Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/12.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Copyright Cannot be Established for United Kingdom images of children in a care home or with complex family relationships 14 6 85.92.185.193 2022-12-16 15:11
2 Requests for comment: 2022 overhaul of categories by period 1 1 RZuo 2022-12-05 07:33
3 Are elements like pipes, cables, sockets and taps in buildings not architectural? 6 4 JopkeB 2022-12-18 13:56
4 Community Wishlist Survey 2023 opens in January 6 5 Jmabel 2022-12-16 16:23
5 Derivative work licensing for print 1 1 Jmabel 2022-12-16 05:30
6 Movement Charter: End of the community consultation round 1 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2022-12-16 09:57
7 Merge accounts 9 5 Chris.sherlock2 2022-12-19 12:47
8 Listed Source for Category allpaintings.org is currently invalid and/or possibly hijacked. 4 2 Siegtyr 2022-12-19 00:02
9 Endless category loops for films and actors 18 9 Jmabel 2022-12-23 17:40
10 Regions of NSW, Australia 6 3 Chris.sherlock2 2022-12-20 19:33
11 Final reminder: Wikimedia sound logo vote ends today!!! 1 1 MPourzaki (WMF) 2022-12-19 14:40
12 Objectification 14 8 Brianjd 2022-12-22 06:38
13 Category intersection problem 5 2 Jmabel 2022-12-21 00:32
14 Is Baglama2 still a thing? 1 1 C.Suthorn 2022-12-21 20:16
15 Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0 4 3 WPchanger2011 2022-12-23 19:16
16 File move requests refused 5 4 GPSLeo 2022-12-23 21:25
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 30[edit]

Copyright Cannot be Established for United Kingdom images of children in a care home or with complex family relationships[edit]

Hello,

I am working with a museum that received a donation of some beautiful images recently, and the museum director would like to upload these to Wikimedia Commons. The images are of mixed race children who were living in an orphanage called Holnicote House during WW2 in the UK. The images were donated to the museum by the widow of one of the children pictured. Her late husband was given the photographic prints by his carer at the orphanage, who he considered a foster parent. The photos passed to his wife when he died.

The donor and her family are also very keen to share these images widely on Commons and improve the Holnicote House Wikipedia article with them.

We cannot establish whether the photos were taken by the Holnicote House employees in the course of their employment (and would therefore be the property of the employer) or if the photographers were not employed by Holnicote House (and therefore copyright would be owned by the photographer or their heir). Either way, because this information cannot be firmly established, these photographs are not able to be uploaded to Commons under existing rules.

I’m very grateful for the advice already given by Michael Maggs on this matter.

What I’m hoping the community will consider is this: An unintended consequence of the Commons rules as they stand is that they exclude these people’s histories because they were put into care. If these children had been photographed by their parents, the copyright would be clear and the images could be uploaded to Commons. Because the children were photographed by carers who were paid or by others with whom there is no family relationship, the copyright is unclear and they are excluded.

Mixed race and Black children in Britain are disproportionately overrepresented in the care system (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/social-care/adopted-and-looked-after-children/latest) and so this issue will impact the family photographs of mixed race and Black people more than others.

Images are a powerful part of telling the stories of mixed race people and there is great excitement about improving the relevant Wikipedia page with these images and making them available for education and research. Is anyone interested in discussing any way that these images could be included on Commons despite the risk involved? Does anyone else have collections of photographs which are impacted in the same way? I believe that the case for inclusion is strong.

