This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
I get the red warning box on ever page load with the message "SyntaxError: invalid assignment left-hand side". Did I broke something through my userscript, is there a gadget broken or is there a general MediaWiki bug and everyone gets this error? --GPSLeo (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The file name indicates that it is not actually an own work, but is received via WhatsApp. I'm not sure appropriate licensing is used here. It is cascade protected because it is visible on English Wikipedia main page In The News. Ping @BishnuCharanSahoo1963. —CX Zoom (A/अ/অ) (let's talk|contribs) 08:30, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
{{Lle}} has some issues. When I use {{subst:lle}}, it outputs language links in disorder and removes some links such as Japanese and Portuguese. This is very inconvenient for users. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 08:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@TKsdik8900: I'd suggest looking through the template history and pinging the users who have done significant work on the template. Otherwise, it would be sheer dumb luck for anyone knowledgeable to see this. - Jmabel ! talk15:05, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not disordered, just not ordered by language code, but by language name instead, but you already knew that
When I use the template I see both Japanese and Portuguese, the two Chinese variants (zh-hans & zh-hant) do get lost. I looked into the code: Warning: This page contains too many expensive parser function calls. It should have less than 500 calls, there are now 564 calls. So the last 64 languages are silently dropped. Multichill (talk) 18:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Updating translation and font for Licensing tutorial in Arabic
Hello,
I have updated Arabic translation and font style to be "Calibri" for Licensing tutorial image but I could not upload it instead (upload new version), what is the best to do in this case?
ps. the file I am mentioning to is: File:Licensing tutorial ar.svg. Sandra Hanbo (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Can a well-accustomed campaign editor help me in properly utilizing the beforeActive, whileActive and afterActive arguments? I've read this page but I still don't feel confident enough and I'm looking for someone to give me an actual example in one of my already created campaigns so I can replicate that in other ones later. Thank you in advance! — Klein Muçi (talk) 08:47, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Johnrogershousemay2020.webp
Johnrogershousemay2020.webp is the only upload and the only edit of a user to english wikipedia. It is used in the John Rogers article and in the webp article in many languages. It is also used as an example webp image in websites all over the internet. It comes without Exif data and has the typical dimensions of an image from the web, not from a camera. Nevertheless the user claims it as own work. Either it is actually a free image, that was promoted as webp example image and found its way to wikipedia. In that case, the attribution of the file has to be corrected. Or it is a COPYVIO and has made its way from wikipedia all over the internet and needs to be deleted. Because of the large numnber of uses in the internet, I cannot know how to find out and what to do. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 10:56, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@JopkeB: I've never seen the error, and since the only example you give me is one that is now fixed, I have no idea what the error would look like. That said: sounds like a problem in the template, not the data. - Jmabel ! talk20:34, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for your reaction and diagnosis. I have asked for an update of the template on the Dutch Wikipedia and hope this problem will be solved soon. JopkeB (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Fort Bragg → Fort Liberty
Hi. I'd like your opinion on this. It was recently announced that Fort Bragg was renamed to Fort Liberty. The change was made on Commons for categories and then followed by file titles and file descriptions. While I understand the need to change category names to reflect the change, I question the choice that was made to perform the rename in file titles and descriptions. Prior to May 2023 the fort was named Fort Bragg and it is my opinion that this should stay as such on Commons. A similar example is Category:Joint Base Andrews and Category:Andrews Air Force Base where the original name was preserved in files and categories by year. What do you think? (Ping @Wieralee, @Yeagvr, @Richardkiwi, @Poudou99) Cryptic-waveform (talk) 13:00, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I Support keeping the old name for file titles and the description (the new name could be added to note that's what it is called now). I Support using the new name in categories by year. Abzeronow (talk) 16:34, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not exactly familiar with cascading protection (is that the right term?) from En-wiki, but does anyone know when this will move to unprotected? I've done some more restoration and would like to upload it. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Why do you need to replace the image, it isn't used. Just download, make your changes and upload as a new file, and write about what changes you made in the new upload. --RAN (talk) 18:40, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Aye, like, I don't absolutely need to upload over, but it feels confusing to leave a half-finished one up when you have basically the same in a full-finished. Adam Cuerden (talk) 02:13, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Photographing glass
Vintage vinegar bottle
I had difficulty photographing this etched glass bottle; in the end I resorted to taking it outside and using natural light.
In the absence of professional studio equipment, how else could it be photographed? Do we have a dedicated noticeboard or other page for exchanging photography tips? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits13:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
In my experience, mainly a matter of lighting, and sometimes lens filters (especially a polarizing filter, sometimes just a "sky" filter). No generic answer, but those are the variables to play with. - Jmabel ! talk21:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
There's some really good photographs of glass bottles on eBay if you search for "creamery milk bottle." It seems like the best ones involve either filling the bottle with white foam beads or taking the image from essentially straight in front of the bottle with a neutral background. Kind of like the image of this bottle. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh and some reasoning for why it's necessary. All the other road categories are England, Wales, Scotland or Great Britain if they cross between two of them. A4103 is labelled as Great Britain but its only in England so it should be changed from Great Britain to England like the rest of them. --Ferien (talk) 16:24, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: that seems bizarre. How large are these images? What tool are you uploading with? And I'm not sure what you even mean here by "queuing" and "assembling". - Jmabel ! talk02:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Can I (or anyone else) rename categories with "colour" in the name to "color" instead of "colour"? Or should that first be discussed? The main category is Category:Colors, so according to the Universality principle all subcategories should have "color" (or "colors") in the category name also. But I see a lot of categories with "colour". JopkeB (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
See relevant discussion here. It appears that this universality principle does not have universal support. Wholesale changes of the kind you suggest should not take place without an RfC on the suitability of this rule, as suggested in the linked discussion, due to the likely conflict that would ensue. Dogfennydd (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
There are far too many subcategories in this category that -in my opinion- do not require diffusion at all. My limit is ± 200 files and, at least on the first page, there are few categories that are so big. I guess the categories yyyy in country X are here because of the template that is used, but I don't know what the cause is.
The template Countryyear that is used, gives a lot of errors, see for instance Template:Norwayyear, but others give the same errors. And I cannot see what is wrong, but I do not have a lot of knowledge of templates either.
Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2023
Dear Wikimedians,
We are glad to inform you that the 2023 edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up in July.
This is a formal invitation to invite individuals and communities to join the campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and other relevant media files.
If you're interested in participating, please find your community or community closer to you to participate from the Participating Communities page. If you're organizer, please add your community or Affiliate to the page.
The campaign primarily aims to promote using images from Wikimedia Commons to enrich Wikipedia articles. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photos, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years. In this edition of the campaign, eligibility criteria have been revised based on feedback and campaign Evaluation Reports of the previous editions. Please find more details about these changes and our FAQ on Meta-Wiki
Big gap for structured_data when you click on it from any entry. The gap is between the header and the listed data, it wasn't this way yesterday. Anyone else see it? --RAN (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I see it too. I see a large area of white space in two places. When on the 'File info' tab, below 'Metadata' and before Categories. When on the 'Structured data' tab, it is immediately below the tab headings. I have noticed it under the 'File info' tab for a few days, I think. Nurg (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
My usual browser is Chrome on Windows 10 Home version 22H2, and usual skin is Vector Legacy. I get the large white space with Vector Legacy, Vector (2022), and MonoBook. I tried Edge browser and get the same when logged out and when logged in (Vector Legacy). But, when I try Firefox, the problem does not happen, neither when logged out nor when logged in. I am on the latest versions of Chrome and Firefox. Nurg (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I have a collage to upload. It is my collage but not my images, they were found on Wikimedia Commons. Do I fill in the "It's mine" link with appropriate photo credits or do I fill in the "It's not Mine" explaining the use of Public Domain images and in the lower box, giving credit to where the images were found? ̴̴
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 15:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Photo Archives: to upload to Commons, you do have to list where each image comes from (and what its rights are). If they are all PD, then you can license your collage as you wish; otherwise, you must conform to any licensing, and any license you offer cannot be less restrictive than the ones you "inherit".
