Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/02

Cat for photos that filter all but one or some colours？

File:Gold and red mask.jpg i guess there must be a phrase/word for this?--RZuo (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: just "color-filtered photos" or "color-masked photos"? - Jmabel ! talk 23:06, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

But in this case what they really did is to fully desaturate color in an area of the photo, while leaving other areas intact. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

my nikon l820 calls this "Selective color" mode -- "Creates a black and white image in which only the specified color remains".--RZuo (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo & Jmabel We keep those at Category:Colour isolated photographs (Category:Selective color redirects there) or the parent Category:Selective desaturation when large areas were desaturated but the remaining areas contain more than a single color. El Grafo (talk) 08:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

that's it.

i was trying to find it somewhere under Category:Colorful objects.--RZuo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-02

In January 2023, the total number of uploaded files exceeded 90 million.

Currently, there are 189 sysops.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

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

--RZuo (talk) 02:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Image search engine that can find images with similar style

https://same.energy/ can search for CC BY images that have similar "energy", which can prove useful for finding a freely-licensed alternative or similar type of image. It's not clear what kind of artificial intelligence or machine learning it's using, but it could be handy if you're trying to find a free piece of media with a vague search term. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

seems useful and quite fast.👍--RZuo (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

the website uses cache maybe? https://same.energy/i/cc.S9cp this photo has disappeared from flickr. RZuo (talk) 19:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Template {{C}} is in disorder

The template {{C}} is in disorder after the recent edit by User:Sarang. All the files using this template are in chaos. Should it be reverted? --トトト (talk) 01:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Info {{c|New York|Big Apple}} renders  {{#switch:+|New York|Big Apple||={{#switch:|i|n={{i18n/namespace|c|link={
as of now. --トトト (talk) 01:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• I suspect the problem may be in a template that is used by {{C}} rather than by {{C}} itself, so tread carefully in fixing this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

 Info You were right. It was the sub-template {{C/display}} edited by an IP user which caused messes. I have reverted it, and now {{C}} works fine. --トトト (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 04:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Voting on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct is closed

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

Cultural template help

Could someone please help me create a template for the South Australian Heritage Register? Similar to the Template:Cultural Heritage Australia. I'm really not so technically minded. Many thanks! No Swan So Fine (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Dezoomify images from REALonline

Hi everyone, do you have advice to get the full resolution of images that are hidden behind a canvas element from REALonline, for example at https://realonline.imareal.sbg.ac.at/detail/nr-012066? I've tried some tools from Help:Zoomable images and couldn't succeed yet. (PS: For now I've uploaded a screenshot in low resolution at File:Vision of St. Anthony - Saint Anthony Altar - Church of St George, Spišská Sobota.png.) Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC), 15:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done - shame about the watermark, imareal don't actually own rights to a 700 year old image.. Stemoc 18:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

About the watermarks: The image is PNG (lossless) and the watermark is a mono-color text, repeated without variation and inserted by adding the color values of the original pixel and the watermark pixel. It should be possible to undo that by substracting the color value of the watermark. Probably there is a software that can semi-automate this? C.Suthorn (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

could do it myself if it was any other image using cloning method but this image is a historical art so might end up with little blotches so won't take the risk Stemoc 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, thanks a lot and sorry for the late reply! How did you get the image? The website has photos of other parts of the same altarpiece as well that I'd like to upload and apart from that it would be useful for the future to know how to get images from that site and others. Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

PDF cut and paste text

The Library of Congress newspaper archive stores scans as a pdf and has incorporated mapped text. I know I can get that when I store a word document as a pdf, how is done with a scan? I don't use Adobe software, so it is a function when you use Adobe software? Is there other software that will create a pdf and do OCR, and map the OCR to the text for free? See a typical page for the LOC here: https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/data/batches/wa_kingfisher_ver02/data/sn87093407/00340585446/1923122401/0757.pdf --RAN (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

PDF is by Adobe, but it is a free format. Free OCR software is often based on Tesseract. So any free OCR software that offers PDF output is likely to have (at least the option to) output of PDFs with an image of the OCRed text with the OCRed text mapped to it. C.Suthorn (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Category deletion request

I started a category with a misspelt name; can be deleted:

Category:Dominic Daly

There is a category which is correctly spelt and should not be deleted:

Category:Dominick Daly

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

There is no Category:Dominic_Daly. Odd. I've marked it for deletion now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Cat for intentional photos of half faces？

File:Half face portrait of a mysterious woman with a mask.jpg this composition is quite common in photos and paintings. is there a cat for these?--RZuo (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

"intentional" as being the photographer's intention, instead of commons users' cropping.--RZuo (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

then there's also combining two faces like the poster of The Ides of March (2011 film).--RZuo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo also related: File:Tingling_(4055018578).jpg and File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (17537515404).jpg, both in Category:Fraction 1/2. El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ANN's images

Dear colleagues,

we in Wikimedia RU are currently starting to preliminary discuss an opportunity of a contest which, among other nominations, may contain images generated by artificial neural nets or other similar technologies.

