are only very few files, but maybe we'll get treated to more portraits in the future. I'd say this is/was promising.
But back to the not-so-hypothetical freestyling artists (notable or not, professional or not), who upload their artwork to Commons on their own, without any hiring by WMF: are we rejecting that art on the principled basis of "you're not notable"?
I just found some nice examples: all of them were apparently made by non-notable artists-uploaders, and depict the subject in a satisfactory manner. Are we going to delete? I hope not. If Nayan j Nath draws more portraits in this manner to illustrate WP, we're shouldn't be picky, but lucky.
  • Khanzhivan: "Own work"
    Khanzhivan: "Own work"
  • Panicker1979: "made by me"
    Panicker1979: "made by me"
  • Sreedharantp; import from mlWP
    Sreedharantp; import from mlWP
  • Manu Vellaplakkal: "Own work"
    Manu Vellaplakkal: "Own work"
  • W.carter: "Own work"
    W.carter: "Own work"
  • Indrajit Das: "Own work"
    Indrajit Das: "Own work"
There is also plenty artwork made by long-gone unknown artists, check them out: John Sappington, Portrait from 1897; Gottfried Schloemer, Portrait from 1892. Are we going to delete? I hope not.
--Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That's a contemporary portrait in a published book, it's not a part of this discussion. Broichmore (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
I will repeat verbatim what I said above: "High enough quality drawings are welcome, regardless of who drew them. Drawings by famous people are welcome, regardless of our opinion of their quality. Bad drawings by non-notable people are not welcome. These are poor drawings by non-notable people." The examples you just gave are fine, they are high enough quality, a totally different matter than what we were initially discussing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#Wiki Unseen drawings uploaded by WMF
old discussion that may be of interest. RZuo (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Are there any efforts to clarify this matter with clear rules? "In use" or "better than no image" will certainly be arguments in possibly upcoming discussions. --Msb (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't this mostly a Wiki* editorial decision and not a Commons decision ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it seems that way. I don't think anything should be done here on Commons. No rule to prevent uploading, nor a rule to delete all "amateur" drawings, unless a case of Copyright infringement or Out-of-Scope can be made. If any Wiki (including WData) chooses to use them, it's the decision of the person who adds the artwork to the article or template. --Enyavar (talk) 20:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
here you go: duck by amateur
Aren't most, if not all, amateur drawings inherently Out-of-Scope though? Like if I upload an amateur drawing I made of a duck or whatever how is that inherently (or otherwise) "instructional or informative"? And how exactly would adding the image to a Wikipedia article change that requirement? (The reason I ask is because yes, there is the "in use on other projects" clause, but I wonder how or even if that can override the whole "instructional or informative" thing). --Adamant1 (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
what happened to "we aren't here to be art critics" and "I certainly don't care"? I will point again towards the other row of portraits I provided above, which are at the same time high-enough quality to be acceptable as an informative illustration, while being just as amateurish drawings as the duck to the right. --Enyavar (talk) 20:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Nawaal Akram
We've drifted too far away from the OP. The drawings first mentioned are nothing like their subjects, not even remotely.
They are a joke. commons is not a suitable repository for junk, and carelessly allowing it is setting a dangerous precedent.
The original OP has been indiscriminately uploading this stuff in profusion for nearly a year; unchecked, and without self-restraint. This picture of Nawaal Akram is their first effort.
There are around 60 like images already, all of the same abysmal standard. Broichmore (talk) 07:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
nitpick: The original post (OP) was by Quick1984, not by Hibrideacus; the latter who drew these pictures, has not participated in any debate about them (on wData and Commons). Also, nobody has contacted them on their Commons talk page on the matter. Nobody has contacted them on their page, either, also not before their "spring cleaning" last week. If Hibrideacus was unchecked, it was because nobody bothered to check them; and why should there have been 'self-restraint', as long as there is no negative feedback on their artwork. There may even have been encouragement to continue? This debate has been about them, not with them, and they also have not been active in Commons, at least since this debate has started. Going by their page utilisateur, they'd also be hard pressed to follow, as they only announce to speak French. Anyway, I just did added this topic to their debate.
Several participants of this whole debate tried to make it about every single amateur artist; I am sticking with the counter-opinion, that we have to assume good faith from all contributors. (I think, there is at least mostly consensus about this point? That self-created artwork is not a bad thing per se?)
And yes, my AGF also includes Hibrideacus, who has made their illustrations mainly for frWP, as I am led to believe. So as long as there is a consensus among editors of frWP (is there? je ne sais pas où on doit regarder?) who believe that Nawaal Akram is adequately illustrated like this: Yes, that portrait is within the scope of our image repository. The same goes for Wikidata: Commons doesn't decide WD policies, go over there and participate in the debate there, it is linked above. Meanwhile, I have not followed the debates on enWP on such matters. For deWP I can tell that amateur drawings of Hibrideacus' style would not be accepted in articles. Previous attempts to do so were shut down even when much higher quality drawings were in play. But again, deWP rules don't necessarily apply on Commons. --Enyavar (talk) 09:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Enyavar: Not that you answered my questions, but I don't think you have to be an art critic to have the opinion that amateur drawings of people that look nothing like them don't belong in a Wikipedia article or on Commons. Anymore then you have to be an author to say Wikipedia articles shouldn't be sourced to personal blogs, an educator to say what is within project scope, or a lawyer to deal with COPYVIO. There's a difference between that and having some standard where we debate the "amateurish" of a particular drawing in order to judge if it belongs here or not, which is what I was talking about.
It doesn't take an art critic to say "this image should be deleted because it looks nothing like the person" versus "this painting of Abraham Lincoln is inherently in scope because it was created by George P.A. Healy. Obviously we shouldn't accept any drawing what-so-ever of Abraham Lincoln as in scope just because he was a president though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There is no issue with these images. Our project goal is not to "create images to be used on Wikipedia or Wikidata", and these projects can have specific rules on what is useful for them, but our mission is to be a database of images (and sounds and videos) with educative purpose that is freely reusable. The "educative purpose" point is fullfilled since these drawings are of famous people, and each user (including other Wikimedia projects) is free to decide if it's qualitative enough or not for them. Léna (talk) 09:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Perfectly fine. An illustration of a notable person is in scope. The question of whether the quality is high enough to include in a Wikipedia article is not our concern. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: if someone were to upload an illegible scrawl and declare it to be a picture of Thomas Pynchon, that would presumably not place it in scope. The question is not whether there is a threshold here, the question is what is the threshold. - Jmabel ! talk 07:32, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Rhododendrites: None of the pictures discussed here, could be used by security services to positively identify any of the subjects involved, right there is the very start of where any threshold might lie. Broichmore (talk) 15:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The question is not whether there is a threshold here, the question is what is the threshold - Sure, and that's a fair question. I guess I'd say I wouldn't support a threshold that would render the above images out of scope. Spitballing, maybe something like "Illustrations of notable people by non-notable artists are in scope as long as the following requirements are met: (1) The illustration must loosely resemble the subject when compared to extant images or, in the case of historical subjects, descriptions in historical texts; (2) the illustration must not depict the subject in an unrealistically unflattering way, whether or not the unflattering depiction was due to malice or poor execution, except in rare cases of commentary or critique of a public figure. High-quality illustrations of non-notable people by non-notable artists may be accepted on a case-by-case basis."
could be used by security services to positively identify any of the subjects involved Thankfully, we are not a security service. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

standard formatting to category disambiguation pages

It has been a while since the community has looked at category disambiguation pages holistically. And from undertaking a clean-up I can see that editors have taken have a variety of approaches. I also note that for guidance we have a very wordy essay at Commons:Category disambiguation which is probably less than helpful.

To me it looks as it is a time for a revamp

  1. move the essay out of the way and have an instructional page that is readily readable
  2. identify what are the common components expected on a disambiguation page, and preferably direction an order
  3. give guidance on the format of the links
  4. instruction on cleaning them up (fixing)

To start the conversation it would seem that the common components are:

Questions:

  1. Do we want to use {{Wikidata infobox}}? Does it give value?
  2. If all three (or two) components how would you prefer them ordered/displayed?
    (See six examples of these at special:Permalink/864489454 (templates top, templates bottom, split templates either side) and then think about these with either short or long lists of items to disambiguate. Also the varying length of the infobox, though disambig boxes should be shorter.

Other comment: The links presented often are piped so presented without the category: prefix, and also with all the informational aspects of the link hidden behind a label, so that makes the process of knowing where to link difficult and equally difficult to clean up. So for me it is imperative that guidance says show the raw category link, do not pipe it.

