Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to: navigation, search
Community portal
Help desk Village pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections

Shortcut: COM:VP/P · COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Commons discussion pages (index)

Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons' basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?


Symbols-Logo contest: draft proposal[edit]

I want to propose for a rapid grant for a Wikimedia Commons Symbols contest. Read the draft proposal below. I kindly ask you for:

  • Discussion whether the symbol contest should be a logo-contest for Wikimedia Commons’ symbols? So that the winner symbol will be used to mark symbols at Wikimedia Commons and also at the Category:Symbols category page and subcategory pages.
  • If you oppose the logo-contest, what other symbol specific content should the winner symbol be used for? What should the symbols specific focus be and how could the symbol be used?
  • Discussion whether the symbol contest should be announced at the Category:Symbols category page aand subcategory pages?
  • Jury participation and organizational help

Draft Proposal:

What content will the contest focus on, and why is it important to your community?

Current situation regarding access to symbols/icons:

  • There is no central repository that allows free access to symbols/icons.
  • There is a high demand for icons. “ has 1.3 million unique monthly visitors. [...] I do know that GraphicRiver boasts several millions. [...] iStockPhoto and Shutterstock have been around for at least 2 decades so they have tens-of-millions of monthly users, if not more.”

  • The demand for icons is met by icon online market places that resell icons with high commission rates (30-70%)
  • Wikimedia Commons has already a lot of icons and contributing designers (over 1 000 registered vector graphics editors).
  • The number of icons on Wikimedia Commons is insuffiecient though. The number of icons is also small compared to icon online market places.
  • Wikimedia Commons already has Category:Symbols.
  • Category:Symbols could be better presented to attract more designers of vector graphics.

The contest will therefore focus on symbols/icons. The symbols/icons-contest is important to the Wikimedia Commons community as it will:

  • increase the number of symbols/icons
  • attract already active designers of vector graphics to contribute
  • attract designers who have not yet contributed to Category:Symbols
  • increase the identification with Category:Symbols

How will you let people know about the contest?

The contest will be announced at the Wikimedia Commons Village Pump, at the Wikimedia Forum, via Wikimedia-I mailing list, on the Category:Symbols category site and subcategory sites.

How will you judge the contest and award prizes?

An international Jury will choose the winners. Rules:

  • Be self created: All entries must be original symbols uploaded by their authors. Symbols uploaded by anyone else than author (even with permission) are not accepted.
  • Be self uploaded during the contest period (1st December 2016 - 28th February 2017): You are also welcome to submit symbols you may have taken in the past. What matters is that the symbols must be uploaded during the contest period.
  • Be under a free license;
  • Contain a logo for Wikimedia Commons symbols.
  • Have the format .svg
  • A participant should have an activated e-mail address via Preferences of his/her account.

For photo contests, what is the strategy to get images used on projects?

The symbol contest is a logo-contest for Wikimedia Commons’ symbols? So that the winner symbol will be used to mark symbols at Wikimedia Commons and also at the Category:Symbols category page and subcategory pages.

Is there anything else you want to tell us about this project?

  1. Prize: 300 $ and the logo being used for Wikimedia Commons symbols
  2. Prize: 150 $
  3. Prize: 75 $
—Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 15:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Edited by GabrielVogel — Preceding unsigned comment added by GabrielVogel (talk • contribs) 15:04, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Can we assume?[edit]

If a professional photo of a model in a private place is released on the net and there's no documented consent available, can we assume that the subject (the model) is consent with his/her photo on the net and hence upload the photo here? Do we need to add this to the guideline? --Mhhossein talk 08:35, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

