Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/05

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

Commons Gazette 2023-05

Staff changes

In April 2023, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 183 sysops.

We thank him for his service.

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) 16:30, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

@RZuo: Commons administrators are not employed by Commons or the Wikimedia foundation so your usage of "staff" is incorrect. Multichill (talk) 21:01, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Can someone figure out the name of the photographer

Can someone figure out the name of the photographer, and any info on them? File:HÉCTOR R. ROJAS.jpg --RAN (talk) 04:20, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

End of the Movement Charter ratification methodology community review

Hello,

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee has concluded its first community review of the methodology draft, which will be used to ratify the Movement Charter in 2024.

This community review included feedback collection on Meta, on the Movement Strategy forum as well as two conversation hours with communities and one conversation with the Committees of the Wikimedia projects. MCDC greatly appreciates everyone's input. The recording of the ratification methodology presentation is here and documentation can be accessed here. The timeline of the next steps of the methodology is provided here.

The WMF support team will produce a report on the community input in May. MCDC will incorporate the feedback and share an updated version of the ratification methodology in August 2023. The MCDC will continue to outreach to stakeholders regarding the updated methodology in late 2023.

Thank you for your participation!

On behalf of the Movement Charter Drafting Committee,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Photo challenge March results

Laundering: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Facade of a house
at 277, Fondamenta
Cavanella in Burano (Italy)		 Washing clothes in a open area Laundry lines in a
residential neighbourhood
in Venice, Italy
Author Ermell Pauloleong2002 Marc-Lautenbacher
Score 15 12 11
Hotels and Motels: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Ice-Hotel in Quebec Canada,
the only one in North America		 Spa at Tschuggen Grand Hotel The Dolder Grand, Zurich, Switzerland
Author Marc-Lautenbacher Roy Egloff Roy Egloff
Score 15 14 12

Congratulations to Ermell, Pauloleong2002, Marc-Lautenbacher and Roy Egloff. -- Jarekt (talk) 18:18, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Are Google Maps photographs creative?

This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:31, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

I was just thinking about it, but content on Google Maps, HERE Maps, Apple Maps, Microsoft Bing Maps, Etc. is made by having an automobile drive around and automatically take pictures. A human isn't clicking "Click!" Here, this is done by a robot 🤖.
We all know that robots can't claim copyright ©️ because they're not legal persons, but if you automate a photograph that you personally directed then you are the copyright-owner, likewise most of photography is automated but because a human controls the device the human owns the copyright. So the question is, does the human driving the Google Maps car take the picture or does an automated mounted camera on top of car take the picture? -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:50, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I think there is very little question that these are being taken according to a systematic corporate plan of Google/Alphabet, and that there is enough direction given here to humans who are working for hire in operating the vehicles, which are using deliberately programmed software to determine when to take the shots, that there is enough intention to merit a copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
    1+. Rule of thumb: If you're ever wondering whether you've just found a giant legal loop hole that nobody has noticed despite it being right in front of everyone's nose, the answer is almost always "no". El Grafo (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
  • There are a lot of automatic cameras wich are not creative such as a wildlife camera's watching birds nest and giving a constant feed. There are however data/base rigths wich protect non-creative work. You are allowed to use a telefone directory for specific items, but not to copy all the data or a large part of it. It would be usefull to sort a telefone directory on the telefomnumbers to find out who called. This is not permitted. The information/data is present but not in a searcheable vorm. There are also dynamic data (example speed of a particular train: [1] or weather radar) Can you printscreen this information and remove all text and other proprietory ballast and the publish this?

Consider a moving thunderstorm. These type websites can practicaly not be used without a printscreen. Al sources need to be verifiable and telling the reader that you observed a specific event on this website is not usefull (in the case that there are no historic logs.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Get QID from page title?

Currently running into a bit of a screw up . I know there's Template:QID, which fetches the QID of the current page, and Template:GetQID which fetches the QID of the category's main topic. However, I want a template that gets the QID of a specified page's main topic. For example, {{getQIDfrompagename|Category:Minecraft}} which would return Q49740. Does this exist, or is there a potential alternate way of going about this? Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaFallon (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

OmegaFallon, the QID template you're referring to seems to be a red link. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the 2006-present coat of arms of Cyprus

I have been unable to find any evidence that File:Coat of arms of Cyprus (2023).png is freely licensed, and that file may need to be deleted. Thankfully we have a backup file by User:Di_(they-them). Therefore, users need to replace that file with File:Coat of arms of Cyprus (2006).svg every instance it is used. Also, the coat of arms was not changed in 2023. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 98.213.225.105 (talk) 17:02, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

98.213.225.105, you can always nominate the file for deletion if you believe that it's a copyright ©️ violation. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:14, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

(Plants pictures) Cotoneasters mislabeled as Frangula

Hello dear registered Wikimedians, – to those with botanical interest – there are at least five files mislabeled as Frangula alnus which clearly are something else. I created Discussion/Talk-pages for them and explained there. You can start looking at this one('s): https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Frangula_alnus_15-p.bot-rhamnus.sp-1.jpg – I put in links to the others. Maybe someone has time to correct :-) — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2A02:3037:209:D124:C9F4:53F3:ACE1:1006 (talk) 13:29, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

@2A02:3037:209:D124:C9F4:53F3:ACE1:1006: , you are always free to correct the files yourself by requesting a rename and contacting the original uploaders. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:15, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Image of a book

Can we make the image of book in pdf have the cover page the thumbnail for the pdf, instead of the Google page? File:Views from the Mosquito Reservation, Nicaragua C.A.pdf --RAN (talk) 16:28, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

It is possible by editing the pdf, removing the first page and reuploding the edited file. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2023 (UTC)
It would be good if we had a tool or script to do that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:45, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Except for CropTool, we don't usually have tool to edit files once they are uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
But in [[file: tags you can add a paramter to use a specific page of the pdf as thumb without editing the pdf. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Images by Accession number

Hey, is there any way to view all images with a category in the order of the Accession number-field? I'm looking at Category:Finland_framstäldt_i_teckningar and wondering if all images are present, or if there is any missing. Thanks for tips! Robertsilen (talk) 19:01, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

First you have to understand the schema that the Institution is using. Does it always begin with FFiT_? What is the number range that it will not exceed? Could it be larger than 0-999? Broichmore (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

City of Sydney collection

I have discovered a lot of really historic photos of the City of Sydney that are not in copyright. They can be found here. I’m not sure if they have been uploaded! How do I check, and if not how can we import them into Commons? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Icon proposal for quality images

Hello, I would like to propose a new icon for Quality Images. For my taste, the current logo is not hyper readable and not modern. I was slightly inspired by the certification icons of social networks. What do you think? Regards. manȷıro💬 12:10, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

 Oppose @Manjiro5: the proposed icon uses the "QI" text, but this only makes sense for English. Commons is a multilanguage project and so are quality images. "QI" would not make sense for "Laatukuva" for example: {{Quality image/fi}}. MKFI (talk) 06:51, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
You might not be aware of it but the current quality image icon also "QI" text. I assume you are though since you linked to {{Quality image/fi}}, which has an image of it. Either way, that's a rather weird argument to make against the proposed icon since the current one has the exact same text. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:08, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I am a bit at a loss how keeping a fault of the current solution makes the proposed solution better? (And I think the proposed icon is ugly, while not necessarily more ugly than the currrent one.) C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 07:34, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: I must admit I hadn't noticed that the old icon also had "QI" text - it is not very legible in small size. MKFI (talk) 08:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
I can see how that would happen. It's definitely not easy to make out the letters in the old icon. All the more reason to change it if you ask me. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:12, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, but do we really want further simplifications? "Not modern" is subjective, not every website uses the Corporate Memphis art style and I don't see why Wikimedia websites should all try to simplify to follow the trends. When seeing the current QI seal from afar it looks like a clear old timey seal of approval, this looks like a flower with letters on it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The current logo has to be hard for the vision impared to make out. It's never good design to have the letters inside of a logo the same color as the rest. Personally I don't care about following trends, but basic design rules that don't make it impossible for anyone who doesn't have perfect vision to see the letters inside of the logo would be nice. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Unknown town in the Abruzzo region

I scanned 14 slides from a organized hiking trip in 2001 in the Abruzzo region. These are from a town/village. From File:Abruzzen town 2001 1.jpg to File:Abruzzen town 2001 14.jpg. Location? Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:18, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

The church looks like this one: Chiesa di Santa Maria della Valle, though all the cables are missing. - Andreas Stiasny (talk) 11:26, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
It is the correct location. On Google Earth, the same bar Abruzzo is seen as in File:Abruzzen town 2001 2.jpg. I renamed all te pictures to Scanno. Thanks.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:45, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
Google Image search found the church; I suggest trying that in future. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

After Scanno we hiked along the lago di Scanno (File:Abruzzo landscape 2001 18.jpg). The next bigg village is Villalago, but I cant find a church there with a bigg clock house and a smaller one above. As it is 17:25 we where looking to the east and the geografy does not have a road at about the same level and a valley in between. PS: this is the last one on the hiking trip as we had a last dinner after these images. (File:Abruzzo village 2001.jpg)Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Image recognition

Is there any way to recognize small objects from a low resolution image? There are two towers like of music CD cases. Is there any way to recognize tiles/artist of these CD's? Here and here are a better image. Eurohunter (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Searching my own files

Hi, I am looking for some files I uploaded a few years back, and I can't find them. How is it possible to select only some file types (JPEG, PNG, PDF, etc.)? Yann (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: You want the filemime: tag in a search. So you can use Special:Search/filemime:image/png, for example. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch#File properties search for more. --bjh21 (talk) 17:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
I don't get any result, so something is obviously wrong: [2]. Yann (talk) 18:04, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Try this: [3]. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 18:29, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
[4] C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
No, I tried that, it doesn't work. It doesn't show anything before 10 November 2021 (File:Tolstoï - Œuvres complètes, vol10.pdf uploaded in 2017 doesn't show in the list). And I want a list with the oldest first, to get a chance to find it. Yann (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: Your first attempt didn't work because you missed out the quotation marks around the category name (necessary because it contains spaces). For me, Cryptic-waveform's suggestion finds File:Tolstoï - Œuvres complètes, vol10.pdf as the 659th result out of 692. I don't believe that Special:Search can list the oldest result first, though for smallish result sets like this one you can always just start from the end of the list. --bjh21 (talk) 21:22, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Easier sharing from Google Photos

When I think about things that could help Commons grow our collection, one of the best things that could happen, I think, would be for Google Photos to introduce a built-in option to donate a photo to Wikimedia Commons when a user clicks the share icon, alongside the existing built-in options for Facebook and Twitter. Most Android users already use Google Photos for photos they've taken, and because of that there are fewer licensing concerns than other places. I would envision a share option working by transferring the user to the upload wizard with the selected photo(s) sent to the wizard, and the user would then proceed through the normal steps.

The main obstacle here, of course, is getting Google to agree to the integration. I have some contacts that I might be able to pitch, but I wanted to check in here first to inquire about what considerations to have in mind embarking on that project. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:49, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

It's an interesting thought, and could build on the fact that YouTube currently has Creative Commons licensing available for creators who wish to upload videos under free licenses, some of which are compatible with Commons. Currently, I'm not aware of any licensing options for Google Photos. Photos isn't really a service that you use to share with the general public who can browse and follow accounts like on Flickr. Photos is generally geared as a personal repository and sharing with small circles of friends, who are typically also Google account holders. Photos is also a "vendor lock-in" site which doesn't take kindly to attempts to remove photos from the walled garden. For example, there's no "Print" options except for the ones which create physical photobooks through their paid service. So, just as wild speculation, I don't really see Google being keen on allowing CC licensing or donations to Commons from that service. They don't seem to have built it as a free-sharing service like Flickr or even YouTube. Elizium23 (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
Sdkb, I think that it might be wise to also ask the technical staff on how to implement such things. While my wife is a computer scientist I'm not as technologically versed, but if I recall correctly websites usually have API's that developers can utilise when programming an application programme or website where they can integrate their services with. For example, you can use your Wikimedia SUL (Single Unified Long-In) account to sign into a handful of Non-Wikimedia websites like the Phabricator and some non-MediaWiki application programmes that integrate with the Wikimedia Commons.
I think that such API's probably already exist, but I've never seen a "Share to the Wikimedia Commons" button like I've seen for Meta's Facebook, Meta's Instagram, X' Twitter, Reddit, Discord, Meta's WhatsApp-Messenger, Pinterest, SmugMug's Flickr Etc. I assume that the developers of the Wikimedia Commons Android (Google Play) application programme probably use a similar system, but then the question is, integrate it with the Wikimedia Commons website or application programme?
Selling this to Alphabet, Inc. might be easy as they use Wikidata a lot in their services and if Wikidata had more access to high quality images its knowledge graphs would be more useful and of higher quality. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:01, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Coletivo Resistência Flickr stream

This Flickr stream seems to have some problems regarding licensing, like posting photographs which are not their own work under free licenses (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Janja com cadela Resistência no colo.jpg). I have just found this image—it is in the public domain [sic], but Exif metadata tell us it is a work from Agência Brasil, and therefore not freely licensed in fact (see {{Agência Brasil}}). Anyone knows how to deal with that? RodRabelo7 (talk) 08:00, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to upload any photos from this stream. Ruslik (talk) 05:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Can we get rid of the "own work" default?

It seems most newbie uploads are labelled as "{{Own}}", and these poor newbies are accused of lying by stating so. However, the upload wizard by default has "This file is my own work" checked, and asks questions and fills in fields based on the assumption that the uploader is the author.

This is flawed – of course. Creating a file based on somebody's work does not make you the author, while arguably even downloading a photo results in a file made by you (people cannot be assumed to understand the copyright sense of "work").

How much less copyvios claiming own work would we get if the default were to have "not my own work" checked instead, and instead of asking about "this file", asking about the work?

(x) This file depicts a work by somebody else than me.
( ) This file is my own work and does not include works of others.

The follow-up questions could then include, for source, a checkbox for "the photo was taken by me" (adding "{{photo|{{own}}}}" to the author field). There should be checkboxes for freedom of panorama and de minimis and a possibility to state the licence for the photograph separately from the underlying PD/whatever rationale.

Isn't this the most common situation for copyvios that aren't directly off the net? Shouldn't this provide a fair chance for newbie uploaders to declare the true copyright situation? We might get a lot of "FoP" photos from non-FoP countries, but wouldn't this be easier to handle than bogus "own work declarations" – and it would educate users much better than the obscure "no permission since" or "copyvio" templates, which now seem to be our first line of defence.

–LPfi (talk) 08:50, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

I heartily agree. It is unconscionable for us to be prompting every new user with the tantalizing proposition that his upload was created by him by default. This should never have been the default and leads to many problems. Defaulting to "not my own work" and then compelling the user to manually declare authorship is the only logical way to go. Elizium23 (talk) 09:25, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Nearly all uploads that are not "own work" are by less than 250 power users (and not by newbies. I.e. Users with millions of uploaded files and users with hundredthousends of uploads. The three most prolific uploaders of commons have uploaded 10++ million files). These are mostly mass uploads from GLAM. A newbie has nearly no chance to find a work not by himself, that has not already been uploaded. The exception are works by deceased relatives. Files from YouTube and Flickr are mostly uploaded by tools (f2c, v2c). Tools that could be empowered to check the Flickr or Youtube license before upload!

But how about:

(x) I pressed the button on the camera.
( ) I personally know the person who pressed the button on the camera.
( ) I did not press the button of a camera to make the file I am going to upload.