This is one example of a wider implication of excluding images where copyright cannot be established. Where family relationships follow a strict norm, copyright of family photographs can be clearly established. But where family relationships are more complicated and, frankly more realistic, with estrangements, adoptions, multiple parental relationships etc., copyright can be impossible to establish. Tenuous tree (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is one of many problems with our decision not to allow images with orphaned copyrights, but there would be equal problems with going the other way, namely that we'd like reusers of our material to have a reasonable expectation that if they conform to the stated licenses, they will not be breaching copyright law. The problem of orphaned copyrights is more a problem of copyright law than a problem with Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Tenuous tree: We accept images from Flickr Commons under a "no known copyright restrictions" license, this would require obtaining a Flickr Commons account first and loading them there. We also accept {{PD-UK-unknown}}, which is for images more than 70 years old that have no person's name attached to the image as a known photographer. Images taken "during WW2 in the UK" would fall under "PD-UK-unknown". The cutoff date is 1 January 1952. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • {{PD-UK-unknown}} might be a good solution to this, but Flickrwashing images with unclear copyright status is a very bad suggestion. That sort of approach is the kind of thing that can get people blocked or banned here. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It isn't Flickr washing if the statement is true. The Library of Congress uses "no known copyright restrictions" on the Bain Collection, they have the negatives; Getty Images licenses the images, because they have prints of the images. Even with that strong counterclaim the LOC uses: "no known copyright restrictions", and we accept it. --RAN (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ouch. That is not the way forward. You are conflating "no known copyright restrictions" under US law with orphaned works under UK law - which generally are copyright-protected in spite of having no listed photographer's name. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:19, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have a file where you don't know whether Commons would accept it because of copyright reasons, and you upload it on Flickr as having "no known copyright restrictions", then use your own Flickr upload as your "authority" to upload here, that is absolutely Flickrwashing. This is why the "PD" mark on Flickr is not sufficient for us to accept files without knowing the basis of why they are PD.
Again, in this case {{PD-UK-unknown}} should cover it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your replies and for engaging in a conversation that arrived at a measure of consensus about using {{PD-UK-unknown}} - this is an option I'm looking at more closely. It feels good to have a possible way to get these images onto Commons.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first reply @Jmabel, in that the issue lies with copyright itself. I am hoping the community will bear examples like this in mind both as it comes to decisions about how to apply and interpret copyright law and when it considers which risks Commons and its users can take. Tenuous tree (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
why 85.92.185.193 15:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • All museums should load their "no known copyright restrictions" images to Flickr Commons, which is independent of any decision to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons. There is no legal or moral conflict with "no known copyright restrictions" at Flickr Commons and {{PD-UK-unknown}} or any other public domain tag, here at Wikimedia Commons. As I have said multiple times, it isn't Flickr washing if the statement, "no known copyright restrictions", is legally correct for the images under discussion. The only legal or moral ambiguity would be if they uploaded them to Flickr Commons under a Creative Commons license, which some museums have done for photographs in their collections, where they are not the creator; or if they claim a copyright for images in the public domain, as some museums do; or claim a copyright for themselves, where someone else is the legal owner of the copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    It's simply not enough to state "no known copyright restrictions", and to add "{{PD-UK-unknown}} or any other public domain tag". That begs the question - can we be reasonably sure that the images fall outside copyright protection under the specifics of UK law? (And US law as well, but that doesn't seem problematic here). If so, we may be able to add {{PD-UK-unknown}}. But that tag doesn't simply mean that the photographer is unknown or anonymous, as you appear to suggest above. It's more complicated than that. I'm re-reading the legislation and will post more details shortly. MichaelMaggs (talk) 15:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
First, we need to establish that the photographs are "works of unknown authorship" for the purposes of UK law. By ss 9(4) and 9(5) that is the case "if it is not possible for a person to ascertain [the photographer's] identity by reasonable inquiry". The legislation does not specify what is meant by "reasonable inquiry", but it's generally understood by copyright lawyers to require some pretty significant research - simply noting that a photo lacks a name is nowhere near enough. Research should be sufficient to show that finding the photographer's identity is 'impossible'. That would include checking with all owners and previous owners of the physical images, trawling extant records of the home, following up anything on the back of the images and, if possibly taken by a professional, checking specialist indexes of photographers working in the area at the time and comparing their work and layouts. This is a lengthy time-consuming operation and is the reason that many UK museums holding orphaned images don't feel able to openly label them as public domain; seeking legal certainty across a whole collection would take far too much time.
Assuming that that could be done for each image, we can then consider the relevant dates. Section 12(3), as amended, specifies that for a work of unknown authorship, copyright expires:
(a) at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which the work was made, or
(b) if during that period the work is made available to the public, at the end of the period of 70 years from the end of the calendar year in which it is first so made available.
If we know that the images were taken during the war, let's play safe and assume 1945. Then, for any photos that remained unavailable to the public up to the end of 2015, copyright will have expired at the end of that year. Those images will have fallen into in the public domain, and remain PD regardless of any later events such as publications after 2015.
If any of the photos were before the end of 2015 published (eg in a book, a newspaper etc) or were otherwise made available, the clock will have restarted and copyright will continue to subsist for another 70 years from the end of the publication year.
If all that can be established to such a level that there is no "significant doubt" about the PD status of the images under UK law (see Commons:Project_scope#Precautionary_principle), it's perfectly OK to upload to Commons using the {{PD-UK-unknown}} tag. To prevent future problems/arguments, though, I'd strongly suggest documenting in detail exactly what research was done in each case, plus the legal basis for concluding the image is PD, and recording it somewhere against each Commons file, perhaps on the file talk page. MichaelMaggs (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By the initial statement, it is quite clear that the people who own the images don't know who was the photographer. IMO we abuse the "Precautionary principle" if we don't allow {{PD-UK-unknown}} for such images. This principle was established so that we can delete recent images copied from a random source without proving that there is a copyright, but not for old images where the chance of a still existing copyright is very slim. Yann (talk) 19:51, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{PD-UK-unknown}} doesn't mean "the owner of the photo doesn't know who the photographer was". It means no more and no less than what I've set out above. And neither is the "Precautionary principle" inapplicable to old images. Fortunately, given the facts as stated above, there seems a good chance that research will show that the template can be correctly used in this case. MichaelMaggs (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 05[edit]

