Jump to content

Commons:Village pump

This page is semi-protected against editing.
From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2025/04.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Category:English-language SVG charts etc 14 2 Prototyperspective 2025-04-25 17:43
2 Category:Green (text) 17 6 Pigsonthewing 2025-04-27 16:23
3 Dating postcard with 45 cent stamp 10 6 Smiley.toerist 2025-04-30 23:20
4 Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps 14 6 Pigsonthewing 2025-04-26 18:42
5 What if ...? 6 5 Ziko 2025-05-02 20:07
6 Help choosing scanning resolution for photos 6 6 Nosferattus 2025-04-28 05:20
7 To whom it may concern 4 4 Pigsonthewing 2025-04-26 18:37
8 CORDO - Tool to navigate open DRs 13 4 Tvpuppy 2025-05-01 12:24
9 How do we handle documents for say a person named John Smith 12 7 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2025-04-27 20:22
10 Major design problem in Visual Editor 19 9 Tduk 2025-05-01 22:44
11 Use of images from a website without authorization 6 6 Asclepias 2025-04-28 19:45
12 Categorizing files by the same person when their anonymous 4 4 NearEMPTiness 2025-05-02 09:46
13 Hearst Castle 7 4 Omphalographer 2025-04-28 21:30
14 Naming conventions for flags (for example Flag of Honduras) 10 5 Panam2014 2025-05-01 10:55
15 source text of SVGs 5 4 RoyZuo 2025-04-28 18:21
16 probleme with templates ? 2 2 Tvpuppy 2025-04-28 17:44
17 Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter 1 1 Keegan (WMF) 2025-04-29 03:40
18 Is this allowed? 9 3 RoyZuo 2025-05-01 06:00
19 Commons Gazette 2025-05 1 1 RoyZuo 2025-05-01 05:57
20 Arrival 1946 in Israël picture 2 2 Enyavar 2025-05-02 15:16
21 Category-related POV-pushing 26 12 Abzeronow 2025-05-02 18:58
22 Are we nearly there yet? 5000 media of 2018 needing categories, please 1 1 NearEMPTiness 2025-05-02 04:09
23 Unsure how Canadian and USA copyright law interact here regarding AI fan art 2 2 ReneeWrites 2025-05-02 14:58
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

April 17

Category:English-language SVG charts etc

Does it make sense to add datagraphics to it? That category

  • does not contain very many SVG datagraphics in English
  • Adding a translation using the SVG Translate tool does not add a language category like that automatically so many translated SVG files do not have such (at least for many of the langs they had been translated to)
  • In the search one can filter by the SVG filetype

--Prototyperspective (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If it's good to have and files should be added, I'll add lots of files there. Either we have these cats and they are meant to be as complete as possible or we don't. If these exist, I think it would be best if some bot added or moved cats accordingly, so for example if it's an SVG file and somewhere in the charts category, it would be moved to Category:SVG charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you mean by "datagraphics"? The word is not in Wiktionary, and a Google search is absolutely unilluminating. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Graphics that visualize data; and you can add a space between data and graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't clarify much. Which of the following would fall within what you mean?
Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why you make this thread be about another subject that's at most tangential. That's not the subject; I think the first is clearly a datagraphic and the fifth an information graphic and all the other ones are diagrams or mathematical/physics graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all tangential. You asked, "Does it make sense to add datagraphics to it?" Almost a week later, no one had responded, probably because (like me) they could not work out what your vague term meant.
As far as I can tell, all of these in some sense provide a visual representation of data, that's why I gave them as examples; based on your response, it appears to be a question of the nature of the data and also (if the fifth does not fall in this category) the nature of the representation. Could you explain why the second and fourth one don't qualify? Is it the nature of the data? Or are you just remarking on them not being labeled in English (it would have taken a lot longer for me to find examples with English-language labels, that wasn't the thrust of my question, sorry if that was unclear). - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It could be a good idea to have a thread about that, I mean it's a good subject, just not very relevant here: simply replace word "datagraphics" in my post with word "graphics" or when it comes to the cat linked in the thread title with word "charts".
I don't see which data the second is supposed to visualize. Data graphics are about clear data like the data in the first graphic. The fourth seems to be a schema, not actual measures of hormetic dose response, it illustrates roughly how the response is thought to be. It would be a datagraphic if it visualized say 100 people's measures with an average. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying the "data" has to be data about the actual material world, not (for example) random numbers or an arbitrary test case. Correct? FWIW, for the second one I suspect it does map the data from some real-world experiment, but it is not well enough documented for us to know, so ultimately it is hard to care. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. The second one may be about actual data but it doesn't visualize it an understandable meaningful way as far as I can see; I don't know if this scribbled chaotic something is supposed to make sense to people but it doesn't seem like it. I think it's not statistical. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably that one is positional. So let's extrapolate a bit: let's say it represented the observed movement of a pod of whales over time, and was captioned in English with dates corresponding to a few points. Would it then qualify?
Anyway, if I now understand correctly, what you are proposing to add to Category:English-language SVG charts are SVG charts that express real-world statistical data, and have at least some captioning in English? That sounds entirely reasonable. Or is there something beyond that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This whole thread is basically entirely not about charts & other datagraphics until you asked about it because I had used that term in the examples. It's about those categories by SVG filetype. Your questions are interesting and this one tricky but again not the subject where the three issues in relation to the question remains unanswered. A map that shows the movement of just one whale but not many whales is a tricky edge case where I'm not sure whether it's a data graphic; I think a map that shows the movement of hundreds of whales would be as it would show an oceanic species movement patterns. Somebody else may give a better answer on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective: then I'm back to being completely confused. Your initial question, as I read it, was whether it was useful to "add datagraphics" to Category:English-language SVG charts. I have no idea how I (or anyone) was supposed to answer that without understanding what you meant by "datagraphics". Given the clarification, my answer is yes, it is useful (though I suspect that if you are adding a lot, there will be a need for mores subcategories.
But how can you think someone can answer a question without understanding the words used in asking the question? This had sat for over 6 days with no response, quite likely because no one else could make any more sense of it than I could. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As said, just replace that word with broader "graphics" (in all of the initial post). It's about the by-filetype-category. Okay, so I'll add all those graphics. But then still those three points remain unaddressed. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 20

Is there a category for files with this technical issue?

--Trade (talk) 02:43, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: What issue? I reset the QuickTime 144p (MJPEG) transcode successfully.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please watch the video Trade (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to be the same on YouTube, so it is not a bug on our end but a weird issue with the original video file uploaded. Not sure if there is such a category though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 24

Category:Green (text)

I would expect the contents of Category:Green (text) to be graphical or physical renditions of the string "green", in logos, signwriting, street name signs, etc.

