Commons talk:Project scope/Archive 2

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

COM:PEOPLE

I just added a link to COM:CENSOR. Sorry, I probably should've opened this discussion first, but since I don't think it would be controversial I'll leave it for now.

Basically we say "if it's in scope, we don't delete it on moral grounds" but COM:PEOPLE includes moral grounds on which we may delete lawful files. Seems like an oversight, so I added it. Hopefully ok. — Rhododendrites talk |  20:39, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Tm reverted. Fair enough. Let the discussion commence, then. :) — Rhododendrites talk |  17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
It's been 8 days since this discussion opened. Given the only rationale for reverting was to have discussion first, and given there have been no other objections, I plan to restore this tomorrow (unless there are objections, of course). — Rhododendrites talk |  17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
Your edits only add a duplicate phrase to the one already present in Commons:Project_scope#Evidence, where it says "Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people." or where it says that the file will not be deleted because "that it may not be "child-friendly" or the part "to you or others" in the phrase "that it may cause offence to you or others". Tm (talk) 17:37, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
While it's true that the "evidence" section does contain the line

Where the file is a photograph which shows an identifiable person, the subject's consent may be required as described at Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

that seems to mostly concern the legal aspects of consent covered at COM:PEOPLE and not the moral elements, which makes it confusing when we later say

a lawfully-hosted file, which falls within Commons' definitions of scope, will not be deleted solely on the grounds that it may not be "child-friendly" or that it may cause offence to you or others, for moral, personal, religious, social, or other reasons.

because in fact we do delete things solely on moral grounds, even when consent isn't required by law. — Rhododendrites talk |  17:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

OMGAPENIS redirect

[split off to separate section for simplicity of discussion] — Rhododendrites talk |  17:29, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I also removed the link to the shortcut COM:OMGAPENIS. There is no obligation that all extant shortcuts be included, there are two there already, and it seems to exist only to mock those making arguments along such lines (or is at very least a joke about a subject many people feel is serious). As a minor point, since discussion is required to remove it, could someone link to where there was consensus to add it (which, granted, was a long time ago)? — Rhododendrites talk |  17:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's been 8 days since this discussion opened. Given the only rationale for reverting was to have discussion first, and given there have been no other objections, I plan to restore this tomorrow (unless there are objections, of course). — Rhododendrites talk |  17:15, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

my image deletation

dear ‪EugeneZelenko and ‪Fuhghettaboutit I received a message regarding deletion my files and pictures so I wanted to ask for some help and why is it happening. the files . the files that i have uploaded are annual reports that are in wipo websites and it's on free domain and i have noted that this file is downloaded from this website . on the other hand the pictures are taken my personal cell phone and how should i cite these pictures ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neda.sajedi (talk • contribs) 19:36, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Neda.sajedi: , as explained on your talk page, you can respond here and here. If something is not clear, ask for it on those pages. If you don't respond there, your files and pictures will likely be deleted. --Wimmel (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Mistakes in Sections 'Precautionary principle' and 'Notes'

Notes has a stray < /translate > and there is unnecessary spacing at the end of Precautionary principle. Holdonspirit (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

@Holdonspirit: The stray </translate> tag was due to phab:T282905. Thanks for pointing it out, I fixed it. The spacing comes from Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle; I don’t consider it a major issue, but even if I did, I couldn’t fix it, as that page is fully protected and thus only administrators can edit it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 23:51, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
@Holdonspirit and Tacsipacsi: I fixed it enough for now in these edits.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:49, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Suggest addition to wording - Wikivoyage [restored from archive]

{{Edit request}}

Under the heading, Commons:Project scope#Excluded educational content, one of the bullet points reads as follows:

Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, or Wikisource.

I propose (and this in my view being a long time coming) that we finally add Wikivoyage to the list, which has been an official established WMF project for years now:

Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, travel guides, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wikivoyage, Wiktionary, Wikiversity, or Wikisource.`

With the text proposed to be added in bold.

This seems to me a purely uncontroversial update to the text and I can think of no reason why it would be opposed. Thank you. -- OlEnglish (talk) 08:30, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Wikivoyage in English does not host files locally, but in some specific cases. Also, not all projects host files locally at all, so denying hosting on Commons is equal to denying use on these latter projects. –LPfi (talk) 11:06, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@LPfi: I'm sorry but I think you misunderstood. This is not denying the hosting of strictly free images of course, this relates to the Scope of Commons, we are denying strictly textual travel guides, not the uploading of free images for use in Wikivoyage and elsewhere. -- OlEnglish (talk) 06:29, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Neither does Wikiquote store whole quotation lists as files, Wiktionary dictionary definitions as files etc. These simply don’t make sense, as files are less readable (fixed width, even on narrow screens), less searchable, less customizable by the user (no way to set different fonts or colors), less accessible (photos can’t be read aloud by screen readers) and can’t be edited the wiki way. I  Support adding Wikivoyage to this list, of course. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Does COM:INUSE cover when image is only in use in Wikidata property?

Does COM:INUSE cover cases where the image is only used in Wikidata image property, but the Wikidata item is not linked to any other project? Sometimes people create drafts or promotional articles and also know to create a Wikidata item, and then the Wikidata item remains even when the draft etc. has been deleted. MKFI (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • The difficulty with deleting those would seem to be in deciding whether or not this was a "valid" use on Wikidata (and thus having Commons impose its own notability standards on other projects). As such, we would be much better to treat that as falling within INUSE, and for INUSE to be a strong disincentive for deleting content on the basis of SCOPE (it would have no influence on deletions re LICENSING).
Commons does already delete content as "unfit for Commons" when it's INUSE on other projects, particularly non-en WPs, and when it's userpage images that aren't seen as justified. But this is a bad thing, and there has never been policy to support doing it.
Commons can (of course) and will still decide to delete INUSE content, including that on Wikidata pages that are seen as non-NOTABLE. But that should be an uphill struggle, not a default response. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes of course it does. Commons host free media for the whole world to use and especially wikiprojects. If it is spam then just nominate the wikidata page for deletion and if users on Wikidata agree that the page is out of scope then the file on Commons could be deleted. --MGA73 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

"A media file that is in use on one of the other projects of the Wikimedia Foundation is considered automatically to be useful for an educational purpose,"

