User talk:Koavf

User talk:Koavf archives
001 59 topics (2006-04-29/2018-08-24) 55 kb 002 42 topics (2018-08-24/2020-06-01) 31 kb 003 81 topics (2020-06-01/2023-07-07) 72 kb Current discussion

Asking for movement

Hi sir. I have a question. Did I request to move a category? Category:Mehdi Tehrani to:Category:Mehdi Mirza Mehdi Tehrani.as matter of fact I think not allowed do this my self.Best.-- Patricia Mannerheim (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The process for moving categories is not as formal as (e.g.) the English-language Wikipedia. Most any user can just move a category. Why do you think this should be renamed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Subtitulos en Within our Gates

He notado que has revertido mi edición de los subitutlos para el filme Within Our Gates con el mensaje de "No son subtitulos, son informacion sobre la pelicula" [sic].

Se supone que es una película muda con intertítulos en idioma ingles, por lo que requiere los subtítulos para su comprensión. ¿Te importa si revierto tu reversión? Mayimbú (talk) 01:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Perdon, eres correcto. Gracias por tu contribucion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Move of Category:Flags with crescents and stars to Category:Flags with star and crescent

Hi! I noticed that you recently moved/merged a category, but I think the renaming may well exclude items in the new category that would not have been excluded in the old category. The star and crescent is a specific symbol used in iconography, but not every flag that has a crescent and also has stars has a star and crescent. One example, File:Anti-WTO-Protest-Earth-flag.svg, does contain a crescent moon, but those stars are part of the Southern Cross rather than part of a "star-and-crescent" proper. Another example, File:Gemonde vlag.gif contains a star and a crescent, but they are in different quadrants and don't exactly make up a "star-and-crescent".

Would you be willing to undo the move, or to create a category for flags with crescents and stars that are not also "star and crescent" flags? — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 17:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Sure. Maybe it could be named something less ambiguous? "Flags with crescent moons and stars" and "Flags with star and crescent" is a subcategory? Or maybe just remove all of the ones that aren't "star and crescent"-style flags and just have them individually categorized by having a crescent moon and a star? The latter seems better to me, but I'm open to your thoughts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:02, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

The latter also makes sense to me. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 23:39, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Good deal. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:47, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Cook Islands

Hello, I'm waiting for a press release confirming that the document has been signed like here[1]. It'll probably take some hours for one. Semsûrî (talk) 20:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

Seems imminent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 25 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:Samsung I9100.jpg

Yours sincerely, 0x0a (talk) 10:30, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

@0x0a: I am not the original uploader of this file. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

Moving of files from Category:Fort Gordon to Category:Fort Eisenhower

Hi. Noticed you moved a bunch of files from Category:Fort Gordon to Category:Fort Eisenhower, as well redirected the Wikidata item. I'm not going to push the issue at this point, but usually the better thing to do is keep both categories, Wikidata items, and just start and end dates each other marking the category for the former a child of the one for the later. In otherwards, you should kept the category for Category:Fort Gordon, just used separate Wikidata items, and made Category:Fort Gordon a child category under the new one. Otherwise if people want to categorizes files related to Fort Gordon they won't where to put them now. Plus it's weird to put images of things like historical postcards and the like fort Gordon in a category named "Eisenhower." Usually when people are looking for or organizing images related to historical places they do it based on the old name. Even with military installations. Although it's the same with businesses, localities, products, Etc. Etc. and there's really no reason to force them into doing it by way of looking for those based on the name of the new entity. Otherwise it just causes problems. Not to mention it risks deleting old, but still valid, information on Wikidata's end, if not ours. Adamant1 (talk) 12:52, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, what? You're suggesting having two items for the same thing? That makes no sense. There is not a Wikidata item for "Cassius Clay" and one for "Mohammad Ali". Why would we have two items that refer to the same thing? Where are you getting this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not really the same thing anymore then if any other historical place is replaced by something new it then somehow magically no longer exits as a concept historically or otherwise. So in no way I'm suggesting having two items for the same thing. I'm saying there should be two items for different forts, one for the modern Category:Fort Eisenhower and another for Category:Fort Gordon. Which had a bunch of things connected to it before this year.