Evidently the images should be within the COM:SCOPE. But what other precautions would you advise? Or could you share any other ideas related to the images of this kind? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

1. There have been a lot of discussions lately about whether images created by AI are likely to accidentally infringe copyrights. After all, they only know what they've ingested from other works.
2. There seems to be a consensus that when any sort of AI is used, the specific AI should be identified as clearly as possible, as should whatever prompts it was given. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

A recent article on TechSpot about AI-generated images: Researchers discover AI models generate photos of real people and copyrighted images. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

See also Commons:AI generated media (still in development). It might be a good idea to at least leave a not on the associated discussion page. El Grafo (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Garbage in Metadata

File:Trainatschipholairportstation.jpg There seems to a lot of garbage in the metadata. I dont know wat went wrong in the extract script.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems there are 7029 bytes in the EXIF tag UserComment. According to the EXIF this should be ASCII text, but it seems there is just random bytes there (at least I haven't been able to discern a pattern). Some other software apparently shortens this representation because of 00 bytes, but according to the specification, 00 bytes are not supposed to be string terminators in this specific field, so our implementation is technically more correct. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

 Done I removed the garbage with Gimp. Yann (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on technical design of Information-like templates

I recently made some changes to template information, with the promise to keep working on that project and get the sibling templates sorted out as well. In the proces of looking into this, I discovered several consistency problems that should be dealt with and I've made a proposal and listed some suggestions at Module talk:Information. Your feedback is welcome, as I want to make sure we arrive at a proper solution that will last for a while. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Image stored fragmented

See: http://polishjews.yivoarchives.org/archive/?p=digitallibrary/digitalcontent&id=3222 If I use save_as, I get a fragment. When I inspect the image, I can see it is stored as over 100 rectangles, each a portion of the image, plus one thumbnail of the entire image. Do archives store this way to prevent downloading, or to speed loading in your cache? Is there a way to download the entire image at full size and full resolution? RAN (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Probably both to prevent downloading and to speed loading. I've used this technique in systems where we also had a clean download option. It had some real advantages for speeding loading back when most people didn't have high-speed Internet, less important for that now. But certainly the decision not to offer a full-res download has to be conscious. I know we have some tools that can usually get around this sort of thing, but I haven't used them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Some archives are still hoping to monetize their collections, while more progressive ones load their entire archives to Flickr Commons, and rely on more modern techniques in raising money. A decade ago, I had a university archive charge me $20 just to send me a photocopy, not even a scan, of an image that my own family had sent to the archive three decades earlier. --RAN (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
• Maybe User:Fæ/dezoomify can help. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Sadly not; reported: [1]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

ceratosaurs naricorns

I have a couple of Questions that may be answerable —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 47.151.11.54 (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• that may be answerable: especially if you actually ask them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) --Lemonaka (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

What is this?

I suspect these are connectors for train heating, but I'm not sure. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a Category:Steam heated trains, but little else I coud find about the steam heating of trains.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

The image description at de:Dampfheizung (Eisenbahn) calls this a Dampfheizungskupplung, so a steam heating hitch / coupler / coupling / connector. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In use?

I created Category:Steam heating coupling and added wikidata:Q116726316 in Wikidata. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorising gallery page for Mohandas K. Gandhi in Category:Gallery pages of criminals

Like many public historical figures, especially ones of protest, both good and bad, sympathetic and unsympathetic, Gandhi spent time in prison. Gandhi was imprisoned repeatedly in the context of his opposition to the unjust regime prevailing at the time. Historical hindsight justified Gandhi. However he was tried, convicted and imprisoned (and not later pardoned afaik). There is material here from the 1930s, here, here also from the 1930s and here from the 1920s. Online, a list is here and confirmed in sources in NYT, Time, The Guardian and National Geographic. Categorising the gallery page of Gandhi in gallery pages of criminals has been reverted on the grounds of Gandhian philosophy and I have received a block for reverting the revert. Can Gandhi be re-added or should criminals be defined differently than those convicted of a crime?--Darrelljon (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, "Criminal" has a very negative connotation which is not needed here. A category "Gandhi in prison/jail" is factual and might be OK. Yann (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

In my opinion Yann is right: not everybody, who has been imprisoned, is a criminal.

Holy cow! That is some extraordinary bias and POV talking right there. Yes, it seems unfortunate that "criminal" is a term with a negative connotation, but since when did the Court of Wikimedia Opinion outrank sovereign states' ability to govern and discipline their citizens? A person convicted of crimes is known as a criminal. Nelson Mandela was a criminal. Jesus Christ was a criminal. Moses was a criminal. Bonnie and Clyde were criminals.

I ask, pray tell, where is our list of convicted non-criminals? What are our criteria for exempting properly-documented criminals from being listed as such? What is our policy on sourcing that excludes ones which are unfavorable to anyone who may be a personal hero of administrators? Elizium23 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

So also Martin Luther King, John Brown, Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France (and Marie Antoinette), Lula da Silva, etc.? Oh, and Nathan Hale? Seems pretty silly to me. Conversely, not Hitler because he was dead so didn't have a trial for his obvious crimes? Technically true if "criminal" just means everyone who has been convicted, but terribly misleading. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Oops, I forgot the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, so Hitler is in on a technicality. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

