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.
Unfortunately, the image is not available under a free license, which is not allowed in Commons. Neither is the video in the article. All we could do is ask the copyright holder of the image to consider releasing their photo under a free license. pandakekok908:19, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I would say that fieldwork date is usually more important for a map than its publishing date, but seldom both are known. And for now I’d say go ahead at dissiminating those lumpy cats and categorizing individual maps along as many categories as possible. Cat name harmonization can be done later (and it will never be done for empty/inexisting categories). -- Tuválkin✉✇13:24, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree but when you have maps for 1887, 1889 and then 1895/97/98/99, they are very close in time. Other maps for smaller cities do include the month. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Keep in mind that the batch upload is automated and I have run many "refresh" runs. This means that the subcategories of Category:Sanborn maps of the United States by state were created automatically based on LoC metadata, and may continue to be repopulated in precisely the same way. So, don't be surprised if a handful of new maps appear in those main categories and ignore any diffusions. Please also avoid renaming or moving categories, this would probably have the unintended consequence of me abandoning further refreshes.
I don't think it's humanly possible for me to complete this before your next round of work. Especially since the 1925 maps enter the public domain in a year and onward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Don't let me put you off. Diffusing the maps into better sub-sub-categories or extra information-adding cats is fine. It's only if you were wanting to move around or rename the main subcategories that could cause an issue. Any new maps would be available in the sub-categories but there will be no extra duplicates made or other errors if past uploads are recategorized. --Fæ (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Historical weather data on Commons
Last week, I've posted a request for comments concerning import of Canadian structured weather data into Commons. Donald Trung advised us to post here so I can get the confirmation this type of files can be distributed through Wikimedia Commons. Please note this is only about historical weather data - forecasts are specifically excluded from this discussion.
My understanding of Commons:Project_scope leads me to think that hosting that kind of data is in the scope of Commons, because every requirement is checked:
it's educational content that "provides knowledge". This is especially true since the climate change research has become high priority in many countries during previous years.
shaped like what was proposed by Yurik in 2017 it's media files because JSONs is structured data that can easily be used to automatically generate graphs. As a matter of fact, it is already done on Wikimedia platform. Commons also now has a nice table based visualisation interface that allows everyone to directly read content in an intelligible way.
it uses free file format - a lot of tools can read/write JSON data, especially on the web.
Yeah, from what I can tell it checks all the boxes to be in scope and this historical data will be very useful for anyone doing meteorological research (files don't just have to be useful for another Wikimedia website), so I don't see any reason to object to this. How many files will be imported and have y'all already worked out a categorisation scheme? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:21, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Possible category tree may be "Category:Weather Data" ← "Category:Weather Data in [country]". Another level could be added depending on country first administrative level like "Category:Weather Data in [province]" for Canada. However it looks like category system won't make it soon, so these will be added later. This specific proposed import will probably be discussed more in depth during bot status request, but I'll answer your question here: it contains data of 8473 weather stations collected between 1840 and 2018. Having two datasets (monthly data and almanac), it will add 16133 JSON files into "Data:" namespace. Peuc (talk) 05:06, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Installation of the extension:MobileDetect
Hi guys, I was trying to create optimized pages for mobile and desktop, however they are so far from each other that would be better to create to versions, special for contests.
Can we install the mw:Extension:MobileDetect, this enable the <mobileonly> tag, the < nomobile > is already installed by default, so this extension would online allowed the <mobileonly> that can easily optimize wiki pages here.
Hi. MobileDetect is still a beta extension, and, as far as I know, has never been installed on a Wikimedia wiki. I suggest you first ask about the current status of the extension at mediawikiwiki:Extension talk:MobileDetect and see if it's ready to be installed on Wikimedia projects or not. Ahmadtalk08:35, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
artificially upscaling or enlarging using any tool, including AI-based or deep learning services
Because of AI-based \ deep learning \ intelligent services have gained popularity, users think they are being helpful by blowing up images. There is already widespread opposition to upscaling HERE, HERE, HERE, HERE. Examples:
Rather, I was not aware that what I did was a bad practice. I fixed the uploads I reverted back to their previous states. Even though I've been on Commons and Wikipedia for a while, I still don't know all the rules. - StrangeloveFan101 (talk) 11:23, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Clearly not a minor improvement. Upscaling is a substantial change to the file. And we haven't even seen yet whether all upscaled images are automatically better than the original ones. --pandakekok903:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Support AI-based upscaling, while useful for certain purposes, should never replace the original file. People should also be aware that AI upscaling is not magic. It often introduces artifacts or hides details thus making it an inaccurate representation of the subject. Kaldari (talk) 15:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Support the original should not be deleted even if the up-scaled version is better, btw some upscaled images are really better than the original versions.// Eatcha (talk) 03:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Support (conditionally) Perhaps we can make some sort of a template for files that is ok to enhance. Something akin to the way we have historical maps, and then current maps which can be overwritten. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 18:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Nothing wrong with attempting to improve an image like that, but it should be uploaded as a separate file. --El Grafo (talk) 11:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Support The "improvements" are often an illusion, artefacts that give the appearance of sharpness but aren't representative of the original scene. For example, you can get writing where the strokes of the letters are crisp but the letters aren't from any actual alphabet. -- Colin (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, of course, I’m surprised it’s not already in the policy. Enlargement, dumb or smart, is always wrong. -- Tuválkin✉✇23:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Should not overwrite the original in cases like this; upload separately. Could argue it already falls under "digital restoration" but may as well say it explicitly. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 22:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)
Apply a default of Good Faith for very old files
A 2008 upload where the "own work" statement has been questioned using a deletion request, with no verifiable copyright issueA very early 2004 upload of an 1896 photograph. Placed by a template design in Category:Images without source, though the history shows a dead source link was removed in 2011. Files in this maintenance category have a history of being speedy deleted without discussion and is a sub-category of the main speedy deletion category.
