Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/01

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

COM:CONSENT is ambiguous

COM:CONSENT redirects to Commons:Email templates/Consent. The latter page should, as for other targets of ambiguous redirects, contain a note about this. Something like:

COM:CONSENT redirects here. For information about consent to deal with photographs of people, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Is this a good wording? And what is the correct way to add this note (and {{Shortcut}})? (I don’t really understand how the translation stuff works.) Brianjd (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mislabelled Photo: Antoine-Charles Taschereau

Hi, I think that a photo is mislabelled, but I don't know how to change it, so I thought I would post here. The photo is: File:Antoine-Charles Taschereau.png

It says that it's a picture of Antoine-Charles Taschereau, a Quebec official and politician, who was born 1797, died 1862, but I think there are two reasons to think that is an incorrect identification.

  • First, the details for the image say that it came from the Quebec Archives, and was taken "between 1902 and 1903", forty years after Antoine-Charles Taschereau died.
  • Second, the image strikes me as a picture from the early 20th century, based on the clothing and tie. That's more subjective, of course, but I would say it's an Edwardian period, not mid-Victorian style of clothing.

I think this is actually a picture of a different Taschereau, Antoine Taschereau, born 1864, but who doesn't have a Wikipedia page: https://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?genealogie=Taschereau_Antoine&pid=1598647 . The fellow in the picture looks about 40, which would fit with the "between 1902 and 1903" date from the Quebec Archives.

By way of background, the Taschereaux were a very big Quebec clan, who were influential in law, politics and government for two centuries. The Taschereaux were so prolific that they even have their own categories, here and on Wikipedia, so a mix-up like this doesn't seem surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taschereau_family https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Taschereau_family

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I suppose he is the Antoine Taschereau, brother of the Prime minister Louis-Alexandre Taschereau. Antoine Taschereau was one of the main attractions in the scandals that contributed to the resignation of his brother. It seems that he was usually referred to as "Antoine Taschereau" but also sometimes as "Antoine-C. Taschereau", as in this excerpt from the inquiry on public accounts, reported in the newspaper Le Devoir on 6 August 1936, page 2: "Je constate qu'il y a plusieurs comptes au nom du frère du premier ministre M. Antoine-C. Taschereau." [1] The "C." may be for "Caron", which was the family name of his mother and apparently part of his full name, as he is probably the person mentioned on page 147 of the 1901 book La famille Taschereau by Pierre-Georges Roy [2]. This photo was part of a mosaïc of photographs, where this photo is identified as "Ant. C. Taschereau" [3]. That probably explains the mistake of the Archives, where someone guessed wrongly that it meant Charles. Mistakes at the Archives happen. We spot some from time to time. They manage a lot of material and they probably don't have resources to research and check all the facts. I agree that the file name should be changed to Antoine Taschereau. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
Fascinating bit of detective work, Asclepias - thanks very much! His age and style do match more closely with being Premier Taschereau's brother. And, the genealogy article I linked to mentions that he was the brother of the Premier. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now moved the photo to File:Antoine Jean Thomas Caron Taschereau (1864-1949).png. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
And it looks like User:Asclepias has removed the incorrect usages. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
  • It seems correct, looking at the family tree. I will migrate the image to Familysearch and Findagrave also. I added a category for the shirt collar popular from about 1900 to 1910. You can still buy them today. --RAN (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Please peak at File:Antoine-Charles Taschereau (1797-1862).jpg which looks like a 60 year old man in 1860s. They all have at least 3 given names as nobles, but most images just use 1 and we have 200 years of recycled names. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This looks much better - age and clothing style match someone who died mid-Victorian. Thanks for finding it! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Lula da Silva (surname)

The Category:Lula da Silva (surname) is currently being used to categorize the Brazilian president and his family. Lula da Silva was born Luiz Inácio da Silva. Lula is a nickname he received in his childhood, and his name could then be properly written Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva. In 1982 he decided to officially include Lula as one of his names. Therefore, his name is "Luiz Inácio Lula" and his surname is simply "da Silva", not "Lula da Silva". How can we fix this confusion? —capmo (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Minerva97 created this.--RZuo (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
"Lula" is not only a nickname anymore, now it became a surname: Lula's wife is called Rosângela Lula da Silva, his previous wife was called Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva, his son is called Marcos Cláudio Lula da Silva and the other son too Fábio Luís Lula da Silva. It started as a nickname, but it changed. The whole family bears the same surname. And, YES, it is now a surname. Minerva97 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Jusbrasil is a website that reproduces public cases of Brazilian justice that have already been closed. All persons are referred to by the same name as in their official documents, for example Marcos Cláudio Lula da Silva. Minerva97 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Names don't become surnames out of thin air. The Lula in his name (and in his children's names) is just a name, not a surname. For Portuguese readers, these two links discuss it in depth: [4] [5]. Most importantly: the National Library of Brazil clearly states that the president's name is sorted as "Silva, Luíz Inácio Lula da", as does the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, reinforcing that Lula is just one of his names. The fact that his sons and wife have adopted it does not make Lula a surname. The National Library of Brazil must be accepted as the authority on this subject. —capmo (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, Commons and Wikidata still cannot wrap its head around this simple notion that the names of 230 million people may consist of multiple words but the sorting key should be, in 99.9% of the cases, the last name word — "Silva" in this case, and never mind the rest.
Please stop creating useless misleading categories consisting of multiple name words for the whole or part of the surname section of a Portuguese name. Anyone whose dad was Fulano Something da Silva and whose mom was Sicrana Somethingelse Lula will be dully named Whatever Lula da Silva and wont be a relative of the Brazilian President, while any of his daughters will still be categorizable as a relative even after they get married and routinely change their surnames. Create a new cat for Category:Lula’s family if needed, but finally quit creating these useless hybrid cats made up random pairings of Portuguese surnames.
(There are a few exceptions worth noting, but let those be dealt with by editors who know the matter.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Capmo: @Tuvalkin: YES, there are cases where names become surnames. The case of President Lula is one of them. If you disagree and want to undo it, you'll have to do it yourself, I won't remove anything. Good luck. Minerva97 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

You obviously didn’t read a word of what I wrote. Yes, nicknames can become surnames, but that’s my point at all (I’m not even sure that is the case here) — and that’s why I replied directly to the o.p. and not to the followups. I suggest you move you quip upwards, as a reply to Capmo’s comment of 21:09. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Tuválkin, for your considerations. And Minerva97, I'll do as you suggest and restore Silva as the surname. Regards, —capmo (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: —capmo (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg

Could somebody check out the copyright for the above image. It’s been uploaded by User:Hogyncymru as their own work, with an acknowledgement to Alexander Bassano. It’s clearly Bassano’s original photo, although it’s been re-touched/coloured. This would suggest that the copyright for the original image sits with the National Portrait Gallery, [6]. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

The copy owned by Gwrych predates the purchase by National gallery in the 70's, you targeted my content because you got disgruntled with me on Mari Lwyd's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mari_Lwyd), you mocked my contribution (and even mentioned in the comment that it may offend me), you really shouldn't be targeting other editors like this. Hogyncymru (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Link to File:Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg. Hogyncymru, that is a confusing description in the licensing. It looks like this is the original 1909 photograph which would be public domain because en:Alexander Bassano died in 1913. Did you restore and modify it yourself? If so, why did you write under permission "Gwrych Castle Preservation Trust"? Did the trust restore it or did you do it as a work-for-hire that requires that trust's approval? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    Gwrych Castle preservation trust owns an old copy to which I scanned in and edited, the edited version (the one you see uploaded) was done so by myself. I volunteer for Gwrych and the content I created is made for them, they have given me the permission to upload the final piece to wikimedia. the person in the image was the daughter of the countess who lived at the castle, to which; Gwrych has an extensive archive which holds old items related to that family.
    (Feel free to contact the trust directly to ask; if I volunteer, if they own a copy, did I colour the copy for them, was I authorised to publish it to wikimedia) Hogyncymru (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    there're three ways that help verify the permission, which you could have done:
    1. com:vrt
    2. Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes a statement on their website https://www.gwrychcastle.co.uk/ or social media accounts to explain that this wiki account is authorised by them.
    3. Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes the files on flickr and then you import the files using Special:UploadWizard or com:F2C.
    as for the photo, its photographer seems to be anonymous according to https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw213580/Lady-Grizel-Winifred-Louisa-Hamilton-ne-Cochrane . then, either "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that.", or "For commissioned works made prior to 1 July 1912, the 1862 Fine Arts Copyright Act governs, stating that copyright of a painting, drawing, or photograph done for or on behalf of another person "for good and valuable consideration" belongs to the commissioner.". the commissioner Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and so copyright expired.--RZuo (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks RZuo, will send an email through via the trust to validate. regards. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-01

Happy New Year! Happy Public Domain Day!

Staff changes

In December 2022, 2 sysops were removed. Currently, there are 189 sysops.

(The global ban was applied to 16 users. Some statements about the global ban by WMFOffice: 1 2 3.)

Other news

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T36928

After more than 10 years and campaign efforts by many Commons users, user right sboverride was finally created in July 2022. This user right would allow users edit while overriding m:Spam blacklist.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Chubut province copyright

According to Copyright rules in Argentina, contents from the Government of Chubut website are licensed under a CC-4.0 license. But the site (https://www.chubut.gov.ar/) has a copyright notice at bottom (with no mention of a CC license).

As a result, {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} would not be a valid template anymore. How could this be solved? Does this template need a redirect (as it was done with PD-AR-Gov tag on this previous discussion? Your feedback and advices will be very useful. Fma12 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's only used 9 times. Replace with {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{LicenseReview}}. For the files that the web archive has a copy, we can do the review and keep them. The other files and {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} should probably be deleted. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG claims it is being used in Category:Bridelia mollis, but I cannot see where

File File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG was being linked wrongly to Bridelia_mollis, therefore I made some edits to sort out this misleading information so that the picture points to B. micrantha and no other species. However, file URL keeps reporting under section "File usage on Commons" that file is used in Category:Bridelia mollis. I've purged both category and file pages but "Category:Bridelia mollis" still appears under "File usage on Commons". Is this a bug or file is actually being used somewhere in "Category:Bridelia mollis"? If the latter is true, just out of curiosity, where exactly is the file used?. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Canyq: I did a null edit to Category:Bridelia mollis, and that appears to have removed the stale reference at File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG. —RP88 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
@RP88: Then, I guess it was some kind of bug... Thank you very much for your action to fix it. --Canyq (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Help with name of an artist

Can anyone help with the name of the artist in the corner at File:BENET ANDREU i PONS.jpg, it looks like Porch Fabregas or Porch Fabreguss. We are trying to connect the name to a known artist. RAN (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

A writer of one book is Miguel Pons Fábregues, odd that this painting isn't in any museum catalog. --RAN (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I also read "foto." in the first line and "pinx." in the second. Could it be painted (pinx.) by someone called just Pons, based on a photograph (foto.) by Pons Fabregues? --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello from your new Community Relations Specialist

Hello everyone👋🏽

My name is Benedict Nnaemeka Udeh from Nigeria, a recently hired Community Relations Specialist (CRS) for Wikidata and Commons.

I'm a member of the Igbo Wikimedians User Group, the Founder of IG Wikidata Hub, and the Founder of Wiki Mentor Africa, a mentorship program that seeks to bring more African developers and technical writers into the technical space of Wikimedia. I'm passionate about community growth and capacity building. Like you, I'm incredibly spirited about the free knowledge movement.

In my new position as CRS, I will focus on collaboration and communication with you about Wikidata and Commons product development, the user-facing changes and roll-outs, and sometimes on projects with special needs for collaboration with Volunteers. In other words, I am here to serve you (the editors, contributors, and readers of Commons and Wikidata projects) and the working groups at the Foundation that support Commons and Wikidata. I've already started sharing some updates; you can find them on the Product and technical support for Commons Portal. Please feel free to use the discussion page to discuss these updates.

I look forward to working with and for you all and can't wait to see the fantastic things we will do together. Udehb-WMF (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Midjourney

Hi there! is there already been some discussion about Midjourney and IA generated images on Commons. I see there is already some images coming from Midjourney and seeing the Terms of service, it pose no problem with the CC licence of Commons. However it pose some questions like: how foreseen the possible high number of upload unrelated to Wikimedia projects ? and more importantly, who is the author of such images? Triton (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please join the dicussion at Commons:AI-generated media and its talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Triton (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Upload form says I am already uploading

The upload wizard form, on a cell phone, always says "There was an error in your submission You are already uploading the file "....jpg". Maybe I am on a too fast connection today. Anyway it's just a minor bother, because I can still upload the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jidanni (talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni: Hi, and welcome. That looks like a bug, please see mw:How to report a bug and COM:SIGN.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
If its the UploadWizard, then it is a bug, that I reported a number of times to phab over the years. You can upload up to 150 (500) files with the UW in one go. After that the UW asks, if you want to upload more files. If you say yes, you can select another bunch of files and after the first upload starts, it will complain "you are already uploading this file". You can (must) click away this message and the upload will go on. The chances that this gets fixed after another bug report are rather low - it works in a way. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Do you have a list of links or URLs for those Phabricator report tasks for Udehb-WMF?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
No, but the would be phab-tickets started by me, accessible from my user profile at phab. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Addition: Today at 19:00 MET there will be a video conference about problems of commons (incl uplaoding). the second hour will be in english and WMF personnal will attend. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Digitaler_Themenstammtisch#63._Digitaler_Themenstammtisch_Wie_kaputt_ist_Wikimedia_Commons?,_5._Januar_2023,_19:00_Uhr C.Suthorn (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Not sure if it helps to add here but just in case, I'm seeing the same error message. I thought I was doing something wrong but if someone else is having the same experience I guess not. Whenever I select photos to upload from my computer, I get the message Jidanni describes, and have to click "OK" to continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Uploaded file "File not found"?

thumb of the file cannot display as well

This file cannot be found: File:SSID-12923924 明史藝文志 1.pdf.

While the description page has been created, link to the file says: 

File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.3e/3/3e/SSID-12923924_%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2%E8%97%9D%E6%96%87%E5%BF%97_1.pdf

This is weird because file information is shown: "452 × 850 pixels, file size: 27.01 MB, MIME type: [pdf], 108 pages".

So is there an error when uploading?

I want to find out if it happened to more files I uploaded. How can I search for such files so that I can reupload them? Upload for Freedom (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Upload for Freedom: it works for me. Possibly some temporary problem? MKFI (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@MKFI: It still does not work for me. Other files do. Can you tell me what you get by clicking [7]?--Upload for Freedom (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Upload for Freedom: your link downloaded a 27 MB PDF with 108 pages which displayed fine. Also the thumbnail which you posted on this thread shows up fine. MKFI (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
@Upload for Freedom: My experience in New Jersey (USA) matches that of MKFI in or near Finland. This may be the fault of a WMF cache in your part of the world or your firewall. The thumb here and all the thumbs on the file description page display page 1, but have no text; page 2 displays with text.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
might be similar to en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_140#Redirect_one_image_link_to_Commons.--RZuo (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all of you! I have tried an online proxy and it works.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

@Upload for Freedom: I'm glad it works.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Moving the files in 2017 in rail transport in Germany to the lander subcategories

I finished the work but there remains one file without location:

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Grouping together deletion discussions

Can a non-nominator group together a series of deletion nominations with the same rationale, even though the discussion has already begun. Cutting and pasting the same rationale/response/followup into a dozen discussions is a waste of time. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vasily Blyukher 1919.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Элеонора Гальперина.jpg and at least a dozen others. The rationale is about when an image is originally made-public versus republication in a modern book. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Library of Congress

The US Library of Congress has a large collection of material they label as "free to use". From a quick look at their explanation, I think that means public domain.