However, it has been filled with works with the word "green" in the title. Is that correct? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The parent Category:Images by text says "Files should only be included in a text category if the exact text features prominently...". From a quick look I can see the string "green" visible in images, but not obviously and it tends to be in book/document cover pages. I had the street name signs expectation also. @Ooligan who has been adding/changing a lot of "green" cats very recently. Commander Keane (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan, thanks for noting this to me.
@Commander Keane, when I added that text, I think the main thrust was that the text (in this case, "green") should be visible in the file. This was to differentiate from things that might have 'green' in the file name, or be images of the color green, or other things simply named 'green'. As for using the term prominently, I think there is room to discuss whether this is a useful qualification, and if so, exactly what constitutes 'prominence' for these categories. Josh (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I notified @Joshbaumgartner on his talk page, because his written quotation was used by Commander Keane. I will repost the relevant part of that communication here.
My early, in depth experience with these categories were back in 2022 here:
The Categories for Discussion (CfD) linked above did not mention the word "prominently" nor was that subject discussed. "Prominence" should not a factor to including a file in the Xxxx (text) categories. If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text).
The 2022 CfD above contains the example link Category:747 (number), which does not require "prominence" for a number file to be included in that category and the hundreds of other similar Xxxx (number) categories. A more directly similar Category:Numbers on objects by number- also, does not require any pre-conditions to add to these categories.
Ooligan (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan: over(?) populating the category doesn't bother me too much. But as an illustration, if a human was making additions they would be more selective than OCR bot, and once the OCR bot is done many uncategorised files fall off the "Files needing categories" backlog.
Ideally one day we will able to mark on files with a box where the string "green" appears and sort by percentage of frame taken up.
If consensus agrees, the wording of the parent category that I quoted should be changed to show how inclusive it is. Commander Keane (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, @Commander Keane, "If consensus agrees, the wording of the parent category that I quoted should be changed to show how inclusive it is." -- Ooligan (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 2022 CfD was focused on the naming of subcategories of Category:Text; they previously had names like Category:Text:Chicago instead of the current Category:Chicago (text). The scope of what belongs in those categories wasn't a topic. Omphalographer (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "The scope of what belongs in those categories wasn't a topic." @Omphalographer. This discussion will help with scope. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

"If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text)." Do you know how many of our PDFs contain the word "green"? Are we going to classify every PDF we have by each word it contains? Category:The (text) is going to be fun! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:59, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No. Regarding PDF files, the "text" subject to categorization should be only from the cover, book jacket or title page. Not, "by each word it contains." -- Ooligan (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
So the claim in the quote I highlighted was false?
"the cover, book jacket or title page" Can you link to a discussion resulting in consensus that such usages should be included? Even if so, categorising by every word in a book's title, let alone title page, will be excessive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Andy, I'm sure you have searched, and I cannot find such a link either. I have clarified my thought regarding "green" in text. It it my opinion- with which you may disagree, but it is not "false." Please, "assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.''"
You wrote, "I would expect the contents of Category:Green (text) to be graphical or physical renditions of the string "green", in logos, signwriting, street name signs, etc." (underline added). I agree and would include book covers, book dust jackets, and only the title pages of books, documents, and reports.
Most of volunteers that have commented here have years more experience and I will fully support whatever is decided here. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Either the claim "If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text)." is true, or it is false. Which is it? It it not a failure to assume good faith to point out the contradiction between the two answers given, and nor is the requirement to assume good faith a free pass for the making of contradictory claims.
Both of your statements, including the latter, with "only" both emboldened and italicized, are presented as facts - for which you now say you can find no consensus - not opinion.
The titles and title pages of books, documents and reports are usually not graphical or physical representations of words in the context in which I described them, so despite saying you agree with those criteria, you seemingly do not.
It appears that no-one else here supports the categorisation of works according to the use of specific words, such as "green", in the title. Please revert your recent changes in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy, I have reverted my recent changes. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have also removed images such as File:Green Street tiles, Carrollton, New Orleans.jpg, which should be in that category. Do you plan to restore them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree with Pigsonthewing here. The whole thing is rather excessive. It's not super useful either since books that have the word "green" their title don't usually share anything else in Common. Or they will be in other categories together anyway if they do. Like I'm sure there's a lot of nutrition or recipe books that have the word "green" in the title, but their already going to be in same (or a similar) category for books. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And, if you really wanted to find any PDF with "green" in its title, you could find that with search. Duplicating the functionality of search is a poor use for categories. Omphalographer (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Dating postcard with 45 cent stamp

Out of the context this must be in the 1920s. A more precise dating (posted) is posible with the 45 cent French stamp. When was this type of stamp used in France?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I hazard a guess and say: 1929. Despite its low readability, the stamp looks like it contains these ciphers at the place where the year should be, compare it e.g. to this image of this one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
1939, based on the stamp first being sold in 1939. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say 1939. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The posted date would be 1939, but I hink the picture was probably from several years before. (The postcards in the shops where not renewed annualy, but replenished when needed) The tram (from line 57) is number 542, one of the original Série A build in 1899. (fr:Ancien_tramway_de_Marseille) Better to describe it as 1930s instead of 1920s. I think there are some 1930s automobile models, but I am no expert. There are no horse drawn vehicles, as I would expect in the 1920s and earlier.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:White on blue house number 3.jpg This french house number has the flat top with an angular downward stroke. That is the same shape as the partially visible "39" on the postmark. Likely, a 1930's postcard -- Ooligan (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
is the point of camera roughly 43.2957, 5.3745? RoyZuo (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think so (I work with classic coordinates, degrees, minutes, etc). The two streets and the harbour are easily found.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the coordinates. Is there a parameter for elevation? I looks as if it would have been taken form about the 5e floor. They did not have drones at that time.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:20, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I only see only males in the picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps

Hi, does screenshots of OpenStreetMaps and GoogleMaps that are free to use and publically available have any copyright? Can we use such screenshots in Wikipedia freely? For example, is this screenshot valid by copyright?

File:بندرگاه بوشهر 2.png

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:42, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: They have copyright in most cases, and only the copyright holders may license that copyright. You may not use them here on Commons without such licenses, as has been pointed out to you multiple times on your user talk page. Without proof that such images are free, we must consider them to be copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression on Earth under the Berne Convention. See also COM:ANU#Hooman Mallahzadeh, COM:EVID, and COM:NETC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Ok. I wanted to be sure about that. I will add speedy delete to all 4 images myself. Here are some other satellite images that should be acted the same. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done I myself added Speedydelete template to all four images from GoogleMaps. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Taking permission from GoogleMaps for using its maps in Wikipedia

Hi, I really think that the maps of GoogleMaps have high-quality, therefore for some Wikipedia articles they are really suitable. For example, for my previous university, the map of GoogleMap is very appropriate for showing the university campus. So I propose to consult GoogleMap and get some permission for donig so. I really believe that Google would not disagree with it. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: You may go ahead and ask them, they will very probably say no, or ask for an exorbitant licensing fee. If they say you can use their maps under Fair Use, be aware of COM:FAIR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. How about OpenStreetMaps? I should note that we use OSM maps frequently in Wikipedia. Do you think they don't grant permission for using its satellite maps in Wikipedia? To be honest, I added a thread about that in English Village pump here. But my problem is about taking photos (like screenshots) from their maps and upload such images. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
OpenStreetMap does not have own aerial images, they only use images they are under a free license or with special permission. Just click on the source mentioned in the OSM editor to check what the license of the aerial images is. GPSLeo (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you can get GoogleMaps to specifically grant free licenses to useful high-quality maps, GREAT! We'd look forward to receiving their explicit license permission via COM:VRT or statements on their own website. Until or unless that happens, they are still non-free copyrighted works, and don't belong here on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    I doubt Google (more so Alphabet Inc.) will ever release their satellite content under free CC-BY/CC-BY-SA licensing. Google needs tons of bucks for them to pay annual royalties to many artists' collectives, including the anti-Wikipedia and anti-FoP French group ADAGP, for them to legally host images or videos of copyrighted artworks and architectures on their platforms like YouTube. Not to mention musical licensing arrangements between Google and musical societies like FILSCAP of the Philippines. Having Google release their content under free licensing is like Google setting up a time bomb to kill themselves (in my figurative sense, exposing themselves to financial losses just to please free culture advocates). Additionally, the satellite views of several satellite imageries used by Google Maps or Google Earth are provided by third-party providers, like Landsat. This makes licensing negotiations complex. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Do note that, while Google has the copyrights to their satellite imagery and maps, OpenStreetMap map data concerning features of this planet and the roads thereon based on editors' physical investigation data can be found at www.openstreetmap.org, is freely licensed, and can be uploaded here using {{OpenStreetMap}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G. Do you mean we can upload a screenshot from a map of OpenStreetMap that has satellite background and then in the file description write something like:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bamberg_in_OpenTopoMap.png&action=edit
Am I true? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Or you mean: screenshot image of OpenStreetMap template must lack satellite background but for other usages (such as only roads) it is suitable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You can only upload screenshots of OSM maps, not aerial images. Look at the examples in Category:OpenStreetMap_maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 25

What if ...?