The comparison between "Cassius Clay" and "Mohammad Ali" is a strawman because "Mohammad Ali" wasn't and never has been known as "Cassius Clay" outside of his immediately family. There's certainly not some 80 years worth of documents and other objects referring to him by the later name. And like I said in my last message, the important thing with categories is using names that allow people to organize media related to the subject the easiest, which I'm saying categories for both names should exist and Category:Fort Gordon should be a child of Category:Fort Eisenhower. We aren't here to create a 1/1 historically accurately category system. But we go the name that's most popular for categories and the fact is that if someone has a file with "Fort Gordon" in the title or description that's where they are going to put. Not Category:Fort Eisenhower if they even know the name has been changed. Like with File:Greetings from Fort Gordon Georgia (8367049561).jpg I wouldn't know or care that it "should" (by your personal judgement) go in Category:Fort Eisenhower if I hadn't seen you move it there because I was following the category and "Fort Gordon" is still clearly the more common name for the historical fort currently regardless. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

"The comparison between "Cassius Clay" and "Mohammad Ali" is a strawman because "Mohammad Ali" wasn't and never has been known as "Cassius Clay" outside of his immediately family." It's hard to explain how wrong this is, as he was an extremely popular boxer. See, e.g. File:1961 Cassius Clay vs. Donnie Fleeman On-Site Poster.jpg. Again, I have asked you where are you getting this: what guideline or policy on Wikidata says to have two items for the same thing? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Sure he boxed as Cassius Clay, but it doesn't negate the fact that he wasn't a popular or well known boxer under that name. As to what guideline or policy I'm basing it on, well established practice and the fact that names for categories are supposed to be based on the most commonly used version. Or are you disputing that and saying Fort Eisenhower is more established and well known then Fort Gordon is? Also why would it matter at the end of the day if there's categories for both anyway? Seriously, what difference does it make if historical images that are named and have to do with Fort Gordon go in Category:Fort Gordon? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:44, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not saying that: I'm asking you to give me any example of the same thing having two Wikidata items when its name changes. If you can answer this, I can answer your questions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:47, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't really have the time to look right now with Wikidata. Nor I'm not as concerned with it as I am Commons since that's the project were having the conversation on. But there's plenty of examples both here and on Wikidata. Although again, I don't really care how you do things on Wikidata's end since their different projects. Nor is how we name categories or organize files dictated by Wikidata or Wikipedia. So can you answer the questions I asked you about Commons or are you just going to deflect about something that doesn't matter to the conversation? If your not going to answer then I guess I can just recreate the category and revert your edits but I rather not without at least some agreement on your side about it. Otherwise I could start a conversation about it on the village pump, but I suspect it won't turn out in your favor if they only justification you have for redirecting Category:Fort Gordon is "but Wikidata!" --Adamant1 (talk) 17:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

You brought it up. You were mistaken or lying. It is not Wikidata policy to have two items for the same thing. If it doesn't matter, I don't know why you brought it up. I also never said, "But Wikidata!": again YOU brought up Wikidata. What in the world are you rambling about?

