Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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


  Welcome   Community portal   Help desk
Upload help
  Village pump
copyright • proposals
  Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
Commons discussion pages (index)

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section[edit]

This Wikimedia Commons page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Commons:Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. Discussions here should be of wide interest; those which are more specific may be moved to the main Village Pump, with a note left here. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. For old discussions, see the Archive. Recent sections with no replies for 14 days may be archived.

  • If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing please do not comment here. It is a waste of your time. One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is just a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  • Have you read the FAQ?
  • For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.

WMF Global Ban Policy[edit]

How about an opt-out of the WMF Global Ban Policy, or even revoke it globally? The current state is unsatisfactory. –Be..anyone (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Second. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Third Josve05a (talk) 15:41, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I don't think you can opt-out of this, unless you fork a project. Obviously the WMF wants to enforce its own policies on every project. Just my 2 Rs. Regards, Yann (talk) 15:44, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Technically speaking, it's certainly possible for the community to pass a civil disobedience decision where every volunteer will use any technical permissions available to reverse specific decisions. For instance Commons may direct bureaucrats to reverse removal of a flag; and a global vote on Meta-Wiki can ask stewards to reverse locks etc.
Perhaps however it's more fruitful to start by making stewards remove the superprotect permission from WMF staff. Ample consensus can certainly be found. --Nemo 15:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Policy has special connotations on the MediaWiki projects I'm familiar with, it is not the same concept as office action or ToU, unless the community wants it. –Be..anyone (talk) 16:37, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Per Yann. You can not opt out the terms of service and continue using this site the same time. foundation:Terms_of_Use#12._Termination. --Martin H. (talk) 15:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

If you wish for the Global Ban Policy to be removed, I believe the best course of action will be to lobby candidates for the board election to try and ensure the policy is either removed or significantly changed in accordance with the wishes of those involved. There's the Steward elections, whilst not the correct location for a principled stand, they could provide another platform to express displeasure with the current way of doing things, with support only being given to those Stewards and candidates who support changes or abolition of the Global Ban Policy. Nick (talk) 16:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, Since the WMF decides who is steward at its discretion, I don't think it will promote somebody who does not agree with its policies. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That has not been the case for 6 or so years, Yann. Steward elections are organized by the stewards with no involvement from the foundation. Snowolf How can I help? 16:28, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's not true. The WMF has always said that it reserves the right to promote as steward who it wants, although up to now, it has promoted whoever got the most votes. Remember I was a steward, so I know the rules. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
That's simply not correct, it's also stewards who promote, based on the decision of an ElectCom which only includes stewards themselves and follows community decision. For various years, I've been a member of this committee and never had to deal with anyone from the Wikimedia Foundation. That truly changed since you were a steward, I know that too because my year was one of the last ones which was promoted by the Wikimedia Foundation's board. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Well Jimbo was appointed steward in 2006, but he was not even part in the elections. Please note that this is not a judgement about the process, just a rappel of facts. Since it happened in the past, it may very well happen again in the future. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
For change of action, see m:Stewards/elections_2011#Election Committee. By looking at the steward mailinglist, the WMF has not been referred to the elections since 2011 except for identifying candidates. Ofc, the Board can afterwards make some resolution to revoke userrights but not for the election itself. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 17:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
If the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't get as involved with the appointment of Stewards as they did in the past, then using the Steward elections as a means of a protest would be pointless. That leaves the previously discussed option of lobbying candidates for the board elections, as well as current board members, to change policy. I've been thinking about how this might work, and I would expect there's going to have to be an RfC to gauge the communities support for the existing policy, what changes might be needed or wanted, and what level of support exists for such changes. I've spoken to many people in the last few hours, and I sense some communities are, broadly speaking, very supportive of the global banning policy, whilst other communities are quite against the policy or upset by current actions. Nick (talk) 18:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Be..anyone, et al, which parts of the WMF Global Ban Policy are you unhappy with? Perhaps you believe Commons's local policy should say:

  • Users may engage in significant harassment of other users on Commons
  • Users may engage in significant harassment of other users off of Commons so as to genuinely (emotionally or physically) threaten them
  • Users may significantly compromise our trust and may threaten the safety of other users and employees, or place them in danger

