User talk:Prototyperspective

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Prototyperspective!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our frequently asked questions will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy (Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content). You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold when contributing and assume good faith when interacting with others. This is a wiki. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons (webchat). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at the copyright village pump.

Goodies, tips, and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. You can find the files you have uploaded in your Uploads. Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~. To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:File:Foo.jpg]], which produces: File:Foo.jpg. You may enable gadgets (custom features) for your account. There are several tools to upload files. Have you edited Wikipedia before? This guide might be useful. Made a mistake? Do you want to have a file renamed or moved? Use the move link and wait for an authorized user to rename it. Do you want to have your recently uploaded picture removed? Tag it as {{speedy|reason here}}. For more information read the deletion guidelines.

-- Wikimedia Commons Welcome (talk) 10:58, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

File:Global Methane Budget 2017.jpg

File:Global Methane Budget 2017.jpg has been marked as a possible copyright violation. Wikimedia Commons only accepts free content—that is, images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Traditional copyright law does not grant these freedoms, and unless noted otherwise, everything you find on the web is copyrighted and not permitted here. For details on what is acceptable, please read Commons:Licensing. You may also find Commons:Copyright rules useful, or you can ask questions about Commons policies at the Commons:Help desk. If you are the copyright holder and the creator of the file, please read Commons:But it's my own work! for tips on how to provide evidence of that. The file you added may soon be deleted. If you have written permission from the copyright holder, please replace the copyvio tag with {{subst:OP}} and have them send us a free license release via COM:VRT. If you disagree that the file is a copyright violation for any other reason, please replace the copyvio tag with a regular deletion request. This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright at source Warning: Wikimedia Commons takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

 

Herby ^{talk thyme} 11:04, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

File tagging File:Early succession of the Cinder Cones methane seep.jpg

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading File:Early succession of the Cinder Cones methane seep.jpg. This media is missing permission information. A source is given, but there is no proof that the author or copyright holder agreed to license the file under the given license. Please provide a link to an appropriate webpage with license information, or ask the author or copyright holder to send an email with copy of a written permission to VRT (permissions-commons@wikimedia.org). You may still be required to go through this procedure even if you are the author yourself; please see Commons:But it's my own work! for more details. After you emailed permission, you may replace the {{No permission since}} tag with {{subst:PP}} on file description page. Alternatively, you may click on "Challenge speedy deletion" below the tag if you wish to provide an argument why evidence of permission is not necessary in this case. Please see this page for more information on how to confirm permission, or if you would like to understand why we ask for permission when uploading work that is not your own, or work which has been previously published (regardless of whether it is your own). Warning: unless the permission information is given, the file may be deleted after seven days. Thank you.

 

Ytoyoda (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I removed the {{No permission since}} note you added:

1. it does have license description and is not missing permission information 2. the license is Commons compatible and is CC BY 4.0 3. the pdf and html of the link in the source have this copyright information clearly visible 4. if for whatever reason a deletion is requested nevertheless please create a request for deletion

--Prototyperspective (talk) 20:27, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I somehow missed it when I checked the link. Ytoyoda (talk) 22:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Autopatrol given

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that I have granted autopatrol rights to your account; the reason for this is that I believe you are sufficiently trustworthy and experienced to have your contributions automatically marked as "reviewed". This has no effect on your editing, it is simply intended to make it easier for users that are monitoring Recent changes or Recent uploads to find unproductive edits amidst the productive ones like yours. In addition, the Flickr upload feature and an increased number of batch-uploads in UploadWizard, uploading of freely licensed MP3 files, the possibility to overwrite files uploaded by others and an increased limit for page renames per minute are now available to you. Thank you. rubin16 (talk) 05:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

COM:AN/U

---

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User finds lots of “porn”, uncategorizes. This is in relation to an issue with which you may have been involved.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:55, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Topless is not "Nude"