I thought about this longer. In a recent post, I saw that the Wikimedia Foundation has to obey local laws, which is of course understandable. Commons hosts many US governmental files, as they are in public domain. But what if the US Government enforces an executive order or a censorship law that prohibits the reupload/access of officially removed/revoked US Gov files (after the mass deletion of 2025 online resources)? Would they (i.e. WMF) give in or could they ignore it by going over servers abroad? What do you think, also about possible attempts to censor access to information in the US, as Wiki projects are a natural enemy to oppressive regimes? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Removing files from government websites does not effect their copyright status. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know, but the regime might make up another reason, independent from copyright status --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What if horses sprout wings and fly?
Trump, who does not seem much to care about law, could presumably put out an executive order overruling the Copyright Act of 1976 in this respect. That executive order would presumably be illegal (since there is no ambiguity in the law), and the only point where we even might have any reason to consider it is if a court were to determine on some grounds, presumably not one we could imagine in advance, that it had some validity.
Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to say that speculation about crazy regimes and censorship like this isn't healthy and that the US' stabilty, legal protections and tax-exempt status for the WMF is valuable. Then I saw the recent the recent post below, the corresponding en.wiki discussion and the legal letter sent to the WMF. Commander Keane (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"What if horses sprout wings and fly?" I don't find that a respectful response to a reasonable concern. Ziko van Dijk (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Help choosing scanning resolution for photos

what resolution? 25 April 1993 at the protest en:March on Washington for Lesbian, Gay and Bi Equal Rights and Liberation.

I am writing to get advice on what resolution I should use to scan film photos, and an explanation for how to make that decision. It is costly to scan at the highest resolution, and if I use high resolution, I want that choice to make sense for the photos that I have.

Are low, medium, and high resolution scans different in this case?

I see guidance throughout the Commons documentation that users should upload content at the highest resolution, but I am questioning that advice.

I am scanning physical film taken in 1993 from a camera. The time difference to scan low / medium / high resolution is significant. As I look at the different outcomes, I personally cannot identify great differences in detail. The photo File:Aerial view of five Parkmerced apartment buildings.jpg is elsewhere used as an example of why uploaders should use high resolution photos, and I understand that because by zooming in, it is easy to see more detail. That file zooms in nicely, but is only a small 8mb. With my photos, high resolution makes 25mb files, and to me it appears that zooming in just makes the pixels larger without clarifying anything. Any computer can zoom in on photos regardless of resolution, and when I zoom in with my device, I see no difference between low resolution and high resolution scans. I am not sure when the benefits diminish for higher resolution scanning.

I uploaded three resolution versions in a single Commons file. Here they are -

Please advise - what is the difference in value for archival scans at these three resolutions? Bluerasberry (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It can depend on the scanner but I have an Epson Scan 600 and have found that scanning at 1200 DPI and saving the images as Jpegs is the best way to do it. I use to scan images at 1200 DPI and save them as TIFF files but they ended up being to large and I don't think people are using images for print much these days anyway, which is the only justification for TIFF files. Really, you could probably get away with scanning 600 DPI jpegs and you'd be fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If all of the photos were taken with the same camera and type of film, your "medium resolution" scan should be sufficient for all of them. The film grain is already clearly visible at that resolution - there's unlikely to be any more detail left to capture in the original photos. Omphalographer (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
e/c
I'll approach it from a different perspective.
If you want to print something at a size of 8 by 10 inches, then you want to have a resolution of at least 8 megapixels.
If you want to print something at a size of 4 by 5 inches, then 2 megapixels is enough.
Many photos taken on 35 mm film are suitable for 8 by 10 inch prints. If you want to go larger, then one needs a very fine grain film or a larger than 35 mm film format.
The Freaks photo does not seem suited for 8 by 10 reproduction. It is either grainy or blurred, so the medium resolution (6 MP) is enough. The large banner does not have a uniform color, and some text on a white sign is not sharp. I do not know why. I did not see a place in the photo that has substantially better focus than other. The film may be grainy, old, or a long exposure with camera movement. Colors on old prints would bleed.
I am not happy with the Parkmerced photo either. The cars at the upper left look like they are double exposed: steady for half the exposure and then a jump movement to another steady half. That seems an unlikely circumstance.
When I was using film, there was a huge difference between Plus-X and Tri-X. With Plus-X one could get fine details. Not so with Tri-X.
I had seen the black and white movie Arsenic and Old Lace on TV, but several years ago I saw a 35-mm print at a theatre. I was blown away by the resolution.
Resolution is not everything. Compare
The smaller size, lower resolution is sharper. Look at the weave of his shirt.
Glrx (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In short: The best quality available. Scanners usually allow choices like 1200dpi or more, in theory. But above a certain border, a scanner cannot achieve more details when increasing the dpi rate. Many scanners reach their physical resolution at 800dpi, which means that scans of 1200dpi or more don't achieve better quality. A research can be useful, depending on the model --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The answer depends strongly on what kind of camera and film were used, what the lighting conditions were, and how sharp the focus is in the image. There's no point scanning a blurry or noisy photo at 1200 dpi. Personally, for non-professional photographs I don't think scanning at higher than 600 dpi is usually necessary. In the examples that you present, I would choose something higher than medium, but lower than high. Nosferattus (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 26

To whom it may concern

Trump’s D.C. Prosecutor Threatens Wikipedia’s Tax-Exempt Status

It pertains to Wikipedia, but its effects spill over here and across all other projects.

By the way, can this be uploaded here? RodRabelo7 (talk) 04:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

en.wiki Village Pump (WMF) discussion. Commander Keane (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: Yes, it was produced by Edward R. Martin, Jr., acting in his job of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, on DOJ letterhead. Use {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's interim United States Attorney for DC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

