↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/05.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

People of Ngadisan (Java, Indonesia) are filling their cans at the village pump. The old well is defunct and replaced by a water tap. [add]

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Meta: Create Global file deletion reviewer global user group (31 March 2022) Should "China" without disambiguator be used to mean a country or a cultural region? (25 December 2021) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) File:Flag of Afghanistan.svg redirect target (9 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Indonesian laws on copyright (21 August 2020)
Template: View • Discuss • Edit • Watch

#	Title	Replies	Participants	Last editor	Date/Time (UTC)
1	Making ALT text part of Commons	21	7	Jmabel	2022-05-26 22:59
2	File moving	6	2	Jeff G.	2022-05-26 12:20
3	Help for identifying wild orchis	2	1	Yann	2022-05-26 11:39
4	Is it an Robinia pseudoacacia?	5	3	Smiley.toerist	2022-06-02 08:58
5	Move file to original name	4	2	Roy17	2022-05-31 15:16
6	Lynching	7	4	RadioKAOS	2022-06-02 06:07
7	Struggle to get a photo deleted	6	6	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2022-05-28 21:54
8	Effect of deletion	4	3	Peacemaker67	2022-05-26 07:51
9	Topic list	3	3	Jeff G.	2022-05-26 14:18
10	Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification	1	1	Zuz (WMF)	2022-05-26 10:23
11	Moving Cabalism to Qabalah	16	3	AnandaBliss	2022-05-28 22:27
12	Wich cat in English?	4	2	Jeff G.	2022-05-28 11:44
13	Wikidata references do not see publication dates	1	1	DavidMCEddy	2022-05-29 05:32
14	Two disambiguation pages or one?	1	1	RZuo	2022-05-29 10:02
15	Moving several categories from Programme spelling to Program	7	3	Jmabel	2022-05-31 16:54
16	Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Thomas Patrick Norton II by user:Racconish	20	9	RadioKAOS	2022-06-02 07:02
17	Question - logos of wikimedia	4	2	פרצטמול	2022-05-31 10:03
18	Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2022	1	1	Ammarpad	2022-05-31 17:38
19	Café in Prague	2	2	Draceane	2022-06-01 08:29
20	This photograph is illegal?	14	6	El Grafo	2022-06-02 10:32
21	Clawback period	2	2	RTG	2022-06-02 07:38

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 11[edit]

freedom of panorama in the US: paintings on buildings[edit]

Hi, newbie here doing some research about FoP. I've understood that freedom of panorama in the US only applies to buildings, which do not include other 3D arts and 2D art. However according to Leicester v. Warner Bros., paintings on the exterior of buildings are integral parts of the buildings, thus included in the FoP. Is it safe to say that those paintings, murals and graffitis are with FoP so suitable for Commons (talking only about paintings right on the buildings, not about posters or separate paintings which are not parts of buildings)? Taking the mural in Quebec City for example, if this were located in the US and within time period of copyright protection, would this mural still be under FoP in the US because it's an integral part of the building? Thanks --Suiren2022 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Suiren2022: Probably better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright where more of the people with copyright expertise check in. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 18[edit]

Making ALT text part of Commons[edit]

User:DrMel brought this up at our latest Seattle meetup; User:Peaceray and I are helping to flesh it out.

Be My Eyes has a large network of blind and sighted people who can collaborate to create ALT texts for images. DrMel is pretty certain that this network of people would be interested in providing ALT text in a variety of languages for a large number of our images, especially those that are used in Wikipedia in the various languages. However, there would need to be a clear decision on how best to store of this content and solid support for the process of creating it (and presumably for using it in Wikipedia). We've thought some of this through, but I think it still needs to be kicked around a bit before making a proposal.

Just to be clear: ALT text is meant mainly for the blind and vision-impaired, and is distinct from the description in {{Information}} or from the SDC caption. Basically, good ALT text is intended as a substitute for being able to see the image. E.g. a short English-language ALT text for File:Kleine gedigten voor kinderen - KW 2220 G 15 - 012-012a.jpg might be "Two facing pages in an old book. On the left is a poem in Dutch; on the right is an etching. Both are entitled 'Het Medelijden' (in English, 'Compassion'). The etching shows a well-dressed roughly 8-year-old boy at left dabbing his eye with a handkerchief and, at center, a young woman with a mournful look, but not to the point of being completely distraught, sitting in a simple wooden chair. To the right of that, in the background and slightly less distinct, a man lies in a canopied bed, presumably a sickbed. There is a door open to outdoors at extreme left, and a few domestic items scattered about suggest modest domesticity, just above the level of poverty."

We think the best vehicle for storing this would be a new property corresponding to Wikidata item alt attribute (Q1067764); it could be used in SDC and also within Wikidata: for example, this could be useful on a Wikdata item referring to a work of art. (Wikidata may or may not want such a thing, since, like captions, it is not internally structured, nor is it entirely objective.) Each value for a statement using the property would require free text for the content, plus a qualifier indicating the language.

