Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/08

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

Files of "Rinpung Dzong"

Several files uploaded by Goyaldevender named and described as being images of "Rinpung Dzong" in Paro, Bhutan are not images of Rinpung Dzong (also known as Paro Dzong). They appear to be images of some Tibetan monastery (maybe located in Sikkim or Nepal), not of any monastery of in Bhutan. These files should be properly identified, renamed and then their descriptions and category updated. (These all look a bit like photos of Rumteck monastery in Sikkim ~ though I am not certain as I know there are several Tibetan monasteries which have been built based on the design of Rumteck).

These were all in Category:Dzongs of Bhutan, I've moved them to Category:Unidentified Tibetan monasteries for now
Christopher Fynn (talk)) 08:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's Category:Ranka Monastery, indeed in Sikkim as you suspected. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
I've now done the relevant moves, and changed the category & description. There might be more work to do here (including possibly getting rid of the redirects); I leave that to someone else to follow up. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
Redirects deleted. Yann (talk) 18:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Babar Azam.png

I wonder if anyone could delete the reverted revision upload of this image which was uploaded by User:Usmanj... Because it is a clear copyio (i.e. cropped and inverted version of similar image available at this source) and it also violated COM:OW.Wallu2 (talk) 06:19, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Did you not mean File:Babar Azam in 2020.png and User:Greatusmanj instead? --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:29, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Are hidden categories for "uploaded by x" allowed?

I would like to put all the images I upload in such a hidden category. That way I can actually use them in the search and cross reference them with certain maintenance categories like the duplicate ones and such — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibaultmol (talk • contribs) 06:43, 3 August 2022‎ (UTC)

@Thibaultmol: Hi, and welcome. Yes, they are allowed per COM:USER#Categories. See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:52, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
To clarify: this about images I uploaded. Not that I took. So imports from Flickr for example of other people would also be included in this category thibaultmol (talk) 10:59, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Thibaultmol: Those are allowed as well. The examples on COM:USER are all categories by authorship, but the guildelines allow for other (objective) criteria. There are plenty of existing examples at Special:PrefixIndex/Category:Uploaded by. --bjh21 (talk) 11:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
@Thibaultmol: See also Category:Files uploaded by User:Jeff G. as an example.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Commons app date bug fixed in v4.0.2

Hi all,

Following the reports of erroneous dates being found on uploads via the Commons app, we believe we have found the source of the bug and fixed it. The app version with the bugfix, v4.0.2, should be available for open beta testing on the Play Store later today. As this fix has only been tested by a few volunteers so far, we would appreciate your help in notifying us if any errors slip through the cracks. So if you see an image with a wrong date that was uploaded with the Commons Android app v4.0.2 or newer, please ping me or create an issue on our GitHub issue tracker so that we can look into it.

If no major issues are found with this release, we hope to push it to production next week. Thanks for your patience!

Best, Misaochan (talk) 09:23, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Review of File:Droupadi Murmu official portrait, 2022.jpg

Droupadi Murmu

I have recently uploaded a file File:Droupadi Murmu official portrait, 2022.jpg. Kindly see to it that it is reviewed and also be used in all projects named Category:Droupadi Murmu (President of India). If any defects, please ping me while replying. --TTP1233 (talk) 09:08, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Jeff G. for reply if possible, others are also welcome for reply. TTP1233 (talk) 09:09, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@TTP1233 and Yann: What about "Copyright © 2022 The Rashtrapati Bhavan." at the bottom of https://presidentofindia.nic.in/?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:04, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G. sir, Although this source is came from the website of "The President of India" per presidentofindia.nic.in, it is mantained by the President's Secretariat. Even they have their separate website, but still it is maintained by President's Secretariat. TTP1233 (talk) 10:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
I asked people from CIS-A2K to get confirmation from lawyers about the extent of the GODL, but I never got the information. So I really don't know. Yann (talk) 11:38, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, I will wait then.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:03, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

File:Christopher-Rufo-profile-pic.jpg

I'm hoping one of you will check to see if this is all legit; the user is pretty obviously a COI editor of some kind on en-wiki. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

@Drmies: It looks like a fairly clear copyright violation to me, so I've tagged it as such. Thank you! --bjh21 (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

William Shakespeare creator template

William Shakespeare  (1564–1616)  wikidata:Q692 s:en:Author:William Shakespeare (1564-1616) q:en:William Shakespeare
 
William Shakespeare
Description English playwright
Date of birth/death April 1564 Edit this at Wikidata 23 April 1616 (in Julian calendar) Edit this at Wikidata
Location of birth/death Stratford-upon-Avon Stratford-upon-Avon
Authority file
creator QS:P170,Q692

In the default collapsed version template the birth year doesn't show because of the way it is qualified at Wikidata. Any suggestions to get it to show, should we create an entry with just the year and make that the preferred rank, just to get it in the default collapsed version of the template. RAN (talk) 21:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The source https://www.britannica.com/biography/William-Shakespeare says 26 April 1564 is the date of baptism. Change the property date of birth (P569) to date of baptism (P1636). Glrx (talk) 21:58, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
Appears now to be fixed. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

"Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes" is missing section edit links

Page Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes is suddenly missing section edit links. Anybody knows how to restore them? Jarekt (talk) 02:49, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I fixed it by changinbg {{Talkarchive}} to {{Talkarchive|edit_section=yes}}. HenkvD (talk) 11:08, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
HenkvD Thank you --Jarekt (talk) 21:19, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone,

We would like to extend an invitation to Wikimedia Commons community members to attend two sound-related events at this year’s Wikimania, the Festival Edition. The first is an interactive sound logo production masterclass with sound logo experts on Thursday, August 11 from 13:10-14:00 UTC. The second is the Wikimedia sound logo roundtable on Sunday, August 14 from 10:30-11:20 UTC. This will be a forum to discuss the Wikimedia sound logo and find opportunities to collaborate ahead of the global contest launch.

Please check the Wikimania 2022 wiki for the most up to date program.

We hope to see you there!

On behalf of the sound logo team and the community liaisons, Jon Kolbert (talk) 20:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

KRAKESANDT ship

https://www.vesselfinder.com/nl/vessels/KRAKESANDT-IMO-9823807-MMSI-244849000 Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:46, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

More information such as building year is needed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I have other ships wich still has to be classified: File:Vlissingen scheepvaart 2022 4.jpg and File:Vlissingen scheepvaart 2022 7.jpg. I am going to sleep and I dont have time tomorrow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:14, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
File:Vlissingen scheepvaart 2022 10.jpg The construction above the bridge i cant place.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is Mozart (2000). You may want to use https://www.shipspotting.com/ too. Its search function can be added to your browser's search engines which makes it very handy. De728631 (talk) 14:48, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
PS: It seems you meant that weird-looking mast rather. I think we don't have a special category for this type of mast nor do we need one. It appears to just be the shipbuilder's idea of providing ample space for future installation of antennae, lights and other devices. De728631 (talk) 14:52, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Bot migration of all images in a category

Can I use this trick at Category:Charles Walinger to get a bot to migrate all the images to the new category? We have some categories with up to a hundred images that need to be migrated to the photographs_by category. Google Images gets confused and returns images of other people when you search for an image of the photographer, unless there is an image in the infobox. RAN (talk) 17:57, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

There are probably bots, but Cat-a-lot can be used manually to add, remove, or recategorize large quantities of files or subcategories. It would take just a few seconds to move a few hundred files from one category to another. Categories with thousands of files gets a bit more tedious, and a bot or advanced script might be useful there. --Animalparty (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Also easily done with VFC . - Jmabel ! talk 20:49, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

Type Error

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T314964

What is this? Since the latest software update, I'm seeing this ugly message every time when clicking on pages of Commons + Commons talk namespace, on some user talk pages including my own. Any chance to have it removed again? Regards --A.Savin 10:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: I haven't seen it. I normally use the Monobook skin. I can see your userpage just fine. I even tried it incognito and with "?useskin=monobook", no errors.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I use Monobook too, user pages are fine. Problem only for "Commons:...", "Commons talk:...", parts of "User talk:..." --A.Savin 11:37, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin User talk fine too, I posted a test for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:50, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
And Commons:Village pump/Technical#JS error. — Tulsi 24x7 06:26, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

New version of file won't show up

Hey there good people. I've uploaded some time ago this picture here : [1]. Yesterday, I decided to upload a better, clearer version and succeeded in doing so, but when I click on the picture to look at it, it only shows the older file I've uploaded some time ago. What's up with that? I'd really appreciate if someone could correct this for me, and it is pretty much a minor thing to adjust. That's it, much obliged and many thanks! Merry editing :) --Witcher of Izalith (talk) 17:15, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