--C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:56, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn I think you might me misunderstanding where @LPfi was going with this. This is, at least in part, about situations where the uploader did indeed push the button but is not the sole owner of all copyrights. That happens for example when you take photographs of sculptures, or an interesting figure or old photograph you find in a book or museum. The way UW works right now is suggesting that everything is fine as long as you are the one who pressed the button. That is true in most cases, but a considerable amount of copyright violations happen when that basic assumption fails. El Grafo (talk) 11:14, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
There comes FoP into play. The UW could consider the location of the uploader (if you look into the MW-cookies: WM does know your location) and offer advice for FoP rules at the location of the uploader (it is only a guesss that the uploader is in the same legislation as at the time them made the foto, but it could reduce wrong licenses). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 11:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes. At the very least, require some active choice to be made by the uploader. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
    Yes. In the simple case of own photo of non-copyrighted motifs, the uploader would just need to actively check the "own work" box. They might get confused by having to make active choices about old architecture or other PD motifs, but I think that's a smaller problem than them just claiming own work in cases where the motif might be own work. Claiming own work for files from the internet would require an active choice, while at present they will get no warning if they just hit "next". –LPfi (talk) 13:28, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
At the very least, require some active choice to be made by the uploader. +2. The exact wording can be worked out, but there needs to be some kind of change to the choices uploaders currently have since the current options clearly aren't adequate. At least not on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:47, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
When you upload your first file you get these message File:Licensing tutorial en.svg. There is a button to proceed and a checkbox that this page does not appear next time. There is no checkbox to say "I read the text", but I think this would also be skipped anyway. GPSLeo (talk) 14:00, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
"Tools that could be empowered to check the Flickr or Youtube license before upload!" Is this not the case with Flickr? Trade (talk) 20:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
Flickr2Commons reads the license on Flickr, but we still check again after upload. - Jmabel ! talk 20:48, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
It's interesting how there's a never-ending tension between the WMF wanting to make Commons/Wikipedia/Wikiwhatever easy to use and the community wanting to force users to jump through more hoops. I imagine the success of the projects actually depends on balancing this tension. I don't know what the solution is, just an observation! Nosferattus (talk) 23:42, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I think the problem is that WMF doesn't seem to account for the actual workflows on Commons. If an "easy" upload results in the file being deleted, very little was gained. Likewise, if experienced users are using a lot of time to figure things out to allow newbies not to do that work, we are not helping our backlogs, and we might get a smaller number of less valuable files than otherwise. Of course, if we have to work a bit more to get files from under-represented areas and in fact can save those files and complete their descriptions, it might be worth the effort. –LPfi (talk) 17:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The most frequent misuse of 'own work' I come across is the upload of old postcards. The date is then quite often the scan date. A scanner is a camera but on a non creative use. This could be easily filtered out and checked by searching the postcard categories and on the word 'postcard'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:40, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

It's completely understandable for people to call photos or scans they took "own work," regardless of whether the photos or scans are of postcards, physical photos, paintings or sculptures. It's not necessarily intuitive that that work is not your own work. Of course, the default also means that people essentially passively claim that uploads of images grabbed from copyrighted web pages are "own work." I think the best solution is for the default to be blank on the name of the author. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:08, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
The upload wizard also chooses question based on the "own work" check. If you keep the default, you are never asked whether the underlying work is PD or licensed in some way. I think the default should be "not my own work", with a suitable wording. Those who upload own nature photographs can easily check the "own work" without worry, after having read the help text once, while the others really should think twice before checking that option. –LPfi (talk) 17:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:White (human racial classification)

Why is "White women" linking to Category:Caucasian women (Q101103533) instead of White women? Eurohunter (talk) 15:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Presumably because the two are synonyms (and equally problematic, like any phenotypic description of people). - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Definitely not. Eurohunter (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2023 (UTC)
I would suggest restricting "Caucasian" to people actually from the Caucasus region. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Except that that's not how the word is usually used in English, particularly the US. Hollywood Goes Oriental: CaucAsian Performance in American Film (2010) is not talking about Asians being played by people from the Caucasus region, and Doing Engineering: The Career Attainment and Mobility of Caucasian, Black, and Asian-American Engineers (2000) is not comparing people from the Caucasus region to Black and Asian-American engineers. (See also https://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/07/sunday-review/has-caucasian-lost-its-meaning.html which points out that w:Fisher v. University of Texas (2013) calls Fisher Caucusian, despite the fact I can find no evidence that she has ancestry from the Caucasus region.) The phrase "Caucasian women", without context, is usually going to be interpreted the same as "White women".--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
This is not a U.S. site; it's an international one. And the only exact meaning of "Caucasian" is "from the Caucasus." Any other meaning will confuse loads of people, and as for the Americans who are confused by Caucasian meaning from the Caucasus, well, they may learn something. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 02:12, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want exact meanings, write in Lojban. If you want to communicate, don't try and force the language you're using to match your biases of reasonable. Should I go to the German Wikipedia, point out it's an international site and the only exact meaning of "Deutschland" is the land of the Germans, not one random German-speaking country out of six?
The English parts of this site are in English, of which 64% of the native speakers live in the US. And I decline to believe that the US is the only place Caucasian has a racial meaning disconnected from the Caucasus region. A quick search on Google Books indicates that British medical books often use the term, and turns up a Facial Plastic Surgery Procedures in the Non-Caucasian Population edited by Yong Ju Jang of South Korea, and Between the Lines of Genetic Code: Chapter Five. Gene–Gene and Gene–Environment Interaction in Rheumatoid Arthritis by Leonid Padyukov and Lars Alfredsson of the Karolinska Institutet in Sweden uses "European Caucasian".
We certainly can't use Caucasian to mean "from the Caucasus" in an context where it might be confused with the racial usage, and using it with the racial usage is confusing and somewhat dated, so we should probably avoid it and use "White" or "from the Caucasus" in most cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:59, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
Donald Trung addresses the problems with the use of "Caucasian" as a pseudo-scientific racial term better than I think anyone will, but I certainly have no argument with simply not using the term as a Commons category. I have to wonder about your statistics on English, though. Are they restricted to people for whom English is their first language? How many people in South Asia and Africa speak English? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
The issue with these terms is also that they change over time, "White" typically refers to a skin colour (that is light-skinned individuals are usually called "White", but more narrowly it only refers to light-skinned people from Europe), historically the term "Caucasian" was meant to refer to a skeleton type and included people from North Africa and West Asia, but also "Brown people" (South Asians) and "Black people" (Ethiopians, Somalians, Eritreans, Djiboutinians, Etc., Collectively known as "Hamites"). In the United States of America the terms are very much disputed "Since the Ozawa v. United States court case had just decided that the meaning of white people for the purposes of the Court were people who were members of the Caucasian race, Thind argued that he was a white person by arguing that he was a member of the Caucasian race.[6] Thind argued using "a number of anthropological texts" that people in Punjab and other Northwestern Indian states belonged to the "Aryan race",[5]" and "Sutherland found that, while Thind may claim to have "purity of Aryan blood" due to being "born in Village Taragarh Talawa near Jandiala Guru, Amritsar, Punjab", he was not Caucasian in the "common understanding", so he could not be included in the "statutory category as white persons".[9]" (Source).
The above court case essentially says that while at the time the scientific literature regarded all Aryan people as "Caucasian" the "common understanding" of the term in the United States of America only refers to White Europeans. Racial definitions also shift over time, Mexicans were regarded as "White" until the 1970's in the United States too and in the United States of America today a blonde haired blue eyed Argentinian woman wouldn't be considered "White" because they use the "Hispanic and / or Latino" category while a dark-skinned Sicilian woman would. Because racial categories are so ambiguous I am personally against assigning them to any photographs or categories of people unless they self-identify as such and one country's "common understanding" of it isn't another county's. Here in the Netherlands for example the term "Kaukasisch" as a racial category has always had the more broad definition (as I found in some older Bos Atlassen), but in the United Kingdom, Germany, and France they use the same definition as the United States. Ironically, a number of actual Caucasian people aren't seen as "Caucasian".
This person is a Kalmyk, Kalmyks are descendants of Mongols who settled in the Caucasus region and are Caucasian people in the geographical sense, but not "Caucasian people" in the racial sense.
Personally, I'd say that "White" should probably refer to the common understanding of the definition as used today, that is "light-skinned people" and that "Caucasian" shouldn't be a sub-category of "Whites", especially since various "Black" peoples can also be described as such, in fact, I'd argue that the "Caucasian" categories should be mostly reserved to works in the literature describing it rather than actual humans as the "Caucasian" category is somewhat, and has always been somewhat, controversial to use. That or we just use ethnic groups and not racial groups for categorisation, "White British", "Non-Hispanic White-American", and "Autochtone Nederlander" are all ethnic groups with clearly defined lines, racial categories are all blurry. People who want to look for images of certain types of people can just find them by looking through categories, for example I found the above photograph of a Kalmyk by looking through pictures of ethnic Kalmyks, but racial categories are more ambiguous. For example in the 1970's Bos Atlas I have "Black people" don't exist and are sub-divided into several races (Negroïde, Bantoeïde, Khoi-San, Nilotisch, and Kaukasisch, with the latter refering to the Horn of Africa but also all White and Brown peoples, and all Non-Black Africans were only 3 racial groups together, so more than half of all racial categories exclusively referred to Black people), but in the United States of America during the same period the term Black is usually referred to as "the most homogenous group", so in the United States they are "the least genetically diverse" and in the Netherlands "the most genetically diverse". For this reason an international project which uses various definitions of various countries has a lot of trouble integrating such categories. Don't get me wrong, I am very much against deleting the categories about race as they are very handy for using works about race, I'm just not sure how useful such an ambiguous and controversial term like "Caucasian" would be to use for categorising actual people, old interviews from the 1970's also showed Ethiopians proudly calling themselves "Cucasians" but today one would be hard-pressed to find to find such a statement not being met with a lot of backlash. Plus "Caucasian" is extra ambiguous because it literally refers to a geographical region, should the man from the Caucasus region above be classified as "Caucasian" or not? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:25, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
I assume the categories have their use, although I cannot parse "very handy for using works about race". They are obviously problematic: poorly defined and quite controversial. Do we need those categories for random (or less random) people photographed in the street, or on the beach? Should we restrict them to files where the source classifies them as belonging to the category, i.e. mostly historic images, and perhaps some medical ones? Cannot those who need an image of a contemporary Black American just look in any subcategory of People of the United States and identify images that fulfil their needs (and similar for Kalmyks, checking that the file description confirms their ethnicity)? –LPfi (talk) 08:54, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
LPfi, Wikimedia Commons categories first and foremost exist for discoverability, if someone wants a photograph of "A young Black woman in a white coat working in a laboratory" because they want to write an article about Non-Hispanic African-American female chemists and their contributions to science in general we should be able to make that as discoverable as possible, such categorisation actually helps with the discoverability of diversity. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:36, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

"Commons:Quality imports"

Quality imports.

Last year the proposal to create "Commons:Quality imports" was accepted but it wasn't implemented, I took the liberty of creating its main page to develop it further. While the proposal to adopt it was accepted how to implement it was being discussed but no clear conclusions were reached, I prefer to bring more eyeballs to the above page and discuss the implementation of "Quality imports".
Pinging @Nosferattus, Enyavar, Yann, Robert Flogaus-Faust, King of Hearts, Rhododendrites, El Grafo, Mateusz Konieczny, Jklamo, Kritzolina, Infrogmation, Strakhov, Mike Peel, and Ikan Kekek: . Pinging some folks involved in the original discussion. In particular User "Nosferattus" who had a large number of great ideas to implement it. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:00, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

In general: thanks for doing some progress on it Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:19, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Content included

I forgot to add that while the original proposal was only for images, I honestly think that making it broader to include "media files" rather than images might be better as it could then also include non-image files as a lot of valuable films, sounds, books, Etc. are also imported to the Wikimedia Commons every day. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:03, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for restarting the discussion! I'm not married to any particular implementation as long as it's not too complicated. Nosferattus (talk) 23:22, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I still think this is a good idea, and what you already have there looks good, though of course more will need to be fleshed out if the concept is accepted. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:10, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
No opposition that this also includes other types of media. We need to define some basic standards: minimum resolution, etc. Yann (talk) 18:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Main gallery: Commons:Quality imports logo contest.
A new icon - and it is suffering from the same flaw as the QI icon discussed above? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:38, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm), that flaw being the fact that it includes the English-language abbreviation "QI" or the fact that it doesn't incorporate oversimplified flat design? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
first glance at this logo, while unaware of the discussion topic, made me think it's a logo for something downgraded from quality images. yellow being worse than green, and red downward arrow meaning something bad (like deficit, stocks falling...).--RZuo (talk) 14:35, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Copied from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop&oldid=759631905#Quality_imports_logo

"This is what you described:

But your proposed program is called quality import. The word "import" is typically associated with an up arrow, similar to an upload arrow, so I made this:

Reading your comments at Village Pump, it sounds to me that the Quality Import program is more for people who find valuable and high quality scans, so I am spitballing these ideas around a "scan" theme

All of these have been grouped under cat:Proposals for Quality Imports logo--痛Designism (talk) 19:25, 29 April 2023 (UTC)"

I wanted to put the logo up for discussion but use this one because I personally like it the most. Gold being the colour used for "#1 (number one) prizes" and a red arrow to symbolise the act of downloading (from an external source).

Though I thought of holding a design contest or a general vote for the logo after the project itself would be realised. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:44, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Might I suggest a green arrow pointing left, rather than up or down? My only concern is that up and down may get conflated with "positive and negative" or "voting yes or no" or somesuch. A green arrow pointing left may more easily be understood to be "coming in". — Huntster (t @ c) 23:11, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason to restrict it to scans, for example I think that finding and uploading (or spotting already uploaded) NASA image would also fit Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:17, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Mateusz Konieczny, this isn't restricted to scans at all, rather it's a sub-category. "Quality images" only refers to photographs by Wikimedia Commons users, but "Quality imports" basically refers to any file not made by a Wikimedia Commons user (and even if the person is a Wikimedian, it could first be published elsewhere), some of these are scans, some videos, some are satellite images, some are 3D scans, Etc. I think that these different sub-categories could have separate logos, but I'll explain that in more details after starting the contest and deliberating with the community which sub-categories "Quality imports" should have, seeing as the logo I like the most is quite controversial I am sure that it won't be the final version, but like in the original suggestion this logo is merely a suggestion and it's my vision for it, but I'm sure that there's another logo waiting to be created that conveys the concept much better, the community can then approve their preferred version. — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:32, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

copyright on document from family archive

Hi,

I uploaded an old document (1955) from my personal archive. I got an error about the copyright being wrong (and to be deleted automatically within 7 days). I now added {{PD-user|username}}.

Would this fix it?

Thank you,

Alex — Preceding unsigned comment added by Atudor (talk • contribs) 04:22, 6 May 2023‎ (UTC)

  • {{PD-user|Atudor}} implies that you are the author of the document, which I take it is not the case. Who actually wrote it? Is that person still alive and, if not, are you the heir to their intellectual property (or do you know who is)? - Jmabel ! talk 05:49, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks @Jmabel! My father, who wrote the document, died in 1959, in Romania.
    And yes, I am the heir to his intellectual property.
    Alex Atudor (talk) 18:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Atudor: That makes this relatively straightforward. Credit him, not yourself, as author. "PD" is a little tricky here, in that it is not ipso facto public domain. If your intent is to place it in the public domain, probably the best choice is {{Cc-zero-heirs}}. That effectively says, "If it can be placed in the public domain, do so; if not, give it a license that lets anyone do anything with it that they could if it were in the public domain."
    • In the unlikely event that anyone questions whether you are the legitimate heir to his intellectual property (as against just someone who came along and made this claim), you might be asked to go through the process described at COM:VRT to carry on confidential correspondence to verify that. I don't think it will come up on this, though.
    • You may already know this, but the most appropriate place for a translation into English would be Wikisource.
    Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Maintaining anonymity in an "heirs" situation

  • PD has specific conditions. Usually old (in Europe 70 years) and author unknown and other legal rules. My father died recently and I am the only descendant, so there should be no problem in uploading his work. However to my knowledge there is no specific license for this. heirs. The rules in Commons:Volunteer Response Team are unclear in how to handle heirs uploading work from their ancestors. (even in the clearcut cases: no multiple heirs). Another problem is that I want to maintain my anonimity: If I have to mention my fathers full name, I lose almost al my anonimity. I am thinking of using an alias: father-of-smiley.toerist, but is it permitted to add dead persons aliasses?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:05, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Smiley.toerist: I think this is more of a VRT question than a Village pump question (that is, better to ask at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard). But, as I see it, if you go through VRT once to establish your situation as someone's heir, you can still remain anonymous to everyone except the members of the VRT (who are the only ones who see confidential correspondence), and once it is established by VRT that you own the intellectual property in question, it is pretty much your prerogative how it is credited. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Smiley.toerist: My condolences for your loss. There are several licensing templates for works released by the heir(s) as PD or under a free license, for example {{Cc-by-4.0-heirs}} or {{Cc-zero-heirs}}, see Category:License tags for transferred copyright for more - {{PD-heirs}} seems to be the most popular, but personally, I would prefer one of the CC variants, though these haven't been used often yet. I think whether you need to go through the VRT process depends on whether your father's work was ever published previously. If not, I think stating here on Commons that it's your father's work and that you release it under a free license (or PD) as the sole heir is enough, as this is ultimately the same kind of assertion we just trust when people declare images as their own work. Of course, to back it up and as a precaution, you could still file a VRT ticket with your father's real name without revealing it here. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:18, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Smiley.toerist: My condolences too. I think the heirs templates are not the best approach if you want to keep your anonymity. On the other hand, if you approach the VRT, you don't need to state publicly why you own the rights. Just upload his works attributing them to him (which is fair towards him, and might prevent some problems – and e.g. in the EU he is entitled the attribution) and let the VRT ticket handle the licence claim. I'd recommend a -BY licence if he might have liked the publicity, the -SA I leave to your judgement. Creating a separate account for these uploads (still using VRT, and perhaps -heirs) is of course also an option. –LPfi (talk) 09:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Hi @Smiley.toerist, Thank you for the clarification on the "heirs" situation. I upload an unpublished document authored by my father. He passed in 1959, in Europe and I am the legal heir. Anonymity does not matter to me. I used
Public domain This work has been released into the public domain by its author, Atudor. This applies worldwide.

In some countries this may not be legally possible; if so:
Atudor grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, without any conditions, unless such conditions are required by law.

on the document.

  • Is that the right action?
    Alex Atudor (talk) 18:57, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Atudor: I believe I've fully answered you above. I sectioned out Smiley.toerist's remark precisely because the anonymity is a separate issue and does not arise in your case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
      Indeed you did; looked at it again. There is simply too much information for a first timer to process.
      But thanks for taking the time nonetheless.
      I changed it to
The heirs of the creator of this work hereby publish it under the following license:
w:en:Creative Commons
attribution
This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license.
You are free:
  • to share – to copy, distribute and transmit the work
  • to remix – to adapt the work
Under the following conditions:
  • attribution – You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made. You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.