Requests for comment: 2022 overhaul of categories by period[edit]

Commons:Requests for comment/2022 overhaul of categories by period.--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)--RZuo 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 11[edit]

Are elements like pipes, cables, sockets and taps in buildings not architectural?[edit]

In Commons it looks like the developments of architectural elements stopped in the 19th century: I cannot find a connection between Category:Architectural elements and elements in a building that are needed for modern water supply, sewerage, electricity, gas and internet, things that go into or come out a building by default, like pipes and cables. While most of these things, if not all, are present in a building when it is delivered or is transferred after purchase; in the Netherlands the first three are even mandatory by law. So builders (and I guess architects) should take them into account. My questions:

  1. Is that indeed true: are these elements officially not architectural? (I am no architectural expert at all, so this might be a lack of knowledge.)
  2. Is there an English umbrella term for them, so I can make a main category for containing all of them? Perhaps something with "utility"?

Not architectural elements?

--JopkeB (talk) 11:12, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would say that these are not "architectural". And while these all relate to utilties, I'm not sure we have one common term related to that which refers to elements like this. We tend to refer separately to electrical, plumbing, and HVAC systems. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps Category:Building engineering would cover these? MKFI (talk) 07:31, 12 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is a term en:Mechanical, electrical, and plumbing that is a subcategory of building engineering aka en:architectural engineering. However, lack of interwikis seems to suggeset that that's not a term that is commonly used outside of the US. Maybe the broader en:Building services engineering would be a term that works better internationally.
In any case, on the aesthetics side of things, there's certainly a connection to CAT:Interior design here, which is considered a sub-discipline of architecture in several countries and even called interior architecture in at least Italian, French, and German. Its subcategory Category:Interior architectural elements includes things like sinks, mirrors, and furniture. Boilers probably do not belong in there, but faucets and light switches certainly can be design elements. El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 15 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(HVAC = heating, ventilation and air conditioning). JopkeB (talk) 09:11, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, Jmabel, MKFI and El Grafo, for your reactions and research. So the category structure could be:
And I'll shop for more inspiration on en:Building services engineering for subcategories. And of coarse everybody (preferably with more technical knowledge than me) can add more subcategories and/or present suggestions.
Would this make sense? --JopkeB (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In respect of the faucet, and radiator, it should be noted that in parts of Europe, they could be considered a 'design' if there was a significant expression of creativity in their appearance beyond mere functional necessity. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:20, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 18[edit]

Merge accounts[edit]

I have accidentally created two accounts, Chris.sherlock2 (talk) and User:Chris.sherlock3. I keep accidentally logging into Chris.sherlock3, when I mean to be in Chris.sherlock2. How would I get them merged and make Chris.sherlock2 the main account? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:38, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You'll need to go onto Meta:USURP, it may or may not be possible. Bidgee (talk) 13:45, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee, Chris.sherlock2, and Chris.sherlock3: Sorry, it is it is technically impossible per that link.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh well, I'll try to remember to not use one of the accounts! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:57, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2, you can just post a disclaimer that this is an "accidental account" that belongs to you and has not been created for sockpuppetry... ─ The Aafī (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can rename the second account to some other name. Ruslik (talk) 20:52, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or use one account as your main account and the other when your travelling and using say free public WiFi for example. Some contributors have done this, you’re not limited to just one account on Commons (you only need to disclose it on each of the user pages). Bidgee (talk) 21:56, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The way I have: TheAafi and AafiOnMobile. ─ The Aafī (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all, you've all been very helpful :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:47, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Listed Source for Category allpaintings.org is currently invalid and/or possibly hijacked.[edit]

Seems like most images in the following category have a inappropriate source listed, currently redirecting to an unrelated site.

