Commons:Village pump/Proposals

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

I would like to propose the creation of a new user group known as "Page-viewers", these users would be able to view deleted pages and have a button that states "Request undeletion" which will create a request at the undeletion requests in the same manner that all other users can nominate pages for deletion. Now because page-viewers get access to copyrighted content they will have to be elected in the same manner as administrators, but because this user right has a lot less responsibilities it will likely be easier to pass for those who need the right.

•  The need for page-viewers, as more files ascend to the public domain Wikimedia Commons has a larger amount of files that have once been deleted that are now in the public domain. When Wikimedia Commons was created in 2004 a lot of files that were then copyrighted are now in the public domain and not all deleted files are tagged with "Undelete in 20XX". As more files will enter the public domain in the future I believe that while initially only a small number of users will be granted this right (probably only a few dozen in the coming decade), I expect this to be a much more viable right in the long-term future.

Furthermore, I remember several years ago that there was a proposal to let OTRS volunteers have the ability to view deleted files, this proposal failed primarily because of the fact that many users commented that "OTRS members are not trusted users regarding to Commons point of view as they are not appointed by the Commons community." This would fully solve the trust issue with this as OTRS members would have to be vetted by the Wikimedia Commons community to be able to view deleted files and they still won't be able to undelete files directly.

•  Who should be page-viewers?, By preference, most page-viewers would be license reviewers with years of experience and/or already have a good record of requesting undeletion. As noted above OTRS / VRT volunteers that are trusted by the Wikimedia Commons community should apply as well. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:23, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, as proposer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support in principle. There have been many times that I've been trying to help newbies who had a file deleted and wanted to learn more about why. Often it's straightforward, but other times it's less clear. The nuance of a deletion cannot be understood through the deletion log in many cases, and it would be useful to be able to just take a quick look. There have also been many times where I wanted to learn more about Commons' history with a particular subject (say, freedom of panorama). It would be useful to be able to see where lines have been drawn in the past by seeing what has been deleted. This is, of course, all in addition to Donald's reasoning. One point, though: I don't think this should require an election. Just add it to COM:PERM and set forth some requirements. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:36, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support per nom.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:56, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong oppose At Commons the most prominent deletion reason is copyright violation, so the content is deleted because it may not be published. It would be against the intention of everything we like to achieve here if we allowed additional users to view such content without having a definite rule set who this right shall be granted and used. The current regulation is that only admins may view deleted content, and we have procedures how to appoint and remove admins. Project goal is not to establish as many new rules as possible, please keep it simple and request regular adminship if you need it. --Krd 04:23, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose There is a reason why files get deleted. Deletion means that nobody should see it, because it violates the law or the rules of commons. And besides that, there is a set of users that already have the right to view deleted files, and they are called admins. All it does is that already deleted files will be discussed a second time... a third time... All the while there are thousands of new files every day that need review and there is a backlog of months on files that are nominated for deletion. If you honestly "need" that kind of user right, there is a way to get it: get elected as admin.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 07:06, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • How does the backlog on deletions have anything to do with this? And what's wrong with discussing deleted files a second time in some cases? It's no different than having a second DR on the same file, which happens sometimes for good reasons. We should not stop valid undeletions on grounds of backlogs or whatever.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose --Fæ (talk) 10:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, with standard election procedure, per nom.  Mysterymanblue  16:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose as per Krd and Giftzwerg - Most deletions are copyvios and I also agree that admins should be the only ones to see the content and to have it undeleted. Apart from that DR amongst other places are already full to the brim - Do we really need another backlogged venue? Obvious answer is no. I appreciate Rhododendrites' sentiments above but I still believe there's no need for this right. –Davey2010^Talk 19:42, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Davey--A1Cafel (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose Unless we hear from the WMF Legal team that they would be fine with this. I think that, from a copyright point of view, the legality of an user group (admins) still able to view content that was "deleted" for copyright reasons could already be questioned, but I hope this will continue to be allowed, as only in this way we are able to process undeletion requests and restore files that went into the public domain after deletion or were wrongfully deleted. But for copyright reasons, this user group can not be made too large. It must remain restricted. Maybe a very small "page viewers" group would still be okay, but then, it would seem to add unnecessary complexity - just elect a few administrators more. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Hell no, this would be a privacy nightmare. pandakekok9 11:45, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Oppose per Krd. Most of the deleted material are copyvios and we need to limit the number of people who are able to access these files to avoid a conflict with copyright law. Hence, this is not about whom we possibly trust but how do we keep nearly all deleted material restorable to support COM:UNDEL and to restore files where the copyright expired. This is also one of the reasons why we have a policy where the admin bit is removed from those who are inactive. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:29, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Notes: Following a village pump discussion I have decided to change the proposal to be among the many "admin lite" / "sysop lite" user groups I wish to propose and I will no longer propose that this user group be divided into "levels" (as I had originally done, where it would be divided into 3 (three) levels where some users can view more sensitive pages and only those are elected) as this user right will be fully electable if accepted, meaning that maximum trust is already required. This solves both any potential legal ⚖ issues raised by the WMF and not "water down" the trust required for those who deal with such sensitive files.

They will have an election process identical to administrators, but I imagine that they will receive less scrutiny as they will not be able to block/ban users, delete pages, undelete pages, give user rights, Etc. So the question is only if we trust them enough to see sensitive content, which is still a huge responsibility and needs to be properly vetted and I expect only those with good reputation to acquire the trust of the Commonswiki community. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:59, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Rhododendrites: , the election part is very much necessary, as otherwise the WMF will essentially "veto" it, as you can see in the linked archive to the previous proposal from 2017 and the decades such discussions have gone on Wikipedia, it is necessary for this user right to be vetted for it not to become a legal liability for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:51, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you highlight where in the discussion it arises that the WMF would veto community processes other than elections? Allowing people who have already been granted OTRS access the ability to view deleted files would circumvent any vetting for that tool in particular, and many OTRS volunteers aren't active at all on Commons. But here we vet reviewers, GW toolset users, template editors, etc. locally, in addition to admins... just not through elections. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  21:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Specifically at "Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mostly because the WMF has repeatedly stated over at enwiki that they will shut down any attempt to grant editors the ability to view deleted files unless it stems from a community process. Even if this got approved, the WMF would just shut it down. ~ Rob13 Talk 02:20, 10 March 2017 (UTC)", also in the Village pump discussion where I received feedback from Alexis Jazz on Wikipedia I noted these concerns. Trust is indeed always involved with user rights, but this is a legal issue and essentially would open the door for more "admin lite" / "sysop lite" user groups through similar processes in the future. Wikimedia Commons has large backlogs and having more users take the workload off of admins should be welcomed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:10, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      • Right, and as I said, COM:PERM is a community process. I don't see a requirement that it be an RfA-like election -- just a community process. — Rhododendrites ^talk |  19:15, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• @Krd: , replying to "It would be against the intention of everything we like to achieve here if we allowed additional users to view such content without having a definite rule set who this right shall be granted and used." the process would be exactly the same as asking for regular admin rights and many OTRS / VRT members that now frequent UnDR will likely request it, asking for regular admin rights means that we should trust these users with also deleting, undeleting content, blocking/banning users, giving user rights, Etc. which requires a lot more trust, but this user right only requires trust in dealing with deleted files and the users will be vetted in a manner identical to the admin process, it wouldn't introduce any more complicated rules, just apply existing rules to a group of users that want a single admin right, kind of how rollback was exclusive to admins many years ago, but because this content is more sensitive still requires wide community support on a person to person basis. Plus this would also fulfill the ability "for the OTRS agents to finish their work without needing admin assistance in every case" you supported ten years ago at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/11#OTRS member permissions" just now they would need community support before viewing such files.