I am not saying that "Fort Eisenhower" is more common than "Fort Gordon", nor have I ever said that. As for why it would matter if there are categories for both, it's because we don't make two different categories for the same thing here as well. E.g. Category:Cassius_Clay. Again, give me an example of where this is done or a guideline or policy that says to do this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, sure, I brought up Wikidata purely as a side thought that I made clear I wasn't going to push things on. Then I went out of my way to say multiple times that I'm mainly concerned about organizing files in Commons, which not having categories for both makes it harder to do. So your clearly deflecting by making this about Wikidata. Same goes for your "Cassius Clay" versus "Mohammad Ali." The reason we don't have a separate category for "Cassius Clay" is purely due to "Mohammad Ali" not popularly being by that name. That's it. We make two different categories for the same thing when doing so makes it categorize images though and the "same thing" goes by different names depending on the time period. You can keep bringing bring up policies and guidelines like I didn't cite one, but again, the guideline on how to name categories is clear that we should go with the most common name for a subject. So I'll ask you again, what actual difference does it make if there is a separate category for historical images that specifically relate to Fort Gordon? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Mohammad Ali was popularly known as "Cassius Clay"! I'm still and repeatedly asking you for any example of what you claim is true or a guideline or policy that supports your claim. Do you have this or not? I didn't write anything about how it makes a difference if there is a category for historical images. It is virtually impossible to communicate with you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree about Mohammad Ali. Regardless, I literally cited a guideline and pretty widely agreed on prior consensus when I said the names of categories should be based on the most common and widely known name of the subject. What part of that are you unable to get? If it doesn't make a difference if there is a category for historical images of Fort Gordon then I'll just create one and revert your edits moving the files. It seemed like you were against that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:28, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I have asked you over and over again: WHAT GUIDELINE OR POLICY SAYS TO HAVE TWO CATEGORIES FOR THE SAME THING.

If YOU think that some information is extraneous (e.g. Wikidata policies), then DON'T BRING IT UP. What in the world is going on here? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:30, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

WHAT GUIDELINE OR POLICY SAYS TO HAVE TWO CATEGORIES FOR THE SAME THING. Jesus Christ, I feel like I'm being gaslit. I'm not arguing there should be two categories for the same thing! I'm saying there should be two separate categorize for the historical Category:Fort Gordon and the recently named Category:Fort Eisenhower. I'm not going to cite a guideline or policy for something I'm not even claiming we should!

If YOU think that some information is extraneous (e.g. Wikidata policies) Come on, Koavf. Your the only one bringing up Wikidata policies here. I never said jack them and I've already told you I don't care about how things are done on other projects. Seriously, it shouldn't be that hard to stick to the subject. Your the one making this about Wikidata. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:39, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

They are the same thing: it's two different names for the same thing.

Please stop posting multiple comments rife with spelling errors and off-topic noise. If you have something to write in response, take your time, post once, make it literate, and stay on topic. Otherwise, just stop. Additionally, if anyone is "gaslighting" here, it's you: you never said "jack" about Wikidata policies and don't care what is done there, but you started by talking about standard practice at Wikidata. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I brought up Wikidata once in my original message. That was it outside of repeating that I don't really care about it when you kept acting like I did. I also never said anything about "Wikidata policies." Your the who brought up Wikidata policies three messages above this when you were acting like I said they extraneous. I never used the word "policies" though. Let alone did I say thought Wikidata's were irrelevant. Although they are in respect to the fact that isn't Wikidata, but that's it. So your clearly gaslighting. Otherwise be my guest and point out where I said anything about Wikidata policies that wasn't directly in response to you bringing them up as a way to deflect from talking about Commons. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

OK. I'll just re-create the category and move the files back into it. No problem. My bad for asking you about it first. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Stop wasting my time. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Which policy or guideline here is relevant: Template:Commons policies and guidelines? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hey, what are you pinging me for? I thought you didn't want me wasting your time with comments anymore. I've already cited Commons:Categories that categories should based on the most commonly used name for a subject. I'm not going to cite a policy or guideline for something that to backup what's essentially a strawman on your part that I think there should be multiple categories for the same topic when I've never said anything of the kind. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Correct: I don't want you wasting time, I want you actually answering my question. Where does Commons:Categories#Category_names say that "categories should based on the most commonly used name for a subject"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Logos de Alcaldias Concejo Municipales Gobernaciones en Venezuela

Buenas, con respecto a la imagen (File:Logo Alcaldía Tovar 22.jpg) ese no representa los colores de una bandera de Venezuela (o un municipio) por eso pedí para remover, según el Usuario NoonIcarus (Administrador de Wikimedia) las banderas, escudos de armas (estatales y municipales son de licencia libres (publicos) por que según las leyes en Venezuela. AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:06, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Muy bien. Hay una otra imagen correcta? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:09, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Buenas si (https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Logo_Alcald%C3%ADa_Bolivariana_de_P%C3%A1ez_(Apure).jpg#mw-jump-to-license) AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

@Koavf: Esta imagen lamentable ya no se usa porque terminó la gestión hasta 2017.