If you are uploading with Special:UploadWizard, it is probably best to start by saying "own work" and then immediately after uploading edit to get in all the details.
It looks like someone fixed it already at the Wikidata end. Someone created the category entries improperly, now fixed and the wikidata box appears instead of an error message. Thanks. --RAN (talk) 02:47, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about proposing Commons:Photo challenge for AI-generated media, but I would like to use it for some ways to positively impact Commons and Wikimedia movement in general, or at the minimum shape the content in such a way as to minimize chances that many entries will be deleted. So the images would have to be within Commons scope, should not infringe on copyrights (no Disney characters). Some use cases where AI generated images could be useful:
images of Coats of arms based on public domain definitions (blazons)
images depicting hard to get subjects like displays of different human emotions, like anxiety,
images of different generic mythical, fantasy characters, D&D characters or some other characters have copyrighted specific renditions but which can be described in generic terms, like "wizards", "elves", "warlocks", "druids", etc.
images of Science fiction topics, like view of Saturn moons and rings from Saturn surface or rock-climbing robot from one of w:Stanisław Lem stories
images of celebrities, for whom we do not have good photographs. Can this be done without copyright infringement?
I'd be very hesitant on the celebrities, unless your goal is to see how many DR fights we can start. - Jmabel ! talk01:22, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, celebrities might be a step too far, but I am trying to brainstorm about positive uses of image AI in Wikiverse. --Jarekt (talk) 01:28, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
This was already debated many times, and no, images created by AI are usually not copyright violations (except a few specific cases). I tried to create images of personalities with AI for which we don't have images, but it didn't work (I chose Michel Audiard, a prominent figure on the French cultural scene, for which we don't have a good portrait, except one with a dubious license). Either they are famous people for which we already have many free images, or they are not so known people, and there aren't enough examples for an AI to create something resembling. Yann (talk) 02:59, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: The software is not all. One also needs to submit a coherent prompt, and then to choose the best images, and then reiterate the process until the desired result. Yann (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
What are our guidelines on user-made art, such as depicting happiness, or obesity, or various celebrities? Fan art seems to be allowed, but otherwise I assume they are mostly deemed to be out of scope. Would they be seen as in scope if done well enough? I haven't seen such discussions, other than DRs on low-quality stuff. –LPfi (talk) 19:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: , We do no have guidelines yet. Commons:AI-generated media is a good start but it mostly concentrates on unacceptable cases. Category:AI generated images is full of interesting experiments which might only be usefull at demonstrating various AI engines, otherwise they are likely out of scope. I am searching for use cases where AI generated images would make positive impact. I assume that good quality user generated depictions of happiness, obesity, or various celebrities would be as welcome as user created photographs, provided that images are not clearly derivative of known copyrighted photographs, are good quality. We might need to create some additional guidelines or policies. For example, Commons:Photographs of identifiable people might need to be updated to cover issues with AI generated images. I am not sure where those future discussions will end up but I assume that we should have policy against AI depictions of identifiable people which would would be embarrassing to those people or which are depict some broadly defined falsehood or misinformation. At the same time images in the gallery at the top seem OK to me. --Jarekt (talk) 20:09, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that art by users a priori is out of scope and I don't know of any discussion on this. A photo of "happiness" would likely be deleted as unused personal image, and a painting on the theme would be deleted as "art by non-notable artist". It is a bit odd that the discussion on those categories of media should be discussed via the AI-generated equivalents, and equally odd if an image is in scope if generated by AI but not if painted by a user – except, of course, where the in-scope rationale is about showing AI use.
I think this discussion is good to have, but I would like participants to consider also the traditional techniques. Would this competition be a way to get illustrations of happiness etc., or to showcase AI? In the former case there is no reason to discriminate against "non-notable artists" – and we may get (or already have?) a problem with works by non-notable AI artists.
LPfi, I feel like user generated media, be it a photograph, painting or AI generated image are in scope or out of scope based on what they are showing and is what they are showing "educational" or not. So yet another portrait of unknown person is likely to be out of scope, while depiction of a person, an object, organism, a place, a clothing or architecture style for which we have an article should be in scope no matter if it is a photo, painting or AI generated image. I do not think we discriminate against "non-notable artists", it is just that "non-notable artists" works are judged based on the content (and is it useful for us) while notable artist's works are in scope no matter the subject. I think the same criteria should apply to AI generated images. As for the monthly photo challenge, we do 2 topics for 2 challenges per month which have to be constrained somehow and my idea was to constrain it to AI generated images only, but I would like to create guidelines to minimize number of out-of-scope or copyright-violation entries. --Jarekt (talk) 17:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
For the celebrity case: I would be quite worried about AI-generated portraits. If there are few images of that person on the net, it is quite possible that the AI version is a derivative work of some of them. It isn't enough that it is not "clearly derivative of known copyrighted photographs", it must not be a derivative work of any non-PD photo. It is also very problematic if the AI "guesses" on some details of the person. For depictions of Saint Mary, we know that they aren't based on her real appearance, but for current or 20th century celebrities, one would assume that anything in a photo-like depiction is factual. A warning similar to {{Retouched picture}} is needed, but is probably not enough. –LPfi (talk) 19:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I share your uneasiness about photographs of celebrities and other recognizable people. On one hand, if there were open licensed photographs of them then we would presumably have them and we would not need AI generated image based on them, so the AI image is likely based on copyrighted material even if we can not attribute it to any specific photo. On the other hand, I can imagine an approach where one takes frames from a copyrighted movie, uses them to create very realistic 3D model of someone's face. I do not think such 3D model would be legally derivative of the copyrighted work, especially if you can not tell 2 such models apart. Then based on 3D model one could create realistic images with help of AI, which should be OK to be uploaded to Commons. --Jarekt (talk) 00:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Let uploaders see what metadata is present as they're uploading
When someone uploads a file, there is a warning: "Personal data: EXIF metadata in this file may contain location or other personal data automatically added by your camera. Learn more about how to edit or remove EXIF metadata." This implies the file the user is uploading contains such identifying metadata and that a privacy-minded user would be better off not uploading that file ... when in fact that file may not actually contain any identifying metadata. After it's been uploaded, the File: page has a collapsed box at the bottom listing the metadata, which is often just the image resolution or other non-identifying things. Can we show users this metadata information at some point during the upload process, so they can a) decide "oh, that's fine, dots-per-inch data is not identifying" and not be scared off from uploading the file, and/or b) notice when a file does have identifying metadata and go use one of the linked Exif removal tools on it before uploading it? -sche (talk) 16:33, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
That would be possible for example in the UploadWizard before the publish stage. The metadata is stored in a field in the database and it actually gets sent to the client after assembling. The client only needs to actually display it (and maybe some formating from JSON to pretty).
I very much support the suggested change, or something along the same lines. The warning is very confusing. When I in fact have tried to remove the metadata (using "exiv2 delete") I still get the warning. The natural interpretation is that my tool was deficient and some metadata is left. Is this the case?
I think the tool should identify some common non-identifying fields and leave out the warning if only those are listed. For fields such as location, camera model and copyright owner, it should note their presens and link to a discussion on privacy risks. For unknown text fields it could list the content (with a similar link), for unknown binary fields it should note their presence and link to a discussion (the discussion links could be to a single page, with the categories clearly identified, as sections or otherwise).
Good idea as a feature, but I think that this should maybe be optional, if you upload using a mobile device there are already a lot of fields. I'm not sure if it should be enabled or disabled by default, it's good to help preserve privacy for those that don't wish for metadata to be published, but it could also enable abusers to use it to abusively change the metadata in their favour.