Category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Images_from_Allpaintings.org

Example image with incorrect sourcing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_Envoys_of_Agamemnon_by_Ingres.jpg

Erroneous source listed at the time of posting: http://www.allpaintings.org/v/Neoclassicism/Jean+Auguste+Dominique+Ingres/Jean+Auguste+Dominique+Ingres+-+Achilles+Receiving+the+Envoys+of+Agamemnon.jpg.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siegtyr (talk • contribs) 22:09, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Siegtyr (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 19[edit]

Endless category loops for films and actors[edit]

Hello,

Some users seem to add actors to categories about the films (and TV series) they performed in, and also add the films to the actors' categories through Category:Films by actor. This creates endless category loops:

In the case of a single random example (Cheech Marin):

Which out of the two types of categorization is most useful, if at all? For some reasons this seems to especially affect voice actors that dubbed animated films. Note that on en.wiki films are not categorized by actors, and actors by film or any other performer with their performance (there's a guideline explaining why this type of categorization is futile). Of course Commons doesn't apply en.wiki rules. However, is this any less futile, especially if it creates endless category loops? A better way to handle performer/performance may be to follow the links in the Wikidata infobox, for instance.

@Tuvalkin, Andy Dingley, Trivialist, and Howcheng: I've not found a previous central discussion about this, however I found some involvement from these users, so pinging them for input. Place Clichy 10:27, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'm not sure that either of them is particularly useful. The categorizers seem to be thinking of them more as keywords than a logical organizing scheme. Trivialist (talk) 11:04, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • They are both «particularly useful» and «logical», as they both address a legitimate and useful need for information about some kind of relationship between any two categories.
Trying to eliminate all “loops” in our category tree is both impossible without greately reducing its usefulness and an unecessary theoretical concern: Classification of all reality in neat nested boxes is a 19th century quest we should not care about (after all even the tree of life has anastomosis, as it’s known since 1983).
The only kind of category tree loops we should always avoid are those of 1st level (A→B and B→A) as it would offer two different categorization schemes for the same relationship between two categories — wider loops (say, A→B→C vs. A→C→B) are acceptable and should be decided for each individual pair of categories, with no concerns on whether a loop will evenually emerge or not.
Trivialist and Place Clichy mention keywords and Wikidata. Well, okay: Use those if you want to, and leave categorization for those who want to categorize. Starting a discussion which would lead to the elimination of most categories just to quell a concern that is essentially esthetical seems pointless, to say the least.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:54, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
RZuo (talk) 12:35, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • First of all, what is the problem with a loop? What breaks? Why not simply accept loops, they're non-damaging.
This is MediaWiki categorization. It's a navigational mechanism, and a relatively crude one. It's not an ontological, ordinal or defining one.
The situation here arises because there are two commutative properties being modelled: "films of <actor>" and also "cast of <film>". If we represent both of these as properties (i.e. category membership on this platform) then it is inevitable that there is duplication, and thus (given how MW models properties) there are loops.
We do not need to have both property memberships (and so the "cast of <film>" would seem the most straightforward to keep). In that case, navigation for "films of <actor>" involves looking at the list of parent categories, not children (there is a prejudice against having many parent categories). Given the relative numbers, we'd be better keeping "cast of <film>" and ditching "films of <actor>".
We could instead limit this to "films starring <actor>" instead, (ditching both "films of <actor>" and "cast of <film>") which limits the number of parents for any film to just its handful of stars, not an entire cast. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can imagine certain tools that can search through multiple levels of subcategories, do not like loops. For example: deepcategory: in Wiki's search function and PetScan. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons:Categories (a policy) explains what are categories and what is their use. It writes: There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly). Categories are a structured hierarchy, from the most generic concept to the very specific. Although there are several types of relations reflected by category inclusion, the policy again advises to avoid cyclic structure. A category loop is merely the sign that the relationship implied makes no sense. In the case at hand, films are not "a part" of the actor playing in them, or who voiced a character. Actors are not "a part" of the film; although they play a part, their life and work is certainly not contained in any of their films. Some kind of horizontal linking, in the text description or the Wikidata infobox, is certainly more appropriate. As Tuvalkin wrote above, leave categorization for those who categorize, without breaking the category hierarchy with nonsensical inclusions (and loops). Place Clichy 22:17, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We need a category that is all categories that don’t contain themselves. I think that would be extremely interesting. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:20, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refrain from personal attacks, “fellow” categorizer who yet thinks categories should be partly replaced with random see-also links and Wikidata cruff: Your fetish for a strict single-root dendrogram for all reality — now that’s nonsensical. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Attacks? I don't see any in my reply, although I tried to insert an answer to your own friendly invitation to some other users to leave categorization for those who want to categorize. Place Clichy 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Andy Dingley: "What breaks"? Specifically, OgreBot's gallery pages. Every time someone creates a category loop that involves a person who is included in my gallery, I get messages from the bot such as this: "Your gallery has a hard upper-limit of about 8000 files per day, while your gallery would have had 24136 files (including files already on the page)." So then I have to go and break these loops so the bot doesn't freak out. —howcheng {chat} 00:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So fix the 'bot. Loops can happen, and it's not hard for a 'bot to detect this without getting itself stuck. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:33, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Truly, what Andy says here. Speaking as a longtime software developer, it is pretty near malpractice to right code that navigates a graph and doesn't check for loops unless some other technical mechanism has already guaranteed that the graph will be acyclic. There is no way in the world that we aren't sometimes going to end up with loops in the category "hierarchy". If our tools break when that happens, then it is super-easy for a vandal to break our tools any time they feel like it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not concerned about the occasional loop created by accident, and imho it is not a technical problem. I am a lot more concerned by the logic behind the simultaneous placing of actors under films and films under actors. The mention of the loops merely indicate that this logic is flawed in regards to what categories are as defined in Commons policy. In other terms, while actors and films are related topics, they do not have a hierarchical relationship. The mere fact that you can't tell which one is above the other is just telling that. Not all category cruft and over-categorization is good, some moderation is also welcome. To take an example above, not all of Elizabeth Banks' life and career in included in The Hunger Games (or the dozens of films to be potentially added on her page), and not all The Hunger Games is a Elizabeth Banks performance. At the very least, I think that direct inclusion of actors in films and vice-versa should be discouraged (i.e. without an intermediate filmography or cast layer). Place Clichy 16:46, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The phrase "over-categorization" has a specific meaning in Commons — please do not misuse it. As for the matter at hand, I notice that you say «an intermediate filmography or cast layer», and that’s encouraging: That’s also how I feel about 1st degree loops versus any others. Of course more distant loops in the graph (i.e., with more than just 2 nodes) you still seem to see them as flukes «created by accident», which I do not agree with, but I’m all for adding those intermediate layers wherever needed. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:52, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’m a new Commons contributor, so I don’t stumble on any land mines, what does it mean? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:23, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: "Over-categorization" or "overcatting" here usually means that someone has ignorantly or inadvertently added categories that are already implied, because they are ancestors of categories already present. E.g. adding Category:United Kingdom to something that is already in Category:London. That's not to say that it is never valid to use both a category and one of its ancestors for a given image. For starters, if there is a loop in the hierarchy (the topic at hand), then a category is its own ancestor! But, more subtly, it's common for a building to be in a category for the street or streets it is on, and if a picture shows the building but is basically a picture of the street, then it is reasonable to have both; similarly, a picture of multiple members of a family that has a category might show (among others) an individual notable enough to have a category of their own, in which case is would be OK to use both. So, much like loops in the hierarchy, it's a rule of thumb, but not an absolute prohibition. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Honestly, I would just import English Wikipedia's PERFCAT guidelines onto Commons, removing any categories akin to "Performer/performance by/of/for/from performance/performer", due to the aforementioned horizontality problem. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:16, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Regions of NSW, Australia[edit]

I am in a real pickle here. I cannot for the life of me work out the regions of New South Wales! The Wikipedia article at Local government areas of New South Wales has literally no sources for their structure. And then I looked around, and there is so many different regions!

As you can see, all different! I'm sure if I look more I'll find even more regions.

So I found a GIS system that shows regions on a map, it is quite interesting, but now I'm even more confused how to divide up the categories!


