Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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/2021/07.

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:


 
People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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.

July 05[edit]

Discussion of fictional flags and of deleting files in use[edit]

On Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fictional_flags_-_are_they_in_scope? there is a discussion of fictional flags and including deletions of files in use in articles and on userpages. There is also a test DR Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Flag of the British Isles where it have been suggested to delete a file that is used on almost 100 userpages on English Wikipedia. That would be a change of COM:SCOPE where the general rule is in use = in scope. You are welcome to comment. --MGA73 (talk) 06:23, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Illustration Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of a fiction nazi country.png, the focus should be on educational value regardless of whether the format is flags or something else. Any media that does the opposite, i.e. has damaging educational value or may be deliberately misleading, does not meet the mission of this project or of any sister project. It only takes a few minutes to see how user-created fantasies like this example are getting used in "political" userboxes in multiple languages, this causes genuine confusion and has been a means to use Wikimedia Commons as a free host to spread conspiracy theory misinformation. -- (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
With all due respect, I think a poorly anti-aliased raster image of a fictional Nazi flag used on no pages and uploaded by a user who has only ever made three contributions is perhaps the most extreme example of what you are trying to show. The average case is much more harmless.  Mysterymanblue  07:29, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Why is policy even being discussed on administrators' noticeboards? And regarding fictional flags, we literally have "{{Fictional flag}}" that explicitly says that a flag is fictional. The solution should be having a bot report which fictional flags are used on Wikipedia's and other Wikimedia websites and let users judge if it's appropriate or not, and the bot can also leave messages on Wikipedia talk pages so regular contributors and other watchers will be inform if a flag gets tagged here. Note that in some cases sources will attribute a flag to a locality that later turns out to be false. Many fantasy flags are here because of historical and/or educational sources mentioning them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I like this solution.  Mysterymanblue  08:19, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Either user created fantasy flags like "Flag of a fiction nazi country.png" are allowed or they are not. If the mission of Commons has been changed to all possible user created graphics that they may want to post on their user page, without regard to political flavour or intent or educational value, then there are no rules for what is "extreme" or "harmless" as these are subjective.
Equally important is that the processes apply to everyone regardless of status. A newbie uploading a file should be subject to the same terms and good faith as our most active administrator. -- (talk) 11:14, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
I think it is a bit unreasonable to say it is necessarily all or nothing. Like most things, the value of these flags lies on a spectrum. File:Flag of a fiction nazi country.png lies on one end, and File:Canada Weed Flag.svg and File:Cuban rainbow flag.svg lie toward the other. It is my feeling that users should be given wide latitude for what they would like to put on their user pages. A few fictitious/fictional flags does not harm anyone as long as they are clearly labeled and prudently used, especially if those flags reflect the identity or belief of the user in question.
I agree with you that that the standard should be the same regardless of experience on the project. The reason why I brought up the fact that the user had "only ever made three contributions" is because there have historically been a large number of successful deletion requests against the personal photos of users who have not contributed in any other way. The fact that the user is inexperienced will bolster your argument, regardless of whether you or I agree with that reasoning.  Mysterymanblue  19:57, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Below is a small gallery of the kind of thing on which the discussion turns. GPinkerton (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

It is not my view that these meet the criteria of the project's scope. Others may disagree. GPinkerton (talk) 11:53, 5 July 2021 (UTC)


These just look like pro-British Empire garbage, with any user page usage likely to only cause project disruption or create a hostile environment for contributors, especially those Wikipedians that have openly stated where they live and would presume to be treated respectfully.
They are anti-educational, they fail to meet COM:EV, blatantly. -- (talk) 12:58, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
TBH I think it's more an alt-history thing. (Mozambique and Rwanda have joined the Commonwealth despite their never having been part of the Empire.) The Japan ones just illustrate that its possible to generate an infinite number of vaguely plausible-looking flags based on real-world emblems and elements cobbled together. All very nice, ... on a different website. GPinkerton (talk) 13:05, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • There is little agreement on any of this so far. Some points raised are:
  1. Is Commons responsible for the accuracy of Wikipedias? Or is that their problem?
  2. If "miseducation" is a problem, then how can Commons address that (or can it)? Many resources are perfectly valid on Commons, but become misinformation if and when they're mis-used, mis-captioned, mis-described. That's not something Commons has much control over.
  3. The term "fictional" is being bandied around as a reason to delete. Yet there is no Commons policy which supports that.
  4. "Fictional" is being used for several distinct meanings: within a notable work of fiction, as the immediate creation of a single Commons uploader, and also as proposed new flags for real-world regions. The proposed group is most problematic here: some have later been adopted officially, some have been part of serious campaigns to change the identity of a region, some have extremely politically biased uses in reality, yet this gives them a clear educational function here. The "fictional" label is being abused. It is also being mis-applied innocently, because so little checking has been done before claiming "this flag does not exist outside WM".
  5. Commons has a tradition of accepting uploader claims for veracity and significance. en:WP:V is not a Commons policy - we do not require en:WP:RS sourcing to prove that an image is as claimed, or risk deletion. Yet that seems to be a new demand here - that would be a major change for Commons, or a peculiar abberation to one form of content.
  6. As a major problem, there are deletion requests active made on the basis of some shared feature: "pan-African fantasy flags" and "variations of the Union Jack". This is not a shared feature of their authorship, or of our confidence in off-wiki sourcing, it's about their particular topic. Pan-Africanism should not be used as a criterion for deletion like this.
  7. If there is to be any resolution to this, my feeling is that we have to base "proposed" flags on the prior existence of a proposal for such off-wiki (although that should be broad - there are many proposals to "put the Welsh flag into the UK flag" etc. and we should not delete those because the version drawn isn't simply identical to some off-wiki exemplar).
  8. Outside proposed flags, claiming to be solid proposals for flags, I would also take a lenient and inclusive view of fictional flags created as fictions. It's not misleading to draw a flag for Gondor, and if a WP wants to not use it or to delete whole articles, that's on them. We do not improve Commons by deleting such.
Andy Dingley (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The above points are really obfuscatory and quite badly misrepresent nearly all the points that have actually been raised. This will be obvious on examination of the discussion and I encourage no-one to believe such garbled pronouncements like "The term "fictional" is being bandied around as a reason to delete" (not true) and "Pan-Africanism should not be used as a criteria for deletion like this." (even worse; the nominated files in that case were mostly uploaded by a single user who supports their deletion) GPinkerton (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
One illustration of the current level of debate is the discrepancy between what is said when it suits Andy Dingley, and what is criticized by Andy Dingley when it suits Andy Dingley, e.g.: my feeling is that we have to base "proposed" flags on the prior existence of a proposal for such off-wiki (although that should be broad - there are many proposals to "put the Welsh flag into the UK flag" etc. and we should not delete those because the version drawn isn't simply identical to some off-wiki exemplar) but then voting to delete a flag Because it's not well drawn, and because it's inaccurate. You can't fix this by renaming it. Compare the good version and the poor version. But for starters, the flag proportions are wrong (yes, this does matter for flags), the colours are wrong and the cross position is wrong (probably inevitable, given the overall proportions). I will leave it for others to judge whether this sort of argumentation is profitable. GPinkerton (talk) 14:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Another illustration of the kinds of reasoning involves the basic errors made in point 6 above: Andy Dingley has confused the United Kingdom with the British Isles and has misunderstood why any file purporting to be a "flag of the British Isles" is ipso facto out of scope. GPinkerton (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
this kind of user generated personal ideas are not suitable on commons but only on websites like NationStates or fandom.--RZuo (talk) 16:16, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • WikiDiff logo 1.svg
    Sometimes things are created for some (good) reason but not used. For example the file to the right.
Is that a threat to Commons and Wikipedia?
What is the educational value of this file?
Not all fictional stuff is evil!
Personally I think this discussion is not constructive because do get rid of "unwanted" files it is suggested that Commmons should delete files used on userpages. Commons have allowed userpage images for many years at least as long as the userpage belongs to a user that have made constructive edits and as long as it does not get extreme.
Also I do not think it has been well defined what kind of fiction that is not in scope. Some users also mentioned "Fake coats of arms". So if I create a flag or a COA to my userpage is that fake and a threat to Commons?
What if some users on Wikipedia would like to discuss how a flag should look like and they create 3 different versions and discuss the versions on a talk page? Would that be disruptive and propaganda? Or should it be allowed to keep the "fake" versions to preserve the history on Wikipedia.
And what is the plan? If the DR is closed as delete is that then taken as concensus that we can delete hundreds of flags that someone think is fictional?
Is Category:Accuracy disputes next?
Is this the beginning of Commons should be the supreme judge of what files wikis are allowed to use?
I think the correct way to discuss is not on the admin noticeboard and not in a few deletion requests. It should be discussed with involvement on many users. And it should be announced globally so all wikis have a chance to comment and to move files to their wiki if they want to keep it. --MGA73 (talk) 19:20, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 These are really just and fallacies. The point raised above are alarmist retorts to absolutist strawman arguments absolutely no-one is making. The discussion was started to establish whether consensus exists that all user-created flags are somehow exempt from COM:SCOPE, and discussion has proved to all that no such consensus exists and that therefore no blanket rules should be made. GPinkerton (talk) 00:58, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that is not true. I don’t think anyone ever said that ALL user-created flags were in scope. So there were no need for such a discussion. The discussion was for example if we should delete files in use because some users thought the files were fiction. And someone brought in propaganda in the discussion. I think that rules and policies should apply to all files. We should not treat files differently depending on they could be used for a cause we agree with or oppose to. For me this is like the freedom of speech. I may not agree with what someone say but I will defend their right to tell their opinion. Therefore I also defend users rights to decorate their userpage as they want and for wikis to discuss and use files as they want. But as always there are exceptions so illegal and purely disruptive stuff excluded. --MGA73 (talk) 05:25, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that rules and policies should apply to all files. Good. We can agree there are no blanket exemptions for fantasy flags. This stuff about dying on hills for liberty of expression is very overblown and misplaced. Commons is COM:NOTHOST and there is no inherent right to have one's vexillographic fantasies indulged on this particular website. GPinkerton (talk) 05:54, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Okay then let us take File:WikiDiff logo 1.svg I mentioned above. Do you also think that we should delete this file? --MGA73 (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 Is that relevant somehow? Is it an image purporting to represent a flag? Why would you keep bringing up categories of things which have nothing to do with the matter at hand? It's en:whataboutism ... GPinkerton (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton Yes I think it is relevant. You claim that you think we should delete fiction. Now you speak of flags. But on COM:AN you also mention COA. Why mention COA if you that it is only flags that is the problem? I'm trying to find out if you only think we should delete fictional flags or if we should also delete fictional COA, fictional logos, fictional symbols etc. So I'm trying to find out if you want to delete all fictional <whatever>. COM:NOTHOST does not only apply for flags. It apply for all files that does not have an educational purpose. I think it is a fair and simple question to ask. Do you think we should delete the file? --MGA73 (talk) 15:28, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 It's a question I have no interest in answering or discussing. You are mistaken; I have nowhere discussed deleting anything but flags, I began and have conducted this discussion purely about flags, and I have never suggested (and have repeatedly made this clear, to you in particular) that I "think we should delete fiction". Please reread the entire discussion from the very beginning if you still believe that my position is anything like that. My position is that everything out of scope should be deleted, which, being policy, is entirely uncontroversial. GPinkerton (talk) 15:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton I know it is an unpleasent question to answer. If you say A) Yes I think we should delete it even if it is related to LGBT+ then you risk angry comments from users that think you are homofobic etc. And if you say B) No we should not delete stuff related to LGBT+ because COM:SCOPE and COM:HOST does not apply to such files then you would risk angry comments from users that think your scope it to remove files that favor "unwanted" POV.
I think that we all agree that we should only keep files that are in scope. What we do not agree is what scope is.
Since "propaganda" and "deleting files in use" was also brought up in the discussion I worry what the end goal is here. You can of course only speak for your self.
Your goal may only be flags (even if you mentioned COA for some reason) but I think other users that joined the discussion may have other goals than just flags. Since your proposal and your DRs could be used as an argument to delete other stuff I think it is relevant to clarify the motives. --MGA73 (talk) 15:52, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
MGA73 I'm sorry this is incoherent now. What is "related to LGBT+"? Whose motives for what? What goal? (Where is this stuff coming from ...?) I think you must be confusing me for someone else, I don't know what you're referring to. I certainly haven't mentioned propaganda anywhere, for example. Honestly I think you are trying to include all kinds of subjects that don't seem to have any bearing on whether user-generated fantasy flags are exempt from COM:SCOPE. As I say, I am not willing to discuss the matter further, since it's clear that they are not. GPinkerton (talk) 16:01, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
GPinkerton I asked you about File:WikiDiff logo 1.svg and that is related to LGBT+. I know that it was not you that mentioned propaganda. That is what I tried to say with "other users that joined the discussion may have other goals". As I said somewhere else I think that in use = in scope. So if a user-generated flag is in use I would generally not delete it. If it is not in use and not likely to be used ever then I would not make much complaints in a DR. --MGA73 (talk) 16:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
This image was extracted from an upload by Fæ, when I cut it out I was unaware of the whole "fantasy flags" discussion, but it's some sort of poetic irony that I found an image proving a "fantasy" flag to be real while the person that allowed me to prove it is arguing for their deletion.