Proposal
To extend the guidelines of Grandfathered old files to there being a "presumption of good faith" for files hosted for more than 10 years.
Suggested additional guideline text: All files hosted for over 10 years for which no issue has been raised during that time as to being in-scope or having evidence of a copyright problem, should be treated with a presumption of good faith. This means that speedy deletions should be avoided unless there is verifiable evidence of a copyright issue for a file or series of files, and while deletion requests are encouraged for problematic files, the nominations should be written starting from a position of good faith and deletions based on scope need to be based on more than personal subjective value.
Background
In discussions about cases of very old files put up for speedy deletion as apparent selfies COM:CSD#F10, and deletion discussions where the nomination is based on suspicions rather than evidence of copyright violations, it is clear that there is no general principle that a file that has been hosted for more than a decade and might even be highly valued and reused on sister projects, should be handled with a good faith presumption as being correctly released and in-scope, unless there is a verifiable rationale based on policies to delete.
A consequence of currently having an effective default of bad faith means that files may be mass deleted without individual scrutiny, and effectively deleted "on suspicion" without a specific rationale to justify the action, putting the burden of evidence on anyone objecting to deletion. As these files have been hosted for over 10 years, it is the case that the files get deleted and will stay deleted even if there is zero evidence that there ever was a copyright issue, or that there was any meaningful consensus to delete; most deletions of old files pass by with barely any comment.
Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Subway06~commonswiki over 100 transport photographs uploaded between 2009 to 2012, where there was a watermark for which there is no evidence that this is not the same person and there never has been evidence of any copyright problems.
Support. I do come across old stuff that looks rather suspiscious from time to time. So far cowardice prevails... My main concern would be the legal ones on copyright. --Herbytalk thyme11:59, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
This just puts "good faith" in the guideline. It does not stop anyone from deleting very old copyright violations, or speedy deleting very old copyvios, which in my view should always have a basic presumption of good faith for the uploader unless evidence demonstrates they are license laundering or similar. --Fæ (talk) 12:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Seems to be reasonable. I would definitely (even without such a policy) not nominate a file for speedy deletion that has been uploaded a long time ago. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 12:08, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support in principle, although I would recommend to amend COM:CSD as well. Something along the the lines of Files are not eligible for speedy deletion if they have been uploaded more than 10 years ago. under the File heading. Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 18:52, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, in fact "Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle" literally reads "Commons' users aim to build and maintain in good faith a repository of media files which to the best of our knowledge are free or freely-licensed. The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." unfortunately in practice most people that cite this policy act as if it reads "The precautionary principle is that where there is any doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." which has gotten a number of free educational and useful files deleted from Wikimedia Commons already. We should at all times be caution of copyright, but there is a difference between good faith doubts and copyright paranoia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:55, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Support} (I think) What am I supporting here? I oppose bulk speedy deletion of these old files, simply for the formatting (or not) of their metadata. Yet if that's the majority view here, why does it appear that the process is going ahead anyway? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose no reason has been given why 10 years, why not 9, or 5? It is far too broad, file should at least be in use. I still actually find spam and other speedy files older than 10 years. This will just grow the DR backlog. If it's an issue with CSD F10 criteria, then the proposal should be to amend that.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Reasonable proposal. It doesn't prohibit well-founded deletion requests and if an image turns out to be problematic after all, deletion is still possible. Speedily deleting content that has been here for 10 years and more doesn't seem appropriate to me. Of course there is some arbitrariness to choosing 10 years, but I also find this time span reasonable. If this causes the DR backlog to get somewhat longer, so be it - there is no hurry. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose assumption of uploaders' good faith should be equally applied to all regardless of the age of their uploads. Such a rule would only be hotbed for bureaucratic, mechanistic decisions.--Roy17 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Seems reasonable. Older files often have little information available simply because that was the norm back then. We should treat them with good faith regardless. Kaldari (talk) 04:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
"instead of putting the burden of evidence on anyone objecting to deletion" @Fæ: shouldn't "objecting to" be "supporting" in this line? - Alexis Jazzping plz12:19, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, it is confusing as there's a double negative in the language, however the background bit is not the text that is proposed to be added to the GoF guideline. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
It may be worth highlighting that effectively the precautionary principle already does this for us, just not clearly. As PRP requires significant doubt to exist for a file to be deleted, there is a burden on the deletion nominator (or speedy tagger) to have examined the file and be able to explain why significant doubt exists. When we are talking about very old files, this means that in the years of Commons hosting the file and reusers relying on the image page release statement, every year that passes must make the effective water margin higher for how we understand "significant". Clearly, if a file is verifiably a copyright violation, say because we can look at a prior publication with a non-free license, or the uploader says they made a mistake, then there is a common understanding that this makes the doubt significant. However if someone is concerned because EXIF data is missing, or the uploader has not responded to questions, there's a big difference between a file uploaded last week and a file uploaded seven years ago.