This came up here. So does this mean that a file containing a large number of errors still considered to be automatically useful if its used? I come over here from Enwiki to nominate an error-riddled file for deletion, and am met by a volley of keep votes suggesting that Commons:INUSE overrules errors. So we're misleading readers for the sake of keeping a file? Hog Farm (talk) 04:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the file is automatically in scope if it is used on another WMF project. If the file is inaccurate, please correct it, or start a discussion at the project which uses it to get it removed there. —Granger (talk  · contribs) 05:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mx. Granger: - The rationale doesn't make sense to me. If it's blatantly wrong in 5 places and is just a wikipedian-created map, it has no value except to mislead unintentionally. I don't have access to any sort of image editing software, and there's no way in the world I'm going to be able to figure how to explain accurately in Russian or Arabic to get the maps removed when I am not even familiar with those alphabets. I posted a request explaining what's going on at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop, but if nobody ever takes that up, then several wikipedias are just stuck with false maps forever? This feels like excessive bureaucracy to remove errors, some of which are so blatant that a simple Google maps search will indicate that Camden is east of Poison Spring, not west of it. I'm trying not to sound frustrated, but it feels like everytime I stumble over here from enwiki for either licensing or accuracy problems, it seems like nothing ever happens. Like how I nominated an image from 1965 claiming PD as published before 1926 for deletion months ago, and nothing ever happened. Isn't accuracy important, or should readers be misled because Commons thinks there is value in having an image because it was used before someone found out it was wrong? Hog Farm (talk) 05:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Ever heard of a little place called Crimea? There's at least a dozen places like it around the world, where ownership is hotly disputed, sometimes including by making "incorrect" maps illegal. Not to mention that you refer to Google Maps to settle an issue about a Civil War era map, when cities have sometimes just moved since then. Or especially across state borders, one city can die when another, named the same, grows in prosperity. There's reasons why this is a hot potato that few want to touch and we are not particularly qualified to do so here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. We should allow the Wikipedias (and other projects) to adjudicate these issues as they see fit; our role should not be to enforce our judgements about accuracy on other projects by deleting files. —Granger (talk  · contribs) 18:35, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree that a platform that claims to host educational content should not abandon that purpose just because Wikipedians have used the material hosted here when they assumed we host educational content and not misinformation. That the very use of misinformative media hosted here effectively prohibits us from removing that media once it's discovered to be wrong seems, well, counterintuitive to say the least. I do think we should be very careful when it comes to in use media, because after all there are a wide range of educational uses for misinformation: notable misinformation, representations of outmoded/superseded knowledge, and of course a wide range of things that could be seen as a different perspective rather than strictly incorrect. But there are also some files that are just wrong and don't have a conceivable use except to misinform. It's nice to be able to abdicate responsibility when it comes to a challenging issue, but we do ourselves or our users/projects a disservice by putting blinders on. Starting a DR does not automatically delete anything. Projects using the file should be notified, and if there's disagreement about whether it's useful, it should be kept. What we shouldn't do is just "keep per INUSE". — Rhododendrites talk |  12:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • This is a false and very misleading proposition. No-one is suggesting that files with errors are "automatically useful". Merely that when both are in conflict, we prioritise INUSE over "delete anything imperfect", by default. We can still delete anything if we wish to or have to, just that we shouldn't do it as an undiscussed speedy, or by simplistically claiming "we have to delete all files with errors". If the error is so egregious as the misleading impression requires it, then projects should anyway stop using the file first. Nor is Commons isn't the gatekeeeper of truth for the wikipedias anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • That a map is inaccurate is by itself no reason for deletion. It could be in use in a lemma about inaccurate maps, for instance. Guido den Broeder (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Question

"Any file hosted here must normally be freely licensed or public domain according to both the law of the United States and according to the law of the source country". Does this mean public domain material in one country must also be public domain in the US? If so, isn't that a double standard? Copyright in some countries expires before that of the US. Volcanoguy (talk) 20:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: It isn't a double standard, it's a matter of international copyright law. Hosting on US servers files that are PD in the source countries but not in the US, for use anywhere (including the US) is prohibited by our policies because the use in the US would infringe the copyright holder's copyrights.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:21, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

please i need to build in creative common to my licience and apisecurity,and i need the help of the human right agencies i have been burled for some couple of time i have lost allot in my site Enionm (talk) 13:44, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

"Must not contain only excluded educational content" is so poorly worded it is incomprehensible

"Must not contain only excluded educational content." is poorly worded with a double negative (not and excluded). The section explaining the meaning of the phrase is also poorly worded. As written we cannot host images of news articles that are in the public domain, "Excluded: News (this may be hosted on Wikinews), general weather reports, and the like." Then again in a third paragraph it further tries to clarify and comes to the exact opposite conclusion, that we can host images of news articles that are in the public domain: "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects, so scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope. Also allowed are files which embody something of value over and above raw text. For example, files consisting of scans of out-of-copyright books, newspapers and the like which preserve original font, layout, embedded images and the like are within scope." Can't we do a better job starting with "Must not contain only excluded educational content." and do better at "Excluded: News" so that it doesn't have to be explained three times each with contradictory wording? I have had public domain obituaries deleted because we do not host "news".--RAN (talk) 18:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That bullet point isn't explained in more detail below either. I suggest removing it and changing bullet point 4 into 'Must be realistically useful for an included educational purpose'. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
@Guido den Broeder: Why include the word "included"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:40, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
To cover the current bullet point 5, which we are discussing here, with the same wikilink. Guido den Broeder (talk) 15:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Пламена Червенкова

Имам въпрос. Незнам към кого да се обърна. Искам да разбера дали се работя по моята страница в УКИПЕДИЯ Пламена Червенкова Виждам, че е съсдадена, но като отворя няма информация. 2 месеца от както ми каза рекламния агент Всеки път като попитам отговор РАБОТИ СЕ. . 85.196.187.46 00:00, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

  • You would probably do best to ask that question somewhere on Wikipedia, not on the talk page for the page about the scope of Wikimedia Commons (which is a different project, though both are part of Wikimedia). - Jmabel ! talk 03:14, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Why is Wikimedia Commons limited to educational media in the first place?

Not to sound critical, but I genuinely wonder why a site billing itself as a "free media repository" would only allow media if it serves some educational purpose. 2001:4453:56C:4100:F9DD:9306:6FD5:C3C6 07:12, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

What other purpose or purposes would you have uploaded media serve?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Not the IP but there is personal media. Obviously the answer to that is because of the financial cost. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 23:18, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
WMF (or WMDE?) has started picsome (that at the moment gets its files from commons) and is meant as an universal free license stock foto service. Either commons scope needs to be changed to "everything" or picsome has to be undone together with WMF and WMDE. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Why? Firstly that's a strange description of Picsome's purpose. But "a photo service drawn from Commons" is going to inherit Commons' scope. That might limit what's available a bit (not by much though, in practice) but is that really such a problem? Who would care, and are their wishes really important to the goals of the WMF? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Commons is a "free media repository" in the sense of free images, free to use, i.e. for consumers, but it's emphatically not a "free media repository" in the sense of somewhere to store your own content. So within that as a goal, "educational" is a pretty broad scope. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:40, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

This question sparked my interest and I started reading the first versions of Commons:Project Scope - an interesting and educational read ;) --Kritzolina (talk) 20:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Are unused personal images by substantial contributors allowed?

(To be clear, ‘personal’ implies ‘not in scope for any other reason’.)

Commons:Project scope#File in use in another Wikimedia project says: The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project. (emphasis added) And File in use on Commons only says: … by custom the uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal Commons user page is allowed. (emphasis added) This policy clearly implies that unused personal images are not allowed.

As far as I can remember, unused personal images are normally deleted. As an extreme example, at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Last night in Sweden.jpg, L. Beck and A.Savin claimed that a personal image, added to the uploader’s user page after being nominated for deletion, should be deleted even though it was used on the uploader’s user page. (Pinging @C.Suthorn, Red-tailed hawk, Tuvalkin as other users involved in that discussion.)

But admin King of Hearts seems to think that it’s fine to keep unused personal images. When I questioned this, they said to start a discussion here.