We would need tools that let someone look at the image while creating this content, possibly some system of marking these for a review process (that could be as simple as a template placing them in a subcat of Category:To be checked), and, if we want to make this really useful, a templating approach for Wikipedia (and other sister projects) analogous to en:Template:Cite Q that would allow such ALT text to be pulled in as needed, to form ALT text where the image is used.

@DrMel and Peaceray: Anything important I've left out? Anything I got wrong?

Anyone: thoughts? comments? - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the Cite Q template idea. The model I want is alt-text additions to a File: page are automatically inserted in the appropriate pages. That way, wiki pages that already use a file do not need to be edited; the alt text would just appear. MW already does something similar with multilingual SVG files. When an SVG file is translated to German, then the German wiki automatically displays the German version of the SVG file. There is no need to add |lang=de to each page on the German wiki that uses the file.

MW already generates alt= text or uses an option. (mw:Help:Images#Syntax) The file included above contains alt="Kleine gedigten voor kinderen - KW 2220 G 15 - 012-012a.jpg", alt text generated from the simple filename. MW would have to implement a more involved alt-text default.

Glrx (talk) 19:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be wonderful if we could skip the templating part, but as I understand it getting alterations made to MW is a much higher bar. If you think we could get that to happen, though, it would be great. - Jmabel ! talk 21:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it must be part of MW for the project to be successful. It is relatively easy to get people to add translations using SVG Translate. If those people also had to edit the wiki pages, then I doubt many would do it. Automatic insertion also has the advantage of avoiding errors.

Yes, software updates to MW take forever, but alt text has a slight advantage: w:Americans with Disabilities Act. WMF does not sell anything, so it does not have to follow ADA, but it would be tough for Maryana Iskander to say ADA upgrades should not be done. Glrx (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"does not have to follow ADA" Perhaps that's not a legal requirement, but making our content accessible is certainly a moral one. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess having a piece of StructuredData that is actually being used in the wild routinely would also be a bit of a boost for the whole StructuredData initiative ... El Grafo (talk) 15:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Much as I'm in favour of SDC, I don't want to promote it at the expense of damaging accessibility. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that more as a motivation for WMF to get things done properly. --El Grafo (talk) 10:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your example illustrates well the deficiency of providing "alt" text without regard to context (and note that a proposal for such a property has multiple objections on this basis): In many cases, the best value might be, or include, a transcription of the poem. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: Yes, I thought of that, but was trying to give a concise example. Since the content of a direct quotation is absolutely uncontroversial, there didn't seem much point in my transcribing that as part of a proposal. - Jmabel ! talk 13:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I very much like this idea - alt text is too often neglected. However, alt text is often contextual; what matters in an image depends on the usage. For example, consider File:Mrs Vanderbilt ElectricLight.jpg. On en:Electric Light dress, the alt text should discuss the dress in some detail, while on en:Alice Claypoole Vanderbilt the alt text would not need to describe the dress. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, whatever we do it should be possible for a given usage to override any default ALT text from Commons, but for most images my guess is that the same well-written alt text would work for all uses. - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  
  thumb with alternative alt text using the alt= parameter
  
  Alt text for a thumb can already specified manually using something like [[File:foo.jpg|thumb|description|alt=alt text]]. Just keep that functionality and let it override the default alt text specified at Commons and everything is good. Love the idea, btw. El Grafo (talk) 14:49, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely support adding alt text to files through structured data. I think using a property would not be a good way as it is not so convenient with multiple languages. As the caption is the label parameter of wikidase we maybe could use the currently not used description parameter for the alt text. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:40, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd want to work with the Wikidata community on whether this should be a new property. I'm not sure if 'description' is a good choice, because one would think it should relate to the "description" in {{Information}}.

Pinging @Peaceray, DrMel please do weigh in either to say that this is the discussion you wanted or to raise any issues where I'm not bringing in your ideas. - 22:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Description would only be the field in the database and how to call it from the API. The GUI of course would say alt text. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's messy, though, isn't it? Better introduce a new field that is properly named. API users are humans too. --El Grafo (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that this is most worthwhile. As Jimmy Wales one said, Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.^[1] There is no question in my mind that extending Wiki[mp]edia capabilities to better serve our blind users would serve this purpose.

I think that having default alt= parameters for .svg files or via the MediaWiki software is a good thing, but we can make alt= more useful by extending it. It would be good to enter an alt text for each language, like a language specific label for a Wikidata item or the Captions in the File information section of the file.

There are probably a few ways this alt data could be used, but I think that creating an alternative to "Use this file on a Wiki" would be an appropriate place to start. Take File:Centre College, 1847 engraving.png for instance. Right now "Use this file on a Wiki" only generates:

[[File:Centre College, 1847 engraving.png|thumb|Centre College, 1847 engraving]]

It does the same for Deutsch, English, Español, et cetera, despite having captions in eight different languages.