Also, I think that a lot less users would pass RFA if all admins had checkuser and bureaucrat rights because those require more trust than "regular" admins, new user rights are usually created for a reason, because we wouldn't trust a user to do A to must have the ability to do B if they only have experience with A. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 04:45, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• None of your arguments is in opposition to mine. I still think that VRT members could have this as a part of their role, not by a separate process, but this is unlikely to happen. As far as an open process is concerned that is available to anybody, I'm opposed. We cannot grant participation in copyvio sharing just honorary. Even the possibilities introduced for VRT members (undel req page on VRT wiki, etc.) are not used at all, so at first a real need shall be shown. Do you have any numbers how many VRT agents are active on commons who are not admins and not likely to pass a RFA? --Krd 05:53, 13 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  Jeff G. is a VRT volunteer that failed RFA 4 (four) times, but I think that they are very unlikely to not be elected to become a Page-viewer, yet their name often pops up at UnDR and they even his own preload for UDR's. If an entire category gets deleted because the author's / sculptor's death was 65 (sixty-five) years ago and then someone wants to request undeletion five (5) years later then they can already filter out the good uploads from the bad (as in the one with more issues such as other copyrighted features or simply blurry photographs) saving the undeleting administrators time and work. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Does "page" actually mean page, or does it mean "media file" in this proposal? Would it not make sense for the proposal to be requesting access to deleted media files rather than a right to undelete pages? --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: , depends on what access is needed, Wikimedia Commons is primarily media orientated but I don't see any benefits in disallowing them to also see other pages. Regarding the final question, that is what the proposal is, these users wouldn't be able to undelete anything only view deleted pages and then they would still have to ask administrators to undelete it for them. As I expect them to be elected from experienced license reviewers I don't expect them to file any bad requests to delete an image of a statue or work of architecture made by a Russian that died 60 (sixty) years ago or something because rookies likely wouldn't get this right. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:45, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how that would work. My experience with sysop tools is that with "View and restore deleted pages" you undelete files to look at them, though you can be selective with which revisions are made visible so can restore a file with just a blank text page. I think there's no easy interface to show users deleted files without making them visible on-wiki. Happy to be corrected if there's some special Commons utility. --Fæ (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: I was under the impression that those are different user rights at the top of "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2011/11#OTRS member permissions" viewing and undeleting were listed as separate, a number of users also wanted OTRS members to see files without having the ability to undelete them. I deliberately made this proposal based on the "feedback" from that one as I believe that restoring deleted pages should still remain an exclusive admin right. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:05, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Could do with some screenshots of a test file to show what we are talking about. I don't think this is in the standard mediawiki software, that is to say, even if the rights exist, the functionality of the software may not do what you expect.

(Supplemental) At the back of my mind there's a discussion of this from several years ago. A benefit of forcing users to undelete on-wiki during, say, an UNDEL challenge, is that single user only previews of deleted files would be unlikely to leave any logs. Just as Checkusers have special requirements due to the potential for abusive use, there are abuse scenarios when there are no public logs that this raises, including files thought unlawful, abusive or damaging if harvested and published elsewhere. As a proposal, this needs to be underpinned by the detail of the workflow to ensure people understand the extra risks to this project and our contributors that this might introduce. --Fæ (talk) 20:34, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: , according to Ruthven admins can see how a deleted image looks like. So images don't need to be undeleted to be viewed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:05, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I have no idea how this works as it cannot be via the View and restore deleted pages interface. The only options are undelete, undelete specific revisions, or suppress deletion visibility i.e. some deleted file versions can be less public. If a sysop can do this, I would like to see the specific guidelines that sysops are supposed to follow for when to use it and how. --Fæ (talk) 15:25, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ: For admins, it's actually possible to view "deleted" images via the View and restore deleted pages interface without having to restore them. I have included an example screenshot to show how this works: You will notice that there is a "Page history", and below this, a "File history". If I click on the date in the "File history", I can access the deleted file. It's displayed immediately, no need to perform a restore action first (but stays "deleted"). I guess it would be impossible to handle undeletion requests and similar cases properly if this weren't the case. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I now see it in practice. The target link includes a "&token=172d043ef..." style token link. I would guess there's a log of these deleted file accesses somewhere, the point of the autogenerated tokens, so they can be audited if there was a security issue. It would be interesting to know how the logs can be checked and whether they are public, even if the deleted files are not.

It seems obvious to me that sysops should not be surfing through deleted files out of curiosity, especially if the deletions might be down to privacy-related requests or hounding. --Fæ (talk) 11:40, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Davey2010: , this is to reduce backlogs and not create them. These users can help admins at UnDR's by viewing copyright violations and voting them down, perhaps these users might even be able to close denied undeletion requests reducing the administrative backlog. Further "Most deletions are copyvios", well, copyright doesn't last forever and it eventually expires and not all files uploaded that could be undeleted in 2025 are tagged as such and it would be unreasonable to expect the few hundred administrators to also patrol already deleted files to see if they should be undeleted. Many files that are deleted are files from the 1950's and 1940's with improper sources, a Page-viewer can research a file based on what they can see, you can't file an undeletion request for a file you barely know anything about. Also note that things like authorship and sources are also in file descriptions (because not all new users know that they shouldn't add "Own work" if it comes from their own collection). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:52, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• The proposal states "have a button that states "Request undeletion" which will create a request at UDR so therefore UDR would get backlogged wouldn't?, UDR needs a massive overhaul (ie it needs to get rid of the !voting side) but that's another discussion for another day.

Fair point but I would simply hope the editor reuploads historic content in the appropriate year - not have someone go through all old files and !vote undelete as to be blunt that's just wasting your life away ...., I'm just not seeing a need for this right to be honest, –Davey2010^Talk 20:12, 14 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One can always hope, but many people are active only a few years and won't come back when it is time for restoring the file, and only some will keep the file and keep track of when it should be reuploaded. If it is a photo of one's own it may be buried among thousands of other files before the Commons copy is DRed, and the user may not know when the underlying copyright expires – the closing admin is much more likely to know, and those details are often not told in the DR. These are some of the reasons for us to have to-be-undeleted categories in the first place. Ideally those would always be used by the closing admins. –LPfi (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Even if a community voting procedure is added to the proposal, I'm still opposed to it. If you're trusted to view deleted files, then you must be an admin. Period. Unbundling of sysop shouldn't be taken lightly. pandakekok9 11:49, 23 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• If the concern is that there are many deleted files that may require review in the future, could an alternate proposal be to ask DR closers to indicate when the work is expected to enter the public domain in their closing summary? For example, we could perhaps have a template called "undeletion review", where {{undeletion review|date=2030}} will add the text "This DR is up for undeletion review in 2030" and add Category:Deletion requests up for undeletion review in 2030.  Mysterymanblue  17:28, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  There are already such categories, such as Category:Undelete in 2030. pandakekok9 01:54, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you.  Mysterymanblue  03:39, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Pandakekok9: , just curious but how would this be "a privacy nightmare" if we already have an elected group of users with exactly these rights? What's the difference? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:56, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The proposal seem to implies that the vetting procedure for these "page viewers" would be similar to license reviewers, which obviously is less strict in its vetting process than RfA. Hence the "privacy nightmare". The privilege to view deleted files is not something that should just be given so easily. As some opposer pointed out, a lot of our deletions are due to legal issues.

