Commons:Village pump/Proposals

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcuts: COM:VP/P • COM:VPP

Welcome to the Village pump proposals section

This page is used for proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the talk page of a Commons policy. Recent sections with no replies for 30 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11.

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Please note
  • One of Wikimedia Commons’ basic principles is: "Only free content is allowed." Please do not ask why unfree material is not allowed on Wikimedia Commons or suggest that allowing it would be a good thing.
  • Have you read the FAQ?

 

Start a new discussion

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

image-reviewer → license-reviewer[edit]

Hi. I propose to change the technical name of the license reviewer user group from image-reviewer to license-reviewer. This will make it in consistent with the group's real name, and also in general everyone uses the term "license reviewer" and not "image reviewer", and it is correct too, as the group members review all type of files and not just images. I see no reason why this shouldn't be done. We'll have to do following things for this:

  • Request on Phabricator for technical stuff (config, WikimediaMessages, migration...)
  • Update abuse filtes
  • Update MediaWiki pages (includes Gadgets)
  • Update user scripts if any
  • Update required Commons, Template, Help pages (like COM:LR)

Please point out other things if any. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 05:13, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion[edit]

I do not think this is a problem. The technical term for Admins is sysop and for Oversighters it is suppress. But if we do a change here we should also consider the proposal I made some month ago (Should we simplify user rights?) to remove the dedicated rollback right and give this right to all patrollers and license reviewers. GPSLeo (talk) 15:27, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I personally dislike sysop for admins as it is no longer relevant and can be confused with system administrators but it is a MediaWiki core setting so a big mess and not in our hands, while the license reviewer is a local Commons group, so it makes sense to keep it consistent and updated, and it is in our hands so easy to manipulate. For the proposal you linked, I personally agree with Mdaniels5757 there. For now, I'd say let's please keep that seperate as then this proposal will be wider in scope then it's original non-controversial (?) subject. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:26, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not to say I'm against the idea, but don't you think "license-reviewer" is to close in wording (if not purpose) to the Volunteer Response Team or that there is a chance people will mix them up? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:10, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, non/new users have always confused them and will continue to do so. But I have never seem them calling it image reviewer, as our help and project pages use the term license reviewer and established users also use the latter term in general except while talking in technical way, so I believe it won't make a much difference for them. Even if they are using/reading/understanding the former term then it could be misleading for them as it suggests that the group members review only images but that's not the case, they can also get confused believing license-reviewer and image-reviewer are two different user groups, so I think it makes sense to change it and make it consistent. And for us, established contributors, who understand workings, It was license reviewer with VRT access or without VRT access, and will remain the same. -- CptViraj (talk) 09:13, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@CptViraj: Wouldn't that be solved by calling it "file reviewer" then? I don't think just because "image" doesn't work that it necessarily means "license" does. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:33, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: The sole role of the user group is to review licenses, and that's what it makes different from patrollers, otherwise files can be reviewed by patrollers, too. So I believe 'file reviewer' could cause confusion. Also 'license reviewer' has become a common name now, changing it completely won't be a good idea IMHO. -- CptViraj (talk) 21:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That makes sense. Thanks for clarifying it. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support OK for me. Yann (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support OK for me, too.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I do not see the need for the change of this internal parameter. A change could break a lot of (unmaintained) tools. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Killarnee (talk) 06:22, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support it is never too late to implement the changes required. Thanks --C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 06:35, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per GPSLeo. It's a purely cosmetic change that has the potential to break things. Commons is already struggling under backlogs basically everywhere; if we lose a tool or two it'll only get worse. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 10:42, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I would support a change, provided the concerns by GPSLeo and The Squirrel Conspiracy are addressed. We are risking here that tools are not updated accordingly and would need to know beforehand what could possibly break and who is ready to fix it. Filter 70 would have to be updated as well. --AFBorchert (talk) 15:57, 7 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • In the proposal itself, I have already listed the on-wiki things (including the AF above) that will need updating. If anyone know any other gadgets/tools/scripts/etc.. please help list them, leftovers can be fixed. I'll be happy to update the things that I could, will surely appreciate more hands. A cosmetic change but IMO we shouldn't be afraid to do them when it is possible without causing heavy disruption, this isn't going to shut the site, the group has been renamed before. This isn't gonna get implemented overnight, discussion is likely going to be open for several months, all the replacement points can be found out, and if passed, we can do it with proper planning, thus minimising the chances of breaking things but I cannot guarantee 100% smooth transition, after all these things is a process of continual refinement. -- CptViraj (talk) 19:19, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Ooligan (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Weak oppose I don't see a large benefit and it could potentially break unmaintained tools. The previous renaming to fix the capitalization seems like it was a lot of work to coordinate. Apparently fawiki also uses this user group, so it would need to be coordinated with that wiki as well. Frankly, it doesn't seem like it's worth all the effort. Nosferattus (talk) 16:16, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hi. The work you see on phab is on system administrator/patch uploader's side (could be volunteer or staff), I'm sure they won't refuse to help and implement if there is consensus, some of it was done with maintenance scripts (semi-automatic), some of it won't be required as they were one-time fixes, if you see the dates, you can see that most of it was done on the same day. The previous rename was an uncontroversial maintenance change done by the sysadmins themselves to make the user groups in line with others, it included both fawiki's group as it required fix too but that's not a case here. The fawiki user group has nothing to do with ours, both are independent from each other. -- CptViraj (talk) 19:36, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Null edit to avoid auto-archiving. -- CptViraj (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Restrict webp upload？[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=filemime%3Awebp

i suggest restricting upload of webp files to autopatrol users (like mp3), because very often webp uploads are copyvio taken from the internet or previews of svg logos. RZuo (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support Currently I would say 90% of WEBP files are copyright violations. Yann (talk) 15:19, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:30, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The vast majority of webp files uploaded here are copyvios. Exceptions for individual users are easy to add to an edit filter. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support.--Vulcan❯❯❯Sphere! 08:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Per Pi.1415926535. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:28, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Seems ok to me. If we ever run into real problems with such a policy we can modify it. --Rosenzweig τ 08:53, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I wonder why we still have no such restriction. Юрий Д.К 11:56, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support A lot of WEBP files I see when I check files are copyvios. Abzeronow (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I don't see how this could go wrong; this would definitely reduce copyright violations. 20 upper 08:07, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per Yann's claim. I want to encourage good uploads, but Commons must also guard against copyvios. Recent proposals have an appropriate aim of reducing copyvios and patrolers' workload. The balance here favors restriction. Glrx (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Strong support second in motion to @Yann, Abzeronow, and Glrx: et.al.. Examples of my autogenerated messages of WEBP copyvios: this, this, and this. And I can still remember the very first WEBP file I encountered here, which is a copyvio itself! Commons:Deletion requests/File:Beijing Skyline.webp. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Would reduce copyvios for sure; I'm not sure the proportion is as high as some have mentioned based on spot checking, but I usually check the ones that look obvious so it's not exactly a random sample. Gnomingstuff (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I think in general, discriminating on filetype is a bad direction (same with mp3). It further complicates and obfuscates the upload process and doesn't stop copyright violations, it stops contributors. Most of these can easily be spotted by filtering the upload list on new contributors. Or we can just ban SVGs as well, because most logos are copyvios. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If we would have enough people checking the unpatrolled uploads we would not need such filters. Unfortunately we do not have enough people checking uploads and edits and therefore need tools to reduce the workload. GPSLeo (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I think that creating these kinds of non-transparent and highly confusing roadbumps is part of the reason WHY we don't have enough people. That's my point. And I note that just two posts below this we already have someone getting tripped up with the SVG translator software because of a similar rule #File overwriting filter blocks SVG Translate. It's one of those 'a small cut doesn't seem so bad, until they are a thousand cuts"-kind of problems. Considering how much ppl complain about UploadWizard, stuff like this isn't helping lower the barrier to entry either. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:07, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Plus we could just make patrolling itself easier by having uploads sorted per date, a single patroller can simple take a few minutes to patrol all new ".webm" files. Do this for every file type and we don't need to exclude people from uploading. If a patroller only wants to patrol videos, sounds, PDF's, Etc. they now have to go through all uploads, but by making it easy to filter out and making these pages easily accessible to everyone and transparent (like OgreBot's Uploads by new users) we could easily patrol everything with fewer people. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:55, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. Very few cameras or image editing tools output WebP images; when one is uploaded, it's almost always because it was downloaded from a web site which automatically converts images to that format for display (and, thus, is very likely to be a copyright violation). We already have abuse filters which block other types of uploads from new users which are overwhelmingly likely to be problematic, like MP3 files (Special:AbuseFilter/192), PDFs (Special:AbuseFilter/281), and small JPEGs (Special:AbuseFilter/156). Omphalographer (talk) 04:25, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose, per TheDJ. Additionally, this would exclude a lot of people who contribute to other Wikimedia websites but aren't necessarily active here, a user could be a trusted user, an admin, or a prolific contributor, Etc. on another Wikimedia website and "a noob" at the Wikimedia Commons. They could have good knowledge of how video files work and which ones are and aren't free, but they will find that they can't upload anything here. If we keep making the Wikimedia Commons more exclusive we will fail at our core mission to be for all Wikimedians. If new users are more likely to have bad uploads then we should have a page like "Commons:Uploads by unpatrolled users by filetype/.webm/2023/12/09" (which includes all users who aren't auto-patrolled), this will simply exclude too many people. We can't know which people and uploads we exclude because a user with a free video file will come here, attempt to upload, see "You have insufficient privileges for this action", and then never return (without ever telling anyone what (s)he wanted to upload and why they didn't). "Anyone can contribute to" is the core of every Wikimedia website, the moment you compromise this you lose whatever made this place Wikimedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:49, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Strong oppose, outlawing a file format will just lead to such files being converted into a different format, and be uploaded in a different way - but now with less possibilities to scan and patrol for it. This is classic prohibition: By outlawing X, users of X will find new ways to still do it, but in places where it can no longer be observed easily. I'm not even arguing in favor of the allegedly "just" 10% .webp images that are in fact okay, which is a valid concern as well in my opinion. So: Use this helpful file format to scan more efficiently for copyvios, rather than outlaw it and have the copyvios enter Commons nonetheless but via still uncharted routes. --Enyavar (talk) 15:25, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Giving that WebP files are essentially Google replacements of JPGs, PNGs, and GIFs, we cannot restrict the WEBP uploads into autopatrol users until we restrict the uploads of these three formats too (as well as SVG, even for own uploads), because if a non-patrolled users restricted their WEBP uploads, they would easily convert these webp files to PNG or JPG as a way to upload these images into Commons. We should find a way to close the loopholes of new users to convert webp files to a different image format before we can restrict the WEBP uploads to users with autopatrol rights, even with its own user's webp uploads. Yayan550 (talk) 15:33, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Yayan550: I think you are missing the point here. Of course if they know what they are doing they can convert the file. The idea here is sort of a "speed bump" for a pattern that usually indicates someone who is ignorantly uploading a copyright violation. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disabling talk pages of deletion requests[edit]