@Witcher of Izalith: I do get the new 1 MP version. Perhaps a caching issue? Have you tried clearing your browser's data? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:37, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: Hey you're right! I went there on a private window and it indeed showed me the new file I've uploaded. Thanks a lot for that! I have no idea, however, how to clear my browser's data (firefox) to make it up to date and correct this little bug.--Witcher of Izalith (talk) 17:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
@Witcher of Izalith: Please see COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
  • Under heavy server load, it can take several minutes to generate the thumbnail that you see in the upload box, so even purging may not have the new version display right away. This is especially true when a bot is uploading a big batch from an archive. You need a combo of patience and purging the cache. --RAN (talk) 21:49, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Naval History and Heritage Command - NARA Series

[2][3][4][5] interesting photos in PD 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 02:49, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Photo challenge June results

Dance: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Dance classically
with strobo flesh		 Dance and joy Dance disco with
strobo flesh
Author Mölchlein Annatsach Mölchlein
Score 14 13 11
Air transport: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 2
image
Title Antalya Airport, Turkey Split-flap display and airport check-in
in Terminal 1 of Frankfurt Main Airport		 Operzioni di pulizia pista sotto
l'Antonov 225 Myra a MXP
Author Roy Egloff F. Riedelio 66colpi
Score 11 9 9

Congratulations to Annatsach, Mölchlein, Roy Egloff, F. Riedelio and 66colpi. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

How do you prove an image is anonymous and has no source on the internet?

Historical images are often nominated for deletion because they are marked "source=own work" and the uploader is listed as the creator. Commons:Project scope/Evidence requires that we provide a url if we download an image from the internet, but many images stored at Commons from the past are marked "own work" presumably because someone has scanned or rephotographed an existing image. What is required beyond the due diligence of a reverse image search against the billion images online, and doing a standard Google Image Search based on the name of a person, place or thing, to show that no author has been named, and the image is anonymous; and that there is no source online and the image was a scan or a photograph of an existing image. Epistemology doesn't allow the absolute proof of absence, so how much must be done to declare an image anonymous, to avoid deletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 09:29, 1 August 2022‎ (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I have nominated several scans or photographs-of-photographs for deletion with the rationale "COM:Derivative work: original source and photographer unknown", especially if they look decades old. Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle is also applicable if there are doubts about the copyright status. MKFI (talk) 11:22, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
If an image is really very old and cannot be found in the internet after a reasonable search, I think we can treat it as anonymous. Ruslik (talk) 11:24, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
We also have {{subst:Dw no source since}} for this.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)
{{Scan}}, {{Self-scanned}}, or {{Photo scan}} are options where the scanner is not the uploader, and do not imply "own work". Ideally these templates would be accompanied by text describing where in the real world the scan came from (a book/magazine, a library, a museum, an archive, etc.). --Animalparty (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
Here are really three different questions. If you are going to upload a work, whether there are copies on the net is irrelevant, as long as you state your source and it is older than those internet sources. Whether the work is anonymous often is relevant, and if you source doesn't attribute the author, detective work is needed, although not necessarily enough.
If you are an admin, then you may have to resort to the PRP if you think the work could still be under copyright and you don't find evidence to the contrary.
If you are a user who wants to save the file from being deleted, then finding information about the work and stating any information clearly at the file description page is more or less the only way. A {{other date|probably|< 1860}} would make an admin at least think twice before deleting the file as recent work under copyright. Replacing "own work" with "probably anonymous" (do we have a template for that?) would also help. Unfortunately, just removing the "own work" may have it deleted through the {{No source since}}, as some admins think 1700th century works have to be deleted unless we find the source.
–LPfi (talk) 07:33, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think you have it backwards. If you didn't made the image, you don't need to prove that it can't be found on the Internet, you have to prove that it is in the public domain, and details change by country but usually to prove that you need to prove that the photographer died more than 70 years ago. And please don't mix "anonymous" with "I don't know the author".

And all images are a source because you found it somewhere. The source may be scanned from a book (please cite the book), picture hanging on a museum (please specify museum), property of a descendant of the subject, bought on a flea market, family archive or so, but usually photographs don't pop out of thin air.--Pere prlpz (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Citing a book is not always relevant, if it is the scan of an old postcard. Better of course to have the original postcard. Old postcards (70+) can in practice often be classified as anonymous, under the following conditions:
  • No phofograf identification. (or other information that can identify the photografer, do as much research as posible)
  • Not from a local postcard editor, who likely takes his own photografs. Big postcard editors use pictures on a industrial scale and buy the rigths or the pictures are taken by employees. (example Category:Postcards published by Nels/Thill The same rules apply as by newspapers (collective work): Unless the article is signed, it becomes PD after 70 years.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:30, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
Still, if you scanned the postcard from a book, that book is your source and should be stated, if possible. It is of course good to tell that the image is a postcard and give as much info as possible on the original. And if the postcard was made from a painting, that painting should ideally be identified, with author, creation and publication year etc. However, it might be that your book has another postcard, which looks similar. Not stating the actual source can cause much confusion. –LPfi (talk) 14:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing

What template should I use to mark that the file is unsourced not in the Commons' sense but in the Wikipedia's sense? For example, I want to mark this file. 217.117.125.83 08:27, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@Getsnoopy: Where did you get the data for File:Access to Electricity.svg?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: If the OP haven't uploaded the file, they are probably unable to provide the source. This is a common problem on Commons, and they are asking for the template to use for marking the file. The best I know for the purpose is {{Fact disputed}}. "Data source not given" can be used as first parameter. I don't know how the Commons community sees this.
The file linked is marked to be updated regularly, so any source used in the past might not be the source of later edits, which is a problem. I don't know how we handle it. However, the SVG source code states "according to World Bank estimates", which isn't ideal, but I assume the World Bank doesn't have competing statistics on this, so you can check whether individual countries are up to date. I added that info to the file description.
–LPfi (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Uploading the law texts of Indonesia

Hello, everyone. I have plans of uploading the law texts of Indonesia, and I just uploaded some of it (~60), but I've got some questions before I continue.

  1. Is it really fine for me to upload all of these? Obviously this is fine because these are public domain, and then I use this website from the House of Representative, based on the links of the associated Wikisource page, but looking at the scale that I need to upload ~1200 files for all the Undang-Undang, I would need assurance if it is fine.
  2. Should the file names be changed to English (e.g. "Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 39 of 1999", based on this official translation from the related ministry), or is it fine to keep it in Indonesian (e.g. "Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 39 Tahun 1999", based on this official text from the same ministry?
  3. Is the category of "Law of the Republic of Indonesia of 1999" fine for the years? I have made the category of "Law of the Republic of Indonesia", but with that scale I would need to separate to years, if that's fine for WC.
  4. Would I need to request a bot (flag) for it? url2commons is fine, but I need to a plenty of bodge because it is quite limited on other fields (e.g. Date). Also, my plan is to also add the associated structured data and other related data, and I think that's too much for url2commons.
  5. As I said, I have uploaded some of it. Here's one example. Apart from the naming and the category, is this right enough? Am I missing something to add, such as categories or such. Am I doing some things wrong? I learned from lots of files on the Commons, but I'm afraid to miss something important here.