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts. Once we have some general agreement, I will move the conversation on the mechanics to the appropriate talk page. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

The value of {{Wikidata Infobox}} will depend on whether there is an associated Wikidata item and if there are links to related disambiguation pages on other Wikis. As the Wikidata item for a disambiguation page is going to hold little information besides site links, the infobox's only role here is to aid navigation between Wikimedia sites. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The advantage of having an infobox is that one is one sees directly the type of item a category is connected to. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It is not a matter of advantage or lack of advantage. The problem is that d:Wikidata:Notability (item 4) says that there must be another site link for the Wikidata item to exist. If adding the infobox here is mandatory per this new guidance, we will just end up with lots of broken infoboxes with no associated Wikidata item. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Obviously, if it's not connected to an item, there is nothing to see. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I think some flexibility is perfectly reasonable here. There's no reason to enforce a particular style. That said, having a standard style would make creating new disambiguation categories easier. My preference would be to put the {{Disambiguation}} template at the end of the page and to omit the infobox entirely. Any links to other projects should be automatically provided by the Wiki user interface (though it looks like we only get links to Wikipedia at the moment). If the infobox is to remain it should go at the top of the page as in example 6. I have a slight preference for not piping links, but I don't think it would be very wrong to write [[Category:Foo (bar)|Foo (bar)]] to suppress only the namespace prefix. --bjh21 (talk) 09:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The standard seems to have been to place the notice at the top.
Do we have some new MediaWiki features that could simplify it? Some pages still look like it's 2004. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Having recently cleaned up 500-1000 disambig categories there is no standard set out. The lack of guidance is the explanation, IMNSHO.
Re infobox and the interwiki links. Infobox will show English-language sisters, and sidebar will show interlanguage WPs. [I won't go into the long spiel about disambiguation interwikis x-language as it is a weird child how it morphs, and better had at WD anyway.]
@Enhancing999: Re looks like 2004? Do you mean the template's look? Probably yes, though the same can be said of lots of things not looking different. Things typically get changed where there is a problem/fix needed/lacking.When they suffice, they stay pretty static. Re MW, what are you expecting it to do?
@Bjh21: Re the pipe usage, it automatically really max shortens, and will just keep the component after the colon and before commas and parentheses, read more at w:Help:Pipe trick. I wasn't looking to enforce, more to give guidance based on a preferred look.
I am hoping to template the "PAGENAME may refer to:" so that it can be put into a range of languages, just like the disambig template, though that is later detail.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:04, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Placing {{Disambig}} above really takes care of "PAGENAME may refer to:". It also avoids having any text that isn't about actual entries on the page.
About 2004, I meant, technology-wise MediaWiki has evolved, so there may not be a need to do much manually on these pages. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
{{Disambig}} is much too wordy to use as an introduction. It's mostly targeted at editors, not readers. I can see the sense in having an internationalised template for the intro, though. --bjh21 (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The layout is a bit odd, but can be fixed. BTW Readers should consider using the links there instead of the (manual outdated) list. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:39, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I revised the text and layout a bit (sample use). The previous wording wasn't at all made for categories. Text now varies based on namespace. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999: Oh, that's actually quite good. I withdraw any objection I might have had to putting it at the top. --bjh21 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
i always organise the pages this way:
{{Wikidata Infobox}} (because wdib stretches thru the page, placing it on top minimises page length.)
{{Disambiguation}} (this before everything else so users see it immediately.)
PAGENAME may refer to:
...
when the list is short, i order everything alphabetically like what you'd expect to see in a dictionary.
derivative concepts are listed under their source concept, e.g. *Hong Kong **Hong Kong Island.
only if the list is longer, will i separate them into groups of similar concepts (e.g. places, organisations, people). RZuo (talk) 20:39, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
ofc, place wdib only if there is already an existing wikidata item, i.e. there are the same pages for disambiguation in other wiki projects. RZuo (talk) 08:49, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Category:Mittelstraße has an interesting feature: it transcludes {{Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Mittelstraße (}} . Works quite well there. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:15, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Please replace the files.

If you're reading this, do me a favor. Please replace the old images with the new vector ones I've uploaded.

Here's what it follows:

Extended content

File:Flag of Ikeda Fukui chapter.JPG → File:Flag of Ikeda, Fukui.svg

File:Ikeda Fukui chapter.JPG → File:Emblem of Ikeda, Fukui.svg

File:Emblem of Sawara, Fukuoka.png → File:Emblem of Sawara, Fukuoka.svg

File:Flag of Yoshika Shimane.gif → File:Flag of Yoshika Shimane.svg

File:Flag of Gokase Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Gokase, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Morotsuka Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Morotsuka, Miyazaki.svg

File:Flag of Shintomi Miyazaki.JPG → File:Flag of Shintomi, Miyazaki.svg

File:Ryuyo Shizuoka chapter.JPG → File:Emblem of Ryuyo, Shizuoka.svg

File:Okawa Kochi chapter.JPG → File:Emblem of Okawa, Kochi.svg

File:Flag of Aogaki Hyogo.png → File:Flag of Aogaki, Hyōgo (1956–2004).svg

File:Flag of Bandai Fukushima.JPG → File:Flag of Bandai, Fukushima.svg

File:Flag of Ishikawa Okinawa.JPG → File:Flag of Ishikawa, Okinawa (1969–2005).svg

File:Flag of Matsukawa Nagano.JPG → File:Flag of Matsukawa, Nagano.svg

File:Flag of Ryuyo Shizuoka.JPG → File:Flag of Ryuyo, Shizuoka.svg

File:Flag of Shinminato Toyama.JPG → File:Flag of Shimminato, Toyama (1951–2005).svg

File:Flag of Shimonita Gunma.JPG → File:Flag of Shimonita, Gunma.svg

File:Flag of Yoshinodani Isikawa.JPG → File:Flag of Yoshinodani, Ishikawa.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by OperationSakura6144 (talk • contribs) 02:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Flag of Mukaijima Hiroshima.JPG → File:Flag of Mukaishima, Hiroshima.svg

File:Flag of Kawano Fukui.gif → File:Flag of Kawano, Fukui.svg

File:Okuwa Nagano chapter.JPG → File:Emblem of Okuwa, Nagano.svg

Please do this quickly, it's a bit urgent for me. And, sorry to all WikiComms users for disturbing you all, I was desperate to get my work done. I've been rewarded with a 3-day block by User:Bedivere for that. I'm planning to not repeat that idiocy onwards. I'm sorry. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 08:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Please write your file links like [[:File:Emblem of Okawa, Kochi.svg]] to avoid them showing up as images. While having a few images showing up on this page is fine (especially if looking at an image will aid discussion) posting large numbers of images can cause the page to load more slowly for some users or waste bandwidth on limited connections.
Also, why is the change urgent? Is there a reason the change has to happen now instead of in a few weeks or months? Users are free to help you or not but it may help to understand the reason for the time pressure. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I need to replace the files, because my IP address is blocked on some Wikipedias (English, Spanish, Persian/Farsi, etc.). The articles on mentioned Wikipedias are still using old PNG/JPEG/GIF images that needs to be replaced by vector images. As my IP is blocked, I'm requesting to have the old images to be replaced. OperationSakura6144 (talk) 11:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@OperationSakura6144: You could apply for membership in the Global IP block exemptions group on m:sripbe.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:22, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you ask for a IPblock exemption? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:55, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I did, but they got rejected by Wikipedia users Yamla and 331dot. I tried my best but to no avail. How am I supposed to do? OperationSakura6144 (talk) 02:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@OperationSakura6144: Firstly, nothing is ever that urgent. Secondly, the place to request bot-managed image replacements is User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Thirdly, please ask where you put a request rather than just dumping a request here and expecting other people to jump.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The instructions for the bot state "No replacement of images in other formats with SVGs. To avoid World War III, CommonsDelinker will ignore a command to replace an image if the new image is in an SVG format and the original is not." so that won't help with OperationSakura6144 (talk · contribs)'s request. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Double categories

Elizabeth line signage

Category:British Rail Class 345s on the Elizabeth line and Category:British Rail Class 345s of the Elizabeth line.

There are many categories such as Category:British Rail Class 345s of TfL Rail, Category:British Rail Class 345s in Elizabeth line livery and Category:British Rail Class 345s on the Elizabeth line wich in practice are all similar.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Category:British Rail Class 345 has an overview of the "by"-categories. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
There is confusion as Class 345 only runs by the operator Tfl (why it is called a BR class train type I dont understand) on the Elizabeth line wich includes the local service parts of the Great Eastern Main line and the Great Western Main line.

It would be more logical to split the Elizabeth line into 4 line categories:

I would start by renaming Category:British Rail Class 345s on the Elizabeth line to Category:British Rail Class 345s on the Elizabeth line (Abbey Wood branch), but I wait for comments first.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:24, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be part of a scheme for all UK. Maybe @Railwayfan2005: can help you. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I must admit I'm not a great fan of these sorts of composite category, but they seem to be where Commons is at right now. Checking my spotting book, I find that the operator of the trains running on the railway known as the Elizabeth Line is just "Elizabeth Line", so confusingly the only fault I can see is Category:British Rail Class 345s of the Elizabeth line should be Category:British Rail Class 345s of Elizabeth Line. In principle photos prior to 2023 should be in Category:British Rail Class 345s of TfL Rail; TfL Rail then became Elizabeth Line. Going up the tree Category:Trains of the Elizabeth line should become Category:Trains of Elizabeth Line and Category:Trains of the Elizabeth line by line Category:Trains of Elizabeth Line by line. I can request the renamings if it helps. (Historical Note: Physical train numbering in the UK still uses the systems inherited from British Rail, so where you see British Rail Class 345 the British Rail Class bit is just qualifying the numbering system and not refering to the owners, operators or anything else. There must be other examples where numbering systems have long outlived the originator of the numbers.) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 21:52, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Transport for London and previously London Transport always use "line" in their service names and signage, see image Oxyman (talk) 01:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Guidance re possible copyleft trolling

This is a continuation of the discussion now on the archive at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/03#Guidance_re_possible_copyleft_trolling

I'm unsure of the correct protocols, but I'd asked if this was an appropriate place to raise suspicion about a photographer who may be acting as a copyleft troll and was advised by user Nosferattus to post the details here.

The photographer I suspect of trolling is called David Iliff. As I said above, I can't be sure he's using this as a business model, but there's enough evidence to suspect it.

When Pixsy made a claim against me for one of Mr Iliff's photos, I found the following messages on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diliff and took the precaution of copying the text. However I now see that this page was edited on 7th March 2024 and all these items about Pixsy and permissions have been removed, including the Wikipedia links for the people who wrote them. So most of the evidence seems to have been removed, unless you have a way to backtrack?