The proposals I see are just about showing or not showing the warning based on the metadata, about showing the metadata and about making the tool remove certain fields of the metadata. None of them suggest the tool allowing changing content in the metadata. The upload wizard does link to tools (such as exiv2) which make it easy to edit the metadata, but those tools are available to any knowledgable user anyhow, and the user would install and use them on their own computer. –LPfi (talk) 19:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
By "abusively change the metadata in their favour" I assume things like removing copyright and author fields from the metadata. The tool could keep the field and replace the original info with "[redacted for privacy]" or similar, showing that there has been such info. If the user is doing this offline, we cannot do anything about it. –LPfi (talk) 19:32, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Only 20 (twenty) people on another Wikimedia website decided to speak for over 900 (nine-hundred) Wikimedia websites. Barely a representative sample, don't get me wrong this user's edits were often unhelpful, but I'm not sure if a sledgehammer is the right answer. I wouldn't really say that this is an example of "global consensus". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I'm pretty sure a "sledgehammer" was the right answer. Here's part of his defense of his actions: "Remember that you at the Wikimedia Foundation are messing with an anointed of God. Anyone who messes with me is messing with God." Does that sound like someone we can work with? - Jmabel ! talk15:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
I agree that this doesn't sound mentally healthy, but my issue is that if a few years pass by, this person has taken the necessary steps to improve their mental health, and they want to return as a productive member of any Wikimedia website they would be barred from doing so, I don't see why a lifelong ban is the appropriate answer, especially one that de facto cannot be appealed. De jure he would need to e-mail someone, allow that person to start a RFC at the Meta-Wiki for a global unban (something which has literally never happened), and then people would have to vote him back. It is really rare for people to forgive others, even if a decade passes most people who were against his inclusion would vote against it.
My issue with global bans is always that they are permanent, if a 12 (twelve) year old girl gets globally banned because her immaturity should this ban still be enforced when she's 42 (forty-two) and hasn't edited a single Wikimedia website in three (3) decades? The only answer this process gives is "Yes", and it is a unilateral decision made for all 11,948,747 registered users of the Wikimedia Commons and millions more on all 900+ (nine-hundred plus) Wikimedia websites by only 20 (twenty) people. I agree that they currently shouldn't be editing here as they are a drain on community resources, but if they would mature, and then try to bring that passion competently into adding Bible-related content in the future I don't see why this would have to be permanent. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:22, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, Meta has fairly rigorous standards of notification and informing all affected parties, and so if any editor was truly interested in such decisions, they would already be watching the relevant noticeboards, and they would have been duly informed in at least one place that this discussion was open. It is not surprising to me that only 20 people participated in the consensus; who really wants to stick their neck out and get involved in such drama? Furthermore, if there had been any basis for objection, controversy, or debate, it would surely have attracted far more people, lasted longer, and been more noticeable. IIRC the decision passed nearly unanimously. Elizium23 (talk) 17:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
There still is basic selection bias in these noticeboards, typically the people who are "Metapedians" / "Metamedians" (those who watch community pages like this) are likely already more involved with vandal-fighting and the like. Regardless of the numbers, the implication here is that these people speak for "the global community", the UCoc ratification process also only attracted a small minority of the eligible voters, so the low turn out is not an anomaly, rather it's the trend. I'm not defending Leonardo José Raimundo, I don't think that having such antagonistic users around is good for the content creation process as they drain time and resources of other volunteers, my issue is that this decision overrides local consensus.
If a user is a trusted or valuable contributor in one Wikimedia website another project can easily override that project's autonomy. If this user would locally appeal his block and the unblock would be granted he still be allowed to contribute here because global decisions override local decisions, no matter how many people decided it, nor are there standards (a simple majority of 51% is already a global ban, but we wouldn't accept an admin who only got 51% of the votes).
Originally the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) intended global blocks to be a thing, that is that Wikimedia SUL accounts would be globally blocked like IP addresses and IP address ranges are today. However, due to technical reasons they never implemented this and global bans (as well as global locks 🔐 which are enforced as such) became the norm, if a user is globally banned they could theoretically locally apply for an unblock, but this process which was only created out of a technical deficit overrides all local autonomy which a global block would be able to give. Plus, global blocks would be completely uncontroversial and wouldn't even require people to participate in such WikiDrama as if a globally blocked user wishes to participate anywhere they could simply request a local unblock.
Of course, I don't have as much issues with WMF Global Bans, while several Commonswiki administrators and even a bureaucrat were banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), these are only used in extreme cases, all trends suggest that the "community" bans are becoming more popular as more and more of these RFC's are started. A Dutch-language Wiktionary admin also noted in the discussion that he wasn't causing trouble there, if global blocks existed he could've been unblocked there and if he became a productive editor there slowly appeal his blocks elsewhere, but this is impossible with the current situation. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:27, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Well, I was not notified although I edit a lot in this person’s original home wiki: If I had been notified, though, I would have piled on my vote along with the overwheming majority. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Notifications for such proposals are typically via the public "Village Pump" type noticeboards, such as the one we're on now. You wouldn't receive a User Talk note. If you wish to be notified of such things, you watchlist the appropriate noticeboards and then you monitor them. It's not ideal, but the Message Delivery Bot isn't going through thousands of user talk pages to deliver a personal invitation. Elizium23 (talk) 11:53, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites: I have no idea what "MOS" means in this context. Basically, the policy is to keep it brief and neutral. You can go a little longer if you have information that will help date photos (e.g. when an addition was made to a building), and we tend to be a bit looser when there is no Wikipedia article, because the category description is a reasonable place to provide some context. - Jmabel ! talk14:46, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I see, a flat_list has no subcategories, so is a true list of all surnames. Very good idea. Kudos to JotaCartas for using his valuable time on this project. --RAN (talk) 02:14, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I confess. I created the "Surnames (flat list)" without getting any consensus (my first mistake). It was very helpful in helping me to populate "Surnames" category with about 105,000 missing surnames (red links). After that I deleted it (my second mistake?). Later, someone "recreated" the category and instead of removing about 160,000 members, I populated it with all the members of Category "Surnames". So both categories are now identical. Really, I'm not sure if we should change the "Surnames" category to be a "normal" category, so I will not take any further action for the time being, unless some meaningful consensus is reached
In fact, even if the "Surnames" category only keeps "orphan" surnames (without any other categorization), that would leave about 160,000 members out of 200,000. Also, the only valid subcategories are within "Surnames by Language", as nearly all others have been contested. Moreover, the "by language" categorization is recurrently contested, so I think the 160.000 number is unlikely to go down. Thanks and sorry for the big mess I created here. --JotaCartas (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, I think it's the flat list that is most useful. If we want to turn Category:Surnames into a flat list, fine with me, but obviously not if we want to keep any of the subcats that are not simply surnames. If we want to keep Category:Surnames (flat list), fine, and then the ships are the obvious model. - Jmabel ! talk15:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Good stuff, it shows that being bold can bring about good changes. I always have trouble looking for surnames because they are in subcategories. --RAN (talk) 21:18, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
These flat lists were originally conceived as being a way of stopping people dumping files for others to properly categorise. In this case dumping random images in Surnames, because they are too lazy to create a Smith (surname)cat, or whatever. Creating a flat list sequence, doesn't solve that issue.
All that's happened here is we now have two cats pointlessly duplicating each other.
These flat list are the opposite of being helpful, they achieve nothing, just another layer of complication, and look ugly. I see no value, in making a basic, common and universal cat (like surnames), into a longer one. Every person represented needs to have a surname cat attached. These cats should be as short and as simple as possible. It's a cheap way of boosting the numbers of someone's edits, presumably to gain more sway over the project, inflationary ego building stuff.
What was wrong with just having a statement along the lines of don't put random files here, this cat is for cats only.
I have never experienced trouble looking for surnames because they are in sub categories, and I'm there all the time.
There is no difference between Category:Surnames (flat list) and Category:Surnames. It's pointless. The same goes for Surnames by language and ethnicity. Do we really need to cat the obvious; that Patel, used to be a hindu / Indo name, or smith was a British common name in the past, answer no.
The change to ships was even more pointless, and done against consensus by one individual. It has created needless and endless ongoing maintenance issues. As the largest contributor of (notable) ship names I never contribute to it. Broichmore (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone help the discussion move out of deadlock? It started 2+ months ago but, with only 2 active participants (including myself), a consensus haven't been reached yet. A short summary of the discussion is available here.