Any advise would be helpful... - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Chris.sherlock2: My advice is: be very wary of trying to set up a subcategory system for something complicated, potentially controversial, and where you are not expert. - Jmabel ! talk 16:19, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Jmabel: I hear you, I got into all sorts of bother on the other site over categories. I’m actually only doing this work because I’m going through wikishootme to take photos of South-Western Sydney and I need a plan of attack. I’ve done a non-controversial category structure of suburbs into LGAs and I had thought regions would make it even better… then I found it was a mess! It’s why I took my concerns here. Do you know who I could speak into? The current category imis a mess already (it had suburbs in the category, for instance). I’d love to find a usable structure here. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:33, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Sorry, I've got nothing. I think the closest I've ever been to Australia is Seoul. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Is there a more specific context? Category:New South Wales is a mess and Category:Places in New South Wales is unclear while Category:History of New South Wales weirdly seems a bit more organized. You may need to do a bottom up approach from the individual subpages into the main categorization instead of a top-down approach as places like en:City of Shellharbour have decent sourcing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:20, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • That sounds like a reasonable idea. The problem is that in Australia (and I only recently discovered this) the only state to formally define their regions is Western Australia! Everyone else just uses whatever seems convinient. I'm rather beginning to wonder if we might not make up our own regions... but I'd need input from Australian Commons editors! The "bottom up" idea does sound the best though. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Final reminder: Wikimedia sound logo vote ends today!!![edit]

Hi everyone. A reminder that the Wikimedia sound logo vote is still open. Voting ends today December 19 at 23:59 UTC. Thanks to many of you from around the world who have played a part in this project's success. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Objectification[edit]

A photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time by User:Chenspec, User:DerHexer (one small edit), User:Albedo, and most recently User:Joshbaumgartner, so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. We don't add comparable categories to photographs of men, or (with rare exceptions) older women, but photos of young women are often treated this way. I find this objectionable (especially in this case, where it is a photo from what was basically a feminist music conference).

Yes, these categories are technically accurate, but they are some combination of useless/inappropriate. For example, almost every portrait photograph is going to show someone's hair and face.
This is repeatedly done specifically for photos of young women and, no, I don't think the right solution is to equally objectify everyone else.

Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel There is a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths but strangely not one for the women one. The parent categories deserve discussions as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment My involvement has merely been to apply the results of closed CfDs to effect certain name changes on these categories, and should not be taken as endorsement or otherwise as to the validity of their existence. Additionally, the CfD cited above should be expanded to cover both genders since ostensibly it would apply to both. Josh (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: as I figured, but didn't want to leave you un-notified if you felt you had a stake in this. & I agree about the CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I appreciate that and no worries, I just wanted to clarify my role. It turns out there is a discussion for the women as well at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Women with opened mouths, so I'm linking it here as well as cross-referencing the two discussions. Josh (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with Jmabel that sorting identifiable individuals by body details is highly questionable (and IMHO without much use anyway). But the fault may not be in the category itself but in the loose ways images are attached to it: If hair is the central topic of an image and the person has obviously confirmed to be used as a symbol for "hair" (e.g. as a model at a haidressers competition) I´d have no objections. Category:People with opened mouths is fine for images that are targeted at illustrating dentistry methods or singing techniques, but not for any snapshot where someone conincidentally hasn´t closed his mouth fully. And Category:Smiling women is fine for Mona Lisa, where the specific smile has even found scientific attention, but that´s a rare exception. I suggest not to delete the categories but to define their scope more clearly and to amend Commons:Categories with guidance that objectifying categorization should not be applied to identifiable individuals unless there is documented consent or specific justification. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, Ricky81682, and Rudolph Buch: Similar issues were discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports, which has been open for far too long. Brianjd (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We have plenty of files in Men looking at viewer and subcategories. ‘Looking at viewer’ is more about behaviour than the person’s inherent appearance; I don’t think it is objectifying. Brianjd (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The other categories are about appearance, but are accurate, are not derogatory and are not indecent, so I do not see the problem. The file used as an example here, Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg is a picture of (not merely depicting) a woman’s face, or at least a woman’s head, so the category Women's faces is fine. It also prominently shows a significant amount of hair, so Female human hair is fine. Both of these categories may require diffusion or other pruning, but that is a separate issue. Other categories like Women with opened mouths should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (I will add a comment to that category’s discussion as well). Brianjd (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eigentlich (Eigentlich) sind die Kategorien ja obsolet. Ersetzt durch SDC und depicts. Und depicts für dieses Bild wären "Frau", "offener Mund", "feministisches Event", "Gesicht", "Portrait", "Blick auf den Betrachter" und würden es erlauben mit der Such-Anfrage "Alexa/Siri": Zeige mir Portraits von Frauen auf feministischen Events, die auf den Betrachter schauen und gerade sprechen. Dieses Bild und alle anderen Bilder auf Commons zu finden, die der Anfrage entsprechen (unabhängig von der Sprache, denn SDC sind im Ggs zu Kategorien multilingual). Insofern ist der Streit um objektivierende Kategorien müßig. Im Gegenteil kann aus diesen Kategorien teilautomatisiert auf die einzutragenden SDC geschlossen werden und dann können diese seltamen multi-begriff-kategorien verschwinden. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. @C.Suthorn: No, categories are not obselete. So far, they still function a lot better than structured data, at least for a human trying to find an image. If you are telling me that I should rely on a commercial company's AI to help me navigate Commons, then I'll refrain from answering that, because any response that seems appropriate to me would probably get me blocked for incivility.
  2. I stand on my original remarks about these categories and the way they are applied in practice constituting objectification. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    +1 on both points. SDC is a long way away from even being a semi-functional replacement for categories, much less supplanting them altogether. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I have a gadget that moves categories to the top of the screen, and I routinely read them, and they make sense to ordinary humans. But structured data? Do I want to click on another tab every time I open a page, just to view some confusing screen that looks like it’s full of technical details for data scientists/librarians/something like that? (We are getting off-topic here, but I could not resist bringing a bit of common sense to the SDC discussion. Objectification concerns should apply equally to categories and SDC, so categories vs SDC is irrelevant.) Brianjd (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    (applause) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category intersection problem[edit]