It seems we need to use more neutral language, avoiding "criminal", "terrorist" and the like as such. Perhaps convoluted category names such as "people convicted for claimed crimes" must be used, but I hope there is some more elegant solution. Just removing certain "good" individuals can never be consistent and would lead to edit wars on persons like Lula da Silva. –LPfi (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Category:Gallery pages of criminals needs a CFD discussion. It's a bizarro subcategory of people to have Paris Hilton and Adolf Hitler next to each other. Having Michelle Rodriguez with only two categories (herself and criminals) is ridiculous. That or make it a catcat with subcategories for gallery pages of people by crime like Category:Criminals by crime. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:12, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

• Discussion started at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Gallery pages of criminals. Will ping everyone here right now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:19, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wanted: server kitty - deletion-process partly broken

Could a „server kitty“ reboot or take a look at WMF’s Commons-servers? Since Saturday approximately every 10th file-deletion, which I try to execute, is not performed, instead I get error-messages in red writing:

• Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: In der Datenbank „local-swift-codfw“ ist ein unbekannter Fehler aufgetreten. (most frequently)

But also:

• Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Die Datei „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/d/d4/Juruks_Macedonia_7.jpg“ befindet sich, innerhalb des internen Datenbanksystems, in einem inkonsistenten Zustand.
• Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Das Verzeichnis „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/p/3/0“ konnte nicht angelegt werden.
• Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Das Verzeichnis „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/8/f/8“ konnte nicht angelegt werden.

Also, when using our default-script to delete file-duplicates, I get the following error-message:

• API request failed (backend-fail-internal): An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-codfw". at Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:31:16 GMT served by mw1425

When I repeat the deletion after such an error-halt, it is always executed properly. So, the cause of this phenomenon is obviously not with the file itself. ‒Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi, I also get a lot of errors. I reported some. See phab:T328872 and phab:T328914. Yann (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Don’t know if this is related, but I’ve been having backend issues storing text that goes along with images I’m uploading. Same error! Super frustrating, especially when I upload 20-40 images at once. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

again

File:Rana Kazkaz.jpg - since November 2020 undetected on Commons, despite a fat "Getty Images"-watermark in the center. :-( --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Milu.jpeg - another Getty-Images-image[2] undetected on Commons since 12 years! --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Can portrait images in articles use AI generated avatars from a series of photographic references?

AI Avatar generators can create images using a collection of real photographs. If they look nothing like the real one, but manage to illustrate well the person portrayed, can these be used to illustrate articles, having the person who gave AI command to generate the image as the author? Guilherme Altmayer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilherme Altmayer (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

• Seems to me that the only way they would do that is by being derivative work, deriving from multiple photos. The fact that we can't trace the exact chain doesn't make them any less derivative. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  If a human artist views photographs or videos of a subject/model, and then sits in his studio and paints/draws a representation of that subject, that would be perfectly permissible to use the artist's work to illustrate the subject's article. Is this still a derivative work of the photographs and videos which were viewed by that artist? Now let's do music. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, no, not in general. They are likely to get away with it, because it's hard to prove, but for just this reason we don't usually allow someone to hand-draw a picture of a living person based on photographs/videos and then upload their drawing to Commons to illustrate an article about that person. For example, this drawing I did of S.J. Perelman probably would not be acceptable on Commons. I considered it OK for my site because, like most people on the Internet, my personal standards for that are lower than Commons'. But I can't see why we would treat AI more leniently than human artists. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

  If you can't trace the chain, there is no actionable incident of copyright infringement (whether you're dealing with humans or AIs). Nosferattus (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Actually, in the human case, we do allow and have allowed the practice; Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Illustrating known people? has some examples. COM:TOO is essentially about information theory: is there enough entropy generated through original human creativity to cross the threshold? As an extreme example, if I extracted one word from each of 100 novels and assembled it into a 100-word sentence, I would be the sole copyright holder of that sentence. (And if I did so randomly or algorithmically, then no one would be the copyright holder of that sentence.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

New details about the Private Incident Reporting System

Please help translate to your language

Hello

We have an update about the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) development.

We have created an FAQ on the project page to help answer your questions. Please check it, and give feedback, or ask additional questions if you have more.

Best regards, Trust & Safety Tools team.

STei (WMF) 20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Please sign your posts. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies. Added. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Not all of us contribute to commons

This board is very busy, so I am just wondering if there is a better board for those of us who only visit here as consumers, not contributors?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: The discussion areas are divided by topic rather than status of the user. What sort of topics are you wanting to raise? That will dictate the best place for you to comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

@Ottawahitech: I for one would be very interested in hearing more about more about how consumers use and view Commons. The ultimate goal of contributors and curators I think is (or should be) to have quality media accessible and reused for educational, creative, and/or novel purposes. You may be interested in Commons:Reusing content outside Wikimedia, or the Commons:Help desk. Cheers, --Animalparty (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I would not say "quality media", but notable, important and valued media. In the end "quality" of a media is a subjective impression by the consumer, who should have the maximal choice. C.Suthorn (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Can you upload a file to Commons after the author has changed the license?