Let me start with a little story here, there is a flag tagged as a fictional flag here, it has been uploaded dozens of times by both dozens of socks and dozens of other users, many deletion requests have been started over it, many ended in "Delete" some in "Keep", several versions of this alleged "fictional flag" still exists on Wikimedia Commons and they have all been tagged and categorised as such. The main sockmaster keeps adding them to Wikipedia's and others keep removing them, their usual solution is nominating them for deletion on Wikimedia Commons, this has mixed success. This is an ongoing issue for over a decade now. On the other side of the globe the Internet Archive faces lawsuits and its future is at stake, many Wikimedians panic including Fæ and a mass-import (I've dreamed of for years) started, they start quickly importing millions of files together with a team of people that try to grab as much from the Internet Archive as they can, among these imports Fæ uploaded an old Dutch flag chart that actually proves this "fantasy flag" to have historical precedent. my bad, I messed up the timeline, this is an earlier upload from 2015.

Now, this obviously doesn't count for user-generated flags, but a better solution for fantasy flags would be by having a policy which dictates that fantasy flags should be named "Fantasy flag of XXX", when I got a sock-upload flag of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina undeleted I renamed it from "Drapeau" to "Pseudodrapeau", but others then argued that historical evidence for the flag existed and it is no longer considered a "fantasy" flag. I know that most of this discussion is about "user inventions" but people have diverse views and some people create flags to express those views, but they should probably be tagged and named as fantasies and a bot should notify Wikipedia pages when such flags are used outside of user space, or a window should pop up "This flag (NAME) has been tagged on Wikimedia Commons as being "fictional", are you sure that you want to add it to Wikipedia?" Because some fictional flags are useful, some aren't. But they should be fine for userboxes but not for articles. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I agree with MGA73's comments about file history (and most of their others), I actually have filed an ongoing undeletion request for a month or so now for a file I discovered in an older revision of a Wikipedia article that was deleted as "being a fantasy" but from my own research I found historical evidence that does claim that the polity had coats of arms, unfortunately the image was deleted because a West-German book said that the polity did not have a coat of arms. Tagging it as "fictional" for content disputes is essentially "a Citation Needed for Wikimedia Commons", a lot of factually true educational content exists on Wikipedia's with "Citation Needed" for various reasons, the information could be true but the source provided is seen as unreliable, it could be removed because someone added it to the global spam-blacklist (despite being an educational website that doesn't run any advertisements, but some users "spammed" it), or perhaps the citations were placed by sockpuppets and those are automatically reverted. True information can be unsourced for a variety of reasons but that does not make it less true, it just makes it currently unverified. The "Fictional flag" template for many disputed flags is Wikimedia Commons' version of the "Citation Needed" tag. Usually unsourced information only gets removed if it's highly unlikely or unsourced for many years but even that's arbitrary. Wikimedia Commons should not dictate what is factual or not, it should ask people for sources and then ask them to prove something to be legitimate. Our knowledge of history keeps expanding as we find new old works, new discoveries happen all the time. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:47, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
An obscure upload of mine from six years ago and a deletion I never expressed a view on, not exactly a gotcha moment. As mentioned I think this would benefit from a policy-based RFC which does the minimal and obvious of helping to make basic housekeeping easy. The burden should remain on the uploader to understand the scope of this project and understand what it is they are uploading.
Media with "unverifiable" assertions as to whether it has reasonable educational value, has to be accountable and judged using the precautionary principle in a similar way to how we scrutinize copyright assertions. The burden of proof is not on the person asking the question. -- (talk) 20:39, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • COM:PRP "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." Copyright. It would be a significant extension to apply that to SCOPE and our current test of "realistically useful for". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Again the false claim about "burden of proof" and "precautionary principle". Those two are related to copyright and nothing else.
This is in my opinion not just about housekeeping but getting a backdoor to delete content that "we" do not like for some reasons. In the discussion on COM:AN the word "propaganda" was used. So I see an attempt to introduce some sort of en:Guardian Council that can eliminate content that might favor undesired opinions leaving only "the right" opinion.
I think to be balanced Commons should honor COM:CENSOR. If someone want to upload propaganda we should let them. We should just make sure that propaganda for the opposite view is also allowed. That will ensure that Wikipedia have media to use for both opinions. The risk is that users start to delete files showing one view leaving only the files that support the other view. --MGA73 (talk) 21:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
What exactly does it mean for a flag to be "fictional", anyway? Once you've created it, it exists. It seems to me that only the description can be fictional: the claim that it is the flag of something, that it represents something. If I make a solid red flag and say that it has been used as a Communist symbol at times, that is not fiction. If I make the same flag image and say it represents the blood of ruby-miners, that is presumably fictional. What about File:Thin Blue Line Flag (United States).svg? No question that it has become an emblem of a certain right-wing notion of the police in the United States, but as far as I know it has not been officially adopted by any significant organization (I stand ready to be corrected on that, but our description doesn't say so); so is it a fictional flag that a lot of people use, or is it a non-fictional flag? For flags that are not specifically the emblem of an organization, at what point does the flag pass from fiction to non-fiction? I don't think there is any one general answer to that. - Jmabel ! talk 03:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Jmabel The way the discussion has been opened here misrepresents the question; "fictional" is absolutely not the criterion to discuss: the way I framed the question at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Fictional_flags_-_are_they_in_scope? does not have this ambiguity that is causing confusion: "self-generated, Wikimedia-only fantasy flags" are the issue, not unofficial flags that exist in the real world. Actual images that exist independently of Wikimedia, like File:Thin Blue Line Flag (United States).svg (or File:The Man in the High Castle (Ridley Scott's series).svg), are absolutely outside the discussion. Scroll up for the "flags" of various non-existent British colonies. No-one has been able to argue that we should be hosting such non-notable personal artwork material. GPinkerton (talk) 03:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • See my point #4 above. "Fictional" has at least three meanings, just within the examples we've seen so far. For that reason, blanket deletions "as fictional" or attempts to define deletion policy on that basis should be rejected. Even if we reject some "fictional" flags as outside SCOPE, other "fictional" flags are within it, so we'd need a much better term of definition. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Vexillology, as a form of graphic design, is art. Most art has intrinsic value beyond its popularity, official use, or capacity to provide educational value. Commons hosts a large number of works of art by non-notable people which are incapable of representing anything in the real world (see Category:Abstract art). Most of the time, the best "educational value" that these pieces of abstract art have is that they are capable of representing the concept of abstract art. This is similar to how most of these fantasy flags, in an educational setting, would perhaps only be suitable to represent the concept of vexillology (and, as the case may be, alternate history). True, an image of non notable abstract art could be used in a classroom setting to critique and analyze the technique and purpose of the artist, but an image of a fantasy flag could likewise be used to analyze the symbolism and design choices of its designer. So what is the fundamental difference between abstract art and vexillology that causes one to receive so much harsher scrutiny here? Why have there not been concerted efforts to delete en masse the non notable abstract art hosted on Commons?  Mysterymanblue  04:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Why have there not been concerted efforts to delete en masse the non notable abstract art hosted on Commons? is an interesting question. According to Commons:Deletion_policy#Not_educationally_useful "Self-created artwork without obvious educational use" are one of the "Examples of files that are not realistically useful" deemed ""Out of scope"" which "should normally be listed at Commons:Deletion requests". It's true that an "image of a fantasy flag could ... be used to analyze the symbolism and design choices of its designer" but there is no reason why anyone should use self-invented fantasy flags; there are plenty of such images that exist independently that would be infinitely more within COM:SCOPE. They're just not "realistically useful" unless educational use is "obvious", and this is far from the case with such vanity projects as these. GPinkerton (talk) 05:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Why do you have to keep throwing pejorative terminology like "vanity projects" into this?