CORDO - Tool to navigate open DRs

Hii, I built this rather simple tool called CORDO (I messed up the acronym :D) that tries to guess "tags" for open DRs and then would allow you to only check open DRs in those tags ordered based on whatever you like (oldest, newest, most votes, lowest votes, random). You can also try to look for DRs that the tool couldn't guess a tag for and if you add DR categories such as Category:AI-generation related deletion requests/pending, it would be updated in the next run. The guesses are based on policies mentioned in the nomination reason (if you say OOS, it picks COM:OOS as tag, etc.). It's not perfect but I hope it'd be useful. Please let me know if it helps. Amir (talk) 12:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making this. This is an interesting way to view DRs, I already find it useful for adding categories (tags) to DR that doesn’t have them. I will try to use it for a couple days and see if there is any problems, but looking good so far. Tvpuppy (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't tried it yet, but does it also support FoP tags? With location? Like Category:German FOP cases/pending? Maybe the tool could guess the relevant geolocation by either checking the categories of the nominated file or the coordinates (if available). Even if the tool wouldn't be able to guess what DR is FoP-related, it would still be helpful if one could filter DRs by country because each country has its own laws regarding FoP, TOO, and even AI-generated images, and if you are only familiar with the rules of one country but not all the other countries, you might want to only see DRs that concern that particular country. Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana It does support all of that. Take a look! I hope you like it. Amir (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting but it doesn't show thumbnails. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Prototyperspective It's not super hard to implement it. Would you mind filing a feature request in phabricator? Amir (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
✓ Done: phab:T392809 and also created the wikidata item: CORDO (Q134234021). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed there isn’t tags for the DRs converted from “No license/permission/source since”, like this one for example. Is it possible to add tags for those? Tvpuppy (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tvpuppy It's not hard to implement. I can try that. What tag do you recommend? COM:COPYRIGHT? Amir (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How about adding new tags for them with a name like “No license”, “No permission” and “No source”? That will be more straightforward, like the existing tag “Wrong license”. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvpuppy Sure. Sounds good. I get it done ASAP. Amir (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tvpuppy Done! Amir (talk) 12:07, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Tvpuppy (talk) 12:24, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How do we handle documents for say a person named John Smith

How do we handle documents for say a person named John Smith, where we are not sure yet which of the 10 John Smiths they belong to. Should we have a special category with something like "Category:John Smith (undifferentiated)" or something similar? Currently these would be under "Category:Smith (surname)" but, to be useful they need to be more specific. These would be obituaries or news articles or baptism records. Someone in the future may be able to assign them to the proper person. I may be doing research on a specific John Smith and come across documents that are ambiguous, but would be useful in the future for researchers. RAN (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Personally, I probably wouldn't add them to a person category, but just to categories for e.g. the newspaper or church or archive, and 'documents of [place]' or similar. And make sure the names in the description, so that searching will find them. If there were lots, perhaps a user category about your research would be appropriate, e.g. 'John Smith research' or 'RAN's family history'. Sam Wilson 01:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What do you know about these John Smith files to connect them to a category? If you know a death date, location etc maybe Wikidata would accept a new item about them, so that a merge later could collect all of the files. Then tag all the files with that item. I am assuming they are in scope for Commons and thus Wikidata.
There is wikidata:Wikidata:Article placeholder which is a vaguely similar concept. Commander Keane (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of creating Non-empty disambiguation categories similar to Category:Memphis. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I'd probably go about it, too, if there's a disambiguation category. Nakonana (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And maybe add Category:Unidentified people [of the United States] (or whichever country it is). Nakonana (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't create specific categories for unidentified people by name since it's a potentially endless pit and there's no way of knowing if the people actually have the same names in a lot of instances anyway. But categories for "unidentified people by country" seems fine. Although I'd still confine the categories for people that there's information about on here. We don't need a bunch of "1910 unidentified people at bust length in the backgrounds of black and white portrait photographs of London" or whatever categories on here. So either there's information about, and a chance we can identify, them at some point or there isn't and they shouldn't be put in a category for unidentified people. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that anyone proposed to create categories for unidentified people by name. The proposal was just to add files of any unidentified John Smiths in Category:John Smith (which is a disambiguation category), even if it would turn this category into a non-empty disambiguation category. Nakonana (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Nakonana: Richard Arthur Norton's original comment said "Should we have a special category with something like "Category:John Smith (undifferentiated)." That sounds like creating categories for unidentified people by name to me. Although admittedly not for unidentified individuals but I still don't think it should be done that way regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see, I thought you were replying to NearEMPTiness or me. Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Answering the original question, disambiguation categories should suffice on their own: All name-categories must either refer to one unambiguous person (no other person of the same name has a category on Commons yet) or to a name disambiguation (several persons of the same name have content on Commons, and they are disambiguated by a descriptor and/or by birth year/lifespan).
The rationale behind that is: if the name is all we know (as categorizers), we must be able to just put it into the category of that exact name. For example The rodents of Iowa, by Dayton Stoner. The name category for Category:Dayton Stoner doesn't even exist yet, although it could be turned blue with the information we already have at hand. If in the future, we learn that "Dayton Stoner" also is the name of other relevant people, we have to turn the name category into a disambiguation one, referring to "Dayton Stoner (1883-1944)"; "Dayton Stoner (baseball player)"; "Dayton Stoner (zoologist, 1987-2046)"... Just like we do for Category:James Thompson, with Category:James R. Thompson (politician), Category:James R. Thompson (engineer)...
That is what I observe as the standard practice right now: Common name categories like "John Smith" (John M. Smith, however John M. Smith and yet also John M. Smith), "Anne Taylor", "Peter Jackson", "Marie Laplace", "Robert Müller", "Wudi" can be automatically assumed disambiguation categories. And if I just encounter the surname of an author (like "M. Laplace, R. Müller etc"), I will accordingly assign the category "Laplace (surname)" and "Müller (surname)". --Enyavar (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks!, the above makes sense. I will make, say, Category:Lenora Jackson into the disambiguation category, and make a new Category:Lenora Jackson (1800-1900), for the ones that belong specifically to them. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 27

Major design problem in Visual Editor

If you go to a Wikipedia article and want to add a new image to an article, you can select one from your computer. When you do so, you're presented with a checkbox "This is my own work" then in fine print underneath "I attest that I own the copyright on this file, and agree to irrevocably release this file to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 license, and I agree to the Terms of Use." First issue is that's not a very good explanation of release of rights (tiny text using only the name of the license without its implications). Let's say I upload something. Now I can look at it while editing the article. Ok, now I'm done looking at it in the article and decide to discard my changes. The edit window closes and you're back to the main article. But surprise! The image you uploaded has been transferred over to Commons already, even if you don't save your edit! Not so much as a heads up "edits discarded, but image kept" or somesuch.

I spent the last 20 minutes talking with a user who did just this, to see how their snail photo looked in an article about the snail, then did not save the page. Later, someone else added the image to the article, they noticed, and panicked. They went about getting it deleted all wrong, lashing out, creating sockpuppets, vandalizing (not their first time vandalizing, either), and the photo was kept. Once I looked past the distressed bad actions and looked at the actual process they went through, I understood how they could be so confused. This is something we should take into consideration when considering a courtesy deletion. I've emailed the closer of that DR to reconsider, but I'll hold off on specifics here, because I mainly want to flag this as a design problem.

