Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Proposals

< Commons:Village pump

Shortcuts: COM:VP/P • COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/06.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

 

Start a new discussion

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 5 days and sections whose most recent comment is older than 30 days.

Create a WMF village pumpEdit

 
Proposal to create a centralised hub for Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) content, discussions, developments, office actions, communications, Etc. for the Wikimedia Commons.

I would like to propose the creation of a Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) village pump to simplify communications from and to the Wikimedia Foundation at the Wikimedia Commons, link to WMF-related discussions elsewhere, and centralise discussion about the WMF and its actions at the Wikimedia Commons.

Currently, the Wikimedia Foundation has multiple projects aimed at improving the Wikimedia Commons, these include (and are not limited to) Structured data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC), Commons talk:Tools#Proposal: Improve Toolhub coverage of Commons tools by improving on-wiki tool documentation, WikiLegal for Commons, a number of scattered comments at "Commons talk:Think big - open letter about Wikimedia Commons", WMF Office actions (including its Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) notices), and now currently a central hub for the 2022-23 Annual Plan at WMF support for Commons (a page I wasn't aware of until it was mentioned in the village pump). I'm sure that there are some pages I've missed and that's the problem, there isn't a central page to direct people to these various projects and discussions.

I remember a few years ago a lot of Wikimedia Commons users being surprised by the rolling out of a number of SDC features like file captions because they weren't aware of the discussions that were occurring since 2014.

This idea would not be unprecedented as at the English-language Wikipedia there currently already is a WMF village pump, in fact the Wikimedia Commons largely mirrors the English-language Wikipedia's village pumps:

Except for the fact that we don't have a WMF village pump. Perhaps a WMF village pump could be used as a central hub for communicating developments from the WMF and getting community feedback. Ideally, the top of this WMF village pump would direct people to various pages like WMF support for Commons, SDC, WikiLegal for Commons, DMCA take-down notices, Etc.

TL;DR: Create a central hub for WMF activities, developments, and discussions at the Wikimedia Commons that people can add to their watchlists to easily be aware of the scattered developments of the WMF, use this hub to direct people to relevant WMF activities, developments, and discussions which are occurring elsewhere at the Wikimedia Commons.

What this proposal isn't'".
  • This proposal isn't an idea to force the WMF to communicate their ideas through only one page, rather that page would serve as a hub where they (or other volunteers) could notify the community about developments at pages like the SDC, WikiLegal, tools, Etc. but in a central (highly visible) hub in a central community space.
  • This proposal isn't to suggest that we unify all these discussions in one (1) central place, rather that there is a central hub where users could be notified of ongoing discussions and developments elsewhere related to the WMF, this could also include WMF discussions at the Meta-Wiki and other wiki's that concern the Wikimedia Commons.

--Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Votes (WMF village pump)Edit

  Support, this makes a lot of sense, as I often read about WMF developments but I don't know where to find them. I knew about structured data but didn't know that they had documentation and a discussion page. --SeichanGant (talk) 19:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Support I wasn't solid on the idea at first but Donald Trung clarifying the purpose of board after the intial proposal leads me to believe its a useful idea. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose I would expect this on meta, not on Commons. Schlurcher (talk) 08:29, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion (WMF village pump)Edit

Perhaps it would also be wise to be a large disclaimer on the top of the village pump that it's not a WMF-run page but a community-run page, I think that the top of the page should probably just be an easy way to navigate to various specific pages of the WMF at the Wikimedia Commons. The English-language Wikipedia's version has the text "The WMF section of the village pump is a community-managed page. Editors or Wikimedia Foundation staff may post and discuss information, proposals, feedback requests, or other matters of significance to both the community and the foundation. It is intended to aid communication, understanding, and coordination between the community and the foundation, though Wikimedia Foundation currently does not consider this page to be a communication venue.", I think that this could be largely copied. Note that although the WMF doesn't acknowledge it as a communication venue, it seems that many WMF staff do watch it and sometimes post replies, something like this just greatly simplifies communications. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @GPSLeo: , I'd argue that the issue isn't traffic, rather it's a lack of having a central place where people could be directed to the right places, nor are any of these places in a highly visible community page, this means that if something happens on one (1) WMF-related page these developments often don't reach the wider community until they have already been discussed by the small number of volunteers who were aware of it.
The issue isn't the quantity of watchers, it is rather the accessibility of these discussion to casual users who don't go out of their way to search every WMF related development, so when a discussion they find relevant to them does show it they might not be aware of it. The village pump should probably remain the main place for DMCA notices and the like, but it is quite rare for people to link every ongoing WMF discussion, this is also why several pages which could require more eyes (like the WikiLegal discussions) don't get much attention, most people don't even know that they are occurring. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I misunderstood your proposal because of using the term "village pump". It is more like a "WMF announcement archive". But I still think that if we create something new we should make a combined page with WMF announcements and community announcements. GPSLeo (talk) 09:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
GPSLeo, This is why I suggested basing it on the English-language Wikipedia's WMF village pump, because it is largely a central hub for bringing up discussions relevant to that Wiki on specific pages, plus it is a place where developments by the WMF are announced, but it's not the place where they are discussed, rather people can find the relevant discussion pages elsewhere.
In practice you often see "Please see a discussion over at X" or "New developments at Y". Now we have several scattered WMF pages and Commonswiki relevant discussions at the Meta-Wiki and other websites, but these aren't centrally placed. Occasionally we see announcements at the main village pump, but apparently not everything gets announced. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:56, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If the page would be community run, it would still not receive notifications on more than some of the discussions. I think watchlisting the pages where the discussions actually happen (or pages that get notifications on them) is a more reliable route. A list of such pages, linked from the village pump header, could be useful. I am afraid the suggested page would just be one more page to watch, and one more page that misses many important discussions. My other concern is that there are too many discussions going on on too many pages, for anybody to keep track of them. –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
LPfi, This page would exist specifically to simplify that by having a central hub where all these developments are listed and where people are linked to the relevant pages, the WMF village pump would contain a list / an overview of WMF pages at the top and direct people to relevant pages. As village pumps are highly visible pages newbies and users who don't request "meta-pages" could easily discover them. This page would supersede the need of keeping dozens of pages in your watchlist as long as volunteers add notifications here (which is already a proven model at Enwiki). — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Simplified explanation of its usefulness: I realised that I didn't really articulate why such a place would be useful, a central page would be able to direct people to the relevant pages and notify them of new discussions, it would not divert discussion away from the main VP or any current WMF pages, rather it will be a directory of all these pages (preferably at the top), and it will notify users of any ongoing discussions. This would mean that if there is a discussion about SDC in one page, a new technical feature or tool support in another, and a request for community feedback about a policy in another one does not need to have each and every page in their watchlist, rather developments and discussions would all be listed in one central place to direct people to the correct venues.
Even if we had a navigational template fo "WMF topics" that would list all these pages one would still need to click on every individual page (and then sometimes even click "Talk" / "Discussion") to find if new discussions, announcements, or developments would be occuring. This page would allow for a singular notification hub for anything Commonswiki-related that the WMF does (even on the Meta-Wiki which wouldn't normally show up here). The main reason for this proposal is to reduce complexity in accessibility and increase community engagement with the WMF by letting anyone interested know where and when developments occur. I understand why the term "village pump" can be kind of misleading in this regard, but I'm just following the precedent set by the English-language Wikipedia and it would also be a good way to allow people to ask miscellaneous questions about the WMF. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:20, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • How about a centralized discussion template instead of a village pump page? I don't see the need to have a central discussion page on top of existing discussion pages, but "direct people to various pages like WMF support for Commons, SDC, WikiLegal for Commons, DMCA take-down notices, Etc" might be a good idea. I think there can be a specialized Template:Centralized discussion, which is not a discussion page, but a curated list of pointers to pages where discussions are ongoing. whym (talk) 02:50, 4 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hello Donald, hi everyone,

Reading through this discussion about the potential creation of a WMF Village Pump for Wikimedia Commons has been enlightening. Your thoughtful insights highlight a shared commitment to improving our community's communications and transparency.

In light of this, I thought bringing up an existing resource that shares similar objectives would be beneficial: the WMF Support for Commons page. This page was created as a hub for updates and discussions related to the Foundation's activities and support for Wikimedia Commons. It's a resource with potential that could be further developed with your help.

