Shortcut: COM:VP

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Category:English-language SVG charts etc	14	2	Prototyperspective	2025-04-25 17:43
2	Question about Commons:project scope and AI generated images	50	10	Jmabel	2025-04-24 19:26
3	Category:Green (text)	17	6	Pigsonthewing	2025-04-27 16:23
4	Dating postcard with 45 cent stamp	9	6	Smiley.toerist	2025-04-26 22:43
5	Satellite maps of GoogleMap and OpenStreetMaps	14	6	Pigsonthewing	2025-04-26 18:42
6	What if ...?	5	4	Commander Keane	2025-04-26 04:28
7	Help choosing scanning resolution for photos	6	6	Nosferattus	2025-04-28 05:20
8	To whom it may concern	4	4	Pigsonthewing	2025-04-26 18:37
9	CORDO - Tool to navigate open DRs	11	4	Ladsgroup	2025-04-30 12:28
10	How do we handle documents for say a person named John Smith	12	7	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2025-04-27 20:22
11	Major design problem in Visual Editor	16	8	Tduk	2025-04-30 14:13
12	Use of images from a website without authorization	6	6	Asclepias	2025-04-28 19:45
13	Categorizing files by the same person when their anonymous	3	3	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2025-04-27 20:12
14	Hearst Castle	7	4	Omphalographer	2025-04-28 21:30
15	Naming conventions for flags (for example Flag of Honduras)	8	4	RoyZuo	2025-04-30 12:37
16	source text of SVGs	5	4	RoyZuo	2025-04-28 18:21
17	probleme with templates ?	2	2	Tvpuppy	2025-04-28 17:44
18	Vote on proposed modifications to the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines and U4C Charter	1	1	Keegan (WMF)	2025-04-29 03:40
19	Is this allowed?	8	2	Tgeorgescu	2025-04-30 14:03

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.

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Discussion on Copyright law of North Korea (16 March 2025) Commons_talk:Freedom of panorama#Proposal to abolish acceptance (2 March 2025) Categorization of SVG files (13 February 2025) Costumed character files (14 October 2024) Third-party images published by the National Weather Service (26 August 2024) Commons:Requests for comment/Hosting of free fonts in Commons (18 July 2024) How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) 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.

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

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

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

If it's good to have and files should be added, I'll add lots of files there. Either we have these cats and they are meant to be as complete as possible or we don't. If these exist, I think it would be best if some bot added or moved cats accordingly, so for example if it's an SVG file and somewhere in the charts category, it would be moved to Category:SVG charts. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:11, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you mean by "datagraphics"? The word is not in Wiktionary, and a Google search is absolutely unilluminating. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Graphics that visualize data; and you can add a space between data and graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't clarify much. Which of the following would fall within what you mean?

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you make this thread be about another subject that's at most tangential. That's not the subject; I think the first is clearly a datagraphic and the fifth an information graphic and all the other ones are diagrams or mathematical/physics graphics. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all tangential. You asked, "Does it make sense to add datagraphics to it?" Almost a week later, no one had responded, probably because (like me) they could not work out what your vague term meant.

As far as I can tell, all of these in some sense provide a visual representation of data, that's why I gave them as examples; based on your response, it appears to be a question of the nature of the data and also (if the fifth does not fall in this category) the nature of the representation. Could you explain why the second and fourth one don't qualify? Is it the nature of the data? Or are you just remarking on them not being labeled in English (it would have taken a lot longer for me to find examples with English-language labels, that wasn't the thrust of my question, sorry if that was unclear). - Jmabel ! talk 05:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It could be a good idea to have a thread about that, I mean it's a good subject, just not very relevant here: simply replace word "datagraphics" in my post with word "graphics" or when it comes to the cat linked in the thread title with word "charts".

I don't see which data the second is supposed to visualize. Data graphics are about clear data like the data in the first graphic. The fourth seems to be a schema, not actual measures of hormetic dose response, it illustrates roughly how the response is thought to be. It would be a datagraphic if it visualized say 100 people's measures with an average. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying the "data" has to be data about the actual material world, not (for example) random numbers or an arbitrary test case. Correct? FWIW, for the second one I suspect it does map the data from some real-world experiment, but it is not well enough documented for us to know, so ultimately it is hard to care. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The second one may be about actual data but it doesn't visualize it an understandable meaningful way as far as I can see; I don't know if this scribbled chaotic something is supposed to make sense to people but it doesn't seem like it. I think it's not statistical. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:32, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Presumably that one is positional. So let's extrapolate a bit: let's say it represented the observed movement of a pod of whales over time, and was captioned in English with dates corresponding to a few points. Would it then qualify?

Anyway, if I now understand correctly, what you are proposing to add to Category:English-language SVG charts are SVG charts that express real-world statistical data, and have at least some captioning in English? That sounds entirely reasonable. Or is there something beyond that? - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This whole thread is basically entirely not about charts & other datagraphics until you asked about it because I had used that term in the examples. It's about those categories by SVG filetype. Your questions are interesting and this one tricky but again not the subject where the three issues in relation to the question remains unanswered. A map that shows the movement of just one whale but not many whales is a tricky edge case where I'm not sure whether it's a data graphic; I think a map that shows the movement of hundreds of whales would be as it would show an oceanic species movement patterns. Somebody else may give a better answer on that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: then I'm back to being completely confused. Your initial question, as I read it, was whether it was useful to "add datagraphics" to Category:English-language SVG charts. I have no idea how I (or anyone) was supposed to answer that without understanding what you meant by "datagraphics". Given the clarification, my answer is yes, it is useful (though I suspect that if you are adding a lot, there will be a need for mores subcategories.

But how can you think someone can answer a question without understanding the words used in asking the question? This had sat for over 6 days with no response, quite likely because no one else could make any more sense of it than I could. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As said, just replace that word with broader "graphics" (in all of the initial post). It's about the by-filetype-category. Okay, so I'll add all those graphics. But then still those three points remain unaddressed. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Trade: What issue? I reset the QuickTime 144p (MJPEG) transcode successfully.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Please watch the video Trade (talk) 01:50, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be the same on YouTube, so it is not a bug on our end but a weird issue with the original video file uploaded. Not sure if there is such a category though. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:55, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. According to Commons:project scope "any use that is not made in good faith does not count." There was recently a DR, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Science Fantasy platform city on an exoplanet.png, where an AI generated image was kept because it was being used in a German language article for science fantasy since according to the closer "Commons does not override the editorial autonomy of sister projects." Normally, I'd be fine with that. The problem is that the image was added to the article by Prototyperspective, a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia. He also has a history of adding AI generated images to other projects in order to game the system. Something that he's been reported to ANU and admonished for doing multiple times. So it seems like the editorial autonomy of a sister project was already violated by him adding the image to the article.

It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata. Last month he created Wikidata:List of science fiction themes and has been uploading and adding AI generated images to Wikidata items based on it. Last year he was report to ANU for doing the same thing but on Wikibooks. I'm not going to relitigate the whole thing. It seems like an increasing issue that can't be dealt with through deletion requests because of how the policy is currently worded though. So I think it should include something like "any usage of AI generated images on sister projects by someone who isn't a regular contributor and/or where there's better (non-AI generated) alternatives is invalid." Thoughts? Adamant1 (talk) 03:31, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This needs to be solved on the projects where the files are used. They need to remove the file from the page and block the user. GPSLeo (talk) 06:11, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: I feel like it's our issue to deal with if there's already a line in the policy that bad faith usage isn't valid to begin with and the user doing it is from Commons. Obviously it's not on sister projects to enforce our policies. Otherwise, if no one is willing to enforce that part of the policy then it should just be removed. But it's ridiculous to put it on other projects to remove images that were added by our users in an attempt to get around our policies. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove it from the other project as long as you do not break any local rules by doing so. If projects fail fighting vandalism this is a task for the global admins and stewards. GPSLeo (talk) 06:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: That's fair. I wasn't sure if it was allowed it or not given how people on here don't like anything that comes off as gaming the system. I'd still like to see the policy actually enforced or that part of it changed or removed if it's not going to be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:44, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think Prototyperspective was actually reported at the noticeboards on en.wp for the use of AI images.

