Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11

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

Which station?

This is not Marienborn, but another station on the Berlin Magdenburg line.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I have placed the question at de-wp here. Best wishes, --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 14:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I think, it is Gerwisch. [1] --Global Fish (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying! I have started a file rename request. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Kleeblatt187 (talk) 16:40, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

WLM photos with no EXIF

What’s the deal with them? I’d expect it to be a basic requirement. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:15, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Why? EXIF can be edited. The information of EXIF is also in SDC. It is complicated to view the EXIF at all (other than the part that is displayed in the MetaData section of description pages). MW strips nearly all EXIF from thumbs. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

When we upload an entire book in djvu or pdf are we going to discard the fragments?

I load individual biographies from larger works, I wonder in the future, when we upload an entire book in djvu or pdf are we going to discard the fragments? For instance: File:Hans Christoffer von Rohr (1627-1700) in Karl XII's officerare biografiska anteckningar.png The djvu files are for Wikisource and they discourage Wikidata links or other annotations, which I add to the fragments. I feel we need explanatory notes and translations to appear somewhere. --RAN (talk) 19:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Fragments of books can often be useful, I have extracted pages from books I've uploaded before because sometimes individual pages are more useful for Wikimedia websites like Wikipedia's. I don't think that it would be wise to delete fragments just because the entire work exists, they can always just be placed in the relevant category of an individual book and if Wikisadata links and other annotations are more encouraged for fragments then fragments are more useful in other ways. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:20, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement! I am sure we all worry if our hard work will be discarded in the future. --RAN (talk) 20:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Conceptually a “book fragment” seems to me closely analogous to a cropped image (the “extracted“ kind that should be in a separate file). For some purposes a part can be more useful than the whole.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:27, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Meet the new Movement Charter Drafting Committee members

The Movement Charter Drafting Committee election and selection processes are complete.

The Wikimedia Foundation has appointed two members: Runa Bhattacharjee (Runab WMF), Jorge Vargas (JVargas (WMF). The committee will convene soon to start its work. The committee can appoint up to three more members to bridge diversity and expertise gaps.

If you are interested in engaging with Movement Charter drafting process, follow the updates on Meta and join the Telegram group.

You can read this announcement in other languages here.

With thanks from the Movement Strategy and Governance team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 20:02, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

File formats: pdf and jpg

I inadvertently saved and uploaded a group of files in pdf format rather than jpg, here: Category:Notice of Beehive Houses in Harris and Lewis (1862). Is there a way of converting these to jpg or of uploading jpg files as replacements? The descriptions contain quite a bit of detail, and I would rather not delete and start again, if possible. Thanks Kognos (talk) 11:55, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

You cannot replace a file with another file type, you have to re-upload and copy and paste the description. --Discostu (talk) 06:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kognos copy the description and license from the source code ("edit source" tab) of the desctption page of the pdf to the source code of the description of the jpg file. Then have the pdf {speedy} deleted (courtesy deletion of own content uploaded within last seven days) and maybe redirect from the pdf-filename to the jpg file. C.Suthorn (talk) 18:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
And you can get something you uploaded in the last seven days deleted by putting {{subst:My bad upload}} on the file page. - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I thought I would probably have to do it this way. I've uploaded the jpg files and requested speedy deletion of the pdfs. No-one has used the pdfs, so I don't have to redirect. Kognos (talk) 21:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Category keys

I think I need to understand Category "Keys" - what they are and how they work but I can't find anything in Commons or Help. Can someone point me in the right direction?? --Headlock0225 (talk) 12:30, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

See mw:Help:Categories#Sort key. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
(ec) @Headlock0225: I take it you mean category sort keys? Normally a sub-category is sorted alphabetically in the parent category, but a sort key can override it. See en:Help:Category#Sorting category pages for more.
As an example, in Category:Harvest by country all the "Harvest in X" sub-categories would be normally sorted under "H", which would make it difficult to find different countries. Instead the subcategories have country names as sort keys to separate them out: Category:Harvest in Italy has [[Category:Harvest by country|Italy]], where "Italy" is the sort key. The sub-topic categories are sorted to appear first by having a sort key starting with space (though this is not always done), so Category:Haymaking by country has [[Category:Harvest by country| Hay]] with sort key " Hay". MKFI (talk) 14:41, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks @MKFI: --Headlock0225 (talk) 22:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

How should I edit descriptions?

