User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2024

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I'm sure you have better things to do. My own work "Muriel Robin" comprises several photos that I took with Muriel's permission. What's your problem? Francis Hannaway (talk) 21:13, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

@Francish7: Please don't make me guess or explore. I have been doing 000s of pieces of maintenance, so please specifically tell me what I am looking at. If I deleted something there will have been criteria added by whomever requested deletion, and it will have been accepted, or added to if I thought extra information was required.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:40, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Francish7: I assume you are talking about Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muriel Robin 1.jpg. billinghurst is not really the person who nominated this for deletion. If you look at that page, User:FMSky asked for the image to be speedy-deleted as a duplicate of File:Muriel Robin par Francis Hannaway 2016.jpg. billinghurst rejected that call for speedy-deletion, remarked "Not exact duplicate, though the cropped part contains a copyright statement and the bottom of the image," and then started Commons:Deletion requests/File:Muriel Robin 1.jpg to get consensus, because he was rejecting someone else's call for speedy deletion. In other words, he started a discussion about whether or not to keep the version with the watermark. You can comment on that discussion; here is not the most productive place to comment, because whatever admin decides whether to delete the watermarked version probably won't see this user talk page. And, either way, some version of the photo will certainly be kept. - Jmabel ! talk 22:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

I've noticed that the files The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language (Volume 1).pdf and The Origin and Development of the Bengali Language (Volume 2).pdf were migrated to English Wikisource for copyright violation. While they are obviously in public domain in the United States, they are also in public domain in the source country (India), see {{PD-India}}. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:47, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Chatterji died in 1977 to my understanding, which is 47 years ago, so not certain how they are PD-India. If you think that they can be undeleted here, then please follow the process at Com:UNBLOCK.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I believe you meant COM:UNDELETE. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep <sigh> late nights <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth 20:39, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello - I am just getting in touch about renaming "File:Shane Taylor in November 2014 (cropped).jpg". The Flickr page states the image was taken on November 27, 2014; however, you will see that the image is located in a folder titled "Showcase of Champions Winston Salem, NC 11-27-15". Additionally, the following links shows that Taylor is not recorded as having wrestled on 27 November 2014 but is recorded as having wrestled (in Winston-Salem) on 27 November 2015. Therefore, there is evidence that the image is actually from 2015 and the reference to 2014 on Flickr is an errors. McPhail (talk) 13:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@McPhail: The metadata says 2014. Who am I to dismiss that information? When there is concern over a naming or information, we then lopok to ues {{Fact disputed}}, and put information onto the file talk page. Evidentiary steps are better documented and consensus, rather than forcing something through, and occurring edit wars later. At this stage there is no "obvious" criteria that I can apply, hence my not renaming it at this point. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi! I've noticed that you declined some renaming requests, maybe I was unclear and I would like to explain better. The italian municipalities of Alano di Piave (map) and Quero Vas (map) have been unified last January 22nd, under the new name of Setteville. The standard name adds an "ex-" before "comune" to indicate that it's no longer a municipality, so the name for these historical maps should be Map of ex-comune of XXXXXX (province of Belluno, region Veneto, Italy).svg. Also, this map should not indicate "since" (because it's no longer current) and should be renamed File:Map of comune of -blank map- (province of Belluno, region Veneto, Italy) until 22nd January 2024.svg, as was done for previous maps. If there's anything else wrong, let me know. Thank you in advance :) Arrow303 (talk) 18:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arrow303: While it may have been a commune, I am guessing that there is no such thing as an ex-commune. We need to manage that a different way. For a file that is a map, put some years against as ab exanple, so (YYYY-YYYY) for start and finish. Also update the description. The name describes what it is or was, or puts boundaries around it, not starts to create new terms. The map is usually as of a point in time, or covers a range if we are looking retrospectively. So if we have a start date, then append 2024, put the fine detail into description.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:58, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why do you delete this category as wrong named? There is a Wikidata and italian Wikipedia article https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casa_Ghiringhelli about this building -- Arch2all (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@Arch2all: I deleted per request to delete. Twice the category has been created, and twice the contents moved to different places, with category redirects.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:01, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