This is now at least the fourth (or fifth?) place you brought this up. Every single time you were refuted. If you really have a suggestion on how to improve the wording of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people, bring it up there, but stop spamming the project. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 13:26, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I can't figure out the reasoning behind this comment. I have brought here, to "improve the wording of Commons:Photographs of identifiable people" by adding statement showing assumption is allowed on some occasions, if the consensus is on that. "spamming the project"? What a bizarre comment. This board is exactly devised "for proposals relating to the ... and policies of Wikimedia Commons," what I'm exactly trying to do. Simply keep out, if you don't wish to participate. --Mhhossein talk 19:47, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I can only second Sebari here. Your refusal to accept what you were told is in issue. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:54, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
It's because that situation ceases to qualify as a "private place" -- so your statement is nonsensical. Wherever a professional photo is being taken, cannot be a private place. Therefore, there is generally no such thing as a "professional photo of a model in a private place". At that point, whether the photograph is allowed to be published is more of a contractual issue between the model and the photographer -- not a privacy issue. That contractual issue is not part of the policy. Carl Lindberg (talk) 01:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the civil response Carl Lindberg. However, apparently the guideline does not support your claim, i.e. "Wherever a professional photo is being taken, cannot be a private place." How about adding it to the guideline to remove further doubts? By the way, could you please explain how your claim is not in contradiction with "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet?" ِDoes it need to be modified? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 08:47, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The guideline does say that. A private place is somewhere the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy while a public place is somewhere where the subject has no such expectation – the terms are unrelated to whether the land is privately or publicly owned. A model standing in front of a camera with lighting etc. does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is. Thus, it is not a private place. The examples there also state how a place which may normally be private (a hospital ward) can become public in a different situation (public tour without patients). It then says, In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places.[2] Hence, unless there are specific local laws to the contrary, overriding legal concerns (e.g., defamation) or moral concerns (e.g., picture unfairly obtained), the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. Thus, in many jurisdictions, that (simply being a public place) is the end of the privacy issue. The quote you mention is only in places where local law differs in that respect (i.e. further consent is needed), and even then is usually more an issue for the photographer than the uploader (unless the upload is the first publication). Certainly, we would consider all aspects if the model requested the photo be removed. But you would need to point to an actual local law which covers the photo's situation for it to be deleted based on requests from others -- and that would be exceedingly unlikely for a professional photo (the model and photographer would normally have already have a contract, or at least understanding, before the shoot). Since contractual issues are beyond the scope of this guideline, it would usually take one of the principals (photographer or model) requesting a deletion for us to delete on those grounds. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:49, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
But which part of the guideline says that quotation "is only in places where local law differs in that respect"? The current form appears to be a general statement applicable in all the states. --Mhhossein talk 18:48, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
The part that I quoted. If it's a public place, in the U.S. the entire "consent" section is moot. It's there if you read carefully. Carl Lindberg (talk) 21:25, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Regarding public places, yes you're right. But you are assuming that when it comes to professional shots, automatically the model has no expectation for privacy and the place of photography, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered a public place. You assumption is faulty in my opinion, because you are taking the model's satisfactory with being photographed equal to his/her zero expectation of privacy. Yes the model is certainly consent with being photographed and you mentioned this by saying "...[the model] does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is," but that does not necessarily mean that the model is consent with the photos on the net. The point is to determine if the model is consent with his/her photo on the net or any other places. Simply, "consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to do what they like with the image." That's why the guideline correctly says "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet." This means that the model clearly expected the professional photographer make photos out of him/her but that does not allow the photographer to publish it where ever he wants. You're saying that when we have models and professional shots, private place is meaningless. If so, the part of the guideline, i.e "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet," is completely meaningless because it's talking about models. --Mhhossein talk 11:07, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Well, I may not be able to convince you of that at this point. But no. There is no expectation of privacy at a professional shoot. If it is announced that a public tour will be coming through a bathroom, that bathroom ceases to be a private place. Likewise, when a professional photographer sets up, that ceases to be a private place. The model's particular desires do not enter into it whatsoever, other than the contract with the photographer, at least in the U.S. The model cannot use privacy law to limit the distribution of the photograph. Commercial use would be regulated by publicity rights, but that would be it. That entire "consent" section you are quoting is possible examples of laws which may exist elsewhere, but not the U.S. The U.S. standard is strictly based on whether a "reasonable person" would have an expectation of privacy (basically, would expect they would not be photographed) -- not what one specific person wanted out of the situation. There is simply no way that a reasonable person would not expect to be photographed -- and yes, that is the "private place" standard in the U.S. Carl Lindberg (talk) 17:17, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Apparently you are arguing based on your won info or may be based on some documented law regrading privacy right in US, while I'm just speaking based on clear sentences existing in our guideline. Well, if there are documents showing that "private place standard in the U.S." is whether some one "expect[s] to be photographed" or not, presenting them would be beneficial. One more thing, if those parts of "consent" section I quoted, i.e. "consent to have one's photograph taken does not permit the photographer to..." and "model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio...", are "possible examples of laws which may exist elsewhere, but not the U.S." then the guideline should be modified in these parts, too. --Mhhossein talk 21:56, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I have read a fair amount of other material for the type of legal issues which affect photos on Commons over the years, yes, so some of that probably colors my understanding. However, the policy does say: In the United States (where the Commons servers are located), consent is not as a rule required to photograph people in public places. Thus, once it is deemed a public place, consent is a non-issue in the U.S., so the entire "Consent" section is not relevant. And the policy does make clear what a "public place" is -- it is entirely based on if a reasonable person has an expectation of privacy in that situation. If a friend took a photo of you at a party, and later published it against your consent -- you are typically out of luck, legally. I think much of the material in the "consent" section used to be titled "moral issues" to separate it from actual privacy law, since in the U.S. it is unrelated. Still, many of the concerns there (while not illegal) can affect people in unwanted ways, and so they are valid issues for involved people (photographer or pictured person) to bring up if they want a photo deleted -- we should take those concerns seriously, as the point of the site is to be educational, not cause harm to people's lives. They are also something for photographers to consider before uploading. But for deletion out of hand, they generally do not apply: the Commons community does not normally require that an identifiable subject of a photograph taken in a public place has consented to the image being taken or uploaded. That is the operative guideline. Laws typically differ quite a bit between countries, so those elements in some jurisdictions may be part of laws or court rulings. But to delete anything in that situation from Commons, you would need to point out an actual law which applies and prevents publication -- the simple listing of the possibility in the "consent" section is not a policy to delete. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:51, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Carl Lindberg: Could you please read my comment carefully once again? pay attention to the part of my comment which says "But you are assuming that when it comes to professional shots, automatically the model has no expectation for privacy and the place of photography, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered a public place." This is considered a self-made comment unless you can show us that this claim is supported by legal documents regarding document. You are placing your whole argument on the slippery assumption that "Professional shot = Public place". Please, show us that this claim has legal basis in the real world. Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 15:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
On the basis of the existing guideline I agree with Carl Lindberg. I've long thought that the guideline needs substantial review, though, and and I'd be receptive to suggestions for future improvement. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
MichaelMaggs: Carl Lindberg is saying that when we have models and professional shots, the concept of private place is meaningless only because the model already expects to be photographed. If so, the part of the guideline, i.e "A model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet," is completely meaningless because it's talking about models. Read my full comment please. --Mhhossein talk 11:08, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the guideline can definitely be improved, but that will not be an easy or quick process as we know from experience that different editors have very strongly-held but mutually incompatible ideas of what the guidelines ought to say. Some would require virtually no subject consents, whereas other would require them all the time. Local laws and practice vary hugely between countries. I still do have in mind attempting a comprehensive re-write of these guidelines, with an associated RFC, but not just at the moment as the time committment will be large. For now, we have to work with the wording we have. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Professional shot = Public place?[edit]

  • @Krd, Jameslwoodward, Nick, Peteforsyth, Christian Ferrer: & @Jcb, Jmabel, Wikicology: We discussed an issue with COM:PEOPLE. As far as I understood, Carl Lindberg believes that "a model standing in front of a camera with lighting etc. does not have an expectation that they will not be photographed, no matter where that is. Thus, it is not a private place." This means that when it comes to professional shots, the place, be it a studio or a personal bathroom, is considered public. Is it true based on US laws? If this is true, i.e. professional shots means that the place is public, is it not in contradiction with the part of the guideline saying "a model, for example, may have consented to the image being taken for a personal portfolio, but not for publication on the Internet?" --Mhhossein talk 07:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The relevant issue under US law, when photographing a person, is if the person has a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' at the time.... a person who is posing for the photograph can clearly have no reasonable expectation that they will not be photographed. The discussion of 'private' and 'public' places is related to when a reasonable expectation of privacy can be assumed to exist, and it becomes a moot point when the person consents to be photographed.
The second point is if the person has given consent for the image to be published... this becomes a matter of 'personality rights'. We generally accept the assertion of the photographer or uploader that the subject has given consent for publication, unless it either seems clear that such consent was unlikely (revenge porn) or a person who would have personal knowledge of the situation claims otherwise. In the case of the particular images that started this discussion, the photographer had previously published photos of the same model, and many others (including nudes) on Flickr well before the particular photos appear to have been taken. That consent was given for publication seems obvious. - Reventtalk 09:41, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
There is also a difference between a lay person "accepting to be photographed" and a professional model posing or a public figure being photographed in a public place. There may be an expectation of privacy in the first case, but there cannot be any in the second. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:33, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Revent: Yes, we know that "the photographer had previously published photos of the same model, and many others (including nudes) on Flickr well before the particular photos appear to have been taken," but how can it be showing they were consensual? Before answering, could you please consider these four questions by Peteforsyth? Thanks. --Mhhossein talk 12:50, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mhhossein: I do not disagree that the guideline is vague. I seriously think that the works of this photographer are the wrong case to be trying to use to make the point. The (many) women shown clearly consented to being photographed, and to claim they were unaware that they would be published seems to stretch the bounds of credibility. - Reventtalk 13:15, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Revent: Although the problem is not related to copyright, you argument is similar to those who say "the file is obviously common property. It can be found all over the internet and nobody has complained." Being aware that the photos are published is not equal to being consent about them. --Mhhossein talk 18:18, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