Sorry if this is a dumb question but I was wondering what is the exact policy for editing the description of an image. Is it similar to how users can simply edit stuff on mainspace Wikipedia or are there any additional restrictions? For example, https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Watt_balance,_large_view.jpg has an outdated description (because the kilogram is no longer defined by a physical artifact). I wanted to know if I can just correct it or do I have to leave it unchanged as it was true when the image was uploaded. Thank you! --Lone Warrior 007 (talk) 19:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Lone Warrior 007: pretty analogous to Wikipedia except when the source is a GLAM, in which case it is important to distinguish our own description from what the GLAM said. Also, we tend a little more than on Wikipedia to defer to the original uploader, especially if it's someone really active here, but in this case it should be fine to edit. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict)@Lone Warrior 007: pretty much as for Wikipedia articles, although our content-related policies relating to text are minimal, given that it’s out of scope in quantity. You are quite right to consider the context of the media to avoid anachronisms &c.; for example we wouldn’t identify George VI as “former king” in the description of his coronation portrait. In your example, especially since the physical kilogram standard was part of the subject’s raison d’être, I might add an brief note about the redefinition (mentioning the date) but I’d avoid engaging in revisionism, so to speak. (I might add that in general I disapprove of ‘mini-articles’ in file descriptions where a sentence or two containing cross-wiki links could lead viewers to all the same info. Most general-background content belongs more on a category page—where a suitable one exists—than on an individual file page, and the focus should be on identification as opposed to explanation.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Italian republicans - what category?

Face and figure study; a Republican smoking his pipe - circa 1860 - Gioacchino Toma - 9359

What category may be used to indicate that the figure in the above painting was an Italian Republican of the Garibaldi era? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:06, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: People of the Italian Risorgimento?—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:48, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

SDC for postcards

I want start to add many structured data to picture postcards, but I need an advise. Here is my request. Maybe wrong subpage. So I link it here in the village pump. Thanks for help. --sk (talk) 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

How to convert PNG to SVG using Commons

Any tool in Toolforge to convert PNG to SVG?. --BoldLuis (talk) 13:17, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge voting page

Can someone please create the voting page for the October 2021 photo challenge https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Photo_challenge/2021_-_October_-_Autumn_leafs

The instructions say to just start typing. But the voting page is special, and I think requires more than that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magogview (talk • contribs) 16:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Magogview: Does that have something to do with Characters of Asterix?? and didn't you post something similar on the Help Desk (please don't hit several general discussion pages with the same issue). - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
  • @El Grafo: Thank you. I clicked on the Start a new discussion button and entered my question. When I hit the publish button, the question disappeared and I could not find it again. I thought that I must have hit cancel by mistake, but I wasn't sure. I thought my question might have gone away for good. Looking at other questions at the Village Pump, I thought the Help Desk would be a better place for my question. I think what happened is that I forgot to add a subject, and the wiki added my entry to the bottom of someone else's entry. That's what I'm guessing.

(I've entered questions in other support pages (like Apple.com) and the question becomes the subject. If a user clicks the new discussion button, maybe the system should not publish without a subject and issue a warning instead.)

  • Regarding the orginal question. It's still not resolved. There is still no place to vote on the October 2021 photo challenge entries, at least none that I can see. If people are able to vote and are in fact voting now, then I don't know how to do it. Could you please try yourself to vote for an entry? If you can do it, can you please explain step-by-step how it's done?
Sorry for delay with creating vote pages. Yes it is done with this code and I am usually the only one running it, for last several years. As I am often preoccupied with other things, it sometimes take me a few days. I am almost done for this month, only need to calculate the winners of the September challange. --Jarekt (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Missing source?! What am I missing here? (16Exul82)