Though this proposal is to add 10 years in the guideline for simplicity, we can still delete files older than a decade, and that any more recent upload should still be handled in reasonable good faith. However, formalizing these words in the guideline helps all users to recognize the reality on this project that confidence in a hosted file can and should increase the longer we host it or the more it gets reused, on the basis that reuse means many more pairs of eyes have examined it. --Fæ (talk) 12:28, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
I support the intent of the proposal, however maybe we could simplify the language to indicate that files older than 10 years should be deleted through COM:DR process only. COM:DR process includes mass deletion. I think that that rule would be much easier to understand and apply. --Jarekt (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
Not really the intent. Speedies for very old copyvios, say when the uploader is demonstrated to be a serial flickrwasher, would be fine under the current wording. One might expect that the deleting admin or the speedy justification text that ends up in the deletion action comment, would point to some verifiable evidence that makes a DR discussion irrelevant.
Just to clarify, "additional guideline text" is the proposal, not the background section. --Fæ (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
If someone think a 10 yr old Flickr account is Flickerwashing would it Normally not start with DR or something where arguments and proof Can be presented?
Also if an account is Flickrwahing there could be some of the pictures where there are no other hits on TinEye and in those cases we could perhaps keep.
There is as far as I know no rule that says that A DR have to be open for a long time so if someone start a DR and make a super bull it proof case then it could be closed as delete shortly after.
Maybe a bot could automatically convert "Speedy" nominations into regular deletion requests for non-new files, maybe someone can find the statistics in what window most copyright violations get deleted the quickest and then programme a bot to convert all "speedy" nominations into deletion requests. Copyright violations will still be deleted, but educationally useful older files that were tagged by a user that doesn't understand sourcing won't then be blindly deleted by an administrator. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:02, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
As I remarked on Fæ's talk page, I think this is a VERY poorly named category. When it popped (actually, the 10-year version) for 2 files in my watchlist, I thought they were being speedied, as I'm sure would many other people. - Jmabel ! talk17:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Any file in a subdirectory of Category:Candidates for speedy deletion is at risk of deletion, that's the point of the category. If subcategories include files which must never be speedy deleted, they should not be in that (admin maintenance) hierarchy.
But some are solely in this category, because the lousy and scaremongering named Category:Speedy deletions for files over 10 years old is in the category, they have otherwise no reason for a speedy. This categories, if they are really just maintenance categories, must not put "innocent files" in a speedy category, like it was done with two of my uploads. These cats have to be renamed asap (or deleted), and definitely not put in any deletionist category, as then it's a selffulfilling prophecy. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ (talk)18:46, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Lack of source. Files are regularly targeted for that. I presume that you're one of those who realises, correctly, that we only need that to prove free licensing, when freedom is not already evident, as here. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding the interpretation of "deletions based on scope need to be based on more than personal subjective value": Under the new guideline, would the specific image File:Tishos.JPG still be eligible for deletion if nominated in a regular deletion request for being out of scope? (In case the exemplary image gets deleted, for future reference: it is a portrait depicting a non-notable person, it is not in use (also not as a personal image on a user page), but it was uploaded more than ten years ago.) If the answer is yes, I fully support this proposal as I agree that for files of this age extra scrutiny is highly useful to prevent hasty deletions. If not, the proposal may require a little bit of rewording, however, as it might be (mis?)interpreted as Commons:Project scope no longer applying to files as soon as they have reached ten years of age. GFJ (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
The default of good faith, would mean that a nomination would have to be more than someone's subjective opinion that the photograph is out of scope. We do need illustrative selfies, so choosing to keep examples like this of "classic" bathroom mirror selfies before most mobiles came with user-facing cameras, no matter that they are of weak educational value, uploaded way back in 2008, is not unreasonable and can be argued to benefit the mission of this project.