A change to policy might be good- though of course it is difficult- we don't want Commons to be overrun with slop, but we also can't ask other projects to keep an eye on file usage. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you suggesting adding useful illustrations, some of them made by AI, is vandalism? And on ENWP I was reported mostly for making a thread and replying two often in two threads, not for adding AI images against which a rule was made only after I added them. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think I've mentioned vandalism anywhere in any comment I've made about it. Nice try though. I know it's impossible for you to be honest about the subject, but come on. If your going to respond to me at least have the respect to base it on what I actually said. And just an FYI for other people, he's topic banned from anything having to do with AI generated images on English Wikipedia for exactly this type of behavior. Along with replying two often in two threads, but the endless dishonesty was a large part of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to GPSLeo when he wrote If projects fail fighting vandalism. for exactly this type of behavior and I just made one reply to clarify one misconception you had, namely that I was referring to you when I wrote this. Keeping my replies minimal. a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia is also false by the way. @GPSLeo: who replied below: okay but it does make that impression to users who read this thread. Moreover, not being fine with what a user does usually does not result in some immediate block but instead people get warned and/or discuss, you seemed to suggest like if I add images people on a project don't like they should immediately block me. I didn't add many but those stayed for over a year because they are due and useful. My contributions are good-intentioned, cost me time, and constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:38, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I feel like this doesn't quite meet the level of "bad faith". There might be better images, and projects might not want to use AI for this purpose, but ultimately it is depicting something that could realistically be described as a science fantasy scape. To me, when i think bad faith, i would think blatent vandalism (e.g. if they put this image on the article for catapillar). Seems like for this sort of thing it would be better to revisit when/if projects remove all usages. Bawolff (talk) 11:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Bawolff: It's as much about the user doing it and their previous history around the subject then a particular image or edit. But there are other images of science fantasy that would have worked perfectly fine instead of the AI-generated one. It's bad faithed because Prototyperspective specifically picked an AI generated image that he uploaded himself over exiting ones, added it to an article on a project that he's not a contributor to, and then argued that the image can't be deleted because it's in use. All of which is something that he's already been reported to ANU for. Obviously if some random users of the German Wikipedia just put an AI image in an article for lack of anything better to use that wouldn't be "bad faithed." That's not really the issue. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:42, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

there are other images of science fantasy that would have worked perfectly fine This is. false. And I already explained it to you in the DR. And if there is an image, it doesn't mean there can't be two or even five in the article. It's bad faithed Will you ever stop wikihounding me and making continuous unwarranted bad faith accusations? article on a project that he's not a contributor to I'm a contributor to that project.

• What I personally think what would be appropriate: thanking me for spending lots of time and effort to close an identified media gap on a subject I'm somewhat knowledgable and interested in.
• What is happening instead: hostility and accusations and having to justify myself in threads like this. It's totally fine if nobody thanks me but this is the exact hostility that drives other kinds of people of the Wikimedia projects and away from providing missing media and contributing constructively where contributions are most valuable.

Prototyperspective (talk) 11:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective: You were reported to ANU for adding images to Wikibooks and added the image in the DR to the German Wikipedia when you aren't a regular contributor to the project. Those aren't "accusations", those things literally happened. So What bad faithed accusations am I making here? --Adamant1 (talk) 12:00, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'm a regular contributor to that project. 2. I'm allowed and even encouraged to make useful Wikibooks. I don't know which ANU you refer to but making an ANU because I create a useful WikiBook is absurd in itself and not a good point and perfectly illustrates the wikihounding in my opinion. 3. You make the bad faith accusations that I do things in order to game the system and that my contributions are bad-intentioned, inappropriate and malicious. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. You've made 987 edits since 2019 and most of them were to same four or five articles having to do with science fiction or a Wikiproject having to do with AI. I wouldn't call that a "regular contributor." 3. this ANU complaint and I think it's perfectly valid to point out since it part of a pattern of problematic behavior on your end across multiple projects 3. People certainly thought you adding images to Wikibooks was gaming the system. I could care less either way but other people certainly thought that's what you were doing and you are topic banned from the area on Wikipedia for inappropriate behavior having to do with it.

Again, those are just facts and it's not wikihounding to point them out. Especially since your the one who always goes off and derails these conversations. That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions. I'd love to never talk about you again. Your the one forcing me to by endlessly making things about you and your personal grievances. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1. Some users make thousands of edits to fix typos, is that really worth so much more than large edits updating articles on major subjects that are read a lot with important scientific information? A thousand edits is not little and it's not just the same four or five articles but many, especially up to a year ago. It's somewhat offtopic anyway and just further shows the wikihounding behavior.
3. If I add images to a wikibook at one point when I think of creating the wikibook, people accuse me of gaming the system – do I need to wait and create it later so less people care about me creating the very useful and due wikibook?
your the one who always goes off and derails these conversations This is precisely false. I address points and dislike it a lot when people ignore mine and do not address the subject which is also why the ANU was started since I asked people to please stay ontopic right from the start. Just look at this thread: where have I gone offtopic and not addressed a point made?

I'd love to never talk about you again. Your the one forcing me to by endlessly making it about you and your personal grievances. How did I force you? You keep wikihounding me and making bad faith accusations and I doubtful you will ever stop just like I'm not so certain you will stop the personal attacks that got you to ANU multiple times. That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions I think this thread was started by you and specifically refers to me and what I did. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:29, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You keep wikihounding me and making bad faith accusations You mean like your comment on Wikidata about how I have a huge problem with anything AI-generated and just want to have it removed from the project when the conversation had absolutely nothing to do with you? That's literally your game. All you do is Wikihound me and make bad faithed accusations any time I say anything about AI anywhere. Be my guest and don't though.

I think this thread was started by you and specifically refers to me and what I did. Yeah, because your the one who uploaded the image that the DR was about and added it to the German Wikipedia article. Come on. I'm not going to ask a question on the Village Pump without saying why I'm asking it. That's just the way it works. It's not like I'm insulting you for no reason in a conversation that has nothing to do with me like your doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:55, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You started that discussion at the same time as this one and here you are referring to me adding some AI image(s) to another project. You are making tons of threads about AI and replied in nearly every one of them and I think it's a due mention there that you are quite opposed to these. In any case to any reader of this and the other thread that's not a bad faith accusation and it wouldn't make your continuous countless bad faith accusations against me any better or less of such. I don't wikihound you at all. You keep on making ANU threads and VP threads and whatnot about everything AI-related that I do and often refer to me and vote delete in any DR of files uploaded by me, iirc often started by you. Now this is going offtopic though since you deflect from what I said and bring up other things. your the one who uploaded the image didn't say anything else. You claimed a certain thing, I addressed it, now you as usual move the discussion toward tangential things or don't address what I said. What you quoted was a reply to That's on you for making every damn conversation about AI revolve around you and your opinions and you often move things out of context or sth like that which then needs to be addressed with an even further reply, resulting in a) walls of text b) misunderstandings and c) potentially too many replies on my side to address and correct these things. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:07, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I had some free time and it was on my mind because of the DR. That's it. It's my prerogative to work in whatever area, when ever or as much as I want to. The fact that your acting like there's a problem with that is exactly why I said you keep making this about you and your personal grievances. Your the one who repeatedly makes these discussions about you and your need to go off on people about the subject. Just don't. It's not that difficult. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we(as in commons) needs to have a discussion about AI. It's not like Prototyperspective have technically broken rules directly- but Adamant1 does bring up good points.