I came across these tags by user "JuTa" after finding similar tags on coats of arms (see a discussion in this village pump from October 21st), a lot of centuries old Prussian and Austrian files uploaded by user "16Exul82" were tagged as "missing a source", yet if I look at this version of a file it reads "Source Urkundenauszug aus dem Staatsarchiv Wertheim, G-Rep.9 Lade Xiii-XIV Nr.1 # 1330 Februar 1 - Author Jürgen Gerner", which is both properly sourced and properly attributed, the only issue I can find is an incorrect copyright license, but why didn't the tagger simply change it to "PD-old" instead of adding a speedy deletion template? This isn't a rare thing either, something tells me that we're probably losing historical public domain files every day because of human error like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:44, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Going over it again, most of "Category:Media without a source as of 14 October 2021" is actually either properly sourced public domain files or properly sourced "Own work" coats of arms, I wasn't able to finish this category, I am calling for other contributors to help save the images in this category before they will be deleted and lost forever. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:05, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hallo, ich fühle mich irgend wie komisch, ich ändere und arbeite an den Nachweisen und alles soll falsch sein. So macht das Arbeiten in der WIKIPEDIA kein Spaß. Wissen die "Löscher" wie viel Arbeit und auch Geld in den Dateien steckt. Wenn ihr könnt helft mir bitte. Ich weiß auch nicht wo die Fehler liegen, erst dann kann man korrigieren. DANKE16Exul82 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@16Exul82: I understand how you feel, thankfully there are also volunteers that want to help save these files, if I had come across one of your uploads I wouldn't have guessed them to be incorrectly sourced, as both the authors and the archives from which you've taken them are properly listed, I am somewhat confused how they were tagged as "no source" so I hope that this won't happen again in the future. People like you are highly valuable and we appreciate you for the hard work you're doing in preserving the wonderful history of Germany and its diversity. I really hope that you won't feel demoralised or demotivated from uploading after these experiences, your work is valuable for future generations and have high educational value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:31, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I mentioned to JuTa that tagging these as "no source" doesn't make sense. I removed the "No source" tag. Some of the remaining files have the wrong license, i.e. PD-self instead of PD-old-something, but source is there. Yann (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: , thank you very much for saving these files, as the above user scanned or photographed them himself they are a premier for the internet and thus highly valuable. You have no idea what a major you've just done for German history, Yann. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Uploading error

For about the last 12 hours I have been unable to upload files from my account. This is the error message I get:

Request from - via cp1083.eqiad.wmnet, ATS/8.0.8 Error: 502, Next Hop Connection Failed at 2021-11-05 17:19:01 GMT

I am not having problems in any other aspect of Wikimedia as far as I can tell. Daniel Case (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Addendum: I have tried from different browsers and I am still getting this error. Daniel Case (talk) 02:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

You can file a task at phabricator, or wait, or keep trying: different browsers, different OSs, different devices, different internet connections. Finally you may find, that it works with iPadOS on iPad Air with Edge for iOS over mobile connection. By then your original setup will probably work again. (But in either case: file a task at phabricator) --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Watercolors

Hi, I see that watercolors have been categorized sometimes as paintings, and sometimes as drawings. What's the right category? e.g. File:Théodore Géricault - Fighting Horses - 1929.13 - Cleveland Museum of Art.jpg. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Looking at the contents of Category:Watercolor paintings and Category:Watercolor drawings, it looks like duplication to me, I'd put them both in Category:Watercolors which is currently a redirect. Oxyman (talk) 13:34, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
There is even a Category:Water color which contains mainly images without permission, so in short, a mess! Yann (talk) 15:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Double categories

The same files are in Category:Catania Porto train station and Category:Porto station (Catania metro). Many files are before 'Catania metro' existed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

It seems that a narrow gauge rail line existed before the metro line. Ruslik (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
None of these should be in both. It's two different stations, at different times, although in the same place. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:57, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
The standard procedure is to have the same category name differentiated with the year of completion in parentheses, with perhaps also a hatnote on each page if necessary. I'm not familiar enough with this particular place to say whether or not it would work here.RadioKAOS (talk) 20:42, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Weird categorisation for images from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)

Hi all

I want to invest some time importing images from NOAA and providing them some with some metrics and have found quite a strange categorisation I don't understand, there currently appear to be two categories for NOAA images Category:Images from NOAA and Category:PD US NOAA, which are both subcategories of Category:National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. My undertsanding is that both categories basically say the same thing, that NOAA produced thema dn that the PD one is automatically added when a template is added. One simple way to fix this would be to make Category:PD US NOAA a subcategory of Category:Images from NOAA, does this sound OK?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: That wouldn't be appropriate because not everything in Category:PD US NOAA is an image. Indeed, the very first file in that category is File:"Into the Oceans and the Air" (chorus).ogg, which is a sound recording. --bjh21 (talk) 15:10, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Bjh21 good point, I guess a better option would be to make a category called 'Content produced by NOAA]] and then make both categories a subcategory of that? John Cummings (talk) 19:21, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
that would be "Media from NOAA" (see Category:Media by source.--RZuo (talk) 15:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:PD-art and three-dimensional works