Seems reasonable to delete all images in this category. I checked the uploader's older uploads that aren't in this category and most if not all are out of scope, too. -- William Graham (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
Flickr Foundation adopts Flickr2Commons
I've just received an email newsletter from the Flickr Foundation (aka Flickr.org; the non-profit arm of Flickr.com), which includes the paragraph (emboldening and links in original)):
We've partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt a tool called Flickr2Commons. We want to look after it and extend its features with the long term in mind. Keep your eyes open for "Flickypedia", which we plan to re-release towards the end of the year.
Great news Captain America but the issue that they really need to fix is the updating of their current creative commons licences (still stuck on 2.0) and the addition of more licenses such as OGL and Crown Copyright and allowing users to create their own licences using their own choices as template, might be useful if WMF worked with Flickr in doing this, might also help us improve issues elating to Flickrwashing in the future.... Stemoc05:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The "allowing users to create their own licences" sounds problematic. We don't want a zillion of vague "free" licences that may not guarantee the freedoms we want. They should instead introduce a smooth process to add Commons-, Gnu- and CC-approved free licences (with caveats about the restricted CC ones). –LPfi (talk) 07:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
“I just find it sad that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) isn't willing to bring this level of support to the Wikimedia Commons.” +1. Seeing the number of bugs and technical issues, Commons really needs more maintenance and development time and manpower from the WMF. Yann (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I read through issues Phabricator sometimes just for the heck of it and I'm always surprised by how much it's neglected even on there. I assume the comment above about how most people either don't know this site exists or if they do are under the false impression it's an extension of Wikipedia probably has a lot to do with it. I've definitely found that to be true the few times I've discussed Commons with people IRL. I don't think the WMF did or does a good job of clearly differentiating it from Wikipedia like they do with Wikidata. Since it's clearly a separate, unique product compared to Wikipedia and Commons even though it interacts with both of them. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I've asked a member of Wikimedia Germany (WMDE), an organisation I think is technically as beneficial as the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) for a number of Wikimedia websites like Wikidata, and they've brought up that they will discuss adding more support, but I don't think that Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) will bring much support here until Wikidata is developed to a level where it doesn't need much maintenance and is easily useable by basically any website (which could take years), the Flickr Foundation stepping in here is actually a good thing, maybe it might be wise to ask if they could establish like some sort of "liaison office" or something at the Wikimedia Commons for communications between us and to them. Likewise, we're not aware of any discussions between the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and the Flickr Foundation because the former doesn't really publish all of its external communications online (due to a lack of transparency).
Flickr has 60.000.000+ daily users, we have 40,779 active users (Users who have performed an action in the last 30 days). To me it makes sense that GLAM organisations and governments prefer to publish there, but I think that increased co-operation between us and the Flickr Foundation could be mutually beneficial and I'm glad that the Flickr Foundation acknowledges that (even if this website itself is largely neglected by the WMF).
Unrelated, but I was thinking of organising some outreach to developer communities, perhaps there are people who'd love to contribute to the technical capabilities of Wikimedia websites but aren't even aware that they could contribute as volunteers. If we remain an insular community we won't see much growth beyond the capabilities of the current volunteers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:33, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not think that Flickr has 60 Million files uploaded every day. I think the daily users are the page visits. Commons has around 35 Million page visits per day. GPSLeo (talk) 14:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi Donald - just to be clear, the Flickr Foundation is a separate formal, legal organization from Flickr Inc (and SmugMug) and does not share engineering resources. It is also not governed directly by either of those companies, though we do have a company representative on our board (which we are absolutely fine with and welcome). We worked the design and engineering group at the company to improve the Flickr Commons page that lives on flickr.com, as we are not able to change the core Flickr codebase directly. I hope that clears up why we called that work a collaboration?
I also don't think it's unreasonable to claim that Flickr Commons was a groundbreaking program when it launched. In particular, its use of the "no known copyright restrictions" assertion borrowed from the Library of Congress allowed a lot of our cultural organizations around the world to release photographs they previously may have kept hidden due to unknown or undocumented provenance.
I think the less we see WMC and Flickr Commons as competing, and the more we try to collaborate between the two platforms, as we hope to do by adopting the Flickr2Commons software, the better off we'll all be. Ukglo (talk) 14:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Ukglo, thank you for your reply. I very much agree with the idea that Flickr and the Wikimedia Commons aren't competitors, the goal of both websites is share visual information and make it shareable, though the Wikimedia Commons requires these media resources to have educational value and also allows for books and audio as well as other non-visual works to be uploaded. But thank you for clearing up the difference between the Flickr Foundation and SmugMug, I mistakenly believed that the Flickr Foundation was just a subsidiary of SmugMug but now I know that it is a separate entity. And in light of what you wrote regarding the Flickr Commons I must agree with calling it groundbreaking, especially since Flickr has a better outreach to GLAM and government organisations than the Wikimedia Foundation has, so a lot of valuable archival materials found on Flickr aren't found anywhere else on the internet, my personal opinion regarding this is that the Wikimedia Commons should be "an extra back-up" for these valuable files to maximise the chances that future generations will have access to them. We had a wonderful user called "Fæ" (who is also active contributing to Flickr - Desktop) who did a lot of work in this area. I am looking forward to see a closer relationship between the Flickr Foundation and the Wikimedia Commons in the future. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello! I’m George, Executive Director at the Flickr Foundation. I’m really glad to see there’s interest in this work. The Flickr Foundation wants to adopt a tool that’s useful for both Flickr and WP communities and figure out how to care for it in the long term. I have met Magnus Manske and Frank Schulenberg to talk about it, and we’re looking forward to connecting with the wider community when our project kicks off. The WMF folks suggested we create an on-wiki page for the project so that’ll be a good spot to say hi if you’re interested. Ukglo (talk) 14:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Ukglo, perhaps there could be a page like "Commons:Flickr Foundation" with subpages like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Flickypedia" and the latter can also have subpages for documentation (of the software development), feedback / bug report, Etc. While another page named something like "Commons:Flickr Foundation/Outreach could be for direct communications to and from the Flickr Foundation with the Wikimedia Commons concerning its partnership with the community. I'd also suggest creating specific "in role" Wikimedia SUL accounts for Flickr Foundation staff like "User:John Doe (Flickr Foundation)" and "User:Jane Doe (Flickr Foundation)" or using your on-wiki names like "User:Ukglo (Flickr Foundation)" and then work together with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to blacklist potential bad actors from registering names with such accounts unless they are certified staff, though I'm not sure to what extent this partnership will be, but such accounts could be easily identifiable as Flickr Foundation staff and I've seen some Wikipedian-in-residence accounts name themselves with the name of the institution they work for / with when acting in the role of a Wikipedian-in-residence. I think that if such consensus exists the community here could create those pages and make it easy to maintain and interact with for your foundation. Lay out a red carpet, as you will. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung That sounds really great! I know the WMF folks are keen to be involved in the project pages' config, so I'll make sure they've seen your suggestions here. Ukglo (talk) 09:28, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your candid discussions about the Flickr Foundation’s announcement of their partnership with the Wikimedia Foundation. The Flickr Foundation is a newly created 501(c)(3) dedicated to “preserving our shared visual commons for future generations.” It is exciting that they have prioritized collaboration with the Wikimedia movement for this mission.
As previewed in our 2023-24 annual plan, we’re supporting the Flickr Foundation to explore a simpler Wikimedia Commons contribution experience for their photographers and cultural institutions. One of their first proposals is to maintain the Flickr2Commons tool, originally developed by Magnus Manske. ('Flickypedia' is the name they have given to the re-release of this tool.) They consulted Magnus and he is supportive.
It has been challenging for Wikimedia volunteers to maintain all of the essential tools for Commons and we’re happy that one of our open culture allies, the Flickr Foundation, would like to ‘adopt’ this important tool as part of their wider preservation effort.
Alongside this technical work, the Flickr Foundation will be researching the reuse impact of the images that have already traveled from Flickr to Wikimedia. They will also be reviewing their licenses and examining how they transfer to other platforms. The often-discussed issue of ‘license laundering’ or ‘Flickr washing’ is one of the central questions they plan to address. Consultation with the Wikimedia Commons community will be an important part of this process.
