Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Village Pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/06.

Please note:


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:


Search archives:


 
Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 31[edit]

Categorizing uncategorized images[edit]

I have been spending a lot of time recently categorizing uncategorized images uploaded by DPLA bot, but am I wasting my time? Is there a bot that will categorize these images? I note that when I upload a photo usually a bunch of (often superfluous) categories get added to it. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the kind of images and on the kind of categories you are adding. But my general experience with uploads by DLPA bots is that they are just dumped into Commons and then left here without useful categories. So what you are doing is valuable work (but an uphill battle). -- Discostu (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Discostu good to know its not a waste of time, but feels Sisyphusian! Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone pointed out this thread to me. DPLA uploads are currently only categorized by source institution on upload. There are no real topical categories we can add programmatically based on the data, especially when working at the scale of millions of files, since manually inspecting each upload would create a bottleneck. That is how it was ever since the bot was approved, but I think the {{Uncategorized}} only recently started being added to these. (It's being added by another bot, and I don't necessarily mind either way if the community wants to consider these "Uncategorized", depending on what you your needs are.) The goal here is not to dump these on the Commons community or create work for others, though. We are currently actively planning further development of the bot to improve synchronization, so we can iterate on the data over time and add SDC statements. If you have any suggestion on how we can improve the format of the automated uploads, I'm certainly open to making improvements. Dominic (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if it simply clumped large numbers of images of the same object, identifiable in museum uploads by the fact they have the same accession number, into a single category. This would mean that you could tag the category as a "desk", as "mechanical furniture", as "18th-century furniture", and as "marquetry", rather than each image, and it would make it a lot easier to find multiple views of a thing, especially if museum visitors have also uploaded images. We might also have a automatically-suggested-tags feature; I understand the Growth Team of the WMF is working on similar already. HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 03[edit]

Video2commons scrubbing metadata?[edit]

I just uploaded a video of mine using Video2commons and noticed that it lacked metadata. It's really not great if our in-house tool for video conversion is failing to preserve highly useful information about a video such as when and where it was taken, and this also makes it harder for us to detect copyright violations (as a lack of metadata can be a key indicator that a contribution is not someone's own work). Can we resolve this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The only metadata that is shown for videos on the file description page is audio and video encoder version info. Other metadata may be in the original file. You will need to download the file to check for the metadata. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: I checked and the video I uploaded contained various additional pieces of metadata before upload, so I'm pretty confident that Video2commons scrubbed them. It's sad that this isn't getting more engagement—it's important. I've tried creating a phab ticket at phab:T284970. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

June 07[edit]

Google's site for 3D images is shutting down[edit]

Google's w:Poly (website) is shutting down on June 30. It has lot of freely licensed 3D object images.[1] Can someone interested import or archive them? Thanks —Vis M (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything there worth having? Within COM:SCOPE? In a format that we can technically handle? Of sufficient quality to make it of interest? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is definitely worth importing all the free images from that website, 3D images are becoming more popular because of the popularisation of augmented reality and some schools are even using 3D images to train surgeons and other high precision jobs so it would be a crime against education to not host them. Even if we don't have a media-player for them now it might be wise to import them before they're lost from the public forever. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, Commons could support one format of 3D images, STL (see Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types). How useful will a conversion be? Could we host more types? Certainly it's a medium which can be very educational (e.g. w:Gömböc), and tactile displays are coming eventually. It's also useful for making images; we have a lot of files created with Blender, especially medical images, and if they are flat images, modifying them is much harder. Given the time constraint, grab it and toss out anything really useless afterwards?