That's all my question at this moment, I think. I hope you guys can assist me with this. Hans5958 (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I can answer one part of this: there is no requirement that filenames be in English, Indonesian is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Part of my reason is that enwp says that should be spelt "Act" and not "Law". I wanted to avoid that confusion, so it's good that Indonesian is acceptable. Thanks! Hans5958 (talk) 03:15, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hans5958:
1) There is no limit to the number of files you are allowed to upload. So long as you verify that the material is public domain and is indicated appropriately, then you are good to go.
2) As Jmabel said, an Indonesian title is perfectly fine. If you wanted to add an English translation of the description field alongside the Indonesian description, that would be a bonus, but is not at all required.
3) Yes, breaking them down into "of year" categories is great. In fact, since all of these are documents by design, I would suggest just having Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia be a subcategory of Category:Documents of Indonesia rather than including the latter on individual files. Does that seem reasonable?
4) If you are manually checking and uploading each file, you don't have to have a bot. Given the scale though, if you think it would save you some time, you could certainly apply to create a bot account to handle the load, at Commons:Bots/Requests. A bot flag is not strictly necessary.
5) I see nothing wrong on that example file. I can't think of any additional categories to add. Category:Law of Indonesia is already in Category:Indonesian text, which takes care of the language demarkation; your "of year" categories take care of the dating. The What, Where, When aspects are handled. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:08, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
1) Ah, okay. I learned that it is appropriate to use {{PD-IDNoCopyright}} for them, but it's good that I'm sure that I could add them.
2) I see. I added the English description since it is easy to infer using the pattern, but good to know that it is optional. I also have responded to Jmabel's message, if you are interested to read that.
3) I get that the hierarchy is Laws... of 1999, then Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia, and then Category:Law of Indonesia, but I'm not sure what you meant of putting Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia to be under Category:Documents of Indonesia. I thought it's enough to be put on Category:Law of Indonesia, isn't it?
4) Ah, so it is fine to use bots without the flag WITH the given permission on Commons:Bots/Requests? That's a little different on WP. I think I'll build up my bot script first, then ask for permission later.
5) That's really nice. Thanks for the review.
Hans5958 (talk) 03:34, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Huntster I forgot to ping you on this one. I'm not sure if that's even necessary. Hans5958 (talk) 03:37, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Regarding 3), some of the individual documents have been placed in Category:Documents of Indonesia. Since all contents of Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia should be documents, I was suggesting placing the Law category in Documents of Indonesia rather than the individual legal documents. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:14, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
@Huntster: Yeah, correct. So Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia would be under Category:Documents of Indonesia and Category:Law of Indonesia, right? Hans5958 (talk) 07:00, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hans5958, exactly. If you don't see an issue with that, I can take care of the transfers. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:26, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
I think I can manage it myself, I just wanted to get it right. Thanks for the clarification! Hans5958 (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
I like to separate the license with == {{int:license-header}} ==, i.e. [6]. Thanks, Yann (talk) 19:14, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
The license part are something that I confused of. One say to put it inside the description, and the other say to put it in its own section. I put it inside, but I will try to put it outside next time. Thanks for the advice. Hans5958 (talk) 03:35, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hans5958, it's ultimately up to personal choice whether you put the template in the description or in its own section, but it's true that it is most common to see them in their own section as Yann illustrates. I'm not aware of any particular method being proscribed here, though. — Huntster (t @ c) 04:20, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Another question: Would categorizations such as Category:PDF files and Category: 2020 in Indonesia be needed on each of the file? Hans5958 (talk) 07:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Hans5958, Category:PDF files is unnecessary as Category:Law of Indonesia is already in Category:PDF files in Indonesian. And it would be more appropriate to just put the "of year" categories like Category:Law of the Republic of Indonesia of 2018 directly in Category:2018 in Indonesia and similar categories. What could be done for the individual files is put them in date categories like Category:2018-09-10 if the publication date is apparent. — Huntster (t @ c) 19:16, 11 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah, that's a better idea. There's the publishing date (diundangkan) which I can (and should) use, apart of the validation date (disahkan) (see example). Thanks for the advice! Hans5958 (talk) 02:03, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
Why is Category:Law of Indonesia in Category:PDF files in Indonesian? I think a law read aloud would belong in the former but not the latter. What about translations, law book images, law making sessions, conflicts related to Indonesian law etc. I find it pretty strange that e.g. Category:Human rights in Indonesia‎ is a (sub)subcategory of Category:PDF files in Indonesian. I know categories deteriorate when going down (up?) the tree, but his fast? Category:Law of Finland isn't under Category:PDF files in Finnish (and shouldn't be), instead JPGs and DJVUs of law text is under that category (a subcategory could be made). –LPfi (talk) 15:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)
This is also something in the back of my mind, because there are even DJVU files on it. I hope this is just something that is overlooked. Hans5958 (talk) 05:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Marienburg Castle, Germany

In the description of Marienburg Castle, Germany, the Picture of the Day for 12 August, 2022 in the US, the description says the picture was taken from the southeast, while light and shadow say it had to have been taken from the southwest. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:6C40:6A7F:E889:E9C5:4C98:3989:FE02 (talk) 21:10, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Looking at how the different parts of the building align, compared to aerial images at coordinates 52.1722°N, 9.7669°E, the original southeast description seems correct. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Giving photos to a library = transferring copyright?

According to COM:New Zealand, it looks like the works of w:Clifton Firth (1904-1980) are still under copyright (life + 50). However, he gave photos to Auckland Libraries in 1974. Who owns the copyright of these photos: his estate or the Libraries? Joofjoof (talk) 00:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

  • @Joofjoof: Typically the transfer of physical objects does not transfer associated intellectual property rights, but you could contact Auckland Libraries, who would presumably tell you whether they own the copyrights or someone else does (probably not the estate itself at this point, but there may have been an heir to those rights). - Jmabel ! talk 03:15, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

COPYVIOL Christine Taylor

Special:Contributions/Chasikinz of en:Christine Taylor is rephotograph from June 22, 2005 not 28 July 2022. See: Christine Taylor at WICKED Opening Night Hosted by Universal Pictures, Pantages Theatre, Los Angeles, CA, June 22, 2005 https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/Christine-Taylor-Wicked https://www.ibdb.com/touring-theatre/pantages-theatre--los-angeles-631 .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 01:11, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Good pictures button broken again

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T315466

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Nine-pin_bowling and other categories has "Good pictures" button. Sadly it does not work at all, just shows "Connecting..."

Browser console network inspector shows that it gives "Firefox can’t establish a connection to the server at wss://fastcci1.wmflabs.org/?c1=6856951&d1=15&s=200&a=fqv."

I tried using petscan but it also failed ( https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Help_desk#How_can_I_easily_see_featured/quality_images_in_a_given_category? ).

At this point I am tempted to write script that would recurse down category, fetch every image and check is it quality image. Yes, it will take a lot of time to process but maybe it will actually work.

Is there maybe such script already existing? Or some actually working took?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: Please see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-fastcci.js and Help talk:FastCCI. The maintainer is Dschwen.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:48, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, wrote at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help_talk:FastCCI#Reason_it's_always_down? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I must say that writing script that fetches lists of all premium content such as FI, QI, VI and then fetches entire category tree and compares for matches, while storing all query results in caches is really easy and nice to write. It took less time that trying to report bugs in PETSCAN/CATSCAN/Gadget-fastcci/etc (though it is solving much smaller problem, as I am fine with extremely slow responses, single user, not exposing it via web and with far worse interface) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Open Call to Join the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Regional Funding Committee

The Wikimedia Foundation’s Community Resources team and the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) Committee invite you to apply to become a committee member in the Northern and Western Europe (NWE) region. The NWE Committee supports the Wikimedia Foundation Funds programs' participatory grantmaking practice. The deadline for applying is September 4, 2022.

The NWE Committee reviews grant proposals from affiliates and other community members within the Northern and Western Europe region who are seeking grant funding from the Wikimedia Foundation. Committee responsibilities include: providing thought partnership to help support applicants and strengthen their strategy and proposals; evaluating and recommending promising proposals for funding; and helping recruit and spread the word about grants. Orientation and training is provided for new members.

Serving committee members will have the opportunity to advise on funding decisions and proactively share recommendations and mentorship to support grantees in the Northern and Western Europe region in their development, growth, and sustainability strategies; that contribute to a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. You will also strengthen your capacity in participatory decision-making processes while learning about our community's incredible work and the different contexts that influence their work.

Deadline for submitting committee candidacy:

  • September 4, 2022

Please reach out to nwe_fund @ wikimedia  · org for questions about the NWE Committee.

Warm regards,

On behalf of the NWE Regional Funding Committee. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Delay of the 2022 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election

Hi all,

I am reaching out to you today with an update about the timing of the voting for the Board of Trustees election.

As many of you are already aware, this year we are offering an Election Compass to help voters identify the alignment of candidates on some key topics. Several candidates requested an extension of the character limitation on their responses expanding on their positions, and the Elections Committee felt their reasoning was consistent with the goals of a fair and equitable election process.

To ensure that the longer statements can be translated in time for the election, the Elections Committee and Board Selection Task Force decided to delay the opening of the Board of Trustees election by one week - a time proposed as ideal by staff working to support the election.

Although it is not expected that everyone will want to use the Election Compass to inform their voting decision, the Elections Committee felt it was more appropriate to open the voting period with essential translations for community members across languages to use if they wish to make this important decision.

The voting will open on August 23 at 00:00 UTC and close on September 6 at 23:59 UTC.

