Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/11

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

PetScan

Does anybody know how to use PetScan? I have no idea how to search for users which are categorised in two or more categories.
Eg. I want to see if Jeddah Tower.jpg has all information from the source page. Since I have no idea what the correct version of village pump for that language is, I wanted to find a user that is categorised in User ar-N and User en-N that can help translate the information.
Can anybody help here? Thanks in advance --D-Kuru (talk) 09:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

@D-Kuru: Please check this out. I guess you didn't change "page properties" settings. Ahmadtalk 15:46, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmad252: I actually did change the page properties, but it didn't work. But now it seems to work. Thank you for helping! --D-Kuru (talk) 08:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Drilling with screws

Is this drilling and under what category should the big screws ground work be placed?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:34, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, this is drilling to prepare the ground for a foundation pile. I think this should go into Category:Deep foundations. De728631 (talk) 11:38, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Could you take another foto of this machine? In portrait mode, instead of landscape mode, so that the complete drilling meachnism is in view? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:22, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
The tool attached to the arm of the machine is not a screw. It is a kind of drill called auger. --jdx Re: 17:16, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

An Institutional Repository-based solution to making photos of notable academics available for use in Wikipedia pages under CC0

I apologize for taking so long to respond to a 2019 conversation that is now archived. I have been mostly off the grid with no internet access since June 2019. @Victuallers: and @Patrick Rogel: discussed Dawn Bazely and my concerns about why photos of Professors Shohini Ghose, Marie Josee Fortin and Jeremy Kerr, all of whom are Canadian scientists, meeting the notability criteria for academics, were deleted.

@Patrick Rogel: pointed out that EXIF data indicated that @Carries mum: was NOT the copyright holder. The EXIF data simply reflected the settings of a shared lab. camera for the purpose of identifying equipment. This was done in case lab cameras, which may be used by multiple people, should stray. We did not anticipate that it would create confusion about copyright, if different people used the camera, and then uploaded these images to Wikimedia.

We have since removed the namestamp, and have brainstormed a solution that I hope you will find efficient and effective. We have access to an open access Institutional Repository, plus the headshots are useful for many university activities (seminars, conferences etc.). Dawn Bazely, who co-organizes annual Wikipedia Editathons, made the images available via a CC0 Public Domain license in Yorkspace. This has many benefits beyond Wikimedia and York University, because these images can now be freely used by universities anywhere that the person is invited to speak, as well as by the individual in the photo. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Carries mum (talk) 19:37, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Clearance can also be based not on EXIF data but on the fact that another trusted organisation has already cleared the images and that, I believe is the case here. The YorkU site is almost paranoid about copyright but they have allowed this page to be given a clear CCO license. We must allow universities to supervise their own copyright procedures and not second guess them by extrapolating EXIF data to seconf guess their procedures. Dawn Bazely understands copyright and so does York University (even if they do not understand creative commons). Victuallers (talk) 23:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on enwiki about possible promotional activities via images

This thread on the enwiki administrators' noticeboard concerns Toglenn, a professional photographer who donates photos to Commons and uses them on Wikipedia. There are some behavioral issues that have come up, which aren't really relevant here, but it's been pointed out that the user adds photos to a lot of Wikimedia projects, and in some cases has edit warred to keep them in the article.

Is there precedent for what to do when people try to add their images to as many Wikimedia projects as possible? On one hand, Commons doesn't have "jurisdiction" over other Wikimedia projects. On the other, I'm not sure where else this would be discussed, if not here or perhaps Meta? Regardless, additional insight there would be appreciated. — Rhododendrites talk |  19:56, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree that we don't have any jurisdiction over any other project. If they want to donate images to us that is wonderful. If they have behavioral issues that clash with other projects' expectations that is for the other projects to decide how to handle them. Their actions on enwiki are really none of our concern and I don't think Commons should be getting involved. I can't imagine we would take any action here anyways. We have quite a few users who use their uploads here to promote their own work. --Majora (talk) 20:01, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
Seconding what Majora said. - Jmabel ! talk 02:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Rhododendrites to be honest, I'm mostly seeing behavioural issues wrt Wikipedian writers not having the first clue. What sort of content contribution do they expect a photographer to make on Wikipedia? That, em, a professional photographer would modestly restrict themselves to adding photographs taken by other people? This dispute would be funny if it wasn't likely to make the guy want to give up. Commoners could help by explaining to the Wikipedians (as I have tried) about the norms of filenames with usernames, credit boxes and that a photographer adding their own photographic content to an article is really no different to a writer adding their own words to an article. I fear that ignorance of image vs text issues and no care to actually investigate the dispute raised might lead to a topic ban that discourages the photographer completely. -- Colin (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I mean, we can't very well prevent them from requiring attribution using their name and website. That's explicitly part of what is allowed under the license, which is explicitly allowed (and even encouraged) on Commons. Maybe some distant day, Commons will be so overwhelmed by high-quality media that we transition to allowing only the free-est of free images, under only things like CC0 and PD, but I wouldn't hold out much hope of that happening any time in the foreseeable future.
We obviously won't delete properly licensed in-scope images because they are the subject of a content dispute on other projects. And as only a few editors on that AN discussion seem to understand, users adding their uploads across many projects is pretty run-of-the-mill; it's normally a thing to be encouraged, so long as the changes are improvements. If they want to edit war over it, then individual projects should block them for edit warring. GMGtalk 14:02, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
FYI the Disc jockey article originally had this image in the lead. It got replaced by this image which is professional quality, well lit, sharp, appropriate, etc. After edit warring, the lead image is now this blurred POS.
Wrt some utopia Commons, I'm not sure that only permitting CC0 or PD is a utopia. Credit for one's work is a fairly basic right, and one that even the lowly Wikipedian writers get, albeit as part of a multi-user contribution history. Additionally, crediting others for the work you are reusing is also a basic expectation of artistic honesty, even when copyright has been waived or expired. -- Colin (talk) 14:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, I was being purely hypothetical, only to make the point that we can't very well fault someone for requiring attribution, when the whole system is set up to explicitly allow them to do so. GMGtalk 14:28, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Do transcriptions of tombstone inscriptions meet the threshold of originality to be eligible for copyright?

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Richard_Arthur_Norton_(1958-_)/Vunk_-_Quick_Burial_Ground Someone at Wikisource says that this list needs to have been published to be ineligible for copyright. To me they appear to "consist entirely of information that is common property and contain no original authorship". I am asking here, since there are more people familiar with the nuances of copyright law. Wikisource seems to rely almost exclusively on expired copyrights on published material like books; and newspaper and magazine articles. RAN (talk) 13:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It depends wherther the gravestones themselves are in copyright. IMO, if over 70 years old, {{PD-old-70}} would apply. If carved into stone or using embossed lettering, I'd say they are 3D and {{FOP-UK}} (or wherever) applies. If just reciting names and dates of death, family members, etc. these are uncopyrightable facts. In any of these cases, a transcript likewise would not be copyrightable. Each would have to be considered on its own merits, expecially if there are, e.g. elegiac verses. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:27, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Hey Richard. In the case it is just names and dates as you indicate on the linked page, then yes, that's just purely informational. I doubt even bare names and dates would qualify under oppressive sweat-of-the-brow TOO. That's not to say that the, stylistic engraving of this basic information couldn't rise above TOO (as pointed out above, the stone itself is a separate 3D work, different than the pure textual information), nor that more complex texts couldn't include things like poems or other things that would be covered by copyright.
Whether display on a tombstone counts as "publication" depends a lot on jurisdiction, because these laws in particular can vary wildly (see Commons:Publication). But these are less complex than something like a postal address, which similarly, would be purely informational with no creative contribution rising to the level of copyright protection. GMGtalk 13:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
I think the question is not about the gravestones but about the copyright consequences of extracting and reproducing this list from the article written by Janet T. Riemer. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm. That's a good point, yes. It is quite possible that there is a "presentation copyright" on the entire formulation, even if the individual parts are too simple in themselves. I would probably say "no" in this case, in as much as this constitute merely a "phone book directory" of the people buried in this grave yard (compare en:Feist Publications, Inc., v. Rural Telephone Service Co.). GMGtalk 14:14, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Nepali caption

I believe (based on Google Translate) that the Nepali caption added to File:Seattle Daily Times news editor quarters - 1900.jpg is not very good. Could someone who knows that language take a look? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

French or Belgian tram?

As the tram comes from Belgium it could be also a SNCV tram, but it cannot be both. I want to rename the file, but first I have to certain it is Quiévrechain. I propose 'Steamtram at the Quiévrechain border'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

From a search online, other postcards showing trams at the same place have captions that identify it as the customs of Blanc-Misseron. From what I understand from some online sources, the area was globally Crespin-Blanc-Misseron-Quiévrechain, where Crespin and Quiévrechain are the names of the two administrative municipalities and Blanc-Misseron is the name under which was known an industrial and residential functional center straddling the two administrative municipalities. Maybe you could use the same identification of Blanc-Misseron for this postcard also. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:07, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I did some research and Belgian SNCV at the border where isolated from the rest of the SNCV network.(not until 1949) The CEN had the concession on these local lines so it would be logical to use CEN locomotives and through services.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with a contest (US Banknote Contest/2019)

Is there a way how files uploaded for the US Banknote Contest/2019 could be immediately categorised by user? For example [[:Category:Uploaded via Campaign:US-Banknote-Contest by ((USERNAME))]]. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Photo challenge September results

Wrecks and wreckage: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title THE GROUNDING FISHING VESSEL UNDER SUNSET IN TAIWAN CIJIN BEACH Ship Wreck near Point Reyes Wreck found on the way to Great Basin National Park.
Author Xiaoyang 2018 Mathteacherwhoalsotakesphotos Wsrusso
Score 33 11 9
Horses: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 2
image
Title Mamma con il suo puledro A white horse in Saarbrücken, Germany Free grazing buddies in Tyrolean Kühtai
Author 66colpi DavidJRasp PtrQs
Score 12 10 10

Congratulations to 66colpi, DavidJRasp, PtrQs, Xiaoyang 2018, Mathteacherwhoalsotakesphotos and Wsrusso. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of Commons watchlist notices for user rights requests

Earlier today User:1989 created a general watchlist notice for all Commons users to attract votes to their own Oversight request Commons:Oversighters/Requests/1989, which was itself a self-nomination 5 days ago and is scheduled to be closed in 10 days. The watchlist notice is listed at MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice.

As far as I can tell, this is an unusual, possibly unique, action for an Oversight request on behalf of the requester. There was no prior consensus for this notice, nor (checking the history of Watchlist Notices back to 2016) is using everyone's watchlist in this way to promote individual rights votes a common practice, considering it is not used even for generic proposals.

Does anyone have information about the previous use of similar project-wide Commons notices and how they may or should be agreed? Folks may also have views about whether this one is appropriate, given the context of the notice being created and posted by the same person applying for rights, or should be removed. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Provided it is neutrally worded, which I think this particular one was, I frankly don't see a problem with it. One of the very few enwiki practices that I like is the neutral advertising of requests for advanced permissions. Not everyone is watching the request board and while I watch the RfA board for additions there I wasn't even aware that this was going on. I don't think there was ever any community consensus to do this however and I can see how having 1989 do it themselves might be misconstrue as improper (again I feel like this notice was neutrally worded so meh on that front). To be honest, I wouldn't mind advertising these types of requests more often in this manner. It can only help to get feedback from more members of the community on who is trusted with advanced permissions. --Majora (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I did just realize though that if we are going to start doing these more frequently they a) need to be in a standard format and b) have translations. Anything less than that would be improper. --Majora (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
On Wikidata all right requests(admin and higher) and all running RfCs are automatically displayed there. Additionally there are other important ongoing discussions linked. I really like this feature. --GPSLeo (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, you are confirming that Watchlist Notices on Wikimedia Commons have never been used this way before. If folks like this as a future feature that's super, it can be a proposal. What is being discussed here is this Watchlist Notice, not a general principle of what the community might agree because other projects use notices for this type of thing.
Let's be honest, this does not reflect well on 1989's understanding that Oversighters must be seen to follow community agreed policy and norms, not to break new ground when it's convenient without bothering to hold discussions and create even a nominal consensus first. --Fæ (talk) 22:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) As far as I can tell from wikiblame, no. This has never been done in the past for any advanced permissions. Although the type "highly_trusted_election" has been an option since the {{WatchlistNotice}} template was created. This appears to have been a BOLD action on 1989's part. --Majora (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, nice phrasing. My feeling is that being BOLD with policies, or project wide notifications, is not the type of high risk behaviours the community is looking for in an Oversighter. --Fæ (talk) 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
There actually was. I don't think a binary search algorithm is going to be helpful here. Wikiblame is more of a wikibisect than wikiblame --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
And a few more, grepping through: Special:Diff/184151990 Special:Diff/148921484 Special:Diff/138737309 Special:Diff/110603433. To me it looks like CU & OS are traditionally posted to WatchlistNotice rather than the opposite. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
My apologies then. I guess I really shouldn't trust that tool as much as I did. Are you using something else, Zhuyifei1999? Or just scrolling through them? In any case, thank you for pointing that out. Also, ^Fæ. Not unprecedented apparently. --Majora (talk) 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The several 'crat one I have memory of (yeah, my memory sometimes surprise me); the rest are found by Special:Export and scrolling through, with Ctrl-F and skimming through to find unique notices --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I...wasn't aware you could do that. I can see how that can be pretty useful in the future. I'll have to remember that special page. Thank you! --Majora (talk) 03:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Interesting that the watchlist has not been used this way since January 2016, which happened to be further back than my search. Of those most recent cases:
2016 CU Withdrawn
2015 Was an unusual mass vote for 7 not-self-nominated bureaucrat candidates but named no names in the notice
2015 CU Succeeded but inauspiciously the user was WMF banned two years later
2014 Was a de-checkuser vote
It has not been established that this is the norm for any specific types of advanced permission vote or removal vote, in fact these are rarely posted and none of the past cases listed so far was for Oversight access; for example the most recent last Oversight candidacy definitely had no watchlist notice. None of these notices have been self-posted as far as I can see, and there is no proposal or community consensus for using watchlist notices for this that pins down any conventions about how this is supposed to be used, or whether it is used in more unusual circumstances, like the de-checkuser.
Given the benefit of having the notice translated and the precedent of a generic notice that names no names, perhaps the proposal here should be for notices to always be posted as a matter of process that would be worded like "there is a CU vote open" without naming the candidate(s) and linking to the top-level request page. At least having the proposal will establish a consensus as to whether Watchlist notices are specificly the type of project notice wanted for this, who should post them, and precisely which types of rights and access requests they should consistently be used for as part of the nomination procedure. --Fæ (talk) 06:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Interestingly, there are no 'crat noms, CU noms, or OS noms after 2016. Granted, there were two in 2016 after January, but that is besides the point.
Coincidentally (or is it?), WatchlistNotice could be retiring.
You claim that "none of the past cases listed so far was for Oversight access". MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice was created in May 2013. There are only two OS noms after that, and it is not hard to find the *only* other one is listed.
You claim that "there is no proposal or community consensus". Yes, so some people are okay with it, some are not, but I do not think every action of an admin / OS / whatever must be carefully and extensively researched to see if that is a norm, especially when the precondition (i.e. having a 'highly trusted election' at all) has been broken for years. Being BOLD is a thing.
If you feel like "being BOLD with ... the community is looking for in an Oversighter", or "whether the wording is really that neutral", then okay, you have casted your vote. It may or may not convince others of your opinion.
That said, if WatchlistNotice is a goner, then this proposal is probably moot anyways. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, going deeper to six years ago rather than stopping at five turns up an example. For most folks that's beyond the limits of "not hard" because this is not a simple search... --Fæ (talk) 07:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Method 1: Special:Export, "MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice", unclick checkboxes, export, ctrl-F, "PierreSelim"
Method 2: Commons:Oversighters/Requests/PierreSelim, August 2013, history, "oversighter nomination". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Whaa, there's a page called 'Export'? Whaa PierreSelim became a member of oversight 6 years ago? Thanks for the summary. I think this all counts as "not a simple search" because, you know, it's not as simple as putting something obvious in the Commons search bar and despite my experience over several years, including writing special search scripts, it was not intuitive to me either, even after throwing one of my old search scripts at the task. --Fæ (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I doubt, Majora, whether the wording is really that neutral, since the message given is:
"1989 has been nominated for becoming an oversighter. You can take part in the discussion and vote."
which suggests that someone other than user 1989 nominated user 1989, which does not appear to be the case and thus gives a false sense of support and trust. Please correct me if I'm wrong. Eissink (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC).
I disagree with that statement as the inclusion of a username is a perfectly acceptable course of action in my opinion. Nor do I read that as someone else having nominated them. Highly advanced permissions such as OS, CU, and 'Crat I would expect to be self-nominations anyways. Although that may just be my opinions on the matter. If the community does decide that such watchlist notices are prudent in the future the exact wording of them, and whether or not a username is included, would of course be discussed. -Majora (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Eissink. As a native English speaker, the wording "has been nominated" very much excludes self-nomination, and implies a third-party endorsement. I think it should be reworded as a matter of urgency to
"User:1989 has put themselves forward to be considered for becoming an oversighter. You can take part in the discussion and vote."
I think the "User:" prefix is also helpful, as it is not obvious that 1989 is a username. Further, some method should be used to highlight the notice (background colour, larger font, etc) because it is not a very noticeable notice!
As an aside, I note that Fae has previously used the village pump to advertise de-adminships and when I used the village pump to advertise Fae's adminship request, it was removed by Majora iirc. I think we should establish a procedure whereby such requests are advertised by a watchlist notice and we agree a standard format which takes into account who nominated. Additionally, perhaps we should modify such nominations to require they are always created by a third party endorsement. -- Colin (talk) 08:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I can remember of at least one case where “canvassing” for an RfA costed the applicant important votes — in that case said “canvassing” amounted to personalized messages in a selected halfdozen talk pages. In the light of that, how can this blanket flooding be a good thing at all? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Since this thread is about a specific incident and not about any actions going forward I created COM:VPP#Using MediaWiki:WatchlistNotice to neutrally advertise advance permission requests to see what the community wants to do here. Four separate notices for each of the advanced permissions are up for discussion. --Majora (talk) 12:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Naming conventions for categories

I have a discussion about the naming of a category: User_talk:Synthwave.94#Don't_change_to_wrong_names. can I get some help

The name of the band is "Dead Cats On Mopeds", the band itself capitalizes all words. It sounds curious to me to using a wrong spelling, just to fullfill a convention which is correct when I'm creating a title. --Jörgens.Mi Talk 16:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Can an uninvolved admin move Category:Dead Cats on Mopeds - ZMF 2015 back to Category:Dead Cats On Mopeds (ZMF 2015) please? @Majora: maybe? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, since the file names are not involved I could technically do it myself. Only issue here is I smell edit war, which I'd rather not get involved in unless I must. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done I'll have CommonsDelinker do it. Apparently this is a controversial change that used an enwiki rationale which aren't necessarily valid here. Synthwave.94, since this has apparently produced controversy it would be better to go through the COM:CFD route if you want to rename it again. --Majora (talk) 18:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Its main category is called Dead Cats on Mopeds as per MOS:TITLECAPS, considering "on" is a preposition and is therefore not capitalized, and concert categories are typically named "Artist - Concert", not "Artist (concert)" (see this page for that matter). "Dead Cats on Mopeds - ZMF 2015" is therefore correctly named and should not be changed. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:29, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: It's not a controversial move as per the reasons explained above. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:31, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Again. The entire Manual of Style is enwiki specific and not relevant here. Please stop using it as a rationale for your actions. And this isn't the proper place to discuss controversial category renaming. COM:CFD is. I take no position on it either way. I'm restoring the status quo ante to allow for proper discussion of an apparently controversial change. --Majora (talk) 18:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: The entire Manual of Style found on enwiki does matter. You don't write System Of A Down (SOAD), but System of a Down, and the same thing applies to similarly named bands. Again there's nothing controversial here. Synthwave.94 (talk) 18:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really going to litigate a matter that I really have no position in. But I am going to say that the English Wikipedia Manual of Style is not relevant here. Commons is a multilingual, international, project. Any one project's style manual is simply irrelevant to this specific project. Also, two people protesting the change, one another sysop and the other another long term editor makes the change controversial. --Majora (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Scope of tombstones

Another scope question, would we want an image of every tombstone in a cemetery. Each one is eligible for an entry at Wikidata. At one point it was being debated to upload all of the entries, omitting the copyrighted photos, and any biographical text, in Findagrave to Wikidata. No one wanted to do the work to disambiguate all the people. Notability in Wikidata only requires that someone exist and have an external reference. Previously my tombstone images were deleted as "out of scope" and just a single one was kept because it was used in an article. RAN (talk) 20:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  • If it is structurally useful for Wikidata, that would seem sufficient. However, as far as I understand, Wikidata has no intention of having an item for every person who has ever lived, or even every dead person with a tombstone. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
I find Findagrave notoriously incomplete, but I do visit many cemeteries and churchyards. The only gravestones I tend to photograph are (1) those of already notable people, e.g. Alfred Lewis Jones, (2) Commonwealth War Graves Commission gravestones and (3) those of interesting design, e.g. James Caird. I would think that to be all that Commons and Wikidata would ever need. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
The question at Wikidata is always will someone do all the work that is required. Loading Findagrave would be in-scope, if someone wanted to do all the work disambiguating all the doppelgangers. The Cebu Wikipedia loaded every Geonames entry not already in Wikidata, which was a big task. Bigger was merging the large number of duplicates, and even bigger was deciding what to do with the ambiguous entries that appear to be possible errors and possible duplicates without enough information to decide which is which. RAN (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The next question is: would we want an image of every cemetery? I think we do. And in an ideal Commons we have pictures of cemeteries of such quality and resolution that every tombstone is visible after zooming in. But should every stone or cross be photographed individually? I wouldn't really mind, but I don't think it is feasible. Eissink (talk) 00:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC).
Photographing every tombstone is what Findagrave and BillionGraves want to do. MyHeritage photographed every tombstone in Israel. I get several request a year from people asking me if they can copy a tombstone image I took for Findagrave to their Ancestry account. I also ask permission from people at Findagrave to use their images at Commons. If we had our own collection, they would all be under a free license. It would be awesome if Google Street view went into cemeteries with high resolution cameras. Here is what a cemetery category looks like Category:Vunk_-_Quick_Burial_Ground. It is only because someone took the time to transcribe the tombstones in 1977 that the information is preserved for stones that are no longer legible. Here is a typical entry for the individual grave: Abraham Quick. RAN (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Do we want every news/magazine article that is in the public domain archived by Wikimedia Commons

See: Category:The New York Times, 1900 as an example. In theory would we archive every article, or every page, in the New York Times that is in the public domain? Currently we have a smattering of articles that various contributors found interesting. I wonder if in the future are we going to be deleting them if subjectively they are deemed to be not "educational" or are not in use on any Wikimedia Foundation projects per Commons:Scope. Would the same apply to an archive of a local paper where the paper is in the public domain. RAN (talk) 17:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

The text at Wikisource is only valid if it can be compared to the image of the text, and that has to be stored someplace. I have corrected several transposed numbers that were typos because I looked at the original image. The OCR is never perfect, and humans make typos. Most newspaper archives are behind paywalls for public domain issues like GenealogyBank and Newspapers.com. RAN (talk) 13:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • They're marginally in scope, but often misused. For purely textual information, in the long run / broad view it's best to upload entire PDFs/DJVU documents of public domain newspapers (e.g. an entire magazine or newspaper edition in one file), so that they can be fully transcribed, partitioned, and indexed at Wikisource and so that other projects can link to individual articles. Unfortunately of course, everyone wants to clip a vanity snippet on whatever topic they fancy, often solely to paste into a Wikipedia article, where it often serves little purpose other then to say "the text I told you about exists, here's what it looks like! Nice font, right?" when it should really be summarized and/or cited (the English Wikipedia Manual of Style explicitly states "Avoid using images to convey text"). --Animalparty (talk) 02:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no hard line, maybe there should not be one. Because 100-year-old newspapers are interesting objects, often becoming brittle with age, sometimes with interesting marginalia-type adverts, minor human interest pieces, and even the layout might be worth analysis, I would say that "old newspapers" are worth retain page scans of in whatever format. With regard to the point about inclusion in articles, for old editions, this is interesting and may illuminate the encyclopaedic value of what the newspaper looked like. As a counter modern example, "Gay News" from the 1980s was printed on low-quality rough paper as a vehicle for gay rights campaigning, while the 2010's editions of "Gay Times" which it was to become, are glossy magazines full of lifestyle fluff and pretty people. These are good enough reasons to hold more than just the text (copyright permitting). --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Failure to preview djvu

Mediawiki fails to preview File:CADAL01020001_管窺緝要.djvu (12:21, 7 November 2019 version). When I use Document Express Editor to save the file as another file and upload, then the preview works (12:28, 7 November 2019 version). When I revert back to the original version, the preview does not works again. It suggest it is the file that make the difference. Document Express Editor only reduced the file for 3 bytes (14,228,161 to 14,228,157), why does it make so much difference?