Maybe I'm just missing something on Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag, but why are reproductions of 2D works OK and 3D works not? Is there some caselaw or copyright treatise out there that explains why a faithful photographic reproduction of an old sculpture does qualify for copyright protection in the US? If we/the WMF are relying on en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp., which is a decision in federal district court in a district where WMF servers are not located, why shouldn't we also rely on the appeal decision in Meshwerks, Inc. v. Toyota Motor Sales U.S.A., Inc., 528 F.3d 1258 (10th Cir, 2008) (discussed in en:Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp.#Subsequent jurisprudence)? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ultimately, everything comes down to whether a reproduction can surpass the threshold of originality. In Bridgeman, the court essentially found that a 2D photographic reproduction of a 2D piece of art was not sufficiently original. In Meshwerks, the court similarly found that a 3D copy of a 3D form was not sufficiently original. However, when you are making a 2D representation of a 3D object, there is inherently some creativity going on there because it is impossible to make an exact copy of a 3D object in 2D.  Mysterymanblue  19:35, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
3D reproduction of a public domain 3D object projected to 2D by mediawiki
Or in other words: making a "faithful reproduction" of a statue means making a statue. And since we cannot upload a statue to Commons, there's not much reason to even think about this. At least until recently: since we can now display 3D scans of objects, this might become a topic sooner or later. One might argue (no idea whether that's true though) that File:David_(Michelangelo).stl is a purely mechanical scan of an out-of-copyright statue (the projection to 2D is done by our software stack), so the file should be considered PD as well. Luckily, the people who made it have published it as CC-BY-SA, so we don't need to think about that, but what if … El Grafo (talk) 14:45, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Science Competition 2021

Hi all, just a quick reminder that Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started in many area, and will last until November 30th or December 15th. WSC is organized every two years, and it is formally open to all countries (the goal are the international prizes, the national ones are an incentive)

I have requested a sitenotice on meta, since it is an outreach-oriented competition aimed at getting new skilled users with specific technical content. Commons is one of the main target projects.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:09, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

For the convenience of other users, I have added a link to the section heading. Brianjd (talk) 03:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
What's up with Australia? Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2021#National competitions has a broken link for Australia. Brianjd (talk) 03:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Because the page hasn't been created yet. Bidgee (talk) 05:12, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
You should ask WMEE, they manage relationship with Australia. I think the local organizers have to confirm 100%. This is also why we start with sitenotice very late, so that we know very well which country has confirmed a national landing page (basically, where are local prizes). Currently, we are warming up with mostly social media campaigns.--Alexmar983 (talk) 13:20, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker down?

Hi, CommonsDelinker bot seems to be down. commands are stuck. Yann (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Upload file for my user page

Hello, I can upload this file?, it is to use it in my user page, i created it myself, I would like to know if this file complies with the policies of Wikimedia Commons, thank you very much. --Bruno44101 (talk) 22:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Please read COM:SCOPE, including COM:SPAM, before uploading that. George Ho (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Which reads "The uploading of small numbers of images (e.g. of yourself) for use on a personal user page of Commons or another project is allowed as long as that user is or was an active participant on that project.", and as the user in question is an established user it would have been a lot easier to say "Yes, it is allowed as a user page image" and should probably be categorised as such. I don't think that such irrational spamphobia has a place in such a discussion as this is a Wikimedian who wants to simply add a simple non-promotional version of their username here as an image. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:34, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Normally, text-only files should not be uploaded. Just use HTML markup to make the text look like you want it. - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
But is the file allowed, yes or no? since i don't understand HTML. --Bruno44101 (talk) 12:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bruno44101: "Allowed" vs "a good idea" are probably two different things in this case. Yes, it's technically allowed. No, it's not a very good idea. Here is HTML that can make a big word mark for you: <font size="200">Bruno44101</font>. Copy that and paste it to the desired place on your user page. --B (talk) 13:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bruno44101 and B: But it's not good HTML, as it mixes semantics and styles; in fact, the <font> tag is deprecated. Try:
<span style="font-size: 4em;">Bruno44101</span>
This renders as:
Bruno44101
You should experiment with changing the number until you are happy with the size. Brianjd (talk) 14:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Swedish newspapers

When do anonymous Swedish newspaper articles go into the public domain? I want to add it to the category so it is easy to find. I am at the Swedish National Archive website and cannot discern what the cutoff date is for why some articles are available and others only available from the library because they are still under copyright. It appears to be the year 1960, which is when they revised the copyright law, but I would like a reference. --RAN (talk) 01:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this link may have helpful information? Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Sweden -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! 70 years after publication, so 1950 for anonymous text. --RAN (talk) 04:35, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Wrong identification for an image in an encyclopedia

See File:Anna Gubbertz biography.jpg and File:Maria von Qvickelberg, 1582-1646 - Nationalmuseum - 37836.tif, the encyclopedia confused the mother and daughter, so how should I let others know? I deleted the category, and will delete the crop. What else can I do to prevent others from confusion? --RAN (talk) 06:46, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Ah, good idea, perhaps "File:Anna Gubbertz biography with erroneous image identification", what do you think? --RAN (talk) 19:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Seems fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 22:57, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

video2commons errors

File not found error. Service video2commons, 2021

Hello. I have been trying to upload video files using the video2commons service for several hours now, but with no success. See screenshot. Help me please. --Andrew Krizhanovsky (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