Or is it that you don't like WMF being final judge? The reasons for WMF action are rare and serious enough to likely require legal counsel, and make it unwise for community involvement. Consider why WMF Global Bans cannot be discussed and you will realise the limitations of a community DIY alternative. This site is owned by WMF. They have granted the community a lot of power. But on an open content project, users have only two fundamental rights: the right to fork, and the right to leave. -- Colin (talk) 17:24, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm unhappy with some "office action" claiming to be a policy, assuming it really is a policy, after all there is also no wannabe "Global ToU Policy" or similar newspeak. I'm unhappy with the total lack of transparency in the specific "office action" that triggered this inquiry. I'm unhappy with the total lack of plausibility in this specific case. I'm unhappy that the user can't present his point of view on this site at all, not even on his talk page. Enough reasons to get rid of this bogus pseudo-policy. –Be..anyone (talk) 17:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC) update: no policy at all. –Be..anyone (talk) 02:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • i am really concerned that users can be dissapeared without even so much as a hint to what grounds it is they are being banned under. Bawolff (talk) 18:06, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure they could drop the word "policy" from the page if makes some happier. Doesn't make it any less enforceable. Unhappiness isn't likely to make WMF discuss potentially legally damaging issues or to make it wiser for all such actions to be preceded by a huge community drama-fest. As for equating this with forced disappearance, that's not a helpful comparison. Editing and uploading to Commons is a hobby, not some human right. -- Colin (talk) 18:13, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
I agree with calling this a disappearance. The issue is not whether this is a human right or not, but the opaqueness of the process. Suddenly two major Commons users just disappear and a chilling “big brother” note replaces their user pages, with not even a link to a discussion process. This is terrifying and unacceptable. Anything else, most of the discussion on this page included, is moot: This is yet another proof (the worst so far, upon a mounting pile) that the WMF has been hijacked by the Blue Meanies and needs to be wrestled back into good hands. -- Tuválkin 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Look, this is just a matter of trust. When I started many years ago, I trusted WMF and was willing to give them some credit when I did not understand what they are doing I was willing to believe the actions were correct. Now this feeling, at least, in my case, almost evaporated. I am not willing anymore to believe that what they are doing is correct, but rather that it can be explained by bad faith and incompetence. This is not just Russavia case, this is just one in a series of many cases. Unfortunately too many. They have still way to go to reach the position of Internet Brands, but at least we have an example what happens if the organization forgets that it relies 100% on volunteers. And if there is no trust - well, there will be continued fiascos like VE and FLOW, and when WMF really needs volunteers to wait they will not be willing to. Banning an admin on a project, especially if the project consistently refused to desysyop him, is slapping the project in the face. Well, do not be surprised then if we find some way to respond.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support No comment for obvious reasons. -- (talk) 18:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Discussing a so-called 'opt-out' is not really productive, as there is no such option short of a fork. Office Actions and the WMF Global Ban Policy are imposed by the Foundation as a condition of using their websites. They are perfectly entitled to do that, and they have always reserved the power to ban independently of any local community policies here or on other projects. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment For the avoidance of any doubt, the WMF Global Ban Policy is not the same thing as the community global ban process. The former is "an extraordinary action that only supplements, without replacing" the latter. There's a clue in the name of these as to which one we have any influence over. -- Colin (talk) 18:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • It's worth noting that this new 'policy' really creates no new 'power' for the WMF... the 'ability' to use technical means to revoke a persons access to editing, for any reason, has always been 'implicit' in the Terms of Use. That being said, the majority of the 'plausible reasons' for globally blocking Russavia (socking, etc) do not meet the 'criteria' stated by the WMF for an office action, as they could be handled by community processes. I think why this is done is fairly clear, but per Fae I'm going to say no more here. Revent (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • We are witnessing an absolutely extraordinary situation. The Foundation single-handedly — that is, without any open consultation process at all — implements a global banning policy, only to use it a few days later on long-term contributors, including a Commons administrator, without any right to appeal, and without informing the community at all about their reasoning. Sadly, the extraordinariness is something that is being repeated – with first the superprotect scandal, and now this. I said before, and will repeat it now, that the way that the Wikimedia Foundation has been treating us, the volunteer community, suggests that they are no longer interested in hearing from us, and prefer making decisions that can (and do) influence us directly behind closed doors and without our involvement. Today is a very sad day for Wikimedia Commons, and a huge milestone in getting rid of the last remnants of trust and cooperation between the volunteer community of Wikimedia and the San Francisco office. odder (talk) 21:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • I wonder... Maybe one day (tomorrow? next year?) the actions of WMF will aggregate enough resentment in the community to start some kind of mass protest against their recent policies. A mass boycott or something, I dunno. For example, if all users who are at least reading community discussions (and that would include the most active users, I suppose) stopped editing until some re-elections are held and all SuperProtect etc. are revoked. For my part, I'm ready to participate in something like that. YLSS (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
    • They dare everything because they know most of us wouldn't boycott free knowledge. They hold Wikipedia and Wikimedia projects hostage, and threaten to kill them if we don't submit. The only "boycott" they could care about is removing some millions dollars from their beloved bank accounts. --Nemo 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. I'm supporting though it is essentially useless. For some time, I've been pointing out problems with SUL, where control of accounts passed away from the individual wikis. I saw cases of abusive global locking, pointed to them, and nobody cared. For quite some time, it's been true that a single steward could unilaterally decide that a user should be globally banned, could enforce it, beyond all reason, against anyone considered to be a supporter of the banned person, and when I pointed it out, I was threatened. I created a study on meta of global locking actions, there was some interest and participation, and it was neutral and made no accusations. It was abruptly deleted and then suppressed. I brought this up on the meta Forum and *nobody cared.* So the chickens are coming home to roost. If you are surprised, you have not been paying attention. This is normal behavior in nonprofit organizations when accountability is lost.
at this point, Recent Changes logging on Commons has been essentially shut down. The Recent Changes log only shows one minute of edits. I saw this start up earlier today, it was obviously done to suppress notice of edits to User talk:Russavia. At first Recent Changes started up again. However, at some point, it was changed again so that only a minute of edits show in Recent Changes, continuously. Someone with Developer access does not want these discussions to be widely noticed. [struck, see explanation below. Remarkable coincidence.] For years, I pointed out that the only protection against this kind of possibility was setting up independent off-wiki channels of communication. I wasted way too much time explaining why. At this point, I see no sign that anyone else is being blocked for discussion. But if that started, How would we know? Only those watchlisting the specific pages would notice.
Some think nothing can be done. That is incorrect. If any decision has consensus here, the community has great power. It has the resources to fork, the main resource needed being labor. It could lock down the wiki. I am *not* suggesting specific actions, I am only negating the idea of powerlessness. I do not recommend any drastic immediate action, beyond becoming informed and making sure that the community is informed. A communication tree could be set up that could not be interdicted by the WMF. In the end, it is in the WMF's interest to collaborate, but if the community here throws up its hands and says "it's their wiki, there is nothing we can do," then, yes, it would be their wiki. That's okay. Or is it? --Abd (talk)
  • Oppose opting out, a global ban takes into account the users actions across all WMF platforms enabling problematic users to continue just undermines the efforts of everyone else its toxic to the future of all projects. Gnangarra 22:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
