Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/03.

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:People of the United States Department of State 8 5 Jeff G. 2024-03-23 13:08
2 Amateur drawings 34 16 Quick1984 2024-03-29 04:44
3 Camel? 7 5 Broichmore 2024-03-25 18:31
4 Inscription 12 7 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 16:57
5 Help with artist's signature 12 4 Choliamb 2024-03-29 16:31
6 Stools 4 4 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 17:02
7 Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey 2 2 Tuvalkin 2024-03-25 17:03
8 Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese) 8 4 Miya 2024-03-29 05:39
9 Uncategorized categories 2 2 Prototyperspective 2024-03-26 12:52
10 Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates 2 2 HyperGaruda 2024-03-24 04:27
11 The Bagel Effect 2 2 ReneeWrites 2024-03-25 23:26
12 Scope of Commons 8 4 Jmabel 2024-03-27 22:31
13 {{Redacted}} source 16 5 Trade 2024-03-25 23:17
14 Pseudomummies 7 3 RP88 2024-03-25 11:23
15 Yearbooks and copyright 17 8 David.Monniaux 2024-03-28 17:48
16 Image seems to have been deleted against consensus, also questions about keeping ai generated images in scope 7 4 Pi.1415926535 2024-03-27 21:59
17 File:RuizPineda.jpg 2 2 GPSLeo 2024-03-27 17:52
18 Viewmaster 3D images of the moon 8 4 C.Suthorn 2024-03-29 19:53
19 Raiden (Mortal Komat) vs. Raiden (Metal Gear) 3 3 ReneeWrites 2024-03-28 22:47
20 File:Crocus City Hall attack, Moscow, Russia (2024-03-23-06-26-46 UMBRA-06).tiff 2 2 GPSLeo 2024-03-28 13:27
21 A building in Carcassonne 3 2 Pigsonthewing 2024-03-28 17:22
22 Guidance re possible copyleft trolling 10 4 Jmabel 2024-03-29 20:04
23 Alternatives to file verification 1 1 MGeog2022 2024-03-29 18:49
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.
Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [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.

March 13[edit]

Category:People of the United States Department of State[edit]

under Category:People of the United States Department of State are

what's the difference? any example of a person who belongs to only 1 of the 2 cats? RZuo (talk) 10:19, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert on US government structures but "Diplomats" would only cover those empowered to represent their government when speaking to another country. "Officials" would include people in support functions that keep the department running but who don't have direct interaction with foreign governments. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:53, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense. like the auditor within the department is not a diplomat.
but is it correct to assume that all Diplomats of the United States‎ are officials of the DOS? so Diplomats of the United States‎ should be a subcat of Officials of the United States Department of State‎? RZuo (talk) 15:44, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, while it is true that all U.S. diplomats are U.S. officials, not all U.S. diplomats are officials of the Department of State. A classic example is a U.S. military attaché attached to a diplomatic mission. They are U.S. diplomats, however they are usually serving U.S. military officers under the Department of Defense instead of officials of the U.S. Department of State. Another example would be the Indian agents who represented the U.S. to the sovereign American Indian tribes in the 18th-19th century. They were originally officials of the Department of War and later the Department of the Interior. —RP88 (talk) 12:15, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in that case Diplomats of the United States‎ should be removed from Category:People of the United States Department of State?
i also just remember the United States Special Envoys, which may or may not be under the DOS? RZuo (talk) 13:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think Diplomats of the United States‎ is fine in Category:People of the United States Department of State. Being a subcategory is not a strict "is-a" relationship. Categories are meant as an aid for people trying to find things, not as an abstract exercise in ontology, and this is a likely path someone would follow in trying to find something. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 14 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
then i'll put Diplomats of the United States‎ under officials of DOS. RZuo (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Much of what people with the titles President, Vice President, and First Lady in the US have done can qualify as diplomacy, should those titles also be categorized in this way?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 16[edit]

Amateur drawings[edit]

Is it fine to upload amateur drawings like these?