1) Mary Finchley 6 Feb 2024 - Pixsy asking for £450 for CC image used on website. They ask Mr Iliff if Pixsy genuinely represents him. No reply

2) Mook200 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mook200&action=edit&redlink=1 ) Jan 2024. Mark Brierly for a musicians charity. Asked Mr Iliff to call Pixsy off. I emailed Mr Brierly. He replied 29th Jan that he hadn't had any reply from Mr Iliff and didn't expect to. (image: Westminster Cathedral)

3) Andrew (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amgnholidays&action=edit&redlink=1) Jan 2024 demand from 'a company' (image: Hereford Cathedral) 

 Dear Mr Lliff, I have recieved a letter from a company demanding quite a substanial amount of money for using your image and not displaying your information clearly. In asking the company for more details they tend to respond with quite abrubt unhelpful information. It has meant we have removed the image from our website, which is a shame as it is a stunning image but the last thing we want to do is use an image without permission. As a small company we rely on artists like yourself who are kind enough to allow people to use their images and we are very careful to check licenses to make sure we are using them correctly and would of course correct anything if contacted. Would you be able to confirm if the company contacting us are indeed legitimate as the correspondence does come across a lot like spam. If you do not have any notification of this case and a company acting on your behalf, I would happily open up a discussion about putting the image back on our website in a way which would be of agreement to you.I am sorry to bother you with this and appreciate your time. (No reply)

4) Snbalaji2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snbalaji2) Jan 2024 re Pixsy. Says Pixsy have not provided evidence they represent Iliff so asking him directly if they do (image: Thames Sunset Panorama) 

- We used an image of the London_Thames_Sunset_panorama_ _Feb_2008 for a brief period on our LinkedIn page as a banner, but inadvertently did not provide the correct attribution. We apologise for this oversight. I was not aware that the image is licensed to you and as soon as we became aware, we immediately removed the image. However, we have received an email from Pixy with an extremely large retroactive licensing fee for an image used on a web page which is now archived. We are a small advisory company who gets less than 100 visits per year on our LinkedIn page. Could you please first confirm that Pixy is acting on your behalf and that this is not a spam or phishing email? Pixsy have been unwilling to provide any evidence that they are acting for you in spite of repeated requests. No contracts with you have been shared and that leads me to believe that Pixsy are making a fraudulent claim using your name. The case reference that Pixsy has quoted is 002-203834.

5) Hazel (Hazeom) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hazeom ) 2023 being chased by Fossick for unauthorised use (Fossik is an Estonian company, now in liquidation, which Pixsy cite as being an agent of Mr Iliff) 

- Hi We have received a message from a company requesting that we pay a large sum of money for using your Wikimedia image of Joss bay in a post about dog friendly beaches in Broadstairs. We are a small veterinary practice in Broadstairs and were quite alarmed by the letter, as the image is available on Wikimedia which is copyright free. Can you confirm that Fossick pictures is acting on your behalf?

-6) Alan Foster approx 2021 asking if Fossick represent Iliff 

- Out of interest, are you associated with a company based in Estonia called fossick OU as they are claiming to be the license sellers of your images. I notice your images are on here under GNU so just clarifying the copywrite for a fiend
- No reply

7) Martinsimpson being chased by Fossick; image Tower Bridge 2006; Aug 2020; asks if Fossick represents him 

 >Hello David, i believe we used one of your images for a blog post back in 2015, the chap that did the blog is no longer working with us so we are not 100% sure where the image came from, but we assume it was from Wiki? The image was used in good faith with no intention of making money. The assumption was that all images on the Wiki commons files were free to use? To the point we are being taken to court by Fossick Picture for copyright infringement. The person taking us to court is a Mr Leopold Kamugyene the company Fossick is not registered in the uk so we dont know if they are fraudulent as they are registered in Estonia with an office in London. They are using your name to make the claim, if you could advise if the image does or does not have any copyright infringements on Wiki please. Sorry for this just we are a small company and we dont know if Fossick are just going around making scam claims on small vulnerable companies. My apologies if the image has copyrights, we assume the image was free to use, see our very basic blog:

The following are additional cases from outside Wikipedia:

8) My own case Jan 2024 - Pixsy claiming £900 for a Wikimedia image of Hammersmith Bridge by Mr Iliff which was CC3. I didn't provide the correct attribution. This is ongoing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersmith_Bridge#/media/File:Hammersmith_Bridge_1,_London,_UK_-_April_2012.jpg)

9) Reddit discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/RBI/comments/n0bbam/copyright_infringement_claim_should_i_be_worried/) Claim for Mr Iliff by Fossik . From what I can gather Fossik, an Estonian company, carried out Mr Iliff's claims for CC2 and CC3 lack of attribution before he started using Pixsy. 10) Copyright Aid forum (https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3551) Website owner closed down his site after Pixsy demand on behalf of Mr Iliff.

All these instances relate to images available on Wikimedia under CC 2 or CC 3. Mr Iliff has an extensive presence on Flickr with most photos available by CC2 or CC3. His photos are also available on Dreamstime but not the same ones. So it seems the photos in question were only available under CC, not in any 'paid' sites. While I respect the right of photographers to follow up copyright issues, I am aware of the distress caused by companies who act on this way on behalf of photographers and having read plenty about what is called 'copyleft trolling' it seems that these cases fit the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanlamont (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Normanlamont: It seems that Diliff irregularly archives their user talk page. The last archiving was in this edit 22:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC). All of the archives are listed in the "Archive:" area of the top, as follows:
Archive 1 - (13th August 2005 to 5th of July 2009)
Archive 2 - (5th of July 2009 to 2nd of July 2014)
Archive 3 - (3nd of July 2014 to 6th of January 2015)
Archive 4 - (6th of January 2015 to 12th of July 2015)
Archive 5 - (12th of July 2015 to 20th of October 2017)
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Note that the existence of Archive 3 appeared to defy the timeline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) *until I changed the dates on archives 3 and 4 from 2014 to 2015.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Normanlamont: A quick note: all the messages that you quote are on Diliff's user talk page on English Wikipedia, en:User talk:Diliff, which is why you can't find them on his user talk page here on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - that explains it. Normanlamont (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

