Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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

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

I'd say allow, but probably tag them so that they can easily be deleted at one fell swoop if there is ever clarification and it goes against having them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned on my talk page, this discussion has already been going on in the past few days. The fact is that the German panorama freedom does not apply to interior shots. Some may question whether subway stations count as interior shots, but even then we would have to delete the images (precautionary principle). I don't see why we should flout our own rules just because the images have been accepted to date. Lukas Beck (talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: What difference to the law does it make that the train stations are "cultural heritage monuments"? As far I know objects are designed cultural heritage monuments by local "cultural authorities" who don't own the copyrights to the objects they designate and the designation has zero effect on the copyright status of the work. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose For three reasons. 1. The guidelines for Germany make it clear that shots of building interiors in Germany are not covered by FOP. Train stations "might" (and it's a big might) be covered because they are semi-public, but the problem is that experts agree places where accesses is it all restricted to the public aren't legally considered public spaces. So there's no grounds for train stations to be covered by FOP what-so-ever. Otherwise we might as well allow images taken in-side of churches, stores, Etc. Etc. At that point why even have guidelines about it?

2. I don't buy the idea that there should be a special exception for "cultural heritage monuments" in Germany because the designation is given by local "cultural authorities" who aren't legal bodies and it doesn't effect the copyright status of the works. In the meantime there's plenty of modern objects created by living artists in Germany that are designated as "cultural monuments" by local authorities. There's zero evidence that those artists gave up their copyright to the work in the process.

3. Plenty of regional historical societies designate objects of local interest as culturally important. I'm sure images of a lot of copyrighted public works in most countries can be used in Wikipedia. What's so special about Germany or German "monuments" (the word is meaningless misnomer in this context BTW) that warrants there being a special exception to the rules just for German train stations? Really, why not just allow for images of otherwise copyrighted works in general if they can be used in Wikipedia articles? Honestly, this whole thing reeks of the same German centric nonsense that occurred with the recent proposal for categories of German political parties. Which not surprisingly was started by the same user and went absolutely no where. At the end of the day there's zero legitimate reason to allow for images of artwork in German train stations. German users just have a unique issue with following the guidelines for some reason. So they think there should be special exceptions to everything for Germany. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a lot less concerned with keeping images of art than happens to be inside a German train station than with general interior shots of the stations. Even for the U.S., where F.O.P. is generally far weaker than in Germany, we allow equivalent photos. - Jmabel ! talk 22:02, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really see what the difference is. At least IMO there's way more chance of a living artist suing over an image of their artwork in a train station being used in a commercial book then say the architect of the building suing someone for uploading images of a random wall in the same train station. You should look through some of the images of the stations in Germany. A lot of them are pretty generic. To the point that only locals would probably know what station it is or where exactly the image was taken if it weren't for file summaries and whatnot. Like compare these two images of the same train station, File:U-Bahnhof Steinstraße 3.jpg and File:Fußgängerunterführung Steinstraße, Mosaik von Walter Siebelist.jpg. Obviously there's much more chance of there being a legal issue with the second image then there is with the first one. The first one is barely even identifiable and there's nothing copyrightable about it anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:10, 15 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mentioned the cultural heritage monuments to show the importance of having these photos. It could also be relevant if you weight the interests of the architect against the freedom of press. As it is highly important we should not apply the precautionary principle but risk the legal proceeding like we did in many other cases in the past. GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You might have a valid point, but Commons isn't the press. Also, I'd probably agree with you about weighing the legal risks if the Wikimedia Foundation wasn't already sued and lost in Germany over Commons hosting images of stamps. I don't think it's worth the risk in light of that and how inconsistent the German court system seems to be, which at least from my reading of things tends to be way more finicky when it comes to FOP then anything else. There was also a court case a few years ago where someone was sued in Germany and lost for commercially using an image of a train. So there's already legal precedent there when it comes to things related to trains, train stations, and the like. Granted I don't remember if the image of the train was taken in a train stations, but I don't think it matters. The Regardless, one failed law suite on our side in the German courts should really be enough. We aren't here to test the boundaries of copyright laws. I already asked on L. Beck's talk page, but why can't the images just be uploaded to German Wikipedia since (I assume) they would qualify as fair use due to being included in articles? --Adamant1 (talk) 07:01, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The German Wikipedia does not accept "fair use". --Rosenzweig τ 07:53, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And neither does a lot of other Wikipedias (German Wikipedia allows "fair use" for a limited class of images that are free by German law, or something like that).

Anyway, we don't host images unless they are free, even if they are valuable. It is not about WMF: they are quite safe as long as they take down files as soon they are asked to. The problem is with somebody publishing a book and being sued over it. Destroying the edition is costly regardless of whether they get some formal penalty.

–LPfi (talk) 08:00, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well that's a bummer. Not really surprising though. Regardless, I still think it's worth erring on the side of caution even if the WMF will probably be fine either way. Like the precautionary principle says "the copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated their work" and similar arguments aren't a valid reason to keep works that might otherwise be copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:08, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean "erring" here, not "airing" ;-) (just a friendly hint). Rosenzweig τ 04:13, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That I do. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support If the law is ambiguous, we should take the more permissive side. It is not our duty to interpret the law more strictly than the courts do. We don't need to be more royal than the kings. Yann (talk) 11:22, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interpret it how you will, but at least according to the Act on Copyright and Related Rights Section 59(1) "It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorization only extends to the façade." Interiors of train stations, underground or otherwise, clearly aren't building facades. So at least going by the Act on Copyright and Related Rights it doesn't seem like there's any ambiguity what so ever about this. If nothing else there at least needs to be some kind of clarification about how the proposal jives with the law if it passes so people don't just continue to nominate images of train station interiors for deletion because the law says they aren't covered by freedom of panorama. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:07, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to be  Neutral on this. While I stand by my opinion generally, I don't know enough about the details of German law to take a side. Yann (talk) 19:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

As I just noted in the other discussion, no one is trying to or suggesting we delete "all" images taken inside of tunnels. Just ones containing works of art that are still covered by copyright. So your broadening the scope of the discussion to something that is a non-issue. Although that also goes for the original proposal. Again, to repeat what I said in the other discussion, the hyperbolic fear mongering about what exactly is being nominated for deletion isn't really helpful and if anything, just makes the discourse around the whole thing way more contentious then it needs to be. Really, it's not surprising that German users would come right out of the gate looking for a confrontation considering the amount of catastrophizing going on around this. No one is nominating "all" images of train stations or tunnels for deleted. Nor is anyone suggesting we do such a thing either. So at the end of the day this proposal is a solution to a non-exiting problem, just like your last one about category names BTW ;) --Adamant1 (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, define "tunnel" and "inside". Do you need to pass a physical door? Must a place be lockable to be "semi-public", whatever that would be? Do passways under bridges count as tunnels? Is any artwork under a roof now verboten? The suggested policy sounds like after deleting all graffiti and murals younger than 150 years from the France, US, Taiwan and South Africa, busy censors seek to find inroads on German FoP. Train stations are public places and people who delete photos of publicly installed train station artwork are jerks. --Enyavar (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You clearly haven't read the discussions around this, including this one, or what the law says. If you did you'd know that the distinction between public versus private when it comes to images of building interiors doesn't matter. It can still be a "public place" and not qualify for freedom of panorama if that place is the interior of a building. To quote from the law for at least the second time in this discussion ""It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorization only extends to the façade." Nothing about that sentence says that images of building interiors are covered by freedom of panorama as long as they are public buildings. Making this about if the building is public or not is just a convenient way to deflect from the actual reason the images are being nominated for deletion. No one is nominating the images for deletion based on the buildings not being public places though.

As to what constitutes a building interior, that's an extremely simple question to answer just by looking at the images. No one who is being good faithed about this is going to argue that images like this one are of the exterior façade of the tunnel and/or train station where it was taken. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really know if I agree with that last statement. Having lived in cities where pedestrian underpasses under streets are pretty common (London, Bucharest) people don't generally think of entering those passages as "going indoors," and as far as I know that has never really been tested in a German court of law. - Jmabel ! talk 03:28, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the tunnel in the image that I provided a link to isn't just a random pedestrian passage going under a street or whatever. If you look at images in the same categories there's clearly a stairway going down to an underground train station of which the tunnel is a major part of. It's not really clear where the stairs and/or tunnel ends and the train station begins either. Although I agree that random short underpasses going from one side of a road to the other aren't "buildings", but no one is nominating images of those types of passageways for deletion and they aren't what I'm talking about.