Please note that there is no nude person in photo File:Body painting - border-radius.jpg. Thank you. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Ups, sorry. Thank you. Prototyperspective (talk) 22:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Also dont remove categories from a file just yu because think that an simple nude image is porn. Move it a lower category or create a lower one instead of removing valid categories from a image like you did to hundreds of images in Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology), especially when they have been dicussed to death in more than 50 pages in all of it´s aspects. Tm (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Category:Nude portrayals of Fake news like this, instead of removing valid categories. Tm (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png

File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules (promotional posts are allowed and have a dedicated tag on rOpensource).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Tet (talk) 14:55, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Categories like "Statistics until 2022" (etc)

I'm unsure of the value in adding a category that shows the final year shown in a chart. Such a category would require continual vigilance on the part of uploaders as the charts are updated. For example, File:20201211 Billion dollar events related to climate change - U.S. -en.svg will be updated every year, making its inclusion in Statistics until 2022 stale and inaccurate. Also, the inclusion of File:1960- Groundwater loss - depletion - Central Valley of California.svg in Statistics until 2020 is inaccurate, as it already contains data for 2021. I plan to delete those designations in those two files, unless you can explain why they should remain. RCraig09 (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

How is it not valuable? What you described is the purpose of it: this way you could more easily find (via petscan or other means) which charts need updating. You can also use it to find the most-up-to-date chart(s).

Once a new version of a chart is uploaded, the category is changed. The until was meant as an inclusive until, so this is something to clarify anyway: does/should "until" mean 'data until year x' or 'data until including year x'? Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, I see the value in such categories, though they would require uploaders to be vigilant to change categories with each update.

Maybe a better title scheme would be Category:Charts showing data through 2022. The word "through" is less ambiguous than "until". RCraig09 (talk) 17:13, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, however other people can update the category as well if they don't do so themselves and most people don't update the statistical images that they upload (and if they do, it's likely they also are usually quite vigilant to change the category).

Good idea, that was one reason for why I kept it a redcategory – the other reason is that many charts of OWID and from other sources are missing there. I don't think a script could solve this so this would require some effort to categorize the charts appropriately. The earlier this is done – once implemented new charts would likely get quickly categorized into these, enabling users to refine search-results or make novel query...for example to filter out charts that are outdated by more than a decade.

The issue with "through 2022" is that it kind of reads as if the data was from start to end of 2022 but not from some point in the past to end of 2022. Do you have another idea or should there be a discussion at some WikiProject-like place on WMC? The images can be easily recategorized once a better name is found. I thought "Statistics" would be better than "Charts showing data" since it's shorter and more easily found since people likely enter Statistics into the HotCat input-box. What do you think about something like "Category:Charts showing data up to and including 2022"? Prototyperspective (talk) 17:29, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Since the category would contain images of (visible) charts rather than (abstract) statistics, I think the best solution is to retain the word Charts. (I don't think most uploaders even use HotCat; I don't even know how.) Also, ...through... is appropriate, as it covers both charts starting in 2022 and charts starting before 2022—both interpretations are correct. (You may be confusing through (which is OK) with throughout (which is not OK).) I don't think others will share our enthusiasm for the idea, to the extent that we need to get wider input on minor issues like naming. I'm strongly leaning toward Category:Charts showing data through 2022. RCraig09 (talk) 17:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll move them to the category title you suggested. I'm not a native English speaker and when reading that title would think of the chart possibly being about 2022 only, not up to and including 2022 – however, maybe that's just me and it should be clear from whatever chart the cat is set on anyway. I'll add some category description that makes it clear. Thanks for your feedback! Prototyperspective (talk) 19:18, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

— Now I'm worried that too many charts will be placed into these categories. I would plan to put my 200-300+ charts into such categories. But if other editors put charts in these categories, there will be thousands and thousands and thousands of them—making the categories less useful (too big to manage).
— I'm considering user-specific categories, like Category:RCraig09 charts showing data through 2022—to keep the number of category members manageable. Do you know if there is any rule against making user-specific categories? RCraig09 (talk) 15:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

This problem exists for countless categories – it's a general WMC problem.