We want to reassure you that the Wikimedia Foundation remains committed to supporting and developing Wikimedia Commons. In 2023-24, our product teams will be developing more reliable and usable metrics for Commons and improved moderation workflows on Commons. You can follow that work on the WMF support for Commons page, where we’ll also post updates on the Flickr Foundation collaboration.
Please continue to share your ideas, concerns, and questions—we are here to listen, learn, and take action. We value your engagement and look forward to continued collaboration. Udehb-WMF (talk) 14:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Udehb-WMF @Ukglo: How about this: Flickr creates a way to import license templates from commons.wikimedia. If acflickr user wants them "own" license, the user can create a newicense template at commons.wikimedia and if it conforms to the standardscof a free license, it can be imported to Flickr.
@Udehb-WMF: If you get to talk with the Flickr folks again, can you tell them that the nicest thing they could do for Wikimedia Commons would be to get Flickr to update their ancient Creative Commons 2.0 licenses to the current 4.0 licenses? The 2.0 licenses have lots of problems and are much easier to use for copyright trolling. The 4.0 licenses came out 10 years ago, so it's ridiculous that Flickr still doesn't use them. Nosferattus (talk) 05:03, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for all these suggestions - let's make sure they're migrated to the project pages we're planning to set up as we build out the adoption project. (I am inexperienced with having detailed discussions in the Wikiverse UIs, so please excuse me as I get situated.) Ukglo (talk) 09:34, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
@Ukglo Commons.wikimedia is supposed to contain exactly one copy of each media file (defined by its message digest hash). But duplicates are uploaded (200 in the last 8 hours). Most duplicates come from flickr2commons. f2c duplicate check ist based on the filename, not the message digest. That is probably the most urgent issue with f2c. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! That's helpful to know. Let's make sure it's noted in our project page once it's up. Do you know if/how it's possible for an external service to ping the message digest? Ukglo (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
There is an API function, that you can send a message digest to and it will answer withs the file names of all files with that message digest. If you compute the message digest of the local file, you can either use it to determine it the file already exists on commons, or after uploadd to check if the file was published and not corrupted. (Guide to API at the mediawiki.org webssite) C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 12:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry but there appear to be more than two things under discussion here, and some of the PR language isn't clear.
The announcement is about a tool that WMF editors developed in-house to transfer Flickr photos to Wikimedia Commons. It shall be renamed "Flickypedia". So far so good?
Flickr, or its Foundation, also runs a Commons with an exclusive membership, such as libraries and archives. While the Foundation has made this announcement, I can't discern any direct link to Flickr Commons, so far. Flickypedia, née Flickr2Commons, has been a tool to feed into Wikimedia Commons only, and not Flickr Commons.
A few things are unclear at this point:
the term "adoption" is not really defined, so since Flickr2Commons is GPL-2.0+, is it safe to assume that this means "we're taking over development, support and maintenance without a fork"?
does Flickr intend to extend the software tool to transfer images from their partners to Flickr Commons as well? Judging from the move to remove "Commons" branding, that may be a "no".
Thanks for these questions - it's really helpful to hear what's confusing so we can clarify our PR!
Flickr Commons is a program that started in the flickr.com universe in 2008. The new Flickr Foundation (flickr.org) has taken over managing it now, even though the content published into it will still live on flickr.com. "Managing it" means looking after the members, encouraging growth. It's not directly connected into Flickypedia, or the concept of it, although we've heard again and again that it's difficult for Flickr Commons member institutions when their Flickr photos are hoovered into the Wikimedia Commons because they lose track of them and/or it's another place they have to watch/manage/maintain. As the Flickr Foundation, we're very interested in the concept of "content mobility" in general - as in, how can we know/watch/listen for activity that happens on digital copies of the same image, and report back?
Adoption - good question! Honestly, I hadn't thought that far! I'd imagined that it would be a fork, as there will be some people out there who may be happy using Flickr2Commons and don't want to change(?). Or, perhaps we could do a "programmed retirement" of Flickr2Commons. Or, we could just fork, rename and be done with it. Which is better for the community, do you think?
Extend to "transfer from their partners" - Sorry, I'm not 100% sure what you mean by this... but, for the first few iterations of Flickypedia, I have in mind that the transmission would only be from Flickr into WM Commons, so "partners" would need to publish to Flickr first... is that what you meant?
Hi everyone! I will be working with @Ukglo, and several others, on this project and we just would like to let you know that soon, probably in the last week of June, we’ll launch a Diff blog post about the project and a project page with even more details, where you be able to find a proper space for community feedback, consultations, updates, and many other things. We will share the links here when they are ready and available. Hope to see you all there! -- GFontenelle (WMF) (talk) 18:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Use of Commons images for AI data?
Remarks here and there about the legal status of AI output in this recent official questionnaire re: adoptables on deviantArt are bringing me to wonder: To stave off further legal complications, how about AI firms look past fully copyrighted material for their datasets and turn more to Commons' catalogue--exclusively--for all it matters? (Pardon if I can't think of anywhere else on Wikimedia to discuss this idea other than at this pump. If I chose the right place, then so much the better.) --Slgrandson (talk) 16:15, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
What do you mean fully copyrighted material? Using "fully" in this context is just asking for confusion; most works on Commons are copyrighted material, even if they have open source licenses. Even something like the CC-BY license would be unusable if you use the 3 million files in Commons under that license and have to properly attribute all of them on everything that the AI produces. PD/CC-0 are really the only licenses that wouldn't have these legal complications.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
While we're at it, User:Aconcagua/Alaska new was last updated seven months ago. Last I checked, Aconcagua hasn't edited in several years, which may explain why the interruptions and false positives had become more common.RadioKAOS (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Kami Hejazi
Error, edit not published.
You have to log in to create new pages.
Please log in or sign up if you would like to create this page. If you can not or do not want to sign up, you can ask at the Village pump (community), the Help desk or the Administrators' noticeboard for help.
This seems to be Special:AbuseFilter/105 "New page creation by anonymous users". It disallows creating galleries and pages in certain other namespaces, with some exceptions (e.g. deletion requests are handled by another filter). The warning is at MediaWiki:Abusefilter-warning-new-pages-by-anon-users. I suggest that the IP user either logs in (after creating an account if they have none) or explains what they are trying to do, so that somebody else might create a page for them to publish the gallery on. The "here" in the message refers to Commons:Abuse filter/Error reporting, which I know nothing about. –LPfi (talk) 14:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
If you can say what page you were trying to create, and it is within reason, someone will almost certainly create it for you. - Jmabel ! talk15:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Considering the section header and the hits I found upon googling it, I do not think a page about a (most likely) obscure singer would get much support here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Picture wanted of Fyllingsdal tunnel
Hi,
I don't know if this is the right chapter for my request. If not please let me know where to ask.
I have written the article Fyllingsdal-Tunnel at de.wiki. Sadly I have not found images of this Tunnel opend in 15th April 2023 in Bergen/Norway. Maybe a norwegian Commons User can make some images of this great structure work? Thank you. Best regards --Alabasterstein (talk) 07:18, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Too far for me, unfortunately. I'm sure someone will start taking images soon, though; Bergen is the second biggest city in the country.--Peulle (talk) 06:39, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia Côte d'Ivoire || Wikiconvention francophone - Ouverture des appels à communication et candidatures de bourses jusqu'au 14/07/2023
Le rendez-vous est pris pour la WikiConvention Francophone 2023, à Abidjan en Côte d'Ivoire du 22 au 23 septembre 2023 !
Nous avons la joie de vous annoncer l’ouverture jusqu'au 14 juillet 2023 des différents appels à candidatures pour les bourses et les communications.
Pour postuler, vous êtes invités à visiter le portail metade la Wikiconvention Francophone 2023.
Au plaisir de vous voir toutes et tous à Abidjan !
Cordialement,
There is one Commons user who adds external urls to category descriptions. The images are somewhat relevant to the category (imagine someone linking to a website with pictures of trees in the category for trees), but the images are not free, they're copyrighted by the site owner and cannot be used on any of the Wikiprojects.