But it seems that the original delete request doesn't make sense (anymore). --Arch2all (talk) 23:06, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Have a chat to @Arbalete: , their request both times to remove the category redirects, once for their creation. If it is that notable, then we can have the category, and have it linked from Wikidata. Though please resolve this prior to recreating, as there seems a fundamental disagreement here somewhere. I will remove the protection now that a conversation is occurring.  — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

User who nominated the file for deletion (Nominator) : Mewa767.

I'm a computer program; please don't ask me questions but ask the user who nominated your file(s) for deletion or at our Help Desk. //Deletion Notification Bot 2 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi. What criteria do you use to consider sections resolved like here?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

They have an exact answer and we aren't changing our filter for them. The fact that they cannot be bothered reading their error message. I don't believe that the page is the scenario for issue resolution where we are not going to change the filter, or we think that the filter is wrong. Nor is that page the help page for how to circumvent the filter, we should be pushing them to standard help pages at that point.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Is it not a Saint James church? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Laurel Lodged: Hi. Category:Saint James churches is a disambiguation category page, it is not a category for collecting files or categories of churches named St James. Its purpose is to list categories of the same name. We don't have that category specifically for collecting files "Churches named Saint James", and I doubt that there is a particular need for one, though happy to hear your opinion on how it could add value. In this situation, at some point someone has mistakenly added those aspects that have allowed for the categorisation.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

so churches that have St James the Greater as a patron saint should be diffused to that category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit at [1]? You omitted adding an explanation in the summary field. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:16, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

@Enhancing999: you removed a category redirect that was purposefully added by the move script, per its design. I am not sure why you did that either. I would think that it would be reasonably obvious why we would have a redirect for a long-existing category. FWIW my change back had as much subject summary as your edit.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:01, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

The template I added explains why the redirect should be deleted and not kept. Not all "long-existing category" should be kept as redirects. For standard users, there is no "suppress redirect" function, so the way to go is to add the template (but I guess you knew that). Enhancing999 (talk) 10:34, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

I did not say we would keep it because it was long-existing, I said as it was long-existing that it we would keep it. This one could not be easily found through HotCat following the change of name, and as such should be kept. The indicative nature of the category redirect should be reasonably apparent that there should be a good reason to delete it. They are not problematic, and if you think that they are problematic, we have a quite reasonable deletion request process. That you added bad name template is your opinion, it is not overtly meeting that criteria.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Enhancing999: See also COM:CATRED.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

[2]: why? What is the connection? - Jmabel ! talk 21:51, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

<shrug>  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the nocat parameter to all those text categories. That will make it easier to work on the non-empty dab cats. Do you want any help with doing that? -- Auntof6 (talk) 07:23, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: Took me a while to find that the "nocat" parameter was already coded into the template. Anyway, help yourself, I am just working through maintenance categories, none are mine, and it is nice to see them empty.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I took care of all but one of the ones that were in the non-empty dab cats. The one I didn't do was Category:New York (text). That one uses a different template, {{2 word text cat}}, that doesn't seem to have the nocat option. It's getting late so I'm not going to look at it right now, but if no one else does I'll look at it later. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I have added an override for topic/$3 of nocat for {{2 word text cat}}  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! So that takes care of the ones in dab categories.