It would be a pity to have to propose removing such excellent images from Commons, but if User:Diliff is repeatedly threatening lawsuits rather than giving people a reasonable opportunity to correct lack of appropriate credits, and has no interest in changing that approach, that is exactly what I would propose. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I would then concur.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm unfamiliar with how this works. Whose decision is it to take action or not? Normanlamont (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Normanlamont: to take what action? If you are referring to my comment above, it would be like any other deletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
How "incorrect" are the credits? Are the users just omitting any credit (as if they were PD?). Enhancing999 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't know. In all the cases the image has been taken down as soon as the demand was made,so we have only what people have posted to go on. In my case, after using four images that were public domain, I didn't scroll down on the Iliff image to see that it wasn't, and used it uncredited. My fault, but it doesn't matter to Pixsy whether you didn't attribute it or didn't attribute it exactly as demanded - they invent an amount, in my case £900, for breach of licence. It's the way they operate. The argument is that you have breached the CC rules, so there is no contract, so you should pay what a newspaper or magazine would pay for exclusive use of the image. People always ask them for a breakdown of how they arrive at the amount they demand, and they never provide it. Normanlamont (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
The 9 cases mentioned above seem to just be the tip of the iceberg: [22][23][24][25]. Nosferattus (talk) 17:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've requested that Diliff's account be blocked at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Diliff. Nosferattus (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
This is certainly a sad case. Before we ban/block him and delete all his imagery - can we first read about the case from David Iliff himself? When I check the user page, he says he "responded privately" or "responded offwiki". What is his version of the story; how did he actually resolve these various queries? (If I were in his place, by the third or so query on my talk page, I'd have added an FAQ section to my user (or talk) page, in which I clearly outline the general answer to these questions!) --Enyavar (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Diliff is certainly welcome to comment here or anywhere else to defend his actions, but I'm pretty sure he won't. Nosferattus (talk) 18:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Very difficult issue. First of all, there is some recent precedent with the Marco Verch case here: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/01#Cory_Doctorow_post_on_"copyleft_trolls"_mentions_Commons and here Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_88#Proposal_to_ban_uploads_from_client_of_copyleft-troll_company_Pixsy_from_Commons, which resulted in all of a user's uploads being deleted for copyleft trolling.
Diliff, however, has been involved with the Wikimedia movement for quite a long time and it cannot be said that he is here solely in order to grift money from unsuspecting media users.
He hasn't been active in a few years, but I suspect he'd be horrified to learn about someone shutting down their small travel website because of one missing attribution. Of course, I don't know Diliff, but like anyone who's been active at FPC, of course I know of Diliff.
Diliff is a much better photographer than me, but even I've been in that frustrating situation of seeing one of my images in use with improper attribution. Even in high-profile publications like Psychology Today and Business Insider, I've seen my images used with just "Wikimedia Commons" in the credit line. If I were a professional photographer who donated photos to Commons under the impression I still retained the copyright, and I saw that a bunch of big for-profit companies kept using my photos without attribution, I might be inclined to reach out to one of those services which track those companies down, too. The problem is, those companies aren't typically very flexible. They don't gain anything if I say "only enforce this against big for-profit companies and give them a chance to fix the issue first" so they go after everyone. As someone who became a photographer in order to improve free knowledge resources rather than a pro, that would be a non-starter for me. But at the end of the day, we do want people to donate their professionally taken photos, right? We do want to be able to say to them "you retain the copyright, and people who use it have to credit you", right? So what happens when someone doesn't? None of us have the tools or time to watch the whole web for violations, and none of the companies that do so take an ethical approach. So what are we to do? I don't know, but except in egregious circumstances like the Marco Verch case, I don't think we should rush to delete.
Some things to think about: should there be a popup for users who aren't logged in when they click through to the full-sized image? Should there otherwise be a bigger, more obvious notice about how to use this image? Should the Wikimedia Foundation provide legal guidance to protect the interests of its volunteer contributors on matters of copyright? Maybe it's within the WMF's resources to purchase software like Pixsy uses and then pass through a filter to apply it only to big for-profit uses or something? Thoughts... — Rhododendrites talk |  18:14, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I can't believe that you all want to bend over backwards to make excuses for someone who is clearly apparently exploiting Commons for their own financial gain to the detriment of the project. There is no evidence whatsoever that this copyleft trolling was just a mistake. It's been going on for years and Diliff clearly had many opportunities to see that it was causing problems and to discontinue the use of these services, but he didn't. If Diliff wants to defend himself, he is certainly welcome to, but a duck is a duck and the more we keep facilitating copyleft trolling, the sooner Commons is relegated to the dustbin of internet history, if it isn't already. Do you ever wonder why people pay hundreds of dollars to license public domain images from Alamy and Getty Images? This is why. Nosferattus (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I find your comments inappropriate and suggest that you revise or withdraw them. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
What do you find inappropriate? Nosferattus (talk) 18:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Professionals can contribute to WMF sites and photographers are not required to abandon all rights to their images. Accusing them of trolling when not doing so isn't appropriate. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with you. No one has to abandon the rights to their images. Demanding large sums of money for attribution mistakes, even when those mistakes have been corrected, however, is copyleft trolling, and while it is completely legal it is also unethical and harms our project. Nosferattus (talk) 19:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Not attributing the photographer is not a minor mistake. I find your conduct harmful as it may discourage professional photographers who have participated to continue to do so. Accordingly, I suggest you revise or withdraw your comments. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:11, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the part of my comments about David wanting to make money from Commons as I think this is being misinterpreted. Making money off your Commons photos is fine and that part isn't unethical. I was pointing it out, however, as evidence that David was monetizing his images and thus that it was not implausible that he had taken this to the next level by copyleft trolling. Nosferattus (talk) 19:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
The term "trolling" is not appropriate for photographers making a living of their art. Please remove. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for saying so. I feel like this argument wouldn't be made if, say, an author allowed their book (which was for sale in print) to be released to the public in electronic form for free, as long as the author was credited to generate interest in their work, and it wasn't republished by someone else claiming it to be in the public domain or written by the hosting website. There is an equivalence in this to my situation as a professional photographer. It's certainly bad faith and a little offensive that Nosferattus views my actions to protect my work and my source of income as copyleft trolling. Diliff (talk) 23:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Um. Making a living? This here left me stunned: Diliff is not the type of superpredator that the author described, he didn't mass-create stock images for a big operation. Yet, the article points out that this is really trolling and nothing else. Trolls lurk under the bridge, and as soon as they hear someone make a misstep, they appear to demand money. The author points out: "If you put a CC license on your work, the message is 'I want you to reuse this', and not 'I am a pedantic stickler for attribution strings and hoping to cash in'". He describes how the business model of the very company that Diliff used for invoices, Pixsy, is predetermined to generate false positives; which does harm; and says that 'you set landmines, so you share responsability'. In general, I have NOT met many users who are involved in Wikimedia projects to generate money, so I do think this is not "fine". However, Diliff, if your interest is in sharing your work AND get the name recognition, you might consider re-licensing under CC4 (instead of CC3, as the linked article points out). Once you do that, I don't see a problem anymore, since the updated license would give everyone involved a 30 days grace period to fix the issue after getting the first notice. Those who don't, are fair game. --Enyavar (talk) 17:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I completely agree with Enyavar here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it's not possible to re-license images already submitted (only to place CC4 in addition to CC3 etc.), and it looks like Diliff is not going to upload any further images to Commons. --A.Savin 21:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I assume that is due to a technical limitation and not a legal one? Cory Doctorow's article linked above [26], proposes it: "Upgrade in Place: Every repository that hosts CC works that carry pre-4.0 licenses should send an email to every account holder urging them to opt into a process to upgrade them" immediately to the latest license. Julesvernex2 (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@A.Savin: typically the case is that the reusers have not mentioned a license, and possibly not even attributed the photo. Since the issue being raised here is to allow reusers time to "cure" a defect in the notice, offering a CC-4 license as an additional license means they have that opportunity. (If they already had used one of the other licneses and conformed to its terms, then Pixsy presumably would not have a case to bring.) - Jmabel ! talk 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
It is not possible to revoke a CC3 license, but it's possible to offer a CC4 license. This means the user, technically speaking, can choose either the CC3 or CC4 terms. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 17:24, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I've casually seen all this affair. I think it's urgent to have an automatic Google (or other search engine) image search for each image uploaded as "own work" that records the results somewhere. It wouldn't be useful for already uploaded files such as these, but it would prevent that the problem will recur in the future. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Template:Diliff/Licensing is a normal CC BY-SA license agreement, I'm not sure how it indicates that he is 'interested in making money off of Commons'? It's his own proprietary version of the template but the language of it is entirely compatible with a Creative Commons license. I think what has been happening has surely been distressing for the people on the receiving end of bogus copyright claims, but I see no evidence presented that these companies (one of which appears to have been registered in Estonia) are actually connected with him. Diliff has not been active on this site for years and is not here to defend himself, so when you say he 'had many opportunities to see that it was causing problems and to discontinue the use of these services', I think you need to present some evidence that these actions are actually being taken on his behalf at all. I'm not sure what legal recourse Commons users could possibly have against companies presenting bogus claims on their behalf. Cmao20 (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Diliff is still active on English Wikipedia which is where all these inquires about Pixsy and Fossick were posted, going back many years. So yes, he has had many opportunities to deny that these companies were acting on his behalf. Nosferattus (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, according to one of Fossick's complaint letters:[27] "Fossick OU trading as Fossick Pictures is a rights holder and has the right to act as the authorized agent of David Iliff, including licensing and resolving matters of copyright infringement." Nosferattus (talk) 19:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Not so. He has edited only twice in the last year, and not since 2023, when he made a tiny edit to a single sentence of an article on the Fall of Singapore. All these reports from Pixsy came from January 2024, except for one in September 2023, so, since there is no evidence he is regularly checking his user page (he has made one tiny edit since the first of these claims, and before that nothing since May 2023), he has surely had few or no opportunities to do so.