But what if we make the vetting process as strict as RfA? Well then your proposal is moot then. If you're trusted to view deleted files, you must be trusted to have the full set of admin tools then. pandakekok9 13:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is not the same, trusting a user the ability to permanently kick out other users requires a lot more trust than viewing pages others can't. Bureaucrats and Checkusers essentially go through the same process, should we give all admins Bureaucrat and Checkuser rights because they are trusted anyhow? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2012/03 - By coincidence I found this old discussion about temporarily undeleting files, it is kind of odd that no such thing is ever listed at the top of "Undeletion requests", that page is very user-unfriendly and almost seems to be designed to prevent undeletion as much as possible by giving little instructions and making it difficult to actually stay updated on one section without constantly visiting the entire page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Donald Trung: I have been getting notifications about my subscriptions to my submitted COM:UDR posts' sections via the topic subscriptions portion of the Discussion tools beta feature here.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:34, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-because}} is a catchall template that is used for situations where another public domain tag cannot be found. Currently, the text of this template reads as follows:

This file is in the public domain, because <reason>

In case this is not legally possible:

The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

Please verify that the reason given above complies with Commons' licensing policy.

The proposal is to strike the words "In case this is not legally possible: The right to use this work is granted to anyone for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." from the template.

The struck words only apply to cases where a work has entered the public domain due to a grant by the copyright holder and where that copyright holder has also granted "the right to use this work... for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law." This is a very small subset of public domain works, most of which are in the public domain for other reasons (expiration, threshold of originality, other form of copyright abandonment, lack of fixation, out of subject matter, etc.). Removing the language will allow {{PD-because}} to be correct for all public domain works, even those which have entered the public domain for these other reasons. If people need to add the "In case this is not legally possible..." language to the tag, they may easily do so by appending that text to the end of their reasoning.

There may be concern about removing this text from file information pages where it was rightfully included. I respond to these concerns by pointing out that 1) this text has almost certainly been incorrectly included on more pages than it has been correctly included on, and 2) this text is not an integral part of the copyright status of a file, and I cannot image a situation where we would delete a public domain file because the copyright holder had not also provided a licensed fallback.

I am proposing this change here because 1989 declined my edit request on the template's talk page because there was no consensus for the change, presumably due to lack of discussion.  Mysterymanblue  23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support as nominator.  Mysterymanblue  23:30, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• The reason we have such a text is because in some countries it is not legally possible to declare files as PD. See text on {{PD-self}} as an example. We can perhaps find better wording but I think we need some text. But we should not use the license for new files? So perhaps we can depreciate it? --MGA73 (talk) 17:41, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MGA73: [Long digression] Actually, there is no country where it is legally meaningful to simply declare a work as public domain (or "release a work into the public domain" as many of our "PD-" templates state. The "public domain" is not a legal entity and is not defined in the copyright laws of any country (including the United States). Legal scholars, the Open Source Initiative, and the U.S. Copyright Office all agree on this. As of 1978, the only way to make a work freely reusable is for the copyright owner to license or waive their copyrights (and those of their heirs). This is why Creative Commons developed the CC-Zero license. The origin of the myth that you can simply declare a file as PD in the US, but not in Europe is that in Europe you cannot license or waive all of your rights in a work (specifically the moral rights). But there is no magical public domain declaration in the US or anywhere else. You still have to specifically license or waive your rights, regardless of the country. And even in the US, you can't effectively abdicate your copyright ownership; you can only transfer it to someone else until it expires. {{PD-self}} is about as legally useful as toilet paper. It is, however, practically useful as a notice that the copyright owner is unlikely to try to enforce their copyrights (although it gives no such assurances about their heirs). Personally, I think {{PD-self}} should be deprecated in favor of {{Cc-zero}}. Nosferattus (talk) 21:36, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @MGA73: That's fine and all, but this is {{PD-because}}, not {{PD-self}}. The proposal only affects files that use {{PD-because}}, most of which are not self-published by the uploader, so the text is unhelpful in most cases.  Mysterymanblue  23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Support if we also explicitly deprecate the use of {{Pd-because}} for own works. Nosferattus (talk) 21:38, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that this should be deprecated for self-published works.  Mysterymanblue  23:26, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Probably, except for cases where the template has been added by the uploader, as own work; in that case the extra wording shouldn't be removed. I think it's generally used for files found on other sites, but it's probably also misused. On File:Oystercatcher pecking the water.jpg, for example, a site apparently made a file available for "for unlimited free use". I don't think that's a public domain dedication, and there's no indication that they agreed to the wording on the template. --ghouston (talk) 00:57, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ghouston: if someone add it to own work then we could ask them to choose PD-self or Cc-zero? And if found on some website then we could use PD-author? --MGA73 (talk) 07:13, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • We could ask, but there's no guarantee they'll respond. PD-author has exactly the same problem, a fallback license that they didn't agree to. Also PD-because, although it's not one of the more commonly used templates, still has 14527 transclusions, so it's probably impractical to evaluate them all. --ghouston (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ghouston: I think the fitting template for (copyrighted) files available "for unlimited free use" is {{Copyrighted free use}} and it should just be changed to that one in this case? Gestumblindi (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Isn't it extremely difficult in almost all countries to dedicate a work into the public domain? The public domain is a lot like darkness, we don't define "Darkness" as something that is, rather we view it as "an absence of light", likewise the public domain isn't something onto itself it is "an absence of copyright ©" and because of this most intellectual property laws only concern themselves with what is (copyrighted) than what isn't (copyrighted). I can kind of support this proposal with the interpretation that "the public domain" is waving all rights (which it is), but many jurisdictions make this extremely difficult which is why CC-0 was invented, because "© No rights reserved" often isn't recognised by many governments because at all times copyrights are assumed. The global copyright © system is broken and the template tries to accommodate that fact, hence the current wording. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support This template isn't really meant for self-published works and in most cases for which it's used, the "In case this is not legally possible ..." wording is not fitting and confusing, as there isn't any granting of rights involved. I, therefore, also agree with explicitly deprecating it for self-published works, as we have {{PD-self}} for that where the provision is fitting. {{PD-because}} is probably needed so we don't have to create templates for every special case; there are reasons for works being in the public domain that can't be expressed with one of the standard templates, but this is not for releasing copyrighted material into the public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 14:03, 5 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support. Gestumblindi's comment, immediately above ("...in most cases for which it's used, the 'In case this is not legally possible ...' wording is not fitting and is confusing, as there isn't any granting of rights involved") summarises the essential problem. One important use for this template is to declare that in a particular jurisdiction, copyright protection has expired. I use it frequently to specify the authority under Australian copyright law for expiry of copyright, such as here. For that purpose, in the absence of a specific template, it's perfect. The words are not only an irrelevant distraction; they also implicitly encourage misuse of the template (as discussed further above) by uploaders using it instead of an appropriate template. I therefore also support Nosferattus's suggestion that we should "explicitly deprecate the use of {{Pd-because}} for own works." How about: This template must not be used to authorise an uploader's own work. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 (talk) 01:58, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @SCHolar44: Files like that should probably have {{PD-Australia}}. --ghouston (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, Ghouston. I will eventually use {{PD-Australia}}, but right now the template is very much out of date because Australian copyright law has changed since it was written; it's unnecessarily complex; and the source quoted was not issued by the Australian Government. Currently I have opened a discussion on {{PD-AustraliaGov}}, which has similar but fewer shortcomings. After that (and following any improvements that others may propose), I'll be starting a discussion on {{PD-Australia}}. SCHolar44 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add a small PS: When the template is amended, the comma should be removed after "public domain" and the words that follow "because" should be disemboldened. -- SCHolar44 (talk) 11:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

