This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
@Yug: It appears that there was a problem during the generation of that thumbnail which caused it to be invalid. I was not able to reproduce the problem locally, and purging the file description page caused a new thumbnail to be generated. All thumbnails for the file now show properly. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:07, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
This image is mirrored; just see the licence plate, and the shops on the other side of the road. How can we fix this? Regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 07:54, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks. But, I was not looking for a revert (I have reverted already). I was looking for a way to delete them (I am sure useless uploads can be deleted from the list of past versions). Aditya (talk) 03:44, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
A user uploaded private certificates 12. Are those within project scope? As far as the article goes that they are being used for, I don't believe that that is going to last for very long. --217.239.10.24723:34, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
The original site appears to be able to be zoomed in a LOT more, but doesn't use zoomify or any of the standard ones that can be easily undone. Anyone have a ready way to go to https://collection.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/objects/co228471/skegness-is-so-bracing-poster zoom in all the way, and grab it? I'll quite happily restore it if someone can do it; I really don't think my laptop is a suitable tool for the purpose, though. Just, please don't change anything (like the colours) besides assembling it; I have some tricks that work well for that purpose. Adam Cuerden (talk) 05:28, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
It uses IIIF, so following COM:Dezoomify does work, just plug in a tile URI.
Only briefly examined the sources where it's in use. I failed to find one source that used the flag design this shows. To delete this ghastly flag from Commons as a possibly damaging anti-educational user created fiction, that rationale to remove the image from Wikipedia needs to be made on the one article where it's used. BRD means that you could safely remove the image, then raise a talk page discussion about it being original research not supported by the sources. Maybe someone can manage to point to a reliable source that does show it is a real thing, at that point, okay it has "educational" value. --Fæ (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Hey, so I've hardly ever popped over from Wikipedia to the commons before, but I'm curious about the ban policy.
The reason I asked is because I noticed that User:Katyusha701 was vandalising the File:Flag of Armenia.svg, and on their talk page here there is only a warning about their editing. The thing is, on the English wikipedia, they've been identified as a sockpuppet and banned [1].
Is there a way to see a list of all wikipedias and wikimedia sites that a user is blocked from? And do bans from language wikipedias "carry over" to wikimedia commons as well?
The policies are described in Commons:Blocking policy and w:en:Wikipedia:Blocking policy. The user's Commons contributions page indicates that they have been blocked on Commons. This was after the block on English Wikipedia, so a global ban was not imposed. To see a user's account status on all projects click on the 'CentralAuth' link at the bottom of the Commons contributions page, which goes here. The corresponding link on the Wikipedia contributions page is labelled 'accounts'. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:06, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
In general, Wikipedia policies have no bearing at Commons, and blocks do not carry over. That said, disruptive behaviour on the sister sites is often used as evidence against good faith; the threshold of blocking somebody who has been a vandal on Wikipedia is low. –LPfi (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
General exclusion of e-mail notifications for bot changes: Bots cause a lot of e-mails
since a few weeks I get up to 100 emails daily. The emails inform me that the bots "BotMultichillT" & "SchlurcherBot" have added structured data. This is a useful action but my inbox is filling up. I have published about 2000 pictures on Wikimedia Commons and I get notified about their changes by e-mail.
I have set myself: "Preferences, Edit watchlist, Hide bot edits from the watchlist". This is not the setting that prevents this.
Support There is never a "good" reason for bots to spam users. The responses to this problem that the burden is on the user to block email from random bot accounts is exactly the opposite of how current policy should be implemented. The burden is on the bot operator and consequently the systems they rely on, to ensure that bot actions do not "accidentally" spam users indiscriminately with potentially millions of automated emails and notifications. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutral, I get between 900~1200 e-mails a day from two particular bots adding Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) information, while I applaud Schlurcher and Multichill{T} for their hard work in doing this and having programmed their bots for this, I keep having to take the time to properly archive these e-mails. I actually wanted to complain about this months ago, but hoped that the bots would be done (as I saw the fitst one operate alphabetically), but no, this hasn't stopped, in fact it keeps expanding. But some bot actions is also important to keep an eye on, so I'm not absolutely sure if I don't want to receive these e-mails. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment The bots do not "spam" anyone. Currently, if you wish to get notification emails for each edit, then you also get notification emails for bot edits. This is logical and a problem of your preferences and the choices that can be made there. If you check "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" then you have got this problem. So there should be an option not to receive mail for bot edits in the user profile. I assume that this requires some programming. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Sorry, no. This is spam. That may not be the intent, but is is the effect. In the watchlist, we let users filter out bots because we realize that most users don't want to see highly repetitive notices of purely mechanical changes. The only difference here is that getting them as actual emails is more annoying. - Jmabel ! talk23:13, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment Still, that is nothing that can be fixed by disallowing bots to send mails, because they don't. This is a problem with the choices that can be made in the preferences. Banning or limiting bot edits would be an alternative, but this is nothing I could support. Sadly, requesting email notifications about edits is currently not useful for users with long watchlists because of this problem. It may get better when most old files have got structured data from the bots. Anyway, I certainly support excluding bot edits from email notifications or at least addition of this option to the preferences. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually you all are really lucky! 100 mails in a day? More than once I already got more than 2000 notifications in less than 24 hours. I no longer get many emails: Only the first edit generates an email, an I have stopped to click on my on files unless they have been edited by anyone else than schlurcerbot or botmultichill. However: the watchlist shows no more than 1000 entries and even by employing a number of stored filters (very time consuming even with saved filters) i can still not be sure, that i will every edit relevant to me. And this is not going to stop: about a billion single edits will be needed to make SDC a useful feature. Obviously there is a community consensus not to create the SDC with database updates by the developers in the background but by individual edits by users. The two bots doing this for some month now are probably only the begining. To make things worth: the Quickstatements tool that can be used by anyone does NEVER flag edits as bot, even if the user is a bot. SNAFU @RIsler (WMF): --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:37, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I already asked for help with my preferences in the bot-help. (Sometimes more than 600 mails in one night. I uploaded more than 17,000 images, most ships.) But nothing of the suggestions did the work. I stopped asking there, the discussion is now archived already. --Stunteltje (talk) 20:34, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
The Staedel Museum recently made the excellent decision to release all their research quality photographs of their collection on a free CC-BY-SA license. After Pigsonthewing requested it, we have been busy uploading the collection, however the files are large PNG images, and upload links appear to only work from an active browser window, so will take a long time to complete (plus it's running on ancient kit, which means halting the upload when I need to videoconference). There are 22,000 photographs to upload and if the current rate of around 8 per hour is the average, this will take around 3 months before we finish uploading them. Never mind, during the pandemic slow projects are fine!