In prior cases, it was never shown how allowing a globally banned user to edit one wiki could "undermine the efforts of everyone else," and be "toxic." It used to be widely understood that this was allowed, even though the same arguments were made back then.
It is possible that Russavia was abusive here, but this should have been confronted here (and still could be). Normally, we warn users before sanctioning them.
Now, if we arrange for Russavia to start up a new account here, and that account starts out as blocked, with talk page access enabled, with cooperating bureaucrats/administrators watching, it becomes possible for there to be negotiation of conditions of a special allowance. If a user has an account that is active, stewards can checkuser that account and see if it is globally active. If there is no allowed account, history shows, a banned user often will sock. Having an account here could seriously interfere with his freedom to create socks and be globally disruptive. It will not further that agenda, it will make it more difficult.
I made this argument before, with the Poetlister ban, and it was ignored. Poetlister1, a permitted local sock, was blocked on Wikiversity, in spite of no local disruption and considerable support for allowing him to continue, the block being based solely on the global ban. It violated established local policy, so I, after discussion, unblocked and was emergency desysopped as a result. What ultimately happened? Another account registered and became an administrator, Collingwood, with excellent contributions. Collingwood was about to be approved as a bureaucrat when, whoops!, the WMF locked that account, and claimed definitive identification as Poetlister. Now, suppose it was Poetlister (Poetlister has denied it). This never would have happened. Poetlister1 probably would not have been approved as an administrator, too much problematic history. He would have continued to make positive contributions, and this would have suppressed possible socking elsewhere.
(I have never again requested sysop privileges on Wikiversity, even though it's easy there and I'd almost certainly become a probationary custodian if I merely asked. However, it would attract flies, and I do not need sysop privileges to do useful work; in fact, it mostly distracts me from that work when I've had them.)
It is as if we can't understand that overreaction can backfire, can make protection of the wikis more difficult, rather than easier. Rather, there is a mentality that we must force the results we want, instead of setting up conditions that make those results natural. --Abd (talk) 23:30, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Its impossible to opt-out of something like this, its not a feature, its a LAW/constitution (one would say) of Wikimedia. For someone that followed all the WMF actions related to the locks, I agree with all of them bar one. Global locks should always be the last action an organizations such as Wikimedia mus take but in this case, it was unnecessary and stupid. One of the worst part is that he was blocked alongside a known pedophile advocate and then WMF refuses to divulge information as to why Russavia was locked. WMF should remember that not only is it an "organization', its an organization that runs on donations which means it has to be as Transparent as possible if it ever wants people to donate money to keep the organization running. The Global Ban of a highly trusted and hard working user without a strong reason shows that the WMF refuses to serve the community, and its here just to serve its own needs, its funny how this comes after WMF made over $60m after the donation drive. Even the WMF has to follow proper protocols and it this case, it was not taken..It has made some stupid decisions in 2014 including VE, MV and SuperProtect and has refused to change its stance on those decisions..Russavia ruffled many feathers, including our Godfather's and even if this decision wasn't made in haste and was a thought out one, its still a dumb decision...I wonder when WMF will decide to actually start banning the "real threats" to wikimedia, the LTA's--Stemoc 01:07, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
A «known pedophile advocate»? Whoa, I had no idea! But I see three names in Category:Commons users banned by the WMF: Would some one please provide links to the discussions that triggered the ban of the other two? (No need for Russavia’s case, as it seems to have been caused by the Prikasso affair…) -- Tuválkin 09:46, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
There are now six users in Category:Commons users banned by the WMF, which asserts This category contains users who violated the Terms of Use. I have extensive knowledge of the situation of at least two of the users, and that statement is false for them. One user has often been accused of being a "pedophile advocate." Being a "pedophile advocate" is unclear in meaning. "Pedophilia" is a paraphilia, a psychiatric disorder. Nobody advocates it. Some do advocate or argue for permitting adult-child relationships that others consider inappropriate or worse. w:en:Wikipedia:Child protection allows indef blocking of "Editors who attempt to use Wikipedia to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships, who advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships on- or off-wiki (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children), or who identify themselves as pedophiles. The user in question has advocated the right to advocate anything, it is, for him, a free speech issue. There are academic studies that claim the harm of some "inappropriate relationships" has been exaggerated (and the whole topic is massively controversial.) There are what are called boundary issues, such as age of consent. Is advocating the lowering of the age of consent advocating "inappropriate adult-child relationships"? Is a 16-year-old a "child"? (Legally, the answer depends very much on where one lives! Until recently, and in some places, it depends on whether or not the "relationship" is hetero or homo-sexual.) Can of worms, and even discussing it has led to extensive disruption.
Commons has a different CP policy: Commons:Child protection (proposed). It prohibits attempting to use Commons "to pursue or facilitate inappropriate adult–child relationships or to advocate inappropriate adult–child relationships (e.g. by expressing the view that inappropriate relationships are not harmful to children)" Only the Wikipedia policy, to my knowledge, sanctions off-wiki advocacy. Nobody, by the way, ever advocates "inappropriate relationships." People have different opinions about what is appropriate, so the real prohibition is against offending common opinion, which can, indeed, be highly disruptive. Do not imagine I'm advocating anything here, other than what I say below about waiving privacy.
However, the WMF Terms of Use do not prohibit or allow sanctioning off-wiki advocacy of anything. That user did not violate the Terms of Use. He could easily have been blocked on Wikipedia, under CP policy, he certainly appeared to fit that policy, but he was already banned there. I find the TOS difficult to understand in some ways. One arguable violation would be that the user did recently sock on Wikipedia. So is socking while blocked, at a single WMF wiki, a TOS violation? It's certainly common, and yet global bans have, before, not been issued for it, and, in fact, it's been quite clear that this was not considered an offense for which a global ban would be issued.
The WMF does not seem to be following stated policy and the terms of use. The consequences of that are unclear. They certainly have the power to act; however, they have accused specific persons, real persons, of violating the Terms of Use, who apparently did not. They have presumably investigated, but investigations can err and can also be biased; the accused have had no right to even know that they were under investigation, and no right to present rebutting evidence or argument.
My suggestion would be to allow a banned user to waive privacy. The clearest reasons for maintaining privacy have been to protect the privacy of the banned user. If a banned user waives that, then there would be no legitimate reason to maintain full privacy. Looking over the cases, users who, at one time, enjoyed high trust, and with enormous positive contributions, have been banned, and without appeal possible. Is Commons concerned about this? Do any of the banned users want to appeal? If not, done. If so, then one step at a time. There could be ways to handle this.
Meanwhile the Category says something about the banned users that may be untrue. I intend to fix that or suggest correction. --Abd (talk) 23:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
the category says nothing that is untrue, the people in that category have been Globally Banned because they violated the Terms of Use it doesnt say which term so it could be anything. Pedophile as the reason is laughable, its just a smoke screen to the fact that ToU has many other reasons for which the WMF could ban a user in fact only 14 words out of the 1,000+ have been dedicated to specifically that subject. Gnangarra 00:33, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
I really don't think it would be appropriate, or advisable, to link the names of various users (even if banned, they are still identifiable people with rights) with the allegations that have been made against them. The information is findable, if you are really curious. We shouldn't be making defamatory statements about people who can't defend themselves, even if we think they are true. Lets simply leave it at this... the people other than Russavia have been connected with allegations that are of a totally different nature, and them being globally banned, if WMF legal believes those allegations are true, are totally understandable. Revent (talk) 10:58, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

