Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


August 31[edit]

Watchlists still broken[edit]

It seems that the VP thread about this issue was archived, but the only new develppment about the whole watchlist debacle is that the new normal is not one database error message when trying to check it, but two or three in a row. (Just now: Wa0CZgpAMFYAAEWyb8oAAACT, Wa0CGApAAEEAABk2w0AAAABK, and Wa0BmwpAEK4AAF7WrfAAAAAW.)

WMF, you’re duping the public into donating a few millions every month into your purse, based on our work. Please try at least a bit to hide the scam: Drop some of your pretend work and reroute the freed workforce into fixing this issue. Thank you.

-- Tuválkin 08:07, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Was there a Phabricator ticket tracking this? -- (talk) 08:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
phab:T171027 and phab:T164059 come to my mind. --AKlapper (WMF) 08:40, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@AKlapper (WMF): Your signature is not linking to your user/talk page, as required by policy. --Steinsplitter (talk) 12:34, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@Steinsplitter: I'm sorry - I had problems to even add my signature. I still had all available gadgets on Commons enabled (was testing some gadget issues lately) and maybe some gadget somehow interfered. I switched back to default gadget settings now. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:19, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks.
For any "experienced user" getting buzzed by this problem, the trick to getting this made a priority is to log in to Phabricator (start by clicking on a Phabricator link above), subscribing to phab:T171027 and awarding a token to it. The more volunteers that bother to log in and give this a token, like a gold coin or a thumb's up, the more likely that WMF developers and ops will want to keep nudging its priority behind the scenes. Thanks -- (talk) 12:29, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
@: Logging in to Phabricator needs not only OAuth (which is okay) but an independent e-mail confirmation — so much for Central Login. Why WM core debugging is being conducted in diggs so far removed from the “main building” is puzzling. -- Tuválkin 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