What if we took some of the ideas expressed here and applied them to enhancing the WMF Support for Commons page? If we pooled our collective insights and efforts, we could potentially evolve this page into an even more effective hub for all WMF-related content, discussions, and developments.

I encourage each of you to visit the page and consider how your ideas could shape its future. How can we make it more accessible, more engaging, and more informative?

I look forward to hearing your thoughts and, hopefully, collaborating on this endeavor.Udehb-WMF (talk) 14:18, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Udehb-WMF, in that case it might be wise to withdraw this proposal for now then, as I was under the (false) impression that that page was only a hub for the 2023-2024 projects by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). I will continue to add different suggestions there then. I'll draft a way to make that page (and other WMF pages) more visible through community portals then. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:25, 6 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to recommend Opus over VorbisEdit

This is posted to VPP for higher traffic. When this discussion is done, please kindly drop a pointer to the archive at Commons Talk:File types.

Commons:File types#Ogg (audio) currently still states "vorbis is the preferred audio codec for the Ogg container", even though it acknowledges that Opus is better. We should really just get the recommendation changed. Like: 

<!--T:58-->
Opus is the '''preferred''' audio codec for the Ogg container. Please use the file type '''oga''' to upload audio files in Ogg Opus format.<ref group="Note" name="xiphwiki">The Xiph.Org Foundation recommends using <code>.ogg</code> as the extension for Ogg Vorbis audio files, <code>.oga</code> for Ogg FLAC audio, <code>.ogv</code> for Ogg Theora video, and <code>.opus</code> for Ogg Opus audio per [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5334 RFC 5334] and [https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc7845.html RFC 7845]. See also [https://wiki.xiph.org/index.php/MIME_Types_and_File_Extensions MIME Types and File Extensions - XiphWiki].</ref>

<!--T:59-->
Opus is supported by MediaWiki ([[phab:T42193]], [[phab:T53313]]) since 2014. The format has excellent quality and low algorithmic delay. File extension: <code>.opus</code>. It automatically switches between speech and music-optimized modes and is able to combine the two. [[:en:FLAC|FLAC]] is for general audio and is lossless (quality is preserved), but current file size caps prevent its use for anything but short clips. In most cases, Opus should be used, using Xiph recommended settings.<ref group="Note" name="xiphopusrec">See [https://wiki.xiph.org/Opus_Recommended_Settings Opus Recommended Settings].</ref>

<!--T:60-->
Existing audio in other free codecs (such as Speex and Vorbis), but present in an Ogg container, should '''not''' be converted to Opus or FLAC to avoid {{w|generation loss}}.

<!--T:61-->
Note that with FLAC, a [[#FLAC|native container format exists (see below)]]. 
If your output file has the extension <code>.flac</code>, it is likely using the native container format. 
If you like to embed it into an ogg container, this can be done with [[:en:ffmpeg|ffmpeg]] using the command line <code>ffmpeg -i InputFile.ext -acodec flac out.oga</code> or <code>flac ./input.wav -8 --ogg -f ./output.oga</code>.<ref group="Note" name="xiphwiki"/>

<!--T:62-->
It is also useless to put data in a non-free format into a free container like Ogg: you get a file, which, while requiring that a player support the free container, still requires that it support the non-free codec.

Opus is now mandatory in browsers that do WebRTC (see Opus (audio format)), so there should be no concern about compatibility whatsoever (in fact, YouTube uses Opus; oh and we transcode, so there can't be an issue at all). The bit in Commons:File_types#Ogg_Theora_(video) about browser support in 2012 will also need updating.

Artoria2e5 contribs 14:38, 12 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support @Artoria2e5 Thanks for bringing this up. You probably won't get much feedback here either, given how under-developed anything relating to non-image media is on Commons. Unless someone actually comes up with a counter argument, I'd suggest you just go ahead and do what needs to be done. El Grafo (talk) 14:22, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
El Grafo, done. Artoria2e5 contribs 14:26, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Modify upload Wizard to allow less than 5 characters in file description field for Japanese, Chinese, Korean, etcEdit

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T220474

So this has come up recently with some symbols I've been uploading, where I can't speak or write Japanese, but I do have the term that describes the symbol. Since they're Japanese in origin, including a basic explanation Japanese would make sense.

However, the issue is that with Japanese kanji and other Chinese character based written languages, you can convey the name of object in as little as two or three characters.

For example: "Directional Arrow" in Japanese, is only 2 characters: " 矢印 ".

So the uploader stops you from uploading until you push it over 5 characters.


I understand why this minimum exists for most languages, but it doesn't work with Chinese character based languages, like Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese.

Considering you have a drop down where you select the language, is it possible to set it up where if you select one of the Chinese character based languages that it lowers the threshold to like 2 or 3?

(Note: I think the phrase to describe these writing systems in broad, non specific terms, is 'Chinese character based/derived', however I'm not positive. Apologies if I've misspoken in describing it.) The Navigators (talk) 01:26, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Directional arrow" is a pretty lousy description in any case. This definitely doesn't apply to Vietnamese, which is written in the Latin script and has been pretty exclusively for 70 years.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:34, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Won't disagree that it's not the world's greatest, but it's a superior description to absolutely no description at all.
(I'm not an expert on which languages are currently using this writing style. Vietnamese listed among language that used them on the English article on Chinese characters. Honestly, only one I'm really concerned with is Japanese, as that's the one I've had an issue with. However I'm aware that Japanese isn't the only language using that writing style.--The Navigators (talk) 02:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As to the directional arrow argument - it would be allowed in English and probably all latin script languages. Not allowing it in Chinese and other languages that have similar scripts is discriminatory. --Kritzolina (talk) 20:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this stupid design has been reported for 4 years but developers have taken no action.--RZuo (talk) 11:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm definitely open to allowing more flexibility for Chinese and other derivative scripts. Directional arrow as stated above is somewhat lacking as far as a description goes, but I could conceive of a usecase for a good description in Chinese or Japanese that only uses three characters so   Weak support. Abzeronow (talk) 18:38, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As a name (of the object or the depicted person) might fit in the three characters, such a description is better than nothing, and if you don't know the language, that might be all you can write, so yes, I think I support the proposal. A warning might still be due, as proposed in the phabricator ticket, as native speakers should be able to give a more thorough description. An easy way to implement this is to count bytes instead of characters, as the UTF-8 coding (which the WMF sites use) of any such character is 3–5 bytes. –LPfi (talk) 19:15, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, I wouldn't have an any objections to retaining/including a warning instructing to use a better/more detailed description. Or only lower the character limit when another language description is present, so that it still pushes native speakers to make a better description when it's the only language on the upload. (I don't know much about the coding of any of this, so I have no idea the difficulty in setting up the latter idea, why I went for a more simple solution, but no objection to it being a conditional item.)
Related, for the remarks about "directional arrow" (矢印) being overly vague, it was the most recent example I'd done when I wrote the request and knew it was an issue. Other examples of things where this issue appears in Japanese, are 'fire extinguisher' (消火器), 'emergency exit' (非常口), 'exit' (出口), 'telephone' (電話).-- The Navigators (talk) 02:21, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Should this be closed as a consensus for this proposal has been reached or should this remain open longer in case anyone else wishes to comment? Abzeronow (talk) 18:43, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the consensus is pretty clear. Two kanji/ideographs should be the minimum for the relevant languages. - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow old orphan worksEdit

Hi, I propose that we allow old orphan works without a proof of publication, we should consider that the works were published at the time of creation. This should concern works in the public domain in the country of origin and in USA (i.e. free of URAA). We often delete old orphan works because no proof of publication was made, or because there is no evidence for the author's death, but such a proof is very difficult. This proposal comes out of a current request on COM:UDR.

Categories of worksEdit

  • Works created before 1928 (for 2023) without proof of publication.
  • Works created more than the pma duration in the country of origin, which would satisfy {{PD-1996}} if published at the time of creation (e.g. works created before 1946 for 50 years pma countries).