  • I think it is possible for Commons to do something along this line. Taking a cue from American municipalities that have designated marijuana possession as "lowest priority" for police, Commons admins might simply be very slow to deal with any report that Russavia has registered a new account. On En.wp, it is not at all uncommon for threads on the admin noticeboards to go straight to archive without ever having gotten a clear response either to act or not to act, and are then forgotten. Under such circumstances, WMF still is free to track down new Russavia accounts here and global ban them, but without a community of volunteers to do the work for you, you have to do the work yourself. Pity, that. I wonder if they are in it for the long haul. Wnt (talk) 01:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
    • Unless I have misunderstood something, m:WMF Global Ban Policy is the Foundation's policy, for the Foundation to enforce, and individual Commons users do not seem to be obligated to report any Russavia sockpuppets to the Foundation. However, there are plenty of people who do not like him, so new accounts would probably be reported by someone. --Stefan4 (talk) 00:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
      • No user is obligated by the Terms of Use to report a suspected sock, that is correct. It's also quite clear that Russavia has no intent to 'abide by' his global ban (he has in fact, expressly said he intends to do otherwise directly to Philippe, in a rather amusing note that I probably shouldn't link). Revent (talk) 02:56, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
(ec with above) There are plenty of users -- and administrators -- who love playing detective and finding and reporting or blocking any kind of sock puppetry, with no regard for project welfare, on the theory that enforcing blocks and bans is project welfare, since mistakes are never made. Just the way it is and has been for a long time. If a blocked user is persistent, some admins will use escalating range blocks, revision deletion to hide harmless edits (on the theory that this will discourage the user if nobody can see his suggestions or edits), and will create edit filters that cause extensive collateral damage, all because A Ban is a Ban is a Ban, and it must be enforced or else vandals and spammers and trolls will Take Over. I know whereof I speak. --Abd (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
@Abd: There are plenty of users -- and administrators -- who love playing detective and finding and reporting or blocking any kind of alleged sock puppetry, with no regard for project welfare, on the theory that any new editor who disagrees with them must be a sock of the wiki-enemy they finally got banned. FTFY. Revent (talk) 06:44, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the ToU gives the users a lot of confidence when our democratic team fails. It is bad if WMF used this weapon for there on interest; but I see no evidence for it so far. On the other side, the user in question was a bit aggressive nowadays; forgot the basic responsibility that is demanded by his position here. I'm very disappointed by the way he handled MoiraMoira issue. His last comments on some projects revels that he maintained a grudge against her. At the same time he has access to many deleted contents of her. If this or any other similar incident is the reason for this global ban, I can't blame WMF. Jee 08:10, 20 January 2015 (UTC)
  • News. See [1]. The WMF board did not approve of the new WMF global ban policy. Rather than rushing around like headless chickens, I suggest stepping back, becoming informed, giving people time to reflect and comment in various places, and, eventually, starting, if appropriate, a meta Request for comment, to advise the WMF. If that is done prematurely, I predict a train wreck. Obviously, I cannot prevent anyone from starting such an RfC, but I am not doing it yet, and I'm highly informed on the issues here. There are serious long-term issues involved, but no emergencies. There is a loss to Commons, perhaps, of Russavia's work, but both Russavia and Commons will survive a wikibreak, and butting heads with each other and with the WMF won't shorten that break (if he ever is allowed to come back, or even if he ever wants to come back). --Abd (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
  • New concern. It is appearing that the ability of other users to email globally locked users through the wiki interface is being suppressed, on a per-wiki basis. I would appreciate if other users would investigate this. Global locks only prevent login, and thus globally locked users cannot alter their email settings. (That's one of the known bugs in global locking, which was a quick fix, years ago, to allow global blocking; global blocks would do much less unnecessary damage.) I am informed by a globally locked user whom I trust (on this, that is, not to lie, he's highly disruptive, but I have never caught him in a lie, in many years of interaction) that he did not change his email settings before being locked, and he had email enabled previously (and I know that, I used it). For a different example, see User:Russavia here. It would be useful for someone with his direct email address to ask him. Shutting down email for a globally locked user would take developer access, to manipulate user preferences, and would be a radical departure from what we would expect. This is a wiki-by-wiki setting. It is still possible to email Russavia on meta: [2]. At least right now it is! --Abd (talk) 15:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
    • I went through the list of users at m:WMF Global Ban Policy and found that it was possible to send e-mails to two of the users listed on that page but not to the other users. I only tested Special:EmailUser on Commons.
At Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-personal and Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-echo, it is possible to change your settings so that you receive e-mails in a lot of situations: when you are mentioned, when a user edits a page on your watchlist and in several other situations. A globally locked user might wish to disable these e-mails (if they were once activated). Are all e-mail notifications automatically disabled upon the user being locked, or will the user still receive the e-mails? Having no control of e-mails arriving from MediaWiki seems disruptive to me. --Stefan4 (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for looking. However, some users may not have had email enabled when they were locked. What will be more useful is information about prior email status, and, as well, information from the banned user. One so far has explicitly told me he did not change the status, and he is unlikely to be lying. (He was not expecting to be abruptly locked, he was mostly inactive, AFAIK. He might have been socking on, he does that from time to time, and I haven't asked him. Generally harmless edits, by the way.) --Abd (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
When a user is globally locked, login is disallowed. Settings are not changed. Users who did not have email enabled cannot enable it, and users who have it enabled cannot turn it off. It is conceivable that a user could request the WMF to disable email, but it would take developer intervention (I can imagine another workaround, it would involve the user disclosing their password to the WMF. Bad Idea.) Instead, the WMF could schedule a time for the user to have very temporary access, while being watched. Much better: dump global locks, and enable global blocks. Some details would need to be worked out. If a user is considered dangerous, a warning could be placed about emailing the user. --Abd (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree there should be some way in which a globally blocked user can have their email disabled both for the email this user function and from other notifications. I would be reluctant to see the WMF tagging a user as being "considered dangerous to contact warning" thats one can of beans that should remain closed it'd be much more ideal just to prevent contacting thru wmf servers ie removal of email ability. Gnangarra 13:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It seems that they are not given out lightly. There have been only seven global bans in the history of Wikimedia (although four were made this year). This proposal has come about because of the global ban placed on User:Russavia. I have only had limited dealings with Russavia and only in recent months. He does seem to be a law unto himself. Can his problematic behaviour and editing style (and I am not all that familiar with what all it might be) possibly be excused on account of his prolific number of edits? Alan Liefting (talk) 09:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

