Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/07.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 "(illustrations)" in category names 36 13 ITookSomePhotos 2023-07-21 19:37
2 Extended confirmed rights and extended confirmed protection 10 7 Tuvalkin 2023-07-15 03:09
3 Deletion nomination error 5 5 2003...CEAE:7910 2023-07-19 11:40
4 Photo challenge May results 5 3 Jarekt 2023-07-17 14:32
5 Unidentified politicians: What is "unidentified"? 5 4 Jklamo 2023-07-17 13:08
6 VRTS for AI generated images 38 8 Pigsonthewing 2023-07-19 15:37
7 Fix information - Category:Madonna (entertainer) by year / Gaga 3 3 Huntster 2023-07-19 17:42
8 UploadStatsBot 1 1 Jmabel 2023-07-18 22:34
9 Kedarnath and Badrinath photography restrictions 5 3 Sbb1413 2023-07-19 17:25
10 Archiving of source URLs by bot 5 5 Donald Trung 2023-07-20 20:05
11 Can the Comment I wrote when uploading a photo be tweaked? 5 2 Misha Wolf 2023-07-19 19:34
12 Bulk file download 1 1 ITookSomePhotos 2023-07-21 19:25
13 Legal disclaimer for Indian maps 1 1 Hemiauchenia 2023-07-22 02:19
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.
Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

June 23[edit]

"(illustrations)" in category names[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  •  Comment Personally, I would favor limiting "illustration" categories to non-photographs, as that has been long-standing practice on Commons and seems least likely to cause confusion and conflicts. Nosferattus (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I tend to agree. It seems confusing to categorise photographs as "illustrations", even if they have been scanned from a book or magazine. If it is desired to have a category containing all images of any type used to illustrate a topic, then I think the category name needs more words to explain this. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 04[edit]

History of white Americans[edit]

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

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

July 09[edit]

Extended confirmed rights and extended confirmed protection[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

@Vitaium: several things here don't make sense to me:
  • What do you mean by "bypass the redirect"? Do you mean "delete the resulting redirect" or do you mean something else?
  • "Pages with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users such as Commons:Deletion requests": at first I couldn't even parse this. Am I correct in understanding that it means to say "Pages, such as Commons:Deletion requests, with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users"? And even then I can't tell what you are driving at. You are probably referring to some history of disruption that I'm not familiar with. Could you spell that out?
  • "Templates where general community editing is still required when template protection is too restrictive." Maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired, but I can't even parse that. Could you rephrase? - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vitaium (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not need a new user group for this. We could create a protection level allowing only autopatrolled users to edit. I do not see a need for rights between no extended rights and autopatroll rights. GPSLeo (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about we should make autopatroller granted automatically for users that are 30 days old and 500 edits? Vitaium (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think we should not add this right based on edit count as this would mark much disruptive behavior and especially copyright violations as patrolled. But we should use the candidate list a bit more Commons:Requests for rights/possible autopatrolled candidates. GPSLeo (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because of the availability of mass upload tools to all users (a major discussion in and of itself), it is vastly easier to get to 500 edits on Commons than other wikis (especially without being noticed by other editors). Autopatrol on Commons will always need human review rather than being granted automatically. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose We already have enough problems of filemovers' not understanding COM:FR and making moves with no basis in policy. Widening file-moving permissions will only make that worse. --bjh21 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose as I agree with bjh21. File renaming is abused allready. --MGA73 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose, pe the above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 12[edit]

Deletion nomination error[edit]

The deletion nomination CAPTCHA information says, "Either enter the captcha or give it up. You if a template you are inserting contains an URL, you will be prompted for each page you’re editing. Create an account, do some useful stuff and become autoconfirmed." The second sentence is grammatically incorrect. It should say, "If a template you are inserting contains a URL, you will be prompted for each page you’re editing." The third sentence should be deleted because doing the indicated missions are not required to complete the CAPTCHA. --70.68.168.129 22:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done I edited the message, see Special:Diff/782881372 for the change. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow! This has always had this weird wording (over a decade)! - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first and the third sentences of this message are in no way better. They are insinuating quite clearly that I am vandalizing and should not be doing this useless stuff.
I would understand if you get this kind of message after the third or fifth attempt, but this is the very first message I get when I nominate an image for deletion. Is the person who nominates a copyvio or some other presumably illegal content to be treated like they are vandalizing? --2003:C0:8F37:2200:B07A:24E6:A7CF:30E2 08:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just realized that you had already changed those too. So much better, thanks! --2003:C0:8F37:2200:D4E0:484D:CEAE:7910 11:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 13[edit]

