Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/06

Revisions to the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

We'd like to provide an update on the work on the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct. After the conclusion of the community vote on the guidelines in March, the Community Affairs committee (CAC) of the Board asked that several areas of the guidelines be reviewed for improvements before the Board does its final review. These areas were identified based on community discussions and comments provided during the vote. The CAC also requested review of the controversial Note in 3.1 of the UCoC itself.

Once more, a big thank you to all who voted, especially to all who left constructive feedback and comments! The project team is working with the Board to establish a timeline for this work, and will communicate this next month.

Members of the two prior UCoC Drafting Committees have generously offered their time to help shape improvements to the Guidelines. You can read more about them and their work here, as well as read summaries of their weekly meetings in 2022.

Wikimedians have provided many valuable comments together with the vote and in other conversations. Given the size and diversity of the Wikimedia community, there are even more voices out there who can give ideas on how to improve the enforcement guidelines and add even more valuable ideas to the process. To help the Revisions committee identify improvements, input on several questions for the committee’s review is requested. Visit the Meta-wiki pages (Enforcement Guidelines revision discussions, Policy text revision discussions) to get your ideas to the Committee - it is very important that viewpoints are heard from different communities before the Committee begins drafting revision proposals.

On behalf of the UCoC project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Personality Rights Question

In this image, there are people quite clearly to be seen and recognized who probably were not aware they were being photographed and probably never gave their consent to having their picture published freely on the internet. German law is quite strict about the personality rights of people being photographed, and an identical copy of the image is being used on the German Wikipedia.

Strictly speaking, the people might be considered Beiwerk, thus making this legal. Still, I feel uncomfortable about it. Publishing these people's image might just so be legal, but it's not a very kind thing to do. Can't we at least pixelate their faces and have the unpixelated original file deleted? Thanks, --91.34.47.35 19:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by the idea that this is unkind. That's certainly not an opinion universally shared.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:13, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) :The photographer wanted to take a picture of this building. They can't wait until the people are gone, or ask if they want to eat somewhere else. If you have the opportunity to take the picture without people, it's better. The same with statues, 'always' youth hanging around it. I say, "sri, I'm gonna make a picture". If they don't move, they are on it.. Is the statue nearby, I can take it another time, but when I'm somewhere I never come again, or something, they are on it. On this picture the people are not very close, I've seen pics here on Commons, with people at two meters (6-7 feet) distance and with their face towards the camera. That's something else. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Close or not, those people are clearly recognizable. Not sure why Prosfilaes decides to be picky about my wording. It may be considered normal in some countries to generously publish pictures of people whose consent you haven't asked, but that's certainly not an opinion that is "universally shared" either.

Anyway, I don't think these people will be able to sue Wikimedia for this picture. But is the pure legal aspect all we consider here? The people are not an asset to the picture, and the picture would be none the worse for having their faces pixelated. If you don't like the word "kindness" in this context, by all means, change the wording and call it "respect". --91.34.47.35 20:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Germany. If you think that the image is in breach of these guidelines, you can nominate the file for deletion. As the image is released under a CC0 licence, you can download the image, edit it and upload it as a new file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added Gaussian blur in a way that I think will meet the issue. If anyone wants to request deletion of the original version, please feel free to go ahead, but I suggest contacting the original uploader before taking such a step. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Art work

This intriging flower on a building, is an illusion. I suspect this is picture on a canvas. What type of art work is this? An how do we categorise this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

File:24.05.17 Schorndorf 430.047+430.009 (34948688886).jpg is an other image on the canvas.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

It is an "optical illusion". In art studies it may be categorised under "Perspective", possibly "Perspective (art)". ~ R.T.G 09:20, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Category:Anamorphosis may be a good place for this image. See File:EDUARDO RELERO.jpg for another example of this effect. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:48, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I would call this a Trompe-l'œil a perspective to deceive the viewer. See Category:Trompe l'oeil Miniwark (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

These images are not anamorphic. It is the use of shadow which gives the illusion of space and shape. The classic example used to be File:Last supper (24709241840).jpg Pay attention particularly to the top left corner to see. Compare the anamorphic category to this Category:Perspective ~ R.T.G 10:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but i do not realy understand your reply, for me a Trompe-l'œil and an Anamorphosis are not exactly the same thing. This image may be both, but i think than the first intent of the artist was to deceive the viewer, for this, they may also have used an anamorphosis.

I find this image similar to this, the effect is still here if the viewer move a bit in a wide angle. If the effect of Trompe-l'œil for this rose did happen only from an exact viewpoint, then this image may indeed belong to both categories. See for example this one (this example need a missing anamorphosis cat). In short it can belong to both categories if the viewpoint is an important factor. Miniwark (talk) 11:11, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Anamorphosis is a distorted shape. The tree and the flower do not appear to be distorted. They only give the appearance of depth. That is perspective. It is perhaps trompe l'oeil, perhaps not. I would say not. (I would have to see it in reality to give an opinion about trompe l'oeil) ~ R.T.G 11:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, i do not think than this rose image is an anamorphis, but only a simple Trompe-l'œil. Anamophosis can be used to create a trompe-l'œil, but in most case, trompe-l'œil simply use good old perspective. For example this is, in my view, only a Trompe-l'œil, this is an anamorphosis, and this/this is both. In my last example, for the Trompe-l'oeil to work you must place yourself at the only intended viewpoint, while most Trompe-l'oeil will still work if you move a bit. For example, the first image was painted so it will still work even if you are not exactly in front of it (but, of course if you move too much it will not work anymore) Miniwark (talk) 16:16, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Lamest copyright violation?

Hi, Do we have a hall of fshame about the lamest copyright violation? I have a candidate here: File:Screenshot 20220603-030737 Facebook.jpg. Yann (talk) 21:25, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

This photograph is illegal?

Hello, this photograph seems to be against the Geneva convention, text: "prisoners of war must at all times be protected... ...against insults and public curiosity."

• Third Geneva Convention, Part II: General Protection of Prisoners of War, Article 13

Is it not? And if it is against the convention, does that not make it illegal, at least until the prisoner is released..? ~ R.T.G 13:41, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Here's an interesting article about that: Is sharing photographs of prisoners of war banned by the Geneva Convention?. Short answer: in most cases illegal for the involved parties (here: Ukraine). Probably not illegal for journalists elsewhere, but still not a good idea. As always, there are exceptions. El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

If he is Wagner Group then, for what it's worth, he's a mercenary and I believe not covered by the Geneva Convention. I'm not saying that's a good thing, but it is how the Convention works. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I doubt very much having read over it a couple of times that the nature of the contract determines the nature of the individuals rights. That part is Article 4. It seems to be covered by category 1, "...members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces." In fact it seems to cover all sorts of groups and individuals... except, perhaps, those acting on their own allegiance while also committing war crimes(?).

It is to some debate as to the legality of the "group" in Russian law, but that seems to be a legal matter internally for either of Ukraine and Russia to decide, which part alone would certainly not determine their status of protection under the conventions. Even recognised war criminals would be protected by the convention. It does not prevent trial and punishment or anything like that. It just demands that such things be done with procedure and prisoner protection. ~ R.T.G 15:47, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Jmabel is right in principle: Protocol I Art 47 is very clear that "A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war." That does not matter here, though, because of the narrow definition of mercenaries (see below). El Grafo (talk) 16:11, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

No. Western media tends to casually call them mercenaries, but the actual legal definition of a mercenary is very narrow. Assuming he is a Russian citizen, he cannot be a mercenary per Protocol I Art 47: "2. A mercenary is any person who: [...] (d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict" -- El Grafo (talk) 16:00, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a personality rights violation to publish the photo of someone being caught by police or standing at the court. The exception would be if this was a public person before this event or if the person flees and is searched. In the second case the photo has to be published by an public institution and I think there would be restrictions on the photo not allowing it on Commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be deleted for the reasons detailed in this section.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

• Employees of a private military company are uniformed unlawful combatants under the GC according to the UN. You can read about the Nisour Square massacre and read the USA position and the UN position on how to treat uniformed unlawful combatants and whether they are mercenaries, and whether they are covered by the GC. No answers here, just the positions of several legal entities. --RAN (talk) 22:42, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It gives the same clause excluding those national to the conflict, "A mercenary is any person who... ...(c) Is neither a national of a party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a party to the conflict; (d) Is not a member of the armed forces of a party to the conflict; and (e) Has not been sent by a State which is not a party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces." from en:United_Nations_Mercenary_Convention#Article_1_(Definition_of_mercenary) (my apology if the text has been interfered with I should by right have checked it before posting it). There is a second definition but again it includes the same clauses on nationality. Rather, the general focus is whether such bad boys are sent off to fight for a truly foreign allegiance. In that case, both the companies and commanders are at fault, but fighting for your own state, mercenary or not, is excluded in duplicate. ~ R.T.G 23:30, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

    But this question does not matter for the question if the photo violates the personality rights. The photo is taken without consent of an imprisoned person not able to act against this and the person was not a public person before. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:27, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Agreed that the question whether this is a mercenary or not is entirely moot here. The Geneva conventions only apply to parties involved in the conflict anyway. So now we're back to COM:PEOPLE. El Grafo (talk) 07:18, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    There is no doubt this person is considered to be involved in the conflict. The source describes him as a military scout working for Russian forces. ~ R.T.G 07:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    No doubt about that, but it does not matter here. My and GPSLeo's entire point point is that the question whether he is a mercenary, a "regular" soldier or something in-between (in other words: is he covered by the Geneva Conventions as a "prisoner of war"?) does not matter for us. It matters for Ukraine, as they are part of the conflict. But the Geneva Conventions do not apply for us here on Commons, as far as I understand. Whether or not we keep the image has nothing to do with the Geneva Conventions, just the regular local laws of the country of origin (and possibly the US) as well as any self-imposed regulations of Commons and WMF. Ergo: instead of keeping discussing the Geneva Conventions, we need to look at COM:PEOPLE. El Grafo (talk) 10:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    The US laws regarding POWs can be found here. They are not signatories of the Geneva Conventions, but they do hold them as the standard for humane treatment, including article 13 which is the one referenced here.Sect (d) (2) (B) They refer to foreign captives not as POWs but as "Alien Enemies" and define those as "all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being of the age of fourteen years and upward".[1] The US laws do not even privde their own text on the matter. They refer the researcher directly to the Geneva Conventions themselves so we are on the right page. ~ R.T.G 11:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    Context matters. The whole §4105 is about how the US will compensate their own soldiers if they were held as POW by another country (see section (a) and section (d), subsection (1)). This is completely irrelevant here. --El Grafo (talk) 13:37, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