Those sound pretty clearly inappropriate, especially on a broad category like "trees". I hesitate to say anything definitive without concrete examples, though. Certainly there are times when external links are valid on category pages, e.g. a category for a building linking a copyrighted historical-designation document with extensive information about a building. - Jmabel ! talk01:31, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
So these are all to one site (or a small number of sites)? If so, this is straight-out link-spamming. - Jmabel ! talk15:17, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@G.Lanting: could you please explain what you are up to here? It looks like you are adding links in a way that is not usually how we do things here. This appears to be a combination of excessive external linking and providing bare URLs with no explanation of why someone would follow the link. Before I make this an administrative matter, I'd like to give you a chance to explain your intent. - Jmabel ! talk17:54, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a different editor who adds external urls to category and media descriptions. I link to https://www.kozterkep.hu/ , a website whose main scope is to document outdoor sculptures in Hungary. They have mostly non-free images that can help identification, but that is not the main reason why I link. I give links because the website has a big collection of metadata about these sculptures. Its editors are going through all the newspapers and other sources to find out the history of the sculptures, and the site is quite comprehensive in its scope. This saves me a lot of work. Sometimes this metadata is just the date of erection and the identity of the sculptor, but even that is usually hard to find out from sculptures that I meet. But sometimes it's more information besides that, such as how a certain sculpture was moved three times and when the local government bought it, or that the sculpture is a smaller copy of an earlier statue. As I usually copy metadata from that website to the category or media descriptions, I also link the site. The link is there as courtesy to thank their hard work, as help to trace the sources for mistakes in the metadata if we find any, and to advertise a useful resource to other users.
I am not familiar with the website in question here. It seems like it gives a lot of photos together with addresses, which can help identify the more precise location of the buildings depicted on photos in Commons, or it can point out interesting buildings of which Commons doesn't have a photo yet and would be worth to take one. So please be careful if you want to decide on whether to keep these links.
Linking to a website once that contains comprehensive, well-researched information on a topic where information can be hard to come by is not comparable to linking to a website 15 times in a single category description with metadata that's more comprehensive, more verifiable, and easier to find on Google Maps. There is no way to tell from the links which streets or houses they cover and from what I can tell from the website there is no real structure to its presentation, which impacts its effectiveness as a resource considerably. 192.145.117.5114:14, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Animal identification requested
Category:Macropodidae at Kangaroo Creek Farm: with a couple of exceptions, I'm pretty uncertain exactly what species of Macropodidae are in these 23 photographs (and it wouldn't even astound me if some few of them don't qualify as Macropodidae). As a North American, I'm pretty out of my depth on marsupials other than opossums. - Jmabel ! talk05:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
As answered elsewhere, no, there is not, and please don't ask the same question in multiple places, it wastes people's time. - Jmabel ! talk15:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I think that is looks quite good now, but as this is still developing I am not sure if it should be a guideline / policy yet. Perhaps we should wait for WikiLegal? Either way, it could probably already be tagged as an essay (provisionally) until we've had some direct answers from the Wikimedia Foundation's legal department.
For context: "If an AI model is trained on millions of images and used to generate new images, it may not constitute copyright infringement in the United States if the method of training rises to the level of fair use. However, considering the most recent USCO decision, if a human modifies an AI-generated work, it is possible that the human can have copyright in their modification of a public domain AI work. This would follow the standard rules for derivative works, with the primary question being whether the human modifications are adequately creative to qualify for their own copyright." Not really all possible use cases and that's mostly a rather vague and open ended letter directed towards Wikipedia's, but for the current legislation it would suffice.
But as AI-generated works only just receive legal attention in the world I am not sure if it should immediately become a policy / guideline or if we should wait for more court cases to appear, does AI fall under the UK's "Sweat of the brow" doctrine? As I know that even very simple works or even full reproductions can be considered to be copyrighted in the United Kingdom. Because as usual, they in fact are copyrighted there Copyright protection for computer-generated works without a human author. These are currently protected in the UK for 50 years. (Source). And the page also states "For computer-generated works, we plan no changes to the law. There is no evidence at present that protection for CGWs is harmful...", So we probably need more information about where CGW's / AIGW's are copyrighted and where they aren't. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:30, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Can we at least agree that people marking AI works as own works should be considered copyfraud and a ban reason for repeat offenders? Trade (talk) 16:01, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah, apparently that's a redirect. Anyhow, license laundering is always against the rules, with or without an AI policy license laundering is a blockeable offense. -- To make matters more complicated, in the United Kingdom these works are considered to be the works of the human director. -+ — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Soft disagree on the use of the term "fraud", hard disagree on your proposed remedy. AI-generated works are still an emerging area in copyright law; it is entirely understandable if some uploaders don't fully align with the Commons consensus position on these works. Omphalographer (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I'm a lawyer from the Wikimedia Foundation and lurk here from time to time because one of my interests is in supporting Commons. Another interest is ensuring that everyone in the community has the tools to identify and deal with AI generated media under whatever policy achieves concensus. Just spitballing here, but question:
A. Would the community find it valueable if a field was added to the upload wizard allowing a user to self report whether or not their image was generated?
B. Assuming yes, would it be helpful or overkill for the person to also be able to specify whether they used a technical process that may complicate the copyright analysis: for example, "image2image" techniques, custom "embeddings," copied styles etc? SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Support; as AI-generated images will probably become less easily recognizable over time, any means easying to detect/identify them, is welcome. --Túrelio (talk) 17:58, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
They should not, just like their non-specific versions Category:Oncology, Category:Neoplasms, and Category:Cancers should not. To be precise: neoplasms can be any abnormal tissue growth, cancers are malignant neoplasms (thus a subcategory) and oncology is the study of cancer (thus also a subcategory), which involves other subjects than tissue, like diagnosis and treatment. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:40, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Ability to block users only from uploading files
Hi, I created a feature request on phab:T339878 for this. We have had several users were this would have been useful, and I wanted to request this for a long time. Yann (talk) 19:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I this only allows the entire namespace to be blocked. Currently we could use abuse filters to block a user from uploading files. I think we should have this feature but we need to change the blocking policy for this. GPSLeo (talk) 09:29, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
To quote "COM:BLOCK": "In a general sense, blocks are a last resort for behaviour that has the potential to damage Commons or disrupt its collegial atmosphere. In this way, blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one". The only reason sitewide blocks have been the default for decades is due to the technical limitations that don't allow for blocks to be precise, a user who only makes disruptive Deltion Requests (DR's) but is generally helpful in uploading and categorisation should probably not be blocked sitewide, but due to partial blocks being relatively new and most admins having become admins before they were a thing partial blocks are still currently a rarity on any Wikimedia website (I rarely see partial blocks, even if they make a lot more sense than sitewide blocks). As blocking should be a last resort to prevent abuse it would make sense to isolate otherwise helpful users from the areas where their contributions are less than helpful. This isn't something that for which "we need to change the blocking policy for", this is already the blocking policy. Unfortunately, the sledgehammer (full sitewide blocks) often seems to be the first (1st) and only option admins take. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:19, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
Wrong image used for 10 years - just discovered it.
File:Main Street, Gorbals, Looking South (-36) LACMA M.2008.40.98.35.jpg was, for the last ten years, in fact Gorbals Looking North by the same photographer, which I discovered when trying to upload the full-size image. This image is very heavily used. What do I do? I currently have it as the image described, which should make the captions work, but if people chose it because they liked the image looking North.... Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
People will have picked it because they liked the image, not because they specifically needed an image looking south. Get back to the original image, fix the title, edit the four places where it is used to fix the captions if they are specific enough to need fixing. - Jmabel ! talk00:44, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, i need some advice with the Template:ZentralGut. The template was thought to make use of two parameters, {{ZentralGut|ARK=ark:/63274/zhb1h01r|MMSID=997211700105505}}
i made the second parameter MMSID optional by using an if-clause in the template code - unfortunately the second parameter doesn't show up in the rendering. Could this have something to do with i18n of the template? what mistake i have done in building this template? Thanks in advance --Mfchris84 (talk) 13:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I keep encountering contributors with the good faith belief that the {{Personality Rights}} tag should be applied to every image that includes living people.