As for others, I don't know if they should be addressed. Do we ever want to categorize the text categories this way? I would think not, because they deal with pure text, not the meaning(s) of the text. The images in the text could conceivably have nothing to do with the main subject of a term, or even of any of the alternate meanings. What do you think? -- Auntof6 (talk) 21:56, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I haven't thought about it, though well worth the conversation. I think that the best space for these in front of the community, so here [[Com:VP]. Trying to find the balance between good categorisation, and make work; sensible <=> nonsensical; do no harm <=> focusing on best use of time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Dear Billinghurst,

please delete File:Megabunus_sp_♂_adult.jpg and First_Local_Verified_Observation_Record

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elena Regina (talk • contribs) 18:18, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

You recently closed a deletion discussion about a photograph taken by a colonizer of a likely coerced nude indigenous woman in favor of keeping the image by stating [t]he dignity standard would not apply to a historical photo. I would like to ask for clarification about how you arrived at this interpretation, that the guideline doesn't apply to historical photos. COM:DIGNITY does not seem to mention exceptions for historical photographs and emphasizes that that portion of the guideline is not about the legal complications that pertain to the privacy rights of living individuals but rather about how decency and respect for human dignity may influence the decision whether to host an image above that required by the law. This seemed like a case in which the provenance of an image may taint its use irredeemably. Hydrangeans (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The wording of that guidance is for contemporary and personal submissions, please read and cite the whole guidance in context. As an administrator I have to assess the guidance against the purpose. The image is widely available in the public domain, we are not talking a sole copy of the image. It is not our job as administrators to reinterpret and censor history, and as such we have to look at the image in the corpus of the collection with its like works.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I have added to my closing remark special:diff/867574829 in light of your request.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, can I ask you for your opinion on this discussion? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Bar_italiano#API_e_IP The two categories were moved without consensus, and furthermore (as explained in the discussion) for reasons that personally seem wrong to me. I'm asking you, because you had already intervened for another category shift without consent, and no one else intervened in the discussion. I would like to have an administrator's opinion regarding both the method (lack of consensus) and the motivations (a more subjective question, which deserves further opinions). Moxmarco (talk) 13:57, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

@Moxmarco: I think that getting one of the administrators who is fluent in Italian to that page would be more appropriate. You can find someone via the list on Commons:List of administrators by language.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:04, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Please @Billinghurst: , kindly assist in closing the deletion nominations for these two photos: File:Ann Jane Arko Anny Photoshoot in Yellow Top in April 12 2015.jpg and File:Anny (Ann Jane Arko) on the Runway of Mercedes Benz Fashion Week.jpg Both photos in question portrays a model who lacks notable recognition or relevance within Wikipedia’s scope. They don't contribute meaningfully to any relevant article or topic. The photographer remains unknown or not an established artist in the industry as well. The the photo was uploaded for self-promotion. Moreover, it's a copyvio. Several photos uploaded by the user have been already deleted. Wikipedia aims to provide accurate and valuable information to its readers, and including images of individuals without notable recognition detracts from this objective. Newrobertsparks (talk) 14:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Newrobertsparks: Please don't prosecute the case on my user talk page. They have DRs, and that is enough to get the community's attention and processes.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