Making the whole issue about just one editor, no matter how central they are to the issue at hand is a bad idea. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:12, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You link to a DR about a file I uploaded and write about me e.g. at It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata and then when I reply in the thread I keep making this about you and your personal grievances. Make that make sense. You started this thread. You made this to a large part about me and it's well warranted I reply to address what you said about what I did. It's this simple. Moreover, you didn't really get the point across of what I said but whatever. I kindly ask you to please not go off on people as you, unlike me (I'm always addressing specific points and never made a personal attack), did many times including with insults and bad faith accusations. I had some free time and it was on my mind because of the DR. It's similar for things I do, yet you accuse me of things like gaming the system and whatnot. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:19, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You are very central to DRs about keeping AI generated images- so you were an obvious first choice to start this conversation about AI topics. You actually are doing those things on sister projects though- and have even been reported for it. You do keep making it about yourself- you are supposed to defend by citing rules, not by going about how the other person is wrong or whatever. The point about gaming the system is different, and one can easily provide evidence for you doing it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 14:24, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying it is not okay I address what the user said about me and what I do? Please check what has been said above and which points I addressed with what I said. And I have been reported on English Wikipedia for making a thread and replying too often in it, not for adding the AI images which I added before there was some sort of rule against them and which largely stayed there until recently two or so users removed them all at once for the reason that they're AI-made which I did not even challenge. Not I'm not making it about myself when a user makes a thread referring to me and writes things like It appears that he's been doing the same thing on Wikidata. I explained various things and I cited things like WP:AGF and COM:HOUND. Nothing of what I did referred to here was wrong and as said the edits were constructive. Please according to WP:AGF ask yourself what a behavior is that accuses a person who spends hours and lots of efforts to close identified important media gaps with good intent? Pretty sure other users would long have given up because of not just thanklessness but hostility and quite plain personal attack insults. I did not make this about myself, the user did and it's very due I address what has been said about what I did such as the false bad faith accusations. There is no evidence of me doing it because I'm not doing it. There is however evidence that certain people seem to want to delete any AI image, no matter how useful and good-quality. The DR'd image has been addressed in the DR so I don't need to address it here again repeating what I already said there such as that the image illustrates well what the sources in the image caption are saying. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You say you are not making this about yourself, then who is this ego play about?

What I personally think what would be appropriate: thanking me for spending lots of time and effort to close an identified media gap ..and contributing constructively where contributions are most valuable.. You said you were reported for replying too much on en.wp, but the threads were related to AI images, and you trying to push a view about them. Also, personally, as someone who has seen some of your AI image contributions- the only reason i didn't nominate 80% of them is bcs they are in use on wikiversity/books. Most, if not all, of those AI images are bad slop, and you have been making bad reasonings in many places of how easy they are to make and hence should not be deleted- I have seen you mention twice to not delete on the image, but improve on the image/prompt- when yhe issue is that the image should not be AI at all. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:28, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

this ego play about may I suggest not looking at every detail of my replies under some magnifier but the actual points made. I can't even correct any further replies because I'll have to stop replying to address people's points here or else I'll be accused of replying to much. The main basic point is the user made this thread much about me so it's warranted that I reply and address what has been said about me. bad slop uncivil degradation; also false; also it's not about the looks but the illustrated concept(s). bad reasonings not true how easy they are to make and hence should not be deleted that's your reasoning. Interestingly, it's usually from people who made no AI illustrations and is totally unsubstantiated claim and not a good point to begin with since the value of images is not the difficulty of creating them but whether they're good quality and useful. yhe issue is that the image should not be AI at all Thanks for making clear you're against AI images in general. Anyway, I'll try to stop to reply at this point. And maybe I should repeat that it wasn't me who made this thread to a large part about me but the person who e.g. wrote by Prototyperspective, a user who doesn't edit the German Wikipedia among other things.

I value reason and rationality; and I'm out. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Really, a magnifier- you write a huge block of text about we should all praise you and you saying we are putting your words under a magnifier. How is me calling the images bad slop "uncivil"- likr seriously?? Wow, new information- we are supposed to judge images by what they are supposed to illustrate, and not the image itself. That was your reasoning, it was not mine. Yeah, we should not be using AI images for many things bcs LLMs can generate bad slop.

Maybe do not edit every discussion related to AI images if you do not want to be discussed as one of the primary subjects in a discussion about AI images.

No replying from me either- the AI images discussion should go to the proposals subpage, and user behaviour to ANU if anyone deems necessary- this isn't the place for it. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 15:47, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's just Prototyperspective's MO. He'll write walls of text to derail a discussion and then go off on other people about how their insulting him and over analyzing things the second they provide the most basic feedback. He clearly thinks he owns the area and that no one else is allowed to an opinion about it. At least unless their bowing at his feet about how great he and AI images are. I guess that's on me for not starting this conversation with a 40 line Phd dissertation all about how fantastic AI and his work around it is. My bad. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(I wish to collapse the entire above discussion as being a side discussion on user behavior, conflict, and alleged wikihounding.) --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 22:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:24, 21 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Adamant1 i agree its annoying behaviour, but i consider bad faith to be a pretty high bar, and i'm not sure this crosses it. If this was a non-AI image the user took (but was subpar) and they posted it on a bunch of projects, i would not consider that bad faith per se, so i think the same logic should i apply to yhe AI case. I lean towards its up to individual projects on how to deal with it (and if it truly becomes disruptive across many projects then meta ban). I think commons should generally defer to other projects unless it is blatently obvious (like beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone is just trying to game the system. I just don't think that threshold is met here. (That said, Prototyperspective's communication style on this thread really isn't helping their case) Bawolff (talk) 22:26, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Given we accept these prompt images, the least Commons can do is clearly put a template on them.

{{PD-algorithm}} is used but it is about copyright and author's rights. What if the prompt, AI code and file database are cc-by-sa? Then it would need an additional licensing template that would allow use in UK and Hong Kong maybe. Copyright is messy, having {{Prompt generated}} that warns reusers doesn't have to be. Let's do that?

With a solid template it is up to sister projects to scour for, label and remove AI-gen files if they wish. I would expect big projects like English, German and French Wikipedias to mandate an AI warning template in file captions, but maybe they haven't caught on yet?

This problem isn't unique to AI-gen files, previously during a deletion discussion an uploader put their user-art on Wikidata to keep it in use.

<rant>Back when I joined Commons uploading a file involved buying a DSLR, going outside and getting accosted by the police. I should have waited 20 years to avoid all that and make nicer images.</rant>.