Sampler
Watercolour of Schnittblumen including a "flaming parrot", 1770
Fairy tale depiction of a baby riding on a raven over Tauber Valley, 1885
You can help with making use of the extremely high quality fine art images by:
Using them in Wikipedia and replacing usage of lower quality versions
Categorizing images by content, time period, art styles. The only categorization at the moment is by 'medium' like whether it's a drawing or a painting
Adding more language translations and expanding the descriptions. Currently most photographs have descriptions in German and English, but these are brief and for the most notable artworks there's a lot more that could be usefully added, with some artworks notable enough to justify their own Wikipedia articles
Reminder, this is a slow upload process, so it's a good project to return to and chip away at finding new images to classify and use. To see a list of images with the most recently uploaded at the top, try this search and check the project page linked above for more search examples. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Städel added a cc-by-sa license to files that are actually public domain (because of the age of the works). As far as I know, there are no works included in this "cc permission granted" files, that still have copyright. Part of the Städel exhibition is "Das rote Flugzeug" by Franz Radziwill. It is probably not part of the cc-published files?! Or the reverse case: File:Johann Heinrich Wilhelm Tischbein - Goethe in der roemischen Campagna.jpg - This painting is part of the exhibition of the Städel. It actually is the first painting that everyone sees after entering the museum. It has been on commons as public domain (used 170 times + more uses of different file versions), but can now be replaced with the Städel's cc-licensed version! Does Commons really want to participate in this action of the Städel to magical craete a copyright to public domain images? @Ralf Roletschek: --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:49, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Irgendjemand meinte, so wäre es noch klarer als wenn man nur PD dranschreibt. Ich sehe das als Schutzrechtsberühmung und somit unwirksam an. Dieses "Städel museum has released this image as CC BY-SA 4.0." geht auch überhaupt nicht, weil es keinen Urheberrechtsinhaber gibt. Nur dieser Inhaber kann eine Lizenz vergeben, das Museum nicht. Es ist ja eigentlich eine schöne Sache nur warum wird nicht vorher gefragt, wie das aussehen darf? --Ralf Roletschek12:19, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Because it's a housekeeping improvement issue as while most photographs could be swapped to public domain statements, some should not, and that volunteer decision can only happen one file at a time. We've worked on this for 2 weeks, getting it underway is important for volunteers to see some results. Coincidentally the Staedel today retweeted the announcement about the project, so they are aware of it and are happy to see the uploads happening; thanks to their free release, we (Commons volunteers) do not need to negotiate credits and licensing in advance. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 16:24, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, I happened to come across an article that includes this photo, which, to my personal taste as an amateur photographer, is dreadfully cropped with a dreadfully artificial-looking background. O.k., maybe that's just me, and I guess it's better to have any sort of a picture than not to have one at all.
However, I have been wondering about something else: This crop makes it virtually impossible to run it through a Google picture search to check for copyright issues. As there have been a couple of other issues with the article on the German WP, I thought I might have a quick look - but I find that I can't. --87.150.10.14311:02, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Far more of an issue: User:Zografos 07 has now overwritten repeatedly, uploading three completely different photos as successive "versions" of File:Marek Maria Karol Babi.JPG all claimed as own work (I will assume good faith on that) and all without changing the supposed date of the photo, even though they do not particularly appear to have been taken at the same time and were uploaded as much as 3-1/2 years apart. - 15:31, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I did not understand everything you said, especially about the "master plan". If you are worrying about the files in the renamed cat, a bot moves them to the new cat. I rename cats everyday and the files come afterwards. Of course if anyone does not want to wait for the bot can do that also manually. Dank je wel. --E4024 (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
Sure, Jmabel. A charcoal pile is a pile of charcoal (organic material roasted to drive off impurities until it's almost pure carbon). A charcoal clamp is a structure for making charcoal. It's a stack of assorted materials, carefully structured and built to heat the organic materials hot enough to carbonize them (convert them to charcoal) without oxidizing all the carbon (which would produce a pile of ash). Here's a colourful amateur account of building one. Category:Charcoal kilns are, specifically, permanent structures for making charcoal (a metal or stone or brick structure, something like that). "Charcoal pile" seems to be used by native speakers of German to mean "charcoal clamp". I think this is because in German a charcoal clamp is "Kohlenmeiler"."Meiler" does not translate well, but means "pile" in the specific sense of "atomic pile". Charcoal-making is still a big historical-recreation thing in Germany and most of our pictures seem to come from there (in English-speaking countries it was stigmatized and seems to have largely died out). So I think this is a translation error caused by over-reliance on dictionaries. HLHJ (talk) 22:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
A carefully-constructed educational crossection through a living-history charcoal clamp, pre-lighting.
A charcoal clamp in use
An abandoned charcoal kiln
Charcoal kilns in use
Charcoal piles
The English Wikipedia:Charcoal pile article was translated wholesale from the German. It is separate from Wikipedia:Charcoal clamp, which is a redirect to a section of the "Charcoal" article. I think the "charcoal pile" article should be renamed "charcoal clamp", but the redirect makes that complicated. If anyone knows the procedure and can do this neatly, I'd be grateful. HLHJ (talk) 22:37, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: That's a lot of information, and even interesting, but it doesn't answer how this should be structured.
