Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/11

Speedy deletion: F3. Derivative work of non-free content

• File:Scientology Symbol with LGBTQ Rainbow Flag.jpg
• Commons:Deletion requests/File:Scientology Symbol with LGBTQ Rainbow Flag.jpg

I tried to figure out how to correctly nominate it for speedy deletion, but alas I could not figure out how. Grorp (talk) 05:03, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Grorp: There is an important distinction between trademark (an identifying idea) and copyright (a creative expression). For example, the content of a novel is copyrighted, while the title or certain character names may be trademarked for marketing purposes. Commons primarily concerns itself with copyright, as it directly affects whether we can host a file. In this case, the symbol itself is too geometrically simple to be copyrighted. For non-copyright restrictions like trademarks that do not affect Commons but may affect reuse elsewhere, we sometimes use templates like {{Trademark}} as courtesy notices on the file pages.

There may be other reasons for us to not keep the file - in this case, it may be out of scope - but F3 is not applicable here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:33, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535: Well, I'm no intellectual property expert, but I do know that the trademark holder, the Church of Scientology, is particularly litigious... and anti-LGBTQ. And someone created this LGBTQ symbol and placed it in Wikipedia article Scientology and homosexuality, most likely as trolling/provocation/agitation... putting Wiki in the middle and smack dab in the crosshairs. Though it was quickly removed from the article, there is no need of keeping such in Wikicommons. I am only familiar with deletion process in English Wikipedia, and not in Wikicommons. How fast does that process usually go? Grorp (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, trademark is not a copyright restriction. However I wonder what educational use there could be for this file. I warned the uploader about scope and copyright violations. Yann (talk) 13:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Probable vandalism

I suspect the mutation https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3ABad_Wildbad_tram_2019.jpg&diff=952047828&oldid=874105226 is vandalism, but I dont know any Indonesian. When I try to translate 'kakaksk', I dont see any results wich could apply to a tram. Its the only mutation of 'Feriaulia'. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:18, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit reverted.--Túrelio (talk) 10:25, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map

The tools for creating and displaying High Dynamic Range (HDR) images are starting to mature. HDR displays can render much brighter highlights than before, which leads to a big qualitative improvement in an image. Software for HDR production, and web-browser support, are becoming wide-spread. (Note that this is distinct from the tone-mapped HDR images you may have seen for the past decade or so.)

This post is partly a response to User:Hym3242 and User:PantheraLeo1359531 in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08#Can I upload bt2020nc/bt2020/smpte2084(PQ) HDR AVIF images to commons and use them in wikipedia articles?. I was wondering the same thing, so I uploaded a couple files to see how well Commons would support them. They are formatted as JPEG with a gain map. The promise of this format is that it is backward-compatible with systems that process and serve standard JPEG. The base image is a JPEG, usable on any device. HDR information is inserted in the file as metadata. In the worst case HDR metadata is lost, resulting in a standard image. In the best case HDR metadata is preserved, the end-user has an HDR-capable display and web browser, and the image looks great.

My test results are at Category:HDR gain-mapped images. Both images survived the process of uploading and rendering previews. HDR metadata was stripped from preview images, but preserved in the original uploads. If you have a newish HDR screen and a compliant web browser, the originals of this house and this church will appear brighter than usual. The effect on the house is subtle, limited to where sunlight hits white paint. The effect on the church is more dramatic: the windows should appear much brighter than the rest of the interior.

Most users of Commons images will see one of the smaller standard files, so for now the benefits of publishing this sort of content are limited. Are there any downsides to publishing it on Commons?

This post isn't marked as a proposal, because hosting these images on Commons works already. At a later date, when the standards are settled and the hardware is widely available, it would be nice to preserve HDR metadata in the generated preview images. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semiautonomous (talk • contribs) 23:51, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

A phab task would need to be created for "include gain map of images into thumbs"- C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 07:41, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2024-11

Volunteer staff changes

In October 2024, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 180 sysops.

• User:Bastique was elected sysop (35/7/0) on 2 October.

Other news

• Results of Picture of the Year 2023 are out.