    I made a mistake there, the US is a signatory of all the conventions (it is not a signatory to all of the Protocols and signed with a condition reserving the death penalty for states who consider that legal for civilians). The most recent legal document I found is 2009 [2], Under:- Executive Documents, Ex. Ord. No. 13491. Ensuring Lawful Interrogations (Jan 22 2009), "...the authority vested... ...by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America... ...ensure compliance with the treaty obligations of the United States, including the Geneva Conventions... ...All executive directives, orders, and regulations inconsistent with this order... ...concerning detention or the interrogation of detained individuals, are revoked to the extent of their inconsistency with this order." The photo is illegal under current United States Law as it applies to the Geneva Conventions, unless a later document can be produced revoking it again. And beside that, Ukraine is also a signatory of the Geneva Conventions, so it is illegal in Ukraine as well. ~ R.T.G 15:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The Geneva Conventions like any treaties create legal obligation only for participating states (and their employees acting in official capacity). They do not impose any legal obligation on private citizens unless such restrictions are imposed by legislation. So, in this case the Geneva Conventions are irrelevant. Commons are not bound by them and in USA (at least) there is no law that prevents publication of such photos (and I doubt that such a law would be constitutional). In addition, photos of POWs is a grey area in the international law. The Geneva Conventions do not equivocally unequivocally ban all of them in any situations. Ruslik (talk) 21:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The website claims to be an actor of the Ukrainian state. The USA is bound by itself, in law, Ex. Ord. No. 13491, to the Geneva Conventions. This private imagery obtained under duress would not be free under USA domestic laws either. It would be "fair use" which Commons does not accept. And even if this individual was in fact trying to defect an elite guard, by volition, he could not give up his Geneva Convention rights. The fact that the conventions do not mention elite guard defectors, thereby suggesting a grey area, would not strip him of his rights. He was exposed to the public by war time captors or not, and no mention of photography one way or the other. Omission proves nothing. ~ R.T.G 22:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what Ex. Ord. No. 13491 has to do with this? It only repealed some previous executive orders. Anyway it applies only the executive officers of the United States and instructs them to comply with the Geneva Conventions. No executive order can function like a law of general application. Ruslik (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is called the Separation of Powers. In the USA it is defined in Article 2 of the US constitution. If you do not know how government works, then you do not know. ~ R.T.G 12:08, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually the separation of powers is not mentioned in the US constitution at all, neither in the article 2 not in any other place. The article 2 is about the office of president and its powers among which there is no any power to make laws. Ruslik (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Separation of Powers is a doctrine, and the Constitution follows it. Article I assigns legislative power. ("All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.") Article II assigns executive power. ("The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.") Article III assigns judicial power. ("The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.") I do not think the Constitution says that the three may not be identical (such as Congress may not also be the Supreme Court), but separation of the branches is implied. Glrx (talk) 23:15, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

No the branches are not independent, but that power they have is. That is the separation part, the powers they have are separate, i.e. separation of powers. ~ R.T.G 08:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

What does this have to do with the legality of POW photos? Ruslik (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the deletion request. Commons does actually have rules against this situation. Talk about it here : Commons:Deletion requests/File:CapturedWagnerfighter.png ~ R.T.G 22:00, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

All this noise, but no one has nominated it for deletion, making a specific argument as to why Commons should not host it. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The deletion request has been started, apologies I forget to press "publish" to inform this discussion. Commons:Deletion requests/File:CapturedWagnerfighter.png Thanks o/ ~ R.T.G 08:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

iNaturalist2Commons

Justed wanted to let you know. There is a plugin to import reseach grade pictures with correct license from iNaturalist. Installation and use is easy. For more information see also iNaturalist2Commons. Results up to now Category:Uploaded with iNaturalist2Commons. Let me know if there are any questions Rudolphous (talk) 08:59, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rudolphous and Kaldari: if it's research grade than you know what taxon it it. Would be nice if the tool could add the relevant structured data like depicts (P180). For existing uploads User:Spinster is adding it.

We currently have about 60.000 files from iNaturalist. iNaturalist has many more files. Would this be a good source for mass upload? Multichill (talk) 13:17, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there an api call we can do to add the stuctured data? About the mass upload. Didn't know there where so much research grade pictures with fitting license available. I would love to see more iNaturalist pictures here. But am afraid not all pictures meet our standards here. Maybe only for certain users? Rudolphous (talk) 15:47, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW I fully agree with a mass upload. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:14, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@Rudolphous: of course, see example code at User:Magnus Manske/sdc_tool.js

Mass uploads always have a percentage of not so useful photos (or plain junk). The trick is to keep this percentage low. Also the time spend per photo by humans is much lower so we're a bit less picky.

What kind of standards wouldn't be met? Maybe you have some examples? My expectation would be that for some species we would get a lot of quite trivial photos. I'm not sure if that is really a problem. Multichill (talk) 15:05, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Some images are very unsharp/unsharp or some images are too similair or a mushroom x on a tree y and tree uploaded as seperate image to the observation of x. Maybe always use the first image? Or detect the sharpness of the image automatically? Or start with all images that have only one image? Then probably there are already a few million pictures to be uploaded Rudolphous (talk) 18:03, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue of mass importation from iNaturalist has been discussed before (see here). There is a practical distinction between "Research quality" on iNaturalist and COM:SCOPE. A poor quality image of a faraway bird might be identifiable to species due to a distinctive color patch (even in blurry images) and thus "research grade", but has very little value on Commons and would likely never be reused. iNaturalist has different scope than Commons: iNaturalist is a biodiversity mapping project and database. Commons is an image and media repository, not a biodiversity mapping project. --Animalparty (talk) 20:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Clawback period

Where online do we discuss our clawback period, where we allow uploaders to delete their images, despite releasing them under an irrevocable license. --RAN (talk) 04:21, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#General_reasons reason "G7", 7 days. After that it is up to the community. ~ R.T.G 07:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

• Thanks! I am going to make a redirect so I can find it next time. --RAN (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You should take into account that even if such deletions are allowed they cannot revoke an irrevocable license. Ruslik (talk) 20:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Has that ever been tested in court? From my experience in contract law, I could quite easily see a court setting aside an "irrevocable" licence where the copyright holder attempted to revoke it immediately and claimed the release as an error. In contract law, intention is a very important factor; if someone accidentally clicks a button that creates a contract but can form a rational argument that it was an error, the judge will often rule in their favour (though the longer they leave it before trying to revoke the contract, the weaker their case becomes). From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:52, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

To upload a file you need to click many buttons starting with loading the Upload Wizard, reading a poster then actually uploading anything and filling in information into many text fields. I doubt this can be done in error. Ruslik (talk) 19:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The error can be the selection of the wrong licence, which is a single click. Misreading or misunderstanding the licence to be used and then immediately attempting to revoke the licence would be within the realms that a court may choose to favour the uploader. If the matter hasn't been tested in court, we shouldn't be thinking in absolute terms that it is impossible for an irrevocable licence to be revoked. The 7 day period to allow deletion is a good defence for us against a hypothetical argument about revoking the licence - they had 7 days and chose not to use it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• I brought up the issue because of Commons:Deletion requests/File:Therese-Marie-Myrtveit-Hussein.jpg. --RAN (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting situation with some old photos

Hello, these two photos are from the same image (the facial part).

• File:Young Chickasaw warrior.jpg (this one is the copy)
• File:Chickasaw.jpg

One is dated in the 1880s, and the other is credited to a society which came and went less than 150 years ago.

I've spent a while looking at the copy, to tell if it is a digital forgery or not.

Sourcing is by word only, although the original image does have the appearance of a very old image scanned from a book for more reasons than one.

The copy does have the appearance of a collage scanned from a book, however its shape, seems, to have been narrowed. Maybe the original has been photographed with a camera at a slight angle, thus causing the change in shape (zoom in and see the scan lines, is that not the center of a book on the top left hand?)

The copy seems smoothed though, as well as cut and pasted. Cutting and pasting can be done physically, but could smoothing be done in that time period, 1890-1920-ish? Has the shape been altered or is it just the angle of imaging? It almost certainly is not a "warrior from pre 1830".

And what about it? I'm sure the info should be updated in some way.. to say one is a derivative of the other, but exactly how, etc..? Has this situation occurred before, etc..? ~ R.T.G 13:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

• 1880s is much more likely. There are very few photographs as early as the 1830s.
• The correct relation between the images is simply {{Other version}}.
• I don't have any idea on the other questions. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I've added that template and informed the other wikis that are using the image. ~ R.T.G 18:25, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Strangely the original image (the one with a shirt) is cropped compared to the tripod.com source. By looking at the tripod.com one it's obvious than it come from a book an than maybe it's not a photographic print but a photogravure instead. So the book, is not the original image either.

By doing a reverse image search, i have found this image who i think is the original one and appear to belong to the National Museum of the American Indian.

They date it from 1860-1868, and the author may have been James Earle McClees (1821 - 1887) (but look like than there is a story with this attribution...)

Miniwark (talk) 19:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Humm, even this one is cropped by a circle compared to the tripod one, so there most be a more complete photographic print somewhere (maybe lost ?). Anyway the one from e-humanity.org as a far better quality than both the image presents in Commons. Miniwark (talk) 19:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh that is a much better image, lacks the contrast but far clearer anyway, well done. It is low resolution but may be surprisingly small given its age.. but yes even if the frame is chopped out of the image before use or the corners are badly damaged it would nice to see. ~ R.T.G 21:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I uploaded that one and did some cropping and editing so that it replaces the one that was there, hopefully looks much better as it is a popular illustration both for Chickasaw and for native Americans. ~ R.T.G 22:08, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Computer is not happy at Commons:Rotation

It is giving an error message, too many Lua or something, and it shows me the problem... but I do not know what exactly is wrong with it. It is immediately visible if you go to the page. ~ R.T.G 21:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@RTG: That's quite a long and syntax-heavy nutshell.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to write less but my lawyers insisted I keep talking. And I could swear I never paid them last week... The actual error:

"Lua error: too many expensive function calls.

Backtrace:

1[C]: in function "getExpensiveData"
2mw.title.lua:209: ?
3Module:Autotranslate:67: in function "chunk"
4mw.lua:525: ?
5[C]: ?"

That's not a wiki markup issue is it..? ~ R.T.G 09:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The error is in the {{Header}} template but there were no changes on this template. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I fixed it by swapping it with {{shortcut|COM:ROTATEFIX}} that we use in other "Commons:" entries. --RAN (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Are there exceptions to overwriting?

Can you correcting any details of a flag or coat of arms is considered to be COM:OW? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Unless you have reached agreement with the original uploader, things like this should almost always be uploaded as a new file with a distinct filename. Then each Wikipedia or other reuser of the image may choose the one they prefer. When there is a dispute, Commons tries to remain neutral and provide both options to the reusers. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  What if the original uploader isn't active anymore? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: You could try to contact them anyway, they might surprise you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Should I leave them as message to let them know about that I am correcting their files if they aren't able to respond to me? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Please explain the problem first (with an online source), link their user talk page with the file's talk page, and give them at least a week to respond.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that if you can't get hold of them, and this amounts to a factual disagreement, not uncontroversial cleanup, then the "normal" case applies: upload with a distinct filename. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Taking two files from your contributions:

  File:City of Fribourg-coat of arms.svg

  The back and forth here shows a substantial difference in the shape of the shield. The original should not have been overwritten.

  File:Oberdorf-coat of arms.svg

  Is more nuanced. Generally, SVG files should not be edited just to make them W3C valid. The original file has some extended elements and attributes. Generally, RDF metadata just produce warnings and should be retained. The Adobe Illustrator knockout attribute is harmless and not a reason to modify the file. The Adobe Illustrator pgfRef element may be large enough to justify an overwrite. However, it is only 16 kB for this file, so I'd leave it alone. The file has other changes. A stroking error in the upper central constellation has been fixed. The width of the shield's stroke was changed; I see that as a minor improvement. I would not expect the original uploader to object, so I would overwrite the file. The second version also cites to using standard colors. (Perhaps an example of CoA blazon "argent" not being silver but rather white?) I also consider that change to be minor and a reasonable correction. If an upload does change the appearance of an image, then it is OK to remove W3C "errors" at the same time. Consequently, I see the 9 April 2022 as reasonable. The reversions to the original should have stated their reasons for the revert. Glrx (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, Thanks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  D'accord to Glrx. At least minor changes like the adjustment of strokes stated above and internationally used FIAV standard CoA blazon colors and really minor adjustment may be corrected according to CC-by-sa attributes (adapt/transform) - IMHO including W3C errors because W3C are web standard technologies. Meanwhile I agree, that bigger changes should be finished into a new file upload. Thank you, – Doc Taxon Disk. • 10:30, 7. Jun 2022 (UTC)

Café in Prague

Wich café is this? Does it stil exist?

