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 ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2023/07.

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:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 "(illustrations)" in category names 34 11 Enyavar 2023-07-11 23:29
2 Editor perception of problematic images 5 4 GPSLeo 2023-07-05 14:35
3 Anyone good at identifying near-shore marine life? 2 2 RZuo 2023-07-07 22:06
4 BaGLAMa 2 4 3 C.Suthorn 2023-07-07 03:29
5 Category:2020 photographs of Hannover 17 6 Ymblanter 2023-07-09 11:59
6 Deletion requests: Use descriptive reasons (nominators and/or closing admins) 6 6 LPfi 2023-07-09 10:28
7 upload a file 1 1 Jmabel 2023-07-07 15:07
8 Suggest to accept old files with GFDL presumed 5 2 MGA73 2023-07-10 14:44
9 Scanning images for copyright violations? 14 8 RZuo 2023-07-09 16:18
10 Category for publications by organisations？ 4 3 RZuo 2023-07-10 08:21
11 Sitting high 5 5 RZuo 2023-07-10 08:21
12 Extended confirmed rights and extended confirmed protection 9 6 MGA73 2023-07-10 14:48
13 Problems with those images 4 2 MGA73 2023-07-10 15:49
14 Cat for ukrainian soldiers training in uk? 3 3 Pigsonthewing 2023-07-11 17:49
15 1902 video 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2023-07-11 17:44
16 Creative Archive Licence 3 2 A.D.Hope 2023-07-11 20:51
17 "Intersection" categories 2 2 RZuo 2023-07-11 23:15
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [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.

June 23[edit]

"(illustrations)" in category names[edit]

User:MPF and I clearly disagree on how "(illustrations)" categories should be used (if anyone wants to see the impasse, there's a discussion on my talk page), and we are clearly not going to come to a consensus ourselves, so I am seeking other opinions. Should a category such as Category:Odobenus rosmarus (illustrations) or Category:Anser albifrons (illustrations):

A) be confined to drawings, paintings, etc.
OR
B) include photographs if they were used as illustrations in old books, magazines, etc.