All of the images in this album on Flickr used to be licensed under CC BY 2.0, which is apparent by clicking on a photo, going to the bottom, and clicking "License History". Since, these images' licenses have been changed to CC BY-NC 2.0. Since CC licenses are irrevocable, is it okay to upload these files to Commons? (please ping) – Pbrks ^(t • c) 06:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Nope, once a licence has been changed to a non-free one, it can't be added to commons..cc is only irrevocable if it gets uploaded here when it was cc.. Stemoc 07:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Actually I think the license is still valid: "Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:36, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I understand that but i was talking about principle here, we don't want another 'snail guy' incident but this time, we'd be the bad guys lol..as Marchjuly noted, if you really want to use those images, message the user and he may just release it again under the CC-By licence instead of doing something as cynical as this lol.. as someone who got threatened once by a photographer because i added images which was released under a free license when i uploaded it to commons, things could get worse, this licence history thing is a new feature on flickr, it helps us License Reviewers to do a check on images that may have been added to commons back when they were free but it really should not be used in a negative way..If a DR is ever submitted for such images, i'd definitely vote for deletion.. Stemoc 08:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be technically OK to do so, but most likely copyright holder changed their licensing for a reason. Maybe it would be wise to try and reach out to them first and see why. Perhaps they would be willing to revert back to the original licensing for one or two photos of their choosing. Uploading the whole bunch, even if the old original licenses are still valid, might not be considered a copyright violation per se, but it might create some bad will between the copyright holder and Commons. Why burn a bridge that doesn't really need to be burned? If the uploader's experience with Commons is positive, they might be willing to contribute more high quality images over the years. Try and imagine what might happen if the uploader figures out their photos were uploaded to Commons under their original license after the license change. They might try and get them deleted. Are these photos that great that uploading them would be worth whatever drama a DR might create? Things might be different if the licensing was changed after the files had been uploaded, and they had been used for years by various WMF projects. Some members of the Commons community might, however, be more sympathetic to the uploader if the licensing was changed prior to the files being uploaded and started being used anywhere. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Sure, if it's an image we could do without, then no need to spend the effort to import it. However, it is technically a free image, and would disqualify a subject from being eligible for fair-use images on English Wikipedia IMO. So if a uniquely useful image has been on Flickr with a free license for months or years, then importing a file that the copyright holder once offered under a free license is better than importing a file that the copyright holder never offered under a free license, if we're going to be illustrating that article either way. If it's only been on Flickr with a free license for a few days, then we chalk it up to a mistake (which I consider to be distinct from changing one's mind) and do not consider the license valid. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:27, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with any of that. My only point is that would it be worth the hassle and any possible bad press even if it was a super good image that could legally be hosted if the copyright holder really didn't want their work to be licensed as such. If one of the points of the project is to try and encourage content creators to provide high quality images for others to more freely use, it could be counterproductive to make it seem that Commons cares little about the wishes of these providers. It would seem better to project the image of being friendly than adversarial when it comes to copyright holders. -- Marchjuly (talk) 10:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

if the copyright holder really didn't want their work to be licensed as such

If there's anything we learned from Snail Guy and similar cases, it's that sometimes it's difficult to actually discern intent when there are automated processes at work, such as slapping a free license on every upload, every time.

If I recall Flickr correctly, there was a preference which amounts to your account's "default license" and so every subsequent upload is stamped with those terms, whether ARR or CC. So it's easy to forget a default and upload a whole batch that shouldn't be freely-licensed, like if you photographed someone's wedding instead of rare New Zealand snails, and then you'd have to yank the rug out from under the batch you wrongly licensed before anyone notices.

So if a license is indeed irrevocable, then it makes for a difficult judgement call when an author expresses contrary wishes, because the electronic audit trails are incontrovertible.

In the F/OSS world, I've seen the authors of repositories become upset that someone used their code that they didn't like, politically or socially, or they thought of a use that is permitted by license, but the author didn't like. Authors of computer source code can often do frightening passive-aggressive things that verge on malicious damage. Let's be thankful we're passively hosting visual/audible media here, and not source code! Elizium23 (talk) 11:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Marchjuly, this is a very charitable and gentle approach, and I think it's the best. Establishing and maintaining good, trustful relationships with content creators should be top priority of Commons editors. The "snail guy" incident has already been mentioned, and it's unlikely for a good-faith photographer to go ballistic and trollish in that manner, but yes, I can see feelings being hurt if the author had indeed noticed an erroneous license, and in good faith attempted to revoke and revise it to something less free that we can't use.

If I were a content creator freely licensing my work on a third-party website, I'd be flattered if Commons reached out to me kindly and inquired about license terms. I may even be convinced to adapt the license to their needs. In fact, 15 years ago I was approached by an app developer who wanted to use a photo I'd taken and uploaded to Flickr under a CC license. I was delighted and flattered and I approved the usage.

If the author is contacted and insists that the Non-Commercial clause must apply, then no harm, no foul, we don't need to incorporate those works into Commons. But if we do contact them and they accept, then we've just earned a relationshp of trust.

It's a very true saying that It's better to ask permission, than forgiveness. Elizium23 (talk) 10:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

One of the images in question has been takenn in july 2011. I do not know, if it is possible to know the uplaod date at flickr. The license has been changed in october 2011. This image was available under a free license no more than 3 month, but maybe only for a minute. Since then it has been available under NC for 12 years. If it was the other way around, I would suspect, that the NC was in error. But as it is I assume, it was never meant to be free, but should be seen as NC from the start. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• You can upload it, but it'll then be deleted. Although the licence remains irrevocable, you're going to have to prove that to COM:DR. It would also be very wise to do that pre-emptively at the time of upload, because DR loves to revisit old uploads, long after the uploader has ceased to be active and to then delete them without needing any of that bothersome discussion.