I have scanned/uploaded some december 1991 slides of Prague. Some street categories are missing in Category:1991 in tram transport in Prague.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Seems to be Café Imperial. Greetings from Prague. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Obecní dům restaurant: File:Obecni dum, Praha 2009 10711.jpg. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

help on exporting to commons

can someone export Netease logo 2.svg (enwiki) to commons since because i cant and that im trying to put the logo on vietnamese wikipedia? thanks Dulken (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

en:File:Netease logo 2.svg is stored on English Wikipedia with a claim of fair use. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. For it to be moved here, we need to establish if the fair use claim is valid. To do that, we need to know which country it is from and whether it is below the threshold of originality in that country. The left of the image appears to be two Chinese characters (or foreign language derivations of the original Chinese characters) and the right appears to be plain text in the latin alphabet. As the Chinese characters appear to be drawn and stylised (rather than an application of a standard font) there may be enough creativity there for it to be protected by copyright in some countries. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, NetEase is indeed a Chinese company, so Chinese law should apply. The question would be whether this qualifies as calligraphy. From the examples given at COM:TOO China I would guess no, but I'm by no means an expert. El Grafo (talk). 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way of searching Commons for photos by camera used (in the EXIF data)?

Hi all

I'd like to improve Wikipedia articles for different cameras by giving examples of images taken on them. Is there a way to search Commons by camera used (which is in the EXIF info)? E.g how could I search for images taken using the Hasselblad X1D-50c?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are categories of images divided by camera, as a subcategory of the parent category that includes camera body and lens specific images. See Category:Photos taken with Hasselblad. :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Threecharlie, super, thanks so much. John Cummings (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings: An alternative approach which will find a different set of pictures is to use Commons:Structured data statements. These will appear on different files from the categories, and are mostly added by bots. For instance to find pictures captured with (P4082) a Hasselblad X1D (Q63434281) you might try Special:Search/haswbstatement:P4082=Q63434281.

It's possible to search the extracted Exif metadata directly using quarry:, but it's fiddly and slow, so if you only want a sampling I think categories or structured data are a better approach. --bjh21 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion request regarding renaming of a file

This file has been requested to be renamed multiple times (as seen in the history), and has been declined multiple times (most recently by me, due to the multiple previous declines). Please come offer opinions on whether this file should be renamed at the talk page discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Remini AI

This topic is also being discussed at the French village pump.

Before/after

Hi there,

Madelgarius is currently retouching and overwriting images with a software called "Remini AI" that tries to guess what is pixelized or blurred in a picture in order to sharpen it, it sometimes gives weird results like this. This makes me think about the sort of glitches we see with thispersondoesnotexist.com (see these articles: [3][4]).

When overwriting a file, Madelgarius doesn't specify that he used this kind of software, just "restauration image", "restauration photographie" or "meilleure [best] résolution", giving the impression that he found a better source or retouched the picture himself but actually just used an AI to "enhance" the picture that does the job for him and often don't reflect reality since the AI have to guess, I find this extremely problematic. It's until someone asked on his talk page where did he find a better resolution of a picture, that he revealed that he's using Remini AI.

Anyway, what do you think? Do we have a policy on using this kind of software? Should we revert his overwrites? Thibaut (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Would restricting this to "restore" damaged/"bad" photography a reasonable/suitable use of this tool?🤔

Could this tool restore only areas of a picture, too? J. N. Squire (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is uploaded as a new file and the changes are explained I think this is fine. But the original files should never become overwritten with such changes. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that this software also add some light blue in the pupils of the subject on B&W pictures ([5][6][7][8][9]). Thibaut (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The center on in the example on the right also has quite a bit of color added if you look closely. El Grafo (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fascinating what you can do with machine learning (I assume), but this must be noted clearly on the file description page. {{Retouched}} will not do for this, there needs to be a more specific template for this. Overwriting is not OK here, but maybe instead of reverting (i.e. outright rejecting) a history split might be a better idea. El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not so different from colorizing black and white images, which has been done manually for ages. Not a problem if (and only if) properly marked as such. {{Colorized}} could use some enhancement and translations, though. El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: indeed, we should completely revert those changes. These are historical images whose authenticity must be preserved. Commons is not a testing ground, much less a place that should prioritize personal processing of information over its educational and accurate value. Isolate the subject of a photograph by erasing pointless elements when the background is "indisputable" actually improves the quality (for example, see my recent change on File:Церковь Воздвижения Святого Креста.jpg). But adding imagined elements significantly alters the quality of the photograph as an information carrier. Furthermore, many of these images are of sufficiently good quality and don't need this kind of "restauration"; the background blur produced by camera lenses not only highlights the subject of the photograph but also gives perspective cues.

@GPSLeo: If this is uploaded as a new file and the changes are explained I think this is fine. If it's restricted to a few files to show software features, why not, but I don't think it would be a good idea to systematically fill Commons with all the possible retouched versions of a photograph.

@El Grafo: Since there is no single colorization result, it is better to uploaded a colorized version as a separate file. — Baidax ^💬 16:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Madelgarius seems to have understood the issue and is now reverting his overwrites and uploading the "enhanced" version as separate files with a template indicating that the image was retouched with AI (thanks!).

He also created a category: Category:Remini.ai retouched pictures where we can find the images (the correct attribution and license are missing though, feel free to help me adding those). Thibaut (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Theatres vs Theaters

Hello everyone, leaving in Italy (and was born in) I was misled by what is found online and, unfortunately, by the parent category here in Commons which is Theaters. A dear friend who lives in the UK assures me that in the English language the term used is Theatre, see https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/ while in the USA Theater is preferred, hence the misunderstunding for a non-native language user assuming a typo or just not noticing the difference. I therefore ask, as a courtesy, if I can bold and move everything to Theaters, without this seeming like an affront to American users, because then we Europeans (non-English) are in danger of getting sick. Thanks for you attention :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea (and, by the way, it is the UK you are likely to offend by going to "Theater"). We could even adopt one standard for non-English-speaking countries, but moving any English-speaking country to use a spelling that is not normal there is almost certainly a bad idea. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed, but sadly though, the typical response on Commons is to invent a new name for something, which is used by no country at all. Typically taking a direct word-by-word translation from German into English, giving a phrase that is ostensibly "English", but which satisfies no-one. Telescope cranes rather than Telescopic cranes is a typical example.

In this case, Theatres is already a redirect to Theaters though. en:WP can use similar tricks to answer both terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here in New Jersey, USA, we have had both in the past, with theaters showing movies on screens and theatres on Broadway (actually in New York) showing plays and other live-action entertainment. Then AMC Theatres came along and started showing movies in what enwiki calls their cinemas.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(Conflicted) Forgive me but en.wiki, which of course has its own rules and is obviously only in English as opposed to Commons which, at least in theory, is multilingual (but has the main discussion bar in English...) the entry Theater (structure) with a banner present since 2013 and has the sources talking about theatre and not theater. It does not seem so strange to me that an Italian user who makes an effort to converse in English (also thanks to the translator programs) is at least puzzled to use a term that is not in the English language vocabulary. For me, it is enough to see whether, grammatically correct or not, we arrive at coherent categories, and I thought the most logical thing was to use a vocabulary, which could please everyone, native and non-native speakers alike.--Threecharlie (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is important to use consistent language and unique words, as we try to do everywhere in the categories of Commons. Standardizing a language is not an impoverishment, but it helps to improve the project and make it more and more encyclopedic. I remember that at the beginning Theatres were used for buildings, while Theaters for shows. Could such a solution be correct? DenghiùComm (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Theater" and "theatre" are both buildings (and occasionally theatrical companies); it's just US vs. UK. Complicating matters, individual theaters in the U.S. very often use "Theatre" in their name, but as a common noun that is not used in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• The solution is to do what Commons always does, naming start a CFD discussion asking people and in about a decade we may have it closed with no consensus. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Theaters in New Zealand. --ghouston (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• We really should start at the top but four years old is a new discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it is necessary to delete some categories. Of course, we need to bring consistency and move the wrong name into the right name. It is also important to distinguish the buildings from the shows. We can't have a mess of them in just one category. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

William Shatner

I notice someone have been putting William Shatner images into various categories related to 'People from the United States'. Am i missing something? Because i don't remember him having American citizenship. --Trade (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

His Wikipedia article states "He is a longtime U.S. resident and has a green card". If he's being categorized according to places of residence, that's perfectly appropriate. Do you understand that many editors only categorize people according to their birthplace and that this practice is extremely problematic? For example, only a Wikipedant would associate Eminem with St. Joseph, Missouri instead of Detroit, which was the case with his Commons category until I fixed it. Pointing out examples is fruitless, however, as this diseased mentality poisons a substantial portion of the site.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked specifically to avoid such a situation @RadioKAOS: --Trade (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Photo challenge April results

Stairs: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Stairs to the station platform before 2013 (Mons Belgium)	Vineyard stairway in the Enz valley near Vaihingen, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany	Stairs at the lower entrance to the Bamberg lock
Author	Anne Debaisieux	Foeniz	Ermell
Score	11	10	8

Eggs: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Ostrich egg versus chicken egg.	Box of eggs	Uova di lepidottero su foglie di Lonicera (caprifoglio selvatico)
Author	Annatsach	Balise42	Albarubescens
Score	16	15	7

Congratulations to Anne Debaisieux, Foeniz, Ermell. Annatsach, Balise42 and Albarubescens. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Foeniz (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Duplication of photographs from National Maritime Museum

I have been using the copyright book of Smith Suitall, a post card manufacturer, in the Suffolk Record Office. I have been able to identify Alicia Dathan (died 1944) as the creator of a number of photographs published as postcards and hence clarify the copyright status of her images. However with File:HMS Ganges training ships 1906 Flickr 4343894760 2dc67df409 o.jpg and File:A view from Shotley across the River Stour to Harwich with Shotley Pier and the 'Ganges' training ships. RMG P27497.tiff the same image has been reproduced twice. What is the best way to deal with this anomaly?Leutha (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Just add a link from one file to the other in the "Other versions" field of the information template. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• You can see an example of how each Library of Congress image is duplicated as a jpg and tiff: File:Card. Mundelein LCCN2014717251.jpg --RAN (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Modification of Template:PD-VenezuelaGov

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I want to talk to you about the modification of the template Template:PD-VenezuelaGov that mentions the public domain license for Venezuela.

Recently in 2012, the government decreed a law that releases to the public domain all the graphic material that is made by any of the government institutions.

The law in question is the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law in English), decreed in May 7, 2012. In which article no. 325 decrees (in Spanish):

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.

Translated into English would be:

The intellectual production generated under an employment relationship in the public sector, or financed through public funds that originates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, maintaining the rights to public recognition of the author.

Can be modify this template to add this law?

-- Wguayana (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wguayana: do you know whether that is true only for images produced after that date (or some other date), or is retroactive? - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They do not specify, but living in that country and knowing the government, I can assure you that it is valid for all the material made, including those made before 2012.

In general, the laws in Venezuela are confusing and disastrous.

Need translation into German

The Spanish-language and English-language versions of the template are now up to date, but the German is only a very abbreviated summary, and it would be good if someone could translate into German; other languages also welcome, of course.

• Template:PD-VenezuelaGov/es
• Template:PD-VenezuelaGov/en
• Template:PD-VenezuelaGov/de

Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done I update the /de version. De728631 (talk) 22:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Half a million were uploaded as part of the "library back up project". Welcome to participate to upload all public domain books in the world!