DiscussionEdit

  •   Support We should not require over complex requirements for works most probably in the public domain. Yann (talk) 14:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Question What is an "orphan work" as far as this proposal is concerned? --Rosenzweig τ 15:59, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Weak support for now but we should clearly define what would qualify as an orphan work because as it is we have uploads that tell us that they're anonymous or unknown when sometimes the bare amount of research or actually looking at the photograph sometimes gives us a named author. Abzeronow (talk) 16:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm generally in favor of assuming publication unless there is some specific indication they may not have been published right away (negatives from a photographer's estate, or company archive, or that kind of thing can be such exceptions). But I don't think that should trump anonymous considerations, or {{PD-old-assumed}}. For photographic terms based on a lifetime, assuming the photographer died the year of publication isn't a great idea, I don't think (the 1946 line for 50 pma countries you gave). For one example, the UK repealed their law's allowance for orphan works -- there is a licensing scheme now, and that is all. The EU has an Orphan Works Directive, but the requirements are stiff, and I don't think the result can be considered "free" even after those are met. So for me, I dislike the deletions of normal works solely based on no proof of date of publication (particularly if just a URAA situation) -- but the rest, not sure I'd make changes. If there is a known author name, either wait for PD-old-assumed or find life details. That is what PD-old-assumed is there for. If we aren't virtually sure it's anonymous (which often means we know of an old publication to show that), then probably the same. But works which have passed 70pma, and were created before 1927 but we aren't 100% sure were published then, sure I'd keep those. COM:PRP says we should not allow works with a significant doubt, but usually the question of publication is more of a theoretical doubt to me -- most works were published near the time they were created. Oftentimes (such as the EU), the terms for anonymous works start at "public display" as well, not strict publication. If there is some specific factor which increases the chance of delayed publication, that may push things into significant doubt territory. But there may be some way we can indicate the publication question usually does not rise to a significant doubt, maybe. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:49, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have family pictures of the early 1920s (my grandparents' wedding, etc.), and these can't be uploaded to Commons with the current rules. It seems exaggerate to wait until 2045 to be able to upload them to Commons. Yann (talk) 17:44, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think it is very frustrating not to be able to upload old family photos, but if the photographer was 25 at the wedding and died as 80 – which isn't far-fetched – their 70 years pma term lasts to 2045. Thus it is highly probable that the photo is still under copyright for some time, and if they were professional and your grandparents were celebrities of some sort, it is very much possible that their heirs know about their copyright. The limit of 120 years is not unreasonable if we want to respect the law (it also corresponds to the US 120 years since creation). –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This assumption is not reasonable, and that is the point of my proposal. All people who might have known the photographer of these pictures died decades ago. So it is not reasonable to ask for the name of these photographers. So assuming unknown photographers, the copyright in France expired before the URAA date. If I upload these to Commons, I will probably be the first to publish them, and therefore I would own the (new) copyright for 25 years. This is a complicated reasoning, which depends on the country of origin. So I suggest to generalize and simplify this with a new rule. Yann (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So in your case the reasonable assumption of it being anonymous would suffice. In Finland most photos are below the threshold of copyright and protected for a shorter term (which ended before the URAA date if taken before 1966), However, in countries where the 70 years pma applies to ordinary photos, a photo that could have been published may well be under copyright. Even the current 50 years for "photographic pictures" in Finland is quite unreasonable – I am not allowed to use childhood photos from my family album other than in private. A biography could not legally use the photos (at least not if published in the USA), even though I am a heir of the rights to most – I just don't know to which ones. For family albums the "published immediately" gives too long a term to solve the problem, and still has no reasonable legal grounds. –LPfi (talk) 06:23, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I think I would consider those either published and anonymous, or unpublished (and anonymous) with the family owning the copyright. Presuming of course the photographer's name was not on them. The only way I would consider those unpublished is if the initial copyright vested in the family (which in older laws was more common), but in those cases they are licensable. Carl Lindberg (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Clindberg: I am not sure I follow your reasoning here. These pictures are in a family album for the last 100 years. Does inherit the album constitute publication? If not, they are certainly unpublished. It was most probably a professional paid for that, as a camera was a rare and expensive item at the time. And they certainly didn't trust an amateur for such important pictures (for them). But nobody knows who was this photographer, and even less what agreement my grandparents had with him. So certainly fit the definition of orphan works. We lack pictures of that time, partly due to the uncertainty of copyright status. Allowing such pictures would certainly not create great legal risk for anyone, but would benefit Commons. Yann (talk) 22:55, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If the copyright was owned by the family, no I do not think they become published, but the copyright would be inherited (and thus can be licensed by the heirs, if the copyright still exists). Honestly, if they were not made available for 70 years, they also become PD in the EU (but that EU 25-year publication right may need to be licensed, which the family would own regardless of the original copyright). If you believe that the photographer still owned the copyright, then I would consider the act of selling the photos to the family to be publication (or making available to the public, or whatever). If there were specific rules about commissioned works in older laws, those may need to be followed. Carl Lindberg (talk) 23:09, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the current Finnish law, rights to portraits by default stay with the photographer, who nonetheless isn't allowed to publish them without the subject's permit. Thus, no such photos can be published during the protected term, unless either party knows the identity of the other, which would be extremely rare with a studio out of business since decades. I am afraid this arrangement might be common in the EU. –LPfi (talk) 06:42, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yep, that seems to be the case since 1961. Older photos apparently still follow the older law, and would be interested in what that says. I think they had a copyright law in the 1920s, and maybe an ordnance from the 1880s before that. Most countries do not have an explicit portrait right like that, even in the EU, though some do. That one is interesting in that the copyright is owned by the photographer but need the person's permission to do anything with it. The person can publish it in certain ways without permission from the author. But probably not "free".
    • @Clindberg: No, not free, the ways to use the photo without author's permission are very limited. Also the original 1961 version of the law is available at Finlex (in Finnish and in Swedish). However, at that time, photographic pictures where handled in a separate law, which might not be digitised (probably enacted at the same time; I think they were included in the copyright law through 446/1995). Photographic images did not have their copyright retroactively extended in 1995. The older copyright law is 174/1927 (amended in 1930 and 1941), which likewise doesn't seem to be digitised at Finlex. –LPfi (talk) 08:07, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • For non-professional photos in family albums, most are still under copyright, and most photographers would not object to the family using them any way they want. I'd be seriously upset if my cousin objected to my uploading a photo of my mother taken by his father – although legally I'd need to have his permission. I would be equally upset if some guest, who photographed my mothers family, objected to my publishing the photo they took and gave us.
    Thus, even if I don't know who took a photo and the rightholders might recognise it, knowing their rights, I might want to take the risk rather than letting the photo rest in the attic. The main risk is if somebody uses a family photo in a book and the photographer happens to have a greedy heir. Whether that is a real risk with most family photos from the 1920s (or even 1950s), I don't know. Can they prove they are right in who took the photo?
    –LPfi (talk) 18:58, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, this is wrong. We are talking about pictures taken nearly 100 years ago. 99% of these pictures are out of copyright, but it is difficult to prove it. Yann (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The term of 70 years after creation had of course run out before 1996 for now-100-year-old anonymous works. However, where the term had not ended before the URAA date, they got 120 years in the USA (95 years after publication would not apply for unpublished family photos). This applies to most family-album photos in the EU taken after 1925. I believe the exceptions are limited to photos below the threshold of originality (common in Finland and Sweden) and some special cases. LPfi (talk) 06:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • That's why I only propose this for works created before 1928 for 70 years pma countries. Please do not confuse my proposal with different interpretations. And no, this is not limited to photos below the threshold of originality. Yann (talk) 14:50, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think the proposal boils down to assuming photos created to be published to have been published soon after creation and photos in family albums to be anonymous, unless there is evidence to the contrary (the uploader should check notes in the album and on the back of the photo) or reason to be especially cautious (photographers' archives). That seems reasonable to me. However, I don't see any grounds to assume works to have been published anonymously (which would be required for published 50-years-pma 1945 photos to be PD-1996). –LPfi (talk) 08:42, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @LPfi: Are you sure that pre-1996 copyright expiration for an unpublished work makes it PD in US? Per my knowledge URAA applieas only to published works. If an anonymous work remains unpublished till 2003 then it is irrelevant what is its status outside US: it becomes PD in US 120 years after creation. Ankry (talk) 00:16, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Ankry: that's true for anonymous works, but if the author is known it is 70 years after date of death. - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      In that case the 1920s wedding image would be copyrighted in the USA until early 2040s, unless the photo is accompanied by the photographer's name or was published before 2003. Is that true?
      For such photos (if we can be quite certain it wasn't published), the question is whether we want to keep applying the precautionary principle to old orphan works: it is under copyright but in this case we don't just hope they won't sue, but more or less know they won't (if the couple wasn't famous and the wedding didn't make headlines).
      –LPfi (talk) 07:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @LPfi: Only if the work was really unpublished, which in the U.S. case is a torturous question (no legal definition so depended on jurisdiction and court decisions). The sale of the photos might itself be considered publication, and if not then the common-law copyright would probably be considered transferred to the family, in which case they could license it. So, insofar as this proposal is about assuming such old photos were published and/or made available to the public around when they were created, and then following copyright law based on that assumption, I'm OK with it. Photos taken by the family usually could not use that assumption, but those can be licensed (by heirs) if they want them uploaded. But I don't think an arbitrary cutoff regardless of what the copyright law is in the country origin is a good idea -- PD-old-assumed is what we have for photos we know almost nothing about, and I don't see a good reason to ignore that. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would judge this on a case-by-case basis, and actually already do so. That is, if a picture looks like it was created with publication in mind (especially publicity and similar photos), it is a reasonable assumption that it was published close to the time of creation; photos made for a family album are a different matter. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Personally I kind of look at this like how images of graffiti are usually handled. Mainly in most there isn't a way for the original photographer to prove they are the person who took the photograph to begin with. So it's extremely unlikely that anyone will sue for copyright infringement in those cases. Like with Yann's example of the pictures of his family. What are the actual chances that the original photographer can even prove they took the pictures to begin with? Plenty slim to none. More so if it's a relative of the photographer. So I don't see why we couldn't take a more relaxed position on such cases like we do with graffiti. Although I agree with Gestumblindi that it should be done on a case by case basis. I've seen people claim that a photo was published anonymously just because they didn't know who the photographer was when they uploaded the image. I don't want to see a similar thing happen here, where being lenient with old orphaned works without a proof of publication allows people to just disregard the normal guidelines because in their opinion the photograph is a one off that was taken by a none professional at an informal family event or whatever. Issues like that can be figured out later though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:22, 13 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
like how images of graffiti are usually handled Hi, you do know that there are accounts systematically searching for graffiti and murals in countries without freedom of panorama (like France, Italy and the US) and then propose deleting them? --Enyavar (talk) 06:48, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Question Again: What IS an "orphan work" as far as this proposal is concerned? --Rosenzweig τ 06:40, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    This would be a work the copyright owner of (1) is unaware of their copyright and (2) cannot be traced. (1) is impossible to know, (2) is easy to state but difficult to prove. The copyright laws of EU have a definition, and allows special handling of orphan works by a few select institutions. To enact this proposal, we need to formulate reasonable working definitions of (1) and (2) or handle them purely case-by-case (arbitrarily or with a slowly developing praxis). I assume we should add a discussion to some guideline, as bases for the case-by-case decisions. –LPfi (talk) 07:07, 14 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Support, @LPfi, you wrote, "The copyright laws of EU have a definition, and allows special handling of orphan works by a few select institutions."
    Can the Wikipedia Foundation or the German Wikipedian group apply to allow Wikimedia Commons to be one of the "few select institutions" to "allow special handling of orphan works?" perhaps, a written process or checklist for evaluating potential "orphan works."
    Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 04:38, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    For Finland, it would at least require a change in the copyright law. I assume the same is true for other countries. Regardless, the DIRECTIVE 2012/28/EU ("on certain permitted uses of orphan works") allows only some uses by the institution itself – preserving and making the work available, not relicensing – and requires that the institutions pay for the use of the work would a rights holder appear. Thus, orphaned works would not be free to use in the Commons sense even if Commons were identified as one such institution. –LPfi (talk) 10:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    By the way, I have also argued in the past that we should allow (modern) orphaned bystander selfies, where the owner of a camera asks a stranger to take a photo of them and neither person retains any contact info or identifying details about the other person and the photographer does not retain any copy of the photos or proof of authorship. But of course, that's a separate discussion. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:21, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yes. In many jurisdictions, an implicit licence (or copyright transfer) to the camera owner would be assumed. Without that licence you wouldn't be allowed to publish the photo on social media. There are still complications; the extent of such an implicit licence could be ill-defined. If the camera owner isn't allowed to relicense the work, then this is a class of orphan works. One problem is that the bystander might recognise the photo and might not have intended for the photo to be put in widespread use. If you took a photo of a to-become celebrity and then find that your photo is used unattributed all over the net, you might not be happy. –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I agree on the bystander photos. There are also arguments that the pictured person could be a co-owner of the copyright as well, since they often choose what is in the photo, pose themselves, etc. There's not much sense in following copyright to the letter in those cases, as you get a nonsensical result anyways, and there are decent arguments for co-authorship anyways. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:15, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recently declined rename requestsEdit