Pinging @Ikan Kekek as a user who often comments on scope issues. Brianjd (talk) 12:26, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I interpret that clause as being: If you are an active contributor, then you may upload personal images for the purpose of being usable on your userpage. Also, note that she did in fact use the image for a while in 2021; I don't see the need to purge the image just because she is no longer using it. It is useful to be able to see what an old revision looked like, and there is no benefit to deleting the image since she is not abusing the allowance at all. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • There is no requirement for someone to be a "substantial" contributor. They're required to be "active".
What is the benefit to deleting unused images? This is vanishingly small, if anything. If someone is an active contributor, then I see no problem in allowing multiple images: plenty of editors swap them around, or might use them seasonally, and there's no drawback to allowing that.
The problem is spam, spam accounts, and the enablement of spam images. Those are really the only ones we need to worry about.
We've also seen images deleted in the past when an editor was deceased. That sort of pettiness is all too typical here. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley The standard word used in practice seems to be substantial. That would be in the spirit of Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7#Policy on user page photos. Brianjd (talk) 13:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Where is "substantial" used or defined? en:WP:AUTOCONFIRM and en:WP:XCON are 4/10 and 30/500, yet that thread is talking about "several hundred". Andy Dingley (talk) 13:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @El Grafo, Yann, Jeff G., Dronebogus, Davey2010, Belbury, P199, Enyavar, Pere prlpz, Kritzolina as other users involved in Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 7#Policy on user page photos. Brianjd (talk) 13:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd: If the user is here on any WMF project to contribute to that project's aims, I am fine with them having some not-otherwise-educational uploads. If not (NOTHERE), such uploads don't need to be here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Although I'm against that as a rule for "really substantial" contributors. We can all reel off a list of prolific ex-editors and ex-admins who've now been declared NOTHERE and (rightly or wrongly) cast into Outer Darkness. Using this as a reason to break the user pages of such editors is just an excuse for yet more grave-dancing, and no-one needs that. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
It is difficult to find the term ‘substantial’ used by others, though I am sure I would not have made it up. I did find Commons:Deletion requests/File:Анатолій.jpg, closed as: Deleted, probably a user photo of somebody with no substantial contributions. Brianjd (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Andy Dingley, Thuresson. Brianjd (talk) 13:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Please do not ping me about this kind of stuff: I voted to keep in this discussion because the file was in use (while not raising any copyright concerns), as per crystal clear policy. Period.
Want to change that policy? I didn’t think so. Otherwise, if I am going to revisit the matter, it will be only to support sanctioning User:L. Beck for the distasteful show of bad faith (at 09:47) against uploader User:C.Suthorn («he just wants to avoid the justified deletion request»), and the squabble that followed.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I would like to present my point of view. I really like the rule that a used photo should not be deleted, even if it can only be found on the user page. But every rule has exceptions and is not universally applicable. I still don't think it's okay what the uploader did. At the time I filed the deletion request, the image had already been on Commons for several years. It was not in use at the time, not even on the user page. Miraculously, it was found with detailed text on the user page a few hours after the deletion request was created. And that should now suffice as a reason to keep this picture? For me it is more than obvious that the user has added the image to his user page to be able to put forward a good reason against the deletion. I think this is a bad habit and it shocks me that such behavior can prevent such a deletion request. Lukas Beck (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

No hard rule is needed. If the image is used in a user page (and the user page is allowed by the project where it is), the image is to be kept. Otherwise, if somebody is bothered by the image, they can start a deletion request, where the uploader can give a convincing reason to keep the image (e.g. "I plan to use my image in a bath suit in my user page but only in summer months") or can actually start using the image, or the image gets deleted as unused personal image.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Pere prlpz. I don't believe this is a policy that needs to be interpreted overly strict. As long as the images are indeed showing the users themselves and could be useful on a user page, they should not be deleted, as long as there are no other reasons for deletion. If people start to fight over such issues, it's usually not because the policy is the problem. --Kritzolina (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
We have no policy that user page images should be of the user and I would strongly oppose starting one. The meaning of the image is up to its user. Even for the bad quality "last night in Sweden" one. We also used to have AGF as a policy.
My view is that users become "active" somewhere on at least one project (or Commons, or Meta, or Wikidata or anywhere). Then they're permitted some reasonable number of personal use images. This applies to all projects. This doesn't expire (or at least, not for editors with "substantial" contributions, beyond our merely active). We don't require INUSE. We don't require them to have ever been INUSE. We avoid as much content-based judgment as we possibly can: active editors are trusted to act reasonably. Just about the only content filters we need are pr0n, spam and free-licensing. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, sorry for not having articulated my concern here clearly - it is not about images that are not showing the user, but about images that might show people who are in no way in the public sphere and have not consented to having their image on a public website. If users decide to upload other images that could be considered not in scope (e.g. their signature, a drawing done by them), this is fine with me. But I would object to images showing for example "my girl/boyfriend" if we are not sure that person gave consent. --Kritzolina (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Kritzolina I would object to images showing for example "my girl/boyfriend" if we are not sure that person gave consent As far as consent is concerned, these images should be subject to the same rules as any other images on this site. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
My sense is that we simply grant a lot of latitude to active/significant contributors (I'd probably avoid "active" in policy language because people's activity levels regularly increase and decrease, even if "significant" or the like is also hard to define) to upload pictures that don't have a lot of public-facing educational value. Photos of Wikimedia events are another example of this -- at some point long ago we decided they're simply considered in scope, even if it's mostly photos of non-notable people, etc. I tend to think exceptions to this rule should be taken on a case-by-case basis, like if we see that someone is an active contributor but likes to upload hundreds of low quality selfies or something. — Rhododendrites talk |  14:47, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd rather store a lot of bad selfies than create a policy that encourages quality-based deletion. That's going to cause far more trouble, with its potential for abuse. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
  • My thoughts are the same as KoH - Personal images/selfies have only ever been allowed to stay if the contributor is active/significant, Images from spammy users or vandals tend to get deleted (in this instance I remove the file from their userpage/draft and state this in the DR),
Creating rules etc is all pointless as say for instance we restrict selfies to accounts who have made x amount of edits - that would require someone to manually check that users contribs, There are veteran editors who are more than happy to include a selfie on their userpage (such as Cullen328 and Bluerasberry so why should veteran editors potentially be disallowed to upload a selfie?
Anyway there's no easy option here other than to allow them or ban them in which case given a vote I'd say allow. –Davey2010Talk 15:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
In a previous discussion, there was some consensus that "active contributor" means at least 300 useful edits accross all Wikimedia projects. This seems reasonable to me. This status should be permanent. A user should be allowed to retain some personal images even if no longer active. Of course, the number of personal images should be reasonable. I wouldn't accept hundreds of personal images if the user has barely made 300 useful contributions. Yann (talk) 15:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I've been summoned here for some reason: I'd suggest everyone to relax a bit. As I see it, the spirit of our rule for personal images is that people who make valuable contributions to the Wikimedia projects can get away with having a couple of personal files that would otherwise violate COM:SCOPE. This is a treat we as a community give to ourselves. It already is a permission to break the rules, so let's not over-regulate this. We don't need to define how much "a few" are, we do not need to set a minimum amount of edits for someone to be considered an "active participant", and we shouldn't get too hung up on that little word "use". If something looks unused, one can politely ask "Hey, do you still need this?" (on the user's talk page or in a formal DR). I the answer is "yes", just move on. No one needs to be offended here. If someone seems to be grossly abusing this privilege, that's a different matter, but it's a waste of everyone's time and energy to have this kind of discussion being triggered by a single image. El Grafo (talk) 16:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much what several others have said: no point to getting formal & legalistic about this. This is about giving some slack on this front to people who make (or have made) significant contributions to Commons or other WMF wikis. Trying to be precise about slack is silly. As long as someone's personal images represent a very small portion of their activity here, then that's fine. Even if they are a little over the line, not worth concerning ourselves. It's going to be contentious every time we want to delete on this basis, so don't do it unless it is worth contending. - Jmabel ! talk 19:07, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Advertising or self-promotion