. Atudor (talk) 19:21, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Making backup of Commons uploads

Is there tool/script (I am fine with Linux command line tools) that can be used to create local backup of files I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? Preferably with their file pages Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Here is a list of all file download tools Commons:Download tools. Saving file pages is not supported by these tools. If you have a list of the pages you could simply use curl for saving the pages. GPSLeo (talk) 11:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually you can export any number of pages including their version history with "Special:Export" without any tools. (and if you have a local MW wiki, you should also be able to import the pages into the local wiki) --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 13:08, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Though I still need to iterate over my uploads and so on... So I hoped for something like that existing already Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 22:41, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
A list of your 288 uploads: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=Mateusz+Konieczny&namespace=6&tagfilter=&newOnly=1&start=&end=&limit=288 Extract the filenames (find-replade in any text editor) and put the list into special:export. Download the files with wget or curl. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 08:57, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg has not reached consensus as to whether it should redirect to the 2:1 or the 3:5 version of the Union Jack. The redirect has been protected, but that is now threatening to lead to an edit war among admins. We need a stronger consensus on this redirect. If you have an opinion, please voice it in the discussion there. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Who’d think that an edit war would emmerge? Oh wait: I did. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Jrascb Vol 13sandasaya.sinamavaRavanakavandaya

Ravanakavandaya 148.78.1.79 03:04, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

According to Google it's in the Kannada language and is a romanisation of "ಜೆರಸ್ಕಬ್ ವೋಲ್ - ೧೩ಸಂದಸಯ.ಸಿನಾಮವಾರವಾನಖಾವಂದಯ", but the IP address points to Mountain View, California, United States of America. I don't know Kannada so I don't know what it means. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:16, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society Volume 13? RZuo (talk) 21:37, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Pixabay photo dates

I was hoping someone could tell me how one can determine the date that a photo posted to Pixabay was taken. I can't find any metadata/exif data confirming the dates and I don't see anything on the photo pages showing anything other than the date the photos were published on the site.

I just uploaded this image and am bothered that I had to write that the date was unknown. Unfortunately, the date taken isn't on its Pixabay page or in its metadata.

Contrast that with this image from the same author I uploaded in 2020. Somehow, the metadata there did show the date and time the photo was taken, even though its page on Pixabay doesn't.

Am I missing something? Did Pixabay remove certain exif data since 2020? Is there no longer a way to determine when these photographs were actually taken? Any help would be greatly appreciated. --Denniscabrams (talk) 04:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Promotional photos of people

I regularly come across photos like this one in “Category:Media needing categories”. It is the user's only contribution and the description is promotional. In Wikidata the person cannot be found nor the use of the photo in a Wikipedia article. Does a nomination for deletion make sense or is it better to leave it in case it could be used in the future? Wouter (talk) 08:26, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Most of them become deleted as they are not in scope and also because in many cases the copyright situation is not clear and would need VRT confirmation. Many of these files where used is Wikipedia articles they became deleted. GPSLeo (talk) 08:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
this particular one is fine. no apparent copyvio. subject is/was on the board of GAVI. https://www.gavi.org/governance/gavi-board/members/mahima-datla .
board of directors of an org that has a wikidata item can certainly be included on commons. RZuo (talk) 11:34, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
This is also why such images shouldn't be speedily deleted, many such images are tagged as "Speedy" and then lost forever, often with no logs of their existence beyond the upload log. Just because the English-language Wikipedia thinks that a person isn't notable enough for their encyclopedia doesn't mean that we should use their standards. Especially since it's quite common for people with Wikipedia articles on other language Wikipedia's to be considered "not notable enough" by the English-language Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:19, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree with that. What I sometimes see is that the user also creates a Wikidata page. If done properly, all basic data will be available and it will be easier to add a Commons category that is more meaningful than, for example, “Women with black hair”. Wouter (talk) 20:00, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Location in formatted data

See: File:Delahaye LCCN2014718369.jpg where the formatted data gives an error message for location, I can only find GPS examples, how do I add a location, or am I expected to have depicts=Manhattan, which would be incorrect. --RAN (talk) 14:20, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) You're looking for location of the point of view (P7108) (fixed) - no idea why that doesn't show up right away when you start typing "location" in the search box ... El Grafo (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

Nikhar Garg

As I'm unable to revert my own edit, can anyone of you please revert my edit at File:Nikhar Garg Scottish Open.jpg? I just withdrew my nomination. Thankyou. Zoglophie (talk) 13:39, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Photographer's mark

See: File:JERITZA, Maria, 1926.jpg, anyone recognize it and find the photographer in Wikidata? RAN (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

"Flair"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:28, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

New blocked in Mobile interface changes

For IPs

Your IP address has been blocked from editing (Wikiname).
Try logging in if you have an account.
Blocked by (User)
Block will expire in -----
See details
Reason
(reason)
View source (new button)
Log in
OK

For users

You have been blocked from editing (Wikiname).
Blocked by (User)
Block will expire in -----
See details
Reason
(reason)
View source (new button)
OK
2001:44C8:4085:558:2406:A57A:DB4E:43CA 00:53, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

  • I'm totally confused. Is this a statement of how things are? How you think they should be? What exactly is the recent or proposed change? - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

Controversial edits to time zone map

File:World Time Zones Map.png started out as a time zone map from the Central Intelligence agency. It's likely from the PDF or JPG at the World and Regional Maps page at the CIA website. The CIA map has been modified by User:UnaitxuGV as indicated in the file's edit history. Edits to the border between Ukrainian and Russian time zones might not be what the CIA would make if they were to update the file, hence the controversy. This has resulted in a flurry of edits to the English Wikipedia articles w:Time zone and w:Coordinated Universal Time. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

We need to define whether the map shows the de jure or the de facto time zones. In occupied areas the occupier will decide which time zone to use. The term "official" in the description indicates that the de jure time zones are displayed and therefore not the time zone used by the occupier. GPSLeo (talk) 15:34, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Edits like that should be done in a separate, derivative file that cites distinct sources for its newer information. & then it's not Commons' affair which one en-wiki prefers to use. - Jmabel ! talk 15:35, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jc3s5h: In 2014, Crimea and parts of Donetsk and Luhansk started observing UTC+3. At that time, World Time Zones Map.png was changed to show these areas in UTC+3. In 2015 the map had an edit war reverting these areas to UTC+2 but in the end kept them on UTC+3, and they were not changed anymore since then. In 2022, after the invasion of Ukraine, a larger part of southeast Ukraine started observing UTC+3, so I recently changed the map to reflect it.
The map shows the time zone actually used in each area, regardless of law or political recognition. For example, the map also shows Abkhazia and South Ossetia in UTC+3, and some parts of Australia and Canada in their time zone that is actually used there different from what is defined by law. So for consistency, I think that the part of Ukraine actually using UTC+3 should remain shown in UTC+3 on the map. This doesn't imply recognition of the annexation, because the border between Ukraine and Russia (white line) is still shown as internationally recognized. The red line, although thicker, is only the separation between time zones, just like in other countries that have more than one time zone.
The CIA map was only used as an initial template, and we are not obligated to replicate it exactly or to update only what the CIA is expected to do. The CIA map was last updated in February 2021, and it still shows all of Ukraine in UTC+2, including Crimea. That map also has some mistakes or outdated information such as Chile, South Sudan, and parts of Canada and Greenland.
@GPSLeo: The map is de facto. I agree that the word "official" should be removed from the description, and maybe replaced with "de facto" to clarify. Heitordp (talk) 15:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:World Time Zones Map.png. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
Again: this map gives the CIA as its source. If there is other info that comes from a different sources, then that should be a separate derivative work, and the changes should be overtly credited/sourced. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: This map has always been was a derivative work. It started from the CIA map as a template, but it has been updated numerous times for many years, mostly based on the tz database. I clarified this in the file description. Heitordp (talk) 02:58, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Heitordp: Thanks for the clarification. As I'm sure you'll agree, maps like this should be clear as to what they represent, not just at a loose level but whose data they attempt to follow. - Jmabel ! talk 06:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
@Heitordp: Does the map currently differ at all from the data in the Time Zone Database? Nosferattus (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: The map matches the tz database for almost all locations, but there are a few differences:
  • The database lists the Mongolian regions of Govi-Altai and Zavkhan in UTC+7, but noting uncertainty due to conflicting sources. I changed the map to show these regions in UTC+8, based on the comments in the database and other sources.
  • The database doesn't mention Abkhazia or South Ossetia. The map shows them in UTC+3.
  • The database lists Ukraine in UTC+2, except Crimea in UTC+3. I changed the map show the more recently occupied areas of Ukraine also in UTC+3, based on other sources. Heitordp (talk) 20:09, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Heitordp: Could you note these differences in the file description (or alternatively create a separate map that has the deviations)? Also, it seems like it would be a good idea to discuss these changes on tz@iana.org (the discussion list for the Time Zone Database) so that maybe they will be incorporated into future versions of the database. Nosferattus (talk) 17:50, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: I listed the differences in the file description, with references. I'll try to report them to the database. Heitordp (talk) 04:50, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Reducing line height in smaller text

Dear experts, At Template talk:PD-Australia, in the draft template at the very bottom of the page titled "Australian copyright-expired works (PD-Australia)", in column 2 there is a Note comprising three lines of text coded as "small". I would like to close up the lines a little (reduce the line height). Commons doesn't seem to have the same capability as Wikipedia in this regard. Can someone suggest a way of doing this? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 11:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

I see only a note in column 1. Ruslik (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Column 1 has the numbers in. I'm referring to the reduced-size note un column 2 that starts: "Note: Copyright does not impose ..."  :-) SCHolar44 (talk) 01:35, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Will this do? Feel free to revert if not. - Jmabel ! talk 02:36, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, Jmabel. It worked, but the line height was applied to other text as well. I have tried to limit its extent, using the coding idea you gave me, but I haven't had success -- my coding skills are not very good. Any chance you could look at it again? I do appreciate your advice. SCHolar44 (talk) 08:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
@SCHolar44: I don't think the wiki approach to tables is flexible enough to confine it just to the one column.
For what it's worth, at an HTML level, it has to be applied to a "block" element (vs. "inline"). I suspect you might have to drop the wiki table and code it in raw HTML. Ideally, it could be applied to a single TD element. - Jmabel ! talk`
@Jmabel: Thank you -- much appreciated. Looks like I'll have to leave it and perhaps ask for help from a specialized coder when the draft process is complete. SCHolar44 (talk) 00:13, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Crops of licence-reviewed files

i suggest we come up with a standard operating procedure for such files. currently, it seems croptool doesnt copy the reviewed template, giving rise to for example File:26th Tokyo International Film Festival Nagasawa Masami (cropped).jpg. theoretically, only sysops and reviewers can add or copy the reviewed template.

here're some solutions:

  1. let croptool copy the template while uploading the new file.
  2. it's ok for non-reviewers to copy the template.
  3. make a bot that copies the template.

RZuo (talk) 16:26, 6 May 2023 (UTC)

a) has Croptool a new maintainer who could implement a solution, or has the current maintainer been appeased and convinced to return to Wikipedia?
b) While an image may be legal, a crop of it may be not, for example if an element of the picture is no longer de minimis in the crop. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 18:28, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
if necessary, an open source repo can always be forked.
2nd concern makes sense, but whether something copyrightable is de minimis has no relation to the validity of the licence? RZuo (talk) 09:30, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
It can be forked. But it doesn't need to. Wmflabs can assign a new maintainer. But: Nobody seems to be interested to become this maintainer. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Croptool down

Speaking of which, the croptool is giving me err. 502. Fix soon, please, or is just me? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:29, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

I've got the same problem. --Denniscabrams (talk) 17:40, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Roma Termini or Roma Tiburtina?

Is the category correct or is a rename necessary?

It looks like a duplicate of File:NTV ETR 575 Roma Tiburtina train station 08 2018-1227.jpg Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2023 (UTC)

I think that it is Tiburtina. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
I wil ask for a rename. The other file is cropped version (a small cut-out above).Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:10, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators#Reda_Kerbouche

Dear active Commons users,
I write to you today to humbly ask for your support in my candidacy for adminship on Commons. As an active user on this platform for some time now, I have dedicated much of my time and effort to contributing quality content and ensuring that the community maintains its positive reputation as a thriving platform for sharing knowledge.

As a potential admin, I bring with me the experience and skills necessary to help manage Commons and make critical decisions that will ensure its continued growth and success. I am confident in my abilities to navigate the complex challenges of this role, and I am committed to providing a transparent and effective leadership style that prioritizes the needs and voices of the community.

That being said, I also understand that not everyone may share my vision for Commons. Therefore, I respectfully ask that those of you who do not support my candidacy for adminship also make your voices heard. Whether you vote for me or against me, I am always open to constructive feedback and welcome the opportunity to engage in meaningful dialogue with all users.

So, I implore you to participate in this crucial decision-making process and make your voice heard. Let us work together to ensure that Commons remains a welcoming, collaborative, and dynamic platform for years to come.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely, Reda Kerbouche (talk) 08:52, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Administrators/Requests/Reda Kerbouche was closed as "Unsuccessful".   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:38, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Vector 2022

Has there ever been a discussion regarding switching Commons to Vector 2022? If so, could you point me to it? If not, I would like to discuss the possibility of switching to Vector 2022 like Wikipedia. Interstellarity (talk) 14:00, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Vector 2022 is currently no option for Commons as it is focused on articles and text where a narrower text filed is better to read. On gallery pages you want to see as many pictures as possible on your screen. GPSLeo (talk) 14:51, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want the layout to change for your account: go to Preferences, tab Appearence, click on Vector 2022. JopkeB (talk) 04:23, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @Interstellarity.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:39, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

We should have a directory of free resources

Sometime ago I looked into the Libertarian Party of the Netherlands and on their website they claim that all images on their website are freely licensed images, they then list a number of sources for these images and to my surprise the Wikimedia Commons wasn't mentioned at all. But their list did contain the following online resources:


I'm not aware which of these have mostly been imported and which ones haven't, but for years I've actually wanted to make a central directory of free websites from which we can direct users to websites to look for useful educational images which have licenses compatible with the Wikimedia Commons and direct them to relevant categories, but as this is thousands of websites I wouldn't know how to categorise these websites. I would suggest copying Wikipedia's list of reliable sources (and perhaps also create a related list of reliable but seemingly free websites).
The page I envision would have a WikiTable design and a link to the website, a description of the website, instructions on how to import from it, perhaps a field for tools, and also a category for where to put images from said source. I'll make an example below. Perhaps it could be called something like "Commons:Resources".
While writing this I find that something similar existe, but it's hardly advertised anywhere at the Wikimedia Commons, this makes me wonder why it isn't placed somewhere visible?
Plus as I've brought the topic up anyhow, perhaps it could be organised better, I'll create an example table below. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:32, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

These websites offer beautiful photos. But I wonder whether they are useful on Commons. They all, except for those on https://loc.gov/pictures/, lack information about the where and when. I think we have enough photos taken on unidentified locations and with unknow date. So I am not in favor of putting them on a list like Commons:Free media resources (the U.S. Library of Congress digital image archive is already in it). JopkeB (talk) 05:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Then put it on your liberTarian website. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Stanislov Patrick 473, that is not my website, I'm not a Libertarian and I have never been a member of the Libertarian Party, I just used it as a point of reference... — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Maybe you should consider joining so you can edit their websIte?! 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)~~ Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Currently:

https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?photo_license=CC-BY-SA Crowdsourced plants and animals photos. CC-BY-SA, CC0 and less permissive licenses. Photos are compressed to ~3MP size. Use {{INaturalistreview}}.

Becomes:

URL Description Warnings Template(s) Relevant categories Tools
https://www.inaturalist.org/observations?photo_license=CC-BY-SA Crowdsourced plants and animals photos. CC-BY-SA, CC0 and less permissive licenses. Photos are compressed to ~3MP size. {{INaturalistreview}}. Media from iNaturalist

Something like this. Or is that less handy? The more I look at this the more I realise that most of the ideas I have surrounding it exists, yet I don't see it advertised anywhere, perhaps we should try to make these pages more visible. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:37, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

I think there would have to be divisions by type or such, but it could work. You might look at Don-vip's list they use for their bot at Commons:Spacemedia for inspiration. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:30, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Huntster: donal or donner Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Stanislov Patrick 473: I don't understand. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:26, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Annotated copyright information from the archives of Latvian pictures

I recently moved image File:Akmens tēli, Torņakalns.JPG from lvwiki to common, but I don't know how to label the copyright information, thank you! The copyright information of the original text is w:lv:Veidne:Edgars2007 attēls of lvwiki, but only lvwiki has the logo of this free copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fumikas Sagisavas (talk • contribs)

@Fumikas Sagisavas: the equivalent template on commons is {{Cc-by-sa-3.0}} You can use it to attribute to the user by using it like {{Cc-by-sa-3.0|[[:lv:User:Edgars2007|Edgars Košovojs]]}}. --William Graham (talk) 15:10, 13 May 2023 (UTC)
@William Graham: CC BY-SA 3.0 is the same as CC BY-ND 1.0 Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Stanislov Patrick 473: No, it is not. I'm sorry, but licenses with restrictions -nc- (noncommercial) and -nd- (no derivatives) are not usable by themselves for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: WMF is non-profit so it is noncomerial Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@Stanislov Patrick 473: Have you read Foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy? Commons doesn't accept files with only a CC BY-ND license (or CC BY-NC for that matter) per Commons:Licensing policy.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Men of the People's Republic of China by name vs. Category:Men of China by name

Is there any actual difference between these two categories? Trade (talk) 17:04, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

Convenience links (would this have been so hard?): Category:Men of the People's Republic of China by name, Category:Men of China by name. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Prior to 1948 there is no PRC. It would be odd to call one of the Emperors (for example) a "man of the PRC". Similarly for Chin Gee Hee (died 1930), etc. But I don't know whether in practice that is how it is being used. - Jmabel ! talk 18:07, 16 May 2023 (UTC)
Probably because of POC/ROC/ROK/HK/MC disputes. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:55, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't worked it out, Stanislov Patrick 473 is a disruptive vandal. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Moving from Category:Tram line 76 (Düsseldorf) to Category:Stadtbahn line U76 (Düsseldorf)

I have problems with: [5] and [6]. These are pictures of the Straßenbahn linie 76 and not the Stadtbahn linie U76. There is the distiction of Category:Lines of the Düsseldorf Stadtbahn and Category:Tram lines in Düsseldorf.