As for the claims from Fossick, these were in 2021 and he removed them claiming that they had been responded to offsite. We don't know what the contents of his response were, but given that it appears this company was registered in Estonia and no longer exists, it is quite plausible that his response was indeed to deny that these companies were acting on his behalf.
Btw, I just tried to set up an account on Pixsy and it asks for no proof that you are indeed the author of the images you claim to have taken. So I think we should assume good faith from a respected member of our community and regard these copyright claims as bogus. It would be very easy for a scammer who wants to make a quick buck to claim to be Mr Iliff, upload his pictures and generate profits from scaring people, seeing that this company seems to be rather unscrupulous and to have a business model that involves sending as many claims as possible and hoping some of them stick. Mr Iliff is one of the most prolific and widely-known photographers on Commons, and has also not been active on the site beyond two tiny edits in the past year and none since September, so his work would seem a prime target for such an activity.Cmao20 (talk) 19:40, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I can offer whatever evidence you want for my case; I can't speak for others. However for mine I was given two PDFs by Pixsy when I first heard from them. They both named Mr Iliff as the photographer, but one called 'Evidence Report' began by saying it was a case between me and David Iliff, but below that said 'Copyright Owner: Owrek Ltd, London, UK'; the other, entitled 'Unauthorised use of image' says 'Pixsy acts on behalf of David Iliff as their authorised licensing and copyright agent. We have been notified by Mr. Iliff that Norman Lamont has been using their imagery without permission or a valid license. Details of the unauthorised use are set out in this letter and the attached Evidence Report.' It gave me a couple of weeks to pay and said 'In the event that resolution with a license fee is not possible, our next steps are to forward this matter to a legal partner in your local area to secure the highest fees recoverable for copyright infringement. These fees include actual damages or statutory damages, and can include legal costs, expenses, costs affiliated with filing a lawsuit, and ensuing litigation. Fees recoverable in the event of copyright infringement typically far exceed the cost of an initial license. Pixsy has a strong history and success in the United Kingdom of bringing cases to the IPEC (Intellectual Property Enterprise Court) small claims court in matters where licensing of unauthorised use was not possible.'
I asked for evidence that Pixsy represented Mr Iliff and what the connection was with Owrek, a company registered in the UK. Mr Iliff is not named in the company documents so it's not obviously his company. Pixsy replied with a PDF document stating that Mr Iliff authorises them as his agent, signed in 2022, not by him but by Fossik OU on his behalf. This is an Estonian company now in liquidation. It was named in some of the other cases on his Wiki page as making similar demands to Pixsy. Their only reply to my point was that 'David Illif is out client and the photographer who took this image, as he works with the agency Fossick OU and Owerk LTD the copyright was signed by them on his behalf.' (They mis-spelled Owrek).
I wanted to believe that they were acting rogue and he was maybe unaware, wanting them only to chase up egregious acts like taking his photos and trying to sell them. But having spoken to someone who has a Pixsy account, I believe any action they take is actively authorised by the photographer, including declining the option to issue a takedown notice. Normanlamont (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I cannot help feeling that I want to find out he hasn't authorised this action and is not a copyright troll. I'd love to find out there's another explanation, but I'm motivated by trying to spare others (and myself) the fear of receiving huge demands and legal threats. Normanlamont (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I posted links to several inquiries on Diliff's talk page going back to 2020, all of which he removed without on-wiki responses. The Reddit thread is from 3 years ago. This activity definitely overlapped with when David was active onwiki. If these companies were rampantly engaging in fraud in David's name, it seems like he would have mentioned that on-wiki at some point. Nosferattus (talk) 19:49, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, he must be aware of these two(?) companies sending large invoices to "naive" re-users. But there is still some possibility that he settles these cases depending on the cases, giving small businesses or private people the opportunity to just fix their publications while he calls off the invoices; yet still milking larger corporations. He can't do the latter, if he's also making public statements about the former, which may be the reason for him to do it all hush-hush. Ethically, I'd see less of a problem with that, although it is still a predatory behaviour. But this is all speculative: We don't know. So here's the question:
Has he even been made aware about this debate? Neither on his User talk page here, nor in en-WP, can I spot a notification about it; only a single time is his user name linked here (does that still act as a ping?); and he has also not been active in en-WP at all this year; which may well lead to him not noticing this particular debate even if he logs on, say, next week. Have we sent him an old-fashioned email about our concerns? --Enyavar (talk) 19:57, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I didn't try to contact Mr Iliff directly but one of the other people hit with a Pixsy claim on the user page did. I emailed that person privately to ask if he'd had a reply; he hadn't and said he'd tell me if he did get one. He hasn't so far (three months later). Normanlamont (talk) 20:03, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, I also indicated to Pixsy that I was willing to go to the IPO Mediation Service with Mr Iliff to resolve the matter. I would hope that they would have made him aware of that offer. Pixsy ignored it in correspondence with me, not saying they had or hadn't notified him. But you'd think he'd have been made aware. Normanlamont (talk) 20:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Mr Iliff has not been regularly active in discussions on Commons since 2017/2018. His edits since then on Wikipedia and Commons appear to have been very sporadic and involve minor edits to articles and uploading/categorising a handful of images, plus removing the copyright claims associated with Fossik on the basis that they had already been answered offsite (we don't know the contents of this answer but they could easily have been a denial that he had anything to do with them. There is no evidence that he is regularly checking his talk pages - the last time he responded to anyone there was in 2019, which was a polite note of thanks.
Normanlamont, it again seems telling that the PDF document is signed by Fossik OU - a company now in liquidation - on his behalf, rather than by him; and that their only claims of authorisation to act on Mr Iliff's behalf include a badly-spelled single sentence in which they spell his own surname incorrectly ('David Illif is out client').
I would also like to draw your attention to this. 'Fossick Pictures' is mentioned as 'an account has spammed a number of Commons photographers offering to act as an agent pursuing copyright claims against commercial users' and has been banned and blocked from Commons. This adds evidence to the idea that Fossick Pictures is the guilty party here, and that they have a familiarity with who the most active Commons photographers are, since they were messaging numerous Commons photographers to harass them (and probably which of them are no longer regularly active and can easily be exploited).
I believe the evidence strongly suggests that this is a scam, rather than that a respected and long-standing user with no record of bans, blocks or uncivil behaviour has suddenly become a copyright troll. Pixsy appears to have a very dubious business model and to accept very low or no standards of identity verification, and it seems to me that if they are willing to accept a PDF document signed by a third-party company in liquidation as proof of standing to act on someone's behalf, then any Commons photographer using his/her real name is likely vulnerable to similar frivolous use of their creative property.
This has surely been very distressing for the people harassed with copyright claims, but I also think the 'ban/delete now, ask questions later' attitude has gone way too far. Cmao20 (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that, it's really interesting. So it's possible that someone using the Fossik name has set up the Pixsy account and could be raking it in, and Mr Iliff doesn't even know? Normanlamont (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I left an inquiry on David's English Wikipedia talk page just now asking him to respond on-wiki. Nosferattus (talk) 20:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Looking further up his page there's this:
Diliff is no longer active here, and generally does not respond to requests. Attribution is a licensing requirement for all of Diliff's photographs that you can find here, and if you re-use an image without attribution you will be in breach of the licence and will be infringing the photographer's copyright. MichaelMaggs (talk) 10:53, 20 April 2023 (UTC) Normanlamont (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Whatever people pay a Pixsy claim, whether out of immediate fear or after months of grinding down, or after court procedures, Pixsy, I believe get 50%. Normanlamont (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
If this is as dubious as described above there will be no court cases. They just ask for the money but if they do not get it they will do nothing because they would likely loose the process or even get trouble because of false legal threats. GPSLeo (talk) 20:44, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It's not dubious: https://imgur.com/DTqdbjB. The most likely explanation is that when Fossick/Tom Corser was active on Commons, they contacted David and offered to pursue copyright claims on David's behalf for a cut of the money. If this was all a scam, David would have said so in response to the numerous inquiries about this on his English Wikipedia talk page, some of which are still sitting their unanswered after several years and offer no means of contact off-wiki. Nosferattus (talk) 21:00, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
You probably know this already but there's a Wikipedia 'email this user' page for him. He's also on Flickr and Facebook.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Diliff Normanlamont (talk) 21:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's the document in which Pixsy say Mr Iliff authorise them. It gives part of his address, but is signed by Fossik. https://imgur.com/a/sXRlbbK Normanlamont (talk) 21:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, Tom Corser isn't the director of Fossik, he's the director of Owrek about whom I know nothing except Pixsy says they're the copyright holder for this particular image. Normanlamont (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I wonder if this information will help you ascertain more about the authorisation (or not) of Pixsy by Mr Iliff. My Pixsy document as I said above listed the copyright owner as being 'Owrek Ltd'
Owrek has one director, a Mr Tom Corser. When I googled his name, it came up with a Tom Corser who's a Wikimedia contributing photographer. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Photos_by_Tom_Corser
If this is just muddying the water I apologise, but it does suggest some connection. Normanlamont (talk) 20:47, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
It looks like Tom Corser was likely also a copyleft troll: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cyr~commonswiki/TomCorserCredit&oldid=98158664. Notice the absurd restriction "This photo may be reproduced at up to 1024 x 768" and the extremely lengthy attribution requirement. According to [28] Tom Corser is the only shareholder of Fossick OÜ. Nosferattus (talk) 22:41, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah - I never made the Corser-Fossick connection! Normanlamont (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