And a further PS: I'm a visual person, so I made up a mock-up of what I thought the template might look like, especially after removing the comma after "because", and the emboldening. I also modified my tentative wording for implementing Nosferattus's suggestion and added it below the line:

This file is in the public domain because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. This template must not be used in connection with an uploader's own work. Instead, the {{PD-self}} template, or another, should be used.

I'd like to suggest another "below the line" sentence. Since the template must not appear on its own unless the image originated in the U.S., I've drafted for everyone's consideration a further suggestion covering PD in the U.S., why it's important, and potential restriction in other jurisdictions:

Unless the jurisdiction in which this file enters the public domain is the United States of America, a statement must follow demonstrating why the file has entered the public domain in that country. This is a precondition for publication in Wikimedia Commons because Wikimedia's servers are located there. In other jurisdictions, re-use of this content may be restricted.

What do people think? -- SCHolar44 (talk) 09:40, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The layout looks good; just I few things I think would improve this:

• {{self|CC0}} should be used instead of {{PD-self}} so that people are encouraged to use the better public domain dedication.
• Not sure why the phrasing "used in connection with" is used. Surely the word "for" is just as good and more concise, as in "This template must not be used for an uploader's own work."
• A below the line statement about having a U.S. copyright tag is not necessary because the template is not specific to the U.S. For example, someone could write the following in for the reasoning: "70 years have elapsed since the author's death and the work is under the threshold of originality in the United States." That reasoning applies to both the country of origin and the United States. You can also have a situation where someone just explains why the work is out of copyright in the source country but not in the U.S.
• That being said, we could still have a warning about including both reasonings in general. I would recommend wording more like "This file's page must explain why the work is in the public domain in the United States and the country of origin of the work if the work does not originate from the United States." I am neutral on the inclusion of such a warning.

 Mysterymanblue  17:20, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: Nice work, although I agree with Mysterymanblue that we should encourage use of {{self|CC0}} instead of, or in addition to, {{PD-self}}, since CC0 actually has some legal validity to it. Nosferattus (talk) 18:22, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great points, Mysterymanblue and Nosferattus -- thank you for advancing things further (and curbing my circumlocution, Mysterymanblue!). Here for consideration is a potential implementation:

This template must not be used for an uploader's own work. Instead, one of the alternatives in the {{PD-self}} template should be chosen, such as {{PD-self-CC0}} for a public domain dedication.
Amended, shorter wording of 2nd paragraph ↓
If this work did not originate in the United States, this statement must be accompanied by an explanation of why the work is in the public domain there. In other jurisdictions, copyright law may restrict re-use of this content.
Changes, including added link ↓
If this work did not originate in the United States, there must be an explanation of why the work is in the public domain both in the United States (because Wikimedia's servers are located there) and in the work's country of origin.this statement [[Commons:Licensing#Interaction of US and non-US copyright law|must be]] accompanied by an explanation of why the work is in the public domain in the United States there.

My thinking:

• I'm keen to give as much guidance as practicable to newcomers, hence the "such as" hint towards {{self|CC0}}.
• Similarly for linking to the Commons page that explains including the reason why US copyright is so important: in classes that I run in Australia, this requirement frequently produces grumbles about "US control of intellectual property". Then when I mention the servers, there's widespread slapping of foreheads with palms of hands. I bet these people aren't unique outside the US, and I think brief info like this would spread the word. Likewise the next sentence -- I think it's important to make it clear where we know the file is in the PD and it's caveat emptor anywhere else.

It's rather nuanced, so I'm sure a few more iterations will be for the best. -- SCHolar44 (talk) 01:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In accord with the philosophy of continual improvement, I added some amended wording (above, under orange notes) to shorten and simplify.SCHolar44 (talk) 03:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysterymanblue, MGA73, Nosferattus, Ghouston, Gestumblindi, and Donald Trung: Mindful that as discussed earlier on the {{PD-because}} Talk page, we are trying to rectify an addition to this template that was made erroneously 9 years ago without any discussion or support, I'm keen to keep Mysterymanblue's proposal going. We have only three Supports so far. MGA73, Nosferattus, Ghouston and Donald Trung, given the discussion and modifications made, do you feel free to support now? This is where we are:

This file is in the public domain because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. This template must not be used for an uploader's own work. Instead, one of the alternatives in the {{PD-self}} template should be chosen, such as {{PD-self-CC0}} for a public domain dedication. If this work did not originate in the United States, this statement must be accompanied by an explanation of why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. In other jurisdictions, copyright law may restrict re-use of this content.

If we end up with seven "Supports", will that be enough? (I don't have experience with management of proposals). If not, should we be asking editors in related Talk page discussions to take a look?  — SCHolar44 (talk) 09:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: Are there any reasons to keep the template? I think the template is a bit like {{PD}}. If you pick 5 random files from Category:PD other reasons then we could try to see if we can't find a better template or if the file has to be deleted. If we can find a better template then we should perhaps do that. If not then changing the text could be okay. --MGA73 (talk) 10:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@MGA73: Every household has a junk drawer (or something similar) where everything without a place goes. PD-because is our junk drawer. I agree that the junk drawer is not the best and that it should be cleaned out. But even if you take the time to organize everything in the junk drawer, you still need a junk drawer because new stuff is constantly coming into your house, and it often can't be put in its right place right away. If you get rid of the junk drawer, the junk will pile up all over the house, and that's not something anyone wants.  Mysterymanblue  17:16, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysterymanblue: Lol. Yeah we all have a junk drawer :-) But if we are organized we could say no to junk. If new files can't use an existing template then perhaps it is safer to delete it. Are there any other reasons for a file to be PD than 1) It is not eligible for copyright, 2) The author released the file to PD or 3) The copyright have expired? --MGA73 (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: Apologies for not getting back to you sooner—I have been a bit busy IRL. While I greatly appreciate the work you've done on the proposal, I still don't see a reason to include the phrase "If this work did not originate in the United States" as part of the disclaimer. Every work on Commons must provide an explanation for free use that is valid in the United States. The provision of such an explanation is not based on the work being or not being a U.S. work. So phrasing that part as an if-then statement does not make sense because it must be provided 100% of the time. I am also concerned that the phrase "In other jurisdictions, copyright law may restrict re-use of this content." may cause people to believe that they do not need to provide an explanation for why the work is in the public domain in the country of origin (since that could conceivably be part of "other jurisdictions"). Perhaps a better wording would be "Even if this work did not originate in the United States, this statement must be accompanied by an explanation of why the work is in the public domain in the U.S. and its country of origin. In other jurisdictions, copyright law may restrict re-use of this content." :Even still, I am weary to include such a statement on having a U.S. explanation because there are a few edge cases. What if the work is public domain in the country of origin but under a free license in the U.S.? What if they have a country of origin explanation in PD-because and explain via a separate license tag why the work is freely usable in the U.S.? The statement should either be very general to cover these cases or it should not be included at all, in accordance with most copyright templates that are not specific to any one country.