I want to upload a lot of files. Is there a local way to detect do the edit automatically?--Wmr-bot (talk) 12:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I know now. Document Express Editor has removed the last 4 bytes in the file. It can be done in bash by

truncate --size=-4 filename.djvu

--Wmr-bot (talk) 13:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of userspace pages to host unbiased reports of sysop actions

Commons:Deletion requests/User:Faebot/Sandbox1

The recent Oversight request vote and discussion were supported by a couple of unbiased and useful reports of sysop actions. These reports were hosted on a bot sandbox page but were speedy deleted today with the false assertion that the report was inappropriate for userspace. I have raised a deletion request as it is clear from speedy deletion policy that the deletion does not fall within those guidelines, but should have gone to a deletion request.

The contents were not subjective but were carefully chosen to be relevant and illuminating facts to support questioning the use of sysop tools. The speedy deletion and the consequent insistence that restoring the page to support a proper deletion request would require an exclusive vote of administrators gives this the project a more hostile atmosphere to the fair scrutiny of administrator actions in the future. Reports like this could be hosted on Quarry or similar off-wiki sites, where Commons administrators cannot use their tools to speedy delete the facts they don't want to see, but that simply enforces the idea that scrutiny of Commons administrators cannot be held in a non-hostile way on this project.

I encourage non-administrators to give their thoughts in the DR, as well as those that happen to be administrators. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

 Comment To facilitate a fair and unbiased Commons:Deletion requests process that is not limited to administrators, I have undeleted the page. ~riley (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Technical Issue

Wikimedia Commons is categorised as if every image had been uploaded by an editor who provided in the description all the necessary information to correctly categorise it.

As we all know this simply does not happen in a large number of cases and those images float about unsorted and unused and undiscoverable even by file name.

Many of us find the principal subject of these images easily identifiable — by sight.

The current categorisation policy does not allow for that and it should. In fact it is being organised —even now Re-organised to make such a use (identification by sight) of this image collection more difficult.

Please may we have a review of the current policy to remedy this unfortunate situation. Eddaido (talk) 21:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I don't understand which policy you are commenting on. Could you provide a link and/or quotations from it? – BMacZero (🗩) 21:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is the current categorisation policy that denies the benefit of placing like if not identical images so they may be viewed side-by-side and identified. Specifically (I am told) here —WP:Subcategorization.
The policy condones the placing of like images that would provide immediate identification down remote "rabbit holes in sub-categories.
We Must have a place where we can visually match like with like. Eddaido (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This is not a technical issue, it's Eddaido pushing an inappropriate change to categorization. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Andy I am asking for a review of this inappropriate application (that bars the use of an essential medium - vision) of the current policy. It is a major issue. Eddaido (talk) 22:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Tuvalkin. I am pointing to a very real quite different problem, it is the way that some editors hide images away down rabbit holes (following the mistaken policy) instead of leaving them in the open so this Visual (its all Images for God's sake) medium Can be categorised by looking at what we have already. Does that make it clearer? Everybody?.
  • @Eddaido: Okay, I understand the problem now. I actually agree with you that the deeply nested category scheme here can make it hard to view all the images of, for example, 1940s Maseratis side-by-side without diving into many child categories. We will never be able to change this core structure of the site, however, FastCCI is a tool that may help you - it has an "all" option that collects all the images from child categories for you to view. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The big problem here is that there are so many computer geeks contributing they seem to be locked into thinking along the railway lines of their machinery. I've followed the link and I'm afraid I don't understand it But you are quite right that might solve this vexing and vexed problem. It has never been mentioned anywhere else at all in all the many previous discussions of this matter which at least shows it is little known (or new). Please let me think about this. Eddaido (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I believe the gadget is enabled by default, so you simply need to go to a category (such as Category:1949 Maserati automobiles), click the arrow next to the "Good Pictures" button, and click "All images".
If it doesn't appear, you can enabled it at Special:Preferences. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, have just found it. Seems to Work (!). Need to mature my first thoughts and will come back. Eddaido (talk) 00:32, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Maturing my thoughts can take me 24 hours or more. Cheers, Eddaido (talk) 00:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • If I've understood you correctly, I don't see this as an appropriate place to raise the underlying technical issue – and the other thread is even worse. Today we're trying to match behaviour to our existing policies, as they are. The technical change you discuss would be way outside this.
Technically, we follow OVERCAT here. We attach the minimum categorization to each item (file or category) and we use inherited implication from their parent categories to add to that. This works: it's a reasonable way to work, particularly because MediaWiki categorization is not sophisticated enough to be ordinal or defining, it's primarily there to support navigation.
We can't work the way you seem to want to. It's unworkable. If we placed explicit categorization onto every item explicitly, we'd need a huge list on each one. Why stop at 1949 Maseratis? You'd need red cars too, and 4-cylinder engines. The list multiplies (compared to now) by a factor comparable to the depth of our current categorization.
I can understand why you'd like this: it's useful. It allows querying across facets of description in a way which can't be done across the simple categories on each. But the solution there is to allow querying on the inherited categories too. Have you tried Petscan? It does what you need:
https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=13434605
It does a lot more too. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

This whole thing seems to me to highlight the misunderstanding some people have between catagorising and tagging images. Per Andy, our system should work so media are categorised at the lowest possible level of commonality. Tagging destroys this structure and invokes COM:OVERCAT, which causes problems of categorising a whole object (particularly, say, a church) by its parts, and IMO should be avoided. The Maserati subcat for one example is, also IMO the correct way of approaching this. I'd say categorising acts like a C++ inheritance tree, but then I'd be accused of being a "computer geek" (which I am, of course, it's one of my degrees). Rodhullandemu (talk) 10:45, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I largely agree with Rodhullandemu, with two qualifications:
    1. the "lowest possible level of commonality" rule is generally good, and I probably stick to it 98% of the time. Every so often, for example there is something like a building that has a street as a parent category, and we have a picture that is mainly a picture of the street but the building is prominently visible. I'd put that in both. Similarly, we might have a picture that shows six members of a legislature, only one of whom has a category of their own. I'd put that in both the category for that individual and the more general (parent) category for members of the legislature, because someone navigating down the category tree to find a picture of a different member of the legislature would never thing to go into the category for that individual.
    2. Sometimes categories get split awfully finely, and without strong, readily available tools to aggregate subcategories, I think that becomes a liability. This is especially the case when the more specific categories are very small, and formed by arbitrary intersections (you know the type, left-handed African American baseball shortstops from Alabama, Black and white photographs of buildings in Midtown Manhattan before 1900).
Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I certainly share and sympathize with Eddaido's frustration with trying to find a good image. Categorizing, sub-categorizing, and meta-sub-sub-categorizing makes sense from an information storage perspective (hi, robots!), but often hinders finding suitable images from casual human users who don't necessarily know the year or context some fastidious Commoner has categorized any given image under. File names and descriptions are often insufficient for text-based searches. Well-tended Gallery pages are certainly useful, but most are poorly maintained, stocked with scant, low-quality images, or otherwise not worth their existence. Similarly, the Good Pictures tool only helps to locate the extreme minority of images that have been formally assessed, and often results in arbitrary or tangential selections (due again to sub-categorization). Tags and "depicts" structured data can help, but are still text based rather visually based. Perhaps what is needed are better ways to visualize an uncategorized collection of images en masse, methods that can exist independently or parallel to category trees. This might result in more efficient, intuitive ways of discovering suitable media. --Animalparty (talk) 20:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Aside: I've always wondered why so few people take any time to build up good gallery pages, which can also double as finding aids. See, for example, one I did this year, Places of worship in Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 20:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Probably because, as you say, they take time. Or people are simply less familiar with them. Commons:Galleries discusses some disadvantages. Galleries allow for some creativity and subjectivity in presentation (which I think some people avoid or fear in favor of robotic uniformity and objectivity). --Animalparty (talk) 22:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

How to check automatically if a djvu file can be previewed?

I am uploading a large catelog of Category:Scans_from_the_China_Academic_Digital_Associative_Library. However, there are a few could not be previewed and displays a djvu icon, which indicates file damage. How to list all files with such issue?--Wmr-bot (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

It may not be perfect since it is picking up some non-corrupt ones as well but all the corrupted ones have a 0x0 size. So Special:Search/incategory:"Scans from the China Academic Digital Associative Library" filew:0 fileh:0. As a side note, please do not post normal messages from your bot account. Bot accounts should only be doing what they are approved to do. Please only comment on other pages using your normal account. Thanks. --Majora (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!--維基小霸王 (talk) 04:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Extending eligibility time for G7 vote

Can the community vote on extending eligibility of G7 to 2 weeks. The reason for my request proposal is so recent uploaded files that the users don't want anymore have more time to be eligible for G7. Please come join this discussion. --VKras (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: I think this was discussed recently, but I can't find it. Anyway I oppose this. Those files can be nominated in a regular DR. In fact, I think a week is already fairly generous. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: This discussion can be found on Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --VKras (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@VKras: I knew it. Well, my view is still the same. Your rationale for extending the period is in order to have the period extended. That is, the reason to allow users a longer window for G7 is to increase the window in which G7 can be used. In other words, the reason for your request to extend G7 eligibility to two weeks is to give users more time to apply G7. In a similar vein, I'm adding a fifth wheel to my car in order to increase its wheel count.
You see where I'm going with this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose I don't see the need. From my experience, uploaders usually notice within a day if they made a mistake. In other cases, the reasons for deleting their uploads are less simple and usually merit a DR. The longer these files can be speedied, the more likely it is that they have found their use in Wikimedia projects or outside them. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
We have guidelines, not dumb rules. The 7 days is just an indication of what is considered a recent file. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Carl Albert

Hello, User:CarlAlbertArchives placed a lot of images in Commons. Although the descriptions on the pictures are at times very sloppy, it is a great treasure on the US politics in the 1970s. However, the thing is, that every picture is categorized in Category:Carl Albert, even if Mr. Albert is not depicted in the picture. As a result, this category is overcrowded, while it would be better to place the images in a hidden “Images donated by the Carl Albert Center”-category, or something similar..

Ideally, there should be a bot, which goes though the uploads of User:CarlAlbertArchives and change the category from “Carl Albert” to ““Images donated by the Carl Albert Center”. Is there anyone around, who is technically skilled enough to make such a bot? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Jeff5102 and others: On a second look, it seems that this would be better served by manual, individual assessment of each of these 2725 photos than by a mass move from Category:Carl Albert to Category:Images donated by the Carl Albert Center: That would/will allow better categorization (which improves useability) and the latter cat seems more suitable to be transcluded by a new entry under the Creator or Institution namespaces. I will start working on it later this week, but at a pace of a handful of photos each day — more people are needed to help dissiminate this interesting collection. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Great work! I am thinking of categories concerning Carl Albert's birthday in 1976, the House delegation trip to Eastern Europe in August 1975, and the Korean-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference. July 22-23, 1973. If I fid some time, I'll work on them. Please tell me if you can think of some others. One thing I saw, was that everybody was wearing name-tags at the 1976 birthday-party. That might help for spotting some notable people, who were still unrecognized by the Carl Albert Center. Thanks again,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Good idea! I already made a "Carl Albert in 1976"-category. There will be more to follow. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

May I start a proposal to add an inbuilt MP4 to the Webm-ogv converter in the upload wizard?

We will not store mp4, just convert it to open formats such as WebM and ogv. All cameras record in mp4, the uploader is required to convert it to mp4, otherwise, they can't upload to commons. Conversion takes time, expensive computers, etc. It should be understood that conversion will take place either on the uploader's computer or WMF's servers. By doing the conversion on the WMF server we can increase the number of video files. And by not keeping the mp4 file we are not hampering with WMF's goal. By not allowing the conversion we are certainly hampering upload of many educational videos. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: I was recently thinking about this. It's actually more simple than what you say. We can simply allow Mp4 uploads but disable downloading of the original. That's really all there would be to it. The main issue here is that as far as I know, there is currently no functionality to disable downloads of original files while keeping the transcoded files up. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Btw, when Commons allowed Mp4 files due to a bug (That was fun!) we saw what happens when this is allowed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz What you see is actually after downloading it. No way to restrict a file download if you can see it. If you have a solution don't tell us, you will be far more rich with money from youtube/Netflix. BTW Are you aware of Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video -- Eatcha (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
List of United States MPEG-2 patents states that on 14 February 2018 the last patent expired, what does that even mean? -- Eatcha (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: No.. when you watch an MP4 file on Commons (in the Commons video player or embedded on a sister project), you are actually watching a transcoded version, a WEBM file. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz what do you mean by "watch an MP4 file on Commons"? I don't think files are streamed as mp4. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Exactly, when you watch an MP4 file (which currently you can't because they were all deleted!), it is actually streamed as a WEBM. The original isn't used for streaming. It is only available as a download. For example, https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/transcoded/4/4c/Jupiter_Odyssey.mp4/Jupiter_Odyssey.mp4.480p.vp9.webm was once a valid link. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz I don't have a problem with mp4, we are using google-vision API ( see Computer-aided tagging designs ) and pretending that we support free software/formats, etc. Maybe WMF shouldn't have asked comments at Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I don't understand. If we enable MP4 uploads but disable downloading the original file, what you say is accomplished. The only difference is that the original MP4 is actually stored (but not publicly accessible) on WMF servers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz Maybe the proposal should be split into two parts. 1) convert to webm/ogg and don't keep the mp4 and 2) don't allow mp4 downloads, stream transcoded webm but keep the original mp4 file.

I am afraid that there are still some users who will object to mp4 storage, I prefer the second one as it would save wmf's money by getting one timeless trascoded than 1). Please introduce changes if you wish. --Eatcha (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: The biggest issue here is not consensus (getting consensus to enable MP4 for autopatrollers shouldn't be a big issue, for others may be harder), but developers. Disabling downloads of original files requires developers. So it may take forever to make that happen. Your original proposal of converting the MP4 and throwing away the MP4 (like Video2Commons does) probably requires even more development time. Although I can't be sure, I don't know how MediaWiki works. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

H264 patents hasn't expired, so this this gonna be a legal greyzone. WMF-Legal have not commented on the task. Also note that this proposal is exactly what phab:T157319 intends to do --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

On August 26, 2010, MPEG LA announced that royalties won't be charged for H.264(patent expiring in 2027) encoded Internet video that is free to end users.

And if you are eager to know the rates see https://video.stackexchange.com/questions/14694/mp4-h-264-patent-issues/14699#14699 . These rates don't apply to WMF as it's not-for-profit org. -- Eatcha (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer nor have time to look into all the legal mess surrounding patents. However, my second point, that this has been on the wishlist for a long time, still stands. Will you provide the patch to add this feature, and potentially maintain it? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei you mean delete the patch that's restricting MP4 uploads ? They're streamed as Webm anyways. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No. "an inbuilt MP4 to the Webm-ogv converter in the upload wizard", as the section header suggests. Under what format the video is streamed as is irrelevant. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If they(MP4 files) are streamed as webm, then they must have been transcoded somewhere. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I just have to delete the mp4 after the transcoding. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And change the displayed extension on the filepage to Webm. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are transcoded by the videoscaler cluster, under the MediaWiki job queue, and by the TimedMediaHandler extension. However, to me, transcoding it after it is uploaded looks like a violation of the linked RfC. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I interpret the RFC as "Do the worst to MP4 extension", what's worse than deleting the MP4 after uploading it and transcoding to Webm. (You can't stream it, can't download it because it's nuked. In favor of open formats like webm) Similar to De-adminship, where users once removed from administering power don't contribute anymore. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Do you object to transcoding and nuking MP4? -- Eatcha (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this matter personally. However, I am against implementing something that might be against a previous RfC without establishing an alternate consensus first. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) heh. Though, could you explain your understanding of the difference between Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Partial_MP4_support_-_Contributions_only and Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#No_MP4_support? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei
No MP4 support: Don't allow MP4 uploads, that's it.(Which means forget about streaming or downloading MP4). You must transcode MP4 on your device to upload it.
Partial MP4 support: Allow users to upload MP4 files, transcode them to webm. Don't allow mp4 streaming. But keep the MP4 files.
(What I am saying in this proposal is "nuke the mp4 files after transcoding to webm because it doesn't matters who transcodes it, we can't stop users from recording in MP4") -- Eatcha (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And maybe we shouldn't even try to "Editing a webm file is like running for oversight rights or even more difficult" -- Eatcha (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I don't think I get what you mean by the "Editing a webm file ... difficult". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Try editing a webm and a mp4 video on https://www.openshot.org/download/ you would get what I mean.(Try not to install any add-ons as a normal user.) --Eatcha (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah it's gonna take too much time messing around just to get it running... User:Zhuyifei1999/sandbox. I see what you mean that it's difficult. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The transcoding fix is not going to change anything. You are still left with uploads from questionable sources, which has always been the main critism of mp4 uploads. There are plans to fix that at phab:T132650. Browser support is irrelevant, as the server transcodes the files to other formats anyway.
"should have not asked" is not the way we work around here. If an majority of the community does not like it, then it does not get done. Period. It does not matter wether this case goes straight to the developers, the result is going to be the same one. --Snaevar (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Practical issues: Transcoding takes time: File:Politparade.webm#Transcode_status the fullHD version alone took 5 hours and the other sizes had to be transcoded to. The 4K transcode actually cannot be done, because it is larger than the uploaded file and breaks the 4GiB limit. How is the wizard supposed to handle this issues? Stall until the transcoding of all sizes was successful? Or create the description page and hope that a successful transcoding will be possible? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CSuthorn It's similar to Video2commons, you add all the description and upload the file and go to do other work and when you return the file is alredy uploaded. We are not discusiing on increasing the rate limit here, if you have a large file than you can't upload it today or after the implementation of this proposal. It's about the files within the upload limit. Upload limit is decided by WMF. If you like to transcode your self then there is no problem with that, this proposal is for those users who can't afford a nice computer or don't know how to transcode or are too lazy o do that. -- Eatcha (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a question of UI design and user expectations. If I am a naive user and upload a file (not even knowing it is 3GiB in size) then I will expect, that after uploading something will happen. If I have to wait for 2 days before the wizard tells me, my upload succeded, or if the upload "succeeds" but I cannot view my uploaded file for days, what will I think about the wiki software? At iOS the file size is normally hidden to the user (and the file is not even .mp4 but .mov). It is not about allowing something in the wizard, but to create a scenario for the user experience and it does not look, as if you have put much thought into this. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
CSuthorn If a file is larger than the limit, the upload wizard will block the upload, the user doesn't need to wait for 2 days. It's up to the WMF to decide , and again it's not a discussion on UI but transcoding mp4 on the wmf servers. Implementation will be discussed after this proposal is accepted and checked by wiki legal staff. -- Eatcha (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
What if the original file is < 4GiB but the resulting file is > 4GiB? How would the wizard block the upload without prior knowledge that the resulting file will be > 4 GiB? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei
As for the size of the file, both formats provide relatively similar compression, so the difference in the sizes of the same files of MP4 and WebM formats is not that significant. However, WebM files tend to be a bit smaller than MP4 files. Please give examples to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree. -- Eatcha (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I gave the example in my first post: the transcoded 4k-webm is larger than the uploaded 4k-webm. As you say mp4 and webm have similar sizes. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • CSuthorn Can you clarify ? I said if you transcode a MP4 file to Webm it's gonna be smaller. Why are you even talking about "transcoded 4k-webm is larger than the uploaded 4k-webm" we are discussing about transcoding mp4 to webm. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The file sizes depends a lot on the compression settings. phab:T191572#4124959. There is no generalization on which format is larger or smaller. Yes, on a bitrate vs quality graph, VP9 achieves better quality given same bitrate than H264, but there is no "same quality" transcode option.
So, videos transcoded by v2c easily end up larger than the input, given a high constant quality encode option, especially on videos with high fps or resolution who are often originally encoded with constrained quality. Since you asked for an example, the input of File:Wasserfall_Rabischschlucht_20190819_4K_60FPS.webm is 369978195 bytes (353M)
I know what you might be thinking; hey, VP9 2160P is 105736159 bytes (101M), and that is smaller. Ok first, that is a 1216x2160, instead of the original 2160x3840, so if we assume the bitrate is linear to the number of pixels, then we get 333903660 bytes (318M), and that is just slightly smaller than the input. Second, v2c transcodes under the assumption that we might be holding the only copy of the video, and we want the output to be really good, for archival purposes; videoscalers transcodes under the assumption that there are better copies; they are "compressing" the video rather than "archiving" it.
And then there's the issue of "if we are enabling this service for mp4, why not other formats like mov, which C.Suthorn mentioned?" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I should add, one could possibly construct an H264 that will end up larger after transcode, by transcoding a much-larget-than-limit VP9 to H264, limiting the bitrate so that the resulting MP4 is just slightly smaller than the limit. Because H264 and VP9 will encode differently, compression artifacts of H264 will be caught by VP9 when it is transcoded back, resulting in... a lot of unnecessary junk clogging up the VP9 stream. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Can we please test it on external video downloaders(that don't upscale):
Here two popular videos on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3YmHZ9HMPs , https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jScuYd3_xdQ
Try downloading it using https://keepvid.pro/
or using https://en.savefrom.net/1-how-to-download-youtube-video/
or https://getvideo.org/en
or any other site or software which doesn't upscale files. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to say. youtube-dl is what v2c uses and does not upscale files. I don't use random websites to download videos. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei but you do use FFmpeg with best arguments  ? -- Eatcha (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Define "best arguments". It's all about trade-offs --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999 Lower constant of rate factor, although that's the best thing about it. --Eatcha (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The lower the crf, the lower the qp, the larger the file size, and eventually what you get is madness --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One point we should bare in mind: As with AV1 there is a new and better free codec then VP9 it is unclear how long we will use VP9/VP8 as main codec. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