Separately, if it's shutting down, could the community, if any, come here? That'd improve our 3D capabilities no end. HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 09[edit]

Images of "unnotable" people[edit]

I believe it is categorically unfair that we delete images of "unnotable" people en masse but keep random photographs that Wikimedians take of themselves or others at Wiki events. My view is that we should allow all free content on Commons, including images of "unnotable people". However, since it seems unlikely that such a radical change would be made to policy, I'll just say that every rule should be applied fairly. We should not allow ourselves an exception. Besides, every person who uploads a photograph to Commons is a contributor; we shouldn't delete new contributors' "useless" photos because they haven't earned their keep yet.  Mysterymanblue  07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • There is an administrator (forgot which one) that has an image of a random Sikh man on his page because that was once "the picture of the day" ("frontpage image") of Wikimedia Commons, can't remember where I saw it. While I agree with you in principle, those images should depict the people doing something that could be used to illustrate something in an educational setting. For example a photograph of a random farmer milking his/her cows should not be deleted if no alternative image exists. I think that this mentality to want to delete these images exists because businesspeople (businessmen and businesswomen) use it for blatant self-promotion and members of (still) unknown garage bands. As long as the image is educational it should stand. Especially since Wikimedia Commons doesn't have any notability standards, but does have a specific scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:HOST, speedy deletions under the F10 rationale should not be done only because the subject is not notable. Undeletion requests may be accepted for those cases where the sysop has deleted mistakenly.
Any contributor should expect to be able to upload a reasonable number of images of themselves or related events, in fact, a few years ago there was a promotional programme to get new contributors to fill out a profile with a photo as their first test edits. However, if a new account has only a couple of edits, and a selfie they uploaded was never used on their user page, then it's not unreasonable to delete it as out of scope.
Commons literally has no COM:Notability policy, the link here is a redirect to project scope, which is a much wider interpretation of educational value, which can be interpreted to include historic, cultural and illustrative value. For example, Commons lacks portrait photographs of people with different medical issues, especially non-white people; for such content "notability" is completely irrelevant, in fact most such photographs can be expected to be of anonymous subjects. -- (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreeing 100% with the above — F10 is being systematically misused. Future generations of Commons admins will have a lot to work on concerning undeletions. -- Tuválkin 10:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sad but true. I had my try a few weeks back, about a women who published at least three books (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diane Nilan.jpg - which would make here automatically notable in "de"). No matter if and when she gets an Wiki-page, a picture of here could be still of educational use for 3rd party users. But admins arguing there with "en", while the closing admins uses wikidata to prove non-notability. Ridiculous - as if we don't create new wikidata-objects every single day. Commons is a mess and Data not complete ... --Mirer (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Remember to create a Wikidata entry and add the image to Wikidata. Wikidata is only concerned that entries on people are not fake, so they need a reliable source. There are bots that create fake Wikidata/Instagram/Facebook deep-fake image combos to give them the appearance of someone in real life, that can be used for nefarious purposes, like fake reviews for Amazon products. --RAN (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

June 10[edit]

A clean start[edit]

Hey, At my discussion page, (User Talk:Scaledish), I have received a final warning due to uploading copyrighted files. Please note, I do not contest this warning, I find it to be just given my track record leading to that point. Since that warning, a year has passed. I have continued to edit Wikipedia and as a result have familiarized myself with copyright policy to a greater degree. Due to the warning, I placed a unoffical sanction on myself not to upload any more files, as a block would be horrible. Last night, I violated that sanction by uploading File:AnomChat.jpg to Wikipedia, later moved to the Commons. After that upload, I have realized that since my warning, I have grown as a editor significantly and would like to continue interacting with the commons. I mean no harm, and I made a huge mistake in uploading without fully understanding copyright.