• That problem should be addressed by developers by adding features like enabling easily searching within a category, showing top or most recent charts at the top of the page, and so on.
• It can also be addressed by simply making subcategories. The latter can be easily done with the cat-a-lot tool. It would be really nice if you could add your charts to these categories, I just haven't gotten to doing so. There can be multiple types of subcategories like "Environmental charts..." within "charts...by topic" and user-specific categories within "Charts showing data through 2022 by source". There are many user-specific categories (example 1, example 2).

Prototyperspective (talk) 15:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I think I'll be adding my own user-specific sub-categories, then. You don't need to add my charts to the super-categories, as I will only change the file pages later. RCraig09 (talk) 16:11, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Communication-censorship on Twitter (preventing messages for no good reason).png

File:Communication-censorship on Twitter (preventing messages for no good reason).png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Dronebogus (talk) 01:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Decentralized censorship on reddit via community moderation not based on subreddit rules 01.png

And also:

• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter ("Show more replies").png
• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter (hiding non-offensive content under "Show additional replies"); Cropped and light theme.png
• File:Semi-censorship on Twitter.png

Yours sincerely, Dronebogus (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Category:Non-governmental_Internet_censorship_in_non-authoritarian_countries

Non-governmental Internet censorship in non-authoritarian countries has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

Dronebogus (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

File:Fictional book cover for scifi children's book "13th prophecy" by Valentine Ermatinger (post-apocalyptic AI art).jpg

Yo, do you mind telling me how this is supposed to be fan art? Trade (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure, I thought it was because it was intentionally relating to the contents of the book. It intends to depict imagery of the book and is visually and conceptually somewhat similar to the actual book cover. However, I wasn't sure if that's fan art too. I'll just remove the category for now, somebody else could readd the category if it indeed is fan art which I'm not sure it is. "Fan art or fanart is artwork created by fans of a work of fiction [...]" matches the image but it does not display a character of it and is not unambiguously related to the book. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire reason i created the category was to help people to keep an eye out for potentially derivative works. Adding images of fictional characters created by the uploader largely defeats the purpose Trade (talk) 03:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Or at last use Category:AI-generated fictional characters instead Trade (talk) 03:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

About Category:Energy supply and the category structure of Category:Energy

Before we start an edit war about overcategorization (Category:Energy is a great-grandparent of Category:Energy supply, so your edit should be reversed again), perhaps we might discuss the broader problem with the category structure of Category:Energy: that subcategories are too hard to find, which might be the underlying problem you encountered and reacted to. Would you like to join the discussion on Category talk:Energy supply? Perhaps you have ideas to make the structure less complicated? JopkeB (talk) 03:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

It is only a great-grandparent to Energy supply via "Energy economics". However, Energy supply & distribution including Category:Energy transportation like physical power lines are not only related to it in terms of economics.

I thought that was quite obvious so didn't explain it in the edit summary. I don't think people consider it to not also be an issue of infrastructure and many other things so I don't think I need to elaborate further and probably the Wikipedia categorization got this right too. I also still think Category:Energy transportation should be directly in category Energy, not buried deep down in some nested subcategory, I added it to its parent category because you reverted that. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:31, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it is best to copy your objections to the Talk page so that others can give reactions too. JopkeB (talk) 09:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

gibberish

I used clipdrop, but some still get blurry, I like creating art on Bing because it can emulate retro comics, AI dystopia comics is an example of why I can't erase it. Hyju (talk) 10:57, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it's still better than with the gibberish text. One could modify it further with an image editor like GIMP or Photoshop, for example using the patchfix tool. Maybe one could also just cut it out and then use img2img or inpainting to restore it. Or use img2img but as a negative prompt add "text", "letters" and "gibberish". I just tried it with Clipdrop and while it does have some problems, it's better than with that gibberish text. I thought about also naming that image as one to keep but there also is a problem with the gun where there's this extra part that would also better be removed. Here is what I made with Clipdrop but I guess one could further edit it or use the cleanup tool anew. Still, I'd rather upload that as a new version than keeping the image as is (you can use the image I linked if you'd like to.) Prototyperspective (talk) 11:11, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the problem is that as I did with Bing, it is based on Dall-E, those that use img2img are based on Stable Diffusion and the result loses the retro style (especially the coloring), I was also going to erase the head and the ships. I would also delete the head and the ships, usually I ask for certain scenarios and they end up appearing as a title or speech bubblesHyju (talk) 12:47, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