Should some of that be uploaded here? Is there a way to make it indexed & accessible here without uploading? Pashley (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

That is great. I think all of them should be uploaded here systematically. See Commons:Batch uploading.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Library of Congress.--RZuo (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
See {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}. This should be used if no more specific LOC templates are available, and the image is indicated as such, and can be used in conjunction with other general templates such as {{PD-US-expired}} if applicable. Of course the LOC hosts large amounts of material in copyright. More templates and background info are at Commons:Library of Congress. --Animalparty (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Shabbat assignment

At Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ayeka9 we have images of historical Rabbis that need research to match to an existing Wikidata entry or create a Wikidata entry. It would be great if we could find this book scanned online to see where published, one copy of an image has it listed as Hungary in 1929. RAN (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Doubts about some maps

Appreciated community, I have a doubt:

I'm considering upload to Commons some of these maps, from an Anglo-Polish world atlas from 1968. However, I don't know if these maps are admissible in Commons under the current circumstances.

My question is: can I upload these maps to Commons in the near future? I'd like to receive an answer as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and God bless you. Babelia (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

They didn't need to publish it in the United States to be copyrighted there. The book has a copyright notice. For Poland, how would it be OK? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
@Asclepias: It's OK for Poland because they don't allow maps to be copyrighted. And if it had been published only in Poland, there'd presumably be no registration in the U.S., which at that date would mean if it wasn't copyrighted in its home country (Poland), then it wouldn't be copyrighted in the U.S. But if it was simultaneously published elsewhere, in a country where maps can be copyrighted, and was copyrighted under the laws of that country, then I'd presume it remains now copyrighted in the U.S. I'm not a lawyer, though, and not all that expert in copyrights, and it seems like a very tricky case. Simplified greatly, of course, if it was published and registered in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
- Poland: We would have to look at Polish sources to be sure, but from C:CRT/Poland, "photographs of maps, documents, medals, memorial plates do not enjoy their own copyrights." I read it as a photo of such work is not copyrighted but that does not mean that the photographed work is not copyrighted.
- U.S.: Are we sure that a 1968 work with a copyright notice needs a registration? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Crime minister Benyamin Netanyahu

I have been watching ctv news and saw an image of a demonstration with a large sign saying:"Crime minister Benyamin Netanyahu", so I immediately came here and looked at: Category:Demonstrations and protests against Benyamin Netanyahu, but no luck. Does anyone know if an image like this is available anywhere in wmf-land?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Try Flickr Trade (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Photos from Facebook

Hi! I would like to upload some PD (old) photos from Facebook. Do I have to worry about:

  • 1) the fact that the media is from a "closed group" (so normally the content can't be viewed by non-registered users)? I think I won't do harm because I create a direct link to the photo which is hopefully not connected to a personal account (see 2)) and the photos itself do not show any relevant private contexts
  • 2) the direct link is a fbcdn link with _nc_cat=...; _nc_sid=...; _nc_ohc=...; oh=...; oe=... I tried to get rid of this but it didn't work. Are there any problems with those tags (like personal data stored (e.g. mine or of the uploader), ...)? --P170 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you want to link to Facebook as a proof, that the images are public domain? I don't think, that will work. Publishing an image on Facebook does neither make it PD nor is it a proof that it was PD already. If it is PD another source will be needed to show it is PD. If the Facebook user owned the copyright and gave it into PD probably a VRT permission from the Facebook user will be needed?

Apart from that, there are tools that remove tracing info from social media URLs (i think search for "URL cleaner" or something like that). --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Do not upload images from Facebook. Ask the original photographer(s) to upload the original pictures with EXIF data. Facebook is de facto not reliable regarding authorship and license. The only exception is when there is another evidence (age or another source) saying that the image is under a free license or in the domain public. Yann (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: @Yann: I am sure that the photos itself are PD (-70, etc.). That's not the problem and it was not part of my questions. Further I don't want to prove the license through the link but just giving a source. URL cleaner: All attempts failed so far, I get "Bad URL hash" when I try to cut it. But maybe, it's not necessary? --P170 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

@P170: If you can't source it better, you can just say, "Private group on Facebook", but obviously that does nothing to contribute to your demonstration of PD status, which must be demonstrated independently of that. You don't say here what they are pictures of, or why they would be PD, so no one here can say anything useful about whether they'd be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
I will consider giving that statement "Private group...", thank you for that suggestion. PD-status: Again, I know it - to make it clear: e.g. by the year of death of the photographer. P170 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
"year of death of the photographer" may not be enough in the U.S. (and a few other countries) if it was published posthumously. You don't say what country, or really much at all, so it's impossible to say anything definitive. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
afaicu fbcdn links are temporary or "dynamic"(?), which means those links will not work after just some days. but i have no idea whether or not those long numbers can be reversed to find out personal info.
to give proper credit to the photos in facebook, you need to use the url to the posts, which you can get by right clicking the timestamp below username on a post and choosing "copy link", e.g. https://www.facebook.com/ufhkc/posts/pfbid02S5KZ1CW94ggtaTZQ1mzo64piryJA7a89QUVHsuguKjhFq4vHWme81DBYx3kiHkrkl . RZuo (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
This is probably the permanent URL for above. Yann (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Meta cats

Hi at all. I have a little edit war with @Orijentolog: about double categories "...by ... by...". In my opinion these categories must have two metacats (e.g. "Category:Architecture of Italy by century by style" (metacat|century|style) because they are a double category. For Orijentolog instead they must have only the last one. Which is the correct rule and policy about this ? Thank you for your help. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I would think that in that case style would be much more primary than century. That is, someone is much more likely to be looking for a particular style than a particular century, and century is more a breakdown to prevent the categories from getting too big. If they wanted by century, they'd probably have come straight in from Category:Architecture of Italy by century, no? - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I was myself putting multiply criteria at first (until a year ago), and then I noticed that Auntof6 was recently removing everything except the last one, so I follow her. Obviously at the beginning I misunderstood the sentence For example, on "Category:Buildings in Moscow by period and style", you would use {{MetaCat|period|style}}. It's "by period and style", or "by style and period" (thus both criteria), NOT "by period by style". To simply, if title of some category ends with "...by country" it should have listed only countries, if ends with "...by century" it should have listed only centuries, and so on. That means that everything before is irrelevant for flat lists. If DenghiùComm is right, then category Bridges by function by type by material by country should include even four criteria, as I mistakenly inserted it at first, despite technically template works only with max two criteria. It ends with "by country", has listed only countries, so criteria should actually be just a "country". --Orijentolog (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
The metacat criterion should be the thing that is different among the subcategories. For example, in Category:Architecture of Italy by century by style, all of the subcats are "<Foo> architecture in Italy by century" so the only thing that is variable is the style.
Usually the variable item should be last, but in some cases it isn't. An example is Category:Months in Bretagne, where the variable item is "months" (although you only put "month" on the metacat template). Also, sometimes a metacat is created with two "by" criteria that are in the wrong order for the subcats. The metacat criterion should still be the thing that is different in the subcats (and the metacat should be renamed, but that's not the scope of this discussion). -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, but IMO categories with more than two criteria are crazy and not useful. Nobody can understand theyr names ! DenghiùComm (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
@Auntof6: that's because "Months in Bretagne" is as same as "Bretagne by month". But such case has just one criterion and I can not remember any similar case with double criteria. Thanks for clarification anyway. :)
@DenghiùComm: categories with 3 or 4 criteria are indeed hard to understand at first, but if you're opening category by category, let's say Architecture by city, Architecture by city by country and Architecture by city by country by century, all makes sense. In this particular case an alternative is to have 28 categories keyed in the second category (instead of triple criteria), which is not a good solution. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

William W. Naismith

There is a photo of en:William W. Naismith at this page: https://www.smc.org.uk/archives/pioneer?name=william-wilson-naismith it is taken around 1900 give or take a couple of decades. Should I put it as an unfree photo on en or can I assume that it is free? How should I go about? Email the website owners to ask ? Jabbi (talk)

  • @Jabbi: If they can pin down a date or a photographer that might be enough. In the UK, if the photographer died before 1953, the work is public domain; if the photo is 120 years old (before 1903) and we don't know who took it, we go with {{PD-old-assumed}} on the basis that it is unlikely they lived another 50 years after they shot the photo (though of course that is not impossible. I have photos on here I shot over 50 years ago). - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Jabbi: I would say it is PD under "PD-UK-unknown", The UK makes images PD, 70 years from the time they were made public (pre 1953) if due diligence cannot find a name attributed to the image. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Proposal for a new Main Page in Portuguese

Hello everybody!

Sorry if this isn't the right place. I come here to propose for your appreciation a proposal to update the Main Page of the Commons in Portuguese (pt). The proposal is currently at this location. Feel free to suggest changes and improvements.

Background

The last change to the layout of the Main Page dates back to May 2014 (it's been almost 9 years without major changes). Currently, it appears to be in an outdated format compared to Commons Main Pages in other languages (English, French, Italian, etc). Also, the current Main Page doesn't look good on mobile devices (responsive design), especially with regard to the buttons at the top of the page, which are formatted incorrectly on these devices.

Proposal

I propose standardizing the Main Page of Wikimedia Commons in Portuguese, following the formatting and style of the Main Pages already present in most languages on this wiki. This solves the natural lag of the current Page and the visualization problems on the mobile site.

I look forward to the opinions of other users.

Yours sincerely, Fúlviodiz!-fiz! 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Marking gender in categories

I´ve suggested a change to Commons:Category scheme People at Commons talk:Category scheme People#Marking gender in categories. As this is a rather hidden place, please allow me to refer to it from here. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language
 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuz (WMF) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello all,

In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.

The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.

The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.

How to vote?

Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.

Who can vote?

The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.

What happens after the vote?

Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:Commons-Category

@Designermadsen and Hjart: Perhaps I missed it, but I only see now that there is a new Template:Commons-Category. Looks good, especially the geo link to a map with links to photos about the subject (in this case Category:Overcast in the Netherlands). So I think this is a good feature. But in the talk page is a remark that this template is now redundant, though a Wikidata Inofbox does not offer a link to wikimap.toolforge.org, let alone to links to photos about the subject. So I am confused: what is the status of this template and can I use this template or not? If yes, can there please be a kind of instruction, as there is for other templates? (Like: when to use, I guess only for categories with a Wikidata item for a category about a location with geo coordinates.) --JopkeB (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh no, that breaks so many things. Will nominate for deletion shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Commons-Category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
And just to reply to "though a Wikidata Inofbox does not offer a link to wikimap.toolforge.org" - the link you are looking for is named, um, 'Wikimap' - just below authority control. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, then I have another question: How can I keep abreast of new developments, like new links on Wikidata items and new templates? I mean not about all the technical stuff, but only about new features for end-users (looking for images for Wikipedia or other purposes, uploading small amounts of files) and for simple editors like myself (maintenance/adding/changing categories, galleries, initiating of and participating in discussions and deletion requests, using templates but not making them). --JopkeB (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@JopkeB: The best thing I'm aware of is the weekly Wikidata status updates/newletter, which you can subscribe to at m:Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. JopkeB (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Template:FoP and Template:FoP-unknown

{{FoP}} and {{FoP-unknown}} templates are commonly understood to tag either Commons files or files imported from local wikis that may show public art or architecture from an unknown or undefined country. The former categorizes files at Category:FOP, which is supposed to be tracking category.

I can always notice the similarities in both templates, and both imply that the status or location of the works must be defined. I can see the redundancy of "FoP-unknown" to "FoP". The clumping of image files at the category generated by "FoP" template also becomes problematic if the files exceed 100/200/300 or more in quantity. I can notice this situation occuring whenever Wdwdbot dumps local files from German Wikipedia.

Since FoP is more aligned to equivalent templates in other wikis such as the one used in German Wikipedia, I am proposing to merge contents of {{FoP-unknown}} to {{FoP}}, so that "FoP" becomes an effective template. In fact, the users are supposed to use country-specific templates like {{FoP-Germany}} or {{FoP-Australia}} instead of {{FoP}} which is vague in reality and does not encourage users to review the dumped photos at Category:FOP (because the template does not provide emphasis). If "FoP" becomes something like "FoP-unknown", then users are compelled to review the files and clean Category:FOP up – through use of country-specific templates, removal of "FoP" if the work is found to be simple, or conduct deletion requests if the image file fails. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

  • If the point of it is that the country (or FoP status) is unknown, then wouldn't {{FoP-unknown}} be the clearer name? - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Looking more closely, though, it seems that {{FoP}} currently means that the tagger believes it to be an FoP violation, and {{FoP-unknown}} means just what its name implies: status unknown. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: in terms of FOP statuses, as per FOP map we have already determined the statuses of virtually all countries, inclusive of Somalia which is currently gray on map because of unstable status (see COM:FOP Somalia). This means in the CRT pages of at least 196 out of 197 countries (Palestine being exception), FOP rules are already outlined. Therefore, I cannot see the necessity of {{FoP-unknown}} today. Nevertheless, I would suggest merging its contents to {{FoP}} to transform the latter into a template used for work license review. Dozens of German Wikipedia files are being imported by Wdwdbot annually, and ended up being dumped at Category:FOP (which I recently reviewed yesterday).
    Once {{FoP}} becomes a review template it will compel some users or license reviewers to conduct yearly cleanup of Category:FOP Other users, like @Ox1997cow: , may make more country-specific FOP templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
    However, I think {{FoP-unknown}} is useful. This is because it is sometimes impossible to tell which country a building, sculpture or mural was taken in. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel and Ox1997cow: if {{FoP-unknown}} is to be retained, I propose turning {{FoP}} into a template similar to "FoP-unknown", but in this case adding a message stating that files tagged as such for a very long time will be submitted by users or image reviewers for deletion request, so as to clean up Category:FOP which is supposed to be a tracking and maintenance category (and not a designation category like Category:FoP-Belgium that is generated by a country-specific FOP template).

In my proposal, the grace period before the nomination will be 7 days, or 14 days (or 1 month, whichever is desired). If failed to be tagged with either a country-specific FOP template or other template like {{PD-old-architecture}} or {{PD-structure}}, the photos with {{FoP}} tag can be freely nominated by users or reviewers, regardless of eligibility for hosting on Commons. However, the users need not to wait for grace period to end, if they believe the shown artwork or building in the photo is unfree enough, like a modern sculpture from Norway or showing "Burj xyz".