I see two problems with this line of reasoning. First, I understand that in the case described above, it is a reasonable assumption that the subject is a model (although whether paid or not is unknown), but in the general case how do we know that the person shown actually fits Carl's description? Professional models don't have signs on their chests telling us their occupation. Second, I'm not sure that we can make any assumptions about expectations of privacy. Privacy is not invaded if a person agrees with the photographer that the photographs are only for the use of the subject. A professional model having portfolio photos made has a perfect right to assume that those that he or she does not like will never be seen by anyone but the model and the photographer. Revent correctly draws the line at revenge porn, but I would draw it much more broadly. While there are obvious cases (fashion model on a runway, model with product), Carl's assumption must be applied with care..     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:52, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Extraordinary cases call for extraordinary evidence, but ordinary cases do not. For a photo like the one we've been discussing, the most likely scenario is a photo with consent, and we'd need at least a modicum of evidence to the contrary. Professional photographers do not routinely release photos without sufficient consent. As I've said before, if we raised the standard here to requiring explicit consent from the subject, we would have to do so for every single portrait photo on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

What is this "photo we've been discussing"? I've skimmed through the discussion above, and don't see a reference to a specific photo. Jmabel? -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

  • @Peteforsyth: Sorry, this has sprawled over a bunch of forums. Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/12#What_do_we_need_this_guideline_for.3F might be the best place to look for context. - Jmabel ! talk 01:04, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment - Consenting to be photographed is not the same as consenting to the publication of the image (s). A model may sue for personality right's violation if her image is published without her permission regardless of weather she was consented to the taken of the image (s) or not, especially if it's used in an unflattering manner and/or for commercial gain. Imagine how a model would feel, if her image (s) published here under a free-license end up being used for the cover of a porno? The model won't sue in this case? The fact that the photographer has previously published similar photos of the same model on Flicks is not enough reason to believe the model consented to the publication of all her images on Wikimedia Common or any other platform but if all the images were previously published on Flicks, that's fine. Looking at the photo that led to this discussion, it appears to have been shot in a private place which means the photographer would be liable for any misuse of the photo (s) and if the photographer release it here under a free license as "Own work", they risk been sued for any misuse of the photo. In general, I think OTRS should be required in cases like this. Wikicology (talk) 06:27, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Clearly, for the commercial uses you describe, personality rights would pertain, as they would for any photo. I can clearly take a photo of someone walking down a U.S. street, but I can't put it on the cover of a porno! So that is neither here nor there.
    • Also, unless I am extremely mistaken the subject of the photo is not a woman, it is a male drag performer, in character. Please correct me if I am wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel: The drag performer "Violet Sparks" is not the person depicted in the images that this was about. The model in those images was quite undoubtedly female. - Reventtalk 15:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I stand corrected. - Jmabel ! talk 15:36, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think the key point lies in this sentence by Jameslwoodward: "Privacy is not invaded if a person agrees with the photographer that the photographs are only for the use of the subject." --Mhhossein talk 17:37, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm uncomfortable with that quote out of context. I said:
"...Privacy is not invaded if a person agrees with the photographer that the photographs are only for the use of the subject. A professional model having portfolio photos made has a perfect right to assume that those that he or she does not like will never be seen by anyone but the model and the photographer...." .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
(Jameslwoodward): That shows my point even better. This means that by having photos of "a professional model", we can't simply assume that she/he's consent with them on the net. --Mhhossein talk 06:34, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. .     Jim . . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 11:41, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Jameslwoodward: Unfortunately, some users and few admins think otherwise. They believe that we can have such an assumption. They fail to prove themselves using legal documents in real world. That's why I tried to make the final point and clear the ambiguity. However MichaelMaggs was willing to improve the wording of the guideline, too. --Mhhossein talk 13:05, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
  • @Kaldari:: Per your suggestion, I opened a topic here on the issue of the "consent guidelines". Could I ask you tell us your viewpoint on this discussion? I invited you to the discussion because you had closed a similar discussion. --Mhhossein talk 18:06, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
    • My viewpoint is that we should use common sense, empathy, and practicality when applying the guidelines and we should judge images on a case-by-case basis. Kaldari (talk) 21:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
      • Kaldari: So, do you think for the case in question we can imagine that the model is consent with her photo on the net because she were probably consent with being photographed and because her photos had previously been on the net before they were uploaded here? --Mhhossein talk 16:48, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
        • It seems pretty obvious that the subject consented to be photographed (thus the issue of public vs private space isn't relevant). We have no way of knowing whether she consented to publication on the internet or not, but considering all the circumstances, it seems like there's a reasonable chance that she did. Thus I would be inclined to let it remain on Commons unless there was a complaint from either the subject or the photographer. Kaldari (talk) 22:35, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
          • Kaldari: Thanks for the response. Considering the questions here, how can you say "there's a reasonable chance" she were consent? --Mhhossein talk 17:50, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
            • @Mhhossein: If you want to contest the photo, open a deletion discussion. This is not the right place to debate a specific photo. Kaldari (talk) 17:58, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
              • @Kaldari: We're not necessarily talking about a specific photo. I just questioned a phrase in your comment. I would like to know where that "reasonable chance" stems from. --Mhhossein talk 16:58, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

uploading images through Wikipedia app[edit]