  • Yesterday: Wa2aKwpAEKsAAEq7D@4AAAAU, Wa2e4ApAADsAAJ1sY2QAAADP, and Wa2fWgpAIDoAAENY4WsAAABF. A few minutes ago: Wa7EkwpAMFQAAANEavAAAACD, Wa7E6ApAMFYAALM6SvAAAABQ, Wa7FMgpAIDkAAGJ12iwAAABB, and Wa7FeQpAIDgAABphcbMAAABJ — yes, it needs for pushes now, growing from last week’s two and then three. @AKlapper (WMF): Are you guys really this incompetent, or is this some kind of “social experiment”? («Let’s rile those power users and watch them sputter — fun!») -- Tuválkin 16:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
    • Take a chill pill. The indivudual employees of the WMF, such as devs and scrum masters, don't deserve your poignant critisism. They do what they can to help fix the holes in the boat as they appear, while at the same time try to innovate new stuff which the community is demanding constantly. The fact that MediaWiki breaks from time to time when put under stress is nothing new, just be nice to the devs an you'll see thay'll be nice back. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 17:16, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
      • You understand we’re talking about the WMF’s basic role, maintaing our technical infrastructure, the same WMF that gets funded by very, very generous donations, right? I’m not addressing volonteers tinkering with scripts in their spare time. -- Tuválkin 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
        • @Tuvalkin: If "you guy" want others to hear and consider what you have to say, please use civility when interacting. Cheers, --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • @AKlapper (WMF): Lets remember that the same week these errors started happening, our esteemed Tech News was bragging about implementation of a new skin (why skins need specific implementation instead of being standalone upper layers under which everything else runs unperturbed is yet another mystery). Remember thet fixing whatchlists (or not ruining them in the first place) is part of your job; my civility or lack thereof is irrelevant: Bus drivers go their route and don’t get to demand passengers to be cheerful. Meanwhile, civility me these three from yesterday: Wa9b0ApAAEEAAEjES@wAAADY, Wa9cLwpAIDQAAGOR2pIAAAAJ, and Wa9cuApAADoAABPOdLkAAAAK. This is not something I «have to say» that needs «others to hear and consider», this is merely a continued bug report. (You’re welcome.) What I have to say about Commons has been said elsewhere, most often with a fair amount of civility, thanksverymuch; how much the powers that be do «hear and consider» it, that’s another matter: I want Commons to be a world-wide comprehensive media repository created and maintained by a vibrant communitity of engaged volonteers with disparate perceptions, to serve a world hungry for free media and for unshackled sharing of knowledge — “you guys” want obviously something very different, and you’re dead set in getting it. -- Tuválkin 23:37, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Just a point of note, Skins are just a layer that runs on top. They don't perturb anything in the bottom layer. The particular skin you mention was entirely implemented by a volunteer developer. WMF had nothing to do with it (Other then to say it was ok to turn it on). Bawolff (talk) 22:59, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Hi, I just wanted to report that my watchlist is still broken. ;) --Eleassar (t/p) 22:51, 6 September 2017 (UTC)
([WbB44gpAADkAAHBe1XwAAAEJ] 2017-09-06 22:39:26: Usodna izjema vrste »Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError«)
  • Still broken: WbCJdgpAMEsAADb2xf0AAAAE and WbCKZgpAIDcAAFJ184EAAAAN. -- Tuválkin 00:14, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
  • And today’s crop:
  • WbHYpgpAMFUAAEcryZcAAABF
  • WbHZfwpAAD8AAFyPlesAAAAX
  • WbHZ8wpAMEwAAK6UxqcAAABO
  • WbHbqQpAAEMAABbA@IcAAAAM
as this bug refuses to be squashed, that Redmond job is looking less and less likely. -- Tuválkin 01:01, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • WbMZ3QpAADgAADq91kcAAABD 2017-09-08 22:30:49: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError" WbMW7ApAMF0AAARa@wwAAAAB -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Yesterday, three more in a row: WbJ@AQpAMFIAACjZ1KsAAAAJ, WbJ@4gpAMEsAACqZUWIAAACR, and WbKA7ApAADkAAISRePUAAABL. (Does this help in fixing the bug?) -- Tuválkin 12:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • the WbJ@AQpAMFIAACjZ1KsAAAAJ one was a read timeout issue (i only checked one of them, but i imagine the others are similar). In the past this could be caused by people who have insanely long watchlists. If more people are experiancing this, it probably means something changed to be less efficient so more watchlists dont make the cut off. Further investigation is needed as to whats changed. Bawolff (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • addendum: looking at recent bugs, this is definitely phab:T171027. As for helpfulness of posting those error codes - not really. They can tell us if you are experiancing the same issue or a different issue. But once we have one of them, all the others for the same issue tell the same information (usually). Bawolff (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
  • "insanely long watchlists". I guess those are people who have made "insanely" substantial contributions to Wikimedia Commons. Thanks for your assessment of this project's most active and hardest working contributors. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:49, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Bawolff, a few months ago I linked en:OCD to a mention of some work habit here in a discussion and was threatened with blocking for making fun of mental disease. No sure how this case is similar, considering the specific psychiatric terminology used, the people in question and their good faiteh assumptions, and the subject and objected of each simile — but you might want to rethink your use of "insanely". -- Tuválkin 23:33, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
I apologize if I offended anyone with that choice of wording. I meant only definition number 4 at wikt:insane#Adjective ("impractical"). I would note that I believe this is different than using the term OCD as a colloquial adjective to describe behaviour, as OCD is the current proper name for a medical condition, where "insanity", to quote Wikipedia "is no longer considered a medical diagnosis". In any case, I apologize if I offended anyone, and I did not in any way mean to use that word in any way that implied anything about mental illness. Bawolff (talk) 00:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Not really no. The only known work around I could suggest at this time is to reduce your watchlist to less than 20,000 entries. I have some ideas about possible solutions which I posted on the bug, but they need input from a db expert to say whether or not they are sane (And someone to actually do them, since they are not simple quick fixes but would take time to implement). Bawolff (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I have uploaded more than 20,000 photos. So this bug is affecting worst those who have worked hardest and contributed the most to Wikimedia? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
I'm trying hard not to be snarky, but the situation and your reply has made that a bit difficult for me. I am not aware of any existing policy discouraging people from contributing to Wikimedia beyond a certain level. Should there be a ceiling on how much any user can contribute? Should those who have already exceeded that ceiling start working, not to contribute more but to instead start deleting their existing contributions? -- Frustrated, Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:30, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Do you really need to add all your files in your watchlist? This seems way overkill to me. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:32, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
My uploads are added to my watchlist automatically; I've not seen a reason to remove them. Vandalism to my uploads spotted is irregular (sometimes just one-off case, sometimes multiple pattern vandalism). If I don't watch my own uploads for vandalism, who will? I thought being able to keep track of one's own uploads was one of the reasons the watchlist function is supposed to exist? I'm sorry, but this talk of "overkill" and "insanely long watchlists" seems to me to have an air of blaming Wikimedia's most active contributors for their numerous contributions. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, I sometimes see completely baseless "drive by" deletion requests by vandals/trolls. Some useful media can wind up deleted if not watched. I'm concerned what might be happen during this time when I have no watchlist. Thanks. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:45, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Infrogmation of New Orleans, there's nothing to suggest that anyone is trying to discourage long-term contributors from contributing or maintaining watch over their work. You shouldn't imply that then express your frustration over it, when it is clearly nothing more than an unintentional bug. Also there are other ways that one could keep track of changes to a large number of pages. For example, a user subpage can be created that has wikilinks to every file so that Special:RecentChangesLinked will show recent changes for all of those wikilinks. It will also work for categories if your uploads can all be found in a single category. These may help as temporarily solutions while the bug is fixed. seb26 (talk) 22:54, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your civil reply, and your optimism that the bug will be fixed. Cheers, Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
Goodness, so much upset for so little prospect of profit. Yes, we work with software that is antiquated, poorly organized, limited in various kinds of scope, and otherwise inadequate. Yes, we can throw a tantrum if that makes us feel better, even though it won't make a difference outside our own troubled soul. Those who want the software to be better will do other things, and ignore the tantrum. Me, I noticed the problem several months ago when my watchlist approached 20,000. This was more due to watching every cat-wrangled file, than to my own uploads. So, I started unwatching the ones I didn't create, and the problem went away. If this measure were to prove inadequate, I could try creating another account, and another, obviously linked together in their userpages and with ample explanations. Or I could figure some other workaround. And who knows, maybe one of these years the bug will be repaired and such a clumsy workaround will no longer be necessary. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:14, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
"Tantrum"? Are you referring to me? I was assuming watchlists were down for everybody, not just for significant contributors, until I saw this discussion. I've been on Wikimedia Commons since shortly after it was founded more than a dozen years ago, and a few years before that on Wikipedia, and happen to have been in some significant events with a camera on hand. If you think I have contributed "too much", or that daring to note my complaints in no longer having a functional watchlist is a "tantrum", I suggest you put your effort into going to deletion requests to have all my contributions deleted and campaign for me to be blocked. Otherwise, as a great man once said, FY,YFF. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 23:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: Sorry if my message earlier came across as "you should just live with it" - that wasn't my intent. I recognize the feature is broken and it should be fixed (For reasonable sized watchlist. For example, I am aware of a user (not you) on commons who has 988,000 entries on their watchlist. That's past the point of reasonableness. I have no idea what "resonable" actually is as a number, but I agree we should be doing better than the current situation. Just making the point that its unlikely we will ever fix it so good that one could have a million pages on their watchlist without issue. There will always be limits) . At the time I wrote that post, I had a vauge idea of what the problem was (I now have a much better idea, I think), and at that point, it looked like the fixes would be really complicated (require basically overhauling the entire system) and take a long time to make, so the sad state of the world was that in the short term, all that could be done would be to reduce the size of your watchlist since any proper fix was going to take some time to make. Alas, sometimes the news isn't good news but just frustrating and that's just the way things are. That said my current opinion has changed a bit - I think there might possibly be some band-aid solutions that might help a bit in the short term, even if in the long run we still have to overhaul the system, but I'm still looking into it so I'm not sure right now. Bawolff (talk) 04:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, I have about 45,000 uploads here, 90+% of them photos I've taken myself and, yes, I believe I should have them all on my watchlist. I want to be responsive when someone asks a question on a related talk page, when someone changes categories on them or otherwise edits the information (over 90% of such changes are improvements or neutral, but a quite detectable number are not, and some are outright vandalism), when someone nominates them for deletion (in this case I've been upheld well over 90% of the time, but the images would probably have been deleted if I didn't participate), etc. And I have no way to know in advance which will raise questions, be vandalized, or be the victims of inappropriate deletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bawolff: You seem to be saying that Commons should not allow mass upload projects like the ones I routinely manage which result in 100,000 or more images being added to my Watchlist, at least for a few weeks to ensure I can spot post upload issues. I'm sad you find my contributions here "unreasonable" rather than unusual.
My Watchlist today is just below 500,000, which gives a view of about 100 relevant changes to glance at in a day. Neither abnormal nor unmanageable for my volunteer contribution, even though I'm traveling and am limited to a tablet. -- (talk) 07:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
I by no means mean to suggest your contributions are unreasonable. On the contrary, I think they are awesome. However, fact is that watchlists on the order of a million entries are significantly beyond what the current system is designed to handle (instead of unreasonable I should have said unfeasible. I apologize for the unfortunate connotations of my word choice). I don't think any improvements we could make to the current system will cause watchlists of that size to work consistently. Tweaks to the current system could probably fix the current issues for watchlist's the size of Jmabel's, but not for people with a million entries. If we move to an entirely different tech stack for watchlists (Something that in the long term I think will be necessary) we may be able to have a system that supports watchlists of that size but not with the current implementation. Bawolff (talk) 08:11, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
i agree watchlists are broken for over 1000 items, and they are going to stay broken. it is unreasonable to expect that people will jump up to help you in this task. rather we will have to adopt content management methods using wikidata queries and maintenance categories. they are more powerful tools, then the hacked-up watchlist. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:46, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
Watchlist has generally worked just fine for several years for those of us who have made numerous contributions to the project, until fairly recently. Why on earth has an extremely useful function stopped working, and why is it unreasonable for this project's hardest working and most active contributors to expect it to work again as it has in the past? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
nothing lasts forever, watchlists have stopped working for me long ago. Expecting unlimited updates in an open software community is silly, submit your phabricator and wait. Or submit a wishlist. Venting here will not motivate the coders. Flexibility in tool use is a valuble skill. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:07, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay then, can you please direct me to a page with tools I can use instead of the watchlist with similar functionalities? If expecting a working watchlist is "silly", we should no doubt remove the link to it that is on the pages of all logged in users, no? A page discussing such tools seems to me to be a very much more useful potential link to present prominently to users than a page to something that is not merely broken but "silly". -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:10, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
you have not defined what task you are doing with watchlist. - you would have to create a maintenance category; and then produce a work list using wikidata : here is the tool page https://tools.wmflabs.org/admin/tools ; here is the vizquery http://tools.wmflabs.org/hay/vizquery/ ; here is a tool that lists uploaders in a category http://tools.wmflabs.org/ptools/uploadersincat.php?category=Paintings+by+Titian ; here is an example of a list generated automatically from wikidata https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Jane023/Europeana_Art_Challenge -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • (Unindent) Thanks for the reply. The particular task which I wish to have performed is a centralized place where I can see changes to items which I've put on to my watchlist. Assembling and editing my watchlist is one of the tasks I've been using continuously over the past 13 years to improve Wikimedia Commons. It has seemed to me that watchlist, along with upload and edit, is one of the 3 basic fundamental tools needed to work on Wikimedia Commons. Is what I added to my watchlist back when it was functioning stored anywhere so I could somehow start reworking on it? Is there any tool that would allow me to see changes on media which I've uploaded (an important subset). Thank you for the links. It's not immediately apparent to me how they can be used to assemble something resembling the functionality of a watchlist; I'll spend more time looking at them later but I again bring up that some sort of page here on Wikimedia Commons explaining how to do so would probably be enormously helpful, and a link to it should replace the now broken "Watchlist" link that is template linked into every page of the project. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:24, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: In regards to your question of "why now". It appears (Emphasis on "appears", I can't 100% garuntee this statement is correct) that the main changing factor was including wikidata edits in the watchlist, which pushed things over the edge. There is a more technical analysis on the bug report. Bawolff (talk) 16:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
Then why hasn't that change been rolled back yet? It's been weeks. This is ridiculous. LX (talk, contribs) 08:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Site for creating anatomical models[edit]