MPF, I've tried to state this as neutrally as possible; let me know if you have any issue with my characterization of either view. Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Thanks! Yes, that is a good characterisation. This concerns files like File:Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (1947-48) (20258673229).jpg. For me, I have several reasons to justify categorising them in '(illustrations)' subcategories:
  • Archive.org (from where many/most of these files originate) considers them illustrations. Note the line (bold here is my emphasis) "Click here to view book online to see this illustration in context in a browseable online version of this book." This defines "illustration" as any image (whatever its means of creation) used to illustrate a text. What is good enough for Archive.org to classify as an illustration, is good enough for me too.
Halftone, magnified. Both photos and artwork scanned from published books share this composition.
  • They share a halftone composition with artwork illustrations; when viewed at high resolution, both are made up of coarse-scaled dots, not continuous tone like normal photos. This affects both their appearance and their reproduction quality.
  • The imbalance in numbers of files; there might typically be 100-200 modern photos of a topic, but only 10-20 each of both painted illustrations, and photographic illustrations. Leaving the latter in the main category of modern photos, they look very out-of-place among the modern photos. And as the number of files in a main category approaches 200, removing them to a subcategory 'frees up space' in the main category, yet there are usually not enough for it to be worth making a separate [Category:Historical photos of xxxx] (or other similar name) for them. Putting them in the illustrations subcategory, they look very much 'at home'.
Hope this helps with the discussion! - MPF (talk) 22:50, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I could certainly agree to adding categories for halftoned images, as we do for black-and-white images. And I could agree to adding subcats to pretty much anything for images before a certain date, as long as that date no later than 1970 (I'd go for something earlier, but I'm old). Otherwise, I don't agree with this. Half-toning is a technique for printing photographs. They are still photographs, not "illustrations" in the sense we used that in our categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 03:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is no one going to weigh in here? So far all we've accomplished is to make our disagreement public. The issue here presumably affects hundreds, probably thousands, of categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I noticed the deafening silence, too! - MPF (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment I would not mind having the time to address this properly in a COM:CFD. Unfortunately VP threads have a short shelf life, and it is easy for folks who would have something to contribute to just miss it. Josh (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To me, the example image is merely a "photograph of a photograph" rather than a "photograph of an illustrated work", and thus wouldn't belong in the illustrations category. It shouldn't matter that it was published as an illustration in a book, just that the original work is a photograph (or plate, I suppose) of the actual subject matter, and not an artistic interpretation of the subject matter. Perhaps I'm missing a nuance of the intent here, but how is it any different than, say, File:Promise barge under tow.jpg, which is also clearly a scan of a printed photo? I wouldn't expect to see that image in an (illustrations) category. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:13, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
illustration refers to those hand-drawn pictures before photography became popular. that example is a photo, so not an illustration.
File:Lime - whole and halved.jpg is used as illustration in en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2023-06-19, do you therefore put that file into maybe Category:Citrus × aurantiifolia - botanical illustrations?--RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a category like Category:Odobenus rosmarus (illustrations) is only going to be useful if it excludes photos. Otherwise, any photo used to illustrate a web page, even a Wikipedia article, could be added. The question to me is whether (illustrations) is the best qualifier for the category. There's another convention in Commons, appending "in art", as in Category:Tower Bridge in art. Neither seems completely unambiguous, since photos are a form of art, while definitions of "illustration" vary. But I can't think of any other word that means "non-photographic depictions", besides the obvious but inelegant "Category:Odobenus rosmarus, non-photographic depictions" (it's not a disambiguation, so it shouldn't be in parentheses, I think). --ghouston (talk) 00:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my experience, "(illustrations)" categories are usually a bit more specific than "in art" categories. They are used for the sort of work that used to be the only means of book or newspaper illustration before photography, photogravure, etc. and which are still moderately common. Non-photographic botanical illustrations, in particular, continue to be very common in works on botany, plant identification, etc. and this is almost as much so in other fields of biology. In particular, these categories are usually not for works that are intended primarily as artworks, and which exist precisely for an illustrative purpose. - Jmabel ! talk 03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I agree that this is the intended sense. We could have separate "in art" subcategories in all the biological categories, but we don't want to have illustrations and normal art mixed up. The sense in which we use the word should be clarified in Category:Illustrations (with that clarification linked from lower levels). This should be the common practice at Commons, both for cases like this, but especially as we are an multilingual project and users cannot be expected to understand the intended nuances of English words. Now what we have, in some cases, is the Wikidata definition, which may or may not agree. –LPfi (talk) 08:55, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: so far you appear to be a minority of one here. Are you willing to consider this a consensus, or do we need to keep this open for further discussion? Or do you think I'm mischaracterizing the comments of those who've weighed in? - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: - sorry, but that is a mischaracterisation; @El Grafo: agreed with me, with "I'd say with those labels File:Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (1947-48) (20258673229).jpg could certainly be seen as an illustration". It is also rejecting Archive.org's assessment, which is certainly valid as a major indirect contributor to Commons - are you going to go though every Archive.org-origin file and remove the word 'illustration' where it is a scan of a printed photo, rather than a scan of a printed artwork? @RZuo: 's comment regarding File:Lime - whole and halved.jpg is completely misrepresenting; it is not a scanned reproduction of a formerly printed image on paper in a book or journal - that does apply (and is central to) to what Archive.org, and I, are calling illustrations. If the term 'illustrations' is too objectionable, I am open to other options for subcategory names for the same content, but as @Ghouston: points out, finding something that isn't cumbersome is very difficult. Would "[Category:Xxxxx xxxxx (scans)]" or "[Category:Xxxxx xxxxx (scanned images)]" be OK? Then a robot could be set to rename all "[Category:Xxxxx xxxxx (illustrations)]" to "[Category:Xxxxx xxxxx (scans)]" - though I suspect there would be some files that might not fit in too well there. Any other ideas for a non-cumbersome name for a subcategory "[Category:Xxxxx xxxxx (anything that isn't a modern good quality colour photo)]"? - MPF (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