In 213 BCE, Qin Shi Huang destroyed all privately-held unorthodox books in by fire. In 206 BCE, Xiang Yu set a fire on the governmental library containing unique copies of the books, sounding the death of ancient Chinese thoughts and history. Yongle Encyclopedia was finished in 1408. It comprised 22,937 chapters in 11,095 volumes and 917,480 pages. Only one copy after that original copy was made. Most of them are lost in history and only about 800 chapters survive today. In 1932, 463 thousand Han Fen Lou rare books were burned in war.

To prevent such regrettable things that destroy the memory of mankind ever happen again, let's systematically back up the world's all surviving books in public domain to Wikimedia Commons.

“	Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.	”
—Jimmy Wales

Half a million book files were uploaded as part of the project. Currently only Chinese and Japanese books were uploaded, but the ultimate goal is ALL books in ALL languages from ALL countries as long as in public domain. Welcome to participate to accomplish the grand goal! --維基小霸王 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that the "library back up project" is a project to preserve Chinese-language and Japanese-language texts from Japan and the area of contemporary China? Other Asian languages and countries do not seem to be included. Other regions do not seem to fall within the scope of the project? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  No. The scope is ALL public domain books on the planet. I have uploaded Chinese books only because it's my native language. You are welcomed to upload books in your and other languages. Modified. 維基小霸王 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

See also : Commons:IA_books which was in progress but stalled when Fæ abruptly left Commons. The aim here was to try and mirror every confirmably Public domain work held in IA collections, to Commons. What would help the linked Wikiproject immensely, would be people reviewing the items uploaded against the Catalog of Copyright Entries. Higher quality versions (regenerated DJVU from the IA tiff/JP2 scans would be excellent) of the CCE volume would also be welcomed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a great project. We all hope @Fæ: will return soon. --維基小霸王 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fae did indeed leave most abruptly. But the reasons are visible to all users of WMF projects. And them will not return unless that is fixed. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What reason? 維基小霸王 (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's of course much more complicated than this, but I guess in the end it boils down to toxic behavior within the community. Let's not get into detail right here, though, that would completely de-rail the discussion. El Grafo (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of Chinese works, Will you you be approaching institutions in the Hong Kong, with a view to determining what can be reasonably placed on Commons from their archives? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. There are many Chinese collections not only in Asia but also in Western libraries. But in those libraries, more books is in other languages. For example, I am uploading https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/chinese-rare-books , but more collection https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/ are available. It would be ideal to upload all, library by library. But only my own efforts is not enough. I hope more volunteers will participate. --維基小霸王 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great project! My little contribution: Category:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (100 volumes in 3 languages from 2 different sources, around 400 files in total). And also Category:Camera Notes, Category:Camera Work, and Category:Mercure de France, whole volumes (still under way). Yann (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Any uploads are good. But I hope there are more systematic uploads. There are many collections in https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/ . I have just uploaded "chinese-rare-books". I hope others could follow and upload other collections.--維基小霸王 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from Government of Montenegro flickr account

The Government of Montenegro maintains a flickr account, and all files have a All rights reserved tag, which accoring to Commons:Flickr files makes them not available for the Commons. But, the Government of Montenegro has written in its about section (see here): "All photos and videos are free to use and download." Does this make them freely available?--AT44 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would say no. "use and download" does not mean "republish" or "modify". - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hey @Jmabel thank you for the quick response. I sent a mail to the Government to ask for a further explanation. AT44 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "All rights reserved" is the default setting for a Flickr account, so pointing out the inconsistency may get a response, but it is rare for anyone to actually respond to an email nowadays. I often wonder why websites post webmaster@ and info@ addresses if they never are going to respond. Even a "thank you for your inquiry" autoresponse is better than nothing. --RAN (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Changing info/license of historic images from info/license of the derivative-copy to the original object

This comes up often at deletion debates. We have an historic public domain image or object, and someone scans it. They have now have created a derivative-copy and they add in the CC license and current date for the derivative-copy and declare the scan their "own work". It gets nominated for deletion because the nominator wants to see info and the license for the original-image. See for example: File:Александр Павлович Киткин.jpg. I change the specs to info on the original. Not at this entry, but at others, I have been told to never change info when a debate is going on. The deletion queue is always backed up by 6-months, see: Category:Deletion requests January 2022. Note that we do have {{Art Photo}} that has information for the original and the derivative. See it used here: File:Egypte louvre 026.jpg. So, do we change info during the debate, or hope in 6 months that the uploader will make the changes, or hope that the person closing will make the changes? What is best for the project, doing the work up-front, or leaving the problem in the queue and hoping it may get fixed just before deletion? --RAN (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is an unambiguous and factual correction supported by evidence, I would say that it is safe to make the correction during the debate. However, I have noticed that you tend to speculate on details of the image (often without evidence) and then insert your speculation on the file page. I don't know about others but coming to a debate after you have inserted your speculation has confused me about the status of an image several times now.

If you have an unambiguous source that gives the correct information then I think it is safe to update the file. If you feel that you are relying on speculation/judgement/gut feelings then place your views in the deletion debate and see if you gain consensus before updating the file page. Your judgement may be right in many situations but it avoids confusing the debate if it is kept off the file page until consensus is reached. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Almost every image, prior to cameras capturing the date or someone writing the date on the back of an image, are missing a date. We use visual cues, the death date of the subject, the death date of the photographer if their name is known, and other interpretive techniques to estimate the date an image was taken. I think most people can estimate the year an image was taken within +/- 10 years or less, given the birth and death years of the subject. There is an entire project at the Library of Congress at Flickr Commons to date the images in the Bain Collection. You are welcome to join. --RAN (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that your speculation/judgement is inherently wrong. Rather it is simply confusing for other reviewers if you have adapted a file mid-debate to align with your speculative argument to retain the file. If the consensus of debate supports your judgement then you can alter the file once the discussion is closed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• The issue is that people put "Own" and a CC license not because their work creates a derivative work. It doesn't. But because they don't understand what information is required, and how copyright works. For their defense, it is true that copyright for old documents is often very complex, and we do a poor job explaining what information is required. Yann (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It does create a derivative-work, but does not transfer the original copyright to them. The Bridgeman case is a court ruling that said that making an exact-copy does not restart the copyright clock for this new copy, because it is an exact replica. Outside the USA, you may still be legally required to acknowledge the person that made the scan. The court ruling is not part of Berne and URAA, and most countries do not follow the USA ruling. See: Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs for country specific court rulings. --RAN (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is possible for you to be wrong? No one is perfect and there are edge cases. If there is a discussion, then the discussion matters. I agree with From Hill To Shore that it creates confusion when you go and change it and no one knows what is going on. If you change it and people have a different opinion, congrats on creating the fight on the page and at the discussion rather than only at the discussion. A single sentence at the discussion accomplishes the same without the drama if people disagree with you. That's it. And no, just because you made a judgment that the person is wrong does not mean the discussion is closed automatically on your word. Who really cares if there is a "we are discussing deletion of this image" on a page for months? That is better than immediately deleting images and fighting over them afterwards. The issue is that people get it wrong, and that's it. That is the whole point of having discussion pages and why we have administrators who have experience reviewing and closing them. And why we have a place to review the discussions after they are closed. And why we have places to complain about the administrators if they are closing these badly. And so on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• The debate doesn't go on for months, it is the lack of people interested in working behind the scenes in the deletion process that causes the 6-month backlog. At one time I calculated that more than 50% of all deletions have no comments at all beyond the nomination. That is why doing as much as possible as soon as possible is the preference. Let us worry about the "edge cases" when the edge cases arise. Stopping progress because of an occasional disagreement serves no one. Fix the issue at the upload stage by explaining better to the uploader that there are two dates and two authors for every derivative image, so they don't only load the contemporary date. --RAN (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Fishy Russian audio file

Is there a Russian speaker in the house who can comment on File:Ширк в Исламе.ogg? While I don't speak the language, it is obviously playing back too fast, but I was wondering more if the voice in this file is human or computer. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I perform bulk actions like recategorizing multiple files?

one of the affected files

Hello, I moved the category:Pan de Veracruz to category:Breads of Veracruz, but the 40 files have not been moved. Is there a way to do this in bulk or do I have to do it one by one? thank you – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@El Mono Español: You (or anyone else) can use Cat-a-lot for that. It's powerful but like many Commons tools not entirely friendly for novice users. --bjh21 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also VFC can easily be used for this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you are moving the entire category, consider {{Move cat}} at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That moves subcategories as well as files. - Jmabel ! talk 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Image release via email

I recently emailed a museum asking if they could provide an image of an item they had on display as the museum is the only publicly viewable location of this item that I know of. They got back to me today and sent me two images. Unfortunately, they have not stated what the licence for the images is. I have asked them to explicitly state the licence and am awaiting a response.

My question is what do I do when I upload the images? Do I forward a copy of the email somewhere or do we just take my word? Something else? Kylesenior (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You need them to send the permission themselves according to Commons:VRT, if they own the copyright. One scenario is that the item is old (and thus out of copyright) and they photograph it for the purpose (and get the copyright through the contract with the photographer).

(Forwarding the e-mail could be an option, but you'd need to send all the e-mail, including header lines not normally shown and thus not included when e-mails are forwarded, otherwise there is no evidence that you didn't write it yourself. I also think that the VRT folks don't want to analyse the headers to eliminate the possibility of a forgery.)

If you upload the images before them having send the e-mail you have the filenames to refer to in the e-mail. The files may be deleted in waiting for the e-mail, but they can be restored when it has been received and checked (and probably won't be deleted if the e-mail is sent in a week from the upload).

–LPfi (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I list my works transfered from Flickr in my Special:ListFiles ?

Recently I found my works were transferred to Commons from Flickr. How can I list them in my Special:ListFiles? Interaccoonale (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@Interaccoonale: Special:ListFiles only allows you to filter by the user who uploaded the picture to Commons, so files transferred by other people will end up under their user names and not yours. If you want a list of all files created by you, I'd suggest making a user category for them. I have Category:Photographs by Ben Harris for this purpose, and it contains both pictures I've uploaded directly and ones transferred from Geograph Britain and Ireland. --bjh21 (talk) 11:45, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Odense questions

• 
  why is there a 'Chinese' destination?
• 
  What is this new building?
• 
  Artwork on a bridge, Who is the artist?

-- Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:00, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The Chinese signs are due to the many tourists in Odense visiting the museum and childhood home of Hans Christian Andersen. The new building is a part of the museum H.C. Andersens Hus which has been rebuild and then reopened in 2021. The artwork on the bridge Byens Bro is by Anita Jørgensen. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 13:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

template:LargeImage

A few days ago I first saw that the template:LargeImage gets inserted in file descriptions, by now it has been inserted in some of my images. And it seems it gets systematically inserted in images (that do not necessarily have a large resolution, but only a file size over some trigger value).

The last content edit (not formal edit) to this template is 13 (thirteeen!) years ago. It was created only two years before that edit.

The chances that an user of Commons actually sees a large image in its large orginal resolution are near zero (0!). This will only happen if the user clicks on "download", the "original resolution" link, or the last of the thumb links that shows the actual resolution as link text. In all other cases the user will ever only get a thumb that by definition ist not a large image.

While the best thing to do would be to simply delete the template without any replacement, at least it should be redesigned to be less intrusive: It is the first entry in the information template, it comes in red and as a warning. Instead it could be a javascript that will only be visible, if the user hoovers them mouse over one of the mentioned links, that will acutually show the image in a large resolution. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I think you're missing one very easy way to get the full image: click on the preview image itself. At least for me, that causes my browser to try to download and display the original file. The preview is the largest item on the page and the obvious place to click if you want to see the picture in more detail. --bjh21 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the preview image can have javascript in the link triggered by the template. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the threshold: according to the bot's edit summary, it is based on a 50 Megapixel resolution. A lot of your affected photos seem to be around 12000×9000 pixels = 108000000 pixels = 108 Megapixels, so I am not surprised. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Display issue?