I thought I'd mention this site here as it may be useful.

http://lifesciencedb.jp/bp3d/

Is a site that allows the generation of 3D models of (human) anatomical models in some level of detail.

The model export would seem to be CC-BY-SA, which is compatible with the licensing approach used on Commons.

There would I think still be a need to render these models using something like Blender, but felt it might be a useful tool for those with the relevant skills. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Except that the site is half in Japanese (hence the "jp" designation in the url), making it super hard for non-Japanese speakers to work with it. We could definitely use better access to sites that allow 3D rendering of human anatomy releasable under a suitable free license, however. KDS4444 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Mosaics[edit]

Since when are mosaics 2D artworks? Commons:Deletion requests/Murals in Wales refers. Andy Mabbett (talk) 13:58, 15 September 2017 (UTC)

Haven't they always been 2D if the physical mosaic is flat and the photograph is intended to be a faithful reproduction of the mosaic rather than a macro shot? It feels a bit like arguing that oil painting are not flat. -- (talk) 11:38, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, : Is there case law on the FOP for faithful reproductions of flat mosaics in public places in the UK? The distinction may also be between graphic works and works of artistic craftsmanship.   — Jeff G. ツ 12:10, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking more of ancient works, however the logic applies that a mosaic is literally not a graphic work as defined by the UK copyright act (the list is specific ... painting, drawing, diagram, map, chart or plan, ... engraving, etching, lithograph, woodcut or similar work), and so for mosaics the provisions for craftsmanship apply, arrangements of single-colour tiles being craftsmanship, and they are covered by freedom of panorama. -- (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
DR then? Or can a passing admin simply restore them? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Create an UNDEL for the record. The case needs to be spelled out that mosaics are not murals. In the DR linked, for example, the deletion of this file was correct as it is a mural rather than a mosaic. -- (talk) 15:49, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
The mosaic images have been undeleted, Unfortunately, this does not restore them to the various Wikipedia/ Wikidata (an possibly other sister project) pages that were using them - and of which there is apparently no record. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:12, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Sure there is, in the strange and wonderful world of Commons Delinquent.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Please provide a specific URL or query relating to these deletions, then. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Murals_in_Wales seems to fit the bill.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I was asking in the context of Commons Delinquent. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I haven't seen one, sorry. On a positive note, only twelve photos in that DR were restored, so relinking them shouldn't be too difficult for you.   — Jeff G. ツ 02:31, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: It would be great if Commons Delinquent could undo its own removals.   — Jeff G. ツ 16:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
At the top of Commons Delinquent, it says, "It finds files that were deleted on Commons, and removed their entries on other wikis to avoid ugly media redlinks." This doesn't parse. I'm guessing it means to say "removes" rather than "removed", but maybe the error is something else (e.g. a missing noun before "removed") and the sentence means something different than I am guessing. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske, Jmabel: I think "removes" is correct.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Maybe a new tool, call it CommonsRelinker, could do it?   — Jeff G. ツ 02:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
User:Pigsonthewing and I have between us undone all of Commons Delinquent's removals. I've also added {{FoP-UK}} templates to the files in the hope of preserving them. --bjh21 (talk) 23:28, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Bjh21: Thank you!   — Jeff G. ツ 00:27, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Bjh21: that template says "This does not apply to two-dimensional graphic works such as posters or murals", and these are images of "mosaic murals", so the issue may still arise. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:12, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I agree. It's clear that "mural" in general usage covers both paintings (no FoP) and mosaics (probably FoP), so it's not a good word to use. Similarly, I'd prefer not to have the phrase "two-dimensional" there, since that's not a criterion in the Act. --bjh21 (talk) 15:53, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
This VP discussion is a general one and it's good to keep it that way. I suggest if we want refine the Commons understanding of UK FoP and graphic works that we talk about specific cases, probably by laying out the logic in a DR and then using that to add to the case book. It would be nice to take care not to do more than the law requires and has been established by existing legal judgements. -- (talk) 16:05, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 16[edit]