AbchyZa22 (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Muy bien. Gracias. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Request

Hello.

In File:Countries without a primate city.png and File:Countries without a primate city.svg, can you color Turkey in gray, because that country has a primate city, Istanbul. Istanbul's population is 15,569,856 (December 2022, Source: Istanbul, Turkish Statistical Institute) and has 3.0 times the population of the second largest city, the capital Ankara, which is 5,187,949 (December 2022, Source: Ankara, Turkish Statistical Institute). Istanbul's GDP makes up 30.4% of Turkey's GDP, at 2 trillion 202 billion 156 million Turkish Liras for the year 2021. (Source: GDP Turkish Provinces, Turkish Statistical Institute) --Multituberculata (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

 Done Merci, amigo. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:10, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the updates. --Multituberculata (talk) 07:23, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for spotting it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:24, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Texas Super Kings congratulating one another, 2023.jpg

File:Texas Super Kings congratulating one another, 2023.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!

Adeletron 3030 (talk) 16:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Documentation structure in Category New York Agreement

Hi Koavf, thanks for all your work and thanks for asking here. After 10+ years of contributing to the developing of the category structure of Wikimedia Commons I started to realize things didn't turn out right. I have been searching for images and contributing to the adding of illustrations in over four projects, and those images where hard to find in categories over 20, 50 or 100 images.

So I started experiencing with what I called second generation categorization some years ago. The category itself is upgraded from a database to a documentation center about that particular subject. With some written introduction, maybe a reference or some more and the images rearranged in a certain order, that it is easier to comprehend and to navigate.

In that particular Category:New York Agreement I just added 23 more images all in a certain order, about the political rectification of the New York Agreement in the Netherlands (about two months later). In my logic the main documents should be presented first, but they turned out to be last. Also with those keys I had brought all images in a chronological order. -- Mdd (talk) 01:57, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

100% agreed that scans of the documents should come first in a category about the document, so I've categorized them with a space. Good thinking. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks also for your further corrections here and best wishes for 2024. I am sorry to read about those troubles at Wikipedia-EN and hope this will turn out right soon. -- Mdd (talk) 01:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't shed a tear for me being dumb. Best wishes to you and yours in 2024 and bedankt for all you do. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy new year

Hope 2024 is great for you! But I didn't come here just for social niceties though there is one more... Thanks for uploading Coming of age in Samoa. It is, unfortunately, extensively marked with coloured pencil - not sure if that says something about University of California students or not. There is a better copy available here which I've uploaded. Do you know a way to link the two as far as Wikisource is concerned? Rich Farmbrough, 22:24 13 January 2024 (GMT).

Nice. First off, nice to talk to you, friend. Secondly, there is definitely some marking up, a bit of torn pages, etc. in my scan: it's pretty sound, but not perfect, for sure. Finally, I think there are two options here: one is that there are just two different transcription projects for the two editions, which is something I see occasionally, but as you may imagine, is the sort of thing that you usually do when there are serious differences and the other is replacing the scan of the initial one with the latter one. At the risk of being biased, I think my scan is superior because it's 1.) the first printing, whereas yours is the ninth and 2.) it has better resolution on the images instead of that eye-piercing harsh black-and-white scan. I'm open to discussing if there's something I'm missing. As usual, I rambled: maybe asking at s:en:Wikisource:Scriptorium is best. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Unrelated: for some reason the "[reply]" link doesn't work after your above post and I typically only see that if someone doesn't sign a post or if it's contained inside of some weird template. Any idea what that happened? Also unrelated: correct me if I'm wrong, but her book and work are actually only about American Samoa and not Western/independent Samoa, correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:54, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yep, this is due to my custom sig. I think it works on en:wp. I think the impressions are word-for-word the same, as far as I can see, so double transcription would be rather over the top. It's quite possible they used the same plates. It's a potentially fraught question whether we could "make one good one" as my father used to say, as for older works every damaged serif is potentially important. I'm ocring them locally, as I get a much better result, but the pencil marks really don't help. Ideally one would XOR the text images, removing any spurious noise, I could try that, but there's scaling and registration to deal with. And indeed it was "American Samoa", land of the disenfranchised. Rich Farmbrough, 11:13 15 January 2024 (GMT).