Ping for Sannita (WMF). — Rhododendrites talk |  03:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to just agree here (as I was also helping the user, and was able to prove - in their case - that they uploaded it through the Visual Editor but did NOT hit publish). Many websites (Facebook, etc), let you fill out forms, put photos up, etc, but require you to review your work before you Publish it. We all understand why Wiki works the way it does, but to a newcomer, it may not even seem remotely possible that a partially edited then cancelled page could result in their material being published on a site they have no awareness of. Tduk (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Some background. This is mw:Upload dialog (cross-wiki upload), available through VisualEditor and wikitext editor. It is most commonly used on sister projects like Wikipedia.
The first step has an "Upload" button that presumably doesn't upload the file. The next step's "Save" button must upload the file to Commons and insert it in the editor. Then cancelling the edit closes the editor without touching the Wikipedia article, but the file has already been uploaded to Commons.
The interface does need an overhaul. Commander Keane (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like very poor design.
And again, commons sysops should act more prudentially and leniently instead of bureaucratically, especially while interacting with newbies.
Here's an idea: for users making their 1st crosswiki upload, make a popup that will not go away without double confirmation, or like the tutorial graphic of uploadwizard that only goes away if the user ticks the box.
On commons side, perhaps we can make a gadget that targets "new" users (edit count < x) that shows them a floating virtual helper on different namespace, so we make it explicitly clear to them what to do if they want a file deleted, renamed, etc. RoyZuo (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did comment above about an overhaul, but perhaps realistically only some minor modifications will get done. If it works as I suspect, what about changing the first button to "Next" and the button that actually does the upload to "Upload to Wikimedia Commons"? Commander Keane (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We already decided that we want this to be turned of in the current version because of these problems. Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/08#Deactivate cross-wiki uploads for new users. But this is still not done as there is no maintainer for the tool. We could decide to simply block all uploads using this tool but that would result in massive complaints by people seeing a tool that they can not use. GPSLeo (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Could we particularly flag uploads that happen that have no corresponding edit on the source site (like in this case?)... OR at least make people aware of the problem and how to see it (the edit description on commons is what made me look into this further). Tduk (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that one easy first step might be to write a bot to periodically generate a report on Commons images which were "uploaded while editing" within the last few days, but which are not in use on any page. This would also end up identifying images which were inserted into a page, but where that edit was reverted or the page was deleted - many of which would probably be deletion candidates as well. Omphalographer (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"there is no maintainer for the tool"
if that's true then that's very strange for wmf. put in a piece of software and then stop maintaining it? seriously? RoyZuo (talk) 06:06, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@RoyZuo: It's a very sad state of affairs. The tool should be wound down properly. Perhaps @Sannita (WMF) has some insight on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:11, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T370598
@Rhododendrites Thanks for the courtesy ping. Unfortunately, this does not sit with the Structured Content team, as it is something that relates more with Visual Editor, I'll try to pass it on to the specific team. I thought that the deactivation of cross-wiki uploads would have prevented the upload, though. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Sannita (WMF), I thought you had suggested we ping you for any Commons-related issue of relevance to the WMF. Did I get that wrong? — Rhododendrites talk |  13:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Rhododendrites For the time being, yes, I'm the one to ping for this, but the problem is that cross-wiki uploads are not related to the team I support. I'll see if I can find support from another team about this. It would be easier for me to point them to a Phabricator ticket where the problem is fully explained, so that the devs would have an easier time finding a solution. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for your help. — Rhododendrites talk |  11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF) (and all others who want to help) Phabricator ticket at [1]. The Tduk (talk) 22:44, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It also sounds like even though cross-wiki uploads were supposed to be disabled, this change hasn't happened yet (according to @GPSLeo above. I haven't actually tried to upload something fully but the en.wiki Visual Editor seems to imply it still supports it. Tduk (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
File:Rhododendrites test upload.jpg was uploaded from enwiki. Opened the Visual Editor, added an image, then discarded my edits, and it remains. — Rhododendrites talk |  11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 100% related but pretty frequently when I upload files through the Upload Wizard they will error out but still be uploaded to Commons. It really should be clear that the file was uploaded in both cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have had that happen too. That's a similar problem but not really the same cause; but I wonder if doing something like alerting any user who hasn't disabled alerts when their account uploads to Commons makes sense. Tduk (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Use of images from a website without authorization

Hello,
I have noted a lot of images are copied from the http://www.hubert-herald.nl/ website. However, it is indicated here :
This site is private and non-commercial [...] The information (texts or pictures) of this site may be used for private purposes but only after permission of the webmaster and with credit/link to this site. [...] It is not allowed to use texts or images of this site on Wikipedia without permission ! For commercial purposes permission of the webmaster of this site is always needed.
Therefore, all images should be deleted if they do not have a confirmed OTRS ticket. What do you think? Moumou82 (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hubert-herald.nl+-insource%3APD+-svg
probably none should be deleted. RoyZuo (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory glance tells me he doesn't own the rights to most of the images he hosts on his site, as he didn't create them. The images of coats of arms of states and provinces in countries where those are in the public domain, images that are too old or simple to be copyrighted, etc. can all be hosted here. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There are two photographs of objects that will have to be deleted. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their copyright would only apply to their original text and images, republishing historical images that have their copyright expired would not restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

See also Commons:Bistro#Utilisation d'images d'un site sans autorisation. -- Asclepias (talk) 19:45, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing files by the same person when their anonymous

Hi. Images of postcards have been categorized by publisher for a while now. It works fine when the name of the publisher is known. For obvious reasons it doesn't work when the publisher is anonymous. But there's plenty of instances where we know certain postcards are published by the same person even if there isn't a name printed on them. For instance when the postcards share the same design or have a logo. I'd like to organize postcards together in those situations but I'm kind of at a lose about how to do it. "Postcards published by red text in Futura font" doesn't seem ideal. So does anyone know how I could go about it?

Hm. You could provide examples, maybe. Not knowing how any of those postcards look, I could imagine "Postcards by publisher with a red triangle logo" could do. And then, once someone finds out who that publisher was, all these postcards can be mass-moved towards their name. --Enyavar (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This might call for a maintenance category rather than a topical category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • What do you think about "Postcards by publishers using red text in Futura font" or "Postcards with red Futura lettering"? Some of these can be moved into a more precise category, as soon as the publisher becomes known. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hearst Castle

I was at San Simeon last month, and am trying to upload my photos of Hearst Castle. However, the subcats of Category:Hearst Castle look to me to be a singular mess, and no one seems to be active to answer questions about them. I was wondering whether someone familiar with the subject (I am only passingly so) would take a good look at them. Among the many issues I see:

Again: I can spot this as a mess, and I did start to try to fix a little of it, but I rapidly worked out that I am way out of my depth. This is only the second time I've ever been to San Simeon (the first was as a child in the 1960s), I have no expertise on the subject, etc.

The upshot of this for me as an individual contributor: I'm going to throw most of my uploads into the also oddly named Category:-=To be Sorted - Upload Here=- (Hearst Castle) and hope someone else can work out what to do with them. - Jmabel ! talk` Jmabel ! talk 20:08, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Further: gallery Hearst Castle is underpopulated, poorly chosen, and certainly no aid at all to anyone trying to categorize images of the complex. Hasn't been touched in over a decade. - Jmabel ! talk`
Agree the categories look a mess. I suggest you leave a message on the parent category talk page Category talk:Hearst Castle, as well as a message on the talk pages of any of the major category creators still active directing them to that talk. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did a bit of pecking away at some more obvious cases, though much more clearly will need doing. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I followed up on your latest, to better arrange the existing categories for rooms. But it is going to be a lot of work.
I repeatedly pinged the person who did the bulk of this, with various specific questions, got no response. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that part of the problem here is that some of the editors active in this category have invented their own names for sculptures and other features of the building, e.g. Category:Nike - Suffering Cushing Reflex (Hearst Castle). (The Cushing reflex is a symptom of a stroke; this seems to be a joking reference to the fact that the sculpture is holding its hands to its head as if it's experiencing a terrible headache.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
People do that a lot here and on Wikidata for unnamed sculptures. Otherwise there wouldn't be a way to create categories or items for them. I brought it up on Wikidata once and they don't seem to care about it. So I can't say I blame people. There really should be better rules and more enforcement to deal with that kind of stuff though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Right - I mean that they may have invented names not only for individual sculptures, but also for groups of sculptures and/or physical features of the property like "Chiton", "Effects", "Strigils", or "Sacred Ways and Celestial Byways" as mentioned above. Omphalographer (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Naming conventions for flags (for example Flag of Honduras)