Now imagine being able to use the different language captions, plus the alt text, for however many languages were entered. Perhaps we could come up with a way to generate something like the following.

For German:
[[File:Centre College, 1847 engraving.png|thumb|alt=Ein Stich von Lewis Colilins aus dem Jahr 1847, der die Haupthalle des Center College und die Residenz des Präsidenten auf der rechten Seite zeigt, mit Bäumen um sie herum und einem Zaun im Vordergrund, der diagonal von der vorderen linken Ecke verläuft.|Gravur des Centre College, 1847]]
For English:
[[File:Centre College, 1847 engraving.png|thumb|alt=An 1847 engraving by Lewis Colilins depecting the main hall of Centre College and the president's residence on the right, with trees about them and a fence in the foreground running diagonally from the front left corner.|Engraving of Centre College, 1847]]
For Spanish:
[[File:Centre College, 1847 engraving.png|thumb|alt=Un grabado de 1847 de Lewis Colilins que muestra el salón principal del Center College y la residencia del presidente a la derecha, con árboles a su alrededor y una cerca en primer plano que corre en diagonal desde la esquina frontal izquierda.|Grabado de Centre College, 1847]]

Peaceray (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

↑ Roblimo (28 July 2004). Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds. Slashdot.

@Peaceray As far as I understand, the idea behind this is to go even further than that. General-purpose alt texts in differend languages would be specified for a file at Commons, and software magic in the background would automatically deliver them whenever the image is used (unless overridden because a more specific alt text is needed for the given context). ← that was me a couple of days ago, somehow my signature got lost. --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering if there is yet something concrete enough here to propose at Commons:Village pump/Proposals. Would a loose proposal there be the best we to proceed, or can someone suggest a different way? - Jmabel ! talk 20:05, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created a proposal: Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Adding alt texts through structured data --GPSLeo (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Again Pinging @DrMel, Peaceray to participate in that proposal discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 22:59, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 19[edit]

File moving[edit]

Yesterday there was something wrong, but it's fixed now. What's not fixed, I have it for a week now, is that during renaming there comes a little screen thay says 'Deze pagina vraagt te bevestigen dat u deze wilt verlaten - gegevens die u hebt ingevoerd, worden mogelijk niet opgeslagen' (in English: 'This page asks to confirm that you want to leave - data you receive may not be saved.'. This normally happens when a page is not fully loaded yet, but this is during renaming. When I rename a couple of files at the same time, with only a short time-difference, sometimes a renaming doesn't work, and I can still find it on the 'request page'. This pc is 'old', but this weekend I was somewhere else, and I had the same problem. Does anybody know? I work with Firefox, the latest version. It also sometimes happens when I only rename one file.- Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardkiwi: I got something like that, too, but not related to renaming. I chalked it up to my scripts not having fully loaded, but now I wonder. I will try to screenshot next time. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: - Ok, we will see :-). I got on error also, but it was only a few minutes (like yesterday, the pink screen). I can make a screenshot too, but it's in dutch and I have to upload it to Commons (or something). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 16:33, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardkiwi: On my laptop, I get a dialog entitled "Leave site?" with advice "Changes you made may not be saved." and buttons "Leave" and "Cancel". — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:00, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: - Yes, I had the same. At the moment, no problems. Yesterday a few times, but it was very often in the week before 20 May. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richardkiwi: That's good news. On my iPad, I get an untitled dialog with two buttons, "Stay On this Page" and "Leave this Page". — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 20[edit]

Help for identifying wild orchis[edit]

Hi, I need help for identifying wild orchis

Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done on French Wikipedia. Yann (talk) 11:39, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 23[edit]

Is it an Robinia pseudoacacia?[edit]

The leaves look the same, but it is such a big tree. Most of the Robinia pseudoacacia are much smaller. Are the fruits correct? In other images these fruits are much more gathered together and on specific fruit branches.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:38, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not Robinia pseudoacacia, R. pseudoacasia has much smaller pinnate round leaves (and they are less glossy). Based on the fruits I would say that this is some unidentified Fabaceae tree. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 12:14, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a Pterocarya fraxinifolia. Do you have more photos (close up, of the bark)? Wouter (talk) 12:51, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I could visit the tree again.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Pterocarya fraxinifolia. It was windy, so I could not get very scharp macro images. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move file to original name[edit]

I request that Special:permalink/657140008 be fulfilled to restore the original episode name given by VOA. Thx. Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Could an admin who knows Chinese please do this? I hesitate to make a move where I really don't know what is going on.~~ - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like this proposed move is the subject of a dispute. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The original filename is the original episode name given by VOA. Roy17 (talk) 15:16, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 25[edit]

Lynching[edit]