While there now exists Template:Editnotices/Group/Commons talk:Deletion requests that notifies users to make comments on the deletion request pages themselves, it is evidently ignored, as seen in 54conphotos' comments on the talk page of Commons:Deletion requests/File:KORWARM2.jpg (which I transferred to the main page and in Amustard's comment on a Turkmen deletion request which I subsequently transferred to the mainspace. As it is very evident that the edit notice is being ignored, I am proposing that the "Talk" namespace be disabled in all pages with prefix "Commons:Deletion requests/". This should be a permanent solution to the incidents that should have been better avoided. For existing talk pages of deletion requests with comments, the comments (including mine if ever I had responded to uploaders in the talk page namespaces) should be transferred to the deletion requests mainspaces, with consideration to the dates of the comments or inputs. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:10, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Support At least, the use of DR talk pages should restricted to power users (admins, license reviewers?). Yann (talk) 09:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann that may be OK. Restricted to admins and license reviewers. Or the talk pages are still existing visually but those who don't have user rights, even autopatrolled ones, will be barred from editing talk pages and be presented with a boilerplate notice that they don't have the right to edit talk pages and should instead comment on the main discussion page, with a link to the DR itself in the notice (do not expect several new users to comprehend what they are reading in the notices). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support --Krd 11:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for pointing out this Template:Editnotices/Group/Commons talk:Deletion requests location in Wikimedia. This was not ignored as you said in your comment, it simply was no where to be found at the time I commented. It's a shame it's too late to place a comment there as I would have done so. Even your notes to me are very confusing as the names of Comments pages do not match up so I can find them as are all the previous notes received by others. Being new to this platform, I have found it very confusing to find things that are suggested when seeing comments by others.
Hopefully I will have the hours to research and better understanding of the workings of Wikimedia Commons in the future. Thanks again! 54conphotos (talk) 13:32, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support or, if it's easier, systematically turn them into redirects to the relevant project page. - Jmabel ! talk 21:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support --Adamant1 (talk) 00:35, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. Some good ideas above from Yann and Jmabel. We could also explore autotranscluding them to the bottoms of the DR subpages themselves.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:49, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. Yes, good idea, esp. with Jmabel’s and Yann’s additions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:34, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support to restrict it to anyone with autopatrol, I think these users are knowledgeable enough to know that the talk page isn't to discuss the deletion. We must create an informal and easy-to-understand AF notice though. -- CptViraj (talk) 12:19, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another one, this misplaced comment by ApexDynamo, which I have transferred to the main nomination pages. CptViraj, I don't think even autopatrolled users are still knowledgeable enough to know that talk pages are not proper forums to comment. Example: misplaced comments by Exec8 (which I also transferred soon after initiating this proposal). I suggest the use of those talk pages must be restricted to admins/sysops and license reviewers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still, rare cases for autopatrollers. IMHO we shouldn't unnecessarily take away the power completely, the problem is mainly caused by newbies/non-regulars. -- CptViraj (talk) 18:13, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support I have never used a talk page of a DR nor have I seen one being used. The DRs are usually also frequented by very few editors and the comments can easily be distinguished from one another.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search for filetype among user uploads[edit]

As I brought up here[1], there does not seem to be a way to search or order uploads by filetype.[2] But at the same time, judged on how many ways editors seem to have found their own workarounds for it, it appears it is a useful feature that a lot of people could need. Seems you can already sort uploads by date by clicking the black arrow, why not by filetype or name, or even size? FunkMonk (talk) 12:49, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File overwriting filter blocks SVG Translate[edit]

In an earlier proposal, users without autopatrol rights were restricted from overwriting files:

Recently, PoliticsMaps used SVG Translate but was blocked from uploading a translation to an SVG file:

The blocking of SVG Translate is unfortunate, but I do not know how frequent it will be. I do not expect new users on Commons to know about SVG Translate, so I suspect the issue is infrequent. If the filter logs show frequent blocks of SVG Translate, then we should look into it. Glrx (talk) 18:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SVG Translate is designed to overwrite an existing file. Many multilingual SVG files are used on language wikis but do not support the wiki's language. For example, the multilingual File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg has seven translations, but it is used on dozens of wikis. There could be a campaign to add appropriate translations to those files, and such a campaign would attract new contributors. Glrx (talk) 19:22, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I made an exception for the SVG translate tool. GPSLeo (talk) 20:50, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Technical needs survey[edit]

Following multiple discussions on the technical needs of Commons I now created a survey to summarize what the most urgent needs for the majority of the active users are.

Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey

I propose that we finalize the method until 24.12.2023 and in parallel already collect proposals until 14.01.2024. The Voting would start on 22.01.2024. Please make comments on the talk page.

I also propose that we add a link to the survey to the MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice. If no one objects I would add the link on 17.12.2023. GPSLeo (talk) 13:47, 9 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For those who don't understand European-looking dates, those are: "finalize the method until 24 December and in parallel already collect proposals until 14 January. The Voting would start on 22 January. ... If no one objects I would add the link on 17 December."   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I updated the survey to reflect this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Low quality AI media deletion system[edit]