You need to specify things like that it should be in comics style and set a high image strength. If you can't make a better version you could just upload the one I linked above which is better than the existing image with gibberish. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:56, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I've tried it and it comes out differently, I've noticed that the two systems operate differently, even with the same prompts, characters and styles even differ in appearance, Dall-E tends to be more faithful, I wanted to know what the GIMP tool is, I have a version of it on PC. Hyju (talk) 13:12, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, one needs to adjust the prompts when switching between generators to get similar results. In Stable Diffusion you should for example use more 'tags' rather than sentences. GIMP is just a free image editor and you can use the patch/heal tool (along with other tools of it if you have the skills) to fix issues. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:19, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

I started using Dream by Wombo, since it doesn't have limited credits, but the "vintage comic" rendering can only be found on Bing, based on Stable Diffusion, characters like Tintin and Betty Boop don't even look like the originals, the Hergé style for example, it's more reminiscent of Peanuts, I haven't yet found one that uses Dall-E and has img2img, then I could make more changes, the lack of other features such as negative prompts also gets in the way. Hyju (talk) 14:04, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Warning

Hi, Please read Commons:Fan art, stop uploading and arguing ad nauseam about out of scope AI-generated fan art. Thanks, Yann (talk) 18:37, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

What is the original work of fiction if it is fan art? It is simple question that remains unanswered. If I misunderstood something, please explain it such as for example by quoting a specific part of that page. I'm clueless as to why somebody would think it's fan art. It isn't. And even if it is, that does not warrant deletion when the file is in use per COM:SCOPE. I argue because I address points and my points get ignored and/or misrepresented. It's not AI-generated fan art but maybe I'm wrong and wait for an answer to my simple question. Prototyperspective (talk) 18:40, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, please do review Commons:Fan art and SCOPE. No need to spend time arguing and splitting hairs about definitions. Quite simply you may think such uploads fit the project, but the consensus is otherwise. I politely suggest you either find less contentious ways to contribute to Wikimedia Commons, or find other venues for your uploads that do not seem widely appreciated here. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:06, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

1. Those are not my uploads
2. I did. Per COM:INUSE for example the files are clearly to be kept. By the quote I asked about, the images referred to are clearly not fan art.
   1. I may have misunderstood something so I'd appreciate an answer to my simple question. That page starts off with Fan art is a term describing unofficial artistic representations of elements or characters in an original work of fiction. What is the work of fiction here?
   2. As far as I understood those images they are NOT based on works of fiction but drawings of an historical figure. Again, I may be wrong but just claiming things are fan art while they clearly aren't isn't enough to ignore the SCOPE policy alongside the educational value of those high-quality AI art images of which only a few had misgenerations and no valid deletion rationale has been provided.

Prototyperspective (talk) 22:43, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

File:Burning city by AI 'Don't Play With Matches'.jpg

File:Burning city by AI 'Don't Play With Matches'.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:07, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

File:'Excuse me sir, where can I find the rings section?' – Fictional being placed into a contemporary realistic daily life setting.png

File:'Excuse me sir, where can I find the rings section?' – Fictional being placed into a contemporary realistic daily life setting.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:02, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained removal of apparently relevant category