You seem to make the assumption (correct me if I'm wrong!) that Russavia was banned because of his problematic behaviour and editing style. I doubt that this is the case. Russavia has been Russavia for a long time. And between the lines WMF people have made pretty clear that something new came up that led to the ban. Something the won't disclose for privacy reasons. I do not see a reason to doubt that the WMF had a solid reason for this ban. I'm willing to assume good faith and that the foundation does have the best interests of the project at heart. Now those interests may not always align with the interest of a given individual contributor, but that is an entirely different discussion. --Dschwen (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Global bans, if initiated by the WMF, are always unfortunate as the rationale for a ban usually remains undisclosed. But we have to live with that as there may be very good reasons for keeping a ban undisclosed to protect those involved in such a case. We can just hope that global bans by the WMF are restricted to such cases where there is no other solution. However, we are unable to verify this ourselves in a transparent process. The question is whether we have trust in these judgements or not. The only solution to this problem, in my opinion, would be a commission with members that have the trust of the communities and the WMF. Such a commission could review these cases with access to all the associated materials and the rationale that led to the ban. I think that such a review would always be beneficial both to the WMF staff by giving them feedback from the viewpoint of the communities and to the relationship between WMF and the communities. However, independent from this we have no option to opt-out from this. This site is hosted by the WMF and the only way to opt-out from this is to fork. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:31, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose because the solution to the problem of mutual trust is to increase the accountability. WMFOffice bans are mean't to supplement the community ban methid. They should be carried out in concert with the stewards or an ArbCom-style body and there should be an appeal process for WMFOffice bans, perhaps to the Ombudsman Commission. Our community Wikimedia Board members should also make more visible efforts to allay our concerns. Beyond that Commons itself needs to expand the number of active admins by examining why so many admins have become inactive and how we can recruit more new admins. I supported last year's separation of powers proposal but I am now of the opinion that we should do the opposite i.e. there should be more users with two or even three advanced permissions. We currently have 18 users with bureaucrat, checkuser or oversight (including users with more than one advanced permission) but this is an inadequate number for a project of this size and complexity. As an example, English Wikipedia has thirty-three bureaucrats compared to seven on Commons. Yes, some of them probably are inactive but it is a reflection of the size of the project. Green Giant (talk) 01:24, 9 February 2015 (UTC)