Special pages dont get updated[edit]

Hi, a lot of (if not even all) special pages dont get updated since a month now. Before they got updated abut once or twice a week. Some examples: Special:BrokenRedirects, Special:DoubleRedirects, Special:UncategorizedCategories or Special:ListDuplicatedFiles. I guess there is something wrong on the server site. Does anybody know how and where to trigger a bug rebort or a ticket for that? Thx --JuTa 11:29, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

See mw:How to report a bug --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
Thx. I now opened https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T176055, I hope correctly. --JuTa 19:02, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
They still dont get updated.--Joostik (talk) 12:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

File renaming tool[edit]

After I rename a file, the template {{Rename}} is not removed automatically, instead it remains and shows that I requested rename (I think it substitutes the name of the last editor). See File:Resurrection Cathedral in Sumy, Ukraine.jpg as an example. So I have to remove this template manually, which is unconvenient. Somebody, please, fix it. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 14:46, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

On one hand you’re not alone: It happened with this file, too, cf. Special:Diff/258707212/258708540, so CAPTAIN RAJU has the same issue. I did notice this only accidentally after I declined renaming (well, it had already been renamed).
On the other hand for me all worked fine yesterday – in all renamings I did the template was removed by the script. So it seems that for you both the script in background is not loaded.
— Speravir – 00:21, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It also works right today. — Speravir – 03:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
For me it still don't work. --TohaomgTohaomg (talk) 10:25, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Then the renaming script does not load for you, at least not in a proper state. Do you see in the renaming box a line with green background and “Move file and replace all usage” on the left and “Decline request” on the right (or equivalents in the language you use)? If not reload the description page. BTW I found another user with the same issue, so you are at least three people: Richardkiwi, Special:Diff/259024740/259026847. — Speravir – 23:35, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
I had to move this one manually, because the filename ended with jpg“ i.s.o jpg. Didn't see that {{rename}} was not removed. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:21, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
Ah, now that you say I remember seeing this. — Speravir – 01:54, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Process for closing a deletion request[edit]

I'm bringing this here because User:Ruthven and I are having a disagreement that we are obviously not going to resolve ourselves. You can see our discussion at User talk:Ruthven#License provenance, closing discussions; in case that gets archived, its current state is [1].

This stemmed from Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ricardo Latcham.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Grete Mostny Glaser.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Enrique Ernesto Gigoux 3.jpg, Commons:Deletion requests/File:Humberto Fuenzalida.jpg. My reasoning is the same on all of these (inadequate demonstration of claimed rights); hers appears to be as well (she considers the licenses from Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile to cover the matter). I say there is little (if any) evidence that the museum had the rights it claims to be licensing: these photographs appeared in articles in a magazine published by the museum; in all cases they appear to be archival photos by someone other than the author of the articles; I see no reason to believe that the musuem owns the copyrights in question.

But my issue is not mainly about these photos; although I think the Precautionary principle means we shouldn't host them on the basis of what we currently know, I suspect some of them are PD, and I seriously doubt that otherwise the owners of the rights would have a problem with our hosting them, even if we are violating our own rule by doing so. My issue is with the process by which these DRs were closed. In every case, Ruthven chose "keep" on the basis of an entirely new argument (the licenses from Museo Nacional de Historia Natural de Chile) that had not been raised in the DR discussion. In general, by custom DRs shouldn't be closed by a participant in a contentious discussion. In this case, I feel Ruthven went a step beyond that: as I see it, she introduced an entirely new argument and then closed the discussion on the basis of accepting her own argument without giving any chance for response.

What I think she should have done is to state her disagreement, leave a chance to respond, and leave it to a third party to make the decision and close the DR.

I'm not going to try to summarize how this process looks from Ruthven's point of view, because I don't understand how she thinks what she did is correct, and @Ruthven: I leave it to her to explain how this looks from her point of view - Jmabel ! talk 16:34, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