I come here to ask for my options, as I could not find them presented at any page on the wiki. The first thing that comes to mind is a Clean Start as done on Wikipedia, but it appears there is no policy page here - leading me to believe that is not a option. The other thing that comes to mind is talk page blanking, but the ethicality of that is lacking and I fear it could land me in even more hot water than I am already in should another deletion come about. I would like to ask the opinions of others more experienced about how I should continue. Thanks, Scaledish (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Scaledish: Welcome back. I wouldn't worry too much about the past history, just do good work going forward. You could start by helping to clear up the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg. You might want to make a note on your user talk page similar to the first paragraph above. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Jmabel: for the advice, I will review the deletion process to learn how I can clean it up (I did look at that message repeatedly but was unsure of what to write instead of annoying +1s - I ought to understand the process so I can make meaningful contributions to the discussion). I will also post a section on my talk page describing the situation, Thank you for your advice, means a lot. Also a thanks to @Jim.henderson: for making me feel a bit less alone, good to know I am not the only newb who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Scaledish: Many of us started by being stubborn in our stupidity. I did several bad things in English Wikipedia, and repeated them. Then I began to understand, stopped repeating past mistakes, started making new ones, and gradually improved. A break of months, followed by mostly good actions (even old-timers make dumb mistakes) won't erase the bad past, but will make them unimportant. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:GODL-India#What website did this license can be applicable?[edit]

Please look into it once...TTP1233 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @TTP1233: I'm a native English-speaker (U.S.). Neither your title for this section here nor your remarks where you've linked make much sense to me.…
  • …so I tried to work out what languages you speak. Your Commons user page refers us to your Simple English user page, which refers us to your English-language user page, which refers us back to your Simple English user page. None of these contain Babel boxes (see also wikidata:Wikidata:Userboxes#Babel). Could you please clean that up a bit? It would be very helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: CentralAuth says mostly English with some other languages spoken in or near India. My loose translation is "Which websites' content may be uploaded here using {{GODL-India}}?" and my answer is "Websites of the government of India".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Most websites of the Government of India are governed by a copyright policy. My opinion is that the user should cross check before uploading. The TTP1233 has already violated copyright most of the time which can be verified from their deleted contributions and talk-page notices. Run n Fly (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of Suggested Edits on Commons: findings and discussion[edit]

Hi everyone. Last year I posted here (as a volunteer) with some concerns about the Suggested Edits feature of the Wikipedia Android app, which seemed to be producing a lot of low quality edits. That led to several conversations with WMF staff working on the app and an invitation to do a bit of focused contract work for the Foundation evaluating the feature's impact on Commons. I've posted the data, findings, and my recommendations here: User:Rhododendrites (WMF)/Suggested Edits.

Some key points:

  • While the overall quality of contributions in this sample was higher than I anticipated based on my initial exposure, there are still several issues related to accuracy and level of detail.
  • The quality was better for captions than depicts, perhaps because of the difficulties in searching for and selecting Wikidata items, which are not always labeled effectively and may not yet exist.
  • Several of the issues may be addressed with clearer instructions (which are minimal at the moment) and small changes to the user interface (such as displaying categories).
  • There is some confusion and miscommunication regarding structured data on Commons. This would be helpful to address by documentation on Commons and a conversation between stakeholders in the future.

Looking forward to your thoughts and questions on the talk page! --Rhododendrites (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)
A: No.
Further, the WMF account makes no direct connection to a volunteer account.
It's also bizarre to mark up this spam notice for translation. I fail to understand why that's desirable for anyone. -- (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@SOyeyele (WMF): Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Please don't use translation markup, like <translate></translate> and <tvar></tvar> in MassMessages. Adding translation markup requests that the entire page be marked for translation, which is highly undesirable for discussion pages. It is better to leave your message in one language and then link to a translatable page on Meta. You should also sign your messages using the instructions at m:MassMessage, as ~~~~ won't work as expected. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Interwiki linking disabled?[edit]