If it's published on a website with a free licence and there's a reliable archive site which has kept a copy (such as http://archive.org) then a link to the dated copy of that should be enough.

I would also ask, why are you wanting to upload it? Why are you convinced that it has ever been freely licensed? If you have evidence of that yourself, then is that sufficient for Commons' purposes? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This is one of those things that falls under the heading of "probably legal, but certainly discourteous," and I would strongly recommend against doing it. Unless there is a lot involved that I don't see here, as an admin I'd rule in favor of deletion of an image uploaded here on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 15:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• I would not upload any file that has a CC-BY-* 2.0 license. Commons should add a w:black box warning on all existing 2.0 uploads. Glrx (talk) 22:18, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Glrx: That continues to be the version Flickr offers, and I can't imagine we want to stop accepting virtually all uploads from Flickr. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Pdfs for deletion

Is there a way to just search for the pdfs that are up for deletion? RAN (talk) 19:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You can search for PDFs that currently have a {{Delete}} template on their file page with a search like this. TilmannR (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Perfect! I want to see if I can find death dates for some of the authors. --RAN (talk) 20:35, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Apparently the "insource" search ignores the "{{", so there might be false positives of files with the word "delete" anywhere else on their file page. You can read more about this search feature at mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Insource. TilmannR (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  Here's a more accurate search using the "hastemplate" feature. TilmannR (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

to solve that problem you can search " hastemplate:delete " or " insource:/\{\{[Dd]elete/ ".--RZuo (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: Apparently that second one should be "insource:"{{delete" insource:/\{\{[Dd]elete/" for performance reasons. hastemplate certainly seems like the intended way to search for templates. TilmannR (talk) 21:54, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

DR – any eyeballs free to look over one? (buildings in Saudi Arabia)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:PANO 20160923 165000.jpg

This started as an uploader request (and we all know how those can turn sour!) but it looks like it's an FoP issue anyway. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

•  Done I closed it as "delete". - Jmabel ! talk 16:33, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Two Saudi users in jail

According to these reports:

• https://dawnmena.org/saudi-arabia-government-agents-infiltrate-wikipedia-sentence-independent-wikipedia-administrators-to-prison/
• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-16/Special_report

User:OsamaK (image reviewer and rollbacker) and User:Ziad (OTRS-member) were jailed by Saudi Arabia. Butcher2021 (talk) 14:34, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Categorization of media representing country names

Media representing country names are trivially categorized, directly or indirectly, under the relevant country categry, usually under Category:Symbols of Country. This is now being questioned at Category talk:Rendered name of Albania, and a consensus is sought. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Well there's {{Vertical header}}, so as far as I can tell, much of "Rendered name of [country]" can be replaced and deleted.

More on-topic: I agree that "Rendered name of [country]" is consistently in "Symbols of [country]" for most countries, and that seems fine to me.

I don't see any "[...] of Albania" category that would be a better parent. TilmannR (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Aside note: I totally agree with you concerning {{Vertical header}}, too, and I think that rendered texts as a way to equip Wikipedia with legible text to make up for technical defficiencies in representing specific typesetting issues (script coverage, complex rendering, etc.) should be a thing of the past. These images were created and uploaded to Commons to fulfil a need (either actual or due to someone’s lack of tech skills), and some have been meanwhile replaced with {{Vertical header}}, I suspect. Should the ones that are unused be deleted? Maybe, but that would be a matter for a separate discussion.

Maeanwhile, however, these images are hosted in Commons and we should have a scheme to categorize them. And of course this is about Category:Rendered name of Country, where, for some values of "Country", we have an interesting palette of typographic and calligraphic variety, not just about Category:Vertically rendered name of Country, which doesn’t exist and is unnecessary.

(I would also like to point out that there is a general Category:Symbols of countries, and among its subcats we can find Category:National symbols — which may be the kind of “official” stuff this user apparently cannot think outside of.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Tangentially related, but since you acted super defensive about it, what exactly is the point in or meaning of the word "rendered" in categories like Category:Rendered name of Albania? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

You can go up the chain and see it is under Category:Rendered texts. Either way, everyone on the talk page is poorly discussing the issue when the clear answer is Category:Rendered name of Albania is under Category:Symbols of Albania because Category:Rendered names of countries and every country underneath that is under Category:Symbols of countries and each respective subcategory. If this is something you want changed, do it with a discussion for all categories at the parent rather than getting into a heated argument about Albania in particular. Again, I suggest a CFD at the parent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm not the one getting heated about it, Tuvalkin is. So if you have an issue with the tone of the conversation I'm not the one to take it up with. In the meantime, I'm aware that "rendered" goes up the chain. I specifically asked Tuvalkin's opinion about it since he's the one who took issue me saying it was obtuse. I'm obviously not going to do a CFD just so I can get an answer from Tuvalkin about what HIS issue with what I said is. Thanks though. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:47, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I had to look up the meaning of "obtuse" in case I was not being fair in my inner monologue concerning your appriasal of the situation. Unless you mean geometry of strive to revive an archaism, we’re talking about «Intellectually dull or dim-witted.» Okay, then. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Exactly my point. And that’s also why I added this user to a thread in AN/U as, for him, the rest of the whole issue seems to be meaningless and all he cares is to remove from the one cat he’s been curating (Symbols of Albania) elements whose presence he doesn’t agree with.