Best regards,

On behalf of the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:14, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

Recategorizing multiple categories (batch tool)

Hi, I'm trying to recategorize hundreds of categories in Category:People of Indonesia to Category:People of Indonesia by name. Is there any tool to do that? I'm currently using Cat-a-lot and VisualFileChange (perform batch task), but they're for categorizing files, not categories. Can someone either point me to the right tool, or the right place to ask for help doing it (some kind of automated tool)? Thanks. Bennylin (yes?) 11:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

@Bennylin Not sure if you're already aware of this, but Cat-a-lot works for categories too. Just click on or near the name of a category to select it in the same way you would for a media file. El Grafo (talk) 12:41, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@El Grafo I tried, it doesn't work on categories when I tried. It worked on files. Do I have to change some settings or something? Bennylin (yes?) 12:49, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
@Bennylin It's been a while since I last used it, but there's a setting "Allow categorising pages (including categories) that are not files" in the Cat-a-lot preferences that probably needs to be activated for this. El Grafo (talk) 12:56, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
I found it! Thanks and apology for not reading the doc clearly. Bennylin (yes?) 13:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"suppress-redirect" right?

Hi, I'm a contributor in good standing since 2006 with more than 3,000 edits on Commons. I have the file mover right, and mostly use it to correct/change ambiguous file names to unambiguous ones. Each time I do that, the edit leaves a redirect behind, and I'm unable to click the option away in the tick box.

Is there such a right as "suppress-redirect", which I've seen mentioned in some discussions here, and if so, trusted file-movers should be given that right. The way it is now, it adds to the workload both of the file-movers, but mostly of the administrators, who have to spend time and energy to delete what I assume are numerous unnecessary redirects. Asav | Talk 10:09, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Asav, per Special:ListGroupRights, file movers already have the suppressredirect right. --Ratekreel (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Asav That's because in almost all cases, files should NOT be moved without leaving a redirect. We don't know who is using "our" files elsewhere on the web and deleting redirects for moved files breaks attributions and creates w:Link rot. When in doubt, leave a redirect. El Grafo (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
There are cases when it's prudent no to leave redirects behind, such as newly created files and ones with obvious misspellings. It's not Wikimedia Commons' duty to see to links in any and all websites on the globe
Anyway, what's the point with a tick box if it has no function?
Thirdly, what does the suppressredirect right do if it doesn't allow the user to suppress redirects? Asav | Talk 17:06, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
I agree with @El Grafo here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:47, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
"When in doubt, leave a redirect" is a part of Commons:File renaming#Leaving redirects, a Commons official guideline. Further, Asav, "reckless breaking of file links via the suppressredirect user right is considered an abuse of the file mover right and is grounds for immediate revocation of that right." Please stop doing so immediately.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:29, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
  • If I remember correctly the redirect box is greyed out if the image is in use somewhere in the WikiUniverse, it needs the redirect for the the next step, to swap out the old name for new name in each project. Downstream users can always find the image at Commons using a reverse image search. We should always delete redirect names that have misidentifications and incorrect dates, the next person to come across the bad identification or date may think the old one has correct information. --RAN (talk) 17:57, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
Suppressing redirects breaks links, also in the case of misspellings. If the old name is old, we should assume it is in use, and serving external sites is one of our missions. How is a reverse image search supposed to work for an image you just linked to? With misidentified files you may want to break existing links, on the assumption that uses are about the subject told, not the subject shown, but that isn't relevant for all errors in the name (if the error is trivial, no one might use the file in the nominal sense). And nobody will come across a redirect and think the old name has the correct information – it is just about already existing uses. –LPfi (talk) 08:27, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

First of all, many of these answers are nonsequiturs. I'm not interested to be told how a responsible file mover is supposed to act. I asked two questions:

  • What's the point of the suppressredirect right if it does nothing, and certainly does not give users the right to suppress redirects?
  • What's the point of a tick box that's eternally greyed out?

Furthermore, I always mark renamed/moved file redirects as {{Speedy}} after making sure they're not in use in Wikimedia, and they're always speedily deleted by an administrator. In other words, we're both just using unnecessary volunteer time that could be better spent. Asav | Talk 09:18, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

"many of these answers are nonsequiturs" - not really, they are response to your desire to destroy valid redirects. "correct/change ambiguous file names to unambiguous ones. Each time I do that, the edit leaves a redirect behind" If name was misleading then I see possible value, but destroying redirect from merely ambiguous file name is harmful Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:02, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
"I always mark renamed/moved file redirects as {{Speedy}} after making sure they're not in use in Wikimedia, and they're always speedily deleted by an administrator." - can you give examples? As someone maintaining external linking to Wikimedia Commons I always found such actions to be highly obnoxious and serious waste of time. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:04, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Again, this does nothing to answer the questions or resolve the problem. I have no intention of feeding you any information when you're obviously not going to be helpful. I wish there was someone who could give constructive answers to these questions. Asav | Talk 06:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
The answers have been constructive. Redirects from file renaming are helpful and should almost never be deleted or supressed. What is your problem with redirects? They cost almost nothing. Storage is cheap. It seems you are constructing a problem where there is none.
The box is greyed out when supressing the redirect is not wanted because the file is known to be used. In my opinion it should also be greyed out when the file is not linked in any wikipedia but has been uploaded long time ago.
Unfortunately there are administrators who delete redirects from file renaming. This is a bad thing and I'm afraid it happens because they don't know the rules or did not understand them. Andreas Stiasny (talk) 07:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
I'll simply give up. It's obvious no-one here seems qualified to answer the two very simple questions. Asav | Talk 11:27, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@Asav: Your questions are unanswerable because they are based on false premises. The suppressredirect right does not do nothing, and the tick box is not eternally greyed out. A quick glance through the move log would show you examples of files' being moved without leaving a redirect, such as this one an hour ago. --bjh21 (talk) 12:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

EatchaBot

Hi, It seems there is an issue with EatchaBot. Eatcha didn't edit here since November 2021, and didn't answer to my message. I didn't get MOTD Notification for some of the files I proposed for MOTD after August 10th. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Bot needed

Hi, we need a bot that would remove the long out-of-scope descriptions from Special:ListFiles/SamsonBVB and replace them all by a placeholder, e.g. {{Description missing}}. Maybe also easy with AWB, but I'm not sure. Regards --A.Savin 09:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

@A.Savin: easily done with VFC and regular expressions. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Wrong. It's not easily done with VFC as the texts are different from file to file and there are at least ~200 files to process. I'm also not sure if VFC manages to replace such large data. --A.Savin 18:01, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
Regular expressions can handle that - they just have to be set to detect {{en|...}} and so on, with the internal text as a wildcard. It looks like only their last few hundred uploads have the lengthy text, so VFC should be usable for that. I can help in a few days if no one is able to sooner. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:43, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: if you can let me know what images are involved (e.g. "all upload in Special:ListFiles/SamsonBVB since such-and-such date/time") and exactly what you want changed (e.g. "completely remove current description and replace it with {{Description missing}}) I can easily do this with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Detecting {{en|...}} is not sufficient, because there are multiple languages. It would need to be from |description= to the next arg, which is probably |date=. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:43, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
  • @King of Hearts: Yes. Things like that are why I asked A.Savin just to give a clear description of what they want done, and I'll follow it up. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    @Jmabel, @Pi.1415926535, @King of Hearts, @A.Savin: Documentation of how these tools can use regular expressions and variables to solve such problems would be helpful. If all of these tools can't be used to solve such problems programmatically, perhaps we should consider deleting the files.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:36, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
    Documentation with a few examples and the exact name of the regular expression format used by the tool (Perl?) would of course be nice, but here it is only asked exactly which changes are to be made to which files and there are a number of people who can and want to do this. There may also be a reason to delete the files concerned, but that has nothing to do with any tools. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
This should be done for all their uploads since 31 July, this are somewhere between 350 and 400 files in total. Note however that for a couple of files, the descriptions already have been replaced by more meaningful ones (I did two: this one and this one). Yes, if done automatically, I see no other way as to replace all the text (English, German, and Spanish descriptions) by {{Description missing}}.
I don't know if the files should be deleted instead. In terms of licensing and copyright they seem OK, however of course it's true that this user, after all the xenophob and stupid comments, actually does not deserve to have any of their uploads kept. For sure I wouldn't be sorry to see them all go. Regards --A.Savin 11:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: would you be good with doing this for any description over 500 characters (including the parts for multiple languages, this is a total)? - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, probably fine. --A.Savin 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Trickier than I thought, because VFC goes line by line. I've got a bunch of them done, still working on it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: I think I got them all now. You may want to check: they were just varied enough that there might be some outlier case that I missed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thanks In general this seems fine, though you may wish to check your contribs for changes with "−6,404" and "−6,293"; in those files the French and the Spanish description are not removed. Regards --A.Savin 20:03, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin: OK, I hope I now have the last of them. As far as I can tell, the "−6,404" cases had already been fixed by my second round; I've now done the "−6,293" cases. - Jmabel ! talk 20:38, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes that seems fine now, thank you. Regards --A.Savin 20:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thank you. So what did you learn about how VFC handles that syntax?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:52, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: After some experimenting, I worked out that with so much identical text from page to page, it was easiest & most controllable to just ignore the regex approach and just use the big blocks of text. That was after doing part of it with regexes, but being thrown by the fact that the regexes (at least by default) are within a link. Might have been able to do more by putting newline (\n) explicitly in the regex, but found what I think was an easier approach. - Jmabel ! talk 21:32, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join Movement Strategy Forum

Hello everyone,

The Movement Strategy Forum (MS Forum) is a multilingual collaborative space for all conversations about Movement Strategy implementation. It provides a great opportunity to share your Movement Strategy(MS) work, find collaborators, and get even more support and ideas for your MS projects. We are inviting all Movement participants to collaborate on the MS Forum. The goal of the forum is to build community collaboration using an inclusive multilingual platform.

