Open main menu
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to Commons:Project scope.

Contents

Can I upload for this purpose?Edit

I'm not sure if many of you are familiar with NationStates, but it's a pretty fun government simulator. It's a universal fact that pictures make things more interesting (I'm pretty sure the people of WikiMedia can agree with that). It's also a fact that WikiMedia has a lot of pictures, some pictures which have provided me with the flag of my nation to the exterior of the parliament of my nation. Problem is, WikiMedia doesn't have everything. It could have everything, and that's why I'm here today with this question which I apologize for taking so long to get to: Can I upload pictures related to NationStates here? I know, I know, it doesn't really play a major purpose, but let me find a loophole...aha! The first bullet, "we can accept most images that you create entirely by yourself, so long as your image does not itself depict another copyrighted work." The only things in my pictures which might be copyrighted are national flags and government buildings, but those are already in the public domain, right? So that's one bird killed, hopefully. The second bullet, "self-created artwork without obvious educational uses." Now I think the uses are obvious in my case, they're being used for NationStates! Now, unless my interpretation of WikiMedia rules are right I will refrain from uploading any pictures of mine until I hear otherwise, and if I am wrong and I still cannot be allowed to upload to WikiMedia I will proceed using my old method, uploading to ol' Imgur. I hope to hear from someone soon :)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Knowledge-sponge (talk • contribs) 00:38, 8 April 2018 (UTC)
  • National flags as such are [almost?] never copyrighted, although particular representations of them may be. Government buildings often are copyrighted -- it depends on how old, what country, etc. -- and if they are copyrighted and in a country that lacks freedom of panorama for buildings, then any picture of the building violates copyright. Even if the building is not copyrighted, then any individual photo of it (except a very old one) would be, and would have to be licensed by its copyright holder.
  • All of your own original work that is not {{PD-ineligible}} is copyrighted, though of course you can free-license that.
  • I don't know enough about the game to say whether the materials you've produced would qualify as educational or not. It would probably make sense for you to upload a small number of each type of images you are considering uploading, and ask for review to see if there is anything you should be doing differently or if some of this content is not appropriate at all, rather than expend a lot of effort on something that might be reversed. - Jmabel ! talk 01:28, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

my objectionEdit

Magog the Ogre,

I received a message that you flagged my work for deletion so I am responding to ask that you reconsider your recommendation. I feel that your decision is unfair and infringes upon my rights. Did I say anything that you perceived to be offensive? Please advise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by J.M. Romans (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
@J.M. Romans: This is the wrong way to reach Magog the Ogre. You should be able to contact that user by posting a new section to User talk:Magog the Ogre or by addressing the issue with File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf in a post to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf.

On "Advertising/promotional material does not advance Commons' aims."Edit

The current version of this page states that "Advertising/promotional material does not advance Commons' aims." In context, this is meant to imply that a file's appearing to be promotional material is also a valid reason to delete it. I am calling this out: I do not think it is the prerogative of individual editors to assess the promotional nature of the files we decide to host here, at least not to the extent that this sentence needs to be included on this project page. We already have plenty of text that makes clear that our files must have educational value— that alone should be enough to allow editors to assess whether or not a given file has such value. As it is, however, this sentence opens a doorway for the deletion of files whose appearance may be promotional but whose use on one of more of the various Wikipedias may be entirely educational. The sentence pretends to point a laser-beam target at something which is actually quite vague. On that basis, shouldn't we just remove it? A loose noose (talk) 23:28, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

On face value, the statement would prohibit images like this one or anything else in Category:Advertisements. Clearly many advertisements and promotional materials have educational value: many are held in museums and libraries expressly for research and archival purposes. --Animalparty (talk) 16:17, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
File:Aermotor Windmill Company ad 20,049 sold in 1891.jpg is also obviously promotional.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
@A loose noose, Animalparty: These were deleted as "promotional": File:JATO Company-Logo.jpg, File:Kubtec 4 color logo for USPTO.jpg. This was deleted as personal image but the undeletion initially met some "but uploader is clearly self-promotional" resistance: File:Mithun daa.jpg. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
I am taking this to mean that there has indeed been some absurd misuse of this policy prerogative. Does this mean that it is time to remove this sentence? I will do so now and will refer to this talk page. If others disagree, please feel free to revert me and give a justification here. Thanks. A loose noose (talk) 20:45, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@A loose noose: How about "Material which promotes one or more currently available good(s), service(s), or organization(s) does not advance Commons' aims."?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:51, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
Hm. I am not certain that is any different, really. My point was that I don't think the purpose of that sentence is helpful, not that I didn't like the way it was phrased. A loose noose (talk) 22:30, 28 November 2018 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Kubtec and Jato-Düsenbau AG are still in business, so no. And beyond logos, we have files like File:Wesley Duncan Palmcard2.pdf. Promotional? Sure. Historically interesting for someone who finds this 50 years from now? Yes. Useful for us? Even that, I extracted the photo from it and that's in use. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:31, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

Vector PDF maps, graphs, and charts should be welcomed in the Project scopeEdit

Currently, the project scope permits PDF files. But it does not say that we welcome vector PDF maps, charts, and graphs.

Please see: Commons:Deletion requests/File:US Incarceration Rates in 2016.pdf. This PDF file is in vector format already.

Why are PDF vector maps being discouraged on the Commons? One reason for the deletion request is because it is not in SVG format. SVG is just another vector format. We should be thanking people that upload charts, graphs, and maps in any vector format usable by the Commons.

Charts, graphs, and maps about incarceration rates are used in many articles in English Wikipedia. I would be very happy if more vector maps (both PDF and SVG) were uploaded into the category this map fits in: Category:Imprisonment and detention rate maps of the United States. I have added charts, graphs, and maps concerning incarceration rates and correctional populations to many articles on English Wikipedia.

Download the PDF file and open it in any PDF reader. Expand the map to as big as you want. It does not get grainy or less sharp. It is a vector map. Future versions of this map will be even better. Most uploaders are not skilled in the SVG format. So, if they can create images in the PDF format we need to welcome them. It is better than a raster (bit map) image such as PNG, JPG, GIF, etc.. I know that the Commons converts the SVG and PDF source to a raster image. But the result can be much sharper than files originally uploaded in a raster format. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

What did Tuvalkin say again? "the usual suspects" or something along those lines. Great movie, but the book was better. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)
I   Support their inclusion, if files can be used for educational purposes their format (if free) should not be limited. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"Explict" images...Edit

Per previous discussions, Commons contributors have consistently argued against a blanket ban on images that would be considered 'explicit'.

However, Would it be reasonable to state here that Commons does not want explicit images unless they support genuine educational, academic or cultural efforts, and such images should have appropriate context attached to justify this?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: we already have templates for this which you could leave on the talk pages of those who upload uneducational nudity, please see "{{Nopenis}}" and I believe a couple more. Though I don't think that newbies will see this page before their first upload so using such templates on their talk pages should be preferable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:46, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
This wasn't just about Nudity, as some images of sexuality can be considered "explicit" even though there is minimal nudity or direct inclusion of certain anatomical areas. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't this just fall under "COM:NOTHOST"? If an image isn't educational then it is already mentioned here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:03, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
Return to the project page "Project scope".