From his point of view, Ruthven considers it a regular closing with "no valid reason for deletion", as the source clearly indicates CC BY SA license for its contents. After more than two weeks, a DR is ripe for closing, and it is what happened. Several DR are made on wrong basis or light evaluation, and I feel that we are facing one of those cases. Of course, considering only the opening remarks is never done as @Jmabel: suggest, otherwise we should delete all the DR that are not discussed (which is not the case, clearly). --Ruthven (msg) 16:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment In the margin but somewhat related, it often happens that the licenses provided by the museums seem to us to lack proof of the rights they have for the reproduction of works not yet in the public domain, this nomination still open, and reopened by me, is another example. It is always a potential matter of disagreement, about believing or not believing that museums has rights or not. This pushed me to create this category in which I added the DRs listed above. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • That's said, if the source provided is indeed free for use, I'm not able to see the images at the source. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
A more heinous example
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I think this is a recurring issue, where museums claim to hold copyright of items they only physically possess. Sometimes the items are public domain, and sometimes they aren't. Some of the purported licenses are free, and some are not. There are other considerations too, such as PD-scan/PD-art. It may be that Ruthven's close was the wrong decision. But I don't see a basis in Commons policy for a complaint against Ruthven. There is a culture of authoritarian bureaucracy at English Wikipedia, and it's not something I want to see imported to Commons. Let's stay on topic and worry about the files, not admins who are trying to help. Guanaco (talk) 20:13, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I think in these cases the closure was both procedurally and factually correct. Given the number of DRs to be processed, I think it's important not to overburden them with bureaucracy. Much better to keep them light-weight and rely on being able to correct the inevitable mistakes. If you really think a DR has been wrongly closed "keep", you can always renominate it for deletion. On the other hand, I think that would be a mistake in these cases: they're apparently photos of directors of the museum published in the museum's journal, so it's perfectly plausible that the museum owns the copyrights (insofar as there are any) and it entitled to license them as it purports to have done. --bjh21 (talk) 00:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
  • it's all good. just renominate them every year, until you get the outcome you want. if you want to question proceedure, then you need to quote the procedure that you think was not followed. questioning the legitimacy of a close that goes against you, tends to undermine the credibility of your closes. a wrongful close is not a corrupt practice, unlike blocking an editor while deleting their files, or admin locking a talk page so admins can agree which files to delete. the ideology "i doubt it, therefore delete it" is pernicious: it elevates your judgement over the consensus judgement. it is rule by ego and not rule by principle. we need a standard of practice, other than randomly reviewing all other work and doubting it. what next - take Ruthven to ANI because you disagree with the closes, and "leave it to her to explain how this looks from her point of view". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
    • WTF? I left it to the party with whom I was in dispute to state their own side because I didn't understand it well enough to paraphrase it. Should I have just ignorantly stated what I thought was someone else's rationale? And, again, my issue here is ammost entirely procedural. I still don't understand how, on the one hand, an administrator who has expressed a view on a DR is discouraged from being the one to close it, but it's OK for an administrator to come in with a previously unstated view and then instantly close on that basis without giving any time for a response. Was that not clear above? I have no stake in these particular photos. I ran across them in the course of some other work and doubted that they were correctly licensed. And frankly, Slowking4, your attacking tone here is out of line. - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Whether or not it's inconsistent, it seems to be common practice. I just looked through Commons:Deletion_requests/Archive/2017/08/16 (chosen arbitrarily) and the majority of the "Keep" closures were on requests with no views expressed after the initial nomination. There are plenty of other places where Commons' policies and procedures are weirdly inconsistent, so being inconsistent is itself a kind of consistency here. --bjh21 (talk) 23:55, 20 September 2017 (UTC)
      • Symbol wtf vote.svg WTF? it should come as no surprise to you that your FUD behavior would be objected to. doubtless if you had a policy objection to a close, you could quote the policy; you have not; therefore you do not. you are by no means the worst offender of this ilk here. i am sick and tired of the "right to comfort" and the "right to certainty." it is not a standard of practice, or policy; management by drama is not a standard of practice. the deletionists who behave this way here are doing real harm to this project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 18:35, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
        • If you don't think I was acting in good faith, please file a formal complaint about my behavior at COM:AN/U or some such. If you admit I was acting in good faith, please stop attacking me for this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

September 17[edit]

An odd problem with my old vertical/portrait photos taken with Canon A650 IS[edit]

For example File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG or File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 4.JPG. These files were displayed correctly for years, until I purged them an hour ago. Before uploading they was processed by Geosetter in order to add coordinates, the second one was also cropped using GIMP. The strange thing is that IrfanView, GIMP, MS Paint, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer and Canon ZoomBrowser display them as expected. Have you ever seen something like this? I suspect that Exif data is slightly malformed what confuses MediaWiki. --jdx Re: 19:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

  • With this tool [2] the two images linked above has MakerNotes "Auto Rotate  : Rotate 90 CW", but I can not say if it is relative or not. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:52, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
And also both has metadatas XMP "Orientation : Rotate 90 CW" Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Same issue with File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 5.JPG full resolution is well displayed while the preview is rotated (also same MakerNotes and XMP as above) Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:34, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Indeed. It seems that thumbnail generation is broken again – a few weeks ago there was a problem with generation of thumbnails from some SVG files. And like I said, these file were displayed correctly for years. Unfortunately, after purge they aren't, including Wikipedias, e.g. en:Krasna Wieś. Anyway, there is more such files – just look at my several last uploads. Does someone remember Phabricator's ticket number for the SVG issue mentioned above? --jdx Re: 21:01, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
On all the external tools I tried from the full resolution URL, all the images are well displayed, another exemple [3], therefore it comes on how the preview is displayed here. I also discovered that only the full resolution is not affected, the other proposed resolutions are rotated, exemple 706 × 768 pixels 221 × 240 pixels Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/56/Cerkiew_%C5%9Bw._Micha%C5%82a_Archanio%C5%82a_w_W%C3%B3lce_Wygonowskiej_1.JPG/1914px-Cerkiew_%C5%9Bw._Micha%C5%82a_Archanio%C5%82a_w_W%C3%B3lce_Wygonowskiej_1.JPG Rotated
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Cerkiew_%C5%9Bw._Micha%C5%82a_Archanio%C5%82a_w_W%C3%B3lce_Wygonowskiej_1.JPG Well displayed Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:29, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
See phab:T172556 or phab:T173804. Matma Rex told (in the former task) he couldn’t observe this on his local system, but I noticed the same issue on file renaming. — Speravir – 22:31, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/08#Odd stretched thumbnails, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/08#JPEG thumbnail broken, Commons:Help desk/Archive/2017/08#How to fix this photo, (in German) Commons:Forum/Archiv/2017/August#Mal was kniffeliges
In addition: Other users mentioned that they could fix the files with Croptool’s rotation feature (simply select the whole image). — Speravir – 22:42, 17 September 2017 (UTC)
It seems that {{rotate|270}} also works: Special:Diff/258898350. Although for some files, e.g. File:Kościół św. Józefa i Antoniego w Boćkach5.JPG, I used {{rotate|0}} just after uploading because, AFAIR, at that time there was an issue with displaying of portrait photos and everything was fine until today's purge, as you can see in the file history. Strangely, as opposed to e.g. File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG, thumbnail for the original version is OK. Either way, thumbnail generation in MediaWiki is fu…, ekhm, broken up. --jdx Re: 00:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@U: I rotated File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 1.JPG and File:Cerkiew św. Michała Archanioła w Wólce Wygonowskiej 5.JPG for you, but that is only masking the problem.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw them, thanks. BTW. Please look at File:Kaplica św. Wincentego à Paulo w Bielsku Podlaskim 2.JPG. Both thumbnails look fine. And now purge the file… --jdx Re: 01:00, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: I agree both thumbnails look fine, did you want me to purge it? If not, please explain further.   — Jeff G. ツ 01:09, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, try it. I've got a few other examples. Face-smile.svg --jdx Re: 01:13, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jdx: Done, now the current thumbnail looks rotated and squished horizontally. Do you want to try using CropTool on it?   — Jeff G. ツ 01:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

September 18[edit]

Internal documents from an institution[edit]