The Movement Strategy is a collaborative effort to imagine and build the future of the Wikimedia Movement. Anyone can contribute to the Movement Strategy, from a comment to a full-time project.

Join this forum with your Wikimedia account, say hi here and go ahead and join or start a conversation on the recommendation you are most passionate about! Feel free to discuss your MS project ideas and plans or even reports from MS projects you have worked on. To get started, you can also watch this video.

The Movement Strategy and Governance team (MSG) launched the proposal for this MS Forum in May. After a 2-month review period, we have just published the Community Review Report. It includes a summary of the discussions, metrics, and information about the next steps.

We look forward to seeing you at the MS Forum!

Best regards,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Location map or locator map?

Sorry, but I do not understand the difference between location map and locator map. What kind of map is this one? I want to create a new category for a set of maps I’ve receintly finished and I want to make sure I name it correctly. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 12:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you! I finally found the explanation for the technical difference between "Location map" and "Locator map" here. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 17:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Protecting heavily used files

Here the good idea is proposed. Probably, we should implement it. 217.117.125.83 12:58, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't quite understand what are proposing. The points discussed there were implemented in Commons:Protection policy shortly after the discussion took place (i.e. roughly 10 years ago). Are there any heavily used files in particular that you would like to see protected? El Grafo (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Batch removing property

I managed to find with PetScan 52 of my images with wrong coordinates in structured data but good coordinates in description page. I want to delete the coordinates of the point of view (P1259) property from the structured data for these images so that a bot could add it again with the right coordinates. Is there a simple way to automate this task? I tried "Open QS" in PetScan but it doesn't seem to work in Commons.

Just for context: Those images were uploaded with wrong coordinates because of a bug in VicunaUploader. I fixed the coordinates template by requesting a bot with {{GPS EXIF}}, but that was after another bot had already copied the wrong coordinates to structured data.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Many plural category names not matching the policies

Object vs. topic categories

Hello, I think the policies for COM:CAT#Category names should be updated because it is not matching anymore with the common practice on the commons. Or we need a widespread renovation of the commons. Why?

In the section there you can read:

  • (1) Types or groups of objects or people should generally have names in plural form.
  • (2) General themes or activities require a name in singular form.

So there are two types of categories:

  • (1) we can call these maybe "object categories" (from German Wikipedia “Objektkategorien”)
  • (2) we can call those maybe "topic categories" or "theme categories" (from German Wikipedia “Themenkategorien”)

If you look at the examples mentioned for (1) they have plural names, but no one is a real "Types or groups of objects", all are used as "General themes"! That means that in addition to the objects...:

And the examples mentioned for (2) general themes (or "topic categories") showing that there is mostly no differentiation between object categories and topic categories. The general themes for the object categories above would be mostly the singular version! But either they are redirects to the plural name category (Category:Tool, Category:Artist, Category:Sculpture, Category:Pope) or they are disambiguation categories (Category:Lake). Only Category:Painting (and Category:Papacy) are working.

And because there are so few "topic categories" or "theme categories" with correct name in singular form on commons, many wikipedia articles have no connected commons category, "only" a connected gallery page (e.g. w:Lake (→Lake), w:Painting (→Painting), w:Sculpture (→Sculpture), w:Pope (→Papae)). And if there are no gallery pages like for Tool often both the Wikipedia article (e.g. Tool) (topic) and the Wikipedia category (e.g. Tools) (objects) are connected to commons Category:Tools (topic related content but the name of an object category). Or articles like w:Artist connecting to the Category redirects (→Artist).

And so it became common practice on the commons that the most "topic categories" or "theme categories" have incorrect names in plural form instead of names in singular form. And to avoid a small chaos we are putting the object subcategores like (Artists by country, by culture, by date,...) at the beginning of the subcategory lists using sort keys like "*" or "+" or just " " instead of grouping them under Artists and renaming the topic category to Artist.

So what to do???

  • We can start to separate more "topic categories" from "object categories" like it is explained on COM:CAT. So for example having both Category:Tools for the objects which is a subcategory of Category:Tool (with the other related Categories or Files). (A similar discussion about that was under Category:Cube where one result was that it would help to have both a topic Category:Cube and an object Category:Cubes. But it was noted that this whould be confusing because it is not common on the commons yet.)
  • We keep the common practice of theme categories with names in plural form → in this case we had to update the section Category names under COM:CAT.

Regards, --W like wiki good to know 17:26, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I do not really experience issues between policy and practice. Perhaps you should not try to see this from a DE-wiki perspective. After all, we distinguish our own category types, as listed in Commons:Categories#Major categories. Both DE-wiki types you mentioned would be classified as Commons' topical categories. Instead, try to interpret our plural/singular rules as purely grammar-based; read up on en:w:Noun#Countable nouns and mass nouns if you'd like. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
The distinction between object and topic categories seems to be common practice for species: Equus ferus (object) contains Horses (topic).
Maybe this works for species, but it is not an approach I would want to generalize.
I think singular category names are helpful for more abstract topics. Everyone knows that there is not just one Shetland pony in the world (so the category name could just as well be plural).
But not everyone knows that the Petersen graph is one particular graph, while Crown graphs are a family of graphs.
Other example: There are many Pyritohedra (because the concept leaves geometric freedom), but there is the Cubic pyritohedron and the Dodecahedron. --Watchduck (quack) 20:28, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
(The following was an answer to the "Lake-related signs" comment in the section below.)
@W like wiki: Theoretically there is nothing wrong with your idea to have Thing as a wrapper containing Things and Thing related stuff. But in practice people would just get confused, and use the singular and plural categories synonymously. And the amount of work needed would be prohibitive on its own. --Watchduck (quack) 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@Watchduck: I moved your comment here, hope it is ok. So maybe "new" things are confusing in the beginning, but just look at Category:Tools for example: There are 109 subcategories, 19 of them are highlighted with a special sortkey. In the remaining 90 subcategories there are 78(!) categories which could be sorted under a not-yet-existing "object category" for tools. Just try to find the 12 subcategories which are not tools but related topics and hiding between them. For me this is much more confusing! --W like wiki good to know 03:31, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think we generally need separate categories for singular v plural as such a distinction would probably cause more confusion than help unless there is a common distinction such as countable and uncountable meanings of the same topic like horse(s) the animal and horse meat etc but in such case a category like Category:Horse meat v Category:Horses would probably take care of that. Just having a generic/catch all category at Category:Lakes seems more appropriate than having a category for pictures of lakes (which may be in the singular if only 1 lake is in the picture or the plural if more than one) and a category for things like lake-related signs which would probably be too confusing. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:13, 10 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, it would be too confusing. We can be absolutely sure that the distinction between Lake and Lakes would be ignored by most users. Theoretically the idea is not bad, but it could only work with a dedicated namespace. So we could have Object:Lake and Category:Lakes, but only the latter could be added to images. @W like wiki: I deduced from your proposal, that no image would ever belong in an object category. Is that correct?
Anyway, I think this is futile. If we started to introduce taxonomy related namespaces, we would probably end up duplicating the work of Wikidata. (See item Lake and property subclass of.) I think the section about intransitive subcategories is more likely to contain the solution to the problems we are trying to solve.
I agree that it does not seem like a good idea to have different categories for the discrete item (Category:Vehicles) on one hand and the concept of the item (Category:Vehicle) on the other hand. It is true that these can be viewed as distinctly different topics, but I do not believe that for most cases, it is either necessary nor preferable to maintain separate categories for each. Category:Tools is perfectly sufficient for both discrete tools, as well as the concept of a tool. Trying to split it along that line would not help most users get to what they are after, and would introduce a host of confusion and disagreement about what belonged on either side of that new line. I am pretty confident that we would get no improvement out of such a change. So no, I do not support standardizing having both plural and singular categories as 'item' and 'concept' or such going forward. That said, I do not think we can discount that there may be topics where this kind of differentiation could make sense and improve matters, and so I would not want to categorically prohibit such either. Josh (talk) 20:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I think this makes sense where you have a countable/uncountable distinction such as Category:Fire (the concept) and Category:Fires (countable in the scene of you can have individual fires) which Wikipedia also has. Wikipedia also makes a distinction between Category:Towns v Category:Town which we don't but perhaps we could though again I'm not sure its needed here or Wikipedia. Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:19, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Location vs. identity categories

I'd like to add another issue to this mix, if anyone is trying to systematize: much of the hierarchy is a successive refinement of geography, and that is an "is-located-in" relationship, not an "is-a" relationship. E.g. Category:Texas descends from Category:United States, but the relationship is very different from (for example) Category:Parlors descending from Category:Rooms.