Is it correct that the middle part of Template:PD-chem is displayed as Templates:PD-chem/lang? --Leyo 11:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is of any use: Special:Diff/596831973 is where this was introduced. --HyperGaruda (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

"Edit source" tab not showing

This seems to be a new issue that arises periodically over the last few days, and I'm not sure if it's a problem on my end (browser, cache, gadgets) or a wider problem: At the top right of a file page, there are three tabs: "View", "Edit", and "History". There was previously an "Edit source" tab that as well, and in fact when I load a page now it appears for a second and then is hidden. For file pages that have subheadings (e.g. Summary and Licensing), Both "Edit" and "Edit source" appear on the headings but not the page top (as in File:John-beale-bordley.png). But for files without subheadings (e.g. File:John Beale Bordley 1999.27.42.jpg), the "Edit source" option appears nowhere to be found. "Edit source" still appears at the top right of Category pages. Has anyone else encountered this issue? Copying categories and complex templates is vastly easier with Edit source, versus Visual Editor. --Animalparty (talk) 21:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Animalparty: I use the legacy MonoBook skin, and I'm not seeing your symptoms ("edit" shows up all the time). You can force source editing by appending "?action=edit" to a regular URL or "&action=edit" to a URL with a "?" already embedded. You can also try other skins via Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 22:11, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If you never use Visual Editor, you can just go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures and turn it off. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Uploads

Me again. A month or so back, I talked about my uploads not working. Someone said it might be a bug. Then the uploads started working again for a while, but now they have stopped working. Is there a bug that only affects my uploads to WP, because I have no trouble uploading to other sites like FB or flickr? Is it possible that my system is incompatible with WP but not other sites? Sardaka (talk) 09:27, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sardaka: Did you report the bug? If so, what is the task number? If not, why not? You seem never to be specific enough or provide enough background. I found background at User talk:Jeff G./Archives/2022/May#Uploads and Commons:Help desk/Archive/2022/04#Uploads.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sardaka: What do you mean by "not working"? Do you see an error message, or get no response? Do the images disappear after aparenlty uploading? Or something else? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• If you have loaded the images to another website, then downloaded to your desktop, and try to upload to Commons, they may end up a *.webp format but still be labeled as *.jpg when downloaded. The way to see if this is the problem is to try and open them in GIMP prior to uploading. GIMP will tell you when there is a mismatch between the filetype listed and the actual filetype they are stored as. This has happened to me when I have loaded images to Fandom and want to import them to Commons. --RAN (talk) 02:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

What happens is that the upload is in progress, and usually the progress bar goes out to ridiculous times like an hour or so, then I get the message that the "upload has failed, Retry failed upload." Retrying it never works. How do I report a bug? Sorry to bother everyone with this, but this only happens at Commons. Sardaka (talk) 07:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Hate to say it, but the uploads are suddenly working again. Thanks to everyone who tried to help. Looks like I just have to accept these things happening from time to time. Sardaka (talk) 09:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Sardaka: Again, mw:How to report a bug. See also COM:TALK.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 10:17, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Uploads can time out. If your internet connection is unreliable in some way, the session may get lost during the transaction. Retrying should normally work, but there may be some bug that makes the server think the failure applies also to new tries (some other sites think my browser is incompatible as I first had Javascript disabled, and thus refuse to serve me). You should probably file a bug next time it happens and retries don't work, when they still have server logs available. –LPfi (talk) 12:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

About an image I have recently uploaded

Hello, I am new to the Commons and I have recently uploaded a logo that thought would be free. (See:File:MarioLogo copy.svg) The logo itself came from a promotional image from the NintendoUK, which has since been removed and can't be accessed on the WayBack Machine, and instead I got from Eurogamer. I thought this would be fine as it would fall under the threshold of originality, as it was just text and some shapes. However, upon briefing myself over the description for the threshold again, I realised that the United Kingdom's description of originality is much lower compared to the US. There is a Japanese version of this logo that exists on the Mario Wiki, which I believe to be free as Japan's laws are much higher for originality. However, since the image originally came from NintendoUK, I realise there could be doubt as to whether or not the logo is free. Should the image stay or not? Captain Galaxy (talk) 17:18, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

But even for UK it looks too simple: mainly a short text and a few squares. Ruslik (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The case where a text logo was found to be copyrightable in the UK involved a unique font. --RAN (talk) 01:27, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that one's pretty safe. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Problems in category Ernst Welker

Hi there, I have some questions and noticed problems on this category and ask for someone who can help to solve those problems. Opening this file File:V251K-We Peter Georg von Medem (1801-1877).tif in highest resolution always gives this error for weeks now: Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.

It also has an empty page 2. Could someone remove this? Furthermore there are some issues with some of the thumbs shown in the category. For example File:V249K-We.tif. Selecting the high res gives the right view of the file, but the thumb and file shown on the file page itself, not.

Thanks in advance for any help. Regards, Mr.Nostalgic (talk) 19:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Location/town in Slovakia in 1993?

I had a group hiking trip in Slovakia in 1993. I cant remember the locations.

• 
  same tower
• 
  same tower
• 
  same tower
• 
  same arches
• 
  probably same location

-- Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Some of the pictures look like Category:Levoča Town Hall. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Please apply Category:Unidentified locations in Slovakia to your images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This is certainly Levoča. The two towers are easily identifiable. During the trip we where mostly hiking in the countrysite and visited almost no towns. Thanks.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• If you want to add the exact gps to each image use {{Location|40.0000|-73.0000}} with the GPS data from Google Street View. --RAN (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• 
  Same trip, wich amfibian?

Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Unexplained date change on image, cameras time set incorrectly, and useful cat removal

Can anyone please indicate why this unsummarised change has been made. I've requested an explanation from from Kolforn but its simply been reverted. I have little reason to believe the shooting device's date/time was incorrect? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I am pleased to note Kolforn's change has been reverted which I AGF was a mistake (I do weird mistakes myself all too frequently). Thankyou. -- 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)

I noticed a few updates to this file both before and after I posted this, the problem possibly been fixed before I posted here, for which I apsologise, but by day was pretty disruptive (and while no excuse I may have had the post edit session open for a very long time). I am interested to note the highlighting of a copyright issue when using the E7i device that the bots don't seem to be handling, and I also note Kolforn has chosen to re-apply {{Taken on}} unsummarised using only the date and not the time portion as per the bot example. I confess I'm not clear why a template labelled {{Taken on}} is being used to set a location setting (timezone which be a more logical choice) and its doesn't look to be a good practice and I'm not clear why this stuff isn't handled in the upload wizard or a bot if its really needed. I'm kind of sitting back and observing and wondering if I have to throw the dog (ie bin the mobile phone) but this is all getting too hard. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Kolforn has altered the time/categories in a number of other images of mine at the Whyke Amphitheatre pop-up music event of Sunday 14 June 2022 where two of my camera date/times were set incorrect (totally my fault), as illustrated here. I'm not a Time Lord able to go back and re-take the images so (actually I suppose I might be able to hack the Exif but thats as dodgy as at the Whitely tortoise removing audit evidence from the syslog when master has rebooted the financials server by mistake to enable a Shultz explanation from the audits) so I've attempted correctly or incorrectly to use {{Wrong date}} and {{Invalid Exif date}} to indicate the problem. Three questions arise in my mind from this: firstly should Category:Photographs taken on 2022-06-12 be removed in this circumstance, or should the category be removed altogether; secondly, what is the best practice way of handling this surely not totally uncommon situation; and thirdly, how do we know what timezone is in operation - especially as the 60D appears to know nothing about time zones (and daylight saving!) and the sx240 does but perhaps its exif doesn't, what is best practice there? These questions may have been covered elsewhere but I'd appreciate any pointers. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Almost duplicates

Hi! I uploaded the photograph file:Otto Schlegel 2.jpg a few days ago. Now I discovered that the same picture already exists with the name file:Otto Schlegel by Hermann Ohm.jpg. They are similar except for a slight difference in cropping. What is the procedure for that? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: Hi, and welcome. You may link them via the Other_versions parameters in their Information templates.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

And use the {{Other version}} template when doing so. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Dipsacus fullonum: Alternatively, if you think your new version is unnecessary, you can request that it be deleted by editing the description page to add {{SD|G7}} within seven days after uploading. --bjh21 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Searching structured data; replacements of the category system

This is a longer problem, TL;DR warning. Some of the responses of the questions here ought to be in Help:Search in some clearly understandable manner.

The original question was how to list/search sub-categories easily, and it seems to be best answered by using Special:Search and either giving the category in the advanced field, or use a search string like "deepcat:"Pictures by Madboy74" deepcat:"Coats of arms of Transilvania"" for specific category search or intersection search.

However this have lead me to numerous discussion and closed issues telling that Structured data should have replaced the (hard to use and inflexible) Category system. While this is an unrelated question (whether it should or not) I started to examine how to search by structured data. Generally it seems searching is not supported for the common people, since it's only available by using the geeky properties with no lookup whatsoever, like haswbstatement:P170=Q15136093, clearly unfriendly, but at least works. The syntax is described here in WikibaseCirrusSearch and WikibaseMediaInfo to some extent.

However, I have completely failed to look up this image by trying to look for creator (P170) with "some value" (I can't even guess where this come from) with a qualifier Wikimedia usrname (P4174) containing a string. The search haswbstatement:P170=*[P4174=Madboy74] doesn't work, but it seems haswbstatement:P170=* doesn't, either, while it seems like it should.

So, my main questions:

• Is there any way or concept for Average Joe to search by structured data?
• Where does some value come from, and how to search for its qualifiers?
• How to find that specific image by that specific structured data?
• Does anyone think structured data could be used instead of the category system ("are we there yet")? Is there any past discussion about this? Maybe some summary of all the alternatives (dead or alive) to the Category system, and their state of readiness?

Thanks! --grin ✎ 12:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: there is a lot of information that we carry in the categories that is not, and in many case cannot currently be, modeled in the structured data. For example, if we have a poster for a concert where a particular band is on the bill, it certainly belongs in the category for the band, but as far as I know there is no correct way to reflect that in the structured data system. Also, far more files are well-categorized in terms of what they represent but have little or no content-related structured data. And from what I've seen of the structured data people have added to some of my photos, nearly half of the "depicts" are wrong or trivial (e.g. who really cares that a picture "depicts" a stop sign when mainly it depicts a building, which is not listed in the "depicts"). - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
• Ha! 2 days after I wrote that, someone did exactly that: File:Carbonado fire station 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Structured data was made to replace categories in the long term, but there is no plan yet. I think the transition could last one decade. You asked for searching. The new search tool was made to be used like Google: Just type in what you are searching for without any special syntax. If you want exact results you need to use the old search engine or the query service. I invest much more time in the structured data statements for my files then for the categories and I see that some other users do the same. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there any way to limit a search by file license?

I'm looking for a wide variety of SVG icons, but for re-use reasons I need them to be CC-0 or Public Domain - no license restrictions whatsoever. Is there any way to limit a search so that I only see public domain files? (And if there isn't, how can I ask for this feature?) --Robkelk (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

It is possible in several ways, as the files are in (hidden) categories by licence. You could enable seeing hidden categories in your preferences, but the point is that any tool that can search for category intersections is able to find such images. Wikipedia:PetScan (Catscan) is the most well-known such tool. I've understood that also Special:Search and perhaps Special:Mediasearch can do that, with a suitable query. –LPfi (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

It is broken in several ways. Commons offers a large number of licenses, but most files use one of only three licenses: cc-zeo, cc-by-sa-3.0, cc-by-sa-4.0. But then there are few files with cc-by-sa-4.0-really-obscure-language-version. It is worse with PD. a PD-older-than-110-years-sculpture-published-before-1951-in-oklahoma file may be in that very license category, or in PD-for-unknown-reasons, of in PD-oklahoma, or in PD-older-than-65-years or in PD-sculptures-in-USA, or in cc-by-sa-4.0 because the fotographer decided so. While cc-zero and most PD-... may be subcategorie of the same main-PD category, one PD-category may be missing for being the PD-published-by-employies-of-cron-depandency-of-former-duchy-of-bla and have some restriction. Maybe this would be solvable with SDC, but I am not aware of a help page or tool that would do that.