Are internal documents from institutions not allowed on Wikimedia Commons (jpg or pdf)? Internal documents are what archives are made of. Normally we have on Wikimedia Commons old documents because they are in public domain; if documents from institutions are released under the cc by-sa license can we upload them in the same way we would upload old documents? Can we consider these documents relevant if they document an institutions (key documents) or if we are using them to support our projects (i.e. reports from the Wikimedia Foundation)? thanks, --iopensa (talk) 13:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Assuming the documents are not public domain, I think the museum would need to file an OTRS note saying they allow release of the documents on Commons. - Kosboot (talk) 14:14, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • They are allowed if they are credibly of use to other projects, COM:Scope explains it quite nicely. If they were, say, 500 one-page records about museum artefacts, it may be better to bundle them as a single PDF which could be used as a reference.
If the internal documents are more than "raw text", like hand-written letters, certificates or documents with diagrams, then they are more likely to remain non-controversial. -- (talk) 14:21, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Actually we're talking about recent documents produced by the employees of the museum, with practically no educational value (see Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Monitoring Ecomuseo delle Grigne 2011 for context). OTRS is not the main issue here, as the source is under CC by-sa, and the museum is willing of giving the authorisation to publish in any case. As said, it's a matter of deciding if some regular contemporary working file is in scope or not. --Ruthven (msg) 16:01, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Some museum documents, like the curators' records on individual objects that most museums keep, are potentially very useful, and some museums like the JP Morgan Library have theirs on their website. Otherwise, museums like other organizations produce mountains of paper on internal matters that are not of much interest, except in some cases to those with doctorates to write (who generally prefer to wait some decades). Johnbod (talk) 03:27, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Iopensa:, I think you have an answer, of sorts. Wikimedia Commons is never a good way of creating a document archive, if you are looking to do that, then think about creating a reasonably well indexed/curated website, then copy the website to to archive.org. However, if collections of documents are going to be of active value for images or articles, then our project scope allows for them to be copied here as a long term resource. Should an institution want to release 10,000+ or millions of records, like an entire museum catalogue with photographs or diagrams, then it's worth creating a proposal on Commons, perhaps using COM:BATCH, and encouraging engagement with a notice on this Village Pump.

At the end of the day, none of the Wikimedia projects nor the Wikimedia Foundation has worked out how to accommodate structured working databases and have failed to establish a plan for guaranteeing availability for the coming decade, let alone the next 100 years (despite plenty of chatter about it). Anyone worried about this, should take a close look at archive.org's strategy and mission. Thanks -- (talk) 12:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Picture of the Year[edit]

I've no idea who organises the Picture of the Year competition, but I wanted to suggest a 'Photographer of the Year' Competition to run alongside POTY. How would I submit that for debate please? Many thanks. Charles (talk) 14:03, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Just in case this isn't already enough of a popularity contest? - Jmabel ! talk 14:24, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • Unfortunately I don't get your snide comment. I was told to post here for serious views. Charles (talk) 22:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
  • OK, let me be less snide and clearer. I would be opposed to such a contest. I strongly oppose setting up a situation where we have do decide that one contributor is "better" or "more valuable" than another, especially because (as I said snidely, but will say here more directly) it is likely to turn into a contest for who is best liked or has the most friends, rather than who does the best work. - Jmabel ! talk 01:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
    +1, already enough vanity fairs here, please not yet another one. --A.Savin 17:16, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-38[edit]

15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Updated numbers for links between Commons and Wikidata[edit]

Here are some updated numbers for links between Commons categories and galleries and Wikidata.

For comparison, previous figures were posted here in February; also available are some historical numbers going back to September 2014, and also the SPARQL queries used to create the table.

Commons categories
(6,036,464)
Commons galleries
(114,055)
total linked
Wikidata articles
(~ 31,671,059)
1,396,494 101,289 1,426,784
sitelinks:
539,071
P373:
1,300,596
sitelinks:
97,724
P935:
92,182
sitelinks:
636,795
props:
1,325,041
Wikidata categories
(4,043,980)
422,049 921 422,088
sitelinks:
412,231
P373:
366,353
sitelinks:
4
P935:
919
sitelinks:
412,235
props:
366,370
total linked 1,615,192 101,353 1,848,872 items / 1,716,545 pages
sitelinks:
951,302
P373:
1,467,588
sitelinks:
97,728
P935:
92,247
sitelinks:
1,049,030
props:
1,691,441 items / 1,559,835 pages

Compared to February the overall number of Commons categories is up by about half a million. There are now just under 25,000 more sitelinks from category-items on Wikidata to categories here; and just over 100,000 more sitelinks from article-like items.

Article pages on most Wikipedias now look to see whether there is a P373 ("Commons category") statement on Wikidata, and if so add a Commonscat link to the "in other projects" section of the page sidebar.

In the other direction the template {{Interwiki from Wikidata}} has recently been rolled out to a large number of categories here. This checks whether there is a sitelink to a category-type item on Wikidata, and if that item in turn has a P301 statement ("main subject of category"), pointing to a corresponding article-type item, then it can present links to (all) the Wikipedia articles as sidebar links here.

There is currently discussion at Template talk:Interwiki from Wikidata as to what should be shown if a target Wikipedia has both an article and a category corresponding to a category here.
(eg: the sidebar link to fr-wiki created by the template for Category:Trafalgar Square will point to the article fr:Trafalgar Square, as there is no corresponding category on fr-wiki. But should the en-wiki sidebar link more preferably point to en:Trafalgar Square or en:Category:Trafalgar Square, given that there is a choice?)
As originally written the template linked to the category if possible; but it has recently been changed to prefer the article. This is probably a question the community needs to discuss more widely and come to a view on.

At any rate, now that the issue of what links are shown can now be dealt with by the template, can I suggest that the following policy on what sitelinks should exist might now be appropriate?

  • Commons categories should be site-linked to an appropriate category-type item at Wikidata, if one exists. This in turn can be linked to a corresponding article-item using property P301.
  • Commons categories may be site-linked to an article-type item at Wikidata, but only if no appropriate Wikidata category-type item exists.