i found a way to test whether a file has recently declined rename requests, see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Sandbox&oldid=774525124 . the filename appears in Commons:File renaming/Recently declined rename requests, so if the "string find" function doesnt return 0 the file has been recently declined.

i propose incorporating this code into Template:Rename/layout so that the file will display a more visible warning (similar to "warningExists") and be categorised in a tracking cat. RZuo (talk) 14:25, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RZuo looks good to me, thanks for the work! Frostly (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow photos taken inside of train stations or tunnels in GermanyEdit

The freedom of panorama rules in Germany only cover photos taken from public accessible places. The status of train stations is disputed as there is not court decision on that question. As deleting all photos showing interiors of train stations or underground stations would highly impact articles on Wikipedia and as many stations are also cultural heritage monuments we should keep them until there is a clarification on that question. GPSLeo (talk) 19:50, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'd say allow, but probably tag them so that they can easily be deleted at one fell swoop if there is ever clarification and it goes against having them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As already mentioned on my talk page, this discussion has already been going on in the past few days. The fact is that the German panorama freedom does not apply to interior shots. Some may question whether subway stations count as interior shots, but even then we would have to delete the images (precautionary principle). I don't see why we should flout our own rules just because the images have been accepted to date. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: What difference to the law does it make that the train stations are "cultural heritage monuments"? As far I know objects are designed cultural heritage monuments by local "cultural authorities" who don't own the copyrights to the objects they designate and the designation has zero effect on the copyright status of the work. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose For three reasons. 1. The guidelines for Germany make it clear that shots of building interiors in Germany are not covered by FOP. Train stations "might" (and it's a big might) be covered because they are semi-public, but the problem is that experts agree places where accesses is it all restricted to the public aren't legally considered public spaces. So there's no grounds for train stations to be covered by FOP what-so-ever. Otherwise we might as well allow images taken in-side of churches, stores, Etc. Etc. At that point why even have guidelines about it?
2. I don't buy the idea that there should be a special exception for "cultural heritage monuments" in Germany because the designation is given by local "cultural authorities" who aren't legal bodies and it doesn't effect the copyright status of the works. In the meantime there's plenty of modern objects created by living artists in Germany that are designated as "cultural monuments" by local authorities. There's zero evidence that those artists gave up their copyright to the work in the process.
3. Plenty of regional historical societies designate objects of local interest as culturally important. I'm sure images of a lot of copyrighted public works in most countries can be used in Wikipedia. What's so special about Germany or German "monuments" (the word is meaningless misnomer in this context BTW) that warrants there being a special exception to the rules just for German train stations? Really, why not just allow for images of otherwise copyrighted works in general if they can be used in Wikipedia articles? Honestly, this whole thing reeks of the same German centric nonsense that occurred with the recent proposal for categories of German political parties. Which not surprisingly was started by the same user and went absolutely no where. At the end of the day there's zero legitimate reason to allow for images of artwork in German train stations. German users just have a unique issue with following the guidelines for some reason. So they think there should be special exceptions to everything for Germany. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm a lot less concerned with keeping images of art than happens to be inside a German train station than with general interior shots of the stations. Even for the U.S., where F.O.P. is generally far weaker than in Germany, we allow equivalent photos. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really see what the difference is. At least IMO there's way more chance of a living artist suing over an image of their artwork in a train station being used in a commercial book then say the architect of the building suing someone for uploading images of a random wall in the same train station. You should look through some of the images of the stations in Germany. A lot of them are pretty generic. To the point that only locals would probably know what station it is or where exactly the image was taken if it weren't for file summaries and whatnot. Like compare these two images of the same train station, File:U-Bahnhof Steinstraße 3.jpg and File:Fußgängerunterführung Steinstraße, Mosaik von Walter Siebelist.jpg. Obviously there's much more chance of there being a legal issue with the second image then there is with the first one. The first one is barely even identifiable and there's nothing copyrightable about it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mentioned the cultural heritage monuments to show the importance of having these photos. It could also be relevant if you weight the interests of the architect against the freedom of press. As it is highly important we should not apply the precautionary principle but risk the legal proceeding like we did in many other cases in the past. GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You might have a valid point, but Commons isn't the press. Also, I'd probably agree with you about weighing the legal risks if the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't already sued and lost in Germany over Commons hosting images of stamps. I don't think it's worth the risk in light of that and how inconsistent the German court system seems to be, which at least from my reading of things tends to be way more finicky when it comes to FOP then anything else. There was also a court case a few years ago where someone was sued in Germany and lost for commercially using an image of a train. So there's already legal precedent there when it comes to things related to trains, train stations, and the like. Granted I don't remember if the image of the train was taken in a train stations, but I don't think it matters. The Regardless, one failed law suite on our side in the German courts should really be enough. We aren't here to test the boundaries of copyright laws. I already asked on L. Beck's talk page, but why can't the images just be uploaded to German Wikipedia since (I assume) they would qualify as fair use due to being included in articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The German Wikipedia does not accept "fair use". --Rosenzweig τ 07:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And neither does a lot of other Wikipedias (German Wikipedia allows "fair use" for a limited class of images that are free by German law, or something like that).
Anyway, we don't host images unless they are free, even if they are valuable. It is not about WMF: they are quite safe as long as they take down files as soon they are asked to. The problem is with somebody publishing a book and being sued over it. Destroying the edition is costly regardless of whether they get some formal penalty.
–LPfi (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well that's a bummer. Not really surprising though. Regardless, I still think it's worth erring on the side of caution even if the WMF will probably be fine either way. Like the precautionary principle says "the copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work" and similar arguments aren't a valid reason to keep works that might otherwise be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I guess you mean "erring" here, not "airing" ;-) (just a friendly hint). Rosenzweig τ 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support If the law is ambiguous, we should take the more permissive side. It is not our duty to interpret the law more strictly than the courts do. We don't need to be more royal than the kings. Yann (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interpret it how you will, but at least according to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights Section 59(1) "It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorization only extends to the façade." Interiors of train stations, underground or otherwise, clearly aren't building facades. So at least going by the Act on Copyright and Related Rights it doesn't seem like there's any ambiguity what so ever about this. If nothing else there at least needs to be some kind of clarification about how the proposal jives with the law if it passes so people don't just continue to nominate images of train station interiors for deletion because the law says they aren't covered by freedom of panorama. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am going to be   Neutral on this. While I stand by my opinion generally, I don't know enough about the details of German law to take a side. Yann (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have broaden the scope of the discussion as all photos taken inside tunnels (if tunnel design is above TOO) would fall under this decision. See also the discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Steinstraße (Hamburg). --GPSLeo (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As I just noted in the other discussion, no one is trying to or suggesting we delete "all" images taken inside of tunnels. Just ones containing works of art that are still covered by copyright. So your broadening the scope of the discussion to something that is a non-issue. Although that also goes for the original proposal. Again, to repeat what I said in the other discussion, the hyperbolic fear mongering about what exactly is being nominated for deletion isn't really helpful and if anything, just makes the discourse around the whole thing way more contentious then it needs to be. Really, it's not surprising that German users would come right out of the gate looking for a confrontation considering the amount of catastrophizing going on around this. No one is nominating "all" images of train stations or tunnels for deleted. Nor is anyone suggesting we do such a thing either. So at the end of the day this proposal is a solution to a non-exiting problem, just like your last one about category names BTW ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 
Promotional pictures for WMDE-WikiCon 2022
Guys, define "tunnel" and "inside". Do you need to pass a physical door? Must a place be lockable to be "semi-public", whatever that would be? Do passways under bridges count as tunnels? Is any artwork under a roof now verboten? The suggested policy sounds like after deleting all graffiti and murals younger than 150 years from the France, US, Taiwan and South Africa, busy censors seek to find inroads on German FoP. Train stations are public places and people who delete photos of publicly installed train station artwork are jerks. --Enyavar (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You clearly haven't read the discussions around this, including this one, or what the law says. If you did you'd know that the distinction between public versus private when it comes to images of building interiors doesn't matter. It can still be a "public place" and not qualify for freedom of panorama if that place is the interior of a building. To quote from the law for at least the second time in this discussion ""It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorization only extends to the façade." Nothing about that sentence says that images of building interiors are covered by freedom of panorama as long as they are public buildings. Making this about if the building is public or not is just a convenient way to deflect from the actual reason the images are being nominated for deletion. No one is nominating the images for deletion based on the buildings not being public places though.