I have seen a few AI generated images on Wikimedia a I am concerned that the rate of new low quality AI generated images will overtake non AI images on Wikimedia commons (it requires a much less effort to generate a image with AI then to make a non AI image) I am proposing a system to prevent this: any AI images that a Wikimedia editor deems "low quality" will be discussed and voted upon. if it is deemed low quality and therefor unlikely to be useful compared with normal images it may be deleted. I think this system will help prevent a flood of low quality AI images from disrupting Wikimedia (wich i think is a Possibility based on how easy it is to make AI images, In the time it took to write this I could have made more then 36 AI images) 50tr5 (talk) 03:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@50tr5: I'm not sure "low-quality" is so easily defined, but I encourage you to participate in Commons:AI-generated media and its talk page, where we are trying to hash out some sort of guideline or policy on AI-generated media. I, for one, hope we will come up with criteria that allow deletion of most AI-generated media. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Low quality" is kind of vague and I don't think the project is well served with endless debates over the line is every time someone nominates an image of AI artwork for deletion. Plus the quality shouldn't matter anyway. High quality or not, AI artwork is fundementally at odds with the goals of the project. At least with how it stands now and outside of some extremely rare cases. I like @Gestumblindi: 's suggestion of only allowing for AI artwork that being used on projects though. But with the caviet that unused images should qualify for speedy deletion. Since there's already been enough bad faithed atguing around this already and there shouldn't be a need to relitigate things with every image if we all agree they shouldn't be hosted on Commons to begin with. We could also make an exception for AI artwork that's being used on people's personal pages. Regardless, I think that would be a good middle ground between outright banning it or taking no action at all. Since there's clearly a need to do something about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could also be required to be put in separate categories like "AI-generated XY" or "XY in art" rather than "XY" which already is usually the case. This could be used in the search engine where there could be a toggle button to make it not show any AI-generated images (I think I also supported or proposed a filter toggle for NSFW images like sexually explicit scenes as well as gore to prevent such from showing up in unexpected searches). Creating many AI images of low quality in short time is possible since over a year now yet no such flood has occurred here so the concerns are overstated and low-quality AI-generated images are already frequently deleted and I'd support doing that more often for images in Category:Poor quality AI-generated images as well as implementing a more clearly visible 'Warning: This image is AI-generated template' which could also be used in places where images are displayed without their file descriptions such as the search results. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've said it other places, but requiring AI artwork to be put in separate "AI-generated XY" or "XY in art" rather than "XY" categories does absolutely nothing to deal with the issue. Just like it didn't help at all to transfer the fake AI artwork of Giovanna IV di Napoli out Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli. The images were still deleted as out of scope fan art regardless. At least there won't be similar, time wasting debates to the one in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Giovanna IV di Napoli by Bing Image Creator if AI artwork is mostly banned though. Really, the whole thing has clearly been a massive time suck. One that your at the losing end of. So why not meet everyone else half way and just accept that the best option here is to ban it except in cases where the images are being used on other projects. Instead of acting like putting the images in separate categories for AI artwork is some kind of magical, cure all solution to this when it isn't? At the end of the day the images are going to be deleted regardless if they are in separate categories or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:01, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Because you refuse to take home and address simple rational points like my question about why it would be fan art when COM:Fan art starts with …unofficial artistic representations of elements or characters in an original work of fiction – what's the original work of fiction? It's not fan art since it is depicting a real historical character in interesting sceneries. Like in the prior debate you keep on making claims without reasons / explanation such as that it would to nothing to deal with the issue without explaining why when I explained explicitly how exactly it would deal with the issue. AI art has tremendous potential, it's like banning all images made or modified with Photoshop...you really think that is a good idea? Separate categories aren't needed either. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:11, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's nothing like banning all images modified with Photoshop. That's the problem with your approach to this. You use completely ridiculous comparisons that absolutely nothing at all to do with the topic and then act like it's a valid point that people are just unwilling to address when they don't indulge in your side meaningless side tangents. At least have an argument that's relevant to the topic. Saying banning AI artwork would be like doing the same for images edited in MS Paint is just laughable on it's face though. Plus it has absolutely nothing to do with this anyway. You act like we shouldn't have any standards what-so-ever just because people modify images in photo editing apps. It's not a serious argument. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
just laughable on it's face your approach right alongside calling me Your probably one of those people who think Bitcoin is going to replace fiat currency any second now to aren't you? Lmao.. Your premise is that AI art is useless, we can argue whether or not it is as useful as Photoshop, I think it could be more useful since eventually you could create a high-quality image of anything you can imagine – but that it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias. I won't continue this debate with you from now on. It just puts walls of text where there should be actual arguments and actual addressing of points. It's a tool usable for so many purposes and free media gaps. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:41, 13 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it can be useful is enough of a reason to not ban it based on your unsubstantiated assumptions and quite clear anti AI bias. It seems like essentially everyone else disagrees with you. But all you do is chalk any minor disagreement with your opinions up to ignorance or anti AI bias.
Your premise is that AI art is useless That must why I've said multiple times now that we should keep images that are being used on other projects. Just like how you've repeatedly treated me like I have no experience with AI artwork when I've said at least 4 times that I have a Flickr account that I upload images from Dall-E to. All you do is box ghosts. Apparently your just that incapable of discussing this in an honest, good faithed way. Be my guest and don't debate it with me anymore though. I'm sick of repeating myself over and over about things that your either incapable or unwilling of getting anyway. So I could really care less. I'm sure cooler heads then yours will ultimately prevail. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AI art does have potential but it has not reached a stage (at least with the AIs normal internet users can get) where it can reliably pump out images that look like something someone would use in like say a presentation (compared with normal images) 50tr5 (talk) 15:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:06, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don´t know where you got that info from,(you don´t give any sources, like the other guy) but some of the stuff out there is convincing enough, that I can only identify a fake by it´s context. Anything with sex and celebrities - most likely AI, but grainy presumably "historical" photographs in lower res on flickr ? I can´t tell. Most cheesy artifacts and imperfections in a high res AI work would disappear when scaling it down and reducing colors. Alexpl (talk) 19:05, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check out Fooocus. I've been using it for a minute now and it produces some pretty crazy accurate stuff. The discussion of quality is really just a re-hearing though. At least it is in most cases, since AI artwork is OOS fan-fiction at best in most (if not all) cases anyway. But there's no reason that we need AI artwork in the first place with the rare instances where it is. Like an image of a cat. There's already millions of freely available images of cats out there. So there's no reason to bother with an AI generated image of a cat to begin with.
The only instance where it might be useful is with images of objects or people where there is no freely available alternatives. But it's already been established that it falls flat in those instances. The AI artwork of Giovanna IV di Napoli being one example, but I'm sure there's many others. It would be totally ridiculous to allow for say AI generated images of old west towns where there's no publicly available, free images of them. So realistically what's the actual point in allowing for AI artwork to begin with? Like what's the actual benefit to the project outside of nonsense claims that the technology is cool and anyone who disagree just hates AI? Because at the end of the day we seem to be doing perfectly fine without it. And a few people can throw tantrums over it being banned, but there's no reason not to ban it if there isn't even a valid use case for it to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well now some argue that it's too inaccurate and low-quality while others argue it's too high-quality/-resolution/accurate. There's already millions of freely available images of cats out there. So there's no reason to bother with an AI generated image of a cat Agree if it's just a mundane cat without any unique noteworthy features worthy of inclusion such as a realistic cyborg cat, a cat according to some mythological tale, an image showing an anthropomorphic cat society, or a fictional cat breed or the cat being not the only main content of the image. Saying "it shows a cat" is not enough, it should be "it merely shows a cat without adding much". While no such restrictions are in place for other media, I wouldn't object to setting some reasonable requirements if people think that would make things better. The only instance where It can also be higher quality for subjects for which one or a few images are available, it doesn't mean these need to be used but it can be good to have them. Moreover, it's probably not a good approach to just assume you have thought of every constructive application. I already listed many use-cases why do I need to repeat over and over. From illustrating what an art style looks like to depicting a concept or a subject on fiction/art. From sustainable city design to art movement/aesthetics, extinct animal species and scientific concepts. It's a tool for countless purposes and I've been explicit and exhaustive in exemplary valuable applications I explained. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:32, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Most AI images are out of scope. I would encourage you to nominate any that aren't in use and don't seem likely to be used for deletion per COM:EDUSE. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:24, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks to Nosferattus, Jmabel et al for Commons:AI-generated media discussion. Agree this has been a problem - there have been some genuinely low quality "AI" images uploaded (eg supposed portraits of people with body parts in incorrect places); there have also been IMO too many uploads of images which superficially look good aesthetically, but are not useful as educational material for in scope subjects. Some uploaders of such material seem indignant that others on Commons object - but just being an AI image, even a significantly better than average AI image, does not in itself mean it belongs on Commons. There are many other websites online for sharing images. Commons is not social media nor personal artwork sharing site. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:56, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Comment Here's an alternative proposal that, in my opinion, achieves similar goals while minimizing user intervention. 1. Automate AI image deletion: Delete unneeded AI images after a specified period of inactivity (e.g., 3 months) from projects. This declutters the Commons without requiring manual intervention. 2. Standardize filenames: Rename remaining AI images to a consistent format like AI_Image_Filename.jpg. This helps users searching by filename easily identify and avoid unintentionally using them in active projects (and they can still use them if AI serves their purpose). AI images require minimal effort to generate. Leaving unused ones clutters the Commons and can lead to unintentional use. Anyone needing a similar image can readily create a new one with current AI tools. I believe this approach balances practicality and potential misuse of AI-generated content. What do you think? Rkieferbaum (talk) 00:58, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Rkieferbaum: sorry, but I don't like it at all. Among other things, I'm extremely opposed to introducing automated deletion. I do not trust a bot-based rule to decide what is "unneeded". For a simple example, but one that I think is sufficient to show the problem, consider an image where there has been some back-and-forth as to whether to use it in a Wikipedia article. There is no reasonable way for a bot to be able to tell that has been going on. Similarly, a bot cannot determine that a particular image is very likely to be used outside of WMF projects. And (unless it's by human tagging) a bot cannot tell that an image is part of a set intended to track the evolving behavior of a particular generative AI tool over time.
I'd be open to the naming thing, but I don't necessarily think it is a good idea. I'm always hesitant to rely on any meaning to filenames. Files get renamed. Properties should be tracked with templates, categories, and SDC, not filenames. - Jmabel ! talk 04:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 The AI nature of a file has to be clear without relying on people choosing the correct category. Let´s make an "AI" in the filename mandatory. Alexpl (talk) 05:52, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 Agree with Jmabel and strongly oppose the proposal #1 but would support the #2 if people think that would be useful and no better option is found and feasible. A better option could be only displaying a tag 'AI image' on the thumbnail or adding that (or e.g. 'Made using AI') to the filename without the file having to be named so. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to the second proposal. I suggested something similar in the last discussion. Although it's a toss up for me between a template that can be added to files or requiring the file names indicate the image was created by an AI generator. Really, both approaches have their pros and cons. I'm against any kind of automated deletion process though. But the two proposals aren't mutually exclusive either. The best option is probably Gestumblindi's proposal in conjunction with having a way to indicate the files are generated by AI, however its ultimately implemented. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:00, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The deletion being automated isn't as important as avoiding a scenario where each image has to be examined by multiple users to be deemed low quality. I think we should avoid at all costs a situation where each single low quality image takes a few seconds to generate and upload but consumes a hundred times that to be deleted. An alternative to the automated process would be allowing something like PROD in such cases. Unlike with regular uploads, with AI images the "burden of proof" of usefulness should lie with whoever thinks they should be kept. As for the file naming, I think it's important that the name itself be changed rather than the alternatives, because as far as I can tell anything else wouldn't be as conspicuous and could easily be missed within the other platforms. Rkieferbaum (talk) 02:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm against any kind of automated deletion process. However, it is an issue that there are potentially countless AI-generated images of little value. I therefore still stand by my proposal from the recent VP discussion to apply stricter criteria for AI images than COM:EDUSE would usually provide, and only accept images that are in use in Wikimedia projects. Those, however, we must accept (unless there is a tangible copyright / derivative work concern for a specific file) per COM:INUSE. Delete the rest - but not with an automated process. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:01, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