Regardless though there's clearly a point where a tunnel is either a building itself or a part of one. And I think the tunnel in the image I linked to would qualify as one of those things since there are stairs leading down it and it connects to the train station. There's also multiple signs with the name of the train station on them before the stairs to BTW. So I don't see how anyone can argue the tunnel and station have nothing to do with each other. Sure though, if the "tunnel" is a random 10 foot long path going under a road then an image of it is probably fine. The issue comes in when the passageway is either a building in it's own right or a part of one. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:00, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really clear where the stairs and/or tunnel ends and the train station begins either: Ymmd, really. Come to Hamburg and check it yourself. You will see it, you will hear it, you will even smell it. And before that you might read something about Hamburg's concept of becoming an automotive city in the 1950's and 1960's and what the meant to pedestrians. NNW 16:31, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose expanding our characterization of FOP in Germany to include all buildings that are train stations. I'm coming here after a note was left on my talk page regarding a related deletion. The underlying law specifically states It is permitted to reproduce, distribute and make available to the public works located permanently on public paths, roads or open spaces. In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade.. In German (which bears the weight of official law), the bolded part comes out to Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht, with die äußere Ansicht being making it clear that the law protects only reproductions of the building from the outside. COM:PRP guides: where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted. And, there is significant doubt about taking photographs of the interiors of buildings that also happen to be train stations in light of the text of the underlying law.
  We have a duty to re-users to ensure that our photos are genuinely free to re-use. We should not be uploading photos to Commons and labeling them as free to re-use if the only basis for doing so is a sweeping and novel understanding of fair use in Germany that is dubious in German courts. For the sake of re-users, we cannot host images and endorse broad re-use in a manner that may very well violate the relevant copyrights. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 14:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The sentence Bei Bauwerken erstrecken sich diese Befugnisse nur auf die äußere Ansicht/ In the case of buildings, this authorisation only extends to the façade is misinterpreted here. It does mean, that the interior of a building is not automatically FOP, only because the exterior is. That makes sense, if the interior is not a public space, e.g. you should not take a picture through a window. However, as long as the interior is a public space then the general FOP rule applies. If anyone is aware of a final judgement in Germany which says otherwise, then please quote that here. Until then for me a clear  Support Wikipeter-HH (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose. First, I have trouble with the terminology. To me, there are different types of train stations. There are monsters such as Penn Station where I am inside a building and go through doors to get to enclosed tracks. King St. is a modest station, but it is a building with doors and an interior; I walk out some doors to the open platforms. The wooden station for my home town was torn down, and now the stop is just a parking lot, some fences and automatic gates, some fare machines, and an open-sided shelter. Building interiors are not "public paths, roads, or open spaces." Maybe open-air platforms are an "open space". Maybe a roofed-over train platform is also an "open space".
  Second, I went to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Germany. Germany apparently uses strict interpretation: something photographed from the street is OK, but something photographed from a balcony above the street is not. I need a much clearer definition of "public path" and "open space" to conclude that a train station platform or interior is legal. For now, why shouldn't the platform be treated like that balcony rather than the street? A public space may be private property, but there must be a "dedication to the public". "Dedication" is even less clear. Museum interiors are not included. What if the train station is owned by the state? That does not help me: consider a museum owned by the state.
  Third, the Commons article specifically states, "Against this backdrop, many academic and extra-judicial commentators argue that publicly accessible station halls, subway stations, and departure halls fall short of the "public" requirement because they are not in the same way dedicated to the public as streets, ways, or public open spaces." [Emphasis added.] That raises significant doubt.
  Yes, I would like to keep interior station shots, but that desire does not trump the doubt that such shots are free of copyright. Glrx (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In the US, "open space" is land that has limited development. Think parks that may have some limited development such as picnic areas and restrooms. A train platform would not be "open space". Glrx (talk) 14:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Graffiti in the United States are usually in the public domain if created before 1985, as they lack a copyright notice. Yann (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

•  Support It seems insane to me, to delete all pictures of a certain kind, as long as we haven't had one clear decision by a court. By the way, the existence of all this pictures might help arguing in court.Haemmerli (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Not our job to change the law, doesn’t matter what we think of it. I personally hate German FOP for making it seem like you have unlimited freedom then making you follow these inane technicalities, but I’m still opposing this below. Dronebogus (talk) 23:05, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose we, as a hard rule, should follow countries’ moronically byzantine copyright laws to the letter, and in ambiguous cases default to either reliable sources or assuming something is copyrighted by default. Otherwise what happens is Wikimedians decide they get to interpret the law as they see fit, which is what happened with the ongoing Eiffel Tower lighting massacree and what is going to happen here. Dronebogus (talk) 23:00, 23 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose per comment from user:Gestumblindi.--Wdwd (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose per Gestumblindi: A blanket permission like the proposed one does not make sense here given the circumstances. That does not mean that we have to delete everything that shows a German train station from the inside. Threshold of originality, de minimis, and copyright expirations still exist. It'll just have to be decided case-by-case. --El Grafo (talk) 07:54, 26 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

There is broad majority to not accept photos of tunnels and train stations in Germany if they are not public domain or dedicated as public streets. We should write this to COM:FOP Germany. I would suggest the following wording:

"Because of the unclear legal status of photos taken at public areas they are not public streets of paths in terms of the state street law(Landesstraßengesetz) or similar laws are not accepted on Commons. If freedom of panorama is not needed because they are eligible for copyright or the copyright expired they are accepted."--GPSLeo (talk) 14:08, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think your proposed wording is a bit hard to understand. Here's an alternative proposal: "As the applicability of freedom of panorama inside of train stations and metro tunnels is disputed, per COM:PCP Commons accepts such images only if they either show nothing copyrighted (expired term of protection or below threshold of originality), or if they depict an officially designated public street or path as per state street law (Landesstraßengesetz)."

The latter is probably a rare case, but I have kept the files in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:U-Bahnhof Steinstraße (Hamburg) because of this argument. I don't think the conclusion of this discussion is that we exclude officially designated public paths from the applicability of FoP in German. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is a good suggestion, I edited it a bit "The applicability of freedom of panorama inside of train stations and metro tunnels or similar places is disputed. Per COM:PCP Commons accepts such images only if they either show nothing copyrighted (expired term of protection or below threshold of originality), or if they are taken from an officially designated public street or path as per state street law (Landesstraßengesetz) or similar." Maybe we could also add: "Deletion requests with deletions based on this should be categorized in Category:German FOP cases/deleted - tunnels and train stations, that they could become undeleted if there are new decisions or laws." GPSLeo (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a small legal review on that problem ordered by Wikimedia Germany File:2023-07-28 Vermerk Panoramafreit in U-Bahnhöfen.pdf. The text supports the conclusion that photos of train stations do not fall under the FOP. Based on this I would suggest to change the text from above to: "The freedom of panorama in unlikely to apply to the inside of train stations and metro tunnels or similar places. Therefore Commons accepts such images only if they either show nothing copyrighted (expired term of protection or below threshold of originality), or if they are taken from an officially designated public street or path as per state street law (Landesstraßengesetz) or similar." --GPSLeo (talk) 15:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the Landesstraßengesetz, so please in laypeople's terms: Where is the boundary between a train station (no FOP) and the street (FOP)? Essen-Kupferdreh is a typical case of an S-Bahn station, where graffiti artwork is displayed (see the cat). None of my photos were taken on the platform, but a few are from the staircase directly connected to the streets, as well as from under the viaduct, which means under the "roof" of the station but just a step away from the sidewalk where I have to assume FOP must apply. The category also contains a few images that show the whole ensemble. Other train stations are entirely open without buildings, but have designated pathways leading from/to the station, so once I enter the pathway from the street, I am technically inside a train station. Shouldn't we specify "inside of train station buildings"? --Enyavar (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That is an additional problem. You would have to look if there is a public dedication (Widmung) or if there is a usage right (Wegerecht) in the land register(Grundbuch). This problem was not the goal in this short review. If we request this WMDE might also take a look on this problem. GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So the proposed policy is "we may assume that the public space outside of train station buildings enjoys FOP unless proven wrong with cadastral evidence"? --Enyavar (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that is as we handle all other FOP cases. GPSLeo (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