@Cmao20, Yann, Jmabel, and Enyavar: I just heard back from YOTI Sign support and they confirmed that the digital signature on https://imgur.com/DTqdbjB is legitimate. If you want to ask them yourself, it's Document ID: ffc8a8af-55f3-4460-8c5b-d5aea8fd8906, Signing Request ID: 94fd9793-51fe-4c17-9892-4f51465ffe80. So this is not a scam. Diliff is, in fact, responsible for all the incidents of copyleft trolling documented by Normanlamont. And according to Normanlamont's research, Diliff appears to be ignoring people who complain about it rather than actually responding to them off-wiki. Has anyone here tried to reach Diliff off-wiki? He has not responded to my inquiries on his talk page. Nosferattus (talk) 15:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  •  Question Could somebody with technical knowledge on digital signing please explain what exactly this confirmation means? I mean, how does YOTI Sign know that the person who made the signing request is identical with the David Iliff who has created the photographs? Did they see him in person and checked his passport or at least some kind of digital ID issued by some government? Just asking … – Aristeas (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • In my experience digital signing companies typically require sending a photograph of a government-issued ID. Regardless, if anyone still doubts that Diliff is responsible, please email him or contact him on Facebook and just ask him to respond here. I've already been accused of acting inappropriately regarding Diliff at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Nosferattus, so I will not be contacting him off-wiki, lest it be regarded as harassment. But I encourage others to reach out to him for comment. Maybe he can just jump in here and say "Sorry, it won't happen again." in which case we can put it all behind us and move on. Without such assurance from Diliff, however, I think we need to assume that this is going to continue and take appropriate actions. Nosferattus (talk) 17:25, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • If YOTI and Co. sign a document just on the base of a photograph of a government-issued ID, this is a very weak proof. Faking a real passport etc. is very difficult, but faking a photograph of it is easy; even I could fake a photo of a German passport with an arbitray name and photo in about an hour. If signing companies work on such a weak base, we cannot take them serious and nobody should do that. I would happily take the case to court if a company sues me just on base of such a weak ID proof and does not readily provide more serious documents … And even if a real David Iliff gave them their passport, how should we know that this David Iliff is the one who took the photographs? I have a rather rare first name, nevertheless I know that there are at least 3 persons in Germany who share my first name and surname; there are probably more. If signing relies just on passports etc., even worse: on photos of such documents, every single one of us could claim to be the author of every work of every other one. – Aristeas (talk) 06:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • David Iliff, the one with an account here, has had plenty of time to complain if someone is suing on his supposed behalf without authority to do so, and has been communicated with enough here that it is unimaginable that he is unaware of the situation. - Jmabel ! talk 08:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
      Thing is, if David’s identity was forged, he would have dealt with it by now!
      I’m someone who believes that re-users need to correctly attribute and when they don’t (after contacting them in forming how CC licenses works), sure take further steps but don’t change excessive amounts! Bidgee (talk) 08:44, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think that YOTI's security standards may deserve more credit, since the platform is used across the UK (e.g. to pick-up Post Office parcels and to buy cigarettes at convenience stores, [29]). While it's certainly conceivable that David has nothing to do with this situation, for that to be true all of these things would also need to be true: YOTI's digital signature is false; and despite the multiple contact attempts, David is not yet aware of this situation; and the deleted inquiries Bidgee mentioned above were in fact addressed off-wiki. Julesvernex2 (talk) 08:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: Please see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Why so hasty, friends? We are still discussing here and far from a consensus. Right now we have to understand and evaluate the newest piece of evidence provided by Nosferattus above. Why do you already start a deletion request? This only means a useless duplication of the discussion. – Aristeas (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aristeas: I was convinced.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:45, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. And just because you were convinced you rush to open a deletion request, slapping all participants of this dicussion in the face, telling us that this discussion and our opinions are not important anymore, just because you were convinced? You know that this could be perceived as a very egocentric and impolite behaviour, don’t you? Best, – Aristeas (talk) 06:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC) — Sorry if my previous comment is impolite, too. It was not my intention to insult you and I apologize if the comment had that effect. But I was really astonished at this behaviour which would be comprehensible from a newbie but is astonishing from a very experienced contributor and administrator. – Aristeas (talk) 06:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
On the DR, several of us have said that the DR needs to be kept open at least a month to allow David time to come forward and to allow sufficient time for evidence and discussion. I see nothing at all wrong with a DR moving forward simultaneously with this discussion as long as we allow enough time as not to cut short this discussion. And deletion is never truly permanent. If it were somehow to reach a wrong conclusion, it would still be reversible. - Jmabel ! talk 08:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
The DR notice on each of the uploads is a warning to any potential re-users, who would’ve otherwise not have known. Bidgee (talk) 08:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aristeas I answered your question. I personally was convinced after reading this section that creation of the DR needed to happen to protect our reusers, as the problem had been going on for months (if not years), and Diliff has done nothing about the claims but delete them from his user talk page and profit. I checked that creating the DR hadn't happened already. I had the VFC tool in my tool box, and I knew how to use it to create the DR. So I took the initiative to be bold and created the DR 15:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC), posting above five minutes later when I was sure the process had finished. I'm sorry if you were offended by the timing.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this DR is a bit premature, and there are other solutions that deleting these. I would support 1. Blocking Diliff unless he provides evidence that this inacceptable behaviour stopped. 2. Add a big red warning on each file description page informing reusers of the potential issues. Yann (talk) 10:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Thank you! @Yann: Yes, that would be a simple, effective and fair solution; I would be happy to help with adding the warnings on the file description pages, if necessary. @All: Could we please discuss solutions like this one first before going right to deletion requests? – Aristeas (talk) 11:35, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@Aristeas: You're welcome!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@Yann: blocking will accomplish nothing. It will make it more difficult to communicate with him, and will still leave these files out there as a honeypot: he can sue just as easily if he is blocked. If he does not address the matter, I would support a topic ban from uploading photos, but would oppose a block.
Again, the desired outcome is for him to stop bringing aggressive legal action against naive reusers.
I don't think the "big red warning" would help. What is currently on the pages in question is actually pretty clear, but some people just don't look, or they fail to notice that one image they are using has a different license from another. - Jmabel ! talk 12:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Two observations from my point of view as a user:
- if nine people apart from myself actually reported the problems they had and tried to contact Mr Iliff, how many more people may have paid up out of fear, or just be living in fear of being taken to court? It's only because I investigated a lot that I became reassured I'm not likely to be bankrupted by this, but lots of other users will have been affected. Not that you have any responsibility for that or Pixsy, but the wider context is important when approaching the photographer
- so I'd much rather Mr Iliff agreed to call off Pixsy's existing cases being chased on his behalf and kept his excellent photos on Wikipedia than lose them; I don't know if I'm the right one to try to contact him but let's hope someone can persuade him on behalf of Pixsy's victims. Normanlamont (talk) 18:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
There are more than nine if you look at the talk page history. I imagine this has affected hundreds of reusers, but only Diliff knows for sure. I also hope someone will successfully contact him and convince him to join the discussion. Nosferattus (talk) 18:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Has anyone tried and managed to make contact with David Iliff? Normanlamont (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW. It seems that some of Diliffs pictures were made with support by Wikimedia UK, meaning that the movement sponsored the production of these images. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