@Green Giant: I cannot say what board members SHOULD do, but they MAY be busy with other wikis (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8) or not exactly match "our". –Be..anyone (talk) 21:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose. -- Geagea (talk) 01:45, 9 February 2015 (UTC)


This discussion has been referenced in the following Daily Dot article: Uptick in global bans sparks backlash from Wikipedia users. Andreas JN466 22:57, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Add collapse functionality[edit]

{{Rename}} and {{move}} are quite big templates in terms of page real estate. This makes pages that use them somewhat less usable for Commons users. In order to improve it the template should have most of the text (excluding the language options and the first line) collapsed. -- Alan Liefting (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand I agree; most visitors can't make any sense out of them; on the other hand, as a file mover I would probably not want to have to un-collapse the template on every file I touch. -- Rillke(q?) 07:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We are here to make it easy for those who use Commons rather than those who edit here. Besides, I don't think that the one extra click is much of a hardship for editors. Alan Liefting (talk) 08:33, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
No, we clearly serve both proposes. It is a wiki and it lives by its contributors; additionally those templates aren't suppose to stick on each of the pages they are used on for a long time. -- Rillke(q?) 09:21, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Well I am here to serve the users of Commons. And everybody else should be as well. The users (not the editors) are the largest block of visitors to Commons.
When you go to your local library do you see the librarians making it difficult for you to find a book? Do you see the video rental shop putting videos in a cupboard instead of on a shelf? When the electric power company replaces underground cables do you see them making you go via the next town to get home? The answer is no to all of these questions. Please treat Commons as the real world and not as some sort of project for editors. Alan Liefting (talk) 21:06, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
We aren't a library and people using MediaViewer (that's I believe nearly 100% of Wikipedia visitors) even don't see our template clutter. Those who are keen enough to click through might be even thrilled by it or want to challenge the rename/ move. BTW, Wikipedia is a real world project and there are edit links! But really, why? Experienced editors could simply append action=edit to the URL. I'd say let's don't try to solve problems that do not exist. Personally I believe that our maintenance stuff shouldn't alter the file's description page history at all; this should go to to a separate field in the database but until we have such a system, I'd prefer not to hide information, especially not on {{rename}}, which is usually picked up by file movers within hours and thus is very unlikely to be seen by many visitors. On the other hand, the diff part could be moved into the move gadget or only shown to file movers on {{rename}}, similarly {{move}}'s extended version could be limited to users who are logged in. If you volunteer to change these templates in that way, just go ahead and I guess no one will stop you. -- Rillke(q?) 22:20, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
@Alan Liefting: Your edit comment of bad attitude Rillke was an unwarranted jibe. Just because edit comments do not appear in the thread, this is not a free pass. Tone it down please. -- (talk) 23:57, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
Agree with Rillke/Fæ/FDMS4, the handling of {{rename}} here is extremely fast compared with other requests. I can't tell how fast {{move}} is, I've never used it, because an ordinary move + {{bad name}} or {{category redirect}} usually does the trick. –Be..anyone (talk) 11:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I don't think the langbars serve any real purpose (I doubt anyone wants to see the interface in one language and read only certain templates in another one), so they could be removed from these and most other templates in my opinion.    FDMS  4    11:15, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Formatting of image or media descriptions[edit]

There is currently no guideline for the formatting of the descriptions of images (or other media). This includes the formatting of the Description field of the Information template.

Some editors (e.g., User:Look2See1) have been editing image descriptions, adding bold face (to show the main topic), bullet lists (to separate topics), and emdashes. Other editors have objected (see, e.g., User talk:Look2See1/Archive_1), saying that the formatting decreases readability. This controversy has been occurring since at least 2013, resulting in slow edit-warring.

I believe that the community should come to a consensus on a style guideline for image descriptions, to settle this controversy. Let me start with a proposal, then let's discuss and see if it needs modification. If we come to a consensus, Commons can adopt the proposal as a style guideline. — hike395 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)


Descriptions of media files should be prose that describes the file, including the contents, location, or historical background of the file. The formatting of the description should be minimal: font styling (e.g., bold face or italics) should be avoided. The description can span multiple paragraphs, but paragraph formatting (such as bullet lists) should be avoided. The description should contain complete sentences, or clauses separated by commas. Informal language or formatting, including the use of em-dashes or ellipses, should be avoided.

The use of internal links to Commons (to galleries or categories) is encouraged, to assist in readers finding relevant media. Internal links to Commons are preferred to links to Wikipedia.

The use of the {{Information}} template to describe media is encouraged for uniformity.