However, if you simply search for "in category cc-zero and file type svg" you will find more than 90% of the files, that match your query. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robkelk: as you can see trying to use the category system for this doesn't work at all.

It's easier to use structured data for this. Files that have been put in the public domain by the copyright owner have the statement copyright status (P6216) set to copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) so you can filter on that in the search. Multichill (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

@Robkelk: This is pretty simple using Special:MediaSearch. Enter the search query and choose "No restrictions" from the "license" drop-down. I don't know what source this uses, so it may be that other techniques will find files that this doesn't. --bjh21 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help. --Robkelk (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

How to identify people in an image?

Hello.
I know there is a way to identify people in an image, with a small yellow square around them and their name appearing when one overs over it. I would like do know how to do that.
Thanks in davance. Veverve (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

That would be the Help:Image-Annotator. In a nutshell, use the button Add a note just underneath an image. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

No P180 property for this file in SD

I want to connect the picture to wikidata item Q95379991.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It is already in Category:Remains of tram line 510C, so connected with Bouillon - Pussemange tram line (Q95379991) (which need label and description in more languages, now only in French and Dutch). For structured data, choose that tab on the file description page (under the Summary heading) and add a "depicts" statement (P180). –LPfi (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It is now visible in the structured data, so I added it there. There an connection via the categories, but it is preferable to also have a direct connection in SD. Search engines work better with SD.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Transformation of an image

I want to show the intermediate steps made in transforming an original image to a better derivative copy. See File:John_Howard_Lindauer_1983_(upscaled_whitebackground_enhanced).jpg#Transformation. Is there a standard way of showing the transformation? Is keeping the key intermediate steps wrong? RAN (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not wrong, just needlessly detailed bordering on pedantry IMHO. We have {{Retouched picture}} and {{Other versions}}, etc. Since the version is highly retouched (by man and machine) from the original, {{Retouched picture}} should definitely be added to the final transformed image. --Animalparty (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Photo inherited from photographer - required information?

I had a photo deleted [10], I believe because I did not supply some essential information. I inherited the photo from my father, so I believe that I do have the right to put it into the public domain, but I could use some guidance on getting it right this time. Specifically-

1. Does the fact that I am licensing an inherited work affect which licence I should use?
2. How do I ensure that all the required information is present so that this doesn't happen again?
3. Is it possible to edit the information after uploading a file?

I am almost a first-time user, so please forgive any inadvertent breaches of protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SternaElegans (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SternaElegans: You never answered the question you were asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan Payzant.jpg, so after a few weeks the deletion went ahead as unchallenged. You can still presumably get it undeleted by addressing the issue, but at this point it needs to go through Commons:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks for this - yes, I missed the question because I had forgotten to update my user profile following a change to my email address, and only was made aware of the deletion by a friend, much later. I'll contact Undeletion requests and see what happens. SternaElegans (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

ad 2: there is {{PD-heirs}} for example. Best wishes, --Mateus2019 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mateus2019: the image was licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, which seems appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

"Who is the photographer? When he died?" was asked at deletion request - which precision is needed for "When he died?"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: As much precision as is available. But that's not the point. The point is that if your picture is nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio, and you don't respond at all, it will probably be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Desktop Improvements update

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features

• Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
• Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.

How to enable/disable the improvements

Global preferences

• It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
• On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.

Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to sgrabarczukwikimedia.org. We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question

If a record is public domain and someone digitizes the record and releases the digitized verzion for download without a specified license, is it public domain? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle: Hard to answer that with full generality.

• "Record" is so ambiguous: "sound recording"? "statement of a fact"? "transcription of a proceeding"? etc.
• "Digitizing" also covers a lot of ground: e.g. remastering a sound recording can involve copyrightable creative choices.

So it would help a lot if you asked a more specific question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: "Record" meaning vinyl record. "Digitized version" meaning a sound recording of said vinyl record in a digital format. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Ilovemydoodle: If the original recording was, indeed, public domain (determining that can be a very tricky problem for sound recordings) and there was no significant creativity involved in the digitizing, then the digitized version should still be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Copyright question 2

@Jmabel: What is the copyright status of something recorded in 1926? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Ilovemydoodle: What country? If it's the U.S., copyright of sound recordings was not federalized until 1972. See https://blogs.loc.gov/now-see-hear/2019/02/copyright-breakdown-the-music-modernization-act/ from the LOC in 2019. It looks from that like 1926 recordings won't necessarily be out of copyright until January 1, 2026. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: Russia, Moscow. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 20:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

  • @Ilovemydoodle: Not a clue. You should probably ask this at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 20:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Commons Archive

Hi, Does anyone know why I can't upload CR2 files to Commons Archive? It used to be possible, but now I get the message IMG_9732.CR2 [9529eda1381cd250ac6b2183] Exception caught: No specifications provided to ArchivedFile constructor. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: You might want to ask at the community portal there or file a phabricator task.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That project seems to be stalled, but good suggestion: phab:T280807. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Questionable & useless

What do we do with photos that have a questionable legal status AND have become useless because the article they were meant for has been speedy deleted as promotional spam?

It's about the photos by this user. Some of them have already been nominated for deletion because it seems those were pretty clear cases of copyvio: derivative work from newspaper clippings. Many of the others show not only the person the article was meant for but also other people, so personality rights might be involved. Mostly well-known people, so photos might be o.k. for some of them, but I assume we'd have to check each individual one.

The permission status of these images is also doubtful imho. The uploader has been adressed on her German WP page if she actually took all those pictures herself but hasn't replied. Especially this one looks like a professional promo photo to me, taken by a professional photographer, not a snapshot a colleague might happen to take.

So, what do we do with that? Just leave it all as is and let the images sink into oblivion? Or go through the hassle of checking each individual photo for its legal status? Or just batch delete all of them, since they no longer serve any useful purpose anyway? --217.239.5.220 10:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kkuschel. Yann (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images

Hello.
I am trying to upload two albums from Flickr (this one and this one), using Commons:Flickr2Commons. I made a test by only uploading File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).jpg.
However, I have an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0. What should I do to have Flickr2Commons add a {{cc-zero}} into the licensing section of all the images I want to upload from this user which are under CC 1.0?
The image belongs to Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream, which has no problem with the CC 1.0. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi, from their "About us" section, "Published photos/videos are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I think there might be a way to change all the licenses at the upload stage with Flikr2Commons, but if not, archive the "About us" section on the Wayback machine, and get someone with the ability to write a script or program AWB and swap out all the tags automatically in a few minutes. Alternatively you just upload them all and spend a couple of hours copy/pasting the appropriate tags. ~ R.T.G 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@RTG: thanks for your input!

• The individual pictures are given as being under CC 1.0 (e.g., this one); and all pictures on WCommons imported from this Flickr account are marked as such in Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream. So, which statement of license has priority, CC 1.0 or 4.0?
• Who do you think I should contact to make a script? Apparently, Flickr2Commons is very easy to use; and for what I want to do it does the job very well, except the part with the licensing problem. So, I would prefer not to have to try other Flickr import scripts.

@Magnus Manske: sorry to bother you. Since you are the script's screator, could you tell us if there is a way to accomplish what I want? Veverve (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: We know of eight different "CC 1.0" licenses per COM:L#Well-known licenses (the unnumbered ones start at 1.0), please be more specific.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not "cc1.0", it's "cc0 1.0" (or PD1 or something like that). I have come across this before and if the uploader is active, they generally change the licenses for me, if it is their own work. Send them an email on Flickr and explain that you are trying to upload to Commons for Wikipedia, that cc0 is not sufficient, that you need cc1 or better. I think they have a way of changing the licenses as a batch, I'm not sure how that works though. ~ R.T.G 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

If you are only trying to upload a small portion of the streams images, use the Commons uploader. It can handle a few hundred images and you can copy paste the relevant license. Bit of work in that if there is hundreds of images but if there is only a few dozen it might be feasible. ~ R.T.G 11:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@RTG: The uploader is active... but the uploader is also the official Flickr of the state of North Macedonia, so I do not have much hope for an answer or that the team behind the account will go throught the administrative red tape to change the license of their 30 000 images.

I am trying to upload around 100 images, so doing i manually is not something I will do.

All images within Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream are marked on WCommons as either under the {{cc-zero}} or CC 4.0 license, and are from the same uploader. @Alex Cohn: even reviewed this image and marked it as being under CC 4.0 (despite the page of the image stating it is under PD). So, are the licenses used and their inconsistency really a problem? Veverve (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Why not just using the {{PDMark-owner}}? This is used for many organizations for some reason publishing their photos with PDMark instead of CC-Zero. In 2020 we decided to accept this. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: The issue is manually adding the license for hundreds of photos. Copy/pasting for an hour can be a daunting task I guess. @Veverve: Their "About us" says cc-by-4, but they have selected public domain tags consistently. The confusion with the Flickr PD tags is: one is for the author, and one is for someone who promises it is public domain. Macedonia government are either releasing to the PD, or they know for sure these images are PD, otherwise they are liable for any sales lost, not to mention the cost of deciding in court how much that liability should cost. If these 33,000 images are in copyright, that is a LOT of mistakes on their part. So it is public domain (for those marked as PD identified), under the direction of a government body. ~ R.T.G 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I think with VFC this would not be much work. The different license in the description is an other problem. For videos from YouTube we always use the license written in the description or the video itself if these license differs to the selected one. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit difficult to follow there. They've used this public domain tag up to 33,000 times as a recognised government body. Government bodies are authorities on legal matters. They do have the authority and responsibility to license these images to the best of their ability. If the authors are not working on the governments/publishers behalf, that is 33,000 accidents. They'd have had a few complaints by now. It is definitely right to use PD on the ones published with a PD tag on Flickr in this circumstance. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: by chance, do you have a solution to how I could add {{cc-zero}} top those one hundred images? Maybe you know someone able to make a script? Veverve (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Veverve: I'm not sure I follow all of the above (including how you are confident that change would be correct), but assuming there is a sane way to find them either via a category or a search, it should be easy enough to make the change with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  @Jmabel: thanks! I will try it whenever I can.

  including how you are confident that change would be correct: I do not see how it would not be correct, or how all all the pictures uploaded on WCommons from this account for years would have the wrong license. Veverve (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Exactly what makes those 100 file description pages unique?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: the fact I get an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0, i.e., I get this error: Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Therefore, I must manually add a {{cc-zero}} as a license for each image. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Veverve: Sorry, I was not precise enough. How exactly may we find them?   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 12:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: I have put the URLs to the albums in my first message: this one and this one. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Pin VFC won't work from a list of URLs. We need a search that will find these, or who uploaded them in some particular time frame, etc. It's OK if the search includes some other files, but inconvenient if it includes (say) thousands of other files. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Maquettes

We don't seem to have a Category:Maquettes. Do we have an equivalent under another name? I'd want to put it on the image shown here. Maybe Category:Models of sculptures? But I want something specific to a small preparatory sculpture, the equivalent of a sketch. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