GPSLeo This should also be added in the proposal, in my opinion, it depends on WMF IMO -- Eatcha (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I is also important because AV1 can use webm, mkv and mp4 as container. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Eatcha and Zhuyifei1999: I'm still trying to figure stuff out regarding licensing. This information isn't public, [1] is pretty much it. The statement "royalties won't be charged for H.264 encoded Internet video that is free to end users" is, for the purposes of your proposal, completely meaningless. It means that Commons could legally offer H.264 encoded content for download. (users may or may not be able to play content in their browser, depending on what codecs the user has installed)
  • There is no differentiation between encoders and decoders. You pay for both or none, as far as I can tell.
  • You have to pay if you want to provide a user with a decoder and/or encoder. For this reason, any solution that includes hosting some H.264 decoder on WMF servers that runs on computers owned by users will cost millions of dollars. BAD idea.
  • Providing said decoder in, say, the Commons app: same story. BAD idea. Commons app may be able to utilize codecs provided by the OS though.
  • Utilizing the H.264 decoder in browsers to feed video frames into some VP9/AV1 encoder.. probably okay, but possibly sketchy and should certainly be examined by legal before deployment.
  • H.264 decoding on WMF servers, like Video2Commons does currently. This is a big question mark. WMF uses open source software which includes no patent license whatsoever. This could be resolved in a hilarious manner by buying a cheap smartphone and using duct tape to attach it to a WMF server. I guess the smartphone would actually have to decode the video, but such a thing actually could be set up. I doubt you'd even need more than 10 phones for this. More elegant solutions would be to use the decoder in a GPU, a dedicated hardware decoder expansion card or..
  • ..all kidding aside, https://fluendo.com/ offers codecs with patent licenses. The question with all this is: can that legally be used this way? MPEG LA: "Includes right to manufacture and sell AVC encoders and decoders with the right of End Users to use them for personal and consumer (including internal business) purposes without remuneration but not for other uses". So the question here is: is decoding videos (server side) that are uploaded by users classified as "internal business"? I have no friggin' idea! And I can't figure out what other uses may exist. The whole thing is aimed at businesses who want to offer H.264 video, not those who just want to decode it.
We need legal for an answer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reminder: we already had this discussion once in 2014 and the result was the rejection of mp4 on commons.--Pristurus (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO, we should support MP4. But as Pristurus mentioned, it was rejected by more than 250 voters. The legal department will not consider this until we open an rfc and overturn the previous consensus, which is hard. Maybe we can influence some more users to vote in favor of MP4, by stating the downsides of not allowing MP4. --Eatcha (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
May be we should revisit this issue. Lack of support for MP4 files makes it very hard to contribute videos. The currently supported file formats, are not supported by many tools and I think ist is hurting our project. --Jarekt (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, if possible we should over turn the previous consensus. Do we need more participants. But this time the RfC should mention the downsides of not allowing MP4, gonorrhea for videos, AIDS for the servers, and bla bla bla... --Eatcha (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

File:G20.svg

There is an ongoing dispute over the depiction of this map. Specifically it is about the political adherence of a certain region. A straw poll on how to proceed has been opened at the talk page where additional uninvolved input would be welcome. Please feel free to weigh in there. De728631 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem with inclusion on DR page

Could someone with more technical knowledge about Mediawiki than me have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07? It seems that Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is not included correctly, although the page source looks fine to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved up to jdx's section. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes reading the VP makes sense. Thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

picture does not match reference

Hello everyone. I was warned via OTRS that this file does not match the image pointed to as a source for it, which can easily be proven. Since I don't know the original source of the image, I bring the case here.--Leon saudanha (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Leon saudanha. I found the source and updated the information as best I can manually. Fæ may be able to fill in some gaps that I messed up. GMGtalk 16:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi GreenMeansGo. Grateful for the quick resolution of the problem :-). Greetings!--Leon saudanha (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Blanked out copyrighted image

This pictured statue is limited by European freedom of panorama laws, so I have blanked out the copyright bit, but the Flikr bot can't review the license as the image doesn't match the source, can anyone review the license on Flikr please? ~ R.T.G 01:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Image order

Hi, we want New Year logos for Tatar wikipedia, like this File:Снеговик в масштабе.png and this File:Wikipedia-logo-v4-ru-xmas.png. Is it possible? --Derslek (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange MediaWiki issue

Please go to the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07 and also look at its source. Instead of contents of Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 only #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is displayed. What may be the problem? Too many transcluded templates? --jdx Re: 13:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with more technical knowledge about Mediawiki than me have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07? It seems that Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is not included correctly, although the page source looks fine to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Above comment by Srittau merged from Commons:Village pump#Problem with inclusion on DR page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Transclusion size might be too big. Happens on other DR pages too, such as Commons:Deletion requests/2019/10. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What 大诺史 said. Resolve some other DRs and Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 should show. (tested it in preview already) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Template limits. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Also mentioned here. I think adding a message box to all DR lists would be a good idea, as this will most probably happen again. Ahmadtalk 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Has quality"

I have mostly been ignoring structured data for Commons photos, but some recent changes to images I took or am otherwise following seem almost certainly wrong.

What does it mean for these to say of these "has quality" "hotel"? Isn't that what "depicts" is about? What does "has quality" add here? @Shameran81: you seem to be the main one adding these, can you explain why this is "has quality"? - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

hi there @Jmabel: Yes, I used the AC/DC tool, it's just out, this semi-automates adding structured data to all images that are already in a category. In this case, all these images were in the category Hotels in Seattle. Do they not have the quality of being a hotel .... I'm somewhat new to structured data, I will attend a wikidata/structured data hackathon tomorrow am, so I'll check in then with how to be more specific and reclassify the images as needed. Great photos Joe! I should have figured all these Seattle hotel photos were your doing. Shameran81 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that I'm not sure how that image of the restaurant workers was in the Hotels in Seattle category -! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shameran81 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it you are effectively asserting that the image has the quality of being a hotel. It isn't a hotel. It depicts a hotel. But I may misunderstand. This just surprises me -- a lot -- based on what I had read about how these properties were to be used. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You make a good point. I will only say that "playing" with this new tool means the edits have more scale. I'm aiming to improve structured data, and I'm still learning. The good thing is, it's a wiki! I'll check in again tomorrow per my note above. Shameran81 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Posted at Commons talk:Structured data#"Depicts" vs. "has quality" asking people to look here and comment if they are more knowledgeable than I. - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I made a mistake in using "depicts" which is more meta rather than has quality. I am going back to redo these, but patience, as ACDC is powerful! Happy to do a skill-share at the next cascadia meet up if you haven't already used this new tool. Shameran81 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in working on structured data. I'm just interested in not having it misapplied on my photos! - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" extension

What extension does the "Nominate for deletion" button use? Does anyone know if it's used on any other wikis? It seems a much simpler system for creating relevant nomination subpages than e.g. w:WP:MFD. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I believe this is Help:QuickDelete. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bug in a template

Hello.

There is a bug in template : "https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Object_location" : "Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 237: Tried to read nil global nul."

--ComputerHotline (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed by Mike Peel Module_talk:Coordinates#Lua_error_in_Module:Coordinates_at_line_237:_Tried_to_read_nil_global_nul. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Is Estonia in "Western Europe"?

Category:Music of Estonia is in Category:Music of Western Europe. It strikes me as odd to describe the Baltics as "Western Europe". I would think "Northern" and possibly either "Eastern" or "Central", but not "Western". - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on Western Europe, no. It is part of Eastern Europe. --Fæ (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The article en:Northern Europe has a number of different classifications. Depending on whose classification you read, Estonia can be in
  • Eastern Europe (CIA Factbook - divisions are North, West, South-west, East, Central, South-east and South)
  • Northern Europe (EuroVoc - EU official terminology - divisions are North, South, West and Central& EastEast)
  • Northern Europe (UN Geoscheme - divisions are North, South, West and East)
So Estonia is certainly not Western Europe. However, I am not happy with User:Fæ moving it to Music of Eastrern Europe without looking at the bigger picture. I see a number of other countries that are not normally regarded as being in Western Europe in the same category. Looking at this type of classification elsewhere in Commons, maybe it would be best to merge "Category:Music of Western Europe" and "Category:Music of Eastern Europe" back into "Music of Europe". If we want to split Europe up, then it should be done for all categories (Transport, Cathederals etc) not just music. Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly in music, I would categorize it as Northern Europe. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of photographer's contributions to create "racial" stereotypes

Refer to Village pump/Copyright#File:Nosacz_janusz.png_and_sharpphotography.co.uk, mentioning here as the discussion is actually about projects scope for hosting user-created media rather than copyright. The derivative remains problematic. It uses a monkey to promote a "racial" stereotype. The derivative was created apparently for the amusement of some Polish Wikipedians, rather than due to external use of this specific photograph. The photographer who is active on Commons is not happy or comfortable seeing their contributions here being used to promote a "racial" stereotype or "racial" joke, despite the derivative surviving a DR. --Fæ (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the action you're seeking here? We already had a deletion discussion in the DR you mentioned (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosacz janusz.png). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably it would fall under "courtesy deletion"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Original discussion was archived before the photographer responded. One outcome could be a second DR, especially if more factors arise. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Misiek2, Pawel Niemczuk, Jdx, and Jarekt: would an image with the same text of a man who fits the stereotype and with his face replaced with a non-existent one be a suitable replacement? I'm asking before I put in any work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz: : Replacing this picture with a picture with a non-existent person's face would render the picture inadequate and thus useless as for quite a long time this kind of monkey is strongly and inseparably associated with the figure of typowy janusz (typical janusz). And typowy janusz, as I explained in the deletion request discussion, is a humorous and a bit mocking representation of a stereotypical Polish male and his stereotypical features (mainly vices). What more: this kind of memes do not compare Poles to monkeys but rather utilise the fact that these monkeys look somehow oddly and funnily. Replacing the face of this particular kind of monkey with a face of a random (or non-existent) human being is as pointless as replacing a picture of Eiffel Tower with a picture of some different structure, lets say, Gliwice Radio Tower: it somehow resembles the Eiffel Tower but is made of wood, is shorter, is not located in Paris. Briefly: it's not the Eiffel Tower. Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, it's not for Commons to be a free host for user created content. Either Wikipedia articles about racial memes can have real source materials or they can't. Plenty of free hosts are available for user fantasy drawings. --Fæ (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought this was about Charles and/or the monkeys.. if it's not,  Keep and you should take your complaint to plwiki, because we're not going to editorialise on other projects. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wrong way, this is a case of plwiki changing Commons' scope. Nobody is trying to dictate what plwiki wants to host. --Fæ (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
COM:INUSE. If you think plwiki is wrong, convince plwiki to remove the image from their article. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The photographer of this image doesn't appear to be aware of what the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license does. This could be a serious problem even irrespective of the current issue.
@Charlesjsharp: CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and in fact, every license we allow here) permits anyone to use and modify your work, without contacting you (but with attribution). You explicitly agreed to this by choosing that license when you uploaded your work here. You can request that people adhere to other requirements (and if you want to do that, we can create a custom template for you that makes them clear), but you cannot enforce them. Though they can result in people using your work in ways you don't support, we require these licenses because that freedom makes it safe and easy for other re-users such as news sites and educators to use your work, the vast majority of whom will be using it in good ways in line with your requirements. Does this make sense? – BMacZero (🗩) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Uploaders of properly-licensed images can't require us to delete them, but sometimes we make "courtesy deletions" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fair, but I think it is very important that Charles is aware that he doesn't have the rights he thinks he has over re-users, particularly on other sites that might not be as accomodating. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously this is not about "race" (as we know, there are no human races, but if there were, the race would be slavic or caucasian, not polish), but nationality. Is the file still problematic, if seen as a depiction of a national stereotype? --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Like depicting the Irish as stupid, or people from African countries living in mud huts (or exactly the same as plwiki, as monkeys)? Are we going to have to be even handed and host user created images of those very real and in use stereotypes? --Fæ (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I don't understand the text, I don't really know if this discussion is besides the point or not. Anyway, isn't the image mis-attributed? The photographer doesn't appear to be the author. Jura1 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Other bug in a template

In a description of some images, there is some code (style="margin: 1.5em auto; width:100%; background-color:#FFFFE8; border:2px dotted #aaaaaa; padding:1px;" and |}) wich display. The code appears especially here : [2], [3].

--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@ComputerHotline: there are several problems here and the wikicode isn't very readable. You should create Creator:ComputerHotline so you can transclude that directly. User:ComputerHotline/about should be moved to the template: namespace, or you could migrate to {{Not public domain}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue is related to recent conversion of {{Information}} template to Lua code. It is also discussed at Template_talk:Information#Rewrite_in_Lua_(again). It seems like the new code handles wiki tables than the old code. If number of templates using wiki tables is small than it might be easier to change them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz:  : create a creator template ??? I've more 70000 files on commons ???? I can't. --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ComputerHotline: I can. You want me to? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ComputerHotline, I rewrote your template so it uses html tables not wikitables (at least in English version). That should fix the issue for now. --Jarekt (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Searching depicts statements - coming soon

Sorry that it's slightly blurry.

The developers are finishing up the ability to search depicts statements in the search bar without any advanced tools or using haswbstatement. This change will go live within a few weeks. It is available for registered users only, is opt-in by default, but can be turned off at any time in a user's search preferences once the feature is here. I'll provide an update when I know more about when this will be available. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If I search for "haswbstatement:P180=Q66001615", I get a single file, that has the depict-statement "Dyke March Berlin 2019" - just as expected.
At wikidata the item is an "instance of" Q4154060 (Dyke March)
However, if I search for "haswbstatement:P180=Q4154060", I get three files of Dyke Marches, but not the one from the first search, even though it depicts the Dyke March Berlin 2019, which is an instance of a Dyke March.
That is not, what I would have expected?
--C.Suthorn (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: yes, this is a symptom of search's current inability to crawl the hierarchy of Wikidata's ontology. While fixing this is not on the current development roadmap, it's still something the team would like to correct in the future. While it doesn't help with searching, querying is getting easier with the (very beta) SDC Query service and you should be able to write SPARQL queries that would return all the entries you're expecting. Again, querying and searching are certainly two different things, but we're getting there in stages. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow that is awesome. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Photograph family Tairraz

I uploaded the scanned postcard and only later I discovered that the photografer only died in 1975. I will nominate the picture for deletion until 2046. However I discovered a interesting website: http://www.photo-alpine.com/en/content/9-photographe-tairraz. How can I preserve this background license information on the Commons? The first two phographers are PD. On the French Wiki, there are mentions of Georges Tairraz, but no article on him or his family. I pointed this out in the French 'Bistro'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool Tool : Play ISA and win some prizes with the Wiki Loves Africa MetaData Weeks

This is a quick announcement and call for All Commonists to come and play on the ISA tool. The images in this first Wiki Loves Africa MetaData Weeks or Africa At Play! were originally submitted to Wikimedia Commons as part of the Wiki Loves Africa 2017 photographic contest. There are prizes to be won! The competition closes on 29th November You can enter the competition here: https://tools.wmflabs.org/isa/campaigns/39

The ISA Tool was created to provide a fun way for participants to add information/ tags / descriptors that identifies the elements that makes up each image by linking it to existing WikiData statements (it was named the coolest multimedia tool at the recent WikiData Conference). ISA is one of the pilot projects for the Structured Data on Commons project and helps to make images more useful as illustrations of articles, and also more easy to search for - it is multilingual too! (It is a tool that is so cool it won the multimedia award at WikiData Conference 2019.) Islahaddow (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

How can I stop deletion of photos?

Greetings, 2 days ago (7th Novemeber, 2019) I got notification of deletion some photos of Bengali author Salman Aziz [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] In previous times, those were flagged for deletion, but after providing these references they kept the photos and I also have author's personal consent to use the photos. I don't know how to stop deletion. Please someone help me in this case. Deletion page of photo

Sincerely --S Kahn (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ http://www.librarything.com/author/azizsalman
  2. ↑ https://openlibrary.org/authors/OL7403438A/Salman_Aziz
  3. ↑ https://www.goodreads.com/author/show/17071167.Salman_Aziz
  4. ↑ https://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/SalmanAziz
  5. ↑ https://www.amazon.com/Salman-Aziz/e/B071XMBLBL/ref=dp_byline_cont_ebooks_1
  6. ↑ https://www.imdb.com/name/nm8857432/
  7. ↑ https://books.google.ca/books?id=-yJADwAAQBAJ&pg=PT34&dq=Salman+Aziz&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi_6d-aguDXAhVDxVQKHdbxCtYQ6AEIKDAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

The files have not been deleted, but a Deletion Request has been started (again). In the last DR User:Geo Swan said there was an OTRS ticket (without mentioning the number), User:Ankry kept the files, and you said, you did not know about this ticket. Now the files do not have an OTRS ticket attached. Maybe it would help to finally insert that ticket? --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification at the OTRS noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, C.Suthorn (talk) and De728631 (talk) thank you for your messages. Please help me to get OTRS ticket for the photos and do something so that in future those are not again flagged for deletion because I don't know how to fix it! I would be grateful to you, if you help me! Regards --S Kahn (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Is there more automated upload method than Upload Wizard?

Using Upload Wizard I still have to cut and paste the category 100 times and and cut and paste the description 100 times if I am uploading 100 tombstones from a cemetery, is there a better way?. RAN (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I haven't used any of them myself, but there are a number of tools designed for bulk uploading described at Commons:Upload tools. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
RAN in Upload Wizard there is this link under first image properties to copy them to all the images... --Jarekt (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ... I will try both tomorrow! RAN (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎‎

user:Shameran81‎, user:Carlinmack‎, user:Jackiekoerner‎, user:Thsmi002‎ have worked together today to remove 17 files from Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎‎

While I take no stance if the category is appropiate, or if the files are, I consider it obvious that the images (as long as they exist) belong in the category (as long as it exists).

What is going on here? --2A03:2260:2009:0:0:0:0:1 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki trolling. Unfortunately some prawns have nothing better to entertain themselves. --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Striking the casual use of British English prawn, it's creating a distraction when the word "misguided and probably delightful people acting in good faith" would serve. --Fæ (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that many images in that category have nothing to do with computer technology‎‎. I just looked at File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg what computer technology‎‎ does it depict? Which images were removed? --Jarekt (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no trolling going on here. Edits are clearly being made in good-faith, with the intention of improving Commons. These kinds of comments are not helpful. Dominic (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunate that it apparently didn't occur to anyone to just ask them what they are doing instead of reporting them as if this is a problem to be solved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
[Note: I'm here because this edit war is getting discussed around lots of places and I heard about it]. I think its inappropriate to describe these users as trolls. It appears to be an edit war, and these users are acting in good faith. If people are going to be accused of trolling, I think diffs should be provided, and arguments provided as to how and why they are explicitly acting in bad faith, as opposed to just people disagreeing with you. If diffs and argument aren't going to be provided, I think the accusation should be withdrawn. Bawolff (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also add, do any of these images actual depict computer technology? Seems like a better name to be technically more accurate would be: Category:Tech company logos and jargon in body paint on sexualized nude women Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if we're going to talk about trolling. I opened up special:relatedchanges for that category. As of this writing the most recent edit, is User:Tm editing File:Female nudes by Exey Panteleev - 02.jpg diff to change the description (reverting to an older version) from "Two naked woman stand side by side, one on the left being taller. Painted across the stomach of the woman on the left is "500 GiB" and on the right is "500 GB"." to "Backstage GIF <a href="https://t.me/geekography/305" rel="noreferrer nofollow">t.me/geekography/305</a>. Two naked woman stand side by side, one on the left being taller. Painted across the stomach of the woman on the left is "500 GiB" and on the right is "500 GB".. No edit summary was given. At a glance, I do not understand how Tm's edit could be considered appropriate. Why would you add a link in the wrong html format that can't even render, which would be appropriate in the source field maybe (If fixed to use a wiki link instead of html), but certainly doesn't belong in the image description. Bawolff (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Just readding proper descriptions, deleted by the users above, as can be seen if anyone cared to see this files histories. Tm (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tm: Can you clarify why a misrendered link is part of a proper image description for the file. To me, it seems like descriptions should include proper wiki syntax, and not link to authors or sources (As there are other fields for that). Additionally, as someone trying to look in from outside, I'd really appreciate if edit summaries were used so that the history page would be easier to follow and I would be able to better understand the reasoning behind the reverts. Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment And also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and the cover made bt technology magazines about this images and whom requested the deletion of this images and them you can see that: 1-This images have a proper category; 2-This is just another attempt to censor and decontextualize this images of what they really depict. Tm (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you really saying that this edit readds "proper descriptions"? Airplaneman ✈ 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. Or is it the removal of the dexcriptions what this image depicts and an link to a backstage video (GIF) an proper description? Remember that besides the user above, user:Seazzy is making this edits and this user was the one that opened all, or at least, several of the DR´s below. Funny coincidence? Or is this a concentrated effort to remove this images from a proper catwgory and destreoy all proper context given in the description as to what the flickr author meant to represent symbolically in this images?
[edit conflict] To me at least, a nude portrayal of computer technology, would be for example, a video of someone without clothes writing code on a computer. There is a difference between portraying a technology, and portraying a buzzword associated with the technology. If there was a picture of a clothed person, wearing a shirt that has the facebook logo, I would not consider that a depiction of facebook. I don't know why that suddenly changes because people are naked. But perhaps the exact name of the category is a side issue. Many of the edits that the group that the original complaint seems to be about, is giving neutral, perhaps clinical, descriptions of what the picture depicts. I don't see how mass reverting, without even a reason in an edit summary, is appropriate. Descriptions help people find the photos they want. Why are we reverting people better describing these images - we need those better descriptions so that people who want these images can find these images when they search. And to be clear, I haven't looked at everyone of these edits, perhaps some of them might be justifiably reverted, I haven't seen any yet, but I haven't read every edit in this little edit war. I just object to the blanked reverting of what mostly looks like constructive edits, without even an edit summary to say the reasoning of the revert. Bawolff (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not revert the text added to the descrption. I merely readded what was the original description on the file, that shows what was the intention of the flickr author. Tm (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Sorry, meant to show other DR´s.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg

See the worldwide coverage by tech press and websites, some of the biggest ones and them see that removing that descriptions of pages is a deservice. This are images that cover technology and this attempts at modify it can only be called censorship or contextualization. Tm (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the DR's are relevant. What is reasonably useful for an educational purpose is something that reasonable people can disagree on - thus there was a discussion, and the community decided to keep, and that was that. Are you saying that people who argue for deleting a file are then not allowed to ever make constructive edits to the file description pages? That seems weird to me. I haven't read all of the edits, but the edits I've read don't seem to be removing descriptions - just clarifying them or making them more accurate or even fixing formatting - are you saying having accurate descriptions is inappropriate? (I'm not sure what you mean by contextualize here. There's a lot of ways to take that word. Are you claiming that the new summaries are not neutral and thus put the images in an inappropriate context? I'm just not sure I'm understanding your point correctly). Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Tm, Those images do not depict technology, they depict naked women (often without heads) with some random tech jargon or icons pained on them. They are of no use in articles related to technology and the image descriptions and file names should reflect that. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, and I often use it for work. I do not want closeups of vaginas or penises in the search results when searching for computer terms like "HTML output" or "SQL - DROP TABLE". --Jarekt (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
When this people were the ones nominating them to deletion, removing descriptions that give context to this images, when they know what this images are and come from, i see they deletion of original descrptions as an attempt to censor. They didnt try to enlarge the conection between what this images symbolically represent images and their nudity. They merely deleted all that was related with technology, and so did a deservice.
This images are an artistic representation of technology, that have been covered by the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the french newspaper Libération, in their proper context. This author gave an interview to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project (that connects nude photography and technology], that is covered by the Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎‎. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like Being news in Reflex. Or Violet Blue "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covers this same project. Or some more eamples like the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012, had photos published in "nude art photography" book.
Will Commons preserve the context of this images as did all this newspapers, some of the biggest tech websites, that publish images with the same subject and of the same author and speak about his photos and work, always covered this images as an mixture between tech and nude photography and Commons will destroy the context of this photos, just for the sake of pleasing some users with an agenda that shouldnt justify this attempt at censortship? Tm (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
So from what I understand, your concern is that these edits interfere with the artistic integrity of the work, by modifying the original description as given by the original author. I don't really feel that that is the point of the description field. I view it as a field that describes what is depicted in the work (regardless of how the author titled it) so that users can know what the image is of. Secondly it is for search so that people can find the works. I'm not aware of a general commons policy that descriptions must respect the artistic wishes of the author, or that even it should - A description is not a Title. As precedent, the german federal archive images had a separate field for original title - we did not just blindly keep the original title because that's what the author intended. Bawolff (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) [Edit: Since with all the edit conflicts I ended up responding to something slightly different then what I was originally - I would add, I don't think the notability is at issue anymore - there was a DR it was closed. But commons isn't just a collection of notable artistic images (It explicitly not a place to showcase artistic skill we have artistic images because they are "educational" not because they are artistic, but there is a lot of overlap) - its a collection of images useful for an education purpose - to that end, image descriptions should describe the image so that people can find and understand the image and use it for educational purposes - as that is the purpose of commons.] Bawolff (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I´am not saying to blindly keep the original description as it is, such that i kept all the addictions by the above user, but deleting all the information, as their were doing in this case, takes this works out of their proper context and intent of the image. Think that if every context information from "El Tres de Mayo" painting by Francisco de Goya, what you would end with would be something in the likes of "Soldiers with rifles shooting at civilians". Also i´vw moved the oCategory:Nude portrayals of computer technology to Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology) to be more specific and given an temporary description, in that category, of what this images are. Tm (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, if any of the edits totally removed the description and left nothing there - that would be inapropriate and should be reverted with an appropriate edit summary. But descriptions should be relavent and accurate - if there's information that's not relavent or not acurate than it should be removed. Of course that can be a judgement call, which is why when people disagree they should (politely) take it to talk pages and be clear in edit summaries as to the rationale for reverting to the previous version - which did not happen here. Bawolff (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the original information, that was removed by the above mentioned users, was relevant and accurate. Instead of improving the description, these users totally removed what this images were symbolically representing, i.e. the intention of the artist i.e. the context of what made this images more than simple depictions of straight forward nude photography, and merely replaced them with an description what was merely seen, without any artistic and simbolic context to what was depicted. I merely readded the original description, besides the one of what was written by the above users and made improvements to two or three images descriptions. I didnt deleted any descriptions, simply reaaded the necessary context that was deleted by the above users. Tm (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we disagree on that, but fundamentally that's a side issue. After all edit-revert-discuss is a fairly standard ways wiki happens. What I mostly object to, is that they were reverted without edit summary. In my view, reverts, particularly reverts of things that aren't obvious vandalism should always have an edit summary explaining why the change was reverted. And more generally, where there is clearly a difference of opinions between editors on what should be on a page and there is no reason to assume that the other party is totally unreasonable, reaching for a talk page to discuss the issue first, instead of immediately reverting the edits Bawolff (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Reverting without a summary is worth a reminder of guidelines. If Tm was responding to an apparent tag team, who chose to avoid declaring why they were acting in concert so there was no explanation to take in to consideration, then that is an issue that needs to be explained very clearly to those editors as well. That has not happened yet, based on their user talk pages. Maybe you would like to provide them with that explanation, considering your apparently knowing them all in real life? As a reminder, it is worth highlighting the good practice that is normal for editathons, that groups of "students" and their mentors say that this is what they are up to on their user pages to avoid any misunderstanding about apparent team actions not being meatpuppetry, or repeated test edits not being vandalism. Thanks in advance. --Fæ (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but what is the problem of description? We can save both: "Original description: ... <br> Visual description: ..."
    For the title, we can do the same by adding a prefix: "Body art: ...original name..."
    But coordinated POV Pushing is bad anyway. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that the category has been moved, there's still a few loose ends from what I can tell.
  1. I don't know that we would really use the parenthetical descriptor on any similar category. Moreover, the parenthetical and parent category for nudity doesn't apply to the entire set. (e.g., [4]). Also an image like this doesn't depict nudity. It depicts underwear, which we don't categorize under nudity, we categorize it under women's clothing.
  2. Also on the issue of the parenthetical description, most of these images don't actually depict technology. This is just some lady with her shirt off. This depicts a mathematical concept, and not an inherently technological one. On the other hand, images like this and this should be categorized under logos of companies and body paint. If we had a brick wall with the facebook logo painted on it, we wouldn't normally categorize that under technology, because it doesn't directly depict technology; it depicts the logo of a company.
So besides be unnecessarily cumbersome, the parenthetical is simply wrong. These need to be individually categorized according to what they individually depict. GMGtalk 13:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
"parenthetical is simply wrong" is not policy or fact as far as I can work out. Unless my database check is wrong, Wikimedia Commons appears to have 1,150,701 categories with brackets in them. This does not imply that the 'project' category being used needs brackets or would not be better English without them, but it is a style choice not a failure against any policy or guideline. --Fæ (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
What does the raw number of parenthetical categories have to do with whether this parenthetical is accurate or necessary? There is no other "Project Geekography by Exey Panteleev" from which we need to disambiguate, as we need to disambiguate the 18 different ships named Enterprise. It is also not factually accurate (i.e., "simply wrong") as the images do not universally depict either nudity or technology. This is normal practice, and is well covered in COM:CAT.
When a category contains a universal theme, we categorize the category itself. When a category represents diverse themes, we categorize the images individually. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Unbundling what you are probably saying, I think:
  1. Yes the content of an image gets categorized for how it appears and its potential reasonable use and reuse, not just a project or group it happens to be part of, whilst if the quality is at the group level (like year or period often is) then these might well be kept to the parent group category.
  2. With regard to policy or guidelines, I am unaware of any that makes use of brackets "simply wrong" or "simply right", which means if multiple parties are interested or it's a controversial topic, then it needs discussion of some sort to agree stylistic changes. If there is something about this in COM:CAT could you provide a more explicit reference? As a side note, "disambiguation" is different on en.Wikipedia to Commons, as there are fewer 'rules' about how to go about it and the implication that brackets are used for necessary disambiguation is not a norm, even though it may be a rationale.
  3. The category in question is a bucket category related to the project in addition to the hidden photographer category, there is no reason to remove it, or hide it, nor is there any specially good reason to add subcategories given the modest numbers, nor does its existence and persistence stop folks adding useful different descriptive categories.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Categorization is the one thing that is most consistent across projects, probably more so than anything else. Both of us are en.wiki natives that have contributed more off en.wiki then we have on it. So let's assume for the sake of argument that we both pretty well know the lay of the land here.
"Simply wrong" is not a policy based argument; it is a natural language argument. It would be no more or less accurate to include a parenthetical description of "blonde hair". Some of the images depict blonde hair, and some of them do not. We use parenthetical disambiguation routinely for categories, but we do not use them routinely or at all for "collection" type categories (e.g., Category:Harris & Ewing Collection, Category:Portrait photographs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art‎, Category:George Grantham Bain Collection). GMGtalk 15:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so for "simply wrong", I'll read "not great". Maybe the best way is to propose a new name that probably none of the parties involved will care to disagree with, preferably avoiding talking policy unless there is something demonstrably relevant out of COM:CAT.
P.S. WRT LOC uploads, some collection categories do happen to have brackets for various reasons, for example Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (ppmsca.15831), again not because there are any Commons policies or guidelines at the current time that constrain how this works. --Fæ (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
For "simply wrong" you should read "factually incorrect". If you need a specific quote from COM:CAT it is here, specifically: Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents. Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (ppmsca.15831) should also probably be moved to simply Category:Members and activities of the American Colony, because there is no other similarly named category that this parenthetical is disambiguating. But the more appropriate comparison would be Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (horse riding), because only one of the two images in that category depict horse riding. To include the parenthetical (horse riding), is therefore factually incorrect. GMGtalk 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand the point, but categories are not subject to the same "disambiguation" rules that Wikipedia articles are under. In the example of using ppmsca.15831 in the category name, that's actually very useful, especially as the included images do not have the old-id format in their filenames, in fact they do not even have the LCCN in their names and the category does not have any text in it that contains this sort of ID data either. This is a tangent, but when using batch upload tools using generic searches for key IDs is an easy way to filter out relevant or irrelevant potential categories for automated use. It is perhaps a failure for Commons that we have no guidelines that address these technical search/naming issues, but it also has the benefit that a mass uploader is not subject to arbitrary constraints for automated naming of files or categories, so long as the outcome is useful and usable. --Fæ (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to actually address the issue of this description being factually incorrect. GMGtalk 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Analysis

Considering the backgrounds of two of the long term contributors to the above discussion, both of whom were strenuously objecting to the word "troll" to describe the actual off-wiki trolling going on about these images (which I have no intention of promoting), incorrectly interpreting my words to be a trolling allegation against the on-wiki contributors, I thought it was worth taking a closer look at the accounts listed as I had never heard of them before. The intention here is to let the facts speak for themselves and as I write this, this is the first time I have examined the accounts in any way.

User1, 288 total edits

Based on their English Wikipedia page, they were an OCLC Wikipedian-in-Residence, so are very familiar with Wikimedia projects and policies. On Commons, nearly all of their edits to this project have been on 8th November and 11th November, in fact, today has been really significant for their account here. They have no other apparent interest in Commons images of nudity or the human form.

User2, 314 total edits

Almost all edits made between 8 November - 11 November, around 30%+ on the nude photographs. Commons has their highest number of contributions.

User3, 72 total edits

Past Wikimedia speaker and presenter, very involved in Wikimedia projects, part of the grants committee. 80% of edits to Commons were made 10th November & 11th November and around 50% of those on these nude images.

User4, 496 total edits

Mostly an established English Wikipedian, with a nice track long if a modest record of uploading useful portraits of notable people, until, no surprise, today 11th November when there are a rush of edits on this category and a few other explicitly sexual images.

It is clear that an external event has attracted these editors to these images. Could someone explain the coincidence, were they perhaps all at the same physical Wikimedia related conference, or all part of the same Wikimedia interest group, and have effectively been tag-teaming on this category? If so, considering how experienced some of these people are elsewhere, including making presentations on the subject, edit warring over "pron" or otherwise giving any appearance of tag-teaming on sexuality and nudity on Commons, is not a good look for people who are involved in WMF funding or receive funding themselves. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Only after you explain why you feel you are owed an explanation of good-faith editing, and why you think it is ok for you to rank other users in this manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Really, weird account behaviour verging on SPAs does not warrant a closer look? This is some serious circling of wagons going on. If this carries on to be a sustained disruptive pron/anti-pron campaign which disrupts the mission of this project, then it will be worth us doing a deeper dive on all the accounts involved and the weird coincidence of interests and loyalties of the folks now turning up to brush away scrutiny and good governance.
Thanks for your interest, maybe you are in a position to give some quiet advice to some of these folks acting unwisely but no doubt in good faith, or would you like to help by providing a more neutral and wider analysis yourself?
Forgot to ask, could you confirm how you found this thread on Commons or if you were linked to it from elsewhere? I'll go first, I watch the Commons VP every day and I'm interested in actions of User:Tm because of their massive history of contributions to this project. I have no other involvement with these folks or these images. --Fæ (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested in doing an analysis myself, but it will take some time to go through the histories before I'd be able to give it the proper attention it deserves. I would note, there is an in-person editathon going on, it is not unusual for people with similar interests to edit on a similar topics and in-person events. They can be fun experiances, there are lots of ways to contribute to Wikimedia, and we shouldn't discriminate because of the means of how people edit. There is nothing wrong with people cooperating on good-faith editing - which is all that is going on here afaict. Bawolff (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  •  Comment Many portray for example HTML tag usage, whether one considers that "computer technology" or not I suppose depends on definition. (For that matter, some individual examples aren't nude either.) Note that "Nude portrayals of computer technology" is a Wikimedia Commons specific neologism, not the label used by the photographer. Possibly this should be brought up on Commons:Categories for discussion rather than here? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's get a few things out of the way. 1) This was the basis of some discussion off-wiki IRL. That's why it suddenly attracted a good deal of attention. 2) No, they did not canvass anyone here. I specifically was the one who asked whether this was currently being discussed on Commons and they simply answered my question. 3) Before we accuse editors of trolling, we should probably consider whether they are users who are new to Commons, who are learning about the site in an edit-a-thon environment, because that's exactly what this was.
    We really haven't put our best foot forward as a community here, and we managed to do so pretty publicly. Fæ, you of all people, who have led edit-a-thons yourself, should be among the first to COM:AGF and stay COM:MELLOW in this type of situation. GMGtalk 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Please read my actual words about who the trolls are. My issue is with off wiki trolling and the prawns that participate. Factual analysis of patterns that should be explained is nothing our community needs to shy away from. Data and facts are not bad faith allegations. --Fæ (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I know who they are. We were all in the same room all of an hour ago. I just explained the situation I think fairly adequately. You are spitting venom at good faith new Commons contributors, and I don't think you would take very kindly to it if the situation were reversed. So can we please adopt a posture more conducive to collaboration? GMGtalk 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Calling people trolls and prawns as a first resort because they are removing images from a category that is obviously wrong is extremely poor behavior. We all know you're the poster child for making a scene about any change you don't like to any image that has someone's gaping asshole in it, bodypaint or no, but attacking other people and engaging in name-calling without even trying to talk to them first, which is what this entire thread is, is just shitty, although not surprising. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, Your comments about other users are crossing the line into personal attacks. Please stop. That said, I do not agree with Fæ's digging through users edit history in order to prove something about edits which seem to me perfectly reasonable. Many people, like the person who started the conversation, are hiding behind IP addresses, but few who are not are being followed and analyzed.--Jarekt (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
We all know you're the poster child for making a scene about any change you don't like to any image that has someone's gaping asshole in it
Presumably, your behaviour is now normal and acceptable for someone who is privileged and trusted to be a member of checkuser, oversight, sysop teams on the English Wikipedia.
With regard to circling the wagons, how on Earth am I presumed to know folks I had never heard of were physically in a meeting together and happen to own these accounts that rarely otherwise contribute to this project, and were apparently encouraged to do this via a meeting that I had also never heard of? I have no idea how many of the contributors apparently making special efforts to drop into this discussion are involved in that same meeting that apparently created this circus by their actions.
Given the violent use of sexualized language here, it is worth re-iterating that asking questions about disruptive and unhelpful collective patterns of behaviour on Wikimedia Commons should be the norm, and should not be used as an excuse to make attacks against those asking basic questions.
Nearly forgot to ask again, Beeblebrox, given the fact that vast majority of your activities are not on this project, could you confirm how you found this thread on Commons or if you were linked to it from elsewhere? Perhaps you could provide a link to the meeting being mentioned, that might aid transparency and accountability? --Fæ (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: The link is somewhere in this area, and a room full of thirty or forty people who got a crash course in how Commons welcomes new users. The result was not a stunning endorsement for Commons among contributors to other projects, and for me, as someone who does contribute here quite a bit, it was a bit embarrassing. The way you know all this is by asking them. I'm sure they would have been happy to tell you the circumstances where they suddenly decided to start contributing to Commons, because since Friday, we've had whole groups of people trying to teach people to do just that. GMGtalk 07:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that the category was obviously correct, if poorly named. I don't suggest that anyone new to a particular wiki start widely messing around with categories on a bunch of pages; it's easy to miss how things work and break a bunch of pages. One person doing starting to break a category is frustrating; a number of new people doing so smells of sock- or meatpuppets.
I agree with Fæ that personal attacks on Fæ are a bit hypocritical for your complaints. Nudity and sexuality on Commons are frequent targets of attacks, and need people willing to defend them if we are going to cover that subject well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: I re-read your comment after taking a little break from this discussion. I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "trolling". To me, trolling is a very serious allegation, that someone is intentionally editing in a disruptive pattern in bad-faith. As it is a serious allegation, in my opinion such allegations when made should be backed up by facts (diffs), specifically: (1) a link to the community norm/policy the person is alleged to be violating, or if it is disruptive in a way that is not covered by policy an argument as to how it would be widely considered generally disruptive behaviour. (2) Evidence that the user is intentionally doing this, and the disruption is not accidental or in "good-faith". An example of this is if the user was warned about the behaviour,linked to a policy page, or otherwise knows that the norm exists (e.g. if they have referenced the policy page before). If it is common-sense, then a warning might not be necessary, but it should be something so obvious that active editors in good standing would universally agree that the edits are disruptive. (3) Evidence that the user actually behaved in this way, such as a series of diffs giving examples of this behaviour. I'm very disturbed to see accusations of this nature that don't seem to have these things backing them up. Nobody has explained what precisely was wrong with the edits such that it is a violation of norms and not just different people disagreeing what the page content should be. Nobody has shown that any of these users had it explained to them why these edits are disruptive (For that matter, I would like to know this to). All that's been stated is that some of these contributors don't regularly edit commons, but I don't think that's a point of contention, or at least its unclear how their newness relates to the accusation of trolling. That said, maybe you mean something different by trolling - you mention off-wiki trolling, but surely you care about the results on-wiki, so I'm confused as to what you mean. You also keep referring to people as prawns, originally I assumed you meant it as a petty insult, since as wiktionary says prawn is slang for someone who is stupid, or someone who's face is ugly. Such name-calling would certainly be unbecoming of any contributor of Wikimedia Commons. However, re-reading your comments, based on context perhaps you're suggesting that these editors are what are commonly referred to as meat-puppets, and that the "troll" is the meat-puppet master? If so, I've certainly never heard the word prawn used in this fashion in the Wikimedia verse, could not find other examples when I looked for it, and I would generally ask that when making such allegations that you use clear language, as its already a tense situations and misunderstandings over unclear verbiage just serve to exacerbate tension. With all that said, if indeed this is what you intended to say, I still think such allegations should only be made if evidence can be furnished. For starters, some argument that the actions of these people are actually disruptive and against policy, since if the edits of these editors are not against policy, then at worst if what I assume you are suggesting is what you are actually suggesting, is that someone is encouraging people to make positive contributions, which is hardly trolling. Bawolff (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I am feeling we are facing a campaign of fake news as well as sexualized personal attacks by people who know exactly what they are doing and have the tools and authority for this to carry the threat of making my future volunteering work impossible. Here's a quick fact check:
I have not called these users trolls.
I have not called anyone ugly.
I have not called these users meatpuppets.
I have not called these users prawns. Despite this, I have struck the silly word as it's being used to create irrelevant distracting tangents.
Thanks for your long response. Could you explain what this meeting was, how many of the participants in this thread are connected to it, and why users who are now being described as newbies despite some having several years being part of funded Wikimedia related projects, were encouraged to club together to focus on controversial and graphically sexual photographs on Commons with the inevitable off-wiki interest created? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My belief that you called these users "prawns" comes from [5] and [6]. I'm not sure how to take the first comment any other way, but I apologize if I misinterpreted you. I see that you struck the word and clarified that its British slang. Thank you for the clarification - I'm certainly willing to chalk that up to being a misunderstanding. Most of the rest of those words were me being confused trying to interpret a phrase I did not have the cultural context for. As for calling those users trolls - sure you're not calling these users trolls, but I guess you're implying they are (perhaps inadvertantly) part of a trolling campaign, and thus you are calling somebody a troll. I guess I still wonder who precisely is the person that is the troll in this situation. As for the meeting. It was WikiConference North America - its an annual major conference in North America. This year it was in Boston and attracted about 350 people. While the IRL meeting is an explanation to the question that was raised as to how this random group of not normally active editors started all editing on this topic - in many ways I don't think that should matter. I don't think there's any reason for you or anyone else to be expected to know that. I think we should treat people the same regardless of where they came from. If instead these users happened to meet in irc and do the same thing - I don't think our response should be particularly different than whatever it should be in the current case. My understanding of what happened - some people were working on images in this area, doing what they believed to be constructive edits, drama ensued and they got frustrated, people noticed that some people at a certain table were kind of looking frustrated and asked them what was going on, and I guess joined them. As more drama built, more people started talking about it, and more people got involved. Its a large conference, and for most of it I was in other rooms doing other things so I cannot attest to everything that happened. By the time I got involved in this it had already escalated into quite a bit of drama and was pretty late in the day. Bawolff (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
So you were in the meeting and GreenMeansGo was in the meeting together with these users, and this has only come out after repeated questions about how folks are finding out about this thread. Anyone else? Come on, you know as much as I do what circling the wagons is. It's a bad thing to do, it's anti-good governance, and whether by coincidence or choice, forming an effective tag team to brush off questions, or just repeat tangents to wikilawyer the possible meaning of individual words from those asking obvious questions and asking for facts, is exceptionally bad and manipulative when the participants are not being upfront about their potential conflict of loyalties.
The problematic edits from folks that are rarely contributors here are understandable, they could do with some advice especially for being careful with images that have been highly controversial and attracted anti-pron warriors in the past and continue to do so off-wiki today. The parachuting into this discussion by long term contributors and those wearing significant trusted hats, without a reasonable explanation of having a direct connection to the same users, giving a false impression that it is happening by accident, is, disappointing.
WRT giving false impressions, opening with I'm here because this edit war is getting discussed around lots of places and I heard about it now reads as deliberate obsfuscation. Unhelpful to working towards a collegial environment.
--Fæ (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To aid transparency, as getting declarations of these connections to the physical meeting is worryingly like pulling teeth, starting with a database search this morning, here is a complete list of all accounts editing images in the Geekography category since 8 November, and whether the same users are demonstrably published to have been at the Massachusetts Wikiconference. In addition accounts "dropping in" to this discussion who have now confirmed their attendance, or have been published as attending, are included:

Editors who were at the Wikiconference 2019 (total of 5)
Carlinmack (talk · contribs), Shameran81 (talk · contribs), Seazzy (talk · contribs), Jackiekoerner (talk · contribs), Thsmi002 (talk · contribs)
Discussion contributors here who were at the conference (total of 3)
Bawolff (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), Dominic (talk · contribs)
Editors who were not at the Wikiconference 2019 (total of 5)
Tm (talk · contribs), Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs), Jarekt (talk · contribs), Krassotkin (talk · contribs), Marcus Cyron (talk · contribs)