@Adamant1: I am not stalking you from Wikidata, we just both frequent the discussion boards it seems. You could have put some context there though. Commander Keane (talk) 06:21, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: Are you suggesting I should be blocked for doing my best to add useful images to pages such as science fiction subjects? I'm contributing constructively and Adamant1 is once again doing bad faith accusations that have no basis in reality. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I am only saying that blocking would be the right answer if the local project does not want such contributions. If they are fine with these contributions they of course should not block you. GPSLeo (talk) 11:30, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorWhoFan91 makes a good point that we can't ask other projects to keep an eye on file usage. Even if adding the images to other project is an issue know one is going to be blocked for something that editors from said projects probably aren't going to see or deal with to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It should absolutely not be our job to policy their project. That's actually the total opposite of what our role should be as described in COM:INUSE. Feel free to see my short essay User:Josve05a/AI media. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: We already "police" other projects when we delete copyrighted images that are in use. It's not like most DRs for COPYVIO are clear or that people from other projects have a say in it with most deletion request either. But I doubt you or anyone else who says we shouldn't police other projects would advocate for allowing copyrighted material on here. Your just drawing an arbitrary line in this instance and it comes to removing images from projects when it's something we're already doing literally all the time. With this specifically, people who add images to other projects often aren't contributors to those project. Your totally fine with that kind of policing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're conflating two different things. We don't "police" other projects when we delete files for copyright violations, we enforce Commons' copyright policy, which applies regardless of whether the file is in use on zero or a thousand articles. Usage is irrelevant in such cases, because copyright status is not determined by usage. In contrast, for scope-based deletions or discussions about AI-generated files, usage may be relevant, but again, our concern is whether the file aligns with Commons policy, not whether it's appropriately used on specific articles on other wikis. We don't go around checking if a file is being misused on Wikivoyage or Wiktionary. That’s their editorial decision to make. So no, this is not "policing" other projects. It’s applying our policies here on Commons. What other projects choose to do with kept files is up to them. Feel free to read User:Josve05a/Scope and Copyright. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: You're conflating two different things. I'm really not. Know one is obligated to nominate COPYVIO for deletion on here. It could just as easily be dealt with through DCMA complaints and the like. Some users have decided that "policing" copyrighted material is something they think is worth doing though. Regardless of if the images are in use on other projects (there's certainly plenty of users who think COPYVIO that's in use shouldn't be nominated for deletion). Just like we could decide that policing AI generated slop even if it's in use is worth doing. It's a different discussion, but I'd argue both would have the same negative impact on the project if left unpoliced. It's just that some people think COPYVIO is an issue so it's dealt with. Whereas others think AI generated artwork is literally on par with the second coming of Jesus so it isn't. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like we’re using very different definitions of "policing". I’m using it in the sense of actively monitoring or enforcing other projects’ editorial decisions, as in checking whether an image is appropriately used on French Wikisource and flagging it here because we think it shouldn’t be there. That’s not our role. Same thing, it's not our role to editorialize if an image "looks bad" or not in a specific article, if we are not part of that project. Enforcing Commons policy on what can be hosted here is not "policing" other projects. Whether it’s copyright, scope, or AI-related issues, we assess files based on our own criteria, not based on how other projects are using them or whether they’ve placed them in articles. That’s their job. And just to be clear, no one is stopping anyone from nominating AI-generated images for deletion. The bar is just set by Commons policy, not vibes. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 01:45, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Josve05a: It's possible we just have different definitions. I think I understand you better now though. So thanks for explaining it. Let me say this and I'll leave it at that. But I didn't start this based on the premise that bad looking images should just be removed from other projects. The point in the discussion was to have a line added to the guideline saying that AI generated images added to other projects by people who aren't contributors to those projects should be deletable as OOS. I'm sure you get the difference. This conversation has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of the image and I never said it did. Your the one making it about that.

More on point, at least IMO a user arbitrarily adding an image to another project that they aren't a contributor to is definitionally someone from Commons making an editorial decision and policing said project. Know one from the German Wikipedia wanted that image in the article or asked Prototyperspective to add an AI generated image to it. Someone from Commons adding an image that no one wants or asked for to an article is them making an editorial decision and policing the project by definition. I don't want us policing other projects either way. Your just acting like Prototyperspective had no personal say in or reasonability for the image being added to the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:28, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate the clarification. Let me also try to separate out what I’m reacting to. The concern I raised wasn’t about you personally wanting to remove images for quality reasons, but about where such a proposed policy addition would lead: namely, a shift toward evaluating and deleting files based on how they are used (or by whom) on other projects. That’s the part that looks like "policing" to me.

You say: "someone from Commons adding an image to an article that no one wants or asked for is them making an editorial decision and policing the project by definition". That’s not quite how I’d frame it. Anyone can add images to any Wikimedia project, that’s how these projects are built. If local communities disagree, they’re absolutely free to remove the image, and that’s that. But saying that Commons should delete a file because of how it was added to another projects' article, and by whom, is precisely the kind of cross-project overreach I think we should avoid.

Our policies should be based on what’s in scope here, not on trying to enforce contributor conduct or editorial norms elsewhere. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 02:37, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Oppose Commons:Project scope also says "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Advertising or self-promotion." Well, pretty much every time a company releases something of their property under a free license they are doing it to promote themselves/their products, but for example there are hundreds of free licensed promotional videos like Category:Videos by Bandai Namco which are not only educational but we need in order to replace low quality copyright violations on Wikipedia (by the way we need people to help with that as well as sorting out some videos where Bandai Namco might not own the rights to the characters). Also, almost every attribution license is a form of self promotion in a way.  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   16:05, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

As the closing admin of the above mentioned DR: I think we need to draw a clear line between intent and effect. Even if an image was added to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point, that is ultimately a matter for that project to evaluate and respond to. If the image remains in use after a reasonable time—especially on a page where it is contextually relevant—then, regardless of the uploader’s intent, the local community has effectively accepted its use. Commons should not second-guess that. We don’t patrol editorial decisions on other projects, and it's not our role to speculate whether their inaction reflects apathy, ignorance, or tacit approval. If someone believes the use is problematic, the proper route is to raise it locally on that project, not to rewrite Commons' project scope to treat “intent” as retroactively overriding demonstrable in-use status. Otherwise we risk giving ourselves an impossible task: interrogating motives and second-guessing every cross-wiki edit from a Commons user, rather than judging a file’s value by how and where it is actually being used. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If an image was added to a sister project in bad faith...that is ultimately a matter for that project to evaluate and respond to. I could really care less either way but that's clearly not what the policy says. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:08, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right that the policy says “Any use that is not made in good faith does not count”, but I don’t think that line necessarily overrides the reality of sustained, in-context use on a sister project. The core problem is that Commons can't—and shouldn’t—decide unilaterally that a file’s usage on another project is “not made in good faith,” especially if the local community has seen the image and opted not to remove it. If we're going to treat that usage as "invalid" based purely on the uploader’s history or presumed motives, without any action by the local project, then we’re inserting Commons into editorial decisions we’re explicitly not supposed to override. The policy is meant to avoid abuse, not to give us veto power over content decisions on other wikis. If someone is misusing Commons-hosted files across projects, the most appropriate venue is that project's local process—otherwise we’re judging “good faith” in a vacuum, which is both unworkable and overreaching. If you feel this line of the policy is creating confusion or loopholes, then perhaps it’s worth discussing a revision to clarify how and by whom good faith is judged in cases of cross-wiki use. But until then, I’d hesitate to rewrite usage norms through deletion discussions. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:18, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point Just to be clear: it was neither added to make a point nor in bad faith. It's distressing to get nothing but hostility here for what I think are particularly valuable contributions where good-quality helpful illustrations were added where they were missing which substantially reduces the quality of articles and which is a subject I'm addressing not just by adding AI images but also by adding many other media. I'm spending lots of time and effort to contribute constructively and my edits were absolutely not bad faithed but good-intentioned, due and constructive. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:13, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the misunderstanding in my previous comment where I suggested that the user may have added images to a sister project in bad faith or to make a point. My intent was to be circumspect in addressing the broader issue of similar image usage, not to accuse you specifically of malicious intent. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 12:23, 20 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment I'd be inclined to let sleeping dogs lie, but one particular dog keeps waking up and barking. That dog is the notion that we potentially have the same flexibility about ignoring copyright that we have about making exceptions to scope. That is simply not the case.

Commons' mandate from WMF singles us out in that, unlike our sister projects, we do not have the option of creating an exemption doctrine policy. That is, Commons is unique among WMF projects in not having WMFs permission to decide to keep certain non-free content on our site. While there is some de facto wiggle room around the edges—for example, as far as I can tell, the decision that we are concerned only with copyright in the file's "home country" and in the U.S. comes from within Commons, as does the slight relaxation of the U.S. side of that with respect to Freedom of Panorama for photos taken in countries with more liberal FoP than the U.S.—that wiggle room is small.