If you know the history of lynching - and that's a phrase I really don't want to have to use - you'll know that accusing the victims of some awful crime is pretty standard, and usually completely spurious. File:Lynching-1889.jpg has a description that looks to buy in 100% to the accusations of the people who killed the guy. I'm just... going to delete that, unless we can put it in hellish amounts of context. Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, what other phrasing would you propose using for this file? I think the term "lynching" is easily understood and widespread. What the victim may have done might not be a crime nowadays, but it likely was at the time of the picture being taken - so it'd be the best description for the event. Unless there's some source affirming that this person did not actually commit any crimes, I don't see a reason to use a different term. It doesn't aim to attack the individual shown either - the description is written neutrally, and he's described as a victim. -- Aimarekin (talk) 14:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See en:Lynching of George Meadows: They just killed someone who had the same skin color as the rapist/murderer. The victim begged them not to, because she could not identify him. The next day the sheriff decided he was innocent. The text Adam removed was:

"George Meadows, "murderer & rapist," lynched on scene of his last alleged crime."

That uses quotation marks, but without knowing the story behind this, these can mean a couple of different things. I have linked the Wikipedia article now - that's probably better than trying to tell the whole story in the file description. El Grafo (talk) 14:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've also removed the file from Category:Criminals from the United States, as it seems quite clear that he is one of several victims here. --El Grafo (talk) 14:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's also File:George Meadows, murderer & rapist, lynched on scene of his last crime LCCN2012646363.jpg and File:George Meadows, murderer & rapist, lynched on scene of his last crime LCCN2012646363.tif that need to be dealt with. Already fixed at source [1]. --El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ech.... Stuff you find while trying to go through POTD stuff on en-wiki. (Well, by way of trying to figure out why a file was on the bad image list.) Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:24, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So we're committing historical revisionism with respect to information provided by the Library of Congress, while at the same time elsewhere on the project we refuse to address obvious factual inaccuracies attributed to them because, by golly, they're the Library of Congress and how could they possibly be wrong about anything? Meh. Does the work you're doing on en-wiki ever point you in the direction of WP:NOTADVOCACY or WP:RGW? Too many people are trying to parrot Wikipedian agendas over here instead of merely being concerned about curating data, and there's tons of work to do in that regard.RadioKAOS (talk) 06:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Struggle to get a photo deleted[edit]

I have tried several times to get this foto deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sogndal-Raufoss_310720_Igoh_Ogbu-1.jpg

Simple reasons: 1) It was uploaded by mistake 2) It's not my photo 3) It's in violation with the license and is a copyright infringement. Please advice what I can do to fix this. I have thousands of quality images uploaded here and this is, to my recollection, my very first deletion request. This whole process has not been a great experience. --Bep (talk) 17:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bep: You were asked directly, "Are you the photographer of this photo? Are you the photographer of the other photos of the series? If there is some difference with this photo and others of the series making them ok for free licenses but this one is not, could you please explain what it is?" You never answered. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(After edit conflict) Looking through the history at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Sogndal-Raufoss 310720 Igoh Ogbu-1.jpg you have probably alienated some other users by being evasive and offering confusing answers. There is at least one comment there from someone who said they would !vote delete as a courtesy if you gave them a clear explanation, but you didn't respond (at least not on that page).

To stand a chance of deletion here, you will need to give a clear explanation of what happened. This is one of a series of images from an event that you claim to have made and released here under a free licence. Why is this one not your image when the others are? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From looking at the (kept) DR for the cropped version of the image I assume, that Bep wants to have this file deleted, because them strongly dislikes the cropped version (that might be deleted as COPYVIO, if the original file was deleted). --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:45, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've bought up a similar image which had been deleted as Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#File:Sogndal-Raufoss 310720 Daniel Eid-1.jpg. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 08:12, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem appears to be that every rationale for deletion contradicts actual facts about the image. Rationale includes: "It's not my photo" despite the EXIF data showing it is. "It's in violation with the license" the license is valid. "copyright infringement" all usage is in compliance with the license it was released under. Maybe they are angry because someone cropped it, an the credit for the crop goes to someone else. If that is the actual problem, there is an easy solution. -RAN (talk) 21:54, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 26[edit]

Effect of deletion[edit]

G'day, if a file page currently displays a free image (the top image, so to speak), but there is a previous version of the file in the history which is a copyvio, if there is a deletion request for the file/page, presumably all the versions of the file are also deleted, including the current free version? The example I am referring to is here. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a revision deletion (revdel. Only one (or more but not all) revision of a file is deleted. As there is already a DR you might want to point out there, that a revdel is wanted. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done I also blocked UserNameSRB for edit-warring and abusing overwriting. Yann (talk) 07:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, thanks all! Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:51, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Topic list[edit]

I've added a list of topics in the header. I wonder if this will help the discussion run more smoothly. Any comments would be welcome, thanks. Kanashimi (talk) 09:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanashimi: the context of this is unclear. In the header of what? - Jmabel ! talk 14:11, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: This edit. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:18, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification[edit]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Cabalism to Qabalah[edit]