File:Portrait Aissa Edon.jpg

In my opinion, the terrible quality of these works not only doesn't help illustrate the content, but in some cases may offend the person who is depicted in such a way. --Quick1984 (talk) 02:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unless there is some reason the artist is notable (possibly not related to their art), these would seem to me to be out of scope. - Jmabel ! talk 10:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Jmabel, I'm afraid some would comment in use = in scope when nominated. --Quick1984 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I looked into that and these are in use solely through edits by two people, User:Hibrideacus (uploader) and User:MHM55, adding the images to Wikidata. Wikidata has then automatically used them in multiple language Wikipedias through the use of Infobox templates. Yes, COM:INUSE is a valid argument but the apparent use on multiple projects is very misleading. If there was consensus to remove each image from a single Wikidata page, they would no longer be in use. Commons should not make that judgement on behalf of Wikidata, so I'll initiate a discussion at Wikidata to see if they can reach consensus separate to any considerations of deletion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion started at d:Wikidata:Project chat#Check of consensus for use of amateur drawings on items about living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) While we can assume good faith by the uploader/creator, these are all amateur depictions of living people. As a bare minimum, we should be considering the moral issues presented in COM:DIGNITY, COM:PHOTOCONSENT (as far as these two sections can be applied to art rather than photography) and WMF resolution on biographies of living people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:54, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On my side, it is only a matter of emptying the Category:Les sans images, and harmonizing with the many other portraits made for other women. I understand your point and clearly there should be a kind of decision on the opportunity of sharing those works. I'm happy if other Wikipedians take on and make the necessary changes. For the future, I don't want to judge on the quality of images, therefore we need a kind of procedure… I may stop to add the portraits in Wikidata – but then it will be for all pictures. MHM (talk) 11:35, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@MHM55: At this point we have usage by two editors and concerns from three editors. I wouldn't say there is a clear consensus yet to rule either way on whether use of these images is right or wrong. Your choice of future editing is up to you, but I wouldn't let this single discussion influence you too much. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion is that if the drawings of famous people are made by not notable artist, then such stuff should be deleted. And if we have real images of such famous people (drawed by notable artist!), then drawings to be replaced by real images (e.g. in Wikidata or in enwiki). I also know that in etwiki there was a related project, see Category:Tartupedia images from Tartu Art School project. Also notifying @Kruusamägi Estopedist1 (talk) 18:52, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is unreasonable to demand that drawings of famous people have to be made by notable artists. One does not need to be a notable artist to produce excellent quality. Or should we also delete all photos from Commons, that are not made by people who themselves are not notable photographers?
We should expect that some quality standards are met to keep the images, let alone to use them in articles, but if a person is clearly recognizable from the image and the image does not have obvious problems, then it is perfectly fine.
It someone deletes those Tartupedia images or even removes them from articles, then that person should be permanently banned from editing. Kruusamägi (talk) 19:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC) [reply]
High enough quality drawings are welcome, regardless of who drew them. Drawings by famous people are welcome, regardless of our opinion of their quality. Bad drawings by non-notable people are not welcome. These are poor drawings by non-notable people. And, no, the people are basically not recognizable from these drawings. Compare the portrait of Sevidzem Ernestine Leikeki to any picture of her you can find online. The image is somewhere in the range from useless to insulting. - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the Leikeki is identifiably (if poorly) based on a pre-existing image, to the point that it might be considered copyvio. I'll file a DR. DS (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the Edon is, I'm very confident, based on an image from a BBC interview. I would not be surprised if all of the uploader's handmade illustrations are identifiably based on specific pre-existing images (although I'm not confident enough of that to launch a blanket DR). DS (talk) 17:04, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just FWIW: I've done similar things myself (better, I hope), but would not put them on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is where common sense would be invaluable. Yes, we need some amateur art examples. We probably have more than enough already. Unfortunately for every Picasso there are a trillion clueless idiots with no artistic skills whatever. IMO, unless there is a notable justification for amateur picture such as these, they should not be uploaded. I cant actually disagree with Jmabel's earlier comments.
Before uploading an image ask yourelf the question, who (other than your mother) would want to use this image to illustrate anything. -Broichmore (talk) 15:37, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are not in use, they should be deleted as out of scope. Undoubtedly. Many of these illustrations seem to be outrightly insulting to the biographed women, and actually a disservice to the cause they claim to serve. The ones that are found to be derived can be deleted independently of their use, as copyvios. Darwin Ahoy! 21:51, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As noted above, these images spread across WM projects after being added to Wikidata items by just two people - the uploader and another one who had already replied that they wouldn't do it again. Are there enough opponents of the use of these drawings here to simply undo these edits and thereby solve the 'in use' problem? Quick1984 (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons shall be no host for private drawings. Providing personal pieces of art is basically a good thing but Commons is the wrong place for it. Commons hosts only files that are realistically useful for educational purposes. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:A542:7EF5:7069:64F5 (talk) 15:29, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These are not "private drawings", these are images drawn specifically for the purpose to illustrate Wikipedia BECAUSE overly strict regulations prohibit the illustration with actual photographs. So, photos of person X are under copyright. Photos of public statues of person X are under copyright. Photos of high-quality and photorealistic public graffiti about person X are under copyright. The article about person X cannot be illustrated in Wikipedia, but every blog and newspaper have hundreds of images in their archives, to illustrate their content. Only Wikipedia may not use any illustrations of people who lived in the 20th century.
unknown artist, rough sketch, but okay because it has a patina?
SURELY, an artistically skilled editor can be allowed to create a drawing of the person, and upload a copyright-free digital copy for the purpose of finally help out "Les sans images". The images were created for the educational purpose. ... But User:DragonflySixtyseven also states a valid concern: if an actual photograph (automatically under copyright) is identified as the possible original of the artist's drawing, this means that the artist must cede all rights of the image he drew, to the previous photographer - even if the artist claims that the photo was not even used! The face of a person, for some reason, just looks similar in art and on photos! May the artist look at six or sixty photos and make their own interpretation, not using either? Presumably also no (the law usually says 'yes' by the way, but after all, we're trying to create impossible standards for Commons, so PCP means no). So nobody DARE to provide a qualitative good or even semi-realistic artwork (like US court sketchers draw): any kind of quality must automatically be assumed to be AI-generated. Because AI-artwork? Big No for copyright reasons again: neither artist nor AI may illustrate WP.
Only real idealists still create artwork under this kind of conditions. Kudos to the creators of the example images: please DO refine your artistic skills, but also please continue.
User:Broichmore's rule-of-thumb advice to these idealists is reasonable though: Have a second (and a third) opinion, before uploading. --Enyavar (talk) 08:55, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Sure, as long as artistically skilled is taken seriously and that it is a type art that involves accurate representation. If you are non-notable, we don't want your cubist rendition.
  2. Go out and take some photos of notable people. Most notable people often appear in public. I don't even mostly photograph people, but I've done a fair share of this. - Jmabel ! talk 09:53, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your first point is the problem! I totally agree with you! Also your second point is absolutely striking. There shall be certain rules for drawings! 2A02:810D:4ABF:DBE4:8597:CF9F:E1FB:A555 10:30, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the go-out-approach" is a good idea, but only works for living people who are still in public. A huge bunch of those-without-images are dead or retired. --Enyavar (talk) 22:29, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why do articles need to be illustrated anyway? The last time I checked it's not a requirement, and where's the limit if not low quality, inaccurate drawings that look nothing like the people they are suppose to represent? Like should articles about historical towns be illustrated based child's drawings of buildings that look nothing like the place? "Hey, we don't have a photograph of a car model from the early 1900s that's in the public domain and I'm to lazy to take one, but we do have this drawing of a Hot Wheels from a 10 year old that has the same style of doors. So screw it!" Come on. It's pretty simple. Just don't illustrate an article if there isn't a good, legible picture of the subject. Period. There's no excuse for using amateur artwork just because someone can't be bothered to find a real image. Especially with articles about living people. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:00, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant, (architecture and automotives are off-topic? Who has attempted what you describe?) you are right that biographical articles don't have to be illustrated - having an image is just a welcome addition. IF it depicts the person in a recognizable manner. What I dislike is the categorical stance of "the community must make rules against amateur artwork": That is the vibe of this whole thread, and that is what I argue against. Good-faith-bad-artwork must be dealt with on an individual basis: prove why each one is a copyvio or a bad rendition of the subject; argue against them with com:dignity and whatever; make them irrelevant by providing good artwork or a good photo, then replace and delete.
It sucks to say to one user: "sorry you're a bad artist, improve or stop", but that is still better than to proclaim to everyone: "sorry no art is acceptable because there has been bad art from others", with regards to user-created artworks. Hey, if a hypothetical "no-name" user-artist has a consistent style that recognizably captures the persons, and they make a series of hundreds of portraits, I would welcome that to be uploaded and used, even if there was 'too anime' or some other flaw. --Enyavar (talk) 09:14, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: It's called an example. There have been instances of people trying to illustrate other types of articles besides biographies with AI generated artwork, which I'd put in the same category. It's also a slippery slope, where if we allow it for biographical articles then there's no reason people do the same for ones on other subjects. Although I agree with you in theory that it wouldn't be as much of a problem IF the image depicts the subject in a recognizable manner, but that's pretty subjective and out of project scope IMO. As we aren't here to be art critics. I don't think anyone is saying no art is acceptable though. I'm certainly not. Just confine it to a small subset of subjects and uses that don't include living people or the images being used in Wikipedia articles. There's nothing wrong with having basic standards and we shouldn't forgo them just because we don't want to hurt anyone's feelings or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:40, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Estopedist1 said so right above: Non-notable artist --> delete the artwork. Yet I see that you also want to exclude living people from being drawn? That is, again, unreasonable. Please see some more examples below; several of these drawings were each created because there was no other image available. --Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Enyavar: No one cares about high quality drawings of living (or dead) people by notable artists. I certainly don't. That's not what the discussion about. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The NY Times artist in your example is notable in their own right. Usually, newspapers employ a gifted professional to do this kind of work on an ongoing salary basis, so that they become a part of a house style. the work we're discussing here is a million miles away from the indifferent work that we're talking about here.
At one point (earlier) much was made of filling in gaps in Wikipedia, I can tell you now that these pictures would be rejected in time, for lack of notability reasons, never mind that they are largely non-contemporaneous.
With the Foundation's funds, they could quite easily hire a professional to supply a coherent style of work to suffice, if required; which it isn't.
The artist discussed here, and the artwork discussed here, satisfies no notability criteria. Broichmore (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there were artists hired by WMF, please see Category:Wiki Unseen; the artists are however notable. I don't think the project has seen much progress, there are only very few files, but maybe we'll get treated to more portraits in the future. I'd say this is/was promising.
But back to the not-so-hypothetical freestyling artists (notable or not, professional or not), who upload their artwork to Commons on their own, without any hiring by WMF: are we rejecting that art on the principled basis of "you're not notable"?
I just found some nice examples: all of them were apparently made by non-notable artists-uploaders, and depict the subject in a satisfactory manner. Are we going to delete? I hope not. If Nayan j Nath draws more portraits in this manner to illustrate WP, we're shouldn't be picky, but lucky.
  • Khanzhivan: "Own work"
    Khanzhivan: "Own work"
  • Panicker1979: "made by me"
    Panicker1979: "made by me"
  • Sreedharantp; import from mlWP
    Sreedharantp; import from mlWP
  • Manu Vellaplakkal: "Own work"
    Manu Vellaplakkal: "Own work"
  • W.carter: "Own work"
    W.carter: "Own work"
  • Indrajit Das: "Own work"
    Indrajit Das: "Own work"
There is also plenty artwork made by long-gone unknown artists, check them out: John Sappington, Portrait from 1897; Gottfried Schloemer, Portrait from 1892. Are we going to delete? I hope not.
--Enyavar (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a contemporary portrait in a published book, it's not a part of this discussion. Broichmore (talk) 18:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will repeat verbatim what I said above: "High enough quality drawings are welcome, regardless of who drew them. Drawings by famous people are welcome, regardless of our opinion of their quality. Bad drawings by non-notable people are not welcome. These are poor drawings by non-notable people." The examples you just gave are fine, they are high enough quality, a totally different matter than what we were initially discussing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:55, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2022/03#Wiki Unseen drawings uploaded by WMF
old discussion that may be of interest. RZuo (talk) 07:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any efforts to clarify this matter with clear rules? "In use" or "better than no image" will certainly be arguments in possibly upcoming discussions. --Msb (talk) 21:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this mostly a Wiki* editorial decision and not a Commons decision ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Camel?[edit]