With respect to scope, WMF is very unlikely to be concerned if we host certain images that are outside our usual scope, and (given our second mission of supporting the sister projects) is probably actively happy when we do so in service of one or more sister projects. Conversely, with respect to copyright, WMF would be very likely to intervene if they felt we were failing to seek and remove copyright violations. And, yes, any particular user can choose to work actively on removing copyvios or not, but if we collectively were to fail to do so, we would at the very least be in quite a confrontation with WMF. At this point, Commons has become essential enough to the Wikimedia ecosystem that it is hard to imagine they would simply shut us down, but it is easy to imagine that someone from outside Commons would be given power to remove files with little or no possibility of appeal. - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 22 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Was the prompt "Tim White + Lord of the rings"? Solomonic solution: We get rid of all AI stuff on commons and the associated Wikipedia articles using AI images are instead fitted with a line of code that generates a new AI-Kitsch-image whenever somebody looks at the article. Should be doable. Alexpl (talk) 11:11, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon would be wasting a lot of energy, though. - Jmabel ! talk 19:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The parent Category:Images by text says "Files should only be included in a text category if the exact text features prominently...". From a quick look I can see the string "green" visible in images, but not obviously and it tends to be in book/document cover pages. I had the street name signs expectation also. @Ooligan who has been adding/changing a lot of "green" cats very recently. Commander Keane (talk) 14:34, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan, thanks for noting this to me.

@Commander Keane, when I added that text, I think the main thrust was that the text (in this case, "green") should be visible in the file. This was to differentiate from things that might have 'green' in the file name, or be images of the color green, or other things simply named 'green'. As for using the term prominently, I think there is room to discuss whether this is a useful qualification, and if so, exactly what constitutes 'prominence' for these categories. Josh (talk) 23:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I notified @Joshbaumgartner on his talk page, because his written quotation was used by Commander Keane. I will repost the relevant part of that communication here.

My early, in depth experience with these categories were back in 2022 here:

• Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Images by text and here:
• Category talk:Images by text

The Categories for Discussion (CfD) linked above did not mention the word "prominently" nor was that subject discussed. "Prominence" should not a factor to including a file in the Xxxx (text) categories. If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text).

The 2022 CfD above contains the example link Category:747 (number), which does not require "prominence" for a number file to be included in that category and the hundreds of other similar Xxxx (number) categories. A more directly similar Category:Numbers on objects by number- also, does not require any pre-conditions to add to these categories.

• @Pigsonthewing & @Commander Keane - Simply, if it reads "green"- it's good.

Ooligan (talk) 03:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: over(?) populating the category doesn't bother me too much. But as an illustration, if a human was making additions they would be more selective than OCR bot, and once the OCR bot is done many uncategorised files fall off the "Files needing categories" backlog.

Ideally one day we will able to mark on files with a box where the string "green" appears and sort by percentage of frame taken up.

If consensus agrees, the wording of the parent category that I quoted should be changed to show how inclusive it is. Commander Keane (talk) 03:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, @Commander Keane, "If consensus agrees, the wording of the parent category that I quoted should be changed to show how inclusive it is." -- Ooligan (talk) 00:24, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The 2022 CfD was focused on the naming of subcategories of Category:Text; they previously had names like Category:Text:Chicago instead of the current Category:Chicago (text). The scope of what belongs in those categories wasn't a topic. Omphalographer (talk) 04:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree "The scope of what belongs in those categories wasn't a topic." @Omphalographer. This discussion will help with scope. -- Ooligan (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

No. Regarding PDF files, the "text" subject to categorization should be only from the cover, book jacket or title page. Not, "by each word it contains." -- Ooligan (talk) 05:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

So the claim in the quote I highlighted was false?

"the cover, book jacket or title page" Can you link to a discussion resulting in consensus that such usages should be included? Even if so, categorising by every word in a book's title, let alone title page, will be excessive. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing Andy, I'm sure you have searched, and I cannot find such a link either. I have clarified my thought regarding "green" in text. It it my opinion- with which you may disagree, but it is not "false." Please, "assume good faith for the intentions of others, and try to help them or resolve disputes with them on that basis.''"

You wrote, "I would expect the contents of Category:Green (text) to be graphical or physical renditions of the string "green", in logos, signwriting, street name signs, etc." (underline added). I agree and would include book covers, book dust jackets, and only the title pages of books, documents, and reports.

Most of volunteers that have commented here have years more experience and I will fully support whatever is decided here. Respectfully, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Either the claim "If the file's physical object, photo, art, illustration, graphic, text, etc. has the word "green"- it qualifies for the Category:Green (text)." is true, or it is false. Which is it? It it not a failure to assume good faith to point out the contradiction between the two answers given, and nor is the requirement to assume good faith a free pass for the making of contradictory claims.

Both of your statements, including the latter, with "only" both emboldened and italicized, are presented as facts - for which you now say you can find no consensus - not opinion.

The titles and title pages of books, documents and reports are usually not graphical or physical representations of words in the context in which I described them, so despite saying you agree with those criteria, you seemingly do not.

It appears that no-one else here supports the categorisation of works according to the use of specific words, such as "green", in the title. Please revert your recent changes in that regard. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:21, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy, I have reverted my recent changes. -- Ooligan (talk) 16:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have also removed images such as File:Green Street tiles, Carrollton, New Orleans.jpg, which should be in that category. Do you plan to restore them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agree with Pigsonthewing here. The whole thing is rather excessive. It's not super useful either since books that have the word "green" their title don't usually share anything else in Common. Or they will be in other categories together anyway if they do. Like I'm sure there's a lot of nutrition or recipe books that have the word "green" in the title, but their already going to be in same (or a similar) category for books. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:30, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And, if you really wanted to find any PDF with "green" in its title, you could find that with search. Duplicating the functionality of search is a poor use for categories. Omphalographer (talk) 15:17, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• 
• 

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

I hazard a guess and say: 1929. Despite its low readability, the stamp looks like it contains these ciphers at the place where the year should be, compare it e.g. to this image of this one. Regards, Grand-Duc (talk) 13:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

1939, based on the stamp first being sold in 1939. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say 1939. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The posted date would be 1939, but I hink the picture was probably from several years before. (The postcards in the shops where not renewed annualy, but replenished when needed) The tram (from line 57) is number 542, one of the original Série A build in 1899. (fr:Ancien_tramway_de_Marseille) Better to describe it as 1930s instead of 1920s. I think there are some 1930s automobile models, but I am no expert. There are no horse drawn vehicles, as I would expect in the 1920s and earlier.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:White on blue house number 3.jpg This french house number has the flat top with an angular downward stroke. That is the same shape as the partially visible "39" on the postmark. Likely, a 1930's postcard -- Ooligan (talk) 03:46, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

is the point of camera roughly 43.2957, 5.3745? RoyZuo (talk) 07:22, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think so (I work with classic coordinates, degrees, minutes, etc). The two streets and the harbour are easily found.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, I only see only males in the picture.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

File:بندرگاه بوشهر 2.png

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

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: They have copyright in most cases, and only the copyright holders may license that copyright. You may not use them here on Commons without such licenses, as has been pointed out to you multiple times on your user talk page. Without proof that such images are free, we must consider them to be copyrighted as soon as they are fixed in a tangible medium of expression on Earth under the Berne Convention. See also COM:ANU#Hooman Mallahzadeh, COM:EVID, and COM:NETC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:14, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. Ok. I wanted to be sure about that. I will add speedy delete to all 4 images myself. Here are some other satellite images that should be acted the same. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I myself added Speedydelete template to all four images from GoogleMaps. Thanks for your answer. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:23, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: You may go ahead and ask them, they will very probably say no, or ask for an exorbitant licensing fee. If they say you can use their maps under Fair Use, be aware of COM:FAIR.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:33, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. How about OpenStreetMaps? I should note that we use OSM maps frequently in Wikipedia. Do you think they don't grant permission for using its satellite maps in Wikipedia? To be honest, I added a thread about that in English Village pump here. But my problem is about taking photos (like screenshots) from their maps and upload such images. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 16:45, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OpenStreetMap does not have own aerial images, they only use images they are under a free license or with special permission. Just click on the source mentioned in the OSM editor to check what the license of the aerial images is. GPSLeo (talk) 16:50, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• If you can get GoogleMaps to specifically grant free licenses to useful high-quality maps, GREAT! We'd look forward to receiving their explicit license permission via COM:VRT or statements on their own website. Until or unless that happens, they are still non-free copyrighted works, and don't belong here on Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:56, 24 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