If you look at Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis, you will see a number of categories like Category:Apache people as photographed by Edward Curtis and Category:Navajo people as photographed by Edward Curtis, plus many others for various tribes/nations. The problem is that this seems to suggest that photos by Curtis of people from these same tribes/nations but that don't come from that particular work don't belong in the category, which in my view is really kind of silly. The category names don't suggest anything of the sort, and at least some of these categories (e.g. Category:Navajo people as photographed by Edward Curtis) were around for years before the category for that particular work was added as a parent by User:Look2See1, since indef-blocked for category edits that went against consensus. (Newer categories such as the "Apache" category were probably innocently modeled on those older ones). I'd be inclined to change Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis as a parent of these just to Category:Photographs by Edward Sheriff Curtis, but then for the ones that are from that work we'd lose all connection to the work. Any suggestions?

By the way, this is a perfect illustration of why there is a need to be cautious when making rather arbitrary intersections of categories, or when changing the meaning of an existing category. - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 19 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel I'd suggest taking them to CFD individually. It is possible people want them renamed to something more accurate like Category:Navajo people from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis which will cut down the nonsense additions. I don't understand why these are "people as photographed by" at all. They are Apache people photographed by Curtis aren't they? That is a silly categorization to me but is it that Curtis identified them as Apache so we are categorizing them that way? It seems silly to focus on what he thought they were. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ricky81682:
  1. "as" here probably means nothing at all.
  2. Do I understand that you are supporting User:Look2See1's narrowing of the category from its original meaning, and think that photos of these tribes/nations by Curtis that are not sourced from that particular work should not be in the category? - Jmabel ! talk 00:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't believe in the categorization at all but I suggest asking if others do. I would likely support deletion but secondarily I would agree with you on the upmove option. Maybe just do it and let's see if people want to narrow it later with a separate category. Either way, the name itself needs work in my mind so it's better to have a CFD on them and see what people decide. It may close in 2027 but that's Commons lol. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 20 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CFD now at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Images from The North American Indian by Edward S. Curtis. Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 21[edit]

Is Baglama2 still a thing?[edit]

It has not been updated since september C.Suthorn (talk) 20:16, 21 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 23[edit]

Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0[edit]

Are you allowed to use that template freely, without being granted by Creative Commons, Wikimedia, or Commons?I wish to use that for every file I upload for use for Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WPchanger2011 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@WPchanger2011: Hi, and welcome. You may use {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}} for your own work uploads. It is currently transcluded 416,264 times. See also COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thank you for the answer. WPchanger2011 (talk) 19:15, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WPchanger2011: the operative phrase being "own work". You can license your own work as you wish; you can't go issuing these varied licenses on someone else's behalf. Jmabel ! talk 05:10, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
and thanks to you too WPchanger2011 (talk) 19:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File move requests refused[edit]