What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 17:58, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the proposal, since each file is different and requires different style formatting, and I do not think there is a single style that works for most works. However in the example image File:Old senate debate.jpg I do Symbol keep vote.svg Agree that user:Look2See1 changes to that file decrease readability. Using proper Infobox templates (in this case {{Artwork}}) often helps avoiding this kind of disputes by decreasing the amount of information in each individual field. --Jarekt (talk) 18:59, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting question.svg Question Without a simple consensus guideline, how do we get editors to avoid changing description formatting to suit their own taste? The lack of a guideline results in slow-motion edit wars. As you can see from User talk:Look2See1/Archive_1 and User talk:Look2See1#Graphic design questions….ongoing, formatting disputes have been festering for years, without resolution. It's easy enough to say "there can't be a general-enough guideline", but we have to realize the cost of no guidelines is a lack of harmonious editing.
This is not a rhetorical question: I am open to any mechanism to settle the long-running dispute. I just thought a short consensus-based style guideline is the most helpful way of doing it. — hike395 (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Simply respect the uploader's choice … ? I'd Symbol oppose vote.svg oppose any general guidelines that go beyond "use a metadata-compatible info template" (and probably which sections to use).    FDMS  4    19:47, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of "uploader's choice" since it is counter to COM:OWN and at least in case of PD files who is the uploader should not matter. Disagreements about format of file pages are not different than disagreements about content or format of wikipedia articles. They should be discussed on the talk page of the file, in order to reach consensus. If there are only 2 voices (the usual state) than you can ask VP or other forum for additional opinions. By the way, the disagreement about File:Old senate debate.jpg seems especially pointless since the file is a scaled down duplicate of a different file and should be deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 18:19, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Does respecting an uploader's choice mean we should not change an uploader's description? I think adding wikilinks from words in the description to Commons galleries adds value to the project. When adding {{Information}} templates, I often rearrange descriptions added by uploaders. — hike395 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Only when such changes might be controversial. I don't know all (or rather any of) the details of this Look2See1 case, but if he/she changed descriptions of files he/she didn't upload and there are reasonable objections, this should be revertable without much further discussion in my opinion.    FDMS  4    21:20, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
There was this draft User:Rillke/Technical file description policy by @Rillke: about this. Jean-Fred (talk) 19:55, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I like {{information}} and many of its helper templates, e.g., the SVG zoo now mostly down to {{igen}} + {{vva}}, or the date zoo now mostly down to one esoteric scribunto module promising to be complex, or simple stuff like {{extracted from}}, license tags, derivatives, the works. I hate artwork variants, they are far too complex. So in essence dunno, but if you plan to add an "official guideline" tag on COM:MRD count me as "support". –Be..anyone (talk) 21:08, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral on the proposal - one of the reasons I like Wikimedia Commons is our reluctance to bog ourselves down in policies and guidelines, and I have some reluctance to adopt a guideline which might make it more difficult (primarily for novices) to upload media or create categories. Perhaps something much simpler ("Unnecessary formatting and punctuation should be avoided.")? Having said that, I Symbol keep vote.svg Agree that the formatting that user:Look2See1 typically adds to category and file descriptions decrease readability and are unnecessary, esp when (s)he breaks down simple paragraphs into bullets (but there is no need for a bullet list). Or the unecessary emdashes -- such as this recent example when he felt the simple description "Baroque Revival style churches in the United States" at Category:Neo-baroque churches in the United States needed a dash in the middle of that basic sentence ("Baroque Revival style churches — in the United States"). Look2See1 feels that the bullets and dashes are easier on his eyes, but it's a nightmare for everyone else, and on a multilingual project there is no need to be weighing down simple English-language prose with unnecessary formatting and punctuation. Dozens of editors have tried to discuss this issue with Look2See1 over the last 2-3 years, and it's like talking to a wall. (S)he otherwise seems like a pleasant person and a capable editor ((s)he seems to have largely stopped his/her past compulsion to COM:OVERCAT), so this problem is unfortunate. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment concerning italics: Please note that italics are compulsory in certain cases such as for binomial names or prefixes in chemical nomenclature. --Leyo 23:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the proposal, although I definitely support its goals; it has good purposes, but its blanket standard would be unhelpful when many of our 24M+ files need different types of descriptions. Bold and italics are occasionally useful (see Leyo's comment), and the bulleted list at File:Jefferson Street in downtown Huntington.jpg is easier to read than prose would be. This is significantly different from turning sentences into bullets. When we have a perennially problematic user who attracts tons of opposition and ignores or attacks those who question his edits, the solution is not to create a guideline for everyone that ignores exceptional needs. The solution is to treat it like disruptive editing on en:wp, warning and then following up with blocks and bans if the warnings are ignored. Nyttend (talk) 01:01, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Nothing against guides and help, but more carrots, fewer sticks please. Having uploaded a lot of files, my position now is that I prefer to avoid customizing templates or text unless I do not know of an alternative.
I am guilty of "deviation", some of my Flickr batch uploads have restricted status and multiple tags as well as album names; I use a custom field to stick these in as no standard template has something that formats them in a sensible way.
By "more carrots" I have in mind:
  • better guidelines for more experience uploaders, well crafted videos would be useful to show best practice
  • more barnstars and ways of thanking those for doing a nice job on upload formatting. FP/QI and so forth is nice, but these rarely get applied to images from old archives
  • just as we have 'grades' of language proficiency, maybe we can consider a ladder of grades for those that demonstrate better application of best practices. Much nicer than threats to block and ban those that deviate from the "norm". I'm actually getting very tired of seeing policing (and criminalization) becoming the first reaction rather than collegiate working
-- (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I do not think a complex codification of file descriptions is necessary. I do think however that:
  • File descriptions should be straightforward, informative, well-written, and easy to read
  • They should avoid unnecessary formatting such as bullets and dashes which break up the flow of text
  • The choices made by the original uploader, especially if they are also the author of the image, should be respected
  • Changes should not be made in file descriptions unless they are clearly necessary, for instance, to add pertinent information or correct bad information
Those four statements could serve as a simple guideline if we need one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

It's clear that my proposal has no support and I withdraw it. However, I do like BMK's lighter-touch guidelines, above. Do other editors think his version is acceptable? — hike395 (talk) 07:30, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

, please note that lots of people have spent years attempting to work collegiately with Look2See1, but he simply doesn't care. He's proven that nothing will stop him except for blocks and bans. Meanwhile, I agree with BMK. A file description should explain what we see, noting the significant elements, and especially explaining the reason for every category that isn't necessarily obvious. This is why I'll provide a bulleted list on the occasions when I categorise for buildings' construction years. However, it needs to be useful and easy to read, written in prose unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. And definitely listen to the preferences of the uploader, especially if he asks you to stop. I know one regular user (an admin, if I remember rightly) who uses "own work by USERNAME" instead of {{own}}, and although I started replacing them with {{own}}, I stopped when he encouraged me to stop. Why can't others do likewise? Of course, expanding the description is often helpful — even when an original description is good, uploaders often aren't aware of something in the picture, and someone reusing it can often add more details. For example, when I find a photo of a neighborhood that has a US federal historic designation, I often add a note about the designation. Of course, lots of descriptions need significant improvements; sometime I ought to copy the descriptions from File:Holy Trinity Catholic Church, Beaver Falls.jpg and File:St. Mary's Catholic Church, Beaver Falls.jpg into File:Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania (8480753956).jpg and File:Beaver Falls, Pennsylvania (8480754482).jpg, respectively. Nyttend (talk) 03:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the spirit, but not the content, of BMK's suggestions. While we should avoid unnecessary formatting, bullets and dashes do occasionally have their place (the problem is users like Look2See1, who scatter dashes, bullets and bold text in every sentence and paragraph like sprinkles on a cupcake). While there are many times where the choices of the uploader should be given some deference, all files uploaded here are freely-licensed, part of the project, and subject to our practices and rules about categorization, etc. This is a collaborative project, nobody "owns" any of the files, and the uploader has no veto over the input of others. This is Wikimedia Commons, not Flickr. And I just think a "clearly necessary" rule for changes to descriptions is, ironically, completely unnecessary given the nature of this project (although, admittedly and to be fair to BMK, very tempting on occasion). Ultimately, changes are decided on the basis of COM:AGF and consensus. In reality and practice, however, most people try hard to work with the uploader. We don't need to translate any of that into rules.