By hand? That seems somewhat irresponsible, given the possibility of easy mass-uploads via flickr. At least put a timer on them - AI stuff is deleted unless it is in use 2 weeks after the originals files first upload. Alexpl (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just prohibit mass-uploads of AI art or take action for users that do so. Such a hypothetical problem has not occurred so far and there are many very large problems with auto-deletions. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure the auto-delete idea is feasible. We don't even have an in-house system for deleting files that are obvious copyright violations taken from online. We rely on third-party reverse image searches and human evaluation. Even for people who have tried to do this kind of screening — and who are much larger, more innovative, and more well funded than the WMF — the results are pretty mixed. It took teenagers about zero seconds to find ways around YouTube's detection, and they're part of the third largest tech company in the world, while the system has also resulted in high profile copyright strikes against content creators who have good claims to fair use.
    For AI generated images, I'm not sure any program at all exists to tell the difference, not even a crappy one. You're essentially relying on a self-reporting system by uploaders, one which many will stop doing the moment they realize it's an auto-delete. That's not counting undeleting false positives, or situations where the uploader themselves doesn't realize it's AI. GMGtalk 12:19, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this a preventative solution searching for a non-existing problem? Mass uploads in the sense of "AI-generated spam" are not okay, I grant that. But I disagree on a general prohibition of AI-generated images, or even on the insistence that they must be used ("or else"). We already have sufficient criteria which images to delete: Commons:SCOPE. AI images will need to be clearly marked as such, and I agree with Gestumblindi's suggestion to look closer when assessing the quality, and delete more readily than we would delete regular artwork made by humans. I don't yet see spammers mass-uploading low-quality AI images, and if those were to appear, we have regular deletion mechanisms. In fact, we don't yet use our deletion mechanisms enough for spammers mass-uploading low-quality regular images. Finally, I expect contributors who are using "good practice" and tag their AI images (of probably higher quality, because they care?) will get punished more by any general prohibition of AI than contributors who don't announce that they used AI, and thus fly under all radars we're trying to establish here. --Enyavar (talk) 14:57, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't yet see spammers mass-uploading low-quality AI images - I don't know about spammers, but we have absolutely had issues with users uploading large groups of low-quality AI images; a couple examples are Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by David S. Soriano, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Chromjunuor, Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Thomas Nordwest, etc. Omphalographer (talk) 15:36, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Agree with what Enyavar said.
The examples you named are good examples that current practices are well suited to deal with that and there aren't many more comparable large-scale uploads. The images by Thomas Nordwest were high-quality and should not have been deleted indiscriminately. It included excessive rather uneducational images of realistic overgrown Buddha head statues but it also included lots of high-quality images for subjects/categories for which there were zero or until that time no high-quality images such as Category:Anachronism in art and fiction. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:07, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There's maybe a difference between "searching for a problem" and being proactive. There's not much of an argument that AI isn't going to continue to be widely used and won't likely get better over time. Even now, it's quite likely that someone using an upload script from something like Fickr could inadvertently upload tons of AI images without even knowing. You find something that appears authentic, isn't obviously taken from online, and appears to have an appropriate license. That's the assume-good-faith scenario, which alone could be a bit of a problem. GMGtalk 15:44, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I don’t think there’s enough of a problem here yet. Most of these cases of AI spam are single users and were purged in a simple mass-nomination. Plus it’s extremely hard for any one thing to overwhelm a collection of over ONE HUNDRED MILLION FILES. I typed in “AI generated” and got about 5000 hits. That’s over 4000 fewer images than you get for “penis”, another widely loathed category of image people want to take all sorts of weird measures against, when in fact it’s hardly overwhelmed all others thanks to plain old manual vigilance. Dronebogus (talk) 19:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    To be fair, the compulsion to share images of your penis is a powerful force, and the number of images is only so low because your average admin has had to sort through a lot of Richards. GMGtalk 20:02, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "deleted unless it is in use 2 weeks after the originals files first upload. Alexpl": "In use" means what? Are you saying that the only valid reason AI images can be here is if it is in use on a WMF project, and all other AI images should be deleted? If so, are you saying that it would not be valid to build up a series of images showing what the same product does over time with a given prompt (which seems to me like it would be perfectly in scope). Also: "2 weeks after first upload." Consider two scenarios: (1) an image is uploaded, immediately and appropriately attached to an article and just shy of the two week mark a vandal blanks the article. The bot checks at the two-week mark and deletes the image. (2) a basically useless image is uploaded. The uploader adds it to (say) the Cebuano-language Wikipedia, which is large but, in my experience, very poorly monitored. If they are really sneaky, they add it on day 13, remove it on day 15. They duck the bot. - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I encourage you to do better. Most statements so far were "yes, there will be a problem with AI at some point" but once something can be done it´s "nah, it´ll be fine".. It won´t. Alexpl (talk) 22:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image upload UI requests[edit]

Hello! Not sure if this is right place to ask but wanted to put in a couple of requests for tweaks to the upload UI. I am a mobile-only user FWIW, editing via a Safari browser in an iPhone 11.

(1) Expand field for Where did you find this work? Enter the website, the book, or another source.

Right now this field is one line high and it's very hard add more than four or five words because I can't see formatting or navigate very well.

Most historic images from digital libraries come with 30 lines of metadata that should ideally go here but right now I would be adding text/code almost blind which feels weird.

(2) I can't enter any text in Enter a different license in wikitext format

When working on commons.m.wikimedia.org on a Safari browser on my iPhone 11, I can't click into the field where you are supposed to enter licenses not otherwise listed such as {{PD-textlogo}} or {{PD-CAGov}} in the field label Enter a different license in wikitext format so I just leave it blank and circle back later--except half the time I forget until I get the deletion warning and then run back in a panic to add it.

please and thanks to anyone who looks at this and let me know if you have any Qs. Jengod (talk) 19:33, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jengod: Can you use a clipboard app to compose what you want to put there, and then paste? I do that on my Android phone from time to time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:14, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you warmly for the good suggestion @Jeff G. (love a good notepad note!) I'm just one small user and I would not even mention it if it was just for my own convenience, I just was thinking that the single-line-sized field somewhat visually discourages users from providing full descriptions. I've been around for a billionty years (roughly) and you'll never be rid of me (bwahaha), just thinking about ways to make things friendly/low-friction for new/novice contributors. Jengod (talk) 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jengod: You're welcome. Does a laptop that's not hardwired count as "mobile"? If so, I've been editing mobile-only for over a decade. I've also been hearing "umpteen bazillion" as an exaggerated large number lately. In addition, if I've told you once, I've told you a million times, stop exaggerating. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:38, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FWIW Commons:Upload Wizard is at least in theory the central point that should link out to places where the Upload Wizard is discussed, and I recently updated it to say that it looks like as of late 2023, most recent discussion is taking place at Commons talk:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lol @Jeff G. and TYSM @Jmabel. I'll swing over there when I get a minute Jengod (talk) 00:30, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure on which forum to ask this question[edit]

Now, after the copyright questions on Soviet postcards have been resolved by the commnuity, I'm re-starting uploading my collection. However, I ran into the slight issue: due to the fact that these postcards are 40+ years old, the paper has yellowed out, on some postcards more, on some postcards less. Question: do we have a template warning the user about that? So they do not think that older artifacts were really of that dull "aged" colour? -- Wesha (talk) 21:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think writing in the description field should be sufficient. GPSLeo (talk) 21:56, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, but the point of template is to do just that: simplify the repetitive task. If you saying that such template doesn't exist, I can make one. -- Wesha (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing wrong with creating a template for that. I'd make it very general: that this is a scan of an old, discolored work (and possibly encouraging that if no color-corrected version exists, one would be welcome under a distinct filename). - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd call it {{Discolored}} or maybe {{Aged}}.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:08, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"discolored" is better than "aged"; "aged" could refer to a lot of things besides the state of the media. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Right, we wouldn't want to offend older human subjects of photos, but inanimate objects don't care.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How's this for starters? (please feel free to edit it directly)
Discolored imageThis work has been digitized many years after its creation. The colors may have altered over time due to the deterioration of paper, pigments or other materials used.
If you wish to upload a color-corrected version of this image, please do so under a separate filename and link the file pages with {{Derivative works}} / {{Derived from}}.
-- Wesha (talk) 01:20, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think it's fine, but I wouldn't use such a glaring red "warning" color for the template. It's interesting and important information, but not that dramatic. Maybe use grey? Blue? Gestumblindi (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good move, Wesha. As for the red color, I  agree with Gestumblindi. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:23, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did the best that I could given my knowledge of templates over here on Commons. For example, I've noticed that most of them use i18n but I wasn't able to grok that in the short period of time. So please, by all means, Be Bold and join in improving the template! -- Wesha (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now it's a little bit less dramatic. Feel free to change the colour by modifying the parameter |type= (see Template:Mbox#Examples). Strakhov (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Computer generated images used in the contests[edit]