check the earliest created pages to see what "illustration" is meant to include: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=intitle%3Aillustration&ns4=1&ns5=1&ns14=1&ns15=1 .
definitely not the weird definition of "scanned image". RZuo (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not a weird definition at all; it's the definition Archive.org use: illustrations in books. Plenty of books where you can find, in the contents, the header 'List of illustrations' - and it will include both artwork, and photos. It might not be your preferred definition, but it is a legitimate, and very widely used one.
Here's just one example, randomly found in just a couple of minutes, from The American Museum Journal vol. 14 (1914): the volume starts with contents, then this page titled Illustrations. This index list includes both artwork (page 86, depicting an artist's reconstruction of an Allosaurus) and photos (page 112, depicting a Wild Ass shot on an expedition). You can see both of these listed near the start of the Illustrations index. This treatment of both art and photos as illustrations is very common, and perfectly normal. Why the objections? - MPF (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not that that isn't a meaning of the work "illustrations". It's that usually, when taken out of a context where it is being used as an illustration, people don't customarily call a photograph and "illustration". When you see something like File:Banksia coccinea (Illustrationes Florae Novae Hollandiae plate 3).jpg, you call it an "illustration" regardless of context. When you see File:San Miguel- Una vocación catedralicia.jpg or File:3rd Ave from Pike St, Seattle, showing streetcar (CURTIS 909).jpeg (or File:Mona Lisa.jpg), you (or at least I, and I think most native English speakers) don't. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: - but I wouldn't put the 2nd or 3rd examples in an illustrations subcategory, so they aren't relevant to this discussion. File:San Miguel- Una vocación catedralicia.jpg is a modern photo of a church interior, so belongs in a category about that church (or its interior, if it has a separate interiors subcategory). File:3rd Ave from Pike St, Seattle, showing streetcar (CURTIS 909).jpeg is a historical photo; so would be best placed in a subcategory [Historical images of Seattle] (or similar). - MPF (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How Archive.org or any other source categorizes or labels things is frankly irrelevant. The examples given are photographs used as illustrations in a book, yes, but Commons as a whole uses the term illustration to mean a non-photographic work, not general works used to illustrate a topic. I really do not understand why you're approaching this topic like this. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:56, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Huntster: why is it irrelevant? Images like File:Bulletin of the British Ornithologists' Club (1947-48) (20258673229).jpg are illustrations scanned from books; whether they are derived from photographic, or artwork, originals, is often far from clear. But they are obvious book (/ journal) illustrations; that is easy to see that from their prining structure (halftone, as mentioned above), and very easy to see that they do not sit comfortably among modern photos; they are 'crying out' for subcategorisation along with the artwork-derived images to which they are recognisably similar. I have been putting images like these into 'illustrations' subcategories since at least 2009, before anyone else was doing any similar subcategorisation in taxon-related categories; this discussion here, 14 years on, is the first challenge to go onto the village pump. I really do not understand why you're approaching this topic in a different way. - MPF (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe @Enyavar explains it better below far better than I could have. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:14, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Doi Phu Kha (10.3897-BDJ.9.e67667) Figure 3.jpg is Figure 3 from https://doi.org/10.3897/BDJ.9.e67667 . put it into cat:figures then.
might as well put Category:Tables of contents under Category:Tables.
lmao. RZuo (talk) 09:57, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
* Where would digitally-created diagrams and drawings go, for a category like Category:Odobenus rosmarus? Not in the illustrations subcategory, if it's only for scans? --ghouston (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've disagreed here before with MPF's esoteric use of "illustrations" subcategories in this context; nothing they have said, then or now (and especially not comments like "they look very out-of-place among the modern photos"), has convinced me that their arguments have any merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: what would your suggestion for suitable subcategory names be, then? Without creating too many minuscule subcategories by micro-definitions of image type, nor leaving them to clutter up the lead category to push it over the 200 file mark. - MPF (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say I disagreed merely with the names of such categories. The rest of your reply is a set of straw men. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
illustration
photograph
At no point in the articles "Illustration" in the de-WP, en-WP or fr-WP are photographs just subsumed under "illustrations", instead they are talked about as a contrast to graphical illustrations and it is stated that illustrations have been in decline in favor of photography which has replaced a lot of illustrations. This also goes along with my own understanding that illustrations are more deliberately illustrative in nature as the artist decides which details are shown and what is left out of the picture. While photographs are by nature just 1:1 depictions of real situations presented to the lens (image manipulation nonwithstanding). While some photos may be as illustrative as illustrations, they are not the same. They are photos. Otherwise we needn't have the distinction anyway, and could just go with "pictures in books" (and texts) as the simplest term. We wouldn't need to distinguish between "photographs" and "illustrations" in different categories. (That is also why a satellite photo is not just a map!) Hmmmm, I'm curious if this might be different in some languages, as that might be the origin of this misunderstanding? Now, a collage of line art with a photo is again an