The current Category:Qabalah redirects to Category:Cabalism. The issue is, that the Cabalism WikiMedia page was originally meant for cabals, ie secret or conspiracy groups. The page is a strange mix of both: it's linked to the en:Cabal and its cabal (Q1416414) WikiData page is mostly about cabals as well. But the content is entirely about en:Hermetic Qabalah, or non-Jewish forms of Category:Kabbalah. I tried to make some changes months ago, but I don't know enough about WikiData to make any moves so I reverted all of my edits. What is the proper way to go about taking the current content of Cabalism and changing it back to the Qabalah WikiMedia page, with links to the Hermetic Qabalah Wikipedia page? AnandaBliss (talk) 14:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed several of the links in your message. I'll try to look in to this if I get time later (a bit hectic at work this week) unless someone else responds first. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:53, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My suggestion for sorting this out:

Content should go in a new Category:Hermetic Qabalah.
- Done - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Qabalah and Category:Cabalism should become disambiguations.
- Done - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Kabbalah and Category:Hermetic Qabalah should each get a {{See also cat}} or other appropriate tag pointing to the other.
- Done; incorporated existing hat text. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In Wikidata, Category:Kabbalah is already correctly aligned; Hermetic Qabalah (Q1613576) should link to the new Category:Hermetic Qabalah.
- Done - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've already removed the incorrect link from cabal (Q1416414).

Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unless anyone objects in the next 24 hours, I'll move forward on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:25, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi user:Jmabel, that works for me, thanks so much! It's been bothering me for quite a while but I don't know my way around well enough yet to get it all done. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:29, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add one more thing, I think that the categories Cabalistic books‎ and Cabalists‎ should be moved to Qabalistic books (or maybe Books about Hermetic Qabalah) and Qabalists, respectively, just to keep everything as consistent as possible. AnandaBliss (talk) 20:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Largely completed. User:AnandaBliss, would you please look at the remaining content in Category:Cabalism and sort it out to the proper categories? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked everything over, thanks so much! I've also moved the rest of the contents of Cabalism into Hermetic Qabalah. Should I put in a separate request for the other category name changes? AnandaBliss (talk) 15:40, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnandaBliss: Ah, missed those. I'll have the delinker do those, since they are simple cat moves. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much again!! AnandaBliss (talk) 20:23, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@AnandaBliss: you still need to empty out Category:Cabalism. This may involve creating a new category under Category:Christian mysticism specific to Christian Quabalah, but it does need to be done. These categories and images can't be left as members of a category that is now a disambiguation. - Jmabel ! talk 20:17, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you for the reminder, user:Jmabel! Christian Cabala (regrettably, there are 3 different spellings to remember) probably needs to exist as well. I'll get to that. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wich cat in English?[edit]

Hi there.

I have problems while categorizing some pics of Levée de la Divatte because I don't know the exact term even in French so even in English... I don't find anything in the Commons' cats. And I'll have 300 files (or more) to upload.

This levee has many accesses to the Loire river, kind of "doors". Some of them are small accesses to stone stairs (*1) (1 meter width or less), small piers, small private or public slipways (*2) (2-3 meters), big accesses to a harbors (*3) for river barges, or to vegetable farming (*4) (famous Val-de-Loire products) or former river sand loading scales (*5) (15-20 m width). All are made to recieve a "cofferdam" (*6) in case of high flood. Each one wanted to access the bank at the foot of their home, to fish, to moor their boats (important commercial ports on the Loire, before and after the levee). Each "door" has a number (1 to 107) so I'll have to create 107 cats and they cannot be in one unique cat.

So, my question is: how do I call these "doors"?

Here some links to Streetview to see what's about:

Thanks a lot for help. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 23:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llann Wé²: I think you could make Category:Loire River access points as a subcat of Category:Loire River, or Category:Gaps in Levée de la Divatte as a subcat of Category:Levée de la Divatte. You could also make one or more subcats of Category:Marinas in France, if necessary. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 00:15, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot, good idea Jeff.

I wrote almost it... but I didn't think to name them like that... It'll be a mix: cat:Loire River access points in Levée de la Divatte because this 15km levee is not the only one along the Loire.

Have a nice w-e.

LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 01:59, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Llann Wé²: You too, and you're welcome. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:44, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 29[edit]

Wikidata references do not see publication dates[edit]

File:HomicideNorthAmerica Europe3.svg includes multiple {{cite Q|...}} references. Each is displayed with "(Please provide a date or year)", even though a "publication date" is provided with all of them. ??? Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two disambiguation pages or one?[edit]

cat:mia is a dab. cat:MIA is also ambiguous. should it stay as a redirect to Category:MIA letter combinations, become a dab page on its own, or redirect to cat:mia? RZuo (talk) 10:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moving several categories from Programme spelling to Program[edit]

Several subcategories of Category:Television programmes regarding the U.S. need to be changed to American spelling. They are:

AnandaBliss (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Handed off to the Delinker. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Jmabel and Jeff G.! I promise I will get to learning to do this myself. AnandaBliss (talk) 22:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that the "program" categories exist, is there anything else that I need to do other than move the files and subcategories over? AnandaBliss (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. My intent was that the delinker would do all the moving. It worked for two of the categories. Let me see if I can get the other two to happen. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see: it's because there was already a redirect in the other direction. I've reversed that. Should sort itself out in the next few hours. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 30[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photographs by Thomas Patrick Norton II by user:Racconish[edit]

The DR contains a number of fotos from the archive of Thomas Patrick Norton II and is not about copyright, not about personalit rights, but "out of scope".

I could argue that the fotos are in scope, because there is an section with the works of TPN II in wikisource and the fotos in the DR will sooner or later be added to that section of wikisource - but will not mention that.

Instead I say that "out of scope" should be dropped nearly completely. For years the InstantCommons extension for MediaWiki-Wikis exists, is promoted by WMF and used by hundreds of thousends of wikis that use the WMF MW software. A media file that may be out of scope is nearly always in scope in thousends of MW wikis.

Furthermore WMF/WMDE is turning Wikipedia/Commons with the project picsome / Curated Commons into an universal free stockfoto service (https://www.wikimedia.de/projects/picsome/). Nothing can be out of scope. C.Suthorn (talk) 06:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

this is more of a user problem. take a look at another nonsense batch DR by this user. he never gives anything coherent to support his nominations. RZuo (talk) 09:09, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The user in question is an admin. And them is not the only user requesting out of scope deletions. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:47, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

desysop is appropriate, as this user's behaviour clearly shows he is not willing to contribute and cooperate. look at the response at 10:21, 30 May 2022 below, his attitude says he doesnt care. he makes no effort at all to explain how he thinks the policies he quotes apply in his DR. in fact, his DR are clearly not in accordance with those policies. RZuo (talk) 11:29, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i just realised, that's the same user behind these "complete bollocks": Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream. RZuo (talk) 11:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Currently, Commons:Project scope is our official policy. — Racconish ^💬 10:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is. Category:20th-century family portrait photography doesn't seem to have too much content. Do you argue the category is out of scope? Do we not want coloured photos of families in New Jersey in the 1950s (you never answered that argument in the discussion)? I assume we do want to document amateur photography; there is no shortage of recent photos (although not all relevant categories are well-populated), but for photos before the digital era we should be very careful not to delete too much.

At least one of the files in the request is in use at Wikipedia (and was at time of filing the request), so in scope by definition. Didn't you check usage?