This should help in cleaning up Category:FOP, which is not supposed to be a dump category for an indefinite period. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: {{FoP-unknown}} is useful until we know what country the work is located in. If we don't know which country a building or sculpture is located in, we can use a Google image search or the coordinates recorded in EXIF data to find out which country it is located in. Here are three examples where {{FoP-unknown}} was attached. In this case, I did Google image search and found out that the rabbit sculpture was located at Disneyland Paris in France, and it was deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in France. In these two cases(case 1, case 2), I found out that the work was located in Switzerland through the coordinates recorded in EXIF data, and although Switzerland has freedom of panorama, it only applies to outdoor works, so the indoor work is not applied freedom of panorama, so these photos were deleted. So, when {{FoP}} is useful? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: in your opinion, should {{FoP}} be instead redirected to {{FoP-unknown}}? Because by the contents of the templates they have similar intent and purpose, yet "FoP-unknown" has more emphasis. {{FoP}} seems redundant as there are already specific templates to use with, like {{FoP-Belgium}} or {{FoP-Poland}}. Some special-case templates like {{PD-old-architecture}} or {{PD-old-70}} can be used for public domain ones, or {{PD-structure}} for simple ones.
However, {{FoP}} is linked to w:en:Template:Ir-FoP and w:de:Template:Panoramafreiheit which both serve as their wikis' FOP templates, via Wikidata. But this is likely because the images that were previously here before being imported here directly were claimed to comply with their home wikis' country of origin's freedom of panorama. Nevertheless there is a chance of such images being directly imported here by bots (like Wdwdbot for certain German Wikipedia-sourced photos), without considering the eligibility of the works. Therefore, I assume that {{FoP}} is supposed to be a review template just like {{FoP-unknown}}, but sadly a few users (if no one) have the courage to clean up Category:FOP which {{FoP}} generates, making it an essentially dump category instead of tracking category. Sometimes {{FoP}} is being misused in images showing unfree works of no-FOP countries. Therefore, I am proposing to just add a warning message just like "FoP-unknown", but if "FoP-unknown" has more emphasis and is good at compelling image reviewers to clean the tracking category up, then best for {{FoP}} to be simply merged to {{FoP-unknown}}, and the latter becomes the WikiCommons equivalent of FOP templates of local wikis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I asked if {{FoP}} has any other uses besides what {{FoP-unknown}} is for. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I already answered your question. Read again my reply. {{FoP}} is similar to {{FoP-unknown}} as both generate tracking categories and both serve for review of image files. But in the case of the former, virtually no one (or at most very few) here is reviewing files tagged with {{FoP}}, and worse it serves to escape image reviewers (just like a photo of an unfree Norwegian sculpture tagged as such: [8]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: So, I think it's good to {{FoP}} be redirected to {{FoP-unknown}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: I am open to that, but how about veteran users like Jmabel? We need their responses too as they have already witnessed the creations and establishment of original purposes of both templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I was pinged. Redirecting FoP => FoP-unknown sounds right to me. Still, not an area I focus on unless I stumble across it, so no strong opinions. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Authors without birth and death dates

Do we have a list of authors that we are actively seeking birth and death dates for? Some pdfs of books have been up for deletion because we did not know the authors' death dates, none of them had a Wikidata entry/Creator template. With a little research I was able to find birth and death dates for them and even obituaries that mention their book. If we do not have a list, we should start one. Rather than nominate these works for deletion, it would be easier to just start a list of authors needing birth and death dates. --RAN (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) We have Category:Photographers and artists with year of death unknown, a child of Category:Photographers and artists by year of death, which will help for the future. Otherwise, you may need to cross-reference your list with Category:Year of death missing. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Upload wizard feedback wrong link

On Special:UploadWizard the "Leave feedback" button leads to a page that says don't leave feedback there. Jidanni (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Jidanni: Hopefully, this edit by El Grafo clarified.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Structured data

Does anyone here have experience adding structures data to images? I'm still trying to figure out what is the correct way to model certain depictions Trade (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: Have you seen Commons:Structured data? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I am not thinking about the technical side as much as the community consensus on how it should be used. Trade (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
As you can see from the navbox and the category at the bottom of that page, there are a few pages here about best practices (i.e. not just purely instructional material on how it technically works), such as Commons:Structured data/About/Why and Commons:Structured data/About/Users and Commons:Structured data/About/FAQ. I think these discuss at a hi level why it's worth doing and generally how to go about it. Did you have a specific question? I've done a lot of editing on Wikidata and here to add structured data, so while I'm not an expert, I know more than most WMF wiki editors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How are cosplays dealt with? Do we use the cosplay (activity) item or the cosplayer (occupation) item? And what property do we use for the character being cosplayed? Trade (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
A given piece of media will depict the activity of cosplaying, not have the occupation of being a cosplayer. I think d:Property:P180 is perfectly valid for saying "this photo of a guy dressed as Superman depicts Superman". If the cosplayer himself has a Wikidata item, it could "Depict [person]" with the qualifier "as [character]". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
If i were to add statements to the images in the category :Women with auburn hair would it be best to use P180 > woman > P1884 > auburn hair? Or should i just use P180 > auburn hair instead? Trade (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I would go ahead and err on the side of adding as many relevant statements as you can, particularly if you have a semi-automated and painless way to do so. This is also where marking as prominent is valuable: if the image is about a woman and she so happens to have auburn hair, then mark that we're seeing a woman as prominent (or who the woman is, if she has an entry in Wikidata), but if the picture depicts a lot of auburn hair and it so happens said hair is on a woman, add both statements but mark the auburn hair as being prominent. That would be my take. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Is it just me or does Undo entire group in the AC/DC tool not seem to do anything? I realized i unfortunately made some mistakes in the items and properties used for i learned more about structured data.Trade (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I tried to do a test and so far 0 edits undone --Trade (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
While I have AC/DC installed, I have not experimented with it, nor have I experienced this. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you please try and see if undoing edit group works for you? Trade (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Downloading free content from Google Books as PDF

Say that Google Books has content in the public domain that I want to upload to Commons as being within its scope. In my case, I am considering uploading old issues of InfoWorld in the PDF format. Those issues had no copyright notices and were not subsequently registered within five years, and the publisher apparently began to add a copyright notice only after its September 15, 1980, issue. Notice how, on the bottom right of the pages such as this premier issue, there is a phrase added to the scanned images reading "Copyrighted material", but it is probably copyfraud. More annoyingly, the phrase remains on too many pages as I download them at the highest resolution and convert them into PDF. Is there a way I can conveniently retrieve the page images or download the whole thing in the PDF format without the false notice, or do I have to manually edit them out using GIMP (my preferred editor)? FreeMediaKid$ 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I apologize that this is just a guess rather than definitive, but have you checked around for user scripts for browser plugins like Greasemonkey? I would be surprised if no one had made a user script to download all images as an archive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
I did not until you mentioned it. A handful did in fact write scripts meant to retrieve the images. Unfortunately, they do not remove the false copyright notice, making these methods no different from what I am already doing: copying the image links, changing the width of the images to display them at the highest resolution possible, and then downloading them. FreeMediaKid$ 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
There has to be some AI tool that can remove the watermark efficiently, but I'm ignorant of what it could be. In the meantime, at least for the purposes of 1.) getting the information out into the open here at Commons and 2.) scanning it for reproduction at Wikisource, then the copyfraud watermarks aren't really a concern. I could imagine the scenario where someone just doesn't pay attention and marks them for deletion here, but if your reasoning is correct, then I think they wouldn't be deleted. Sorry that I don't have something more substantial. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, it's all right. I did notice something interesting, though. When I extract Google Books pages, most of the times I would get PNG, and sometimes JPEG. The ones in PNG happen to be the ones with the copyright watermark and the JPEG ones without. This leads me to suspect that the JPEG ones are the original files and the PNG images are scaled for the reader. I am not sure whether this is true for all pages, and given the tediousness of downscaling the width of the pages pixel by pixel and the futility of understanding what makes images display in PNG and not JPEG, I am not in the mood to test that theory out. FreeMediaKid$ 08:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

License tags

Hi all, have been going through our Katoomba images and came across this one. It seems overly restrictive, but I’m likely wrong! Can I get the input of people? Are the conditions imposed on this image reasonable for commons? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

"VSM"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
iPhone autocorrect - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
It looks impressive, but really everything outside of the two licenses offered (CC BY-SA 4.0 and FAL 1.3) are requests, not license requirements. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
How do you tell the difference? Trade (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

How to export my upload list?

I have uploaded a large number of books (User:Bot for Freedom). While they have been categorized in categories like Category:Scans_with_a_SSID and the title list under a category can be exported using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/, I want to check if any of the files has been removed from the categories. So I want to get my bot's upload list. How can I get it? Since they start with the prefix "SSID", if pages with a prefix can be exported, it will help me as well. Upload for Freedom (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Venezuela president recognition map.svg timelapse

Hi! Users that are familiar with the topic know that the presidential crisis in Venezuela has been ongoing for four years, and it hasn't been until recently that it seemingly has come to an end. Naturally, this map: File:Venezuela president recognition map.svg has changed drastically since its beginning in 2019. To reflect these changes over the time, I've thought that an animated file, such as a gif, would be ideal. Are there contributors that could help with this? Many thanks in advance! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@NoonIcarus: probably best asked at Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Roger, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Using Wikicommons photographs in a book

Am I allowed to use Wikicommons photographs in a (soon to be commercially published) book, copyright free, so long as I attribute the photo as listed in its information page? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.248.96.184 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Same question already at Commons:Help desk#Using Wikicommons photos in a commercially published book. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we automate the conversion of author names in PDFs to Creator templates?

Can we automate the conversion of author names in PDFs to Creator templates? See for example: File:The_Oriskany_fauna_of_Becraft_Mountain,_Columbia_County,_N._Y_(IA_oriskanyfaunaofb00clarrich).pdf where we have "Clarke, John Mason, 1857-1925" that can be converted into "{{Creator:John Mason Clarke}}" and if it is a red link create {{Creator|wikidata=Q3809155}} and add it to the Wikidata entry, or would it be too difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 January 2023‎ (UTC)

"Insulting name" in category title and filenames: Run, Nigger, Run

These pages should be renamed (possibly to "Run, African American, Run". The pages containing the "insulting name" should be deleted.

Do you agree? Roy17 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand. Do you want to rename songs? Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
"Nigger" is a bad call to African Americans.
I think the original file name is a insulting name that is not comfortable to use in the file name. Roy17 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
You can open a CFD but I think you will likely be opposed. The name is the actual name of the song, it is used on English, on the WikiData page and you will likely need a redirect anyways because most people will look for it. It seems weird to object to this category when we have Category:Nigger as a parent. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Something along the lines of File:Lyrics of "Run, Nigger, Run, or the M. P. 'll catch you".jpg might be more palatable. But we cannot close our eyes to the ugly parts of history and human behavior. That's why we keep around examples of Nazi propaganda. El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
COM:CENSORSHIP and COM:NPOV may be applicable in this case. Commons may retain things that may be offensive for some or most, because Commons is not Wikipedia and does not adhere to the latter's "neutral point of view". We keep files under titles that may offend several of my peers here in the Philippines (using South China Sea instead of West Philippine Sea), and not to mention .svg flag images of Nazis and ISIL are also retained. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
We should, however, aim to provide the necessary historic context. Files themselves can show biased opinions, but file descriptions need to make clear whose opinion that is. That's even more important for offending, racist, or otherwise disturbing content. And wrt to Wikipedia: see en:Run, Nigger, Run. El Grafo (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Nevertheless, a bit of "curatorial responsibility" seems to be missing here. Currently the page of Category:Run, Nigger, Run appears like any category-page for non-controversial content. Instead, it should include a notice that this controversial historic content is stored here for documentary reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I think Túrelio's suggestion is a good one. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your thoughtful inputs. I am sorry that I, as any sensible user, wouldnt actually want to rename these pages, because Commons functioning like an archive takes these files as they are and does not alter or censor them. I used the n-word merely to get the attention for the following (copied from Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/05#Move_file_to_original_name).

What I wrote at the top of this thread, was exactly lifted from the nonsense that multiple filemovers and sysops accepted to temper the VOA file File:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3.--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

So this was just to make a point? Congrats on wasting time rather than writing this out at the file talk page so people knew what the issue is. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Please not try to Commons:POINT to archieve a consensus, thank you. Hehua (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Move file to original name

I request that Special:permalink/657140008 be fulfilled to restore the original episode name given by VOA. Thx. Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

You don't even bother to comment at File talk:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3. It's been months and I suggest rejecting Roy's request until they choose to engage on the talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
This is exactly the kind of bullshit that wastes users' time.
  1. Throughout the rename-deletion nomination-file talk bullshit, not a single other user understood Chinese.
  2. Firstly, they dont check the source either, otherwise it's not that difficult to see that the filename is the same as the one on VOA, right?
  3. Secondly, no one had the decency to ask me the uploader why the name was such, whether there was some problem, etc. (Of course, because they didnt even understand the filename is the VOA original.) Instead, every stupid person just used google translate and pretended they understood everything and anything at all.
  4. Even as I had reiterated, the original filename is the name given by VOA, not a single user did the right thing to put it back. Instead, some users started meddling, saying that now it was a "dispute" and I should waste my time to "sort it out amongst yourselves".
  5. I took to VP and the thread stayed on VP in May 2022 for two weeks. No one bothered.
Why does the n-word attract so much more attention then? Why the same kind of bullshit happening to a Chinese file could go through, in spite of repeated protest from the uploader? I quoted the exact same bullshit to start this thread. Why can users commenting on this thread about the n-word understand the absurdity of such requests, but not a single one of those about the VOA file?
I dont even need to explain why the name was such, since not a single one of those meddling understood Chinese. As long as it's the original name given by a reputable source, the name stays.
Of course, if someone had asked me nicely, instead of vandalising the filename and creating pointless DR, I would happily explain the language and the word choice (by VOA! not by me).
But reality is, no one bothered asking, and I repeatedly made a simple and straightforward request to "Move file to original name" for more than two weeks, but my request was trashed.
From my experience, multilingualism on Commons extends to languages in latin and as much as cyrillic scripts only. I've seen far too many cases when users do not handle other languages with care, nominating files for deletion because they dont understand the filenames or descriptions, ignoring requests in other languages, not trying to communicate to other users if they dont speak English, etc.--Roy17 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Returning the topic to the VOA file. So a filemover came by and saw the rename request, but s/he didnt understand Chinese. What should s/he have done? Instead of just using google translate, can't s/he post on my talk page and ask?
Actually, I just noticed, if they had used google translate not only for the filename but also the file description, it might be possible to guess the word is a kind of "self-deprecation". Ever done that?--Roy17 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Throughout the shitshow, the first filemover could be given the benefit of the doubt, but after the uploader had explicitly made clear that the original filename is the correct name given by the source VOA, there's no excuse for all the nonsense on the file talk, the DR, and so on.
And another example to explain why using google translate only is bad. I could write "母狗很漂亮" about File:FBI agent with police dog.jpg. The Chinese noun literally is just "female dog", but google translate makes mistakes because Chinese doesnt have a plural form and the words are lost in translation. Roy17 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think that the filename is not appropriate for the policy in commonswiki although it may use in VOA. Hehua (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Maybe it is the truth that the name is just "self-deprecation".But in fact when someone see the filename it is not comfortable but s insulting name. Hehua (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
For your thoughts "not a single other user understood Chinese", maybe we can ask a Chinese filemover or sysop for help. Hehua (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
So please not move it back before we have a consensus.Your act is not helpful to solve the problem but to cause a move/edit war. Hehua (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • I think you are being a bigger source of a time waste than anyone else. There is an active discussion on the file talk page. Roy17, you were directly pinged last May and refused to respond there. Instead after it was moved, we have to waste time here with your pointless exercise and you refuse to comment with anyone else on the subject there. This discussion will be archived and no one will have any idea what this is about. Now, will you be an adult and talk where everyone else is rather than keep this argument going on in two different locations? I refuse to waste time reading and responding here. An admin or another filemover can decide if they want to encourage your little stunt by ignoring the discussion there. I suggest an admin close this discussion since there is a place where the discussion is going rather than encourage editors to engage in other games and refuse to engage with people because if you do encourage this, you will end up with people just coming to the Village Pump with other childish arguments and refusing to have discussions. Use your words and you can explain what in the world the Chinese slur is or isn't or why it should or shouldn't matter. Do not play games by making further irrelevant stunts and refusing to talk to people who are at least trying to engage with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    By your logic (bullshit):
    1. Move File:Run, nigger, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you.jpg to "Run, African American, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you.jpg"
    2. Start a discussion on file talk, because now there is a "dispute" about the name.
    3. The uploader should discuss why it should be moved back to "Run, nigger, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you", by analysing everything about the n-word.
    But the real problem is, there's nothing to discuss. Whether the word is offensive or not, it doesnt even matter.--Roy17 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Giving in to these pointless discussions, is the source of wasting everyone's time. If the first filemover who learnt that the original name is correct as given by the source rejected the rename, I wouldnt need to waste my time doing anything about it. Were my rename requests on the file page not clear enough? "move to original name given by VOA, which is also heard in the audio at 0m50s", which part do the filemovers and sysops not understand? (VOA may not be neutral, but it's only biased against the Chinese communist government, then why would it start mistreating victims of the Chinese commies?)
    None of these busibodies using google translate would understand the word is not offensive at all, and the argument initiating this "it's an insulting name blah blah blah" was wrong. Rather it's a kind of self-deprecation or reappropriation. Anyone legible in Chinese would understand. For anyone not legible in Chinese, this doesnt even matter, because all you need to know is that's the VOA original name.
    Now I go fly a kite and you can enjoy conversing with whoever that is on file talk or wherever. Roy17 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    But the song cannot be renamed. Hehua (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe you are right. However, Please see File talk:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3 and @Ricky81682 advised to rename it to a neutral middle ground name.Thx. Hehua (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it is not a problem to quote the title verbatim from an external source when naming a file. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it is appropriate to quote a title verbatim in either of these circumstances. But I also agree that if you fail to comment where the discussion is actually taking place, your views will probably be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Category Digital Zoom