illustration, and we can talk about some nuances and grey areas... But in general, photos in books are not illustrations. --Enyavar (talk) 17:25, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Enyavar: Thanks! I think [Category:Xxxxx xxxx (pictures in books)] (or perhaps [Category:Xxxxx xxxx (pictures from books)], or [Category:Xxxxx xxxx (pictures from texts)] so as to include magazines more obviously?) is a good suggestion, as it covers virtually everything I have been including in the [Category:Xxxxx xxxx (illustrations)] subcategories. No doubt there will be a few exceptions that might not fit too well, but I hope not many. Thoughts, anyone else? If agreed, then a robot could be set to rename all the [taxon (illustrations)] subcategories and move their content across. The important point is your 'We wouldn't need to distinguish between "photographs" and "illustrations" in different categories'; it is the splitting up into a multiplicity of micro-subcategories that some seem to be calling for, but should be avoided because of its complexity - MPF (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why is it an important distinction in the first place? Like look it at this way, say you have a photograph from a picture book and/or the original photograph, 99% of the time whomever uploads the image doesn't know where it comes from or if they have both the images are essentially the same. So I don't really see how it matters. Like with postcards, there's plenty of postcards out there that are republished in postcard books from originals, but there's ultimately no difference between the formats and it would be pointless to have them in separate, distinct categories. Except for maybe in rare cases where someone uploads all the images in the series, but that's a different issue. 1/1 there's zero reason to have them in separate categories or most of the even a way to know what format they were originally printed in. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPF: You seem to have misunderstood my point, which was "if there was no difference, we wouldn't need to have different categories". Yet there is, thus we need to. There are some books that contain both photographs and illustrations, and the images should be sorted into different categories. These are photographs. These are illustrations. There is a huge difference in creation, usage and purpose, which should be apparent. The medium (is it a book, a magazine or a website) doesn't matter much for Commons. Photographs may be greyscale or colored, but they remain photos. Illustrations may be black lineart, fine engravings, partly colored or fully colored, they will never be photos. --Enyavar (talk) 10:21, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Enyavar: I can see where you're coming from, but this would lead to dozens of ridiculous micro-subcategories each with very few (or even just one) files, which will both make finding them far more difficult, and clutter up the taxon's main category with page after page of subcategory listings. It would be fair enough to split them apart like this if there were hundreds of such files of a taxon, but in most cases, there aren't. And both (ref. the two example snake pics on the right) have far more in common with each other than they do with modern digital photos: both are scanned from printed material; both are over a century old; both have their quality of detail impaired by old technologies, and with their transfer to Commons incurring two- to three-fold processing losses from their originals, via age-damaged paper copies, to electronic files. And, as you point out, many old books/articles contain both photos and artwork: where files share the same source (e.g. a journal article about a species illustrated with both photos and artwork), it is better to keep them together in the same category as far as possible. - MPF (talk) 21:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For your first point... well if there are just one or two dozen files for a specific object, you don't even need subcategories to differentiate illustrations from photographs. Category:Penny-farthings in France holds (or at least should hold) all examples of French penny-farthings that can be found on Commons: Illustrations and photos of all ages. That all of them are visual images is okay, the fact doesn't even need to be part of the category title, because videos or audio files would also be admissible. All kinds of media are welcome in a category. Unless the category specifically is to tell one medium apart from different media: we also keep a category for drawings of penny-farthings. Instead of renaming it "old images of..." and then shoving all old scanned photos in there too, you should rather create a new category Old photos of penny-farthings, and populate it separately.
So, WHICH are the photos that you would need to keep singularly in a category because of the necessity to hold them apart from illustrations (or vice versa)? We have thousands of old snake photos, and thousands of old snake illustrations. It is easy to tell them apart, and keep them in separate category trees, accordingly.
Your second point I don't even clearly understand - yeah these pictures are scans of older published material. My next two examples are just like what you describe plus they are both depicting Beijing in the 20th c. so they have clearly something in common, but otherwise they are still different in that one is an illustration (someone drew it) and the other is a photo (someone shot it). We keep different things in different categories, regardless that they were both reproduced onto Commons with quality loss. Everything on Commons is either an image, or a video, or an audio, or a document, or some other more exotic file type. Categories are intended to tell apart different kinds of images: is the image an old photo of a snake, or is it an old map of Asia? These two kinds of things go to very different branches of the category tree... unless they are from the same publication about snake biogeography in Asia, obviously, then they need to be placed in the same category of the publication. --Enyavar (talk) 23:29, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Apparently there's Category:Photographic illustrations for illustrations of photographs, however that works. I've also seen plenty of examples where people put images that were clearly illustrations into categories for photographs, maybe because the illustration was based on a photograph? I'm not really sure. Regardless, the whole thing just seems weird and pointless. Either something is an illustration, a photograph, or a photograph of an illustration. You can't have a "photographic illustrations" though lmao. Otherwise there's zero point in even categorizing images to begin with. And no I don't think a photograph becomes an illustration simply by scanning it or whatever. That's totally ridiculous. That's not to say you can't have illustrations "based" on photographs, but that's a completely different thing. There's also zero reason we need to create a whole obtuse category system that convolutes the differences between a photograph and an illustration just for that either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(just touching this so it won't get archived, since consensus has not been reached. - Jmabel ! talk 03:25, 11 July 2023 (UTC))Reply[reply]