Let me know if any of these basic facts are wrong; and it's worth reiterating the following -- Factual analysis of patterns that should be explained is nothing our community needs to shy away from. Data and facts are not bad faith allegations. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • OMG how many letters... Thank you for the ping. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a point to all this sleuthing? There is no transparency issue. You jumped the gun and called a bunch of people trolls when they weren't. It doesn't require five pages of text. It requires a "my bad" and we can go back to talking about the actual substantive content. GMGtalk 14:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    There needs to be "sleuthing", or as I would call it in plain English, "stating basic facts", because of the persistent failure at the start of this thread for anyone to honestly and openly explain what happened, even though you and others were perfectly well aware that all these users and yourselves were in a room together, targeting this content. The evidence shows, the pattern of edits that concerned Tm was problematic and at no time did any of the experienced mentors think to provide this explanation upfront for Tm's benefit or the benefit of these misguided and badly advised editors.
    Yes, there are trolls, they are just not the people in this list, nor have I said anywhere that they are. Please stick to evidence and the order of events here, rather than repeating fake news and joining others who are keen to make out that I'm an evil defender of "gaping asshole"s when I'm apparently the only Wikimedian raising questions without any direct involvement and has done so with no surprise undeclared potential conflict of loyalties undermining my reasoning.
    The doublethink being presented is rediculous and now looks like tactical gaming rather than making any positive suggestion. Rather than attacking me for tangential and ever more fantastic reasons, why not use your interest and experience to give proper advice to the users in question on their talk pages, or publish a recommendation back to the Conference organizers about what should be learned from this failure and project disruption by the conference attendees for your future events.
    Here's a quick fact check:
    I have not called these users trolls.
    Thanks --Fæ (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    [7] GMGtalk 15:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff, showing that I wrote Off-wiki trolling. @GreenMeansGo: if you have any evidence that one of the above accounts is engaging in off-wiki trolling, please send the evidence to WMF T&S rather than making these claims on-wiki. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to deny what you plainly said, while accusing me of spreading fake news, then I will consider this discussion satisfactorily concluded by means of diverging realities. You can keep your Trumpisms, and I'll do fairly well without them, thank you very much. I have nothing against you personally, and you should know that. We've worked on and off together for years now. But I won't tolerate gas lighting as a rhetorical tactic. GMGtalk 21:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
"off-wiki" is not "on-wiki".
Calling that gaslighting is bizarre.
Those that were at the meeting, guiding these editors to mass edit these controversial nude images for reasons that have yet to be explained instead wasting thousands of words wikilawyering over what "off-wiki trolling" might be flipped around to mean, and choosing to parachute into this discussion without making their personal role in these events clear upfront rather than solely taking potshots at Tm, have a problem. The same "mentors" are in the best position to provide proper advice to this group of "trainee" editors, and to recommend preventative action that might actually avoid this happening again next year or at the next U.S. based WMF Affiliate editathon that chooses to target Wikimedia Commons files.
This is not gaslighting. It is not a personal attack. It is reaching conclusions and making recommendations based on the available hard evidence. --Fæ (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Things are now less fixed, after a fashion

Well, having seen the rename, the issue now is that the parent Category:Portrayals of computer technology actually contains nothing that isn't part of "Project 'Geekography' by Exey Panteleev". Assuming that any of the images needs to be retained (which I would question), I see no reason for two categories: one category encompassing the entire exhibition ought to suffice. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding over hierarchical categories should be the norm, but frequently is not the outcome from category warring.
Where contextual source text is being blanked, this should be consistently restored as good practice, and those that may choose to persist in blanking should receive warnings that this is disruptive. --Fæ (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
For context, I've been following discussion on these images since I became aware of the DRs above about a month ago, and briefly dropped by the edit-a-thon mentioned above. Is this really considered "contextual source text"? For content that is clearly an artistic representation, I find it misleading for the description to be solely of what the content represents. Airplaneman ✈ 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is best practice to preserve reasonable source context with the image, but that does not mean that we cannot add to that source context or data, such as translations, better keywords to find media in searches or plain meaningful descriptions of the media content where the source context may not be sufficient or even incorrect. There's nothing wrong with the addition of descriptive text presented; even not using an edit comment for this self-explanatory addition of what the "radio button" as used in the file name is not of itself controversial. --Fæ (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: Hello everyone. When I give presentations about Wikimedia projects, I explain that the mission of our movement is to expand free access to information and to encourage participation in Wikimedia projects. I emphasize how the distributed community works by assuming good faith in others and by being bold. I am primarily involved in editing Wikipedia however I regularly search Commons for educational purposes. When I attended Commons-related events at WikiConference NA, I was eager to learn ways to implement structured data on Commons to existing image files and categories and improve the search user experience with this additional layer of metadata. Our movement is growing in terms of contributors and technical tools. Structured data offers editors new pathways for discovery, it did for me; it's exciting to join Wikimedia in this way and contribute to improve the quality of the freely-licensed image repository. Shameran81 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Overemphasis on being bold is quite problematic in many cases, especially when it means that someone has to go around to many pages and fix what the newbie broke. I'd much rather newbies start by uploading their own works and figuring out how things work there. Assuming good faith should include assuming that the people who added categories in the first place did so of good faith, so if you are "removing images from a category that is obviously wrong", maybe you should stop and think, because the person who added it didn't see it as obviously wrong. If someone calls you a troll, perhaps assume good faith and consider that you may have been doing something problematic, instead of getting outraged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Governance and preventative action for WikiConference North America 2019

@Seazzy: Given the following evidence:

  1. The only deletion requests raised on this project were the 16 DRs created on 25th & 26th September (ref Quarry:query/40059). All DRs were the "Geekography" nude images that are the focus of this discussion. All were closed as  Keep.
  2. Though the Commons account has a longer history, the significant majority of the total contributions have been directly related to these deletions.
  3. The single contribution to noticeboards on Commons in 2019, has been Vandalism and bad faith from User:Tm on 29th September, which was again about these images and which was closed with the advice to "not go running to the admin noticeboard every time something contentious happens".

While being open to new evidence that would change the context, these facts alone make it appear impossibly unlikely that the fact that you were at the Wikiconference in the editathon for new Commons users, could be unrelated to the fact that precisely these "Geekography" nude photographs were chosen out of literally millions of other options for mass editing by others (who may be presumed to have acted in good faith). Could you explain your involvement and how this happened?

To the outside observer, it appears that the conference editathon event was deliberately misused to resurrect old battleground behaviours targeting the same user and the same images that were going on less than 2 months ago and that the "mentors" for the event failed to be alert to this potential misuse. It would be good to see some positive recommendations as to how potential misuse similar to this possible example, might be avoided at future editathons for Commons new users.

@Tm and Majora: for information as the mentioned target of a past complaint and related closing admin.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Thank you for being clear & explicit in your concerns. I feel this is the first time I properly understand the who/what/why of your concerns. Bawolff (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since it’s okay to be bold, here’s my «positive recommendation» to avoid this kind of issue, and possible a whole host of other issues: Just disband all kinds of meatspace, large scale events. These are only atendable by an elite of affluent users capable of frequent, worldwide travel, heavily skewing the sample of those who will have a voice in «shaping the vision for 2030» blah blah blah, and end up promoting all sorts of nonsense (check this very page for ocurrences of "cool") that goes against the workflow of those who are creating most of the content. Wikis are to be created and used online — so keep all collaboration and meta discussion online too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This would need to be a proposal on Meta, and not on any local project. On Meta, it's almost certain to get no consensus. Besides that, to the extent that this disadvantages people from certain geographic regions, then the WMF should continue to fork up those sweet donation dollars for travel scholarships. There were around 100 scholarships given out for WikiCon NA in Boston, without which about a third of the people there would have been absent, myself included. At the end of the day, we are the ones whose work is the reason the WMF gets those sweet donation dollars, and so we should be the primary ones to benefit from it, second only to our readers and reusers.
There were also 300 to 400 attendees at this year's WikiCon NA, and this was the only hiccup from all of that. That's not bad odds, besides the fact that these events provide a valuable opportunity for collaboration, and also for other stakeholders to engage in the movement. There were representatives there from Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and Archive.org. There is no other way we have to engage in these institutions and try to convince them to leverage their position to help us progress access to free public knowledge. GMGtalk 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Im surprised to hear you say that - between wiki loves monuments/earth/etc and mass imports from glams (which are often cemented in meat space meetings) - I would imagine commons probably has one of the highest ratio of content coming from meatspace events of any wikimedia project. As far as wikimedia 2030 crap, probably true of some meetups, i dont think it was very prevelent in this one. Bawolff (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

In the light that this has been a complex issue, and as said before even working out that parties commenting in this thread were actually "in the room" when this team editing targeted at "Geekography" nude photographs were taking place, was made problematic as they decided to avoid declaring that potential conflict of loyalties upfront. Further that it is not possible for anyone not at the WikiConference to state for certain exactly who that was part of the Wikimedia Commons team editing were also physically at the WikiConference. It may even be relevant to know who had scholarships to be there, as this may change the nature of formal agreements, behavioural policies and reporting commitments. None of this information is apparently available for public scrutiny. The Commons Village pump does not seem to be the right place properly to resolve this issue as many of the relevant parties are "not present", nor is it the right place for the most critical stakeholders in the WikiConference to agree what preventative actions should be taken to avoid precisely the same type of governance problem for future editathons recurring.

A formal approach of raising a complaint seems appropriate and a constructive step if handled correctly, considering that on the landing page for the conference it states that the (m:WikiConference North America) User Group documents best practices and shares lessons learned with other Wikimedia communities planning and hosting conferences and similar events. The user group was recognized by Affcom in 2016, which gives it the authority to use the Wikimedia brand and bid for funding as an affiliate with a legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation in place.

For these reasons, I believe the next step should probably be an open letter to the conference planning team,[8] which can summarize the concerns that this apparent hijacking of a conference training event which apparently deliberately manipulated good-faith new contributors into effective meatpuppets as part of an existing "anti-pron" campaign based on the evidence provided to date. Fixing this could be as simple as agreeing the test topics for edits using an openly published editathon wishlist which experienced project members can recommend changes for if they may be unnecessarily controversial. Pinging those in the conference planning team should they have alternative suggestions for how best to log/report this issue and publicly commit to preventative action. The pings are partial, if anyone knows of on-wiki linked accounts please add them:

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Alternatively, we could consider that this was a content dispute among a handful of editors, and that this continual conspiracy mongering has done nothing but detract from efforts to resolve the actual dispute at hand. That the content under dispute involved nudity does not constitute a systemic crisis which requires extraordinary intervention to accommodate. That no one attempted to discuss the issue with the contributors, and that we opened this discussion by summarily accusing them of being trolls also did not help resolve the dispute. At this point, demanding a manifest of conference attendees and scholarship recipients is beginning to look a bit hysterical. GMGtalk 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The same day this thread was opened the claim that the users were being maligned as trolls were made by Dominic and Bawolff, including creating the precise false claim of trolling being alleged against others by using "I mean, if we're going to talk about trolling" being directed at Tm. Both Dominic, Bawolff and yourself were later confirmed as having been at the conference where this was editathon happened, turning misguided new editors into meat puppets for a long-running "anti-pron" campaign by someone who had been targeting Tm with hounding complaints only a matter of weeks before. That obvious potential conflicts of loyaty were not disclosed upfront, is why this discussion itself is evidence of the gaming tactic of circling the wagons. You all know each other, you all knew that each other were at the event, this make you part of a knowing tag-team against Tm.
None of the "mentors" at the meeting has stepped up to recognize that this was a problem, instead preferring to constantly try to sweep this under the carpet as quickly as possible, while making Tm look like a troll, even using those words.
Fact check:
  1. This is not "conspiracy mongering", the facts have been explicitly laid out for anyone to review. There is no allegation of a conspiracy here, just summarizing facts.
  2. Nobody has called this a "systemic crisis" or asked for "extraordinary intervention". No "intervention" whatsoever for these accounts has been proposed, apart from a positive suggestion the responsible "mentors" to provide proper advice to those that participated in the misused editathon, this has been ignored.
  3. Nobody, apart from those "defending" the editors who happened themselves to be conference participants, has called them trolls, because on-wiki trolling is not done off-wiki, no matter how often this deliberate and disruptive fake news is repeated.
If you have nothing positive to suggest for future preventative action, as seems to be the pattern here, and if the conference planning team has no formal alternative to suggest, I shall get on with drafting the open letter summarizing the evidence of this governance failure and the apparent deliberate misuse of the Wikiconference for the User Group. Several of them know me personally and have even worked with me on projects, so I would be surprised if it gets brushed away as "trolling" or similar.
P.S. I strongly object to your use of the word "hysterical", if you do not understand why look it up and educate yourself. Do not direct it at me again, or anyone else on this project please. --Fæ (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure they will give your open letter all the seriousness it deserves. GMGtalk 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Go take a long hard look in the mirror, before casting more stones. Thanks for your time and your valuable feedback as an experienced trusted user who could have provided excellent advice to these new contributors. --Fæ (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I was at WikiConference North America 2019, and I'll just say publicly what I said to the edit-a-thon participants privately: I am glad that there was an in-person event where people could give each other moral support when dealing with emotionally difficult subject matter that would have been depressing to deal with alone. I won't comment on specific edits that were made because I haven't reviewed them, but I strongly support the use of a community event for encouraging editor engagement in subject areas that can cause distress. Clayoquot (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, that's a good thing, something quite relevant for the WM-LGBT+ user group I am part of and we would want for our events. Ensuring that there is a shared good practice that any collective team work in editathons follows the same practice we have seen advised for Wikipedia focused WIRs in Universities, in particular, that students and teachers will state on their talk pages that they are taking part in an event, is also something we would all want.
A topic that has already been the focus of dispute(s) should be treated with caution, and giving the appearance of a covert tag-team or meat puppetry should be carefully avoided. Any specialist group with a potential or likely collective bias and interested in tackling a controversial topic would be well advised to talk through their approach, preferably openly and on-wiki in advance of the editathon. --Fæ (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Different Wikipedias redirecting to Commons' upload page

I don't know if this had been discussed before, but after being on various DR discussions, in particular, the DRs of various logos, that there are one or many more Wikipedias redirecting their upload pages to that of Commons. This has created the issue, IMO, of users uploading alleged non-free content to Commons, as they have no longer the option of uploading locally (for example, Spanish Wikipedia). While Commons policy is clear and I'm not seeking to change it, I find it problematic that certain users continually upload non-free content and attempt to justify it by claiming "encyclopedic value" as an attempted, and clear invalid rationale to keep it. Had these WPs continue to allow local uploads, we would have less of this issue. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

See, my impression is that this could be intentional for Wikipedias that don't want to manage files locally - implicitly also excluding any non-free content - and thus punt it all to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is intentional and indeed the default: meta:Local uploads policy "By default, all projects have local uploads disabled and rely entirely on Wikimedia Commons". MKFI (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely problematic, because (1) there's an inherent conflict between the needs of the Wikipedias and Commons policy, (2) it adds to the backlog of DRs (I've seen numerous DRs that should have been closed, but have yet to be). ––Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it will be changed - the problem was that some smaller wikis allowed local uploads but had few administrators to check for copyright violations, see meta:Requests for comment/Disable local uploads on smaller wikis. The point of using Commons is to let our community watch for copyvios. Some larger Wikipedias like swedish or spanish simply do not allow any fair use content (or local equivalent) and thus have no need for local files. The decision to allow local files is really decided by the community of each Wikipedia - if they do not wish to use local files then we should not push them to do so. Commons is intended as the common image bank after all. Any uploads here must conform to Commons policies. MKFI (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Chipping in on a nuance here: "The point of using Commons is to let our community watch for copyvios" is not exactly a fair statement -- the Commons community has taken upon itself the responsibility of checking for copyvios -- the point of using Commons is to create a shared repository for all Wikimedia projects. Its useful to distinguish between the "why" that the community on commons reviews the content, and the "why" of the vision of the project -- "making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content". Like the widespread adoption of Wikidata on smaller wikis, in my experience, folks describing using Commons because it allows a better environment for sharing those media files in the long run. Many local language Wikipedias and WikiSources choose not to be as strict about copyright because of how little social relevance there is of that issue in their area, Sadads (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Uploads that claim that the file should be kept for Educational purposes should be CSD (speedied). There is not any reason to take the slower Deletion request route for those. Wikisources are supposed to have only content which is out of copyright or with a free licence, so if there is an user from wikisource that uploads non-free files, then (s)he is probably violating the policy on wikisource aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but the problem is that certain uploaders are quite reactive and so a CSD tag would be quickly removed and it would result in a DR in any case. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sea of blue links in the infobox

See: Category:John_Lane_Miller and how his employers run together in what looks like one blue link. Can we experiment with a semicolon or comma to separate them? Or make them bulleted? Any other suggestions? RAN (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The difficulty here is knowing what separator works in all languages - I'm not sure how multilingual semicolons or commas are? Bullets tend to take up too much horizontal space. As a possibility, I've tried added a few extra pixels of whitespace between each link in {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}, does that look clearer? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much of a difference. A comma would work, but we still have entries with commas in the names which will lead to confusion. Some geographical entries still have something like "City, State" even though we have been changing the primary name to "City". I agree a bullet would take up too much precious space. RAN (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, before, after. It's deliberately a subtle effect. I've made the gap slightly larger now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright for a United States Passport photo of a person

The US government sets the standard for how the picture is to be composed, the background to be used, the lighting, what you can wear, your facial expression, and how the face is fit into the aspect ratio of the image. Does the US government composing the image make it free from copyright? Or does the anonymous clerk at the CVS store own the copyright to your image? RAN (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a clerk but a company they work for. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently, anyone (me, you, my grandma, a clerk at Walgreens) can take a U.S. passport photo and submit it, as long as it complies with federal requirements. The photo is not necessarily (and probably not often) created by an employee Federal Government, although the passport the bears the photo is. I strongly doubt that a drugstore image submitted is free from copyright per {{PD-USGov}}, unless Mike Pompeo himself comes and directs all aspects of light, composition, and focus of the shot before a clerk presses the shutter button. I do fear we host a large amount of passport photos with uncertain provenance uploaded in good faith assuming PD-US Gov. --Animalparty (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think such photos aren't in the public domain, as the one taken the photo isn't necessarily an employee of the US government carrying their official duties out. Anyone can take that photo, and it's only "included" in your passport. Ahmadtalk 08:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Kinga Kijak-Markiewicz at PhotoClaim, a legal site for photographers, writes: "passport photos are not subject to copyright", because they do not meet the threshold or originality. And pre-1978 passport photo images would have to contain a copyright notice since a discernible copy has been distributed. RAN (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I have heard the argument that passport photos don't contain sufficient creativity for copyright because their format is so strictly specified by the government. I don't think it has ever been litigated and doubt it ever will, so we can't know for sure. If that is not the case, Ruslik would be correct. An extremely rough search indicates that we have generally deleted passport photos, and despite the comment on the top of Category:United States passport photos it only seems to contain old pictures with other PD justifications. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is probably no PD-USGov argument here, at least no blanket one. As pointed out, these photographs can be taken by anyone. I suppose it's possible there is a TOO argument, but in practice, I don't know that I've ever seen Commons apply TOO to the entirety of a photo itself. Mugshots can also be heavily regulated in their composition and format, but we do not allow this as an argument to overome TOO. GMGtalk 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • While I'm no copyright lawyer, I think the argument that because a photo must comply with Federal requirements it falls below the TOO is bogus. By that logic, almost any simple portrait with a plain background would be Public Domain, including this image on the cover of last week's Time Magazine (or this one) --Animalparty (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Wikimedia commons requires refs

The section in Wikipedia w:Wikimedia_Commons#Quality includes description of Featured pictures, Quality images and Valued images, but cites no sources. Would anyone be able to add citations to the most relevant commons policy pages, as well as ideally some third party refs about it? Also there's no mention of Wiki loves X or similar competitions which are probably notable. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing of file captions does not work

Firefox 60.9.0esr on Windows 7. On a file page containing a caption (e.g. File:Ono 1.JPG) I press "expand", then "edit" and modify the caption(s). Unfortunately, "publish changes" button (nor "cancel") does nothing. I use Collapse Captions gadget and my common.css does not contain any code related to file captions. I think it started yesteday. Does anyone have similar problem? --jdx Re: 09:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx: Does it work if you disable the collapse captions gadget? This may be related to @Zhuyifei1999's changes to the gadget on the 13th. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It never worked for me. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: You are right. Editing works when the gadget is turned off. --jdx Re: 09:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Which gadget has to be turned off? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Bij Voorkeuren -> Uitbreidingen onder het kopje "Interface: Bestanden en categorieën" bij "Collapse Captions: Collapse the File captions interface". Wouter (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx, Mike Peel, and Havang(nl): Method 4, see if that fixed it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: It seems to be all right now. --jdx Re: 22:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Gigantic STL files without thumbnails

Does File:SrpxMen700 14062019.stl (3.03 GB) work for someone else? The STL files from this user are the only ones that don't work for me. Maybe they are just too big. See also File:Menger33209 500 20052019.stl (1.67 GB). Can STL files be scaled down? More importantly, are such gigantic files conceivably useful? There must be some written or unwritten limit. I just don't know where it is? Watchduck (quack) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that we can't render a thumbnail of an STL file. It isn't much use if we can't see what it is. RAN (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a problem with the size of the file. We used to have an problem with 100-200MB STL files, at phab:T188611. Please file a new phabricator task for this one.--Snaevar (talk) 17:53, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

image size in category view

I can change the size of image thumbnails, using my preferences, but I can't seem to change the size of images in category views. Have I missed a setting to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Would this workaround help: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/08#Larger_thumbnails? MKFI (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow! There is also a gadget. One only needs to activate "LargerGallery" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, all. That's very helpful, but sadly the setting does not "stick". I want to make the change permanent, this is an accessibility issue, so we should not need to rely on Community Wishlist Survey for a fix. Is there an outstanding Phabricator ticket? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

File: Pedro arrupe.jpg

There is a confusing box here. Do you know for sure if this part is correct: After carefully checking the validity of the license , this image can be copied to Wikimedia Commons , thus making it available also to Wikipedia in other languages ​​and to other Wikimedia projects. But the cancellation of this copy should not be requested nor should the template {{ NowCommons }} be inserted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC) (Replaced external link with inter-wiki link. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC))

Yes, it is correct. It's a tag/template to notify users that the file should be kept locally, rather than having the file only on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, but please be clear: may we copy this to Commons as the statement says or must we not copy it and use it in English Wikipedia? Jzsj (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you can transfer it to Commons, but it is missing the details (such as source, author, etc) generally needed on Commons and may be subject to deletion if uploaded here. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 07:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Somebody talk to Erika39

Somebody please tell the user Erika39 (talk · contribs) to connect the categories he creates to Wikidata, I am tired of telling him but he has never answered why he does not. --Adriel 00 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest but they do not have to do it. They are a volunteer and can chose to put any amount of effort as they wish, just like other users. You can also ask other users to help make any needed improvements to any categories they create. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we have more bureaucrats?

We have 7 bureaucrats, but Krd pretty much single-handedly maintains the Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Only one other bureaucrat dealt with one request this year. This doesn't seem like a healthy situation. If Krd goes on vacation or gets the flu, there's nobody. And if Krd isn't sure about something, a second opinion is not likely to come in unless more bureaucrats are pinged.

Perhaps we just need one or two extra active bureaucrats. Or maybe we need to think in an entirely new direction?