Some related issues:

  1. We often intersect geographic categories with other categories (e.g. Category:Rooms in Washington (state). That intersection typically partitions the other category (rooms, in this case) but still carries just an "is-located-in" relationship to the geographic category.
  2. Occasionally a category falls appropriately under a mainly geographic category without falling geigraphically in the relevant place: e.g. books about a particular country, embassies by the country they represent, a country's building at a World's Fair.
  3. We get pretty ad hoc about the hierarchy in the relatively unusual cases of (for example) a country that is partly located in more than one continent, or a U.S. city that spans multiple counties of the same U.S. state.
  4. Sometimes we have geographically-related inheritance in our category hierarchy that just means adjacency: e.g. a building under a category for a street, a park under a category for a lake.

And then, of course, as we go down the hierarchy location and identity can come back together in a category for a particular building, park, room, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 01:01, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, that is the kind of thing Wikidata is concerned with: Drawing room is an instance of room, and Texas is part of contiguous United States.
We should not try to duplicate that work. If things go well, the taxonomy part of categorization will one day be usurped by Wikidata. --Watchduck (quack) 09:45, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Watchduck: I agree completely, just don't want anyone to waste their time plunging into this without understanding how complicated it is. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)
@Watchduck and Jmabel: Yes, it is good to remember that the Commons category-subcategory relationship is not equal to the class-subclass relationship, though of course there may be overlap between the two. Whereas it is implicit that a member a subclass is also a valid member of the parent class, being a member of a category does not imply that the item would be a valid member of the parent category (though it is commonly true). Geography-based categorization is a good example (though not the only one) where this can be seen. Josh (talk) 20:59, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Subcategories that are not subsets

Not a politician in Iowa
Not a horse
Not a lake
Images added by Watchduck (quack) 21:20, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

What they are and how to call them

I have raised a related issue before: Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2020/05#Mark subcategorization as non-diffusing. This is how a picture of a university campus gets categorized as a politician from Iowa. Here we have Lake-related signs‎ which are not in fact lakes, but end up in the categorization tree anyway. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:41, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That is quite similar to what I tried to say in the subsection on the cube discussion page. I suppose it is also related to the topic/object categories mentioned above. But I think it is best to keep the singular/plural topic separate, so I moved your comment under a subheading. Maybe you want to take a look at the fictional categories Neon graph and Argon graph, where I use a dedicated sort key for non-diffusing subcategories. I intend to bring that up in a separate discussion. --Watchduck (quack) 21:02, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Exactly, this is a related issue and a good idea! But I have no idea if it is technically feasible!? An other way is the one I discribed above: to put only lakes in Category:Lakes ("groups of objects") and to put this category together with Category:Lake-related signs‎ under the topic Category:Lake. So Lake-related signs‎ are not anymore Lakes. --W like wiki good to know 22:39, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is what a non-diffusing subcat is supposed to be. An example of the way I've seen it used is in English Wikipedia at en:Category:LGBT actors. That is a non-diffusing subcategory of en:Category:Actors. All actors remain in the main category (or in other types of subcategories of it), but the LGBT ones are highlighted.
Another example is en:Category:Female heads of government. That category highlights female heads of state because there are relatively few of them. If the females were segregated into a subcategory, that would remove them from the main category and make them less visible.
In short, a non-diffusing subcat is used with categories that contain the same class of thing, but where a subset is being highlighted. -- Auntof6 (talk) 23:13, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess here I am using the term "non-diffusing" in a different way. In your case of cross-sections by gender/ethnicity/etc., the subcategories are clearly a subset of the main categories, but for editorial reasons we intentionally include items in both to avoid othering the people in the special subcategory. In my case, the subcategories are not even a subset of the main categories, but are rather a related topic which could sort of be considered a subtopic, albeit where it is not necessarily the case that instances of the subtopic are always instances of the main topic. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:25, 8 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: What Auntof6 has described is the definition in Wikipedia, so we better don't redefine the term to mean something else on Commons. However we call it, I think we mean the same: Horses contains white, famous and wild horses, which are more specific horses. But it also contains Horse equipment, which does not contain horses. I tend to call the latter case a non-refining subcategory. --Watchduck (quack) 01:25, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I think I got it. Look at transitive relation. It is one property of Hyponymy (→Commons:Categories#Types of reflected relations) and means:
  • If X is a hyponym of Y, and Y is a hyponym of Z, then X is a hyponym of Z. or
  • Every tree is a plant, every plant is a organism, so every tree is a organism.
In wikidata the property subclass of (P279) has this transitive relation.
So what you mean with "Non-diffusing" is maybe "Non-transitive", right?
PS: Another word for Nontransitivity is Intransitivity:
  • "Wolves feed on deer, and deer feed on grass, but wolves do not feed on grass.[1] Thus, the feed on relation among life forms is intransitive, in this sense."
W like wiki good to know 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes, "non-transitive" sounds like the right term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:43, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Ok, top! --W like wiki good to know 16:10, 9 August 2022 (UTC)
Agree, 'transitive' sounds like a good description of a certain type of category-subcategory relationship. Certainly, categories can be either transitive or non-transitive members of other categories. We do not currently distinguish between the two, at least in any standardized way. I do not see a problem with having both exist side-by-side in a parent category--both Category:Lake Baikal and Category:Lake-related signs can exist under Category:Lakes without issue, can they not? Josh (talk) 21:11, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

What to do with them

@King of Hearts and W like wiki: Ok, so let's call them intransitive or non-transitive. The question remains, how the transitive and intransitive subcategories should be separated. (E.g. white, famous and wild horses from horse burials, maps and husbandry.) I think the transitive case should be assumed by default, and the intransitive case be marked as an exception. I think a dedicated sort key would be the most practical choice. As mentioned before, I have tried this approach in the fictional categories Neon graph and Argon graph. (I have also added it to the real category Related to the rhombicuboctahedron, so it is shown last in Rhombicuboctahedron.) I would not use the sort key directly, but use a template. (Let's say {{Relcat}} — analogous to {{Setcat}}, the sort key for image sets.) I am sure the bots could learn the meaning of this sort key, so they will know which images should or should not show politicians in Iowa. --Watchduck (quack) 12:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Sortkeys are already being abused for all kinds of things on a regular basis, let's not make that worse. This seems like something that should be solved at the software (Mediawiki) level rather than through workarounds. In fact, this is exactly the kind of problem that led to the development of COM:SDC - maybe focus on making that more useful instead. El Grafo (talk) 13:30, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
@El Grafo: I could not agree more about sort keys being abused. There are no standard sort keys by policy, and even the de facto standards (such a space for index/meta categories) are regularly abused. I could definitely see SD being a better way to curate files, though it is a long way from being able to replace categories at the moment. Josh (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
@Watchduck: I believe you have the cart a bit ahead of the horse. Asking the question "how the transitive and intransitive subcategories should be separated" presumes that they should be separated at all, and that question has certainly not been answered. What purpose would such a separation serve, and is that a purpose that we can agree is appropriate for Commons categories to serve? It is an interesting question to dive into, for sure, but we are a long way from being able to claim it is something we should adopt, especially considering the absolutely massive ramifications it will have on how categories are fundamentally handled on Commons. Josh (talk) 21:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Is it OK license reviewing files not uploaded by yourself, but "license-review-tagged"?

Hi. I know it's not OK license reviewing files uploaded by yourself. But... I added {{License review}} to this file uploaded by User:Mototsa, since it's apparently free licensed and it would be nice having that one license reviewed. Would it be OK that picture being license-reviewed by me, or a "third person" is needed there? Strakhov (talk) 10:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

@Strakhov: I think that would be OK.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:12, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
Admins are users trusted by the community. I think that there are no problems; please go ahead --Ruthven (msg) 13:09, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Thank you both for your comments. Strakhov (talk) 12:29, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Suggested tags notifications issue

In the last 25 minutes, I received 7 notifications related to "Suggested tags are ready for review". Why? --NGC 54 (talk | contribs) 21:38, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Public domain works we should have

Hi, Is there a list of public domain works we should have?