July 04[edit]

History of white Americans[edit]

I've had a look at History of white Americans and the gallery clearly shows nothing good ever came from white Americans. The article en:White Americans states that "From their earliest presence in North America, White Americans have contributed literature, art, cinema, religion, agricultural skills, foods, science and technology, fashion and clothing styles, music, language, legal system, political system, and social and technological innovation to American culture," but evidently this is not notable enough to be included in the gallery. I wanted to tag the gallery as POV-pushing but there is no such template. --TadejM (t/p) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Hideous. I would be entirely in favor of deleting this. I can say confidently that en-wiki would delete this in a jiffy as a POV screed: I don't see why it should be any more acceptable just because it is done as a photo essay on Commons. And I'm restraining myself enormously to keep it at that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+2. Totally worth POV gallery and that's putting it nicely. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thanks a lot for the opinions. I agree and have now deleted the gallery. If anyone disagrees, please take it to COM:UDR. --TadejM (t/p) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Did you gave a warning to the author? Trade (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: I for one consciously chose not to. I do not think I would be capable of engaging with this person about this in a civil manner. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 05[edit]

Editor perception of problematic images[edit]

This discussion was initiated by an editor. Am I correct in assuming that any image in Commons has been scanned many times by CSAM programs and poses no threat to anyone of being accused of child sex abuse? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. @WriterArtistDC: I have no idea what you mean by "preception". A "precept" is a "general rule"; I don't think there is such a word as "preception".
  2. We cannot presume that every image on Commons has been scanned even once by anything. At any given time, some images have been uploaded in the last few seconds.
Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  1. This is called a typo.
  2. I was referring to the images in this particular article, none of which are recently uploaded.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no systematic (let alone automatic) process for scanning image files on Commons, if that's what you're asking. It's a Sisyphean task. Most files that are problematic in one way or another get fished out early by individual users who patrol recent uploads. Others are found later during curation work, some go undetected for many years. Files that have been around longer are more likely to be OK, but that's about it. Does that help? El Grafo (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What file on that page are you concerning about? Some of the files could be regular personality rights violations but definitely no sexual abuse. GPSLeo (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By now, every image at Commons older than ?? has been scanned numerous times by GPT-style big-data learning alogorithms. This leads to the question that if CSAM should be among them, this software (which is supposedly near-AGI) has long since been reported to the responsible authorities, since otherwise it would itself violate the law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Suthorn (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anyone good at identifying near-shore marine life?[edit]

Lots to identify in Category:Charles Richey Sr. Viewpointi I got there yesterday at a super-low tide and took a bunch of photos. Somewhere between 30% and 50% show plants or animals probably worth identifying, and other than Pisaster ochraceus I'm hopeless.

Examples:

Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe on reddit or some forums frequented by marine biologists you could get help faster.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 06[edit]

BaGLAMa 2[edit]

The BaGLAMa 2 tool displays statistics up to and including January 2023. It has not been updated since then. However, one of the statistics only goes up to December 2022, which refers to files related to the Benglish language that often have names in Bengali script. I therefore suspect that after November 2022, a file with a name in Benglish script was added, causing the BaGLAMa 2 script to crash, and that the script has not been able to run since january 2023, nor has it been fixed. One possibility would be to remove the statistics for the bengalic files and restart the script, another would be to fix the script.

https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/#gid=1016&month=202212&giu=bnwiki&server=bn.wikipedia.org

--C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would appreciate it if the tool could be fixed, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bug report for this is: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/glamtools/issues/96/the-tool-baglama-2-is-not-showing-data — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have no login for bitbucket. It is also not mentinoened there that it is probably gid 1016 that is stopping it to work. ping @Magnus Manske C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:2020 photographs of Hannover[edit]

Do we have community consensus for creating such categories and mass-moving there files from Category:2020 in Hannover? Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy @Labintatlo: Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And what about moving files from YYYY in CityCity to MMMMM-YYYY in CityCity? In my Opinion these Categories with photographed, day-date, month-date often do not help but make finding images more difficult, as a search for YYYY in CityCity will get no results. That is only possible with tools like deep cat, catscan whatever. Tools that are not known by reusers. Therefore this information of date and place shuld be moved to SDC (and it is something that can often be done by bot). ping @Multichill @Schlurcher. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should decide on one format and stick to it. I had a hundred of photographs moved on my watchlist today, and I am not sure I see an added value for the move. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the ones that are specific to photographs taken on a particular day, there is a longstanding consensus not to take those below country level.
Category:2020 in Hannover is much more typical, and I see no advantage to Category:2020 photographs of Hannover. Typically over 90% or our media will be photographs. There's no point to moving them down a level. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Category:Photographs of Hannover by date, Category:Photographs of Germany by date by city (guess how many of them reach at least 50,000 inhabitants). --A.Savin 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think these must be upmerged to photographs of Germany by day and Hannover per year, I guess we have consensus for this. Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't have any problem with Hannover by month if there are enough photos to merit that (I'd say 500 or more per year). - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with this, smth like August 2020 in Hannover would be ok if there are enough photographs. But I am not sure I am happy with 2020 photographs of Hannover. Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reverted the Hannover category, but I did not look at the others. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oppose split. These "photographs of" and "black and white photographs of" are multiplying, and they're utterly useless. It's particularly annoying when we have a useful split like "2023 in Hannover" as a sub of "Hannover", but when "Photos in Hannover" comes along it's then rippled into a hundred new split sub-categories.
As JMabel says, we're about photographs as our default position. In a few cases, we might have "maps of" or "diagrams of" in addition, as they're the exception cases. It's rare that photographs are the exception case, so rae that we will ever need a category stating that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
my habit is usually adding my files to "month yyyy in city", but i often see other users moving them somewhere further down and i dont care. i find it pointless to move them to "city photographs taken on yyyy-mm-dd" though.
"yyyy in city" is too broad for most big cities. breaking down into months is sufficient for most cities.
categorising by month has another advantage over by day, as quite often events last over several days. they will appear in one/two single monthly cats but with daily cats they will be spread all over the place. users wont see the connection between them.
imo, "month yyyy in city-district / village" (1 level below city/municipality) should be the lowest level in date-place intersection cats.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, I would say the consensus that we should disestablish "Hangover photographs taken on 2435-12-09" etc. is clearly there, now sadly the more difficult part: to find someone willing to do all the cleanup work (properly, if possible). --A.Savin 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@A.Savin: amused by your "hangover" typo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can do at least some of this, but we probably need to write it down somewhere, so that we do not come to the issue all and all over again. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just saying, actually this "city date" format is not that old.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ns14=1&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=intitle%3A%22photographs+taken+on%22+-prefix%3ACategory%3APhotographs&sort=create_timestamp_asc
users have spotted this peculiar cat tree structure early on, but those cfd are still open. XD
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&ns4=1&prefix=Commons%3ACategories+for+discussion&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=%22photographs+taken+on%22
there're some more cfd.
so, the earliest discussions were started only a few months after these cats emerged, but unfortunately those discussions have still not reached a conclusion.--RZuo (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the earliest "month yyyy country photographs" was probably Category:September 2013 Sweden photographs created at 10:51, 11 March 2016‎ by User:J 1982.
most earliest such cats were created by this user on that day https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=J+1982&wpfilters%5B0%5D=associated&offset=2016031113&limit=300 .--RZuo (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion requests: Use descriptive reasons (nominators and/or closing admins)[edit]