Hello, I have been suggested to open a new topic here *this question was previosly asked in the Help desk. I have read that there is a topic wich discusses about AI images here, but it does not speak about using them in contests. As amateur photographer, i like to join contests. I use my own photographs taken with my Canon camera. I would like to make sure that only our own images taken as "humans" and not generated by AI are participating in the contests. - Is there any one of the admins or moderators who vet the pictures in the contests? - Are we all ensured that no AI Pictures are becoming part of the list of pics that compete in the contest? - What happens if some of us check the pics and see that there are some AI pictures in the contest? - Can we report them or those pics are fully allowed in the competition? (i believe not, but i ask just in case). Wikimedia does not explicitly forbids the usage of AI but i found an implicit statement as you see in "Photo Challenge" page info. It says about "own work, or "pictures taken by a common users", hence here comes my question : Can we set an "explicit" rule instead on the wikimedia commons contest? Thanks for the info that i believe are quite useful to know. Oncewerecolours (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This amounts to a proposal to block AI images from being entered into contests, and therefore from winning.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
thansk for taking this in consideration Oncewerecolours (talk) 20:39, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oncewerecolours: The scope of this proposal seems unclear. First, the title says "computer generated images" but the rest of your text refers to "AI images" and "AI pictures". Which do you intend to forbid? Second, which contests should be covered? You mentioned the Photo Challenge. Other obvious candidates would be the various Wiki Loves contests. Then there are valued images (kind of competitive), Commons:quality images, and Commons:featured pictures. Featured pictures are complicated because while non-competitive they do feed into Picture of the day and Picture of the Year. Would this also affect awards from other projects, like English Wikipedia's featured pictures and picture of the day? --bjh21 (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I meant AI images, and all the images that are not "photographs", meaning images taken by an human being instead of generated by any software. This matches with the rules stated in the photo challenge info page. An AI image is not a photograph, I don't think those images should compete in the monthly photo challenges and some like "wiki loves earth", or " monuments" etc...etc...sorry if this wasnt clear! Oncewerecolours (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My opinion on "Wiki Loves" contests (again per my !vote below, these are merely recommendations to the contest organizers, as I don't think we should have any community-wide regulation on contest rules): Images generated wholly or substantially by AI should not be allowed. Image manipulations, whether done via conventional editing software or AI-enhanced software (e.g. DeNoise AI), are allowed but must not misrepresent the subject. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes that is exactly what I meant. Humans take photographs using their cameras (see the symbol in the photo challenge page, a camera...), hence they are the authors. AI software generate images "artificially" , not through human eyes and cameras. Photographes are images that comes , first, from an human eye, not from a AI software. But of course this does not prevent to open separate contests for AI images, if this makes sense, but not for "photographs" part of "wiki loves earth, science, music, cars"....or "monthly photo challenges". That was my point. Nothing prevents to play the game into 2 different fields, AI contest and photographs contest. I simply dont love to see AI images in Monthly challenges, that is it, as they are NOT photographs. My 2 cents. Thanks for follow up to everyone. Oncewerecolours (talk) 10:49, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • It does seems a bit unfair for the person who wakes up early to get a picture of a mountain at sunrise, to have them pitted against somebody who simply typed "mountain at sunrise" a few times until they got a good AI image. It feels like the teenager who uses AI to generate their homework. GMGtalk 14:07, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block AI images from being entered into contests, and therefore from winning[edit]

  •  Support as proposer.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:36, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Seems very reasonable. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:44, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Yes. Yann (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • NOTE that the proposal here changed after I wrote this. At the time I wrote the following the proposal did not say that AI images were to be barred from "photography contests" but from [presumably all] contests. Yes, of course if a contest is specific to photography, then it's specific to photography! - Jmabel ! talk 06:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)  Oppose Seems to me that this is up to the people who run the contest. I could easily imagine a contest for illustrations of a particular subject-matter area, where AI-generated entries might be entirely appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Hello Jmabel, can we change the name of the topic from "Block AI images from being entered into monthly photo challenges and "Wiki loves" contests? sorry, i should have been more clear. I think that this is the issue: I didn't ask to ban the AI pics from ALL the contests. Thanks again and sorry for misunderstanding. :)
    AI can defo be used in "Best AI IMAGES" or "BEst Computer Generated Pic of the month " etc...etc. I don't have anything against it. Oncewerecolours (talk) 14:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Oncewerecolours: I wrote the topic as a simplification based on your earlier work on this subject. I would be willing to add "photography" to form "Block AI images from being entered into photography contests, and therefore from winning", would that be ok with you? More than that, I think we would need a different proposal.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jeff G. Of course you did well as i wrote that before and you reported here, but I forgot to add the type of contests...it seems this caused a misunderstanding, I dont have anything againsta AI pics. I just asked a kind of measure to prevent future situations where some AI pics are posted in "Photography contests" like the regular ones mentioned...above. So your proposal seems fine to me.
    Thank you. Oncewerecolours (talk) 18:49, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Jmabel: Would it make sense to have a separate proposal specific to photography contests?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:30, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Jeff G.: It seems that is what you've already now done here. Which is fine. As I said in my recent comment, of course it is reasonable to have a contest that is specific to photography. It is possible form Alexpl's remark below that he disagrees, but since he apparently doesn't like being pinged, I'm not pinging him. I was responding to what was written here, not to what someone may have thought but didn't write. - Jmabel ! talk 06:35, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support as a default rule for COM:PC,  Oppose as a blanket prohibition. That is, putting my Commoner hat on, I don't think we should regulate the running of individual contests as a community, but putting my PCer hat on, AI entries should be assumed to be banned from PC challenges unless otherwise stated. Likewise, truthfully described AI-generated work should not be prevented from becoming FP, and those that do become FP should not be prejudiced in the POTY contest. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support AI images don't belong on Commons because they are fundamentally incompatible with our principles - mainly attribution and respect for copyright. However, until the rest of the community catches up with me on that point, I'm onboard with any and every effort to limit their presence. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brief note: how would you attribute millions (from thousands to billions) of images for one txt2img image? Are artists required to attribute their inspirations and prior relevant visual media experiences? The name 'copyright' already suggests that is about copying, not about learning from these publicly visible artworks; and art styles like 'Cubism' or subjects like 'Future cities' aren't copyrighted. The premise is unwarranted and wrong. --Prototyperspective (talk) 14:37, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If something truly shows the influence of millions of images, then it almost certainly does not have a copyright issue: it's just likely to be repetitive and unoriginal, unless it is somehow an interesting synthesis. But I think that is the least of the problems: most AI-generated content is unacceptable for the same reason most original drawings by non-notable people are unacceptable. - Jmabel ! talk 19:25, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support Having this be the default in advance will save much time and trouble. (If for some reason there would be a specific contest for AI images only, that would be an exception.) -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Generally  Support but with a few reservations. Photo contests should generally honor the efforts made by human contributions, not AI contributions. However, I may agree on some AI-specific contests like "Wiki Loves AI" (or something similarly-worded). In the case of existings Wiki Loves contests (WLM, WLE et cetera), I suggest organizers to have a separate category for AI images. Yes, it still depends on WL organizers; should they ban entry of AI images, that is fine. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:29, 21 December 2023 (UTC) Vote dropped in favor of alternate proposal below. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support --Adamant1 (talk) 02:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support for photography-specific contests. –– There can be contests that are also about illustrations or artistic works in specific where such tools could and can be useful. However, a ban isn't really needed since that is already practiced and quite common sense; I don't know since when people on a website okay with showing unexpected porn and gore in unexpected categories and search results to all users suddenly turned so suppressive when it comes to a specific new tool of image creation+editing. Seems very inconsistent.--Prototyperspective (talk) 11:07, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Either a material is allowed on Commons or it is not. If/when necessary just adapt the specific rules of "those contests". Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per OP and Squirrel. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support, except for AI contests :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support The last thing we want is allowing an AI entity AI-generated image to enter the contest. Why is an AI creator reluctant to enter the contest is beyond me. George Ho (talk) 19:54, 22 December 2023 (UTC); corrected, 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Didn't realize it's about AI-generated images. I still oppose AI entities from entering contests. George Ho (talk) 19:57, 22 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I'm anticipating that allowing AI generated works in could create a lot of clutter. Bremps... 00:01, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose As long as AI is allowed on commons, it should be allowed in every contest. Alexpl (talk) 09:54, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Alexpl: Every contest? So do you also believe that all contests must include drawings, paintings, audio files, etc.? - Jmabel ! talk 10:41, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • Don´t ping me for stupid questions. Thank you. Alexpl (talk) 12:15, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I honestly don't think my question was stupid. If every contest should be open to AI-generated content, why shouldn't it be open to other acceptable forms of content? Seems very odd. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          Don’t ping him for stupid questions, @Jmabel: Ping him rather to an AN/U thread where he’s being sanctioned for being rude. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
          • Thanks, Tuválkin. I don't really care about the rudeness. It just underlines the fact that he didn't answer the question. - Jmabel ! talk 20:21, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose In my opinion, banning every tool with the label "AI" is not helpful. The educational value of works from generative AI is very limited, of course, and there may be serious and difficult issues with copyright and possibly personal rights. AFAIK, AI upscaling does not and cannot work sufficiently and leads to artifacts and partially blurred and partially oversharpened images. However, smartphones might do aggressive AI-post-processing by default. Nevertheless I understand why these techniques are not welcome. But what about "simple" noise reduction? Even Photoshop introduced an AI tool for this task and there are other tools that work nicely if post-processing is not overdone. This is just the same as with any other kind of image processing software, whereas I don't know any affordable software that can do that without either serious loss of detail or with the trendy "AI" label. And this might be a problem, because AI has a very bad reputation on Commons, which is in sharp contrast to the huge hype almost everywhere else. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Please lets consider, first, what was my questions asked when i opened this topic. Please see the wikimedia commons home page at the right side of the page, the photo challenge box: what is displayed is a icon of a camera the words "take a picture...etc...etc". What i simply ask (i am relatively new of wikimedia commons so i am just trying to understand how it works here) the confirmation that AI Pics are excluded from the monthly photochallenges and the wiki loves...challenges. this is what it seems to me, indee. "Take a picture" is different than "post an AI picture in the contest". AI Pics have nothing to do with 1) with those kind of contests and 2) with "p h o t o g r a p h y". Photography is an art made by humans through their human eyes, first, (i would add and the human soul too). And please do not do this mistake of considering digital photos manipulated at the same level, the Post processing with photoshop has nothing to do with the AI concept. Photography is art. Painting is art. Sculpture is art. They are made by humans ,and hence, of course, they are not the same of the reality but they are made by humans. Even in the old style analogue photography we use (as i did in my darkroom in the past) to "mask" and "burn" the printed photos to hide details, that is an accepted technique to improving the picture light and detauis. So what is the problem? What I Asked here is simply to exclude those pictures from that kind of contest becasue they are not photographs. My subsequent questions is: what happens if an AI picture is voted and wins the contest? Will it be confirmed as winner?????? or some could intervene. I dont think they should join the contests. that is all.? Please do stay on the initial topic if you could..Saying that I AM NOT asking to exclude the AI pics from WIKIMEDIA: i am asking a different thing!..thanks. Oncewerecolours (talk) 08:40, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    You are allowed "Post processing with photoshop" in those challenges? I had no idea. So have photos ever been excluded from the competition for having too much "work" done on them? If not - AI should be fine as well (The more religious aspects left aside) Alexpl (talk) 10:09, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Well, again.... it is a different thing. Ai pics aren't photograps...no camera involve,no lenses...no human eye. See the definition of a photograph. And see the photo challenge info page guidelines. . . Oncewerecolours (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am sorry. I may be wrong here. And my issue is not with entirely or partially AI-generated pics, which are very problematic. I very rarely participate in photo challenges and I have never used Photoshop. In most cases, I just crop my photos with GIMP and don't do anything else. I know that there are nature photography competitions elsewhere, where the authors must submit their original RAW files for evaluation in addition to their JPEG version to make sure that nothing was inappropriately manipulated. That is alright, but I could never participate there because my cameras are set to create JPEG images only. I am a frequent participant on Commons:Quality images candidates/candidate list, though. There you can find requests to remove dust spots, CAs, decrease noise, adjust lighting, and even (rarely) retouch photographs to remove disturbing elements and improve the composition. I would not ever do the latter on Commons, because my images are supposed to show what I photographed, not some ideal work of art. I am not sure about the relation of quality images to photo contests, but where the kind of edits described above is allowed or even requested, banning AI tools does not make much sense IMO. That said, overprocessed images and upscaled images (which includes images with artifacts by AI upscaling or by other means) are not welcome there and such images get declined. And images created by generative AI engines are banned anyway because the photographer must have an account on Commons. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 11:07, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The human operator chooses the subject, perspective etc. in conventional photography, as well as in AI* produced pictures. *(depending on the AI program used) So voting "oppose" is still ok, I guess. Alexpl (talk) 10:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    So, you are saying that 1)Ai images are the same as photos taken by a human and 2) Ai pics should be allowed in the wiki love monuments, earth, science etc...and monthly challenges
    , in the same contests of the photos taken by users? Just to understand.. . Oncewerecolours (talk) 11:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    They are not the same: The photo guy has potentially a ton of equipment and has to move around to find motives, while the AI guy doesn´t need a camera and sits on his butt all the time. The rest of the work for both is pressing buttons and moving a mouse. But if you are unable to specify the rules of your competition, esp. what is allowed in post production, you would have to accept those AI works as well. Merry Christmas. Alexpl (talk) 14:54, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be honest, I don't know. I do not remember participating in a Commons contest so far. I took a look and ...monthly themes are apparently proposed here. I guess regulations & stuff could be included there for each contest. Anyway, current heavy opposition to AI in Wikimedia Commons community would surely prevent AI-stuff from winning these contests, I wouldn't be much worried.... And... how can we identify AI-images in Wikimedia Commons? Is counting fingers the only method? For example, is this one created with AI or just too much post-processed? Strakhov (talk) 16:16, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and there is another issue with this file, so I raised it on the Village Pump. Yann (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support seems sensible to me Herby talk thyme 13:27, 24 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment The proposer changed the title of this section after most people had already commented. I have changed it back. Jeff G., please do not change proposals once they are in progress; you're then misrepresenting the positions people had already taken. You are free to create a new proposal under this one if you'd like. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:48, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Sorry, I have done so below.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:54, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. -- Geagea (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. --Túrelio (talk) 21:53, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose, contests should set their own rules. It's only natural that computer-generated images shouldn't be used in photography contests, but writing a prompt, selecting a good image, and at times even editing the end result to make it better is an art in itself. AI-generated images are a new frontier in public domain works and we should encourage good and educationally useful images to be used using these tools, but in whatever contest they would give an unfair advantage they should be excluded on a case-by-case and contest-by-contest basis. A blanket rule to exclude them would cause more problems than solve them, especially since every contest can write its own rules. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:24, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support AI images are not photographs and should not run in a competition about photographs.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Block AI images from being entered into photography contests, and therefore from winning[edit]