This post was triggered by Martin Urbanec who requested a bureaucrat to confirm the outcome of a proposal on Commons. I'm not sure such a confirmation would be very valueable, but currently it would be difficult to even obtain such a confirmation. Krd prefers not to assist me in general, he is free to make that decision and I don't want to force him to assist me either. But I personally have virtually no representation by bureaucrats because of this. So far I am doing fine without that, but if proposals require bureaucrat confirmation that's going to be a problem. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you didn't specific the request they asked to be "confirmed" by a 'crat I can't really comment on it but most, if not all, discussions don't need a 'crat to confirm anything. If a close is contested they can get a second opinion at the admin noticeboard. Admins are trusted members of the community and should be able to handle proposal closures. That is part of their job after all. Asking for a 'crat to confirm anything is a little silly. On Commons, 'crats have a few extra buttons over administrators. That's it. Their job is to maintain the few additional account rights that admins can't add or remove. Previously they also handled renames but that has gone global. Krd isn't the only active 'crat anyways. EugeneZelenko is quite active as well and I would assume available to assist if needed. If we require additional 'crats I would expect one of them to say so. They are clearly competent enough to realize when/if they need help. --Majora (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: oh, right. phab:T237177. Understandably the TEM: proposal is dropped due to new information, but the light for MOD: should still be green. That is, it was green until Multichill threw a spanner in the works. As for EugeneZelenko, I hope Eugene still likes me. I still think one or two additional bureaucrats wouldn't hurt. When I requested Account Creator on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, it simply wasn't dealt with because Krd didn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't think I've pinged User:Krd yet.. I know you're not too fond of me, but it's obvious you are single-handedly dealing with the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. A helping hand or second opinion wouldn't hurt, would it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the vote of confidence, Alexis Jazz. I do appreciate that. However, I've only been an admin for a little over a year. I wouldn't want to overstep any boundaries by assuming that I've been around long enough to gain 'crat level trust in such a short period of time. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we do need more bureaucrats. Krd had 46 bureaucrat actions in 2019, EugeneZelenko had 8, Odder had 3 and JuTa had 2 bureaucrat actions, adding interface admin rights to their account (see Quarry:query/40091, there is most probably an easier way to set it up, but I'm currently editing via mobile). So, out of 59 actions, Krd performed 46, that's around 78%. Sometimes, a bureaucrat is not sure about what decision to make. In such situations, English Wikipedia uses w:en:WP: Bureaucrat discussions. Here, having such discussions seems to be pretty much impossible. Although Commons is not as bureaucratic, I still support bureaucrat chats as they can help in the process of decision-making.
But about asking a 'crat to close that specific thread, I think it's unnecessary. Even in English Wikipedia, admins normally close such threads, not 'crats. Bureaucrats can/should determinate consensus better than others, so they close controversial discussions like RfA, RfB, request for bot flag etc, but not such normal discussions. Ahmadtalk 11:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Summary report over several years at Quarry:query/40093. It looks like a low burden when there are 7 appointed Bureaucrats, possibly because the 'leadership' role has diminished in practice. For example, the community is not calling on Bureaucrats to lead reviews of policy or to make proposals for change. If this is to be revisited, we may have a discussion of how active a Bureaucrat should be to keep wearing the hat, especially given that past Bureaucrats have handed the hat back while they are busy, picking it up again when they have more time. As an example, based on the unique Bureaucrat role for granting rights, 99of9 last made a Bureaucrat rights action in 2017 while Jameslwoodward and Ellin Beltz do not appear to ever get involved in these actions. Perhaps when electing a Bureaucrat, folks might ask more questions about exactly what they are going to do that needs the Bureaucrat group membership, as well as why. --Fæ (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    I prepared a more accurate report for 2019 at Quarry:query/40095 (Quarry:query/40093 counts all right changes, both administrative and bureaucratic, but 40095 only counts bureaucratic right changes). A detailed report is still available at Quarry:query/40091. Ahmadtalk 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to support any good new candidates. I am still active, and still highly supportive of Commons, but have focused a little more on Wikidata in recent years. Feel free to ping me if my opinion would help. It may or may not be of interest to know that a couple of discussions between 'crats have happened this year. Neither resulted in any action - because existing community processes often work well without the need for intervention. --99of9 (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Categorising by EXIF

Half of the pitures in Category:ODI Summit 2014 are by Tracy Howl, the rest by Paul Clarke. However this is only apparent from their EXIF data. Is it possible (is there a tool) to add categories and/ or creator templates based on that, or do I need someone with a bot to do that for me? There will be other similar cases, so it's not just case of manually ploughing through just this set. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot.
✓ Done Added names, you can use VFC's text filtering to do whatever category or creator additions you would like to use. Now I have a script knocked up, you can drop me a note for any category of images that need this type of mass addition. The script looks at a category, checks through matches in each file's metadata via an API call, then adds whatever wikitext is wanted. --Fæ (talk) 13:51, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: Many thanks; and also done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:20, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: if you mean a generic bot to act automatically, location and date are minefields. How best to go about it would vary by source, or require significant time evaluating and extending a massive state machine to do it well. I've had my fingers burnt too often. Plus, there are reasons to avoid blindly relying on EXIF or other file header data for 'truth', and good reason to avoid making it much easier for any shmoe to analyse; let's not press the point too hard. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
I assumed we were already using bots to categorize by exif date. Isn't that how we ended up with 853 photos taken on 1970-01-01 (according to exif) even though exif wasn't introduced until 1995? - Themightyquill (talk) 12:30, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
These date bugs may be down to the Commons App on mobile. --Fæ (talk) 12:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Filemove oddity

When moving a file with the extention tif he extention will, no matter what is put into the filename box, be changed to .tiff - surely this is unintended behaviour? Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:00, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. It does make sense to normalize file extensions. Changing "jpeg" to "jpg" is another example. Since jpg is more common than jpeg, then that IMO justifies the change.--Snaevar (talk) 23:24, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
This appears to be intended behavior of Ajax as to normalize extensions. and to match the MIME type of the file. As the type of tiff files are image/tiff not image/tif The move and replace script that is part of Ajax changes it upon move. Specifically this is line 1,243 in MediaWiki:Gadget-AjaxQuickDelete.js. --Majora (talk) 23:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
As I look at the gadget more it doesn't appear to go off of MIME since jpeg changes to jpg upon move. Struck that part out above. --Majora (talk) 23:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
@Snaevar and Majora: Normalising, sure, but abnormalising? .tiff is not the common extention by any means; .tif is pretty much the universally accepted version. Searching for ".tif" and ".tiff" in the search box, for instance, shows around 4 to 5 times the numver of files with ".tif", The Library of Congress uses ".tif", and I've never seen an archive that uses ".tiff". Adam Cuerden (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why those extensions were chosen. Those lines were added to the Ajax script a very long time ago. Perhaps we should revisit them if there are objections to the formats chosen. --Majora (talk) 18:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Adam Cuerden: "TIF" is an old convention in MS-DOS, Unix and OS/2. Modern programs use "tiff". See the sixth revision of the Tiff format, page 119. There is standardization going on here, it is not just a numbers game. You just went straight to the rabbit hole without doing enough research on the matter. Of course archives and libaries are going to use the old convention. Seriously, expecting something different is just wierd. Besides, we have more important things to wonder about than this. Don't bother pinging me next time, this issue is so small it is not worth my time.--Snaevar (talk) 12:19, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
.tiff is better; .tif is an old "we only have three character extensions" (and to some extent "we only have 15 character names" from Unix) version. Either way, it seems weird to stress about it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
You mean the one that defines .tif as one of the two standards and says that even the rare prograns that can use .tiff at the time should probably use .tif for compatibility? Also, we are an archive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
It also changes ALL CAPS in the file extension to minuscules. I prefer harmonization. RAN (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

List of images, which are in two categories

Hi!

Please help me to find a list of images about Radio ( Category:Radio — with subcategories) uploaded during Wiki Science Competitions ( Category:Wiki Science Competition — with subcategories.

If the list is too long, I will be happy with a list of images about History of radio ( Category:History of radio — with subcategories) uploaded during Wiki Science Competitions ( Category:Wiki Science Competition — with subcategories).

--Perohanych (talk) 19:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

[9]. You're probably going to want to tweak the parameters. Searching very very large categories such as "Radio" will produce a lot of odd results due to the depth of such categories. That search is set to 5 subcategories deep and it took me a bit to figure out why some images were appearing. They did meet the parameters but the categories they were in were obscure. They just happened to be in one of the many many many subcategories of the main category being searched. --Majora (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Whoah! Did you just ask for the same thing I did below? Sorry for not reading it. Support. We need to be able to display all subcategories in the same thumbnail view. Please note your Support to encourage volunteer developers who do not want to work hard on features the community does not use. Sadly, the linked script does achieve the function but it wants to display large thumbnails all on the same page. Also it is "not secure". We need this function for the site. ~ R.T.G 11:01, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Petscan (radio x Wiki Science Competition), depths 6 gives 299 results [10], depth 7 gives 4153 results [11] but history of radio only 2 results [12] --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:31, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Sotheby's sale today

This Sotheby's catalogue, for a sale that was held today, has a number of autograph manuscripts by long-dead writers and composers. Unfortunately, I have no time to work on it at the moment, due to family commitments (I have uploaded two: 1, 2), nor do I know how long they will remain online. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:50, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Error uploading video

Due to not knowing when the authors died I will not upload this file and if it was successfully uploaded to Wikimedia Commons I would have nominated it for deletion. But when I add either the URL's https://youtu.be/3-aCfKDO9PE or https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=3-aCfKDO9PE to Video2commons it tells me that YouTube can't extract any video from this URL, can this have a special reason? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Edit war

Commons does not have a policy or guideline on en:WP:EDITWAR, however, it does redirect to m:edit war. While this seems like an appropriate alternative for smaller wikis, I feel the community should have a policy/guideline that they agree on, rather than referencing to another project's policy (not that it appears to be a policy there). As well, having this on Meta wiki means it both gets less traffic and less translation. It can also be changed without input from our community. If there is support, I'd like to move ahead at wordsmithing our own guideline on edit warring. Of course, the page would be tagged with {{Proposed}} until voted in by the community through VP. Thoughts?~riley (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm surprised that Commons doesn't have a EW policy. It would be good to create a local one or even to patriate meta policy over here. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 05:26, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Examples of cases where it would be useful? It probably goes without saying but, if you write a proposal, please make it clear that it does not apply to files. An eventual general edit war policy should not be interpreted as contradicting the contested changes or upload war policy, which is well accepted and efficient. -- Asclepias (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Far from needing examples, I think it's safe to say that we already operate as if we had an edit warring policy. That's usually a good sign that it's time to codify community norms. The page on Meta is imperfect for our purposes for a few reasons. First, it is specifically written with Wikipedia in mind, and appears to entirely disregard non-Wikipedia projects, of which there are many. Second, it's only been translated into seven languages, which is not ideal for Commons, our largest multi-lingual project. GMGtalk 13:29, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't doubt that you have examples in mind, but still, instead of merely snapping "far from needing examples", would you be kind enough to give one, so ignorant people like me can finally say "oh, yes, now I understand what you mean and you're so right." -- Asclepias (talk) 13:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Well, it looks like there have been scores of instances where edit warring or revert warring had been brought up in the noticeboard archives. GMGtalk 16:59, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Adapting of the Head image

Hi, we want New Year-situated logos for tt:Tatar wikipedia, like this File:Снеговик в масштабе.png and this File:Wikipedia-logo-v4-ru-xmas.png. Is it possible? --Derslek (talk) 13:34, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Derslek. Both these logos have been released under free licenses, that allow you to adapt and remix them for any purpose, so long as you provide attribute in accordance with the licenses. You can therefore re-purpose either or both of them for use on the Tatar Wikipedia as you like. GMGtalk 13:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, I know about the licenses, but we need help to transform those pictures. --Derslek (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Derslek. I might be able to help with my limited ability. You would have to probably be more specific on which image you want to use, what text you want to appear beneath it, and how you want it do display. GMGtalk 16:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Assesment section in file descriptions

I was under the impression, that assessments are always in an assessment section, as in this examples:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dyke_March_Berlin_2018_video.webm&diff=341303311&oldid=336011152&diffmode=source
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Equal_Pay_Day.webm&type=revision&diff=343351620&oldid=343238932&diffmode=source
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Taxi_Driver_protest_Hannover_2019-03-28_20.webm&type=revision&diff=344536796&oldid=344293980&diffmode=source
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Zuckmayer-Medaille_2019_21.webm&diff=336645413&oldid=336204746&diffmode=source
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Intervention_gegen_den_Wiederaufbau_der_Garnisonskirche_Potsdam.webm&diff=339816126&oldid=338704183&diffmode=source
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:21_January_2017_-_Hamburg_-_Democrats_Abroad_-_We_the_People_-_A_March_for_American_Democracy_-_Women_s_March_-_Sister_March.webm&diff=335479882&oldid=325857009&diffmode=source

while actually it was handled individually. Now a bot has started to add assessments to MOTD file descriptions and does not use an extra section. Worse, there a files likes this POTD

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Sunrise_over_Benmore_Range,_New_Zealand.jpg&oldid=375743314

with:

  • info section
    • info template 1
    • assessment 1
    • assessment 2
    • info template 2
    • support assessment
  • license section
    • license
    • assessment 3

If assessments are now handled by a bot, shouldn't there be a consensus - or actually always simply be an assessment section, if there is an assessment? --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:43, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - GC136

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#GC136. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedCategories

Hello.Why are the categories of years and days appearing on this list although most of them are already Categorised?! This error was always happening, but this time there were 457 results.Please solve.Thanks ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

A quick look shows me that the why is because RudolphousBot likes to create for each day of the year for almost each subject a category and vandals like to delete categories see for example here Wouter (talk) 11:30, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
@Rudolphous: Another quick look shows that Rudolphousbot creates categories with a failing Template: ... (country) photographs taken on navbox...(date) . --Havang(nl) (talk) 17:01, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Created most of the missing templates at the moment. Rudolphous (talk) 14:06, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Missing Map Sheet- Site Map

Problem: Hello all- I have been working on colonial period maps of Taiwan this week that I believe can help English-speaking readers have a better understanding of Taiwanese geographical concepts during Japanese occupation. However, I can't find one of the sheets of the map series I have been working on (from map series Formosa (Taiwan) 1:50,000 AMS Series L792). I previously encountered a similar problem with sheet suirembi-2418-iii of the map series which is not listed on the index of sheets of the map. I was able to blindly guess out what the url was.

Using my guessing method, I have previously found at least one other map sheet in The University of Texas' maps of China that is similarly already scanned and uploaded but not linked in their index of maps. Unfortunately, sending them my feedback has proved fruitless- they haven't corrected the problems yet.

I feel strongly that the map I am looking for (sheet 2115-iii) is probably already scanned and online, but I just can't guess out what the URL would be.

Sheet 2115-iii definitely exists in paper form- it is referenced in several places in the 1945 book "Gazetteer to Maps of Formosa (Taiwan) Map Series AMS L792, Scale 1:50,000" and it the area it covers is highlighted in yellow in the Index map to Series L792.

Question: Is there a tool that can show me a list of ALL of the urls that have ever existed that start with http://legacy.lib.utexas.edu/maps/ams/formosa/? If I can find that list, then I could probably figure out if sheet 2115-iii was uploaded but not added to the index of sheets (similar to suirembi-2418-iii), or if sheet 2115-iii was never uploaded at all. If not, is there another way I could find this map without contacting the library directly? You can't email them, their feedback system gave me no results and calling them would be a little expensive for me. I have tried my guessing method (not yet exhaustively), but have yet to hit it. --Geographyinitiative (talk) 04:18, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved Found it: [13]--Geographyinitiative (talk) 08:35, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Three children operating rocker at a gold mine on Dominion Creek, Yukon Territory, ca. 1898.jpg

File:Three children operating rocker at a gold mine on Dominion Creek, Yukon Territory, ca. 1898.jpg was added to Category:Greta Thunberg. But does ist belong in that category (or maybe a subcategory)? And if it does belong there, shouldn't the info template say something about, why it is there? --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Part of a stupid internet reaction. Background. --Animalparty (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Animals 'in' or 'of' country

@Ardfern: , @Bdk: , @PigeonIP: , @Kersti Nebelsiek: , @Yann: , @Elkost: , @Atamari: , @Vmenkov: , @Geagea: , @MPF: , @Kolforn: , @Jeanhousen: , @Foroa: , @Infrogmation: @RhinoMind: , @Pitke: , @Humboldt: , @SBaker43: .

There appears to me an anomaly in Category:Livestock by country, indicative of a wider anomaly, for which I'll use Category:Goats by country → Category:Goats in the United Kingdom as an example to look at. A seemingly predominant category naming convention (over all sub cats of 'Livestock by country') tends to be animal in Foo, rather than animal of Foo. Having 'in' implies that it is a type/breed of a particular animal that happens to be in a specific location; 'of' implies that the animal is more a breed indigenous to and originating in a location. For consistency, and to address this anomaly for the benefit of searchers who could be confused by differently named but seemingly identical categories, I suggest in animal categories we go with the more logical 'in' for location, leaving the 'of's (where a breed is identified) for 'Foo breeds by country of origin'... sometimes an animal image would be under both categories. Having both 'in' and 'of' mixed together is confusing and inconsistent, particularly within the same category page. Using the goats example again, if we need 'Goats of'-style categories (perhaps renamed as 'Goat breeds originating in Foo') this would be under Category:Goat breeds by country of origin → Category:Goats by country.
This particular discrepancy is found in many major fauna, flora and people category trees.
I have pinged some currently active users (not inclusive... there appears to be a multitude) who appear to be category creators and contributors in this area to give their opinion before 30-day bot archiving buries this post and auto-marks it as 'resolved'. Many thanks. Acabashi (talk) 14:21, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes; and this affects far wider than just animal breeds, it affects the meaning & content of huge numbers of categories. For one example, File:Barack Obama Michelle Obama Queen Elizabeth II Buckingham Palace London.jpg shows a photo of Barack Obama on a visit to London. Could you put this photo of Barack Obama in a [sub]category 'People of the United Kingdom' - no. In a [sub]category 'People in the United Kingdom' - yes. In similar manner, animals in zoos or farms, and plants cultivated in gardens, should not be in categories 'Fauna of Xxxx' or 'Flora of Xxxx' (or subcategories thereof), as they are not naturally of Xxxx. Unfortunately, this has been very widely disregarded. - MPF (talk) 17:06, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I have encountered the similar problems on Wikipedia, that you have identified in Commons. In the past especially with ‘People from’ and ‘People of’ I remember disagreement over the DJ Pete Tong. Original the category was ‘People of Ibiza’ as he was not from there but it was his permanently residencies. I was then embroiled in a conversation only to be told and most forcible that he should be in Category:People from Ibiza even though he is not from there. I see this is still the category he is listed in so that was never resolved although the Category:People of Ibiza was deleted. I would say we could do with a agreed consensus on the structure of these types of categories, as I confess I am a little confused by this all. Kolforn (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
The other point to make is that, the more general the category is, the more acceptable 'of' is, and the more specific/detailed the category, the less acceptable 'of' is. So e.g. Category:Birds of Tanzania is fine, but Category:Mycteria ibis of Serengeti National Park just looks plain wrong; it should be Category:Mycteria ibis in Serengeti National Park. - MPF (talk) 21:26, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
Also note that zoos and aquariums sometimes use Category:Animals at Foobar Zoo, so there are actually 3 different conventions being used. "At" is probably OK for zoos and aquariums since they are very specific locations, but we should be more consistent regardless. Kaldari (talk) 01:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
We tried to get around this with art, to some degree, with Category:Art by country of location (Category:Art in France) vs Category:Art by country of origin (Category:Art from France, but we still ended up with catchall categories to house both Category:Art of France. We could, by comparison have, Category:Goats of the United Kingdom with subcategories Category:Goats in the United Kingdom and Category:Goat breeds originating in the United Kingdom. - Themightyquill (talk) 21:34, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Feature request in categories

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T238573

Hello, please look at the subcategories in Category:Parco degli Acquedotti (Rome). It is a tree of categories at least five branches deep, and yet the images are very similar. Now you might argue that they should be less categorised, but what I am asking for is,

  • I want to display the images from the sub-categories and the parent category, all in the one thumbnails view, as though they were all in the same category.
  • A useful function for such a feature may be to warn the user how many images are going to be in the pseudo-category before displaying it.
  • Anybody see this as a useful feature?
  • Are there unforeseen programming obstacles which would make this a grand task?
  • If you would like to see this feature, please note Support to encourage the programmers who make this sort of magic happen. They don't like to work very hard on features which are not used. If this feature is created, it will have to be known. There will have to be some sort of sign on the category page which allows the user to see and understand that they can do this. This feature becomes more relevant every day as categories become more and more specific, for instance in categories of ancient historical cathedrals and palaces, where there is a lot of art and significant areas, everything is categorised and categorised and categorised. Rather than take ourselves on a journey, we are transported to one small portion at a time, a single wall, an individual side of a single wall. Such categorisation improves archiving, but it disenfranchises browsing. There are gallery pages, but they do cannot quite achieve this function. Please indicate any support so that programming volunteers will be encouraged, thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support I often want to look through the thumbnails for a whole category, but am put off by subcategorisaton. ~ R.T.G 10:55, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @RTG: Have you tried FastCCI? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:17, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
    Thanks but it doesn't support this function. Only supports comparison of two categories. It will show you images are in both of two categories, i.e. both blue and square, to show me blue squares, but will not show the images of two or more categories as one category, i.e., all squares and blues in one category. Please note your support if you think it would be useful as a feature. ~ R.T.G 12:27, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) @RTG: FastCCI does that, when one selects «all images» — it will show all images in all subcategories (down to a given depth) under a given category. It does not fully adress the concerns in OP but it is a suitable hack. (Incidentally: The way FastCCI crops all images into squares is quite annoying, and needlessly so.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Support There is much overcategorisation in Category:Parco degli Acquedotti (Rome) and its sub~cats. Cat-a-lot permits to find these and reduce overcategorisation. For this cat and subcats, Petscan gives 512 results [14]. Petscan gives the number and the list, which just needs wikification, to obtain all in one thumbnail view. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:40, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Over categorisation is beside the main point. This request facilitates all the categorisation we want. With this feature we can have categories of one and not interrupting browsing. Please figure out what side you are on and note your support ;)~ R.T.G 17:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Extended content

It is possible starting from the petscdan list, to generate the gallery by extracting the list of files, and transform it into a gallery with titles. It should indeed be an interesting feature. See the first four and the nowikitexte with full list not yet correctly formatted.--Havang(nl) (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

  • @Havang(nl): You added 999 lines of a gallery inside a commented nowiki tag pair. Why? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It was not yet the format i wished to give it and i had to go. I replaced it now by the crrectly formatted list, which shows a gallery with active links to the individual images, just the result I should like to have. This is made from the list, extracted from petscan https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?psid=13738710 , which I have put in a worddoc table colomn, added a second colomn with, added a third colom identical to the first, and a fourth colomn with, then converted it into texte. It seems to me that thuis is the feature asked for. But I have not the skills to make a java programmed gadget doing this. --Havang(nl) (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Now it can be seen clearly, this list is much more beautiful than simply finding the main category. We must have it as a feature, especially if the tools to do so are already available. Super! Please note support for this, it is definitely a good feature. ~ R.T.G 17:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

?? Similar ??

I tried to change my username a week or so ago. After waiting a couple of days I got a message saying my request was denied because the name was **similar** to other usernames.