Given the ongoing discussion of the Syrian flag, and by request of User:Panam2014 on my talk page (and discussed with User:Jmabel briefly), I wanted to discuss further our naming conventions of recently changed flags and Honduras's flag in particular because that may be one of the least controversial to discuss. Abzeronow (talk) 23:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: Are you saying you want to discuss it here (in which case, start by laying out the issues) or that you want people to participate in a discussion elsewhere (in which case, link)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, I should have been more clear, I wanted to start the discussion here and I didn't want to forget to do it. Basically, as evidenced on the of Syria (2025-) talk page], there is an idea that "Flag of Foo" (where Foo is a country) should always be a redirect so our templates can always stay up to date when they just want the country's flag. Regimes and flags can change within some of our lifetimes (my country the United States has last updated its flag in 1960) and we obviously also want a stable name for the current flag of a country, which is why the current flag of Syria is named File:Flag of Syria (2025-).svg. Some are resistant to this idea and always want the current flag to be a file. Since we are doing this for Syria, there is the question of "renaming the flags who have been adopted recently, like Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan, Mauritania, Malawi, Myanmar, Libya, Turkmenistan, Iraq, DR Congo, Georgia, Rwanda" that was posed on talk page. Of course, we should start where the discussion would be least controversial. Honduras in 2022 changed the color of its flag from navy blue to turquoise in accordance to a 1949 decree that had never been carried out as en:Flag of Honduras explains. The file File:Flag of Honduras.svg shows revisions with the old navy blue flag and the new turquoise flag. So if the Honduras flag file should be a redirect, should the file be split and then older versions merged with the file depicting the old flag? Should all revisions be moved to a File:Flag of Honduras (2022-).svg file? Basically, it would be a good idea to hammer out what we should do when flags of countries change so the disruption to various Wikimedia projects is minimal and have a good idea of how to "futureproof" flags of countries. I hope I've started to lay out the issues that make for a fruitful discussion on these matters. Abzeronow (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Abzeronow: as you know, I'm on the side of moving toward having File:Flag of FOO always be a redirect. Then we can tell sister projects that if you want an article (e.g. about a particular city, or the national football team) to just show whatever is the current flag, use File:Flag of FOO; if it is important that it show a particular flag and not change over time (e.g. you are writing about a particular event, and want the article to retain the chronologically accurate flag for that event) you use something more like File:Flag of FOO 1928-1972 or File:Flag of FOO 1972-.
In theory, the redirect between File:Flag of FOO and, say, File:Flag of FOO 1972- could go either way. I favor having File:Flag of FOO be the redirect, because it seems to me to leave the histories clearer when the flag might later change. If File:Flag of FOO is a redirect, and the flag of FOO changes in 2027, we just:
If the redirect is the other way around, we have to do something like:
There are other ways to do it, but I think they all leave behind confusing file histories. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should not have such naming guidelines and redirects. The template use case is exactly what Wikidata is for. If the templates just use the current flag from Wikidata the name of the file on Commons does not matter. GPSLeo (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: are there any Wikipedias that currently do this through Wikidata? (Let me guess that if there is one it is de-wiki, because so much of the Wikidata expertise is in Germany.) I know en-wiki does not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know. Dewiki is also one of the wikis using the lowest amount of Wikidata. Not even simple info boxes use Wikidata as fallback for photos. Wikipedia and Wikidata community in Germany are quite separate. During the introduction of structured data we even had discussions if it would be better to get rid of the file names entirely and use the M-ID instead. We should not support using a system of file names and wikitext page redirects to keep old templates working. Instead we should encourage everyone to use a more reliable solution using modules and Wikidata. GPSLeo (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we should get rid of filenames and use m id. i had the same thoughts special:permalink/1026118809#thoughts. also cat titles, all page titles in general. RoyZuo (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
for 2 obvious reasons:
  1. we shouldnt and cant decide what's the "correct" title for a file or which file is "correct" for a title.
  2. we can host a myriad of different versions and leave what they should be called to people who use those files.
RoyZuo (talk) 06:04, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I support the changes. We should split the current file and transfer the pre 2022 versions to File:Flag of the Republic of Honduras (1949-2022).svg. Panam2014 (talk) 10:55, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 28

source text of SVGs

Please excuse me if this question has been asked and answered before, but is there currently some way of viewing the source code of an SVG file hosted on Commons without needing to manually download it first? If not, is such a thing even feasible with the way MediaWiki stores files (that is, with part of the md5 in the file path)? Arlo James Barnes 14:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Rillke/SVGedit.js  REAL 💬 ⬆   14:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Seems like it is needing some adapting to the new Vector skin? 'Edit' no longer has a dropdown menu, for example. Ah wait, it's in the 'Tools' menu now. Arlo James Barnes 14:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
MediaWiki just works with the whole file; MW does not have a facility to scroll through file without downloading the whole file. However, the download need not be "manual" (i.e., not manually saved to the user's download directory). Go to the File: page. Click on the image to display the actual SVG in the browser (this downloads the SVG file to the browser automatically). On Windows, I can then right click the image and select "View page source" (alternatively Control+U). That action displays the SVG source in a new browser tab. Sometimes the display is easy to read, but sometimes the display is a single line: it depends on how the source code was formatted. I also use SVGedit.js, but that is usually when I make a small edit to the SVG. Another method is to look at the SVG in a browser window and then open development tools (Windows F12) and select the elements tab. That allows hierarchical traversal of the elements. Glrx (talk) 15:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
i use firefox on windows. here's what i do:
click the preview thumbnail, or "Original file"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Emoji_u1f601.svg
right click anywhere on the page
"View Page Source". RoyZuo (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

probleme with templates ?

Category:Corbelled turrets in Occitanie shows Occitania in the introbox, which is the English name for Occitanie.

Category:Corbelled turrets in Bretagne doesn't show Brittany nor Bretagne in the introbox.

There is something wrong somwhere, can't figure out where. Io Herodotus (talk) 15:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Io Herodotus, it is now showing “Brittany” in the navbox, sometimes it happens to newly creating page, so you just have to purge the page or make a null edit (submit edit without editing anything) once to get it to update. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

April 29

Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter

The voting period for the revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter closes on 1 May 2025 at 23:59 UTC (find in your time zone). Read the information on how to participate and read over the proposal before voting on the UCoC page on Meta-wiki.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community in your language, as appropriate, so they can participate as well.

In cooperation with the U4C --

Keegan (WMF) (talk) 03:40, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Is this allowed?