  •  Support as proposer, with apologies to The Squirrel Conspiracy. This is only about photography contests.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:51, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support As per above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 06:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support As per above. -- Geagea (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support per above. My vote above has been dropped in favor of this new proposal. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:38, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Since AI works are not considered photography anyway, no action has to be taken. Alexpl (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Alexpl: Since people are likely to upload AI works and submit them to photography contests, we want to prevent that, or at least keep them from winning unfairly. By opposing, you want to let those people do that. Why?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:09, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "winning unfairly" - can´t comprehend, since I don´t know the amount of competitions affected or the actual rules for them. Concerning AI: Do you fear people A) upload AI-work and categorize it as such and then enter it to a photo-contest or B), they upload AI-work, but claim it to be conventional photos and enter those to contests? "A" isn´t really a problem because the image is already labeled as AI-work and can be removed from the competition. And "B" - well, you most likely won´t be able to tell* that it is an AI-work anyway if done properly. If it´s "B", I change my vote for  Support, but since concealed AI-work may be very difficult to identify, it doesn´t really matter. *(made harder by all the post-processing apparently allowed in photocompetitions) Alexpl (talk) 17:23, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Alexpl: I seek to disqualify both A and B. Postprocessed photos are still photos, but with defects removed or ameliorated in some way.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There shouldn´t be a necessity to disqualify "A" since the uploader themself labeled the image as AI-work and therefor "not a photograph". You just need "B" and write into the rules "If a photograph is identified as an AI work, it is removed from a running competion, or, if the competion is already over, it loses the title "best image of a bug on a leaf 2024"" or whatever it is, you guys excel. Alexpl (talk) 18:07, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Alexpl I believe that it can happen that AI images are posted in Photo contests, disguised as "brilliant photographs". How to identify them? first clue is the lack of flaws, the perfection. The final (last but not least though) test is the lack of EXIX data. That is a cross-test that most of the times proves to be veryyy useful. My opinion, if anyone has different view please share:) Oncewerecolours (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    "exif" Oncewerecolours (talk) 08:06, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support as I remarked above, of course a photography contest is open only to photographs. - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 25 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support I support this more specific proposal in addition to the broader one above. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support That's also what I thought the discussion above does or may propose. Banning AI images explicitly in such contests & campaigns would be good since otherwise users could argue they didn't know generative photography wasn't allowed and didn't know about the respective categories or that they should have put this in the file description. A good example case may be images in this cat where it was somehow unclear whether or not they are photographs (it only had a Flickr tag 'midjourney') and before I intervened where located in a photography cat. --Prototyperspective (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support. This should go without saying, but just in case there was any remaining doubt - "photography" excludes all forms of computer-generated images, "AI" or otherwise. Yes, I'm aware there are some grey areas when it comes to image retouching; I also think that photographers should have the common sense to know what is and isn't appropriate, and to disclose anything borderline when submitting photos to a contest. Omphalographer (talk) 01:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow the organizers of the contest to decide whether or not they wish to allow AI images[edit]

Restrict closing contentious deletion discussions to uninvolved admins[edit]