As to what constitutes a building interior, that's an extremely simple question to answer just by looking at the images. No one who is being good faithed about this is going to argue that images like this one are of the exterior façade of the tunnel and/or train station where it was taken. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really know if I agree with that last statement. Having lived in cities where pedestrian underpasses under streets are pretty common (London, Bucharest) people don't generally think of entering those passages as "going indoors," and as far as I know that has never really been tested in a German court of law. - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the tunnel in the image that I provided a link to isn't just a random pedestrian passage going under a street or whatever. If you look at images in the same categories there's clearly a stairway going down to an underground train station of which the tunnel is a major part of. It's not really clear where the stairs and/or tunnel ends and the train station begins either. Although I agree that random short underpasses going from one side of a road to the other aren't "buildings", but no one is nominating images of those types of passageways for deletion and they aren't what I'm talking about.
Regardless though there's clearly a point where a tunnel is either a building itself or a part of one. And I think the tunnel in the image I linked to would qualify as one of those things since there are stairs leading down it and it connects to the train station. There's also multiple signs with the name of the train station on them before the stairs to BTW. So I don't see how anyone can argue the tunnel and station have nothing to do with each other. Sure though, if the "tunnel" is a random 10 foot long path going under a road then an image of it is probably fine. The issue comes in when the passageway is either a building in it's own right or a part of one. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not really clear where the stairs and/or tunnel ends and the train station begins either: Ymmd, really. Come to Hamburg and check it yourself. You will see it, you will hear it, you will even smell it. And before that you might read something about Hamburg's concept of becoming an automotive city in the 1950's and 1960's and what the meant to pedestrians. NNW 16:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose expanding our characterization of FOP in Germany to include all buildings that are train stations. I'm coming here after a note was left on my talk page regarding a related deletion. The underlying law specifically states It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade.. In German (which bears the weight of official law), the bolded part comes out to Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht, with die äußere Ansicht being making it clear that the law protects only reproductions of the building from the outside. COM:PRP guides: where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. And, there is significant doubt about taking photographs of the interiors of buildings that also happen to be train stations in light of the text of the underlying law.
    We have a duty to re-users to ensure that our photos are genuinely free to re-use. We should not be uploading photos to Commons and labeling them as free to re-use if the only basis for doing so is a sweeping and novel understanding of fair use in Germany that is dubious in German courts. For the sake of re-users, we cannot host images and endorse broad re-use in a manner that may very well violate the relevant copyrights. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The sentence Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht/ In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade is misinterpreted here. It does mean, that the interior of a building is not automatically FOP, only because the exterior is. That makes sense, if the interior is not a public space, e.g. you should not take a picture through a window. However, as long as the interior is a public space then the general FOP rule applies. If anyone is aware of a final judgement in Germany which says otherwise, then please quote that here. Until then for me a clear   Support Wikipeter-HH (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose. First, I have trouble with the terminology. To me, there are different types of train stations. There are monsters such as Penn Station where I am inside a building and go through doors to get to enclosed tracks. King St. is a modest station, but it is a building with doors and an interior; I walk out some doors to the open platforms. The wooden station for my home town was torn down, and now the stop is just a parking lot, some fences and automatic gates, some fare machines, and an open-sided shelter. Building interiors are not "public paths, roads, or open spaces." Maybe open-air platforms are an "open space". Maybe a roofed-over train platform is also an "open space".
    Second, I went to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. Germany apparently uses strict interpretation: something photographed from the street is OK, but something photographed from a balcony above the street is not. I need a much clearer definition of "public path" and "open space" to conclude that a train station platform or interior is legal. For now, why shouldn't the platform be treated like that balcony rather than the street? A public space may be private property, but there must be a "dedication to the public". "Dedication" is even less clear. Museum interiors are not included. What if the train station is owned by the state? That does not help me: consider a museum owned by the state.
    Third, the Commons article specifically states, "Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces." [Emphasis added.] That raises significant doubt.
    Yes, I would like to keep interior station shots, but that desire does not trump the doubt that such shots are free of copyright. Glrx (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    In the US, "open space" is land that has limited development. Think parks that may have some limited development such as picnic areas and restrooms. A train platform would not be "open space". Glrx (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support The actual terms in German distinguish between buildings (Gebäude) and structures (constructions, Bauwerke) in general. Tunnels, bridges, piers, open bus station roofs or garden shacks are the latter, but not the former. The cited law (UrhG §59) applies to "Bauerke", which thus includes bridges and tunnels. A streetside graffiti below a bridge could thus be construed as "inside"... or not. The paragraph in question is extremely short and unspecific, so it requires a lot of interpretation and analysis, which was apparently attempted here. I'm not saying to know better than other people here or there, just that we should not implement uninformed rules that generally prohibit street art, when Germany is one of the few countries in the world where public street art is allowed to be photographed for Commons. (On another note: This entire category tree is liable for deletion, for all photos in it younger than 1928 and without the proper VRT notice.) --Enyavar (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graffiti in the United States are usually in the public domain if created before 1985, as they lack a copyright notice. Yann (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just to add to that at least from what I've seen none of the images being nominated for deletion have been for streetside graffiti or whatever. Not to mention artwork in a train station obviously isn't "street art" to begin with either. So your vote is based on something that isn't even happening and has nothing to do with this even if it was. As a side to that, the rules about it aren't in anyway uniformed. As I and others like Glrx have pointed out several times already the guideline is based on the analysis of many academic and extra-judicial commentators who all seem to agree that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, departure halls, tunnels, and passageways probably aren't covered by freedom of panorama. If you want to argue they are wrong, cool, do that then. It's extremely bad faithed to act like the guideline was invented whole cloth out of thin air based on the personal opinions of a few users though. It has 102 references for a reason. The one for the part of the guideline that your referring to cites like 7 different sources by legal experts. So in no way is that part of the guideline based on anyone's personal, uninformed opinions. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:02, 18 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oppose a blanket permission per COM:PCP. As per the really thorough presentation in de:Panoramafreiheit#Kriterium_„öffentlich“ (in German) by Pajz - see the expansive footnote no. 76 - it is a matter that's disputed in German law commentaries, and per COM:PCP, we should err on the side of caution. So, I would continue on a case-by-case basis, asking these questions: 1) Does the depicted interior pass the threshold of originality? If it's, for example, just a plain wall with a station sign, there is no issue, we don't need FoP. 2) If the threshold of originality (in German: Schöpfungshöhe) is passed (that is, creative architecture, or sculptures, or things like murals), is it still protected? The architect or interior designer of old train stations could have died more than 70 years ago, then it's also no problem. Only if the depicted interior is likely to pass the threshold of originality and is still protected, I think we have to apply PCP and delete. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Gestumblindi The whole discussion here is caused by some user(s) here raising deletion requests en masse without the due consideration according to your point 1). If you are able to stop that we would be much better off. Wikipeter-HH (talk) 09:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oppose as Gestumblindi. --Rosenzweig τ 06:47, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •   Support It seems insane to me, to delete all pictures of a certain kind, as long as we haven't had one clear decision by a court. By the way, the existence of all this pictures might help arguing in court.Haemmerli (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Not our job to change the law, doesn’t matter what we think of it. I personally hate German FOP for making it seem like you have unlimited freedom then making you follow these inane technicalities, but I’m still opposing this below. Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose we, as a hard rule, should follow countries’ moronically byzantine copyright laws to the letter, and in ambiguous cases default to either reliable sources or assuming something is copyrighted by default. Otherwise what happens is Wikimedians decide they get to interpret the law as they see fit, which is what happened with the ongoing Eiffel Tower lighting massacree and what is going to happen here. Dronebogus (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per comment from user:Gestumblindi.--Wdwd (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose per Gestumblindi: A blanket permission like the proposed one does not make sense here given the circumstances. That does not mean that we have to delete everything that shows a German train station from the inside. Threshold of originality, de minimis, and copyright expirations still exist. It'll just have to be decided case-by-case. --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Oppose per our Precautionary principle --Martina talk 03:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ability to block users only from uploading filesEdit