  I doubt Google (more so Alphabet Inc.) will ever release their satellite content under free CC-BY/CC-BY-SA licensing. Google needs tons of bucks for them to pay annual royalties to many artists' collectives, including the anti-Wikipedia and anti-FoP French group ADAGP, for them to legally host images or videos of copyrighted artworks and architectures on their platforms like YouTube. Not to mention musical licensing arrangements between Google and musical societies like FILSCAP of the Philippines. Having Google release their content under free licensing is like Google setting up a time bomb to kill themselves (in my figurative sense, exposing themselves to financial losses just to please free culture advocates). Additionally, the satellite views of several satellite imageries used by Google Maps or Google Earth are provided by third-party providers, like Landsat. This makes licensing negotiations complex. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contributions) 08:00, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Do note that, while Google has the copyrights to their satellite imagery and maps, OpenStreetMap map data concerning features of this planet and the roads thereon based on editors' physical investigation data can be found at www.openstreetmap.org, is freely licensed, and can be uploaded here using {{OpenStreetMap}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:29, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. Do you mean we can upload a screenshot from a map of OpenStreetMap that has satellite background and then in the file description write something like:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Bamberg_in_OpenTopoMap.png&action=edit

Am I true? Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:56, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Or you mean: screenshot image of OpenStreetMap template must lack satellite background but for other usages (such as only roads) it is suitable. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:05, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You can only upload screenshots of OSM maps, not aerial images. Look at the examples in Category:OpenStreetMap_maps. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Removing files from government websites does not effect their copyright status. Ruslik (talk) 19:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but the regime might make up another reason, independent from copyright status --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:49, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What if horses sprout wings and fly?

Trump, who does not seem much to care about law, could presumably put out an executive order overruling the Copyright Act of 1976 in this respect. That executive order would presumably be illegal (since there is no ambiguity in the law), and the only point where we even might have any reason to consider it is if a court were to determine on some grounds, presumably not one we could imagine in advance, that it had some validity.

Jmabel ! talk 22:10, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to say that speculation about crazy regimes and censorship like this isn't healthy and that the US' stabilty, legal protections and tax-exempt status for the WMF is valuable. Then I saw the recent the recent post below, the corresponding en.wiki discussion and the legal letter sent to the WMF. Commander Keane (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• Commons:Why we need high resolution media
• Commons:File_types#Highest_resolution

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

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

• File:Freaks for Freedom.jpg - low, 1mb file
• medium, 5mb file
• high, 25mb file

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

It can depend on the scanner but I have an Epson Scan 600 and have found that scanning at 1200 DPI and saving the images as Jpegs is the best way to do it. I use to scan images at 1200 DPI and save them as TIFF files but they ended up being to large and I don't think people are using images for print much these days anyway, which is the only justification for TIFF files. Really, you could probably get away with scanning 600 DPI jpegs and you'd be fine. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:58, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If all of the photos were taken with the same camera and type of film, your "medium resolution" scan should be sufficient for all of them. The film grain is already clearly visible at that resolution - there's unlikely to be any more detail left to capture in the original photos. Omphalographer (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

e/c

I'll approach it from a different perspective.

If you want to print something at a size of 8 by 10 inches, then you want to have a resolution of at least 8 megapixels.

If you want to print something at a size of 4 by 5 inches, then 2 megapixels is enough.

Many photos taken on 35 mm film are suitable for 8 by 10 inch prints. If you want to go larger, then one needs a very fine grain film or a larger than 35 mm film format.

The Freaks photo does not seem suited for 8 by 10 reproduction. It is either grainy or blurred, so the medium resolution (6 MP) is enough. The large banner does not have a uniform color, and some text on a white sign is not sharp. I do not know why. I did not see a place in the photo that has substantially better focus than other. The film may be grainy, old, or a long exposure with camera movement. Colors on old prints would bleed.

I am not happy with the Parkmerced photo either. The cars at the upper left look like they are double exposed: steady for half the exposure and then a jump movement to another steady half. That seems an unlikely circumstance.

When I was using film, there was a huge difference between Plus-X and Tri-X. With Plus-X one could get fine details. Not so with Tri-X.

I had seen the black and white movie Arsenic and Old Lace on TV, but several years ago I saw a 35-mm print at a theatre. I was blown away by the resolution.

Resolution is not everything. Compare

• File:Sir Winston Churchill - 19086236948.jpg 6 MB 45 MP with
• previous version 1 MB 11 MP

The smaller size, lower resolution is sharper. Look at the weave of his shirt.

Glrx (talk) 00:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

In short: The best quality available. Scanners usually allow choices like 1200dpi or more, in theory. But above a certain border, a scanner cannot achieve more details when increasing the dpi rate. Many scanners reach their physical resolution at 800dpi, which means that scans of 1200dpi or more don't achieve better quality. A research can be useful, depending on the model --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The answer depends strongly on what kind of camera and film were used, what the lighting conditions were, and how sharp the focus is in the image. There's no point scanning a blurry or noisy photo at 1200 dpi. Personally, for non-professional photographs I don't think scanning at higher than 600 dpi is usually necessary. In the examples that you present, I would choose something higher than medium, but lower than high. Nosferattus (talk) 05:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

en.wiki Village Pump (WMF) discussion. Commander Keane (talk) 04:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@RodRabelo7: Yes, it was produced by Edward R. Martin, Jr., acting in his job of United States Attorney for the District of Columbia, on DOJ letterhead. Use {{PD-USGov-DOJ}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:07, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's interim United States Attorney for DC. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thank you for making this. This is an interesting way to view DRs, I already find it useful for adding categories (tags) to DR that doesn’t have them. I will try to use it for a couple days and see if there is any problems, but looking good so far. Tvpuppy (talk) 05:37, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't tried it yet, but does it also support FoP tags? With location? Like Category:German FOP cases/pending? Maybe the tool could guess the relevant geolocation by either checking the categories of the nominated file or the coordinates (if available). Even if the tool wouldn't be able to guess what DR is FoP-related, it would still be helpful if one could filter DRs by country because each country has its own laws regarding FoP, TOO, and even AI-generated images, and if you are only familiar with the rules of one country but not all the other countries, you might want to only see DRs that concern that particular country. Nakonana (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana It does support all of that. Take a look! I hope you like it. Amir (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting but it doesn't show thumbnails. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:49, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Prototyperspective It's not super hard to implement it. Would you mind filing a feature request in phabricator? Amir (talk) 11:42, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done: phab:T392809 and also created the wikidata item: CORDO (Q134234021). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:59, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed there isn’t tags for the DRs converted from “No license/permission/source since”, like this one for example. Is it possible to add tags for those? Tvpuppy (talk) 18:31, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tvpuppy It's not hard to implement. I can try that. What tag do you recommend? COM:COPYRIGHT? Amir (talk) 14:49, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

How about adding new tags for them with a name like “No license”, “No permission” and “No source”? That will be more straightforward, like the existing tag “Wrong license”. Tvpuppy (talk) 17:27, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Tvpuppy Sure. Sounds good. I get it done ASAP. Amir (talk) 12:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Personally, I probably wouldn't add them to a person category, but just to categories for e.g. the newspaper or church or archive, and 'documents of [place]' or similar. And make sure the names in the description, so that searching will find them. If there were lots, perhaps a user category about your research would be appropriate, e.g. 'John Smith research' or 'RAN's family history'. Sam Wilson 01:55, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

What do you know about these John Smith files to connect them to a category? If you know a death date, location etc maybe Wikidata would accept a new item about them, so that a merge later could collect all of the files. Then tag all the files with that item. I am assuming they are in scope for Commons and thus Wikidata.