A nomination that uses a good faith argument that there are demonstrable scope issues like it being intrusive in an unarguably personal space (like a hospital ward), or falls outside the normal definitions of legitimate content, like being a corrupted file, or containing hidden or personal data that is not reasonable to remove, are all potentially good faith reasons to proceed with a deletion discussion; "good faith" here is aimed at the intentions of the uploader and so a default of presuming sufficient value to reusers even when that is not immediately clear to the viewer. --Fæ (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
@GFJ: I agree with Fæ, it's a bit unfortunate of an example because selfies are such a new thing. Had it been an ordinary holiday photo where a non-notable person is obscuring the Eiffel tower, it could be a different story. Either way even the selfie you presented could be deleted in a DR (depending on how the discussion goes), but I wouldn't want to see that image getting tagged F10. (I haven't checked if the uploader is a contributor) - Alexis Jazzping plz09:35, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
Right, thank you both for your clarifications. Fæ's argument that the exemplary image illustrates a typical type of selfie from a certain period of time is indeed a valid reason for it being in scope, I can't say that I disagree. (If we had hundreds of similar, higher quality images illustrating the same thing this might be different based on COM:NOTUSED, but I haven't checked that and anyway this is a bit off-topic here.) My main concern was that the new guideline might be misinterpreted as Commons:Project scope essentially no longer applying for images older than ten years - basically preventing any old image, including the hypothetical Eiffel Tower-obscuring portrait, from being allowed to ever be nominated for being out of scope (and I'm not talking about speedy deletion here, only regular deletion requests). If I'm the only one who thinks the proposal might be misinterpreted that way, then that's great, nothing needs to be changed. In case others share this view, however, what about changing the last sentence of the proposed guideline to the following, just to prevent misunderstandings?
”This means that speedy deletions should be avoided unless there is verifiable evidence of a copyright issue for a file or series of files, and while deletion requests are encouraged for problematic files and Commons:Project scope continues to apply, the nominations should be written starting from a position of good faith and deletions based on scope need to be based on more than personal subjective value."
Speedy deletions are good for duplicates, copyvios, files without a license, new files without a source and for illegal content. But for other files I think its best to start a DR. Just because a file have a bad description and is not used does not mean it is worthless. It could be that the person is in fact well known somewhere (or will be in the future) and the person who start the DR just does not know. With facial recognition it is possible to identify people. That can be both good and bad. But if we keep a lot of "selfies" then perhaps in 5 or 10 years when the person is a famous person and then we will suddenly have free pictures from when they were younger. Who would not love to see Donald Trump as a young boy? :-) On our own pc we get more space by deleting a file but on Commons we don't free space when we delete files. We just move them to a "hidden location". So we could chose to keep files instead of just deleting them. --MGA73 (talk) 11:16, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
If this was a reply specifically to my above comment, please note that I was not talking about speedy deletions, only regular deletion nominations. I certainly agree that speedy deletions should be restricted to the few use cases that you mentioned. In regard to keeping portraits of pretty much anyone (even without current notability) in case the depicted person might turn out to become important later in their life, this is an interesting discussion, but probably one for a different place, as adopting such a policy would require a separate change to Commons:Scope. GFJ (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
As no one has commented on my above proposal of a small change to the new guideline with the aim of preventing misinterpretation, I gather that my concern is not shared by others. I assume then that the suggested change is not needed and I will therefore conclude that community consensus agrees that Commons:Scope remains valid also for grandfathered files, with a sentence specifically pointing this out being unnecessary as it is anyway obvious that Commons:Scope is not automatically overruled by the mere age of a file. GFJ (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Might be tangential, but I'm trying to understand: what (if anything) is the problem with lacking a source if something is obviously in the public domain (ineligible, dating from the 19th century or earlier, first published in the U.S. before 1925, etc.)? - Jmabel ! talk04:17, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing. This is why it's nuts for standard templates like {{information}} to automatically add all uploads to speedy deletion subcategories, just because some of the parameters do not have (arbitrary) text against them like "own" or "not given" or even "unknown". The fact is that if you add "unknown" to every old looking file in Category:Images without source, that would probably be an adequate fix.
This change to our standard templates was made by @Jarekt: in November 2019 without any community consensus to support the change. Further, the change is protected as sysop-only, so that locks out the community and forces us to establish a consensus to change it back even though there was no consensus to make the original change.
Jarekt, would you care to fix the consequences of your change, rather than expecting everyone else to sort it out for you? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:04, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Sorry to mark you out if your later changes did not enable it. There are over 21,000 files in that speedy deletion subcategory so (1) it should not be a speedy deletion subcategory, (2) it's pointless without refinement. Mass dumping of old files in Images without source, should be stopped and preferably abandoned. If someone wants to make helpful backlogs, then a smart bot should do it, not just based on a missing parameter, but assessing if there are recognized source links anywhere in the wikitext, whether the EXIF data has something that makes it obvious, or whether the upload was from a trusted user who happened to upload the file 12 years ago, before someone invented new templates like "map" and decided to paste them mostly blank on the image page.
This has been crappy and unhelpful for a very long time, longer than most of us have been taking part in this project. Now would be a good opportunity to make it better and actually useful rather than something to be ignored. --Fæ (talk) 11:27, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree that Category:Images without source "has been crappy and unhelpful for a very long time", and I would vote to remove it, especially since it mostly overlap with Category:Files with no machine-readable source which is added by MediaWiki software (see Special:TrackingCategories). There are actually few more cases where our templates add a maintenance category which is mostly duplicated by MediaWiki software.