The reason for writing is that some of my files have been categorised to Digital Zoom (in fact, they are now the majority of the files in the category). But I'm not complaining about that. Because for that I would first have to understand what is meant by the category in the first place? Because that's what I can't understand. There are crops, a computer animation and pictures that have definitely not been zoomed either optically or digitally (especially the pictures of Human Rights Day that I took 34 days ago, I remember very well that they are not zoomed). C.Suthorn (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: You appear to be writing of Category:Digital zoom. Why did you not link it? You could ask the users who are categorizing with it. Pinging @WikipediaMaster as author of the category name.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
That was me. IMO Digital zoom is similar to, or same as, "upsizing/upsampling", for which AFAIK we don't have own category. User C.Suthorn is heavily upsizing many of their own uploads, with the result that in 100% view they look somewhat like this. --A.Savin 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Why are you doing that?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not upscale my images. Most jpg-images are without any alteration to the jpg-structure from the camera. The native resolution (published by the manufacturer) is 12000x9000. The effect pointed out by A.Savin is typical for the camera, i don't like it, but I have not looked into ways to get better jpg-encoding from the camera. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
12000x9000 is more than 100 Mpix, by now there's IMO no common consumer camera which could shoot single pictures of this resolution. --A.Savin 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
The camera may be doing digital zoom (upsampling) internally. Some cameras do that. I had an old Nikon CoolPix that did. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
I think these photos here are taken with a smartphone camera and some smartphones upscale the photos. Additionally the sensors are very small but have so much pixels on the sensor that the singe pixels are to small resulting in noise and artifacts. But I would also not create such kind of category, this could be done with structured data or even directly using the exif data. GPSLeo (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Photo challenge November results

Hair: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Ирокез Hairs on a horse
snout in backlight		 Man with matted hair
Author Tiraspolsky F. Riedelio Sneha G Gupta
Score 17 9 8
Unfinished things: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Seestadt Aspern, Vienna,
during construction (December 2013).		 stonemason carving letters Детское творчество
Author Jacek79 Virtual-Pano Tiraspolsky
Score 12 11 10

Congratulations to Jacek79, Virtual-Pano, Tiraspolsky, F. Riedelio and Sneha G Gupta. -- Jarekt (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories versus ‘depicts’ statements

Do we have any guidance on how categories compare to ‘depicts’ statements? For example, the file You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia0.jpg, which was already in the category Vandalism in Wikipedia, just had a ‘depicts’ statement added for vandalism on Wikipedia (Q6180). While it might relate to vandalism and therefore belong to the category, it certainly does not depict vandalism; it depicts a block notice. Brianjd (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Brianjd: Yup, bad use of "depicts". In my experience on what people do on my own photos, between 25% and 50% of "depicts" are bad. People seem unaware that there are other properties they can use to describe photos.
  • The guidance is Commons:Depicts and Commons:Structured data. It isn't really vs. categorization, they are described independently. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Trade: I have switched your depicts (P180) statement for a main subject (P921) statement.[9] These two wikidata properties are similar but main subject (P921) holds the nuance that the image is about something that may or may not be in the image. For depicts (P180) you need to see the related item in the image. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    It's ok, i'll stop using structured data now. Trade (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not asking you to stop. I just wanted to show you that someone was commenting about your edits and give you an alternative method for dealing with these situations. None of us are perfect and we just need to learn as we make our edits. As long as you have the aim to improve as you learn more about structured data, I don't see any problem here. A few bad edits out of thousands of good edits is nothing to be concerned about. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    What property are you thinking of? Trade (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Trade: From Hill To Shore's link was a little wonky because it was from mobile, but this is the diff for what he did. Looks to me that what they did is the right way to go. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      I was talking about the images you uploaded. Guess its about that nude festival you mentioned earlier? Trade (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Trade (talk · contribs) Was that addressed to me? (1) I had nothing to do with the file User:Brianjd was asking about. (2) Assuming by "nude festival" you mean the Summer Solstice Parade in Seattle, it is hardly a "nude festival". It's a parade put on by an arts organization. A few people started showing up for it naked on bicycles. Eventually a compromise was reached (at least with most of them) that they'd at least paint themselves (or one another) artistically, which pretty much all complied with. Over time the contingent expanded from a dozen or so to about a thousand, maybe a third of the total number of people in the parade (and certainly now more famous than the parade itself). - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        'In my experience on what people do on my own photos, between 25% and 50% of "depicts" are bad.' I just wanted you to elaborate on that Trade (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        • @Trade: a wide variety of ways of being bad, from truly wrong (e.g. identifying a butch woman as a man, or saying that a picture depicts something that it literally does not in any apparent way related to) to way off the point (saying that a picture depicts a stop sign -- with no other depicts -- when you'd practically need a magnifying glass to seethe stop sicne and the picture mainly depicts a car) to saying that a picture that is mainly a portrait depicts a particular city or country, to adding a uselessly generic value like "depicts person" to a picture of an identified individual who has a Wikidata item, to ones like what came up here, where the item is related to the photo, but the relationship is not "depicts". - Jmabel ! talk 08:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
          You might wanna start a new discussion on what statements NOT to use as structured data if you feel some of them are useless Trade (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'll love to use the other properties as well but the tool is still buggier than i hoped Trade (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel It seems to me that users are generally confident with categories but see structured data as a weird new thing; that’s why I thought it would be good to compare them. Brianjd (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Missing data in Authority Control in Infobox

On Category:443 Hume Highway, Casula there is an identity NSW Heritage Database ID, but it isn’t appearing into the Wikidata Infobox. Does anyone know why this is? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Polite ping... - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2: The normal place to ask questions about the infobox is Template talk:Wikidata Infobox, I don't normally watch here. In this case it's because NSW Heritage database ID (P3449) is not included in the list of authority control properties that the infobox uses. I've added it in the sandbox, it shows OK in this category with {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}, and will appear more widely when the next batch update is done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you so much Mike, still working out where to ask on Commons :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

How to implement "Quality imports"?

Main gallery: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/09#Quality imports.

As y'all can see above the proposal to create "Commons:Quality imports" was approved, how should we implement it now? I am not sure if it is just blindly copying the existing "Commons:Quality images" infrastructure or creating a parallel system. While the proposal succeeded, the details of the implementation wasn't thoroughly discussed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Which part of the structure? For the page itself, it looks like this is sort of "Quality images but that weren't created by the uploader" so I would start the page with just a link to the Quality images page to have a start but we should have four options for later searching: country, subject, uploader/user, and source. I don't think you need to copy the existing infrastructure but just start that it's a basis for now. Keep it very basic with a very simple Commons:Quality imports candidates and then let's start having discussions about what media to include and see if there are different criteria (something like the amount of work to get or the transformative nature from the original could be important or it could be irrelevant). Start simple because the hardest draft is always the first and I think the first goal should be to see what people consider as candidates and then see what people make up as criteria from there. QI wasn't built in a day. :) Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Iconic photographs

Category:Iconic photographs seems an arbitrary collection, and no guidance on how to apply it is given there.

Perhaps we should create a definition; maybe photos that are the subject of an article in at least one Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind deleting it (or keeping it around), but if it is to be kept, it should definitely be a container cat containing no images directly. If an image is not important enough to have a category, then it's not important enough to be considered an "iconic" photograph. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea for a gallery, though. Anyone interested in making a gallery and getting rid of the category? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, that's clearly gallery territory. El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we should just start a CFD and continue the discussion there. This will fall off the VP page long before it's settled. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Jmabel, El Grafo, and Ricky81682: Now at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Iconic photographs; I have no faith in a resolution being achieved promptly, there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Council

So, I noticed the Commons:WikiProject Council doesn't have members... So does this mean you can't currently start a new WikiProject on the Commons, or is there an alternative process in place now that isn't mentioned?--The Navigators (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Navigators Yeah, looks like that page was a good idea that never really took off. I'd suggest to go present your project idea at COM:VP/P. El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I've marked that page as inactive, as I don't see this ever taking off on Commons. WikiProjects are just not much of a thing here, so a meta page for organizing them will not attract enough people. The few proposals for new WikiProjects can easily go to COM:VP/P. We should probably edit Commons:WikiProject accordingly. El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I need help with an old map

Appreciated community:

I'm considering to upload into Commons a map featured in a French book of 1922, called "Nouvelle Géographie universelle". However, I couldn't find enough biographical information about Ernest Granger (the author of the book) in order to determinate the appropiate course of action.

What can I do in regards to this? I need an answer as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and may God bless you. Universalis (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Universalis: Hi, and welcome. Per en:Ernest Granger, he died 21 May 1914.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The guy you said was a politician. I'm refering to another guy, a professor in history and geography. Universalis (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ernest Granger (1876-19..) [10] --Raugeier (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I started in on fully marking up the EB1 world maps. I found that (a) they're exact duplicates of a better map available in more detail and (b) that I could handle helpfully marking the cities that were considered revelant for inclusion at the time in the Wikidata instead of the categories. I was in the process of moving most of that over and cleaning up the cats when User:Enyavar took it upon themselves to blank an entire day or two worth of work—including entirely unexpected and important categories like phantom islands, Khoikhoi, Negroland, Carpentaria, &c.—out of a misguided sense of gatekeeping and cleanliness.

If everyone here agrees and prefer that I not make this series of maps available in (eg) France and South America because we don't normally bother for most world maps, fine, and you guys can mark and sort everything to your desired level of nonspecificity. If anyone does understand what was undone and does still want me adding, tagging, and sorting things, this was obviously badly and obnoxiously handled and it'd be nice to have an admin explain BITE, IAR, and related policies to Enyavar before they send more people entirely off the deep end and off the project. — LlywelynII 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Pointless file renames

Some users are requesting renames that do nothing but only translate from one language to another, or only make cosmetic changes, in the name of "criterion 4 harmonising filenames". Meanwhile some filemovers are not doing their job by blindly renaming. I didnt bother raising this up since too many users are doing this kind of crap; and I, one person alone, dont have the time or energy to monitor all these; and damage had already been done after the blind renames. But since this has been brought up in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nihonjoe, I will address these here once and for all.--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Japan logos

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&tagfilter=RenameLink&target=SpinnerLaserzthe2nd&limit=3000 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&tagfilter=RenameLink&target=Xeror&limit=3000

Many filenames were originally in 3 situations:

  1. in Japanese
  2. in a wrong English translation (e.g. File:Kosei Shiga chapter.JPG). Error occured because the Japanese word 章 can mean either an emblem or a book chapter.
  3. in a good English translation (e.g. File:Symbol of Sanyoonoda Yamaguchi.svg), because someone had corrected the "chapter" error before.

To correct the error is perfectly fine. But then these users started requesting those filenames in Japanese or "Symbol of xx" be renamed. I know nothing about vexillology, so I dont know what the difference is between emblem and coat of arms, but one thing is certain -- these Japanese diagrams can be logos, symbols or emblems. There is no "official" translation of the terminology. If ambiguity were to be avoided, then it's better to harmonise them to Japanese names (章)!--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

SVG coats of arms of municipalities of Emilia-Romagna

Category:SVG coats of arms of municipalities of Emilia-Romagna Sorted from new to old. The oldest file File:CoA Città di Ferrara.svg used a naming format consistent in its own! Then some user started requesting renames because they are now doing their system which these files should harmonise to. Bullshit!--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My view in short:

  1. Never make cosmetic changes unless it's necessary. Neither criterion 4 nor criterion 1 can be used to justify frivolous cosmetic changes.
  2. Different naming systems (especially due to different authors) can co-exist as long as they are precise on the same level. Harmonisation only if it's necessary for mediawiki maintenance (like wikisource pages) or template design (that cannot tolerate filenames in other formats at all. If template can be redesigned to accommodate different filenames, change the template.).

--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Your view is fine and all but are you proposing a policy change or something? Harmonizing seems fine to me but it seems odd when we do have the ability to do redirects. We do redirects for categories and pages in various languages so I don't see an issue with file names. As to these, do you want these renames to be undone? Meanwhile, you troll VP and make demands that people don't touch your uploads but refuse to engage with an active discussion at File talk:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3 but have an issue with another uploader requesting renames for their own system of file names. It seems inconsistent. Either way, I don't see a need to add more to footnote 4 for COM:FNC#4 at this time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Striking those remarks. I will focus on the fact that I don't see an issue necessarily at this time but redirects are cheaper and easier to implement. The file name doesn't even matter for the most part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll copy this again from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=724773018 .
"From my experience, multilingualism on Commons extends to languages in latin and as much as cyrillic scripts only. I've seen far too many cases when users do not handle other languages with care, nominating files for deletion because they dont understand the filenames or descriptions, ignoring requests in other languages, not trying to communicate to other users if they dont speak English, etc."
After I posted this for a week, no responsible user responds to this thread. No one reverts those problematic file renames e.g.
  1. File:上野原市市章.svg
  2. File:Coat of arms of Soliera.svg
  3. File:Coat of Arms of Serrungarina.svg
  4. File:Coat of Arms of Saltara.svg
Since a Japanese system of filenames can be renamed to English, and an English system of filenames can be renamed to Italian, all in the name of harmonisation,
then why not rename all files in Category:SVG sovereign state flags, for example "Flag of Argentina.svg", from English to Spanish (which is one of the 6 UN official languages and has more L1 speakers than English), or Chinese (another UN official language with the largest number of L1 speakers), or Yahgan language? As long as the new filenames are a system, it's valid to "harmonise them to a system".--Roy17 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gallery of new files: ‘Flickr check’

In the gallery of new files, the file 20220921 Fröttmaning 01.jpg (and only that file) has a link labelled ‘Flickr check’, which apparently requires a Flickr login. What is this? Brianjd (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I was searching the page for ‘Flickr’, which is how I found that link, but now I notice it also has a unique ‘pbase check’ link. That link points to http://www.pbase.com/image/20220921, which says:
Unknown Image
There might be a mistake in the URL you entered. Please check the address and try again.
There is no image with id 20220921.
That doesn’t sound very promising. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @FlocciNivis as uploader. Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd The image is taken by me and I have never uploaded it to Flickr . I think it was just algorithmically matched because the name contains 20220921, which is just the date it was taken on, and this apparently is the ID of a former file on Flickr or pbase. FlocciNivis (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd: These are special features of Special:NewFiles as a part of this site's MediaWiki version 1.40.0-wmf.18 (00e0651) dated 19:17, 9 January 2023. See the sparse documentation at mw:Help:New files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. The key word is ‘sparse’. I have never understood how people are supposed to maintain software if no one even understands what the software is supposed to do. Brianjd (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Removing parent category from DR and it's archive page

With this this DR the page for the deletion request and the archive page it were both automatically added to the files parent category Category:Ross-Verlag. I'd like to remove the pages from the category, but there doesn't seem to a be way to since there's not the usual code for categories at the bottom of either page or the interface options. So does anyone know how I make it so Category:Ross-Verlag isn't used as a category for the pages? Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I defanged it like so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and close at 23.59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gallery in categories for ships (watercraft) with the same name

A few things can probably be said about the categories for ships (watercraft) with the same name. But I got the idea that adding a gallery in the category page with a representative image of each watercraft could make categorization easier. I tried it at Category:Ships named Tacoma. I am absolutely not sure that combining galleries and categories like that is a great idea, though. What do you think? Blue Elf (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. It'll be more relevant in some cases than others, but on the whole I think it's a good idea. Maybe link the names to the relevant categories though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have a gallery in a parent category like Category:Ships named X, to show a photo of each of the subcategories. That sure makes categorization easier. If it is about a few photos (max ±10), I think the gallery can be in the category (though this is not a Commons policy, but mine never have been deleted). Otherwise you can make a gallery page and refer to it in the category (this is the policy). JopkeB (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I rather like that solution, especially as you did it in a chronological order. This approach feels better than messing with a separate gallery page for such a use-case. I agree with Andy that linking names to categories would be good. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Re chronological order, it would be best to have all the dates of manufacture launch with the names, not just some of them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Rather than the captions mirroring the category names, just link to the categories and provide name and year of build. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a good idea. And not a new idea, either — see: Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have linked the names to the categories now. For the naval ships I kept the pennant numbers but added the building year, to make it as clear as possible. We do have some ship (watercraft) names that have been very popular, with probably more than 20 ships with the same name, but most of these categories will have two or three or four ships in them. Blue Elf (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Elf: Category:Ships named Enterprise has 22 subcats and is sorted by date of launch. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Tool to help patrolling new uploads

Hi, I made this toolforge tool called NewFilesPatrol (NFP) to make it easier to patrol new uploads for copyvio and such. It's like PageTriage/NPP but for Commons. It's in early stages and right now more of a prototype because I want to make sure it'd be helpful to patrollers before I invest more time in it. A couple missing parts: OAuth integration to avoid showing "block" or "delete" to non-admins and even maybe later I'd incorporate ability to delete the file in the page instead of opening a new tab in the wiki. Also adding support for limit and continue, a more mobile friendly design (and maybe a system of one-by-one for mobile), ability to skip files you don't want to act on etc. I'd be happy to do this if patrollers think this is useful and better than Special:NewFiles or newbies-uploads tool. The source code (MR is welcome) or report bugs, feature requests, etc. If anyone wants to help co-maintaining it, I'd be more than happy to add them. Please let me know if you find it useful or not. Thanks. Amir (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Would it be possible to make the tool tag new uploads that lists it's source or author as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or IMDB.com? Those images typically require VRT Trade (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I am afraid that this will become a very large list. To avoid that, we might exclude uploads from experienced/trusted users, like uploaders who have more than x uploads, active for more than y days on Commons and never have been blocked anywhere. Would it also be possible to give information about former deletions of uploads by the uploader because of copyvio or other violation reasons? JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In all honesty i can not think of many experienced users who take their pictures from social media websites. Trade (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Thanks. I filed phab:T327003.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade It should be doable, please file a ticket. @JopkeB This tool only shows you unaptrolled files. If a user is autopatrolled (like most of trusted users), it won't show their uploads. If someone is missing, admins can give them autopatrolled rights. Also if a file gets marked as patrolled, it won't show up there again. @Jeff G. I will comment there. Thanks. Amir (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you fill one on my behalf please? I have little experience with the ticket system Trade (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade phab:T327377 Amir (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know. JopkeB (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of adding a link to it at the top of Special:NewFiles? Amir (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Added there Amir (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Millions!