I see overwhelming consensus; it's been a week. Frostly (talk) 03:05, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T339878
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Developers need a community decision before implementing this. See also discussion at COM:VP#Ability to block users only from uploading files.

  •   Support as proposer. Yann (talk) 20:31, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support: Having this as a block setting rather than an edit filter would be a significant improvement. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:42, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Question What's the use case for this? Are there actually users that should not be able to upload files, but should be able to edit the rest of Commons? The only reasons I could think of for blocking uploads is if someone didn't understand copyright or was uploading files for an abusive purpose, and neither bodes well for their continued presence on this project. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's not uncommon for users to mass-upload files with no curation (OOS/copyvio mixed in, poor filenames/descriptions/categorization, etc). While usually done in good faith, it's a significant behavioral issue that causes a great deal of work for other editors and diminishes the quality of files available on Commons. Blocking from upload would stop the problematic uploads, while allowing them to properly curate the files (and, hopefully, re-earn the trust to be allowed to upload again). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support There are some people who have a habit of uploading duplicates without checking, but do an incredibly good job at copyright patrolling or being WikiGnomes that fix typos in the file namespace. Having this tool would allow us to more narrowly tailor our blocks to address problematic but good-faith editors who are productive in some areas but are disruptive with their file uploads. There isn't really anything admins lose from having this option (we are going to retain the ability to issue sitewide blocks or partial blocks from the file namespace), so I think that we will be made better off having this option than not. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:26, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support seems similar to partial blocks on Wikipedia. Blocks should be preventative and incremental. Just because someone’s an incompetent uploader doesn’t automatically mean they can’t do basic maintenance editing. Dronebogus (talk) 22:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support This seems like a reasonable stop gap when it comes to dealing with duplicate images compared to just outright blocking otherwise productive users for doing something that is mostly benign in the grand scheme of things. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:55, 24 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support Convincing arguments by Pi.1415926535 above --El Grafo (talk) 07:56, 26 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support usefull in some cases.--Wdwd (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support --Kritzolina (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Policy change proposal: allow free depictions of copyrighted characters/fictional elementsEdit

SNOW close. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 03:08, 29 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Basically I believe that we should allow free files that depict copyrighted characters (IE Fleischer's public domain Superman files, etc). My arguments are as follows:

  • Nothing about the file is copyrighted, except for an idea the notion that Superman is copyrighted in this context is based on the notion that an idea is copyrightable.. Basically, in the case of Fleischer's Superman, the cartoon is free, the version of the character is free, and the depiction is free. This means that the only thing that could possibly be copyrighted is the idea of Superman, IE this is a derivative work of an idea/concept. And as we know, ideas cannot really be copyrighted.
  • While the courts have upheld copyright for fictional characters, Commons practice has deviated from the courts in cases where we disagree, such as how COM:COSTUME says that the Commons community rejects the WMF's view on costumes in favor of a more lenient view based on our interpretation of the law. In this case I suggest we interpret the law based on the rule that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright.
  • While files depicting fictional characters may have their commercial usability limited, Commons does allow files that cannot be used commercially in all contexts, such as cosplay and trademarked logos. If you used File:Spiderman and child.jpg in some commercial contexts, you could be sued, but Commons ignores that.