RFCs can only be closed by uninvolved editors, but deletion discussions can be closed by any admin, even if they are heavily involved in the discussion. I propose changing "administrator" to "uninvolved administrator" in the first sentence of Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions. I propose adding the following sentence to Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions: "In cases of contentious requests, discussions should be closed by an uninvolved administrator." Nosferattus (talk) 01:55, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support as proposer. Closures by involved admins feel like an abuse of power, or at the very least, a conflict of interest. There is no reason a deletion discussion can't wait for an uninvolved admin, which will always feel more fair to everyone involved. Nosferattus (talk) 01:58, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Can you point to specific incidents that caused you to propose this, or is this a solution in search of a problem? The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Wasn't there a big fuzz with Yann and Eugene about this? Trade (talk) 02:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @The Squirrel Conspiracy: Here's a recent example. I can supply more if needed. Nosferattus (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Nosferattus Maybe it's just me, but your example doesn't make sense to me. The discussion was closed by Jim and that seems also their only edit in the discussion. I also do not believe that I experienced that involved admins would close a discussion, maybe I did, but then they hid it really good.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Paradise Chronicle: Please look at the 2nd discussion on that page, not the 1st. Nosferattus (talk) 15:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks, got it. Didn't know a close of a discussion can be shown at the bottom as well as at the top. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment My first thought is that this seems a bit overly broad, especially given the significant problem we have with deletion request listing backlogs. I've been an admin on Commons for more than 19 years. If I started a deletion request, or commented on it, I *generally* let some other admin take care of closing it. However there have been occasional exceptions - mostly when trying to clean up months old backlogs, with no new discussion for months, and no counterarguments have been offered to what seems a clear case per Commons/copyright guidelines - I might feel it is a "SNOWBALL" that since I'm there I might as well take care of cleaning it up. I try to avoid conflicts of interest, and even appearances of conflicts. Does having commented on something inherently create a conflict of interest? (Examples: 1) a deletion request is made by an anon with vague reason - I comment that 'per (specific Commons rule) this should be deleted'. Months later I notice that this listing was never closed, no one ever objected to deletion. Is going ahead and closing it per the rule I mentioned earlier a conflict of interest? 2)Someone listed an image as out of scope. I commented, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Then someone else points out that the file is a copyright violation, which nominator and I had not noticed. Should I be prohibited from speedy deleting the copyright violation because I earlier commented on deletion for different grounds?) I'm certainly willing to obey whatever the decision is; I just suggest this could be made a bit narrower, perhaps with specific exceptions? Otherwise I fear this could have an unintended side effect of making our already horribly backed up deletion request situation even worse. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:09, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Or we could just make it so the rule only applies to DR's that have lasted for less than a month Trade (talk) 03:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose This would be a good rule if we would have enough admins but with the current amount of active admins this could increase the backlog dramatically. We maybe could implement the rule that deleting admin and the admin who declines a undeletion request can not be the same. As well as for a reopened deletion request of a not deleted file were a decline of the new request has to be done by an other admin. Both cases of course need exceptions for vandalism or the abuse of requests.
GPSLeo (talk) 12:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support with reservations: at the same time it's a problem when an admin doesn't participate in the discussion and doesn't directly address arguments or making rationales for deletion. This is especially problematic for discussions where there are only few votes. For example the nomination and one Keep vote (example example) that directly addresses or refutes the deletion nomination rationale as well as discussions where there is no clear consensus but a ~stalemate (if not a Keep) when votes by headcount are concerned (example). I've seen admins close such discussion (see examples) abruptly without prior engagement and so on. So I think it would be best that for cases of these two types closing admins are even encouraged to (have) participate(d) in the discussion but only shortly before closing it / at a late stage. On Wikipedia there is the policy WP:NODEMOCRACY that reasons and policies are more important than vote headcounts, especially for by headcount unclear cases but it seems like here both voting by headcount and admin authority are more important. It wouldn't increase the backlog but only distribute the discussion closing differently. Bots, scripts & AI software could reduce the backlog albeit I don't know of a chart that shows the WMC backlogs size and it wouldn't significantly increase due to this policy change.
Prototyperspective (talk) 13:16, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose Proposal is currently overly broad and would be detrimental in shortening our backlog. I don't close DRs that I have a heavy amount of involvement in except for when I withdraw ones that I had started. If I leave an opinion on whether a file should be kept or deleted, I wait for another admin to close. Sometimes though, I like to ask questions or leave comments seeking information that helps me decide on borderline cases. I'd be more supportive if this proposal were more limited. I can also agree with GPSLeo that deleting admin and admin who declines UDRs of the file should not be the same one. Abzeronow (talk) 16:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Abzeronow: Do you have any suggestions or guidance for how a more limited proposal could be worded? How would you like it to be limited? Nosferattus (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support This should be natural. Since it itsn't to too many Admins, it needs a rule. --Mirer (talk) 17:48, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Comment There are times when posters to UDR present new arguments or new evidence. If that is enough to convince the Admin who closed the DR and deleted the file, why shouldn't they be allowed to undelete?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:03, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose per Abzeronow.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Although I am myself in support of not closing discussions/DRs where I am involved, except as Abzeronow says, one withdrew or so, I believe our current ratio of active admins should be considered. We does not have plenty of admins like English Wikipedia has As such, I tend to  Oppose. ─ The Aafī (talk) 19:18, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose Discussions are closed according to Commons policies, not according to votes. Yann (talk) 19:39, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Yann: Although I appreciate your work on deletion and your opinion here, this reply comes across as completely dismissive. No one has said anything about votes. Of course discussions are closed according to Commons policies. Do you believe that admins have a monopoly on the understanding of Commons policies? Do you understand why closing a contentious discussion you are involved in could be problematic and discourage other people from participating in the process? Nosferattus (talk) 16:29, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Contrary to picture contests, opinions in DRs are not votes. Participants, including non admins, can explain how a particular case should be resolved compared to Commons policies, but it is not uncommon that a DR is closed not following the majority of participants. Also, seeing the small number of admins really active, it is not possible that admins exclude themselves from closing if they give their opinions. Yann (talk) 09:57, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose. Involved editors should not close discussions, but I'm leery of making that an absolute rule. There are times when it can be reasonable. I also do not want to encourage complaints about reasonable closures just because the closer had some involvement. Glrx (talk) 01:39, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose - This is presented without evidence of a problem (or even articulation of one) and without articulation of thought or analysis related to potential downsides, indeed as referenced above. Additionally, reliance on--here, increasingly use of--adjectives in governing documents is terrible practise in real life and on-site. All this would do is shift post-closure disagreement from "should [Admim] have closed this" to the even more complicated "was [Admin] 'involved'" and "is the discussion 'contentious'". Alternatively stated, to the extent this proposal seeks to limit biased closures, all it would do is provide more avenues to argue such closures are within the range of discretion for interpretation of those terms. If an admin is making inappropriate closures, raise the issue at a notice board. If a prospective admin has not demonstrated an ability to use discretion and abstain when too close to an issue, oppose their rfa. Ill-considered policy changes are not the correct approach. Эlcobbola talk 17:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • "Involved" means they participated in the discussion. "Contentious" means different opinions were presented. These criteria are easy to objectively determine. I added "contentious" because other editors wanted the criteria narrowed. Nosferattus (talk) 18:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • They may mean that to you. They do not mean that to me, nor to others. That you so readily, and erroneously, purport to be the arbiter of objective truth ("These criteria are easy to objectively determine") is precisely the issue I explained. Эlcobbola talk 18:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose I'd be for this if there were more people who could close discussions. There just isn't enough who can at this point to justify limiting the number even more by approving this though. Although it would be a good idea if or when there's enough users who can close deletion discussions to make up for the deficit. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:31, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support As an admin, I have always followed this as my personal policy. It simply wouldn't feel right to me to close a discussion where I was involved substantially in the discussion, giving my own opinion. When a deletion request didn't have a lot of discussion, but I have a clear opinion on the matter, I often decide to give just my opinion and leave the discussion for the next admin to decide, consequently. I agree with Mirer and think "it should be natural". However, I have encountered admins who do this, even close their own proposals deciding that a discussion went into favor of their opinion when this isn't perfectly clear. So, making this an official policy would be a good idea IMHO. I would still allow closure of discussions where the admin's involvement was only technical. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:06, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support It's a fair proposal and it would avoid discussions in the future. I actually thought this was already normal as I have never experienced an involved admin closing a discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 17:59, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How do you define involved? I often had the case that I asked a question to the uploader and as I got no response I deleted the file. GPSLeo (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course I'd also see admins who become involved in a technical, formal way such as correcting mistakes in formatting or spelling, or ensuring that the uploader had enough time to defend their file should be allowed to close a DR. But in my opinion no admin should close a discussion in which they have voted in or presented an argument in support or oppose. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help prepare Commons:AI-generated media for proposal as guidelines[edit]

Needless to say, AI-generated media has become one of the most contentious topics on Commons and a subject of much debate and discussion. Over the past year, numerous editors have attempted to create guidance on how Commons should handle AI-generated media. This page has already been linked to from dozens of deletion discussions and user talk pages (with some people prematurely referring to it as a policy).[3] After an initial flurry of edits and revisions, the page has now been stable for at least 4 months. Please take a look at it, and if you notice any things that need to be changed, open a discussion on the talk page. Thank you! Nosferattus (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thibaut120094 explicitly calls it an essay Trade (talk) 03:25, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it is currently an essay: "for the time being marking as an essay, also as a remedy for the missing categorization. If the page reaches the status of a proposed policy, change accordingly...". Considering how contentious AI deletion discussions tend to be and how rapidly the number of AI images on Commons is increasing, I think it is important that it at least be promoted to a guideline, if not a policy. Nosferattus (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
People have decried that "AI was gonna take over Commons" since the essay was made last december Trade (talk) 15:36, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As for the claim of AI deletion discussions being contentious, if you look at the DR's and discussions from oldest to newest you'll notice that they used to be perfectly civil until a few weeks ago. It's very much a recent thing --Trade (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: 's summary of the Village Pump discussion would be a good starting place for a policy. The current essay is to all over the place and not based on current consensus though. Plus a lot of it just seems cursory at best, if not totally unnecessary. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Adamant1: Please let me know which parts of the page you feel are not based on consensus or are unnecessary (or just boldly edit the page). Thanks! Nosferattus (talk) 16:01, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per Adamant1's remark, I've taken the liberty of copying my VP comments to Commons talk:AI-generated media#Possible alternative/additional text for this page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Question There might be a problem with the templates and categorization requirements. E.g., Category:Photos modified by AI is a subcategory of Category:Retouched pictures. The template {{Retouched picture}} adds Category:Retouched pictures to the image, which would result in some overcategorization IMO. Is this o.k. anyway because Category:Retouched pictures is a hidden category? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:34, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Allow image-reviewers to delete files[edit]

