Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/10

Marking as reviewed

Can anyone with reviewer right Mark this image as reviewed as the website of Government of Bihar may delete it in future making it difficult for me to proove that it was available there. File:Kapil Deo Kamat with Ram Balak Singh Kushwaha.jpg. Many images from this website were reviewed earlier by admins Satdeep Gill and Magog the Ogre. But they are not active right now. (As for example this File:Umesh kushwaha, khiru Mahto, Nitish Kumar.jpeg is from the same source)-Admantine123 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: I believe the normal way to request this is to put {{LicenseReview}} on the file page. I've now done that for you.

I tried (and failed) to access the referenced source page. Could well be an issue of which country I'm in (U.S.), because I can't even access the domain.. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

You can click on the link twice or thrice to get the page as usually after clicking once they direct to main web page. Admantine123 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I got a 502 Proxy Error, and then I was able to connect after some funny business with my local ISP. The file is actually from https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/cache/33/QUICKLINK/1.jpg as displayed on https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/Content.html?links&page=Photo%20Gallery but with no specific license visible.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: what exactly is the basis for the claimed license (exact text & just where it can be found)? Might make it easier for someone to find & confirm. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The website policy of Government of Bihar says so. It allows it to be used by everyone for any purpose freely if one properly attribute them. The copyright policy is found on the bottom of the website. Admantine123 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

[1], here you can see that they are free, as declared by Information and public relations department of Government of Bihar.- Admantine123 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

On that page I see "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorization to reproduce such material must be obtained from the department/copyright holder concerned." So for each individual image, we need to see that it is not attributed to a third party. Also, "the material has to be reproduced accurately" makes me wonder about whether derivative works are allowed (if not, this is not a free enough license for Commons.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That reads to me like "no derivative works". Please do the needful.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 17:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I'm hesitant to assume that, because (1) the license has clearly been accepted in the past and (2) it seems ambiguous to me. A crop identified as such is not "inaccurate". This may be more related to the "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context," which is clearly a non-copyright restriction. But I do believe we should quote the key passage on the file page, not just use {{Attribution}}, as it does now. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The language "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context" isn't a non-copyright restriction. It's a constraint on acceptable uses of the work, just like "non-commercial use only", and it makes the license non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: I beg to differ. It's pretty much the same as par-for-the-course personality rights in many countries. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Reviewed, with a caveat about the terms. We may want a distinct template for this slightly odd license, in part to be clear about the caveat, but also to make it easy to find these if it is later determined that it does mean "no derivative works." - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Using accurately stands for using not in a derogatory manner and this thing is found on all government websites of India. Wikimedia commons have thousands of images from various Indian government websites and those published by press information bureau. There also if you read website policy they say the same thing. Indian administrators who are more aware of this thing have accepted it in past. Admantine123 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I am sure about the thing because here [2] on the official website of Press Information Bureau, you can see the same disclaimer. Thousands of images from the same have been uploaded on Wikimedia commons with their derivatives and other uses. You may find category of Images uploaded by Press Information Bureau to see those image, which was taken from PIB only with the same copyright policy.- Admantine123 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

By the way, i am also finding a proper solution to this as i don't want to disturb Indian Administrators time and again for reviewing the photos I will be uploading from Official Website of Government of Bihar. Satdeep Gill who is well aware of the case used to review my uploads. But, he is not active right now. And Bihar Government deletes the old images, so if not reviewed it will be difficult in future. Admantine123 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Some others images reviewed by Indian admins are File:Nitish Kumar participating in Ram Navmi Shobha Yatra.jpg

File:Nitish Kumar participating in Prakash Parv.jpg File:Nitish Kumar meeting Dalai Lama.jpg, File:Nitish Kumar meeting ailing Lalu Prasad Yadav in Hospital.jpg

Admantine123 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

For reference in the discussion, we are hosting a large number of files under {{OGL}} and {{OGL2}} that have a term that reusers must, "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source." This specific term appears to have been removed from {{OGL3}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