I'm trying to link from a Commons category to an entry in the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, but it seems impossible. When I try to select language, nothing happens, and I am not able to add the link. This has been the case since yesterday. Is this a known problem, or is there another explanation than it being a technical issue? Vinguru (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

d:Q97204149? Looks like you succeeded. --Magnus (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I did that from Wikidata. While that works in many contexts, it is less than ideal in others. Creating the link while working on Commons also auto-generates a WD element, which is very useful. Vinguru (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I can confirm that doesn't work for me either. --Magnus (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Add links" tool form is unusable, the autocomplete in the "select language" field doesn't work and the form cann't advance to the "title" field. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to do. As here, you can make a visible link with "[[:no:Verjeskiftbrua]]" (which produces no:Verjeskiftbrua) or a link for the left nav with "[[no:Verjeskiftbrua]]", but that last is typically better done by linking to your Commons category page from the relevant Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Yes, better and standard is to link the Commons category through a relevant Wikidata item, and just that is why we complain that the tool which should link pages through Wikidata item page doesn't work (today for the fourth day, and so far there is probably no one who would start solving the problem, and I'm not sure whether you even understood what we're all describing here). Old-style direct interwiki links can help as a temporary partial surrogate until the standard tool is operational – I assume that there are bots working here that transform old-style interwiki/interproject links into Wikidata linking. Of course, the old-style interproject link here at a Commons page only works in one direction, it does not provide linking from other projects to the Commons page. --ŠJů (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Me too, I cannot add a link to an Wikipedia article/category page since yesterday. --Elkost (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Still broken... Any news about any eventual fix?-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata problem --M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I encountered the very same issue. Hoping there'll be a fix. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Serena Lederer[edit]

Category:Serena Lederer has only the painting of this lady by Klimt. I was tempted to rename it to "Portrait of Serena Pilitzer Lederer by Klimt". This category also has informations about the lady (birth, death etc.) which would be deleted. Klimt's major paintings deserve to have a category of their own. What's the right thing to do?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Create a new cat for the painting, make Category:Serena Lederer one of its several parent cats, and move the images of the painting to the new cat. -- Tuválkin 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 the wikidata wouldn't make sense if it pointed from the person in Wikipedia to the portrait catgeory. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Licenses related to openSUSE[edit]

I just noticed that a lot of files related to openSUSE may be uploaded under wrong license. Here are some example:

I am not sure how to deal with these files. Can I edit the license information directly?--立日 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@立日: Is it possible that the image assets were originally released as part of OpenSUSE, and thus would be covered by the GFDL, and that they were recently released under CC-BY-SA 3.0? In this case, both licenses would apply (since they are both irrevocable) and people could choose the one they want to use. See also Commons:Multi-licensing.  Mysterymanblue  23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I am not sure if the logo of openSUSE had ever been released under GFDL. But currently openSUSE Leap as 'collective work' is released under GPL2, which is not compatible with GFDL 1.2 as far as I'm concerned. And 'This agreement does not limit your rights under, or grant you rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component'. Therefore the logo of openSUSE is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which should have been distributed under the same license. As for BSD-3-Clause, it has the similar redistribution limitation.--立日 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

Promotional Content in File Description.[edit]

GoodDay, I came across this image File:Bollywood Choreographer.jpg, if you look at it's description, it appears to be of self promotional content / advertisement. On Wikipedia this would be WP:PROMO, but the rules here are different.
So is This OK ? Or does it need to be tagged accordingly? what tags would be suitable? -- Thank you In Advance. --STC1 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to have here; we don't care who uploads, as long as the rights are good. On the other hand, several issues to fix, at least/:
    • bad categorization
    • promotional description
Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems the uploader is the subject of the images, while the actual photographer is unknown. I have nominated them for deletion. MKFI (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"My bad upload"[edit]

@Jeff G.: (and feel free to ping others who often help new users). Since it is so common for relatively new users to need their upload deleted, and since {{speedy|G7}} is rather obscure, I have introduced template {{My bad upload}}. If anyone wants to make friendly tweaks to that template, or to internationalize it, please feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks, I tweaked it.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding more templates may make the system harder to navigate. I suspect this alternate will be rarely used.
The CSD codes are optional, you can advise a newbie to use {{speedy|whatever reason}} or even just {{speedy}} for obvious mistakes, especially same day uploader requests. -- (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@: as long as they follow the instructions and "subst" it, it's basically just a shortcut way to make the request, which will shorten my more-than-daily explanation I end up giving at the help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"subst" itself is complicated enough to scare away newbies.--RZuo (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Korean presidential images[edit]