Sahwari Republic

because it's not widely recognised as a sovereign state, even though it might like to think that it is Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

The SADR is a state. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:53, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

According to the SADR it is a state. But then they would say that, wouldn't they? The Wiki article is less clear cut - International recognition of the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic. Most of the sources claiming that multiple UN members recognise the SADR are from the SADR itself. So potential bias there. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:05, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Give me an example of a source that has no potential bias. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

File:Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur.ogv

File:Daffy Duck and the Dinosaur.ogv 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!

212.117.1.186 10:34, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Note: I made this deletion request through that IP account. Sorry, mistakes happen. Sudoviaball (talk) 10:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Phantom of the Opera.webm

File:Phantom of the Opera.webm 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!

Mayimbú (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

File:Semantics and the Web - An Awkward History.webm

Wikimedia Commons does not accept derivative works of non-free works such as File:Semantics and the Web - An Awkward History.webm. It only accepts free content, which is images and other media files that can be used by anyone, for any purpose. Reproductions of copyrighted works are also subject to the same copyright, and therefore this file must unfortunately be considered non-free. For more information, please read Commons:Derivative works and Commons:Freedom of panorama. You can ask questions about Commons policies in Commons:Help desk. The file you added has been deleted. If you believe that this file was not a derivative work of a non-free work, you may request undeletion.

Yours sincerely, Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

What are you talking about? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:10, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

Revert

We don't need mini essays about the law file descriptions. It's totally pointless since that's what the license and guidelines are for. Plus it screws with searches. Like if I want to use this search to find uncategorized postcards it results in upwards of 52000 results, a lot of which have the mini essay in their descriptions. The reason being that it says "the year may be omitted when a pictorial, graphic, or sculptural work, with accompanying textual matter, if any, is reproduced in or on greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys, or useful articles." Which is why I deleted it. Along with the fact that's just completely unnecessary. So I'd appreciate it if you left my edit alone. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 16:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

How does "PD-PRE1978" help anyone? Is there some reason this shouldn't be converted to a template that includes the language that was previously listed? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:37, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

"PD-PRE1978" doesn't necessarily help anyone in the description, but it's also in the licensing section where it says "This work is in the public domain in the United States because it was published in the United States between 1929 and 1977, inclusive, without a copyright notice", which is more then enough to get the point across that the image is in the public domain because it doesn't contain a copyright notice.

I'll ask you though, how exactly does it help anyone to have multiple paragraphs in the description about the law pertaining to derivative works, compilations, dramatizations, translations, greeting cards, postcards, stationery, jewelry, dolls, toys Etc. Etc. when it's an original photograph? Or should we just include a mini-book in file descriptions covering every possible copyright scenario no matter how irrelevant it is? I don't really care if there's a brief statement that the image doesn't contain a copyright notice, but again, it's already stated in the licensing section and there's no reason to include the rules for other types of media along with it. All people really need to know is that's the image is in the public domain. No one looking at the iamge cares about or wants to read how the copyright status of jewelry or dolls works. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

It helps them know why it's in the public domain and acceptable to upload here. Another option is to create a template (again: why not?) and link to a relevant page here on Commons that explains it without necessarily reproducing the text? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Isn't that already being met by the template in the licensing section though? I'm not necessarily against clarifying the wording in the exiting template or creating ones for specific types of media, but that's a separate issue to if files should have mini-books about ill relevant copyright laws in their descriptions or not. Be my guest and propose something to clarify "PD-PRE1978" or see if anyone wants more specific templates then that, but again, it's a separate issue and they aren't mutually exclusive. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

If you think so, sure. I just don't see value in "PD-PRE1978" which is unintelligible and only English-based on a multilingual site. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)