Right now on en-wiki, en:charcoal pile appears to be what you are describing as a charcoal clamp and en:charcoal clamp is a redirect to en:charcoal#Production methods, which at a quick read appears to cover the same topic as the separate article en:charcoal pile, and to go into more depth, as well as covering some other material. With the proviso that we at Commons cannot make decisions for en-wiki, it would seem to me that the thing to do there is:
Sorry, Jmabel. I would not be opposed to having a category "Charcoal piles", analogous to Category:Woodpiles or Category:Coal piles. I do not think it should be a sub- or super-category of Category:Charcoal clamps; they should both be subcats of Category:Charcoal (the "clamps" article indirectly via Category:Charcoal burning). Yes, I think you would be right to presume that the same goes for "Charcoal clamps in X". If I can just delete the WP redirect and go from there, I will do that. I mentioned the WP translation as I think it has guided people naming categories here. HLHJ (talk) 23:40, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: Can you make deletions on WP, or would you need someone to do it (I'm an admin there, so I can).
May I suggest that if you want to move things around on en-wiki, first make a suggestion to do this at en:Talk:Charcoal and say that if no one objects within a week you'll go ahead with this? - Jmabel ! talk02:38, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I see only admins can delete pages, and I am not an admin, so yes, I would very much appreciate someone to do it :). I have templated Talk:Charcoal, pinged a couple of people who had discussed the topic there, and templated the "Charcoal pile" article and its talk page. I hope this will succeed in notifying anyone who is interested. The article has been called "charcoal pile" since 2015, so it could certainly wait another week to see if anyone has better thoughts. HLHJ (talk) 03:36, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm only too happy to see that a simple move of mine (without even knowing what clamp meant) began a fruitful discussion not only here but also in EN:WP and may cause some useful changes. (Within parentheses: I hope my recent observations about EN:WP article Bedros Kapamajian expressed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Canadian Armenians protesting in front of the Peace Tower of the Canadian Parliament.jpg may also bring about some positive changes or "corrections/correctness" at that article that had incredibly been tried to get deleted (!) by some nationalist POV warrior in that Wikipedia... Life is long and there is always time to show those who make charcoal are not bad people because they seem to have a black face, superficially. They only try to bring warmth to our living rooms. :) E4024 (talk) 14:15, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
@HLHJ: can you provide sources for the difference you've given between 'charcoal pile' and 'charcoal clamp'? You're certainly right that dictionaries do translate Kohlenmeiler as charcoal pile, but so do English book sources such as The Digital atlas of Traditional Agricultural Practices and Food Processing by Cappers which show photographs that look remarkably like the ones in the article. So not a mistranslation, but two terms being used for the same object. Bermicourt (talk) 19:53, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, where should I report a map error? The map of Europe at File talk:Europe countries map en 2.png was at some point redrawn so that Szczecin clearly falls in Germany, while it's in reality in Poland (compare first and last version). There is another subtle change on the map (between 2009 and 2018) which also isn't mentioned in the border's article on Wikipedia. I've left a comment on the talk page but it doesn't seem that talk pages are frequently read here. 93.136.115.21922:15, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
Call for feedback about Wikimedia Foundation Bylaws changes and Board candidate rubric
Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language.
Today the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees starts two calls for feedback. One is about changes to the Bylaws mainly to increase the Board size from 10 to 16 members. The other one is about a trustee candidate rubric to introduce new, more effective ways to evaluate new Board candidates. The Board welcomes your comments through 26 October. For more details, check the full announcement.
Change nomenclatures of scientific names in three images used in Wikipedia all around the world
Hello to the Wikimedia Commons community. I recently made proposals to change species nomenclatures because I am writing articles about these shells in my native language and I have studied, in several books and websites, how this would look now.
I proposed to change this file from Tibia fusus to Tibia insulaechorab and these two files of Tibia insulaechorab for the name Tibia curta, here and here. The reasons that were presented by me are on the discussion pages of each image.
I haven't changed all the names that are in this image, because they display technical details that I still don't quite understand.
I am leaving this message because the images are linked to the respective articles of all the Wikipedia that used them and I have not modified any of them, because I do not want to make edits in Wikipedia in other languages. That is why I am leaving this message to the community, so that such errors do not persist for a long time. Mário NET (talk) 21:15, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
In fact I just made all the modifications to the English Wikipedia articles and there are probably still errors in others, yet. Thank you. Mário NET (talk) 23:58, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
"Data for 566 [=all files in the query] pages could not be loaded from the WMF pageview API (404 error)." Either the pageview api has changed, or the tool use the wrong url to query the api. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:24, 6 October 2020 (UTC)
GLAMorgan Tools Git Talk Powered by Wikimedia Labs
This tool is a variant of baGLAMa2. It can show the view number of pages that include files from a specific Commons category. Human views only, article namespace only. 30K files max in category tree. This tool is run "live", so it may take a while to run.
Commons category: Files by C.Suthorn
Depth: 12
Year/month: 2020 1
Overview
23,213 files in category tree.
0 files were viewed, out of 462 used.
566 pages on 63 wikis use those files.
0 file views in 2020-01.
Data for 566 pages could not be loaded from the WMF pageview API (404 error).
Views per file
Image Image title Views Used on pages
Autostadt bridge.tif 0
Where did I mess up in File:Guanaja in Islas de la Bahía.svg? The file is valid SVG, but doesn't get rendered by the Wikimedia renderer (Inkscape and all browsers render it fine). (My third try in the upload history is rendered in the version preview image, but it wasn't when it was the main version...) --Slomox (talk) 08:18, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Apparently there is some lag and the image now gets rendered, but it is rendered incorrectly. I have no idea why... --Slomox (talk) 09:40, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
I could track the problem down (after 14 upload versions). My SVG is perfectly fine, but the version of the SVG2PNG renderer Wikimedia uses (librsvg) apparently is buggy and outdated. According to this bug report librsvg did not support more than one CSS selector. The bug is fixed, but for unrelated technical reasons Wikimedia sticks to an unfixed version of librsvg.
I was hoping I could find some help with editing on here. My situation: I have a gallery page which gets updated automatically every time I upload pictures. But the thing is that the new pictures get added to the exact top of the page, on top of some information I would like to have permanently embedded on top. Is there any way for me to indicate the auto-updater of this page to update the page below a certain line? This is the page im referring to.