Randomly came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suðurlandsvegur, Hellisheiði, Aug. 16 (2) - 7.jpg and thought: Hm, Reykholt is a quite respected contributor (last active in 2018), so what might have been the "no educational value" issue? As an admin, I was able to check the deleted image and saw that it was a blurry photo of the Hellisheiði plateau near Reykjavík, Iceland, taken from a moving vehicle, probably a bus. If this were the only image of Hellisheiði we had on Commons, or one of a few, I would even say that it has educational value, as it still conveys the typical look of Hellisheiði's landscape from the road there. But as there are many, and many better, photos in Category:Hellisheiði, I completely agree with the deletion, as that photo doesn't add value to the selection there. Still, non-admins would have been left to wonder what the reason for deletion might have been. If either the nominator or the closing admin had just added something like "blurry picture from moving bus, quality too low", everyone could understand why it was deleted. So, and this is the point I want to make here, I recommend to always use descriptive reasons, so for example not just "no educational value", but also a short reason why there's no educational value. This enhances transparency and shouldn't cost too much time. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

+1 -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as it's one or the other (i.e. as long as there's a reason somewhere on the page), I agree.
While we're on the topic, I know that some admins use "per COM:CSD" or similar for their speedy deletions. We should probably have some sort of guidance against that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Agree -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Agree –LPfi (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 07[edit]

upload a file[edit]

help. I'm new and I don't know how to upload a file 1- what is the extension of a file to upload it 2- what program do I need to upload the file thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldo R. Suarez Asuarez Art (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 July 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

Suggest to accept old files with GFDL presumed[edit]

According to {{GFDL-presumed}} it is not a valid license but a speedy deletion candidate. I have checked the iw links and as far as I can tell the only wikis that have more than a few files marked with this template are meta (463 files in m:Category:Presumed GFDL images) and English Wikibooks (196 files in b:Category:Presumed GFDL images). Apart from that there only seems to be a few random or not clearly categorized files.

The files on meta are in my opinion interessting as they are suggested wiki logos and a part of the history of wiki.

So I wonder if we could make an exception from the "not acceptable" just like we do with {{Grandfathered old file}}. For example files uploaded no later than 2006.

I know that if we make an exception to allow the files from meta then other files could end up on Commons too. But as metioned above it does not seem to be more than a few hundred and some of them are perhaps not even eligible for copyright and they are allready on a wiki project and wiki servers. So I do not think there would be any legal risk to accept them. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Most of these have close to zero meta data. On their own they are pretty much pointless. They could potentially be useful for historic reasons, but if imported straight the way they are now they are devoid of context. If they at least had a little bit of a description along the lines of "this draft for the XY logo competition was created by User:Z" ... That way, they would really be stretching the boundaries of COM:SCOPE as well. Unless someone wants to go through all of them and add proper documentation, I think it's best they remain at meta. El Grafo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is correct that there are very few meta data. It was not unusual years ago that there were no meta data. Many of the files are in use in pages like m:Wikiversity/Logo/archive-vote-1#Gallery and I think that in such cases it is easy to see the context. If the file is not used in a page it would be much harder to figure out that the file was uploaded as a part of a logo contest.
As it is right now then even if someone makes a good description etc. then the file could not be moved to Commons because {{GFDL-presumed}} is not accepted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess what I'm trying to say is: I would feel much more inclined to support an exception to that if they had well-curated meta data on their file description pages. Why bother making exceptions for something nobody cared about at all for 15+ years? El Grafo (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah I can understand why. I cared but I have to admit I was busy on other wikis so I did not do much about files on meta :-) Anyway I will go to meta and ask if we should delete a bunch of files with other issues. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Scanning images for copyright violations?[edit]

How does Commons scan contributions for copyright violations?