At the spam factory that is https://wikimediafoundation.org/wikipedia-desktop/ , it’s said that there are «68+ million Media files on Wikimedia Commons» and people are invited to tweet this patent falsehood.

The offered number is wrong, of course (over 90 million as of writing), as wrong as the misuse of the plus sign and as wrong as promoting one specific microblogging platform. And of course there’s no simple way to see who penned this absurdity, nor when. (The 68 million number was accurate by early 2021.)

As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I do not feel represented by this kind of corporate-esque “outreach”, at all.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted. I'll pass the request along. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Polish voivodeship road signs

I have recently started using voivodeship roads signs on Wikipedia from Category:Diagrams of Voivodeship road signs of Poland, however I have noticed that images in the mentioned category have different dimensions and different types. As a result, placing them next to each other does not look well.

I suggest they be standardized, such as with the US interstate shields or Polish national road signs. This would make them look more properly in articles. PRmaster1 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@PRmaster1 Indeed, that looks quite ugly. Maybe start a request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? People there should be able to help you... El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue is about wide variation in Category:Diagrams of Voivodeship road signs of Poland.
Height is consistenly 270, but widths are all over the map.
The SVG files also use anisotropic scaling.
The Polish sign font is Drogowskaz. See en:Polish road signs typeface. Font is not on Commons. Arial is a reasonable facsimile: 0123456789. The "9" is very different. The en.Wiki article has links to Polish sign specs, but I cannot load the PDFs and do not read Polish. The specs should state some dimensions.
Here is much simpler SVG that uses fallback fonts and a 2:1 width to height ratio. 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<svg
   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   version="1.1"
   viewBox="0 0 540 270"
   font-family="Drogowskaz, Arial, sans-serif"
   font-size="230"
   font-weight="bold">

  <rect x="6" y="6" width="528" height="258" stroke="black" stroke-width="12" rx="27" fill="#fafd4a" />
  
  <text x="50%" y="220" text-anchor="middle">100</text>
</svg>
Glrx (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

German railbus

Wich type of railbus is this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:MAN-Schienenbus of Südwestdeutsche Verkehrs-Aktiengesellschaft Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, there where minor differences with the newer images of railbus, but these must be modifications.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think they have two different ends, one with a gangway door (crew only), so that they can be run in multiple, but only in pairs. The other end just has an equipment cubicle with a vent grille on it, but the window frames still have this distinctive layout of 3 panes, with a narrow door-width one in the middle.
There's also a variety of engines and two transmissions (mechanical and hydraulic), and they're also pretty old now, so changes would be likely. Was the one you saw still in regular service, or was it more of a preserved museum piece? I know there are a few like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging feedback

Did the computer-aided tagging feedback page quietly die, just like the Upload Wizard feedback page? Brianjd (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Stephenson College, Durham images

The page w:Stephenson College, Durham had a series of edits from someone clearly associated with the college, editing as w:User:Stephensoncollegedu (banned under username policy), then as w:User:129.234.0.50 (blocked for adding unsourced promotional content), then as w:User:Kstobbs (banned from editing that page due to block evasion and conflict of interest). As part of this, they uploaded four images to Commons, two of which remain on the page:

These are fairly clearly official Durham University marketing photos - two of them appear in an official university publication, and a photo obviously from the same photoshoot appears on the university website.

It's possible that, as someone who appears to be a representative of the college, the uploader does have permission to release these - and if so, that's fantastic because they're great images; but we have no evidence of that other than the upload declaring them "Own work", and a query I put on w:User talk:Kstobbs 10 days ago hasn't had a reply. Thoughts on the best way to proceed? Should we take the copyright release declaration at face value until shown otherwise, or do these need to go? (Let me know if there's a better forum for this.) TSP (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete. We are here to act as an unpaid publicity agency (it's within SCOPE), but only if they play ball and file the paperwork right. Otherwise we should just save our efforts. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Steam locomotives by by-RaBoe

There (01 to 22) 2014 images of steam engines without location. These are nearly remaining images in Category:2014 in rail transport in Germany. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a bad Computer-generated rendering of Hannover Hbf. The real Hannover Hbf is not so tidy (compare: File:Dampflok 41 096 Hannover Hbf 1803241122.jpg). from september 2013 according to EXIF. C.Suthorn (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved the files to Category:2013 in rail transport in Lower Saxony and Category:Trains at Hannover Hauptbahnhof. There are only two file without location information left in Category:2014 in rail transport in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
File:DBAG 429 RE9 Rostock-159148.jpeg The sign on the train says it is the RE9 Rostock Hbf service, which appears to run from Sassnitz. A sign in the background on the right suggests the train is between Sassnitz and Bergen when the photo was taken. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The license plate of the car on the bottom one is Schwaebisch Hall.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:52, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

The Negro Motorist Green Book 1949

We already have File:The Negro Motorist Green Book 1949.pdf. Recently, User:DPLA bot uploaded this work separately in a set of one-page JPEGs File:The Negro Motorist Green Book, 1949 - DPLA - 0714b2993c48adf98a5a592c7468d23e (page 1).jpg. At least one of these -- that very first page -- is an improvement over what is in the PDF (which has a big sticker on the cover). However, most of this seems pretty redundant. They aren't true duplicates in the sense we usually mean on Commons: different file format, distinct scans of a different copy of the book, and on some pages (e.g. File:The Negro Motorist Green Book, 1949 - DPLA - 0714b2993c48adf98a5a592c7468d23e (page 5).jpg you can see a distinct "Seattle Public Library" stamp.

The situation is essentially parallel for 1956.

I'm inclined to keep these, but I'm also inclined not to want to make it hard to find the PDFs.

I see a few ways to go, and was wondering if anyone has a strong inclination:

  1. Separate out a subcat for PDFs (+ DJVUs, etc.): files that represent full volumes.
  2. Separate out a subcat for files showing individual pages or portions of pages.
  3. Both of the above.
  4. Separate out subcats by year.

And I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has another idea.

I'll give at least 48 hours for people to weigh in before I pick an approach and start categorizing the couple of hundred individual-page files from Seattle Public Library. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I think a category for the volume and put both the PDF and the individual pages in it together are fine which I think is option 4. We do that with newspapers all the time where we have an issue of the newspaper, separate images for images extracted from the newspaper and maybe even JPGs of each page in the newspaper. See Category:Duluth Herald, Vol. 38, No. 194 for an example. That way all the items that are jointly the same (the date of publication, the title) are all under a parent category while the individual files are left to have unique characteristics. I could see individual pages discussing various cities or states in that year going into the state or city of that year category as a cool way to find that information. In the category I did, the individual advertisements are categorized by the movies they advertise while the parent keeps it connected Duluth on that day in November 1920. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Checking:
The newly create category for the book (pdf/djvu and jpgs) is indeed useful.
  • This should be added directly by the uploading bot.
  • Can the jpgs also be "baked" into a pdf/djvu?
  • Beyond the file name, shouldn't there be some indication on the individual pages' file description the page it relates to?
  • Is Template:Artwork correct?
  • Title and description don't seem to relate to the individual page or whatever is represented on them, but the book.
In general, uploading books (consisting mainly of text) page by page as jpg doesn't seem a good idea.
Further uploads from the bot should be halted until the above points are addressed. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Most pages are going to be useless being separated but then you have a page like File:The Negro Motorist Green Book, 1949 - DPLA - 0714b2993c48adf98a5a592c7468d23e (page 22).jpg where you find a cool old image of Comiskey Park. I don't think a bot could write every single description but the title could include the page number and perhaps a link to the PDF if people want. Ricky81682 (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Removal of POV structured data

Hi all, I cannot remove the PoV item from the stuctured data of File:Orphan_Rock,_Katoomba_(2485154006).jpg. It's wrong, and given this is a historical photo the actual subject of the photo has now been included. Can someone help? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done. Editing the camera location structured data has been buggy for a while now... Somehow, the workaround is to set your language to something else, then edit/delete the entry. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wow. Thanks for the tip, HyperGaruda. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:56, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Breast implants

Dumb question but is this category supposed to be only for images related to the procedure of breast implants? Or is it also for images of women with implaints just in general? The fact that Breast Augmentation 3mo post-op.ogv is in the category makes the scope of the category unclear to me. --Trade (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Categories that allow this kind of question should have subcategories that don't. (Compare e.g. category Horses, which contains everything related to the topic, including Horse equipment and People with horses.) --Watchduck (quack) 11:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Would you please create such a category? Trade (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: where you think there is a useful distinction to be made you can as easily create a category as anyone else, no? - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm unsure how the structuring should be done. Trade (talk) 01:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Are all by date in country categories to be deleted now?

Redirect templates have appeared on all US and UK by date categories eg Category:United States photographs taken on 2023-01-03 and Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2023-01-02. this seems a rather dramatic change and I can't see where it has been discussed. Oxyman (talk) 00:18, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

@Sleeps-Darkly: you are the one who did this on Category:United States photographs taken on 2023-01-03. Was there some discussion about this that I missed? This seems to me like a very bad idea. Among other things, these categories are used by {{Taken on}}. As far as I know, there has been a longstanding consensus that date + country is exactly the granularity we wanted there, and I hadn't heard anything about that consensus changing.
@Oxyman: I don't see such a change anywhere in the history of Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2023-01-02, one of the examples you cited. Am I missing something here, too? - Jmabel ! talk 01:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the change would be in the history of the Template used "UK photographs taken on navbox" but am not sure how to find this Oxyman (talk) 01:31, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is here; I've flat out copied the template used in a previous date-article <https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:United_States_photographs_taken_on_2023-01-02&action=history>; it seems that you'd need to look deeper to find the issue. -- Sleeps-Darkly (talk) 01:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: the change doesn't appear in the category history, I think the change would be in the history of the Template used but don't know how to find this I don't think Sleeps-Darkly or any of the other category creators did this, rather someone who edited the template, Oxyman (talk) 01:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Even weirder, now the redirect templates seem to have gone away. Maybe that happened between my looking at Category:United States photographs taken on 2023-01-03 and Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2023-01-02, which is why I saw it on the one and not the other. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
& Template:Country photographs taken on shows no sign of recently being messed with. I have no idea, and given that the problem seems to have gone away, I'm not going to go in any deeper. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Strange but seems OK now Oxyman (talk) 02:38, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Although in terms of granularity, "by date" would have very different implications depending on whether it's by day, by year or inbetween. I'd expect pretty universal support for years, or even decades. Categorization to the day is another matter (obviously some specific days are particular): it's a lot more work, we more rarely have the source metadata, it's far less useful.
Personally I'm simply uninterested in "by day" categorization. I don't see enough value in it, but nor do I oppose anyone else who wants to do the legwork. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:34, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: "By year" and "by month" categories are usually considered "topical" and are placed by hand. "By day" categories are generally hidden and are usually created with {{Taken on}}. The latter are mostly useful for things like finding other photos that might have been taken in the same session, or of the same event, where one might be very identifiable, and the other gives only a date written on the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
MW categorization is a poor means to find photos by day, and we have better ones. In particular, it's hard to search for ranges in that way. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:06, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorting photographs of Indonesia in Leiden University Library cats

How should I sort File:Beeld uit Tjandi Singasari bij Malang, KITLV 162507.tiff which according to a translation is an image from the National Museum of Indonesia in Jakarta. It is an object from Category:Candi Singosari which is in East Java. Should I leave it in Category:Photographs of Indonesia in Leiden University Library and if we have enough, a East Java subcategory, or in the Jakarta subcategory? It is also in Category:Collections of the National Museum of Indonesia as it is a part of the collections there. I also think it belongs as an image from the 1890s from the description but I think it belongs better as an image of Category:Candi Singosari in the 1890s/East Java in the 1890s rather than an image of Jakarta in the 1890s solely because it is from the museum at that time. Or both along with Category:Museums photographed in the 1890s? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Blocking people for behavior on other projects