What did she do? Trade (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Problematic only. User keeps top loading here requests for action that don't need to be put on an admin's user talk page (as collectively managed by our processes). I'm away and don't have the ability to babysit. Seems non-English as first language and may need someone in her language to explain what I couldn't, when I tried.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Billinghurst, thanks for all your work here. I wonder if you could reconsider this refert. I uploaded the same image twice from the same source, the original (6.5 months ago) and the trimmed version (I uploaded yesterday). There seem to be no reason to keep the untrimmed version, but maybe I am mistaken about the Wikimedia policy. -- Mdd (talk) 10:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Mdd: The file does not qualify for speedy deletion as duplicate for numbers of reasons. You can nominate it for a standard deletion per the polich, though I don't see any issue with both versions being available and letting users decide which they wish to use. Free choice is a marvellous thing.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanx, this is fine with me and I will keep this rationale in mind. Best regards, Mdd (talk) 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I placed the files intentionally in the disambiguation category that they can be found and maybe identified and sorted into the correct category. Now they are totally uncategorized. GPSLeo (talk) 18:35, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Please do not categorise to disambiguation categories, that is totally against the practice. The purpose is to empty those categories. If required, please create the category for where they belong. If it is not known to how they should be categorised, then they probably are lacking educational purpose and should be considered for deletion. If you cannot get them exact to such a term, then look to use the other aspects of the country which apply.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @GPSLeo: Or you can create a maintenance category somewhere appropriate under Category:Unidentified locations. - Jmabel ! talk 01:56, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Why is File:Bradley square mall entrance 1991-2012.jpg and related images not eligible for speedy deletion? As the original uploader, I'd like them deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: 2017 files. Please reread Com:CSD for the criteria for speedy deletion, it fails. Take-backs have a very short shelf-life.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I thought I've had another one from that time deleted. The issue is, I think they may be copyright violations. To the best of my knowledge, they came from Flickr (I probably incorrectly attributed them to myself), but someone else has determined that a lot of my uploads from this time belong to Google. I can't confirm that, but I couldn't find them on Flickr anymore, and there's no reason to have this many images of these subjects anyway. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bneu2013: I doubt they belong to Google. They are not eligible for speedy on the criteria you provided. Com:Deletion requests is the process now.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:07, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok. Another user has since confirmed that all of the Greenway photos have come from Google maps. Since I can't find evidence of them being freely licensed elsewhere, they need to be deleted. Bneu2013 (talk) 00:49, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, you deleted the file at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dom Jones.jpg. Why? What do you mean, "no suitable license to keep at Commons"? The file is my own work. It's from a video I took. I linked the full video to prove that. What's the deal? Was there a rule change that I'm not aware of where people are no longer allowed to upload their own work to Commons? BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 22:04, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @BottleOfChocolateMilk: : are you saying that YouTube user alethiology is you? Because https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfTBAVeyNbo doesn't offer a free license, and https://www.youtube.com/@alethiology8321 doesn't give any indication of being connected to your WMF account. If you fix one of those two, then the image can presumably be undeleted. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Yes, that account does belong to me. I have added a Creative Commons license. Note that the video is unlisted and has 9 views. It's my video and my channel. BottleOfChocolateMilk (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: thanks! @Billinghurst: may I assume that as the deleting admin, you would now be willing to undelete this, instead of making this user go through a formal UNDEL request? - Jmabel ! talk 05:51, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: : undeleted File:Dom Jones.jpg and amended the deletion discussiopn. Please update the license to use {{YouTube CC-BY}} and please update the source to point to the work at youtube. This will also allow us to validate the license as being at youtube at the time, so if it ever is removed, we can utilise our verification process. Thanks.  — billinghurst sDrewth 06:48, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@BottleOfChocolateMilk: just to be clear, you should like link your YouTube video as the source, and you should include the license of the YouTube video as at least one of the available licenses. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Hello. The File:Peter Jordan em 2022.png has been marked as a possible copyright violation and was deleted, but it wasn't a copyright violation. I linked the YouTube video source, which is under a Creative Commons license. I specifically put in the license which the image was under, both in English and in Brazilian Portuguese, so that this wouldn't happen. Pato ilógico (talk) 01:08, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Pato ilógico: I checked the file at YouTube and there was no permissible licence showing. When there is a suitable licence, please use the undelete process to have the file retrieved.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm curious which files you found [[File:Dallas Cowboys (51156284890).jpg]] and [[File: San Francisco 49ers (51155408668).jpg]] to be duplicates of, so that I can properly categorize the files that remain on the project. Help would be appreciate. Thank you. SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Cannot tell once deleted, the matching machinery doesn't work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Actually, billinghurst, it can be done. You download the image to your machine and then copy-paste or drag and drop into Google Lens. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The system machinery of Commons doesn't work for deleted files, it just worked for find the duplicate. Not certain that the stalker comment is that helpful as I definitely didn't sign up for using the hit and miss of Google Lens to help users bulk uploading folders from websites of other people's files to find the duplicate files that the system already identified. Definitely got better things to do with my time.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:59, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi.
I appointed Category:Lucy G. Acosta for speedy deletion, but you Reverted because the category has a link to Wikipedia and so it has "potential to be populated". But Lucy G. Acosta died on 8 March 2008, if it wasn't populated yet, it won't be populated too soon.
The same happened with Category:Vashti McCollum, who passed away on 20 August 2006. It won't be populated too soon.
Having a connection to Wikipedia, for itself, is not a good reason for maintaining a category. They are different projects.
And if, at any point, an image of these people is uploaded to the project, we can just recreate the category.
Minerva97 (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Minerva97: These are linked categories to Wikidata and they have potential to be filled, so on face value they are not eligible for speedy deletion. The purpose of speedy deleting empty categories is to allow for the removal of unuseful empty categories, not solely empty categories. What value do you see in deleting them? As with anything else that is not valid for speedy deletion, there is a process for reaching a consensus for deletion, and that you opinion fits in the process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello, the picture uploaded of the Sisu GTP vehicle here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg has since been deleted. The reason stated for this was "The material cannot be used for advertising or marketing purposes or to make profit". I fail to see how usage on Wikipedia constitutes any of these. Usage on that self-proclaimed encyclopedia is not commercial or profit-seeking (there are no advertisements to view). I would call this use informational, even educational.