If my memory is correct, someone with Wikimedia Commons deleted an image uploaded by Creator:Stephanie Kelton, because it was a photo of her taken by a professional photographer. She insisted that she had purchased the copyright, not just a print of it, from the photographer; Wikimedia Commons would not accept it.

I ask, because Wikipedia:KKFI just got caught with a copyright infringement on their website, and they are looking for some means of protecting themselves besides haranguing all their volunteers NOT to upload anything to their website about which the copyright might be plausibly questioned.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@DavidMCEddy: Mostly we just have a lot of eyes on it, and also try to abide by the precautionary principle, which is to say that if there is any reasonable doubt about the copyright status of a file, we choose not to host it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks very much. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a reason why we dont have a bot scanning for copyvio? Surely we could limit it to new users to keep the volume down Trade (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where can i read more about the case with KKFI? Trade (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: how would you propose that a bot be able to detect the copyright status of an image? Much of the time it is hard enough for humans to do. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
wikipedia:Content ID (system) is a thing, and it works for Google at scale, so I don't see why WMF could not implement a similar system if they were suitably motivated. However, WMF has a metric ton of volunteer labor to throw at this problem, and probably a much lower volume of daily uploads, so I doubt it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That system relies on registered copyright claims in a non-public database, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly. That is little use to us. The proportion of copyright violations that would be covered by that system (or our possible own version) is tiny and thus not worth spending money or manpower on. –LPfi (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, as a first step it would help patrolers and patroling admins, if a bot checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload and, if present, tag them as copyvio-suspect. This step could be done completely automatically in order to save the time and bandwidth of patrolers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or maybe just mark them as missing permission Trade (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I dont. Just need to check if the image have been published online before. Trade (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are at least 2 things which could be done by a bot:
  1. Tag files from an external source by new users with "no permission" (except when there is already a license review).
  2. Tag files from an external source and without a license as copyright violations.
This would improve quite a lot cleaning the backlog of copyvios. Yann (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
reminds me of User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users, a pretty good tool. RZuo (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload means it is going to flag every PD image that is already online, every sub-TOO image that is already online, etc., and (barring some really clever tech) miss anything that is differently cropped; might or might not find something that's just differently encoded, depending on how it works. In short: yes a bot could give us some clues (pretty much the same ones we get with TinEye or Google Image Search) but cannot "scan for copyvios" as such. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category for publications by organisations？[edit]

i'm thinking of creating a cat as a flat list for cats like Special:AllPages/Category:Publications of (e.g. Category:Publications of the United States government Category:Publications of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). they are publications whose authors are organisations.

currently there're Category:Publications by author, which i assume is for persons, and Category:Publications by publisher, which is about the publishing company instead of the author.

should there be such a cat? what's a good name?--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This sounds more like a metacat than a "flat list. But, really, in this case organizations are functioning as publishers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i think i'll name it cat:publications by organization.
there's actually already Category:Documents by organization.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 08[edit]

Sitting high[edit]

In Munich I took pictures of people sitting high on a bridge in the evening sunligth. These sitting places are only accessible with a climb. Is there any special category for people sitting high?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would rather our volunteers dont get themself killed by doing such risky positions Trade (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are more risky walks and sitting places. I have added a fifth image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiley.toerist (talk • contribs)
I did not find a category like the one you mentioned. It should be under the Category:Sitting. You could start and create one. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Except for the last one, these really are nothing out of the ordinary: they're sitting about 1.7m over the walkway, not much different than dangling your feet off the upper bunk of a pair of bunk beds. But the last one does seem like we might want a special category, for people walking/sitting on the superstructure of a bridge (as the usual walking/driving surface). Similarly, I'm sure we have some images of people walking the cables of a suspension bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Rooftopping is a related concept.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 09[edit]

Extended confirmed rights and extended confirmed protection[edit]

Should we add an extended-confirmed user right and extended-confirmed protection to Commons like in Wikipedia? This group is created as an intermediate rights between confirmed/autoconfirmed users to template editors, autopatroller, and file movers and have the following rights:

  • The ability to move files but they cannot bypass the redirect.
  • Can have some rights from autopatroller such as uploading MP3 files and editing others' user page but they cannot patrol page which requires the user become patrol or patroller.
  • Can edit extended-confirmed protected pages
  • Requires the account to be at least 90 days old and 1000 edits and granted automatically when the user reached the threshold.

The extended-confirmed user is a good alternative because the user don't need to request rights and the extended confirmed users are granted automatically when the user is 90 days old and made at least 1000 edits.

The extended confirmed protection is also an alternative to template protection. It is good for:

  • Pages with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users such as Commons:Deletion requests
  • Templates where general community editing is still required when template protection is too restrictive.