Category:Media without source in information template would be more descriptive name but it is also longer, and since {{Information}} template is used by about 90% of files I would just stick to the original name. However please re-categorize anyway it makes sense to make sure that that is not a speedy-deletion category. Another way would be to just stop adding it to the files, since it is unclear if anybody is using it for anything productive. --Jarekt (talk) 02:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I have used the category to fix a few hundred files. But I suck at working on one thing at a time so I already started to work on something else ;-) I think it could be a nice little project to have 100 users work on fixing source or whatever in those files. --MGA73 (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If you want to fix hundreds at a time, you can do this fairly easily with VPN. Here's a real example:
Search for files in the category that have an obvious fix, like incategory:"Images without source" insource:"{{PD-Art|PD-old-100}}"
Load these in VPN using the link in the toolbar shown for any search, in this case this meant clicking "more" twice to get all 591 matches
Use a regular expression for as many good matches as possible, here /\|( *source *= *)\n/g changes to |$1Not necessary, PD by age.
Double check, examine sample changes, the run for real, in this example 355 changes were made and removed from the tracking category
As a random older example, the changes included File:Portrait of a soldier.jpg which was uploaded in 2007 as "old painting" but has never had a source and has yet to be fully identified as which 18th century painter created it. Clearly a speedy deletion would be highly inappropriate, so the automatic category was pointless, even though more details are needed for the image fully to be of realistic value. --Fæ (talk) 11:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: Yes! If we do it smart we can fix a lot with minimal work. Perhaps we should use a template to add text like that so it can be internationalized. --MGA73 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
@BevinKacon: When we set up limits you can always discuss what is fair. When we speedy delete we have a 7 day limit. Why not 6 or 8 days? I doubt you would oppose speedy deletions just because we have a random set limit. As for spam and other issues you can still nominate for deletion. You just have to do it as a DR instead of a speedy. That way other users have a chance to comment. To be honest we have seen it many times that admins speedy delete without checking files carefully. --MGA73 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Roy17: We should but we all know that it does not always work like that. We have many users that are no longer active on Commons so if someone mark their files with a speedy deletion then there is a good chance (or risk) that the files are deleted without anyone check them carefully. So asking users to be careful and chosing a DR if they think there is a problem with an old file does seem like a good idea to me. As an alternative we could stop using speedies and send all files through a DR but that would kill the process. I think it would be a good balance to be extra careful with old files. --MGA73 (talk) 09:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This project is an educational resource, a potential source of factual media and an outlet for many volunteers to contribute to something meaningful outside of our daily lives. Given that everyone is affected by the Covid-19 pandemic, some of us even living under government restrictions on movement, it is proposed that this April is our project's month of kindness.
Though many of us enjoy doing maintenance tasks and debating copyright issues and policies, this does not mean that we cannot achieve the same project goals without ever stopping being kind to others.
So, how about it? For the next month, we put away sarcasm, jokes at the expense of others, respond to the irritability of others with support, and think twice before pressing the "Publish" button. We can even ask for a site notice to run throughout April reminding us to make extra effort to be kinder in our actions. --Fæ (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, although I think that we should always try to be kind to each other, let's not forget that what some people experience as an attack may have been meant in good faith. But I do think that in general we should have "a welcome committee", especially for new users who have only uploaded copyright violations, these users usually get walls filled with threatening warnings and deletion requests, maybe having a special group of people dedicated to give them case studies and encouraging what files are allowed to be uploaded, how Freedom of Panorama (FoP) works, how you can recognise that an image from a website is freely useable (for example explaining that not all Creative Commons licenses are compatible with Wikimedia Commons), and other solutions directed at the individual and how they can both use and contribute to Wikimedia Commons. I believe that we should try to welcome users more with kindness, so we could have a higher editor retention rate. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:11, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support To put away sarcasm, jokes at the expense of others, respond to the irritability of others with support, and think twice before pressing the "Publish" button is a good recommendation for all the year round, but on the other hand, declaring a single month as "month of kindness" might seem contrived, forced, and also implying that we otherwise aren't kind. In my experience, most people here are kind enough all the time; and I'm not sure that those who are unreformable grumblers and grinches will react well to such a declaration. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose This should be normal behaviour, if it isn't then that needs to be fixed in the longer term, not just for a month. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:46, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Support We should be grateful all year long but it's nice to have Thanksgiving to remind us. Similarly with charity and Christmas or romantic love and Valentine's. Sounds like a good theme. I will say that launching something like this on April 1 is a bad idea, tho. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯20:14, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
Let's brainstorm how to implement this better, maybe we could add more kinder wording to some templates, like we could keep a notice of copyright violation in its entirety, but sithen add a small statement like "If you have any questions about how copyright works you can ask me (with an explanation of how pinging and replying works) or visit the copyright village pump". Maybe this month can also be dedicated to create more user-friendly tools and we can host a contest where those that develop tools that help users with certain problems can benefit. Kindness is more than just being nice, it's also trying to prevent future conflicts. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:16, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Category:Talk page trimmer is something you add your talk page to now. It trims down shouty deletion notices and copyvio notices to the bare minimum. Many folks have said they find these large standard but shouty notices unnecessarily hostile.