Sorry about this, added the duplicate tag as the file was a scaled down duplicate but wasn't aware of the following: "A bitmap (PNG, JPEG or GIF) file superseded by a vector graphic is not considered to be an exact enough duplicate. Such files ought to be listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that they may be decided upon, case by case." I will instead open a deletion request for redundant files. I re-read throught the rules for deletion so should be all good now. In the future I will make sure to only use the tag for duplicates of the same file type. I will instead mark the files with the normal deletion tag, and open a DR. My apologies. Worldlydev (talk) 10:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(Google-Translate) There's no need to delete pixel graphics once someone has made an SVG. Pixel graphics are much easier to reuse than the terrible SVG format.--Ralf Roletschek10:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Ralf Roletschek: In many cases I would agree with this and I have uploaded a few government maps all in their original bitmap formats. However, I don't agree that the map in question is of much use in its bitmat format. It is of such low quality that there isn't much that can be done with it. Take a look at it for yourself and see if you really think that such a redundant file is of high enough quality to reuse. Worldlydev (talk) 11:03, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I've been working with vector graphics for 35 years. I can't use SVG, none of my programs can read this format correct. AutoCAD, card1 and Stratis do not recognize SVG, Catia only reads it with considerable errors. A small pixel graphic is much more helpful. --Ralf Roletschek11:19, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) In my opinion, the answer to Andy Dingley’s o.p. is: No, raster images are not necessarily superseded by SVGs. It was never policy, as said, and should never be, as argued above. However I cannot agree with Ralf Roletschek: Having worked with vector graphics myself since 1992 (time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like bananas), I find SVG to be the best thing that happened in terms of vectorial file format and there’s no excuse for lack of support for it by established software vendors (unless it’s boycott, which would be in line with the industry’s tradition of closed formats and planned incompatibily). This matter is not about the specific vector file format, anyway, only un the suitability of replacing one type of image with another, or the lack thereof. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
It's low quality because you reverted the later, large-size, bitmap to an older small version, immediately before tagging it for deletion. Then when I reverted this, you simply edit-warred to do it again. Now we've lost the lot. Well done. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Old files should never be deleted just because they are dupe, as they could be in external use unknown to us. Deletion doesn't save any space. Superseeded files can be tagged accordingly to point new users to the better file. --Krd11:33, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Responses: If the bitmat format is more suited to your use then shouldn't the automatically rendered png from the svg be more useful? It is of much higher quality than this old map, this map is of such a low resolution that it is practiaclly useless for anything but a small infobox like the file originally was uploaded for. It is however superseded by an image of much higher resolution. And while vector graphics don't necessarily supersede old bitmaps, I think it is clear that this one is superseded (I suggest everybody take a look at the file for themselves before they make an opinion). I feel clearing out old files of incredibly low quality that are superseded is helpful as it makes it easier to find files for use from commons. Also would it really be an issue if a redirect is made to the newer file; links to commons from external websites would be redirected to the superseding file. I'm also aware of the benefits of keeping older files that for histrorical reasons and redirecting to a newer file. Worldlydev (talk) 12:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Simply made a mistake. Will submit DR instead of tag as duplicate if different file format. Feel free to leave me a message on my discussion page if you feel there is something more to add. My apologies for the mistake.
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Worldlydev (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Need help
This file is a 2010 "own work" with camera EXIF in TR:WP. It must not have any problems to import here. However, when I tried the app (have almost no experience in importing files from WPs) it did not let me. Can someone kindly import the file to Commons? Thanks in advance for your help. --E4024 (talk) 17:42, 7 October 2020 (UTC)
E4024: This is a matter of telling the software what to do. I have made the appropirate edit here, so these images can be imported now. Please do add the "Bilgi" template to those files on tr.wp (like tr:Dosya:Akyaka Tren Garı.jpg has) or the information template on commons once they have been moved, the licence template is not enough.--Snaevar (talk) 10:21, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
Information about who holds the copyright and und under which free license they publish an image is required information anyhow. Adding a copyright notice on top of that is permissible, but unusual. It does not make any legal difference. --rimshottalk22:49, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Two amateur painters are confused on the internet. Our Category:Robert Smith (painter) deals with the artistic career of Colonel Robert Smith (1787-1873), of the Bengal Engineers and not the artistic career of Robert Smith (1792-1882), a Captain in the British regiment of the line H.M. 44th (East Essex) Foot, which was in India 1825-33.
Clearly we need to create/name categories that adequately disambiguate between the two.
See [3] for further info...
We need some kind of long term solution, There are a number of Indian images worth uploading and this is an all too common name.
I quite favour Robert Smith (Engineer and painter) and Robert Smith (British Army) or would it be better to go with life span dates? I.E. Robert Smith (1787-1873). If that's the case what size the dash. Do we persist in differing from Wikipedia on that too? Broichmore (talk) 16:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Dates are probably best (but I wouldn't object to the other; don't capitalize "engineer", though); also linking the category pages with {{Distinguish}}. Dash should be a normal ASCII hyphen: all things being equal, we prefer ASCII in category names. - Jmabel ! talk19:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: thanks. @Estopedist1: suggested one category name should be named, example: "Robert Smith (painter, 1787–1873)". The only example I can find is Category:Hans Gabriel Trolle-Wachtmeister (1782-1871). Note the length of the dash. Which one to use or is this optional? Is there a policy somewhere on this? I prefer the dash on the keyboard but Wikipedia uses the long as used by Estopedist1 here. We use the short dash in hyphenated compound names.Cant see anything for separating dates. Broichmore (talk) 10:24, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
In the Dutch Wikipedia there is an article about Spoorlopen with a link to the Commons category Rail trails. That category is about disused railway tracks. "Spoorlopen" is walking on a track used bij trains and therefore very dangerous. It causes train delays, accidents and is punishable by fines. What is the word for this activity in English/ French and/or German? Wouter (talk) 18:43, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
German was asked too: there is no single German term for that (at least none I'm aware of), but if people are causing interruptions in train traffic by entering the tracks the term for that would be "Person(en) im Gleis" or "Person(en) im Gleisbett" (usually heard in announcements about train delays). --Slomox (talk) 08:48, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett: You're welcome. Perhaps one of the pinged users or another passing Admin can expound on what makes the jpg file so much better, aside from the design decisions discussed in phab:T192744. Feel free to copy my posts in this section to your COM:UDR request. For notification about duplicates, I have been using {{Speedynote}} as here, but I understand that's not recommended by {{Duplicate}} yet. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me16:46, 11 October 2020 (UTC)
The deletion policy explicitly states "a PNG for (further?) editing and a JPEG for display can be justified". Consequently there should be no automatic deletion of PNG formats just because jpeg versions exist. --Fæ (talk) 10:16, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Uploaded File:Going to Work, Lowry.png, feel free to expand the image page text. It was not possible to use the same name as the redirect page without using more complex methods, which TBH, did not seem worth spending the volunteer time on. @Pigsonthewing and Túrelio: the presumption is that this image is higher resolution that any uploaded previously to Commons and therefore should not be deleted by anyone.