This issue has been creating the cause of a certain background level of controversy ever since Commons was linked to Wikidata. Would the above appear a suitable resolution to the question? Jheald (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

  • This proposed rule will probably work well much of the time. Still, the very example given shows why it is going to be a problem: if I'm on Commons Category:Trafalgar Square I'd almost certainly like to go to the corresponding article on Wikipedia, not the corresponding category. If, on the other hand, I were on a meta-category like Category:Buildings in the United States by state it only makes sense to go to a category. The tricky thing is Commons categories that fall somewhere between: for example, if I'm on Commons Category:Alumni of the University of Washington I probably want to go to en:Category:University of Washington alumni, not (if it existed; in this case it doesn't) some corresponding list article.
  • Possibly, the place I'd really like to draw the line is probably not supported by data currently in Wikidata. Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
Just to clarify, there are two separate issues here: first, what should be shown in the sidebar; second, is the rule suggested above okay for how the underlying connections should be wired up. To some extent the existence of the template lets us separate the two questions.
For myself, I think the original design of the template has something to be said for it, because (i) the "main article" is often very prominently indicated on a wikipedia category; and (ii) going to the category shows the other articles that wikipedia associates with the topic, which can be compared to subcategories here. Going to the category does also avoid the 'list article' issue you raised -- but at the expense of an extra click when it's the article that one wants to get to. Jheald (talk) 16:33, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • «Commons categories may» this and that but «Commons categories should» something or other. Alright, nothing new to see here folks: Wikidata still has no idea what Commons is, only that it is an«other project». I will go on ignoring Wikidata, then, for as long as this sad state of affairs goes on essentially unchanged. Wikidata has nothing I need to curate a repository of free media: its interface is clumsy, its human interaction tools are apalling (Ps and Qs, anyone?), and its lavish funding comes back as an insult every time I try to load my watchlist. -- Tuválkin 21:40, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • I'd change the 2nd statement to: Commons categories should be site-linked to an article-type item at Wikidata, but only if no appropriate Wikidata category-type item exists. I think linking would always be preferred, even if just to get the interlanguage links on Commons. --ghouston (talk) 22:55, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The data shown above clearly indicate that Commons galleries don't matter as Commons categories. Categories are up-to-date, and more practical when searching for images. The paradox is that they should be linked both to the Wikidata category item and the article item (because the articles in the other projects use the link to the Commons category). --Ruthven (msg) 13:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  • The best would be a link to the article by default + a link to the category when the category exist, exemple: Trafalgar Square (category)
Another thing could be to show in the the sidebar link, here on Commons, two different sections, one sections for the articles (when they exist) and one for the categories (when they exist). Exemple:
In Wikipedia
Article
English
Français
....
....
Category
English
....


Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:00, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

  • As well as the sidebar links in the Wikipedias could include both a link to a category and to a gallery, example for Hydnum repandum:
In other projects
Wikimedia Commons
Category
Gallery


Christian Ferrer (talk) 11:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 19[edit]

What to include in the categories under Category:Ships with the same name[edit]

On the main category's talk page I have started a discussion on what to include in these categories, because there are at least two different practices going on right now. Blue Elf (talk) 12:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

Attributions[edit]

I'm new to wiki commons. I want to paint a photo that needs attribution. Is this notated with the painting, or do I need to do something else? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.126.116.51 (talk) 14:08, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

It would help to know which photo, or at least which license. If attribution is required by the license, you could provide it with the provenance documents and on the plaque.   — Jeff G. ツ 14:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

September 20[edit]

HotCat case sensitivity[edit]

Hi, for me HotCat has changed, it now seems to be case sensitive and does not ignore case when doing autocompleted proposals. There also seems to be a performance issue, sometimes HotCat is slow in proposing (especially when the cat tree is wide and deep). I faintly remember that this was the case about 1 or 2 years ago, when case sensitivity already broke user expectations. Can someone fix this, please? regards --Herzi Pinki (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that you should use MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js for bug reports or feature requests. Ruslik (talk) 19:58, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This was an issue with both Hotcat and Catalot, so it seems like it was a more general problem, but it seems to have been fixed now. kennethaw88talk 20:30, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
works again, thanks. edit notice on MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js advised me to better try it here as the more crowded place. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 00:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Diasporas & culture[edit]

How would you categorize an image of traditional Mexican folk dancing in the United States, performed by people all of whom are U.S. residents and most (but probably not all) of whom are Mexican Americans? I have no idea of the distinctions among Category:Traditional dances of Mexico, Category:Folk dances of Mexico, and Category:Indigenous dances of Mexico, and in any case they are all under Category:Dance of Mexico which seems to have geographic implication as much as cultural, since it includes Category:Ballet in Mexico. - Jmabel ! talk 22:39, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

  • Three days, no comments. If no one else has any thoughts on this I'll try to start making some "culture in diaspora" categories, but I suspect that this has already been at least partially addressed somewhere. - 01:13, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 21[edit]

Main page misinformation[edit]

Armenia was not the first (sovereign) country to officially adopt Christianity, it was a Roman province at the time the first sovereign state to adopt Christianity was Ethiopia. --Yungahurp (talk) 12:26, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

  • @Yungahurp: Where is the statement you are concerned with? - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Also, what is your source for your claim?   — Jeff G. ツ 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
Today’s PotD links in it's description to the article on enWP about en:Armenia, where the third sentence in the second paragraph reads like this: Armenia became the first state in the world to adopt Christianity as its official religion.[1] I don't have the book to look it up, but it is sourced. Your claim up to now is not. Sänger (talk) 17:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
  1. (Garsoïan, Nina () ed. R.G. Hovannisian , ed. Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times, en:Palgrave Macmillan, p. 81, Vol. 1)

September 22[edit]

An error when entering a category on Commons[edit]

Did you see this message today? A better description of the problem is on Phabricator. --jdx Re: 16:10, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  • I’m glad and relieved to report I never saw this one! -- Tuválkin 20:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Geographical auto-categorization?[edit]

Is there any auto-categorization by geography currently active -- eg by bots or input systems? I'm thinking of images coming in eg from Geograph, or from Wiki Loves Monuments, and perhaps being put into a category for an English civil parish (if eg there was specific category for the monument).

I asked at c:Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/09/Category:Minster, Thanet, because I've been doing some work on Wikidata on civil parishes, but I am wary about making mergers or re-namings here, in case there are any processes relying on existing names and structures.

So I was wondering, how are incoming WLM or Geograph images placed into appropriate (eg civil-parish level) categories at the moment? Is there a matching based on name? Or to a Wikidata item, then going up the administrative levels until there's one with a Commons category (if the momument itself doesn't have a category)? Or is the WLM's parish held in an offsite database, with a note of the Commons category?