Now this VP thread should be enough to ascertain wherther a separate CfD is warranted, and I opened this here presuming it’s not. The matter is trivial and if this kind of country “symbols” may unsettle people who expect to find in cats labelled as such only the officially approved, legally official symbols of any given country (*), then we should replicate for each country something akin to the subcat Category:National symbols under Category:Symbols of countries. I would be okay with that, or any other categorization solution that preserves the logical connection between any media file depicting text and the meaning of that text.

*(Some of those official national symbols include, in some countries, unexpected items — such as its capital city, or the person of head of state as such.)

Having a separate CfD page with its relatively tiny exposition, as opposed to a VP thread, would risk to become (as many CfDs have) a years long fruitless discussion while all the warnings about it plastered across dozens of subcategories would hinder their unfettered use by categorizing editors.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:12, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

It's not trivial. There are a number of large categorization discussions that will take years to resolve but that's how it works. There is no 'logical' reason for the current system but if you simply said "Albania fits the larger structure used for every country so it's dumb to remove it here when you should be having a larger discussion", fine the talk page will have been resolved quickly. That or people would have said "Albanian rendered text is unique and should be treated differently than any other nation' which is absurd but whatever, it's an argument. Either way, once the talk page did not go anywhere useful, that is what CFDs are for. I have started some insanely broad discussions that I don't expect will be resolved until maybe 2030 but whatever, it's a wiki. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I see your point and I agree. Was hoping this VP thread would bring over a few voices saying that there’s nothing to see here, just carry on categorizing as before. But nope: Looks like we’re going to debate this for decades, and files showing rendered names of countries will never get added to (cats under) Category:Rendered names of countries. Huzzah. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:11, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Well if you don't want to explain it it's going to be debated. As I said before, I don't understand why you have so much hostility when the actual response of "this is the way every other country is done" is an actual answer for now. We may end up moving these around but I never saw that we have had an discussion on the issue so let's start this at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Rendered names of countries. If it's so obvious and correct we'll have this resolved quickly enough. It's not like people are going to be removing and removing various countries for now. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Knowing how CfDs work, it’s obvious and correct and we'll not have this resolved quickly. But let’s go!: Already did my explaining there (too), and the hitherto presented misconceptions are already on show there too. It does bode. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:13, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

the hitherto presented misconceptions are already on show You ever think maybe it's not faulty logic, but that people just disagree with you? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:23, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes, all the time. Some times, though, other people are actually wrong. Or right. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:02, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

File names use underscores as spacers when you download

Can that be turned off in my settings? I use the file name as the caption when I migrate an image to Findagrave, and I have to manually remove the underscores, or go back to the original and cut and paste the no-underscore version. --RAN (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm not aware of such an option in the settings. It would be possible to write a script, which iterates through all the files in a directory on your hard drive and replaces the underscores in their names with spaces. TilmannR (talk) 13:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): : couple of ideas. On the lines of what TilmannR suggests, you could use a script on your OS. For instance if you are on Linux/MacOS, you could use a bash script like this in the folder with the images after you download them:

for fn in *"_"*;
do
    mv "$fn" "${fn//_/ }"
done

On Windows, you could use a PowerShell script to do the same:

Dir | Rename-Item -NewName { $_.Name -Replace "_"," " }

You could also use a GUI software that does bulk renaming. On Windows, Microsoft themselves offers PowerRename.

Unfortunately, I can't think of another workaround, though maybe others are more creative then me. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 02:14, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! I will give it a try. --RAN (talk) 02:17, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Possibly misidentified

I believe we had a template to use when there was a possibility of someone being misidentified in an image, when there is not enough evidence to change the name, but we still want people to be aware of the controversy. Any ideas? --RAN (talk) 23:50, 12 February 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Besides {{Fact disputed}}? Or is that what you are referring to? - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• Thanks! That is it, not intuitive, I will make a few redirects. --RAN (talk) 02:04, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Request for duplication and rotation

Would it be possible to produce a duplicate of File:Antalya Museum Mosaic P9281528.jpg that is rotated by 180 degrees?

Reason: the current orientation is the best way to view the preserved border, so it should be kept, but the (very!) fragmentary central scene is currently upside-down, so it would be good to have an image flipped by 180 degrees, as well. The central scene originally depicted Homer seated with personifications of the Iliad and Odyssey and despite its fragmentary state, it is useful for reconstructing other examples of the same motif.