A different option could be to have an initial full notice, but then intelligently add further notices about the same thing in an automatically shorter form that avoids being a "warning" or looking like "escalation" but more a "notification". --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I am personally not a fan of the trimmer, but do understand why some people like it. But if a user had had less than 1000 (one-thousand), or possibly less than 10 previous DR or copyright notices, edits it may automatically add a notice for where they can learn more about copyright, the project scope, Etc. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:55, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
I'll suffer physical problems if I can't use sarcasm. Besides that, I try to treat everyone with the respect they deserve all year round. - Alexis Jazzping plz16:59, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps for April, you could take extra caution to keep the sarcasm to those that realise it's not meant to be unkind and maybe where there is not a peanut gallery that might misuse it? --Fæ (talk) 17:20, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
If I might make a recommendation: Rather than a sitenotice, perhaps an editnotice on all talk namespaces would be more helpful. --Yair rand (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
And maybe use the month of April to encourage the use of the thanks feature and WikiLove (I already have one photographer in mind to give a barnstar). pandakekok909:18, 14 March 2020 (UTC)
What about a Wiki Loves silliness and encourage funny photos, that meet scope and promote them to the main page, lets laugh a bit Gnangarra03:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Closing and next actions for "the kindness project"
As the vote has been open for 16 days with supermajority support, and we need a bit of time to take any actions, I suggest we discuss the closure. If the implementation is in a week's time (4 April) this neatly skips the potential for misuse for April Fool's jokes and gives sufficient time to get some feedback on the wording of any notice(s).
As suggested in the discussion, the addition of an edit notice may be more useful than a site notice, in particular as edit notices only get seen by editors, not readers. Other thoughts welcome! --Fæ (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Any suggestions as to what month this would best run as April is now ending? It may be an idea to pick July, as there are a number of celebrations that may not be happening in 'real-life' but help foster goodwill (Pride, Independence, etc.) --Fæ (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)
Photographs of established academics, writers, artists are in scope
There is significant debate and muddying the waters caused by deletions of photographs of people because they might not meet Wikipedia's more stringent definitions of notability. It is proposed that to reduce uncertainty, COM:Scope is interpreted by the following "norms":
Photographs of University academics either a faculty member in full-time tenure as a lecturer or researcher, or where they work under time-limited project contracts but are reasonably established by their peer-reviewed and independently cited publications in their field, are of educational value.
Photographs of writers or journalists of any kind with a track record of referenced publications that can be rationalized as having a reasonable public footprint or impact, are of educational value.
Photographs of artists including photographers and performance artists who are well established in their field, for example with a track record of gallery exhibitions, catalogues of their works, formal public recognition of their works through independent reviews or prizes, or non-trivial sales of their works are of educational value.
The understanding on Wikimedia Commons of "educational value" is only related to any decisions on sister projects against their local policies on notability, by anyone meeting those separate notability policies will always be in scope on Commons. The decision of whether photographs of people are in-scope on Commons is based on educational value and this value is assessed independently of article or media deletions on sister projects.
Oppose extending COM:SCOPE here beyond "used in a Wikimedia project". I note, that it may be automatically extended if Google Scholar or a similar database is imported into Wikidata. But this did not happen yet. Ankry (talk) 12:46, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Nothing in this proposal is not already covered by Scope (explicitly "freely-licensed educational media"). That you appear to be limiting this project's scope only to photographs of use to Wikipedia is a misunderstanding of Scope. --Fæ (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
This contradicts my understanding of educational purpose. Personal photos of non-notable people are unlikely to be useful in any educational process. So assuming that being a faculty member or a writer who write a single book makes somebody automatically notable is not a good idea, IMO. This activity may be accidental, people change their job and ask us later to remove their image from Commons for privacy reasons. My position is that if we cannot be sure that we will be able to keep an image permanently, we should not allow to upload it. Ankry (talk) 07:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose I believe that the enwiki essay en:WP:CREEP is useful here. If something merits an article on any project it is already in scope here. Adding additional lines is pointless and unnecessary. If they don't merit an article, having a picture of them doesn't serve our purpose at all. We aren't a repository for random photos. --Majora (talk) 20:31, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@Majora: I would add to that/clarify that the "something" only needs to merit an article or Wikidata item. It doesn't actually need to have one. If/when the article/item is created, the photo can be added to it. Our actual scope is even more broad, but for the sake of simplicity I'm omitting some things. - Alexis Jazzping plz21:20, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