In conclusion: free depictions of "copyrighted" fictional characters should be allowed on Commons based on the facts that ideas cannot be copyrighted, we have rejected legal precedent before based on more lenient interpretations of the law, and that we do allow certain files that have limited commercial usability. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:04, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a side thing, but it seems like you contradict yourself in the proposal. For instance at the top you say "Nothing about the file is copyrighted except for an idea", but then later on you comment "I suggest we interpret the law based on the rule that ideas and concepts cannot be protected by copyright." So can ideas be protected by copyright or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: I meant to say that the notion that Superman is copyrighted in this case is based on the notion that ideas can be copyrighted. Thanks for pointing that out, I have edited my original message. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your argument about trademarks is wrong. The files you cite can be used for commercial purposes, but they can't be used when violating the trademark (for logos) or for claiming something on behalf of the creator. That's quite a difference. Yann (talk) 21:28, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They can be used for commercial purposes, but their commercial usage is limited by relevant laws. This is the same case as public domain images of Superman etc. Di (they-them) (talk) 21:32, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Oppose. "It is clear that when cartoons or movies are copyrighted, a component of that copyright protection extends to the characters themselves, to the extent that such characters are sufficiently distinctive." Warner Bros. Entm't, Inc. v. X One X Prods., 644 F.3d 584, 597 (8th Cir. 2011) (citing 7th Circuit and 9th Circuit cases). Although you say "Commons practice has deviated from the courts in cases where we disagree", the example you provide does not appear to be departure from law (as decided by multiple U.S. Courts of Appeals), but rather from a nonbinding WMF legal statement and advisory Copyright Office guidance. I am aware of no wholesale departure on Commons from legal rules decided by multiple courts of appeals. This should not be the first. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Oppose you aren’t discussing ideas of characters (whatever that means), you’re discussing concrete depictions (i.e. moving images depicting Superman). The whole argument is therefore moot. Dronebogus (talk) 23:06, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Oppose There's no such thing as a "free file that depicts copyrighted characters", because the copyrighted characters make it unfree, see COM:DW, so there's simply no base for this proposal. You can't copyright the idea of, say, "a superhuman character" (which may be depicted in a way that doesn't look like Superman), but the specific, copyrighted character of Superman is a different thing. By the way, copyright protection is different from trademark protection. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:25, 27 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Oppose That might work for a character in a novel, but for a character that was in graphical form to begin with, anything close enough to be identifiably that character is going to infringe copyright. There could be a fair-use defense for parody (e.g. Mad Magazine's early Superduperman), but Commons doesn't accept images on that basis either. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: That's true: You can depict your own vision of the character Harry Potter from the novels, like File:Harry Potter.jpg - but you can't copy the familiar appearance of a still copyrighted character from a graphic novel. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:16, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Oppose Per Dronebogus. I was actually going to make the same argument but he beat me to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:01, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Question Are you aware that Commons:Fan art#Copyright in fan art exists? And if so, what exactly are you proposing beyond what is already allowed there? El Grafo (talk) 14:03, 28 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:PD-USGov-HHS-CDCEdit

Template:PD-USGov-HHS-CDC

i suggest changing the word "image" to "file", given that 3k+ files are not images https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=hastemplate%3APD-USGov-HHS-CDC+-filetype%3Aimage .

likewise, other templates using similar wording, if any, should also be changed.--RZuo (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Авторское правоEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A31A:C33F:2E80:B1FB:8C2E:61FB:A9E7 Участник занялся повальным удалением с Викисклада всех статуй, памятников и монументов, находящихся на территории России. Памятник Жукову, Колчаку (Екатеринбург), Петру I, Пушкину, Ленину, Кирову (Санкт-Петербург), Ленину (Мурманск), Тимирязеву (Москва), Тукаю, Шаляпину, Нуриеву, Туполеву, Джалилю (Казань), Есенину (Рязань), Радищеву (Саратов) - и это всё под нож только за один день. Он аргументирует это защитой авторских прав. В перспективе будут удалены все фотографии всех российских памятников. Учитывая, что аналогичные фотографии аналогичных памятников регулярно публикуются государственной прессой и на государственных сайтах, и никто там разрешения об авторских правах у скульптора не спрашивает, я прошу рассмотреть возможность отменить следование законам России об авторском праве. Викимедийные структуры пытается быть святее папы римского и соблюдать авторские права той страны, в которой само государство не соблюдает авторские права. Это абсурд. Невозможно соблюдать одни законы России об авторском праве, и не соблюдать другие законы, как, например, мы не соблюдаем законы о "специальной военной операции на Украине" и о "дискредитации Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации". Если такое является правомерным, то прошу объяснить, почему и на каком основании Викимедиа и Викисклад решают какие государственные законы нужно соблюдать, а какие не надо. Российские законы об авторском праве мешают популяризации скульптуры и вредят знанию. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Engelberthumperdink: Хотя я категорически против копирайт-паранойи, но здесь я не согласен с Вами. Дело в том, что Викисклад принимает только файлы, которые можно использовать в любых целях, в т.ч. и коммерческих. В то же время, в России сейчас для памятников и скульптур есть только некоммерческая свобода панорамы, а она несовместима с правилами лицензирования файлов. Те сайты, о которых Вы говорите, могут использовать фото памятников, защищённых авторским правом, в качестве добросовестного использования, а оно у нас запрещено (COM:FU). Законы о "специальной военной операции" и о "дискредитации Вооружённых сил Российской Федерации" здесь могут не соблюдать, так как это не российский проект. Но законы об авторском праве мы должны уважать везде, во всех странах мира. P.S. Не стоит переживать из-за удаления файлов. Авторское право не вечно и все удалённые файлы памятников и скульптур будут восстановлены в будущем, когда они перейдут в общественное достояние. Просто добавьте категорию типа "Undelete in" или подходящую Category:FOP-related deletion requests на страницу запроса удаления. Юрий Д.К 09:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    В одной стране есть свобода панорамы. Там стоит скульптура одного скульптора. Её фотографию можно грузить на Викисклад. В другой стране нет свободы панорамы. Там стоит та же самая скульптура того же самого скульптора. Её фотографию нельзя грузить на Викисклад. Такой абсурд не имеет ничего общего с защитой авторских прав. Это не защита авторских прав, а защита конкретных государственных законов об авторском праве. Кто восстановит удалённые фотографии и когда? Когда скульптор умрёт и плюс 70 лет? Я уже сам к этому времени сдохну давно. У меня уже понаудаляли фотографий надгробных памятников, при том что их скульптор вообще неизвестен, и неизвестно был ли там в принципе скульптор. Какой смысле мне писать статьи про скульпторов, если я не могу их проиллюстрировать? Я с таким трудом, например, обошёл весь город с целью сфотографировать большую часть работ Асии Миннулиной, а теперь это всё на свалку. Викимедиа, чьи сервера находятся в Америке, блюдёт российские законы - вот уж никогда бы не подумал что возможна такая шизофрения. Engelberthumperdink (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • English: Although I'm strictly against copyright paranoia, but I disagree with you here. Wikimedia Commons accepts only files that can be used for any purpose, including commercial. In Russia, however, there is only non-commercial FOP for monuments and sculptures, and it isn't compatible with our licensing rules. The sites you are talking about can use photos of copyrighted monuments as fair use, but it isn't allowed here (see COM:FU). The laws about "special military operation" and about "discrediting the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation" may not be observed here, since this is not a Russian project. But copyright laws we have to respect everywhere, in all countries of the world. P.S. Don't worry about deleted files. Copyright is not immortal and all deleted files of monuments and sculptures will be restored in the future when they enter to public domain. Just add a category "Undelete in" or relevant Category:FOP-related deletion requests to DR page. Юрий Д.К 09:08, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Alternately, the holders of the Copyright may approach the VRTeam and give consent that their work may be published on Commons - that will also ensure that their work gets to the public. --Enyavar (talk) 11:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Category:Lenin_monument_(Freedom_Square,_Kazan) Ага, и где вы предлагаете искать наследников Яцыно и Гегелло, памятник которых был установлен в 1953 году, а сами они умерли несколько лет спустя? Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License reviewerEdit

Considering the fact that copyright isn't something to play with, will it be better to set an activity period for all reviewers? The user can regain their permission if they demonstrate that they are still conversant with the relevant licensing policies and show that they intend to be (somewhat) active in reviewing files. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 12:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there reason to believe that someone who hasn't reviewed files for a while is more likely to act abusively or make more mistakes when reviewing? Or what is the proposal based on? That's not to say I'm against it, but I wouldn't overstate the role of the license reviewer, given that the real problem with inactive reviewers tends to be overflowing backlogs. Killarnee (talk) 14:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Killarnee, I don't really see a problem except the backlog. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Policies related to copyright is ever-changing and if someone is not active, it is likely that the user is also not up-to-date with these stuff (not saying that someone active is conversant with these stuff). If a country decides to make its copyright law more restrictive, it will cause issues in the long run, with users reviewing files that are no longer accepted here. With regards to the backlog issue, an inactive user is also not helping with the backlog. --Minorax«¦talk¦» 14:29, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support just as admins. people may wanna reach LR users that with higher activity.
+ we can monitor and check how many file got reviewed. ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ TALK 23:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Oppose This appears to be a solution in search of a problem. There hasn't been any case made that there is actually an issue at the moment. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
in the past i've thought about two things related to this.
  1. we should make a bot or sth to compile stats for licence reviewers (like Commons:List of administrators by recent activity). with the stats and records, i think it makes it easier to scrutinise reviewers' actions. a leaderboard might also encourage reviewers do more.
  2. perhaps we should make a bot that checks inactivity of users who possess any tools (filemovers, etc.). inactivity is defined as no edits or actions at all (unlike the sysops' definition). the period should be very long, 10 years or sth. the bot is run annually to compile a list and send notifications to the users. if they still dont have actions, then a human will authorise the bot to remove the inactive users' rights. this will keep the user groups updated with the current community.
RZuo (talk) 08:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i propose a tag be created for edits made with MediaWiki:Gadget-LicenseReview.js. RZuo (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:From YouTubeEdit