We have "realistically useful for an educational purpose" as inclusion criteria. That's all we need. We don't judge based on the intentions of an uploader.
There can be little more of a vanity project than File:Trump coa.svg, a (very) fake coat of arms. Yet we're unlikely to delete that. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Do you really not understand the difference between a coat of arms that exist in the real world and one that does not? Yet more whataboutism does not make these tendentious arguments less tedious. GPinkerton (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: You ask, "So what is the fundamental difference between abstract art and vexillology that causes one to receive so much harsher scrutiny here?" Answer: the former is unlikely to mislead anyone about history/geography/etc. But I'd also get rid of most users' abstract art. An image or two for your own user page is fine, but we aren't a universal web host. - Jmabel ! talk 14:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: "Real world" is a tricky concept. The only difference between Trump's made-up coat-of-arms and the one some con-man tried to sell me is that (1) he's famous/infamous and (2) he bit. - Jmabel ! talk 14:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
"Flag of Gibraltar (proposed by me).png" a non-educational fantasy. Do we permanently host maps with "borders proposed by me"?
@Jmabel: I wrote before looking at the file, which I perceive to be quite different to Trump's actual coat of arms, which is a legitimate thing, at least since he was forced to stop using his golf course's previous owner's and apply for his own. Still, for the purpose of this discussion, Narnia (and its flags), Middle-earth, Alderaan, and whatever planet Trump lives on are all entirely real in the sense that they would continue to exist if Wikimedia disappeared overnight. GPinkerton (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: It may be true that the project scope as currently written requires us to delete all non notable artwork. If that's the case, I think it should be changed. The nominal purpose of Wikimedia projects is to make the sum of all human knowledge freely usable. Images of artwork are not knowledge in the traditional sense of the term, and yet they hold value without which the free culture movement would be incomplete. I personally would like Wikimedia projects to encompass every aspect of the free culture movement, even if they lie outside the scope of the sum of all human knowledge. So in my mind, a scoping policy that forces us to delete hundreds of freely usable works of art is not a good thing. Obviously, the question of what Commons should be is, at some level, a matter of subjective personal belief that has no definitive answer, so I don't expect others to necessarily agree. But those are my two cents.  Mysterymanblue  20:22, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Is there anything you would not have Commons host, if it were appropriately licensed? - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: With the exception of illegal or truly heinous content, no. I know this is not exactly the most popular viewpoint, but I think you can still arrive at a conclusion to keep without going to that extreme.  Mysterymanblue  23:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
This image has been deleted a dozen times from Wikimedia Commons as "a fantasy flag, later it turned out to be a real flag, but nobody ever stopped to actually research it because a globally locked Sockmaster that uploaded it, among other "legitimate users", is known for "pushing fantasies".
  • Another example of a flag that has been deleted probably dozens off times from Wikimedia Commons before being restored (after I requested undeletion) is the flag of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina with two (2) white stripes in the middle, now a common rationale for its deletion usually revolves around this quote: "The difference between the flag and this “arms” has caused some confusion as it was supposed that the flag should have been also yellow with three blue stripes separated by two white ones. This should however to be blamed to an error in a publication about the flag of 1946." - Neue und veränderte Staatswappen seit 1945 IIa, Die Wappen der Staaten Asiens. In: Jahrbuch / Heraldischer Verein Zum Kleeblatt von 1888 zu Hannover". 1968. P. 67. note 148. However, contemporary evidence shows that this flag is indeed legitimate. this (contemporary) photograph clearly shows it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:08, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trung What relevance does this have? You can't seriously be suggesting that any and all fantasy files should be kept on the miniscule chance they somehow come into reality? Is there really and comparison between something that existed and something which does not? Is someone going to discover by looking in some archive that "British Japan" (and its flag) really existed after all? I think not. I think your example is irrelevant and the point made from it is as illogical as arguing all murder should be legalized because there have been unsound convictions in the past. Undeletion is available, which if anything is all the more reason to delete spurious misinformation of this kind; anything wrongly deleted can easily be rectified, there's no reason host every possible image indiscriminately forever. GPinkerton (talk) 09:48, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
I think that you miss the point completely. As an analogy it would be like giving the death penalty to all criminals because murderers exist. Just because flags like that of "British Japan" were uploaded doesn't mean that flags which are disputed in the vexillological scholarship should also be deleted, that is what creating a blanket ban on "fictional flags" would do, it is something that several admins have already been doing for years, I recently came across an actual flag that was deleted as "Spam/Out of scope" while the hoax flag has been on Wikipedia for over a decade all because the person that nominated it for deletion claimed that a reliable source proved it wrong. If you want to deal with flags like that of "British Moçambique" and "British Angola" then sure, but disputed flags alleged to be fictional should be allowed to stay as their educational value can clearly be established as they are useful when discussing the legitimacy of certain flags and other claims. These deletions aren't rare either, and if you think that undeletions are easy you clearly never have had to deal with any undeletion requests, it takes months because no admin would want to unilaterally undelete anything, no matter how obviously it should, yet most deletion requests are closed by only a single admin without much more discussion. Disputes based on external forces should stay, but you seemed to have raised objection to all alleged fictional flags and not just the user-generated ones with or without context. Users can use such flags for WikiProjects, Infoboxes, Etc. without much fuss, for example "the flag of the British Isles" can be used in a WikiProject page as it shows a fusion of different abstract concepts through a single flag. Meanwhile if they are properly tagged as "fictional" and a bot would notify all Wiki's when a fictional flag was being used in articlespace and allow local communities to deal with these Wikimedia Commons wouldn't have to be forced to dictate what other Wikimedia websites should be doing (something which the Meta-Wiki is already doing waaaayyyy too much of). I am not saying that such flags have any special value, I just believe that we should treat them with the same level of scrutiny as we treat selfies of random Indian men or penis pictures, rather than automatically ban all. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trung "Just because flags like that of "British Japan" were uploaded doesn't mean that flags which are disputed in the vexillological scholarship should also be deleted" No-one has suggested this. "you seemed to have raised objection to all alleged fictional flags and not just the user-generated ones with or without context" No, I absolutely have not, and I have refuted this strawman argument many times. I have repeatedly stressed that specifically user-generated fantasies should be deleted because they are against policy. "I just believe that we should treat them with the same level of scrutiny as we treat selfies of random Indian men or penis pictures" this is all I am suggesting. There is no especial blanket reason to keep such useless images, and users who are arguing for "blanket keep" with the spurious (and false) claim that the nominated images have an off-wiki existence (e.g. your very own argument here) are misguided. GPinkerton (talk) 13:05, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Additional bulk deletions[edit]

I note that despite this discussion still being open, and there being no inclination emerging towards deletion of "fictional flags" as a matter of course, we now have a new series of bulk deletions added on no more than that basis. No doubt some technical glitch prevented them being notified here, but I'm happy to correct that (although I might have missed some).