Hi. There's been several users blocked recently, where the main or only justification for the blocks seem to come down to behavior they supposedly did on other projects. Which IMO seems like a bad precedent to set since a lot of users start editing Commons because of problems or sanctions elsewhere. Also, I don't see anything in Commons:Blocking policy that says anything along the lines of "behavior in other Wikimedia projects is grounds for a block." So, I guess I'm wondering what the policy or consensus is when it comes to blocking people mainly or purely because of issues they have had elsewhere. Is how someone has acted on another project an acceptable reason to block them? Or should it be the other projects' responsibility to deal with the person if their behavior outside of Commons is really that intractable? Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it really depends on what they did on the other projects. Racist bullying? Made-up sources? I don't think we should wait till they do it here. Repeated edit warring? Undisclosed paid editing? We should wait till they break a rule here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 Other projects? Or other Wikimedia projects? What’s the difference?
If the offending behaviour is on other non-Wikimedia projects, then even discussing it here could be grounds for a block. Cross-posting personal information from other Wikimedia projects is just as bad, but linking the behaviour via username is OK, so discussing the behaviour is OK. But that doesn’t explain why that behaviour should be actionable here. Brianjd (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 I think I can name one of those users; that block was lifted after multiple users strongly opposed the block, claiming that the block had never been properly justified to begin with. What happened in the other cases you are thinking of? Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was other Wikimedia projects. For instance ru.Wikipedia or be-tarask.wikipedia.org. The users I'm talking about are Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев_Владимир. Both of them were apparently blocked due to problems on other projects. At least that's how it seems since there isn't any evidence of either of them doing anything recently to deserve the blocks. Plus, multiple people involved in Kazimier Lachnovič ANU complaint cited his behavior on be-tarask.wikipedia.org. Including the blocking administrator. That said though, I didn't really start this to relitigate the ANU complaint. Since IMO it's more of a general issue outside of those specific blocks. Although they are good examples of what I'm talking about. Especially with Kazimier Lachnovič's block. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 You were clear enough to start with. My question was kind of rhetorical. I was really saying: If we don’t (in fact, usually can’t) block users for their behaviour on non-Wikimedia projects, then we shouldn’t block them for their behaviour on other Wikimedia projects either. Brianjd (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
As someone who has been very unfairly indefinitely blocked from
en.wikipedia, it would be a shame if I was blocked for no reason on here. I’m doing extensive photography of the City of Liverpool, along with ensuring Wikidata entries are correct and complete. IMO, there are too many examples unfortunately of a mob mentality on other WMF projects. It would be a great pity if others got excluded from commons because of perceived or actual infractions on other projects when they haven’t done anything harmful (or better yet have done a lot of good!) for Commons. In fact, it’s likely quite a few refugees from other projects might help improve Commons. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:54, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
In general, we shouldn’t be complaining about other projects here, but this is ridiculous. Chris.sherlock2 was indefinitely blocked there (with user talk and e-mail disabled) despite having only 2 edits, both deleted, no user page and not even a user talk page to display a block notice. And nothing useful in the block log either, of course. This lack of transparency alone is a reason to avoid importing blocks from other projects. Brianjd (talk) 13:04, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
20k+ edits here in less than 2 months, with only a few minor complaints. They must be doing something right. Brianjd (talk) 13:08, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Brian :-) if I do make a mistake, please let me know! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I don’t wish to be unclear - I had asked for that account to be indefinitely blocked as I had created this account as I lost access to the others. The reason you can’t see that, however, is they deleted the talk page.
work I did on the other site was things like Sylvia Ashby and Kate Baker in a vain attempt to contribute to the WiR project. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2 You are being very unclear. First you claim that the block is ‘very unfair[]’, then you claim that it was done at your request for technical reasons? Brianjd (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, my other account was blocked unfairly (IMO). I was formerly Ta bu shi da yu. The account that was indefinitely blocked was Aussie Article Writer, Being blocked indefinitely was fairly traumatic for me, but what happened was that I scrambled my passwords for past accounts, and so created Chris.sherlock2. This then created a global account, which I asked on the talk page if it could please be indefinitely blocked because of my already in-place indefinite block. They then blocked that account indefinitely, and deleted the talk page. I just wanted to make sure I didn’t mislead you in any way. If I inadvertently did so, then I apologise as this was never my intention. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:53, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
I guess that would be Special:CentralAuth/Ta bu shi da yu. Something really weird seems to have happened there but I have better things to do than to investigate that. Brianjd (talk) 13:57, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It’s a long, tedious and unhappy story. I am (in)famous on the other project, which is a great pity. My intention here is to quietly and without fuss take photos of South-Western Sydney. Commons overall seems a kinder and more content focussed place anyway, which works well for everyone. I hope! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
P.S. that registration date is out by about a decade. I created that account in 2005. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 14:03, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2: That is the registration of the global account, which was during the 2015 creation of global accounts. When I use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:ListUsers/Ta_bu_shi_da_yu?limit=1 , I see "(Created on 14 June 2004 at 02:46)". Adjusted for UTC, that would be "(Created on 14 June 2004 at 07:46 (UTC))".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Yup, I've been around. I created [Citation needed] and the Wikipedian Administrators' Noticeboard. Always regret that last one. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Personality rights are not a copyright issue

Once again, I tried to clean up Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. Once again, I immediately got sidetracked by a fundamental problem.

That page is in the category Commons licensing help. The term ‘licensing’ has its own problems, but it is certainly to do with copyright and not personality rights. Looking through that category, I found the subcategory Model license, which has the same problem. Pinging @Bluerasberry. Brianjd (talk) 04:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

I am extensively copyediting Commons:Photographs of identifiable people; in the process, I have raised a few issues on the talk page. So far, there is one issue in particular that I would like input on: giving that page a worldwide view. Currently, the majority of countries in the country table say that publishing photos generally does requires consent; yet the lead says that ‘in many countries (especially English-speaking ones), publishing … does not require consent’. Brianjd (talk) 06:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd: "Licensing" isn't a term restricted to copyright. Indeed where I live it usually refers to permission to sell alcohol, hence the en:Licensing Act 2003. More generally I understand it to mean permission to do something that would otherwise be unlawful. So I think it could just as easily apply to consent from someone who appears in a picture as to consent from the author of a picture. --bjh21 (talk) 13:05, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bjh21 Yes, the term is used for other things too, but as far as I can remember, personality rights is not one of them. The only times I can remember the term ‘license’ used in connection with personality rights are when people get copyright and personality rights confused, and I fear that the the categorization I complained about above just spreads that confusion even more. Brianjd (talk) 13:12, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
  • @Brianjd: I understand what you are doing and want to support but like you I wonder where to begin. Perhaps by listing all the subtopics which will eventually need to be covered? The topic of interest to me is tracking consent when any photographer and model wish to do so. This comes up in medical photos where an educational image can publicly disclose a patient's medical condition, but also in all sorts of modeling, and in original erotic art in Wikimedia Commons. I have drafted Commons:Model license which I want to develop further and am around to do that, especially if you might be developing the broader documentation. Bluerasberry (talk) 13:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

languages presented with the categories of buildings

Looking at some churches in Lithuania, I was surprised that (beside English etc.) articles in both versions of the Belarusian language were presented (which is no wrong), but in some cases no Lithuanian article was presented – though it exists. The Lithuanian article was only opened at request – you have to enter the word "Lithuanian" in a form.

I think, for each building it is obligatory that the link to an article in the official language of the country, where this building is situated, is presented automatically, if this article exists.--Ulamm (talk) 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Ulamm: Assuming that by "presented" you mean what links are available in the UI, not the content of the category page itself, things like this are usually a combination of the user's own language settings and what is in Wikidata, but without a specific example it is hard to say what is going on. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    On your post, I have searched my preferences for the possibility to restrict or to enhance the number of linked languages, but I did not find such a possibility.--Ulamm (talk) 21:57, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Ulamm: Again, a specific example of a Commons page that gives you this problem (and whether you are working on a PC, an Android, an iPhone, etc.) would help someone answer your question. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Name for small rounded buns?

Cathypacific youth delegation food.jpg Xian China Eastern Airlines Airline meals n Butter.JPG Airline meal of Air China 中国国際航空機内食 B737DSCF0591.JPG Biman Meal in DAC-BKK BG-089 (S2-AFL).jpg

is there a special name in english or other native languages of yours, for the kind of small rounded buns? they're often found in in-flight meals, but not exclusively.

in inflight meals, they are often accompanied by a small pack of butter. they are soft. i'd say they're similar to hot dog buns, except the shape.--RZuo (talk) 03:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Rolls or bread rolls? I don't know, but that's what everyone I know refers to them as. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:48, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
I would call all of these rolls. They don't look like very good rolls, but they are rolls. Looks like we have Category:Bread rolls. - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Bun as in this image. Wouter (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Filenames, identical except letter case

Danta.JPG|Danta.JPG DanTa.jpg|DanTa.jpg

should filenames like these be renamed to better distinguish them?--RZuo (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

no answer. default to no action.--RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Template to link related files

i can name the dish in File:HK SSP 長沙灣道 833 Cheung Sha Wan Road 長沙灣廣場 Cheung Sha Wan Plaza mall shop 盈暉海鮮酒家 Glorious Seafood Restaurant dinner food 吊燒雞 fried chicken December 2019 SS2 03.jpg because it's written on a receipt File:HK SSP 長沙灣道 833 Cheung Sha Wan Road 長沙灣廣場 Cheung Sha Wan Plaza mall shop 盈暉海鮮酒家 Glorious Seafood Restaurant dinner food December 2019 SS2 11.jpg.

so i want to link the receipt photo in the dish photo. what template can i use? i like {{Otherversion}}'s display of both a thumbnail and the filename, but technically the receipt is not "otherversion" of the dish.--RZuo (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I suggest to change the description to {{en|1=HK SSP [[:zh:長沙灣廣場]] Cheung Sha Wan Plaza mall shop 盈暉海鮮酒家 Glorious Seafood Restaurant water tank in December 2019 }}[[File:HK SSP 長沙灣道 833 Cheung Sha Wan Road 長沙灣廣場 Cheung Sha Wan Plaza mall shop 盈暉海鮮酒家 Glorious Seafood Restaurant dinner food December 2019 SS2 11.jpg|thumb|left|100px|the receipt of the dish]] Wouter (talk) 10:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
you're right. i overthought the problem. using basic wikitext is better than a template.--RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong blue and green in all thumbnails

Correct colors on the left, colors shown in thumbnails on the right.
(Sorry for the size, but in the smaller file the colors are distorted even in the original size.)

In the raster previews of vector files blue and green are rendered in wrong shades. This probably affects all files, e.g. File:AdditiveColorMixing.svg. I just realized it in images like this one, and earlier in the image set of overlay numbers. Any chance this can be fixed? --Watchduck (quack) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a phab: issue to me. I don't think anyone locally can fix this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe this is Phab:T26768. librsvg does not output an sRGB chunk, so the browser believes that the PNG color space is RGB rather than sRGB. Glrx (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
Actually this does not only affect SVG. File:BlueCyanGreen.png shows exactly the same shitty blue as the corresponding SVG.
That is #5600ff      instead of #00f     . Green is also slightly wrong. Surprisingly cyan is correct.
--Watchduck (quack) 11:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
@Watchduck: Could you report this on Phabricator? Reporting it here probably won't help. Nosferattus (talk) 18:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I will do that within the next days. --Watchduck (quack) 19:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T329336

Exaggerated use of Template:FoP-Argentina

Currently {{FoP-Argentina}} is used in 16,000+ image files, but an immediate inspection of Category:FoP-Argentina reveals it is used in an exaggerated manner: general cityscapes and even photos of roads and nature have been tagged as such. For one photo of nature and minor pathway, I have already removed it as part of VisualFileChange method, but I only removed it from a few files. Other users' intervention may be needed so as to remove that template from cityscape, nature, and road images, to make Category:FoP-Argentina better reflect to the actual use of the template. Too many exaggerated uses of this template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:27, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I can't speak to the Argentine case, but Freedom of Panorama is basically the right to publish photographs taken in public space without worrying about whether you have included some object that might be copyrighted in its own right. While I probably wouldn't put that template on the sort of thing you are describing (just like I wouldn't put a "personality rights" template on every photo of a human being) I don't see any harm if someone feels it is appropriate to use. (I don't remove "personality rights" templates when someone places them even on own photo where thought they were unnecessary.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    It has happened that laws (or case law, or treaties, or...) has changed such that every use of this kind of template has had to be manually examined. I've no opinion on urgency / criticality, but there would appear to be some rather obvious downsides to indiscriminate use. Xover (talk) 17:22, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel and Xover: in my understanding it is more of freedom to publish architecture and artworks in public spaces without infringing architects' or artists' copyrights over their works permanently installed in those spaces. The inclusion of such FOP templates on image files that only show bare roads, cityscapes, or even nature and trees of Argentina creates false impression that FOP relates to freedom of photography, when in fact it is more relate to freedom to publish without infringing artists' or architects' copyrights. Numerous photos tagged with FoP-Argentina don't even show architectural works as main subjects. Note that the de facto Argentine FOP is limited to architectural works, not artistic works. Cityscape images do not typically show any buildings as main subjects, and the addition of template on the file pages of such images isn't providing right context (that cityscape images do not really need FOP templates). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • You didn't provide any concrete examples, so I can't say but, yes, it is pointless to add this template to a bare road or a nature photo. Cityscapes would, of course, vary. - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: here are some examples:
File:2011.10.17.161744 Cranes Puerto Madero Buenos Aires.jpg (cityscape, closest object yet de minimis are cranes which are not architecture)
File:500px photo (64223105).jpeg (a demonstration event tagged as FoP-Argentina)
File:4-P7291146.JPG (main object here is the tree)
File:Aereamonteros.JPG (aerial view, hardly I see any visible architecture)
File:APergamino13.jpg (vacant lot, with incidental inclusion of informal dwellings)
File:Agua corriente.jpg (water tower that is not architecture, we here have thousands of this identical object so not a unique water tower)
File:Arena pmadrynIII.jpg (hardly I see architecture here)
File:Arroyo La Tigra en Mar del Sur.jpg (just a stream)
File:Autopista Bs As La Plata en Hudson.jpg (pure highway)
File:Autovia 2 towards south at Las Armas.JPG (another highway, any architecture here is comparable to "ants" in visual size)
File:Avenida 100 Mar del Sur.jpg (road and trees, no visible architecture)
File:Avenida Circunvalación de San Juan, Argentina.jpg (another pure highway)
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:25, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Template for URN?

Hi, is there a template on Commons to link en:Uniform Resource Names like en:Template:URN? --Polarlys (talk) 17:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

No, but an administrator could import it from there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:23, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Not so simple. Several indirect references, including en:Template:Invoke. Conversely, I can't think of anything that's particularly an admin task here. - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
On Special:Import, I - not an admin on this project - see:
Unable to proceed
You do not have permission to import pages from another wiki, for the following reason:
The action you have requested is limited to users in one of the groups: Administrators, Importers, Transwiki importers.
On projects where I am an admin, the equivalent tool has an "Include all templates and transcluded pages" option. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I'm not sure I even understand the consequences of adding en:Template:Invoke to Commons, so I wouldn't want to take on the responsibility. If you think there is an admin task here, you can take it to COM:AN, but I'd be a bit concerned about possible side effects here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Updating Template:Information for Vector 2022 and mobile

I have prepared some changes for Template:Information which I think are an improvement and that I intent to deploy. As this is a very major template but also a change I want to get out the door pretty quickly (vector 2022), I'm posting this notification on the VP.

  • Remove inline styles
  • Add templatestyles
  • Remove toccolours class, which no longer exists in the skin and we shouldn't be relying on in the first place
  • Improved display on mobile/narrow layout.

I think these changes will be a major improvement overall. I will also work on later having additional templates like Artwork etc follow-up with similar changes. I have tested most of these changes already in my local Common.css over the last year, and I've tried to make them as non-dangerious as possible, although it is likely we will find some additional effects that might require some followup considering the template is used in so many different situations and combinations. Once this is deployed some older CSS can be removed from MediaWiki:Common.css and MediaWiki:Filepage.css. I intend to deploy this coming Monday evening at 18:00 UTC.