Would people agree that that sculpture here (center-left) is intended to represent a camel? - Jmabel ! talk 10:51, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I see a lion (look at the paw) --MHM (talk) 11:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Broichmore (talk) 18:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see a turtle. Wouter (talk) 19:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like there is enough ambiguity that I should not caption it in this respect unless there is an expert opinion to be had somewhere. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That are lions, probably made around 1700, or later, and given to the church by (rich) visitors. Oak wood, painted thick. (if I'm right) - Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:39, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would have said Gargoyles, and leave it at that, but wikipedia wants to include a water spout in the definition! Perhaps a Grotesque (architecture), or as the ancients would call it just a beast. -Broichmore (talk) 19:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 17[edit]

Inscription[edit]

Can anyone work out the inscription here? (You will certainly have to click through, not legible in thumbnail.) Seems to be a mix of Old Catalan, maybe some Castillian, and Latin (e.g. "TRASLADA HIC"), using quite a few abbreviations (e.g. "ANO DNI" for "Anno Domini"; "MOASTIO" for "Monasterio") and some unusual forms of certain letters (e.g. "OLZE?O" where "?" represents a letter I can't decipher). Way beyond me in language terms. - Jmabel ! talk 23:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: If nothing else, this page about the monastery has a contact link at the bottom. Maybe they could/would help. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:26, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps someone decipher this, given that the photo was taken in the Chapter House of the Monastery of Pedralbes, I combined that information with one of the names that appears in the inscription and found Pedralbes Monastery, chapter house which mentions "The chapter house contains the tomb of the first abbess, Sobriana d'Olzet, as well as those of nine other early abbesses and some noblewomen who lived in the convent." —RP88 (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is typical medieval Latin with LOTS of abbreviations and sigla. I had a try, but there quite some gaps I am not sure about:

VII K(A)L(ENDA)S MAII AN(N)O D(OMI)NI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT¿S?
VEN(ER)ABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLIZETO Q' D(E)
MO(N)AST(ER)IO S(AN)C(T)I ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCH(ENO)N(A) AD MONAST(ER)IU(M)
IST()D TRA(N)SLATA FUIT C()A P(O)P(U)LATIO(N)IS EI(US)DE(M) DIE ...
S(AN)C(T)E C(RU)CIS ANN(O) D(OMINI) M CCC XX VII Q()Q(UE) EAD()... DUE P()S()ETIB(US)
EXC(E)LL(E)NTIS(IMM)IS D(OMI)NO REGE IACOBO & D(OMI)NA REGINA
ELICSE(N)D(A) EIUS CO(N)SORTE I() P()M()A AB()AM) D()CI TE
NOBII EL(E)CTA EXTITIT & CONF()MTA CUM A(L)IA RE.....

The first part is about Sobriana d'Olzet, who died on 25 April (=7th calends of May) 1336. If I am not mistaken, it then continues to say her remains were transferred from the monstery of St. Anthony to the current one. Then something about king James II (Iacob) of Aragon and his wife Elisenda and then it becomes rather illegible. It almost feels like the creator ran out of space :D --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mentioned here I think as Soberana? : https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francesca_Saportella —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also mentioned in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisenda_of_Montcada as Sobirana d’Olzet. And this is about here I think https://ca.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abadessa_Olzet so wikidata:Q19289368 —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:31, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, excellent findings, these really help understanding the inscription! So she switched monasteries while alive, not after passing away; my bad... With the context in mind, my reading of the inscription is thus:
Inscription Unabbreviated Translation

VII KLS MAII ANO DNI M CCC XXX VI OBIIT
VENABILIS SOROR SUBIRAN D'OLZETO Q D
MOASTIO SCI ANTONII CIVITATIS BARCHN AD MONASTIU
ISTD TRASLATA FUIT CA PPLATIOIS EIDE DIE IVETIOIS
SCE CCIS ANN D M CCC XX VII QQ³ EADE DIE PSETIB
EXCLLNTISIS DNO REGE IACOBO Z DDA REGINA
ELICSED EIUS COSORTE I PMA ABAM DCI CE
NOBII ELCTA EXTITIT Z 9FMTA C AIA REQESCAT I PACE AM

VII kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit
venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto quae de
Monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium
istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem Die Inventionis
Sanctae Crucis Anno Domini MCCCXXVII quoque eadem die praesentibus
excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina
Elicsenda eius consorte in primam abatissam dicti ce-
nobii electa extitit & conformata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.

On the 7th calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away
the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from
the Monastery of Saint Anthony of the City of Barcelona to this monastery
because of the same people. On the Day of the Finding of the
True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327] - also the same day that were present
the most excellent lord King James & lady Queen
Elisenda, his consort - [Subirana] was elected and formed first abbess of said
convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen.

--HyperGaruda (talk) 21:10, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@HyperGaruda and Jmabel: This is really excellent work, HyperGaruda. I agree with almost all of your readings and your general interpretation. I do, however, have a few small changes to suggest, which I think improve the text and translation:
  • The phrase causa populationis eiusdem means, I think, "for the purpose of populating it" (i.e., to provide the first group of nuns to inhabit it). The word populatio, like other Latin words ending in -atio, is an abstract noun denoting an action; its usual meaning in classical Latin is "looting, plundering" (from the verb populari), but it can also mean "peopling" or "causing to inhabit", and that's pretty clearly the sense here. The monastery at Pedralbas was entirely new and it needed to be "peopled", which is why Sobirana and her colleagues were brought there from the monastery of St. Anthony.
  • I would not punctuate between this phrase and the date that follows, since this date (3 May 1327) was both the date of the dedication of the new monastery and the date of the arrival of the first residents (i.e., the date on which Sobirana translata fuit).
  • The abbreviation QQᴈ, which you expand as quoque, should, I think, be expanded as quaeque, parallel with the quae in the first line and referring again to Sobirana. This is the subject of the verb extitit in the last line.
  • The abbreviated word 9FMTA, which you expand as conformata, I would expand as confirmata.
With these points in mind, here is my slightly revised text and suggested translation:
VII Kalendas Maii anno Domini MCCCXXXVI obiit venerabilis soror Subiran d'Olzeto, quae de monasterio Sancti Antonii civitatis Barchenonae ad monasterium istud translata fuit causa populationis eiusdem die inventionis Sanctae Crucis anno Domini MCCCXXVII, quaeque eadem die, praesentibus excellentissimis Domino Rege Iacobo & Domina Regina Elicsenda eius consorte, in primam abatissam dicti cenobii electa extitit et confirmata; cuius anima requiescat in pace, amen.
"On the 7th day before the calends of May in the year of the Lord 1336 [= 25 April 1336] passed away the venerable sister Subirana of Olzet, who was transferred from the monastery of Saint Anthony of the city of Barcelona to this monastery for the purpose of populating it on the day of the discovery of the True Cross in the year of the Lord 1327 [= 3 May 1327], and who on the same day, in the presence of their excellencies the lord King James and lady Queen Elisenda his consort, was elected and confirmed the first abbess of said convent; may her soul rest in peace, amen."
— Crawdad Blues (talk) 21:01, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crawdad Blues: sounds to me like you know what you are talking about. As far as I'm concerned, feel free to edit & improve on the photo description. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
HyperGaruda did all the heavy lifting. I just walked through the house after he was done and straightened a couple of picture frames. Crawdad Blues (talk) 12:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Crawdad Blues, those were indeed points I had second thoughts about. It makes much more sense now! --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, but please use proper characters for scribal abbreviations such as "Ꝫ", instead of the digit "3", or "Ꝯ", instead of the digit "9". -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 21[edit]

Help with artist's signature[edit]

Can anyone make out the signature of the artist in these two engravings:

The name is probably French, and it looks as if it may be printed in reverse (if the artist signed from left to right on the metal plate, the signature will run from right to left in the print). I've looked at it both ways, and I just can't figure it out. I don't need it to determine copyright status — the engravings were both published in 1876 and so are certainly PD — but I like to give credit where it's due, and I hate using the {{unknown engraver}} tag when the engraver clearly is known and the signature is right there staring me in the face. (No attribution in the text of the publication itself, as far as I can see.)