This should be structured as by: Category:Tram line 79 (Düsseldorf)Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Setting the Wikimedia Commons category by importing from the Russian Wikipedia

I have a request for automatic insertion of personalities from w:ru:Категория:Телеведущие Первого канала to Category:Channel One Russia presenters. Is it possible to do this with the help of a bot, since there are 406 articles in the specified category of the Russian Wikipedia? —MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Making Uploads More Reliable on the Commons App

Hi everyone!


I am Ritika Pahwa, a third-year undergraduate at Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women, India, and I have been accepted as a Google Summer of Code(GSoC) contributor at Wikimedia Foundation for this summer. I wanted to take this opportunity to share about the upcoming enhancements in upload reliability of the Commons app that I will be focusing on in the next few months as a GSoC contributor.

My project aims at addressing upload-related issues and dealing with metadata loss. I have often experienced upload-related issues myself and would like to fix them so that all the Commons lovers get a seamless experience with the app! I would be working towards upload reliability over slow internet connections, uploads stuck in the Queued state, and loss of location data despite being present in the EXIF metadata of the pictures (GitHub Issue).

I look forward to collaborating with my mentors, Nicolas Raoul and Kaartic Sivaraam, and working together towards a hassle-free upload process!


Best,

Ritika Pahwa — Preceding unsigned comment added by RitikaPahwa4444 (talk • contribs) 08:44, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

@RitikaPahwa4444: Try using the "isUploadSuccess" function. It is faster than using the one using the main DB. Stanislov Patrick 473 (talk) 11:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
For anyone who hasn't worked it out, Stanislov Patrick 473 is a disruptive vandal. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
@RitikaPahwa4444: could you explain what you mean here by "metadata loss"? People use the term "metadata" in several different ways, ranging from meaning only the metadata encoded within an image file (e.g. EXIF) to all data of any sort about the photo other than the image itself, regardless of where it is stored. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jmabel, some versions of Android scrub the EXIF location from JPGs before an app can read it. So, the usage of "metadata loss" here stands for the EXIF metadata of the image. RitikaPahwa4444 (talk) 06:14, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you have an example of an Android device? Most Messenger Apps and Social Media Services do that, but if the OS did, third party gallery apps would be severly crippled. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 07:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Many app developers complained about this, some even stopped maintaining their apps because of this. See https://github.com/commons-app/apps-android-commons/issues/5015#issuecomment-1295710362 and around for context. Cheers! Syced (talk) 07:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
@RitikaPahwa4444
  • A way to make sure, that an upload was successful and complete is to have the app compare the MessageDigest of the local file and the Uplaoded file.
  • MW completely ignores MetaData of Video files, but that is an issue of MW, not the Upload process (actually you can query the MetaData from the API, it is stored in a database field of MW
  • Slow uploads is something that is dealt with by the Offroader upload app (also: Comparing of MessageDigest before upload to avoid duplicates and after upload to check, if the uploaded file is intact, paused and continued upload, spliting videos in 4GB parts and transcoding, and optionally writing a protocol of the upload stages)
  • You have "contact me" links to linkedin and medium, two sevrvices that I do not use, but you can contact me at Mastodon or Threema with question about my own upload tool and Offroader.
C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 20:17, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Finding Geolocation Leads with Bellingcat's OpenStreetMap Search Tool

This new tool from Bellingcat looks as though it might have great potential for identifying some of our "unknown location" pictures.

It will work best in areas that are well mapped on OSM; and where the picture is relatively modern (or historic features remain) and the approximate location is known.

Caveats are that it requires a Google account for login and I have not yet tried it in depth.

If the code is open, maybe we could have an instance on Toolforge? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems a good idea to me. Untill that time, can we mention this tool on Category:Unidentified locations? JopkeB (talk) 04:39, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

About Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no image

In Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with no image are a lot of Wikidata items, for which no image is availably and probably will not be in the future. For instance artists who died centuries ago (before the 19th century), who made a lot of works that are in the category and/or gallery page, but of whom is no portrait available. However those WD-items stay there for everlasting days, people might invest time to search for proper images (over and over again), time which may be better spend. Does a solution exists for this problem? Otherwise I would propose to label those WD-items (for instance with a specific template) and take care they will be removed from and not enter again this maintenance category. JopkeB (talk) 05:45, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Is this image (Lord Durham's report in French) in public domain in US?

Here's the image in question: File:Lambton - Rapport de Lord Durham (page 4 crop).jpg . It was published in 1839 in Montreal. The file description says that it is public domain in country of origin (Canada), but says there must also be a description of copyright status for the US. I would have thought it would be public domain in the US, given its age, but I (a) don't know if that is correct, and (b) don't know how to edit the image page to remove the "US info needed" tag? (The reason I'm asking is that I planned to use it for an article that was under GA review, and the reviewer suggested that it would be an impediment to GA review if there was a question about the copyright status.) Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:10, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the file is public domain in the United States because it was published before 1928. Abzeronow (talk) 20:14, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
How do I add that info to the page for the image?Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:32, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Add {{PD-US-expired}}. –LPfi (talk) 12:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Some foreign templates already include the reasons that the document/image is public domain in the USA, making it unnecessary to add a second template. I think that is a better strategy, to move in that direction. --RAN (talk) 12:16, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Test-Upload

Wasn't there a facility where I could upload files to yest them where they automatically get deleted after a while? Cheers, Oalexander (talk) 14:41, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

File:JPG Test.jpg and other Category:Test images exist, but they do not become deleted, they become reverted to the "original" test file. GPSLeo (talk) 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Oalexander (talk) 01:21, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
For tests there is also a beta server which may or may not fit your purpose: https://commons.wikimedia.beta.wmflabs.org/wiki/Main_Page Syced (talk) 03:12, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Page for bad YouTube authors?

I recently got burned by an unofficial YouTube channel that was lifting content from the official one. The channel had high-quality uploads and a few thousand subscribers, and it wasn't clear it was an unofficial one until another user pointed it out to me. This brings me to my question: is there a page that tracks bad YouTube authors?

We have a Commons:Questionable Flickr images for Flickr, but I couldn't find an equivalent page for YouTube. Ixfd64 (talk) 21:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

We don't have a comprehensive one; User:YouTubeReviewBot/bad-authors is the old one that was used by the old YouTubeReviewBot, but it is very small and doesn't run anymore. That bot's successor bot hasn't run since April 2022, so we effectively don't have a bot at all doing this task. The existing projectspace tracking page for this (Commons:Questionable YouTube videos) has not been updated in seven years, and its existence is not well-advertised.
That being said, getting an actively maintained tracking page going would be worthwhile—a clever bot writer could use it to tag images screenshotted from known bad accounts with a "failed license review" speedy tag and could notify the uploader, or could at least put them into a category for human review. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:46, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI: Flickr's update community guidelines

https://www.flickr.com/help/guidelines?utm_campaign=community-guidelines-update&utm_source=Flickr&utm_medium=email&utm_content=cc-users

From the email sent by them:

What was once a lengthy list of dos-and-don’ts is now a structured document built around the things that make Flickr great: Inspiration, connection, and sharing.
We also developed a new “give some grace” policy designed to protect both Creative Commons license holders and their users. We love that Flickr is home to generous artists around the world. But we’re not a home for copyright trolls, and never will be.
We shared our thoughts about the process on the Flickr Blog, and you can read the new guidelines yourself right here:

Could be of interest to many here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Specifically, Flickr is "asking licensors to give good-faith reusers a 30-day grace period to correct any error or misuse of their open-licensed content with no penalty. This change was introduced to prevent the malpractice of so-called copyright trolls using the threat of litigation to generate income." Is copyright trolling an issue for Commons? If so, should we consider adopting similar guidelines? Nosferattus (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
The most used license on commons is cc-by-sa-4.0, the second most used license is cc-by-sa-3.0. The most used group of licenses on commons are cc-4.0, cc-zero and pd licenses. The second most used group of licenses on commons are cc-licenses below 4.0. Possible copyrigt trolling affects this second group. All files imported from Flickr fall into this group. In the past it has been discussed to ask users who uploaded with cc, but below 4.0 to update their files to 4.0 because of the issue of possible copyright trolling. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't help that much unless the grace period is explicitly and bindingly granted. Otherwise the good faith copyright owners will continue to grant a grace period (usually as long as needed if the reuser is cooperating), while the copyright trolls will ignore the request. –LPfi (talk) 11:07, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
The new guidelines explicitly state that Failure to allow a good faith reuser the opportunity to correct errors is against the intent of the license and not in line with the values of our community, and can result in your account being removed. So, at least Flickr will eject people who do this going forward, but that doesn't actually help the end-user when they are still on the line for whatever liability arises. Frankly, they should just switch to the 4.0 licenses to protect the end-user. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:34, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
Frankly Commons should ask commons users who uploaded own work with a cc license but below 4.0 to consider to switch their uploads to 4.0. More than a million users have uploaded files to commons and nearly all are unaware of the issue and of this discussion. A small number does use the 3.0 version, because they do not want to use 4.0, but the majority might do the switch. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:27, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter:in am 2023-05-17.png

I uploaded File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter:in am 2023-05-17.png. Accidently I uploaded it as File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter-in am 2023-05-17.png. Either that, or a glitch in the software changed it from File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter:in am 2023-05-17.png to File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter-in am 2023-05-17.png. I requested a renamimg from File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter-in am 2023-05-17.png to File:Betriebszentrale S-Bahn Berlin, Halenseestraße am Friedhof Grunewald mit Stellenanzeige Fahrdienstleiter:in am 2023-05-17.png. But it turned out that file movers cannot rename the file because of some software problem ("file already exists"). So can an admin please manually do the rename? (context: ":" is a gender marker in the german language) --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: can you have a colon in a Commons filename? I would think it would confuse the mechanism for "file spaces". - Jmabel ! talk
Such files certainly exist: File:About - La vieille Roche : 1ère partie, le mari imprévu.djvu, for example. There are only 618 files on Commons with colons in their names, though, and their page_ids suggest they're all from 2013 or earlier. So I suspect it's difficult or impossible to create new ones. --bjh21 (talk) 18:02, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
... with one exception: File:Ed Saperia - Open Access Reader: A project to cite all OA papers in Wikipedia - Wikipedia Science Conference 2015.webm, from 2015. I'll stop looking now. --bjh21 (talk) 18:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)

Gremlins

There are Gremlins in Commons! User:Koavf uploaded File:A Weekly Conversation- With Mike at W. S. Jenks & Son.webm and File:A Weekly Conversation- On the Line with Michele.webm in 2021. Both starting with "A Weekly Conversation:". But the Gremlins changed it to "A Weekly Conversation-". Without leaving an entry in history or logs! Prove: go to "Page information" for both files and compare the "Display title" and the "Sort key"! By 2022 the Gremlins had learned to also falsify the sort key: File:Bridge Over River Feugh -Feugh Cottage Banchory Ternan - George Washington Wilson - ABDMS004835.8.jpg. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 05:28, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about with the lack of "entry in history or logs" - you can quite clearly see the change for the first file in the history and even navigate to the specific difference at [7]. On the second file I can't see any evidence that it was uploaded under a different name; I was able to change your "proof" on the page information page with a single edit to the default sort template on the file.[8] This seems to be the result of normal editing and there are no gremlins here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:14, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

For testing I uploaded a new version of File:Möbeluppsats, 12 delar, VI:II:A.a.11 - Hallwylska museet - 39426.tif with the BigChunkedUploadSrcipt by User:Rillke, but it ended up as File:Möbeluppsats, 12 delar, VI-II-A.a.11 - Hallwylska museet - 39426.tif instead. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 10:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Is 'Aadgujjkm' a right caption?

An anonymous user added 'Aadgujjkm' as a caption in the Chamoru language. Since it's the user's only contribution, I wonder if this is a good addition. Google translate does not recognize it. Wouter (talk) 13:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

On ch.wikipedia.org no results were found. Wouter (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens, I could certainly be wrong, but I'm fairly sure it's vandalism. It's not found by Google at all, and it doesn't really conform to the structure of what I'm seeing of example Chamoru words. Plus, whenever I see letters like "ujjkm" together, it tells me someone was just hammering their keyboard (they are grouped together on an English keyboard). I'll revert. — Huntster (t @ c) 14:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Almost 60 Ukrainian libraries was damaged or destroyed since the war

“ According to her, the Russians have damaged or destroyed almost 60 Ukrainian libraries since the beginning of the war. ”

—[9]

The most imminent threat to library preservation is the Russia-Ukraine war. If Russian bombs hit Ukrainian libraries the book could all gone. Almost 60 Ukrainian libraries was damaged or destroyed since the war. Pictures. Do anyone know about Ukrainian libraries websites with scans? I hope they can be uploaded as part of Commons:Library back up project. 維基小霸王 (talk) 04:56, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Not to poo poo the idea, but ifthe books are already on the websites of the libraries I don't see why that would change just because the physical building was or is damaged. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The server could be bombed as well. 維基小霸王 (talk) 09:04, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Because of the possibility, that a computer (for example holding a database) can be damaged there are backups and live mirrors. Good working praxis says to have original and backup at different locations and to secure backups from fire and other hazards. However it may be the case that some libraries in Ukraine have not save backup or that even secured backups are destroyed. Do you have information, if that is the case. Do you have information for which specific library this is the case? And if it is the case, then the internet archive (archive.org) would be the first place for additional backups and large national libraries like the Library of Congress in USA or the DNB in Germany would be the second choice. In every case commons.wikimedia can ever only be a place for free media, that is media in the public domain for old age or other reasons or media that was released under a free license like some creative commons license. Works in library are mostly not free but commercial. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 16:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Yes, IA is the first place to look at, but the "Library back up project" is also on the same line: preserving documents for posterity, including those which are not yet in the public domain. These are deleted after uploading and will be undeleted when they will be free. Yann (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I also suggest getting in touch with Archive Team. [10] They're really good at this stuff. Ixfd64 (talk) 17:16, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Australians in South Western Sydney

Hi all, are there any Australians who live in South Western Sydney who might like to help me photograph our area? I have covered about three quarters of the City of Liverpool so far (see Wikishootme). It would be lovely to meet up with some like minded people to document our area :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:52, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Autorization to take tripod photo from the top platform of the Shard, London

Hi,

Are there any Londoners here who could give clues on how to get an autorization to bring a tripod in the viewing gallery of the Shard please? Perhaps Wikimedia UK could help with that?

Thank you for any help or suggestion.

Benh (talk) 22:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Global Usage badges are gone

The Global Usage badges just have disappeared from all categories and galleries (though still seem to work on VisualFile Change). What happened? --A.Savin 00:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I've found the issue and am working on a fix. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin Fixed at Special:Diff/765877258. Cc. Jon (WMF), who forgot the trailing "d" in "Deprecated", in case the same mistake was made on other wikis. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:53, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Generic category for upscaled/AI enhanced images

See: File:Charles Théodore of Belgium.jpg Do we have a generic category for upscaled/AI enhanced images? I don't think they need to be deleted just properly documented. --RAN (talk) 02:21, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I think you're looking for Category:Photos modified by AI. Nosferattus (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Perfect! I see there are other categories for specific AI programs. This generic one is perfect, since the uploader did not specify which one they used. --RAN (talk) 15:00, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

AI enhanced images

The debate has started again about whether to keep or delete AI adjusted images: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charles Théodore of Belgium.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Cardinal Schuster.jpg as well as a half dozen others, more eyes are welcome, no matter what your opinion is. --RAN (talk) 12:30, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikidata not being picked up

Category:Watership Down was previously a mix-up between the actual place and the novel of the same name. I have hived off the content related to the novel to Category:Watership Down (novel), but the Wikidata, previously at Category:Watership Down, which relates to the novel, is not being picked up at Category:Watership Down (novel), despite my edits to https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q936801. It just says "NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!". Can anyone fix this up and get it to work properly? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed Trade (talk) 20:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks for looking at that. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

VFC broken

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T337651
RESOLVED

Note: I merged both following sections, because they are related. The underlying issue was reported by Yann at Phabricator: phab:T337651. Legoktm did some changes which seem to have fixed VFC, for now. — Speravir – 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Mass deletion nomination tool?