Analysis shows that the presumption may be incorrect, if the file uploaded at 2015-08-13 13:05:13 was valid. This is shown on the database as having been 6,364 x 4,686 pixels, which is larger than the 3,064 x 2,284 pixels sized PNG now uploaded, itself larger than the 1,584 × 1,181 pixels jpeg version that was the only image on Commons of the painting. The large 2015 version is marked as having been removed due to "copyright violation" by @Odder: , so perhaps it was not even an image of the painting described (which is public domain). Not having access to sysop tools, it is not possible to check any further, we must presume that the administrators making these decisions made correct policy based decisions and it is up to them to check their own actions and reverse them if needed.
The advice above referring to the UNDEL process seems unnecessary. There is no need here for any volunteer to waste time raising another thread on another noticeboard when the case here should be obvious and factual for any administrator. There is nothing to debate here, only facts to confirm.
Addendum The PNG has been overwritten by a very high resolution version at 9,534 x 7,069 pixels. This would probably have been impossible for a volunteer to upload via the upload Wizard due to time-outs for a file over 100MB. It is a qualitatively different photograph, so whether someone might want to split these versions when analysing colour saturation, aging artefacts or something else, is something to be open to in the future. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
While we are on this, could more folks help out by adding tokens and subscribing to the Phabricator task Phab:T264529Large file upload request for 0399CHRO? This is a symptom of the more basic failure of the WMF installed software to be able to handle large Commons media files, which in theory the WMF have stated that they support, and have stated that they will support volunteers upload files like this. In practice, it just ain't working and (for a couple of years now) nobody is working on fixing it.
If it stays broken, never invested in, within a few years Commons will be a dusty antique, replaced by other open knowledge projects with far better quality content. Now is a good time to kick the wheels or waive a flag. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Tokens are the coins and other icons that are normally shown on the top right of the Phabricator window. Click on one to add the token (works like a popularity vote).
L and A are links to either the expected filename title, or the alternative title when junk like the title blacklist gets in the way of a good upload. Either neither exist or one exists.
Timebox is the arbitrary window of time that the upload process is allowing for the API to complete. Normally the API itself will time-out within an hour, but local uploads of 500MB+ are highly unpredictable from a home broadband connection. The IA books script will keep on attempting upload and ignore most errors until the timebox expires, or the upload succeeds. The timebox starts at 40s and gradually increases to 120 minutes, increasing a bit more on each loop around all the files we want uploaded. Even a reported failure is unpredictable, so a second reality check sees if the file actually has been created as quite frequently for larger PDFs the API never sends a 'success' message back. This way of doing uploads is not one that anyone should recommend, it is effectively forcing the WMF servers to take a file, hammering it with repeat requests. This non-solution is an attempt at by-passing the WMF server software failing to handle large uploads correctly.
Agree with C.Suthorn, that for any type of large file and for some less frequently used formats, like video and PDF, Commons is broken, and has been broken for years. Fixing it, remains well below the development watermargin, with low-volume content like uploads from mobile phone apps or "wiki-loves" content drives taking priority. Not especially against those interests, but no way that they should be done instead of ensuring that core high quality educational content can be successfully hosted. Viewing video, listening to audio, handling multi-page files (like PDFs) remains absolutely bonkers unusable, so terrible that it's astonishing that the WMF has a budget measured in $100,000,000s and is today failing to meet its core public knowledge mission which has to include this content to stay relevant to the modern world.
Every time a newbie asks "how can I upload this mp4?" we should create a Phabricator task saying "for goodness sake, this is not a Fortran library, spend some money on Commons rather than ignoring these fundamental problems"
I would like to do a batch upload of the Biblioteca Digital Hispánica photography scans collection. That is, the subset that is under Public Domain. I have written a scraper which I'm currently tuning to fetch as much metadata as possible, but I'm a bit lost with the process. Should I start with a batch upload request? Which is the best tool to use for the upload itself given that I can generate whatever data is most suitable for the job? I know there is a lot of documentation about the topic, but as a newbie, it's hard to know which one is up-to-date or recommended. Thank you. Best, --MarioGom (talk) 14:00, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Does someone by chance have a bit of time to sort through this category and tidy it up? And/or recommend some changes so it is less confusing and has clarity for those who categorise.
I believe that the category was set up for those of the Indian Civil Service as it was known in the 19th and early 20th centuries to cover the British colonial administration. However, it seems to now include people outside of that, and I don't know enough about Indian civil service in 20th century pre- and post-independence to add clarity to how it should be configured.
Thanks. It remains strange for me that removing the text solves the problem. I added the text again as a test and the problem did not show up again. Wouter (talk) 04:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
How to tag media files which do not allow commercial use
A file has been uploaded to Commons from a website where all material is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0. I discussed the problem on the file's discussion page. Should I also tag the file page? If so, what tag should I use? Comfr (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Two different deletion discussions prompted by drive-by tagging from same user [4][5]. Both were determined not to qualify for speedy. Both were determined to at the very least, warrant further discussion from the community. Would appreciate additional eyes on both of these, for wider community input. Thank you very much! Right cite (talk) 01:33, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Deletions on the basis of "Small file w/o camera EXIF claimed to be own work" ?
What is our current policy / practice on the basis of deleting files for not having EXIF data? There seems to be an increasing number of DRs using that as a rationale, and nothing else. These images are also described as "small", even when they're far from it - 720x480 is a useful size, not undersized.