• This is very much a good idea, I've always wondered why such a system was never implemented here, especially since there are more DR's here than at Wikipedia. Sometimes people add DR's to categories, but this is always done manually and often done after it's already closed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:50, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I would also really like if would have this. But I think it is not possible to implement with current MediaWiki features. We would need a total new extension or an external software like phabricator. GPSLeo (talk) 15:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  @GPSLeo Why do you think it needs changes to the software? English Wikipedia is doing it and it has been working fine (maybe we need to do some tweaking to make it work but honestly nothing too complicated). Amir (talk) 16:25, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  We have much more deletion request traffic and therefore need interfaces for mass or at least fast processing. GPSLeo (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the easiest way to do this would be to use the existing category structure Category:Sorted deletion requests more systematically. There is, for example, Category:Iranian law deletion requests, and if every new DR related to Iranian law would be sorted into the existing category Category:Iranian law deletion requests/pending, it would be easy for you, Amir, to find them. To this end, my suggestion would be to add a field "categories" to the "nominate for deletion" gadget, which is used for most DRs, and either make adding at least one category mandatory, or strongly suggested. No fancy new features needed that way, just use what we have. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:04, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addition: As, for example, Category:Scope-related deletion requests/pending, currently has only 37 entries but there are, of course, many more pending scope-related deletion requests (Category:Scope-related deletion requests/deleted has also only 351 entries), I think it's clear that using these categories hasn't been established as standard practice yet, but maybe it should be done. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Only adding a interface for these categories would be no problem. But then we only have them on a category page and not with a view like on the current daily pages. Maybe this is possible with a Lua module. GPSLeo (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can write a bot to do it, that way it wouldn't put too much pressure on the server. Amir (talk) 16:30, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The bot would need to run every minute to get a smooth feeling in the process. And we should not once again have a important software maintained by volunteers only. We know the upload tool drama I do not want a deletion tool drama. GPSLeo (talk) 16:35, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to make sure that doesn't happen. Another way is to have a toolforge tool that shows all open cases e.g. https://sorted-drs.toolforge.org/copyright-germany would show all open ones. Amir (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Then we have the external tool I wrote we would need. I think to keep the data on Wiki and only have the interface as an external software would be the best solution anyway. GPSLeo (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If so, I still don't understand the problem of using a bot that add or remove it from a page even if it's running every minute (it can also simply listen to the event streams to make it basically instant). I consider myself a pretty technical person and know the limitations of the software and infrastructure very well. This can be done by a bot without putting much pressure (if done correctly). Amir (talk) 17:31, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gestumblindi I think one reason they haven't been adapted widely yet is that they aren't used to actually help users. So far it's only bookkeeping which is not a great incentive to make this sorted. Also I can write a bot to guess categories and add them based on tags on the picture so it would remove a bit of burden.

Beside that, we definitely need a page to for example keep transclusions of Category:Scope-related deletion requests/pending in one place so people can easily see all open DRs Amir (talk) 16:27, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is already done by some users, and as an admin who processes one or another DR, it already annoys me because it floods my watchlist. If there is no good reason, please don't do it. If one want's to contribute in DRs, there already are lot's of possibilities; if in doubt, start from the beginning forwards or from the end backwards, or anywhere in the middle. Krd 17:02, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I hope doing it via a bot could in theory at least reduce the annoyance given that it'll be hidden from watchlists. Amir (talk) 17:33, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't, because admins who work on bot created maintenance list a lot, often cannot exclude bot edits from their watchlist. Krd 17:38, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and adding support to the "nominate for deletion" gadget would help it be there at the same time, so no messing up of Watchlists. Amir (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problems with the DR backlog is the amount of work required. Work needs to be done. I doubt that more organisation of which part of the work to prefer and which part of the work to delay has any positive outcome. Krd 17:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, it might help, it might not. But we don't know for sure which or how much. I think we should at least give it a try for a while. Let's say for six months, if it improves the situation for users, we continue. If not, we stop. Specially given that this has been used in English Wikipedia. Amir (talk) 10:37, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As you already see in this discussion here, there will be more new open questions than answers found. I'm quite sure that after 6 months we will have people specialised in nothing else than categorisation of DRs, perhaps conflicts about DR categories. These resources would be better invested directly into DR work. Krd 18:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What I think is being missed here is the opportunity cost of not categorising DR's, let's say someone is quite familiar with Russian or American copyright laws but not with any other, having unorganised DR's will simply discourage a lot of people from participating at all, if someone only edits topics related to trains and they're very familiar with which trains are and aren't copyrighted they would probably be very helpful in this specific area, but would ignore the rest out of disinterest. If it's difficult to find something less people will search for it. Having categorised DR's allows people to specialise.

Categories will also make it easier to find precedent, unless you're familiar with every DR you may or may not know what has and hasn't been deleted in a specific field and the discussions relating to it. The current model is very user-unfriendly and only serves a handful of PowerUsers who are familiar enough with the system to be able to use it. We have handy pages for copyright per country, we have handy pages for various types of copyrights and restrictions, yet we don't have deletion requests organised in ways that those familiar it can apply them. I think that categorisation in the long run will reduce backlog as we'll see more eyes on DR's, namely specialists who are more familiar with the topics they deal in. More active participants will also mean more future admin candidates and likely less backlog.

Difficult cases commonly aren't commented on because the people with the right expertise don't know how to find them. DR's without categories are like files without categories, they're impossible to find unless you're already familiar with them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support I've done some work on categories for deletion requests and at IMO it's not the most intuitive way to do things. People need a certain amount of proficiency in working with categories to begin with and structure is kind of obtuse. Tags and topics would be a lot more easy to use and understand for most normal users. Plus they would allow for things that can't currently be done with categories, at least not in a way that's sensible. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Scope-related deletion requests, I'd say, as these are usually deleted as out of scope ("OOS") advertising. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:34, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It seems there is a somewhat of an agreement that this can be useful. I'll try to see what I do about it when I find a bit of free time. Amir (talk) 08:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Featuring 3D renderings of notable objects and places offers great opportunities for improving Wikipedia articles by making them both more engaging for readers whilst also helping them better comprehend the subject.

Support for featuring 3D renderings of objects has become increasingly common and better supported on the internet generally; however this support is not currently matched on Wikimedia Commons thereby limiting Wikipedia's ability to feature 3D objects.

As stated in a blog post on the publication of the original basic 3D support in Commons (source below):

In the future, after feedback from our community of volunteer editors, we’ll consider adding support for even more complex file types that support features like textures.

The time to add support for these features is now. Most modern smartphones are able to create 3D-Scans of smaller objects or even complete buildings rights now, and there is no way to upload and display them in Wikimedia projects!