This is baffling to me. Similar? It seems to me it either duplicates another name or not. If it duplicates an existing user name everybody else tells you that immediately. But, waiting 2 days to be told it's similar????? If it doesn't duplicate an existing user name it should be approved. Wiki name (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Not sure what name you wanted, so no idea what it was similar to but, for example, my username is "Jmabel". I would certainly expect that it would not be acceptable for someone else to take "JMabel" or "Jmabеl" (that's a Cyrillic 'е' in there), and probably not "Joe Mabel", which is the way I'm credited on my photos. Those are just examples. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
That's what I want to do -- use my real name, like you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 20:58, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Even without changing your account name, you can change your sig (and your author credits) by using something like [[User:Wiki name|Your real name here]]. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Commons has no say over renames. Renames are global. If you have questions about renaming the only way to have your questions properly answered is by asking the global renamers via their mailing list, via #wikimedia-rename (Warning: IRC chat link that will expose your IP address to other IRC users), or via their page on meta. As for the "too similar" aspect that is due to the AntiSpoof mechanism built into the renaming extension. While it can be overridden in very, very, limited circumstances, which is probably why it doesn't tell the requester but waits for the renamer to have a look to confirm, it generally isn't. Just picking an "available" name doesn't necessarily mean renamers are obligated to give it to you. Especially if the AntiSpoof system flags it as too similar to another username. This is by design. The system shouldn't allow you to register whatever name you wanted either due to the same AntiSpoof mechanism. --Majora (talk) 04:33, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what AntiSpoof mechanisms are but this is my real name. I chose "Wiki name" about 15 years ago before I knew anything about Wikipedia. Wiki name (talk) 17:18, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

How many pictures?

Is there a way to count the number of pictures I have uploaded to Commons? Wiki name (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Not easily, but you can see your list of uploads on Special:ListFiles/Wiki_name and count the number of results pages. --Fæ (talk) 17:49, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hey Wiki name. A summary of your contributions to Commons can be found here. GMGtalk 17:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
That's an interesting page. It says I have uploaded made less than 300 uploads. Using something called Upload Log I've uploaded in the neighborhood of 800 images to Commons. It is certainly more than 300. So, I'm not sure what the numbers on that page mean. Wiki name (talk) 20:19, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Hmm? That's strange. Well Wiki name, looking here it seems that the actual number is less than 500. So it would seem that the xtools summary is more likely to be correct than the log you reference. Not sure why there is such a large discrepancyr though. GMGtalk 20:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem with that count, it cuts off in 2015 for reasons I've never understood. I've been uploading pictures since somewhere around 2006. That's a longer period than now to 2015 so you have to include those too. I don't know what Uploads means for sure. If I improve and upload a replacement file are both counted as upload? They were in my count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki name (talk • contribs) 22:23, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I think your older uploads are listed under the account Wiki name~commonswiki. It looks like you didn't do whatever was necessary to get your Commons and English Wikipedia accounts merged when the unified login system was introduced, so they were treated as belonging to different people and the Commons account was renamed from "Wiki name" to "Wiki name~commonswiki". Then when you next used Commons, a new, separate account called "Wiki name" was created here for you. --bjh21 (talk) 21:11, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I put this code on my user page: {{User:Acabashi/top uploads}} . It seems to, eventually, tot up my uploads and update them daily, see here. You need to change it to your user name, and set up a special sub page per User:UploadStatsBot. Acabashi (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
By default Special:ListFiles only shows images that are current (i.e. that haven't been overwritten), and there are 428 of these. If you turn on "Include old versions of files" then you get overwritten versions as well, and there are 541 of them (if I've counted the last page right). In addition to these, the upload log also counts deleted versions, which is why it has 548 entries. I can't see where either the edit counter's 292 or Wiki name's 800 come from. --bjh21 (talk) 20:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Wiki name: https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Upload wizard feedback that will be read by developers

How do I explain to myself or to editors I am training where to leave feedback? I am starting posing as a naive user on the Upload Wizard page-- no talk page. I follow the bluelink trail and reach a page that is no longer maintained- and another that says that this is not read by developers. Confusing for me and counter to everything we have just taught our nervous trainees.

Now why would I want to talk to developers? Well I might just want to

  • Congratulate them on an excellent tool
  • To suggest a minor change in the code that would save users like my trainees hours of work
    • Make the copy-down function available on every image not solely the first. If I am in a museum- I might take 50 images of 5 statues. They are post-processed and I upload them into Upload Wizard, Copyright is identical ad onto description. I want to put the same categories and descriptions and location on the images of 'Pieta', then a different description on the images of 'David', and and so on. With the copy-down function we have got this is only possible if all the images need the same. With that function on each image, I could copy-down the first image to all, goto image 10 write the new descriptions and copy-down- thus overwriting the last 40 but keeping the first 10. Then to image 20, and the same process.
  • To suggest two more difficult to achieve functions that could have maintenance benefits. I am sure these have been thought of before
    • upload and confirm function- where by a single image is uploaded (like a draft) so the user and the tutor can comfirm that the final result is correct before multiple images with mmistakes (sic) are uploaded.
    • Then that a 
      {{w|Pagename}} check for existence
      is run before a copydown.
  • To open a discussion on how to make the Wikidata page more tutor and hesitant user friendly.

Regards ClemRutter (talk) 13:18, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Unsatisfying as it is: Open a task at phabricator or search for a task at phabricator, that matches your request and comment on it or give it a thumb up. To do so go to phab: and add phab-access to your wiki-account. At least developers will read your request. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the instantaneous response. Those are examples I gave and your reminder was helpful - but the issue as I see is the communication system is broken. Seeing it from the pov of a tutor, there is a limit to how much we can expect users to do, and while we may be prepared to learn new systems and enjoy it, they are not. We are working within a very narrow Zone of proximal development in some cases- it is pushing it to get them to move onto a talk page. Turning suggestion on a talkpage into phabricator tickets sounds to me to be food for a bot! Museum curators have not got the inclination set to do that. Can we shift the focus. ClemRutter (talk) 13:52, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
You are right. That is why I started with unsatisfyingly. I would have said, it was an issue (building an unbroken process) for the community wishlist, but commons is excluded from this year's wishlist survey. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:00, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
User:ClemRutter I upload about 20.000 files a year, and every time I tried to ask for any minor improvement of the UploadWizard on Phabricator it was just a complicated, frustrating loss of time. Your ideas are helpful, but there is really no way to communicate to developers, unless you have a group of users who can well understand Phabricator editing language and who can support your request, pumping it up to a level that someone is really going to read it. It doesn't matter how many files you upload or how much time you dedicated every day to Commons, all you need it to be very active in the Community in order to know many people who can support your requests. Unfortunately, for users like me, the day has only 24 hours, and you need some of those to work, eat, sleep, and do the things that you really enjoy. My experience suggests to take the "improvements" as the fall from the sky, and thank God if sometimes they make your efforts easier and not harder. --Sailko (talk) 11:13, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: sadly Sailko is right. There is no need to go to Phabricator because many tickets are left to rot for years. A ticket with a big payoff for relatively little work can still rot for a long time. There is no telling what will be picked up. Severe security issues and things that completely break wikis even for visitors, sure. Wikidata related stuff, I guess. Mobile stuff, probably? Simple things (that can be fixed in less than an hour) would normally be picked up. Anything else.. your guess is as good as mine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:37, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
Please do remember that Wikimedia Foundation is entirely supported by donations and grants. With a thousand of servers and hundreds of staff, it is hard to invest in technical development. Most extensions like UploadWizard is developed by volunteers. You can not force other volunteers to do things for you. Even if a volunteer picks up a task, it is hard to find project owners aka reviewers who can merge the change. Mediawiki development is not easy as you think either. With regards to recent mobile web development, Reading web team only picks up tasks that they consider "in scope". They will be working on Desktop Improvements project but some task related to mobile web are yet to be resolved. Wikidata has WMDE team but they don't work on all Wikidata related tasks. Masum Reza📞 17:22, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
I was not complaining of volunteers, I was just sayng the system it was picked to request an technical improvement for Commons is rather complicated, and I think it was an error to separate that from the Wikis projects, as we all know wiki's markup, discussions and way to support an issue, but not many of us are familiar with that completely different system. --Sailko (talk) 17:52, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@ClemRutter: I was one of the original developers of UploadWizard, so perhaps I could respond to your suggestions. UploadWizard was intentionally designed to optimize for the most common use cases and be as simple as possible. It is definitely not designed to handle large complicated uploads. It sounds like you would be better served by a tool like Pattypan, Commonist, VicuñaUploader, or the GLAMwiki Toolset. Regarding the Wikidata page, that step is completely optional and can just be skipped. In fact the upload is already complete at that point. I'll convey your feedback that it is confusing to users to the current maintainers and maybe they can improve it. Kaldari (talk) 18:20, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
@Kaldari: Great to hear from you. It gives me an opportunity to thank you for a fantastic piece of work and your presence here over the years. I have used Commonist for thousands of shots, but switched immediately I discovered the wizard. Thanks for passing on my comments it is appreciated. Increasingly I have been concerned with editor recruitment and initial training, so I try to look at everything not just from a personal perspective but that of the new user and how to reduce their learning curve. We can lead a horse to water, but if they get scared they bolt. More so they go back to their institutions and tell more potential contributors- that is was scary, and far too complicated.
It is here that the wizard is a godsend. It is in this context that I am making these comments. I have been on the other side and programmed from a teletype, and later worked in C and PHP on a CMS- I understand the desire to write the perfect code and the frustration of needing to document it in a language you don't speak 'Enduser speak'. Here I am looking at it from the Trainer- and Wizard works till the WikiDatapage which is of a lower quality. but that page can be dismissed by telling the trainee 'Oh that is for another day- just press skip'. These courses may have 30 minutes of instruction- which include a lot of english wikipedia stuff, the notability/copyvio guff and I want to cover file uploading in two minutes flat- before sending them away with their cameras to take some shots. Back then in a group, I have time to demonstrate uploading one users files, and off for coffee. Wizard works, I can explain it in two sentences. I detailed a couple of minor improvements that come from working with the horses.
Taking it to a further level of abstraction, we have a very low success rate for the trainees continuing to edit, and talking to them, they are very busy people. Our hope is that they will enthuse some of their junior colleagues and pass on the skills they have learned at a future internal staff meeting, so they will need to understand it well enough to explain.ClemRutter (talk) 10:44, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Emblem-Ramakrishna-Mission-Transparent

There are over 100 pages using File:Emblem-Ramakrishna-Mission-Transparent.png, with markup like:

{{ImageNote|id=1|x=892|y=1210|w=79|h=106|dimx=3024|dimy=2016|style=2}} [[File:Emblem-Ramakrishna-Mission-Transparent.png|200px|]][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna_Mission#Emblem RKM Emblem] {{ImageNoteEnd|id=1}}

What's that about? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:33, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

This was done by Riquix but I can't see any rationale as to why this was done. It doesn't appear to be adding anything to the individual images. For example, the image note on File:Uddan Bati 01.jpg just has the emblem noted. Doesn't appear to be anything specifically useful there. --Majora (talk) 21:46, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
I just went ahead and removed them all. There was no discernible use to the image note that I could see. --Majora (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Its a logo an can used. As example : https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercedes-Benz --Riquix (talk) 07:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

This get more bizarre. I had tagged the file as 'no permission', but Riquix responded in recent edits by claiming it to be 'PD-textlogocc', so it's obvious no evidence of permission will be forthcoming. Accordingly, I've now tagged it as a copyvio. Thank you, Majora, for your cleanup efforts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  • To the first question why a note was added. The symbol in the pictures not everyone knows it. And there is explained.

Ramakrishna Mission / Emblem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramakrishna_Mission#Emblem --Riquix (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's an example of a image note in the picture : https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Galt%C3%BCr_-_Jamtal_01.jpg --Riquix (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Uploading is slow that it can't upload

Hi

I'm having an issue that i my pics won't upload and keeps saying that it has connection issues.

Please fix this.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZidaneHartono (talk • contribs) 00:30, 17 November 2019‎ (UTC)

Exactly in my case (for uploads of more than 25 MB, at least)
--LBM1948 (talk) 12:36, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
We have also received reports about slow uploads at Commons:Forum. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
Same problem today, here in Italy --Sailko (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem was not fixed. Still can't upload more than 2 files per time, if I do 3 it all gets blocked. --Sailko (talk) 15:57, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Propose deprecation of File:Millaiswilson.jpg

Being that a new version -- File:Margaret Wilson - JE Millais.png -- has now been uploaded, I propose adding a deprecation notice to File:Millaiswilson.jpg. The difference in resolution between the two is obvious. I'm asking rather than just doing because the older version is used in an awful lot of wikis. Levana Taylor (talk) 01:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

You can just go to the other Wikis and change the image. But we definitely should store both versions they are different enough that someone could want to use the old version. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:40, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I've linked the two via "other versions" so that users can quickly compare the two: I don't think they are similar enough to to warrant a {{Superseded}} template on the .jpg, but that's an option in some cases. --Animalparty (talk) 02:56, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Swapped some of the global usages. You may wish to do the remaining few by hand. Fæ (talk) 03:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Done that -- I think it's good now, thanks. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:58, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Philippe de Loutherbourg

Most of the images in Category:Art depicting the New Testament by Philippe De Loutherbourg contain two copies of the illustration in question, plus modern-looking text describing it.

Is this serving any useful purpose, or should those versions of the files be deleted if I cut it down to the actual illustration? I thought it was contrary to policy. Marnanel (talk) 10:27, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

  1. What would such deletion accomplish?
  2. Looks like typically there is a drawing plus an engraving.
  3. If these are an accurate representation of the source, and if there are no copyright issues with the source, I would think we would want to keep an accurate representation of the source. - Jmabel ! talk 16:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Huge patrol backlog

There is a huge backlog of unpatrolled edits. We need more people patrolling edits. Especial the edits by IP users should be patrolled. There is a lot a spam easy to remove. But we need more people doing this. If everyone would do some minutes of patrolling every day we could easy reduce the backlog. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Easier said than done. COM:PATROL rights are not granted automatically to everyone and with 564 patrollers and 217 admins, you're looking at around 750 unpatrolled edits per person. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I patrol edits regularly. But some don't. Commons:Patrol/Userstats shows stats of top 200 patrollers. Which means more than 500 patrollers don't use their right. They are simply hat collecting! I think we should make a strict inactivity criteria. Masum Reza📞 12:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Spam Commons:Requests_for_rights#Patroller with new requests, I will nominate some trusted right users now. 750 unpatrolled edits per person is not acceptable to me, editing should be fun not bot-like boring tasks. -- Eatcha (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Masumrezarock,HyperGaruda and GPSLeo I nominated 12 trusted users for the right, If possible try to nominate more active users from the recent changes and don't nominate file-reviewers(they don't need it). -- Eatcha (talk) 13:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I am worried about those people who are inactive/don't want to patrol. IMOH they should be self nominated. If they want to patrol, it does not hurt to ask by themselves. Masum Reza📞 13:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I am not nominating them to be guillotined ;), they will be fine if they don't patrol like bots. 1 patrol a day = 365 a year. Thanks, Eatcha (talk) 13:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently we have 1052 users with patrol right (see Quarry:query/40257), because license reviewers can mark edits as patrolled as well (that's why patroller right becomes "redundant" when one has the license reviewer right). That is ~519 edits for each user. This is not the only problem, as you can reach that number using tools like RTRC. Because of the multilingual nature of Commons, many edits (including those in captions) are in different languages. I like the patrolling task, but it's not that easy here. Of course, one can use Google Translate, but that decreases the patrolling speed dramatically. Ahmadtalk 13:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Very rarely would I think to mark a page as patrolled. It would make a lot more sense, and be more interesting, if uploads needing to be patrolled were clustered so that one click could mark large numbers of files as protrolled. If an IP has done some simple good categorizing, and made 400 edits in the process, I need only glance at the list to see this is okay, and no way am I going to spend time ticking off 400 edits. --Fæ (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: RTRC can do that: You just need to enter the username, and enable MassPatrol. That will mark all edits by a specific user as patrolled. Ahmadtalk 13:57, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I mark them when I see them, but even as an admin I wouldn't know where to look for a list of what needs to be patrolled. (1) Where is it? (2) What can we do to make that better known to patrollers? - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
There should be an option to patrol all unpatrolled edits made to a specific page. Pages like COM:Sandbox and COM:HD usually have a lot of unpatrolled edits hidden inside the page history. And COM:Sandbox should definitely be exempted from the patrol list because it's a sandbox and a bot automatically cleans it up. There could be other high edited page where a lot of hidden unpatrolled changes. RTRC only let's patrollers to filter by username. Masum Reza📞 19:03, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be smarter to display a link for patrollers when they examine a diff. Something that visually takes you various patrol options like <mark this page history as patrolled> or <mark all edits by <this user> as patrolled> makes far more sense than needing a keyboard to cut and past user account names, or even worse, long IP addresses. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
mediawiki:PatrolPageRevisions.js can be used to address the former. 大诺史 (Talk/留言) 23:38, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
I wonder, when I undo or rollback an edit, why doesn't it automatically mark the reverted edit as patrolled? (actually I only tested undo, maybe rollback does do this) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:28, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Rollbacks are automatically patrolled. For undo there is a five year old task in the phabricator. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:59, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T16439
@Eatcha and GPSLeo: Commons:Bots/Work requests#Patrol edits from autopatrolled users - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:20, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Photographer name in title

I work in enWP, not Commons, but I happened to notice that many of the images in Category:Lahore Museum have image name like File:Pakistan--Lahore Museum-@ibneazhar Sep 2016 (12).jpg. Ibnazhar is the photographer/uploader, and I wonder if this is standard practice, if putting one's own name into the title is considered acceptable. DGG (talk) 04:51, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

That's common practice for some and being frowned upon by others, but accepted by most. In any case, it is not forbidden via Commons:File naming nor is it a reason for Commons:File renaming. --El Grafo (talk) 08:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

George Grantham Bain Collection

Does anyone know the George Grantham Bain Collection well enough to find one of the photos that shows the actual collection of racks of photo negatives in the Manhattan studio? There were several occasions where subjects came to the studio to get their photo taken and the collection is visible behind the subject. There were several also showing the contraption they used to make copies of photos. I am looking for an image to use on the category page to represent the collection. RAN (talk) 20:19, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I found it:

Removing red links that are categories

Are we supposed to be removing red links that are categories? I notice it in my watchlist that from time to time people remove them. I am often happily surprised when I create a category and find it already populated, only because someone created a red link previously. RAN (talk) 02:29, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

  • IMO, "it depends". There are many reasonable and obvious categories not yet created (eg, "Streets in {city that doesn't yet have category for its streets} etc). When coming across a random example of such a reasonable category, sometimes I create it; other times if I'm in the middle of something else I might just add the category with expectation it will eventually be created. On the other hand there are sometimes dubious and idiosyncratic redlinked category names added to images that are not appropriate and unlikely to be of use. So I'd say it's a matter of judgement - leave reasonable and expected redlink categories and delete unlikely ones. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I second that. If it's a likely legitimate category, it should be left (or the category created). For example, I recently uploaded a subway map that will take effect in February 2020. Most of the appropriate 2020 categories have not been created yet (and won't be populated till January), but are worth having on the file now. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:49, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think it's better to either remove the redlinks, or create the category. Having Schrodinger categories that simultaneously exist (they have content) and don't exist (they aren't actually there) is quite confusing, and I'm trying to clear up quite a few of that kind of situation that are linked to from enwp at the moment... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Replacing an image with a better, but slightly different, copy

  • Portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at the age of 13 in Verona, 1770 - (2,475 × 3,061 pixels, 1.27 MB
    Portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at the age of 13 in Verona, 1770 - (2,475 × 3,061 pixels, 1.27 MB
  • MozartVeronadallaRosa - (471 × 580 pixels, 55 KB
    MozartVeronadallaRosa - (471 × 580 pixels, 55 KB

File:Portrait of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart at the age of 13 in Verona, 1770.jpg is a higher resolution and colour-correct version of File:MozartVeronadallaRosa.jpg.

I uploaded the former as a separate file rather than overwriting, in view of the differences, but the older file is used on a large number of pages on many projects. Is there tool that will replace all instances on those projects? Or would it be better to overwrite? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done though as processing global replacements apparently needs an administrator, I probably should not touch requests like this until I pass an RFA. --Fæ (talk) 18:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:07, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

How do I copy a Category to a new name?

I want to make a copy of the Category:27th Street NW, Washington, D.C. as Category:27th Street NW, Georgetown, Washington, D.C. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Henrytow (talk • contribs) 21:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Rename a category. Bidgee (talk) 22:00, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I do not want to delete or change the existing Category:27th Street NW, Washington, D.C.. It is fine as it is. I was using it with the Category: Georgetown, Washington, D.C. but someone objected that 27th Street did not lie completely within Georgetown, and therefore remove it. True enough, even though either every or almost every image within the category was in Georgetown, as is the case in quite a few other categories that were deleted from Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C. So I want to create a Category:27th Street NW, Georgetown, Washington, D.C. with all of its present images. If any of the images are not in Georgetown, I will remove them from this Category.

Please tell me how to copy the Category:27th Street NW, Washington, D.C. with all of its images to a new Category:27th Street NW, Georgetown, Washington, D.C.with all of the original images. Henrytow (talk) 20:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

" someone objected that 27th Street did not lie completely within Georgetown, and therefore removed it." I want to construct, as I was beginning to do when stopped, a Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C. with all of its streets, both numbered and lettered, each in a separate category, along with other specific categories. The lettered streets are already there. I want to do the numbered streets in the same format as those with letters. Henrytow (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

As I remarked above, I don't endorse splitting a category that has only three members. That said, I'll give you the technical how-to, while recommending against doing this sort of thing.
  1. Create a new category Category:27th Street NW, Georgetown, Washington, D.C. with parents Category:27th Street NW, Washington, D.C. and Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C.. You add parents to a category exactly the same way you add them to a photo.
  2. For the three items (to photos and a category) currently in Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C., change [[Category:Georgetown, Washington, D.C.]] to [[Category:27th Street NW, Georgetown, Washington, D.C.]]. With so few members, I suggest doing this by hand-editing; if there were, say, a dozen or more, then there are many available tools. Of these, my preference is VisualFileChange.
Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Just got permission for a collection of 100s of thousands of photos

Hi, I just been emailing someone on Flickr for the correct license for their photos, Mr Gary Todd. In fact Flickr hosts 160,000 images for this professor of History in Sias University, China. A great many of these images seem to be of quality and use. They have a website [16] but the full resolution images are hosted on Flickr. Included are historical collections and stacks and stacks of photography of museum collections. I suppose this would suit a mass upload. I received a confirmation message on Flickr and have requested Mr Todd by email to forward that message to OTRS. His reply was prompt today on Flickr so I suspect it will also show up on OTRS soon also, so maybe User:Fæ or someone can do a mass upload? Relevant photostream on Flickr. ~ R.T.G 03:20, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

The problem I've found with mass uploads is that we can end up with duplicate images, so it needs some thought. Also, we need to take care that images not created by Mr Todd are appropriately licensed for Commons, whatever it says on Flickr. Rodhullandemu (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
There are roughly 2,500 hits for his name, some of which will refer to a musician but probably the bulk to this one. I've asked him to email OTRS as stated. I suppose I should fgure out who will tell me if that comes through and report it here. ~ R.T.G 09:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
I would be happy to sort it out, but it would probably be sometime in January. --Fæ (talk) 13:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It's probably going to be a terabyte of information. High res images take me about a minute or two to upload each and maybe 5 seconds to download, both separate. Over 160k, that's like 25 weeks! xD ~ R.T.G 15:09, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
With a mass upload you can tell the WMF server to go directly to a (white-listed) URL to upload the file, without your local machine having to download it. Hence the speed or time for a batch upload can be as fast as the WMF servers can do it; which is potentially very fast. The volunteer time goes into looking at how the mapping of data will work, including whether categories can be automatically deduced, if the upload should be limited to specific Flickr albums, or if things like Flickr tags might be worth copying as keywords. --Fæ (talk) 15:24, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
The Flickr stream seems to have well over 100k of them in albums of like between 50 and 500, almost 600 albums, giving a head start if a bot could parse it. ~ R.T.G 16:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Wonderful news! Mr Todd writes about his image collection at http://garyleetodd.herokuapp.com/ (update: link fixed) which may be useful in garnering an understanding of how he categorises them. Also, I'm making a Wikidata item about him, d:Q76719122, which can be used to add structured data about him as the creator of the images. Note also Category:Photographs by Gary Lee Todd. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Batch_uploading/Photographs_by_Gary_Lee_Todd created. Thoughts about categorization, credit templates and wikidata elements can be added there so they don't get forgotten over Christmas. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: , it seems to me almost all of the images are categorised through the "albums" tab of Flickr, in maybe 600 albums. If they could be split like that say to cats with Mr Todds name on them, I'd suppose it would be much easier to eventually manage them as each album is generally only a couple of hundred photos, none more than 600 I think. I'd say regarding a template, many of these photos can benefit slight colour level adjustment and if that is done there is going to be an absolute stack of useful photos for Commons and Wikipedia. He does consider the photos a legacy to the world so I'd say do indeed give him a template. ~ R.T.G 02:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Great Highway, but where exactly?