Photo challenge May results[edit]

feathers: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Victoria crowned pigeon Western Crowned Pigeon
in Geneva, Switzerland.		 Peacock feather close-up
Author Roy Egloff RomanDeckert Mister rf
Score 10 9 7
Macro photography: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Close up photograph of wing of Papilio
demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758) - Lime Swallowtail		 weibliche Schwarze
Habichtsfliege (Dioctria
atricapilla) mit Morgentau		 Caterpillar of the small
frost moth on a rose leaf
Author ManaskaMukhopadhyay Carsten Siegel Ermell
Score 12 11 10

Congratulations to Roy Egloff, RomanDeckert, Mister rf, ManaskaMukhopadhyay, Carsten Siegel and Ermell. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jarekt: This has once again added horizontal scrolling to the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: not for me. What's your screen width? - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My screenwidth is reasonable. This is a recurring problem which I have raised previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy, Sorry about it. I made it more narrow. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 14[edit]

Unidentified politicians: What is "unidentified"?[edit]

Hi all! Categories like Politics have an influx of at least a dozen portrait images of assumed politicians per week. Others like Politicians contain between 150 (last month) and way over 2000 (last year) images. This category is of course way too broad, so its purpose is essentially identical with Unidentified politicians and/or Politicians of unidentified countries. There are several people who volunteered to identify all these politicians by name and/or country, and sort them accordingly. The principle of categories for unidentified politicians has been around for a long time, and several sub-categories like for example Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe, the US, etc. date back to the mid-2010s. I created several more of them (one per country, and also a template for that) because I see these categories as a necessary step in processing all these images so that each face gets properly put into the correct, corresponding category. The end goal of course is, to have not a single file placed directly in Politicians of..., because everyone is placed in sub-categories by name, gender or party affiliation. (For most countries, we are far away from that, but it's okay, Commons is alive).

Questions emerge on how that processing gets properly done. Some fellows say that it's fully sufficient to categorize Mr. PvR-06863 (actually, it's "Jiří Vítek") into "Politicians of Czechia", because he can be easily identified via the image description - no further action needs to be taken, and so my edit that moved him into "Unidentified..." was reverted. The same occurs with Mr. Kunc MG 4672-4-1536x1536 (the description says it's actually "Petra Kunce"), and Mr. Vranov na lodi Viktorie 2021 (the description says his real name is "Aktuální fotografie."). So, this last one did have neither the name in the image title, nor in the image description... but the image gets used in an actual article about the person, so again, the identification is obvious from the file usage and no further action needed to be taken. So, in short, people are protesting that these images already are identified according to their sense.

My own claim is: If a portrait sits uncategorized directly in (eg.) P.o. Colombia, at least the filename should include a full name of the person, otherwise it should instead be placed into the corresponding Unidentified p.o. Colombia: The image description doesn't help at all in the category view; most images are labeled with the name; and by moving them to "unidentified" I am merely pointing out that the image needs forther processing.
The whole issue actually began when I started to sort through "Unidentified politicians", where I try to find out their country and a category with their name as stated in the filename or description. If the category with their name stays red, they don't have a Commons-category and I place them as unidentified.

Because of the conflicts I mentioned above: in the sense of "Unidentified people"-categories, what counts as "identification" of a person?

I don't think I need to point out that creating the correct category should be done by local people, and according to local customs and name usage, which might not be reflected in the files already. The best I can do quickly while sorting through Unidentified is putting the portraits into the right countries, and make suggestions of a possible category in red, like so, or so.