---

Edited by RoyZuo.

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RoyZuo (talk) 19:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Special:Uploads/Claudiupt

I'd like a second opinion on the user's uploads. All the pictures seem to be AI-generated. When confronted on his talk page, he admitted to heavily editing one of the pictures. Since the subject of hos articles are lesser known (but notable) persons, I cannot confirm they actually represent the persons he claims they represent. Given this situation, do these pictures respect Commons inclusion policy? Strainu (talk) 10:19, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Help needed with a new userbox template

Hi everyone!

I hope to receive your help with the template Template:User ISNI . The outputs should be as follows: the ISNI code in format like 0000 1111 2222 3333 on the Userbox (with spaces, because of Google indexation of ISNI codes), but the URL should be in this format https://isni.org/isni/0000111122223333 . So, my idea was that a user can input 4 groups of characters separately and the template logic would me it happen in terms of reaching the desirable output fortmat of ISNI code. I'm struggling to make it happen and would like to receive your helping hand, please. David Osipov (talk) 11:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Provinces of China by month and year

Hello! I have created templates for the distribution of provinces of China by year and month - these are examples {{MonthinChinabyprovince}} and {{Chinaprovinceyear}}. Could you help with categorization in a short time frame and also check the templates? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 15:07, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Is there any consensus for categorizing images by Chinese province by month and year? Trade (talk) 20:03, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

We dont need new templates. use Template:Category description/Year by province. RoyZuo (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Derivative works (FOP etc.)

1. does commons want derivative works (dw) that are currently not compatible with com:l, especially photos taken in no-FOP countries?
2. were there users that got blocked for uploading such dw?

--RoyZuo (talk) 19:24, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, they are wanted because one day they will be in the public domain. We hide the images and add an undelete date. There should be a mechanism in place where you can hide an image yourself and add the undelete date. --RAN (talk) 01:17, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't know if its neccessarily in line with the guidelines but I'm big proponent of people uploading uploading copyrighted works under the guise of documenting and theb deleting them with undeletion dates. At the end of the day this is as much about hosting documenting who created certain works and when they will become PD as it is a place to host freely licensed media. That's at least how I see it. There's no harm in uploading something purely to have it deleted so it can be restored once the copyright expires though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:35, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Afaik, this topic or a similar one was already discussed. And uploading and then deleting sounds a bit circumstancial to me, but it would be very good if you could upload the file and set a publish date (especially for files with copyrighted content that soon will enter the public domain) :). But I strongly support the idea. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:09, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

Just create a deletion request with the undeletion date. That's an easy way to do that. Yann (talk) 09:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think the question one should read "FOP" instead of "no-FOP".
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:39, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Edit summary on project chat

Do we have a guideline that one should state which section one is replying to ? If not, should we have one? Commons:Talk page guidelines doesn't say much about it, but seems to concern itself more with user talk pages than with project chat (or noticeboards).

Personally, I find [1] problematic. The user does so regularly and insists on continuing doing so systematically.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:09, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The gadget should be changed so that includes the section link of the closed discussion. This has already been request on its talk page. I also think section links to closed discussions are useful. If subscribing to a thread one gets notified about any reply (and one can also see the section via the diff linked at t he Revision history) which makes this somewhat redundant but it would still be useful. Better than having a gadget for marking threads about issues as solved would be some native button to do so like there is for DiscussionTools that is used on MediaWiki talk pages.

It's meta:User:DannyS712/EasyResolve. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:19, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

That a gadget could be changed is not really relevant to the question about what we currently require. Also, as the change has been requested for a long time, it's unlikely it will be changed. In the meantime, one should limit its use to user talk pages.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 11:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

I think 1) the problem of not including section headers is not large enough for it to mean contributors should stop using it 2) many contributors often also edit without any edit summary or section header + there currently is no policy about such things and while it may be the case they should be requested to include such more often, they usually are not asked to change that 3) the benefits of this gadget outweigh. In addition, it is relevant to this discussion – I never said it was relevant to the question about what "we currently require". However, obviously it's also relevant to that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:33, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it would be nice if the gadget did this, no it is not a big problem. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Agreed with Jmabel. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

file description pages from IA Flickr stream

File description pages on these generally have extensive automated content, e.g. at this file there is:

"Identifier, Title, Year, Authors, Subjects, Publisher, Contributing Library, Digitizing Sponsor, Text Appearing Before Image, Text Appearing After Image".