2019-10-03 Great Highway

This road must be in the vicinity of São Paulo, Brazil, but I have not been able to identify the exact spot. If someone can find it, please add the road number and geo-coordinates. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2019 (UTC).

to compare
  • I can compare, but I see two different area's, so what is the point? A lot of roads and landscapes around São Paulo resemble each other, but I am not asking for resemblance, but for identification and categorisation. Eissink (talk) 21:52, 27 November 2019 (UTC).
  • I didn't mean to be unpleasant, but I do think I am not wrong. I think your comparison is not right and I also think the coördinates you gave were not right. Let's wait for others to jump in. Eissink (talk) 23:04, 27 November 2019 (UTC).

Even accounting for drought, I'm pretty comfortable saying that those two images are not the same place. There is one similar big bend and a bridge, but too much else fails to line up. - Jmabel ! talk 01:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

That's it! Good find. Hope Tuválkin agrees. I'll add the info. Thanks everyone. Eissink (talk) 10:35, 28 November 2019 (UTC).
  • Perfect match, thank you!
When I said it’s the «same area», I did not mean the exact location, I meant Billings Reservoir or one of its tributaries, in the SW outskirts of São Paulo, as that’s the only place along Rodoanel Mário Covas, around São Paulo, where this kind of landscape occurs. I was mislead by the framing of all this being in the «vicinity of São Paulo», which the location found by GreenMeansGo and RTG is not — close, but not “vicinity”, as it lies outside the ring.
When I refer to unpleasantness, I mean your use of the "undo" button, instead of commulative editing to correct my hunch, now shown wrong. That’s rude and only good for vandalism, in my view. Furthermore, your reversion did remove from that file page the {{Exif date}} marking and (incipient) categorization of the body of water visible on the photo; I will now reinstate those.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Date+location categories

Hi all,

When categorizing photo's per date per country like Category:Photographs taken on 2011-07-03 what is more preferred when a TakenOn template is available:

  • Variant A: Use location parameters [17]
  • Variant B: Use real categories [18]

Variant A and B are widely used at the moment.

Advantages I see for A:

  • Possible to be mass changed on template level.
  • Less wikicode

Advantages I see for B:

  • Easier to change for people without template knowledge
  • Easier to correct / categorize further with tools like cat-a-lot (Germany is categorized mostly further to state level)
  • Possible to add multiple categories to photo's when two countries are seen in a photo (mountains, bridges, etc)

Curious about your opinions.

Rudolphous (talk) 19:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I think you have reversed your pro/con list. I think "A" is preferable. It doesn't require any more template knowledge to add the 'location' parameter than to add 'cat=no'. 'cat=no' with manual categories is probably intended to be used for special cases like your two-counties example. It's true that the images can't be diffused with cat-a-lot in that case, but I think in most cases that's not a cat-a-lot job anyway - you can't tell from the thumbnail and a title which state the image is in unless it happens to be specified in the title. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:18, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Variant A certainly preferred. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I also prefer Variant A, the template, with special exemption(s). (@Rudolphous: I think you have swapped the advantages). My reasoning for preferring A:
  • It's simpler, per Rudolphous
  • I think it's an advantage to not allow cat-a-lot: per BMacZero, random editors shouldn't be allowed to override location via cat-a-lot.
  • Multiple countries can be done by using the template for one, adding a category for the second one, so that isn't a reason to prefer B.
  • Exemption 1: I would use Variant B for Germany, to allow sub-state categorization.
  • Exemption 2: I would let the bot skip images for users who wish to opt-out (e.g., XRay).
— hike395 (talk) 04:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Now the pro/con list is right. Rudolphous (talk) 04:57, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Good question. To clarify, are you suggesting that the bot shouldn't be adding "location+date" categories automatically? Or are you suggesting that we remove this categorization entirely? — hike395 (talk) 05:40, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm suggesting that we remove subcategorization entirely from taken-on-single-day categories. The taken-on-single day categories are essentially a "snapshot of the world" on that date; subdividing into countries serves no purpose but clogs up watchlists. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
That would be a useful discussion to have. May I suggest starting a separate discussion at Commons:CFD? — hike395 (talk) 06:22, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd be all for that. I've been adding "location=United States" to my recent uploads, but only because someone was going around behind me and adding it, so I figured I might as well spare them the effort and add it myself. - Jmabel ! talk 07:03, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Hike395, and Pi.1415926535: I can only interject to say that a CFD is an inappropriate place for such a far reaching discussion. Past CFDs on this very subject (I can point them out, if you want) have always resulted in input from a small handful of people and proved inconclusive. The Village pump is actually the most appropriate place to discuss deleting a vast section of the category tree. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:53, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I prefer to do nothing. There are a lot of people creating all the lower level categories. They are not useful, but it would be an edit war. It's useless work and there a lot of other and more important things to do. If someone starts adding these kind of categories I'm setting the categories for all files of the same type. I do this only to have consistent categorization and to avoid a lot of edits of third party. --XRay talk 12:14, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Pi.1415926535. If ever there is consensus that these "Photographs taken by date" categories are desired, there should be a rule on their lowest permitted depth and this should not be further than "<Country> photographs taken on <Year>-<Month>-<Day>". We certainly don't need "Dülmen photographs taken on 2013-08-19" or "Donald Trump photographs taken on 2019-11-26". It's a) wasting community's time; b) unwanted spam of watchlists; c) editcount pushing for those who want to showcase own "productiveness" on their userpage. Nothing more. The already created categories of any lower depth than country, of course, are to be deleted. --A.Savin 15:36, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm hearing a lot of opposition to date+sub-country categorization, and some opposition to date+country categorization. That's good feedback. A separate question is: what should Rudolphous do?

Z) Stop running his bot to automatically assign date+country categorization
A) Add date+country categorization using {{Taken on}}
B) Add date+country categorization using an explicit category label.

I'm seeing support for (A), and XRay seems to support (Z). I'm not sure whether Pi.1415926535, Jmabel, or A.Savin have any preference or advice for Rudolphous? What do other editors think? — hike395 (talk) 16:23, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

IMHO, there should be a Request for Comment first. As long as there is no consensus, the bot should not mass-add "Country photographs taken on" categories. For my part, I would strong support this one as the lowest depth, but "Photographs taken on" would be fine for me, too. --A.Savin 16:33, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
No, you're wrong. Or a little bit wrong. I'm for a kind of (B), say (B2). IMO categories at country or state level are acceptable. The template isn't a good choice, categories inside templates are always a problem for Cat-a-lot or Hotcat. But: Don't start the mass edit before having a consensus of a request of comments. Please ask the people who are creating the categories manualy. Otherwise there will be an edit war. I'd tried to ask some of them stop creating categories at city level (or lower). Without success. An edit war will produce a lot of versions and so more wiki code. --XRay talk 16:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I just thought of another reason to have the bot use the |location= parameter in {{Taken on}} and not allow HotCat. If the consensus is that date+sub-country is poor practice, then using {{Location}} will force any extra sub-categorization to become overcategorization, and hence should be removed. In that case, not allowing mass removal is a good thing.

The consensus does seem to be for Rudolphous to create a RfC for the bot to add date+country (beyond this discussion, I guess). — hike395 (talk) 00:00, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO there will never be a consensus for all the editors. A lot of editors will not vote and edit furthermore (example: [19]). Sorry, I believe that mass editing of these kind of categories or templates is a never ending story. I observing this at my own images since a lot of years and a lot of similar discussions. BTW: IMO Hot and Cat-a-lot are important. Only a few categories are really useful within templates. --XRay talk 05:11, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
I see what you're saying: the template can also be (mis)used for sub-country locations. The lack of mass removal via HotCat in this case would be a problem. My reasoning (above) is not correct. — hike395 (talk) 12:33, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi, personally I do prefer B), i.e. "real" date and location catagories, so things could be corrected easily by Cat-a-lot if the template (or rather its location parameter) is misused on too low levels, e.g. villages and town. I'm really not happy with such single date categories on town levels, such as Category:Bad Muskau photographs taken on 2017-05-27 with edits such as those. This is not a problem of RudolphousBot, I know, but of posibilities given by the location parameter within the template. Similar weird things could be found here, a few day categories with each a few files ... not good for September overview. If we could prevent using the location parameter below country level (maybe below state-level in Germany) I would be fine with A), i.e. adding the country-day-category by template, but doing local categorisation with "real" categories. At least in Germany there is a huge mess below state level, e.g. here and there ... And there is no chance for those, who use Hot-cat and Cat-a-lot to clean up. Because due to the template each file has to be touched separately again ... This is the bigger problem in my eyes than the question whether to prefer A) or B) on the country level. Regards, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 13:25, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

This conversation is going to become outdated very quickly (next ~12 months) due to Structured Data - I think it would be better to think in terms of having the relevant information in the structured data fields, and we can then extract that using templates, rather than storing the information in wikitext/as a template parameter. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Mike Peel Thanks for the COM:SDC link! It sounds like you recommend that Rudolphous hold off on his bot run until SDC can handle locations and dates? — hike395 (talk) 19:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Scans of PD Engravings put under CC BY by the "Wellcome Collection"

I noticed that several engravings by Category:George Edwards and Category:Johann_Michael_Seligmann, which are in the PD because of their age, are put under CC BY 4.0 by a digital library, the "Wellcome Collection" (see Category:Etchings in the Wellcome Collection.

My naive assumption is that the collecting library has no right to claim a copyright for simple scans of etchings in the PD; but would like to see if this topic has been already discussed somewhere at Commons? Regards, --Burkhard (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yep. Public domain is public domain (other than that one decision by that one German court that we won't get into). They may just be trying to cover their bases by putting a CC license blanket over everything. But no one is really obligated to comply with it. GMGtalk 18:45, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems to satify everyone to include the published license at source, and in addition whatever our community can determine is the most unrestrictive license for reusers. The key example of this is the Imperial War Museum uploads which have a non-commercial license at source, which we include, as well as the Crown Copyright expired/public domain license that applies regardless of what the source claims.
In the Wellcome examples, if they are PD, then we can include PD, but there is no harm in also including the CC-BY license and reusers can make their own decisions about how seriously they want to take the ineffective moral rights claim. --Fæ (talk) 18:51, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for sharing your deliberations. Would you suggest to add "PD-Art|PD-old-100", where applicable? Or will such "dual" license header be rather confusing? --Burkhard (talk) 19:42, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
PD-Art is useful and there's no harm in using a dual template. An easy alternative is to add the original source release text in the permissions parameter and skip adding that as a different license to the PD one. --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree with two licences displayed, that way we are not ping-ponging back and forth between the two when both apply. RAN (talk) 19:42, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Include WLM finalist template in Assessments template

Is there a possibility to include {{WLM finalist or winner image}} in {{Assessments}}? Are there any pros and cons to this?--Vivo (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I personally  Support having it in {{Assessments}}, as it is designed for listing file's assessments, and WLM is an assessment in my opinion. Just a beta version of how it might look like: Template:Assessments/translate/Sandbox/en (I still need to fix the |WLMyear= issue ✓ Done and change parameters so we can set winner's place  Half done, considering that there is no specific barnstar available for each place.). We need to discuss 1) whether we want it in {{Assessments}}, and 2) if we do, where should it be (I think it should be after POTD and before FP, like how it is in the sandbox I linked above). Ahmadtalk 21:12, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Very nice. Is there a way to make it show the national rankings, like "3rd place in Albania", or does that add too many parameters? Vivo (talk) 15:58, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Vivo: Yes, I just changed the template. Please see Template:Assessments/translate/Sandbox/en (the last box). Ahmadtalk 16:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ahmad252: Great job! Vivo (talk) 16:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The case of this missing button

Am I making things up, or did there used to be an option on Special:NewFiles to only view files by new contributors? GMGtalk 20:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes it was removed (phab:T220447) I believe the removal was rather controversial at the time. Bawolff (talk) 05:38, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Umm...Jdforrester (WMF) You think we might have asked the community...at all before making a change in the software based on the opinions of all of four people who happen to hang out on phab? GMGtalk 16:23, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: See shit show on VPT and other fun stuff. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:14, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Oh. Well that makes sense why I didn't see it. I don't watchlist VPT because of being mostly technologically senile, and I don't watchlist Jimbo's talk page because it's mostly a dark pit of despair. So, I guess we just start an RfC to reinstate it and open another phab? GMGtalk 17:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: Yes, that's how it works I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
note that technical rfcs at phab, despite having the same name as rfc on wiki, tend to work a little different than those on wiki. Bawolff (talk) 06:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Flag of Honduras.svg and File:Real flag of Honduras.svg

  • File:Flag of Honduras.svg
    File:Flag of Honduras.svg
  • File:Real flag of Honduras.svg
    File:Real flag of Honduras.svg
  • Government website for the flag
    Government website for the flag

The text in File:Real flag of Honduras.svg read that the flag in File:Flag of Honduras.svg is fake. Nigos (t@lk • contributions • Uploads) 03:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @CalciferJiji: .Nigos (t@lk • contributions • Uploads) 03:43, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Unless there is actual legislation stating a particular shade of blue, I suspect there is a range in actual use. I've added a couple of real-world examples. I can find surprisingly few photographs of the Honduran national flag here, but maybe they are just poorly categorized. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Turns out that the official declaration does not specify the colour (as in RGB or Pantone), but simply calls it "azul turquesa", i.e. turquoise [20]. And the shade of blue on the government website even suggests that File:Real flag of Honduras.svg is actually "fake" because the latter is way too dark. De728631 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Well maybe we should use the color thats on the govt. website. Because the color that is currently used on wikipedia does not represent flags that are used in Honduras. If you look at the links that are used on the Real flag of Honduras file, you can see the dark blue used. Also there are other flags that use Turquoise blue but the flags themselves dont look light blue (Chile and Cuba) -CalciferJiji 5:31PM 28 November 2019 — Preceding unsigned comment added by CalciferJiji (talk • contribs) 01:32, 29 November 2019 (UTC)


In the past, there have also been upload wars or heated discussions about the exact shades of blue to be used in the Greek, Israeli, and Chinese Republic (Taiwanese) flags... AnonMoos (talk) 07:51, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Download the SVG file then use the sample tool from GIMP to get the exact color from the government website, convert the SVG file to that color and re-upload with an explanation. Also change the name of the file with "real" in it since it is deceptive. Then lock the page to stop the edit war. The flag descriptions should be objective and use the Pantone number for the blue color used. RAN (talk) 21:26, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Let's talk about FOP in South Korea.

In Document of Commons:FOP, South Korea has no FOP.

So, In South Korea, Designers have copyrights of statues and sculptures, photographers don't have it. It means their photos can't be uploaded to Commons.

But when I searched on Facebook, I saw this page.

Look this page. This page uses Korean language, so you need to use Google Translate.

In this page, The following is written:

Most buildings are not designed to be copyrighted because they are designed to perform certain functions, and controversy over FOP is not the building itself, but the copyrighted works of art, such as statues by the building, paintings on the exterior walls of the building, and lighting on the Eiffel Tower.

So in my opinion, Most buildings and train stations in South Korea(such as Lotte World Tower, 63 Building, Seoul station and so on.) are not designed to be copyrighted, their photos can be uploaded to Commons.

Let's talk about this. --Ox1997cow (talk) 10:35, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, photos of mostly "functional" buildings are usually accepted on Commons, even if the country in question does not have Freedom of Panorama for buildings. But most photos that are uploaded to Commons are understandably of "landmark" or special buildings, which are problematic. For example, most skyscrapers built today have renowned architects and we have to assume they are indeed copyrighted building. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 10:56, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Therefore, please do not request blindly for deletion of the building or railway station photos of South Korea on Commons, think about any elements that are copyrighted and request for deletion. --Ox1997cow (talk) 10:59, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
You're using Google Translate on a page on Facebook to resolve a question of law? That's ludicrous. If at all possible, native language speakers should read the law along with multiple competent interpretations of the law. These are not easy questions that are being resolved.
In this case the sentence you offer is confused, unless there was an Eiffel Tower case in Korea, because French law certainly doesn't say that most buildings are not designed to be copyrighted because they are designed to perform certain functions. There are a number of French cases establishing that buildings are copyrighted in France and this can be quite expansive. The US is more expansive in some ways, if more generous with FOP, because the threshold of creativity for a building in French is apparently moderately high, whereas in the US it is extremely low.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
This is an opinion about South Korean law and French law is different from South Korean law. Therefore, it is difficult to apply the French case to South Korea. At present, this part is difficult to judge because there is no final judgment of the South Korean Supreme Court.
So if you think something that might be a problem, request to delete it according to PCP. --Ox1997cow (talk) 14:33, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
If it's an opinion about South Korean law, the comment about the lights on the Eiffel tower were irrelevant. As it is, it demonstrates the author offers a misleading statement on worldwide FoP and thus one has to be skeptical of the accuracy of the statement on South Korea law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
At present, South Korean law does not clearly explain the criteria for the copyright of buildings. Also, South Korean law might be only interpreting that FOP in South Korea is for non-commercial use only, and it is not clear how far the FOP is allowed. It means there are no provisions or situations in South Korea that explicitly and strictly limit FOP. In fact, opinions are also divided among legal experts in South Korea on it.
Therefore, I think it is good to maintain the current Commons policy until the final decision of South Korean Supreme Court or the laws of South Korea clearly change. For example, the recognition of database rights in South Korea was confirmed by South Korean Supreme Court's final decision. Here it is. You need to use Google Translate. --Ox1997cow (talk) 05:37, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Allowing bot task talk page trimmer to run by default for wiki breaking pages or banned users

After a discussion about a bot task to handle talk pages which have exceeded the template transclusion limit and so are not displaying correctly, on COM:AN, raising discussion here for a wider consensus. It would be helpful if you could say you support this proposition or give a reason why you think it is a bad idea.

The proposition is to let the user talk page template trimming job, defined here, run on all accounts which meet both:

  • currently the user talk page is excessively long OR has exceeded the maximum template transclusion count, so templates are already failing; example User talk:Ser Amantio di Nicolao
  • the account is WMF banned OR indefinitely blocked on Wikimedia Commons and there have been no talk page edits by the account for > 6 months OR the account is known to have belonged to a deceased user; example User talk:Reguyla

The trimmer is very stable, having been run on several account talk pages, including mine, for a few years. The benefit is that the standard notices like the deletion template are hidden from view, making a long page more readable, or for a page not being actively used by the original account holder, just the basic information for any talk page watchers is on display. The more technical benefit is that none of the shrunken standard notices uses template transclusions, making the pages faster to display for all users and unlikely to reach the maximum transclusion limit for pages on this project. Even where the talk pages have an active archive routine, template shrinking helps the archive pages to be more readable, rather than a very large set of big boilerplate notices that visually outweighs any meaningful discussion.

Lastly, if anyone would like to have standard notices like deletion requests and copyvio warnings "shrunk" down to their basic links, see User_talk:Panoramio_upload_bot/Archive_95 for an example, then leave a note on my user talk page and I'll add you to the 'guest list'. Though once you are added, it may take several days for you to be removed on request, as it's not automatic. --Fæ (talk) 19:30, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Fæ: I think there should probably be some way to opt out. (for active users) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:17, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Agree. Suggest note added explaining how to opt out and they can revert any changes. There may be a way of adding some extra smartness, like doing a single run of the housekeeping task until they are manually added to the full time guest list. However for banned or deceased users, this has no effect so if we agree by consensus that this is okay, then for any account that is never going to use their talk page again, there is no need to add extra checks. --Fæ (talk) 22:00, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 Strong support Great idea, not intrusive, works. No-brainer. ––Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 22:10, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: just thinking out loud, and not a solution for existing pages: what if we record the date in a parameter ({{Autotranslate|1=File:Example.jpg|2=|3=|base=Idw|date=1575224179}}) and when the message is 90+ days old, have the template shrink automatically? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

As this is probably only of moderate interest for most VP readers, reading this as no objections to trying this out. Not going to be implemented straight away, but some system for providing a notice of inclusion to be added for accounts which have not opted-in for themselves. Though numbers affected are low, there will be an update on COM:AN when it starts as this housekeeping affects WMF banned users who not only are unable to object but are supposed to not communicate with our community by other means. --Fæ (talk) 11:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done Implementation summarized at Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard#Talk_page_trimmer. --Fæ (talk) 12:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Self-service now available for the talk page trimmer

You can now opt-in and opt-out for yourself by adding Category:Talk page trimmer to your user page or talk page. Feel free to test it out and let me know if there are large notices on your page that do not get trimmed that you think could be, without losing reasonable information content. --Fæ (talk) 12:08, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Geogroup problem

The mapping tool {{Geogroup}} does not work with geotags that include the code |source:Flickr (example {{Location dec|-12.362849|130.912914|source:Flickr}} did not map, but when the last part was removed leaving {{Location dec|-12.362849|130.912914}} it was mapped). This affects a large proportion of the geotagged images, greatly reducing the value of the mapping tool. Can this be sorted, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 01:07, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Anyone? - MPF (talk) 12:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Still awaiting a solution - or even any comment! - MPF (talk) 23:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

(just touching so this doesn't get archived) - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

And still . . . MPF (talk) 15:16, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Another 6 days on, and still nothing . . . MPF (talk) 10:26, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

" Sounds like a bot task.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:26, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

Can someone set up a bot to do this? I don't know how to do bots. - MPF (talk) 00:07, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
  • A bot to delete |source:Flickr from the wikitext of a few million filepages is one thing, but the real issue is to find out what causes this and fix that, or else we’d be always at risk of the same, or similar glitch to happen. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:21, 28 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Good point - and I've just discovered another occurence of the glitch: File:Anser albifrons flavirostris 1.jpg, in Category:Anser albifrons flavirostris and Category:Anatidae in Northumberland, doesn't show up on the Wikimap for either category (and same for ##2-5 in that set). And this time, I can't see anything wrong with the geotags in the images - MPF (talk) 18:20, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: So |source:Flickr isn't the culprit after all . . . strange! I'll try some minor edit or other on those Anser albifrons pics and see if they show up then - MPF (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: well, that was interesting - I changed the last digit of the northings (adding a centimetre to its position or something like that!), and then it showed up. Then with #2 in the series, I just tried a nul edit (open edit, and save without changing anything; not listed in my contribs nor on the page history). And it showed up on the map. So I did the same with ##3-5, and now they show up too. Weird! So if a bot could be set to do nul edits on all geotagged images??? - MPF (talk) 20:24, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/11&oldid=747417793"