This adds a layer of complexity to this issue. Wilfredor (talk) 23:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Suggestions to make license obligations clearer

I hope nobody minds me separating this content to its own section. Feel free to revert if so. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be surprised if the company were acting without Diliff's consent. More likely is Diliff said "ok" not realizing the implications (that the company would target not just large and/or for-profit businesses but absolutely anyone). The problem, as I alluded to above, is that the only options for a Commons photographer who cares about proper attribution/usage/licensing are (a) give up all hope, (b) spend all your time looking for violations and pleading with them to follow the terms of the license, or (c) hire an attack dog company like these. There is no such thing as (d) have a company send out letters pleading with people who violate the terms of the license to make a correction and only then take action if they fail to address the issue. This is why I was saying the best fix is perhaps on our end, to improve the interface to make it harder to download anything bigger than a thumbnail without being aware of the license terms. To those who have received letters demanding money, what sort of thing would've made it clearer to understand the terms of using such an image? — Rhododendrites talk |  21:25, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
If you only target the large reusers and clear license violations by sending a first friendly message and then if they do not act by sending a bill is not that complicated or time consuming (if they are in the same juristiction as you are). Automated crawlers and companies like these are only needed if you want to abuse this. GPSLeo (talk) 21:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree with Rhododendrites on this one. I tried it the friendly way, but about half of the people did not even bother to respond and, of course, many of these are not within my jurisdiction. Someone whom I told about a site that just copied a lot of my images without attribution and which also infringed their copyright told me to go with option (c), which worked for them. I decided against this, mostly because I did not want them to accidentally harass someone who used my photos with my permission, but with a somewhat different attribution which I had allowed. At the moment, I am pretty close to option (a). But my photos are not even closely as good as Diliff's. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
is not that complicated or time consuming - searching the web every day, finding all of the reusers, determining which are large, determining which are clear violations, figuring out who to contact, sending a message, engaging with replies, and then hiring a lawyer to initiate a case ... is complicated. That's the point. Either you spend your life doing this in order to see it done in an ethical way, ignore all violations completely, or have an agent that does all the legwork but probably won't act ethically. Those are the practical options. When I've stumbled upon violations with my work, I usually don't bother doing anything. Sometimes I'll tweet or email, but then either they comply or ignore me and there's no next step. Part of that is because my motivations for being here are different, but part of it is because there's no easy + ethical way to do anything. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
You hit the nail on the head. I have no time or resources to dedicate to this personally, and there is no mechanism to enforce copyright on the internet without resorting to enlisting the help of companies who do have the resources but perhaps not the nuance to fairly differentiate various categories of misuse. And then there is the argument that even if a misuse, after thorough investigation, falls into the 'minor' category, how do you recoup the money spent to reach that conclusion? There is a reasonable argument IMO that you should be able to at least recover those costs, particularly given it has only occurred because of a lack of attention/respect for the licensing and for the copyright holder. It's certainly not my wish to hound minor misusers or extract disproportional fees from them, but I simply don't have the ability to solve the problem better in a way that still protects my rights as a professional photographer. Diliff (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
'To those who have received letters demanding money, what sort of thing would've made it clearer to understand the terms of using such an image?' I think that's a really good question; as an 'offender' who had always attributed photos before but was careless this time, I wonder whether just being asked to give your email address and the name of the site you were using the photo on, and being told that you may be contacted if you haven't given attribution, may help? Also I see now that in Google Search if you search for images and filter by Creative Commons there's a flash on mousing over the image that says 'licensable'. I'm fairly sure that wasn't there when I used that image, although I could be wrong. I think asking Google to offer two filters - public domain and attribution required might help as many people think Creative Commons just means free.
IMO the problem with the likes of Pixsy isn't that they tell you you've used an image without attribution, it's that they demand a huge fee, out of proportion to the offence, based on a guess at what the image would cost if privately purchased, and that they actively discourage you from simply adding the attribution by saying you have to pay for the period during which you've infringed the copyright. But even if Pixsy were to reform its practices, which is unlikely, there are dozens of similar outfits operating the same way. Normanlamont (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
It is complicated and time consuming, even with people who are responsive. I once opened an aviation magazine to discover a three-page spread of my images, none correctly attributed, and most attributed to someone else altogether. I emailed the publisher, emphasizing that I was delighted that they found my work useful, that I was not shaking them down, and that I uploaded them because I wanted other people to be able to use the images. But I emphasized that correct attribution was obligatory, and that the next person might not be so understanding. They were very nice about it (albeit worried), but I felt like they still weren't very clear on the concept. I was also concerned that someone else might have been passing off my images as theirs, but the haphazard attribution (some were attributed to me, but not per CC) didn't make it clear whether that was a valid concern. Acroterion (talk) 12:16, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
And in the early days of my image misuse, that was my initial approach and reaction too. But then I saw it happening all-too-often and in far more egregious situations, and pursuing the cases personally was a waste of time (Apple once used one of my photos in a marketing video for a new feature in MacOS, and ignored all of my communication), as most commercial users simply ignore requests from individuals because they take the view that if it were serious threat, it would be coming via litigation from a legal agent. Unfortunately, just as it is in many other aspects of law, the only time many of us come anywhere close to legal justice is when there are serious threats made. I wish it wasn't that way. Diliff (talk) 00:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
What I've experienced is nothing close to that, but then I haven't made my living from photography. I've been approached by ethical publishers who have asked if they can use my images. The most I've received for that is a book with correctly attributed images, but I wasn't expecting it to help pay the mortgage. I'm not comfortable with the idea of monetizing images that I'd previously released under a CC license, but I'd not be indifferent to Apple scraping images for their own use either. I think the issues involve scale and intent - Apple versus a naive reuse. That doesn't make a difference for an agent who is going after a cut of settlements, but I think it argues for care in choosing an agent who appropriately sifts such use.
All that said, what do you suggest to prevent continued incidents going forward? I've suggested a very obvious notice on all images you've uploaded that amounts to "use at your peril." Acroterion (talk) 01:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Diliff for giving your perspective. Could I ask you please how your involvement with Pixsy works? How much information do you get about the infringements and claims, whether the site actually is commercial, whether a takedown order was given, any negotiation offered? Normanlamont (talk) 10:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Also, and I realise this would probably be a massive project for Wikimedia, to tell photographers that CC2 and CC3 are being phased out and everyone should use CC4; after the transition date any not 'converted' would be removed or labeled public domain. I don't know if this is feasible, but just seems like an option. Normanlamont (talk) 16:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Change the ToS so anyone who uploads a file after some date agrees to give users a chance to cure.
Put black box warnings on non-CC4 file pages.
Add license metadata to all files that do not have it. It won't help print publishers, but the metadata may satisfy CC license requirements for web publishers.
Glrx (talk) 18:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
CC2 and CC3 are not being phased out, CC just strongly recommends the use of CC4. There is also no way CC2 and CC3 can be converted to CC4 or PD.
I do like the ToS idea. Bidgee (talk) 19:32, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
CC2 and 3 are not being phased out - that was my point. As a naive user I wondered why they couldn't be phased out if CC strongly recommends CC4. Quite prepared to be told it's impossible but just asking! Normanlamont (talk) 20:18, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
IMO, you could add a ToS but it would have no effect on the Creative Commons licensing, and a copyright owner could still legally and rightfully pursue misusers for license breaches regardless of what they agreed to in the ToS, as the ToS would not be legally binding. To have any real effect, the Creative Commons license terms would need to be amended and as has been discussed above, would not be retrospective on any existing images already published on other CC versions. Diliff (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The ToU already says how contributed text may be attributed [30]. It's my understanding that this was added based on the WMF's lawyers views that it most likely binds anyone who contributes their own text to these terms and so they could not pursue action if some re-user complies with the attribution specified by the ToU that the contributor agreed to when they contributed. Although I doubt it's ever been tested in court so we likely do not know for sure if a court would rule this way. Also even if court doesn't agree, potentially the WMF could pursue action against anyone who agreed to the terms but then violate it given the harms their actions are causing the the good name of the Wikimedia Movement etc, although I'm fairly sure they never would. Still it is a risk anyone who does want to violate the ToU would need to consider. In any case, if some editor did put demand on their userpage or whatever for some other attribution terms which are beyond what the ToU says is acceptable, their would likely be site banned probably even eventually WMF banned because they're in violation of the ToU. So they could no longer make problematic contributions; and we might even delete their contributions made in violation of the ToU. So while this wouldn't affect any contributions before the ToU was made, if we did decide to add something the ToU we'd surely apply the same standard. Any contributor who violated the ToU by demanding some additional terms or attribution beyond what the ToU says on new uploads from the point the new ToU was implemented would be site banned and their new uploads deleted. We'd still need to consider how to handle imports, and older media uploaded before the new ToU. Most likely we'd generally allow them but perhaps with strong warnings. Nil Einne (talk) 09:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
In cases like this one, I don't think it is outrageous to re-upload all images in question with a watermark. I am not talking about destructive watermarks that run across the picture, but an unobtrusive notice at the bottom of the image, in legible font that show the license text as required by the owner of the rights. A re-user who cuts away that notice or makes it unreadable in some way, then has no grounds to complain later. Given the size of the images here, such a notice will not be an entire box like here, just a rather small white line that includes the credit text, below the image proper. --Enyavar (talk) 14:09, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
If Dillif is going to continue this pattern of behaviour, then there needs to be clear warnings on all his images that lack of/incorrect attribution could lead to legal action. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:11, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The subsection below asks the followup question to this: what pattern of behavior is it that is allowed/disallowed here? How is it defined? Lack of/incorrect attribution could lead to legal action for any copyrighted image. This subsection is about how to make those obligations clearer in general, not just for Diliff. He's not the first and won't be the last photographer to actually pursue damages for violations of licenses we have decided we will host. If we want to set limits on how/when photographers can actually enforce CC licenses we support, we need to be clearer about that up front. Diliff is a rare case for another reason -- being someone who is formerly active in our communities rather than someone simply using Commons as part of a business plan. As such, my hope is that we can find a workable solution: to upgrade his licenses to CC4, which has a built in 30-day window to fix attribution problems before legal action can be taken. Maybe it's just the older licenses we need to think about warnings for in general. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, you shared that super helpful article by the creator of the CC license, and how CC4 is better than CC3. Thanks for that, it was an eyeopener. I agree on your suggestion: re-licensing seems the best option for everyone in the community, including reusers.
So in case that this is not already a project that people are working on: We first need a help page that explains the concept of "copyleft trolling" to unsuspecting users (who will most likely only find it after getting stung, but better than no landing page at all) and where people can also go to alert the community about those who do use trolling tactics. Those specific users we then need to convince of switching to CC4 (they may continue engaging with those firms, but with the 30 days grace period observed, I don't see dramatic moral/ethical issues). Those authors/users who we cannot convince of switching and who still file lawsuits, should in my opinion accept forced watermarks, so that people are given proper warning. Best, --Enyavar (talk) 17:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, upgrading to CC4 seems like a good balance between the needs of the reusers (who can benefit from the 30 day grace period), those of the photographer (who can pursue legal action after those 30 days), and those of other uploaders (who may perceive the lack of watermarks in their images as an implied invitation for unattributed usage). Diliff, do you see an issue with converting your Wiki Commons images to CC4? Julesvernex2 (talk) 17:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Summary of the discussion so far for newcomers:
It was me who kicked this off by listing instances that seemed like trolling on photographer Diliff's page, along with my own and another couple, and asked if this was the Pixsy copyright trolling that Wiki Commons condemns. This is just a summary of where we appear to be up to, as much for my own clarification and for anyone coming new to this. Many people have become involved and it's spread over many pages. I am new to this whole world of CC, Wiki Commons and Wikimedia and didn't know what a hornet's nest I was stirring up, but seems to have provoked some useful discussion.
At the outset Nosferattu proposed deleting Diliff's photos. There was some support but more objections, along the lines that it would be bad for Wikipedia and Wiki Commons both in terms of losing some excellent photography but also that the policy behind deletion had to be worked out and clarified before taking such a drastic step. After all, the photos of a famous troll, Philpot, hadn't been deleted.
There was a long digression based on speculation that Diliff may not even be aware of Pixsy's activity on his behalf, or may not endorse it.
This was scotched when Diliff himself entered the discussion to say that he had struggled with use of his photos by commercial companies, so he endorsed the use of Pixsy to search and chase on his behalf though 'small and barely commercial users had regrettably been caught up'. He explained the concept of parallel licencing whereby people could use his photos under the terms of CC or pay for a licence to use them without the CC restrictions. He said he had on occasion intervened in Pixsy cases where 'small users' had been targetted but he would continue to use Pixsy's services to their full extent. There was some criticism of this parallel licencing approach, centred on the fact that a 'small user' would not expect to choose between his CC photos and a paid licence, but between his CC photos and other free photos. To suggest otherwise only works in hindsight - you didn't attribute properly so you are in effect asking for a paid licence.
The discussion then forked off in two directions
- how to prevent copyright trolling https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Prohibit_copyleft_trolling
- how to make it clear to users of existing CC photos how important it is to follow the attribution requirements, and the possible consequences of not following them
Among Diliff's critics and also among the majority of his supporters, there's little sympathy for Pixsy or its methods. In particular, going straight to a legal threat and a high, unexplained financial demand without first offering a grace period to remove or correctly attribute the photo. There seems consensus that good faith users should be given the chance to correct their mistake.
Some suggested upgrading existing CC2 and CC3 licences to CC4 would remove the worst excesses of Pixsy by mandating a takedown notice and grace period. The 'prevent copyright trolling' discussion seems to be hinging on practical and legal ways to implement this.
Diliff, however, objected to this on the grounds that there should be a retrospective penalty for the time the photo was used incorrectly, and that his 'sunk cost' in tracing and dealing with the infraction should be met by the offender.
A final note on Diliff's arguments: the two discussions about preventing trolling and warning users about legal action are more important than this case about one individual photographer. However it's not clear how many 'small users' managed to get him to intervene with Pixsy on their behalf - certainly none of the ones I contacted had been able to get a reply from him. When Pixsy contact you there's no suggestion that they view the nature of a website as relevant to the claim, or to the amount of the claim, in fact they state that whether you earned thousands or nothing is irrelevant. Furthermore I've learned that the choice whether or not to first issue a takedown notice is made by Pixsy's client not Pixsy themselves. So all the demands to charity and non commercial websites listed in the first batch of evidence were all endorsed by the photographer.
As for the 'parallel licencing' concept, while it's perfectly legal, Rhododentrites has criticised it on this page [Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Diliff - Wikimedia Commons](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Diliff) (sorry I don't know how to link to that part of the discussion.)
On a legal forum I found this view of this part of the discussion:
I think the photographer is confusing two different things: commercial use and attribution. If he wants to licence his work to 'very high profile compan[ies]' then he needs to attach an NC tag to his CC licence. While that doesn't prevent the large company from taking and using his work without a licence, it provides him with prima facie grounds for a claim. In such circumstances the lack of an attribution is the least damaging part of the problem. The CC4 grace period is there for the people who fail to correctly attribute the creator or licence type through ignorance or inattention, from which the photographer suffers no direct loss. Click-through attribution may help resolve that problem.
As I said before, I think that photographers who use this split system of letting non-commercial users have a free licence and expecting to reap the financial reward from big commercial users are responsible for the confusion. It's worth remembering how the Creative Commons movement came about. I don't want to waste time here explaining it in detail (Cory Doctorow and [Lawrence Lessig](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_Culture_%28book%29) have done a better job than I could), but suffice it to say that it grew out of the same ethos as the Free Software Foundation and indeed what originally led to Youtube. In simple terms the enrichment of society by giving something away for free allows that society to grow and become more economically viibrant, and the financial reward comes from that process, not from the short term gain of selling a one-off licence for $10.
Creatives who try to ride both horses at the same time are responsible for confusing the public about what CC licences are, and so they must share some of the blame for the bad behaviour of some of that same public.
[Wikimedia/Creative Commons and copyleft trolling - Copyright Aid](https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=12805#p12805)
Admin - if this is the wrong place for this post feel free to move it. I wasn't sure where I should write it. Normanlamont (talk) 16:00, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
It can't really be "clearer" if reusers don't attribute images at all. The same pattern at uploads inevitably leads to blocks at Commons, so why should it be ok for reusers? Maybe we should limit hotlinking for such reusers and block them from Wikimedia sites. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:52, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If we're going to have rules for how copyright owners can enforce the licenses that Commons supports, we should have that documented somewhere as an official policy/guideline. Based on this conversation, some users here have clear ideas about what is/isn't acceptable in trying to enforce the licenses we hold. If Commons is going to impose rules on uploaders that are stricter than the law and stricter than the CC licenses we allow, we need to say that somewhere. IMO this is very tricky business. If we act as though we have clear rules but they're not actually stated anywhere, we risk people misusing Commons, we risk people using images that will no longer be available in the future, and all sorts of other repercussions. This sort of "I know 'copyleft trolling' when I see it" doesn't make for particularly good policy. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:32, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