Possible use cases of colorful, interactive and complex 3d models in Wikipedia articles:

• models of extinct species like dinosaur reconstructions
• the inside of historical rooms (example)
• all kinds of smaller interesting objects

Resources:

• Upcoming presentation at Wikimania about this topic
• Commons page describing the support at the moment
• Old Discussion: Hosting files for 3D models and a user page proposal
• Wishlist Survey 2016, where support for STL was added and related blog post
• Task to track the new implementation
• Poster for Wikimania by Discott

Kristbaum (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone, for those of us attending Wikimania 2023 in person I will be hosting a meetup to discuss this issue with the objective to increase awareness of this amoungst Wikimedia Foundation management. This will be done in front of the poster we are displaying during the poster session on Thursday 17 August at 17:00 to 19:00 Singapore time (9:00 UTC to 11:00 UTC). Let me know here if anyone wants to join digitally and I will try to setup a Jitsi hangout so people not physically there can also join in (depending on practicability). We will also be talking about other aspects of 3D support on Wikipedia as well, such as technical considerations. We can talk about this issue more later on at the conference, both in person and online, at the Hackerthon space. --Discott (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This would be an valuable addition to Wikimedia Commons, as there is not yet a non-commercial platform for 3D renderings and models Ionenlaser (talk) 08:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support чтобы обойти загрузку текстуры в 3д модель можно применить облачный формат E75 там нет текстур а только миллионы точек с информации о координатах и цвете точки в итоге визуально мы видим 3д модель но по факту это массив точек это очень удобный формат и он создается только 3д сканером в момент сканирования--Masterhappiness2022 (talk) 12:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Всем привет! у меня есть цель и я прошу помощи в ее реализации. Я Занимаюсь 3д сканирование и хочу оснастить каждую статью википедии 3д моделями земных достопримечательностей. Википедия очень правильное место и лучше не придумаешь! Я могу загружать и в STL но нужно чтоб ваши специалисты добавили возможность смотреть эти 3д модели с текстурой(в цвете). Да я понимаю Что для википедии это дополнительная работа. но в этом направлении нужно точно развиваться ведь не за горами мета вселенная. Вот представьте человек открывает статью в википедии скажем про пещеру или пирамиду или архитектурное сооружение и прочитав и посмотрев фото этого объекта он получает возможность посмотреть виртуально 3д модель этого объекта! Я обладаю всем нужным оборудование для реализации этого проекта в википедии и оно очень дорого мне обошлось, я хочу чтоб в википедии была такая возможность совершить путешествие к тому месту куда не могут приехать например люди с ограниченными возможностями или школьники и студенты которые не имеют финансовой возможности но Википедия предоставляет им эту возможность совершить бесплатно ,виртуально. Я вас очень прошу поднять этот вопрос на совещании Руководства Википедии т.к. эта возможность также повысит популярность википедии и обретет новый современный подход к статьям и это уже будет не просто текстовые статьи а полное погружение во все нюансы которые не описать текстом. --Masterhappiness2022 (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You voted twice? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support We should have (almost?) all free file formats. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Almost every file format has unique functions, that can be useful, depending on the purpse --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:33, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support Just a few weeks ago I was having a discussion about the lack of support for the formats that many GLAM entities use for their collections of 3D models. This would definitely facilitate mass importing of such collections. --Waldyrious (talk) 00:49, 27 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support This seems like a no brainer and having textured 3D models of things like extinct species would be really cool. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:36, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I am, as I write this message of support, preparing a poster for Wikimania 2023 advocating for support to be given to developers to make this a reality (along with support for other aspects of hosting 3D objects on Commons). This area of 3D browser interactivity has come a long way over the past couple of years. There is also a great deal of 3D content out there that is copyright compatible for uploading to commons, it seems such a shame to be preventing people (due to a lack of technical support) from using that content here and on Wikipedia. Its the sort of modernization that I feel is needed. --Discott (talk) 16:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I love 3D renderings of objects. 20 upper 06:43, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This has been dicussed before; see Phabriactor ticket T246901. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the template! It has of course been discussed before and on different forums, but it probably is good to put this issue in front of people on Commons to gather support and future use cases, so WMF has an easier time to allocate resources to this :) Kristbaum (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Support, there are so many projects in the digital humanities, that might supply data to make their results visible. --h-stt !? 20:22, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support Юрий Д.К 13:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support, this would finally grant Commons a useful (for an average person) feature which would make it better than a generic file bank service. I would be glad to upload some 3D scans of my collection if it were technically possible. Drogosław (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, obviously. I still find it odd that the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) acts as if it needs to get community consensus for every small technical improvement, especially since it just assumes that "everything is disallowed unless explicitly allowed" which kind of goes against the spirit of open-wiki's where improvements should always be welcomed unless we can think of a reason to exclude them. 3D scanning public domain objects doesn't create new copyrights and a lot of museums around the world are now scanning old cultural heritage. The reason why nobody outside of Wikimedia websites takes the Wikimedia Commons seriously is because we are too slow to adopt new technologies and utilise existing technologies, 3D objects are the latest in a long list of technologies that will be useful in other technologies. 3D objects are also useful for Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), now imagine if we'd have interactive scans of places like the Great Pyramid of Giza freely available at the Wikimedia Commons that both educators and video game developers could download knowing that it's from a free source. This technology has so much potential and we'd be shooting ourselves in the foot by not allowing it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, per koavf, with thanks. --SJ+ 23:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong support As a creator of 3D models, I am in favor with this idea. I also support adding new 3D model file types that support texturing. But there are some other reasons for more file formats: You need to do less converting from other repositories. But other formats also allow to create rigged models, which means, you can rotate an arm of a 3D model for example. This is not supported by STL, which is currently the only allowed filetype on Commons. STL is good for 3D printing, but only covers the mesh itself. It covers no surface properties, no textures, no transparency, no rigs, no animation and more. Some models make even no sense at all, whenn textures or properties are missing. Models of windows without transparency are useless, and so are signs without textures. There are some Creative Commons (including CC0) repositories of texture mapped models (for example by NASA, that show probes and satellites with textures). Having these models without texture reduces their educational value severely. I also remember converting COLLADA (DAE) files from 0 A.D., a free strategy game, to STL. This took much time. So in short: I really hope that this idea will be reality soon, in combination with more free mesh or model filetypes, so we get a broader bandwith of 3D models with much more features than only the mesh itself. AFAIK DAE (COLLADA), OBJ and STL are open filetypes. PLY (free???) allows the storage of textures with the meshes. The Blender filetype also offers a huge range of additional features (as it is a scene filetype), but it has possible backdoors. I hope, that those filetypes could be considered to be added. Also interesting might be the implementation of file types that are made for point clouds. This is in important topic in scanning of 3D objects via laser scanning. One filetype is *.laz --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:19, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong support There are literally hundreds of 3D file formats (open, proprietary, commercial) and are widely used in academia, research, 3D games, AR/VR, design, industry, etc. Hence, some open 3D file formats to be considered to start with: - PLY (Stanford polygon file format): suitable for preservation (ASCII version), allows colour, transparency, surface normals, texture coordinates, and data confidence values. - OBJ (includes optional .mtl and .jpg image files): suitable for preservation (ASCII format is preferred) of wire frame or textured models. - X3D (ISO standard XML-based format developed by the Web3D consortium): suitable for preservation and recommended for complex 3D content. - STL (Stereolithography or Standard Tessellation Language): suitable for preservation for very basic datasets (ASCII format only stores 3D geometry, i.e. no textures, whereas the binary version with the help of an extension also saves colour information and requires less storage space). - Pointclouds: exchange and archive (e.g., ASCII TXT, ASTM E57 format) or visualisation (not sure if it makes sense to create, for example, a derived PLY?). As for the visualisation of 3D models, perhaps 3DHOP (developed by Visual Computing Lab, ISTI-CNR) might be somewhat helpful. It's «an open-source framework for the creation of interactive web presentations of high-resolution 3D models, oriented to the Cultural Heritage field. 3DHOP allows the creation of interactive visualization of 3D models directly inside a standard web page, just by adding some HTML and JavaScript components in the web page source code. The 3D scene and the user interaction can be easily configured using a simple 'declarative programming' approach. By using a multi-resolution 3D model management 3DHOP is able to work with high-resolution 3D models with ease, also on low-bandwidth. 3DHOP does not need a specialized server, nor server-side computation, and does work directly inside modern web browsers, no plug-ins or additional components are necessary.» https://vcg.isti.cnr.it/3dhop/

Veryfiner (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. Commons is a free media repository; I believe that having educational and freely licensed 3D renderings and models would align well with the project scope. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:04, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong support I have a number of photogrametric 3D models on Commons, all of which would benefit from texturing: even in simple cases, texturing gives indications of materials (is a statue made of bronze, marble, clay...?), and conveys verisimilitude through little details such as weathering or ambient occlusion.

More importantly, some models suffer greatly from being only clay models: for instance polychrome archæological artefacts are improperly represented by clay models.

