Commons talk:Project scope

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.

my objection[edit]

Magog the Ogre,

I received a message that you flagged my work for deletion so I am responding to ask that you reconsider your recommendation. I feel that your decision is unfair and infringes upon my rights. Did I say anything that you perceived to be offensive? Please advise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.M. Romans (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@J.M. Romans: This is the wrong way to reach Magog the Ogre. You should be able to contact that user by posting a new section to User talk:Magog the Ogre or by addressing the issue with File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf in a post to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf.

Vector PDF maps, graphs, and charts should be welcomed in the Project scope[edit]

Currently, the project scope permits PDF files. But it does not say that we welcome vector PDF maps, charts, and graphs.

Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Incarceration Rates in 2016.pdf. This PDF file is in vector format already.

Why are PDF vector maps being discouraged on the Commons? One reason for the deletion request is because it is not in SVG format. SVG is just another vector format. We should be thanking people that upload charts, graphs, and maps in any vector format usable by the Commons.

Charts, graphs, and maps about incarceration rates are used in many articles in English Wikipedia. I would be very happy if more vector maps (both PDF and SVG) were uploaded into the category this map fits in: Category:Imprisonment and detention rate maps of the United States. I have added charts, graphs, and maps concerning incarceration rates and correctional populations to many articles on English Wikipedia.

Download the PDF file and open it in any PDF reader. Expand the map to as big as you want. It does not get grainy or less sharp. It is a vector map. Future versions of this map will be even better. Most uploaders are not skilled in the SVG format. So, if they can create images in the PDF format we need to welcome them. It is better than a raster (bit map) image such as PNG, JPG, GIF, etc.. I know that the Commons converts the SVG and PDF source to a raster image. But the result can be much sharper than files originally uploaded in a raster format. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What did Tuvalkin say again? "the usual suspects" or something along those lines. Great movie, but the book was better. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support their inclusion, if files can be used for educational purposes their format (if free) should not be limited. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Explict" images...[edit]

Per previous discussions, Commons contributors have consistently argued against a blanket ban on images that would be considered 'explicit'.

However, Would it be reasonable to state here that Commons does not want explicit images unless they support genuine educational, academic or cultural efforts, and such images should have appropriate context attached to justify this?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: we already have templates for this which you could leave on the talk pages of those who upload uneducational nudity, please see "{{Nopenis}}" and I believe a couple more. Though I don't think that newbies will see this page before their first upload so using such templates on their talk pages should be preferable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This wasn't just about Nudity, as some images of sexuality can be considered "explicit" even though there is minimal nudity or direct inclusion of certain anatomical areas. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't this just fall under "COM:NOTHOST"? If an image isn't educational then it is already mentioned here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I want to save a file from deletion. What are the rules to follow?[edit]

File:FELIX SIR PHOTO.jpg I like to use an image in the userpage. But the photo is nominated for deletion in the commons. How to justify or improve my probability of sustaining the image.--Felixyog (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

  • The nomination is on the basis that this appears to be an unused personal photo of no educational purpose. Presumably that is because the nominator does not think this person is notable enough that we have any reason to have a photo of them. If you think that is not the case, you will need to explain (on that nomination page) why this person is notable, ideally by citing sources that are independent of that person (e.g. a newspaper rather than a personal website). - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

"Evidence" sub-section[edit]

Given that many Commons uploaders do so using a pseudonymous username, I wonder if this sentence should be tweaked: ...the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable...?  JGHowes  talk 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)