"Out of COM:SCOPE; COM:NOTHOST"

Also (quality reasons)

Andy Dingley (talk) 15:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

It is obvious from this discussion that your claims are incorrect and there is no blanket exception to policy for this material, and as such, there is no need for your blanket opposition, since it is based on neither consensus nor policy (and explicitly contradicts the latter), and as such your blanket opposition is simply a disruptive personal preference and should be treated as such, especially as you have, despite your many and lengthy comments, failed entirely to find policy-based grounds for your repeated but inaccurate assertions. GPinkerton (talk) 16:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Now that you've got the ad hominems and the stalking out of the way, have you yet found any support in the discussion above as to why fictional flags are a reason for summary deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:56, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Certainly. See above as well as elsewhere, as well as, again: COM:SCOPE. GPinkerton (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
And e.g.: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Mindnaoflag.jpg. GPinkerton (talk) 17:34, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: There might not be consensus for a blanket keep but there is no consensus for a blanket deletion either. If you nominate these files for deletion under the same blanket rationale every time, others have the right to oppose that rationale on similarly broad grounds.  Mysterymanblue  20:39, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Mysterymanblue Indeed, although since I have not proposed any blanket deletions (despite numerous claims to the contrary), that hypothetical eventuality will to arise, and users will have to think of policy-based reasons why they believe each and every file is in scope and meets the demands of policy. Arguments weak in this regard should be judged and ignored accordingly. GPinkerton (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You have repeatedly failed to demonstrate, or certainly not to convince anyone else, that "fictional flag" itself implies "out of scope". Andy Dingley (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy Dingley No, you have again confused your personal preference with prevailing opinion; they are in fact opposed. The fact that you keep misrepresenting my point as "fictional flag" itself implies "out of scope" proves one of two things: either you still don't understand what this discussion is about, or you simply don't care, and wish to express your thoughts and desires regardless. GPinkerton (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • You take half a dozen categories or editor's whole contributions where the only plausible common factor is "fictional flags" and you tag them all as "fails COM:SCOPE". There are really only two reasons to delete anything here: licensing or scope. But you're still failing to demonstrate that "fictional flags" implies, and implies in all cases, being outside SCOPE. I've given more specific and quantifiable rules as to how we could make this clear and concrete; you haven't, you just keep tagging stuff for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:14, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
What you find plausible is none of my concern. Your "rules" appear to be empty whataboutery that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. If you don't like the policy, that is also not my problem, but another of yours. GPinkerton (talk) 23:16, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: I don't think User:GPinkerton is asserting that all fictional flags are out of scope, and his nominations for deletion do not even use the term "fictional" except where that is part of a category name. I believe he is saying that users can't just make up fantasy flags of their own choosing that have absolutely no independent use in the real world, and that falls under the same heading as non-notable artists using Commons to host any other sort of art (excepting only in scope as usable illustration). GPinkerton, have I understood this correctly? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Jmabel correct. GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
  • " I believe he is saying that users can't just make up fantasy flags of their own choosing that have absolutely no independent use in the real world, " Which is what I put forward myself. However GPinkerton has also been nominating a slew of flags that do have independent real-world origins, these are ones where we disagree.
I would like to try and agree some abstract principles here first, such as "fictional is not a reason of itself, if that fiction has some real-world basis to it", which the ever-hostile GPinkerton describes as "empty whataboutery" and instead favours more and more bulk deletions, either to establish "precedents" (we don't use "precedent" here, per policy, except that we increasingly do so) or simply to get as much deleted as possible.
There are groups here that do have real world origins. The flags of the Italian Social Republic were obscure, short-lived, but real. The images here are INUSE on that basis. I'm not sure that the examples we have here are accurate, or even that we should keep them, but that's a lot more complicated a question than just hiding behind an unexplained "SCOPE". Andy Dingley (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
The principles are already agreed, and no-one needs to wait for your agreement to continue work on the project; you have no powers of veto. Your nonsense about the Italian Social Republic is just that: nonsense. None of the images nominated for deletion has anything to do with the Italian Social Republic, which unlike the flags nominated for deletion, existed in this universe. Once again, we see Andy Dingley leaping to conclusions confected from his own misunderstanding of what the discussion is about, what Commons policy is, and what Commons is for. Yet more waffle about precedents and made-up and erroneous (and increasingly desperate) claims about the real world being negatively affected by the deletion of fake flags (which are marked as such, contrary to the above under-researched (and disruptive) claims. GPinkerton (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@GPinkerton: Your comments in this and related discussions have begun to border on uncivil. Please remember to assume good faith in others and to treat your fellow contributors with respect. We are all working toward the same ultimate goal, after all.  Mysterymanblue  09:30, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, the frequent attacks by Andy Dingley are making that difficult to bear in mind. GPinkerton (talk) 09:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 06[edit]

Why can't we have individual pages for undeletion requests?[edit]

Per:

User Xover noted that they wanted to be pinged here if they got a response because a lot of changes happen to this page and you don't always get relevant notifications. Why can't undeletion requests just have individual pages like deletion requests have had for probably over a decade? Most people only file one (1) or two (2) undeletion requests at a time and it would make sense to hust leave those in a tab rather than be forced to watch every undeletion request that is currently filed. It just seems highly impractical for no apparent reason.

I also noted that the page is practically impossible to use for mobile users, simply going to the most recent request forces you to scroll through all the other requests. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Amen! The really high-volume pages are pretty hopeless through the watchlist even on desktop, and watching them drowns out all other pages to watch. Trying to follow a specific undeletion request (e.g. because I filed it) is a nightmare. Xover (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll also add that the page is currently large enough to constitute a performance problem. Even using the reply tool (which aiui save partial page content through the API and is usually much faster) there is a noticeable lag when replying. Xover (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, this page is impossible to use for us mobile users because of its (deliberate?) bad organisation, if you don't believe me then click on this link:

And actually try going to the most recent request, Wikimedia websites are full of apathy and antipathy towards mobile users, but this page takes the cake. It seems that the regular contributors to it simply do not want to discuss its issues or wave them off because they likely never have to deal with them. I think that the reason we don't see many undeletion requests by users that aren't new users that simply don't understand "Commons:Licensing" or the regular experienced users is because the organisation of the page is so uninviting. Seriously, would we have accepted this for deletion requests that if you want to find a deletion request that you go to a single page and keep scrolling until you might find it and get notifications about literally all ongoing deletion requests? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support separating COM:UDR down to one page per current UDR section (undeletion request). The current situation forced me to specifically ask for a ping in my preload nearly four years ago because some Admins could not or would not comply with the regular ping request in my sig.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Steinsplitter, as SteinsplitterBot would require adjustments to correctly archive the page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
the problem is on the stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests, not whether the page is split. stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed.--RZuo (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Replying to "stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed." you're right, this has been discussed, I proposed it earlier and at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/03#Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request" it had 3 (three) support votes and 1 (one), your, oppose vote. An earlier discussion from 2016 found at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request" has 4 (four) support votes and no oppose votes. Other than you literally nobody has opposed it during any prior discussion. This has half a decade of community support, just no technical implementation yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
people can agree on as many impractical ideas as they want. when the bot is not changing, people can of course implement such ideas thru manual labour.
do it, now or never.--RZuo (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: I see no basis on which you can demand "now or never" here. Am I missing something? Why would the possibility go away if this is not done right now? - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, out of curiosity, can you please explain to my why requests for checkusers can have separate pages for each case which sees far fewer new sections than UnDR? You haven't made any actual case for why the current status quo of undeletions is desirable over the alternative other than the admins should work harder (or in your words "stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests") and ping users more, which is simply more work for everyone. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: i doubt this would ever be implemented, neither now nor in future. he can keep talking but nothing will come to fruition.
for one last time i am replying, @Donald Trung:
  1. this is unrelated to checkusers.
  2. even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent.
  3. the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages.
  4. you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone".
  5. it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for. they are supposed to be efficient and not nitpicky. i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job. take a look at an example that's still waiting on the page right now special:permalink/574953586#File:Raül_Romeva_al_Parlament_de_Catalunya.jpg: the lazy user wouldnt even scroll the webpage and so make the requester tell them to scroll, but even after that three days has passed and the request is still sitting there.
splitting pages wont solve the human problem, the root cause of all these troubles. -- RZuo (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, replying to "even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent." The analogy is appropriate as checkuser cases are far less frequent and usually it is "User:A uploads the same kind of images as User:C" (the fact that both these usernames are of German-speaking Vietnamese people interested in Vietnamese history is coincidental, as I didn't refer to the actual users but examples), undeletion requests concern content which is at the heart of Wikimedia Commons, not its community while CUR's are a purely community affair. Most deletion requests are also simply "DW", Out of COM:SCOPE", and "Obvious copyvio." without much more added. In response to "you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone"." How? One person writes a bot, it saves work as the "Kept" template can then directly link to pages rather than long archives and it makes discussions easier to watch as you don't get every irrelevant notification (irrelevant to your request(s)) in your e-mail, and "it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for." everyone here is an unpaid volunteer that invest our free time into the project, seeing the small number of admins that patrol undeletion requests I wouldn't be surprised that not many admins want to invest their free time into it because they don't get notified about what they are experts on and often valid UnDR cases tend to be the really complicated ones.
Finally at "the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages." the same could be said about most deletion requests, most of them are simply one sentence nominations and then "Deleted, per nom." but those pages easily help preserve an archival record. Regarding "i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job." makes me believe that you just have a personal hatred towards the process and simply don't want to see it improve because of it. Splitting pages benefits everyone involved, it helps the admins keep tabs on the UnDR they have more knowledge about (local copyright law, personality rights, VRT tickets, Etc.), it is easier to link individual pages to VRT tickets on the VRT noticeboard, and those that make requests actually only gets notices relevant to them making them more engaging rather than ignoring any further enquiries because after a while they stop checking every "irrelevant" diff. Sometimes I genuinely wonder how many people would engage with DR's if they had the same inefficient system. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.:, should I file a bot request for a bot to "adopt" this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Do you have the skill and resources to code and run it?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, isn't it possible to ask someone with a bot to already do this? I will ask at VPT if someone with the technical skills to do so is available. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Steinsplitter was already pinged here, but has not edited any WMF wiki for 10+ days, since 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, Please see "Implementation" at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request", this user was unwilling to change his bot for this request when it had community consensus back then. We shouldn't be dependent on a handful of people to do all the tasks, it's like with the InternetArchiveBot, its operator was unwilling to do so for Wikimedia Commons but another user did so with their bot. We cannot be dependent on people who don't plan on investing their free time and have no obligations to do so, it is best to ask for someone who is willing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: If you're envisioning a setup akin to COM:DR you might want to talk to Krd since archiving there is handled by Krdbot. If I understood Steinsplitter's comment in the 2016 thread correctly, SteinsplitterBot would need a major rewrite to handle that kind of setup which we cannot presume they have the free time to do.
    I would also suggest you ping the most active admins processing undeletion requests to gain their perspective on the setup. From my perspective as a "end user" of it it seems clearly better with a split setup, but it would also need to be practical for the admins who are actually managing that process. There's not all that many sharing the workload there (hence the backlog) so if the change would make the workflow less efficient for them it'd tend to make the backlog worse. Xover (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 11[edit]