So create the category yourself. DS (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@DragonflySixtyseven: in my experience, often there is an oddly-named category that I turn out not to have known about. This is one where I could imagine a lot of possible names. I don't want to create an effective duplicate. Of course, if no one comes up with something, that is exactly what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Category:Models of sculptures should do. Alternatively, Category:Maquettes could be between (Category:Sculptures and Category:Models by subject) and Category:The Kelpies maquettes‎   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Maquettes are not, strictly speaking, models of sculptures; they are proposals for sculptures which may or may not be made. A distinct category would be sensible. (Be aware that "maquette" is also the French word for scale model, and we have many files which use the word in that context.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Maquettes is also the Dutch word for Category:Architectural models or Category:Scale models. See e.g. this file. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It can mean that in English, too (and we all borrowed it from the French). @Vysotsky: in Dutch, does it (as in English) have the connotation of being a model of something you propose to build/make rather than a model of something that already exists? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes it does - as in this file (1981) - the Stopera (1986) wasn't built yet. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about maquette being exclusively used for building proposals. I would also use it for architectural scale models of buildings that already exist. Our national dictionary maintains a fairly generic definition: scale model of a building, neighbourhood etc. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: According to the Tate (the most prominent British gallery group), and every dictionary I tried, "maquette" is proper English. This is not unusual. English is not Anglo Saxon. It is a mixture of Anglo Saxon, French, Celtic, Gaelic, Italian and Latin, some German and Spanish, and a basket load of words from every culture that was once connected to or closely allied with the British Empire. Hindu. Hebrew. I suppose whatever the Norse spoke would have to be a main part of it too. (Norse Code maybe?) The closest words in English might be "figurine" and "statuette", but those are simply scale models. Multiple searches returned no synonyms for "maquette", but many uses and definition in English. Ignore the spell checker in a circumstance like this. Create the category. Make it clear why not to confuse the word with figurines or statuettes. ~ R.T.G 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course it is proper English. Did I ever suggest it wasn't? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah okay, well I meant the proper English term as well as simply acceptable. And if you are going to include both sculptures and architecture, it would be a good idea to separate them. ~ R.T.G 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to start you off by adding Category:Art and design, but I am shocked that category does not exist yet either! ~ R.T.G 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Spectrum

Moved from commons talk:welcome#The little Engine that could Cos The Engine Couldn't

Being new to the commenting on Wikipedia pages, have noticed incorrect dates for example the Zx Spectrum computer, I while not long out of high-school sold one at Morphetville and know often the dates fort information such as these are way off. Possibly reversed order and even incorrect crediting. 203.213.31.89 18:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Do you know of a resource for the production history that could be linked from the root cat for the computer model line? Arlo James Barnes 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

There is a vast range of resources for Sinclair Research and Amstrad history. Which dates are incorrect? ~ R.T.G 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Annotation bug ?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T311398

Would anybody have an idea why I can't add an annotation on this image? Thanks, — Racconish ^💬 10:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• There has been an ongoing bug like that on a lot of images. I've encountered it repeatedly. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • On my iPad I have the option to add an annotation, but there I cannot do it. When using the desktop computer I don't get the option. Wouter (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Old, vintage, historical, or what?...

Hello!

For a Frenchy like me it's some times hard to find the right Commons' english denominations. That's for all vehicles (land, air, water) I can find in 'uncated'.

How may I be sure it's an historical truck, a vintage automobile or just an old bike??? Before 1900? Before WWI? WWII? B&W pics? Before Diesel? Before Hybrid? After this world? Question of dates of production? If they are still made? If they are so rares?

Please, let me know? Thanks. LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

None of those terms should be used in categories on Commons - they're fundamentally subjective, and what things qualify will change as time passes. Categories should be precise and stable: 20th-century trucks, 1930s automobiles, etc. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Completely agree with Pi.1415926535. This isn't a foreign vs. native-speaker issue, it's a fuzzy vs. clear thinking issue. These are poorly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Llann Wé²: Before cars were called "diesel" and "hybrid", they had another name, like "steam locomotive". ~ R.T.G 10:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes I know but I'm lost... Historical vehicles in Archaeological objects, Vintage vehicles Obsolete technologies...

So, I'll leave that like it is and will continue to add in these cats...

LW² \m/ ^{(Lie ² me...)} 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"Vintage" tends to be of a specific date or period. It is used, particularly in fashion and prose to describe something not quite ancient, but that is for the feel rather than the accuracy. "Historical" is often used to describe anything within the range of recorded history, but it tends more toward significance, recorded or not. I would set the bar pretty low for entry to that "historical" category but that would be what sort of bar certainly, significance, perhaps even changing it to "Historically significant" whereupon it might balance itself out, but that is not enough for this dilemma. "Vintage" says "cars made between 1919 and 1925 or 1930"... What we call old cars in English is, "Classic cars" isn't it. Vintage, as applied to that category, 20s/30s, that's sort of a clothing and fashion sales term, and I don't think it is always so narrowly defined. And even if you used it like that it is still insufficient for "all vehicles" material. There is no definition as to what date, or stage of development for instance, before which these vehicles are part of the category. That could even be a way to get the best names though, "pre-" vehicles, or vehicles "before X". "Classic" tax and insurance tends, or used to tend be between 25-30 years old. Which isn't enough for horse drawn carriage, but it might help set a bar over which vehicles should not be included. So after that I am looking at synonyms and trying to get something which includes both horse drawn carriage and combustion, while also including things like ships and helicopters per your request, but also very specifically past and all of the past. "Earlier generation vehicles" seems clunky at first but, after going through a lot of synonyms, most words that have a nice feel for this narrow your options to items specific to the historical timeline, or else they are more conversational than categorical like, "Precursory" and "Archaic" or "Bygone" and "Timeworn". "Earlier generation vehicles" can be defined pretty easily for each specific type of vehicle. In terms of combustion driven cars, well today it is, just about, the introduction of microchip controlled motors. Before that, arguably the introduction of ignition systems and so on. So it is up to you but I went through it and that's what I got. Best of luck with it. ~ R.T.G 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I must apologise for the meandering start to the paragraph. The issue is simple, but it is not at first obvious, so I try to explain my thought process, as it needs to be an agreeable solution rather than a totally new idea. So I am just adding, "Generation" is becoming more and more the specific term for progressing technology. You've heard it in phones first, then gaming consoles and others... and it actually fits technology broadly because of commercial competition. A technology gets updated to the latest thing. Even in todays world where you cannot simply copy anothers inventions, the rival companies, in phones for instance, find a way to more or less match the new standard, so the update occurs across the board in a relatively short period of time. This happens with almost all progressively updated technologies, phones, gaming consoles, PCs and laptops, cars, vacuum cleaners, cameras, light bulbs... They go through generations, so there is a generation of today. What is the latest phone generation? Um, multiple cameras and wireless charging, right? So any phones made before the generation that came with the option of multiple cameras and wireless charging are "earlier generation"? Maybe that's not quite what defines the latest phone generation, but something defines it, and you can tag all of the others from the past as "Earlier generation", and the term is more popular year on year. People don't mention "earlier generation" very much because they are focused on the latest, or a specific stage, but the term has definitely spilled out into other technologies broadly. If you were using computers at the turn of the millennium, you'd notice that PC tech was not using that term much even though the consumer waited year on year for the next generation, for over a decade. Now they use it all the time for anything it is relevant to, so it is going to stick. "Earlier generation vehicles". They are all old. The only requisite is that they are not as advanced as the latest. It's totally good terminology. It's an interesting and important niche to bring up and get solved too. Category:Earlier generation vehicles ~ R.T.G 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

File update still displays old image

I just uploaded a new (corrected) version of "File:Nardshir (historical) - opening layout.png", but the main image, the updated thumbnail and the linked Wiki article all display a copy of the original. Yet if you click on the main or the update you get the correct image. And the copy here (see right) is correct too. So what's going on? Bermicourt (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your browser saves an image and will not update it if the name of the image hasn't changed. It will eventually check and update it. Try going to the article, press edit (and use the text based editor), then save the page without actually editing anything. That is called a "Null edit" and it is one of the best ways to get it to update. Otherwise you might be waiting two or three days. Sometimes it is just a few hours. There are a few other tricks as well but if none of those work... open the text based editor again and press the "preview" button. That should show you the new image. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Bermicourt and RTG: See also COM:CACHE.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 19:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Move category with silly name

We currently have a category Category:Fatty tower in Adlershof. This looks ridiculous. I suggest this be moved to Category:Trudelturm in Adlershof, Berlin or just Category:Trudelturm. The Anome (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If the name is Trudelturm and it is the only one with such name (I don't speak German, so I cannot help with that) it makes sense a move to Category:Trudelturm. If there are more Trudelturme, or there are more than one, then it should be specified: Category:Trudelturm in Aldlershof.
It is not the first time that a category for something is created by describing the something. Not a great system, but sometimes somebody needs to put pictures in a place to make a distinction. B25es (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can determine, its name is uniquely Trudelturm, so the category should probably be moved there. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Moved to Category:Trudelturm. Annoyingly, I have been to the campus, but never realised the Trudelturm was there; I should have liked to have seen it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Tagging for misstated PD

Do we have a template to tag files which are not copyvio, but where their PD status is misstated? For example File:DMC01.jpg is claimed to be {{PD-old-70-1923}}, which includes "...countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer."

However, the given author is corporate, not human. Either a different PD template should be used, or the author should be "{{Anonymous}}", or both.

In cases where a reviewing editor is unsure to proceed, and lacks time to determine that, a template to indicate the issue and apply a category would be handy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

• @Pigsonthewing: I doubt we have a template, but in this case I've substituted {{PD-US-expired}} which meets Commons' requirement for this US-origin image and does not have the problem you've mentioned. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Bot request that might merit more input

Krd has suggested that my bot approval request at Commons:Bots/Requests/Usage Bot would benefit from broader discussion about the best approach to tracking external use of Commons content. --bjh21 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

SUL not working

SUL has not been possible several days now. I have to login to each project separately. Does anyone know any details? Thanks --A.Savin 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

For me, SUL worked on every of the last 7 days. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

You have tried, if it is working with a different browser (or with the same browser in a private windows) on the same device and on a different device? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Here it doesn't work from Commons to nl.wikipedia. The other way around (from nl.wikipedia to Commons, it works). Strange, but it doesn't really bother me. I can imagine that it is annoying if it is every time and on each wiki.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't work for me lately. I've only tried with Firefox, I don't have any other browser installed. --ghouston (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I mostly use Firefox too. I've saved the password in my browser, for years I didn't do that and knew like 30 passwords. Now I must watch out, I won't forget them. :-). The most important things I never save on a computer, phone, laptop or whatever, like things from the bank and things like that, I don't trust that.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: this is what I got when logging earlier toda: Central user log in The provided authentication token is either expired or invalid. Seems to me it has to do with the token] Hope this helps. Lotje (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have. Unless you have only a Desktop/Laptop computer or a Smartphone/Tablet, but not both. Neither a Desktop, Laptop, Smartphone nor Tablet will work without a web browser nowadays. Win 3.11 was probably the last common OS, that could be set up or used without a web browser. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

For me, SUL does not work in Firefox, but it works nicely in Edge. I wonder whether this is a result of the increasingly strict privacy settings in Firefox. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Adjacent maps

The page at File:Map of Birmingham and its Environs OS Map name 014-06, Ordnance Survey, 1884-1891.png, for example, which represents a map, has eight thumbnails for the adjacent map sheets to the N, S, E, W, NW, NE, SW & SE. Do we have a property in structured data for indicating adjacency in this manner?