The justification for these in the past has always been that these two factors in combination are an indication that the file was scraped from somewhere on the web. Yet there are other ways to check that, such as Google image search, and we never seem to see nominations claiming, "Small image, no EXIF, and I found an earlier copy at <url>". If anything, the increasing number of these nominations seems to imply that this is not a valid reason to delete, as there is less and less reason to support the "it must be from the web" claim.
If these are web-sourced images, the nominations should include URLs to them. Without that, they are very weak nominations indeed.
What do we actually support as a valid DR nomination in this sense, and how do we avoid the wasted time around these dubious nominations otherwise? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Of course it belongs to you. When you post it as the nomination rationale for a DR, then you own it.
It could be interpreted in two ways: one (which has been popular here) is the unsupported implication that this is a copyvio of some web content. Yet the more of these are claimed without demonstrating that web source, the less credible such a claim becomes. The other way is simply that images should be deleted for being small, or for not having EXIF data. Neither of these are correct.
As a separate point, I'm just one of several editors becoming concerned with your stream of dubious DRs. Which you don't even seem to be able to defend, when challenged here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
My opinion is that small resolution without EXIF alone is not sufficient cause to delete. It must be combined with other contributing factors, such as web results, the uploader's history, the nature of the image itself, etc. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠16:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
File being of small size and without Exif data is a reason to look at it closer, but not a reason for deletion. Technically DR are a discussion and not a request for deletion, but starting a DR for every file like that which you come across is unhelpful. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 20:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Small size and missing EXIF are not sufficient reasons for starting a DR and more things need to be taken into account like uploader's history, look of the images etc. I have to say though that in the last few days when I've been active at DRs I didn't come across E4024's DR that wouldn't reasonable. E4024 often nominates pictures that are obviously screenshots from youtube or TV media - such pictures are small and don't have EXIF which is another good indication that it's copyvio. I understand the concern though. @E4024: Perhaps you can start filling other reasons why you think it's copyvio but EXIF and small size? Like "Looks very much like a screenshot from Youtube, see other uploader's photos, unlikely to be own work". Would that work for both sides? --Podzemnik (talk) 02:48, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Podzemnik I opened only 2 (two) DRs on 14 October and 2 (two) others on 15 October, but am still being Wikihounded. I cannot help thinking this has had to do with something else... Thanks for your kind approach. E4024 (talk) 02:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
It should be a relatively trivial action to add license review templates to these files, based on their automatically validated copyright status, as logically proved in the published source code. Being uploaded in 2014, this was some time before it became more 'normal' to expect license reviews, it was certainly before there was any expectation that proof had to be given via OTRS for uploads like this, however it's routine for us to see retrospective tagging, including speedy deletion, for correctly uploaded and correctly validated old batch uploads just because the old source links are now dead links.
If anyone in the image reviewer group would like to tackle these using VFC or similar, I'd be most appreciative. Details at the request link above. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I had noticed a few photos with this quirk before and finally created a cat for them. Feel free to populate, of course. Any suggestions for a suitable i.w. link and some additional info? -- Tuválkin✉✇03:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Why the hell would an image have its own thumbnail in the corner, and what educational use could it possibly serve? These all seem to be the work of 1 idiosyncratic person. Why not just crop it out? --Animalparty (talk) 03:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'd agree, up to a point, with Animalparty. I can't see that cropping improves them, but nor does the thumbnail. As they exist, there's no reason to remove them, and it's a clearly defining category, then we should keep both images and category. However we shouldn't make any more, and certainly not convert and replace any existing unthumbnailed images. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:55, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Exactly my thoughts. And, of course, no effort should be made to create any of these. @Jeff G.: I was under the impression that this feature can be found in disparate photos in Commons, caused, I thought, maybe by a specific camera or software setting, but, upon actively trying to find more, it now seems to be the quirk of an individual photographer, and nothing more. -- Tuválkin✉✇14:50, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Minor note, the grammatically correct name would be "Images with their own thumbnail". "Its" is a singular pronoun whereas "images" is a plural noun. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:38, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@Pseudo Classes: Translation to Traditional Chinese is disabled: Translate in zh please. I'm not sure what should be done with that page, but I'll leave it to a more experienced translation administrator. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:11, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: All badly translated "/zh-hant" translation pages should be deleted to force use of "/zh" pages. Sadly, "Translation administrators" group membership is insufficient for me to perform such deletions, but you should be able to. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me16:21, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I just tried to upload the file using the upload wizard, and after the choice of the file and the obligatory question whether I am the author, I get to the usual page when I am expected to enter the info on the file. This page is looks for me too narrow, so that the width of every window is several symbols, and I can not enter any sensible info (well, I can, but I do not see what I have entered). I am on Windows 7, using Palemoon. I can not currently check other systems/browsers, but if this is a generic problem it must be fixed asap.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Fat fingers. There is no other explanation. This appears to have been a mistake on my part. When I look at a DR I can see a pair of small "keep" and "del" links adjacent to the file name. I must have clicked the keep link. When either of those links is clicked, it displays similar messages. Thank you for bringing it to my attention. File now deleted. -Green Giant (talk) 11:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That matches file upload order (and page id order), but it is certainly not how files should be sorted in a category. I was unable to find out what might cause the strange order. You have a many custom templates in these files, have you tried to use some custom sort parameters? MKFI (talk) 07:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: the filename is the sortkey. So for every filename it's "HOW HOME IS REFUGE HOW STRONG IS BORDER HOW LEGAL IS JUSTICE HOW LIBERAL IS FREEDOM HOW MANY IS GERMANY HOW BRAVE IS FEAR HOW CLIMATE IS CHANGE HOW IS LONGING HOW NATIVE IS NATION HOW HUMAN IS RIGHT ANSWER IS QUESTION PRESENT IS W" because of course, it's not of unlimited length. So it falls back to something else to sort it by which is probably the page id. Multichill (talk) 09:47, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
The length limit is 255 (and that includes " talk" = 5 more letters, because every page can have an associated talk page). The filename is below that limit and it has no funny unicode codepoints only pure 7-bit ascii and should not grow even with unicode collation applied. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:55, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
It's better to check the database configuration before doing statements about length limits. It's a varbinary(230) so that adds up exactly with the example sortkey I shared (which is from the Commons database). I have no clue why it's 230 instead of 255. Multichill (talk)
Two things are mixed up: I answered the question for a custom sort parameter, (default sort, or parameter in the category link) and there is no such parameter. the file name is as long as possible and therefore not arbitrarily long. The cl_sortkey with 230 characters in the database is interesting and the cl_sortkey_prefix with 255 characters is interesting as well. i guess the 230 characters are due to the fact that there can be subcategories in categories "category talk: "+230 and that is strange: files, pages and categories are sorted individually in their own sections and are not mixed. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:39, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
:Hmm. meta:Help:Page_name#Maximum_page_name_length does mention a maximum file name length of 240 (changed from 255 in 2011). That is exactly how long the those filenames are. But if you include file namespace prefix the 240 character limit is reached just at "0" so the actual number might get ignored in sorting. MKFI (talk) 19:58, 17 October 2020 (UTC) Nevermind, I did not notice Multichill had just answered. MKFI (talk) 20:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Alexazerio: Hi, and welcome. You could tag any file you uploaded in the past week with {{G7}} as the first line of the file description page, or nominate any of your older files for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me13:55, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
I have seen this topic discussed about ten years ago and would like to re-open it because blender has evolved a lot and that great open source material is available to represent and study the anatomy.