  • Lady Helen's Escapade. This film is in the public domain, and was deemed "culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant" by the United States Library of Congress and selected for the National Film Registry. However, I can't find a copy anywhere. Any idea? Yann (talk) 15:47, 17 August 2022 (UTC)
s:Wikisource:Requested_texts/1927 is a list of works that will enter the US public domain next year, that someone wants for Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Png versus jpg

I still see a lot of deletion nominations because we have both the png and jpg version of a file. Someone wants to delete one or the other. What is our rule, some people prefer jpg because its better at making thumbnails, some prefer png because they don't get over compressed and can store transparency when you make an oval crop. --RAN (talk) 00:03, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I prefer to keep both.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:25, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I see no reason not to keep both. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
If I were processing a deletion request, I would almost always keep both the PNG and the JPG, although I can imagine certain cases where I might agree that one or the other is redundant. Official policy is at COM:Dupe. Relevant quotes are "Files that are not of the same file type are not duplicates, but instead possibly redundant (see below), and require a deletion request", "Care should be taken when the format is different: For example, it is common and useful to have both a PNG and JPEG of the same image, since (due to a long-standing issue with the thumbnailer), JPEGs thumbnail is better. However, JPEGs aren't lossless images, so progressive editing of a JPEG will destroy the quality, whereas a PNG does not have this problem. Hence, a PNG for (further?) editing and a JPEG for display can be justified.", and "At deletion requests you will need to provide reasons why a particular file is inferior to the alternative version". —RP88 (talk) 01:41, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
For instance, if a PNG is made out of a JPG, keeping it probably makes little sense. Similarly keeping JPGs for simple drawings would probably make little sense either (due to artifacts). Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
If a PNG is made from a JPG with no modification, then the PNG should almost certainly be deleted. If a JPG is made from a PNG, then the JPG should be deleted unless the PNG is a gigantic file that has problems rendering. Historically, the main reason to retain JPG and PNG copies of the same image is that JPG retains the EXIF, while PNG retains the original pixels, so neither can be fully derived from the other. Nowadays PNG supports EXIF as well, so theoretically a single PNG will suffice, but it's often just easier to use JPG for photos and have TIFF (instead of PNG) as an archival format. PNG is best for diagrams. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: If a JPG is made from a PNG, then the JPG should be kept for sharpness when scaled down (like in a Wikipedia article) because the PNG will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Crop tool fails for pdf files

When I try and crop a jpg image from a pdf it gives an error message about the source document having multiple pages. Can it be made compatible? RAN (talk) 05:56, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Does the source file have multiple pages? If so, do you want to crop all of them? How would you like the tool to work? –LPfi (talk) 07:14, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I assume a PDF with pages of unequal size could be very confusing or frustrating in some situations. –LPfi (talk) 07:17, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
I just tried producing a crop of File:Harry Bateman (1882-1946) biography by Francis Dominic Murnaghan.pdf, and CropTool successfully produced File:Harry Bateman (1882-1946) biography by Francis Dominic Murnaghan (page 6 crop).jpg (which I have subsequently deleted, and I reverted the edit pointing to the test crop added to the original file). What is the exact error message you are getting? Are you using the "Upload as new file" option or the "Overwrite" option? —RP88 (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm glad you found the problem. I noticed that you had a typo in the name of your cropped file (1830 instead of 1930) so I hope you don't mind that I renamed it to File:Harry Bateman (1882-1946) circa 1930.jpg. —RP88 (talk) 04:43, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Permissible to add a screen grab from a YouTube video created by the subject?

I'm referring to this picture. It appears to be a screen capture from a youtube video created by Tanya Fear. A user uploaded this to Commons and then added it to the Tanya Fear Wikipedia article. Is it acceptable reproduction? Fred Zepelin (talk) 19:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@Fred Zepelin: doesn't look acceptable. If the YouTube video were free-licensed, it would be OK to extract from that, but I see no evidence that it is. Pinging @Starklinson as uploader: I don't see any evidence for the claimed license. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: When I look at the source YouTube video I see that is marked as using the CC-BY 3.0 license. The uploading YouTube channel "ITSO FILMS" appears to match the identified source mentioned in the video. As long as ITSO Films is not license laundering a third-party video source, I think this screen grab is correctly licensed. —RP88 (talk) 20:22, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Ah. The "permission" field of {{Information}} should probably be explicit about the license being within the video, and at what time offset. - Jmabel ! talk 20:47, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: As far as I know it is not mentioned in the video, it's marked as CC-BY-3.0 in Youtube's "License" field on the video's description page at Youtube. —RP88 (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
It looks ok. I have edited the file to add the timestamp and the {{License review}} tag. The YouTube video indicates a free license in the description page, as is common on YouTube. The other videos in the account are similar in style and some of them were shot in the same location, so the claim to authorship is credible. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Necessity of Caption and Description

Hi,
In my casual observations, many images have the Description parameter while the Caption is left empty. Description and caption are similar concepts. So I wonder whether both are necessary. A specific caption can be provided where an image is used. In an unusual case where a default cation is required, the description or an automatically derived extract of it, is a reasonable possibility. So I want to suggest dropping the caption parameter. Sometimes a simplification is an improvement. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 16:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Captions are part of SDC (structured data commons). Dropping them would require a strategic change of WMF. C.Suthorn (talk) 17:27, 18 August 2022 (UTC)
Yes. The descriptions are the older approach, and often contain more info. The captions are licensed by CC-zero so more easy to handle for a number of tools, but more limited in several ways (they cannot contain links, for one). Actual captions should of course be written specifically for any context where the file is used, but either can work as a substitute in many cases. –LPfi (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I guess the "strategic change" is out of the question for "historical reasons". Appears the conclusion is "Doesn't really matter." Certainly I write a specific caption appropriate to context. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 11:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
I suppose so, I am not holding my breath. But it does matter, as a proper description is valuable, while it cannot always be used (third-party context where giving attribution is problematic). One approach is just to copy (part of) the description field into the caption field when uploading. –LPfi (talk) 18:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
@LPfi: Only if you are willing to license your capption CC-Zero.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:18, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
Of course. The excerpt would in many cases be short enough not to involve copyright at all, in most countries, in which case an explicit CC-zero seems appropriate (the file itself would still have the -BY). Another issue is that I do understand what to write in the description, but I don't know what caption would be useful. One could add "A bus", "Flowers", "Sunset" or "Seascape" to make WMF happy, but those would probably be found in the "depict" statements anyway. Actually I don't contribute to structured data on Commons, as there are too many open questions. –LPfi (talk) 07:04, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
A major difference is that captions are plain text, which some situations require, while descriptions can include wiki-markup, including templates. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:44, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting period is now open

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi everyone,

The Community Voting period for the 2022 Board of Trustees election is now open. Here are some helpful links to get you the information you need to vote:

If you are ready to vote, you may go to SecurePoll voting page to vote now. You may vote from August 23 at 00:00 UTC to September 6 at 23:59 UTC. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Which file has got the most category assignment

Best wishes from GER, --Mateus2019 (talk)

I'm not aware of any tool that records the number of [[Category:...]] entries in a file page. However, this might be a bot task, i.e. find the file with most "category" text strings. De728631 (talk) 18:55, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
@Mateus2019: I made quarry:query/62965 to work out the answer. It's File:Leninskiy rayon, Tambov, Tambovskaya oblast', Russia - panoramio (14).jpg with 271 categories. --bjh21 (talk) 22:11, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of categories. Thank you for solving this request. De728631 (talk) 10:56, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Transcluding from Wikibooks

Hi,
Within Wikibooks, {{:Oberon/ETH_Oberon/License}} transcludes the license. Therefore I expect {{b:Oberon/ETH_Oberon/License}} to transclude the license in Commons. It displays only the text of the template. Intentional? A bug? Can it be fixed? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: This is because $wgEnableScaryTranscluding is not turned on on any Wikimedia wiki. Turning it on would require following the instructions at m:Requesting wiki configuration changes (which starts with getting consensus on the affected wiki). --bjh21 (talk) 22:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
Another way: I add the text of the license to any page where needed. My first instance is OberonBootLoaderConfigStrings.png. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:43, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Statistics shipyard cranes

Is there any information on these huge engines? There is 150 tons lifting power, but what is the distance between the rails? This is the 'M12', see openrailwaymap Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:08, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Using {{U}} instead of a normal link