Hello everyone, there is a discussion of an idea of uploading image to commons via Android app. Please check the idea and discussion here, and add your thoughts. This is just a discussion, guided by visual mockups, nothing in particular is in planning. Thanks!--Melamrawy (WMF) (talk) 20:08, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Mockup totally skips over any copyright and licensing issues and goes straight from "Confirm image will be added" to "success". What a surprise. How many times do we have to go through this? LX (talk, contribs) 20:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
@LX: In all fairness, page 10 does show a dropdown for 'select a license', though with no explanation. - Reventtalk 11:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Totally inadequate. Proponents need to explain what they've learned from Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04#Mobile Web Uploads turned off in stable, Commons:Village pump/Archive/2013/04#Missing author/source parameters on mobile uploads: fix coming, Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/08#Rfc: Should we request a configuration change to shut down cross-wiki uploads?, Commons:Mobile access/Mobile upload needing check#Background and Category:MobileUpload-related deletion requests and how they plan to avoid making the same mistakes all over again. LX (talk, contribs) 12:22, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Sänger Thank you for cross-posting this here. We posted on commons exactly to make sure we got this kind of feedback- many of us here at the foundation have heard about the various rounds of selfie-pocalypse, but don't have all of the details. Thanks to @LX: for the list and I totally agree with your stated requirement. The reason we are talking so early in the development process---the idea stage, is to make sure we are aware of all of the details and specific concerns before we take any further steps. This will something we are committed to doing, just something we wanted to explore. Along those lines, the current wireframes are not intended to be prototypes, but simply ways of illustrating the ideas because we had heard that the textual descriptions were inadequate. I also want to recognize your reasonable frustration that we're talking about this again. I think the reason this comes up time and time again, because it represents a meaningful opportunity--if we can address the issues raised. I haven't read through them yet, so will refrain from further comment until I do. Rest assured, these are not being built and will not be built until we acknowledge and address the core issues raised. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Jkatz (WMF): Before developing such (not urgently needed) stuff, please work on community requests first. Thanks :-). --Steinsplitter (talk) 18:02, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I understand your frustration. To explain where I am coming from, and my own limitations, the WMF teams have different responsibilities and areas of focus. Some teams work directly with community to address their specific requests. As I saw you linked to it in the phabricator task, you know the community tech team has a community wish list and addressing specific community requests is their focus. Other teams work on community requests (and the wishlist) to the extent that they overlap with their jurisdiction. The multimedia team currently sits under the editing team and has resources assigned to it - they seem to be focusing on other work, such as image annotation. Image rotation would probably fall in that category. I work on the reading team and I am trying to help community (and readers) through that lens. You might feel that my team should be absorbed by the community tech team or that we shouldn't do this for other reasons and I would be interested in hearing about it. I will say that the Android team which might work on this particular area is a small fraction of the reading team- 3 engineers and a designer and they are also responsible for maintaining the app. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I should clarify, the most important part of the discussion linked to is to ask active contributors to commons: "what could readers potentially do for you?" on the app. We proposed a few contribution methods for readers, but I have also heard the following ideas, readers could rate image quality so that we could incorporate that into search, browsing in the future, readers could tag pictures with wikidata items that exist in the picture or properties of the picture ("painting","bulldog", "black and white") - again to be incorporated into discovery mechanisms, readers could annotate images, etc. Are any of these interesting? Are there existing backlogs or grunt work that readers could potentially help with? Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
I think the problem here to a large degree is that due to lack of investment in Commons, many of those things aren't even tooled for the editing community, let alone that they would be doable in an app for a wider audience. As the community hasn't been given the tools themselves, adding any to an app seems rather premature at this point in time. Aka, there are probably tons of things that those users can do for Commons, but none that are actually already possible for anyone, but through rough manual labor. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 16:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks TheDJ That's helpful to understand. Thanks. Jkatz (WMF) (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Bystander selfie[edit]

Hi, I propose that this guideline becomes an official policy of Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:57, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I am dubious, without actual legal precedent to support the position stated. Copyright depends upon a creative original contribution to the work at hand, and someone who says 'take a photo of us' is not composing the actual photograph. That the conveyance of the 'sole copy' of the copyrightable work effects an assignment of copyright has not been true, at least under US law, for decades. - Reventtalk 05:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
I would say they are at least a co-author, if not the only author. If you ask a bystander for a photo, you usually tell them what you want in the shot (the composition), the angle, etc. The other person may do some framing, but mostly just presses the button on the camera -- that in an of itself does not make someone an author. Many of the creative decisions were made by the pictured person, and as such, they share the authorship. And any co-author can license a work non-exclusively. Frankly though, this is a situation where the other potential author really just walks away from most any ability to control copyright anyways. This is a highly theoretical situation, which is normally not litigated, unless the person who pressed the shutter as a favor actually sues. As such, we are not likely to ever have a precedent -- and frankly, there is no real reason to disallow such uploads in my mind, unless we have an actual precedent which says it is not OK. The likelihood is that both people are co-authors, meaning they each have as much right to make licenses as the other. There were some copyright types who had some fun debating the authorship of the Ellen Degeneres Oscar selfie, see here. One of the comments notes this case, where a book author was granted co-author status on photographs because they collaborated on the content (even though he did not press the shutter). That would likely be the case in a situation like the passerby photo, to my mind. At any rate, we can note the lack of precedent for such things, but I think it would be silly to bar such uploads, since we also don't have any court case to point to, to show it's an actual problem. It's mainly theoretical copyright gymnastics which have virtually no chance of ever being a real issue. I would just assume enough authorship to allow licenses. So, Symbol support vote.svg Support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clindberg (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 January 2017‎ (UTC)
It's nice to try to clarify this situation. I would tend to consider such a photo as a "work for hire": if A asks B to shot a picture, and B does it as A said, it is implicit that the final product belongs to A (copyright and everything). --Ruthven (msg) 11:41, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
While that may make some logical sense, "work for hire" now has a pretty rigid definition in copyright law, and it would be going outside those bounds to call the situation a "work for hire" -- in general, someone needs to be an actual employee under the law of agency. For a contractor, there is a specific list of types of works where it can apply, and it requires a written agreement. See this circular. More realistically, it would be virtually impossible to bring an infringement lawsuit in the first place -- to do so, you need to prove you own the copyright, and there is virtually no way a bystander could do that. And even if they could, as I said above, going by the letter of copyright law it would probably result in (at best) a co-uthor suing a co-author, which is an entirely different type of lawsuit (not infringement). So to me, it's so far out of bounds of a normal copyright situation that we really have no idea what a judge would do, and we shouldn't guess or claim to know with any degree of confidence. We should simply assume the pictured person owns the copyright enough to license it (and there is a good case for that, even following the letter of the law). If someone wants to dispute that claim, we can deal with those situations on an individual basis. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - such a guideline would have no legal base. We should not be willing to ignore copyright regulations for the sole reason that we don't expect the author to execute his rights. It's also pointless, for a depicted person can often easily let someone take a new picture and write down their release if desired. Jcb (talk) 13:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