I want to post two screenshots from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qteXC4rltdk&t=3925s concerning old Swiss Police files about Rudolf Steiner. Is this allowed? I'm asking, because I don't want to upload those if those get deleted. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:36, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I assume your talking about police photographs of Rudolf Steiner. If so, is there a reason not to just upload the originals? --Adamant1 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, User:Adamant1, I don't know how to get the originals.
Also, I'm talking about copies of typewritten papers. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if government works in Switzerland are PD or not but there's official documents having to do with Rudolf Steiner online if you look for them. I would just do that instead of taking a screenshot of a video. That's not a great way to upload documents or images of them on here. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:08, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: Just do a Google search for "Rudolf Steiner documents." They aren't hard to find. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:15, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Adamant1 What I found on Google is curated by his believers. And they generally refrain from presenting their new religious movement in a bad light. While the Police files do present Steiner in a bad light. Tgeorgescu (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I said "official documents." Not something from a random blog. I'm sure you get the difference. Put a little time into it and do some research. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:45, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Adamant1 If you mean Rudolf Steiner Archiv, the people who run it think that rational critics are in cahoots with Ahriman (i.e. Satan). They would not publish a file which states that Steiner was psychiatrically abnormal.
I've checked the website of the Swiss Federal Archive, but I can't find the file.
Steiner died before WW2, so I presume the Police file is not copyrighted anymore.
Anyway, the question was: is this allowed or not? If it is allowed, time passes, and someone replaces the screenshots with better photos, that is also okay. I'm not willing to upload the screenshots if that's contrary to website policy.
It's not from a random blog. It's from the official YouTube channel of ARTE, a bona fide TV broadcaster. It is a documentary made by ZDF, a bona fide TV broadcaster. I just want to know if it's allowed. Tgeorgescu (talk) 14:03, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Tgeorgescu: there seem to be two interlinked questions here: are these documents genuine and are they copyrighted? If they are pre-WWII police documents, they are almost certainly now out of copyright in Switzerland. On the other hand, if they are less than 95 years old (currently, 1930 or later), URAA restoration could still make them copyrighted in the U.S. As to whether the source is to be trusted for accurate reproduction, that's probably not something that Commons would try to rule on in this case, but it might be an issue for a Wikipedia or other sister project where you might want to use them. - ~~`` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmabel (talk • contribs) 18:43, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Just one thing: there's an extra muted speaker icon in the bottom right corner, so it seems arte did a screen recording of some other video? maybe that video could be found and you might find even more original document. RoyZuo (talk) 06:00, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 01

Commons Gazette 2025-05

Volunteer staff changes

In April 2025, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 178 sysops.

Other news

Edited by User:Prototyperspective and User:RoyZuo.

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 05:57, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Arrival 1946 in Israël picture

I have a picture of a bus arriving at jewish settlement, with on the backside the text:

Arrivé d'immigrants en Israël, le 19 mai 1946. It is likely to be zionist propaganda (very enthousiastic welcome)

There is the copyrigth notice of Tallandier. I havent been able tp find anything on this Tallandier. I dont know when the phofografer may have died.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:02, 1 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Are you sure that Tallandier is the photographer? This might be the French publishing company fr:Éditions Tallandier (est. 1901). If they own that picture, you'll have to wait just a few short years: it will already become public domain in 2042. --Enyavar (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

May 02

I recently happened to notice the account Chenspec adding the category Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War. Intrigued, I decided to access the category, as I was unfamiliar with the term "blood libel". I ended up learning, through Wikipedia, that it refers to a false antisemitic accusation alleging that Jews use the blood of Christians in religious rituals. Such a notion is, of course, reprehensible.

However, in the category in question, which also includes "Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war", I find only ordinary individuals holding signs with messages such as "Stop killing children" [2], "Stop genocide" [3], "Stop war crimes" [4], and "Stop the slaughter of innocent children, women, elderly men, and babies" [5]. I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals, nor anything that could reasonably be considered antisemitic, except through dishonest fallacies that completely distort the meaning of the term.

Furthermore, the categories Israeli apartheid and South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention) are listed as subcategories. I fail to understand how the concept of Israeli apartheid—treated as a matter of fact on Wikipedia—could bear any relation to "blood libel", nor how the South African government's accusation that Israel is committing genocide could be deemed antisemitic or interpreted as an allegation of using the blood of innocent children in macabre rituals.

Thus, I propose that the category be deleted and that the account Chenspec be monitored for possible attempts of POV-pushing. I open this thread here to give the matter greater visibility, as I believe I could simply empty the category myself, but then it would be just as easy for them to revert my edit. Thank you, RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:13, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo, JWilz12345, Queen of Hearts, and Ratekreel: Would you like to give your opinion on the matter? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:18, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@A1Cafel and Kingofthedead: As the ones who uploaded the mentioned photos, would you also like to comment? RodRabelo7 (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What you wrote is not accurate - a blood libel is a false anti-Semitic accusation against Jews. The problem with them is that throughout history, blood libels have led to various pogroms, murders, and harassment against Jews. Although the libel about Jews murdering Christian babies and using their blood is a common blood libel, it is not the only one. In fact, this is one example of a particular case that belongs to a broader pattern. In today's context, false accusations of the Jewish state of genocide and apartheid are relevant examples that reflect the same pattern. Chenspec (talk) 05:53, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"I see no one holding placards accusing Jews of using Christian blood in obscure rituals" - so you are clearly not accustomed or knowledgeable in this issue, since a blood libel is also referred throuout history as any false accusation against Jews including in Russia. W:Blood libel includes also other allegations, such as "versions of the blood libel accused Jews of ritually re-enacting the crucifixion" and more. So the narrow verbal interpretation of blood libel only as "Jews use Christians' blood" is mistaken. Ehud Amir (talk) 08:16, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even so, see the comments below, especially the one by Josve05a. By the way, an average of 70 edits per year on Commons and just happened to stumble upon this topic? Curious. RodRabelo7 (talk) 14:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that anyone who has an even slightly critical opinion of the war in Gaza is antisemitic or committing blood libel is laughable at best. If anything, that kind of attitude about the war just increases antisemitism. More to the point, in this case it's just an attempt to use Commons to push a nationalistic political agenda with the category system, which we don't allow for. So the category should be deleted for the Category-related POV-pushing that it clearly is. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:11, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A false accusation of genocide is not a "slightly critical opinion" Chenspec (talk) 06:20, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing I didn't say it was. The important thing is that it's still not blood libel or antisemitic. That's even assuming it's not a genocide to begin with but even if it's not, the category is still nationalistic, political POV-pushing regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:27, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This shows this topic is to complex to fit into a category system. Therefore we should not try to fit it into the category system. Just delete all categories they label something in a political way unless there is no serious doubt about that label. Describing the topic and the discussions about is the task of Wikipedia not of Categories on Commons. GPSLeo (talk) 06:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds reasonable to me as long as this policy is included in all relevant cases, including the category Israeli apartheid. Chenspec (talk) 07:22, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't seem fair to me. This topic was opened because you are associating people protesting and a sovereign country accusing another of genocide with blood libel, which according to the Wikipedia page refers to Jews using Christian blood in rituals. There's a false equivalence here, especially since the Israeli apartheid is controversial precisely mostly, if not only because its existence is denied by those who perpetrate it. See the article on the English Wikipedia, which as I mentioned treats it as a fact. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:38, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a huge fan of any political categories myself but at least images like this one show an accusation of Israeli apartheid, which is the point in the category. Whereas, this image is just of someone wearing a shirt with the word "Palestine" on it. A shirt with the name of a geographical location on it obviously isn't antisemitic or blood libel. Unless your going to argue the actual State of Palestine is antisemitic and it's mere existence is slander against Jews. Let alone that someone wearing a shirt in support of it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should rename the category Category:Israeli apartheid to Category:Media related to Israeli apartheid discourse. The Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War should be renamed to Category:References to Blood libel at Israel–Hamas war related protests and all files with no direct reference should be removed from the category. GPSLeo (talk) 08:24, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about something like that, but I'd still argue that someone wearing a Palestine shirt isn't a reference to blood libel or has anything to do with it. If we extend the definition of "blood libel" to any accusation towards Jews or the Jewish state then it's essentially meaningless at that point. Category:Blood libel is pretty clearly about the historical trope of falsely accusing Jews of kidnaping and murdered the children of Christians in order to use their blood as part of religious rituals. That's what the description for the category says, it's what the Wikidata item says, that's the definition of blood libel on Wikipedia and Google search. Blood libel has nothing to do with the state of Isreal either. Know one outside of extreme Jewish or Israeli nationalists would say it's blood libel to simply criticize a Jew or the Jewish state regardless of the accusation being made. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:39, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are no photos directly referencing blood libel in that category and only maybe 5-10 with possible indirect reference. GPSLeo (talk) 09:41, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1 - The photo you mentioned was not cataloged because of the caption on the shirt but because of the caption on the sign "Stop Genocide" Chenspec (talk) 10:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the importance of distinguishing between legitimate criticism of a state and blood libels. Things that I think go beyond legitimate criticism and fall under the definition of blood libels are false accusations of genocide, war crimes or apartheid. As well as false comparisons to the Nazi regime - which are actually more implicit accusations of genocide. To the best of my memory, all the images that are categorized there are associated with one or more of these options. If there is an image that is not clear why it is there or another type of blood libel that I have not mentioned here - you are welcome to ask and I will be happy to answer.