Comoelto (talk · contribs) is uploading many images from the (South) Korean presidential website, such as File:Moon Jae-in Shavkat Mirziyoyev.jpg. The source page is the image itself making it difficult to identify which page on the website it has come from, but the home page has "© Office of the President. All rights reserved" at the bottom of the page, so is there any evidence "Korea Open Government License Type I: Attribution." even applies? FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

Question regarding composite images[edit]

With modern technology, it is now possible to take, say, fifty old photographs of a famous person, and use them as data points from which to generate a unique composite image of that person. Could such an image be released to the public domain by its author, given the minimal input remaining from the original images? If so, could such an image be used in Wikimedia projects, presuming that it is an accurate representation of the appearance of the subject? BD2412 T 19:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "composite image"? Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean that you put in a bunch of photographs and an app or similar program produces an image of the person that doesn't exist anywhere else (one that can be adjusted for facial expressions, lighting, etc.). BD2412 T 21:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is more a question for a copyright lawyer than for Commons. My gut is that it would be considered derivative work and would need to acknowledge (and license) all of its copyrighted sources, but I am not a lawyer, and courts have certainly at times surprised me either way in their decisions about derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
If the "old photographs" are significant in the creation of the new work, it would be derivative of the "old photographs". They should be credited if PD or free licensed, and if not the new work would be a derivative work of copyrighted original "old photographs", and not appropriate for Wikimedia Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a "can we" but also "should we" My 2 cents is: people should hew closely to COM:EDUSE and avoid propagating fantasy or misrepresentations of reality, even if copyright allows it. Just as I think AI generated portraits of completely fake people should be limited to a handful of uploads to demonstrate the technology (not to upload thousands of fictitious faces because copyright allows), composite images of real people doing something they never did, or presenting them in a way they never actually appeared, should be treated with extreme caution, although it may be warranted in some cases. The origin and synthetic nature of such images should be clearly stated, otherwise we invite a universe of deepfakes, and the educational purpose of Wikimedia goes out the window. --Animalparty (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I understand that by composite image is meant Photomosaics. Wouter (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's always a difficult case, because composite images based on copyrighted works might have neighbouring or leftover rights when used in composite images. I know that robots themselves can't be assigned copyrights or any other form of intellectual property rights, but while they generate images they didn't create the underlying works, hence they could be seen as derivative works. At least, copyright © laws tend to be very antiquated with most being written before artificial intelligence or monkeys with cameras existed. Of course, de minimis could apply to these images, so I would be in favour, but how to attribute the sources? How to tell if only a small part was used. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of out of rules speedy deletion by some administrators[edit]