Sharing individual .stl files do not make sense, considering that there are hundreds of small structures meant to be visualised together.
The power of the existing open source material combined with this file format is amazing and I'd be delighted if it could be used to share knowledge on wikimedia.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Melodicpinpon (talk • contribs) 15:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Some important information that would need to be provided to consider adding support for a file format:
Is this file format protected by patents or other intellectual property law, making it non-free?
Can multiple tools create, edit, and display files of this type, or is it only supported by one program?
Do standard rendering tools (in this case, WebGL) natively support this file format?
If not, is there a standalone rendering tool that would integrate well with our existing rendering infrastructure (either a node.js library (in this case) or command-line tool)
Is the file format well-documented and likely to continue to be supported in the future?
Are files on the Internet already distributed in this format?
Can anyone tell me, please, where I can discuss a potential expansion of policy in relation to Australian copyright? Changes have taken place in licensing of government information that have implications for the post-public-domain period, and I would like to contribute some ideas to whichever group is concerned with this. (If there is nobody who deals with specifically Australian copyright, a lead to a broader group would be appreciated.) Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺💬 at 23:17, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
This file was placed in the category Category:Ornorectes cristatus and have corresponding description. However, the picture was drawn long before actual species was described, has different title on the picture itself, and does not look like museum speciment photo in the same category. I spent some time yesterday trying to find actual species name, but was unsuccessful. So I decided to remove it from category, and I hope that community will be able to help with other steps. Thank you. --Zanka (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
They will switch all traffic back to the primary data center on Tuesday, October 27 2020.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, October 27. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (14:00 WET, 15:00 CET, 10:00 EDT, 19:30 IST, 07:00 PDT, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 03:00 NZDT on Wednesday October 28).
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Other effects:
Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
There will be code freezes for the week of October 26, 2020. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.
YouTubeReviewBot marked some files as License review passed, but changed the authors and their attributions to an unrelated Chinese entity (1, 2). Looks like this bot is being hacked, or simply malfunctioning? --トトト (talk) 17:43, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there are strange things going on. Maybe after the deletion of several conspiracy-theory channels today (it made the news over here), the identifiers of the channels and video's got mixed up? That's the only reason I can think of. After blocking the bot I hand-checked all the edits from the bot of this afternoon, but I was not confident enough about the changes made to the Chinese movies, to assert whether or not they needed to be reverted. If some one could please go over those, that would be nice. Ciell (talk) 18:26, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
More on this. By copying the data (e.g. the coordinates) from file description to SDC creates a redundancy. It is not defined, which of the values is the source value and which one is the copy. This is true for all data copied, not only for the coordinates. To fix the discrepancy, which of the two data has to be changed? To check coordinates, you would have to check both values, and find the better matching one (or, even a third best value). This happens also, if coordinates are not commented out, but were fixed by purpose (e.g. [7]). A bot creates the redundancy, a bot shall fix it. Currently, there are about 2100 Pages with local camera coordinates and mismatching SDC coordinates. The other way round, could we fix the SDC coordinates and the bot will copy the coordinates to the appropriate templates in the file description. Any strategy? I tried to create a discrepancy with inception (P571) by changing the SDC data ([8]), expecting another error message - nope. If certain SDC data are clearly defined as a copy, where (only) a bot will care for resolving inconsistent values by re-copying, or if this is done immediately by a checkin-trigger, the message could be removed. No need to bother community. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Herzi Pinki{{Location}} template is happy to take coordinated from either source: SDC or the wikitext. So in other words one could keep them in SDC and remove them from Wikitext leaving just empty {{Location}}. --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Not quite the answer. What you expect to correct wrong coordinates is to fix the SDC coordinates (which is not possible e.g. via 'Perform batch task') AND to remove the values from the description. If this is the case, why can't a bot do that? What about other redundancies e.g. with the capture date? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
“Why can’t a bot [remove the wikitext value]” → Many users are happy enough with Structured to see wikitext data being copied to it, but not enough for the data to be removed from the wikitext − not in general, and especially not by a bot. Bot operators, accordingly, are not removing information from the wikitext. This might change in the future when there is more trust in SDoC, but I don’t see it happening soon.
I do not understand, why I should correct information in two places but one, only because a bot has done redundant copies of information as part of some strategic initiative (means more WMF than community). No problem, if the bot should not remove redundant information. But than still the question remains, what is the primary source for the coordinates (a link to the specification, not a plain answer please)? A bot is dull, she can only copy without understanding. Thus, when the primary coordinates in the wikitext are corrected, the bot could copy again just performing her dull everyday procedure. What I feel in my heart: The bot is used to do edits by the sheer number, and not by correctness. The bot does not care for correctness. The community is abused to fix inconsistencies created by the bot. We have a quite limited community. Use it with care.
simply said:
can a bot take the job to copy changed data from the wikitext (assuming this is the primary source) to the SDC when both values differ (to be sure, if both values differ and wikitext data was changed later)?
will it help to just remove wrong SDC data to trigger the bot to copy again the corrected values from wikitext?
do you SDC guys really want remarks, error messages and proposals for improvement of the overall process?