Automatic separationEdit

i propose changing Template:From YouTube to automatically sort all files based on filetype into one of the following cats instead of Category:Media from YouTube:

  1. Category:Audio files from YouTube
  2. Category:Images from YouTube
  3. Category:Videos from YouTube

if there're files that dont belong to these 3 cats, they go into Media from YouTube.

these 3 cats also go under Media from YouTube. RZuo (talk) 10:49, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Images from YouTube without timestampEdit

to fulfil https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:From_YouTube&oldid=196033864#Timecode_for_still_images , i suggest adding a tracking cat "Images from YouTube without timestamp".

a bot can be made to remind uploaders, who uploaded new files using this template without parameter timestamp on images, to fill it in.--RZuo (talk) 10:55, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for Flickr (and YouTube) to ask their uploaders if they want to choose a license that make their media eligible for WikipediaEdit

I see a lot of files on Flickr that are not full copyright, but are still not suitable for Wikipedia (i.e. NC-ND but not full sharealike). I wonder if we asked Flickr to add a button on their upload wizard to ask people if they want to use the license that would make their image eligible for Wikipedia. I suspect that a lot of Flickr amateur photographers would love to have their photos used in Wikipedia articles, but they probably think that CC-BY-NC-ND should do it, when it doesn't. We could do the same with YouTube. Aszx5000 (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think if you find people to do such a project you can do this. Community approval should not be needed for this. GPSLeo (talk) 16:01, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Are there people within this community who are in contact with Flickr (and youtube), or who are best placed to represent WikiCommons to such companies? I think if Flickr (and youtube) did this, it would create a large new source of media for WikiCommons, but it is a bigger undertaking/requires the right approach. Aszx5000 (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Aszx5000: You might be interested in the new Commons:Flickypedia project. Not sure if they'd have any sway in changing anything to do with the Flickr upload process, but perhaps. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 08:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is very helpful Sam Wilson - I will repost this to that Talk Page. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 10:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Add topics to DRsEdit

Proposal: Support and add tags/topics to DRs, for example: one tag for "out-of-scope" (to deal with selfies, etc.), one tag for copyright of each country (e.g. "copyright-Germany") and also have a page to see all open DRs with a given a tag (e.g. Commons:Deletion_requests/Topics/Copyright-Germany). Each DR may be tagged with one or more tags.


Reasoning: There are thousands of open DRs at the moment and I want to help commenting on those but every time I try, I drown in a sea of DRs that I can't contribute anything to but for example I have a basic understanding of Iranian copyright law so if I have a way to see all of DRs related to Iran copyright, I'd be much more efficient. Same goes for admins who want to close DRs. This is really similar to en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting that made dealing with AfDs in English Wikipedia quite easier (e.g. I made en:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mitra Rafee and it got this: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Actors and filmmakers, Women, and Iran.)


I can do or help with the technical work and the implementation of that but first I want to make sure everyone else is okay with it. Thanks. Amir (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • This is very much a good idea, I've always wondered why such a system was never implemented here, especially since there are more DR's here than at Wikipedia. Sometimes people add DR's to categories, but this is always done manually and often done after it's already closed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I would also really like if would have this. But I think it is not possible to implement with current MediaWiki features. We would need a total new extension or an external software like phabricator. GPSLeo (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @GPSLeo Why do you think it needs changes to the software? English Wikipedia is doing it and it has been working fine (maybe we need to do some tweaking to make it work but honestly nothing too complicated). Amir (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    We have much more deletion request traffic and therefore need interfaces for mass or at least fast processing. GPSLeo (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the easiest way to do this would be to use the existing category structure Category:Sorted deletion requests more systematically. There is, for example, Category:Iranian law deletion requests, and if every new DR related to Iranian law would be sorted into the existing category Category:Iranian law deletion requests/pending, it would be easy for you, Amir, to find them. To this end, my suggestion would be to add a field "categories" to the "nominate for deletion" gadget, which is used for most DRs, and either make adding at least one category mandatory, or strongly suggested. No fancy new features needed that way, just use what we have. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Addition: As, for example, Category:Scope-related deletion requests/pending, currently has only 37 entries but there are, of course, many more pending scope-related deletion requests (Category:Scope-related deletion requests/deleted has also only 351 entries), I think it's clear that using these categories hasn't been established as standard practice yet, but maybe it should be done. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only adding a interface for these categories would be no problem. But then we only have them on a category page and not with a view like on the current daily pages. Maybe this is possible with a Lua module. GPSLeo (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can write a bot to do it, that way it wouldn't put too much pressure on the server. Amir (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot would need to run every minute to get a smooth feeling in the process. And we should not once again have a important software maintained by volunteers only. We know the upload tool drama I do not want a deletion tool drama. GPSLeo (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Another way is to have a toolforge tool that shows all open cases e.g. https://sorted-drs.toolforge.org/copyright-germany would show all open ones. Amir (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then we have the external tool I wrote we would need. I think to keep the data on Wiki and only have the interface as an external software would be the best solution anyway. GPSLeo (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If so, I still don't understand the problem of using a bot that add or remove it from a page even if it's running every minute (it can also simply listen to the event streams to make it basically instant). I consider myself a pretty technical person and know the limitations of the software and infrastructure very well. This can be done by a bot without putting much pressure (if done correctly). Amir (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gestumblindi I think one reason they haven't been adapted widely yet is that they aren't used to actually help users. So far it's only bookkeeping which is not a great incentive to make this sorted. Also I can write a bot to guess categories and add them based on tags on the picture so it would remove a bit of burden.
Beside that, we definitely need a page to for example keep transclusions of Category:Scope-related deletion requests/pending in one place so people can easily see all open DRs Amir (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is already done by some users, and as an admin who processes one or another DR, it already annoys me because it floods my watchlist. If there is no good reason, please don't do it. If one want's to contribute in DRs, there already are lot's of possibilities; if in doubt, start from the beginning forwards or from the end backwards, or anywhere in the middle. Krd 17:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I hope doing it via a bot could in theory at least reduce the annoyance given that it'll be hidden from watchlists. Amir (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It doesn't, because admins who work on bot created maintenance list a lot, often cannot exclude bot edits from their watchlist. Krd 17:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh and adding support to the "nominate for deletion" gadget would help it be there at the same time, so no messing up of Watchlists. Amir (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problems with the DR backlog is the amount of work required. Work needs to be done. I doubt that more organisation of which part of the work to prefer and which part of the work to delay has any positive outcome. Krd 17:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I understand, it might help, it might not. But we don't know for sure which or how much. I think we should at least give it a try for a while. Let's say for six months, if it improves the situation for users, we continue. If not, we stop. Specially given that this has been used in English Wikipedia. Amir (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As you already see in this discussion here, there will be more new open questions than answers found. I'm quite sure that after 6 months we will have people specialised in nothing else than categorisation of DRs, perhaps conflicts about DR categories. These resources would be better invested directly into DR work. Krd 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support I've done some work on categories for deletion requests and at IMO it's not the most intuitive way to do things. People need a certain amount of proficiency in working with categories to begin with and structure is kind of obtuse. Tags and topics would be a lot more easy to use and understand for most normal users. Plus they would allow for things that can't currently be done with categories, at least not in a way that's sensible. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Question What category would all the SEO/Entrepreneur/Freelancer/Graphic designer/Digital marketer DRs go in?--Trade (talk) 18:22, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Scope-related deletion requests, I'd say, as these are usually deleted as out of scope ("OOS") advertising. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Add topic
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=784171970"