How would we indicate (in structured data) that the images are tiles, and can be shown side by side as a single map, with no border or white space (or vice versa)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: For countries, parishes, etc we use shares border with (P47). So I also used it on the wikidata items underlying the maps in c:Category:Ordnance Survey Drawings (items such as eg Wem (OSD 326) (Q106156682)), allowing queries like the one for Adjacency map of drawings in that category header. Qualifier direction relative to location (P654) should also allow neighbouring maps to be shown in a template similar to en:Template:Adjacent_communities. Jheald (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, see Gallery:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:2500, Map of Birmingham and its Environs for a mosaic, which could be a more useful way to navigate such maps. Jheald (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Graphic lab icon

The WP-fr graphic lab icon has changed. The icon currently used is File:Logo wikigraphiste.svg. Can you replace it with the current one in the Atelier graphique and Graphic lab templates ? Regards. Manjiro5 ^[💬] 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Does everything have to be more minimalist? The description reads "Icône pour le modèle Utilisateur graphiste sur la Wikipédia francophone. Version simplifiée et plus moderne File:Crystal Clear app gimp (vector).svg", the thing is, minimalist logos look like something a toddler can draw with ease, intricate logos actually require more skills as a graphic artist to make. Plus the whole idea of it being "more modern" simply means "following trends", it is also a trend to slap "Copyright - All rights reserved, you may NOT copy, archive, store, or many ANY unauthorised copies even for private use anywhere" on a website (I don't even think that copying something for private archives is explicitly disallowed, as most film and music related Copyright suits are also about the distribution of copied materials rather than the copying itself, but that's another story). I don't see any particular reason to follow a trend simply because "it's trendy".

"Version simplifiée et plus moderne" is just "Version simplifiée", C'est simplifiée pour les simplification (It's simplified for the sake of simplification). If multiple versions of the same image exist then it could simply be added as an optional thing unless there's widespread consensus that it should be changed.

I've seen what simplification does to Wikimedia websites and the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's "Desktop mode" is nearly un-useable because of it, all for the sake of "modernisation" (simplification).

For mobile devices an argument could be made that the simplified "more modern" logo is better.

But let's objectively compare these two (2) images, they're both just paintings with a brush on it, the main argument for simplifying logos like these is that they are easier to see on small screen devices (see the attached image above / to the right), but I'm not sure if that's a good argument either. One could make the argument for consistency as logos have consistently been Simplified (page protections, OTRS / VRT logo, among others), but I'm not sure if that would be a good argument either. Perhaps this should be proposed at the talk page of the Graphic Lab to see if there's consensus for it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interestingly enough the mobile version of this template doesn't display any image at all, so this "more modern version" (read: mobile-friendly version) is basically only useful for people on a mobile device in "Desktop mode". I genuinely don't see the added benefit here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

How to download audio files from the Library of Historical Audio Recordings at i78s

The website i78s.org is a treasure trove of tens of thousands of digitized 78rpm discs from 1892 to 1939, all from David Giovannoni's amazing private collection (which consists mostly of early American pop music). Thanks to the Classics Protection and Access Act, all of those recordings published before 1923 are public domain. Unfortunately, however, the i78s website does not offer any way to download audio tracks; it only lets you listen to them via the website's embedded player. After some digging into the website's Javascript, I was able to figure out how to extract the mp3 files:

1. Find a track you are interested in and load its "blue card" which shows the discographic information.
2. Get the record ID. Hover your mouse over the email icon under the close box. In Chrome this should show you the URL in the bottom corner of the browser window, something like mailto:feedback@i78s.org?subject=i78s Feedback ID %2315214. You can also just click the email icon, which will open your email program and start a new email with a subject like i78s Feedback ID #15214. The record ID in either of these cases is 15214 (the %23 in the URL is a URL-encoded hash mark, not part of the record ID).
3. Load https://i78s.org/api/audio?recordId=XXXXX, replacing the XXXXX with the record ID. This will either load the mp3 directly in your browser or start downloading it.

Note that only autopatrollers and higher level users can upload mp3 files to Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Fæ, Yann, Illegitimate Barrister, and Mysterymanblue: Pinging some folks who might be interested in this. Nosferattus (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Also note that the {{PD-US-record-expired}} template is the licensing tag you would want to use for these. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Thanks for the information. I only get a register form, and I can't manage to register. :( Yann (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Can anyone find more info on what looks like "Sig. Greene"

At File:Max Samuel Grifenhagen.jpg the artist looks like "Sig. Greene", can anyone find more on him so he can have a Wikidata entry? --RAN (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Sid? https://www.loc.gov/search/?fa=contributor:greene,+sid Glrx (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  "the editorial cartoonist Sidney Joseph Greene (1881?-1932), who drew for the New York Evening Telegram and The Evening Post in the 1920s." from https://www.lambiek.net/artists/g/greene_sid.htm

  File:Step by step greene.jpg Glrx (talk) 02:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

  Category:Sidney Joseph Greene and Wikidata item created. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:52, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

• Excellent! Great detective work. --RAN (talk) 12:06, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Object location

Since more than a year, I have entered object locations in this way {{object location|nn.nnnn|ee.eeee|region:LAND}}. It worked very well, the geographic data were shown in gr°min'sec. Today, everywhere a warning ist shown, "Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 168: attempt to index local 'entity' (a nil value).".--Ulamm (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps because of this change? @Jarekt: as the user who edited that. --Rosenzweig τ 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Facial recognition of holocaust victims

This resource may be useful for identifying people in our pictures of holocaust victims. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

"recent changes" query

Please find my search for an sample query. Regards Conny (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC).

Is re-licensing own work possible?

Is such a change allowed? Veverve (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, also as the user changed the license to less restrictive (cc-by-sa-4.0 -> cc0) there should be no problem with it in any case. --Zache (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Once an item is deliberately released as PD, if it is still within copyright and the author changes their mind, most jurisdictions will uphold attribution, and sometimes protect the author if the work is being used as an attack on them. How would you explain it... if I release my work to the public domain, and you claim it is your work, I can prevent that by demanding attribution. But I cannot prevent its use or demand a fee on sales, because I released it with a contract of free use to the general public. So the reality is, unrestricted commercial attribution and public domain are basically the same thing. Attribution in the license is as much a warning to the end user as a gift to the author. Correct me of course if I'm wrong. And I've read somewhere that some jurisdictions will prevent a work being used to humiliate the author, but I am fuzzy on the details of that. ~ R.T.G 10:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In most of Europe and some other parts of the word, there is the concept of moral rights to a work, separate from the economic rights. In Finland (probably the same in all the EU) you cannot give away your moral rights, and thus a PD release is not legally possible. CC-zero tries to get as close as possible while still valid e.g. in the EU. It explicitly gives away as much as is legally possible using only general language. A PD release is legally invalid in the EU: you are still entitled to your moral rights (attribution, limits on use and on modifications) and can uphold them in court, but whether you lost your economic rights by the the invalid release is up to the court, and what they decide may vary by jurisdiction. –LPfi (talk) 13:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Name mountain river in the Tatra mountains

This river starts high in the mountains and passes the village Stará Lesná on the way to join the Podrad river. I walked downriver until I could take the train back at Tatranská Lesná station. There are other images numbered from 2 to 6.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Second question: I noticed in 2014 a lot of dead trees in the area (File:Tatra forest dying trees 2014 1.jpg). What happened?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Sorry, Google Maps doesn't know.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

If I read the OSM correctly, this is the Studený potok.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: toen ik langskwam zag ik je opmerking en breidde de beschrijving bij de afbeelding uit. Mocht ik fout zitten, dan hoor ik het graag. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

In the 1980s (?) there were many areas with dead trees because of acid rain. I have seen similar caused by insects. I don't know the Tatra area, so I cannot say what the reason is here. –LPfi (talk) 14:01, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Category moves

There seem to be many unanswered requests on page User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. Has the robot fallen asleep? --Schlosser67 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Schlosser67: FWIW, That's a talk page, so I don't think a bot is running on these. It's up to some admin to move these to User:CommonsDelinker/commands so the bot will act on them. Looks like a backlog has accumulated. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I've approved a few dozen. Let's see what happens. - Jmabel ! talk 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Looks like those went fine. So it's just a matter of admin backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into the matter! The "robot fallen asleep" was meant tongue-in-cheek, of course. Let's see what happens. --Schlosser67 (talk) 11:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Liberia, Africa 2013

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):

• File:Liberia, Africa 2013 - panoramio (7).jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Liberia, Africa 2013. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the same photographer, jbdodane/blk24ga, uploaded thousands of photos under a CC-BY license to Panoramio and then switched to selling them commercially on Alamy. There could be more takedown notices yet to come related to this photographer. Nosferattus (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: so do you you think the photog uploaded in the past with a free license and is trying to walk back the legitimately granted license rather than that some Panoramio user was grabbing these illegitimately? If so, this might be worth someone pursuing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: The photos at Alamy have detailed descriptions (regarding non-obvious information) that are not present on Panoramio, so I don't think it was someone just trying to resell someone else's photos from Panoramio. Here are the two photosets if you want to investigate further: https://web.archive.org/web/20161029043147/http://www.panoramio.com/user/6465408?with_photo_id=97582260 https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/?pseudoid=%7b37481651-1769-4C51-9FBB-3FC90C779570%7d&name=jbdodane. Nosferattus (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Oh, I'm sure it wasn't someone just trying to resell someone else's photos from Panoramio. My suspected scenario is that he put them up, free-licensed, on Panoramio. We legitimately republished those free-licensed photos. Then he changed his mind, put the pictures on Alamy, and no longer offered the free license. But you can't take back an irrevocable license. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems we have a problem with at least some of these images. See Carl's comment on COM:DMCA#Liberia, Africa 2013 and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Kenedja Hotel - panoramio.jpg. Yann (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

See Category:Files from blk24ga Panoramio stream. BTW we have a technical issue somewhere: 593 results while only 400 files (and only 35 files). Yann (talk) 15:18, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

FTR: There's also Category:Images from blk24ga Flickrstream. Seems to be a mis-named duplicate of the Panoramio category: there's partial overlap and I did not encounter any images actually coming from Flickr. El Grafo (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and I can't remove this category with VFC. Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Cat-A-Lot also skips and complains that "the old category could not be found", even though it is clearly there in the wikitext - not hidden in a template or something. HotCat has no issues removing it. No problem with Cat-A-Lot and other categories on the same image [11], so it must have to do with either this category in particular (bug?) or flickr stream categories in general (undocumented feature to prevent abuse?). El Grafo (talk) 16:44, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Locations in Slovakia

• 
• 

Very similar church to: File:Vaľkovňa, kostol.jpg

• 
• 

The chronological sequence can be found in Category:Smiley Toerist Slovakia 1993 trip. These places cannot be far appart as we moved mostly be foot. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Hm, that's not as easy I thought it would be. The photo 51 is Červená Skala railway station for sure and 62 is Vaľkovna. So I assume, that the church should be located somewhere in between (or nearby). But it doesn't ressemble any of churches: Telgárt, Šumiac, Červená Skala ([12]), Vaľkovna, Pohorelská Maša ([13]), Pohorelá. The church would be located at the side of some of 1st class roads (due to road markings), in the area being Road I/66 or I/67 (if we extend the searching area). Regards — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I must clarify: The pictures 49 to 51, was a restday, where I did do some local rail travel, without the group. The group travelled by train from Vaľkovňa station to Pohorelá. This was not the original plan, but it was raining and with the train one could do some distance. After the train we had to climb up the mountains. Both the church and the farm are before the train trip.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: OK, so then it's church in Stratená. :-) — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Tatra mountain ranges

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

My trip was outside the very visited high Tatras (north of Poprad), but the less wel known 'Nizke Tatry' range (see map: [14]). I suspect this is under another name in Category:Mountain ranges of Slovakia. When I research the mountain top Category:Ďumbier, it is classified by 'Lower Tatras'. At 2043 meters it is stil a high mountain. (The highest in Slovakia is 2655 meter)

Problem solved: translate Slovak to English: Nizke ->> Low.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:52, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Does any one know the spectacular hike route along the ridges?Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)