Prototyperspective

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

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

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)Reply

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

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, overwriting 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)Reply

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

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

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

— 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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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)Reply

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

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

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)Reply

Alright, thank you for these explanations. I'll link that from the file and retract the missing evidence note. The ArtStation link didn't have this license info and I thought the Wiki just hosted the file from there with the CCBY note at the bottom only referring to the texts or at least not also to this image. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ svenska ∙ Tagalog ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ मराठी ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ العربية ∙ +/−

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 23:22, 8 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 10 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 09:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Affected:

• File:'Proxima Centauri b, Earth Colony, Delta Complex' by AI.jpg

And also:

• File:'Sexagesimal in the City'.jpg
• File:'The Neighbourhood' scifi burough by AI.jpg
• File:A scifi city by Midjourney.jpg
• File:Astronaut amid flowing colors 'Push Your Envelope'.jpg
• File:Biopunk world of 'The Windup Girl' – megodont with neurotech being led through a megacity.png
• File:Comet colonized by extraterrestrials 134 million years ago; long-term underground system still intact (AI art).jpg

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Affected:

• File:Cyberpunk city with not enough funds to protect against the rising sea, using the polluted water for cooler air.jpg

And also:

• File:Toxic acidic rain in the city, cyberpunk.png

Yours sincerely, Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Prototyperspective. Some time ago, you commented on this proposal, saying that you tended toward support (but it wasn't a clear support), and we had some conversation about it. Then, official voting hadn't started yet. Now, true votes are put on the new Votes section, instead of Discussion. Since your comment wasn't a clear vote, it remains in discussion. If you are truly convinced now, I would be thankeful if you give a Support vote to the proposal. Of course, I have no problem if you don't, or even if you vote against while giving some arguments. I'm telling you about it only because it was left as a kind of half-done vote, and I'd love know your final decision, if you want to. MGeog2022 (talk) 19:21, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for reminding me, didn't think of checking whether my comment was moved as support to the Votes section. Will clarify there. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much :-) MGeog2022 (talk) 13:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Adamant1 (talk) 06:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just a random question since it keeps coming up and seems like a particularly strong point of contention, but if artwork based on fictional representations of people from the 15th hundreds that were created by someone who is clearly a fan of them and time period doesn't count as fan art then what in your opinion would? Or is nothing fan art as long as it's created by an AI generator? Like if they were AI generated images of Marvel characters would that count as fan art or would you just give the images a pass "because AI"? Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

See fan art and COM:FAN neither of these match what you think of as 'fan art' – even if it was both possible to be a "fan" of the depicted people and time period and the uploader to be such which are two things I doubt as well. Art depicting Marvel characters is fan art if not done by official artists / Marvel and it doesn't matter how that art is made in that regard. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:44, 25 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hello! I had to remove the Category:Videos without audio from File:1973 Brazilian Grand Prix (Brasil Hoje n. 24).webm due to this reason: the video has audio, but there's something wrong with the Commons player. Erick Soares3 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know, that's why I added this cat so to enable a way to keep track of all the videos where the audio is removed or is there another category for that? Other videos in that cat have the same problem. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I thought keeping track of these could be useful since it would allow investigating what causes this problem or in the case that something needs to be done per video (such as converting the video somehow). I think it used to be the case for only some video uploads but now seems to be the case for all new video uploads so tracking those videos probably isn't useful. I'll remove the category also from the other videos once this problem has been solved. Prototyperspective (talk) 19:41, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I think that any specific Category would need to be worked with the Phabricator - unless they have any other way to track the videos. But since it seems to be an specific glitch with the Commons player, it wouldn't be necessary. Erick Soares3 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Prototyperspective, I have a question. You have uploaded the file Global Nitrous Oxide Budget 2020.png under the CC 4.0 license, but I could not find such a license on the website of the Global Carbon Project. I was offered help in creating an SVG graphic, but the license terms should be clear upfront. Can you help me further? Perhaps I have overlooked something. Thank you. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 08:24, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for letting me know! This is really strange, I only upload things when I'm really sure they're CCBY or alike and this would be he first case where it isn't.