As I said above, going by copyright regulations themselves, the pictured person would be a co-author at least. We are not ignoring copyright regulations. It's actually really presumptuous to delete -- we are claiming way more authority on the situation than we really have or know. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:45, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I hand over my camera to people from time to time to take a picture from me (e.g. this one taken by a colleague pilot), but I don't see how I would be the author of such a picture. Usually you don't tell such a bystander exactly where he should stand. The bystander himself will usually search for the best spot and use his creativity to create the best picture. I do not see how such a photographer would be not the author. In case of File:Coen_en_Sander_met_Jcb.JPG, taken by a bystander with my camera, we made a (hand)written agreement, which I sent to OTRS. Jcb (talk) 14:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
You usually tell them what you want in the shot -- the people to include, the background, and at least the general angle -- that is orchestrating the scene, if such arrangement qualifies for copyright. You can set the camera settings before you hand it over. Most of the time, that all should be enough to get the pictured person a co-ownership of the copyright -- they authored some of the expression in the photograph. The person who presses the shutter may be the author of other aspects such as the framing, but you'd have to prove that none of the expression is attributable to the pictured person giving instructions on what they want the photo to be -- and that specific aspect (directing the subjects) is often considered as an aspect of copyright. It is a mistake to assume the person pressing the shutter is the sole owner of copyright -- that is not what the law says. It would come down to the specific instructions given, which we have no idea about, and should simply trust the uploader, unless disputed by the other party. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
If several authors are involved, then permission should come from those several authors, not only from the author of some small aspect. And about the camera settings, this is very hypothetical. Well, I turn it on at least before handing it over. Not sure whether that would constitute a creative act in your opinion... Jcb (talk) 15:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Exposure settings, shutter speed, etc. could be creative. Automatic settings, not as much. But directing the scene, almost definitely. And a co-author is a co-author -- each person would have just as much rights as the other over the photograph. A co-author generally cannot infringe copyright. The law does explicitly say that any co-author can make a non-exclusive license without consulting other co-authors. While a free license may not have been contemplated by the lawmakers when enacting that, that is the letter -- and given all the other out-of-the-ordinary aspects of this situation, I would just assume good faith. Odds are they would be in the right legally anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:29, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This sounds ridiculous to me. If e.g. somebody writes a 500 pages book and somebody else advices him on what font and paper format to use, then do you think that the other person is also entitled to release the book into a free license, even if the writer would disagree? Jcb (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
No, but the nature of expression in a book is completely different than a photograph. If someone comes up with the detailed plot, and someone else writes the words, then that could be a co-author situation. But I linked to a case above where someone who did not press the shutter was given co-author status in photographs (and that was even when the photographer owned the camera in question). It's not ridiculous at all. Carl Lindberg (talk) 18:10, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Extreme situations could occur and be assessed one by one, but the proposed guideline is bases on "Essential to "bystander selfie" is that the person operating the camera does not retain the image or data, hence has no power to publish the work.", which of course is very much against the spirit of what we are doing here. Did you read the proposed guideline? Jcb (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Indeed; who owns the camera and who retains the image data are irrelevant. I remember the early discussions with Abd about these. Jee 03:25, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not an extreme situation at all -- it is quite likely the bystander is at most a co-author. If you want to change the rationale of the guideline to the co-author one, fine -- agreed that the basis being the ability to publish is not a good one, though it's entirely possible that would enter a judge's thought process. More accurately, the bystander selfie situation is already an extreme situation with regards to normal copyright law, meaning it's likely that some or many of the normal rules are void or altered in such situations -- and we should not claim that they do apply in full, without a precedent which shows they do. It's not a situation that is really contemplated by copyright law. Assuming good faith in these situations is plenty for me. We aggravate people enough with legitimate, precedent-based deletions -- deleting when we do not have any real idea what a court would do is bad practice.Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:47, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
"We aggravate people enough with legitimate, precedent-based deletions -- deleting when we do not have any real idea what a court would do is bad practice." Sadly it is what we're doing in Flickr PDM issue and in a recent case where a couple wish to jointly maintain copyright of their work. We're being hostile to any unconventional ideas. Jee 05:11, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, and I'm firmly of the opinion we should allow Flickr PDM works where it's obvious they are the author. I'm unaware about the case involving the couple, but joint copyright ownership issues often tend to confuse around here, sometimes leading to bad results. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:09, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Conditional Symbol support vote.svg Support if wording improved. Nowadays the technology is developed a lot (smile shutters, timer, motion triggered timers which can be activated by a predefined pattern of actions, etc.); bystanders job may be simply hold the camera like a tripod. So I'm in favor to support giving the uploader the responsibility to evaluate the copyright part. Co-authorshop seems a very reasonable argument. Jee 14:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Citar página[edit]

Creo que sería conveniente activaren el menú de la deracha un enlace a Special:CiteThisPage para que sea fácilmente accesible a quienes reutilicen archivos de Commons, es decir que al pulsar el link les aparezca esto (así no hay escusa del tipo "es que no sé cómo hacerlo"). La idea me surge de este hilo del café en español. --Jcfidy (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

@Jcfidy: En mi opinio'n, el problema no es como faci'l para usar ese util, solo si personas van a usar ese util. Supongo que personas que no se interesan dar informacio'n correcta y completa ahora, ellos no van a dar la informacio'n con citas. (Mis disculpas si my castellano es incorrecta.) —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Jcfidy: Pero tambien, creo que la pagina es un metodo bueno. —Justin (koavf)TCM 19:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
@Koavf: tal vez haya personas que no lo utilicen pero cuando se encuentra alguna imagen en otras páginas se le pede decir al dueño como tiene que hacer (pulsando en el enlace) y así,tal vez, no les de tanta pereza dar los créditos. Gracias por comentar. --Jcfidy (talk) 08:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)


When I try to nomitate for deletion files by Hasan Sami Bolak, VFH displays files uploaded by another user (138 and 140) /St1995 20:05, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

  • @Stas1995: If I go to User:Hasan Sami Bolak and click "Perform batch task", I get VFC for his files as expected. Are you getting some other result? - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
    • No. But I found that Hasan Sami Bolak uploaded this files earlier and they has been deleted; later another user uploaded files with the same titles. We need correct VFC so that it display only the files that currently user has. /St1995 23:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Emptying "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories into "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"[edit]