In these contributions a sock account has what seems to be a rash of made-up flags. Some were already deleted at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User Russian Onest, but the rest are now being disruptively added to Wikipedia pages. Unfortunately Help:VisualFileChange.js does not appear to be working, even manually. Is there another way to place them all in one nomination (besides manually I suppose)? Thanks, Chipmunkdavis (talk) 10:57, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Chipmunkdavis: VFC is good for that. - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
…but VFC appears to be broken at the moment, which must be very recent (I used it less than 24 hours ago). - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the information, hopefully it works again soon! Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:24, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: VFC appears to be fixed now. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

"Perform batch task" doesn't work

As of now, "Perform batch task" doesn't work at all. When you click it, nothing happens. Without this, you can do little with editing multiple files. I hope somebody fixes this. --トトト (talk) 15:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like "VisualFileChange" is broken. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I see no recent changes in the MediaWiki namespace that could cause this. Will continue to look into it, but please help! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@トトト and Mdaniels5757: VFC appears to be fixed now. - Jmabel ! talk 21:15, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Good to hear that. Thank you. --トトト (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 00:22, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Change of licenses

I've just had several art licenses changed. In combinations of, the death date deleted, and or 1923 deleted. This was justified because The date 1923 is no longer used in the template, it is desirable that it be discontinued, as it is no longer appropriate under modern law. And the dates of life are indicated in the object card. There have been other license changes too, example: PD-Art, not PD-art, sir. What is the justification for this as a change?

To my mind it was a totally unnecessary edit. 1923 flips automatically to 1928. Modern law, shifts sometimes, and the death date is the key element in the code, around which, legislation pivots. Unless wikidata takes over licensing completely, which (for art ) I'm in favour of.

I'm aware of Wikidata's benefits in part, however it reduces the accessibility of the project to the everyman. That's why I advocated retaining the deathdate. Licensing is already complicated enough. This project has for some time, been complicating itself to the point of not being accessible anymore. We are polluted with arcane edits, that add no value.

A question is; what is the licence I should use to prevent this sort of harassment in future? Given that most of my artwork involves the artists dead by 75 or 100 years. Thoughts gratefully received. Broichmore (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

I've added a section header to prevent problems with the automatic archiving. Feel free to rename the section, if you wish.
Could you provide some example links to where the changes you describe are happening? It is hard to tell without examples what the other editor is doing and whether their actions are appropriate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Presumably the one referred to in User talk:RetroRave#License change. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Every art example here at Help:Copyrights shows 1923 in the coding, and one of the two shows the death date.Broichmore (talk) 19:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
{{PD-old-auto-expired}} is the current best-use template. I'd rather not have the death date for artists that died more than 100 years ago, as then it would cost $30/hr * 1/2 hr per work * a million works = $$15 million!!! for us to analyze everything, which is a good argument for the legislature not to make such a silly change and force needless costs on us and similar archives. Seriously, our planning for a case where rent-seekers are getting more than a century after the artist dies should involve public outrage and aggressive lobbying, not just sitting there and taking it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:01, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Do you mean that the year shouldn't be added even if known? What costs does that involve? Or do you mean that the effort to find the year is unnecessary when it is known to be long ago? If we don't state the year (or something like "before 1890") and don't link a WP article or WD item with the death year, how does a patroller or reuser know that the death year indeed is early enough? A PD-old can be added by a misinformed guess.
For the outrage, I think 70 years pma, 95 years after publication or 120 years since creation should still cause that outrage – but it doesn't. In the USA, I have understood that a work can be under copyright regardless of age, if it was published in a certain window (so you need to check for that for any old work).
–LPfi (talk) 11:02, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
That only addresses the USA license. Most of the work I do, does not originate from there. Broichmore (talk) 12:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
{{PD-old-auto-expired}} works for any life+x case. There are some other tags need for anonymous works or simple photos or crown copyright or other more complex situations, but that will work for most foreign cases.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Problem with image with false information.

I have (righty or wrongly) nominated an image for deletion which depicts a person of other than it claims to be. There has been call to speedy keep the image and a direction that as the nomination was "my mistake" it is my duty to go and sort the whole lot out. Some may understand why I may simply walk away from the thing which is what I am going to do because I am annoyed by the whole thing. I'm a volunteer and when I good faith try to help I'm not going to continue with that response. Its simply an assault on my mental health if nothing else. Can I please ask if someone else kindly takes up case of the image, decides how to handle the problem and ensures it is not used on other Wikis. This is the deletion discussion: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Walther-Johann-Gottfried-01.jpg. I'm interested to know the correct and efficient approach should this happen in the further but I'll likely going to desist from responding to this thread at all but I my monitor it. Thankyou. -- 21:58, 23 May 2023 (UTC) unsigned but by User:DeirgeDel

Please sign with ~~~~. Otherwise the reply-Link will not show. The image cannot be deleted it is neither a copyright violation, nor fake, nor out of scope. But it can be renamed, the file description can be changed and it can be unlinked from all usases that assume it is the image of Walter Johann Gottfried. That is what you can do or everyone else. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 23:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry - for not signing ... just too battered .... apologies again. -- DeirgeDel tac 00:09, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've largely cleaned up this situation but there are several languages where the image is used where I don't even know enough to leave a half-coherent message. Could someone please eliminate the use of what is now File:Thomas Christian Walter 02.jpg where it appears in:

Thanks in advance. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I removed the image from these pages. Some of the edits must be sighted. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 16:51, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • If you delete an image that is wrongly identified at Commons it just leaves the copies misidentified elsewhere. Instead of deleting we fix the errors, and explain in a note that has been misidentified. --RAN (talk) 04:22, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I'm not sure what you intend to say here. I didn't delete the image on Commons; I moved it. I left the redirect and allowed a global replace so, yes, the copies are now in articles with misidentified captions. I dealt with wherever the image is used in a wiki in a language where I can at least explain myself in an edit summary (French, Spanish, Italian, German; English was already dealt with). In each of these I deleted the image from the articles where it was misleading; unfortunately, we do not have an image of Johann Gottfried Walther to substitute. What I am looking for is for someone to clean up these remaining transclusions, because there is no way I could explain in any of the relevant languages what is going on. Are you trying to tell me to do something different from that when you say "instead of deleting we fix the errors"? - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
My comment was for User:DeirgeDel, who nominated the image for deletion. Sorry for the misunderstanding. --RAN (talk) 05:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
As the comment was towards we I really hate to say it but there is a real possibility of I has simply raised a discussion here "we" would have take a look and decided it was too difficult or told me to simply go off and do something. I find Jmabel's comments really helpful. I know some things about how thinks work here, I know far less about other things. In this case I'd reused an article on a Wikiquote article (that I had no particular interest in) to improve that article; and I do that very often on Wikiquote when sitelinking, and just tried to make issue was put through Commons (and Wikidata which I handled myself, hopefully relatively correctly). Obviously Jmabel has subsequently removed the image from Wikidata completely. In a case like this I feel its really important to get peer support for this impact of change. What I wil say is that this case comes up from time to time and having a bot to notify and remove from remote Wiki's would probably be helpful to everyone. Please be aware yesterday I was also trying to deal with some complex-looking stuff on Wikiquote so I was time-crunched on stuff there and was under pressure to minimise my time on this matter. -- (Formerly Djm-leighpark) DeirgeDel tac 09:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

کتاب لغت نامه بشرویه

کتاب لغت نامه بشرویه با بیش از 3000 کلمه و وازه های ناب و اصیل بشرویه ای توجه علاقمندان به فرهنگ وسنن گذشتگان و گویش محلی مردمان خوب و با صفای دیار بشرویه را به خود جلب نموده است . متاسفانه مشاهده می شود که برخی از این کلمات و وازه های به فراموشی سپرده شده و یا در حال کم رنگ شدن است و نیاز مند توجه بیشتر. معرفی این گونه موارد به نسل جدید و آینده به خوبی احساس میشود ونیاز به گار وتلاش در این زمینه 

دارد  .

thumb — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 95.38.76.180 (talk) 05:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

There is a Persian-language village pump at "Commons:قهوه‌خانه". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:18, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

File:E.-coli-growth.gif

File:E.-coli-growth.gif cant be found in https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030058 ? RZuo (talk) 08:57, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The license at source is free. Yann (talk) 10:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
i think i found the problem. it actually came from another article https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.0030045 ? RZuo (talk) 14:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yann i dont know how you were able to review that file. it was not found in that url, as i had said in my original post. RZuo (talk) 14:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Media of the day

Our Media of the day need some care. Please propose good quality media and descriptions in various languages. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:24, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Can I upload a photo of a French postage stamp?

I would like to upload an image of a postage stamp to use as an illustration for an article about a painting by Maurice de Vlaminck. Unfortunately not sure if the postage stamps of France are copyright free? Τάρας στον Παρνασσό (talk) 14:06, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

No, French postage stamps aren't automatically in the public domain. It depends of the design and the designer. Maurice de Vlaminck died in 1958, this one won't be in the public domain in France until the end of 2028. Yann (talk) 14:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Categories for 360° panoramas are a mess

A recent bot task prompted me to look into the categorization of 360-degree photos, and it looks like such a mess that I think we ought to have some discussion here before we even get to the CfDing stage. Category:360° panoramas is the entry point, but it has lots of subcategories that aren't well-defined and may be redundant. Category:360° panoramic photographs doesn't articulate any distinction, since presumably all panoramas are photos. There's Category:Photography360‎, which has almost nothing except the photos subcategory. And then there's Category:360° panoramas with equirectangular projection‎, which leads to the subcategory Category:Spherical panoramics‎, which leads to the subcategory Category:Photo Sphere.

I'm not an expert on the different types of 360° photography, so I'd appreciate input from those who know a little more about how best to sort this all out. It'd also be nice if we could get {{Pano360}} to play more nicely with the categorization (maybe even using metadata to do it automatically?). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:29, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

there can be panoramic videos or paintings.--RZuo (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Comment: As of now, I have only uploaded a single 180degree stereoscopic video (mostly as a test), but I have a number of such videos waiting to be published. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
There are some pretty famous 360° panoramic paintings, e.g. the Gettysburg Cyclorama. Oddly, Category:Gettysburg Cyclorama appears to be in no way connected to Category:360° panoramas or even Category:Panoramas. - Jmabel ! talk 23:31, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about North Carolina government copyright laws

Hello, while trying to find out about the VRT process regarding government documents published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, a fellow editor made a good point that those documents, and many like them, could be considered "public records" under Chapter 132 of North Carolina state law. Though, there is some confusion on the basis of what the statute defines a "public record" as (the public being able to view gov. records vs. the public being able to view and modify/reuse gov. records). If anyone knows something about state copyright laws, is there enough justification in this statute that could allow the creation of a public domain license tag on Wikimedia Commons for documents created by the government bodies in North Carolina? Thank you for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Adding on to the above, this "Copyright Decisions" page from the Government and Heritage Library of the State Library of North Carolina says "Most of these [North Carolina state publications] are considered to be in the public domain, pursuant to General Statute 132-1b," which is the section of law which defines what constitutes a public record. Despite this, other state sources do not treat their files/photos/publications this way, as evidenced by the different licenses with which agencies' official Flickr pages will use, and other various references to some state works being copyrighted. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Ship manifests at https://heritage.statueofliberty.org/

Has anyone figured out how to download ship manifests at https://heritage.statueofliberty.org/ (SOL)? The same manifests are available at Ancestry and Familysearch, but sometimes this website indexed the name properly, so it shows up in a search. It would just be easier to download from the SOL website, rather than trying to refind the same page at one of the other websites, where the name is misspelled in the index. RAN (talk) 12:41, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

fascinating website. thx for sharing! RZuo (talk) 13:26, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
It is a very good website, Ancestry has the same images, but it is a pay site, although Ancestry is free through Wikipedia Library. I always search both because of spelling errors, when each created an index by transcribing the names. At Ancestry you can fix the spelling errors. --RAN (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • OK, I figured it out. It is a two step process. Add the "Enable Right Click for Google Chrome" extension, then when you are on the page you want to download click the extension's icon and right click is enabled for that page. Then you have to use the procedure: right click > Inspect > Application. From there you can click on each graphic element. Once you found the right one, you can use "save as". The second step is the same one you use to download eBay images. --RAN (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

image probably in wrong Category, but I can't be sure

The Category:Thomas Francis Kennedy (bishop) has an image that is highly unlikely to be an image of this person (Kennedy/bishop). It is a colour photograph (not colourised) that claims to be the bishop's confirmation, though this particular bishop's confirmation occurred in 1907. The Description notes this is the confirmation of "Bishop Tomas Kennedy" - note different spelling of 'Tomas' v. 'Thomas'. My guess is that this needs to be moved to its own Category, not just deleted, but I can't be sure, so I'm not willing to make the move myself. Seauton (talk) 16:08, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Good catch of an error. I removed it from the category. File:Consecrationbishoptomas.jpg. The Irish need to broaden their names lexicon or add an extra given name like in Germany. An Irish death record is terrible too, they list the name of the dead and their age at death. No name of the parents. --RAN (talk) 17:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Leonardo José Raimundo

There is an on-going discussion about a proposal that Leonardo José Raimundo be globally banned from editing all Wikimedia projects. You are invited to participate at Requests for comment/Global ban for Leonardo José Raimundo on Meta-Wiki. Thank you! Elton (talk) 00:59, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

Question about North Carolina government copyright laws

Hello, while trying to find out about the VRT process regarding government documents published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, a fellow editor made a good point that those documents, and many like them, could be considered "public records" under Chapter 132 of North Carolina state law. Though, there is some confusion on the basis of what the statute defines a "public record" as (the public being able to view gov. records vs. the public being able to view and modify/reuse gov. records). If anyone knows something about state copyright laws, is there enough justification in this statute that could allow the creation of a public domain license tag on Wikimedia Commons for documents created by the government bodies in North Carolina? Thank you for your help and have a great day! DiscoA340 (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

  • Adding on to the above, this "Copyright Decisions" page from the Government and Heritage Library of the State Library of North Carolina says "Most of these [North Carolina state publications] are considered to be in the public domain, pursuant to General Statute 132-1b," which is the section of law which defines what constitutes a public record. Despite this, other state sources do not treat their files/photos/publications this way, as evidenced by the different licenses with which agencies' official Flickr pages will use, and other various references to some state works being copyrighted. -Indy beetle (talk) 04:22, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Name change (error in name)

Need name change. Many files uploaded by me have name "Hans Dahlberg...."-something, error. Should be "Hans_Dahlgren..."-same-something. Example file "Hans Dahlberg.21f337.1072176 03.jpg" ERROR - should be "Hans Dahlgren.21f337.1072176 03.jpg" Correct. In only this example, I have corrected the category and desciption, so all instances of "berg" should be changed to "gren"... Sorry, I was in stress. I applied and got a long time ago FILEMOVER right, and if I had that still, I could have changed the name. See this as an application for FILEMOVER rights. It is much better that the file uploader has the name-change-rights, automatically. Hope for a speedy change! --Janwikifoto (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Will look at the names soon. Filemover, it is very difficult for the souls who do not log in here every day, to find much information. I really dislike that searching for "Filemove" only brings up a lot of images. This is a problem with all wikipedia info. Anyway, now I got the right link! Thanks! --Janwikifoto (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

stanford.edu

Stanford University has a huge collection of interesting documents (everything online until 1927 shows 991,157 results). Many documents are available for download, but I can't find any way to download whole books. Any idea? They also have a silly license, claiming a copyright on everything, even 2D reproduction of old documents. Yann (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

wonderful website. thx for sharing.
For some files I checked, they labeled the files correctly as no copyright restriction?
It seems you might have to download the single images (using a script maybe) and then put them together into a pdf by yourself.--RZuo (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@RZuo: Which document did you look at? For all documents, I can read (e.g. [11], 1651) This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial Share Alike 3.0 Unported license (CC BY-NC-SA). The issue with downloading with a script is that each page has a random URL. Yann (talk) 16:21, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/2952427 click menu button in top left corner of the viewer and then click (c) symbol, it says "...free of known restrictions..."
https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/kh686yw0435 at the bottom: pdm 1.0.
for some files, the download url seems to be consistent? like for https://searchworks.stanford.edu/view/kh686yw0435 url is https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/kh686yw0435/kh686yw0435_0001.jp2 . you can see how the link for each page would be constructed as long as you have that identifier string.
but for ys662xf7842 the download url of jp2 is https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/ys662xf7842/21637.jp2 , indeed irregular. RZuo (talk) 20:38, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
that NC licence is probably their standard for "Image from the The Barry Lawrence Ruderman Map Collection", i guess. RZuo (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Selection of the U4C Building Committee

The next stage in the Universal Code of Conduct process is establishing a Building Committee to create the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C). The Building Committee has been selected. Read about the members and the work ahead on Meta-wiki.

-- UCoC Project Team, 04:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

File:Jaguar E-Type Roadster Eté2016 Marcq-en-Baroeul dfil-du-grand-boulevard en 2009 (1).jpg

Greetings. I have come upon an improperly named image file that needs changing but don't know how to do it. I see no commands or appropriate options. This is the file: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Jaguar_E-Type_Roadster_Et%C3%A92016_Marcq-en-Baroeul_dfil-du-grand-boulevard_en_2009_(1).jpg. The problem is that it does not show an E-type Jaguar (see a selection of proper images here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=jaguar+e-type+&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image) but an MG-A instead (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=mga+roadster&title=Special:MediaSearch&go=Go&type=image) - which the author themselves realizes is the car portrayed in the misnamed file (confirmed in their description of the image here: MG A Roadster au défilé du Grand Boulevard du 27-09-09 à Marcq-en-Barœul, Nord).