The changes: Module:Information/sandbox (diff) and Module:Information/styles.css. There is an example usage on Module_talk:Information/sandbox. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

@TheDJ, some comments:
  • Regarding removal from Common.css and Filepage.css, commons-file-information-table is used in a few more templates than this one. I would guess this module should own the styles given the name of the classes. I am unsure how Commons would like to deal with the handful of templates. On en.wp, I've done my best not to spread <templatestyles> invocations around if I can avoid it by having extraneous templates deleted, or moving them to using one standard template, or removing the "bad use". (See the wreckage.)
  • Similar story for fileinfo-paramfield.
  • Similar story for fileinfotpl-type-information.
  • I think these are the only classes that you're pulling from previous definitions, but check the others.
  • For the specific example use, you should try small resolution in Timeless (I'm using Firefox). The ths aren't taking block positioning as expected.
Izno (talk) 04:09, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Just as a full accounting of toccolours, there are 24.4k uses.
Izno (talk) 04:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
As a couple special callouts, MediaWiki:Histlegend and MediaWiki:Uploadtext and subpages should probably use {{Fmbox}} with |image=none. Izno (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
"Regarding removal from Common.css and Filepage.css" Oh this and many follow up actions will be many months out for sure, but thanks for talking stock. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:37, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It seems that there are an astonishingly high amount of templates that function as category navigation aids, many with just a single use... sigh. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:15, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed the cargo-cult too. It's been like that on en.wp as well from what I can see. Izno (talk) 21:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
What should things like class="toccolours" be replaced with? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
In the templates and modules it's used in, I'd recommend individual w:WP:TemplateStyles stylesheets for each. A large number of the templates are also copy-pasted, so those should have some central templates made. Like in the search above, the first page of templates has just a load of "X by month" templates that should just have a Template:Topic category by month navigation. Wikipedia has a few similar templates to that one.
For the other namespaces, if there are many of a certain flavor, make new templates with their own styles. If there aren't, make one off additions of styles or remove the container (the styles are pretty simple, just . Like with File:Limule(dD).jpg, I don't understand why it even has a box around the normal contents of a file page.
You can get a sense of the kind of work it takes with w:MediaWiki talk:Common.css/to do#Done. (Hint: A lot.) Izno (talk) 07:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Line 12 and line 15 in Module:Information/styles.css under fileinfotpl-type-information should use "@media screen and (min-width:719px)", given that those are also specified with different values for mobile in line 54 and 55. Snævar (talk) 03:37, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
That's a misunderstanding of how CSS works. Lines 12 and 15 in this case supply the default and then because the media query content comes later, that supplies new rules only true in certain cases. For this one, while the window is at or below the width of 719px. Izno (talk) 05:21, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
This was done and it's looking very good so far. I will get onto the other Information like templates later this week. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@TheDJ: do you think you could also get round to {{Non-free use rationale}} and {{Non-free use rationale 2}} eventually? Thanks, Neveselbert (talk) 19:55, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Eventually, but there are a lot of things to work on, and I only have so much time, and working on templates requires a bigger block of uninterrupted time so that I can focus. Its not a like most quickfixes or like answering forum posts, which you can do in between other day to day tasks. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
That's OK, thanks for responding DJ. I would note though that {{Non-free use rationale/styles.css}} has been created by Izno, although I don't feel it's ready in its present iteration due to the appearance of the heading as can be seen here and here. I would try and make these edits myself to correct this issue but I'm not very confident in editing modules. If you have any advice I'd greatly appreciate it, thanks. Neveselbert (talk) 13:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Remarkable rotation of image

When viewing File:Total Access Riedstadt Luft.png the image is rotated 90 degrees. The full size (2,949 × 3,975 pixels) has not been rotated and the thumbnail is also correct. Same with File:Total Access Riedstadt LKW-Zapfsäule.png. Is there an explanation for this? Wouter (talk) 20:38, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: looks fine to me (except its lack of categories). Maybe a caching issue of some sort on you system? - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
For me on Opera under Win 10 also it's 90 degrees. Sometimes EXIF has a problem that gets handled differently by different browsers. If nobody works on it in the next couple hours, I'll give it a spin using the Rotate Menu. Generally that not only rotates the pic, but standardizes EXIF so everybody sees it right. Jim.henderson (talk) 21:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
In Firefox it is 90 degrees, in Safari 180 degrees. Purge and null edit does not have effect. Wouter (talk) 21:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
For your information. The addition of {{rotate|resetexif}} by @BMacZero: gave "This image can't be rotated automatically by SteinsplitterBot." {{rotate|nobot=true|reason='''Reason''': wrong degree-parameter (RESETEXIF°)|resetexif}} with the image File:Total Access Riedstadt Luft.png. The image File:Total Access Riedstadt Sauger.png of the same user did not have the problem. Note that all three images have the exact same time: 2022 jan 30 00:16. Wouter (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
This generally happens when the file's metadata and the exif or XMP information are conflicting with eachother with regard to what the rotation info is. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
So, I rotated 270 degrees, which was the correct amount as I saw it in Opera. I was not greatly confident that it would immediately come out correctly, and indeed the result was tilted in the opposite way which is to say it had rotated by 180. So, let's make it 90 more degrees. They added up to a full circle, and indeed it looks proper to me. Too bad there isn't a click target to tell it to rotate 360, but this is a case where two turns adding to 360 resulted in a metadata correction that let me see a 270 degree rotation, and presumably everybody will see it right side up as I do now. Jim.henderson (talk) 20:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jim.henderson: I hate to say this, but now it is upside down for me (used to be fine). Firefox on a PC, logged in. - Jmabel ! talk 21:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Same, but Chrome Windows 11. It looked fine to me originally. — Huntster (t @ c) 22:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Drat; it takes two rotates to finish the job and there were two pictures in discussion. I did both rotates on one of them, but forgot to do the second rotate on the other. I just now submitted the second request, and expect it to be done in a few hours. Anyway, it's my fault for neglecting to finish the job; the method has always worked for me when I paid better attention. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. I hate it when I'm smart enough to have a good idea and dumb enough to forget to follow through, but now far as I see it's good. Jim.henderson (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Looking correct for me now. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Instructional videos on using Wikipedia

It may be a herculean task, but do we need to review everything in Category:Instructional videos on using Wikipedia and sub-categories, and recategroise to indicate those which show the old skin, now that Wikipedia (and other projects?) have a new look-and-feel?

Or can we move them in bulk to a subcategory, and make another sub-category for "Vector 2022" videos? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Before we get too far into this, the first question is, "Should we be sorting instructional videos by skin?" I believe there have been other changes in default skin over the years. Have any videos been sorted by skin before this?
Also, while enwiki has recently changed skin, others did so earlier and others have still to do so. We need to be careful not to impose a language-centric system on those who have yet (or have opted not to) implement the Vector 2022 skin.
I don't have a strong view on this but these are some early questions to consider. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
  1. It is much more logical to unconditionally sort tutorial videos by type of skin, because it seems that the alternative would be to painstakingly evaluate each one, and decide whether it depends on features of a particular skin.
  2. If we designate a crop of videos as "Legacy Vector" then it also encourages enthusiasts of alternative skins such as MonoBook to produce their own tutorial videos which highlight the particular ways to use MonoBook, etc.
  3. There is nothing "language-centric" about Vector 2022. It has been a feature of MediaWiki for a good long time. It has been available in every project of the WMF for a while as well. Whether it is the default or a beta or just accessible through a preference tweak, it is there for people to use.
  4. It is already very important for end-users, casual editors, and dedicated enthusiasts to be able to find good information on using Vector 2022. By categorizing them and highlighting a lack of videos based on Vector 2022, we can give content creators incentive to fill in the gaps.
Elizium23 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

How long should we hound Living People ?

I refer to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Paul_Hogan#Tax_problems_section It applies to EVERY ONE of us whom is ALIVE.! — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.240.196.168 (talk) 11:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not really related to anything having to do with Commons. It's a content dispute regarding an English Wikipedia article. I also suggest you take a careful look at en:Wikipedia:Canvassing before making any more posts like this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:19, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
What we have to watch here is Category:Living people, not the issue above that belongs to English Wikipedia.--Jusjih (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Jusjih (talk) 05:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Voting on the ratification of the UCoC enforcement guidelines Ongoing

Hi all,

There are 2658 eligible voters in Wikimedia Commons for the ongoing revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines ratification vote. But only 61 people have voted so far. Votes will be accepted until 23:59 on January 31, 2023 (UTC). Please visit here to cast your vote.

Best,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

How many image filetypes should we keep of an image

I have seen the argument for deletion that if one can be made from the other, without losing resolution, we don't need them. For instance: *.webp images if we have a *.jpg. How many image filetypes should we keep of an image? How many is too many? What types are forbidden if we have a *.jpg? --RAN (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

For photos, JPG is optimal, as it requires less data volume than TIF and provides more natural variations of colours than PNG.
But for drawings, JPG is bad, as it has no clear outlines. And the loss of exactness increases, whenever the graphic is revised by somebody.--Ulamm (talk) 21:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Ullam said that JPEG «provides more natural variations of colours than PNG», which is not correct. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

Duplicate files uploaded in the last 4 days

In the last 4 days 97 different users uploaded duplicates of files already available on commons: 74 users uploaded one duplicate, 6 users uploaded 2 duplicates, 4 users uploaded 3 duplicates, 2 users uploaded 5 duplicates, 1 user uploaded 7 duplicates, user:Kcx36 uploaded 11 duplicates, user:Voism uploaded 12 duplicates, user:Luiz79 uploaded 16 duplicates, user:Юрий_Д.К. uploaded 16 duplicates, user:Mostfamouswomanintheworld uploaded 24 duplicates, user:Tm uploaded 28 duplicates, user:RandomUserGuy1738 uploaded 33 duplicates, user:RodRabelo7 uploaded 49 duplicates, user:Brunnaiz uploaded 132 duplicates.

The command line tool http://adp.gg/R/P/ONCOMM checks if a local file is already available on commons and returns a return code for use in bot upload scripts and a text message explaining the publication status. C.Suthorn (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

I’m sorry, I’m a little newbie at flickr2commons, but… does it work on it? RodRabelo7 (talk) 12:23, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
I do not even know, who the maintainer of flickr2commons is. C.Suthorn (talk) 14:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Looks like it is not maintained currently. See also Commons:Village pump/Technical/Archive/2022/10#Commons:Flickr2Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
This happens when I use Flickr2Commons. Kcx36 (talk) 15:30, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Same here. ----Brunnaiz (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I believe Flickr2Commons only finds duplicates if the Flickr file number is in the title of the existing file. Could be wrong, though. Would this fit your data? - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

2 example files: File:Dilma-posse-presidencia-rampa-lula-marques-agencia-pt--8-2 (26014065734).jpg, File:230120-D-XI929-1020 (52641477325).jpg C.Suthorn (talk) 16:14, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
Would be nice if people stopped mass uploading flickr images to commons for no reason as 90% of images uploaded from flickr to commons are not even being used and a large majority of them probably also fail our inclusion criteria, shame admins no longer enforce the "commons is not a repository" criteria..--Stemoc 16:40, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stemoc: I somehow agree to this, but this may target responsible users. Anyway, a large number of Flickr imports are violations of artwork copyrights (due to no freedom of panorama for artworks in Denmark, USA, et cetera).
@C.Suthorn and Jmabel: is that related to importing Flickr files on the same title of the deleted (or "hidden") Flickr file? For example: Flickr file that was imported and got deleted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:35, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I don't see any particular relation there. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stemoc: "is used" [in a WMF project] is a sufficient—but by no means necessary—condition, to keep a file. Consider the contents of Category:Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr. Probably not one in 50 of these will find its way into a Wikipedia article, but they are a first-rate set of images for anyone interested in the history of Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
oh thats a different area, i have no issue with a million free image from flickr of "historic" images but a 1000 image of one person from different angle in some event is quite unnecessary especially if that person doesn't need that many pictures or worse, is not even notable, worst are images from US Govt departments, do we really need them all considering their flickr accounts are unlikely to be deleted anytime soon..mass uploading just for the sake of increasing edit count is still an issue here, infact i have seen more 'socks' abuse this than anyone else by trying to get 10k edits as fast as possible so that they can fly under the radar...another issue is something we ignore of personality rights and as mentioned above FoP of different countries, ppl who mass-upload bar experienced editors and admins are rarely aware of these laws, they see an album of free images and just start uploading regardless of laws of those countries in regards to Personality and FoP and these could cause issue, i won't be surprised if we have a few hundred thousand of these images uploaded from flickr already (if not a few million).. Stemoc 01:18, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@Stemoc see: Category:Files from Flickr. FlickrReviewR and FlickrReviewR 2 have reviewed 10 million files at commons. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:24, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
indeed, but bots will only looks at the license and see if passes our basic criteria, they don't even know what the image is or use other data in the image such as location and exif to see if the image is from a country with FoP laws or if its of an identifiable person from a country where taking and posting image of people without their consent is not allowed. Personally there are 1000's of images here which should be deleted on that basis alone but we can't blame those bots for it..I know this topic is about duplicates and this probably happens because nearly everyone here seems to have access to the mass-upload/batch-upload right which anyone can get easily once they become an Autopatrollers, this may need changing as abuse filters aren't designed to pick such mistakes and its pretty easy to become an autopatroller...do we need to create another right above autopatrollers for users we trust to mass upload from sites like flickr?... Stemoc 10:19, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 Agree with Stemoc: We do not need a 1000 images of one person (though it depends on who it is, of a president or queen we might need more than of others), no matter whether they have been uploaded from Flickr or any other source. How can we stop and tackle this? Do we have reasons enough for deletion requests for this kind of uploads? I only know, aside from copyvio: (1) Duplicate file, (2) SD|F10 (personal photos by non-contributors) and (3) Out of scope. But each photo in itself does not fulfil one of these criteria. How to go on? JopkeB (talk) 09:45, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I remember getting that ONE image of the queen put me under so much pressure, can't imagine us having 1000 images of her and trying to figure out if they qualify to be on commons lol..and yeah i think our DR criteria are a bit out dated, we may need a new 'redundant/relevance' option which doesn't cover 'out of scope' cause sometimes an image of someone famous is not 'out of scope', but if there are a 100 pictures of that same person at the same event from different angle, we only keep the best angles and delete the rest..and example that i came across a few hours back is this Category:Lady_Gaga_Live_at_Roseland_Ballroom, 700+ images and less than 30 looks useful and nearly Every image name starting with "P10102" seem redundant, pretty sure we can cull it down to atleast 200...just an example, there are many others like this.. Stemoc 10:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
We do "need" a million images of one person. If there is a personality rights issue ALL have to be deleted. If there is neither a problem with copyright nor personality rights than two more million images can be added. Only: There is not place for bit-by-bit identical images. There can be redirects, there can be different versions of the same image, but no bit-by-bit duplicates.
"jack up their amoounts of edits" is a non-problem. Edit count does not matter. A [example of a] problem is that images that have "Reuters", "AFP" or similar in THEIR EXIF data, are not catched by automated processes for human review. C.Suthorn (talk) 12:08, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
As far as I’m concerned, flickr2commons is only able to identify if the title is already in use. Since it names a file as File:[name on Flickr] ([ID on Flickr]).jpg, it usually only identifies duplicate files that have already been uploaded through it. The title pattern of Flickr files uploaded through Upload Wizard seems to be a different one. RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Several issues

So there are several issues here to discuss:

  1. The original issue: Several users have uploaded duplicates of files already available on Commons. Possible cause: The command line tool http://adp.gg/R/P/ONCOMM does not work good enough and/or flickr2commons has not been maintained for a while.
  2. Uploaders upload Flickr images because they want to jack up their amounts of edits, among them are 'socks'.
  3. A large number of Flickr imports are violation of artwork copyrights, because uploaders think that "free to use" on Flickr means that that includes FOP for all countries and other recent art works, which is not true.
  4. Redundant images, images that have no added value compared to those already present. It looks like we do not have an official reason to ask for deletion of them. See also meta:Community Wishlist Survey 2023/Multimedia and Commons/Clean photos in Commons.

I think we should address all of them piece by piece, perhaps in seperate discussion items. --JopkeB (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

3 and 4 are resolved by deletion review discussions. There are no real shortcuts to that as you will never have support for admins to determine whether an image has "no additional value" to what we already have. It's not like deletion actually saves server space. 2 will always exist and this just happens to be the easiest method to get it done. 1 is the actual issue for the moment. Ricky81682 (talk) 18:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
3 and 4 greatly depend on number of people who are doing review. Based on Category:Media needing categories I have impression that number of them is not big. In many cases original importers failing to do 3 and 4 themselves. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
2 can be handled by an edit filter - probably a combination of no use at first, and rate-limited for a while after that.
3 and 4, as EugeneZelenko pointed out, is primarily an issue with mass importers. Anyone who is importing a thousand files at once with no useful filename/description/categories and no check for copyvios/OOS/duplicates (including almost-exact duplicates that no technical solution will catch) is forcing the rest of the community to clean up after them. Even if 1 and 2 are fully addressed, there needs to be a community decision to rein in these careless mass uploaders. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

New LOC tool for public domain United States newspaper images of people

See this tool from the Library of Congress. They had an AI identify images of people in public domain newspapers. See, for instance, this search for "Salter". Click on an individual image and you can see what metadata is collected with the image. Both Ancestry and GenealogyBank have done something similar for obituaries, but they are behind a paywall. Could we cooperate and scrape all the images for Commons? Something similar was done for the Internet Archive to identify images in scanned books, and added to Flickr, then imported here, but that was a more primative effort. We ended up with a lot of images of blank pages. See:Category:Internet Archive (blank pages), we had thousands in the category, most have been deleted. --RAN (talk) 21:38, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

It was very helpful in dating a few images that had been giving us trouble for estimating a date, we had dated them at a later date, but they were published earlier. It is also a good lesson not to bake in an estimated date into the filename. --RAN (talk) 02:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
It is also a good lesson not to bake in an estimated date into the filename. For this reason, I also avoid putting a hard creation date in undated photographs that appear in historic newspapers and books, especially portraits and publicity images. Newspapers, magazines, and Who's Who books frequently use older images (even today). Date of publication is generally not the same as date of creation or date when the subject was depicted. Uncertainty is better indicated by {{Other date}} or {{Circa}} (e.g. "by 19xx" or "circa 19xx"). Mistakes or overly precise dates in file fields can easily be widely propagated by structured data bots or careless reusers, making it all the more diffifult to correct, and all the more important to provide intellectually honest, good info ASAP. --Animalparty (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
really good archives and tool! thx for the notice. also thx to LOC and US govt.--RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Sweden photo copyright template issue

Hello everyone.