Splitting the info template and ordering files in the category[edit]

Do we have consensus for changes like this [1]? I do not doubt in the good faith of the user, but for me it is too revolutionary.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:56, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Revolutionary indeed, they have actually made a really good point in making those changes as often photographed files have separate licenses and information about them independent of the photographs. While I am not saying that it should be standard practice, I see it as a positive development, although from what I remember file depicts from the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) project were designed to create such information. Great out of the box thinking on part of that contributor. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What part and why? Using {{Art photo}} rather than {{Information}}? I'd see that as a generally good idea, although I don't think this one in particular is an Art photo, thus shouldn't have used it. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm guessing but I think the ordering files part refers to the Category:Brandenburg (Havel) Dom category sort. It seems complicated to try to order the files in the category to me. I'm not clear why the art photo template date is 1831-1832 but I'm guessing it is the date for the house which seems confusing without more details. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ricky81682: I think you only looked at the diff like I did initially - the diff is a little confusing, check the current state of the page itself.
Use of Art Photo seems sensible to me in this case. While the building is not a literal art piece it is still an object that could have its own copyright (waived as it is by Germany's FOP). – BMacZero (🗩) 23:19, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Is there a difference? I have no issues with Art photo, just the dating which I presume is its completion date but that's not important. Given Germany's FOP, it's not that important but the other issue was ordering files in a category. This is one where I hope people actually use the category talk page. This seems like a perfect use for it. Some categories may want to be chronological, others reverse, other randomized or something but it seems like overkill to do it to me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm against "Art photo" being used here. It's misleading, as this is not "Art". If we find that the template is convenient because it records "A photo of a creative work" and handles some additional metadata on that basis, then we should create another template for that, as either a very generic model of "photo of a creative work", or else a new template for buildings where we can also record features like their geographical location and the location of the photographer.
But misusing templates like this is a trivial convenience and a long-term nightmare. Imagine if the template was then to start adding categorizations, or metadata for museum collections holding the artwork. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Indeed, one issue is ordering the files in the category using the key. On top of the questions what the correct order should be etc, I also do not see how this could be maintained for new uploads, which now automatically go to the bottom of the category. Concerning the template splitting, I see for example that the second template picks up the caption with I gave to the Structured Data, and not the one I have chosen to add to the template, and this is not editable (unless I amend the Structured Data caption).--Ymblanter (talk) 08:45, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree and have never seen any point in ordering files in categories, for that reason. Categories should be small enough to make that redundant and if not, subcategorisation should be considered. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would favour using sort orders in many cases, but only where such a sort order is clear enough to be added, and also generates an order which is then of value to readers. Typically that's where subjects in the cat are inherently and obviously named or numbered. I can see neither for this numeric sequence here - can anyone explain what it is? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
It belongs to Art photo, because it is a cultural heritage building, and the official declaration is referenced with given building year=date. Only by using tl art photo one can state this information, give references and ino about the architect if known.
The Sorting is numeric sorting the different views around the object and far and near, keeping together similar photos otherwise seperated just by chance of the file names. One has to consider, that files are always sorted. If not by sortkey than by filename which normally is not realized. This sorting just by chance via file names is not preferable at all. And I am definetly against creating too many subcategories because than the overview is missing. So categories of 100 or 200 files are ok.--Charlotte Heineccius (talk) 09:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
+1 to an alternative to "art photo" for buildings if it is needed. A building may be artistic, as may a toaster, a chair, or a fence, but it is not a work of art, it is a practical object, and in most countries (though not Germany) that makes a big difference in copyright law. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
A protected building is an artwork and why should one not use tl art photo to give information about creator, date, references etc.--Charlotte Heineccius (talk) 21:46, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
No, a building is not an artwork, and its protection status has nothing to do with that. You might metaphorically call it that, just like you might say the same of a well-designed piece of machinery or even an attractive human, but with reference to things like copyright that doesn't make it a work of art, and most (though not all) countries make this distinction within their copyright laws. - Jmabel ! talk 02:08, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
If you want to display images in a certain order a gallery should be used. Pretty pointless in a category, it is not what categories are for, the average user is unable to read the mind or guess the motives of the creators of such orders, which in any case cannot be applied universally across the whole of Commons and therefore will always be irrelevant oddities. Oxyman (talk) 03:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Oxyman: I totally agree with you if someone wants to sort a whole category. On the other hand, if we have (for example) a hundred or more pictures directly in a category like Category:Hotels in Seattle, it can be useful to use cat sorting to bring together multiple pictures of the same hotel, with the later possibility of actually creating a separate category for that hotel. But if you really want the different images of the same hotel in a particular order? Definitely a gallery page. - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
If we have "multiple pictures of the same hotel", what's wrong with creating a category for it now without having to bother with sorting? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: I, for one, don't usually like to create a category for something non-notable until it gets to about 4 or 5 images. Usually when I do create a category I do some research on dates, etc., which takes a lot more work than just doing a cat sort on images. - Jmabel ! talk 00:15, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Notability is a concept alien to Commons. We're really only concerned with structure here. So if we have four or five images of the same hotel in Category:Hotels in Seattle, it makes sense to aggregate them into one subcat. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:39, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Absolutely, but if we have two, and especially if we have one, it is not. By cat-sorting on the name, we are much more likely to notice when we have enough for a sub-category, because they will group together rather than be spread randomly among 100+ images in a parent category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel not to create small cats generally, especially not with one or two files. If you open the supercat you only see the subcategories and you have to click endlessly to get an overview. For the sorting one has to consider, that files are always sorted by file names, which mostly is not the atlternative. Sometimes sorting different views is the preparation for the gallery, otherwise one cannot find the best photos out of 150 files.Charlotte Heineccius (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but the problem with sorting is that it can not be maintained. You are not going to be here forever, and new uploads automatically go to the bottom of the category.--Ymblanter (talk) 03:34, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

New report for images in en-wiki rejected drafts[edit]

There is a new bot report (https://heber.toolforge.org/drafts/filter) for images in en-wiki rejected drafts (thanks to @William Avery: for making it). Rejected drafts often contain problematic images which sometimes are left to linger after the draft has been deleted.

Note that when checking the report it may be better to select a past date, as the current date report may update as drafts get rejected. MKFI (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's a goldmine of potential copyvios, great idea and thank you William Avery. Is it possible to look at a range of dates, and/or sort by date? Or even better, automatically tag files associated with rejected drafts for manual review? I suspect files will leave this list if/when the draft is deleted for inactivity after 6 months, but the files will remain. -M.nelson (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am holding the data in a separate database on Toolforge, so things won't leave the list. I'll be increasing the amount of information shown, and indicating which drafts and images have been deleted. William Avery (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 15[edit]

Cameraperson waiving at protestors to avoid being run over category?[edit]

Is there a category (ore depicts tag) for media showing camerapersons waiving at oncoming protestors to avoid being overrun by cyclists while filming? (example: image from demonstration) --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:32, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

such a cat is probably too specific. currently the most specific cat in this topic is probably Category:Males waving hands.--RZuo (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Why has Welsh appeared and how do I remove it?[edit]

Hi, some apparently random parts of my user interface are now in Welsh (I think) in Commons and on various Wikipedias. The tags added to edits on my watchlists, for example, are now in Welsh, and the "Support us" entry in the main sidebar on Wikipedia is now "Cyfranwch", although none of the other items on that list are translated. I can't think of what I may have done to cause this, and I can't find a way of changing it: I can't find anything on my preferences which indicates a choice of Welsh that I could change. I did add an image to an article on Welsh Wikipedia some time ago but it seems unlikely that that could somehow insert a new language interface on some parts of most Wikimedia pages. I'm also not near Wales so it's not a location thing ... GPinkerton (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this also. If my language is set to "en-GB - British English" in Preferences then I see bits of Welsh in parts of the interface. If I set it to "en - English" then the Welsh goes away. - Htonl (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this overlooked vandalism or a technical fault? GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone contributed translations to the wrong language on translatewiki.net. Switching to en - English from en-gb - English (UK) in Special:Preferences is a temporary solution if you don't like Welsh for the time being. Nthep (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
See phab:T286679. The wrong translations have already been deleted on translatewiki.net and now they’re waiting to be removed from Wikimedia wikis as well. I hope the removal will happen at latest with the weekly software update on Wednesday. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 17[edit]

No image is shown[edit]

Eindpunt tramlijn B halte Lingolsheim Tiergaertelin in Strasbourg 2021.jpg

I uploaded the file yesterday [2], but the image is still not shown. Is there a technical problem?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:15, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Hi. It works for me, please see COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:51, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't see it earlier, but it's there now ... GPinkerton (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Pictures of products[edit]

Hey! Quick question. If I were to take a photograph of, for example, an ice cream product next to its packaging, would that be freely eligible for use on wikimedia commons and, by extension, wikipedia projects? --EdoAug (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@EdoAug: be careful with COM:PACKAGING. most packages are copyrighted.--RZuo (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, am I right in the assumption that, in this example, the ice cream itself without associated packaging or imagery would be fine in most cases? --EdoAug (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
you can see Category:Ice cream they come in all kinds of shapes and forms. i think as long as they are not very intricately crafted, copyright shouldnt be a concern.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

July 18[edit]

Did I interpret Fan art correctly?[edit]