Finally, on the technical side, not having textures forces us to upload high polygon models. The possibility to embed bump maps and displacement maps would allow conveying the same amount of detail with much smaller models (one order of magnitude fewer polygons at least). I very much hope this proposal comes to fruition. Rama (talk) 05:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The tools rollback and patrol are tools for counter vandalism work and cleanup. And for both tool the level of trust in the user is basically the same. So merging these tools would simplify the amount of different roles. License reviewers would also get the rollback right. I could also imagine to include file move rights in this new role. Then we would only have four different non admin user rights groups. The specialized groups like upload campaign editors would stay separate.

• Autopatrol
• Patrol, rollback and file move
• License reviewer (including patrol, rollback and file move)
• Template editor (including patrol, rollback and file move)

GPSLeo (talk) 17:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think rollback and patrol could reasonably be merged (as it is on Meta), although I don't really see a need, but I would definitely keep template editing separate (as a technical role), and probably keep file moving separate (some people have it to mostly move their own uploads, but I'm not confident enough to have them patrol other's edits). —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some pictures that may have pornographic issues are reserved to a limited extent and are controlled accordingly on this site under the premise of taking into account the educational significance. But the controversy over pornography has mainly the following aspects:

1. In the legal sense. In the U.S. state of California, where the Wikimedia Foundation is based, pornography is partially legal (with strict restrictions). In the People's Republic of China (Mainland China/Hong Kong), pornography is illegal and the government is actively cracking down on pornography.

2. Regarding the significance of sex education, part of it may involve that pornography can be used for sex education to a limited extent, but it is very easy to be abused.

3. Pornographic products will produce symptoms of physical or psychological discomfort to most people.

For the reasons above, I think it is necessary to have a template for legal exemptions for pornography similar to those for Nazis.

Also see links to previous discussions of suspected pornography on the right. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 00:15, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remove the hint This category is only for images where a portion of … is visible. from all categories like "View from …". Examples of this hin can be found at Category:Views from automobiles, Category:Views from watercraft or Category:Views from trains. --XRay 💬 10:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reasoning: It is not necessary to have hint or hidden rule. At all other categories like Category:Views from bridges or Category:Views from hills there is no need to see part of a bridge or a hill. It makes no difference whether the object is moving or not. Quite the opposite. Especially when you don't see any part of the vehicle, the information is interesting through the category. An example are signs on a highway, which can be taken from a car - without seeing parts of the car. The same for reflections from glass only or motion blur of objects beside a vehicle. In both samples a visible part of a vehicle is not necessary.

FYI: There has been a short question before setting the hint. (See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles.) However, this was not a vote. And I made a search with Category: intitle:/Views from/ insource:/only for images where a portion/, 90 categories are affected.

Perhaps it is helpful to have a look at all the CfD pages which led to the insertion of this hint: Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from automobiles and Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles. These discussions were all opened and closed by P199. Both discussions were open for more than a month from 14 May to 25 June 2018. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the discussions takes a month. --XRay 💬 19:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• First, VP is for "proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons". This is not a hidden rule, but a criteria for the categories in question. So this shouldn't be discussed here, but at COM:CfD. As is seen from the "Reasoning" above, the discussion is entirely about the category, not a Commons policy. BTW, this criteria only applies to "Category:Views from vehicles", not to all "Category:Views from ..."

Second, discussions at CfD are not based on simple votes but are closed on consensus. So that consensus should not be overturned with a quick vote here, especially by voters that don't give any reasoning and likely didn't read Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles.

The reasoning above is flawed by comparing vehicles to bridges and hills. An image taken from a moving vehicle is not is a defining characteristic of the image, unlike static objects like bridges and hills. Images should be categorized by what is visible in them, not by what is implied - how would you even know what vehicle it was taken from or that it was taken from any vehicle at all. For more detailed discussion, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles.

Let's not forget the main purpose of categories: "to group related pages and media" per COM:CAT. If the category gets populated with images that don't show any part of the vehicle, images will have nothing visible in common and the category doesn't serve its purpose anymore; it will just be category clutter. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to give several answers.

1. COM:VPP is in my opinion the right place: This page is used for proposals relating to … policies.
2. Categories should explain their content sufficiently by their name.
3. Special rules somewhere in the category tree are not practicable. This is especially true when working with HotCat, Cat-a-lot or other tools.
4. COM:CFD is according to the description for naming conventions: This page provides a centralized place to discuss the naming convention.
5. Rules should be available in multiple languages, so work with language templates and/or use the translate option.
6. Hidden are the rules, because they can be read somewhere in the category tree.
7. Special rule does not take into account that there can be other reasons for using the category than a visible vehicle part (like motion blur or location on a highway).
8. Compliance with special category rules is not practicable. Such rules are often followed only by individuals.
9. The set of rules is applied inconsistently. See, among others, Category:Photographs taken from moving vehicles, Category:Views from horse-drawn vehicles, Category:Views from funiculars or Category:Views from aircraft.
10. All media in the category are united by the view from (or of) a vehicle.

--XRay 💬 04:53, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal:

1. Policy would be if you were to propose a general rule that no category can or should have any inclusion criteria, but instead, this discussion is specific about these categories, hence it should be covered at CFD.
2. That would be nice, but not the case for many category names. Many are not sufficiently clear, in particular broad-named terms. Moreover, it is not practical to have an entire explanation in the category name (we need to balance preciseness with succinctness). That said, category renaming might be an option if really needed.
3. Sure, not ideal but that just requires category maintenance, just like most categories.
4. Take a look at the discussions at CFD - many are deletion and content discussions. So despite the first line at CFD, that forum is for all category discussions.
5. Then feel free to translate, or request translation.
6. That is not a reason to remove the criteria. Just like hat notes which can only be read on the category page itself.
7. Doesn't make sense; there are already other specialized categories for that, i.e. Category:Motion blur, or make a new more-logical category (i.e. Highway ## in ...). It doesn't make sense to add "category:Views from vehicles" to images that have other clear visible elements for which we have categories (or for which we can make categories).
8. No different than any other category. This just requires category maintenance and education (like adding translations). In fact, having an explanatory note is likely to be more helpful for editors that want to help.
9. Instead of scrapping the criteria, be bold and make it consistent!
10. As mentioned before, there is no commonality between images that don't have any part of the vehicle visible. Moreover, how would you even know that? Obviously it is not the defining characteristic of an image.