After an administrator speedy deleted several of his uploads, be it his own works or photos by other people with the escuse of "Self-delete. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope‎", without opening any deletion request, it seems that the same thread continues, now with another administrator that deletes his own images, with source in Flickr but uploaded by other users under free licenses, not once but at least twice with the excuse "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons", again without opening a proper deletion request, when that image was never before deleted. Why do some administrators not follow the rules that they enforce on other users? Why do they not follow the proper protocol, as all other less users have to? The case in point File:48 Dona Luisa (36884843406).jpg and administrator User:Jcornelius. Why do some administrators circunvent the rules without any consequence? Tm (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems now that this same administrator has changed the license of this images, after the two uploads and his deletion. Tm (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I say this not only bad style at Commons but ineffective as well since you cannot waive a Creative Commons licence once it has been granted. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
And he has made 73 deletions under the same invalid "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons". And yet no one notices it or pretends not to notice. Tm (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jcornelius: These images need to be undeleted at once. If you didn't upload them at Commons, you cannot speedy them as your own works. As the original photographer you may want to keep them out of Commons but you should have considered that before posting them at Flickr under a free and irrevocable licence. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Cornelius, being an admin here and an historically very respected contributor does not give you the right to delete images that you previously free-licensed just because you now regret that. I doubt we would have granted courtesy deletions on all of these to an uninvolved third party or an ordinary Commons user in similar circumstances. It would be one thing if there were a single image where you went "oops, I hadn't meant to free-license that," but dozens? - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel:: I kept posting photos, even my most personal ones, on Flickr, without noticing that all were CC licensed. So yes, indeed, as explained below, Jpbowen uploaded plenty of photos of me, my friends, and my family, that I don't want to see on Commons; yes. --Jcornelius (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
"Why do some administrators circumvent the rules without any consequence?": Is there a process on Commons to administer "consequences" to administrators who violate the rules?  Mysterymanblue  22:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems highly inappropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the specific case we have before us? Perhaps. However, people who can’t follow the rules shouldn’t be admins. Mistakes are one thing; having such a fundamentally flawed understanding of one’s role on Commons is another. I’m sure the individual in question didn’t think it was a big deal and didn’t carry any negative intentions in deleting these files, but adminship isn’t a right, it’s a tool we give to experienced, knowledgeable users who know how the project is run and can help run it. Why is it “highly inappropriate” to suggest that we should reconsider giving that tool to its violators?  Mysterymanblue  07:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I regret the free licensing of the photo, I actually had forgotten that my Flickr photos were CC licensed. Last week, Jpbowen transferred all my photos from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons without asking, even the most personal photos ones, and a lot of duplicates (I know, you don't have to ask, but well, I'm a community member for more than 16 years here, it is something about politeness and courtesy, I think). You imagine that I was incredibily annoyed by this fact, because I like my photos on Commons to be well described, well categorized, and so on. Jpbowen decided not to do anything about that, but leaving them just there. Since then, I'm trying to clean up everything, sort, and make those photos usuable for the Wikimedia projects. In this process, I've deleted the above mentioned photo, because indeed it was not my intention to share a person of a Mozambican woman on Wikimedia Commons with a CC license. However, you are absolutely right, that I should have followed the process as described. I am sorry, ask for your excuse, I beg your pardon for this fail. Best regards, --Jcornelius (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I don't see a difference between Flickr and Commons. The thing about CC licences is that you don't need to ask the the rights holder in the first place, so Jpbowen's uploads here were all correct. Not to mention, that they were most likely not aware about you being the same person here and there. So asking for courtesy or politeness of the uploader in this case is totally unwarranted. I for one appreciate your apology though. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just my inputs: perhaps I suggest the undeletions of those files and if removal is warranted then a normal deletion request should be submitted, with a valid and reasonable rationale for deletion. On mass Flickr uploads, however, I'm afraid there is nothing to do about these images other than deletion requests (e.g. images that violate no FOP or no commercial FOP, containing derivative works, or out of scope personal images). Obvious duplicates can be speedied though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For info, I was using a Flickr to Commons transfer tool that I assumed would follow all needed guidelines. It seems that it did but that some images were not licenced as the photographer intended. For the record, I am happy for images to be deleted if that is what the originator wishes in the circumstances, even if the CC licence was not as the photographer wished accidentally. —Jpbowen (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

Copyright logo: Cape Mentelle Vineyards[edit]

I was working on Category:Cape Mentelle Vineyards and adding relevant files to it, and noticed that User:CMVineyard has uploaded a few files. One of them is File:CAPE-MENTELLE.jpg, which is tagged with {{Copyrighted free use}} — I'm just wondering if that's the correct way to do it, for a company logo like this? Shouldn't there be an OTRS ticket logged as well? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Text only logos can't be copyrighted unless they use a unique copyrighted font. Logos are protected by trademark law that prevent unlawful use. --RAN (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Blanking of user talk page[edit]