Hi! I desired to have a map over Azeroth as it stands today in the video game World of Warcraft, as seen in Azeroth in World of Warcraft 2021.jpg, and I was wondering if I kept it vague enough to not breach the policies of Commons? In my interpretation it should comply with the guidelines within COM:Fan art, but I'd love to hear second opinions, as I would like to create more as necessary. Uncertain if this is something I should ask about, but I figured it was best to ask instead of waiting for a possible deletion request. --EdoAug (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @EdoAug: Looks probably fine, but lacking any idea of how close an image to this may exist within the game, it's hard to say for sure. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Delete gallery pages if poorly maintained?[edit]

I'm under the impression that galleries have become less and less important on Commons and are often poorly maintained. Often, compared to the amount of images now available here, they present an almost ridiculously small, arbitrary and stale selection of images, misleading users who encounter that gallery page and think that's the selection of images Commons has to offer on the subject. A current example I came across is Lake Lucerne - five images, most of them pretty old, small and low-quality by our current standards, whilst Category:Lake Lucerne has hundreds of images, many of them better than the images in the gallery. Now, Commons:Galleries says Galleries should not be created if they merely duplicate the purpose of a category. However, this does not mean they should be deleted or "merged". Categories will always be categories, but galleries can turn into something much more. So, what is the opinion here in cases such as the Lake Lucerne gallery? With time and effort, it certainly could be turned into a well-crafted selection of great Lake Lucerne images, but in its current state, it's useless. My take on this would be to delete the gallery for now, leaving the option open for anyone who would like to create a useful gallery to do so later, of course. No gallery is better than such an embarrassing one, in my opinion. But I'm not sure what the current practice on Commons is in such cases. Gestumblindi (talk) 13:33, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

  • "Delete if imperfect" is against everything that built Wikipedia in the first place.
So today, you'll probably get huge support for it.
There's also an issue that Wikidata will probably try to take over this role altogether - which would permit the selection that categories don't give, but loses the editorial opportunity. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Unlike Wikipedia articles, I currently don't have the impression that most Commons galleries are constantly improving and getting better over the years, but rather that they are a neglected area of Commons that is, well, rather embarrassing. Maybe it's a concept that doesn't work too well. Personally, as a long-time Commons contributor, I never felt a need to work with galleries, but of course others might differ. I'm certainly not hell-bent on deleting anything, but I think in such a case, we would lose nothing of value and at the same time don't prevent creating a valuable gallery later on, if someone feels inclined to do that work. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • How about fixing them? (By radical pruning, if needs be) This would probably be less effort than deletion arguments. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I would support deprecating the namespace altogether. This is just a failed area on Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Whilst not disagreeing with that as an observation, even mass deletion would be better than that. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @4nn1l2: I am about to draw a line in the sand. If the galleries that I have spent literally hundreds of hours building are deleted, I will leave this project entirely. Examples: Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest, Seattle and the Orient. - Jmabel ! talk 22:06, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Nice galleries, Jmabel. I definitely am not going to delete them (I'm nobody). By deprecate, I meant to freeze the existing galleries (poor galleries may be deleted after discussion) and ask users not to invest their time and energy in the gallery namespace anymore. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • While I personally rarely use the gallery namespace, it is useful in many aspects and can be improved in the future. My only real issue with gallery namespaces is that if I type in "Books from France" that it doesn't suggest any categories to me, but that is the fault of the search engine(s) used on Wikimedia Commons. Regarding maintenence, galleries can be the home to certain "curated" high quality media files or files more relevant to a certain subject, for example all depictions of a certain thing in other works. But the issue with the gallery namespace remains that it remains under-utilised. It is just a shame that the "(main)" namespace is occupied by galleries and not categories. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:09, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    • But regarding the original question, well, it would be like Wikipedia deleting old stubs because "if someone wishes to re-create the article, they can write a new one", expanding stubs is often better than writing a completely new article and expanding an existing gallery would probably be preferable over deleting "unmaintained" ones. The overall problem is probably a lack of (interested) volunteers rather than an issue intrinsic to the gallery namespace. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
      • The main problem is with the interface, which prefers galleries over categories and doesn't link the latter prominently enough from the former. Galleries are useful when they have a good selection of images. If the assortment of files available when the gallery was created was poor, the gallery needs maintenance to stay useful, but otherwise galleries serve their purpose quite well, and there is no substitute. Some old galleries were made as a substitute to (the originally non-existent?) categories, and such galleries could be deleted, or simply redirected to the categories (perhaps with a soft redirect template). –LPfi (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Time 01:09[edit]

Can you share any weird/cool categories like this one Category:Time 01:09? Thanks. emijrp (talk) 18:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Category:Barangays 425, 426, 427, Zone 43, District II, Sampaloc, Manila, 579, 580, 581, Zone 56, District IV, 592, 593, Zone, 58, 626, 627, 628, 629, Zone 63, District VI, Santa Mesa, Manila‎. Weird: yes; cool: meh... You will find a bunch of such long-name categories if you search through Category:Manila and its sub-categories. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm not clear what about this category is "weird", but in the sense that categories help people to find the images they seek (a user may plausibly have a need for a free image, depicting a clock showing nine minutes past one, for example), they are all "cool". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Somebody wrote a clock app which use a random picture from each category to show the time! (PS if you run across any pictures of clocks please add them to correct category.) Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Another one Category:Shadow of the photographer. emijrp (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Old photo deleted without any credible claim of copyvio[edit]

File:Kaiserkanal01.jpg was uploaded by User:Hph on dewp sometime before 10 May 2004, which was before commons was created!

now once again User:Ankry has subjected such file to unrealistic criteria of EXIF and resolution, and deleted it without any credible claim of copyvio: special:permalink/575766958#File:Kaiserkanal01.jpg. -- RZuo (talk) 20:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: What about the black borders and curling?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:49, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
As per Xover's comment in the undeletion discussion, it's certainly a scanned image, "not born-digital". The question is whether the uploader scanned their own work from their own photo album (which could explain the black borders), or from some other source (a magazine, the curling?). The very low size is not atypical for early web times. When I first started scanning my own physical photographs, the results were similar. Personally, I would be content with a simple statement by User:Hph in this case, "yes, this is my own photograph which I scanned" without any formalities, as we have otherwise no indication that it was taken from somewhere else, but without any response by the uploader, I think a deletion based on COM:PCP is still reasonable enough. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Are you seriously expecting response from a user whose account has "0 edits since: 25 May 2016"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:56, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
See de:Special:Contributions/Hph. Not ever having been active on Commons does not mean the person will not respond, but you'd perhaps better ask at the project where they are active (there was a proposal once to do so when somebody's file was proposed for deletion, I don't know what happened). And yes, I think a statement by the person would be enough. –LPfi (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
As they were still active as of February 2021 in German Wikipedia, they should receive the "ping"/notification as I linked their user name here (that feature works cross-wiki), if they log in there. But granted, their edits were very sparse (one so far in 2021, two in 2020, two in 2018...), so this might take a long time. But then wouldn't make a difference if I posted in German-language Wikipedia. And there might also be a language issue, yes (not everyone is comfortable with Commons' working language English, but they can use translation tools and reply in German, too). Gestumblindi (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Grandfathered old files: "The precautionary principle still applies – if real doubt remains, the file may be deleted in a deletion request."
not some backdoor speedy deletion and unilateral sysop decision without a DR. -- RZuo (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I think I would have preferred a regular deletion discussion as well. Given the circumstances, that photograph could plausibly enough be the uploader's own work. But as this case has now been discussed in an undeletion request as well as here, I think enough room for discussion has been created. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Houston typo on WikiMap[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to mention it, but Houston (Texas), is appearing as 'Hjuston' on Wikimaps; see e.g. https://wikimap.toolforge.org/?cat=Houston - MPF (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

I see it. Don't know where and how to fix it either, but it seems to be the spelling in Veps, Vepsian Wikipedia has an article "Hjuston", so it might somehow come from there. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:21, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
Almost: No Vespian on OSM, but Hjuston is used as the spelling for sr-Latn (Serbian Language in latin script) [3]. Why Wikimaps would (does) display that instead of English (or anything else, for that matter) is a mystery to me, though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:38, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

July 19[edit]

eBay to Commons: tool needed[edit]

There are a great many images on eBay, of out-of-copyright works such as old postcards, ephemera, or paintings, that can legitimately be uploaded to Commons. A while after an eBay sale ends, its images disappear from view and are lost to us.

The task of uploading such images manually is laborious and time consuming, so much so as to be a deterrent.

It would be beneficial to have a tool or script that can automate as much of this task as possible, akin to Flickr-to-Commons.

Because the majority of images on eBay are still in copyright, use of the tool should be limited (or rate-limited) to users who have applied for and been granted the ability to use it (such as is done with AWB, for example).

The tool should account for the fact that some offers on eBay include multiple images; the user should be able to select (or deselect) some or all of the images from a given offer for upload. It should work on any eBay domain (ebay.com, ebay.co.uk, etc.)

All edits made by the tool should use an identifying tag in the edit summary, and all images uploaded by it should be added to a category associated with the tool.