I looked up both the website and the study and both aren't CCBY now so I checked with the Wayback Machine if they were at the time that I uploaded it. It doesn't seem to be the case but I'll investigate a bit further. Two possible ways one could explain it is that I had some other similar study at the time that was CCBY and confused it with this one (unlikely) or that there's an issue with the Wayback Machine. However, what I found is this under CCBY-SA so at worst case I'll upload this as a new version. Would be great if you could make a SVG out of it. I'll investigate further and will, hopefully soon, upload the linked image as new version. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:21, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Prototyperspective, fyi File:International Policy Milestones by NOAA.png uploaded, as you requested. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 12:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! I'll let you know once I uploaded a new version of the image above. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:50, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uploaded a new version but the earlier one should be fine as well. Maybe the study link previously linked to the print. If I recall correctly, I got it from the preprint which is CCBY but linked to the page with the image. The preprint is here. It uses the image without the CCBYSA icon. The image I just uploaded with the CCBY-SA icon can be found from the source site under "Images" in the bottom right. I think CCBY is much better than CCBYSA but I'm a bit unsure if they meant to license the image in the preprint under CCBY which would have been good. Somebody should ask them but for now I'll leave the version as is and change the license to CCBYSA and add a note about this to the file info (it could be that the prior version is CCBY but I don't know if it is). Prototyperspective (talk) 17:23, 4 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Prototyperspective, the file is now available under file:Globales N2O Budget.svg, in English and German, thanks to Mrmw. --Mister Pommeroy (talk) 15:35, 25 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Great, thanks for notifying and thanks to Mrmw for creating it. I guess the file-uses would be good to replace with the SVG now. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:55, 26 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

JopkeB (talk) 04:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks so much for categorising a bunch of videos I've imported from Youtube recently! Categories are a bit of an arcane art to me, I can never find exactly what the best categories are :P Suntooooth (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2024 (UTC)Reply

FunkMonk (talk) 09:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

FunkMonk (talk) 09:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

FunkMonk (talk) 09:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

I am not so sure this is a good idea. Many of the maps are updated regularly. And people will often not be bothered to update the category year. --Timeshifter (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

These cats are old and useful and if you see any that doesn't have the cat updated, change it. If you think keeping things up-to-date is valuable this is needed or useful. I didn't create these categories and people should change the cat and find outdated maps. Prototyperspective (talk) 00:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

OK. I guess if someone is actually using the categories to update maps, then that is a good thing. I think many maps get updated when someone notices the map getting old in the article. Or if the first uploader is keeping an eye on it. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Arlo James Barnes 03:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Mikenorton (talk) 09:43, 24 April 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. FWIW, I've been mass-adding PDFs from directories that claim to be various "books from the US" to there without specifically filtering out the ones that are "files" instead of "books". I was actually intending to go back through and sort the "not actually a book" stuff next (letters, single issues of magazines, theses, etc) before working on fixing bargled names and metadata... actually looking them up. Jarnsax (talk) 07:36, 3 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi, why did you revert this? https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AAu_Petit_St_Thomas%2C_rue_du_Bac%2C_Paris._Tout_le_mois_de_d%C3%A9cembre%2C_grande_exposition_de_jouets%2C_livres_et_nouveaut%C3%A9s_pour_%C3%A9trennes.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=876388877 Best regards XoMEoX (talk) 12:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because it's not suitable to name this file "Canvas.jpg". And also the current name is fine. The missing reasons just means an extra time burden on file-mover to decline this inappropriate request. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:17, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

This was the original title of the photo. Another user overwrote it with a completely different image and wrote a title for this image. I have reverted this. Now the title no longer matches the image. XoMEoX (talk) 15:00, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well the original title was inappropriate. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

hi! you removed some without replacing them with a subcategory. please check your edits and rectify them.

1. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Inequality_of_food_consumption_vs._GDP_per_capita,_OWID.svg&diff=prev&oldid=877524221
2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Total-government-revenue-of-gdp_2017.png&curid=142010159&diff=877524078&oldid=829786450

RZuo (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Because I was intending to replace them, seems like I can't do multiple cat changes at once with the tool. Did so now and will go through them further. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:19, 19 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Moin, you seem to overlook the fact that clouds are already counted among the weather phenomena. The category "fog and mist" is a subcategory of clouds. So to assign them to the weather phenomena is in fact an overcategorization. Therefore, I removed the category. My actions are in accordance with our guidelines. Lukas Beck (talk) 09:20, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

No, I didn't. I have explained it in the recent edit. Prototyperspective (talk) 09:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Then adjust the supercategories of fog and mist accordingly. The way it is currently implemented, it is an overcategorization and still unsustainable. Kind regards Lukas Beck (talk) 09:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi again. I noticed you are moving a broad range of images to diagram categories. I think you should move them to infographics categories: Category:Information graphics. It includes more than diagrams. You are including maps and charts too. Those are not diagrams. See this discussion:

• Category:Diagrams - link at top goes here:
• Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams - especially look at the comment from the native German speaker: Enyavar.

--Timeshifter (talk) 14:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

I wondered about this before creating the diagrams categories so I went here: Diagram#Gallery of diagram types which also includes statistical maps and charts. Information graphics would make the cat name even longer. All the files fit the definition "a symbolic representation of information using visualization techniques". I wasn't so sure about the best title or scope of the category but the files can easily be moved if necessary. However, if that Wikipedia article is wrong please edit it and if possible the name should be just a brief word not two long words "Information graphics". Choropleth map is in the cat "Statistical charts and diagrams". Prototyperspective (talk) 14:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

There has been discussion on the Wikipedia page. Editors there have so far refused to change their incorrect definition regardless of the evidence that has been brought up so far. Maybe the info from the German guy, Enyavar, could change their mind. Feel like trying? I no longer have the time, health, or energy I used to have.

The most in-depth discussions are all linked from Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/01/Category:Diagrams. Admins in that discussion agree with the narrow definition of "diagram".

"Infographic" can be used in place of "information graphics". Infographic is in all the dictionaries now. It is the broad term that people should use. Not diagram. See dictionaries:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographic

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/diagram

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/diagram

--Timeshifter (talk) 15:42, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Infographic usually aren't referring to charts or choropleth maps but usually vertical files with text and illustrative images so I'm not sure if that really would be the better choice. It's also "intended to present information quickly and clearly" and this isn't really the case for the files here, they're just meant to visualize/communicate the data, not explain things using a few graphics. It's a problem these things are so badly defined/distinguished/established. I just don't think Infographic is the word actually widely used or understood throughout society for these kinds of images. Maybe one could call it "Data visualizations…". Maybe you could make another post at this discussion? This page seems like the wrong place to discuss it. I'll think about it further another time if it's not resolved earlier. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

"Charts" are listed here:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infographic

"Maps themselves can be considered a form of infographics, but may also be a component of a larger infographic. Design Tip: Choosing the right visualization approach for your data is key." - That quote is from here:

Infographics and Data Visualization. From the design lab of University of Wisconsin–Madison.

See also: Choropleth Infographics Archives.

"Graphics" might satisfy. It has been around an even longer time, and people know the name. It is a totally vague term. Which may be just what is needed for a category name. For example, change

Category:Our World in Data diagrams about healthcare systems to

Category:Our World in Data graphics about healthcare systems

I could live with that. In any case, diagram is just not the right term in English. So please change it to something else. Anything else.

Graphics may not be the best term though. It includes photographs, computer gaming graphics, etc.. Those are definitely not infographics. See:

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/graphic

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/graphics

I still think infographics is the best compromise for a broad category of informative non-lifelike images. People have heard the term. There is a discussion on graphics categories here:

Commons:Categories for discussion/2016/02/Category:Graphics

--Timeshifter (talk) 16:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

Statistical graphics maybe? But it's also so long. Again infographics are usually explanatory texts with lots of illustrative graphics, it's not really the right term also because it's too broad and includes nonstatistical things just like diagrams. Datagraphics would be better but also has downsides. I moved one category to "…graphics…" earlier and will move the other ones too to some new name for now then even though a later rename may be needed then. Prototyperspective (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2024 (UTC)Reply

See w:Infographics. I like it. I think the term is much more popular nowadays.

I think it is always good to pull maps into separate map categories. Those map categories can then be put under both map and infographic categories. I am going to do it now in one category to show you what I mean.

OK. Here is my example category:

• Category:Our World in Data graphics about healthcare systems