Is Orizan's act of blanking their talkpage, in particular removing archival system after getting notices of FOP and DW-related deletion requests acceptable here, or is it considered "rude"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, cần't say that I'm a fan of such a move, but going over their uploads most are quite valuable Flickr imports and for every FOP or DW violation they uploaded literally dozens of good files. I've always been an advocate for just importing the whole of Flickr and sorting the files out later, though I do think that the user should nominate DW's for deletion after uploading. Having worked with Flickr2Commons it is quite difficult to systematically de-select files if you run large imports and the software is handicapped in several ways, before it was easy to use with Flickr photostreams (or Flickrstreams) but not anymore, but that's off topic here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Destroyed buildings and sub-categories[edit]

There was no consensus, at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Destroyed buildings by function to rename the subcategories of the category as, for example, "Destroyed libraries" from "Demolished libraries" (if anything, the latter should be a subcategory of the former), but the change has been done as a fait accompli, and only then was the discussion closed. The renames should be reversed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

apparently there was concensus in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. the 2021 cfd is just for reaffirmation of the 2013 cfd.--RZuo (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
There was not; and it was not Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

June 15[edit]

Wikidata problem[edit]

Hello Fellows!
Are there any known ongoing issues that affect linking Commons categories to Wikidata items? In particular, I mean the "link with page" module. Regards, Mosbatho (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am using right now one device and no multiple internet web browsers. I haven't changed anything in the settings recently. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this the same problem that was reported on June 11th? Vinguru (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is, thank you, @Vinguru! This is exactly what I am talking about. Are there any news? --Mosbatho (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mosbatho, Donald Trung, Vinguru:, also see

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I wasn't sure how to do it. Vinguru (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mosbatho (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Unknow language[edit]

I am searching for what language is written in this image. The first two lines is latin. And the last lines, what language is? It seems greek, but I am not sure... I want to type it... --93.35.184.189 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The image description says Tachelhit, which is apparently the en:Shilha language. The letters seem to be some kind of en:Tifinagh (self-made?) They do look rather Greek indeed though. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to let users know when they have been checked by Checkusers (Feedback request)[edit]

I would like to request feedback for the following proposal before I plan on actually proposing it:

"Currently when Checkusers (CU's) investigate sockpuppetry this can either be done through a Request for Checkuser (RCU) or Checkusers can decide to look for sockpuppets themselves by "scanning" users. IP addresses contain sensitive data and only the most trusted members of the community are allowed access to the Checkuser tools.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will soon mask IP addresses, this is done because of the privacy sensitivity of IP addresses of users. Personally, I think that this is an understandable and ultimately desirable measure taken to protect people's privacy when contributing to Wikimedia websites. However, new users probably aren't aware that their IP addresses can still be found out about and by whom, people that exclusively concern themselves with content and happen to edit in ways similar to other users deemed "undesirables" can become the subject of Checkuser investigation.

I propose that every time a Checkuser investigates a user, that the accounts investigated (not necessarily any accounts "found") be notified of the fact that they have been checked by a Checkuser. This can be done through the Wikimedia notification centre (Echo) for Wikimedia SUL-accounts every time that a Checkuser manually chooses to investigate that user. The message should read something like this:

"Hello [USERNAME], you have been investigated by [CU-USERNAME] on [DATE AND TIME] because they suspected you of abusing multiple accounts."

This would inform people that they have been investigated rather than let a handful of users have the unchecked ability to fetch this data whenever they want without notifying the users that they have checked."

Note that this isn't the proposal itself, I just wanted to ask here if it would be a good idea to propose something like this and if it would be beneficial to users or not? Mostly in light of the whole IP masking debate and all. Also, the last time I proposed something this year it had low engagement because while I originally planned on writing a long justification and request for feedback for the village pump and a more condensed version with only important notes for the proposals village pump I ended up getting impatient, skipping the feedback discussion, and receiving low engagement because it was too much of a long read, so I would like to work things out if it is a good idea or not and what arguments to use to support it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

June 17[edit]