Any suggestions welcome. Thanks, Choliamb (talk) 01:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Choliamb: It's in mirror writing, and appears to be "Bosteyon. S." - Jmabel ! talk 07:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jmabel. Bosteyon was actually one of the various Bo[---]on combinations that I searched for, but I was unable to find any trace of an engraver with that name. I agree that it seems like the most likely reading, and I've added it to the image pages. Cheers, Choliamb (talk) 12:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think it's Bosreyon. That S suffix is more likely to be short for Sculptor, than a christian name initial. - Broichmore (talk) 19:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Think this plate, offers further proof of that. Broichmore (talk) 04:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A belated thanks for this, Broichmore. I've updated the image pages with your reading, and I see that you've already added them to a new Bosreyon category. But I can't see a signature on the third engraving that you uploaded and linked above. Am I just overlooking it? Choliamb (talk) 17:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Something of a stretch here, I feel there is a signature on the left hand, broken shoulder. When I have the time and facilities to go through all the pages of the Gazette that we currently have, I'm sure we will find more works by this engraver, and possible confirmation that I'm right about this alternative signature. That alternative signature, if it's correct, may indicate, that aside from being the engraver, he may also have been the original artist. If another similar signature can be found, think it will adequately prove it.
I'm at least 4-6 weeks away from starting such an exercise, If you want to dip in, feel free... Broichmore (talk) 06:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, yes, that is a bit of a stretch, though you might be able to convince me that it's a signature. But easier confirmation of your reading of the name can be found in this engraving from the same volume of the Gazette, which clearly shows an R rather than a T after the S. As for Bosreyon being the original artist rather than just the engraver, I think that's unlikely, at least in the case of the Apollo from Entrains. The author of the article associated with this plate says that he received the drawing on which the engraving was based from a M. Limoges in Entrains, who was the owner of the statue until the Limoges collection was acquired by the Musée d’archéologie nationale in Saint-Germain-en-Laye. Bosreyon, on the other hand, was apparently working in Paris for Lenormant and J. de Witte, the editors of the Gazette archéologique. He prepared plates of objects from a number of sites in different parts of the country, most of which he probably did not see in person.
If you'd like to exercise your deciphering powers on the signature of a different artist who also worked for the Gazette, have a look at File:Bas-relief_decouvert_a_Lyon_(Gazette_archeologique_1876,_pl_10).jpg. I'm pretty sure this is P. Sellier, who illustrated a number of French publications in the second half of the 19th century, but I'd be happy to hear your opinion – Choliamb (talk) 14:16, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the good work revising my upload. Very welcome. I have uploaded a slightly rotated version of your new find, that requies similar treatment.
Meanwhile for the other picture I'm inclined towards Sellier as you are, but I know next to nothing of him.
What we desperately need is an expansion of the descriptions included in the nine pdf's we have of the Gazette. All we show is Volume numbers. This would be useful before extracting images from same. Do these 9 files represent the totality of the Gazette's publications?
The fr:Gazette archéologique wiki article, could do with filling out too, even if it only details out some of the history, scope, dates and contributors of the publications. Broichmore (talk) 05:52, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A total of 14 volumes of the Gazette archéologique were published between 1875 and 1889. The nine volumes already in the Commons (uploaded from IA, scanned from copies in the Getty Center) are the first nine (1875–1884; 1881–1882 was a single volume). The other five are available at the Bibliotheque Nationale de France and at the library of the University of Heidelberg, both of which have complete runs independently scanned from their own copies. You can probably find them elsewhere as well, but those are two sources that I use regularly for old archaeological literature. Choliamb (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P. Sellier is most likely Paul Sellier (Q123068789). From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:03, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well done. Thank you. Choliamb (talk) 14:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stools[edit]

In the Category:Stools there two files wich dont belong there: File:Cholera patient rice water stool.jpg File:Cholera patient stool.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: Perhaps put two files in a new Category:Stools (medical). We could also disambiguate Category:Stools and put most of the content in a new Category:Stools (furniture), but that seems like overkill.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:39, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to Category:Human feces for now, as I'm not sure this fits into Category:Stool tests. Maybe better reserve that for actual tests and create Category:Stool samples for this poop in tubes. El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the disambiguation cat should be created. It’s important to have both kinds of stools in Commons, and that should be more important than any other concern, but it costs nothing to avvert unwanted visualisations. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on designing a new Community Wishlist Survey[edit]

Hello everyone, there is new information concerning the redesign of the Community Wishlist Survey.

Firstly, in case you missed them earlier, the updates we have provided so far are:

Update 1: Early decisions on the future of the Wishlist.

Update 2: Introducing Jack Wheeler the new Community Tech Manager, also responsible for redesigning the Wishlist.

Update 3: How we can define a "wish".

Currently, we have two newer updates:

Update 4: Since we are planning on keeping the Wishlist open all year and also looking at how the community have participated in vetting/refining wishes, should wishes be editable?

Update 5: We have shared a preview of the new Wishlist.

Please have a look at any of the updates that interest you, particularly Update 4 and 5.

To keep the conversation in one place, please leave your feedback on the central talk page for all the updates (preferably). However, you can leave comments under this post too.

On behalf of Community Tech, STei (WMF) (talk) 10:42, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here’s my wish: Stop messing whith Cat-a-lot. Thanks. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese-language help sought (or possibly Chinese)[edit]

Can someone interpret the inscription here? Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I interpret the text as "佐々木藤五郎之墓", "Sasaki Tōgorō no haka", in English "Togoro Sasaki's grave". —RP88 (talk) 18:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I think there are a few possible readings of the name here. The family name could be read as Sasaki, Ishida or Niikura. The personal name could be read either as Togoro or Fujigoro. Someone better at Japanese than me may be able to advise that a particular combination is more likely. However, a fairly trustworthy online translation tool (Deepl) only offers "Sasaki" as a translation for the family name but can't decide whether it is "Togoro" or "Fujigoro." Without additional context, it may be misleading to settle on a particular translation.
@RP88: How certain are you with your reading here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm definitely over my skis, both with the transcription of the kanji and the translation. Perhaps it's my ignorance showing, but I'm pretty sure the family name is Sasaki, I don't think Ishida is at all likely. Assuming Sasaki as the family name, you're correct that 藤五郎 is ambiguous — it could be Fujigorō instead of Tōgorō. Honestly, when trying to decide between the two, I used Nazkuke Pon and familiarity with Koike Tōgorō (小池藤五郎) to select the later as more likely. —RP88 (talk) 15:55, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative name readings come from WWWJDIC.[1] WWWJDIC includes a substantial names database, so will give you both common and uncommon readings of names. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, 佐々木 as a family name is almost always "Sasaki". 藤五郎 as a man's name is perhaps more than 90% "Togoro" (ex.[2]) (sometimes spelled as "Tougorou" or "Tōgorō").--miya (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarification on the name and pointing out that interesting link. The grave under discussion is in the Lake View Cemetery in Seattle. Seattle is in King County, Washington. So, with a little searching:
Looking at other images of the section of Lake View Cemetery in which this gavestone is located, it appears the graves nearby are all from the turn of the century. It seems plausible that this gravestone might be for the Togoro Sasaki who died sometime late 1906/early 1907 whose body was found in Puget Sound on 22 January 1907 near the Great Northern docks in Seattle. —RP88 (talk) 19:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I hope anyone in Seattle would look at the back side of this grave - to see if the death year of Sasaki is carved there.--miya (talk) 05:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 23[edit]

Uncategorized categories[edit]

Just a reminder that after a few of us got Special:UncategorizedCategories almost to zero, it has been slowly growing again. I, for one, am way too busy with other stuff the next 5 weeks or so to have any significant time to put into it (besides "real life", I'm backlogged about 1500 pictures to describe and upload), so it would be really good if someone else would give this a few hours. Ideally this would be an admin (so they can delete empty categories) but anyone else can mark those for deletion, as described at {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 00:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Appending a reminder that categories that only have nonexisting redcategories set don't show up on this report and there is still this open request to have a separate report for these and one other type of effectively or usually uncategorized cats: Special reports request: Categories with only redcats or WD-Infobox cats. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:52, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zoom factor when clicking on coordinates[edit]

There are various ways that coordinates appear on Commons, mainly in "Template:location", "Template:object location", "Template:Wikidata infobox". Likely it's determined in various ways and on also changes based on the maps being used.