Without this criteria, these categories will become a dumping ground for potentially hundreds of thousands of images (users will start adding for example "Views from automobiles" to any road image, as has already happened in the past); this will be far more disruptive and requires far more maintenance than having a rule or criteria. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 14:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The assumption that categories “explain their content sufficiently by their name” is wrong. Many categories have explanatory notes. Take for example Category:Cloisters which was originally filled with arbitrary pictures of monasteries that did not depict a cloister because many non-native speakers mixed up the definition of cloister. Likewise have a look at Category:Piers (architecture) that explains the differences between columns, pillars, piers, and piles. Or have a look about what Category:Space could actually stand for: Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Space. We regularly use category policing templates like {{Categorize}} or {{Autocat}} that restrict their usage. There are so many more templates of this kind, just look at Category:Category maintenance templates. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not very well versed in the English language, but I already believe that quotations should be complete. In the above quote, the "should" is missing. As far as I know, exceptions are possible with this choice of words and single examples or counter-examples are not necessarily sufficient to decide whether the statement is true or false. ;-) --XRay 💬 18:27, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for missing “should” by accident. These are not just some exceptional examples. Please note the category of related templates. Policing a category through templates is done frequently in Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think many categories need explanatory notes, and cloister above is s good example. In this case, though, the rule is a bad one. If, for example, I'm a passenger in a car and I shoot a picture of a political demonstration without getting out of the car, that is just as much a view from an automobile whether part of the automobile is visible or not. Can anyone seriously say that when I cropped the image it ceased to be from an automobile? - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, but you miss the point that if you don't see any part of the car anymore, it becomes completely irrelevant that it was taken from a car. Whether you are in the car or stand next to it, the view is the same, hence it is not a defining element of the image, except if you see a part of the vehicle. Therefore the explanatory note is needed. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 19:13, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@P199: do I understand that you are saying that when I photographed a protest against social distancing and masking rules by photographing from a passing car (rather than walking into the midst of a likely super-spreader event), that ceases to be relevant if I crop the image so that you cannot see any portion of the car? And that we can have two crops of the same photo, and one should be categorized as taken from a car, while the other should not? - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course. Cropping images certainly affects which categories can be added. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 23:40, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But not normally ones about where the photo was taken from! - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does! Simple example: compare the categories of this one with the cropped version. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:22, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of those has any category about the place where it was taken. (Quite arguably, both should.) - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, misread it. You are correct that the location remains the same, but not necessarily the view. So, in your example above, both the original image and crop stay in the Seattle categories (as location), but the car was cropped, hence the view changed. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 12:45, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between an 'explanatory note' and what the original poster calls 'hidden rules'. Explanatory notes seek to define what is meant by the category name, A hidden rule adds rules that you would not assume exist by reading the category name. The latter is often used because the category was poorly named in the first place. Oxyman (talk) 18:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you, do you see any advantage of putting File:AZ 264 Keams Canyon 2006 09 08.jpg into Category:Views from automobiles? If yes, please explain it to me. Next point: Do you accept the point of Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from automobiles that there is a valid argument that it can be useful to have a category with views from automobiles where the automobile is to be seen? How would you name these categories if you want to split this category? And final question: Why do we discuss this at this board and not at COM:CFD where such discussions belong? --AFBorchert (talk) 18:51, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Since I created the discussion here, allow me to reply. I have created the discussion here, because for me the listed set of rules, a kind of policy, was in the foreground. There may also be reasons for CfD, but from my point of view this is less relevant. --XRay 💬 19:19, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What does "hint or hidden rule" even mean? When checking the categories in question, all I can see is a category definition: a reasonable, clear-cut clarification what a category is about. I see no {{Hidden rule nefariously obscured from view}} or something like that. Thus, I see this proposal as an argument for abolishing category definitions in general - something that we have around in many categories, and need to keep for obvious reasons. --Enyavar (talk) 06:53, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So you think it's practical to check each category you want to set beforehand, as well as all parent categories? That would be the end of categories. But we can also create a category Category:Views from vehicles without visible vehicle parts or Category:Views from vehicles with visible vehicle parts. --XRay 💬 08:17, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, people set the wrong categories all the time, myself included. A declaration what a category is about, just helps other editors to remove wrongly attributed categories and set the right categories later. For example, newbie italian editors will place maps into Category:Mappa - despite mappa clearly not meaning maps. You probably only learn the correct meaning by checking the category, how else? Commons' editors have, a long time ago, defined "Old Maps" as maps that are older than 70 years, i.e. older than 1953 currently. Yet in colloquial use, maps from 1987 are pretty old already, especially road maps. Newer generations already call anything printed on paper "old". Miscategorizations happen all the time, but a patroller who knows their categories can quickly fix that... As long as there are proper definitions, that is.

Let's say, you have a book and want to categorize the author, like Category:William Johnson or Category:John Smith: Only by checking the category page, can you be sure that you categorized the right guy. People checking to find the correct categories is certainly not "the end of the category system", it's the begin of it having some meaning.

The circumstances of the picture are in most cases just not of any interest. Most pictures taken in Venice have been taken during vacations of the uploaders - but we don't need a "Category:Pictures taken during vacation", do we, even if the uploaders swear it's true. Also, in most cases of pictures of politicians, the category "Elections" is completely superfluous and may simply be removed. And if a picture taken from inside a car can't be distinguished from a picture taken outside one, it is just a regular photograph like any other. Yes it may be blurred, but that just means it fits into Category:Blurred pictures. If all you can see of the vehicle is the clear glass window, the correct category is Category:Views through glass. Compare this window photo and this one: Both were made through the window of a house; but in case of the latter, we cannot verify that without travelling to the place ourselves. It could also be a view from the rooftop" from a particularly small building, or from the top of a wall: In my opinion, the Gloucester picture should not be in that particular category. The same goes with the sparsely foliated Category:Views through trees, by the way: If you take photos of a wheatfield from the side of a tree alley, with the trees never in the picture - it doesn't qualify as a "view through trees".

Clear and unambigous category names definitely help everyone; I'm not suggesting to create misnamed categories. But in this case, the subject matter makes it pretty obvious that the category requires a somewhat tighter rule than can be inferred just from the name (i.e. parts of the interior of the viewpoint should be recognisable). Images that don't fulfill that criterion, just doesn't need to be in the category. The names that you suggested, are in my opinion atrocities against memorable category names, like "Category:Photographs of politicians smiling in non-election years" vs. "Category:Photographs of politicians smiling in election years". Unambiguous yet unhelpful. --Enyavar (talk) 17:15, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting arguments. From my own experience, you need some experience for categorization. Most of the categories are self-explanatory in my opinion. With some doubts arise, then you have to explore their meaning. With regard to Category:Views from automobiles, this is a special case. If I compare it with Category:Views from windows, Category:Views into windows and Category:Views through windows, I expect visible parts of the window in the second and third case, but not in the first. --XRay 💬 18:36, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I propose to close this discussion in about 2 weeks, at August 18, 2023. Hopefully that's is time enough.

---

•  Support --XRay 💬 10:03, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Superfluous regulation that makes no factual sense. --Smial (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --A.Savin 12:53, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support As subcategories like "Views from with parts of the viewpoint visible" are always possible. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose and procedural close: see my comment above. BTW, the "support" votes above don't address any of the reasons why this criteria should be removed. I highly doubt if they even read Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/05/Category:Views from vehicles... --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:08, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A discussion that had exactly four participants, one of them you (User:P199), where opinion seems to have been evenly divided, where as far as I can see no issues were raised that aren't raised again here, and where you closed the discussion deciding it in favor of your own opinion. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I concur with P199 to keep discussions at COM:CFD that concern the scope of particular categories. --AFBorchert (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support In general I think we should use KISS principle meaning that the category name should describe as far as is possible what is to be located in the category. I know there will be complexities and exceptions to this, but I don't see the need for additional complications in this case. Oxyman (talk) 03:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose nothing is "hidden", this is a regular category definition making lots of sense, as per a previous CfD. --Enyavar (talk) 07:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

6  Support, 3  Oppose: Proposal accepted. I'll remove the obligatory note in the corresponding categories in the next weeks. However, as a courtesy, I will replace it with a recommendation. --XRay 💬 08:50, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 On hold – It was suggested that closing the discussion be left to an uninvolved person. I can go along with that just fine. The voting phase is over, the distribution of votes is as indicated. (It was scheduled until August 18.) If this should be sufficient, I ask to add the result and the closing of the discussion. The announced implementation is suspended until the close of voting. --XRay 💬 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

---

A request to bystanders: please close the voting if you think the discussion is over. The deadline for voting was August 18. If there are no more contributions by September 10, I will assume that the discussion is over and close the voting. --XRay 💬 07:12, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1 . it is not that hard to create an account. IPs are so hard to follow, which IP created good or bad DR?? how can we prevent this? even, they are unable to upload files but can request for deleting?