I know how to request rotation but not how to request duplication+rotation. Thanks!Furius (talk) 15:42, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• I'll take this on. Pinging @Furius, in the future: you can do this pretty easily with CropBot/CropTool. Or you can download, rotate, and re-upload. No special privileges needed to do either. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

• Splendid! Thanks Pinging @Jmabel, for the dupli-rotation and for the advice. I'm grateful for both :) 18:27, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Nominating hundreds of files for deletion

As discussed previously (2009, 2022), most of the images in Category:Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Category:National Ignition Facility need to be deleted as copyright violations. However, this entails hundreds of images. How does one go about nominating such huge sets of images for deletion? Does anyone have experience with this or would be willing to help? Nosferattus (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

• VFC is a pretty good tool for starting a mass deletion request. If you have a number of images that clearly will sink or swim togther -- where there is almost no chance that some will be deleted but others are OK -- then a mass deletion request is a good way to go. On the other hand, if there may be different issues for different images, then please try to separate them up front, because it gets really tricky to get into those image-by-image discussions in the context of a mass DR. - Jmabel ! talk 00:59, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• E.g. in this case, if we got some images uploaded by someone claiming to represent the copyright holder, others off a Flickr account, etc., we'd want to group those separately. - Jmabel ! talk 01:03, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
• https://flickr.com/photos/37916456@N02/with/10139095874/ looks like a quite legit Flickr stream. Surely you're not thinking about nominating these? Multichill (talk) 18:45, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
  • Good question. I guess the ones sourced to that Flickr stream are OK since the government is claiming they are public domain (even if they don't provide any author or source information). The ones from the NIF and LLNL websites need to be deleted though. Nosferattus (talk) 00:18, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Eligible for copyright?

I created this simplified and vectorized version of this original video game logo to be able to upload it as pd-textlogo. I'd appreciate the assessment by users with more experience regarding the threshold of copyrightability. Was it worth the effort or could I have uploaded the original without worries? The textures and bullet holes is what made me decide against. Or is my version possibly still to original? I'd like to have more opinions before spending time on similar designs. Best regards. Emberwit (talk) 00:01, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Two comments. First I think the little stars probably push it over the threshold of originality. You should remove those. Second, what is the purpose of this file? Since it isn't the actual logo, it should not be used on any Wikipedia articles about the game. If a Wikipedia needs a logo for this game, they need to allow fair use files. This pattern of using pseudo-logos on non-fair-use wikis is a terrible idea and shouldn't be allowed. We could probably be sued for diluting their trademarks. Nosferattus (talk) 00:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. My intention was that if we cannot display a logo as a significant and recognizable characteristic of a product of its time to still try to convey it’s idea as originally as possible. The logo, a product of its time itself, is an essential part of the outline of a cultural work. Honestly I did not think about your point that a non-original logo should maybe not be used at all before. It’s a good point and I will consider it. In that relation, what do you think about vectorized, digitized or any other reproduced versions of original (non-eligible) logos? Aren’t those just approximations as well? Is it about the conscious omission of details? Regards, Emberwit (talk) 02:10, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Hi Emberwit. You might want to ask about this at en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games before uploading anything. Commons is primarily concerned with the copyright status and the COM:SCOPE of the content it hosts. It's not really too concerned with how this content is being used on other Wikimedia Foundation Projects like English Wikipedia. Often many local projects have their own community-wide policies and guidelines that apply to all images and then sometimes additional supplementary policies and guidelines established by local WikiProjects related to certain genre of articles. I would imagine that in most cases a logo being used for primary identification purposes in a stand-alone article about a video game would be expected to be the actual logo being used by the game's creator, but you'd probably should ask those more familiar with video game articles about that. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:24, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion is stalled. Who can close it?

A discussion concerning renaming of a category has been stopped for 14 months. Clearly there is no consensus reached. I voted against it. The user who wanted to rename was an administrator. He has been silent for more than 70 months. And there are no other admins in commons who can read Japanese. Who can close it? --トトト (talk) 13:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

• Technically you don't have to be an admin to close a CfD. I'd welcome action by any experienced user who is an uninvolved party and who reads Japanese. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I have closed it as a non-admin. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Delete

i uploaded this image by mistake. can some of admins delete this? РудиЧајевац (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

@РудиЧајевац: I am not an admin but if you add {{SD|G7}} to a file or page you created within 7 days, it will be deleted by an admin. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:32, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 01:45, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

An easier to use HELP section on Wikimedia Commons would be useful.

Forgive me, as new user here, but I do think that there could be an easier way of asking questions on the Commons set up. It seems to me, from what I am seeing as new user at least, a bit difficult to find where you can ask questions or receive responses. May I suggest a simple 'box' or even Speech bubble icon that you can enter questions, which will then hyperlink or whatever, for all admin to be able to respond to? And they can answer if they wish to. This would avoid having to encode in a complex format, and encourage I believe more responsiveness in community interaction. This is not a criticism just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayswonder (talk • contribs) 12:47, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

@Alwayswonder when you signed up to Commons today, you got an message on your talk page (and a notification that you got a message on your talk pages with a link to the message on your talk page). The message consists of four friendly colored boxes, one of them comes with the icon of a question mark and contains a link to the help desk where you can ask anything and users (admins among them) will answer. You can also ask here and will get an answer from users (admins among them). There are millions of things that could become better here, but I seems difficult, to make it even easier to ask for help, as it already is. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:17, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Seems like @Alwayswonder is struggling with the wiki markup - which is understandable. Back in the days, it was simple and modern compared to the alternatives, but today it is ancient technology. Trying to start a new discussion at the village pump using the button you'll find at the top of the page will lead you here, which is the old-fashioned way of doing things (including manually signing your post, and you're not even told to do so). We're used to it, but that's a pretty crappy user experience for anyone new. It would probably be a good idea to figure out how to use the full suite of new talk page technology on non-talk page pages. El Grafo (talk) 13:33, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Wait, there is one of those new "Add topic" tabs at the top of the page. Why on earth do we still have the old "start a new discussion" button doing it the old-fashioned way? El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