There is wikidata:Wikidata:Article placeholder which is a vaguely similar concept. Commander Keane (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of creating Non-empty disambiguation categories similar to Category:Memphis. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 08:28, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I'd probably go about it, too, if there's a disambiguation category. Nakonana (talk) 09:17, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe add Category:Unidentified people [of the United States] (or whichever country it is). Nakonana (talk) 09:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't create specific categories for unidentified people by name since it's a potentially endless pit and there's no way of knowing if the people actually have the same names in a lot of instances anyway. But categories for "unidentified people by country" seems fine. Although I'd still confine the categories for people that there's information about on here. We don't need a bunch of "1910 unidentified people at bust length in the backgrounds of black and white portrait photographs of London" or whatever categories on here. So either there's information about, and a chance we can identify, them at some point or there isn't and they shouldn't be put in a category for unidentified people. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:33, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that anyone proposed to create categories for unidentified people by name. The proposal was just to add files of any unidentified John Smiths in Category:John Smith (which is a disambiguation category), even if it would turn this category into a non-empty disambiguation category. Nakonana (talk) 11:01, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Nakonana: Richard Arthur Norton's original comment said "Should we have a special category with something like "Category:John Smith (undifferentiated)." That sounds like creating categories for unidentified people by name to me. Although admittedly not for unidentified individuals but I still don't think it should be done that way regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:19, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see, I thought you were replying to NearEMPTiness or me. Nakonana (talk) 11:23, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Answering the original question, disambiguation categories should suffice on their own: All name-categories must either refer to one unambiguous person (no other person of the same name has a category on Commons yet) or to a name disambiguation (several persons of the same name have content on Commons, and they are disambiguated by a descriptor and/or by birth year/lifespan).

The rationale behind that is: if the name is all we know (as categorizers), we must be able to just put it into the category of that exact name. For example The rodents of Iowa, by Dayton Stoner. The name category for Category:Dayton Stoner doesn't even exist yet, although it could be turned blue with the information we already have at hand. If in the future, we learn that "Dayton Stoner" also is the name of other relevant people, we have to turn the name category into a disambiguation one, referring to "Dayton Stoner (1883-1944)"; "Dayton Stoner (baseball player)"; "Dayton Stoner (zoologist, 1987-2046)"... Just like we do for Category:James Thompson, with Category:James R. Thompson (politician), Category:James R. Thompson (engineer)...

That is what I observe as the standard practice right now: Common name categories like "John Smith" (John M. Smith, however John M. Smith and yet also John M. Smith), "Anne Taylor", "Peter Jackson", "Marie Laplace", "Robert Müller", "Wudi" can be automatically assumed disambiguation categories. And if I just encounter the surname of an author (like "M. Laplace, R. Müller etc"), I will accordingly assign the category "Laplace (surname)" and "Müller (surname)". --Enyavar (talk) 12:40, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks!, the above makes sense. I will make, say, Category:Lenora Jackson into the disambiguation category, and make a new Category:Lenora Jackson (1800-1900), for the ones that belong specifically to them. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

I'd like to just agree here (as I was also helping the user, and was able to prove - in their case - that they uploaded it through the Visual Editor but did NOT hit publish). Many websites (Facebook, etc), let you fill out forms, put photos up, etc, but require you to review your work before you Publish it. We all understand why Wiki works the way it does, but to a newcomer, it may not even seem remotely possible that a partially edited then cancelled page could result in their material being published on a site they have no awareness of. Tduk (talk) 03:48, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Some background. This is mw:Upload dialog (cross-wiki upload), available through VisualEditor and wikitext editor. It is most commonly used on sister projects like Wikipedia.

The first step has an "Upload" button that presumably doesn't upload the file. The next step's "Save" button must upload the file to Commons and insert it in the editor. Then cancelling the edit closes the editor without touching the Wikipedia article, but the file has already been uploaded to Commons.

The interface does need an overhaul. Commander Keane (talk) 07:47, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like very poor design.

And again, commons sysops should act more prudentially and leniently instead of bureaucratically, especially while interacting with newbies.

Here's an idea: for users making their 1st crosswiki upload, make a popup that will not go away without double confirmation, or like the tutorial graphic of uploadwizard that only goes away if the user ticks the box.

On commons side, perhaps we can make a gadget that targets "new" users (edit count < x) that shows them a floating virtual helper on different namespace, so we make it explicitly clear to them what to do if they want a file deleted, renamed, etc. RoyZuo (talk) 07:45, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did comment above about an overhaul, but perhaps realistically only some minor modifications will get done. If it works as I suspect, what about changing the first button to "Next" and the button that actually does the upload to "Upload to Wikimedia Commons"? Commander Keane (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We already decided that we want this to be turned of in the current version because of these problems. Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/08#Deactivate cross-wiki uploads for new users. But this is still not done as there is no maintainer for the tool. We could decide to simply block all uploads using this tool but that would result in massive complaints by people seeing a tool that they can not use. GPSLeo (talk) 08:35, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Could we particularly flag uploads that happen that have no corresponding edit on the source site (like in this case?)... OR at least make people aware of the problem and how to see it (the edit description on commons is what made me look into this further). Tduk (talk) 13:11, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that one easy first step might be to write a bot to periodically generate a report on Commons images which were "uploaded while editing" within the last few days, but which are not in use on any page. This would also end up identifying images which were inserted into a page, but where that edit was reverted or the page was deleted - many of which would probably be deletion candidates as well. Omphalographer (talk) 23:09, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites Thanks for the courtesy ping. Unfortunately, this does not sit with the Structured Content team, as it is something that relates more with Visual Editor, I'll try to pass it on to the specific team. I thought that the deactivation of cross-wiki uploads would have prevented the upload, though. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:53, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, Sannita (WMF), I thought you had suggested we ping you for any Commons-related issue of relevance to the WMF. Did I get that wrong? — Rhododendrites ^talk |  13:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhododendrites For the time being, yes, I'm the one to ping for this, but the problem is that cross-wiki uploads are not related to the team I support. I'll see if I can find support from another team about this. It would be easier for me to point them to a Phabricator ticket where the problem is fully explained, so that the devs would have an easier time finding a solution. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:17, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thanks for your help. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It also sounds like even though cross-wiki uploads were supposed to be disabled, this change hasn't happened yet (according to @GPSLeo above. I haven't actually tried to upload something fully but the en.wiki Visual Editor seems to imply it still supports it. Tduk (talk) 03:28, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

File:Rhododendrites test upload.jpg was uploaded from enwiki. Opened the Visual Editor, added an image, then discarded my edits, and it remains. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  11:21, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It's not 100% related but pretty frequently when I upload files through the Upload Wizard they will error out but still be uploaded to Commons. It really should be clear that the file was uploaded in both cases. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:51, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have had that happen too. That's a similar problem but not really the same cause; but I wonder if doing something like alerting any user who hasn't disabled alerts when their account uploads to Commons makes sense. Tduk (talk) 14:13, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hubert-herald.nl+-insource%3APD+-svg

probably none should be deleted. RoyZuo (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

A cursory glance tells me he doesn't own the rights to most of the images he hosts on his site, as he didn't create them. The images of coats of arms of states and provinces in countries where those are in the public domain, images that are too old or simple to be copyrighted, etc. can all be hosted here. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:38, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