The Finnish Defence Forces website features an equipment gallery, where it is stated in Finnish, that:

Ladattavan materiaalin käyttöehdot Kuvia saa käyttää uutisia ja muuta tiedonvälitystä palvelevissa tarkoituksissa. Kuvia voi käyttää myös blogitekstien yhteydessä, samoin kuin sosiaalisessa mediassa. Kuvien käyttö on maksutonta, mutta edellyttää käyttöehtojen hyväksymistä. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mainonnassa, markkinoinnissa tai ansaintatarkoituksessa. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää eikä myydä julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää hyvien tapojen vastaisesti. Aineistoa ei saa käyttää mihinkään lainvastaiseen tarkoitukseen tai mitään yritystä, yhdistystä, henkilöä tai tuotemerkkiä loukkaavassa tarkoituksessa. Lähdemerkintä on annettava muodossa (Puolustusvoimat) hyvän tavan mukaisesti.

There has been a wrongheaded fixation on the "no commercial usage" clause, which doesn't even apply here. Yet the first part, about "purposes serving the transmission of information", news and blogs and social media, is being ignored. Those latter points seem closer to "topical decoration" and articles on Wikipedia certainly could benefit from that.

In addition to the above from the equipment gallery, a site-wide policy is laid out here: https://puolustusvoimat.fi/tietoa-sivustosta

Kuvat ja niiden käyttöoikeudet Kuvien käyttöoikeudet ovat Puolustusvoimilla. Muu käyttö esimerkiksi koulutusmateriaaleissa ja oppikirjoissa on mahdollista. Kuvan julkaisun yhteydessä tulee mainita kuvaaja ja käyttöoikeuden haltija. Kuvia ei saa manipuloida tai muuttaa ilman lupaa, eikä niitä saa hyödyntää sopimattomalla tai hyvän tavan vastaisella tavalla eikä käyttää markkinointi- ja mainostarkoituksiin tai muihin kaupallisiin tarkoituksiin. Käyttäjä ei saa siirtää julkaisuoikeutta kolmannelle osapuolelle.

I would interpret all of this in a way that usage on Wikipedia, with a source and credit provided as requested, constitutes good faith usage, and that these photos should not be deleted for reasons of supposed copyright infringement. Granted, the exact copyright or license tag to be used should be figured out. No specific policy like CC or public domain is explicitly stated in the source.