Q: Should file-movers have to give an explanation when refusing and removing file movement requests? GPinkerton (talk) 15:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would help to be somewhat more specific. Ellywa (talk) 15:40, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In general, I certainly try to do so. When there are a series of requests, sometimes I only explain on one. If you have concerns about the handling of File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg, it looks like you got explanations on your first two requests, and IMO the third did not require further explanation. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:26, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: I recently made one such request. It was refused on faulty grounds which are not based on policy. After I challenged this, I was invited to restore the request. I did so, but it was refused without explanation. The file remains unrenamed without satisfactory reason. GPinkerton (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You did not explain why you want the file renamed "Minimize ambiguity" in no proper explanation. If you do not provide an explanation why you want the file renamed you should not expect a long explanation why your request is declined. GPSLeo (talk) 21:25, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I, for one, don't see any reason that request should have been granted. We don't normally move a file just because the name isn't absolutely ideal: it pretty much requires that there be something actively wrong with the old name. In this case, it is not obvious to me that the new name is even an improvement. - Jmabel ! talk 22:08, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: One reason the new name is preferable is because there are certain templates on several Wikipedias that autopopulate using the English-language formula "Flag of English-languagecountryname.svg", which in this instance causes the wrong flag variant to appear (a nautical one instead of the general-purpose one). If the file was moved as I have suggested, the resulting redirect could be pointed at whichever file is desired (i.e. the general-purpose default flag and not the naval one), rather than directly to a file which does not represent the normal flag. Mainly, however the move would be to minimize the ambiguity of having a filename which wrongly suggests the naval flag is the default British flag. Is that clearer? GPinkerton (talk) 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: tremendously. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and GPSLeo: the thing is, the solution of moving the file was discussed on the talk page of the file involved, but this seems to have been ignored or misconstrued. GPinkerton (talk) 00:48, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: was that talk page linked in the move request rationale? I ask because admins who are trying to do these by the dozens or by the hundreds necessarily blast through these and make snap judgments. Typically, they aren't going to go seeking stuff out on their own. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: yes I see that I could have been more expansive. Your answer that admins make snap judgments en masse to these requests suggests that my question's answer is no, file-movers do not have to give an explanation. How should I proceed? I am chary of submitting another move request. GPinkerton (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d recommend that you should refrain from making another move request, as you might find yourself blocked for edit warring/disruption. Bidgee (talk) 01:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee: How should I proceed? GPinkerton (talk) 02:22, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Aishik Rehman as the involved admin: GPinkerton's rationale here actually looks reasonable (see the comment above dated 23:56, 23 December 2022 (UTC)), though I can see how the way the request was made would not readily have directed you to that rationale. Would you have any problem with another admin making the move he originally requested? - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @GPinkerton and perhaps "1-2 ratio" or "naval jack" would be better than just "1-2", because I for one would look at "1-2" and have no idea what it intended to signify. - Jmabel ! talk 02:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Others in the talkpage discussion should be given a chance to respond. Bidgee (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I suggest "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2).svg" to harmonize with the other official versions "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (2-3).svg", "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg", "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (5-8).svg" and the relevant construction sheet "File:Flag of the United Kingdom (1-2) (construction sheet).svg". Of course, if there's a more obvious solution I welcome it, but so far this seems simplest and least language-dependent. GPinkerton (talk) 03:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPinkerton: That also makes sense. Again, in general when making requests, it behooves you to spell out the rationale like you now have. Then the admin is likely to come through, go "sure, that makes sense" and do what you asked for. - Jmabel ! talk 03:06, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: yes that seems obvious now, but hitherto I had only submitted trivial renaming requests with minimal explanation and not run into any issues. Thanks for your guidance and the suggestion that someone else might submit a move request. GPinkerton (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’d recommend to start a whole new move request discussion on the image talkpage, if everyone is in agreement the move would take place but I think leaving it for seven days (due to the Christmas holidays) would be fine. Bidgee (talk) 03:35, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bidgee: A whole new one in addition to the discussion I began on the 21st of this month‽ GPinkerton (talk) 03:51, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I've pinged User:Aishik Rehman and now left a note on his user talk page as well. If we don't hear from him within a few days, I'll make the move myself, but I don't want to override his decision without giving him a chance to respond. Also, note that despite the characterization above, he is not an admin, just a filemover. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 24 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

December 24[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=719423990"