A solution to the issue might be to change the name of the "unidentified" category branch. "Politicians of Brazil to be categorized", "Improperly named images of politicians of Saudi Arabia", "Politicians of the United States to be classified"... I think that would be unwieldy, so I like "Unidentified". --Enyavar (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In my view, "Unidentified" should mean we actually don't know who it is (missing name or so little context that you can't tell what country, office, etc.). Otherwise, yes, it probably should be a "to be categorized" maintenance category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Trying to keep myself short: Who is "we", and how do we actually know or not know? Some editors are able to read Arabic and Korean; some editors will know who "AOC" and "RFK" are just from such improper descriptions; some editors will point out that names are wrong, incomplete or misspelled, so that everyone else only appeared to know. On the other hand, when I browse badly-named files in a category, I don't know who is depicted.
I forgot to mention the guideline Overcat that lead to my reasoning; and I forget to mention the people who found issue with my approach and who might be eager to claim that I did everything wrong: @Rudolph Buch, Gikü, INS Pirat, and Jklamo: Hi! On the other hand, I have no idea who appreciated my approach. I found that someone(s) just quietly cleared a lot of unidentified images from the Brazilian and Mexican categories into proper categories, no idea who. --Enyavar (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appreciate your efforts to improve categorisation, and I welcome the creation of new categories for people that can be linked to wikidata (and thus use the Wikidata Infobox for even better identification). But I share the view that the "Unidentified" categories are really meant for images of completely unidentified people (like this], not to be a maintenance category for other purposes (insufficient description, insufficient categorisation, etc.). Jklamo (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:160128_BZ_Fin_EU_Europagebouw_Amsterdam_4184_(24671667945).jpg&oldid=743945760 is unidentified.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:160128_BZ_Fin_EU_Europagebouw_Amsterdam_4184_(24671667945).jpg&oldid=783295635 is identified. RZuo (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 15[edit]

VRTS for AI generated images[edit]