I also don't really understand why we need to keep the other PD-self templates around. You say you want to give guidance to newcomers, and that is admirable, but I don't see how giving them multiple option, some of them far worse than others, advances that goal. There are essentially no advantages to using anything other than CC0 because the alternatives are invariably more legally vague. Mentioning these other PD-self templates in the template both makes the template longer than it needs to be and suggests that we have equal preference toward these different styles of PD dedication (we don't.)  Mysterymanblue  17:01, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@SCHolar44: I'm afraid I don't really understand the part that reads "Instead, one of the alternatives in the {{PD-self}} template should be chosen, such as {{PD-self-CC0}}" {{PD-self-CC0}} isn't a template, and I have no idea what "alternatives in the {{PD-self}} template" refers to. Why don't we just write: "Instead, use {{self|CC0}} or {{PD-self}}." That's much clearer. Nosferattus (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Mysterymanblue, MGA73, Nosferattus, Ghouston, Gestumblindi, and Donald Trung:
Dear colleagues,
Thank you for your feedback. Although I'm an experienced professional policy developer, my familiarity with the variety of copyright contexts you've mentioned is quite limited, so I very much appreciate learning about them.

Need for the template
MGA73, you commented, "If new files can't use an existing template then perhaps it is safer to delete it. Are there any other reasons for a file to be PD than 1) It is not eligible for copyright, 2) The author released the file to PD or 3) The copyright have expired?

– The problem is that there are not enough templates available to cover all PD possibilities in non-US jurisdictions. I have encountered solid resistance to developing additional ones or even updating outdated ones (PD-Australia, for example, is now factually incorrect; three templates, each dealing with specific policies, are an obvious solution but I don't believe it will come soon, if ever). Conclusion for the time being: until all situations are covered by a template, we need a catch-all.

"If this work did not originate in the United States"
Mysterymanblue, you commented, "I still don't see a reason to include [this] phrase as part of the disclaimer".

– I can see the weakness in the wording. Taking your point that every work on Commons must provide an explanation for free use that is valid in the United States and that wording needs to be very general to cover these cases, how about this, then? (it combines your better words with mention of why the US jurisdiction is important):

Since Wikimedia Commons servers are located in the United States, if this template involves a non-U.S. jurisdiction it must be accompanied by a justification for free use that is valid in the U.S.

Don't give them multiple options
I've implemented the comments of Mysterymanblue and Nosferattus: only CC0 is mentioned now. I've also deleted mention of other jurisdictions.

This file is in the public domain because lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetaur adipisicing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. This template must not be used to dedicate an uploader's own work to the public domain; CC0 should be used. Since Wikimedia Commons servers are located in the United States, if this template involves a non-U.S. jurisdiction it must be accompanied by a justification for free use that is valid in the U.S.

I hope I've fully taken your comments on board. If not, I'm listening.  :-)  — SCHolar44 (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think this most recent proposal is perfectly fine, simple and clear; therefore, I  Support it. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:00, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support SCHolar44's wording of 06:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support the latest wording. Nice work. Nosferattus (talk) 12:05, 26 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support. SCHolar44, thanks for your diligence and courtesy throughout this process!  Mysterymanblue  05:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

An edit rquest has now been made at Template talk:PD-because. SCHolar44 (talk) 08:15, 9 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was a discussion about fantasy flags generated by users from the Commonswiki being used on other Wikimedia websites and the potential anti-educational effects that these fantasy flags could have on their readers. Meanwhile on Wikimedia Commons we have many tags like "{{Fact disputed}}", "{{Fictional flag}}", "{{Disputed coat of arms}}", "{{Fake sports logo}}", "{{Fictitious map}}", Etc. to convey the message that these files should not be used in a context that make them seem official, many such images still are used on a large number of Wikimedia websites that have reliability issues because nobody is ever notified of them.

Therefore I would like to propose a bot to operate globally and notify any Wikimedia website when a fact has been called into dispute like when an image gets nominated for deletion now or tagged as "Speedy", in order to prevent vandals from tagging all images with such tags the bot would have to wait 24 (twenty-four) hours or 48 (forty-eight) hours before notifying other communities. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, as proposer. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:05, 1 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support However, I think the proposal is too brief and implementation would be hard. There's a lot of history under this and misleading images of many types are an extremely easy way to misuse Commons and deliberately corrupt the educational value of other projects under the false assertion that it protects "free speech" or that the project is not censored. This misuse happens and has been allowed to happen since the project was created. --Fæ (talk) 10:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - would go a long way to stopping image misuse.  Mysterymanblue  15:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:29, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak oppose, while the underlying idea is good, there are too many grey areas and too much potential for such a system to be abused. People already misuse these templates for political and ideological disagreements, and I fear this would exacerbate that. Nosferattus (talk) 17:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support can avoid any files that are possibly out of scope. --A1Cafel (talk) 10:00, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support it is common for media to get used across projects, only for years later to be identified as inaccurate or fan-made.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support - We already have a bot that adds file copyvio/DR notices to Wikipedia talkpages and that works fine so can't see why this can't too. Unfortunately it will be open to abuse and people will abuse it but at the end of the day unless anyone above has a better solution than I fully support this. –Davey2010^Talk 22:18, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: This functionality is not in that bot's approved scope or programming.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:46, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Apologies if this sounds arguementitive or rude certainly not my intention but I never said it was ?, I said we have a bot that does a similar sort of thing :), Thanks, –Davey2010^Talk 12:14, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Davey2010: No, you didn't, and I'm sorry if in replying to you I implied that you wrote that it was. But logically, a next step could be NRodriguez (WMF) or her team planning to modify Community Tech bot or creating another bot with similar code to do this, and I wanted to publicly make sure the community in general and each wiki community approved such before implementation.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff, No worries, Happy editing my friend, Take care, –Davey2010^Talk 14:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support under the condition that every WMF projects decides if and how they want to be notified. We should not do this without the explicit consent of the respective projects. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:32, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Some clarification, my personal stance on fantasy bullshit is that they should be included in Wikimedia Commons as more often than not they do have an educational value as often they are based on common misconceptions, incomplete information, misinformation that might have been spread by credible sources like museums and universities (you would be surprised how much bullshit you can find in otherwise "academic" papers simply because the person in question used the wrong sources) and I believe that such things can be used to contrast real Vs. fake and just discuss the meta-history of a subject and its historiography. That aside bullshit becomes misinformation when it's presented as real information. We can have a projection of a pear-shaped earth or a velociraptor-shaped earth, but while an image of a velociraptor-shaped earth can illustrate the beliefs of the Dinosaur Earth Society the same image would be horrible misinformation on any serious article about the geography of the planet Earth.