File:-2020-11-20 Brass, Lady Ann Heydon (died 1561), Saint Mary’s, Baconsthorpe, Norfolk.JPG

Can I get a check on whether this over-quotes its documentation? It has a pretty massive quote in its description. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

• Seems a bit much to me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

File:Articulo Meson.png

Hi, I am unsure what action to take regarding the image file File:Articulo Meson.png. I believe it should be deleted, but I am new to Commons' deletion process and I couldn't figure out if any reason for deletion at COM:D applies here (I have never had to do this before on this wiki). If it helps, I'll explain why I believe it should be deleted.

I first came across it while recategorising images in Category:Unidentified Coleoptera about a month ago, and was puzzled as it didn't appear to belong here. Translating the Spanish-language text in Google Translate confirms that it has nothing to do with Coleoptera (scientific name for beetles) whatsoever, but instead is about a village in Colombia. Digging into the history and usage of the file, it appears it was first uploaded by user Lorenapuentesca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in January 2016, and the image is used only by their user page on Spanish Wikipedia. This user also was the original one who erroneously added the file to Category:Coleoptera (in 2019 it was moved to Category:Unidentified Coleoptera and Category:Valued images of Coleoptera (what, why???!!) instead). According to the es.wiki user page's logs, this same userpage was deleted by admins twice before its current version: deletion reason messages seem show that it had the same text content as the image as far as I can tell.

So, it appears this image may purely exist for the purposes of this user's es.wiki user page, and this user hasn't made any edits on any Wikimedia wiki since uploading the image and creating the user page 7 years ago. Back to reasons to delete, would this fall under COM:NOTHOST, or COM:ADVERT? Or something else? Or is the image fine to have on Commons in the end and I should leave it be? Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

@Monster Iestyn: I have nominated the file for deletion as being outside Commons:Project scope: "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text". MKFI (talk) 07:44, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• Does that mean we have to delete all the uploaded scanned newspapers published before 1929? And delete the non-renewed ones prior to 1965? They consist of just text. Do we have to delete the more than 10,000 pdf books of text? --RAN (talk) 19:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The bottom paragraph of Commons:Project_scope#Excluded_educational_content answers that. Scanned texts that serve as a source and "files which embody something of value over and above raw text" are kept. TilmannR (talk) 19:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

• "Value" is subjective, the rule should be rewritten so that it is objective, and can be followed by a bot. People will argue endlessly over which books and newspapers provide value. People weaponize poorly worded rules against other uploaders . --RAN (talk) 19:53, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): no action is being taken against the uploader. We're not talking here about sanctions of any sort. This is an issue about a file, not the person who uploaded it.
  • Trying to write rules so precise that a bot could take over all things that are now judgment calls is, frankly, a terrible proposal. A lot of this comes down to something along the lines of editorial judgement, which is exactly the thing of which a bot or AI is least capable. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

I am not suggesting this particular case is about weaponization, just that the rules, as written, are vague. At one time I had an obituary nominated for deletion based on the "no text" rule. I just think we can reword it a little better, perhaps by listing some good-text and bad-text examples, to make the distinction clearer. I think we are trying to discard images of text that are unpublished original-research. We want primary documents about notable people like death certificates, and published material from notable people, if in the public domain. Excluded educational content is very poorly written, it says we don't want images of text that can be hosted at Wikisource, yet Wikisource demands that an image of the text must be stored at Commons so that they can be compared to the ASCII text for errors. --RAN (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

If it helps this discussion at all, this raw text image file is clearly not from a newspaper or book or anything like those, instead the uploader possibly wrote the text in the image themselves. According to es.wiki's logs, it looks like the text itself broke their policy on user pages when it was placed in the user page directly, and it looks like this image was created to try and circumvent that. Though it's odd how nobody there picked up on the user page being created for the third time with the same text, except this time as an image. Monster Iestyn (talk) 15:51, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Pinging @Ontzak, UA31 as deleting Admins. See also Commons:Deletion requests/File:Articulo Meson.png.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 04:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Photo challenge December results

Under the hood: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	carburetor Solex 31PIC7	Motore di un pullman non funzionante, fermo nel traffico di Roma	Honda Heritage Museum (Marysville,Ohio) - Accord 3.5L SOHC i-VTEC V6 EarthDreams engine and transmission
Author	KaiBorgeest	Albarubescens	Nheyob
Score	10	8	8

Breaking the rules: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Angular brick in a wall at Uelzen main station, Germany	An upside down room at Museum of Illusions, Hamburg	Breaking the prohibition against diving into the water.
Author	Mozzihh	Lusi Lindwurm	Tabrus
Score	16	11	9

Congratulations to Mozzihh, Lusi Lindwurm, Tabrus, KaiBorgeest, Albarubescens and Nheyob. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2023 (UTC)