This is listed among "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose." Many files uploaded for the purposes of advertising or self-promotion definitely have no educational value and need to be deleted. However, some are useful. See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marketing M Lhuillier and existing discussions at Commons talk:What Commons is not#Advertising and Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Limits to G10: advertising. (I've been running around this site from thread to thread to address this issue.) If for example businesses want to upload photos of buildings, and those photos are duly licensed, don't we do the free flow of information harm by deleting them out of an overzealous crusade against advertisers? Do we need to clarify this here, as some long-time users believe that intent to advertise should result in automatic deletion of files, no matter what? What language would make it clear that advertising and self-promotion are usually reasons to delete but not always? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:22, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I agree. There are articles about advertising, too. Should they be left without any sort of illustration? Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:49, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. There are also articles about specific companies and products. Ikan Kekek (talk) 04:35, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
And we are not serving only Wikipedia. We would like to be able to show e.g. how the advertising by IBM has developed over time. Wikipedia would use only a few images, while we would like to have as complete a collection as possible. Likewise, we would like to be able to show advertising across countries, across industries and target groups, across media used, across decennia and so on, with large enough samples. What is out of scope is low-quality photos of advertisements (unless something extraordinary and unique) and redundant media on less important subjects (we don't need to cover every garage band, or every attempt to advertise through Wikipedia). –LPfi (talk) 10:22, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
One aspect that IK mentioned elsewhere, is that advertisements are more or less the only way to get legal images of some products, such as those covered with advanced artwork. Thus the photo or drawing might be in scope even if it isn't as advertisement. –LPfi (talk) 10:31, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I came here via Commons:Deletion requests/File:IRENA Group.jpg. It’s clear to me that if a company is notable enough to have their own Wikipedia article, then their logo is in scope. The reason it was uploaded is irrelevant. Yet the nominator continued to mention the advertising issue after the Wikipedia article was mentioned. Brianjd (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Yep. Don't we need to have some consistent standards about the scope of useful logos? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 10:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Files in use by sockpuppets

WITHDRAWN BY POSTER:

Centralising discussion.

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.

So a popular objection found in this deletion discussion (and its related ones) is COM:INUSE. Unfortunately, this is a tautology in this case. See the sockpuppet investigations for background; this is a user who forces his image into articles cross-wiki, at the same time forcing out the work of good-faith contributors. It also seems that our friend has stacked the nominations and votes for COM:QI and COM:Featured pictures designations.

So it seems that you can reap benefits by gaming the system by exploiting COM:INUSE and ensuring your photos are in great demand and deemed "irreplaceable!!!". This also ensures that good-faith contributors are effaced from dozens of projects, and their work will no longer be COM:INUSE, and perhaps we could delete theirs instead. Elizium23 (talk) 15:02, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

There are a couple separate issues. One is the "forcing" of files, which is entirely outside the scope of Commons. Any sockpuppet edits should be reverted on enwp, for example. On those other projects, if another user in good standing adds one of Livio's files, however, that's entirely allowed. The only question for here is whether we should keep files that are in scope and have a compatible license (and even in use) because they were uploaded by a sockpuppet (certainly any uploads from Livio's main account should be out of consideration). It's a tough call on Commons, because there are people who are banned for reasons associated with the files they upload (copyright, etc.) and people who are banned for other reasons. The abuse in question is circumventing a ban in order to share more educational content that may be of use to various projects. Someone who was banned for reasons unrelated to the quality of their images (AFAIK), but who keeps wanting to share those files even if their edits themselves are reverted sits in a weird gray area. I don't anticipate the Commons community supporting a rule that involves deleting useful content unless the content itself violates our policies, for better or worse. — Rhododendrites talk |  15:53, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
circumventing a ban in order to share more educational content that may be of use to various projects seems to ignore what I said about removing good-faith high-quality work from other contributors, don't you think? Elizium23 (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
This feels to me like forum-shopping. There was a strong consensus to keep. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Keep what? Good-faith contributions? Don't get me wrong, I believe in letting the best man win, and having a free and open repository for high quality images. Elizium23 (talk) 17:25, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Wikimedia has lots of projects, all with their own user community, rules and preferences. Those projects trust Commons with looking after their files, especially regarding copyright issues. It does not follow that it should play a role in policing the projects themselves. Dutch Wiktionary is quite capable of protecting its good-faith contributors by itself. That, for instance, is the reason I object to removing pictures that our users have selected as illustrations. MarcoSwart (talk) 19:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
  • We keep coming across this, we want to keep punishing the uploader, but we have no more punishment in our arsenal, so we try to punish the images themselves. Perhaps it is time to reevaluate the original punishment, and allow a fresh start. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    Uploaders like @Jastrow and @Lalupa do not deserve to be punished, Richard. Orlando is being rewarded for his disruption. Every contribution by Orlando represents the punishment of another contributor, a good-faith contributor who produces high-quality work chosen by the community. Supposedly the other projects are capable of defending those good-faith contributions, but I find cross-wiki cleanup to be an arduous process. I am sorry, there is a greater good than "best image quality", especially when that "best quality" was chosen and promoted by Orlando. It is not about punishing the images, or punishing the sockpuppets, but removing his incentives to return and abuse us. Elizium23 (talk) 19:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Elizium23's widespread crusade could be treated as disrupting behavior. My bottle of AGF is nearly empty. Leave me a note if anyone starts a block request against them. --Achim55 (talk) 20:34, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

  • Why was the uploader originally punished, and why across all projects in the Wikiverse? Their images appear to me to be well crafted, and time consuming for them to upload and curate, so why are we continuing to punish them? If Twitter can have a general amnesty, we should also consider it. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
    • It is unfortunate that sockpuppet ban discussions seldom reference the discussion where the original user was blocked. If they would, RAN wouldn't need to ask that question, and all of us could just check what user we are dealing with. Now all we can judge (without doing some arduous detective work) is their files and some of their edits.
      I don't like them gaming INUSE, and where it concerns smaller projects, I am sympathetic to a less strict interpretation of the policy for that reason. However, where a user in good standing has added their image, or when the image has been in use for a long time in a big project, like en-wp, I don't see why we should disregard the principle of letting the projects choose files for themselves.
      I also don't see why there are several discussions about this single user and their images. I missed the RFC, but I got alerted about two RFDs regarding files in use and noticed this discussion through my watchlist.
      –LPfi (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
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.
  • @Elizium23: Could you point to where this canvassing happened? This page is on my watchlist (as as likely for Jmabel). Are you just assuming canvassing? Anyone watching any of the talk pages where any of these files are in use would see a bot notification about this DR, after all. — Rhododendrites talk |  01:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Question about COM:INUSE and COM:NOTUSED

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg, which is still ongoing, was posted by User:2dk on 4 December 2022 based on the precedent of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Finno-ugrian-map.png, where 4 out of 5 users agreed with nom that it should be deleted as original research. As Luboslov Yezykin noted: Although it is not of WikiCommons to judge the historical or scientific accuracy of images, but instead of "prowling" about dozens of articles in different language Wikipedias and discussing about OR there (and it's practically impossible in most cases as not everyone is a highly skilled polyglot), it's better to delete entirely here unsourced, badly sourced or OR images to prevent their spread. However, the spread of this file was not prevented. 2dk noted that File:Finno-ugrian-map.svg is essentially a copy of File:Finno-ugrian-map.png which was deleted, and should thus be deleted for the same reason. I added a couple of other copies of the deleted File:Finno-ugrian-map.png, and delete-requested them separately; some of them are also still ongoing, but others (such as Commons:Deletion requests/File:Northern part of Eastern Europe 01.png) have been closed as keep with the argument that it is "in use" (per COM:INUSE).