Last month, a user started making categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" and moving photos from "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" into there. The user explain that, since templates like like {{USA photographs taken on navbox}} existed, this was something that had to be done. I pointed out that they seemed to be the only one using said templates. I asked the user (and Pi.1415926535 joined in this request) to stop and make a proposal here on the Village Pump, since it seemed to be such a large change and ruined the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"'s snapshot of the world. The user stopped, but has not added the proposal in the three weeks since. As such, I would like to propose that the files in the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories get moved back into the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" categories and the country specific categories get deleted. While I do not know how to make a bot or really how to code, a bot could (theoretically) empty out all categories invoking templates like {{USA photographs taken on navbox}} to accomplish this proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 03:32, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Please respect all the categories in Category:Photographs by date by country too. And the categories can't be removed while other users creating them. --XRay talk 06:43, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposal: The discussion and voting ends on March 26th, 2017.



  • Such overly narrow categories are not very useful. If needed, Catscan should be used. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:37, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
  • I also noticed this new thing a few months back, starting with Sweden and later widened to other countries, and I agree that these categories should not be split, even those with many items (the only admissable subcategories here would be Category:Photographs taken on (date) at (event), and even so…). However, before moving these the contents of these new cats, it should be made sure that all items are already categorized at or under Category:(date-year) in (country). -- Tuválkin 01:27, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • As Elisfkc mentioned, I warned the user because they persisted in adding the categories even after being asked not to. I'm a big proponent of the "snapshot of the world" approach; additionally, {{taken on}} can more-or-less automatically add the main category based on metadata, while the country-based categories would have to be manually maintained which just causes additional work for no real benefit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
  • The categories "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}" have a lot of entries. A lot of people are categorizing their photographs in categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}". I've started categorizing like these too, because a lot of my pictures are recategorized with the country by other users. There are hundreds of categories. Please have a look to Category:Photographs by date by country. And you should wait starting removing, not only four days. The discussion isn't finished. --XRay talk 17:19, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Looking back, I probably should have waited a little longer to start removing images from the country specific categories. However, looking at those categories on Category:Photographs by date by country, there are not that many. The categories "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" are way too specific in my opinion. There are categories, such as Category:January 2017 in Germany and their subcategories of specific states, as well as cities, that better serve the purpose than the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories. Elisfkc (talk) 17:53, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Today it's February 14th, you started the discussion on February 12th. 2 days and you started removing the categories. I think a discussion should 2 up to 4 weeks. Other users should be involved. And please have a look Category:Photographs by date by country. 14 categories for New Zealand, 326 categories for United States, 136 categories for United Kingdon, 227 categories for Switzerland, ... You will remove all the categories? That's to much for only one person. Your information at the top is very small. Please explain more circumstances. --XRay talk 18:01, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Please ask an administrator for all the creators of the catogories in Category:Photographs by date by country and give them a ping for this discussion. --XRay talk 18:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Yann? Do you mind? Elisfkc (talk) 18:06, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I've ask for assistance in Commons:Forum too. My knowlegde of english language isn't best and I don't know what's the best to do. But I'm sure, a good discussion is better. --XRay talk 18:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not sure why I ping me, but as I said above, I don't support narrow categories. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:39, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
XRay requested that an admin (like yourself) ping the creators of all the categories in Category:Photographs by date by country. Elisfkc (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I asked. That is more a proposal than a request. An administrator has tools to look for editors. All the creators of the categories should be involved. Otherwise categories will be created while you are removing them. An endless story with useless work. --XRay talk 05:45, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Without these, every date would become extremely massive. With dividing into countries, it becomes easier for anyone searching for a specific country. J 1982 (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
One could also just simply use the map function on to find out where images are taken (if they have GPS coordinates). Also, as I said above, this is why there are categories like Category:January 2017 in Germany, because then a location can be matched to the photos and the month they were taken. Elisfkc (talk) 21:31, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
But these (January 2017 in Germany) should be split up by towns, federated states or whatever. J 1982 (talk) 21:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Ok, so do that, like how there is Category:January 2017 in Florida inside of Category:January 2017 in the United States. That still isn't a reason to have categories with locations and specific days, since there are month ones available. Elisfkc (talk) 21:37, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I noticed this, too. Besides being ungrammatically named, I don't see these as helpful: it's too narrow a distinction. In addition to "Category:Photographs taken on ", I think the files should be moved to "Category:<Month> <year> in <location>". Where applicable, files could be grouped by event, subject, or something similar. --Auntof6 (talk) 06:30, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: @Elisfkc: @Yann: @Ghouston: @Tuvalkin: @Auntof6:, @J 1982:, I’ve separated voting from discussion. Additionally I’ve set an end date of the voting. After the voting we will have a decision. Elisfkc, please inform the users creating categories in Category:Photographs by date by country. Hopefully that’s OK. --XRay talk 07:01, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

@Elisfkc: I've forgotten: Please have a look to COM:CFD. You should respect this for Category:Photographs by date by country, Category:Photographs of Australia by date, Category:Photographs of Austria by date and so on. This discussion is not enough. It's better to explain what you'll like to do. --XRay talk 14:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Mentioned user — it's me. To avoid incorrect citations, please read my arguments: User_talk:Helgi-S#United States photographs category. I have not made any such category from the beginning of the discussion, but I was warned :-(. --Helgi-S (talk) 16:12, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