This may make a suitable project for a hackathon or student activity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I often upload from eBay and fully agree with this, it's not rare that highly valuable images from eBay are lost forever because nobody bothered importing them. Such a tool should not be limited to eBay, there are many auction websites and there are many general websites, in my opinion we should have a tool like Flickr2Commons that can import from all websites, but if copyright issues from new users are concerned then limit it to users with a set number of non-deleted uploads or all users with 1000 (one-thousand) edits and upon request for those that fail to meet this threshold.
A general-purpose tool would really be handy, it's such a shame that we don't have a Community Tech Wishlist like the German-language Wikipedia has for Wikimedia Commons.
The tool should require manual review and not bot-review and users with a thousand or so upload could be bot-reviewed, or it could just rely on copyright © tags. Anyhow, I think that a bot should make a gallery per website (and/or per user) like with YouTube imports, and it could suggest pages to be imported to encourage more imports. It should be customisable so users can bulk import from multiple pages. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Opposing a rotation request[edit]

How can I oppose a rotation request? Do I just delete the request template and notify the requester?  Mysterymanblue  19:15, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Well, I suppose so. Not a common issue, because most rotation requests are quite straightforward. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
File:2021 American Innovation One Dollar Coin New Hampshire Proof Reverse.jpg has been nominated for a rotation which I believe to be erroneous.  Mysterymanblue  19:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: You don't want to be able to read "Player 1" from left to right?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:18, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
The description at the source seems to imply that this choice is part of the concept of this coin. Rotating it to another orientation might make part of the text slightly easier to read but would not respect the idea. It can be compared to the other side (obverse). This side (reverse) is described as having a left side and a right side. If rotated, it would not match the description. Not that it matters much if the file is to be deleted. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Fertejol, Spaceeinstein: courtesy ping for rotation nominator and uploader of file.
@Jeff G., Asclepias: Sorry, I have not had a solid grasp of this situation until right now. I initially thought that the correct orientation of the coin would be with the words "Player 1" horizontal; however, I also misunderstood the rotation request by Fertejol, as I thought that it was trying to make the words "Player 1" vertical. For this reason, I removed the rotation template from the file page. Then, I noticed my mistake and reinstated the rotation request because I realized that Fertejol and I actually agreed and that the original rotation request was to make the words "Player 1" horizontal. At this point, no one else seemed interested in this topic, so I thought it was OK to reinstate the rotation request without any further discussion. After seeing Asclepias's comment and visiting the source webpage from the mint, I now think that the words "Player 1" should be vertical, not horizontal, in keeping with the design choices made at the mint. So there should be no rotation after all. Two wrongs usually don't make a right, but my idiocy at the beginning of this shows that there are some exceptions to that rule.  Mysterymanblue  18:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue, Asclepias: The description at the source may rule for this file, but we could certainly have a new file with legible orientation (if this file is not deleted).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G., Asclepias: I suppose. I certainly wouldn't nominate such a rotated version for deletion on the basis of rotation, but I wouldn't want to upload it myself either. I just don't really see the value of having a coin in the wrong orientation (and it really is wrong because the orientation of the obverse is linked to the orientation of the reverse). It certainly shouldn't be used in a Wikipedia article about the coin, for example. I guess it's something we can discuss if the DR fails.  Mysterymanblue  15:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Maybe it's just me, but if I see legible-looking text in an image in a language I can understand, that text is easier for me to read if it is oriented normally.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:00, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

New search not quite add up some times[edit]

Hello, I just went for a search of "view file usage". I got this as the top hit, File:Condom usage front view.png, a six step photographic guide to rolling out a condom. The file page doesn't seem to have the words "view" or "file". Is it a good suggestion that sexualised content, educational or not, might not get the top spot without sexualised search terms? I don't think it would be very good for us to categorise "usage" as a sex term.

Now, it is the only sexualised content that came up with the search but it was the number one hit and it is way out of whack to what I typed in. And I wouldn't want to block sexualised content out, but I would put it a bit further down the pile or something unless it was specifically poked? ~ R.T.G 20:52, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@RTG: "view" is in the filename.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:16, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It is.. I suppose all three are now. Well it's probably just a freak incident. I doubt the search is geared on content type without specific key words :)~ R.T.G 17:19, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

July 20[edit]

Football clubs crests[edit]

I would like to add FC Barcelona crest to the article in polish. How can I do it? For example on english and catalan page there is the crest but I can't find the file in Commons. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Campió99 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • That's because it is non-free, so it can't be on Commons. See en:File:FC Barcelona (crest).svg. I have no idea whether you are allowed to do something like this on the Polish Wikipedia, you'd need to ask there. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Campió99 - a Polish (inter alia) Wikipedian here. As you seem to be a non-native speaker of English, I will try to explain it in simple terms. The key take (=segment) of the linked discussion is this bit: "the [licence] permission [given by the club] was for the photography, not to assign a copy-left license to the brand identity of a global sporting entity." That is: even if you take a photo yourself or see this logo in these USA or Catalan pages here or even if you slightly mod it first, you do not acquire (and thus release to the world) copyright(-left) to this logo.
    In practice, you can use an item freely in plwiki as long as (=only when) you clear the rights (=convince the admins) when uploading its file to Commons, via this upload/export button or manually. Clearing these rights may be not that easy or possible, as Jmabel wrote above, see e.g. the fate of a similar sports logo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_Summer_Olympics_logo.svg.
    On the other hand, as a non-expert in copyright and a fellow infrequent Commons uploader, I have made it once or twice, with little hassle, for example when manually downloading a scanned document from hewiki and then uploading it unchanged to Commons some years go. There was some discussion about the copyright (that I have not taken part in) and it has stayed put ever since and is thus now used in a couple of regional wikis.
    I hope it helps. Powodzenia! Zezen (talk) 19:15, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Campió99: I have just finished reading Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC, the context is my query below.
    It is even more complicated, but in short, they could not take photos and upload Italian art to Commons, much as you are trying here with this FCB logo. This merchantibility (=not releasing the rights to profit from) disclaimer helped (see there for details):
    Section 5 of the Legal Code of Creative Commons CC-BY-SA-3.0, which we quote below (boldface is ours).

    5. Representations, Warranties and Disclaimer Unless otherwise mutually agreed to by the parties in writing, licensor offers the work as-is and makes no representations or warranties of any kind concerning the work, express, implied, statutory or otherwise, including, without limitation, warranties of title, merchantibility, ...

    As it is high-level stuff, above my (and whole Wikimedia Italy's back then, until 2012) head, I cannot help you here more, apart from these two hints. Zezen (talk) 05:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Pornhub [!], their new campaign to promomte Classical art by RL porn [!] and copyright suits[edit]

See: Louvre Calls in Lawyers Over Pornhub’s Hardcore Re-Enactments and PORNHUB'S MUSEUM TOUR HIGHLIGHTS NUDES FROM CLASSIC ART (neither is from The Onion, so do click, both SFW).

The salient quote: "The Uffizi in Florence has issued a legal warning to Pornhub over the rights of its art. “No one has granted authorizations for the operation or use of the art,” an Uffizi spokesperson told The Daily Beast. “In Italy, the cultural heritage code provides that in order to use images of a museum, compressed works for commercial purposes, it is necessary to have the permission, which regulates the methods and sets the relative fee to be paid. All this obviously if the museum grants the authorization which, for example, would hardly have been issued in this case”, ditto the Louvre in their suit.

Male Nude - Edgar Degas

They mean e.g. this:


Is theirs a legal bluff to e.g. protect the museums goodwill? Or am I missing something with this "cultural heritage authorization"?

Zezen (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Italy has some rather unusual laws about "cultural heritage." I'm unaware of any reason someone outside of Italy should feel bound by them, but maybe I'm missing something. - Jmabel ! talk 20:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like this is the restriction noted on Commons with {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}}. It's a non-copyright restriction, and it's not the law in the US where the servers and the foundation are, so it's not binding on Commons. Vahurzpu (talk) 21:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Aha! Ta, @Vahurzpu, fascinating background stuff: Commons:Wiki Loves Monuments 2012 in Italy/MiBAC and Codice Urbani: good ol' Italy and its redtape wiles.
Apart from learning something new, I will thus further update the plwiki article that about this campaign and maybe promote it via the Do you know? (=featured article) gadget. Zezen (talk) 03:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Is there any FlikrCommons alternative for Wikimedians?[edit]

To just dump all images from Camera as free images, including redundant and low quality ones, before uploading to Commons. It should also offer virtually unlimited storage space to Wiki users who do not abuse it. Thanks. —Vis M (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Vis M: Do I understand that you are saying you want to "dump all images…"? The alternative presumably is to load them onto a drive of your own, no? Not to put to fine a point on it, but why would someone give people infinite free cloud storage space to put junk? What would be the value in that to anyone but the person on the receiving end? Flickr, for one, offers basically that at a rather cheap rate (US$60/year). - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Because it would remove the barriers and is cheaper than any other means. People can focus on taking photos even when they cannot afford harddrives. I am asking specifically for easier sharing images under a free license, akin to how FlikrCommons was before. It would be of particular use before uploading to other collaborative websites such as inaturalist.org that compresses the quality images heavily. —Vis M (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you are referring to something I'm unaware of. I thought that by "FlikrCommons" you were proposing some hybrid of Flickr and Commons, but you say "was done before". Could you be clear exactly what you are referring to? If you mean what Flickr was before SmugMug took it over, it was losing money hand over fist. The model didn't work.
      • @Vis M: It would make more sense to have some sort of grant for Flickr Pro accounts for significant Commons contributors who cannot afford the US$5/month rather than building a new infrastructure of our own. - Jmabel ! talk
        • Flikr Commons is part of Flikr, and lets users share images under a Free license [4],[5] . It was like that before as well, but their recent policies of limiting maximum uploads to 1000 files per user adversely affected the free image sharing and deleted a lot. "grant for Flickr Pro.." - the issue is that it is annual subscription, so once it expires, all the images will vanish. Anyway, better not trust just-for-profit/copyright companies.
        • For now, I am using archive.org [6], but I am not sure if I am violating some policies. I hope there is some other free image website as well —Vis M (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
          • I very much doubt archive.org wants that kind of use. Do you need to store your junk images for long times? Otherwise a single ordinary drive (external if you don't have the space for one beside the small SSD) will provide space for more photos than what you want to wade through selecting those you want to upload or otherwise save. I suppose this is no issue for most people with a computer at home, but may of course be if you just have your camera, phone or tablet. –LPfi (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Not junk images actually, primary purpose is to share to the internet under free license for those who might find it useful. —Vis M (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
              • You said "redundant and low quality ones, before uploading to Commons", so I supposed a big share was junk. Also good shots are often worthless if they are redundant or not categorised/described. Anyway, the question is whether you need space just between taking the shots and choosing the ones to use (read: upload to Commons or similar), or whether you want to keep more or less all, in case you'll want them later. –LPfi (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
                • Both actually. To make selecting for Commons easier, as well for future. Useless ones will be deleted. —Vis M (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Vis M: "The Commons" on Flickr (which as far as I know was never called "FlikrCommons" or "Flikr Commons") is not and, to the best of my knowledge, never has been a place where just anyone can put anything. It's so far from that that I didn't think it was even possible that was what you were referring to. It is specific to content that is in significant collections, typically from GLAMs. And I agree with what User:LPfi said about "junk," it is a correct gloss on my remark above. Obviously, the images that are good enough for Commons, you can upload to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 22[edit]