This is strange, because that was never an argument against deletion of File:Finno-ugrian-map.png. I can in fact prove that it was in use at the time when deletion was requested on 15 September 2013, e.g. in w:ru:Марийцы on 27 July 2013 and 22 September 2013. What happened is that User:Voevoda/ru:Участник:Воевода, who voted Delete on 22 September 2013, replaced Finno-ugrian-map.png with another map on 3 October 2013, while the deletion request was still going on. As the data show, Voevoda did this with several other articles on ru.wikipedia on the same day. On 22 October 2013, User:Fastily closed the request as Deleted, I presume while taking into account that it was not "in use" anymore. Is this a legitimate move for Voevoda to have made? If so, what is to stop anyone from removing a file they want to see deleted from all Wikimedia projects, so that it can be deleted per COM:NOTUSED? If so, I could do that with all the copies of File:Finno-ugrian-map.png to ensure those deletion requests also result in a delete, but I'm not sure this is how we should do things. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

  • That's all a bit tangled, and I honestly cannot follow some of it, but to jump to the last full sentence: removing a particular image from articles in no way ensures that it will be deleted. Being used in articles is a sufficient reason to keep a file that would otherwise be deemed to be out of scope, but not a necessary one. Most files on Commons are not used in any other WMF project. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
    • Also, I think removing an image during a DR to make it "not is use" is more or less equivalent to adding an image being deleted as "out of scope" to a number of articles. The former use should be enough for the "in use" argument, unless the removal is done as part of normal processes on the wiki, by persons unrelated to those participating in the DR. We should have a tool to easily check the use history. –LPfi (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
      • @LPfi: still, there can be good reasons for these. For example, a low-quality photo of something where we have a high-quality photo should generally be replaced, and the fact that someone is engaged in a deletion discussion for the low-quality photo doesn't mean they shouldn't do that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:36, 6 April 2023 (UTC)
        • True if they are are otherwise equal. However, in cases where one is "wrong" and another is "right", then we are back to the original argument, regardless of any other aspect of quality. For example, if Trotsky is seen on the lower quality one but not on the better, then the regulars of the project should get to decide. –LPfi (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          Regarding the issue at hand: if a file is nominated as being "wrong", then obviously an equal better-quality file would include the same problem. First replacing the worse-quality one as "not in use", then nominating the better-quality one referring to the first having been deleted because of misrepresenting facts should not be a successful tactic. Here the map was claimed to be original research of doubtful correctness. However, no reason to doubt the correctness was pointed out, other than it not citing sources – which in my experience is common among maps on Wikipedias. We don't want to lose all those. –LPfi (talk) 09:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          Oh you posted this comment while I was writing mine below. Yes, I was making this same point; even though I think all files in question should be deleted as original research, the tactic of removing them all to enable deletion per NOTUSED shouldn't have been successful. (There might even be grounds for undeleting File:Finno-ugrian-map.png if that is the case, although I would not advocate for it).
          I have, however, recently written an essay on the importance of evidence-based mapping: Commons:Evidence-based mapping. Even though Commons doesn't require citing sources, there is a trend towards recommending to always cite your sources when making a map, because otherwise it could end up being completely useless on e.g. English Wikipedia (and you still end up with a NOTUSED situation). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          Yes. I fully agree that maps, diagrams and similar files should cite their sources. We need to establish that culture, but it will take a serious effort and quite some time – like it did on the Wikipedias. One way is to ask for the sources for every new such file uploaded, and any file one is contemplating adding to a Wikipedia. Some files cannot get those references – the uploader may be gone or may not remember what sources they used – but as time goes most such files in use should have explicit sources (either by having those added or by sourced files being used instead). –LPfi (talk) 09:55, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          (I also believe that the old unsourced files should be kept for article history transparency, templated for lack of sources.) –LPfi (talk) 09:59, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          @LPfi Glad you agree! If you like, you could read my essay Commons:Evidence-based mapping, and possibly suggest improvements at Commons talk:Evidence-based mapping. It is my intention to eventually upgrade this essay to a guideline, but it's not ready for that status yet (it still has a lot of personal opinion, and the degree to which my recommendations are supported by the community has not been tested yet). I suppose a handy acronym redirect like COM:EVMAP might make the essay more findable and referrable to start with? Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 10:30, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          yes that is a good idea 41.113.236.202 16:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
          so will you help me? 41.113.236.202 16:44, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
          I don't see what help you need. Your other edits (with this IP address) seem unrelated. –LPfi (talk) 19:52, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
          @Jmabel @LPfi thank you very much for your responses! Jmabel is right that removing all used images would not be a sufficient reason to ensure their deletion, but it is one way in which to enable it. And as LPfi said, removing an image during a DR to make it "not is use" is more or less equivalent to adding an image being deleted as "out of scope" to a number of articles. Unless the people involved in the DR explicitly discuss replacing the file in question with a better-quality one in order to make the nominated file redundant (per COM:SPAM: Files that add nothing educationally distinct to the collection of images we already hold covering the same subject, especially if they are of poor or mediocre quality.), single-handedly replacing and thus removing the file in question from Wikimedia projects to enable deletion per COM:NOTUSED without telling the other people in the DR seems, well, sneaky. I fully agree with LPfi that We should have a tool to easily check the use history. It took me a pretty damn long time to figure out that File:Finno-ugrian-map.png was "in use" in multiple articles on ru.wikipedia (and perhaps elsewhere) when the DR was posted, and that Voevoda had been removing them single-handedly after voting Delete and not telling anyone in the DR that he did so before the DR closed. Who knows how common this practice is (or the reverse of adding nominated files in order to prevent deletion) per COM:NOTUSED)? We need something to control this rather unfair manipulation of DRs that is difficult to keep track of. Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 09:33, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
          @Ellywa: are you aware of the discussion above? Long story short: File:Finno-ugrian-map.png was quickly removed from (Russian) Wikipedia by a user who participated in its DR - while the DR was still going on - in order to allow deletion per COM:NOTUSED. I was not aware of this when I nominated its derivatives for deletion. We need some kind of rule and tool/mechanism to prevent sneakily deletion-enabling like this. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
          Hi Nederlandse Leeuw, no I did not follow above discussion. But "not in use" should never be reason to delete on its own. There should be other reasons, such as "educational not useful". Yes, I have seen images removed from the Wikipedia projects by users, but if this is not contested, we should assume the file is not acceptable or is not needed on the project. However, to delete, the file should be totally devoid of educational use. A tool of historic use could be handy indeed. If an image is present in the (long) history of an article, it can be in scope automatically imho. Ellywa (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
          @Ellywa Thanks for your response. Indeed, not being "in use" alone is not sufficient for deletion, but at least in this case it seems to have been instrumental, in combination with the argument of "original research" (which normally doesn't hold much weight on Commons), in allowing the deletion File:Finno-ugrian-map.png to happen which otherwise would not have taken place. Just like you, probably correctly, decided to reject my request to delete its derivatives, it should not have been possible to delete File:Finno-ugrian-map.png for these reasons / under these circumstances. I hope a solution for this problem can be found (I'm not a Commons expert). Cheers, Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 19:49, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
          @Nederlandse Leeuw, you can request undeletion of the png version on COM:UDR, if you think its worthwile; the svg version is available in any case. Ellywa (talk) 20:21, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
          I don't think that's necessary. I raised this issue because I was concerned the correct procedure was not followed in this case, and that turned out to be true, which means there is a problem to fix. (Personally I would still rather see all these files deleted as unsourced original research, but that is just not how Commons policy works. I accept that, and as long as it works that way, we should follow it. The user in question did not, and got away with it; that should not happen). Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
          Most articles aren't watched very carefully. If a user is well established they can probably remove an image, especially if it's not the lead one or another image is put in its place, without patrollers reacting to it. There needs to be somebody with a more direct interest in the article to contest the removal. The diff doesn't tell whether the image was good, so even people with the article on their watchlist might not notice what happened. –LPfi (talk) 20:44, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Deletion discussion regarding poetry