Please, whoever has the ability to make this change, do so, as (unfortunately) my ISP changes at least once daily, and I cannot always remember what pages or files I may have worked on here or at Wikipedia and am provided no means of maintaining continuity with a previous day's work. So leaving instructions (even if an unregistered user can carry them out) may still not work out for me to make the change. Thank you, whoever steps up and makes the simple but necessary alteration to the file name. 2601:196:180:DC0:693C:8091:E454:316C 10:03, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

If you note on what page you discussed an issue, you will find it there (or in some cases in an archive of that page, note some keywords to find it more easily). Only appointed users can move files on Commons, but you can request a move, adding {{rename|Jaguar MG A Roadster Eté2016 Marcq-en-Baroeul dfil-du-grand-boulevard en 2009 (1).jpg|3|MG A, not E.}} or something similar (the "3" stands for "obvious error"). –LPfi (talk) 10:54, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thank you User:LPfi for your reply. What page? Where? All I know is that an image file (as indicated) is misnamed. Where to request a "move" to a page with the correct information I do not know. Thank you. 2601:196:180:DC0:B9E8:3C0F:92D8:FB6C 06:55, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Also, you should probably register a user name, which would solve the issue of not being able to keep track of your edits. –LPfi (talk) 10:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, this is not helpful, as I do not understand the instructions. Could you, or someone else who does understand them, please make the move (as the reason for it has been established unambiguously). Thank you. 2601:196:180:DC0:418A:4C5D:8FF9:C500 09:17, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Are you saying that because the original uploader didn't contest this edit by User:Alfa164 they are assumed to have actively confirmed it? That seems a bit extreme. Perhaps they never even noticed it.
@Pierre André Leclercq: as uploader, could you confirm whether you agree that Alfa164 and the anonymous IP here are correct? I'm totally out of my area of expertise here. I'd be glad to make the move if it is correct, but I try not to do this on things I can't evaluate. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel I don't remember seeing Alfa164 during the Grand Boulevard Parade on 09-27-09. I photographed the Jaguar E-Type Roadster three times ( photos taken three seconds apart)
File:Jaguar E-Type Roadster Eté2016 Marcq-en-Baroeul dfil-du-grand-boulevard en 2009 (1).jpg Profil
File:Jaguar E-Type Roadster Eté2016 Marcq-en-Baroeul dfil-du-grand-boulevard en 2009 (2).jpg Left front fender
File:Jaguar Eté2016 Jaguar type E Marcq-en-Baroeul dfil-du-grand-boulevard 2009.jpg Car grille with logo Jaguar
The image of the car's grille clearly shows the Jaguar logo and his driver at the wheel wears a red cap.
Best regards Pierre André (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
That looks pretty definitive to me, so declining the move. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 Thank you. Thanks you Pierre André (talk) 21:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

How to fix a wikidata infobox

The infobox on Category:Queensland has the name of the former governor Paul de Jersey not the present Governor Jeannette Young. I looked on Wikidata but the governor there does appear to be Jeannette Young, so why is the wikidata infobox on Commons wrong? And, more importantly, how do I fix it? Thanks Kerry Raymond (talk) 12:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

If you mean the Wikidata item d:Q36074, as "head of government" Paul de Jersey and Annastacia Palaszczuk are listed there. And same is displayed in the infobox, so IMO nothing surprising here. Regards --A.Savin 12:51, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond: I've updated the governor on Wikidata. Hope that resolves this issue. SHB2000 (talk) 10:06, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, User:SHB2000! Kerry Raymond (talk) 01:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Alternative to courtesy deletion: courtesy hiding of author info？

sometimes users want to delete files that were uploaded long ago and depict notable subjects. commons doctrines are that licences are irrevocable so these requests are often refused. but i think, author info could be hidden so that the authors would no longer be associated with them, if they request that? the motivation is it's possible that the subjects depicted may bring legal action or whatever threats to pressure and coerce the authors.--RZuo (talk) 18:39, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

The CC licenses allow name removal requests by the author. So this should be no problem. But we do not have a defined procedure for this. GPSLeo (talk) 21:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
i think this alternative should be written down and mentioned in the relevant pages, so that users are not frustrated by the lack of ways to dissociate themselves from the unwanted uploads.--RZuo (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
fonction (G1 G2 G3 G4 G5 G6 G7 G8 G9)

api to return best images with date for a category

I am developing Expounder (https://wiki.johnbray.org.uk/Expounder), a system to create wikis populated by wikidata, with a geographical/historical focus. As part of this I'm creating an Images tab with 12 images from Commons for the item, eg for ship HMS Belfast (https://warlike.johnbray.org.uk/Q757178). To do this I'm currently scraping the Commons category page for the item, but I would prefer to use the Good Pictures filter to get someone's opinion of the best 12 images, and to return the date the pictures were taken, as the focus of the site is historical. Is there an API I can query that returns "best 12 pictures with dates for Category:X"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vicarage (talk • contribs) 12:39, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

speed graphs

There does not seem to be a category for graphs in general and for speed diagrams/graphs in particular.

examples:

,

,

logaritmic

Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:07, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Category:Charts (in general), Category:Line charts (for these). - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
I have added files to Category:Kilometres per hour. Of course there a similar category in 'Miles per hour' and other speed measurement categories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:06, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Hidden categories in a file

Appreciated community: I have an issue with the hidden categories in the file known as "The clays of the round carpet".

This file was created by me and posted here last March, but there are 3 hidden categories to which this file is adscribed: Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike missing SDC copyright status, Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 missing SDC copyright license and Self-published work missing SDC copyright license. It has been 2 months since I posted the file and the file shouldn't be adscribed to these categories.

I hope there's a solution for this as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance. Universalis (talk) 18:19, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Though that doesn't answer your question: I wonder, have you really drawn all of the 50+ elements in this image by yourself? --Túrelio (talk) 18:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
These categories are used only by bots and you should not worry about them. Ruslik (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
@Universalis: How exactly is it a problem for you that the files are tagged with categories that indicate bot tasks that ought to happen eventually? - Jmabel ! talk 19:36, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
  • The "problem" is SDC – Structured Data. At some point in the future, a 'bot will wander past and copy the visible text version of the licenses here to magic "Structured Data" copies. Then the cats will go.
Don't worry about it. It's really not a problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:21, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Berlin transit icons

I am exploring the possibility of refreshing the U-Bahn and S-Bahn icons (located here and here respectively), but I have run into an issue where the colours in the BVG website, S-Bahn website and VBB map are inconsistent. The following table contains the hexadecimal values from my research into three sources: the BVG website, the S-Bahn website, and the VBB map:

Mode and line colours
Line BVG (web) DB (web) VBB (map)
Modes[1][2][3]
Regio
 
be1414
 
e10a17
 
e2001a
S-Bahn
 
45935d
 
007238
 
008d4f
U-Bahn
 
115d91
 
1e6ab2
 
0066ad
Tram
 
be1414
 
cc151a
 
e2001a
Bus
 
95276e
 
a01c7d
 
a5027d
Ferry
 
528dba
 
0099d6
 
009bd5
S-Bahn[4][2][3]
S1
 
bc6194
 
eb588f
 
da6ba2
S2/25/26
 
457236
 
047939
 
007734
S3
 
115d91
 
026597
 
0066ad
S41
 
a0542e
 
aa3c1f
 
ad5937
S42
 
af6223
 
ba622d
 
cb6418
S45/46/47
 
bc9144
 
ca8539
 
cd9c53
S5
 
ee771e
 
ea561c
 
eb7405
S7/75
 
8c6dab
 
764d9a
 
816da6
S8/85
 
7dad4c
 
4fa433
 
66aa22
S9
 
701c28
 
951732
 
992746
U-Bahn[4][2][3]
U1
 
7dad4c
 
7dad4c
 
7dad4c
U2
 
da421e
 
da421e
 
da421e
U3
 
16683d
 
2e937d
 
16683d
U4
 
f0d722
 
f0d722
 
f0d722
U5/55
 
7e5330
 
7e5330
 
7e5330
U6
 
8c6dab
 
8c6dab
 
8c6dab
U7
 
528dba
 
528dba
 
528dba
U8
 
224f86
 
224f86
 
224f86
U9
 
f3791d
 
f3791d
 
f3791d
Fare zones[4][2][3]
A
 
be5a00
 
fba71d
 
bd5a00
B
 
008291
 
1a9c9f
 
008291
C
 
5a821e
 
8dc73f
 
5a821e

I am aware that the U-Bahn line icon colours were changed by Teo.raff in 2020, in response to Berliner_Verkehrsbetriebe § Farben. However, I am minded to contest the changes because they are notably darker and desaturated, especially with the U7 icon. However, I have problems trying to find the Basiselemente (CD-Manual), as referenced in the German article. I wonder if anyone can help me find that because (1) I may look at using the Pantone hexadecimal values instead from the colour book that I happen to have, and (2) I don't know if the Basiselemente gives those exact hexadecimal values that the website uses. --Minoa (talk) 03:49, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

@Minoa So what? Sometimes in life there is not a single correct answer for something and that's OK. Suggest to watch this video on "the" American flag and embrace the chaos. El Grafo (talk) 08:18, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Understood, although the discovery of the VBB handbook means I am close to answering my own question, with the choice between RGB and CMYK yet to be decided due to lack of time for now. ;-) Either way, I will be documenting the sources and my colour selection process. --Minoa (talk) 22:46, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Minoa That one seems like an easy one: CMYK only really makes sense for professional printing. Or main target audience will almost exclusively view our media on some form of screen, which is RGB. Go for RGB. El Grafo (talk) 07:48, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

29 May update

I am pleased to inform readers that I have started the process of modernising the transit icons (see {{Berlin transit icons}}), starting with the S-Bahn: I have recreated the icons straight from the TransitLinie fonts that I happen to have, just like what I did with the Standard set of the New York City Subway bullets. A video of an old rollsign from the DBAG Class 476 allowed me to expand the S-Bahn icon set.

@El Grafo: I accept your recommendation that the colours should be VBB's RGB values, apart for U7, which will use VBB's colour for the Fähre (since they were meant to use the same colour). --Minoa (talk) 06:56, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ CSS Stylesheet (Modes) (CSS). Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (16 May 2023). Archived from the original on 21 May 2023. Retrieved on 21 May 2023.
  2. ↑ a b c d CSS Stylesheet. S-Bahn Berlin. Deutsche Bahn (30 April 2023). Archived from the original on 21 May 2023. Retrieved on 21 May 2023.
  3. ↑ a b c d "Farben Liniensignets" in (in German) (6 May 2022) Handbuch VBB-Richtlinien Fahrgastinformation (May 2022 ed.), Berlin: Verkehrsverbund Berlin-Brandenburg, pp. 8,11,135
  4. ↑ a b c CSS Stylesheet (Lines) (CSS). Berliner Verkehrsbetriebe (16 May 2023). Archived from the original on 21 May 2023. Retrieved on 21 May 2023.

FileExporter problem?

Lately I'm experiencing slowdown in image file transfers, especially when transferring User:Patrickroque01's tons of local enwiki photos to Commons using FileEx/Importer tool. I've suffered a major error while transferring his File:Saint Stephen The Protomartyr Church Ligao (San Esteban, Ligao, Albay; 04-16-2023).jpg to Commons. The error message reads "Import failed. Failed to commit operations". But after forcefully reloading/refreshing, the message claims the file exists here. Yes it exists, but the photo or the thumbnail versions cannot be downloaded. Kindly check the photo file. I'm not sure if it is a problem of FileEx/Importer tool or a problem of my network provider or my phone's browser app which tends to slow down when accessing most of Wikimedia Commons. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:59, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Seems ok now (or so?). I'll tag the enwiki copy for speedy deletion any way. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:05, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
 Info another photo by Patrickroque01 (talk · contribs) suffered this failed importation problem while I'm trying to transfer the local file to Commons: File:Dalakit Beach, Pacific waves (Catarman, Northern Samar; 04-27-2023).jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:12, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Category:Photographs by Alisdare Hickson

This is an extension of Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "roguenation.org", which was resolved as having a strong consensus to keep, but to rewrite the captions for neutrality. (They also need some category work and {{Taken on}}.) We have a bunch of excellent photographs here, but they were uploaded with very polemical descriptions. User:Ikan Kekek and I have now been through the bulk of them. Typical cleanup has been along the lines of [12]. It turns out that there are more photos in Category:Photographs by Alisdare Hickson that didn't get included in that deletion request and which have similar issues. Help in cleaning those up would be greatly appreciated. This has been a lot of work, but the images are definitely worth saving. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I'll have a look when I can, and any other help would definitely be appreciated. Thanks, Jmabel. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 06:31, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we should have a template for image descriptions that needs to be "neutralized" or what else you wanna call it? Trade (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: Fine with me. & that should place the file in a maintenance cat.
Keep the template simple, something like "The file description may need to be rewritten for neutrality (NPOV)." - Jmabel ! talk 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Further status: all of the ones in Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with "roguenation.org" are now handled. - Jmabel ! talk 22:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

For the more general issue, I've now created {{NPOV}}. Someone is welcome to enhance it with date tracking, multi-lingual approach, etc. I've kept it very simple for now. It places files in the new maintenance category Category:Files needing neutral descriptions. - Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

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

The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Java logo. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:21, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

Wrong deletion

Today, User:Jameslwoodward deleted Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab and Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Juneau.tab without any valid reason and without any notice. Both sites are U.S. weather stations, both state capitals, and are corroborated by at least two sources. All data are owned by NOAA and are in the public domain. --Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be related to Commons:Deletion requests/Files found with Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather. MKFI (talk) 06:34, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
@Fumikas Sagisavas: The DR refers to COM:SCOPE. Could you please elaborate how these data tables fit into the scope of this project? I think the problem might be that since the data namespace was launched in 2016 we apparently hadn't much discussion about this. As we are a media archive, something like Data:NewYork.map is surely within scope but I fail to see why we should keep tables with weather data. Thinks like that are probably better hosted at Wikidata. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:11, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Because these data will be directly used as data charts on Wikipedia, but due to technical reasons, it is currently only possible to upload weather data data on shared resources and not on Wikidata. Fumikas Sagisavas (talk) 07:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
If it is at Commons, it has to fit into COM:SCOPE. Technical reasons like other projects do not support that yet are not sufficient to place something at Commons. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:44, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Actually technical reasons might be enough, see COM:INUSE: "It should be stressed that Commons does not overrule other projects about what is in scope. If an image is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages), that is enough for it to be within scope." In any case if these files are used and they can't be reasonably hosted in other projects I believe we could adjust COM:Scope to allow them. MKFI (talk) 08:14, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree. If there is a big class of such files we should probably have a more thorough discussion, but rather seeking a solution than just keeping them off Commons. Until that, I don't think we should delete them on scope grounds. –LPfi (talk) 08:38, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the data sets in question are very much in line with how the Data: namespace was intended to be used.
The whole Data: namespace was basically introduced through the backdoor before it was ready to be integrated with the rest of Commons. We still don't have any good way to organize it (no categories, no SCD), is does not seem to exist in the documentation and we never properly discussed how it fits in with existing policies (or if we did, the results of those discussions did not trickle down to the actual policy pages).
So +1 to having a thorough discussion. To Do:
  1. Re-visit the old discussions, and refresh our collective memory on plans, intentions and predicted problems
  2. Do some research on how the namespace is actually being used today
  3. Discuss what's good and bad about this
  4. Figure out how that does or does not work with existing policies and adjust policies if necessary
  5. Delete what is not covered by the new policies.
Bonus: Poke developers until they finish what they started.
Do we have something like a Commons:WikiProject data namepace where we could make a plan? El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
Note that d:Wikidata:WikiProject Tabular data exists in the Wikidata community space, for discussions re using the Commons tabular data for data not well suited to Wikidata (ie most tabular data). Any ongoing discussions here should probably give that group a courtesy ping. Jheald (talk) 19:11, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
  •  Comment I don't necessarily have an issue with files containing tabular data being hosted on Commons myself. What I don't like is that .tab files are editable, at least from what I've seen aren't sourced to the original file or website where the information came from, and contain no summary information. Which IMO goes against the guidelines. Also, at least in the case of weather data, the information is added to Wikipedia articles manually anyway. So I don't really see what the difference is between someone entering the data into the Wikipedia article from the original source themselves and it being uploaded here first and then transferred to Wikipedia. Except entering the data here first turns Commons into a buffer zone where the information can't and/or isn't going to be sourced, summarized, corrected, Etc. Etc. There's no reason this information can't just be added to whatever Wikipedia article it's going to be used in and they can deal with the sourcing issues, verify that it's correct, fix the information if it isn't, Etc. Etc. on their end. I don't think that's our job or within the projects scope though. That said, if .tab files couldn't be edited and contained summaries/sources, cool. I don't think they should be hosted on Commons until then though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:55, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
  • @Adamant1: this is a wiki, everything is editable. Making content uneditable is simply against the entire purpose of the project. Just because we don't provide ready-made tools to modify images does not mean that they are immutable. Sourcing for files is needed for copyright reasons but we don't require citations to verify map accuracy. Data files do have both summary descriptions and source parameter - if the editor did not fill them then that may be a reason for deletion. MKFI (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@MKFI: There's clearly a difference between someone editing an image using desktop software or the crop tool and uploading a new version of it versus having an "article" that information can be added to in real-time. One still treats Commons like a media repository, and the just recreates Wikipedia with a .tab or whatever at the end of the URL. You can argue about semantic, but editable "page" of tabular data is simply using Commons like Wikipedia. Otherwise there's zero point in having the distinction. As to the rest of what you said, I said the .tab files should have sources. Not that each individual data point in the file needs to citated to something. I'm sure you get the difference. As to if the tab files are sourced or not, they haven't been from what I've seen and at least with the .tab files uploaded by Fumikas Sagisavas there was pushback when I asked for them. Either that, or the files were sourced to a page that didn't contain the file. I have yet to see a .tab file that's sourced to the actual URL where the file came from, probably because the information is added to the file manually from different pages, which again is why they are just glorified Wikipedia articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: The fact that with Commons you need to use a desktop image editing software is a technical limitation, a flaw we should try correct. It is certainly not the model to aspire for. Trying to make Commons more like Wikipedia is very much desirable. Commons is simply a common storage place to support the different Wikipedias; it does not mean that we should be different from them except when needed for a file-centric project. MKFI (talk) 18:57, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Re: "Commons is simply a common storage place to support the different Wikipedias," I disagree vehemently, and if that were to become a limitation on our scope I would immediately resign from the project. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 12 May 2023 (UTC)
  • I used "Wikipedia" here to refer to all Wikimedia projects and intended it as a reason to expand our scope, not limit it. While all projects are independent, our decisions affect others more than most but I feel we are sometimes too insular. MKFI (talk) 19:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Use "Wikimedia" if you want people to understand you. But in fact, Commons:Project scope is broader than that: "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content (images, sound and video clips) to all. It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." And making Commons more like Wikipedia could be problematic in several ways, notably including scope but also fair use (unless Commons changes its policy on that, which I doubt we'll see). In which ways do you want to make it more like Wikipedia? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 20:00, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward: Why have these contested unilateral deletions not yet been undone? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:45, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