I think, it's Elisfkc turn now. I was frightened about the way of discussion. Nearly no discussion, started here February 12th and started deletion of categories same day. Nearly no one was informed. That's not the right way. And hundreds of categories are affected, thousands of images. IMO only one person can't remove the categories and move the files while others create this kind of categories. I wanted to prevent Elisfkc getting in trouble. May be he (or she) will stop his work if half of the work is done. Hopefully my hints will help. I'll respect the decision after finishing the discussion. --XRay talk 16:51, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I did stop (at 17:53, 14 February 2017). The only things I've done since is tagging empty categories for speedy delete, as they should be. At the same time, those of you involved in this discussion should stop creating such categories or filling them with photos from the photographs taken on date categories until this discussion is done. Thank you for separating the voting from the discussion by the way. However, your idea about going through COM:CFD seems bad to me, since this page is viewed by many more people, and it is easier to hold a centralized discussion (rather than having discussions on each individual category). Regarding the idea of users continuing to create these categories after this discussion closes (if the proposal passes), this proposal can serve as a way to point back to those users that the discussion has already occurred. And, as I said in the proposal, a bot (not made by me, since I'd have no idea what I'm doing) would go through these categories, empty them into the photographs taken on date categories, and tag the now empty location photographs taken on date categories with {{SD|G1}}. Elisfkc (talk) 20:33, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: March 26th seems way too long to wait to close. If anything, this should close on March 14th, since that's 30 days from when I made the proposal originally. 30 days makes more sense than 6 weeks from the start of the proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 20:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
The date is a proposal. IMO you can change it if recent creators of the categories you like to r delete are involved. If not you should cancel your proposal. And please do not ignore COM:CFD. IMO that's the right way to discuss and delete such categories. It's your turn, your proposal. --XRay talk 05:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: I believe that all of the recent creators are already in this discussion. And I'm sorry, but I am not listing the well over 500 categories individually on COM:CFD. If there was a way to do a mass nomination easily (like Visual File Change) then maybe I would. But, as I have said multiple times, I don't know how to code, so that would mean I would have to tag each page individually, meaning I would be spending several hours adding finding each category, adding it to the nomination, and tagging the category with {{cfd}}. Elisfkc (talk) 05:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Please at least the top category and give a hint for all the subcategories. --XRay talk 05:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: What is your suggest for a hint? Elisfkc (talk) 06:10, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
My english isn't the best. May be something like IMO categories like "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" and this category and the subcategories aren't useful, since it seemed to be such a large change and ruined the "Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}"'s snapshot of the world. Please see Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Emptying_.22Category:.7B.7BCountry.7D.7D_photographs_taken_on_.7B.7Bdate.7D.7D.22_categories_into_.22Category:Photographs_taken_on_.7B.7Bdate.7D.7D.22 too.. Your words should describe it in the best way. --XRay talk 06:23, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This kind of template {{Taken on}}, and likely a few others too, add automatically the image files in "Photographs by date", and this can not be modified with cat-a-lot, e.g. File:Vic-la-Gardiole, Hérault 10.jpg, I see that as an issue, because all the files with such templates will have to be editied, or will have both categories "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}". + Category:Photographs taken on {{date}}", which is an overcategorization. Christian Ferrer (talk) 23:39, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: This proposal is to stop the "Category:{{Country}} photographs taken on {{date}}" categories, so if this proposal takes effect, it would have no effect on {{Taken on}}. Elisfkc (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
It's not a problem. If you wish, you can ignore discussed subcategories for your images. But let others use this categories. And if others added 'cat=no' in {{taken on}} or avoided/removed this template — let them do it. --Helgi-S (talk) 05:50, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I understood very well the meaning of the proposal, it was just a comment. And I'm not fundamentally opposed to this subcategorization. But let others use this categories: I'm not sure to agree with that, in any case not entirely, as the purpose is to work together in a similar direction. When creating such template {{taken on}}, the community had not foreseen any future potential sub-categorization by countries, and I see this as an issue because it's like working in two opposite directions. That's said there is in fact no issue of overcategorization with cat-a-lot because I just try to move my image from Category:Photographs taken on 2014-01-05 to one of the sub-category, and this simply don't work, and the image have not been moved. I am not opposed to use those sub-categories by country, but I don't like at all the idea that there is several systems : what to do with the image with {{taken on}} and who have not added 'cat=no', who will edit those files? Christian Ferrer (talk) 10:24, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Who? Maybe, someone. Maybe, smart bot. Maybe, future advanced 'taken on' (or cat-a-lot?). Maybe, no one. I don't know. To move all images from 'date' category to some subcategories — it is not the goal at all. These subcategories more useful, for example, for uncategorized images. So, image will get whole set of country/time parental categories with smart navigation. --Helgi-S (talk) 13:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
But these images are categorized. They have categories and there are already other categories to use. Elisfkc (talk) 18:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I mean the images without time or place categories. Including uncategorized images. --Helgi-S (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I have always worked by the principle that, in terms of categorization (and with a few specific exceptions), the narrower the time frame is, the wider the the geographical area should be. Thus, categories by specific date should generally be global in reach. Categorizing countries by year and even month is often justifiable, but not by date. Categorizing national sub-divisions like states and provinces is rarely justifiable beyond year or decade. More specific locations should, generally, be categorized by century at most.
Exceptions can be made, of course, for locations that are very heavily photographed, but "by century" should always be created before "by decade", and "by decade" should always be created before "by date". This relies on the idea that categories should not be any narrower than is required to keep the number of files manageable, unless there is a specific wikidata item for a category.
If we don't accept that as an important principle, then anyone can categorize by the most specific schema possible, down to the minute the photograph was taken. File:Queens Boulevard at 57th Avenue.jpg could be placed in Category:Photographs taken at the corner of Queens Boulevard and 57th Avenue, New York City, on 22 March 2005 and no one would have any right to complain. We need some kind of basic rule or principle to fall back onto when someone makes that kind of category. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Good: "February in the US state" (50 categories). Bad: "Day in the US" (28 categories in February). We will create new Big Rule, and we will warn and ban users who will create this category. If we will not create this Rule, we will just delete such categories. Like now, without waiting for the end of the discussion. --Helgi-S (talk) 10:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Compromise proposal[edit]

Since there are two very opposite viewpoints here, and no one seems particularly likely to convinced of anything, I'd like to float a compromise that I believe should leave everyone more or less happy:

  • All photographs known to be taken on a given date should be categorized into Category:Photographs taken on XXXX-YY-ZZ, which will be used as flat categories. {{Taken on}} without the |cat=no parameter should generally be used.
  • At the discretion of users, subcategories (generally by country, occasionally by event or whatnot) may be added in addition to the flat category. This can be done either by manually adding them, or a future modification that allows {{taken on}} to add additional categories.

As an example of how this would work: my recent File:Extant section of Southwest Corridor embankment, May 2012.jpg would, at minimum, have {{taken on|2012-05-07}} added under the date field in the information template. At the discretion of users, Category:United States photographs taken on 2012-05-07 could be additionally added, or the date field could be modified to {{taken on|2012-05-07|cat1=United States}} (with that functionality added to the template, allowing it to also add the second category).