It seems to me that the default zoom is always way too far. Before tying to figure out more of the technical details, I just want to check if it's not just an impression of mine. What do you think? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:08, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the feeling it depends on the precision of the coordinates, like how many decimals are used in decimal coordinate notation, but I might be totally wrong. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:27, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bagel Effect[edit]

Hello, I am Rorth. I would like to create an article about the "Bagel Effect", a term coined by the internet to describe temporal and multiversal events sparked by a seemingly inconsequential action, for example, throwing a bagel at a nameless goon's head, which sparks a series of events that lead to him becoming a vengeful dimensional threat.

Would this make for an article in line with your purposes? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorth Onno (talk • contribs) 14:32, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rorth Onno: Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, a site responsible for storing images and other files that meet our scope. We don't host articles here, you may want to ask your question on one of the language versions of Wikipedia. As you asked your question in English, I'll direct you to a useful page on the English Wikipedia at en:Wikipedia:Articles for creation. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rorth Onno: Like FHTS said, Commons is just for hosting files, if you want to write an article you have to go to Wikipedia proper for it. Having said that, this just sounds like another way to describe the Butterfly Effect to me? ReneeWrites (talk) 23:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope of Commons[edit]

I have read Commons:Project scope and Commons:What Commons is not. My questions are:

  1. Is Wikimedia an archive for historical images from other archives?
    • I have seen many categories that are comprised entirely of images uploaded in bulk from such sources. Not very useful when searching for images.
  2. Are these images considered / treated the same as others?
  3. Can (or should) these images be modified: cropping backgrounds, small rotations, color correction, etc.?
  4. Do these modifictions require a new version be created?
    • I have repeatedly read Commons:Overwriting existing files since it changes often. But what is considered minor and major is personal judgement. Examples are great but not a substitute for specifics.

User-duck (talk) 16:21, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, Commons readily accepts PD and appropriately-licensed images from other archives. I'm sorry if you personally do not find it useful to have this content screened by us for copyright compliance, categorized usefully (which, in my experience few archives do) and very often curated much more carefully than in the original archive (see for example User:Jmabel/Final draft of talk for WikiConference North America). I imagine there is no content here that is of use to every user. The fact that you are not the relevant user for this content does not make it useless.
  • These images are treated basically the same as others. Derivative works are welcome, but content from GLAMs should almost never be overwritten, except possibly cropping excessive borders, and even that is a judgement call. Think of this as being along the same lines as that you typically shouldn't alter the work of another Commons user without their consent: the GLAM is in no position to monitor your edits to the image and revert if they disagree, so upload your derivative work under a different filename. This is particularly important on older images, where the way a particular individual chose to print a negative may be significant. (See, for example, File:Aftermath of Seattle fire of June 6, 1889, showing remains of Dexter Horton & Co bank, 1st Ave S and S Washington St, with John (CURTIS 2104).jpg, where we have different versions where people presumably printing from the same negative made different choices.) - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, we often bring together (in a category) images from numerous archives. Since most archives only post what they physically own, there are few places on the web that do this. This often results in finding inconsistencies in claims made by various archives. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Correct, correct, and correct again. GLAM files (GLAM, an acronym for galleries, libraries, archives, and museums,) are reference files and should never be overwritten. Anywhere where the esteemed Duck has oerwritten them, then they need to go back and correct such. Broichmore (talk) 11:58, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "never" is a exaggerated. We can't really make use of files with 30% borders WMF sites. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Incorrect, a border may be part of the artistic composition. There are always exceptions to every rule of course. However reference files are just that, they are uncontaminated by any revision, any change to them introduces the possibility of degradation of one sort or another.
    The background to this discussion was the cropping of a historical artefact.
    Who is "we"?, thats not commons; it might be Wikipedia, I grant you.
    Again, if you want to crop, a GLAM file thats your choice, but generally speaking the original will still be the Wikiipedia preferred option. Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose it's really up to Wikipedia and files in use are likely not cropped. Obviously, the topic "borders" needs an uncropped border. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The one time I can think of that we routinely crop files from a GLAM is when it is clear that someone scanned something badly (e.g. 2% at right with nothing but transparent alpha channel; obviously wrong orientation for a "portrait-orientated" photo leaving massive white-space at left and right) and it is clearly not a conscious aesthetic or scholarly choice on the part of the GLAM. - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Redacted}} source[edit]

Is this allowed under Commons policy? Trade (talk) 18:10, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe other things with relation to this organization have been discussed before with the decision to keep. What would be your basis for deletion? - Jmabel ! talk 22:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raher than deletion, I think Trade is asking if this edit is allowed. I am not going to comment myself; if that site is the type I think it is, I am not going near any related issues. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:44, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For obvious reasons hiding the source of files kind of goes against the spirit of Commons, even if it is below TOO Trade (talk) 23:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed feelings. It is still easily discoverable for someone who really wants to know. I can see why someone might choose not to link that site, though I would not have redacted it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 10:06, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: Please link to diffs as [[Special:Diff/826565883]] instead of pasting a complete url. I clicked on it, with that pesky .m., and was hit with a Commons mobile screen layout, which I really rather avoid. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:47, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Please convince the developers to improve the mobile interface so mobile users can create links in your preferred format. Expecting users on a mobile touch screen to comply with your specific preferences is your problem. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:15, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@From Hill To Shore: it is almost exactly as easy for a mobile user to create an internal link as for a user on a PC (though, personally, I have no problem with the way you did the diff). - Jmabel ! talk 19:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To make that link on a desktop computer: I select the portion of a link in the address bar with my mouse, use keyboard short cuts to copy and paste into the edit window, position the cursor with my mouse and then type in the text Tuvalkin suggested (if not available in the special commands list in the wiki interface).
To complete the same action in the mobile interface: I select the whole url and hold it until I get a pop up offering me the option to copy, I then position my cursor in the edit window, press and hold until it offers me an option to paste (and hope that the cursor didn't move during the press and hold action), I then move my cursor to the first half of the pasted url to delete the text before the difference code (this is difficult as I have to place the cursor by touch on exactly the right character without applying enough pressure for the interface to decide I am trying to select the whole url), I then move the cursor to the end of the url to delete the characters after the difference code. With the difference code extracted, I manually type in (using a touch screen keyboard) the code suggested by Tuvalkin as the mobile interface has no shortcut list of wiki code.
On desktop, I could probably perform the sequence of actions within 30 seconds. On the mobile interface, I would be lucky to finish in 3 minutes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just a suggestion: If the mobile interface is not suitable for proper editing (which is not), then maybe you could use your mobile time to browse Tiktoks or Insta or whatever you people do, and wait until you’re properly sitting at proper computer to do grownups’ work. (Funny thing, too, that you deride proper local hyperlinking as my own quaint «preferred format». It’s indeed a neverending September.)
I don’t expect the Mediawiki developers to make it so the mobile interface is suitable for any minimally serious work, just like I don’t expect unicycle builders to create a model that’s suitable for a doctor to perform microsurgeries while riding it.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:40, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to assume you are just having a bad day and your personal attack there was unintentional (for the record, I finished my "growing up" over 20 years ago). I have completed thousands of productive edits that improve Commons and other Wikimedia sites through the mobile interface and I am not going to stop because a single editor is in a bad mood. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You’re more or less right in your assumptions (not a bad day today, it’s just this timeline is terrible in general), but I still have a point. Thanks for your painfully accurate description of the Rube-Goldberg thingamajig that’s needed for something as simple as editing text in a “smart”phone: It’s horrible, but don’t blame me for it. I had a similar experience recently when I needed to send someone an url via Android IM and that once was enough: I did battle with clunky interfaces in the mid 1980s, I did, but back then there were reasons for that clunkiness. A pocket computer more powerful than what I had on a desk just a few years ago should not make me feel like I did back then in front of a green-on-black screen. And yet it does. Anyway, sorry about my grumpiness, it’s not your fault and your edits are sweet — even those made from needlessly unsuitable platforms. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:16, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin: I disagree with you here. While I'm guessing that User:From Hill To Shore has access—at least sometimes—to a PC, there are tens (hundreds?) of millions of people in the world who have only a mobile phone, and probably millions more who have a tablet (with only the mobile interface) and not a PC. The system should be made usable for them, and their contributions should not be disparaged. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
PCs last a decade or two, are less expensive and more evironmentally impactful than than any mobile device, and are also more conductive to a proper working environment than a mobile device, by itself. I’m not disparaging anyone’s contributions, per se, the same way I could only congratulate the unicycle-riding surgeon, but I wish the social and economical situation behind the ubiquitization of mobile devices was different. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:06, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The relative price you describe might be true for where you live - are you sure it is the same everywhere on the world? Also ... smartphones can be used and are almost mandatory for a lot of usecases you can't do with a PC - and paying for both devices is definitely more expensive than just buying one. Kritzolina (talk) 20:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welp, i reverted the change so if anyone wanna argue for the source to be hidden now is the time--Trade (talk) 23:17, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 24[edit]