Hi, there’s a deletion discussion about Commons policy regarding the Scope of uploading poetry. As you know, policy lumps poetry with “recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like”. Poetry is more than words on paper, it has depending on genre, different structure, form, number of paragraphs, rhyme, prose. It’s more than copy-paste. Please join the discussion: here. Raquel Baranow (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

As I said, this page and not a deletion request is where you should request a policy change. To be clear, you want Commons to start hosting only one type of text file, one which claims to be poetry? Considering that Commons is a repository of images, with text only on file pages by way of documenting and explaining the images, whereas there are many other wikis that have a primary mission of hosting text, what is your reasoning for why Commons is a good site to host poetry? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Raquel Baranow Wikisource would probably be your best bet. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:03, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Resolved, file deleted. Raquel Baranow (talk) 20:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Still, the question remains (for real poetry). It is not uncommon in modern poetry and, I have understood, in traditional Arabic poetry, to have the visual expression an important part of it. Thus I think that poetry should be allowed on Commons in the cases where there is some additional value in the file beside the text itself. The poetry (or other aspects of the file) should of course be in scope, which is why this particular file was deleted. For Wikisource: yes, published poetry would mostly be in scope, but the files should be stored at Commons. –LPfi (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
As I wrote at the deletion page:
  • Commons has three categories with examples that violate a rigid interpretation Commons policy: Category:Calligrams, Category:Acrostics and Category:Visual poetry, there are several more genres or styles that deserve Cats with illustrations: Blackout, Concrete, Elegy — to provide examples. My poem was pretty much just text, it was a poetry meme with explanation of the content. Love to see a poetry meme category.
Raquel Baranow (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
"Your poem" was a piece of original writing that would have been out of scope in any case. Please drop this. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I did drop it, said it was resolved. I was replying to @LPfi Raquel Baranow (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to upload a chart explaining the views of a white nationalist?

For purposes of debunking them in a different community I have made an image explaining views of an antisemite (according to the ADL) and I think it might be helpful to upload it to wikimedia commons. The image is a fairly dense explanatory image which explains hateful ideas and does not debunk them so I'm afraid an unknowing person might come across it and take it at face value instead of criticizing the ideas there. Is there a way I can upload it appropriately or a protocol for this kind of image? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 02:04, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: It sounds like this is something self-created that is mostly text, which is rarely in Commons' scope. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

How do decisions get made on which images fall out of the educational use requirement?

Hi - I've been reviewing the deletion policy and scope docs, but couldn't find information on where, when, how, or who decides what falls in/out of the educational use requirement - where might I find that outlined, please? Ukglo (talk) 14:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

@Ukglo: It's basically decided through the deletion review process, which can take up individual photos or groups of photos. If someone repeatedly uploads out-of-scope material without doing a great deal that is positive, an admin will block them. Does that answer your question? - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Jmabel - well, it's definitely got me poking around the deletion policy stuff more. (I've been looking around all day - feeling slightly vertiginous!) Thank you. Ukglo (talk) 15:39, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposed change in wording.

@Ikan Kekek: @Xover: @Billinghurst: @Yann: I'd like to open a discussion on a wording/guideline change to permit

"archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensable print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera for eventual OCR/transcription or translation on projects such as Wikisource, even though the files being mostly typewritten, or print text, may not be immediately in use, by specific projects."

I will also very strongly state here that I also have no objections to removal of items which can be shown to incompatible with Commons licensing policy, or which are still in copyright. Those have to be removed obviously. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

This change is prompted by some recent DR's for historical documents on scope grounds, Something I disagree with, as the clear intent of one of Fae's mass uploads was to 'mirror' or backup specific collections from IA ( such as the Catalog of Copyright Entries) to ensure Commons had a local copy, if the original IA site went down, or became unobtainable. I of course have no objections to specific items being removed if better quality "archival" versions had been or were uploaded by specific projects. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Support change. Yann (talk) 08:38, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I have no objection to changing the guidelines, as long as they are clear. But how would we determine which scanned written materials are uploaded for eventual use on Wikimedia projects? We can't make any such assumptions, so I think that if we want to make this change in policy, we should just state that these types of files are allowed as long as they are notable. In other words, I'd propose this form of words: "archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensable print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera is permitted even if the files are not in use in other Wikimedia projects, as long as the works in question are notable." -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

 Comment If there is a proposal for a change of text, then please present the before AND after proposals. Don't make people guess.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • I made some small copy edits. For the "before" text, I think you know where you wanted to insert the new language, so please find the section and copy the relevant part here. Let's see if the formatting is OK when I copy it over....After previewing - yes. So, here's the entire context of the "before" text:

Excluded educational content

Certain content is excluded from Commons, not because it is intrinsically non-educational, but because there are other Wikimedia Foundation projects that are more appropriate for hosting such content. This applies both to media files and to text.

Excluded educational content includes:

  • Encyclopedia articles; these may be hosted on Wikipedia.
  • News (this may be hosted on Wikinews), general weather reports, and the like.
  • Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource.

The "after" text would replace the last bullet. So let's focus this. Here's the before text:

  • Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text. Purely textual material such as plain-text versions of recipes, lists of instructions, poetry, fiction, quotations, dictionary definitions, lesson plans or classroom material, and the like are better hosted elsewhere, for example at Wikibooks, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, Wikiversity or Wikisource.

Here's the after text:

  • Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, except that archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensable print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera is permitted even if the files are not in use in other Wikimedia projects, as long as the works in question are notable. For example:
  • An official English translation of an Indian Central law published in gazette form would be in scope, whereas a user translation of a local city bylaw would be out of scope.
  • A single user's self-published theological rant would not be in scope, but a formally published Bible commentary in the academic journal of a seminary would.
  • A high-school term paper on Darwin would be out of scope, but a peer-reviewed biographical review of Darwin's life and works would be.
  • A self-published erotic slash-fic would be out of scope, but a 'suppressed' 16th-century erotic novel would be in scope.
  • First of all, ShakespeareFan00, are you OK with the "after" wording? Second, what do the rest of you think about the main bullet and the other bullets? Yes, let's discuss dissertations. Is any Doctoral dissertation OK, or do we have to make some kind of determination of special notability, and then what about Masters dissertations?

-- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:57, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Wording looks good so far, I would say Doctoral Thesis (as those tend to be "new" research, certainly, I would include Master Thesis as well, but not undergraduate items unless obviously submitted to journals, and thus peer review. 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Let's see if we can get a consensus behind that. I again have no opinion, except that it probably makes sense to include PhD dissertations. If we can, the third bullet could be changed to:
A high-school term paper on Darwin would be out of scope, but a peer-reviewed biographical review or PhD or Masters dissertation on Darwin's life and works would be. Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
That seems a bit clunky reading wise, but I can support that as a third bulleted example. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Feel free to copy edit it! I think there's a problem with ending the bullets with "would be." So let's try this:

For example:

  • An official English translation of an Indian law published in gazette form would be in scope, whereas a user translation of a local city bylaw would be out of scope.
  • A single user's self-published theological rant would not be in scope, but a formally published Bible commentary in the academic journal of a seminary would.
  • A high-school term paper on Darwin would be out of scope, but a peer-reviewed biographical review of Darwin's life and works or a PhD or Masters thesis on that topic would be in scope.
  • A self-published erotic slash-fic would be out of scope, but a 'suppressed' 16th-century erotic novel would be in scope.

Some questions of scope: Is "Indian Central" an official designation? If not, how about just "Indian law"? And what about state laws? I think those would be relevant. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 17:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you on the Indian law wording.. what i am getting at is that user-transalations are out of scope, and for the most part local city byelaws aren't that automatically notable in my view. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:23, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Bullets edited accordingly. Do you spell bylaws "byelaws" in the UK? Merriam-Webster considers that a variant spelling but does not state that it's "chiefly UK" or anything. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:09, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
byelaws would be the British English spelling I've encountered.. see w:Byelaws_in_the_United_Kingdom for a usage. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:12, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Looks good, do we have a wording that can be put to a more formal proposal vote? I think we do. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Just seeing all of this now - what about handwritten text? E.g. a poem handwritten by the author? Kritzolina (talk) 19:15, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
"Notable" Manuscripts should be in scope. Thanks for raising this point :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What about a scan of just the first page of a public domain journal issue, such as File:Revue littéraire Art et critique.jpg, currently the subject of a deletion request? Would we want to host that or not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure. It may need some more opinions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
  • OK, revised "after" text:
  • Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, except that archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensable print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera is permitted even if the files are not in use in other Wikimedia projects, as long as the works in question are notable. For example:
  • An official English translation of an Indian law published in gazette form would be in scope, whereas a user translation of a local city bylaw would be out of scope.
  • A single user's self-published theological rant would not be in scope, but a formally published Bible commentary in the academic journal of a seminary would.
  • A high-school term paper on Darwin would be out of scope, but a peer-reviewed biographical review of Darwin's life and works or a PhD or Masters thesis on that topic would be in scope.
  • A self-published erotic slash-fic would be out of scope, but a 'suppressed' 16th-century erotic novel would be in scope.
  • Notable manuscripts are also in scope.

Ikan Kekek (talk) 19:54, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I think we have something to put to a vote.
  •  Support the change. Allowing local copies of notable/educational material as described in the above discussions would be very useful in case the original source (e.g., the Internet Archive) becomes unavailable.
  •  Comment What does "notable" mean? This is a very vague word that comes heavily freighted by association with Wikipedia:Notability. A handful of examples isn't sufficient to define it. Why not just say what is really intended: That the document must be within the inclusion policy of Wikisource in the respective language, such as Wikisource:What Wikisource includes for English documents? Toohool (talk) 02:09, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Do Commons users need to know or abide by Wikisource definitions of notability? Shouldn't we be able to explain what we mean by it? I'll have a look at the link later, but I'm unfamiliar with Wikisource and doubtful about outsourcing our policies or guidelines to another wiki. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment OK, I read through the link. I notice it does not mention novels or poetry written after 1927. I think that if we are including notable written material, we should allow the inclusion of notable novels and poetry if they are properly licensed. We would have to create some kind of guideline for what makes it notable. Presumably, if there is a Wikipedia article about the piece in question, it would be unquestionably notable. Perhaps if there were a Wikipedia article about the author, it could be notable. We would also want notable reviews or reviews of notable works of art and such, if properly licensed, to be includable. Again, we would need a standard, perhaps similar to the one I mentioned for novels and poetry. I also don't agree with Wikisource:Extracts if it means that properly licensed photos of book covers that are notable can't be included on Commons by themselves. Whether we want to allow the inclusion of a scan or picture of just the first page of a historic text is a topic I brought up in the discussion above. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:19, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I am fully with Ikan here, and would approve the criterium of "author has a Wikipedia article" as sufficient for a text to be notable, as it could very well be used to illustrate the article about this person. --Kritzolina (talk) 07:13, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
The 'etxracts' rule as I understand it, was because Wikisource ideally wants "complete" works. However, from a Commons perspective, single page crops such as title pages ( especially illustrated ones by identifiable artists, or from significant editions) are going to be potentail resources. I've also noted that sometimes single press clippings have been uploaded, to support academic commentary on specific events or biographical subjects. Hmmm. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  1. The restriction to "scanned copies of [...] print material" excludes a substantial number of official publications which aren't sourced from scans of physical documents, like uploads of Taiwanese presidential gazettes by Jusjih (talk · contribs) or US government documents by Illegitimate Barrister (talk · contribs). These are excellent use cases for Commons and should be written into policy.
  2. Conversely, allowing any scan of a freely licensed print document to be uploaded puts us in a situation where a user can "force" otherwise unsuitable content into scope by printing it out and scanning it. Some sort of criterion for the notability of a publication and/or the publisher is going to be needed.
Omphalographer (talk) 20:34, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Could you suggest another form of words? I'm also wondering whether we should copy a lot of what's at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes and add to it. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't seen that policy before. Using their inclusion criteria wholesale (freely licensed documentary sources, published analytical and artistic works, and scientific research, and any written work 95+ years old) would address most of my concerns, and would reduce friction for users uploading source documents to Commons for later use at Wikisource. We might need to tighten up the definition of "analytical and artistic works" a bit, but overall it's a great start. Omphalographer (talk) 04:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Bringing a point back here from a deletion discussion: requiring analytical works to have passed through "peer review or editorial controls" before publication is an important criterion, as it screens out material that may have been published by a notable source, but which is probably unsuitable for inclusion in Commons (like, for example, celebrity gossip blogs). Omphalographer (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Also an "editorial controls" criterion should weed out some 'vanity' journals, where the 'value' of the published research is marginal at best. Hmm. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:59, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question Do I understand this correctly: Any peer-reviewed scientific article with a sufficiently free license would be allowed now? Not that I'd be opposed to that, but are you all aware of how big of a change that would be? en:PLOS One alone publishes about 20k papers per year. If someone just starts batch-uploading them without putting proper meta data in place (like it's been done so often with images), that would be a huge amount of files to clean up - and PDFs are much more cumbersome to work with than images.
How about this as a minimum requirement: There must be a corresponding item on Wikidata, and it must be linked in SDC via digital representation of (P6243)? --El Grafo (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I see your concern, but there are countless uploads by Fae that do NOT have linked Wikidata items (They probably should though, which is why I've been dropping hints about the {{Book}} template on uploader talk pages), so someone can automate the Wikidata link up process at some future date.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@ShakespeareFan00: I suppose old uploads could be grandfathered in. IMO, people should not be allowed to start a new batch upload before they've cleaned up their previous ones, but that's a discussion for another day. El Grafo (talk) 09:49, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Hmm... Not everyone is going to be searching Wikidata on each upload, but I understand what you are saying given the sheer publishing volume. (I'm still slowly cleaning up a previous bulk upload's results...) 's like to wait for some additional viewpoints however. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
In view of the discussion, I think an update is needed, so I'll be happy to propose a new form of words, but first, let's discuss whether freely-licensed medical abstracts as opposed to full articles should be OK to host here, or under what circumstances. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Referenced papers from Wikipedia, in scope, Abstracts on their own would count as 'extracts' to me which is what Wikisource wants to avoid. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:01, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Do we want to avoid them, though? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:28, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Do they have a 'realistic' use as a documentary source? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with medical journals: are there cases where the abstract is under a free license but the whole article is not? El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes. That's extremely common. You can look at PubMed for examples. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 09:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