As the hypothetical bot will most likely notify all talk pages indiscriminately about the tagging it is up to the editors of that particular Wikimedia wiki to decide to remove/replace it or keep it, an article about flag proposals can have images of flag proposals, an article about bullshit land claims can have fake maps, an article about fictional sports teams can have fictional sports logos, Etc. The bot clearly can't differentiate if an image is where it should be, however, it could notify users.

Personally I would have preferred the Community-Tech-Bot to do these notifications but as I am permanently banned from the Meta-Wiki and any time I try to appeal that ban a user that hates me denies the appeal and comments how I should have my talked page access revoked so "I won't waste their time anymore" I can't exactly propose anything at the global tech wishlist and unfortunately there isn't a localised Wikimedia Commons annual tech wishlist, though if it is possible I would like to petition Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) to get more involved here and create a "Commonswiki Tech Wishlist" where they would fulfill 5 (five) instead of 10 (ten) "community wishes", but I have no idea if it would be possible to convince Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) of doing something like that, so I hope that someone that operates a global bot can pick this request up if there is consensus for it.

Regarding potential vandalism, generally speaking files are patrolled and personally I am more inclined towards a 24 (twenty-four) hour window so other Wikimedia websites are more quickly notified about potential reliability issues, if someone raises an issue about fantasy maps being used at the Indonesian-language Wikipedia that map can still continue to be used at the Wolof-language Wikipedia because nobody is notified of its factual inaccuracies, this bot should solve this issue by not letting such discussions "stay in the talk pages of only one wiki".

A big issue this might create is hypercorrection where a user challenges a claim that later turns out to be correct and other Wikimedia websites will remove all references to that media file, but of course the best action to take here is provide reliable sources and restore it where the user can. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I think we cannot order anybody to provide such a bot, and we cannot replace any (global or local) bot approval by this discussion. What will be the actual result if this proposal is accepted? --Krd 10:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I think voting on the principle is fine. As an example, if there was funding for a group-run bot based on consensus, I'd be happy to be paid a small honorarium to write the main code for it and others can operate it, i.e. a teeny fraction of the cost of getting WMF dev to do anything. It would be reasonable for sister projects to opt out of it, but we are only talking about leaving advisory notes on talk pages. BTW, the example of images up for deletion is a bad one, there is already a bot that does this for DRs on images in use in articles on some wikipedias. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Krd: , you are right, we can't force anyone to do this, but it would show that there is at least some consensus for this, as "fake information" is rampant and quite recently there were Administrators' Noticeboard and Village Pump discussions about fantasy flags being used on Wikipedia's. We already have a bot for deletion notifications, so this is "the same in spirit". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:23, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not opposed at all, I just think it's an unconventional approach. Wouldn't it be better to first find a bot operator who is willing to do it, and then just do it as a nobrainer, instead of making this formal proposal? I mean if there is nobody who does it, the whole story here appears quite pointless for me. Speaking as a bot operator, I would prefer to be asked over being requested to implement what is already decided. Also I think it's better to take into account the needs of the individual projects the bot shall run on, instead of making decisions here for all projects of their heads. Even if that's fair from our point of view, I'm quite sure communities will think different. But, that's just my 2¢, maybe I'm mistaken. --Krd 16:13, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What does "notify" mean? In particular, would that go into mainspace or onto the article talk: ? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Andy Dingley: , please see how Wikipedia's are notified about deletions here, the notifications are about things that happen on Wikimedia Commons that most regular contributions to another Wikimedia website might not see. The Community Tech bot notifies users of deletions on most Wikimedia websites so in principle it would be the same. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @NRodriguez (WMF) as Product Manager of Community Tech bot.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:34, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Deletions are flagged on the talk: page, because they're mostly of interest to article maintainers, who can be expected to know about talk: pages. But if the issue is accuracy, then that would presumably need to go on the main page, where all readers would be informed of it. That's a riskier slot, bearing in mind potential for misuse.

There's also the issue of "fictional" flags. Why are these "inaccurate"? If the flag is a fiction, then what's the reality and why don't we use that instead? We might use this for inaccurately-drawn flags (such as edit-warring over the proportions of a real flag), but if a flag is fictional then it either doesn't belong on a page describing reality, it does belong on a page describing that fiction, or it would belong on a page describing hypothetical flags, such as a British flag without a now-independent Scotland. None of which are "inaccuracies" deserving this sort of flagging. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is best to use talk pages because in general people don't want casual readers to see "editor" things. A fantasy flag that is correctly used as a fantasy for a fantastic location is fine, but there are examples where flags with disputed origins are attributed to historical entities. If an issue exists with the content of an article (and media files are article content) then it is up to the regulars to fix it, in some cases Wikimedia Commons "has decided for projects" by deleting files as "fake" that later turned out to be true. Having more eyes on an issue causes more experts to be able to correct any issues. The bot should only indicate that issues have been raised, not that the flag itself is fake, perhaps we can create specific templates for proposed flags that are not "fantasies". For example an alleged flag of a historical province of France that turns out to be a later invention is a "fantasy flag" but not a proposed flag. A specific template for "Proposed flag" should get rid of such things. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• @Fæ: , if you think that the proposal is too short I give you my written permission to adjust it however you see fit, as long as the basic premise (a bot notifying sister projects about reliability issues on Wikimedia Commons and a short window to fight vandalism here) remains the same. I deliberately kept it short because earlier this year I had a large batch of proposals that were ignored (had little engagement) because they were too long and spitting them had little engagement despite being things that are all already the standard on the English-language Wikipedia. So I kept this proposal short and to the point to avoid this with some notes below. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• I think this proposal would do quite a bit to stop image misuse, assuming that Wikipedias would implement its suggestions. I have gone and removed images of fictitious flags from several Wikipedias where they were used erroneously (all in cases where people assumed an entity that didn't have a flag had a flag). I dislike doing this in general because it sometimes looks like I am vandalizing the page because I am unable to provide a cogent explanation in the source language. I hope implementing this proposal would empower these Wikis to seek out and snuff out disinformation on their own terms. Another way to reduce file misuse would be to require fictitious flag file pages to clearly and unambiguously identify themselves as fictitious in their titles, possibly as the first word. This would hopefully prevent people from missing the file page disclaimer by making it an integral part of how the file is used.  Mysterymanblue  15:42, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I like this non-technical solution. If this proposal could be read as a policy to force the first word in a filename to be on an agreed list of red-flag words like Fictitious, Propaganda or Misleading, this might be enough to get Wikipedias to pay more attention. --Fæ (talk) 15:59, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• What about instead of automating the notifications of the wikis, the bot instead lists all globally used files that have those templates in a subpage? The notification (or correction if necessary and possible) will have to be done manually by a human instead. I'm not really a fan of automating the notifications to each wiki since I feel it could lead to misunderstandings. I think the notifications should be done by a volunteer familiar with the wiki involved. pandakekok9 12:10, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  @Pandakekok9: Where would that subpage be? What would it be named? What would be on it? Who would pay attention to it?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:29, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A map, in particular, being "disputed" does not mean it is wrong. For example, consider Israel/Palestine. Is all of Jerusalem part of Israel? Is the Golan Heights? Is it OK to show where the 1967 border was on a present-day map? Is it OK to color the West Bank and Gaza two different colors? Is it OK to refer to "the West Bank" (vs. "Judea and Samaria")? etc., and that is not even taking into account some more extreme views on either side. Any map of the area will be disputed by someone, but that does not mean it is wrong, just that any given Wikipedia ought to be clear whose view of the matter it represents.