Vitaium (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vitaium: several things here don't make sense to me:
  • What do you mean by "bypass the redirect"? Do you mean "delete the resulting redirect" or do you mean something else?
  • "Pages with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users such as Commons:Deletion requests": at first I couldn't even parse this. Am I correct in understanding that it means to say "Pages, such as Commons:Deletion requests, with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users"? And even then I can't tell what you are driving at. You are probably referring to some history of disruption that I'm not familiar with. Could you spell that out?
  • "Templates where general community editing is still required when template protection is too restrictive." Maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired, but I can't even parse that. Could you rephrase? - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vitaium (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not need a new user group for this. We could create a protection level allowing only autopatrolled users to edit. I do not see a need for rights between no extended rights and autopatroll rights. GPSLeo (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about we should make autopatroller granted automatically for users that are 30 days old and 500 edits? Vitaium (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should not add this right based on edit count as this would mark much disruptive behavior and especially copyright violations as patrolled. But we should use the candidate list a bit more Commons:Requests for rights/possible autopatrolled candidates. GPSLeo (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the availability of mass upload tools to all users (a major discussion in and of itself), it is vastly easier to get to 500 edits on Commons than other wikis (especially without being noticed by other editors). Autopatrol on Commons will always need human review rather than being granted automatically. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose We already have enough problems of filemovers' not understanding COM:FR and making moves with no basis in policy. Widening file-moving permissions will only make that worse. --bjh21 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose as I agree with bjh21. File renaming is abused allready. --MGA73 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 10[edit]

Problems with those images[edit]

I have recently requested a split. Please note that I am in no way asking for this plit to be reverted.

Here is the summary of the situation:

  1. The image File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg (Open Clip Art).svg was uploaded in 2006 on WCommons by @Gryffindor: , allegedly from Open Clip Art but with no URL
  2. @Patricia.fidi: added the alleged Open Clip Art URL, but stated the image was their own work
  3. The Open Clip Art link is permanently dead so nothing can be checked
  4. In 2014, @Superbenjamin: uploaded a new version of the file, all the while keeping the Open Clip Art license. This license was kept despite the fact the user made no mention of the new version of the image they uploaded being on Open Clip Art (the now-dead URL was not changed).
  5. The two images have now been split. The 2014 image is at File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg. However, the version uploaded by Superbenjamin does not have proper licensing since it does not fall under the Open Clip Art license, and there is no mention of a source for this image or that the image is own work.

Veverve (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As far as I can see the new version is just a minor edit of the original version (change of color and thicker lines). The original version was licensed {{Cc-zero}} via the {{PD-OpenClipart}} template.
Usually we assume that if someone upload a new version on top of an old version they accept the existing license. If someone just make minor edits I doubt they are above COM:TOO and therefore eligible for copyright. I would worry more if it was a completely different file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MGA73: what license do you feel I should add to the newer version, then? Veverve (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Veverve: I added {{Cc-zero}}. --MGA73 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 11[edit]

Cat for ukrainian soldiers training in uk?[edit]

i cant find the cat for things like https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2022/july/22/20220722-royal-navy-training-ukraine-sailors-as-part-of-uks-support-to-country . RZuo (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As most of these trainings are not public we will not have much or even any photos of this. I think you would need to create a new cat. GPSLeo (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Given taht Category:Military people of Ukraine in Vinnytsia exists, I would suggest starting with Category:Military people of Ukraine in the United Kingdom, adding "in 2023" if per-year categories are desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

1902 video[edit]

This 1902 video on YouTube, "part of the Mitchell and Kenyon collection", has a modern commentary.

Mitchell died in 1952, Kenyon in 1925, but we don't know who made it. Assuming it is PD, does anyone have the wherewithal to upload it, without audio, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Creative Archive Licence[edit]

Hello! I've just uploaded this image from People's Collection Wales, which uses the Creative Archive Licence, but I couldn't find a tag. So far as I can tell the licence is appropriate for Wikimedia, so is it just that a tag doesn't exist yet?

Also, for some reason the image has gone blurry post-upload, any ideas? Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@A.D.Hope: Looks like the Creative Archive License has a noncommercial limitation, which is not compatible with Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's disappinting. It seems Cadw has shifted its media from the Open Government licence to Creative Archive, so none of it will be accessible in the future. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Intersection" categories[edit]

It seems to me that category like Category:Republican Party governors of Washington (state) is a sheer liability. If I'm looking for a governor of Washington State, why should I have to know their party to find them? (Oddly, the same has not been done for Democrats.) It's not like Category:Governors of Washington (state) is such a prohibitively big category as to need a split like this, either.

I see this all the time. It's as if someone gets a charge out of chopping up categories finer and finer, and the way our customs on Commons work, pretty much anyone can split things up like this, and it is very hard ever to get consensus to lump them back together. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

i agree. imo most cats should only be about one concept. political affiliation (party), government office (like state governor), gender, year of birth, nationality... are all distinct concepts. intersections like Category:Republican Party governors of Washington (state), Category:Members of the Danish Folketing by political party are really impractical. RZuo (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 12[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=782644313"