At the CfD, User:Multichill told me not to worry, just to go ahead and merge (in that case, a category for a civil parish and a category for a similarly-named settlement within it). But I thought I should just ask here first to make absolutely sure. Jheald (talk) 17:17, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I can't speak for WLM, but I think Geograph auto-categorization was a one-off thing during and immediately after the batch upload. Earlier images were categorized by User:GeographBot a the time of upload. Later ones were retrospectively categorised by User:Faebot (details in User:Faebot/Geograph) and probably others. I don't think any work has been done in this area since 2012, so more recent uploads from Geograph have been manually categorized by their uploaders. --bjh21 (talk) 13:53, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
The remaining Geograph ones were done in May 2017‎ by NilfaBot, apart from those that are near parish boundaries which were left for manual categorisation. Keith D (talk) 15:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
@Jheald: AFAIK there is no fully automated solution in hand. The experiences around the Geograph batch upload says to create such a thing would be a bad idea, especially if the information added is based on an algorithm using nearest-to-point instead of boundary lines.
The recent run by my bot was based off a database dump, which was then referenced against the boundaries held by Ordnance Survey. I did not touch those close to a boundary to avoid categorisation mistakes stemming from poor geocoding or the camera being on opposite side of boundary to subject. Unfortunately, IMO only a true manual check can resolve those issues.
My bot run was only for those marked as uncategorised-Geograph, but I could apply the same technique to all geocoded files.--Nilfanion (talk) 18:25, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, everyone. What I really wanted was to make sure I would not be breaking anyone was doing, if I merged or renamed any of these categories.
@Nilfanion: I presume you had to keep a mapping between ONS or OS names for civil parishes and the categories here? (Because they're not always exactly the same). That is what I was concerned about breaking, if I changed a name here. Or would it be something you would need to check/update/regenerate anyway?
For myself, I hope I'm now getting close to the data on Wikidata being nearly good enough to generate such a mapping just from a query there. Currently I think there are about 50 ONS/GSS codes for civil parishes still to map to Wikidata items, about 275 Wikidata items with GSS codes still to map to Commons categories, and about 80 ONS/GSS codes claimed by more than one item. It's not done yet, but the end is almost in sight!
One question that comes up with the latter (ie more than one item currently with the same code) is when to have separate split Wikidata items for a civil parish and a village or town or the same name, versus when to merge them into the same item -- and so how to proceed in clearing up the current duplication. (Corresponding on Commons to the issue of whether to have two categories or one, as per the CfD linked, or eg Category:Dorchester,_Oxfordshire vs). For the most part my instinct is there are two items on Wikidata there need to be two categories here, to making incoming links possible from the Wikipedias. But if there aren't two categories here, I'm not going to create them; and I'm also going to be wary if there are two categories here, but it seems hard to maintain the distinction between them. In such cases IMO it probably makes sense to merge the two items on Wikidata and only have one. (In such cases it is often only sv-wiki that has two (bot-created) articles, one of which could be classed on Wikidata as a "duplicate item").
I hope that seems reasonable, and a reasonable way to maintain sitelinking and external linking. So hence my interest in category splits here that strike me as perhaps not sustainable; but on the other hand, my caution to want consult with other people here, and to be very sure that any merging or renaming doesn't break anything that is either currently running or that anyone may be running again in the near future. Jheald (talk) 11:42, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I had to do a look-up between the two: The biggest complications in the Commons categories are the addition of disambiguation (ie adding county, district, whatever), and the occasional changes to Commons titles. In the case of any splits, the GSS code for the parish should be matched to the category for the parish.
IMO there are benefits to splitting on Commons, but in general there is little real value to that activity. For example, a case could be made to split Category:Georgeham (the parish contains the villages of Georgeham and Croyde, plus some rural areas) but I'm not inclined to spend the time doing so. When a split happens, the ONS built-up areas might be an option. Georgeham CP is E04003091, while Georgeham BUA is E34003018 and Croyde BUA is E34002380.
In some cases (eg Category:Whitchurch, Devon, where the village is not in the civil parish at all) there is a definite need for a split. When a split is done, the important thing is to maintain a proper distinction between the two titles. Mere variations on the name (Minster or Minster in Thanet) don't do that.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Category:Rouge Park and Category:Rouge National Urban Park[edit]

Hello everyone. I'd like to share something I found the other day, which were these categories. Rouge Park and Rouge National Urban Park are the same park. Rouge Park was the former name of the park, before becoming the Rouge National Urban Park. Obviously we can't have two separate categories on these, so I was wondering what should happen to them: Should they be merged? Should one be turned into a redirect? Which one should be kept as the main category? Thank you, Zhangj1079 (Bonjour!) 21:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

September 23[edit]

Test sites for Commons?[edit]

Hi, I come across some technical issue and would like to test image uploading on a Wikimedia-Commons-alike-site (something like Wikipedia Test Site). Do you know where I can perform such experiments? Thanks.

It's about badtoken error while trying to upload using the locally cached edit token. This works well on any WP sites, but now I suspect it won't work on Wikimedia Commons. I'm just attempting to reproduce the error.

--CXuesong (talk) 09:42, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

CXuesong I think https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/ may be what you're looking for. - Offnfopt(talk) 10:27, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, Offnfopt! That's exactly what I'm looking for.

--CXuesong (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


Rename request[edit]

File:Lambert Jacobsz - Rust on the flight into Egypt - 1624.jpg should of course be Rest not Rust.

Rich Farmbrough, 21:54 23 September 2017 (GMT).
Looks like ’s dealt with it. --bjh21 (talk) 23:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
& in the future, {{rename}} is usually the most efficient way to ask for uncontroversial renaming. - Jmabel ! talk 01:15, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

September 24[edit]

Glam project - Derivative works of Picasso works[edit]

Please someone very expert, better with an otrs flag, could express his own opinion on this Commons:Deletion requests/File:Paolo Monti - Servizio fotografico (Italia, 1958) - BEIC 6341427.jpg. --Pierpao.lo (listening) 09:10, 24 Septem

Buildings under construction?[edit]

We have a number of images of buildings that are under construction in countries without freedom of panorama, where the images would be not allowed if the buildings were completed. We even have whole categories for such images, some made by me (see, for example, Skyscraper construction in the United Arab Emirates). I've looked for some guidelines about such images here on commons but I haven't found anything. Are they allowed because the building is incomplete, and therefore, not eligible for copyright? Or are the allowed only when the building's final form is not apparent and as a result, the construction does not yet meet the threshold of originality?

Specific cases currently under discussion include

Thanks - Themightyquill (talk) 09:22, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Mobile platform specific notices[edit]

Do we have a template that can change the displayed text depending on whether the viewer is using a mobile or not? I'm thinking of the recent map galleries which display poorly on mobiles, unless you refresh with the desktop version (at which point they seem to work okay). -- (talk) 09:27, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

"Revert" function in Navigation popups does not fully work[edit]

When reverting a page to a revision, a message box with default summary and "OK"/"Cancel" buttons should appear. But for me it doesn't appear since about two days? Do you have similar effect? --jdx Re: 13:40, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Better as an svg[edit]

What is the template we add that is for graphic files that would look better as an *.svg? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:30, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): {{Convert to SVG}} or one of its seven redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ 03:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

September 25[edit]