Similarly for political maps of a dozen other places in the world, not to mention almost any map about linguistic distribution. - Jmabel ! talk 23:02, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed.

But using any of these maps, an editor should be aware of its controversial nature and carefully choose among the available versions, or abstain from using one if none was appropriate. I don't think a comment on the talk page is overkill. In many cases, the editors were already aware of the controversy, but a bot notifying that the map has been marked as disputed is no worse than an IP editor popping up arguing that all the area should be shown as integral parts of India/Israel/Ukraine/whatever, and we do handle that just fine on the Wikipedias. Just make the note clear, and avoid spamming the talk pages.

–LPfi (talk) 09:38, 7 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We could easily create a warning template called "{{Disputed map}}" (apparently already exists) and / or a more general "{{Politically sensitive}}" explaining about why the file can be perceived as "offensive" or "partisan" as the Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a NPOV. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:17, 4 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the point was to have a bot notify file reusers (by an article talk page message), when such a template is added to the file talk page over here or the file is added to a page. –LPfi (talk) 16:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, there was a template {{Spa}}. Like en:Template:spa, it was used to tag single-purpose accounts. See Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Abdullah_Öcalan.png as to why we need this.

In 2011, it was repurposed by @Vincent Steenberg: to point instead to a small town in Belgium. I have no idea why, if this was discussed anywhere, or why Commons would need such a thing.

I propose to revert this. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:28, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

We have a lot of these: Category:Multilingual tags: Locations by country. --El Grafo (talk) 06:55, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This template is being used 169 times. Use Template:Single-purpose account instead. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 07:32, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hold on, if you give me 20 minutes, I will free up this template. Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:23, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I renamed {{Spa}} to {{Spa, Belgium}}. You can now restore the first the way it was 13 years ago. Regards, Vincent Steenberg (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you Andy Dingley for noticing this - I was going to use the SPA template for a DR only to find it didn't apparently exist, If we can put SPA back into existence that would be grand :), –Davey2010^Talk 15:25, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I've split the history up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:49, 10 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I happened to run into a few TIFF uploads. They are sometimes relatively large batches of large files (100-200MB), and even if Mediawiki creates jpeg thumbnails of them, I wonder what's the advantage of those large files? I am all for keeping the original files (The files can be as large as they have to, if they need it), specially for things like donated collections, but just by using TIFF compression to the original uncompressed TIFFs, I was able to make the file size 5 times smaller with lossless compression (identical file printed on screen, will never degrade, no matter how many times is re-saved), keeping the metadata and file format. Patents for compression no longer apply. The compression is so low resource intensive (compared to JPEG), that it won't have any issues being opened in old phones or computers. But the original file size may have issues being opened due to higher memory requirements. I think the TIFF format that was used in those cases, even things like "Library of congress" was whatever came out of the scanner software, without many regards for practical usage/reuse. Even Mediawiki software sometimes has issues creating thumbnails of those very large files: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T290462

My questions is, other than "keeping the original files intact", would it make sense to recommend to use compression on large TIFFs on the File formats page? I think it will make life easier for the uploader (5x speed on uploading), the software and the reuser/downloader. Am I missing something I am not thinking about? I am not suggesting to enforce this, I think it is not super-important for/on occasional uploads/occasional TIFF contributors, but may make things faster/easier for large batch uploads (converting things losslessly, on the fly before uploading)? --jynus (talk) 10:32, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Uncompressed TIFF is a library standard. There's not much of a reason to upload TIFF besides keeping the original files intact.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:27, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Support.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No. At least in my (long-term ago) experience, TIFF-compression was a mess. And: Storage place is not really a problem today or for the WMF. --Túrelio (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't we already have options to download smaller files? I don't think that we should place this responsibility on the uploaders, there are already a tonne of things to make sure before uploading (licensing, scope, file type, name, categorisation, Etc.) so the size of the file should not be. A bot could compress files like locally uploaded files are at the English-language Wikipedia. We should try to make the upload process as user-friendly as possible not add extra restrictions outside of the licensing and scope policies. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Special:CiteThisPage is enabled by default on all mainspace pages, however it is also enabled on files as the file namespace is in $wgContentNamespaces on Commons. This proposal is to use CSS to hide the special page on file pages. Why? If a content reuser clicks on the Cite this page link in the sidebar or under the more menu on the mobile site, they likely intend to reuse the media in some form which requires attribution. The issue is that Special:CiteThisPage does not create proper attribution for this at all. As an example: [1], it lists the author as "Wikimedia Commons contributors" which is not only insufficent, but in many cases completely wrong as not all files are by Commons contributors, it also lists no license. Special:CiteThisPage is designed for textual content, so it does not make sense to have it on file pages. Dylsss (talk) 21:52, 25 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of the above proposal, I propose that we improve Special:CiteThisPage in file namespace to show the license and author, so as to actually comply with the license. This same code could extend to all wikis.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:05, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Support, in fact "CiteThisPage" should be used to illustrate "a good example" of how to properly attribute freely licensed media content, I'm not sure if it can be technically tailored for the Wikimedia Commons, but if it could it should. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, though I will note that this is not a particularly high priority and file pages already have an attribution that provides a legally correct attribution.  Mysterymanblue  22:18, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
•  Support, but see my proposal below about watermarking. --Nicolas G. Mertens (talk) 09:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder whether it would be possible for Wikimedia to place a watermark on pictures, just as it is done in Getty or Alamy for example. I'm asking because I get angry when I hit a website that uses one of my photos—obviously copied from Wikimedia Commons—without following any licensing guidelines.(1) My name is not even mentioned, giving the impression that the photos appearing on the website belong to the site's owner.

As I imagine it, the watermark would be inserted by Wikimedia at the time of uploading. It would be automatically removed when the picture is used by a Wikipedia contributor, but would not be removed for any outsider, unless and until s/he accepts and agrees to follow the licensing rules.

As an aside, don't get me wrong. I enjoy contributing to Wikimedia/Wikipedia and the world at large, but I do not enjoy seeing the Commons being used as if it were a treasure chest of free and anonymous material.

Thanks for your attention.--Nicolas G. Mertens (talk) 11:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(1) Here are a few examples:

• A photo of Cala Tamarells Nord, picked up from Wikimedia

• Two photos of Cala Tortuga, picked up from Wikimedia and Wikimedia

• A photo of Sa Raconada Vella, picked up from Wikimedia

On the other hand:

• A photo of s'Albufera des Grau. My name and WikiCommons are mentioned, although there is no link to Wikimedia.