That is a fair point, Alexis. Most of what Fae wants to add to the scope page already merits an article on some other project. If we just follow our own guideline as it is already written there shouldn't be a problem. If a deletion occurs on scope grounds that you think shouldn't have happened please request undeletion. Scope DRs are some of the hardest ones admins have to deal with. Especially when there isn't additional comments besides the nominator. I expect us to make mistakes from time to time on such things. --Majora (talk) 21:34, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Support, although what the definition of "Established" is can vary from person to person, and while someone living in Bumfrick, USA might believe that Singy McSingface is an "established artist" because they're really famous in their village or hamlet, people from the village over might have never heard of them. This system can very, very easily be abused. On the other hand, many upcoming writers, artists, and academics may have free images of themselves available right now that may be deleted from the internet tomorrow and could have been imported today. There are many reasons why this should and shouldn't be adopted, but I am leaning more towards a support simply because it will be more inclusive towards the global academic community and the benefits outweigh the deficits. Very straightforward and would make it easier for people to identify who is and isn't within scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment I think all cases mentioned fit the Wikidata notability guidelines and so the photos are in scope as "The aim of Wikimedia Commons is to provide a media file repository: that acts as a common repository for the various projects of the Wikimedia Foundation.". --GPSLeo (talk) 22:14, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: that's why I think we need a more broad rule, if we need one at all. I don't like specifying all these groups. What about YouTubers? (or are those covered by artists?) TV personalities? CEOs of major companies? If the subject is eligible for a Wikidata item or could be used in (a section of) an article that would be within the scope of another project, regardless of whether or not that item or article actually exists in the present, the file should be kept. - Alexis Jazzping plz17:56, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: , here is the notability policy of d:Wikidata:Notability. I don't see anything useful there. Is "clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity" useful enough? If so, let's write it here on Commons and stop depending on Wikidata. I agree with a very broad interpretation of SCOPE. We only need to delete images of "nobodies". Some Wikipedians come here and nominate images of a recently-deleted Wikipedia article for deletion here at Commons. I don't think we should honor such requests. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:43, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: the full quote is "It refers to an instance of a clearly identifiable conceptual or material entity. The entity must be notable, in the sense that it can be described using serious and publicly available references." and that's quite good, it may even roughly match Commons scope. Some random files:
What's up with the random page feature? I've clicked it dozens of times and not a single food item, unless you count the giraffe. Described in cookbooks > in scope
Image of your local plumber > as a plumber in general, in scope. As being your local plumber, not in scope: no serious references exist.
Selfie from the uploader > as a selfie in general, in scope. As an image of the uploader, no serious references. (unless the uploader happens to be a celebrity, in which case it's in scope)
Oppose the job titles provided are not globally defined, making this proposal very open to interpretation. Besides, any person who is "well established in their field" will be mentioned or have their page on another project.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Not necessarily. w:Vivian Stephens, an African-American romance author only got a English Wikipedia page this year despite being a founder of the w:Romance Writers of America, one of the largest writing organizations in America. Stephens should have gotten a Wikipedia page 10 years ago! I think clarifying the guidelines to include established writers, artists and University professors is a step in the right direction, as it further reinforces that we are not an annex of Wikipedia, but a peer project of Wikipedia. Abzeronow (talk) 17:56, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Support such photographs could be very useful for people writing articles in magazines, local newspapers etc. But the possible usage such pictures (as mentioned by Fae) isn't obvious for everyone. Therefor it's best to spell it out. Natuur12 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose: As per Majora. The existing policy already covers such cases sufficiently and the proposal unnecessarily bloats our guidelines. Also, if despite of the danger of excessive formalization and bureaucracy the aim is to create more specific definitions of what is considered educationally useful than what we already have, one should at least be consistent and do this for every notable profession, every notable type of object, every notable event. Spelling out details for only very few particular professions, but not for the majority of other notable professions, seems rather random and is in my opinion not helpful. GFJ (talk) 22:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
Support Per Fæ, commons shouldn't follow Wikipedia. Curating media files is different than writing an encyclopedia. // Eatcha (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I think the current form of COM:SCOPE is enough to cover such things. We can always use COM:DR to establish a consensus on interpreting COM:SCOPE. I won't mind though if this proposal passes, but it should be broader per 4nn1l2. --pandakekok902:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Support The general principle of it, the listed photographs are already in scope, I would never think of nominating anything like that for deletion, unless there is some other problem (copyright, etc). However, I think that listing several accepted photographs can be misleading to some admins, who haven't familiarised themselves with the scope of the project, they may start deleting other in scope photographs with "Not in the list of acceptable media" or something like that as a rationale. I am unsure how to make it clear that this is a non-exhaustive list, since it may be that the misunderstanding is often intentional. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 10:48, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I think the current form of COM:SCOPE is enough to cover all those examples. I would Support adding them as examples, but I agree with User:Gone_Postal that we do not want to make scope more restrictive for files not on the list. --Jarekt (talk) 17:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Oppose Can we please not start creating lists of individual subjects that are or are not in scope? COM:SCOPE is short and concise and I'd hate to see it turn into another de:WP:RK. Our rule is Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose. When something is used on a Wikipedia, that implies that it is educationally useful. Something not being used on any Wikipedia means nothing. Keep in mind that there are many language versions of Wikipedia, there are many other sister Projects and there are many, many non-Wikimedia educational Projects that benefit from us providing media files. Something not being considered "notable" on en.WP doesn't mean much. --El Grafo (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