In the discussion above, many editors complained that there aren't enough admins to deal with the file deletion backlog. To address this problem, I propose that we enable the delete right for the image-reviewer user group and allow image-reviewers to close deletion discussions. This would add 323 more people who could help address the deletion backlog. Nosferattus (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Oppose Active image reviers with free capacity can apply as admin. --Krd 19:00, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose - Image reviewer is an very low standard and, in actual practise, primarily entails mere comparison of an uploaded file's purported license to licensing information at the source. There have, for example, been instances of image reviewers credulously "passing" obviously laundered licenses and/or failing to consider appropriately the multiple copyrights that can exist in derivative works. Deletion is a sensitive enough function that a greater degree of community approval should be present to assess competence in those and other issues (the LR flag is granted by a single admin, which is not adequate evaluation). Giving more users the delete button, especially based on an inadequate criterion like the LR flag, is overly simplistic and fails to understand the root cause of the issue; what is need is not more deleting users, but more participation. The majority of backlogged DRs relate to complex issues that have had little to no discussion. More participation by all users there--rather than, say, here--would allow existing admins to assess consensus and act. How many of those 323 reviewers have opined at, say, requests in Commons:Deletion requests/2023/09? Almost none? Эlcobbola talk 19:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per above. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:38, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Oppose per elcobbola. Glrx (talk) 02:46, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I withdraw the proposal. Anyone have any other ideas for addressing the problem? Nosferattus (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  •  Support - As there is a separate user group that handles copyright and reviews uploads, which is only included in the admin toolset, the community trusts them with reviewer access. Therefore, I believe that the delete access should also be included in the reviewer group. Thank you.--C1K98V (💬 ✒️ 📂) 05:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Comment Is there any reason delete access can't be granted on a case-by-case basis like is now being done for people who want to overwrite files? --Adamant1 (talk) 11:14, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Delete access is already granted on case-by-case basis via Commons:Administrators/Requests. It's not the project goal to make procedures and policy set as complicated as possible. Krd 11:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The proposal is already withdrawn, so I think there is no need to formally oppose it now, but just adding my two cents: Deciding deletion discussions and deleting files is a central part of admin rights and requires the kind of experience on Commons that we usually see as grounds for granting these rights - so, if someone thinks they're experienced enough to decide deletion discussions, they should simply start a request for adminship, as Krd says. Also, I think there is currently no technical way to separate deletion rights from the undeletion right, with which comes the ability to view "deleted" files (which actually aren't deleted technically, but visible only to admins), and this group shouldn't be made too large for legal reasons (it's already questionable to not actually "hard-delete" images which were deleted e.g. for copyright reasons, and only somewhat justifiable by restricting access to a small group, that is, admins). Gestumblindi (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Gestumblindi: "only somewhat justifiable": it's entirely justifiable on that basis. Remember, the legal aspects of "fair use" easily let us host content on that basis for a highly restricted audience. Quite likely, as an educational site we could host most files (and certainly all that are used legitimately in any of the Wikipedias) publicly on that basis if that were our policy, because our site is educational. The exclusion of "fair use" files from Commons is largely a policy issue, not a legal issue. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      Thanks, Jmabel, I tend to looking at legal aspects from my European perspective where we don't have the US fair-use provisions (therefore, for example, German-language Wikipedia doesn't accept "fair use" either), but of course you're right that, if you consider fair use, wider access to "deleted" (flagged as deleted) files shouldn't be that much of an issue copyright-wise (and as Bjh21 points out, it seems that it would be possible to grant deletion without undeletion rights, though this would create new issues, will answer to that below). There are, of course, still images that are deleted for other reasons than copyright, such as personality rights, and in these cases, fair use doesn't help us. Wide access to files deleted because of privacy concerns, for example, could be an issue. Gestumblindi (talk) 09:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Point of information: mw:Manual:User rights doesn't say that delete depends on undelete (or any other right), so I think it should be technically possible to grant just delete to licence reviewers. And meta:Limits to configuration changes notably lists only "Allow non-admins to view deleted content" as a prohibited change, and not allowing non-admins to delete pages. --bjh21 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Bjh21: Thank you, that's good to know. However, I think that granting only the "delete" right without "undelete" (and thus without the ability to view deleted content) would create new issues, too. People with that delete-only right couldn't review their own deletions (except if it would be possible and allowed to let them only view content they deleted themselves?)... Gestumblindi (talk) 09:19, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, I was only commenting on your "no techincal way" claim. I agree that in general it's a bad idea to give someone the ability to do something they can't undo. --bjh21 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Why couldn't they just contact an admin and have them undelete the file in the rare cases where they would need to? That would still be less work then the current system. Although it seems like undeleting files would be a non-issue if they were only closing DRs with clear outcomes to begin with. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •  Support of course Юрий Д.К 19:34, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

no include categories for DR[edit]

Is there a way on how to add categories with the no include for DRs with hot cat? I have been helping out in adding categories to DRs with hot cat but there no such category appears. Maybe there is a hidden category for it? If not, is there another solution? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 22:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In 2017 I believe a solution to the issue was requested before, but there was no answer.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 13:28, 31 December 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Delete or deprecate or modify Drfop template[edit]

Several users like Ooligan expressed concerns or reservations on FoP-related deletion requests that contain wording inspired from {{Drfop}} (for Ooligan's concern, at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Transfiguration Cathedral, Donetsk). The wordings made by nominators are not comprehensive and not detailed enough to show what is the problem of a certain public monument accused to be unfree for commercial CC/PD licensing here. The template itself appears to be live, and can be used in the nominations even if it only provides country name as the sole parameter.

I am proposing now to either take down this template or at least deprecate/modify it, so that nominators are now forced to explain the FoP-related problems with greater detail. While this may be in use in thousands of DRs from 2010s, I suggest simply copy-pasting the content of the template to those DRs transcluding it to avoid abrupt content loss in those DRs, and take down the template afterwards, if the consensus leans towards nuking this template entirely. Ping two users who debated at the template's talk page: @Bluerasberry and Jameslwoodward: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:49, 1 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given that this template has been so heavily used, any substantive changes to it should certainly first involve subst'ing existing uses of the template (or converting them to use an archived version). It is important to preserve what was actually said in a deletion debate, not to have it changed by a later template change.
Yes, this template could be greatly improved, and I'd have no problem with making this version archival and coming up with something that gave a better explanation of the issues at hand. That said, though: the norm is, indeed, that derivative works violate copyrights. FoP is a widespread exception, not a norm. Even in countries that have "strong FoP" it can have weird limitations (e.g. the Germans not allowing aerial photos under their FoP). - Jmabel ! talk 00:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Comment I previously stated that I felt the template gives unclear information. I continue to feel that it should lead with a statement of concern. I am ready to comment on any modification proposal. There are 1000+ transclusions, so someone is using this. Bluerasberry (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and Bluerasberry: I modified now my message accordingly. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:05, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note, by the way, that I wrote the template in the first place.

I don't think the subject DR is a good case to cause discussion of changing the template. The DR discusses a building that was destroyed and then rebuilt. It concludes incorrectly, that the replacement does not have a copyright except for the parts that are different from the original. Of course we know that if a modern artist copies a Rembrandt, the resulting work has a new copyright. This is emphasized by the fact that before Bridgeman, even photographs of a Rembrandt had a copyright.

Note also, that the DR is not an FoP issue -- there is no FoP in Ukraine, so perhaps we need a template summarizing the status of a DW to use at the beginning of DRs of DWs.

Of the 125 countries that we see most often on Commons, 65 have no FoP (see User:Jameslwoodward/Sandbox2. I don't understand what Bluerasberry's "statement of concern" might be -- perhaps they would be good enough to write it out here? .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:27, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I followed up on the template talk page. Bluerasberry (talk) 19:41, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Start File Navigation from Current Page in Large Categories[edit]

Large categories, such as Category:Scans from the Internet Archive, pose an issue when users click the category link from a file page like File:The Gull (IA v17n1gullv17ngold).pdf. Currently, it always starts from the first file in the category. However, users are more likely to want to see files around the current file. Therefore, can we modify the link to direct users to Category:Scans_from_the_Internet_Archive&filefrom=v17n1gullv17ngold? This adjustment would provide more relevant file links for the user.

To implement this, I propose the introduction of a MediaWiki magic word like __STARTFROMCURRENTPAGE__. When added to category pages, this magic word would ensure that when users click the category link from a file or other types of pages, it will start from the page's sort key.

It's important to note that Wikimedia Commons differs from Wikipedia, as pages are not interlinked. Consequently, many pages are not indexed by Google due to a lack of links from other pages. Implementing this change and allowing /w/index.php?title=Category in robots.txt would create more interlinks, potentially leading to increased file indexing.

維基小霸王 (talk) 02:50, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since this feature would require changes to MediaWiki, you should probably ask at m:Phabricator, not here.
For what it's worth, this change would likely make search indexing worse, not better - each file would link to a slightly different page within the category, creating a larger number of redundant pages to be indexed. Omphalographer (talk) 19:31, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is pretty easy to add sane navigation to the category page, if the images named (or sorted by sortkey) after a pattern that imposes order. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is possible for middle-sized categories, but not for very big categories like what I have mentioned. [4] 維基小霸王 (talk) 01:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see why that would be tough at that scale. So basically, what you'd want is to be able to set things up so that if the file's sortkey (by default the filename) is FOO and it is in Category:BAR, you'd like an easy way to get to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:BAR&filefrom=FOO. I'm not 100% sure that is desirable as default behavior, but I can see why it would be nice to have a choice of that mode. I think it should be possible to achieve that client-side with a user script. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Part of the problem here seems to be that these files have DEFAULTSORT set to unhelpful values (the Internet Archive file ID). Removing those might improve matters. Omphalographer (talk) 02:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if you are not sorting the category in the order you want it, you'll have quite a problem getting what you want. On the other hand, I think that particular DEFAULTSORT is going to keep the pages of a book together pretty much as you'd like them to be.
In the example I gave above, the HTML for the category link would currently be <a href="/wiki/Category:BAR" title="FOO">BAR</a>, which is pretty tractable to massage in script if what you want is to produce <a href="/w/index.php?title=Category:BAR&filefrom=FOO" title="FOO">BAR</a>. Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omphalographer: I guess Phabricator would require a local consensus first?
Presently, only the first page of every category was allowed to index. Maybe more should be allowed to index on Wikimedia Commons for more links to files. Any better ideas? 維基小霸王 (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=838294813"