I believe this gets everyone what they want. This preserves the "snapshot of the world" approach that I and others find so valuable, yet allows more detailed country-level categories when this is appropriate. Categorization is cheap; there's nothing lost by having both a flat category and a subcategory, as is done with several other issues. Because the flat category will never need to be removed, this allows Cat-a-lot to be used to add subcategories without breaking anything. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 14:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, but two things are disturbing: It's really not possible for all photographs and I don't like visible categories added by templates. So Photographs taken on... would be always visible at the first position. --XRay talk 15:09, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I don't understand your first objection or why you'd classify it as "disturbing" - this entire discussion focuses only on photographs with known dates. (I've added a couple words to the proposal to clarify this.) What photographs with known dates would not be possible to categorize with this proposed schema?
Your second objection seems to be aesthetic rather than actually presenting a reason why this would not work or would not work well. Yes, it would always appear first on the list - but why is that actually a problem? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 15:22, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
First: Sorry, forgotten. We should respect COM:OVERCAT. Second: It may be aesthetic, but we should have a look with the eyes of a user. The first category should be an important one. It should be easy to find. And IMO "Photographs taken on" isn't an important one. --XRay talk 15:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe bit off topic, I'm sorry to walk away and aslo because I was the first to talk about "the issue" COM:OVERCAT above, but I think we should have on Commons a new namespace, for the overcategorisation. I mean what is overcategorisation? this is simply like tags, and it may a very interesting way to look at images. Of course not all categories can be a tag but I think, if it is well controlled, a system of tags coupled with our category tree (tags directly given by carefully selected categories) would be nice and intuitive. And why I say a new namespace? simply because COM:OVERCAT is the best way to classify and see what is not classified and to search a very specific thing. But a tag is another thing and we should have that too on Commons. Sorry for the parenthesis. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535, XRay: I would be fine with this, as long as the first part is followed. I don't think the order ever matters (because let's be honest, there is no order that is defined for most images). Also, COM:OVERCAT, like most policies, has exceptions. This could be one of those exceptions. Elisfkc (talk) 18:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: Sorry, I disagree. No overcategorization, no visible categories with templates. Compare with your proposal, your proposal is better. But this kind of categories are not very important. There are other things to do. It takes too much wasted time. As I said, you should ask all other users creating country specific categories. --XRay talk 19:00, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: If you have a problem with visible categories with templates, that's a separate discussion. The fact is, at the moment they exist. And as I've said before, this seems to be everyone who is making the country specific categories. If you can find anyone else, bring them in. Elisfkc (talk) 19:08, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm using cat=no with {{Taken on}} and append the category as all other categories. IMO the best way. I can use Cat-a-lot, Hotcat and other tools without problems. For other users: Please check the history of some categories in every country. --XRay talk 19:18, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@, Benzoyl, Roland zh: To join discussion Elisfkc (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

@XRay: I just checked, this is now everyone. Also, of the 28 countries inside of Category:Photographs by date by country, only Austria (with 28 specific days), Denmark (91), Finland (81), France (68, with some empty categories), Germany (654), Italy (13), Japan (9), Norway (95), Portugal (5), Russia (84), Spain (11), Sweden (2,459), Switzerland (226), United Kingdom (134), and the United States (324). That means we are talking about 4284 categories (some of those are empty) for 15 countries, being created mostly by a maximum of 6 users out of the 33,265 active users. Most of these categories have been created within the past 3 months. That is compared to (as of when I write this post) 11,609 categories for Category:Photographs by day, that adds a new category daily by a bot that has been running for almost three years. That's just some numbers, in case anyone cares/wonders. Elisfkc (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't help any more. I've no time to do this. Pickup some category creators of recent categories and ask. Ask Steinsplitter, who run's the bot. (If you see my bot, ignore it. I only created categories for my pictures. But I'd stopped categorization until end of the discussion of your proposal.) Ask the users who created the categories in February 2017 for example. I think you'll proposed to do this job with your proposal. It is really a huge job to delete all the country categories. IMO an administrator will ask you, why he should delete all the categories. Sorry, but I've to do other things for a couple of days. --XRay talk 19:56, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
@XRay: If an administrator asks why, I can point to this proposal. Elisfkc (talk) 04:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Make Category intersection tools more accessible to the average user[edit]

While reading some of the recent discussions about categories that are intersections of other categories, I noticed that tools like FastCCI or CatScan are somewhat hidden from the average user. The normal search results page you reach when you've searched for something (and did not end up at a specific category) prominently shows a Search by category section right at the top. However, you can only enter search terms for In all of these categories and/or In of none of these categories there. As far as I know, this only works for the exact categories you enter there and does not take sub-categories into account. Hence, I think this section should also (in some kind of way) include:

  • Dschwen's FastCCI for more fuzzy matches with sub-categories
  • Magnus' PetScan (formerly CatScan2) for advanced intersections of … basically anything

I'm not sure what would need to be done on the technical side, but in any case I'd like to know if the community deems this a good idea at all. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 14:14, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Giving OTRS members the ability view deleted files[edit]

I'm suggesting to give OTRS members the ability view deleted content which (all content especialy the file itself), I believe, essential for handling tickets by non-admins. They can not see the photo that they discussing about, they can not see if there is a FoP problem there, personality rights issue etc. In fact, the restoring admin (which have to be also OTRS member) have to double the work of the non-admin volunteer.

We had a previous discussion about a similar suggestion back in 2014. but now I am not talking about giving them the ability to restore files. Only to view. OTRS members trusted users and they already signed on stringent privacy policy.

I understand that deletedhistory rights are only allows "viewing the list of deleted history items including author and summary of each item unless they are hidden or suppressed". So we need to ask for a new group title for that. -- Geagea (talk) 09:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


  1. Symbol support vote.svg Support if technically feasible. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  2. Symbol support vote.svg Support Good idea. Yann (talk) 11:52, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
  3. Symbol support vote.svg Support This is something that will help me a lot as aN OTRS volonteer. Some times picture are selleted before we receive the OTRS permission. Hanay (talk) 15:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


Cut-off date for {{PD-old}}[edit]

A proposal has been made at the Copyright Village Pump to simplify our rules for dealing with works by artists whose date of death is unknown by agreeing a cut-off date for {{PD-old}}, the intention being to improve the consistency of Deletion Requests when closed by different admins. I'm noting the proposal here for greater visibility, and because it involves a potential change of policy. Please comment and !vote there. MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I've also brought this to the attention of the English Wikipedia community, on the en Village Pump. The discussion and !vote on Commons will be of interest to other Wikipedias as well, and dissemination in other languages would be helpful. --MichaelMaggs (talk) 13:23, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe we should split to two cases. For unknown author and known author with unknown death of year, as Carl explained in the Village Pump proposal. -- Geagea (talk) 14:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)