" {{Personality Rights}} should be applied to all images where a person is identifiable in order to warn re-users of non-copyright restrictions related to the image..."
"Although we do not consider these restrictions relevant to our policies we do OCCASIONALLY add disclaimers such as {{Trademarked}} and {{Personality rights}} as a general public service."
I think the guideline is pretty clear. The tag should be used OCCASIONALLY -- not on every image with living people. Geo Swan (talk) 07:26, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I tend to apply {{Personality rights}} where I think there is likely to be an issue: naked people, children, people doing something that might look really weird when taken out of context, people I know have had issues with detractors in public fora. I think that about covers it. {{Trademarked}} I use consistently on public-domain logos, because PD is otherwise so wide open for use and people need a reminder. - Jmabel ! talk14:33, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
First, Josve05a's assertion was that it should be applied to every identifiable image of a living person. That is millions of images. If I am not mistaken, the tag has been applied to a mere fraction of one percent of those images, so I question whether it should be described as a "general practice" or a "common practice".
I accept that the individuals who routinely apply the tag as a "general practice" or a "common practice" honestly believe policies and guidelines authorize them to do so. But, unless I am missing something, that is not actually true, and the most relevant guideline only authorizes its "occasional" use.
I think User:Jmabel's interpretation is the one we should go with.
It's not mandatory to slap it with that label, sure, but I don't read the guideline the same way that you do. The "occasionally" refers to our frequency of disclaiming non-copyright restrictions broadly construed; it is not used to set a prescriptive norm that {{Trademarked}} or {{Personality rights}} ought be used merely occasionally when they would apply. The ultimate point of including them is to provide additional warning to re-users about the restrictions on the file that might apply to them. I do think that throwing the {{Trademark}} disclaimer on PD (text)logos is generally wise (the average Joe would be a bit shocked to think that there are restrictions on the use of "public domain" works) and I see {{Personality rights}} commonly put onto pictures of people by more experienced uploaders. Both of these are, of course, optional for uploaders to place, but I do see this commonly, so it does look a lot to me like a common practice (to use the term in a descriptive sense). — Red-tailed hawk(nest)02:19, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
@Geo Swan, I feel RTH has pretty much summarised the thing. It depends how one reads the text and what they mean by the terms "common" or "general". I agree with what has been said above. It is optional but since its usage as RTH has mentioned, I called it a general practice. ─ The Aafī (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
This template is usually added to featured images, as they will be shown on Commons (and other projects) Main Page. Yann (talk) 09:11, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
@Lugamo94: Assuming you are correct about the copyright status, there's really no way someone can say whether the photo is in scope without seeing it. - Jmabel ! talk00:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@MPF: The only way to edit the EXIF data is to download, edit with exiftool or something similar, and re-upload. - Jmabel ! talk00:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I tried that with GIMP, but couldn't find the lengthy 'text' causing the problem in the exif-editing section. Would you be willing to give it a go, please? - MPF (talk) 00:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@MPF: As I said, if you want to go for it, exiftool is usually the right tool for this. I haven't had occasion to use it in a long time, note even sure I have a copy on this computer, and I have a lot else on my plate. - Jmabel ! talk01:46, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: - well, I know I don't have a copy on my computer, because I've never even heard of 'exiftool' before, let alone not ever used it before :-) Anyone else, please? - MPF (talk) 08:52, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
A few days ago I spent some time patrolling new files and some older files, and nominated about 20 for speedy deletion - some were selfies or personal files, some had copyright issues. Is there a way to monitor these nominations as a regular user? I think the files got deleted, because all these actions disappeared from my contribution history.
- Tupungato (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Tupungato: I usually stick files that I nominate for speedy deletion on my watchlist. The watchlist then shows the log message when the file is deleted. --bjh21 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If you're using the QuickDelete gadget to tag files for deletion - which you probably should! - it will add a notice to the uploader's talk page when you tag a file for speedy deletion. Those edits will stay in your contributions, and you'll be able to track the status of the deletions from there. Omphalographer (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
HELPː I thought I was taking my time in moving PDF books into a new Cat within Category:Books about the Flora of California and when I used cat-a-lot to remove the PDF files I had put in a seperate Category, I think I removed all of the original filesǃǃǃ Where did they go? Where do i find them to put them back. I am so sorry I didn't look properly. I know it's the 2nd or 3rd time but I thought I was being careful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 17:11, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
This has been a suggestion for quite some time and there’s a page outlining it at en:Wikipedia:Dark mode, but I haven’t found any gadgets that fully implements dark mode. There are some skins with a dark appearance that can you install on your server if you have MediaWiki. Sorry if this isn’t the greatest answer to your question. Dylan | ✉ | ✓03:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
I discovered this category and started working on it. I have found, maybe, up to 1000 images uncategorized by the same photographer. I created a sub -cat in Cat Photographers from Switzerland. Is there a Wiki App that I can use to bulk categorize all of his images or bulk move them into the new sub-Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland? Doing it one image at a time is slow, but interesting. ̃— Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs) 15:06, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
@Photo Archives: by "moving files", are you saying you need to change the file name? I thought this was about categorization. I'm pretty sure either of those tools will do it, and I'm willing to help, but I'd need to be clear on exactly what you are trying to do (e.g. "for all files with [string] in {{Information}} add [this category]). - Jmabel ! talk17:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
No, not the file name. Moving the (improperly labelled) files from the Category:Media needing categories 2021 to the already existing Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli This is a typical file name there = File:-i---i- (24295389888).jpg I had not searched enough and was trying to move them to Cat Images by Thomas Woodtli Zurich Switzerland Photo Archives (talk) 17:23, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes i did and I put the new category name in the space at the top, chose the files and when i hit the add button it said original files not found??? Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
this is a tricky thing about using cat-a-lot on files using {{Uncategorized}}. for other normal categories, if you want to "move files between cats", you hit "right arrow"; if you want to "copy files from one to another", you hit "+ sign".
Whatǃ No. I put the Cat Category:Photographs by Thomas Woodtli at the top where it asked for it and clicked the ̟ symbol? What should I had ̟ clicked. Apologies. Tell me and I will redo it all. Photo Archives (talk) 19:50, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
OK I highlighted 7 images, placed the Cat name and under, or next to Media needing categories there is only a - symbol, no arrow or ̟ symbol?? Photo Archives (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
select files by clicking them. they become highlighted.
input the destination in the catalot popup. it will suggest to you categories that match. choose the correct one and press ↵ Enter.
the yellow popup will show you new info. now press the right arrow appearing next to your destination.
I tried to move them individually but each file came up with no Cat listed? There is a listing at the bottom for Hidden Categories. I will try again. Thanks for the reminder. It's frustrating when I add the photographers Cat but because it is also listed as a hidden Cat, nothing shows up. I will keep trying Photo Archives (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
OK I finally figured it out. I created a Photographs by Thomas Woodtli page 2 in Photographers from Switzerland and deleted the Cat needing Cat from each file. The page should be empty now. Photo Archives (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry I thought i was doing that. They were not showing up in the main Cat as a note said there was a Hidden Category. I thought the only way to remove them from the needing category as of 2021 was to make a second page. Someone let me know my mistake and did a redirect to his main Cat. I am taking it slower and apologies again Photo Archives (talk) 14:52, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
read Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot and learn to use "Move (Modify)(→), which does both, removing the current category from the objects and adding the specified category to them (if not already present)..."!--RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
In terms of shops, I think we have a bit of a conflation in the hierarchy between at least two distinct types of shops. As you go up and down the hierarchy, "sports shops" "sporting shops", and "sporting goods shops" appear in category names. In the U.S., and especially before 1970 or so, "sporting goods" mostly means/meant hunting and fishing, maybe camping, not a lot that would be called "sports" nowadays (though they did usually carry some baseball gloves, etc.). On the whole the were more like what is now called an "outdoor equipment" shop, a term we don't seem at all to have in our categories.