2. loooooook at that DR, bro thought we will delete a file because it is "nonsense" 💀💀💀. these users are just slowing our work. so please, stop IPs for creating DRs!!!! ----modern_primat ඞඞඞ ^TALK 21:35, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks to me like that is probably a deletion request for an out-of-scope personal photo. Badly formed DR, but we get those from logged-in users, too. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the user's files as F10/G10. They're already blocked on enwiki as NOTHERE (and possibly socking there as en:User:Jio Giga Fiber). As for the IP, it's not exactly the most useful DR. but better to draw attention to out-of-scope/spam files that way than not at all. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:26, 1 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear: User:Pi.1415926535, you are saying that the uploader is blocked, not the IP who User:Modern primat is complaining about, correct? - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Correct - en:Bong Girl Creation is blocked on enwiki (not on Commons). IP 181.43.1.29 is not blocked on Commons and has not been active on other wikis. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal appears to be to prevent DR's from IP users, in general.  Oppose "these users" may still form valid DR's, just like named users may create unreasonable DR's. --Enyavar (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose per Enyavar. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 07:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose I recommend Wikipedia:IP editors are human too and a study of polls like meta:Anonymous users should not be allowed to edit articles. Openness to IPs is a big advantage as this easies participation for beginners. My first steps begun also as IP. In regard to deletion requests I suggest to have a look at actual cases. Have a look at the most recent DR nominations by IPs. You can see from there than we have about a dozen such requests per day. There are some nonsense requests among them but also useful nominations. --AFBorchert (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: Maybe the English Wikipedia essay “Wikipedia:IP editors are human too” (which, by the way, is an English Wikipedia essay, not a Commons policy nor a Commons guideline) should be updated in the light of so-called A.I. having become cheaply available. And when I say updated, I mean completely upended. Frankly, I have been on the recieving end of much fingerwaving about how I (as a internet fossil who started using networked computers in 1984) should update my views on how to do stuff online, it’s sadly now my turn to warn (as apparently few seem to have comprehended this notion) that many “people” we intertact with online are nor really individual humans thinking and acting real time on their own, and one way to be fairly sure about those who are is to trust continued, consistent pseudonyms. I.P. addresses are inherently volatile and one cannot seriously engage in good faith discussions with the people (or merely people-initiated processes?) behind them. I.P.s should be allowed to contribute, sure (who run away with Modern primat’s goalposts?!), but should not take part on discussions — for the same reason they are not allowed to vote. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Vandalism deletion requests are a very minor problem compared to the problems caused by other types of vandalism. I would support a general ban for IP edits but just do not let them create deletion requests does not solve any problem. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:39, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support wholeheartedly! (And thanks to Modern primat for creating this.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:33, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose In my experience, I have not noticed a particular problem with deletion requests filed by IP users in comparison to requests filed by logged-in users. We should stay as open as possible unless there is a pressing need, and I don't see that pressing need in this case. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose totally agree with Gestumblindi. IP requests are not necessarily worse than DR by logged-in users. This solves nothing. Moreover, I feel anyone should be able to request deletions, including incidental users (i.e. IP users). This should not be complicated with requiring log in. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 20:11, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support This would save a lot of admin time needed to deal with invalid and malformed requests. Yann (talk) 20:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  The admin time saved by banning IPs from creating deletion request in marginal compared to the admin time needed for all other things IPs do including removal of licenses resulting in accidental deletions. GPSLeo (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  There's an exact dozen of DRs I just had to tag with {{Speedy keep}} because they incurred against COM:INUSE, all filed by a single ip within 24h. I think there’s two for each of the admins who said in this discussion they don’t mind closing DRs. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I do not said that there is no problem. But if there are 20 nonsense deletion requests every day this would be very minor compared to the some hundred cases every day where they add nonsense text, change the author or remove the license. GPSLeo (talk) 04:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  And you point is…? I cannot even parse the argument that since IPs poop all over the chessboard, there’s no reason to support this proposal. What, then? Is there a standing proposal to block all IP editing? Where it is?, I wanna support it (maybe I don’t, but anyway). There’s none currently? Okay, so why not some incrementalism and support this one small step now and deal with the rest later? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose banning IP users who are able to edit from creating deletion requests. I'm actually, like GPSLeo, fairly open to banning all unregistered editing (although I could probably be convinced otherwise, and the sysadmins aren't open to it so it doesn't really matter), but I don't see anything special about deletion requests that necessitates this. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Concur with Mdaniels5757 and GPSLeo, and I actually think it would make more sense to ban IPs from nominating files for speedy deletion and 7-day deletion since there's less scrutiny there; if IPs are to continue to be allowed to nominate files for deletion at all, DR is actually the preferred way for them to do it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:15, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Wait, what?! I.p. can nominate speedy deletions, too, not only simple DRs? (Swoons!) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:34, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Well, an admin still has to check whether the (speedy) deletion request has any merit. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose I'd probably support a general ban on IP Editors since there's plenty of places outside of DRs where they are a nuance, but singling out DRs just seems like the wrong way to go about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, let’s not enact a rule against the smothering of kittens because there’s mean people around who also drown them: Unless we can have a rule against both smothering and drowning, no kitten should be saved! (This is inspired in the wikilove template about «A kitten for you!»; it just means I cannot understand that reasoning behind that argument.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:33, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  In German-language Wikipedia, there are also occasionally calls to ban IP editors from filing deletion requests, and I have always asked for actual statistical data to back the perceived issue up (that is, showing that the percentage of "bad" IP deletion requests is much higher than of "bad" deletion requests by logged-in users). As it turns out, people could never back up this "gut feeling" with actual data, and the percentage of deletion requests by IP users that result in a deletion (meaning that, presumably, the DR was correct, as an admin accepted it and deleted the article) is also fairly high. - Here on Commons, I think that there are many more DRs by logged-in users anyway, and of the small percentage of IP DRs, many are also fine. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:03, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the dewiki discussion is not comparable to the problem here. On dewiki the discussion is more about sockpuppety and harassment. Here we are talking about simple vandalism or accidental clicks on the wrong button. GPSLeo (talk) 11:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  At least from what I've seen IP editors are mostly fine in deletion requests. They do a lot of vandalism editing to the village pump and other main talk pages. That's not to say they aren't an issue in DRs though. Just that it isn't a unique problem. So I don't think it's worth passing a proposal that treats it like one. Although on the other hand maybe it would be a good way to test the waters. Who knows, but I'm not changing my vote regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:13, 5 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose. While I understand that IPs will create nonesense at times, the fact that IPs can create DRs is a net positive—we don't want people to abstain from nominating genuine copyright violations for deletion because of the hurdle of account creation, and the proportion of bad DRs created by IPs is not so bad as to require that we throw the baby out with the bathwater. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, let’s file deletion requests for each and every of the soon 100 million files we host. I’m sure that would cover all of the bad ones which could be then deleted. It’s a really effective process. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:46, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah...'cus that's a real issue that is happening. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Oppose, many IP editors nominate copyright violations for deletion, we shouldn't higher the bar to fight copyright violations. In fact, someone who has never made an account here might not even know that you could nominate a file for deletion if it wasn't explicitly stated like the "Nominate for deletion" button we have now, so removing that option would let a lot more copyright violations stay undetected for longer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Strong oppose this would probable cause a spike in DMCA requests instead. Forcing someone register in order to request the deletion of a file is not furthering the goal of Wikimedia, nor would it be a great deterrent against bad DRs, simply a roadblock in the way of a potential good one - and I'd rather revert a bad DR than loose out on one goo one. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 19:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Some wikis have bad image lists (MediaWiki:Bad image list) to prevent image vandalism showing on pages. Unfortunately, this is kind of useless because these lists generally cover only a small fraction of the images that could be used for vandalism. Often, the vandals will post close up images of genitalia. Is there some way to put all close up images of genitalia in a category so they could all be put on a bad image list en masse? Obviously this won't totally solve the problem, but I think this is what the bad image lists were intended to prevent and it's no longer working. Of course, it's not mandatory to block these images from showing, it would be up to the admins of each wiki. Kk.urban (talk) 19:13, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These categories already exist: Category:Close-up photographs of human penises and Category:Close-up photographs of human vulvas. You should not name such a list "Bad image list". This would be very offensive against the photographers and the subjects of the photo. The list could be called "Files used in vandalism context". GPSLeo (talk) 19:28, 2 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a bad idea, as GPSLeo pointed out. There are a lot more images that vandals can use, including close-ups of human genitalia, therefore I believe that this would only be a fruitless attempt to address a much larger issue. 20 upper 14:24, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least in some language versions, IP edits (including those from vandals) are not directly shown to most readers until they have been reviewed (Pending changes review) by community members, although everyone can request to see the latest non-reviewed version. This helps to combat vandalism. There are also anti-vandal bots which (afaik?) can detect and flag "bad" insertions from IPs and new users (such as insertions of "penis penis penis" in text form) so that human patrollers can remove those edits right away. Maybe the bots can be made more sophisticated to detect "bad" image insertions as well? Still, creating an exhaustive list of images that are "bad" is not something we should do on Commons. Creating bots smart+flexible enough to deal with bad-faith insertions is the task of bot-programmers. Also, here is one of the rare cases where I'd like to see semi-AI helping us. --Enyavar (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You are asking if it possible to create "general" filters for certain types of content? Commons is Not generally Censored, but given the direction certain jurisdictions are moving ( such as the United Kingdom, which wants online hosts to be circumspect about identifying legal but potentially harmful or offensive material.), a review of how 'bad' content is identified is warranted. There are also ethical and privacy concerns raised by hosting certain types of sensitive image, such as those of anatomical subjects. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:54, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is Not generally Censored General filters wouldn't be censorship anymore then the current practice of categorizing images based on if they have nudity or not is. Categorize just don't seem to work well for the purpose of hiding nudity. But it would be laughable to call putting an image showing people having sex in a sub-category specifically for those types of images censorship. Even though it technically serves to filter what kinds of images people are being exposed to. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dear community,