Is there a reason why we have started to do this? I think it is very problematic if the VRTS team starts to go against the Commons consensus regarding copyright of AI works--Trade (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's fine for a work in the public domain in most jurisdictions to also have a free license. Remember, the UK grants copyright to AI-generated works, so the free license is actually useful there. Just add {{PD-algorithm}} and leave the rest. Nosferattus (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Something ineligible for copyright can by its very nature not need permission to be uploaded Trade (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: if some countries consider it copyrightable and require a license, are you saying we should not record such a license? That seems a bit odd to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the relation of the author to the United Kingdom is? Trade (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: At the risk of speaking for someone else: the relation is just that someone in the UK (or another country with similar protections) might wish to use the image and need a license. We require licenses that cover country of origin & the U.S., but we certainly permit licenses that are relevant to other countries. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not relevant for the UK because the user who made it resides in Jordan Trade (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: The UK still grants the prompter copyright within the UK even if they've never set foot there. So if someone wants to reuse the image within the UK, they will need the license. Nosferattus (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What about the 2000 other AI images that also needs a license to be used in the UK? Trade (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: Unless they were below the TOO, I personally would recommend against using them there without the permission of the person who gave the generating prompt. If someone wanted to bring a copyright infringement case, I'd say they had a fair chance of winning. - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: This is why {{PD-algorithm}} has a warning on it about images being copyrighted in the UK. Nosferattus (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And that warning is sufficient enough Trade (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A warning is not sufficient if you need to use it in the UK; the license is necessary. That's why we provide the license when available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the VRTS could not consult the rest of the community before changing the copyright of hundreds of images? At this point it cant even be called consensus based Trade (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: What do you mean by "changing the copyright"? Copyright is established by governments, not by us here at Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The part where hundreds of AI images were changed from being Public Domain to copyrighted Trade (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can do something like {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, i.e. "this work is PD in the US and many other jurisdictions, but if it's not PD in your jurisdiction, here's a backup license you can use." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could you try and edit the template so i can see what you had in mind Trade (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would have hoped this was something Krd would have consulted the community about before deciding that AI images should have permissions. But i guess there is nothing else to do now but to try and sort this license mess out.--Trade (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That does not answer what we do with the images Trade (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
VRTS has more than one possible role is this. In the very case, there may be some pre or postprocessing before or after the AI worked which may or may not be about TOO. There is no reason not to approve such permission. At the very least there is no reason to remove such permission and keep the cc-by-sa tag; it's either PD or not PD, but not both.
Further, even the fact that something is AI created and therefore PD may not be obvious and is a possible case of reasonable ticket permissison. --Krd 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The uploader literally states that the image is AI generated. We either take him on his word or we dont Trade (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As for the whole "if the images are PD in the US but copyrighted in the UK then we need to get permission" argument. Commons have hundreds of paintings still copyrighted in the UK. We dont require permission because the law that protects their copyright does not apply to outside the UK. We just state a warning and leave the reader on to deal with the issue if applicable to them. --Trade (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is true that we don't require it (we require PD or license only for country of origin and for U.S. where our servers are located) but, exactly as in this case, we allow the person or organization that holds copyright in the UK to grant a license that is useful in the UK. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image was threatened with deletion if no VRTS was provided within seven days. That is the complete opposite of "we dont require permission" Trade (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That you'd have to take up with User:علاء, who tagged it. However, at that time there was no claim of PD, just a license offered by the uploader, User:Hasanisawi, who had claimed authorship, which علاء apparently doubted. Hanasawi then contacted VRT. Since I'm not part of that team, I don't know exactly what the correspondence involved, but they were obviously satisfied that insofar as this work may be copyrighted, Hanasawi holds the copyright and may grant a license. Later the PD template was added. As far as I can tell, the PD template could have been added sooner, which would have been another way to resolve this and keep the image. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"That you'd have to take up with User:علاء, who tagged it." Then why did you said permission was optional when that wasnt the case? "I don't know exactly what the correspondence involved, but they were obviously satisfied that insofar as this work may be copyrighted" Them being satisfied with an image using the wrong license does not change the fact that the license was blatantly wrong. The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that the VRT are in fact infallible. You know what license Commons:AI explicitly tells us to use so i i would say evicence has already been provided Trade (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: "Then why did you said permission was optional when that wasnt the case?" Please don't confuse different matters. The current state of the file page is entirely different than when علاء tagged it. At that time it did not have a PD template of any sort. You would have to ask علاء why they tagged it as "no permission" rather than add {{PD-algorithm}}, but frankly people often use {{No permission since}} on files they could sort out for themselves. Surely that is not the focus of this discussion. As to why علاء doubted that the uploader was the person who held copyright in those countries which allow such files to be copyrighted, again, you'd have to ask علاء. Frankly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm done engaging with you on this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
P.S.: I personally think the file is out of scope and should have been deleted on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
con tutte queste abbreviazioni e termini tecnici, continuo a non capire quale il problema hasanisawi (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hasanisawi: The problem, fundamentally, is that any time you upload an AI-generated image you should include {{PD-algorithm}}. The rest of this is about (1) whether or not it is OK to also offer other licenses, covering countries in which AI-generated images can be copyrighted, (2) whether User:علاء handled this correctly or not, and (3) whether this particular image is in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I must underline the fact that the image was not done completely with the AI, because I started with a freehand drawing and then after generating the image, I had to correct many errors with the photoshop program. hasanisawi (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hasanisawi: then, assuming the image is not deleted as being out of scope, you would do well to state explicitly on the file page what work is yours vs. the AI's. If I personally were posting something that is part mine and part an AI's, I'd probably post the various phases (if only by overwriting successively under the same filename) to make it clear what work was mine and what was the AI's. As it is, it's impossible to tell whether your work is copyrightable in (for example) the U.S. or not, because it is not clear how much human contribution it involves. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
grazie. ma non si possono caricare le varie fasi di elaborazioni dell'immagine in photoshop , perché una volta che si arriva al risultato ottenuto si uniscono i vari layer in uno solo hasanisawi (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Hasanisawi: but you can save (and upload) the state where you go from your work to using an AI, or vice versa. And you can certainly give a verbal description of what sort of work you've done by hand, especially if you want to make a claim that there is sufficient human creative contribution to qualify for copyright.
Not something involving an AI, but here's a recent example of my showing (by uploading a version) both what my camera produced on its own and what I did to postprocess the shot into what I wanted: File:Xavier Lopez 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Commons have hundreds of paintings still copyrighted in the UK." Really? Could you give a couple of examples please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Anything painted/published before 1927 by a U.S. painter who died after 1953. File:People-of-Chilmark-Benton-1920-lrg.jpg is a good example, off the top of my head. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you. (I misunderstood the claim). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 16[edit]

Fix information - Category:Madonna (entertainer) by year / Gaga[edit]

I haven't located where and how to edit neither here or Wikidata her infobox at the "Category:Madonna (entertainer) by year" which contains some errors. Under "Alternative names", "Oen, Hong Sen" should be removed. And I think her Description "American film director, composer, film producer, writer, actress and dancer" is not accurate. Isn't mentioned she is a singer. Should be something like "singer, song-writer, and actress". Lady Gaga has a similar description problem in her category (with Italian-Canadian singer"). Thanks in advance.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That data is being pulled from Wikidata items Q1744 (Madonna) and Q19848 (Lady Gaga), and can be edited there. (I don't immediately see how it's ending up with "Italian-Canadian" as a description for Lady Gaga, though.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Creator template, rather than just using the Wikidata language description, pulls a combination of properties from the WD entry to build the Creator description. So, for Madonna, it's pulling country of citizenship and occupation, and in Gaga's instance, it's seemingly pulling ethnic group and occupation. I've fixed Madonna's situation, but I'm not really sure how best to deal with Gaga's. Creator prioritizes ethnicity over citizenship for some reason. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 18[edit]

