Commons talk:Project scope

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

• This is not a forum for general discussion of the page’s subject.
• Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
• Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~).
• New to Commons? Check out the project scope. Ask questions, get answers.

Archives: 1

my objection

Magog the Ogre, I received a message that you flagged my work for deletion so I am responding to ask that you reconsider your recommendation. I feel that your decision is unfair and infringes upon my rights. Did I say anything that you perceived to be offensive? Please advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J.M. Romans (talk • contribs) 15:55, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@J.M. Romans: This is the wrong way to reach Magog the Ogre. You should be able to contact that user by posting a new section to User talk:Magog the Ogre or by addressing the issue with File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf in a post to Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mainline Protestants -- A Vision for the Future.pdf.

Hi it's Frank just 3 days on it you know they are plenty of nudes on this site why is every else ok and mine is not new to this site is there any way I can edit it better so my pics won't be deleted thanks Fooogie89 (talk) 23:01, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I want to save a file from deletion. What are the rules to follow?

File:FELIX SIR PHOTO.jpg I like to use an image in the userpage. But the photo is nominated for deletion in the commons. How to justify or improve my probability of sustaining the image.--Felixyog (talk) 13:58, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

• The nomination is on the basis that this appears to be an unused personal photo of no educational purpose. Presumably that is because the nominator does not think this person is notable enough that we have any reason to have a photo of them. If you think that is not the case, you will need to explain (on that nomination page) why this person is notable, ideally by citing sources that are independent of that person (e.g. a newspaper rather than a personal website). - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi new to wikimedia commons you know why is everybodys pic here I don't think is educational just showing pics of pantyhose with gusset don't have any pics like that when I search gusset or tights to show what a gusset is better picture of pantyhose with gusset Fooogie89 (talk) 22:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

• @Fooogie89: If that comment is on-topic I don't see how. What (if anything) does this have to do with the photo we are discussing on this thread? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

"Evidence" sub-section

Given that many Commons uploaders do so using a pseudonymous username, I wonder if this sentence should be tweaked: ...the creator or copyright owner should be identified, if known or reasonably ascertainable...?  JGHowes  ^talk 23:59, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Advertisements

The NOTUSED section gives as an example

• Advertising or self-promotion

But we need examples of advertisements. I'd gladly accept a lot of those. E.g. Advertisements in Germany by year ends in 1932. Is that because of copyright concerns? We should have good collections also for our own time, regardless of what fraction of the images are in use.

How should the policy be reworded?

--LPfi (talk) 18:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Suggested wording change for COM:INUSE section

The current wording of COM:INUSE includes the phrase

"It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a non talk/user page is enough for it to be within scope."

This wording can be read to mean that files can be considered to in use if they are on non-talk pages and non-user pages OR non-talk pages and user pages. I have read through the talk page archive. This does come up briefly once or twice and it is clear that the intention is that use on user pages does not count as being in use. I suggest that the wording be changed to

"It should be stressed that Commons does not exist to editorialise on other projects – that an image is in use on a project page (other than talk or user pages) is enough for it to be within scope."

While we're at it, I think that the word editorialise is likely to confuse non-English speakers. I suggest something like "...Commons has no control over usage on other projects..." but that isn't the reason I started this discussion. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 16:05, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I support the phrase "other than talk or user pages", assuming this is the intended meaning of the sentence, because as noted above, the existing wording is ambiguous. I'm not sure what difference if any, adding the phrase "project page" would make, so will neither support nor oppose that at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
•  Support "page" can be removed from "a project page". Agreed with all other points including "editorialise". 4nn1l2 (talk) 21:13, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• I support the intent here, but don't love the proposed wording, either. Synthesizing a few things here, and rewriting slightly: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." - Jmabel ! talk 23:48, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

I like it. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 00:03, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Fine by me. Gatoclass (talk) 18:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done [1] 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:07, 19 May 2020 (UTC)