It may seem weird, but "Something not being used on any Wikipedia means nothing" is not how COM:Scope is being interpreted right now, even by some administrators and bureaucrats. An article deletion on the English Wikipedia is being used as a reason to delete perfectly in scope files of these types from Commons; that's "something" rather than "nothing". --Fæ (talk) 11:44, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
If that's the problem we're trying to solve, shouldn't we amend COM:SCOPE to make that rule more explicit instead of adding an exception for a very small subset of files? (Personally I think that is already quite clear, and if the document is being ignored, amending it will not solve anything). – BMacZero (🗩) 16:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose per Majora, also per the concerns of Gone Postal. I would support adding one or two examples per Jarekt, though. Sebari– aka Srittau (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)
Support make this explicit because there are obviously people who do not understand these are in scope and insist on Wikipedia-level notability. - Jmabel ! talk22:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Support. Educational value should be considered not only as educational value in our projects but an also in webs or books out of Commons. Closing DR's with the rational "in use" should be include also educational use out of our project. -- Geagea (talk) 01:59, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Neutral I think we want to ensure that COM:SCOPE is sufficiently permissive, but listing it all out is going to be a mess. Soon we'll be making criteria about small-town mayors, members of the C-suite of a Fortune 500 company, etc. I think for starters, anyone who performs publicly in front of a large audience is in scope; so if you go to a conference, you can just upload the pictures you took of all the presenters without worrying about scope issues. Anyone who publishes a paper in a recognized journal should also be in scope; perhaps Wikimedia will decide to host open-access journals one day and it will be useful to link the authors to their pictures. Actually, a professional-quality photo of anyone (could be a portrait or a picture of them doing something) is in scope; it can be used to illustrate photographic techniques, the activity they are engaging in, w:Man, w:Woman, w:Boy, w:Girl, etc. It's the poorly taken selfies we want to keep out. -- King of♥♦♣ ♠ 04:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
I think this can include more cases, some mentioned above by 4nn1l2. Moreover, there are files of things other than people (e.g. free/below COM:TOO logos) that can fall within the project scope, and be used to illustrate a Wikipedia article or a Wikidata item in the future (or even now, in some cases). It might be better to encourage everyone to use common sense and determine if a file is likely to be used in another project, or to make this proposal broader. Sometimes, COM:SCOPE can be very tricky. Ahmadtalk18:48, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. 4nn1l2 (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
artificially upscaling or enlarging using any tool, including AI-based or deep learning services
.png){kind=link}
Support Sounds reasonable. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)
Done, unanimous support Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:00, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
Oppose no reason has been given why 10 years, why not 9, or 5? It is far too broad, file should at least be in use. I still actually find spam and other speedy files older than 10 years. This will just grow the DR backlog. If it's an issue with CSD F10 criteria, then the proposal should be to amend that.--BevinKacon (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2020 (UTC)
Question regarding the interpretation of "deletions based on scope need to be based on more than personal subjective value": Under the new guideline, would the specific image File:Tishos.JPG still be eligible for deletion if nominated in a regular deletion request for being out of scope? (In case the exemplary image gets deleted, for future reference: it is a portrait depicting a non-notable person, it is not in use (also not as a personal image on a user page), but it was uploaded more than ten years ago.) If the answer is yes, I fully support this proposal as I agree that for files of this age extra scrutiny is highly useful to prevent hasty deletions. If not, the proposal may require a little bit of rewording, however, as it might be (mis?)interpreted as Commons:Project scope no longer applying to files as soon as they have reached ten years of age. GFJ (talk) 12:43, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Comment (Edit conflict) The easy solution is to rename Category:Images without source to Category:Media without source in information template and put it in Category:Media missing information and make a link in Category:Media without a source to Category:Media without source in information template. That way all files are removed from the speedy deletion category and there is still a link to the category. --MGA73 (talk) 13:29, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Weak support To put away sarcasm, jokes at the expense of others, respond to the irritability of others with support, and think twice before pressing the "Publish" button is a good recommendation for all the year round, but on the other hand, declaring a single month as "month of kindness" might seem contrived, forced, and also implying that we otherwise aren't kind. In my experience, most people here are kind enough all the time; and I'm not sure that those who are unreformable grumblers and grinches will react well to such a declaration. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:25, 14 March 2020 (UTC).JPG){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Neutral I think the current form of COM:SCOPE is enough to cover such things. We can always use COM:DR to establish a consensus on interpreting COM:SCOPE. I won't mind though if this proposal passes, but it should be broader per 4nn1l2. --pandakekok9 02:10, 24 March 2020 (UTC)