I had time to upload three photos from the equipment gallery in a similar way. This one has been deleted already: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sisu_GTP_4X4.jpg

These other two should also be deleted for completeness' sake, if this unfavorable interpretation of the FDF's image use policy stands: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Kallanpaa.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:FNS_Isku.jpg MOSTKA87 (talk) 12:41, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @MOSTKA87: this is actually a little tricky. There are several different things going on here which play against each other. On the one hand, Commons accepts only material which (in copyright terms) "can be reused commercially". On the other hand, we allow non-copyright restrictions, such as moral rights and personality rights. The question here is basically how we interpret the "make a profit" issue.

Many images cannot be used in advertising on a moral rights/personality rights basis because of the implied endorsement of some product or service, and we'll host images where that is the only limitation. But does the limitation against making a profit mean this cannot be used in a commercially published book? As a postcard? Printed on a mug that is sold? If it means any of those, then this becomes really only a non-commercial license, and as a matter of policy (not law), we don't allow those on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems a little backwards for a free, non-commercial encyclopedia (which doesn't even feature advertisements) to require a commercial license from hosted media. It would make sense to me that licenses permitting non-commercial usage would be acceptable for this mildly educational, informational use.

I have emailed the public information department of the Finnish Defence Forces, to ask if they can specify a license for the imagery they publish on their websites. I have to say, the slightly vague terms on the site so far, align quite well with "CC BY-NC 4.0 DEED"... MOSTKA87 (talk) 18:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@MOSTKA87: Commons is not an encyclopedia, it's a media repository, and very early on the decision was made that we would only host media that (1) permits derivatives and (2) allows commercial use. CC BY-NC licenses are specifically not allowed (except as secondary choices when a freer license is also available). - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

You might want to read Wikimedia Licensing Policy. Note that Commons is singled out as not even being allowed an Exemption Doctrine Policy (EDP) on this. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

 Comment @MOSTKA87: Firstly, please do not confuse Commons <=> Wikipedia <=> Wikimedia <=> other WMF sister wikis and try to overlay a single element in this regard. While images at Commons are available across all wikis, we cannot take all images, and in cases some of the wikis allow a local upload. Secondly, I don't make the rules of the Commons community and I wasn't here at the time of the founding principles. If a work is (CCn.n-by)-NC we essentially cannot host it at Commons as it needs to be able to be commercially reused (all from the founding principle and the rules). Most of the Wikipedias have a fair use exemption, so look to follow the respective WP guidance where you are editing articles on local uploading for fair use retention.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps I'll just fix typos in articles from now on. Media is just impossible to deal with, I'm just going to end up banned... MOSTKA87 (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@MOSTKA87: I don't think that there has been any sort of reprimand or any personal reflection on you. We all have files deleted based on further research, information, so please don't take this as anything personal. <shrug> Your pictures that are educational are welcome. If you are unsure about uploads or have any questions about copyright, try Com:VPC. Bans are not put in place for good faith edits and uploads, even when there are mistakes, it is simply being open to discussion and learning, and that is for everyone.  — billinghurst sDrewth 02:56, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Should i just use deletion nomination better than using speedy deletion? So it doesn't be disruptive. Adinar0012 (talk) 05:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

No. You just leave them alone to exist. They are not problematic. I pointed to the guidance, and that they are created automatically when they are moved which should be enough indication that they are fine.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey, what's Going on with both icon of Transjakarta Corridor 6B & 9C? Now both file are gone i can't overwrite it. Desta231206 (talk) 10:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I marked File:Transjakarta BRT Route 6B Icon.png and File:Transjakarta BRT Route 9C Icon.png as duplicates, respectively, and Tùrelio deleted them and redirected them to File:TransJakarta roundel 6B.png and File:TransJakarta roundel 9C.png, respectively, however I think Billinghurst did the same thing in the opposite direction for some reason. I guess human error and misunderstanding. Jonteemil (talk) 10:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We both acted at the same time. It happens occasionally. Resolved. Plus why do you think that we need enormous com:PNGs of such a simple icon? Seems gross overkill for no value at all. 10:29, 27 May 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs)