I agree with Nyttend's comments (esp. his examples of proper use of bullets, and his description of trying to work with Look2See1), but am puzzled by his "own work by USERNAME" example. Did he provide a rationale? The benefit of {{own}} on a multilingual project is that it automatically translates to the user's preferred language, while English-language text does not. Maybe a hybrid of "own work by USERNAME"/{{own}} might have worked. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 21:49, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Of course Skeezix1000 is correct that no one "owns" their uploads or the descriptions written by the uploader, that goes without saying, but there is a strong feeling of stewardship when one takes a photo, or discovers one through research, prepares it for upload, researches the history or circumstances and molds that information into a coherent and cogent description. That's why I suggested that these choices should be "respected", not held sacrosanct or inviolable.

I've used bullet points on my image descriptions at times -- for instance when the image portrays multiple buildings, and I want to provide information on each of them in a separate bullet -- so I would never say that they should be outlawed, just that if there's no distinct improvement to be had by altering the existing form of the description, then there's no real reason to do it.

In the instances that brought this about, the editor making the change simply replaced the uploader's format with his own preferred format, with no particular improvement and, in fact, a degradation of the readability of the description. For me, that's a three-strikes and you're out action: no respect for the uploader's choices, substitution of the altering editor's personal preference without good reason, and a lessening of the description's quality. It would be nice if one could point to a simple rule and say "Don't do that", but I see no need for a complex bureaucratic code. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:59, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I would agree that the use of 'localization' templates such as {{own}}, {{size}}, and {{oil on canvas}}, as random examples, is rather different from changing the wording of a description or simply adding formatting such as bullet points. Such edits are quite useful given that this is a multilingual project. Revent (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for "CommonsProjects" a Wikimedia Commons analogue to Wikipedia's WikiProjects[edit]

Hey. I'm a long-time contributor to Wikipedia's coverage of paleontology. I'm kind of new to Wikimedia commons, but as I've gained experience I've noticed that it would be very helpful to establish centralized discussion and coordination centers for various broad categories of media upload. For instance, the categorization architecture used to sort and classify paleontology-related files is undergoing major revision but without the existence of a "CommonsProject Paleontology" the several interested contributors are being forced to discuss this problem on a single user's talk page. This discussion would be of broad interest to our paleontology contributors and has widespread ramifications for best practice, so I feel it should be more "public" than a user page discussion. I think other varieties of contribution could probably benefit from a centralized platform to coordinate and discuss things like categorization architecture, needed media, media quality, production technique, legal and ethical aspects of that project's "type" of contribution, etc. We could do this by "adapting" Wikipedia's "Wikiproject" approach to create "CommonsProjects". Abyssal (talk) 16:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Symbol support vote.svg Support - good idea as long as such projects are linked to comparable projects elsewhere. Green Giant (talk) 17:30, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: You might want to warn these guys… -- Tuválkin 20:24, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Ha! So they already do exist. I guess there's no reason not to set up a paleontology one, then. :D Abyssal (talk) 21:18, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Yep — you should set it up now and when people ask you how it goes you can make a Terminator voice and say «Ah’m on it!». -- Tuválkin 22:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Just squat a project page and do what the fuck you want to with it for this goal, sorting categories here is very much "in scope". As others said, there are already various projects here, QI/VI/FP/POTD/POTY/Geocoding, something about CJK stroke orders in Unicode, projects identified as dead and finished off by Alan, etc. –Be..anyone (talk) 22:44, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree, just set it up yourself. It is straightforward. WikiProjects here at Commons are not as well developed as Wikipedia so don't expect a lot of assistance. I would strongly suggest the name WikiProject Palaeontology (WikiProject Paleontology?) as per the current naming convention. Alan Liefting (talk) 05:12, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Comparing the centralised discussion pages on the German and the English Wikipedia, I've always found the German approach to be more effective. While the English Wikipedia has lots of redundant and inactive WikiProjects "lead" by individual editors, on the German Wikipedia (at least some) pages in the portal talkspace are used to discuss issues/ideas affecting multiple pages or categories or to establish broader consensus. Given that most of our local WikiProjects ("Wiki" doesn't stand for Wikipedia BTW) look like {{historical}} relics too, it might probably make more sense to discuss paleontology at Talk:Paleontology or Category talk:Paleontology, unless you really want to start a continuos project.    FDMS  4    19:39, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment: Despair. Lets forget about collecting quality images- and discuss it instead- we then can use more resources in bumbling on about civility and do some intense soul searching. Categories have talk pages, we already have Wikiprojects here- and they are so effective that no-one could remember we had any! How many images need geotagging or categorising- could we put this idea down to the wrong type of cheese. Perhaps we need a project to discuss it- but do keep up the good work in paleontology. --ClemRutter (talk) 21:16, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright license recommendations in creator categories[edit]

Hi, I noticed that there is a notice for creator categories falling under URAA, but there is none for those that are in between {{PD-Art}} and URAA. So Category:Leo Gestel has a notice with instructions, but Category:Suze Robertson does not, and it took me ages to find the proper license template for her, which (I think) is {{PD-Art|PD-old-auto|deathyear=1922}}. I would like to propose two things; 1) Make it easier to add the proper license with the Uploader, and 2) Make it easier to find the proper license by adding instructions with a notice in the associated creator categoriesor Creator templates. I looked at {{PD-art-70}} which took me forever to find because I expected {{PD-Art-70}}, which leaves a redlink in the file. Jane023 (talk) 12:31, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

@Jane023: Not to address the 'usability' issue, but yes, that does appear to be the correct license for her images. Revent (talk) 21:30, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
Well thanks for that - very helpful! Jane023 (talk) 21:39, 23 February 2015 (UTC)