There are two photographs of objects that will have to be deleted. Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:06, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Their copyright would only apply to their original text and images, republishing historical images that have their copyright expired would not restart the copyright clock. --RAN (talk) 02:24, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Hm. You could provide examples, maybe. Not knowing how any of those postcards look, I could imagine "Postcards by publisher with a red triangle logo" could do. And then, once someone finds out who that publisher was, all these postcards can be mass-moved towards their name. --Enyavar (talk) 13:30, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This might call for a maintenance category rather than a topical category. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• This has been needed for a while, I look forward to helping once the categories are created. --RAN (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

• Despite having (I believe) over 100 direct and indirect subcats, there is no readily apparent category for the Esplanade, a major feature of the complex.
• There are incomprehensible distinctions: e.g. Category:Garden (Casa del Monte) and Category:Gardens - Casa del Monte (Hearst Castle), both created by the same user.
• There are many categories with unusual names, and no hat note to explain their scope: e.g.:
  • Category:Effects - Exterior (Hearst Castle), never seen a category named like that, no idea what meaning of "effects" would embrace the content of this category.
  • Category:Sacred Ways and Celestial Byways (Hearst Castle) (not a clue, and the content does not seem to have any common thread)
  • Category:Strigils (Hearst Castle), which I'm guessing is in the sense of Category:Strigils (decorative pattern), but does not have that as a parent category, and whose only parent is Category:Effects - Exterior (Hearst Castle), despite most of the images there being inside the library of the Casa Grande.
  • Category:Chiton (Hearst Castle), whose only parents are Category:Effects - Interior (Hearst Castle) and Category:Effects - Exterior (Hearst Castle) (how can it be both interior and exterior???) and which I'm guessing relates to statues dressed in a chiton (Category:Chiton), except nothing related to that latter category is a parent category.
• There is a lot of weird hierarchy. E.g. Category:Statues (Hearst Castle) is nearly empty, and is not a subcat of Category:Sculptures at Hearst Castle.

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

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

Further: gallery Hearst Castle is underpopulated, poorly chosen, and certainly no aid at all to anyone trying to categorize images of the complex. Hasn't been touched in over a decade. - Jmabel ! talk`

Agree the categories look a mess. I suggest you leave a message on the parent category talk page Category talk:Hearst Castle, as well as a message on the talk pages of any of the major category creators still active directing them to that talk. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:02, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of pecking away at some more obvious cases, though much more clearly will need doing. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I followed up on your latest, to better arrange the existing categories for rooms. But it is going to be a lot of work.

I repeatedly pinged the person who did the bulk of this, with various specific questions, got no response. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that part of the problem here is that some of the editors active in this category have invented their own names for sculptures and other features of the building, e.g. Category:Nike - Suffering Cushing Reflex (Hearst Castle). (The Cushing reflex is a symptom of a stroke; this seems to be a joking reference to the fact that the sculpture is holding its hands to its head as if it's experiencing a terrible headache.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:52, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

People do that a lot here and on Wikidata for unnamed sculptures. Otherwise there wouldn't be a way to create categories or items for them. I brought it up on Wikidata once and they don't seem to care about it. So I can't say I blame people. There really should be better rules and more enforcement to deal with that kind of stuff though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:12, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Right - I mean that they may have invented names not only for individual sculptures, but also for groups of sculptures and/or physical features of the property like "Chiton", "Effects", "Strigils", or "Sacred Ways and Celestial Byways" as mentioned above. Omphalographer (talk) 21:30, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Abzeronow: Are you saying you want to discuss it here (in which case, start by laying out the issues) or that you want people to participate in a discussion elsewhere (in which case, link)? - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 27 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I should have been more clear, I wanted to start the discussion here and I didn't want to forget to do it. Basically, as evidenced on the of Syria (2025-) talk page], there is an idea that "Flag of Foo" (where Foo is a country) should always be a redirect so our templates can always stay up to date when they just want the country's flag. Regimes and flags can change within some of our lifetimes (my country the United States has last updated its flag in 1960) and we obviously also want a stable name for the current flag of a country, which is why the current flag of Syria is named File:Flag of Syria (2025-).svg. Some are resistant to this idea and always want the current flag to be a file. Since we are doing this for Syria, there is the question of "renaming the flags who have been adopted recently, like Honduras, Kyrgyzstan, South Sudan, Mauritania, Malawi, Myanmar, Libya, Turkmenistan, Iraq, DR Congo, Georgia, Rwanda" that was posed on talk page. Of course, we should start where the discussion would be least controversial. Honduras in 2022 changed the color of its flag from navy blue to turquoise in accordance to a 1949 decree that had never been carried out as en:Flag of Honduras explains. The file File:Flag of Honduras.svg shows revisions with the old navy blue flag and the new turquoise flag. So if the Honduras flag file should be a redirect, should the file be split and then older versions merged with the file depicting the old flag? Should all revisions be moved to a File:Flag of Honduras (2022-).svg file? Basically, it would be a good idea to hammer out what we should do when flags of countries change so the disruption to various Wikimedia projects is minimal and have a good idea of how to "futureproof" flags of countries. I hope I've started to lay out the issues that make for a fruitful discussion on these matters. Abzeronow (talk) 22:09, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Abzeronow: as you know, I'm on the side of moving toward having File:Flag of FOO always be a redirect. Then we can tell sister projects that if you want an article (e.g. about a particular city, or the national football team) to just show whatever is the current flag, use File:Flag of FOO; if it is important that it show a particular flag and not change over time (e.g. you are writing about a particular event, and want the article to retain the chronologically accurate flag for that event) you use something more like File:Flag of FOO 1928-1972 or File:Flag of FOO 1972-.

In theory, the redirect between File:Flag of FOO and, say, File:Flag of FOO 1972- could go either way. I favor having File:Flag of FOO be the redirect, because it seems to me to leave the histories clearer when the flag might later change. If File:Flag of FOO is a redirect, and the flag of FOO changes in 2027, we just:

• upload the new File:Flag of FOO 2027-
• use the usual means to move File:Flag of FOO 1972- to File:Flag of FOO 1972-2027 (keeping the resulting redirect)
• make File:Flag of FOO redirect to File:Flag of FOO 2027- (so its history will show where it used to redirect).

If the redirect is the other way around, we have to do something like:

• move File:Flag of FOO to File:Flag of FOO 1972-2027 (deleting the resulting redirect)
• change the redirect File:Flag of FOO 1972- to point to File:Flag of FOO 1972-2027
• upload the new flag as File:Flag of FOO (note that this will have no record of the history of what was at this name)
• create a new redirect from File:Flag of FOO 2027- to File:Flag of FOO so people have some way to refer to this specific flag that will be stable over time.

There are other ways to do it, but I think they all leave behind confusing file histories. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should not have such naming guidelines and redirects. The template use case is exactly what Wikidata is for. If the templates just use the current flag from Wikidata the name of the file on Commons does not matter. GPSLeo (talk) 05:11, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: are there any Wikipedias that currently do this through Wikidata? (Let me guess that if there is one it is de-wiki, because so much of the Wikidata expertise is in Germany.) I know en-wiki does not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know. Dewiki is also one of the wikis using the lowest amount of Wikidata. Not even simple info boxes use Wikidata as fallback for photos. Wikipedia and Wikidata community in Germany are quite separate. During the introduction of structured data we even had discussions if it would be better to get rid of the file names entirely and use the M-ID instead. We should not support using a system of file names and wikitext page redirects to keep old templates working. Instead we should encourage everyone to use a more reliable solution using modules and Wikidata. GPSLeo (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we should get rid of filenames and use m id. i had the same thoughts special:permalink/1026118809#thoughts. also cat titles, all page titles in general. RoyZuo (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

User talk:Rillke/SVGedit.js  ${\displaystyle 999}$REAL 💬 ⬆   14:28, 28 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Seems like it is needing some adapting to the new Vector skin? 'Edit' no longer has a dropdown menu, for example. Ah wait, it's in the 'Tools' menu now. Arlo James Barnes 14:46, 28 April 2025 (UTC)