Pseudomummies[edit]

We don't seem to have any category for pseudomummies, nor even an existing image identified as such (at least not identified as such in English). Nothing obvious on Wikipedia, either, but plenty of hits on respectable sites (e.g. [3], [4], [5] and I have an image I want to upload. Am I missing something under another name, or do we really have none? - Jmabel ! talk 10:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is the preferred term, Psuedo-mummy or Psuedo mummy? Broichmore (talk) 19:20, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: Pseudomummy or pseudo-mummy are both acceptable. I suppose pseudo mummy is OK, but I'd consider it the least acceptable of the three. - Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm familiar with possibly related objects called corn mummies. Maybe they're a subtype of pseudo-mummy? See [6]. —RP88 (talk) 19:49, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it looks like Commons has a cat for these at Category:Ancient Egyptian corn mummies. Adding cat to image linked by en.WP article now... —RP88 (talk) 19:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RP88: The one in question is not a corn mummy, nor are most pseudomummies. Please see the three links I posted initially. - Jmabel ! talk 09:28, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstood me. I was suggesting (with supporting link) that the existing corn mummy category on Commons might be a subtype of pseudo-mummy, ie. if you choose to add a new pseudo-mummy category it should include Category:Ancient Egyptian corn mummies as a subcategory. —RP88 (talk) 11:23, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yearbooks and copyright[edit]

I have seen on Commons many (mostly black and white) photographs of famous people taken from school "yearbooks" with the claim "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice." Many of these are in Category:High_school_yearbook_headshots.

Is it really true that these yearbooks were published without a copyright notice? Of course this is difficult to know without access to every one of these… I'm so used to any company or nonprofit snapping a copyright sign on just any website or publication they provide that it seems to me odd that, say, school or alumni associations, or whatever contractor they used, did not put any copyright notice. David.Monniaux (talk) 15:36, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I am aware, it was quite common to not include a notice/renewal/registration. Not every school in the United States had copyright on their mind when making these or publishing them, mainly for their student population, not wider dissemination. I would guess that most of these issues pre-1989 are probably Public Domain. However, assuming that any and every headshot from before 1989 is Public Domain is foolish. There are certainly some schools that did include one. The best way to find out is to see the yearbook in its entirety and look for a notice. These headshots should only be uploaded if it can be proven there's no notice. Here's a random example from 1967, with no notices: https://www.classmates.com/siteui/yearbooks/1000242792?page=72 PascalHD (talk) 21:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What can we do about this? Ask the uploader to provide proof that there is no notice? This would entail uploading the full volume.. Or maybe ask him/her to assert the absence of copyright notice? David.Monniaux (talk) 17:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In the era when U.S. copyright required explicit notice, it was very rare for U.S. high school yearbooks to be copyrighted: rare enough that I would expect to see positive evidence that a given yearbook was copyrighted, rather than vice versa. - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It may be more complicated. The school would announce that school pictures would be taken on a certain day. A professional photographer would show up and take the photos with his equipment and backdrop. Then parents would be given an opportunity to purchase copies of the photos from the photographer (not from the school). That sale would be publication, and there might be a copyright notice with that sale. Sometime later, the school yearbook is published. If the sale had a copyright notice but the yearbook did not, then what is the legal result? Glrx (talk) 19:30, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For that matter: even if a high school yearbook was copyrighted, it would most likely be considered a collective work given that it's made up of independent contributions from many different authors. Even if the school or some other entity had a copyright claim on the work as a whole, that would probably be distinct from the rights to the individual photos it contained. Omphalographer (talk) 00:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How would yearbooks be any different then something like a newspaper or magazine where the complete work is either copyrighted or PD, and therefore each individual element would have the same status, regardless of if it's considered a collective work or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yearbooks usually consist in large part of content which was made by students, not employees, and which thus aren't works for hire. Omphalographer (talk) 00:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consider the photographer. He may have a contract with the school that says he owns the copyright on all the photos (he's going to sell copies to the parents). The contract also allows the school and students to publish the photos in the yearbook. The school then publishes the yearbook, but it neglects to state the photographer's copyright. That is not the photographer's error; it is the school's. Why should the photographer lose his copyright because a third party published his photos? In theory, the photographer could sue the school for failing to state his copyright. Does the photographer have a duty to inspect the yearbook and make sure his copyright is stated? Compare that to a newspaper. The employees write the text, and the employees take photos. The newspaper has the copyright to much of what it publishes (but not, for example, the wire services' content). Glrx (talk) 01:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems like a problem that would upstream of the project. Just like it would be if any random company has someone create a work on the their behalf and then it turned out years later the contract wasn't valid or something for whatever reason. What does that have to do with us? Or are we suppose to not host any work for hire just because there's an extremely small chance the organization didn't cross all their Ts and dot all their Is properly? I don't buy the idea that the photographer necessarily creates the photographs for a yearbook to resale to family members. Usually it's either different photographs or the photographer at least knows the photos are going to be published in the yearbook. You can't really take back the lack of a notice or change the copyright status once something is published either. In otherwards, if the photographer agrees their photographs will be included in the yearbook then that's that. We aren't here to second guess things and it's reasonable to assume a published photograph has been released into the public under the assumption that it is or eventually will be PD. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"that would probably be distinct from the rights to the individual photos it contained" No. It's authorized publication without a copyright notice, which would have sufficed at the time to place U.S. work in the public domain. Not to mention that in virtually all cases we can be confident it is the first publication. - Jmabel ! talk 08:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Outside (non-student) photographers made their made their money selling copies of the photos to the families of the individuals depicted. No payment from the school. And as far as I know, none of them ever put copyright notices on those pictures, either. Certainly not in my high school, or for any others I've ever seen. - Jmabel ! talk 09:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the school put a copyright notice in their name on the book, it might cover the photographer's work. If the contract with the school said that they had to put a copyright notice in the book, and they didn't, then the photographer could sue the school. But if virtually all copies of the work are without copyright, then the work lost copyright.
Why should the photographer lose his copyright because a third party published his photos? Because how many people publish their own stuff? It would negate the value of the copyright notice, of informing the public of copyright, to make virtually all (e.g.) novels to not need a notice, since the copyright owner is not the publisher.
For a large part of this period, until the 1964 yearbooks, a copyright notice wouldn't have been enough; they would have needed a renewal after 28 years, renewals that are pretty scarce, especially on stuff like this, and certainly would have been the photographer's responsibility.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:02, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The question I ask is quite simple. I've very used to anything published in any form by any US corporation, including nonprofit, to include a little (c) Copyright line somewhere discreet that it seems a bit weird to me that some nonprofit alumni association or similar structure would not include one. I'd be curious to see a typical full yearbook of, say, 1967. David.Monniaux (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • As a subscriber to Ancestry that scans yearbooks, I have not seem a copyright notice yet. That would cover yearbooks up to 1989. I agree the default is no copyright until proven. We have a similar rule of thumb for publicity images, we do find that around 1980 some studios added a copyright notice, and when we find it we mention it in the category, along with the year. The market for a yearbook is very small, and the chance for sales after the graduating class buys theirs is almost zero. --RAN (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@David.Monniaux: I own several from roughly that era (I was in high school 1968-1972), and they absolutely do not contain copyright notices, but I have no idea how I could show you a 200+ page hardback that is not online. - Jmabel ! talk 22:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, no, no, I'm just content that somebody actually looked into the issue. Thanks! David.Monniaux (talk) 17:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 25[edit]

Image seems to have been deleted against consensus, also questions about keeping ai generated images in scope[edit]

I believe here Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Poolcore.png an image was deleted against consensus. The deleting administrator stated that it was deleted based on the strength of the argument.