That term only appears to be present in OGL1. It's absent from OGL2; I'm going to open an editprotected request to correct the corresponding template. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It means in future the images from such websites can be uploaded under OGL1 licence, isn't it.? Admantine123 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Indian laws are heavily derived from UK's law. That's why they have tried similar rules for the government materials. Admantine123 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

From Hill To Shore, thanks for your input. It means in future i can upload the image from Government of Bihar website under OGL1 licence as it fulfills all the requirements. Also, can someone give me a link of this discussion, for future reference as many reviewers in future may be unaware of this discussion that has taken place right now. This discussion will be removed after addition of more discussion with passage of time in below section, that's why.- Admantine123 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Sorry for the confusion but I mentioned OGL in the context of another licence that includes the right to alter a file but a restriction on using it in a misleading way. If consensus is that OGL files are okay, then that strengthens your argument that Government of Bihar files with similar restrictions should be okay.

However, I don't think OGL can apply to Government of Bihar files as OGL is designed for UK copyright law and relates to files under Crown Copyright. As India is an independent country with its own head of state, British Crown Copyright is not relevant, except perhaps for pre-1947 files that are probably PD anyway. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Ok Admantine123 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in naming

Hi all, I've made a big mistake in over 260 photos... the category is Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore, however I have them all in the category Category:Clemenston Drive, Kemps Creek. I have moved the category, but I need to move the images into Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore and rename them to start with the title "Clementson Drive, Rossmore xxx.jpg" (where xxx is the number). How would I do this quickly? Or can someone do this for me? I apologise for making all this work! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Chris.sherlock2: I'll do the mass rename of the files (under way as I write), and move them to the new category. If there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
• I believe the mass rename, the category deletion, and moving the files to the new category are all complete. Again, if there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  Is there any chance you can help with this? I just need to change the suburb name. Is there any way I can do this in a batch if this happens in future? Thanks for your help! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: Sure. I'll do that. I did the file renames with the massrename tool, the re-cats with VFC (could have been done equally with cat-a-lot, maybe better) and will do this next piece with VFC as well. For massrename you need filemover privileges (I don't know whether you have those); however, you can certainly use VFC and cat-a-lot yourself. VFC is very powerful in terms of various wikitext substitutions, but you can get yourself in some trouble with it. Cat-a-lot is narrower in what it does (though its apparently good when you want to work on moving subcats as well as files, which VFC can't do) and therefore has less potential to go very wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

    Oh, that's great! I'll look into these when I get home from work. Thanks so much Jmabel, I really appreciate your assistance and advise! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • Done. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Error with Mediaviews Analysis?

Mediaviews Analysis show the error message: "Error querying Media requests API - Not Found" for several old files (files uploaded > 1 day). Is there ongoing improvement to this tool? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Images of numbers

Talking about Category:Numbers in Hindi and Category:Numbers in Telugu, both of them seem to list numbers in their respective languages, from 1 to 100, and in a very low resolution JPG format. I'm wondering if the applicable files in these categories could potentially be marked for deletion?

I don't see any purpose for them since the digits in these languages are already available as/can be easily replaced uploaded in SVG, and they also show no global use. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

• I would be all for replacing those with better files (39× 33? 17×27? Really?), but I think they are in scope. Pinging @Hindustanilanguage. - Jmabel ! talk 17:39, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete. These numerals can be represented as text (e.g. १, २, ३; ౧, ౨, ౩); there's no need for hundreds of images of text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

It's common to have files in different formats. If you think you can improve the jpgs, please upload them. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

I personally would not upload them in any format. JPG (low res!) is the only format these are available as of now and I want to determine if these are worth keeping; they are well within project scope but fall short of serving any practical purpose. ~ Saur ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Image deleted for 'no license' even though VRT ticket was sent