A very good point. We need an official policy for this, or at least a best practice description. And it should be mentioned and linked on the upload page as soon/as long as the user has selected any CC license (we can hide it when the user has selected PD/CC-0). – Aristeas (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps state that CC4 is the default licence you should use, unless you have good reason not to. And a statement that in Commons view lack of correct attribution does not entitle one to claim financial penalties against the defaulter. Pixsy's rationale is that since you have breached the CC2 licence, the photographer is entitled to a fee which they are free to set as they like. Sorry for wading in among the experts here but I'm trying to present an ordinary user's viewpoint. This might not deter the hardcore trolls, but it would present a policy which most contributors would read. Normanlamont (talk) 15:37, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I disagree with "And a statement that in Commons view lack of correct attribution does not entitle one to claim financial penalties against the defaulter." If you want that position, then Commons should just host Public Domain materials. Commons hosts materials with free licenses, and some of those licenses require attribution. If someone does not follow the license, then they are violating the agreement. A creator should be able to enforce their copyright, and that can mean taking violators to court.
The problem is that many users are not sophisticated. I've seen many uses that fail to credit the creator or do an inadequate attribution (e.g., "Source: Wikimedia Commons" does not attribute the creator). The copyright troll exploits that lack of sophistication. We do not want unsophisticated people being hurt. The best that we can do is offer advice on attribution, provide prominent warnings, suggest users double check the licensing, add metadata, and try to obtain an opportunity to cure.
Glrx (talk) 18:10, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree with all of this. — Rhododendrites talk |  03:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
We should not ban copyright enforcement, we should only ban abuse of accidental license violations. We could simply make the guideline "Sending a bill to first time license violators is only allowed if they were notified on the violation and granted at least 14 days to correct the mistake." GPSLeo (talk) 19:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
“Perhaps state that CC4 is the default licence you should use, unless you have good reason not to.” Commons already has it defaulted but no policy is in place stating own works must be only uploaded as CC4 (something I would oppose).
“And a statement that in Commons view lack of correct attribution does not entitle one to claim financial penalties against the defaulter.” I oppose such, if the photographer has taken reasonable steps to cure and the violator hasn’t addressed it, further action should be allowed. Bidgee (talk) 23:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo Die cc-by-sa-4.0-Lizenz (die am meisten verwendete Lizenz, und die Lizenz unter der deutlich mehr als die Hälfte der nicht-gemeinfreien Medien auf Commons publiziert sind (und der Anteil wäre noch höher, wenn nicht importierte Flickr- und YouTube-Medien unter einer älteren cc-Lizenz stünden)) gewährt eine Grace-Period von 30 Tagen. Ich finde es nicht sinnvoll (und halte es auch rechtlich nicht für möglich) diese auf 14 Tage zu verkürzen. Davon abgesehen ist es aber angemessen und notwendig, gegen Leute, dich auch nach 30 Tagen hartnäckig die Lizenz eines Mediums verletzen, vorzugehen, insbesondere zum Schutz aller, die Medien unter freien Lizenzen veröffentlichen, und zwar mit finanziellen Sanktionen.
Weiterer Hinweis: Derzeit wird am Upload-Wizard gearbeitet. Ein wesentlicher Bestandteil daran ist die Präsentation der Lizenzauswahl. Wer am Thema interessiert ist, kann sich gerne Einbringen. Irgendwo hier gibt es dazu eine Seite, auf der dem Developer-Team Rückmeldung gegeben werden kann. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Ach ja: Wirklich sinnvoll wäre mal eine Aktion, Leute dazu zu motivieren, ihre alten Uploads auf die Version 4.0 der cc-Lizenzen upzudaten. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
There is already a discussion about this happening at Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Prohibit copyleft trolling. Personally, I think it would behoove us to adopt guidelines similar to those used by Flickr. Let's continue the discussion there. Nosferattus (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
It seems to me that Flickr's guidelines are entirely reasonable. And, yes, they call for judgement. Determining whether someone is a troll always calls for judgement. - Jmabel ! talk 07:35, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What are Flickr's guidelines on copyright enforcement like? --SHB2000 (talk) 12:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines Normanlamont (talk) 14:52, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
And what part of Pixy's rationale is factually untrue? Wikimedia Commons cannot dictate how Creative Commons licenses are enforced as it is entirely outside their sphere of influence. If Wikimedia Commons and its community aren't happy with the terms of the Creative Commons licenses in use, they shouldn't have decided to support the licenses. I find this discussion about attempting to control copyright enforcement a little crazy to be honest. The community may express its preferences and its ethical worldview with respect to an approach on licensing and copyright but how courts and lawyers handle cases is entirely independent of Wikimedia Commons policy. Diliff (talk) 00:25, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
We can not change the licenses and how they are enforced. But we can decide how community members have to act in relation to the Wikimedia Commons project. GPSLeo (talk) 06:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Isn't it just a recipe for disaster to not attribute images by default? Doing that at Commons inevitably leads to a block. Why should we tell reusers that it's ok to do so? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Nobody proposed that. — Rhododendrites talk |  13:28, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
So what is the takeaway message for reusers who do that? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is CC4 actually a cure for the problem?

People keep talking about how CC 4.0 is a cure for the problem but is it? And what problem are we referring to? Because I've read both the licence [31] which says "For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License." and the FAQ [32] which says "Note that you may still be liable for damages for copyright infringement for the period where you were not in compliance with the license.". All of these along with the What's New [33] and Enforcement Principles [34] seem to suggest to me CC4.0 does not in any way aim to stop enforcement over actual licence violations. Rather what it does is ensure that if someone has violated the licence, they can regain the licence if they correct the problem. This means their use from when they corrected the problem and regained the licence is now fine, but it doesn't make their historic misuse fine. It's still a violation which the copyright holder could pursue.

This seems significant here because as I understand it, in the Diliff example which lead to this, and earlier ones what normally happens is Pixsy or some other entity subcontracted by the copyright holder finds licence violations generally from incorrectly attributed content or maybe sometimes from failing to specify the licence (or provide the terms of hyperlink) and demands payment for the existing violation (retrospective licencing or whatever). Importantly, as I understand it most or all of the time, the payment isn't so that the the entity contacted can continue to use it. Perhaps sometimes that also arises but most of the time this is only significant for major company or whatever who've used the work in a way which makes it difficult for them to simply delete or update it. So isn't really our main concern here.

What we're mostly concerned about is when some poor shmuck who perhaps has a personal blog or website they're not making money from perhaps they're even losing money already due to hosting charges, made a mistake when attributing images or whatever and receives a demand for payment. They cannot get out of this by deleting or replacing the image not because they don't want to but because it doesn't help with the problem namely their earlier misuse which is what the fee is being demanded for. (I mean working out how remove the image could be a problem too, it's possible the person contacted could be a 70 year old now with dementia who made a mistake 10 years ago, who has major problems understanding what'd being demanded of them. It doesn't sound like the Pixsy etc care about such things. But that seems a rarer concern.)

So how does CC 4.0 help with the problem we're concerned about? Or have I misunderstood CC4 or what people are concerned about?

Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

BTW, I was a bit confused by the purpose of 30 day once I came to understood it only applied to regaining the licence rather than helping with the historic violation. But then it occured to me that the older system was quite problematic. For example, if I posted a CC image on my barely known but public website, made a typo in my hyper link or the attributed name or whatever realised it when checking the website, corrected the error in 5 minutes; as I understand the older CC I was actually SoL. I had lost the rights to reuse the CC content with my earlier mistake. So me contuining to reuse the content no matter that I seemed to be in full compliance with the licence was still a problem since I was using the materially without permission from the copyright owner.

Therefore if they ever found out I'd done something like this e.g. there was an archive somewhere, they could pursue me for using their material without permission. If I got lucky, perhaps the courts would decide my 5 minute mistake shouldn't matter, but perhaps not. I think few copyright holders are like this but it was still a problem since if someone made the mistake they'd either need to use some other work, risk being pursued in the future, or contact the copyright holder for a new licence which probably 99.9% of copyright holders would find annoying.

Even more seriously, under the old system potentially a copyright holder could email someone saying you're using my material without permission since you did not attribute properly, you needed to do XYZ as per the licence. Please pay up for your previous error, please note that this payment is exclusively to cover your earlier misuse and does not grant you any additional rights for future use.

Probably most people receiving this notice would just delete the image and move on, but some people may think, okay I've corrected that error. Except that in fact they lost the licence permanently and the copyright holder never granted them any new licence for continuing use. So the copyright holder could send an email a few years later, saying, I see you're still in violation of my copyright. Yes you might have attributed me as my licence said you should. But I DGAF, as you lost your licence from the earlier violation and I never granted you a new one. Please pay up again.

Nil Einne (talk) 10:55, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Good questions. As it happens, the person we've been citing regarding CC4 and the cure provision has a wiki account we can ping. :)
@Doctorow: one of our most accomplished wiki-photographers is fielding accusations about using Pixsy and Fossik to demand money from people who fail to follow the terms of a license. Lots of complicated politics about "the spirit of wiki", the rights of professional photographers who share images here, etc. Following this blog post, some have argued that upgrading to CC4 may be a good compromise between the rights of the photographer and the resusers. User:Nil Einne points out above what the rest of us should've noticed sooner: that the cure provision seems more about restoring rights than preventing you from being sued for violating the terms. Curious to hear what you think. — Rhododendrites talk |  12:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I sent Cory an email at exactly the same time you posted this, hopefully at least one of the pings will go through :) Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:15, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Heard back from Cory, a lawyer from Creative Commons has been looped in and will get back to us. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
Creative Commons is proposing a call with their General Counsel. I can a) take the call and get back to this group with the answers; b) take the call together with others that wish to participate; or c) hand-over the call to a lawyer and/or someone that can represent Wikimedia in an institutional capacity? In any case, they have kindly offered to address any additional questions we may have besides the 30-day grace period. Julesvernex2 (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think I can take part, so let me just place additional questions to be on the safe side: let's say, I change my license like here (an upgrade from 3.0 to 4.0): 1.) Am I even allowed to do that? 2.) If yes to (1): What are the resulting changes for those who re-used the file previously (those with correct 3.0 attribution) and 3.) like (2), but for previous re-users without proper attribution? - That's it. I was pretty sure to find answers in the CC-FAQ, but didn't. Thanks for the organization, Julesvernex. --Enyavar (talk) 14:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This clarification is still worth pursuing, but if updating to CC4 is a fix, this post by Diliff seems to indicate he wouldn't be willing to do so. — Rhododendrites talk |  16:51, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
100% updating to CC4 or at least making a rule so that anyone who uploads an artwork cant upload it 20 years later under an outdated license that allows copyleft trolls to extort people.
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/03&oldid=870962906"