Thanks for the answer @Herzi Pinki: , and apologies for the delayed answer.
First, let me clearly say that I understand your position: when you are doing the good work and fixing coordinates, it should not be made more difficult than it needs to be. I can see how answering “if you change the wikitext, please also fix the structured data!” would not be appropriate − I would not mind doing it, but I understand that others have better things to do.
To answer your points:
1/ “Can a bot resolve the discrepancy based on the latest wikitext version” → Probably yes. It should be discussed in case there are situations where this would not be good (I can’t think of any at the moment)
2/ Yes, if you remove the SDoC coordinates, then the warning will go away and my understanding is that a bot will eventually come around to sync it again − I have tried documenting that at Commons:Structured data/Reconciliation.
3/ Is that a rhetorical question? :-) Not sure whether I qualify as a “SDC guy” (mostly, I identify as a Commons contributor) − but yes, of course. :-)
(One more thing: it may seem obvious, but you are also free to do nothing about it and leave someone else to fix the problem.)
ad 3: @Jean-Frédéric: it was a rhetorical question and it was not. I'm loosing confidence in the work done by the WMF and done by various projects, that this work is shifting from focusing on community to being focused on marketability and ROI (and community is not considered worth an investment, at least on the software side and related stuff). More community wanted, but without taking care of it. Ease the work of the community as much as you can - nope. The Upload Wizard is a nuisance. The user interface of wikidata is a glitch, it is optimized for bots and tools, but errors / CRs against the user interface to help manual fixes are handled with extreme precaution (to stay polite). For me I observe: Taking action is contributing more to the Wikiversum than talking about action - a pity, as it will decrease the number of contributors.
My initial argument was a simple question, I did not get an answer in first place and only a vage option in second. With you, Jean-Fred, communication sometimes escalates from a simple question to something like this. What is the point? My impression sometimes is that you are trying to keep the expectations of support quite low (instead of just supporting). I don't know whether you are a SDC guy, but as you are taking the job of giving answers, maybe you are. Only personal notes, the technical point is quite clear now. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I am pleased that my confession of confusion has provoked a learned discussion among experts, even though I don't understand much of what is being said. Eventually, I hope, the warning flag will link to a page that explains how people like me, who know some places well, can fix location errors without spending much time in studying how the sparsely documented bots, structured data, and connections to Wikidata work. That will show that the flag is meant seriously as an invitation to adjust those errors. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Working on "Media needing categories as of ...." I have sometimes to refresh the page very often (20 times or more) before I see all the thumbnails. For example on this page. Is there an explanation or better what to do to avoid this problem? Wouter (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
Hello. When hitting preview after source-editing on any page, I see {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[File:{{PAGENAME}}|350x220px|none]]}} '''Remember that this is only a preview.''' Your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area on top of the edit box. I thought something broke at MediaWiki:Previewnote, but that interface page hasn't been edited since 2013. Anyone know what is causing it? (on a separate note - I see the language list on the left in much larger font than the rest in the menu, when previewing this message before saving) Rehman08:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Maybe some database issue that causes MediaWiki to show the code literally. Because it's almost the same as other wikis that have either data issues on the other end.
.
Done. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:17, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
.JPG)
Support There is never a "good" reason for bots to spam users. The responses to this problem that the burden is on the user to block email from random bot accounts is exactly the opposite of how current policy should be implemented. The burden is on the bot operator and consequently the systems they rely on, to ensure that bot actions do not "accidentally" spam users indiscriminately with potentially millions of automated emails and notifications. --Fæ (talk) 12:38, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
Neutral, I get between 900~1200 e-mails a day from two particular bots adding Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) information, while I applaud Schlurcher and Multichill{T} for their hard work in doing this and having programmed their bots for this, I keep having to take the time to properly archive these e-mails. I actually wanted to complain about this months ago, but hoped that the bots would be done (as I saw the fitst one operate alphabetically), but no, this hasn't stopped, in fact it keeps expanding. But some bot actions is also important to keep an eye on, so I'm not absolutely sure if I don't want to receive these e-mails. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:32, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Comment The bots do not "spam" anyone. Currently, if you wish to get notification emails for each edit, then you also get notification emails for bot edits. This is logical and a problem of your preferences and the choices that can be made there. If you check "Email me when a page or a file on my watchlist is changed" then you have got this problem. So there should be an option not to receive mail for bot edits in the user profile. I assume that this requires some programming. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
Watercolour of Schnittblumen including a "flaming parrot", 1770
High resolution image of Torgauer Altar, 1509
Watercolour of gastropacha quercifolia butterfly, 1679
Tramway sketch, 1926
Red chalk depiction of Joseph of Nazareth, 1500
Ehringsdorf village lane, 1893
Fairy tale depiction of a baby riding on a raven over Tauber Valley, 1885,_Tulpen_(Tulipa),_Mohn_(Papaver)_und_anderen_Blumen,_mit_Admiral_(SM_1392z).png)
_(SM_1398).png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
--Fæ (talk) 10:41, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
A carefully-constructed educational crossection through a living-history charcoal clamp, pre-lighting.
A charcoal clamp in use
An abandoned charcoal kiln
Charcoal kilns in use
Charcoal piles
.jpg)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Worldlydev (talk) 13:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC) 
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ullensaker_kart.png&action=history){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:AmongUs_CrewsonaSeven.png&diff=488661664&oldid=477111946){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Among_Us_(50413377683).jpg&diff=488215397&oldid=488118312){kind=link}
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Villa_Sonnwend,_Ro%C3%9Fleithen,_Ausblick.jpg&diff=484027487&oldid=480203675&diffmode=source){kind=link}
![[8]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Villa_Sonnwend,_Ro%C3%9Fleithen,_Ausblick.jpg&type=revision&diff=484337701&oldid=484027487&diffmode=source){kind=link}