–LPfi (talk) 11:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also find problematic the wording in Commons:Scope "Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose: Private image collections ". It is often used in debates for deletion, ignoring the list of examples because no list can contain all examples. Every image uploaded by a user from their own camera is uploading images from their "private image collections". My series of local churches and my series of local cemeteries are all from my "private image collections" and are not wanted according to scope. This really should be reworded to remove the phrase "private image collections" and just include "private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on." Even "holiday snaps" is problematic if I take images of churches and cemeteries while on vacation, they appear to be not wanted by Commons. As worded my trip would have to be dedicated to the purpose of taking images and not involve any vacation activities or be taken on a holiday. I imagine most images taken outside of one's home area are taken while on vacations/holidays. --RAN (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My series of local churches and my series of local cemeteries are all from my "private image collections" and are not wanted according to scope - ??? - I think I haven't seen this case, but if you were told that your images of churches and cemeteries were out of scope, there must have been some misunderstanding, mistake or a really wrong interpretation of COM:SCOPE, as such objects are basically always clearly in scope. You can always use images of local churches or cemeteries for articles etc. about that location. There are also many educational uses outside of Commons for such images. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:13, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the sentence "Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on" - I think this needs to be interpreted according to its spirit, not literally. It certainly doesn't mean that photos taken on vacation/holidays are out of scope just for that reason; Commons certainly has a lot of valuable, excellent photos of important buildings etc. probably taken on holidays. What the sentence means is, I think, "holiday snaps" that focus on the activities of you and your friends, especially if they are in the pictures. Though over time, even such photos may gain historical value... like, I think, no one would doubt that photos that show how people spent their holidays in, say, the 1920s, are interesting and potentially of educational use now. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:21, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember if you make enemies, they will use the wording to nominate your images for deletion, as a form of harassment. That is why it should be reworded, exact wording matters. Saying no to "private image collections" makes it sound like you only want "public image collections", like those released by archives. --RAN (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also find problematic the wording in Commons:Project scope "Must not contain only excluded educational content." It is so poorly worded with a double negative that it is incomprehensible. An explanation is given as to what it means: "no news" and "no text" images, and then a second explanation that contradicts no-news, with yes news, I have had public domain obituaries deleted because of the no-news rule. Oddly Wikisource demands that Commons keep an image of all news articles transcribed there, so they can be compared when transcribed. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reword this section so that it doesn't have to be explained three times with contradictions and double-negatives. --RAN (talk) 23:56, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think pictures of non-notable people should be treated the same way as we do COM:PENIS: nothing is inherently in scope or out of scope. Rather, we should lean towards keeping images that have something unique going for them, and deleting images that are no different from countless others in the same category. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:06, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also have a rule, that we should have as many images in a category as we have for the categories "cats" and "dogs" before we say we already have too many. We have over 5,000 images of cats and dogs. --RAN (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Non-notable" has different meanings in each project, in Commons and Wikipedia, it tends to mean famous-people. At wikidata, just that a reliable source has provided enough information to create an entry for them. --RAN (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Wikidata counts as in-use = inherently in-scope. I'm referring to images that are not in use. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem here is – as with sexual images – that there are many people more concerned about not having too many than to have the relevant categories populated with good images. Look at Category:Birthday parties in Germany – is this really the best we can do? We need more family albums pictures, even contemporary ones. Anybody nominating a holiday shot for deletion should point at a well-populated category including images that make the nominated one redundant (for each main aspect of the shot). Contemporary holiday shots with poor descriptions should mostly be deleted, as we would get drowned in them, but ones with decent descriptions should definitely be kept. I' hope for something like "Two 17-year old high school friends from the UK on their first Interrail trip, in 2016, at Piazza San Marco of Venice (selfie)", but much less would do. –LPfi (talk) 08:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I closed as Kept Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by RZuo. These are professional quality fashion images, so clearly in scope. I also think that the deletion of Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Photos from Parlamentul Republicii Moldova Flickr stream is a mistake. Images tagged as public domain by an official Flickr account should be kept. Feel free to ask for undeletion. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:19, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see two items of concern here. First, we've been headed down a slippery slope for a while now indulging editors who believe that we should only parrot "notable" subjects as defined by Wikidata and/or Wikipedia, without regard to what COM:SCOPE actually says. For instance, I would be interested in building the poorly-populated tree underneath Category:Local politicians. You're saying I shouldn't bother because Wikipedia believes the vast majority of local politicians aren't notable? Second, I see the DR in question has to do with RAN. It's obvious to me he's using Commons as a platform for his private genealogy project and has no qualms about bending the rules to achieve those aims. As mentioned in another DR, take a look at File:John Howard Lindauer in the University of Alaska Anchorage yearbook in 1976.jpg and File:John Howard Lindauer in 1976 (background removed).png. RAN's obsession with Lindauer extends to repeatedly referring to him by his full name, even though EVERYONE else refers to him as simply John Lindauer. That's beside the point, though. The photo from which those two files were derived was taken in 1983 (see page 9). He stated it was taken in 1976 and sourced to a nonexistent publication in order to claim it was public domain. Despite how prolific he is on this project, he appears to have nothing to say in response. Nonsense like this is causing me to be immediately suspicious of his contributions.RadioKAOS (talk) 07:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

May 31[edit]

Question - logos of wikimedia[edit]

In about a month, it will be the Hebrew Wikipedia's 19th anniversary. Normally, there is a special logo made for these occasions, and therefore, I made one. Now, my question is, how do I upload the Logo, and what License do I choose (And more importantly, where do I add the Template:Wikimedia trademark)? פרצטמול (talk) 04:11, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any special procedure? Use the Upload Wizard (unless you have another favourite). Give "{{Own work}}. {{Derived from}}" as source, with the filename of the logo you used as parameter to the latter. Use the same licence template as that one, and add the trademark template in the same way. Add Category:Wikipedia logos for anniversaries and Category:Hebrew Wikipedia logo variants‎.

For derived works, I usually open the file description of the original work and copy all of it to the new description (often after upload, as the Wizard makes that complicated) in suitable chunks, and edit as needed.

–LPfi (talk) 09:04, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LPfi, Thanks, done in file:הצעה ללוגו 19 שנים.png, I'll change what that is needed according to the procedure you wrote. originally asked for I was warned automatically not to upload this. פרצטמול (talk) 09:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

by the way, this is merely a proposal, for I know at least two more proposals and none of which were chosen yet, so I don't think that Category:Wikipedia logos for anniversaries is needed yet. פרצטמול (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2022[edit]

Dear Wikimedians,

We are glad to inform you that the 2022 edition of Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos campaign is coming up in July.

This is a formal invitation to invite individuals and communities to join the campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and contextual images.

The campaign will run from July 1 to August 31, 2022 and several communities and Wikimedia Affiliates have already indicated interest to organize the campaign in their localities. Please find your community or community closer to you to participate: WPWP2022 Campaign: Participating Communities.