The consensus at Undeletion Requests was that data tables are out of scope, so they were not restored. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:03, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: are you sure that's an informed consensus? What, then, is :Data space for? - Jmabel ! talk 00:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Further: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-05#Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab that "consensus" appears to consist of one person. So Pinging @Yann, if this is out of scope, what, then, is :Data space for? - Jmabel ! talk 00:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
IMO, there are 2 issues with these pages, as mentioned earlier: there is no source for these tables, and we can't check if they are faithful or not. Then they could easily be implemented in the respective Wikipedia where they should be check for accuracy and suitability. Last but not least, no one except Jim gave an opinion on UDR. Yann (talk) 08:14, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
I also note that I have been on Wiki for a long time and have several hundred thousand actions as an Admin and I have never seen anything in the Data: space before this. I'd like to draw your attention to Commons:File_types#Data_files which makes it clear that we do not support the Data file type. Perhaps we should, but that's not a question we can answer here. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
Your lack of awareness is no ground for deletion. There is nothing on that page to support your assertion "we do not support the Data file type"; on the contrary, it says that "data in JSON format in the dedicated Data: namespace" is supported. What is not supported are database file types (emphasis mine). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: Link, please. I note also that the disputed flies are the subject of an open deletion discussion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The discussion is open because I did not have the endurance to delete the files, one at a time since our other mechanisms do not work for data files. While my lack of awareness is certainly not grounds for deletion, it is strongly indicative that this file type very unusual. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:16, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I think Commons:File types#Tabular data clearly shows that the file is of a type regarded as in scope, so any out-of-scope statement should be complemented by a discussion on why these files, as opposed to other .tab files, aren't in scope. As deleting files supposedly uploaded to be used, is disruptive, we should undelete these now, pending a discussion on and codification of the scope of the data namespace. –LPfi (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
time for desysop.--RZuo (talk) 12:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@RZuo: assuming you mean of Jameslwoodward, keep in mind that your comment didn't ping him. That's a pretty strong proposal to go without a notification. - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: I requested a link. You have failed to provide one. Please do so ASAP. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't understand. You said, "link please", but I don't understand what you want a link to. More broadly, it is clear that this question has generated a lot of heat. I don't feel strongly about the issue, so please resolve it in whatever way the consensus want. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 19:35, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: No; you don't get to opt out of your responsibilities like that. You have unilaterally deleted files while there is an ongoing and unresolved deletion debate. You have been challenged over that, so you should restore them at least until that debate is concluded. The link I wanted was to where, you claimed, "The consensus at Undeletion Requests was that data tables are out of scope". No-one can find any such consensus, so we need a link to verify that your claim is true. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:14, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jameslwoodward: it looks to me like your basis for deletion amounted to, "I think we shouldn't have 'Data' space because tabular data don't belong on Commons" or "I think we shouldn't use 'Data' space because tabular data might get messed up without anyone noticing" or "I was completely unaware of 'Data' space and didn't know Commons handled tabular data". If that was the case, then certainly these should be undeleted. 'Data' space is certainly under-documented, but it isn't as if it was created by mistake or against consensus. This is very like someone deciding that Commons shouldn't have sexual imagery, or Commons shouldn't have materials that some particular government doesn't like: an opinion that has nothing like consensus behind it should not carry the weight of policy simply because an admin happens to hold that opinion.
If there is some specific reason this particular data set is problematic, that might be another matter, but I haven't seen any statement to that effect. And even then, we tend to approach things like that with {{Fact disputed}} etc., not with deletion. It looks to me like these should be undeleted. I would rather see that resolved here by you agreeing to it, but if you won't then I guess I'll start a formal undeletion process, where I suppose we will have to rehash what has been written here. - Jmabel ! talk 22:49, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The UnDRs are at Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2023-05#Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab and the next one after it. Note that both were open for more than the usual 24 hours and that I commented on one and had nothing to do with the other. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:58, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: I believe this was wrongly decided (by you). I'm asking you to reconsider. The statement that tabular data should be somewhere other than Commons seems to me to completely wrong: this is exactly what Data: space is for. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Please create another UDR. I won't oppose undeletion, and if there is a consensus I will undelete them. Yann (talk) 18:04, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jameslwoodward, Fumikas Sagisavas, MKFI, AFBorchert, LPfi, El Grafo, Jheald, Adamant1, Ikan Kekek, Pigsonthewing, Ooligan, Yann, and RZuo: New UDR is at Commons:Undeletion requests/Current_requests#Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Montpelier.tab_and_Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/Juneau.tab - Jmabel ! talk 18:36, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Pixabay photo dates

Is there a way to tell when a photo posted to Pixabay was taken? The site seems to show only the date that it was posted to the site and the date that it was reviewed and approved by an administrator. Pixabay doesn't seem to preserve exif/metadata either so there are no hints there. For example, all I can guess about this photo was that it was taken sometime before July 19, 2016. --Denniscabrams (talk) 16:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

Template help needed

I deleted Category:Most populous cities of the world per Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/02/Category:Most populous cities of the world. Now Template:Most populous cities of the world needs to be modified to not use Category:Most populous cities of the world, but I can't work out how to do this. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 31 May 2023 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think this did it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! Sadly, it looks like someone also added Category:Most populous cities of the world overtly to a bunch of categories. Can't use VFC to remove it from categories. Anyone have any ideas for removing this efficiently? - Jmabel ! talk 02:32, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Fixed with Cat-a-lot. --Jarekt (talk) 02:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Map from Le monde diplomatique

This file File:Yezidi populated area.png had no source which I therefore had to find and add. However, I am still uncertain about the copyright of the map as I could not find any info on it on mondediplo.com. Assuming the site is an ofshoot of lemonde.fr, I also checked that site and the what I found was [14] which states:

Not to infringe the rights of a third party - Not to post, record or transmit copyrighted material, unless they can guarantee they have obtained the permission of the rights holder and can provide proof of this.

The map is listed under public domain which is incorrect or are we to assume the uploader has received permission from creator? Semsûrî (talk) 10:37, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

I don't think you can release things to the public domain in EU, so unless the map is from a source that is exempted from copyright protection, that classification seems erroneous. Things either are or are not in the public domain – a permission from the author doesn't change that status. –LPfi (talk) 07:28, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I see. Well the file has now been deleted so I guess my suspicions were correct. Semsûrî (talk) 07:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

How to handle sources that are dead links

Lately I've been noticing a good amount of sources for files that are either dead links or pages that don't contain the file. So what exactly, if anything, should be done in those cases? I guess there's a "dead link" template, but at least from what I've seen they just sit there for years without being dealt with. The other option would trying to find a backup of the page on the Way Back Machine, but it wouldn't allow for someone to view or download the original file anyway. Not to mention I find a backup of a website on there as it is. And I assume just deleting the links would be looked down on, even if it's technically "correct." So I'm wondering what other options there are, if any, to deal with dead links or pages that don't contain the files besides the ones I've already mentioned. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

It depends. Were the picture verified before the URL died? Trade (talk) 12:13, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
No clue. I assume so. Otherwise I don't know why the uploader would have added it as a source. I guess that is something to consider though. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:54, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
We ask for a source, so it is natural that the user provides a link. The upload wizard doesn't give much advice on what link to choose and some sites don't make it easy to get a good link. The uploader is not requested to prevent link rot. I assume some links are checked in connection with new upload patrolling, otherwise they may or may not survive until somebody happens to check them.
I think one should leave the link, unless one finds a good one to substitute. Somebody might be able to deduce something from the original, and not everybody studies the history to find the replaced link. Adding an archive link (or adding a comment on the original site) does no harm though, and may save the file in the future.
If the link looks like a plausible source, we should assume good faith and not delete as "source missing". If we have reason to assume there might be problems, then we have a problem, but that's when to try to handle them.
–LPfi (talk) 08:55, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
If the link looks like a plausible source, we should assume good faith Your free to disagree, but I just see dealing with dead links (however that's done) as part of the basic task of maintaining a good media repository. So in no is fixing a dead link (again, however we do that) an assumption of bad faith. It's not like I've claimed the links are dead because the uploader intentionally linked to bad URL. I just don't dead links are helpful. Like look it this way, say there's an image that is hard to identify or that the person looking at the image wants to find out more information about, but the source is a 401 error. Sure, we could just leave it so no one cries foul about how the person who fixes is being bad faithed or whatever, but how exactly does that help anyone? The whole point in having a source is so people can find out more information about the file and confirm the license of the image if they want to. So in the best of cases dead links are a wash, in the worst case they get in the way of people using the summary field how it was intended. Especially if there is a large number of dead links. Again, it's just a basic maintenance issue that would be worth dealing with if there's a good way to. I never said it was anything more than that, but it's still a problem nonetheless. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
I'm basically with LPfi here: if you can give an updated link (or an archive link), great. Otherwise, mark the link as dead, but don't delete it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
The key is "Somebody might be able to deduce something from the original [link]", even the outsider interested in the file, who might not know how to research the file history. LPfi (talk) 07:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Should we adopt the proposed Child Protection policy?

I noticed recently that Commons:Child protection is still marked as a draft policy, despite having been in the works for several years. I'd like to start a discussion here with the goal of making it an actual policy on Commons. The policy, as written, is eminently reasonable, serves as a reasonable baseline for child protection, and would help to bring us in line with child protection policies adopted on several other Wikimedia wikis (such as MetaWiki and EnWiki). — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:58, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm in favor of approving this policy, but there is one thing that's glaringly absent from it: a statement that everyone who violates it will be reported to Wikimedia Legal. Should we add that? Why or why not? -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 18:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think this is just a summary of other guidelines they are already in place. The "Advice for younger editors" could be advises to all people on the internet. Many of the cases mentioned on the page are not a reason of a infinite block they are cases for T&S and global bans. T&S is currently not even mentioned on the page. If we think we need something like this we should create a general Commons:Privacy and security advises page. GPSLeo (talk) 19:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be a wise addition, so I've added that here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 20:24, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
How do we figure out which material is considered obscene? The page already says that CSA is against the ToS (obviously) so i figure out the obscene part refer to something else Trade (talk) 21:33, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
Since we operate in the United States, it would be by applying the Miller Test. I don't anticipate this being an issue we would encounter; genuinely obscene material is going to be out-of-scope, so we'd be deleting it already. The sorts of obscene images that are prohibited by that test cannot have non-trivial literary, artistic, political, or scientific value, and I think that educational media is going to almost always meet one of those.
Frankly, I'm struggling to come up with an example of something that's possibly in educational scope, not covered under CSAM, and also obscene under U.S. law. The closest I can come up with is a video taken by a rapist of them actively brutally raping some non-child being uploaded for use in an article about rape to demonstrate an example of what violent rape looks like—and I think WMF would have to delete it anyway because of applicable law (as well as... ya know... basic human decency, or absent that the Commons:Photographs of identifiable people policy). And even that example feels like a bit of a stretch. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Might wanna add this into the policy page Trade (talk) 15:11, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, the ToU prohibits Posting or trafficking in obscene material that is unlawful under applicable law, so I don't think that this is introducing anything new. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 02:10, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
  1. The proposed policy says: "Those affected should contact an admin by email". I have had very bad experiences with this, when I emailed an admin i really trusted. This should be deleted and perhaps replaced by contacting VRT, where at least several admins can look at it, which is a certain protection against a malicious admin.
  2. It contains a list of things a child can do to not get harrassed. Somehow I had expected a list of things that commons and the community do to protect children (for example implementing a direct message system, that does not expose email addresses by design).

--C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 07:07, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

May i ask what happened regarding the admin you emailed? Trade (talk) 15:12, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Them turned out to be a friend of another well connected user who was later globally locked because of another incident. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:45, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
The other options that we would have would be:
  1. "Those affected should email the Commons oversight team at oversight-commons@lists.wikimedia.org",
  2. "Those affected should email the Commons information team at info-commons@wikimedia.org",
or some combination of the two.
Do either of these stand out as better to you, C.Suthorn? My hunch would be toward pointing towards the oversighters (who are vetted for this sort of sensitive information a bit more closely than admins or random VRT members are), but the problem is that there's typically a good bit of lag between an email being received and an oversight action being taken. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:44, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
If there is no suitable group and no suitable email address, a suitable group can be set up and an appropriate email address can be created. For example "protect-me@wikimedia.org"? C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 05:55, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Sitting on this a bit more, I think the solution to this would be to try to have more oversighters. This sort of stuff involves the same level (or greater) trust than the other things that get suppressed, so having more people vetted for that purpose would probably be the optimal way forward. In emergencies, Stewards can act, but I don't think that they are going to want to be taking on this stuff (CC: AntiCompositeNumber and DerHexer, Jon Kolbert, who appear to be the only Commons admins who are also Stewards from what I can see). There aren't a shortage of people who are trustworthy enough to perform oversight tasks; the bigger issue is persuading people to run. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 03:24, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk: I have made use of the oversight tool as an emergency action once as there was private information linked to from a public channel in IRC and no local OSer available. I do not have access to the Commons oversighters VRT queue so I do not know what the turnaround is for a response there. I think a step in the right direction would be allow stewards to have access to that queue and amend the Oversight policy on Commons to include language similar to what is included on Wikidata's oversight policy which states "Stewards can perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki oversighting, or if there are no local oversighters available." That way, requests can be handled promptly even if there is no local oversight immediately available. Jon Kolbert (talk) 00:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert As far as I know, there is not a VRT queue, but instead a mailing list. And I don't think a local change is needed to allow Stewards to "perform local oversighting in emergencies, during crosswiki issues, or if there are no local oversighters available", as this is explicitly allowed by the global policy, but I'll update the information page anyways (we have no local oversight policy).
Also, I would add legal-reports@wikimedia.org to the list of people to contact. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
The oversighters currently use a google group. I agree that adding legal-reports@wikimedia.org would be prudent. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:20, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jon Kolbert and Mdaniels5757: I've made some tweaks to the proposal today that incorporate some of the suggestions in this VP thread. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:44, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
No, i don't think that policy is needed here specifically as its already covered under Wikimedia Foundation's own Terms of Use.. It was something worth discussing a decade back but since WMF started hiring more employees including litigators and lawyers, there is no need for it..--Stemoc 17:30, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
Just my two cents, but it seems like putting the cart before the horse to have special policies for protecting children when there aren't even basic civility guidelines in place that are being inforced. Let the WMF deal with it if it's something serious, but that's already happening from what I've seen and admins aren't dealing with more minor stuff in the meantime anyway. It would be weirdly discriminatory if they were only dealing with civility issues or harrasement if either one involved children but not anyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:49, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we need to work on getting COM:CIVILITY to policy status and actually enforcing civility norms. I think that's orthogonal to this discussion, though, and I don't see making progress on one as blocking progress on the other. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 04:30, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Just today a user was warned for copyvio despite my ban request being for posting pornography of a woman without her consent. No amount of policy will matter if admins don't actually read the block requests. Trade (talk) 00:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree that better enforcement across the board is needed for these sorts of things. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 14:23, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

AI and the decision not to participate

I had been about scanning and uploading my old photos of unusual places to Wikimedia Commons, but then I decided not to. Why? The immediate and unresolved problems of AI-based images: wholesale licensing theft. I have my doubts about this getting resolved any time soon due to the piratical nature of tech CEOs. THSlone (talk) 00:58, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