On File:PANO1 dessin herisson panneau CFZ.jpg the author states the date of their creation of this cartoon. I saw you removed the category for the date of the cartoon. If you have a reason for doing so, it is not obvious to me. Thanks for your attention. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:53, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hello, I added an explanation to some of the edits: it only shows a cartoon character but not a cartoon. Prototyperspective (talk) 23:55, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Hm, If I understand correctly, you argue that the drawing is not a cartoon? I would have said it is. (Perhaps we should have some sort of definition at the parent category?) If you think the drawing isn't a cartoon, maybe moving categorization to "2011 drawings" or someting similar might be more useful than removing categorization by date of creation completely? Wondering, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:17, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it is a cartoon character or a drawing in cartoon style but not a cartoon. The definition of the German WP may be a bit clearer in that regard than the linked article albeit that also makes it clear A cartoon is a graphic that tells a comic and/or satirical story in one image - usually with a punch line. Originally no words were used for the visual joke.. I didn't notice such a category existed but it seems like those images already were in that category with the image you linked being an exception…the category seems to be missing a whole lot of images if it is indeed meant to include all drawings made or published in that year. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry. If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Affected:

• File:Wizard with microdrones.jpg

And also:

• File:Cool wizard with mini-drones.jpg
• File:Sorcerer's stick connects with micro-drone for syncing and recharging (science fantasy).jpg
• File:Sorcerer's staff connects with drone for syncing and recharging.jpg
• File:Wizard guiding remote controlled microdrones.jpg
• File:Fantasy man with implants-hat opening a can of microdrones.jpg

Yours sincerely, Günther Frager (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Videos of films from 1990 in the public domain

Hi Prototyperspective, the name of the category is wrong and misleading, even with the extended category description. A file licensed under Creative Commons is copyrighted but never in the public domain. All files on Wikimedia Commons are either under a free license like CC BY(-SA) or under CC0 and at the earliest 70 years after the death of the photographer/author in the public domain. I suggest that you remove the part "in the public domain" if you want to categorize videos independent from the license. Raymond (talk) 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Please also see the wikilink that explains this: Public domain#Public-domain-like licenses.

There is the term public domain for the license as well as the term public (adjective) domain as a broader concept (see domain). This one refers to the latter and you could consider it as a short form for "Videos of films from 1990 in the public domain or with public domain-like licenses" if you don't see what is meant with the broader concept domain there.

The whole point of these categories is the licenses which are all all WMC-compatible licenses which are PD, CCBY, CCBYSA, etc. Maybe the part could be removed since that is required for the files to be here anyway. Prototyperspective (talk) 16:50, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

As non-native English speaker I was not aware of the broader concept and I am not sure that it is very wide known. Never read about that defition in German. Anyway. Removal of the part would reduce confusion like mine :-) Raymond (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'll probably move (rename) the categories later to remove that part, thanks for the feedback. Alternatively I may ask about it somewhere (a problem with this solution is that people may think it also contains videos of short parts of film but these categories are meant to contain only videos of full-length films). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:47, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Wikibook

I posted examples of art I create on Bing and I think it could be included in the en:wikibooks:AI Art Generation Handbook, but I don't know how to put it there. Hyju (talk) 10:09, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

The link doesn't work. I'm also making a WikiBook that is published as a work-in-progress but that's not the one you linked there. I don't add images on request or anything similar but only to illustrate existing & potential useful applications and methods to generate & improve AI art. I found the image of the enlarged ant useful and requested its undeletion. But other than that I'm not sure what the images could help illustrate even though they can be useful elsewhere. A missing example in the Wikibook would be a short comic made of AI-generated images. If you could make new images and make a comic with a coherent story and speech bubbles (or captions underneath), that would probably be added. You could also explain a potential application on the talk page of the Wikibook. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I messed up the link and fixed it, I still haven't been able to create panels that look good.Hyju (talk) 10:23, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It would probably be best if you added these panels to here: Wikibooks:AI Art Generation Handbook/Art Medium. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:31, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