• The same picture as above is used, but a link to Wikimedia is provided.

• A photo of Biarritz. In this admirable example, all the rules have been respected.

• @Nicolas G. Mertens: Hi, I don't think a watermark is the solution. Once a picture is watermarked, it is difficult to remove it, that's the whole point of a watermark. If after reminding the offending websites to respect the license, they do not comply, you can contact a lawyer. I did that for one of my picture. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:12, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, as Yann

Watermarks aren't the way to fix this. For one thing, I want to be here for "the Commons being used as if it were a treasure chest of free material." If we aren't getting good compliance with licensing, that's something that we could do a lot more to achieve. The resources of the WMF would also be well spent on some of that! We don't make it clear enough to user how to do this, we don't enforce that at all, we certainly don't pursue those who won't. The 800 pound macaque of Commons and the WMF has a much greater ability to do so than individual editors do. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: An interesting thing that Geograph Britain and Ireland does is to have an optional watermark that contains (or should contain) all the information required by the licence. See, e.g. the "stamped image" at the top of [2]. If someone wants to re-use the image without modification, using a watermarked version should mean that they're automatically in compliance with the licence. This is just about feasible on Geograph where all the pictures use the same licence, though even Geograph gets it slightly wrong (truncating long titles, not actually including the licence URL). It would be a serious challenge to do the job adequately on Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Proper attribution needed for reuse is quite clear on this example, contrary to Commons. Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• While I think that watermarks are a bad idea, I am intrigued with the option to download watermarked versions of files from the Wikimedia Commons where the proper attribution is already integrated. This would actually be a plus (+) for re-users as the attribution would then be built-into the image. However, general watermarks are a bad idea and I would advise against uploading files with watermarks unless no alternatives exists. This is up to the developers of the MediaWiki software to realise, as long as it stays optional and it would be cool if users could personalise their watermarks and have simple guidelines for why attribution is important for re-users. I remember user "GeoSwan" saying that they have seen many improperly attributed versions of their files on the web.

That aside, just because many files on the Wikimedia Commons are free doesn't mean that they are free from copyright ©, improper attribution is still a copyright © violation and while it is taboo to say so, the copyright © owners should be able to express that they wish to be attributed (after those whole German photographer issues where some German photographers were suing people for improper attribution, the Wikimedia Commons should not be exploited by copyright © trolls, but it should likewise not require its contributors to release all their works under a de facto CC0 license). I think that the solution might be what Jeff G. said in another section above to have "Cite this page" improved for content re-users. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Watermark or not (and I'm not in favor as it will decrease participation by more than I think it will gain), the real issue is the need to enforce the license terms, and Commons needs to revise en:Wikipedia:Standard license violation letter to better fit image misuse. This needs to be more prominant and included within cite this page or somewhere more. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:26, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

•  Strong oppose Antithetical to the goals of the project, ruins many images for a relatively minor problem. While I agree that people not following license terms sucks, a fundamental part of free media is trusting others with your works. That inherently comes with a risk of people using files in a way you disagree with and failing to understand the terms of a license. While you have a right to enforce licenses against infringers and to put your name on every photograph, such a strong attachment to your intellectual property is not emblematic of the free culture movement. The proper recourse is gently reminding people that they have violated the license terms. You have a right to feel wronged by people who incorrectly attribute you, but if your response to this is wanting to watermark every image, you may not be in the right mindset to be freely licensing your images, which inherently limits the degree of your ownership over them.  Mysterymanblue  03:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Strong oppose per Mysterymanblue.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:46, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for the feedback, although I find all this very dispiriting. I will add a few comments, then I will drop the subject.

First of all, I don't understand why it would be so difficult to remove the watermarks placed by Wikimedia (Yann). The commercial stock agencies appear to do it easily. And please, don't tell me that the Wiki Foundation does not have the means to do it :)

Two, I am all in favor of contributing to the "treasure chest of free material" (Andy Dingley), as long as attribution is properly given. The websites that use these photos are commercial entities and the photos they freely use help their business. I am not asking for money (I don't expect any money since I upload my stuff to the Commons), I am just asking for the recognition that my work—not theirs—deserves.

Three, I did not propose to make available the downloading of watermarked versions of files from the Wikimedia Commons (Donald Trung). I did not either propose to upload files watermarked by the user. The watermarking would be done by Wikimedia, and it would be temporary, just as it is done by the stock agencies.

Four, watermarking will not decrease participation (Ricky), on the contrary. In fact, what decreases participation—see my last paragraph—is the lack of enforcement of the licensing terms. Temporary watermarking (done by Wikimedia) would be an incentive for websites to agree and abide to the terms of the CC licensing before they are allowed to download the material they wish to use. "Click here to accept" and you can download; you don't accept? you cannot download. It would be similar to the commercial stock agencies: pay → the watermark is removed → you can download; you don't want to pay, you don't get anything (well... in both cases, I guess you can screen-capture the picture with the watermark if you want :)

Five, I venture to say that for many photographers who take pride in their work, misattribution, or the lack of it, is more than a "minor problem" (Mysterymanblue). And again, I am not opposed to make my stuff available free of charge. If I were opposed, I would not be here. And I don't see why temporary watermarking (by Wikimedia) would be contrary to the spirit of the Commons. Should I remind anyone that the spirit of the Commons is to make available free material with proper attribution (licensing)?

That's it folks. One last word, though. I, for one, have stopped uploading material to Wikimedia. When I see more and more of my stuff being used without attribution by commercial websites, I get depressed and I wish I could remove all my photos from Wikimedia, and ask for my user account to be deleted. In the meantime, I understand that improving Special:CiteThisPage (Jeff G, previous proposal) might be a step forward, and I support it.

Thanks again for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicolas G. Mertens (talk • contribs)

Just to be clear, I did not say that you proposed an optional version, I just don't see this proposal work if it's not optional, that's it. Adding an extra window with the licensing terms will have the same desensitising effect as the "Will you accept cookies for this website?" window will have and I know a lot of people that never read the terms of service or terms of use before they use a website (it's sad but true), re-users are like this and to most internet-users copyrights are but a suggestion. I agree that re-users should be properly informed, but I don't think that watermarks are the answer, watermarks will simply work really well for re-users at Google's YouTube, Vimeo, Etc. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment Commons/Wikimedia offers a tool for attribution the https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de . I added it to all my image description pages and it might be a good idea to automagically add it to all file descrtption pages on commons. Second: EXIF can contain license and or author informaiton. External sites (like google images) read this EXIF license information. However Wikimedia strips most EXIF from thumbs. Only a minimal set of Copyright statements are kept, but for example the "WebStatement" (the principal copyright information) is not. Third: In the case of videos ALL copyright information is cleared from transcoded videos by Wikimedia. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to https://lizenzhinweisgenerator.de. This is interesting and might add an additional degree of protection against the "delinquants" :) I looked at a number of your photo pages and saw how it works. If you don't mind, I would like to do the same with my pages. However, I can't figure out how to edit the Licensing box, and in particular how to insert the License Generator. I would appreciate your help. Thanks again.