I do not believe poolcore would fulfill the GNG, but to my knowledge the GNG does not apply to wikimedia commons. But we do have this article en:WP:Internet_aesthetic and poolcore could definitely have a place in that article, or perhaps in this one en:WP:Liminal space (aesthetic) of which it is sometimes seen as a sub-aesthetic of.

I do not intend on adding it to those articles immediately, but might want to do so later if it is undeleted. Generally will an ai image be considered within scope if I immediately add it to a wikipedia article? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In a case such as this, with multiple "keep" and multiple "delete" votes indicating no clear consensus, it is the responsibility of the closing admin to apply Commons policy to decide whether an image should remain on Commons. In such cases, it's best to indicate the reason rather than using the default "per nomination" or "no valid reason for deletion" text; Bedivere correctly did so.
While an image that is in use is generally assumed to be in scope, adding an image to an article merely to claim it is in scope is frowned upon. Given that the word "poolcore" does not currently appear anywhere on enwiki, and that a quick search finds nothing meeting Wikipedia:Reliable sources that discuss the "poolcore" aesthetic, I highly doubt that it would be appropriate to add this image to enwiki. I agree with Bedivere's close and see no reason to undelete this image. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pi.1415926535 in the future would it be appropriate to request the undeletion of the image in the event that reliable sources get added to english wikipedia about poolcore? How long are deleted images stored before they need to be reuploaded? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:42, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Deleted" images are not actually deleted from servers; the file is still there, just accessible only to admins. If reliable sources emerge, and an editor in good standing adds them, and for some reason none of the thousands of photos of actual pools on Commons cannot be used, then an undeletion request can be entertained. But that's a whole lot of ifs, and I find it extremely doubtful that there will ever be a reason to undelete the file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I share this concern of Immanuelle and don't think Bedivere acted according to WMC policy by overriding the debate conclusion / consensus according to whatever the admin saw fit. It's not a big problem since the file was not in use and the subject is rather minor and niche. I think something should be done once this occurs more frequently than now already or for subjects that are more clearly within scope. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Deletion requests aren't fielded by consensus, it even says so at the top of the page. Bedivere did nothing wrong. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't implying that they are. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:59, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

File:RuizPineda.jpg[edit]

Hi. I wanted to ask which was the file's date of File:RuizPineda.jpg included in the original upload. Many thanks in advance. --NoonIcarus (talk) 05:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The date added as date of creation was the upload date. GPSLeo (talk) 17:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Viewmaster 3D images of the moon[edit]

I stumbled upon 3 discs with 21 viewmaster images of the US moon landing. So the NASA made 3D images of the Apollo program! But it does not seem, that this images are on commons? @VasuVR @Askeuhd C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Curious whether there would be copyright issues. I have many reels of viewmaster images (about 50?) which includes real locations, as well as fiction cartoons (like Mickey mouse & Donald duck). I have scanners too - but have not scanned any so far. Will look for responses and suggestions here. VasuVR (talk, contribs) 04:12, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Threre are two types: Images that were made on earth (rocket start, control center) and images made in space ( moon from orbiting lander, earth from moon, astronaut raising a flag on moon). The first one's can have been made by a Viewmaster employee -then Viewmaster has the copyright. The second one's can only have been made by astronauts. Austronauts work for the US Government (the NASA) and all work by US Government is PD. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure that the latter type are NASA photographs, and not artists' impressions? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The images, I have seen on Viewmaster are fotographs and the discs have been acquried in the 1980s, long before digital image manipulation was available. But: As they come from NASA, they should also be available at the NASA website, without needing to use the tiny ViewMaster prints? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 18:43, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting - as this is the first time I have heard about these images, my gut feeling tells me they have been recreated from the official stills, most likely Hasselblad, but I will look over the equipment lists again tomorrow, however from memory I do not recall any stereoscopic photography equipment, other than the automatic ITEK camera in the sim bay on 15, 16 and 17. A number of panoramas were shot on the surface using the Hasselblads, which could be rendered to pseudo-stereoscopic imagery, I believe, as the quality and resolution of those stills are just incredible, even in a modern context. Askeuhd (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VasuVR Maybe you can send @Askeuhd scans of the ViewMaster images for comparing to known NASA images? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is also possible that the fotos were made with a Hasselblad and a mirror system mounted in front of the lens, so that two images are made with a single lens. If the mirror adapter was fastened to the camera with magnets, the astronauts could have mounted and unmounted it between shots making 2D and 3D images. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raiden (Mortal Komat) vs. Raiden (Metal Gear)[edit]

Which character do you think most people will think of when the name "Raiden" is brought up?--Trade (talk) 22:23, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most people won't ever have heard of either. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Raiden Shogun. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:47, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 28[edit]

File:Crocus City Hall attack, Moscow, Russia (2024-03-23-06-26-46 UMBRA-06).tiff[edit]

Does this file display for anyone here, or should it be deleted as "corrupt or empty" and replaced by the JPG version? Thanks --A.Savin 12:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The file is fine only the thumbnail engine seems to have a problem with large geotiff files. As this is a MediaWiki software problem and not a problem with the file we should keep the file and wait for the bug to be fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A building in Carcassonne[edit]

Does anyone know the name or address of this building in Carcassonne? It shows up in every photo in Category:Place Auguste Pierre Pont that is not already specifically categorized to another building on the square. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I worked it out myself. It was Chéz Saskia as can be seen in this 2010 photo that didn't mention the plaza. Now closed; it was affiliated with the Hôtel de la Cité on the adjacent side of the plaza. Until it gets another name, that will do for a category name. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is the southern tip of this way on OSM, which does not appear to have a name. "Chéz Saskia" was likely the name of the occupying business. Looking at the location on WikiShootMe, it has no Wikidata entry (yet!).Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:22, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guidance re possible copyleft trolling[edit]

This is a continuation of the discussion now on the archive at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2024/03#Guidance_re_possible_copyleft_trolling

I'm unsure of the correct protocols, but I'd asked if this was an appropriate place to raise suspicion about a photographer who may be acting as a copyleft troll and was advised by user Nosferattus to post the details here.

The photographer I suspect of trolling is called David Iliff. As I said above, I can’t be sure he’s using this as a business model, but there’s enough evidence to suspect it.

When Pixsy made a claim against me for one of Mr Iliff’s photos, I found the following messages on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Diliff and took the precaution of copying the text. However I now see that this page was edited on 7th March 2024 and all these items about Pixsy and permissions have been removed, including the Wikipedia links for the people who wrote them. So most of the evidence seems to have been removed, unless you have a way to backtrack?