How come my map on my user page was deleted but this is ok? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 14:07, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alistair McBuffio: your image was deleted as it was out of scope, it is not an election map. I don't play the "whataboutism" game, if you think a file is out of scope per Com:Project scope, then please follow the deletion request process.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Why was it out of scope? Alistair McBuffio (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

The criteria is there for you to read.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

• Commons:Deletion requests/File:RAYER BAZAAR BODDHOBHUMI.png - closed as "deleted", but file not deleted
• Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by EMAD KAYYAM - closed as "deleted", but many files not deleted (often ones with "&" in the filename, possibly a technical issue)

Are you using a user script to close these deletion requests? I'd like to file a bug report about the "&" issue; this has been a recurring problem (not specific to you). Omphalographer (talk) 18:25, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done and yes, it looks as the mass process is getting stumped by the ampersand and its different possible connotations  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Most images added to this category are out of scope. Best is to delete or nominate them right away. ;o) Yann (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Any explanation as to why you deleted this? Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Meh, accident. Apologies. Someone being asking for deleting and moving of others with that base template, and restructuring of templates, and I was doing tidying. Not certain how or what I did there. :-(  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. It's nothing to do with the template. It's just because when you rename a supercat to become a subcat, the cat redirect puts the old super in the new child. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The template created loops, e.g. with Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille (redirect now deleted) being both a parent and a subcategory of Category:Photographs_by_Willem_van_de_Poll_in_Marseille_(1935). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The template is just but ugly, especially if it isn't behaving with category redirects. Template needs to be fixed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Not really sure what to recommend (or do). If no further use of the template is planned, maybe the parent categories could just be added directly to the categories. This way, the usual re-organizations don't get hindered. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The template is just but ugly

If you're going to slag off other people's work, please at least be a bit more specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• The template doesn't create loops. The category redirection code creates loops because it places the redirect source into the target. Which is pointless for a case such as this, where the broad supercat has been redirected to the subcat. There's not even any reason to keep the supercats around any more, although when they're deleted they seem to have come back. If the supercats were needed, then they shouldn't be redirects, but should use the template to correctly auto-categorize them. But just deleting them (if they only have one child) is more straightforward. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Creating redirects is part of the guidance for moved categories and the like; so if a template is acting against guidance, then the template should be fixed. And expecting others to know and determine the quirks of a template with flaws is not good coding or approach. Best to fix the template.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

The Template Is Not Creating The Loop.

Andy Dingley (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

It adds a parent category and when one goes there, the redirect leads back .. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

• Ignore the template for the moment. ... Marseille (1935) will be a subcategory of ... Marseille because otherwise ... Marseille is empty. This is the same whether you put the categories in automatically or manually. The loop is created by the category redirect assuming (why is that?) that redirected categories which are of so little remaining value that we redirected them, should now be placed into that target category. But that's beyond my pay grade.

There are two possible fixes here: delete the old category; or else, keep the old parent category and use it (as we would do if it was needed to house multiple children) rather than redirecting it. Neither of these involve changes to the template. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm still in doubt about the copyright of the coat of arms in the image. Is there any proof? Logo der Schlossbrauerei Hirschau GerritR (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your doubts are of interest and able to be expanded or lead to further consultation. Your doubts without an evidence base of some sort are just yours. Your doubts alone don't form a firm reason for deletion.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