  • How is looking at your image, stealing it? They don't store a copy of your image, the AI just looks at it, an stores an impression of it. Just like me being inspired by a Jackson Pollock painting to copy his style. And if you don't store them here, they will probably be tossed in the garbage in one or two more generations. No one will remember who you were, and why the images were important to you. Sites like Flickr are threatening to delete once you stop paying, Google just announced all your cloud storage will be deleted if you don't log in for two years. --RAN (talk) 04:20, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Richard Arthur Norton, About 10 (ten) years ago Google used to delete your cloud content after 9 (nine) months, the irony is that while Moore's law's demise meant that computing power hasn't grown exponentially, computer storage technology is still on an exponential curve. This means that despite computer storage becoming cheaper companies offer less of it and will delete your files more, my guess is that the AI training software doesn't need stored files anymore as people upload a lot of files to services like Meta's Facebook, Google's YouTube, and Bytedance's TikTok. My guess is that the Wikimedia Commons isn't a large source for AI training to begin with either. Plus as storage becomes cheaper less donation money is needed by the WMF to maintain the Wikimedia Commons.
      Uploading old photographs from the pre-smartphone era also allows a period in history to be preserved that I think a century from now people will be cursing at us for not having preserved as much of it.
      This is also why I'm for direct co-operation with SmugMug for us to import freely licensed images from Flickr, it's clear that a lot of data will be destroyed and nobody is doing anything to preserve so many files of historical value. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:15, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
  • Twitter also announced they will begin deleting inactive accounts. --RAN (talk) 12:11, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
    • Richard Arthur Norton, I wonder if the Internet Archive is planning on doing anything with that or if Elon Musk is willing to work together with the Internet Archive. I am convinced that 50 (fifty) or a hundred (100) years from now the Internet Archive will become one of the Wikimedia Commons' biggest source of content, though future generations will curse us for preserving so little. I really hope that OP will change their mind on not wanting to upload, AI will train regardless. Plus humans also train their creativity by looking at existing works, I've never heard of an art school where they never look at an existing piece of art, but for robots we somehow consider it "stealing" to simply look at our works for inspiration.
      To be fair, even Andy Warhol wasn't exempt from this. -- — Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:38, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
      • If generative AI was just looking at text and images, it wouldn't be a problem as far as I'm concerned. It is doing much more than that by creating new text and images from pirated text and images, what is known as derivative work in copyright jargon. There are already lawsuits regarding copyright theft from generative AI.[15] Lawsuits based on Creative Commons licensing would seem to be harder to enforce than copyright. I'm more inclined to upload my images for the common good than I am doing what amounts to free labor for tech companies and their affiliated billionaires. THSlone (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
        • @THSlone: just out of curiosity: does this mean you will no longer put images online anywhere? Because I don't see how images on Commons are more subject to this than others. For that matter, the same can be said of writing text online. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
          • I hadn't uploaded my own personal photographs to the Commons mainly because it's time consuming scanning them in and I have to invest in a slide scanner for this sole purpose. Right now, they are not on the Web. The likelihood of fueling generative AI, pushed it over into why bother? THSlone (talk) 19:19, 4 June 2023 (UTC)

Legality of Indian maps

This discussion about the legality of Indian maps seems like it might be relevant to Commons: w:Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Communications from government of India to Wikimedia Foundation regarding content about maps depicting the borders of India. –Novem Linguae (talk) 12:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It seems a letter from Indian authorities was sent to WMF, mostly concerning maps at Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons. Did we get a notice other than this?
The point is that it is illegal in India to use other borders than those India think are the correct ones (there are claims on the Pakistani and Chinese borders). The Indian authorities threatened to close down Wikipedia, but they seem to be quite understanding now that there was a dialog. There is still a list of maps where they would like warnings or disclaimers and links to official maps (in captions or on file description pages, as appropriate, I assume). Some in the en-wp community think that even that is unsustainable, as there are other similar disputes around the world, others think warnings are due on some of the maps.
At one stage, it seemed one could get a consensus, where only some files remained problematic, but at some point the more "fundamentalist" wing got more vocal. Seems not much has happened in the discussion lately.
The question for Commons, it seems, is whether to have a template to warn that a map may be illegal in India. Stating the fact that some of the borders are disputed may be a good thing to do, and a template could have a well thought-out wording translated to at least the most relevant languages, but I don't like big warning templates, and when it is about one countries (possibly unreasonable) claims, such a warning seems inappropriate (giving them undue weight).
–LPfi (talk) 06:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we should have a warning template. It should indicate that borders in this area (the relevant portion of the borders of India, Pakistan and China) are disputed, and that in India (and possibly others?) it is illegal to use a map that does not conform to India's claims.
The template should be on all maps of this area, not only the ones that India doesn't like.
Question: does Pakistan or China have parallel laws?
Question 2: does this mean that historical maps are banned in India (e.g. a map of the British Raj) or only maps that claim to show the situation after some date (and, if so, what date?). - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi all,
I saw this post from the NPOV discussion, thanks for starting it! I can answer a couple things that Jmabel asked about. First, with regard to other laws, China does have similar laws ((see the enwiki article) and there's already Template:Chinese boundaries which exists. Similarly there's Template:Georgian boundaries. Pakistan iirc is less specific, though their government has also expressed past concerns about depictions of their borders a few years ago. I believe it was under a more general web hosting law when they did so. There's also the small warning related to India in the permissions field in this file. My two cents as a Foundation lawyer is that these kind of templates on Commons are helpful for us in responding to government complaints, so I encourage them so long as you all think they're a good idea and not causing other problems to users and readers.
Regarding historical maps, our understanding is that they are allowed in India because they are not actually a current map trying to assert India's present-day borders. However, that doesn't mean the Indian government will never try to identify a historical map to us as a problem either due to a mistake or as an attempt to overreach beyond what the law allows. If you look at the list in the NPOV thread, some of the ones in the full 81 URLs that MeitY sent us are historical maps, but our response to the Indian government on those particular ones has been that we don't think anything needs to be changed. - Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 15:06, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
@Jrogers (WMF)
1. Please, list the "historical maps" included within the "full 81 URLs that MeitY sent us...," related to, "... our response to the Indian government on those particular ones has been that we don't think anything needs to be changed."
2. What is the Government of India's definition of a "historic map?" (For example, how many years old does the map have to be for the Government of India to not have any objection?"
3. Conversely, what is the Government of India's definition of a "current map?" (You wrote, "Regarding historical maps, our understanding is that they are allowed in India because they are not actually a current map trying to assert India's present-day borders.
4. What is the complete legal citation this Indian law?
5. So we can read this Indian law, can you provide the complete English language version of the relevant statue here for review or a link to it? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 09:35, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Why just that area? Why not any map of Venezuela? Or Morocco? Or, hell, the United States, which has at least two disputed regions? Why does India get special treatment? Is it because they threatened us? And we're letting them? --Golbez (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Golbez: because the U.S. does not have an equivalent law. If someone in India re-publishes a map of India that does not conform to the Indian government's views of its borders, they face prosecution. If someone in the U.S. re-publishes a wildly distorted map of anything, the worst they face is general derision. Templates like this are there to warn potential reusers so that they can make their own decisions. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for replying , @Jmabel and well said.
I found this related item. Different country, but the same idea of a country's domestic laws reaching into the Wikimedia Commons project.
Please, see here: File:Xinjiang Internment Map, US-Aus Gov Assessment.jpg, yet even more interesting is this discussion on the talk page here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Xinjiang_Internment_Map,_US-Aus_Gov_Assessment.jpg&oldid=prev&diff=771855220
It appears that an Australian-American government agencies joint product (this file) has a Chinese law tag applied to it.
First, is Wikipedia banned in China? (I'll look that up soon).
Second, the reason this tag was added was not about boundaries. Is it because the Chinese Communist Party does not want this information about prison camps shared. That is assuming the tag was added appropriately.
What was the process for creating this Chinese legal tag?
But this China related file illustrates the "slippery slope" or cautionary story that is relevant to the recent legal notice by the Government of India sent to the Wikimedia legal team.
1. What are the plain language of the Chinese law(s) and the law(s) of India? (English translation would be helpful.
2. The Commons is adding warnings with no links to the actual legal language, then how do editors know a tag is applied properly?
3. How can I evaluate that the tag is applied was applied properly?
4. What is the process to "challenge" a tag placed on a file here on Commons?
5. What happens when China and India (two national borders, with their national laws) disagree on a map?
6. Does Commons arbitrate between the two nations, or use two national tags?
7. or maybe we should not be tagging map files at all.
This discussion is large and complex. If someone is willing, it would be nice if there was a summary of the main points made and all the various issues raised. There so many threads on this important issue here as well as another discussion on a different page.
Which of the two discussion pages will be use to create policy? Or will they both be used? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:24, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
(The issue is covered also in The Signpost issue of 5 June 2023: Wikipedia Signpost § Indian map dispute. –LPfi (talk) 09:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC))

For the record: See also requests on File talk:India location map.svg. --Achim55 (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

If we already have a similar {{Chinese boundaries}}, then we should certainly have an {{Indian boundaries}}. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

That had a very limited effect. China has no authority to decide what is allowed or forbidden outside of China. Same for India. India's threatening behavior is some kind of extortion that we should simply ignore. --Achim55 (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I think the main aim is to warn (and protect) re-users of these maps from legal problems by these governments. --Túrelio (talk) 18:56, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
I think it appropriate to show that some territory is disputed and use use netrl language in such cases. For example, the map File:Political_map_of_India_EN.svg lables some territory as "Indian territory claimed by Pakistan" and other territory as "Pakistani territory claimed by India". A more neutral wording would be "Claimed by Pakistan; controlled by India" and "Claimed by India; controlled by Pakistan". The latter wording is, in my opinion, absolutely neutral. I notice that the german language variant File:Political_map_of_India_DE.svg already has this terminology. Unfortunately I do not read the languages used in any of the other variants of this map, so I cannot comment about those translations. Martinvl (talk) 21:21, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
@Martinvl: of course. That's not what we are addressing here, though. We are addressing putting a warning for people who might face legal ramifications for reusing a particular image in a particular country. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Regarding warnings, it seems worth noting that Template:Chinese boundaries and Template:Georgian boundaries have not succeeded in being used. The Chinese one is used 26 times, the Georgian one 38. I would suggest that we have far more maps of both. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
That's likely because uploaders aren't aware of it/the problem. Also, many images which need the freedom-of-panorama-template, don't carry it, because uploaders weren't aware or didn't care. Eventually, it might help to put a bold note into the categories, in which Indian maps are usually put in.--Túrelio (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
I think we should not start to create templates for every law restricting the freedom of speech. But maybe we could add these information as an additional section on the Commons:Copyright rules by territory pages. GPSLeo (talk) 07:08, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure. However, this cannot susbtitute for a warning-template on the affected images, as no re-user will look at Commons:.. pages. --Túrelio (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Of course, but these templates would always be incomplete or on some images a very long list of warnings. So I think a general disclaimer would be better. The disclaimer on the bottom of every page might not be visible enough for this. GPSLeo (talk) 07:44, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
MediaViewer shows warning icons for certain legal problems (see e.g. here, in the lower right corner). That mechanism would be easy to extend to maps with contested territories. Tgr (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
Do we carry a "this image might get you arrested" notice on any other content than maps? --Golbez (talk) 17:06, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Actually now I'm curious, is there any consensus or legal backing for the Georgian and Chinese notices? They're so underused, they appear to be a personal project without any actual backing. --Golbez (talk) 18:18, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
@Golbez: Yes, though in no case do we use the phrase "might get you arrested," nor is that how we would word it here. Probably the most extensively used such template is {{Nazi symbol}}, with {{Communist symbol}} not far behind. There are also similar considerations around {{Personality rights}} and probably others that aren't leaping to mind. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Except Nazi and Communist symbols are objective things. You can look at a swastika and say hey, that's a Nazi symbol. If it's not a hammer and sickle, then it's not a hammer and sickle. Maps are by their very nature subjective. I've made maps that could apparently get me arrested in multiple countries, and we're legitimizing that kind of insane law by parroting it. --Golbez (talk) 02:18, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
  1. @Golbez: actually, it can be very tricky what is and isn't a Nazi symbol. Swastikas, for example, have existed for millennia, and it can be very tricky in the countries where this is a legal issue to say whether a particular use of a Hindu swastika has a Nazi subtext. Similarly, and more so, for symbols not used by the Nazi Party as such, but used by their sympathizers.
  2. Also: are you saying that if a map you created could get someone in India prosecuted for reproducing it, and we should just make it available to them and not warn them of that possibility? And if you are not saying that, where am I mischaracterizing? Because that's how your remark reads to me.- Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
    There are thousands of things on here that could get people arrested in any number of countries for distributing it, but we decided the chilling effect only needed to be done to maps? Okay. This is my attempt at leaving the conversation. (edit: but I do want to say, you have a point on swastikas. Not as simple as I'd portrayed.) --Golbez (talk) 03:26, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

License reviews

Hi, Manual license review obviously doesn't scale. We have files waiting reviewing for more than 2 years. Couldn't we have a bot reviewing licenses for files from YouTube and Vimeo, like we have for Flickr? Yann (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Actually there was a bot, supposed to be replaced by another bot, which stopped working more than one year ago. I could run it myself. The bot master is not active, but has anyone a copy of the code? Yann (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yann I looked into this a while ago, and could not find the code. Eatcha did not reply to email either. I actually (just before seeing your comment) had requested a list of Toolforge tools for which Eatcha was owner phab:T337432, so one or both of us could hopefully adopt the tools per policy. Hopefully it was on Toolforge like some of their other tools! —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:10, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
i've been wanting to reform the youtube bot review process for a long time. instead of letting a bot review files by itself, i think it should be done like this:
  1. the bot reviews a file (whose source=youtube) only to verify the given youtube link is youtube-cc-by. this puts the file into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews".
  2. a human would check if the commons file does actually come from that youtube link, and pass it. then the file is put into a category "files reviewed by youtubebot and reviewer".
flickrbot can review files by itself because it verifies whether commons copy is identical to flickr copy, but it's obviously not feasible for youtubebot to do that.
"files reviewed by youtubebot pending human reviews" is less urgent than the current "licence review needed", because at least the given youtube link would be verified to be ccby. it doesnt matter if the licence would be changed later. the only problem would be if the video disappears before a human reviews it. then we can review the files on a case-by-case basis to decide if evidence is sufficient to establish the authenticity of the files. RZuo (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
In my experience of reviewing files from YouTube, reviewing could be tedious but we need to endure that. Not all freely-licensed YouTube videos are decent. They may look decent at first but later on one may find third-party content that the YouTube author incorporated in their video. That third-party content may come from unfree sources like screenshots from ABS-CBN newscasts or citizens' video shots that were not originally from the YouTube author but the author just included them in their video. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:37, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: Last time we discussed this (Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/04#103,857_unreviewed_files) I did a suggestion on how to split up the work to make it more manageable. I was told this is a really bad idea and didn't feel like spending any energy on this anymore. I can just assume that user hasn't learned yet that the wiki way is to eat an elephant one bite at a time and for that the work needs to be bite sized so more people help out a little. Multichill (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Category:Files moved to Commons requiring review is split up by date. is that bite-sized enough for you? now is 2023, but the oldest subcat is Files moved to Commons requiring review as of 29 April 2008‎ (28 F) from 15 years ago. notably, that subcat was created at 20:11, 5 March 2009‎ by BotMultichillT.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Arash_Arabasadi_-_.@VOANews_HalftimeShow_is_about_to_start_at_SuperBowlLII.webm&diff=prev&oldid=398248932 added the file to "Twitter videos review needed" (which is small enough with only 13 files), but 3 years after this edit and 5 years after upload it remains unreviewed.
shifting files around in maintenance cats only make some users feel good, but doesnt actually help with shortening the queue. RZuo (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
Category:Files requiring license review sorted by user name has 1k gallery pages, but the review process was obviously not sped up even with this aid. RZuo (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
  • My guess is that WMF is waiting for AI to become intelligent enough to handle these reviewing tasks. Maybe 10 years later? If an AI-fortied bot can do all the tedious tasks, why humans do the same things spending their precious time? --トトト (talk) 14:57, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
A video clip I uploaded from Youtube have has been deleted today. The author changed the license before it is to be reviewed here, I think. If the LicenseReviewerBot had been active, this must have been prevented. Sad to see a quality media being deleted, and I fear that people will become reluctant to upload medias from Youtube in the future. --トトト (talk) 15:53, 1 June 2023 (UTC) 0〔tekst gecorrigeerd. --トトト (talk) 17:11, 1 June 2023 (UTC)〕
dont write shorts url. use this kind of link instead https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VVf9IrVGHSo . RZuo (talk) 16:03, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:ANA_LABORDETA_2008.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=766959842 took me quite some time to find the actual webpage. is this effort to find the source worthwhile? or should we just send this to DR and let the uploader fix it properly? RZuo (talk) 16:12, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Marian_Anderson_christens_the_liberty_ship_Booker_T._Washington.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=660337341
reviewer User:Howcheng adding an empty LR template to a pd file. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ RZuo (talk) 18:49, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I was adding those because the point of license review is to have someone else double-check your work. I don't think it's proper for someone to review their own uploads. —holly {chat} 16:44, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
you're THE 2nd person handling that file. either you pass it yourself or dont add an empty template. it's pd anyway. have some consideration! RZuo (talk) 06:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
License review passed for File:Marian Anderson christens the liberty ship Booker T. Washington.jpg, this is a photo negative so it may have been unpublished until UCLA published it online under a free license as the inheritor of the photograph's copyright. The Daily News shows no issue renewals https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/cinfo/dailynewscalosangeles but we have no proof it was published before 1964. Abzeronow (talk) 18:02, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/05&oldid=776020850"