Anyone interested in sorting this out? I could start a CfD, but a lot of categories are potentially affected, and I have no particular expertise or focus in the area. - Jmabel ! talk19:22, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
We are glad to announce the new members and advisors of the Elections Committee. The Elections Committee assists with the design and implementation of the process to select Community- and Affiliate-Selected trustees for the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. After an open nomination process, the strongest candidates spoke with the Board and four candidates were asked to join the Elections Committee. Four other candidates were asked to participate as advisors.
Thank you to all the community members who submitted their names for consideration. We look forward to working with the Elections Committee in the near future.
On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees,
Tool for finding files within a category while excluding those from another
I would like to be able to get a list of all files within a given primary category (down through a given number of sub-cat levels), but excluding all files within a given second category (to some number of levels). Ideally multiple inclusion or exclusion categories could be selected but this would not be necessary, just helpful.
Does anyone know what a good tool for this would be? I've perused Commons:Tools and Toolforge and didn't see anything that fit the bill. I appreciate any help on this! Josh (talk) 06:10, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I have often seen users mention and sometime enforce the idea that category redirects should not themselves be placed in a category (except Category:Category redirects I guess). The note added by {{Category redirect}} even explicitly states: "Redirected categories should be empty and not categorised themselves."
That is all well and good, but I wonder if this is just tribal knowledge being passed down. I assume there are reasons, but in looking, I was unable to uncover anything more than just 'don't do it'. I would really like to know why this prohibition is in place so I can better understand if we should be considering an exception to this rule for some COM:CFD issues, or if that is going to create real problems. Josh (talk) 09:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: That sounds valid. What I am investigating is whether that is better or worse than nested categories about the same topic. Right now we have multiple nested categories for the same topic, such as the same aircraft:
Category:Aircraft by registration
Category:AB-CDE (aircraft) - has all of the files depicting this aircraft
Category:Aircraft by construction number
Category:Aircraft c/n 12345 - only has Category:AB-CDE (aircraft) in it
Category:AB-CDE (aircraft)
Normally we would merge 12345 and AB-CDE as they just different identifiers for one and the same aircraft. However, if we do that, then it disappears from either the registration or construction number index. This dilemma could be solved by categorizing the redirect. I'm not bringing this up to discuss why aircraft are organized this way or why it is useful, that's a different question (and yes I know several c/n's have multiple registrations and vice-versa, this is not that). I just want to illustrate the issue and would like to know what the real downside is to categorizing a redirect so we don't have duplicated nested categories just to permit indexing. Josh (talk) 03:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think getting to a redirect when navigating down a hierarchy is worse than not finding the category you are searching for. E.g., I have made categorised category redirects for streets, parks and bridges in bilingual Turku. That these categories are empty looks a bit odd in the parent category, but once you understand the system you will find subcategories without knowing the Finnish names. How would you do this otherwise? –LPfi (talk) 09:08, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: That's a good point. Categorized redirects do present as (empty) in the list...but they are also italicized so once you know how that works, seeing Category:Italicized (empty) will just mean it is an alternate name and not be too weird, I would think. Do you happen to have some good examples of some categorized redirects you have worked on? Josh (talk) 21:12, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
Redirects show up as italicized, but I don't think categories with {{Category redirect}} are special in any way for MediaWiki, so they show up as normal categories. Still, if you note that there are subcategories in two languages and the ones in one of them are empty, that'd be quite a good hint on what's going on. In categories with only a few subcategory redirects, clicking on one every now and then is no major problem. Category:Bridges in Turku is reasonably small and contains a number of such subcategories. –LPfi (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
@LPfi: A notable distinction, good point. I don't think its any problem at all when browsing to click on a redirected category, since its automatic, it will just have a different name than you might have expected when you get to the target category, you don't need any additional clicks or such. Anyhow, I think that it will work for some of the issues we are seeing, so I will start trying it out. Josh (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
It is not automatic. Click on any of the empty subcategories in the category I linked. These are not redirects, but categories with the template {{Category redirect}}. I don't think we use redirects proper on categories. –LPfi (talk) 19:16, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Potential underaged user with to much personal information on their user page
I have come across User:ProGamerYT1902Pup, a seemingly underaged user with potentially to much personal information and images on and of himself on their page. What is the commons policy on this and how does Commons protect such young users, if the information is indeed correct? Calistemon (talk) 05:58, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I do not see more information than on a standard social media page. The problem is that the page and the photos are personal and promotional content by a non contributor and violate our guidelines from that side. GPSLeo (talk) 06:16, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't think people should be blocked from contributing because other people perceive circumstantial evidence they are a minor. I question whether their images should be deleted, due to perceived circumstantial evidence they are a minor.
Some years ago there was a contributor to en.wiki, who was a very fine photographer. He was also very disruptive. He had requested deletion of a properly licensed image he had uploaded to en.wiki, from the commons. His deletion justification was, frankly, petty and childish. When he was told it couldn't be deleted from the commons because his very fine image was in use on a bunch of non-English wikis, he thought that if he went to those non-English wikis, and removed every instance where his image was being used, he could make another request for its removal from the commons, and see it removed.
Why did he want the image deleted from the commons? He was sure his image would be chosen as that month's "finest image uploaded to en.wiki this month", and it would only qualify if it was on en.wiki, not the commons.
No, I am not making this up.
A lot of people were disturbed by this. So, he escalated. He went to en:User talk:Jimbo Wales, and complained he was being bullied. His new argument was that all his images had to be deleted, because he was only fourteen years old. He asserted that, since he was really only 14 years old, he hadn't been legally competent to agree to release the IP rights our licensing requires.
No, I am not making this up.
I was surprised how many people, including Jimbo Wales, accepted his claim to be 14, at face value. IIRC, his images were deleted.
Sympathetic people volunteered to mentor him. IIRC, years later, when he would have been an official grown-up, he was still very immature.
I suspect he had been an adult all along - an immature adult.
We have lots of contributors, on WMF projects, who are capable of behaving childishly, even though they are unquestionably legal adults. As to whether there are contributors who are technically minors... I strongly suspect many contributors who are minors never trigger suspicion as to their age, because they act mature beyond their years. I would like to leave those individuals alone. I would like to see all individuals who behaves maturely, left alone, even when there was circumstantial evidence they are minors. Geo Swan (talk) 05:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so? That was a different case, here we had the self-portrait of a young kid with too much personal info. This deletion reason applies not just for kids although we should protect those more (from themselves). We also regularly delete images of the complete CVs of grown adults, or of their credit cards or their passports. YES some people upload that stuff, and it's not in scope and potentially dangerous for the uploaders. Enyavar (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
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 ! talk18:36, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
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'.
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 ! talk03:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
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 ! talk00:08, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
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)
illustration refers to those hand-drawn pictures before photography became popular. that example is a photo, so not an illustration.
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)
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 ! talk03:46, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
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)
@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 ! talk16:40, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@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)
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)
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)
@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)
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 edits18:27, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)
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)
Comment Personally, I would favor limiting "illustration" categories to non-photographs, as that has been long-standing practice on Commons and seems least likely to cause confusion and conflicts. Nosferattus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I tend to agree. It seems confusing to categorise photographs as "illustrations", even if they have been scanned from a book or magazine. If it is desired to have a category containing all images of any type used to illustrate a topic, then I think the category name needs more words to explain this. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 22:09, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
-- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:48, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
_-_Alpacas_bebes_-_Paqucha_u%C3%B1a_Nu%C3%B1oa_llaqtamanta_-_Huaman_Quispe_farm.jpg)
Support keeping the old name for file titles and the description (the new name could be added to note that's what it is called now). I 
Nelson Mandela
anger
happiness
Obesity
_-_IA_Midjourney_versi%C3%B3n_1.png)
_-_Midjourney_v5.png)
_LACMA_M.2008.40.98.35.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg#call_for_discussion){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(20258673229).jpg){kind=link}
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)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
_Figure_3.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)
_(14596934978).jpg)
.jpg){kind=link}
_China.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}