In fact, I don't even know English very well, so it's difficult to write anything more than a more elaborate text. Hyju (talk) 10:40, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I think what you have there could be enough for that page and just use a translator. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:43, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I made a version of the executive rhino and added it there Hyju (talk) 13:46, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Great but you also removed a row there, not sure if that was intentional (see the diff). Prototyperspective (talk) 14:52, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

It wasn't intentional, I removed the word Javan because it couldn't pass the Bing filter. I saw that you took some art I sent, curiously, the African tribe was supposed to have a Native American appearance, the one I sent African didn't turn out as expected. Hyju (talk) 18:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I found the image by accident when searching for new AI-generated images and found it relatively high quality. Not entirely sure what you mean. In the image I used you used the term "prehistoric" which along with other indicators (the cat "Artistic restorations of prehistoric life (2020s)" and the clothing etc) suggests (or by definition means) that it depicts "ancient" humans. More details could be useful...for example the prompt if you still have it. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

I didn't save it, but I generated another one similar to these: ancient humans in stone age, highly realistic faces, matte painting, highly detailed, stone age scene, cave humans, trending on artstation, historical art comic vintage 1940s african american Hyju (talk) 11:05, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Send another paleoart, this time I sent the previous art and put it in [1]'s img2mg, it tries to decipher the prompts and you can use a magic prompt tool and generate a new prompt, that's what I used, I changed some things to suit suit what I wanted (vintage comic style, woman). Hyju (talk) 23:36, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I really don't understand the arguments for deleting so many letters I've uploaded. Hyju (talk) 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Paleo-illustrations_by_Stegotyranno

Paleo-illustrations by Stegotyranno has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category. In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

FunkMonk (talk) 12:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

File:SCP-106.jpg

The file is explictly released under the terms of CC-BY-SA 3.0 like other site material on the SCP Wiki site is required to. You can see this notice at the very bottom of the website, as well as a "‡ Licensing / Citation" section near the bottom. I can understand that licensing information on the site can be difficult to find though.

The original image used on the article, way back in the day, was not actually CC and so a contest was held for artists to submit original alternatives which were CC and thus suitable for inclusion on the site. The image uploaded at File:SCP-106.jpg is the entry they ultimately replaced it with. I've added a link with the forum comment containing information in the source section to assist those in the future looking at sourcing for this file.

The information is noted here: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-232703/scp-106#post-4114303, where it is noted:

Congratulations to the winners of the SCP-106 Photography Contest held on r/scp!

The first image "106 Emergence", the second image "106 Door" and third image "106 Victim" were all won by Cinemamind, and each is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0.

The first link is to the SCP-106 Photography Contest announcement post on Reddit. This post explains that:

This Contest will revolve around SCP-106 "The Old Man" by DrGears. Of the three images on SCP-106's file, none are compliant with the license. All will need to be replaced. This is where you come in.

And in the "rules" section the following bullet points are relevant to image licensing.

• Entries must be released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 More information on what this means can be found here.
• Entries should not be perfect recreations of the original images in other mediums (3D modeling, painting, etc). Exact copies would just be plagiarism of the original artwork, which will place us in pretty much the same predicament. Simulate, not duplicate. (Does not apply to SCP-162 category)
• Entrants must provide a CC-compliant or public domain source, or prove that they took the photo in question.

This links to the SCP-106 Photography Contest submission thread on Reddit.

Later, the "emergence" photo (File:SCP-106.jpg) was replaced with a different CC-BY-SA 3.0 image, this time created by MrKlay. In the forum post just below the previous one mentioned, you can see this update: https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/forum/t-232703/scp-106#post-4122121. Also being a submission for a SCP-106 image replacement, it was released under CC-BY-SA 3.0.

The artist also uploaded a copy to their ArtStation account, which is also linked. However, I don't think ArtStation has the ability to signify a license in their UI? Or it wasn't added for the entry. Would it be better to remove the link from the source section?

Regardless, this should provide enough overall context to show not just that the image is CC-BY-SA 3.0, but it was specifically created with the intention of being media under that license. aismallard (talk) 01:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)