COM:PCP. I don't have to prove anything. The uploader has to prove that the file is ok for commons.--GerritR (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Please don't miscite PCP. Reread it. I didn't ask you to prove anything. Reread what I said. PCP doesn't give you the ability to throw shade and that becomes the rule and we delete things.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Hier wäre es besser gewesen, wenn sich ein anderer Admin der Sache angenommen hätte. Die erneute Entscheidung des gleichen Admins, die Datei zu behalten, hat das Geschmäckle von Rechthaberei und „Basta“. Meiner Meinung nach ist das Thema COM:PCP nach wie vor nicht ernsthaft angegangen worden.--GerritR (talk) 16:48, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@GerritR: I could say the same about the nominating that you are saying about the closing. However, yours was because you didn't like my decision; at least I can point to that there was no change in the evidence-base provided. PCP says "significant doubt" and that mark was not met. So, do the research, and come back with evidence and it can be properly assessed.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:16, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Forum#Zweifach_verworfenen_L%C3%B6schantrag_revidieren? FYI.--GerritR (talk) 17:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#File:Logo_der_Schlossbrauerei_Hirschau.svg FYI. GerritR (talk) 16:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst. I am confused by your closure of this DR; perhaps there was a miscommunication?

Regarding your comment at the DR, I am not seeking deletion for all C-SPAN files. There are plenty of C-SPAN files that are in the public domain because they depict debates in the House/Senate chambers (see https://www.c-span.org/about/copyrightsAndLicensing/). However, the file that I nominated for deletion is not that: it is a file of a committee hearing, which is restricted to non-commercial use (see the link above).

Please delete the file; you've highlighted {{PD-CSPAN}}, which says itself that it doesn't apply to the file in question. Thank you, Sdrqaz (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Reviewed and reversed, thanks for that information.  Done  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Woudl you mind explaining to me how you came to the conclusion that this file's nomination was not valid, but these two were valid? The rationale was identical, in that they were exact duplicates in an inferior format of a pre-existing SVG file. The only difference was the silly and non-descript filenames of the other two. My position has been rather clear for 10+ years now, that inferiorly-formatted identical duplicates of pre-existing vector files should not be kept here, a very narrow rationale. It's not a matter of prejudice, simply a matter of maintenance and keeping Commons tidy. What is so different/special about the first one that makes it worth keeping? To me, it appears you're being arbitrary for no real reason. Fry1989 ^eh? 14:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

The one declined had already been declined, and there was no further information that pushed it to deletion, especially when it is appropriately and meaningfully named. There is no requirement that we cannot have PNG and SVG, and the use of {{Vva}} enables us to direct. It is not up to admins to determine what people use once we are within the scope of the acceptable. They can be curated acceptably, and having them does not make us any less tidy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Could you please undo the deletion of Category:WikiKedis? User:Prototyperspective has gone out of line by asking for a speedy deletion. There was a discussion (see the talk page of this category, which has been kept) and the result was to make it a redirect, which he did not object. If Prototyperspective would yet delete it, there should be a new discussion about it. JopkeB (talk) 04:41, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

I have undeleted and nowiki'd the deletion request, though I believe that there is a good point made there that the name does not represent a reasonable redirect. Though I do agree with you that the placing of the speedy was not appropriate in the circumstance, and I did just bulk delete those that looked generic after I had manually reviewed others.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation and your Notes on the discussion page. I'll let you know when we have come to a conclusion. JopkeB (talk) 07:11, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

We now all agree on deleting this category, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/01/Category:WikiKedis. Would you please undo the undeletion? JopkeB (talk) 05:07, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Perhaps this request has escaped your attention, could you please delete this category again? The deletion was temporarily reversed, but now we agree to delete this category. JopkeB (talk) 11:27, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I was waiting for it to reappear in the queue.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not know that was the right thing to do. Thanks for the deletion again. JopkeB (talk) 06:57, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Billinghurst. Did you forget to correct the license tag? 0x0a (talk) 12:10, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

That is anybody's job. No requirement to be an administrator to fix licence tags.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Will do. 0x0a (talk) 12:30, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi, the rule is already noted on Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Italy#Freedom_of_panorama Friniate (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

This was actually a redirect (from a reasonable format). Can you restore it? Enhancing999 (talk) 22:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

It is C2, nothing stopping its recreation. I eyeballed the list and manually processed those that looked like they needed review, and mass processed the remainder.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

np. Thanks for flushing the ones I add, btw. Enhancing999 (talk) 22:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)