I know that we already have some sort of upload stah, but I have some ideas for a potential better one. I think about the possibility to upload for example up to 500 files in a private stash, that can only be accessed by the user itself. Once uploaded, the files can be equipped with information about source, author, and all the stuff. When filled in and done, the files can be published immediately or, as an extra feature, can be published on a desired date (up to 28 days in the future).

A temporarily private stash (for up to 28 days) would it make possible to upload first, and make sure that the files are on the server, and to fill in things later. Sometimes, some errors prevent publishing or a computer crash occur after the upload, but before the publishing, which can be really annoying when you already spent several minutes on filling out things, and all progress is lost. With my idea, the files and information (changes) before publication are saved in real-time (server-side), so you don't lose anything, and can publish them when you think you're done with all. What do you think? Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:30, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: The files would be deleted 28 days after upload, so they won't be used as personal cloud storage --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:31, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, I only use the standard upload tools, where it can take an hour to upload just two dozen files, if you want to do it properly. So I am well aware of the benefits of such a change/addition, in general.

But as an alternative idea: I'd like to see a downloadable attribution tool so that frequent uploaders can pre-set licence/date/description(s)/categories on the local hard-drive, and then just upload when all preparations are done. As a bonus, such a tool wouldn't require a re-programming of the current user interface; and nobody would need to worry about new user namespace requirements, time limits, storage limits etc. --Enyavar (talk) 16:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: it can take an hour to upload just two dozen files: what is the speed of your Internet connection? How big are the files? (I ask because this is 5-10 times slower than what I experience from my usual setup). - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Typing takes time - for a number of literally 24 images, one hour means you finish describing+categorizing each file in under three minutes, which seems a lot faster than how I actually work. So apologies for exaggeration, I'm probably never that fast. If you only need 15-30 seconds (!?) per file, that probably means there's not much content or variation to describe in the first place. I even usually skip that unfriendly claims-tagging-interface in the final step, but I do try to compose meaningful descriptions for each file I upload, sometimes in multiple languages; possibly transcribe and even translate text; and find the most appropriate categories.

Yet, sometimes I find my computer lost internet connection somewhere along the way, critically right when I finally submit the finished uploads --> that is an hour potentially gone to the drain, although I found workarounds to prevent that. Among others, a golden rule to never try to upload more than ~10 images in one go. The upload-process is well-designed, no doubt, but a stable internet connection throughout the process chain is required.

The uploader's idea is "first upload in one fell swoop, then finish the descriptions+categories in a private space so that the images are already safe on the server". My counter-proposal was "be enabled to describe+categorize on the local PC first, then upload in one fell swoop". --Enyavar (talk) 19:15, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: Right, I thought your remark was about upload speed. I was talking only about the speed of uploading numerous files of essentially the same subject matter (e.g. images of a particular parade). - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

unfriendly claims-tagging-interface I take it you are using the Upload Wizard. I avoid it like the plague. I just ping-pong between two tabs and use Special:Upload. I copy-paste wikitext from one photo to the next, and make the necessary edits each time. Low risk (at worst, in the rare case of failure, it's one photo at the time) and from what I can tell, much faster. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Enyavar: There are several bots or automated tools which work that way. See COM:Upload tools. Yann (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least personally a lot of my uploads take a long time to finish and often fail halfway through the process. That's with Spectrum in a fairly urban area to. So they really need to implement the ability to resume failed uploads or something. Honestly, I'm kind of surprised they don't have the feature already. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There are many disputes on overwriting of files and also many cases of long undiscovered bad overwrites. To prevent this I would propose that file overwriting is only allowed to users with autopatrol rights. Users without autopatrol rights should remain to be able to overwrite their own files. This simple change would prevent a lot of time consuming disputes. As the requirements to get autopatrol rights are low this would not prevent users from doing useful contributions. GPSLeo (talk) 07:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I may support this, but could we start this with an edit filter/tag to determine how widespread this activity is, and perhaps stave off some of those "undiscovered" mistakes? Elizium23 (talk) 07:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Elizium is right, out of the blue I have no indicator how often overwrite actions by non-autopatrollers happen at all, and how often this turns out to be an undiserable action. Also, can this be tagged/filtered retro-actively?Enyavar (talk) 10:15, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Checking how often this happened in the past is a bit complicated. But I create an abuse filter to monitor all cases from now on Special:AbuseFilter/290. GPSLeo (talk) 10:51, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look at the filter hits: Since yesterday 19:00 UTC there were 74 files overwritten by users without autopatrol rights. I had a look at all these edits. 20 of the overwrites are fine. In 20 cases it could be discussed if the overwrite violates the guideline. In 34 cases there is a clear violation of the COM:OW guideline. GPSLeo (talk) 09:45, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support: seems reasonable based on the "mini study" done by GPSLeo. --P 1 9 9  ✉ 13:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support --Krd 14:17, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I'm sympathetic, but what would happen with File:Test.svg and File:Test.png? Glrx (talk) 23:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  It is no problem to create an exception for the test files. GPSLeo (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  Added support. Glrx (talk) 21:49, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support --A.Savin 09:22, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support I would even support if only the authors, admins, people with (a new) overwrite right or specially marked images (maps or similar) were allowed to overwrite them. --XRay 💬 10:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  For this we could create a filter to mark the edits. GPSLeo (talk) 11:06, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Support I agree with XRay but in any case new users don’t have any good reason to be trusted with such a powerful potential vandalism tool Dronebogus (talk) 03:39, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

•  Question: in cases where non-autopatrolled users have legit reasons for overwriting, how do you envision they submit an overwrite request in the future? --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:41, 20 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  They should just request autopatrol rights. I do not think that there are cases where a user is trustworthy for overwriting but not for autopatrol rights. Alternatively we could create a template that can only be placed by admins/patrollers to make an exception for a file. GPSLeo (talk) 15:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Currently there is no user that creates the Commons:Categories for discussion/XXXX/XX nor the Commons:Categories for discussion/Archive/XXXX/XX pages. The former are literally created by the first user who happens to start a Cfd that month, and the former are literally created by SteinsplitterBot when it archives the first closed Cfd that month. Compare that to the Commons:Deletion requests/XXXX/XX/XX pages which are created by SteinsplitterBot months beforehand. For example Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/17 was created by the bot on July 1.

Now I also see that SteinsplitterBot hasn't archived any Cfd's since March so we probably need a bot taking care of the archiving as well, or if Steinsplitter can take upon himself to do all this. Jonteemil (talk) 00:29, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with the log pages being created by the gadget instead of intended creation is that the log templates don't get added unless somebody like myself add them manually.Jonteemil (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

We have begin a new meta-project called "Swiss Performing Arts Projects" and we will be glad to open also a WikiProject Page on this topic in Commons.

It's allright for you?

Have you any advices for us? Titel? Hierarchy? Good exemple?

Thanks in advance! SAPA bdc (talk) 08:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• @SAPA bdc: We don't really have a lot of WikiProjects on Commons. What would be gained by having one specifically on Commons as against just referring people to the one on Meta? (That's not a rejection of the idea, or a merely rhetorical question, it's a straight-out question.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Courtesy notification of Commons_talk:Project_scope#Proposed_change_in_wording. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]