The copyright template for Swedish photographs (Template:PD-Sweden-photo) is in need of a clarification, since a few years back. Right now it has two sections.

  • Terms and conditions for copyright expiration, with auto-updating years that increment for every year that passes.
  • A long text which is technically correct but not very useful.

How about replacing the entire second part, with something like this?

Photos also need to comply with {{PD-1996}} to be legal in the United States. This limits the practical use of the template to photos created up until 1968.

This clarification exists in an obscure place on the template's page, but it would be more clear if it was presented directly.

Here's a good example with how Romania's old copyright terms are shown to the reader of a file page: Template:PD-RO-photo

- Anonimski (talk) 12:49, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

(I reposted this to the Copyright board now, maybe it's better to take the discussion there) - Anonimski (talk) 11:17, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Do we have a rule like in English Wikipedia where if a speedy deletion tag is removed by anyone, it can't go through the speedy deletion process again, it has to go through regular deletion. Someone keeps re-adding the speedy tag, even though the image survived the regular deletion process. See: File:Donald Walter Cameron of Lochiel, 25th Chief 2.jpg. It seems like an abuse of the system, since speedy deletions are automatic after 7 days: "the file will be deleted seven days after this notice was added". It seems like a way to game the system when you really don't like an image, for any reason. If you run any image through the speedy process enough times, it will be deleted. The speedy tag should have the same warning as in English Wikipedia "if this tag is removed for any reason, it cannot be re-added, you must go through the regular deletion process". RAN (talk) 00:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct! Sorry for the confusion in wording. PROD leads to autodeletion at Wikipedia, and cannot be repeated, not SDEL. --RAN (talk) 06:14, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion

Why doesn't Category:Media without a source as of 26 January 2023 show up in Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, or am I just not seeing it? RAN (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Convenience links: Category:Media without a source as of 26 January 2023 and Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): It is in Category:Media without a source, which is managed separately.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:06, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Copyvios are speedily deleted instantly when the administrator is satisfied with the evidence. Uploader's requests for deletion are deleted instantly if it is still within 7 days. Media without a source are deleted after 7 days as it is more practical to allow the uploader an opportunity to provide the source evidence (if they have it) rather than get into an edit war of uploading, deleting and uploading a potentially valid file. Due to the time difference they need to be managed separately, or else some admins will get confused and delete the "no souce" files before 7 days. If it helps you to distinguish them, think of the copyvio requests as "speedy deletions" and no source requests as "speedier than deletion discussions." From Hill To Shore (talk) 04:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the problem is "no source" is being used when people mean "I suspect the source is incorrect", which allows deletions with less than optimal scrutiny. No source should only be used by a bot, when source=null. --RAN (talk) 06:12, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
No, there are perfectly valid reasons to use it when the field is not empty. For example an uploader states the source as "the internet." There is text in the field, which will stop the bot edit you propose, but the entry is meaningless. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:34, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
And source=null is not necessarily a reason to delete - for example, if someone puts their username as author and/or describes in the text that they were the photographer, source={{own}} is implied even if they forgot to actually add it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 09:03, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

For maintenance hobbyists

there're many strange stuff at the end of the unicode table (before cjk blocks): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:AllPages?from=%E0%B8%AA&to=&namespace=14 . :)

because there're very few users literate in some of these scripts, and the scripts have a dozen invisible chars.--RZuo (talk) 11:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

"Category:Animated cartoon series"

A cartoon is by it's very definition animated so this category name strikes me as a bit odd. Would "Animated television shows" be an acceptable renaming?--Trade (talk) 14:59, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: That would miss the "series" component for all but failed pilots.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Originally a cartoon was a drawing or series of drawings (a strip) often included in newspapers. We have many examples of political cartoons where newspaper artists drew pictures to mock the politicians of the day. An animated cartoon is an evolution of the older art form where the drawings were repeated with small changes to give the illusion of motion. Many early animated cartoons were released in cinemas, so use of television in the category name will be rather limiting. As of 2023, with the US 95 year rule, the majority of PD animated cartoons will have been released before television left the reserchers' labs and entered people's homes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:23, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
since Category:Television series is the top for everything, live action series, documentaries, whatever... i guess animations can be "animated television series"?--RZuo (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
That is what every other Wikiproject does. Trade (talk) 05:45, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Choosing a mobile phone: best camera for $300?

I'm advising a friend, a novice but keen photographer, who wishes to buy a better Android mobile phone and wants one with a good camera. Their budget is £250-£300 (about $US 300-$370). Do we have a page for such discussions, or does anyone have suggestions (feel free to use my talk page if off-topic here)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:52, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

https://www.youtube.com/@GSMArenaOfficial/videos and the like.--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Handshake photos

i was trying to find replacement for Businessperson (because one of them is not a real businessman but a communist party official), but i couldnt find a good one. even though hundreds have been categorised under Category:Handshakes, 95% or more involve politicians.

also i tried to find photos of women. it's so hard to find one photo, as good as the one being used, of one/two women shaking hands and facing the camera. :/ --RZuo (talk) 07:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The WMF Legal Initiative

Hello everyone,
I want to bring to your notice a new project page where Commons contributors can highlight topics of general importance requiring inputs from the WMF Legal Department. Please read more about this initiative as explained by the promoter, User:SSpalding (WMF). Udehb-WMF (talk) 08:48, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Opera companies

We don't have a Category:Opera companies, and I suspect we don't even have any equivalent. Offhand, I see (for example) that Category:Chicago Grand Opera Company has no parent category that connects it to opera and Category:Metropolitan Opera has parent categories that relate entirely to being an opera house (several successive opera houses at a series of locations?), not an opera company.

Is there something here that I'm missing? If not, it should certainly be added. I ran into this because in the 1910s Seattle had an opera company known as the Standard Grand Opera Company, but it didn't have a location of its own (it used the Metropolitan Theatre), and it seems pretty weird to categorize such a thing just under Category:Musical groups from Seattle. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Other Wikimedia projects have this category, so it would make sense to have it here. See Category:Opera companies (Q8701170). From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
So it sounds like I'm not just missing something. I suspect there may be a lot to reorganize here in opera-related topics (separating companies from venues), and I'm not planning to take that all on, but at least I'll get it started. - Jmabel ! talk 00:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Category created and a few examples done, if anyone is feeling ambitious: Category:Opera companies. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Commons Developer Group？

is there already a group, of volunteer developers?

seeing many user-developed com:tools becoming unmaintained and broken over the years, imho we should pool together developers from the whole community to develop and maintain tools. this is not to create any bureaucracy, but rather to make tools less dependent on individual developers. in case anything breaks down, other users could more easily step in to help.

here are some of my ideas:

  1. the first principle is, essential tools, bots, templates and modules should be eventually taken over and maintained by WMF, because they get paid, we dont.
  2. set up a "developers' forum" page, which also serves as a centralised bug report place (now bugs are reported at developers' user talk pages, github issues, gadget talk pages, commons talk pages... which are often neglected.) (com:vpt would probably be absorbed into this page, except the tech news spam.)
  3. set up a standard documentation of tools: who are active developers, in what language it's written, where it's hosted, dependancies, etc.
  4. compile a set of principles that tools preferably follow:
    1. should be open-source.
    2. codes should be hosted on easily accessible websites (github, bitbucket...?).
    3. documentation should be on commons (not like s:en:Help:URL2Commons).
    4. all tools should have a link to the centralised bug report page.
  5. classification of tools and bots:
    1. essential to functioning of commons. often no alternatives or alternatives are highly inefficient. if anything breaks commons is paralysed. examples: ajaxquickdelete, renamelink, cat a lot, vfc, bigchunkedupload, flickrreview, wikidata infobox...
    2. very important, but breaking down just causes trouble but not the end of the world. examples: hotcat, v2c, f2c, archivebots...
    3. important/valuable but rather specialised or has a "niche market". examples: maybe commonist uploader, vicuna uploader...
    4. makes life a bit easier but not that important. examples: deepcatsearch.
    5. least important. examples: utcliveclock.

RZuo (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I am currently proposing a kind of feedback system for developers to see which technical issues are the most pressing and where people can suggest new features and report issues with existing tools. I think that the above suggestions would all work great if we'd combine them with my suggestions. This website is severely underserved and we should find a way to add more communication between the developers and the contributors. Several years ago when I suggested the creation of the Technical Village pump I did so in the hope that it would serve in this fashion, but whe it did turn into a forum for technical issues with many tech savvy people, we still don't have a system for feature suggestions and allow volunteer developers to adopt abandoned tools and projects. Creating a local user group might help in this respect. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:57, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
the lack of response to this thread shows how dysfunctional this community has become. compare with the enthusiasm for mudfight and bureaucray: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Proposals&oldid=729131190#Discussion .
busibodies and dogooders roam free and annoy other users.
technical problems are so commonly overlooked.
i could quit this, but i'll still hang around just for the sake of maintaining content about my community, but one person can only do so much.--RZuo (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

1. the first principle is, essential tools, bots, templates and modules should be eventually taken over and maintained by WMF, because they get paid, we dont.
— User:RZuo

I completely understand why folks think this is reasonable and possible. Having been involved in Toolforge and Community Tech for quite a while, I am very confident in saying that the paid developer resources of the Wikimedia Foundation will not scale to support every piece of technology that is felt to be essential by its users. The Wikimedia community deserves stable tools to do its work, but the work is too broad, the workflows and audiences are too diverse, the solutions are too numerous, for all of the tools to be maintained by paid employees of the Wikimedia Foundation.
Instead I would propose that mutual support is the most reasonably scalable solution. We use mutual support tactics on the wikis constantly to add and improve content. Similar tactics can be used to support technology, and you have listed some of them in your ideas collection as well. Having multiple maintainers, publishing source code under an Open Source license, and running software in environments like Toolforge which are built to support collaboration are all reasonable steps towards building tools that be supported in the long term by the Wikimedia community rather than relying on a single volunteer or a limited number of paid maintainers. See my essay at wikitech:User:BryanDavis/Developing community norms for critical bots and tools for more details on these general ideas. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 17:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
sorry your wikitech article is tldr for me, but you must've written more and better than what i was thinking. thx a lot. you should post your essay somewhere here.
certain tools were created by users to patch flaws in mediawiki/commons' design, like com:v2c and bigchunkedupload. it's really horrifying that the flaws are not fixed after decades and users' patches become the norm.
a more useful question: is there already a website or something for bug reports of tools hosted on toolforge, for all the tools?
afaik, reporting on phab will just get "not part of mediawiki, invalid task" kind of response. so bugs are being reported on the tools' wiki talk pages, github, etc., all over the place.--RZuo (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

a more useful question: is there already a website or something for bug reports of tools hosted on toolforge, for all the tools?
— User:RZuo

This is a great question, but unfortunately it does not have a simple answer. We do not have prescriptive rules about where source code or bug reports for a tool must be handled. Toolforge does provide self-service integrations with Phabricator and GitLab, but each tool is allowed to choose to use them or not. The #tools tag can be used in Phabricator to report bugs against anything hosted in Toolforge. You can use https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/ to find out who the maintainers of the tool are and add them as subscribers to your bug reports. Some tools will have their own tags like #google-drive-to-commons that are more appropriate to use. Other tools will choose to collect bug reports on-wiki, as part of their code hosting at GitHub or Bitbucket, or in some other location entirely. The only way to really know today is to look for a link in the tool's UI or on the tool's main help page (where ever that may be). Toolhub can collect bug tracker and other URLs for a tool, but the tool's maintainers or others in the community need to supply that initial information. -- BDavis (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Templates for AI improvement of images?

Are there any templates to be placed when uploading an image that was improved/enhanced by using artificial intelligence software? For example: If there is only a low resolution image available of a portrait, and you upscale it using AI. The AI might apply it's knowledge from analysing thousands of images, thereby 'guessing' what parts of the image should probably look like. Ofcourse the uploader should examine the quality of the new image before uploading. But I think it should be mentioned if the image was enhanced with AI. Similar to retouching or vectorising. Like: „This image was enhanced using AI”. --oSeveno (User talk) 14:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  • On what basis?
(and if I have to ask, that implies DR, not speedy) Andy Dingley (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
    • As I said, "If it were all up to me" and "I'm aware I'm in a minority." I would happily have a criterion against modern colorizations of old photos. (Historic hand-colorizations are inevitably of historical interest, not that I particularly like those either.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
AI colouring obviously doesnt reflect the actual condition when the photo was taken. for example in File:Рабочий и колхозница Павильон СССР Париж 1937 (Колоризованная) 2.jpg, had a colour photo been taken, the flag is probably much brighter red.
given a photo in black and white/greyscale, how would AI know the colour of the original statue. it could be painted purple or orange, who knows? AI can only guess from what its input data have in common.
if we give different settings to the AI, it can generate equally good photos with different colour schemes, from ivory to gold, from salmon to scarlet...
then, would these spectra of photos be in scope of commons?
i suggest only images from reputable sources be allowed. users are not allowed to upload what they get from playing with AI.--RZuo (talk) 08:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I read there is a lot of resentment against AI. But since it is a reality in society, and it will become much bigger in the (near) future, I suggest solid and especially objective regulation. Wikimedia boasts impartiality after all. Through templates and categories we can make clear with what kind of techniques an image, video or audio was created or improved or reconstructed. If it is different from the original, it should state how it is was made different and to which end. If all what exists of say a portrait painting destroyed during WW2 is an extremely low quality image, trying to reconstruct (parts of) it, if the goal is to show the face of a person for educational reasons, should not be labeled making it look like it was undesirable, but in an objective factual way. Like retouching means that you try to reconstruct parts of an image that were damaged, based on surviving information, with as much moderation as possible. When they do that in museums we do not disqualify the art work or try to mark it in such was that it devaluates. That would be the exporession of an opinion. And few people here are really qualified to judge what the expertise is of uploaded retouched work. It remains an opinion anyway. So I just say: let's make appropiate, neutral categories and templates to be open about the reason for the condition or state of the file. --oSeveno (User talk) 12:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

The most interesting question is what the encyclopedic value of an AI-colored image, such as File:Рабочий и колхозница Павильон СССР Париж 1937 (Колоризованная) 2.jpg, could be. The coloration of the Soviet flag is so ridiculous that this might actually be a useful example to illustrate why it is a really bad idea to change an old black-and-white photograph into a colored one believing that AI could do some magic adding information hat hasn't been there before. Otherwise, this kind of colorized image is not helpful for anything. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Unless it's a b-w picture of something that was photographed in color as well. In reality: Old color pictures didn't have the ability to depict colors as they appeared naturally. But for it's encyclopedic value, you should perhaps also consider the goal of coloring a b-w photo. If you want to achieve that photo's 'come to life' (relatively) for an educational purpose, I don't see the problem, as long as you're truthful about it. Ofcourse it may be that coloring was done very badly. Thats a different issue, which applies to retouching or upscaling as well. oSeveno (User talk) 12:54, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
File:Paris-expo-1937-pavillon de l'URSS-13.jpg has value. the ai coloured junk doesnt.--RZuo (talk) 17:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Celebrated Nature Photographer Donates Life’s Work to Public Domain

https://petapixel.com/2023/01/26/celebrated-nature-photographer-donates-lifes-work-to-public-domain/ Currently being digitized and archived here: https://www.historycolorado.org/john-fielder-collection For what it's worth, I wrote them to see if there's some way to collaborate on showcasing the work. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:29, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

There's nothing about "public domain" on the latter page, and nothing about copyright being waved, or openly licenced, on either page. Are we sure the former doesn't just mean "made publicly viewable"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
No. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:14, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting closes soon on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

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

Hello all,

Voting closes on the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines at 23.59 UTC today, January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote. More information on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process is available in this previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/01&oldid=869582513"