Hello, last week I uploaded an image of the actress Stacie Mistysyn with permission from the actress via email. She used the Interactive Release Generator and a VRT ticket was pending when it was deleted for having 'no license'. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@ToQ100gou: presumably you are talking about File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022.jpg and File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022 (cropped).jpg. You never tagged those with {{PP}} or {{Permission pending}} (as discussed in the first paragraph of Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?) so it's no surprise the were deleted. Sounds like something to take up at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard (if at all) rather than here. Whether you do so or not, though, if the rights are sorted out via VRT the image will be undeleted. One thing here that seems odd (and I don't need a response, just pointing it out to you for your process of moving this forward): it is unusual that an actress would be the holder of the relevant copyright, rather than a photographer or an organization. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Jmabel, I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Both files are tagged as Permission Received in the last version before deletion (ticket:2023092310000496) - they were deleted because the bot did not detect a license tag on the page. Having quickly reviewed the ticket: the emailer says to have chosen Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, but VRT is waiting for a response since Sept 28 because of an outstanding question to complete the verification procedure. Ciell (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@Ciell: sorry about that, you are correct. I just noticed the lack of {{Permission pending}} on the last version before deletion, didn't realize that it had been there ane was removed. Anyway, I presume these will be undeleted once that outstanding question is resolved.

Kind of weird to remove {{Permission pending}}, tag them as {{Permission received}}, but not add the license. @Krd: is this expected behaviour? It was your bot that did that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The bot can't read our VRT-tickets. ;-) Ciell (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about inappropriate images. Where do we report it?

Where do we report inappropriate images? Starlighsky (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

• @Starlighsky: depends what you mean by inappropriate. If it's child pornography, contact legal-reportswikimedia.org. If it's anything else, it would help if you could indicate the nature of the inappropriateness. (I assume you are not linking the image(s) to try to avoid the Streisand effect, but "inappropriate" is too vague to give you a solid answer, we'll need a bit more than that.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, if the "inappropriate" refers to personality rights violations you should send a mail to legal-reports@wikimedia.org or info-commons@wikimedia.org. If the inappropriate refers to something else you can file a regular deletion request. GPSLeo (talk) 06:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. For more information on regular deletion requests, see Commons:Deletion requests El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  To be more specific, it is pornography. Starlighsky (talk) 13:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  Adult pornography we don't censor --A.Savin 13:28, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

  • If there is an issue of apparent non-consent by the person depicted, then we're back to legal-reportswikimedia.org; any pornographic image of an under-age person is inherently non-consensual, because they cannot give consent. Otherwise: plenty of pornography is in scope, plenty of pornography is out of scope. If there's a solid reason it's out of scope, nominate it for deletion just like any other file. The following images and categories are definitely NSFW, so you may not want to click on them, but for example File:Félicien Rops - Sainte-Thérèse.png is not only in scope, it's a rather historically important image. File:Tiusty Woman on BDSM Cross.png is nowhere near as important, but is well within scope. Plus we have entire categories like Category:Heterosexual oral sex or Category:Pornographic shows. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg

Hello, I wonder if it is too soon to call a change of border with Somalia and Somaliland? If not, Caawiyahaderon's edit may need to be re-rendered in text editable state (from the preceding revision), as I took the map out of Inkscape earlier this year. Sorry for the rushed message, but I am sleepy. --Minoa (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are overwriting the same file and not creating new ones? That would avoid the entire problem of how soon it is to declare a border change. There will be one file with the previous border and another version with the new border. Individual Wikis can then choose which version best suits their page. They could even include two versions to show how the map has changed over time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

The file is marked as always up to date and therefore this file should be overwritten. If old versions are needed they need to become uploaded as new files. GPSLeo (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

FYI: I asked a similar question below (see Commons:Village_pump#Rules_regarding_unrecognized_countries). I think it's too soon, reading Wikipedia the border change doesn't seem recognized by most reliable sources. In Caawiyahaderon's map, Somaliland, Khatumo State, and Somalia appear as three independent countries, even though I understand that Khatumo State could be a state of Somalia (instead of being part of Somaliland before). poke @Caawiyahaderon A455bcd9 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-10

• 7 September was the 19th anniversary of the founding of Wikimedia Commons.
• Currently, there are 186 sysops.
• Commons:Adiutor is a new tool for maintenance tasks.

User:Vikipolimer was appointed temporarily as administrator and interface administrator from 4 to 11 September to facilitate set-up of Adiutor.

---

Edited by RZuo (talk).

---

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

--RZuo (talk) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)