All without actually including the title of the image (included in the source, but vertically).

By default, this all gets added into the "description"-field of {{Information}}. I wonder if there wouldn't be a better place: a separate section and/or field.
 ∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 14:30, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

New page for establishing textured meshes on Commons

In 2018, Commons allowed to upload STL files for the first time. To extend the amount of types that can be uploaded, a new page for textured meshes was created. Perhaps one or the another is interested :)

Commons:Textured 3D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Moscow State University Herbarium

Hi, I see that the Moscow State University Herbarium has images of its plants under a free license on its website. It would be useful to 1. add all images already uploaded to the source category. 2. license review all files. 3. mass upload all files not yet uploaded. This may requires writing a bot, and knowledge of botany (and may be Russian although the website is also available in English) is probably needed to properly categorize the images (Total items: 983,569). And more than that, apparently all images under [2] are under a free license. Yann (talk) 15:36, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

File from NASA remains in "PD-USGov missing SDC copyright status" category indefinitely

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:45, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

I uploaded this file from NASA months ago, and it has been in "PD-USGov missing SDC copyright status" hidden category since then. Usually, a few hours or days after upload, a bot fills the SDC copyright status and removes the file from such kind of category, but this does not seem to be happening with this file. Could it be solved manually in some way? MGeog2022 (talk) 19:43, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done ReneeWrites (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @ReneeWrites! MGeog2022 (talk) 13:06, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

@MGeog2022 and ReneeWrites: I created and emptied out Category:PD-USGov missing SDC copyright status some time ago. Looks like I forgot to add a job to keep it empty. Did it now and it's catching up. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

👍 MGeog2022 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

New law in Costa Rica: "Public Domain of Information"

Last Friday, November 1, 2024, Costa Rica’s official newspaper, La Gaceta, published Law 10.554, the "Framework Law on Access to Public Information". Pages 24-37.

Article 18 of this law establishes the following:

"ARTICLE 18 - Public Domain of Information
All materials produced by a public official in the course of their duties shall be considered in the public domain, except for personal data and without prejudice to the limits established in the Political Constitution of the Republic of Costa Rica, in international regulations approved by the Legislative Assembly, and in laws, in accordance with the principle of legal reservation."

I kindly request that a Wikimedia Commons administrator consider including this in the copyright policy. ¡Pura vida! LuchoCR (talk) 00:01, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

• Any idea whether this is retroactive? - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

  Hello. Pursuant to Article 34 of the Constitution, it has no retroactive effect. LuchoCR (talk) 01:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2

Hello dear Wikimedia Commons Community,

My request for oversight access is open for voting until 11th of November, 2024. I wanted to announce it here because 5 days have left. Thanks for all voters and who are planning to vote. Kind regards, Kadı Message 14:58, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

External link detection is now live on Commons

Hi all! We are releasing the first version of our external links detection tool, that will help moderators in identifying potentially problematic media uploaded from potentially problematic domains (such as social media networks and/or stock image suppliers).

If the source corresponds to one of such domains, UploadWizard would create automatically a Structured Data on Commons statement source of file (P7482) file available on the internet (Q74228490), with qualifiers “operator (P137) = <the operator of the website where the image originated>” and “described at URL (P973) = <link to source>”. This would make the potentially problematic uploads easily accessible by administrators and moderators.

For the moment, we will be parsing only for a few selected domains and, if needed, the list can be amended by the community to include other domains that are problematic or have a strong probability of being deleted. We could also make it available for the community to maintain the list of domains directly.

If you have questions or suggestions, please write to us in our project’s talk page. (Since I will be travelling in the next days, I might be slow to respond, so please have patience)

Thanks for your cooperation! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)