Where is the universal language selector's code (#pt-uls)?[edit]

Hello. I want the universal language selector to be visible on all wikis by letting the meta set it, so I am now looking for the code of it (maybe JavaScript...?), but I could not find it. You can see the selector on the left-hand side of your personal toolbar (beside your username). Could you tell me about it? Thank you. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 04:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@TKsdik8900: Hi, and welcome. In Special:GlobalPreferences#mw-prefsection-personal, under "Internationalisation" and "Language:", select that language, check the checkbox to the left of "Language:" and anything else that is appropriate, and click "Save". You may override such Global Preferences in your Special:Preferences on individual wikis by checking the appropriate "Set a local exception for this global preference." checkbox to unlock the local preference associated with that checkbox. See mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Extension:GlobalPreferences for more info.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Colors on COM:Freedom of panorama/table[edit]

A proposal was put forward by @Mattinbgn: at Commons talk:Freedom of panorama (suggestion from September 2019), suggesting to modify the color coding used at Commons:Freedom of panorama/table to those indicated at Commons:Creating accessible illustrations, to aid in accessibility for people with color blindness like Mattinbgn. I partially fulfilled his request by modifying the colors of some fields with their equivalents at COM:Creating accessible illustrations.

I am also planning to modify the color coding for OK (check marks), not OK (ex/cross marks), unsure (question marks), and the yellow-coded fields, with their equivalents at Commons:Creating accessible illustrations, as I believe the table must be accessible to readers and Wikipedians who have the said condition. However, I may need some inputs and a consensus from other users before conducting this as this is transcluded in a widely-visited page (COM:Freedom of panorama). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:06, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:53, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

VRTS and anonymity[edit]

I have a friend who would like to let me upload some valuable media they have created to Wikimedia Commons. They would like to remain anonymous. Some sort of VRTS release under CC0 will be taking place. I have two questions: 1) Is "anonymous" an acceptable author on the file description page? 2) Will VRTS, under no circumstances, reveal the identity of my friend publicly? Thanks.  Mysterymanblue  04:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that works. But if the work is not previously published, why not just have them create a Wikimedia account (under a pseudonym) and upload it themselves? No VRTS required. -- King of ♥ 06:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If the media is valuable, copyright status should be confirmed, so VRTS (former OTRS) would be much better than an anonymous account. The system is intended to guarantee anonymity, but breaches of anonymity are always possible. I haven't heard about cases were the volunteers have compromised it, but I suppose the police can get access to the correspondence with a search warrant from a court, and other breaches are possible. The question is whether 99.9 % is enough or you really need the 100 %. –LPfi (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can create an email address, just as anyone can create a Wikimedia account. Before going the VRTS route we always need to think about what we actually intend to achieve. Are we planning to ask them to submit private documents to establish their identity? If not, then VRTS is just a fancy stamp on an image we're ultimately still relying on AGF for, no different from a direct upload without VRTS. Of course, if it's previously published that's a different story. -- King of ♥ 16:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
True. However, the threshold for lying is substantially higher, and mistakes much less likely, and thus the correspondence is more trustworthy than an "own work" on the upload form (which often is put there out of pure ignorance). Often even e-mail from anonymous accounts can be traced to your computer, and for VRTS you should not use a throwaway account. I don't know what the VRTS policy is regarding e-mail accounts, but some accounts are quite obviously non-throwaway. You are unlikely to be able to register john.doe@company.example without being john.doe or having a trusted position at that company. –LPfi (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your comments here. My associate signed a written copyright transfer agreement, and I, under my authority as the copyright holder, have published the files to Wikimedia Commons under CC0. Is it necessary for me to send a copy of the agreement to VRTS? Truthfully, I would rather not, since it has various personal information (for both me and my associate). The fact that a single breach in the VRTS system could results in this information getting out does not comfort me.  Mysterymanblue  22:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the best way is to redact all personal details and send in a scan. Since it's an unusual scenario and other agents may not be aware of the full context of this thread, you can include a request for the ticket to be handled by a specific agent (me). -- King of ♥ 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks for your help with this. I have sent an email to VRTS with the subject line "Evidence of Copyright Transfer Agreement - Mysterymanblue". I'd appreciate if you could take a look at this when you get a chance.  Mysterymanblue  08:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue, King of Hearts: I assigned Ticket:2021072410002865 for you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done King of ♥ 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Many thanks!  Mysterymanblue  17:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Twitter TOS[edit]

https://static.miraheze.org/pustakawiki/5/5b/Twitter_tos.jpg

The problem : i want to use someone else photo that is uploaded on twitter as an illustration in wikipedia article.

According to this twitter terms of service, is it legal for us to use it without proper permission of the content creator?

"Worldwide, non exclusive, royalty free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods"

"This license authorizes us to make your Content available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same"

I'm no expert in digital law. Maybe someone can help me (?) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rtnf (talk • contribs) 06:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi Rtnf, indeed, it reads like equivalent to a CC license, without the attribution. However the first part of the text of the TOS reads: "By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us..". The word "us" indicates Twitter. So only Twitter can do anything they want. The rest of the world can only look... regards, Elly (talk) 06:51, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
In short, no, you cannot use it without explicit permission. You can tweet at them to ask for that permission, and they can grant it by indicating the offered license on the same twitter thread, which you can then reference as the source. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Misleading File:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg[edit]

The last version.

File:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg is described there and in محمد بن عبد الله as a user-modified version of another picture edited to hide the face of the prophet Muhammad. However, if you actually look at it, the face is visible. In the history of the picture, I can see that the first version had the face blanked indeed, but in 2016 and 2017 another user uploaded a bigger version of the picture without the blanking. I think the way to solve it would be to remove the latest unedited versions and upload the best one under a different name (if it's not already uploaded) and leave the initial picture for its current uses. Otherwise, you can edit the latest picture to hide the face.

Anyway it's more work than I will take so I point to the problem here for somebody else to solve. --Error (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is simpler to change the description. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0:: If so, it must be done in every use of the image. --Error (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you checked the description on every page that uses the image? Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the problem when a file has been overwritten with a different one and you want to clean up afterwards: you cannot know what the captions on Wikipedia in Urdu, Chinese and Arabic tell about it. Some might be referring to the original, others to the later version. Some referenced should probably be changed to point to the new name, but which of them? –LPfi (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Page creation logs[edit]

1947 in Vietnam

While attempting to view all public logs of "Category:1947 in Vietnam" I can only see that it was deleted, but oddly enough I cannot see who created the category before it was deleted. How can I do this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: You (all of you) are all welcome to join me in asking for page creation logs here on Commons at phab:T12331.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:, odd, when I proposed new technical features through the Phabricator (like the ability to view all images in a category and all of its subcategories) they get turned down because "The Phabricator is only for reporting bugs", anyhow, I think that it would be wise to start a new Phabeicator task for Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

!Voting (add page creation logs)[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, did the people at the Phabricator really asked for "community consensus" for a technical feature that just allows people to view more information???!!! Wow, basic improvements always need "community consensus" but mass-deletion and mass-blocking tools ⚙ get introduced with minimum discussion because of "community needs". I think that before someone at the Phabricator asks for "consensus" for these things they should first ask themselves "How would this feature possibly disadvantage anyone?". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a no-brainer. More information is better, and page creation logs are an invaluable tool.  Mysterymanblue  17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

July 24[edit]

Category:Operation Carol;[edit]

How do I link to this page? (Note the ";" at the end). It looks like this a a created, but empty category. I would like to delete it, but I am not able to open this page due to the ";" at the end. Thx. --JuTa 03:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: Category:Operation Carol%3b I allready tried. --JuTa 03:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging the creator, Articseahorse: Any idea? It can be edited and has a history but apparently it can't be moved. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thx. I deleted it now. --JuTa 07:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Rectification needed[edit]

Before I label File:Miss Toller - Bessie Hamilton Johnston.png for non-free frame rev-deletion, would someone kindly rectify and re-crop the original? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Magazines[edit]

Is it seriously possible to do this?

Category:Computer Gaming World issues

It's quite strange that a commercial magazine, including third-party advertising, has no copyright issues. If it's true, shouldn't it stay in Wikisource? --Bultro (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • They're 40 years old, and US copyright of that era required maintenance, which many things didn't get. So they entered the PD.
Wikisource? Maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
So the law worked as intended! There is no commercial value in those magazines any more, so no one bothers to renew copyrights, but there is historic value, so people should be allowed to copy them. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Should be != are legally allowed to. Also, are we sure at all the depicted game artwork and screenshots, in reviews and advertisements, are free from copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)