UploadStatsBot[edit]

It looks like User:UploadStatsBot has not run in over 3 years. Is there any acceptable substitute? - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 19[edit]

Kedarnath and Badrinath photography restrictions[edit]

Recently, the photography around Kedarnath and Badrinath temples has been prohibited and the temple authority will take legal action against violators. Not only that, closed-circuit television cameras are installed to monitor the area around the temples. Although such photography restrictions are considered non-copyright restrictions, these restrictions may bring Wikimedia Commons into yet another legal trouble if any of our Wikimedians try to photograph the temples. Therefore, it may affect the operation of Wikimedia Commons in India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sbb1413: it could clearly create problems for the individual photographers, but how could it create problems for Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a photographer is caught for photographing one of the above temples and the temple authority takes a legal action against them and if they confess that they have done it for Wikimedia Commons, then Wikimedia Commons will obviously get into a legal trouble. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The photographer is not acting on behalf of Commons or Wikimedia, so I also do not see how this is an actionable issue. The temple authority may issue a takedown request, and it will be up to the Office to decide how to act. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There won't be a takedown request considering buildings (including temples) are out of copyright in India as per COM:FOP India. However, the possibilities of a copyfraud are not ruled out. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Archiving of source URLs by bot[edit]

I raised a question at meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot#Source URLs on commons about whether the bot was archiving Commons' source URLs. I was told:

I used to do that with WaybackMedic and got a pile of grief on different occasions from users who say the archive URL is not the original source image and it should not be archived even if dead. So I stopped trying to help Commons, at least until they figure out what they want.

To be clear, the answer refers to updating links here to point to the archived version, as done on other Wikimedia projects.

Can we confirm consensus for that? What are the issues, if any, with doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Seems to me that an archive link is actually ideal, in that it documents the state of the source on a particular date. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agreed. Having a snapshot of the original file is something we should want, so I don't understand what those other users are complaining about. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not just the original file (which we have a copy of), but, more importantly, the terms under which the image was released at the time we obtained it. It isn't uncommon for sources to change their copyright terms over time. Omphalographer (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can the Comment I wrote when uploading a photo be tweaked?[edit]

Yesterday, I uploaded a photo of Mo Foster (File:Michael Ralph "Mo" Foster.jpg). I can't quite remember how I typed his name in the Comment, but I probably wrote "Mo Foster". In any event, the Wikimedia page for the photo shows his name (in the Comment) with a red link. Is there any way to fix that? Many thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By default, links on Commons are treated as linking to gallery pages on Commons, not articles on Wikipedia. To link to a page on the English Wikipedia, add w: before the page title in the link, e.g. [[w:Mo Foster]], and you'll get w:Mo Foster. I've edited the description for you. Omphalographer (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Omphalographer, thanks for that. The Comment at File:Michael Ralph "Mo" Foster.jpg still appears to show a red link, though. Thanks again Misha Wolf (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The comment is based on the edit summary you provided when you uploaded the file, and can't be modified. Sorry. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks anyway. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 21[edit]

Bulk file download[edit]

Hi, is there any way that I can bulk download all the files that I have previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ITookSomePhotos: Have you seen Commons:Download_tools? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

July 22[edit]

Legal disclaimer for Indian maps[edit]

Hi, I'm not a regular user of Commons commmunity pages, but I wasn't sure if somewhere else was appropriate. On the English Wikipedia, there has been posts from the WMF regarding their communications with the Indian government regarding maps hosted on Commons. [1]. According to Indian law, it is illegal to show maps that depict India's actual line of control, rather than all of the territory it claims. Obviously, trying to alter or remove maps that don't comply with this law is a non-starter, but I thought I would ask if it is appropriate to create a legal disclaimer, akin to something like Template:Chinese boundaries. I checked "Category:Non-copyright restriction templates" and didn't find an Indian equivalent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images to dewiki[edit]

Hello I would like to know if we can import images as is or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althair (talk • contribs)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=785534564"