New proposed wording

Here's a new proposed "after" wording, based on discussion above:

  • Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, except that archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensed print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera is permitted even if the files are not in use in other Wikimedia projects, as long as the works in question are notable. To a large degree, this overlaps with what is posted at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes.

Works created over 95 years ago

Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) more than 95 years ago may be included, so long as it is verifiable and either public domain or properly licensed. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources. These works must meet copyright requirements using {{PD-old}} or a license such as {{PD-USGov}}.

Works created less than 96 years ago:

Documentary sources

Documentary sources are characterized by one of two criteria:

  1. They are official documents of the body producing them, or
  2. They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.

These documents may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries. This category may include material not historically available, such as historical telephone calls, judicial proceedings, and transcriptions of military operations. Documentary sources must be added in their complete form whenever possible, without substantive editorial amendment. The source of these works must be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Commons is a faithful reproduction.

Analytical works

Analytical works are publications that compile information from other sources and analyze this information. Any non-fiction work which is written about a topic after the main events have occurred generally fits in this category. These must have been subjected to peer review and cannot have been self-published.

Scientific research

Scientific research may be included if the work has verifiable scholarly peer review from a trusted entity. The work must be free or released under a free license.

An example of such acceptable research work is a thesis that has been scrutinized and accepted by a thesis committee of an accredited university.

In addition, freely licensed novels, poetry or other published writing by authors who are covered in a Wikipedia article about them may be hosted on Commons, as long as they are not self-published, and abstracts of peer-reviewed articles, such as medical abstracts, may be hosted here if they are freely licensed but the full articles are not. Finally, Commons may host properly licensed pictures of book covers that are in any way notable or pages of the texts of books or articles that have illustrations or decorations on them. Blog posts, even on blogs covered by Wikipedia, may not be hosted here because they are self-published and lack peer review. However, manuscripts by famous authors who are covered in Wikipedia or otherwise notable may be hosted here.

Some other examples:

  • An official English translation of an Indian law published in gazette form would be in scope, whereas a user translation of a local city bylaw would be out of scope.
  • A single user's self-published theological rant would not be in scope, but a formally published Bible commentary in the academic journal of a seminary would.
  • A high-school term paper on Darwin would be out of scope, but a peer-reviewed biographical review of Darwin's life and works or a PhD or Masters thesis on that topic would be in scope.
  • A self-published erotic slash-fic would be out of scope, but a 'suppressed' 16th-century erotic novel would be in scope.
Discussion
  • Please discuss. I'll start. I don't like this in Wikisource:
  • Previously unpublished scientific research, regardless of being peer reviewed or not, is acceptable to include in Wikisource if an author meets Wikipedia:Notability (regardless of the actual presence of Wikipedia article on the author) and the work is released under a proper license.
  • That may be fine for them, but I don't think we want to host unpublished scientific research that's not peer reviewed unless it's COM:INUSE on Wikisource. Therefore, I left it out. Does anyone feel strongly about including it? Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:21, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The wording above massively expands on what I was thinking about, Thanks :) 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for including the stuff about INUSE, being needed for otherwise unpublished material. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Some other areas :-
  • "Officially published works of the US "Federal" Govt" - we need to be clear if contractor supplied materials are in scope, as this has come up previously (albiet as a discussion of what we actually consider "Federal" works for licensing reasons.)
  • US works - No notice and non-renewal works that were actually "published" have been considered in scope.
  • "Crown" works . - For the UK (and Canada?) the copyright term is 50 years if actually published, not 95 years., which covers a lot of pre 1973 items, such as a number of 'one-inch OS map sheets produced in the 1960's for example.
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Ikan Kekek: I'd agree that Commons should probably exclude otherwise unpublished research from its scope. There are plenty of other outlets for scientific preprints, like arXiv, and we can always modify policy later if it proves to be an issue. (As an aside, I'm curious how often that clause gets invoked at Wikisource; I suspect that it's rare.) Omphalographer (talk) 21:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
ShakespeareFan00, my wording on what's freely licensed is intended to be non-exhaustive, which is why I used the phrase "such as," but please feel free to add additional information relevant to licensing if you think it's important to mention in COM:Project scope and insufficient to mention at COM:Licensing. I'm also not we need to discuss whether material produced for a government but privately copyrighted can be included, as that, too, can be covered at COM:L, but if you think a clarification is needed, please add one. One of the things you might notice if you compare my proposed phrasing to Wikisource:What Wikisource includes is that I greatly shortened and simplified the language, even if it might be possible to go further. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I can't make head or tail of the following Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, except that archival of scanned copies of public domain or freely licensed print material such as scanned books, laws, reports and historical ephemera is permitted even if the files are not in use in other Wikimedia projects, as long as the works in question are notable. This is not a matter of copy-editing, there are simply so many poorly related clauses that I plain cannot parse it to work out the intended meaning. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Do I read this to say that for any surviving thing from before 1928 we are an absolute catch-all, limited only by copyright status? Your great-grandmother's shopping list or address book, some kid's classroom notes, a viciously racist cartoon that would be absolutely out of scope if it were produced today, every archive of every country's legal code, anyone's correspondence regardless of any normal criteria of notability? - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Wait, no, then there's "as long as the works in question are notable" (albeit with no indication of a standard of notability). Guess I'm just back to "I can't make head or tail of this." - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The information about written material over 95 years old was directly copied from Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. Should we decline to host some types of content older than 95 years old that Wikisource includes, if they're not currently in use? If so, which types? As for the rest, We could substitute the following:
"Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text, unless there is something notable about them, as defined by the following guidelines, many of which overlap with Wikisource:What Wikisource includes:"
Is that clearer and better? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
This discussion may have died down. Perhaps someone else would like to offer a new edited "after" text for us to consider, but we shouldn't leave things as they are if we want to keep some forms of text files that are not currently in use. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 21:51, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
  •  Question I'm just now noticing the wording "scanned copies of [...] print material". The way the previous discussions went, I was under the impression that PDF files from scientific online journals would be covered by this too? Or is this meant to be only for material that was not published digitally? That needs clarification. --El Grafo (talk) 10:40, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Project_scope/Archive_2&oldid=836224814"