The campaign primarily aims to promote using images from Wikimedia Commons to enrich Wikipedia articles that are lacking them. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photos, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years. In this third edition of the campaign, eligibility criteria have been revised based on feedback and campaign Evaluation Reports of the previous editions. Please find more details about these changes and our FAQ here on Meta-Wiki

For more information, please visit the campaign page on Meta-Wiki.

Best,
Ammar A.
Global Coordinator
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign 2022.
17:38, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 01[edit]

Café in Prague[edit]

Wich café is this? Does it stil exist?

I have scanned/uploaded some december 1991 slides of Prague. Some street categories are missing in Category:1991 in tram transport in Prague.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: Seems to be Café Imperial. Greetings from Prague. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This photograph is illegal?[edit]

Hello, this photograph seems to be against the Geneva convention, text: "prisoners of war must at all times be protected... ...against insults and public curiosity."

Third Geneva Convention, Part II: General Protection of Prisoners of War, Article 13

Is it not? And if it is against the convention, does that not make it illegal, at least until the prisoner is released..? ~ R.T.G 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an interesting article about that: Is sharing photographs of prisoners of war banned by the Geneva Convention?. Short answer: in most cases illegal for the involved parties (here: Ukraine). Probably not illegal for journalists elsewhere, but still not a good idea. As always, there are exceptions. El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If he is Wagner Group then, for what it's worth, he's a mercenary and I believe not covered by the Geneva Convention. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is how the Convention works. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt very much having read over it a couple of times that the nature of the contract determines the nature of the individuals rights. That part is Article 4. It seems to be covered by category 1, "...members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." In fact it seems to cover all sorts of groups and individuals... except, perhaps, those acting on their own allegiance while also committing war crimes(?).

It is to some debate as to the legality of the "group" in Russian law, but that seems to be a legal matter internally for either of Ukraine and Russia to decide, which part alone would certainly not determine their status of protection under the conventions. Even recognised war criminals would be protected by the convention. It does not prevent trial and punishment or anything like that. It just demands that such things be done with procedure and prisoner protection. ~ R.T.G 15:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Jmabel is right in principle: Protocol I Art 47 is very clear that "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." That does not matter here, though, because of the narrow definition of mercenaries (see below). El Grafo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Western media tends to casually call them mercenaries, but the actual legal definition of a mercenary is very narrow. Assuming he is a Russian citizen, he cannot be a mercenary per Protocol I Art 47: "2. A mercenary is any person who: [...] (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict" -- El Grafo (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is a personality rights violation to publish the photo of someone being caught by police or standing at the court. The exception would be if this was a public person before this event or if the person flees and is searched. In the second case the photo has to be published by an public institution and I think there would be restrictions on the photo not allowing it on Commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be deleted for the reasons detailed in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Employees of a private military company are uniformed unlawful combatants under the GC according to the UN. You can read about the Nisour Square massacre and read the USA position and the UN position on how to treat uniformed unlawful combatants and whether they are mercenaries, and whether they are covered by the GC. No answers here, just the positions of several legal entities. --RAN (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- It gives the same clause excluding those national to the conflict, "A mercenary is any person who... ...(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict; (d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and (e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." from en:United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention#Article_1_(Definition_of_mercenary) (my apology if the text has been interfered with I should by right have checked it before posting it). There is a second definition but again it includes the same clauses on nationality. Rather, the general focus is whether such bad boys are sent off to fight for a truly foreign allegiance. In that case, both the companies and commanders are at fault, but fighting for your own state, mercenary or not, is excluded in duplicate. ~ R.T.G 23:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  But this question does not matter for the question if the photo violates the personality rights. The photo is taken without consent of an imprisoned person not able to act against this and the person was not a public person before. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Agreed that the question whether this is a mercenary or not is entirely moot here. The Geneva conventions only apply to parties involved in the conflict anyway. So now we're back to COM:PEOPLE. El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  There is no doubt this person is considered to be involved in the conflict. The source describes him as a military scout working for Russian forces. ~ R.T.G 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  No doubt about that, but it does not matter here. My and GPSLeo's entire point point is that the question whether he is a mercenary, a "regular" soldier or something in-between (in other words: is he covered by the Geneva Conventions as a "prisoner of war"?) does not matter for us. It matters for Ukraine, as they are part of the conflict. But the Geneva Conventions do not apply for us here on Commons, as far as I understand. Whether or not we keep the image has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, just the regular local laws of the country of origin (and possibly the US) as well as any self-imposed regulations of Commons and WMF. Ergo: instead of keeping discussing the Geneva Conventions, we need to look at COM:PEOPLE. El Grafo (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 02[edit]

Clawback period[edit]

Where online do we discuss our clawback period, where we allow uploaders to delete their images, despite releasing them under an irrevocable license. --RAN (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_reasons reason "G7", 7 days. After that it is up to the community. ~ R.T.G 07:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] Roblimo (28 July 2004). Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds. Slashdot.

[1]

Commons:Village pump

Contents