1) Mary Finchley 6 Feb 2024 - Pixsy asking for £450 for CC image used on website. They ask Mr Iliff if Pixsy genuinely represents him. No reply

2) Mook200 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Mook200&action=edit&redlink=1 ) Jan 2024. Mark Brierly for a musicians charity. Asked Mr Iliff to call Pixsy off. I emailed Mr Brierly. He replied 29th Jan that he hadn't had any reply from Mr Iliff and didn't expect to. (image: Westminster Cathedral)

3) Andrew (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Amgnholidays&action=edit&redlink=1) Jan 2024 demand from 'a company' (image: Hereford Cathedral) Dear Mr Lliff, I have recieved a letter from a company demanding quite a substanial amount of money for using your image and not displaying your information clearly. In asking the company for more details they tend to respond with quite abrubt unhelpful information. It has meant we have removed the image from our website, which is a shame as it is a stunning image but the last thing we want to do is use an image without permission. As a small company we rely on artists like yourself who are kind enough to allow people to use their images and we are very careful to check licenses to make sure we are using them correctly and would of course correct anything if contacted. Would you be able to confirm if the company contacting us are indeed legitimate as the correspondence does come across a lot like spam. If you do not have any notification of this case and a company acting on your behalf, I would happily open up a discussion about putting the image back on our website in a way which would be of agreement to you.I am sorry to bother you with this and appreciate your time. (No reply)

4) Snbalaji2 (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Snbalaji2) Jan 2024 re Pixsy. Says Pixsy have not provided evidence they represent Iliff so asking him directly if they do (image: Thames Sunset Panorama) - We used an image of the London_Thames_Sunset_panorama_ _Feb_2008 for a brief period on our LinkedIn page as a banner, but inadvertently did not provide the correct attribution. We apologise for this oversight. I was not aware that the image is licensed to you and as soon as we became aware, we immediately removed the image. However, we have received an email from Pixy with an extremely large retroactive licensing fee for an image used on a web page which is now archived. We are a small advisory company who gets less than 100 visits per year on our LinkedIn page. Could you please first confirm that Pixy is acting on your behalf and that this is not a spam or phishing email? Pixsy have been unwilling to provide any evidence that they are acting for you in spite of repeated requests. No contracts with you have been shared and that leads me to believe that Pixsy are making a fraudulent claim using your name. The case reference that Pixsy has quoted is 002-203834. 5) Hazel (Hazeom) (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Hazeom ) 2023 being chased by Fossick for unauthorised use (Fossik is an Estonian company, now in liquidation, which Pixsy cite as being an agent of Mr Iliff) - Hi We have received a message from a company requesting that we pay a large sum of money for using your Wikimedia image of Joss bay in a post about dog friendly beaches in Broadstairs. We are a small veterinary practice in Broadstairs and were quite alarmed by the letter, as the image is available on Wikimedia which is copyright free. Can you confirm that Fossick pictures is acting on your behalf? -6) Alan Foster approx 2021 asking if Fossick represent Iliff - Out of interest, are you associated with a company based in Estonia called fossick OU as they are claiming to be the license sellers of your images. I notice your images are on here under GNU so just clarifying the copywrite for a fiend - No reply 7) Martinsimpson being chased by Fossick; image Tower Bridge 2006; Aug 2020; asks if Fossick represents him 

 >Hello David, i believe we used one of your images for a blog post back in 2015, the chap that did the blog is no longer working with us so we are not 100% sure where the image came from, but we assume it was from Wiki? The image was used in good faith with no intention of making money. The assumption was that all images on the Wiki commons files were free to use? To the point we are being taken to court by Fossick Picture for copyright infringement. The person taking us to court is a Mr Leopold Kamugyene the company Fossick is not registered in the uk so we dont know if they are fraudulent as they are registered in Estonia with an office in London. They are using your name to make the claim, if you could advise if the image does or does not have any copyright infringements on Wiki please. Sorry for this just we are a small company and we dont know if Fossick are just going around making scam claims on small vulnerable companies. My apologies if the image has copyrights, we assume the image was free to use, see our very basic blog:

The following are additional cases from outside Wikipedia:

8) My own case Jan 2024 - Pixsy claiming £900 for a Wikimedia image of Hammersmith Bridge by Mr Iliff which was CC3. I didn't provide the correct attribution. This is ongoing. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hammersmith_Bridge#/media/File:Hammersmith_Bridge_1,_London,_UK_-_April_2012.jpg)

9) Reddit discussion (https://www.reddit.com/r/RBI/comments/n0bbam/copyright_infringement_claim_should_i_be_worried/) Claim for Mr Iliff by Fossik . From what I can gather Fossik, an Estonian company, carried out Mr Iliff’s claims for CC2 and CC3 lack of attribution before he started using Pixsy. 10) Copyright Aid forum (https://copyrightaid.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3551) Website owner closed down his site after Pixsy demand on behalf of Mr Iliff.


All these instances relate to images available on Wikimedia under CC 2 or CC 3. Mr Iliff has an extensive presence on Flickr with most photos available by CC2 or CC3. His photos are also available on Dreamstime but not the same ones. So it seems the photos in question were only available under CC, not in any ‘paid’ sites. While I respect the right of photographers to follow up copyright issues, I am aware of the distress caused by companies who act on this way on behalf of photographers and having read plenty about what is called 'copyleft trolling' it seems that these cases fit the description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Normanlamont (talk • contribs) 16:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Normanlamont: It seems that Diliff irregularly archives their user talk page. The last archiving was in this edit 22:39, 19 October 2017 (UTC). All of the archives are listed in the "Archive:" area of the top, as follows:[reply]
Archive 1 - (13th August 2005 to 5th of July 2009)
Archive 2 - (5th of July 2009 to 2nd of July 2014)
Archive 3 - (3nd of July 2014 to 6th of January 2015)
Archive 4 - (6th of January 2015 to 12th of July 2015)
Archive 5 - (12th of July 2015 to 20th of October 2017)
  — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the existence of Archive 3 appeared to defy the timeline.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:42, 28 March 2024 (UTC) *until I changed the dates on archives 3 and 4 from 2014 to 2015.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanlamont: A quick note: all the messages that you quote are on Diliff's user talk page on English Wikipedia, en:User talk:Diliff, which is why you can't find them on his user talk page here on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:13, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - that explains it. Normanlamont (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]


It would be a pity to have to propose removing such excellent images from Commons, but if User:Diliff is repeatedly threatening lawsuits rather than giving people a reasonable opportunity to correct lack of appropriate credits, and has no interest in changing that approach, that is exactly what I would propose. - Jmabel ! talk 22:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I would then concur.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm unfamiliar with how this works. Whose decision is it to take action or not? Normanlamont (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Normanlamont: to take what action? If you are referring to my comment above, it would be like any other deletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 20:04, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How "incorrect" are the credits? Are the users just omitting any credit (as if they were PD?). Enhancing999 (talk) 07:27, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 29[edit]

Alternatives to file verification[edit]

After my proposal for file verification, in Commons technical needs survey, was unsuccesful (it received only 3 votes, including mine), I'd like to talk here about the problem I was trying to solve. If I am not wrong, now, every user (even an unlogged o recently registered one) may edit a file page and remove its attribution template. For some files, the attribution template can be a true safeguard to avoid the file being deleted by mistake (for example, as I said in my proposal, if the file itself includes an "all rights reserved" copyright tag, with a recent date, but was re-licensed by its author after original publication). With file verification not seeming to be a viable solution, I'm thinking about several alternatives:

  • Preventing unregistered and/or unprivileged users from removing attribution templates from files (especially from files uploaded by other users).
  • Allowing attribution template removal to all or part of the users mentioned in the previous point, but having the action to be subsequently reviewed by an administrator or privileged user. This wouldn't be the same as usual edit patrolling, but a much more prioritized list where all editions should be reviewed soon (there shouldn't be many attribution template removals in a day, so it wouldn't take much time to review it).
  • Having an official list of safe sources. Files from those sources are highly unlikely to be copyright violations, so, if one is nominated, it won't be deleted unless it's clearly proven that it doesn't come from the said source, or that it's a rare exception where the free license or public domain doesn't apply. For every copyvio nomination, this list should be looked at before proceeding.
  • I'm being too paranoid. If somebody vandalizes a file page, by removing its attribution template, the file will never be deleted even if nominated, because file history will always be carefully checked before deletion, and the past presence of the template will be detected.

Of course, if the last point is right, there wouldn't be any need to do anything. Otherwise, I think things should be improved to avoid risking to lose valuable content. MGeog2022 (talk) 18:49, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

March 30[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=864268510"