I also emphasize that blood libels include false accusations only. If the accusation is about an event that occurred in reality - that is a different issue. However, it is important to remember that Wikipedia is not a place for primary research, so the determination of the very existence of various events, or the way in which they should be interpreted, should come from official and reliable external sources that are relevant to the subject.

Regarding changing the names of the categories to some wording that would clarify that this is a discussion around a specific issue and not a determination of the nature of the case itself, I am also okay with it as long as it is applied to all relevant categories equally. Chenspec (talk) 10:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not a place for advancing political narratives (neither implicitly nor explicitly) through categorization. Per my reading of Commons:Categories, categories should reflect verifiable facts (my emphasis, not a direct quote), not interpretations or arguments. Terms like blood libel are deeply historically loaded and, per both w:Blood libel and d:Q498273, refer specifically to false allegations that Jews murder non-Jews (typically Christians) to use their blood in religious rituals. This is not a flexible metaphor; it's a precise concept. Broadening it to mean “any false accusation against a Jewish person or Israel” dilutes its meaning and injects WP:POV into Commons, which violates both COM:NPOV and COM:SCOPE. None of the images currently in Category:Blood libels during the Swords of Iron War include references to blood rituals, nor do they invoke Jewish identity in any direct way. Most of them are images of protests making general political or humanitarian statements like “Stop genocide.” That may be seen as unfair, hyperbolic, or offensive by some, but it is not blood libel. To include such media in this category is at best a misunderstanding, and at worst a clear case of POV-pushing. Commons categories are not the place for editors to make judgment calls on which political claims are true or false. That belongs to reliable sources and (where needed) Wikipedia articles that can weigh them with context and citations, not to Commons file categories. I therefore support deletion of these kind of categories in their current form, as it violates policy on neutrality and factual categorization. If there's a valid need to track visual documentation of such accusations (e.g., actual protest signs referring to blood libel tropes), a much narrower and carefully scoped category may be considered, but that is not what this is. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:36, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest to just create categories like "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing war crimes", "Protest posters accusing Israel government committing genocide" or "Protest posters comparing Israel government with national socialism". Then the category makes a simple and verifiable statement what is visible. The photos can also be categorized in Categories like "Protests in support of Palestine" or "Protests in support of Hamas". But trying to guess the cultural background of a protest poster is nothing that should be done in Commons categories. GPSLeo (talk) 11:43, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I also support deletion per Josve05a and others above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also in favor of deleting the category and moving its contents to Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine.
As much as I'm in favor of letting the conversation run its course before action is taken, I removed the "Blood Libel" categories from Category:Israeli apartheid and Category:South Africa v. Israel (Genocide Convention). I've also removed the category Category:Antisemitism during the Israel–Hamas war from Category:Demonstrations and protests related to 2023 Israel–Hamas war in support of Palestine, all of which were put there by Chenspec. Pro-Palestine protests are not inherently anti-semitic. Any images found to be anti-semitic in nature can be moved to the appropriate subcategories. This is a wholly inappropriate use of the category system. ReneeWrites (talk) 15:12, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There has been an obvious hijacking of the category system to defend a specific POV, which is totally out of Commons scope. I second all others that defended deleting that category. The categories suggested @GPSLeo would allow people to find that specific content without falling into terms loaded with POV. Darwin Ahoy! 15:29, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fully agreed that this is not "Blood libel" (medieval/modern accusations against Jews kidnapping and murdering children for secret rituals). The Gaza genocide is committed by the government of Israel, not "shadowy Jews" and not even by the general populace in Israel. It's also committed in the open, not in secret; and people aren't killed for dark rituals either. Just because 19th/20th-century antisemitic sentiment was entirely unfounded and racist, does that dark past not delegimitate todays Anti-War protests. (This would be different with stereotyped antisemitic posters.) Regarding this category,  Delete. (Edit: Someone in the discussion above also mentioned Category:Israeli apartheid. That is a long-standing BDS idea and seems POV too.) --Enyavar (talk) 15:32, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion. This exploits and dilutes the term "blood libel" to the point of making it meaningless. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also support deletion. Blood libel has a specific meaning and this is not within the meaning of that. Abzeronow (talk) 18:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are we nearly there yet? 5000 media of 2018 needing categories, please

We need your help, please, to categorise 5,000 files from "M" to "W", or by adding categories to more obvious candidates in between. We started on 6 November 2024 at 43,242 files, but now it is getting more and more difficult. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I have used AI to create an image of the character Jirel of Joiry, and would like to upload it here. However, I'm not sure how Commons treats the interaction of the copyright laws of Canada (where I live) and the USA (where Commons' servers are located).

The description that I intend to use is:

AI-generated fan art of the character Jirel of Joiry as she appeared at the beginning of the story "The Black God's Kiss" by C. L. Moore.

"The Black God's Kiss" was published in the October 1934 issue of Weird Tales, which is stated by the Internet Archive to be in the Public Domain. This, there is no copyright issue with making a derivative work based on a story published in that magazine issue.

The image was created by User:Robkelk using Google's ImageFX tool, with the seed 999660 and the description "A realistic image of a tall woman in her mid-30s, with an athletic build and a face that is more handsome than beautiful with an expression of barely-contained anger. She has short red hair and hazel eyes. She wears a sleeveless chain-link tunic over a long-sleeved doeskin leather shirt, doeskin leather leggings with Roman-style greaves, and leather boots. Her belt has a sheathed dagger, and she carries an old but sharp shortsword. She stands in front of a simple wooden throne that is sized for her to use." That prompt is the sixth iteration of the prompt used to create earlier versions of the image, so the creator assumes that this counts as human-guided creation rather than sole AI creation.

Canadian law is silent on the copyright status of human-guided AI-generated images. Assuming that the AI tool is just that – a tool – Rob Kelk claims copyright of this image and licences it under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International licence.

I would tag the upload with the template "Fan art" and the categories "AI-generated fan art" and "Jirel of Joiry".

Is it permitted to upload the image here? If "yes", is there anything else that I need to add to the description and licence texts?

--Robkelk (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Robkelk: The character itself would be in the public domain, so any copyright of fanart would transfer over to the creator of the image without it being shared by other copyright holders. Whether Canadian law says this author is you, or considers it to have no author due to the image being AI-generated, Commons should be able to host the image either way. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=1027111820"