An anonymous (IP) editor has been making numerous recent edits to my photos, mostly related to structured data, e.g. this edit. Most of these I'm fine with, but I am not at all sure I like the change they are making in {{Self}}, changing from "author=[[User:Jmabel|Joe Mabel]]" to "author={{U|1=Jmabel|2=Joe Mabel}}". Does anyone know: is this now preferred, or is an anonymous person making unnecessary (or possibly even countrproductive) changes? - Jmabel ! talk 01:14, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  • And this is just weird. Why mark the year the photo was taken as "preferred" when there is no competing claim? - Jmabel ! talk 04:11, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, I've been seeing a spate of random anons going around and changing various properties to Preferred, and I cannot figure out why they would be doing that. Weird trolling? Someone's OCD on overdrive? A plot to take over the world? — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The change does not make a visible change. But the template can be edited sometime in the future with the result, that it is an visible change. And that would be a change to your chosen way to get attributed, if a file is reused. Therefore I think, a edit like thus must only be done by the author (unless you would have done this edit yourself). But: You are an admin and to me (and everyone ussing the view admin gadget) your Attribution shows as "Joe Mabel(A)". If it was me, I would not want the "(A)" in the attribution string (if the file is reused in a book, the "(A)" would be always there, even when it is no longer there at commons). I would tweak the author string, so that it will not show up in the attribution. C.Suthorn (talk) 20:09, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

CC-BY-NC 4.0

I found in the inernet an e-book which was published under CC-BY-NC 4.0 licence. Can I upload it to Commons? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 185.172.241.184 (talk) 15:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The short answer: No! -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 15:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
The slightly longer answer: we don't accept "non-commercial" licenses.
An even longer answer: a multi-licensed file can offer a "non-commercial" license, but it still needs to have at least one license that allows commercial use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. I'm sorry, but the license restrictions -nc- (noncommercial) and -nd- (no derivatives) are not usable by themselves for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:39, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Question about deletion proccess

I was looking through some articles recently, and I found a bunch of photos have been nominated for deletion, but even though everyone voted keep, the photos were deleted anyway. Please explain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nar 2608 (talk • contribs) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Nar 2608 (talk) 00:26, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Ellin Beltz: , who closed the deletion request. -- Auntof6 (talk) 02:17, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
I can only guess, but the people who were commenting there were asking for a proof that these files were a copyright violation. That's not how it works. 1) it is not a vote. 2) the burden of proof lies on the uploader or whoever wants to keep something. There needs to be a proof (or at least good evidence) that the files are not a copyright violation. Statements like "There are not any copyvio" without further arguments are pointless. Apparently, the handling admin agreed with the nominator's rationale ("unclear copyright status"). If there's reasonable doubt, that's enough to delete them per COM:PCP, COM:L, etc.
That being said, if you think that the decision was made in error (and have convincing arguments), there's always COM:UNDEL. El Grafo (talk) 09:09, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
Also, at least the bulk of these had a specific claim of a CC license on third-party copyrighted photos, which calls for some sort of evidence. Asserting "Not copyvio" doesn't give the slightest reason to believe the license claim is legitimate. - Jmabel ! talk 14:15, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Global ban discussion for Velimir Ivanovic/Kolega2357

Hello all,

In line with the global ban policy, local project communities where the user was active should be informed of the discussion in a prominent public place.

This ban request has been live for about a month now, but proper notification was not made. The ban request will continue for at least a few more weeks, and input is welcome on the RfC page linked in this section heading.

Thank you for your time, Vermont (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Upcoming View it! tool discussion

View it! Tool
 Upcoming View it! tool discussion - for those interested in Wikimedia Commons & structured data - August 31, 2022

A project has been funded by the Wikimedia Foundation as part of the Structured Data Across Wikimedia Work to create a tool called View it! The tool aims to increase the discoverability of images on Commons, give readers and editors access to more images, and encourage contributors to utilize Commons & structured data. Please visit the Meta page if you are interested in trying out the prototype. We are having a demo and feedback session on August 31st at 16:00 UTC, please join us if you wish!

We hope to see you there! Sincerely, Dominic, Kevin, & Jamie

— Preceding unsigned comment added by JamieF (talk • contribs) 16:50, 29 August 2022‎ (UTC)

template:aum symbol

they suddenly made {{Aum symbol}}. the template was attached file buildings and flags related w:Aum Shinrikyo. but I don"t the files that is illegal in Japanese law. I think the template is not need and harmful. --eien20 (talk) 17:19, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

The 2022 Board of Trustees election Community Voting is about to Close

Hello,

The Community Voting period of the 2022 Board of Trustees election started on August 23, 2022, and will close on September 6, 2022 23:59 UTC. There’s still a chance to participate in this election. If you did not vote, please visit the SecurePoll voting page to vote now. To see about your voter eligibility, please visit the voter eligibility page. If you need help in making your decision, here are some helpful links:

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:20, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

automatic OCR

I am learning how to import books in source using this link... https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:How_to_Import_books_from_Internet_Archive_to_Wikisource.webm

after 6:35 minutes the instructor clicks on page number 312 and the OCR'ed text is already visible on the screen. In my case, I need to click on "OCR" button on the toolbar. I just want to know if the OCR works automatically or it needs user's action.

Shantanuo (talk) 08:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

@Shantanuo: The file in the video was allready OCRed. So, when the instructor clicks on page 312, it is looking up the OCR layer in the file itself. Internet Archive does offer OCR in their files, but it is not in all of them, it depends on what the uploader chose at the time. The standard on wikisource is to OCR the whole file, the OCR button is more of an stopgap solution. Anyway, for the future, you are more likely to get an timely response to your wikisource question at wikisource (either your local project or the english wikisource). I only saw your message just now. Snævar (talk) 09:10, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

What is the difference between a Lido and an 'outdoor swimming pool'?

was recategorised as a lido. I think that the difference is that the water is not treated (clorified) or heated, but refreshed with big natural water volumes.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:37, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

And how to classify this one?
Lido is the British term AFAIK, while outdoor swimming pool might be the preferred term in American English. --Rosenzweig τ 08:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
"Outdoor swimming pool" (or, typically, just "swimming pool," because "outdoor" is the default) is definitely the term in American English. I doubt the average American has ever heard one called a "lido" unless they spent time in the UK. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel I am among them, although I now know the meaning behind the name of the Lido Deck on The Love Boat.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:57, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
IMO "swimming pool" is the better choice in any case, because it is unambiguous. This pecular British use of "lido," on the other hand, is sure to confuse European and other non-Anglophone users, because the word lido is borrowed from Italian, and in Italian it always refers to a beach, never to an artificial pool like the one shown in the photo. Choliamb (talk) 17:22, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
As a Brit I've never used or heard of the word (other than in the news) but I guess you'd perhaps hear it more if you lived near one maybe, I would describe it as an outdoor swimming pool. –Davey2010Talk 20:18, 30 August 2022 (UTC)
  • A lido is something with some level of facilities constructed built in the 1930s, when the term was fashionable. The intention and implication was that there was more to a lido than simply swimming, there was also a place to lounge or sunbathe nearby, perhaps with a cafe. This was not always achieved! Grange-over-Sands Lido would be a typical example.
Older and long established outdoor swimming places (Hampstead Ponds, Parson's Pleasure, Clevedon Marine Lake, or Henleaze Swimming Club and Clifton Victoria Baths in Bristol), with varying facilities, weren't called 'lidos' simply because they were too old. Some lidos had almost no facilities other than the water, but this is fairly rare – the Victorian Brit was fond of wild swimming, but not in the '30s.
An important group are those in South Wales, often built by under-employed or unemployed miners on a shoestring budget, and yet they were built (in some numbers). Pontypridd Lido is probably the best known of the recent survivors. Merthyr Tydfil Lido [7][8] is one of the least prepossessing, yet it still called itself a Lido! Andy Dingley (talk) 00:11, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
So should we eliminate or rename Category:Lidos by country and its sub-categories? In the UK the term seems to have a rather restricted use. And in other countries, it is probably not used at all. In Germany, for example, that type of thing is usually called a Freibad. --Rosenzweig τ 08:24, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
I feel no need to, provided that we're clear what it means. That may not be the same as the word means in a particular language, and it might not even be the same as the word means in English. But is is clear? Would an English speaker recognise the term lido, even if it was only used in their country in a more restricted manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:52, 2 September 2022 (UTC)
Broxbourne Lido
Would they even be Lidos if they were never marketed as such? Confusingly there were indoor lidos such as Broxbourne Lido, emphasis here was family fun with a mock beach and a gradual slope into the pool and all the way upto the deep end, also a wave machine and an outdoor bathing area. What the marketing people were trying to say was 'More like a beach than an exercise facility'. Since the term is used very flexibly, it's probably best to use it in the UK on facilities marketed with the term Oxyman (talk) 02:20, 7 September 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/08&oldid=699146116"