SteinsplitterBot is broken

Hi, SteinsplitterBot is broken. Some lists were not updated since October 31st (see User talk:Steinsplitter#Commons:File renaming/Stats), and Steinsplitter is absent. Can anyone else fix it? Thanks, Yann (talk) 21:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

PetScan: "®exp_filter"

I followed the PetScan link from an infobox and played around with it, but it stubbornly refused to give any results until I removed "®exp_filter" from the "Has all of these templates" field. After this, it gave the expected results. According to meta:PetScan, the default should be blank. What is this value, and where does it come from? Brianjd (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge September results

COA: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title O'Neill & Walsh Crests-
Wedding 14 September 1995		 Populonia - Stemma degli
Appiani sulla Porta del Castello
simbolo dei Signori di Piombino		 Coat of arms on the portal
of the former Domherrenhof in Bamberg
Author Joseywales1961 PROPOLI87 Ermell
Score 14 12 10
Lightbox: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title CACTUS flower lightbox blooms
only of one night in year --Arpit Suman		 Philips projection lamp
6280C/05 for slide projectors,
base G17q, 220 V, 300 W		 Siemens & Halske flat relay 48
of an telephone exchange
Author Arpit Suman F. Riedelio F. Riedelio
Score 12 11 9

Congratulations to Joseywales1961, PROPOLI87, Ermell, Arpit Suman and F. Riedelio. Also Please vote for October Challenge photos and propose new challenges at Commons talk:Photo challenge/themes-- Jarekt (talk) 04:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Images from FilmiTadka found that images from FilmiTadka are generally non-free and copyright violations. The corresponding licensing template {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-FilmiTadka}}, then, no longer has a legitimate use. The template should either be deleted or it should nominate files for deletion when it is placed on their description pages.  Mysterymanblue  10:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Tools down

Looks like https://wikimap.toolforge.org/ is down, nothing showing up in the map — usually the map is populated immediately with a lot of markers at the default location (Niederdorla, DE). Cat-a-lot and HotCat have also been working intermittently in the last few hours. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:57, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Probably due to phab:T295478. Dylsss (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Removal of Deletion Template

I have corrected a typo in a copyright tag of an image. How do I remove the deletion template for this image entitled 'Railing design No 830 as shown in the Illustrated Catalogue of Macfarlane's Castings published in the 1890s' in the article entitled 'Saracen Foundry'? BFP1 (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

@BFP1: Hi, and welcome. I made this edit for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:01, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@BFP1: This file needs categories. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@BFP1: Is this file from the source you mentioned in your earlier Village pump question? If the answer is "yes", or if this file came from some other source that you have a link to, you should add the link to the file description. Brianjd (talk) 11:44, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: and others thanks. BFP1 (talk) 12:35, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
@BFP1: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Railing design No 830 as shown in the Illustrated Catalogue of Macfarlane's Castings published in the 1890s.png. Brianjd (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Disturbing pictures - need a speedy del

I stumbled the following set of pictures which are disturbing in the extreme. However I can't see Commons reason for nominating them for deletion and I would like some advice. I really hope they are fake but even given Commons reluctance to censor, I can't imagine anyone thinking they serve any educational purpose, fake or real. That said "out of scope" seems a bit lame given the content. Help!!


File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency1.png

File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency2.png

File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency3.png

File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency4.png

File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency5.png

File:ChineseBabySoupForPotency6.png

--Headlock0225 (talk) 14:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

@Headlock0225: I have nominated them for deletion anyway. Hopefully having the request linked here will speed it up. Brianjd (talk) 14:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, this is an art work by Zhu Yu, please see "Chinese Eat Baby Soup for Sex – Facts Analysis by Prashanth Damarla (7 years ago)" and for context these images do have educational value to represent this type of art style, to quote "Zhu Yu deals with contemporary performance art that raises questions about moral agendas, and he often uses the human body in his art. The present pictures are taken from his most famous piece of conceptual art, titled “Eating People,” which was performed at a Shanghai arts festival in 2000." Note that the YouTuber "Whang!" Claims that this wasn't an actual fetus but a duck, but this article claims: "The art displayed a series of photographs of Zhu Yu cooking and eating what is alleged to be a human fetus, creating lot of controversy. In response to the public reaction, Zhu Yu stated, “No religion forbids cannibalism. Nor can I find any law which prevents us from eating people. I took advantage of the space between morality and the law and based my work on it“. Zhu Yu has also claimed that he used an actual human baby fetus stolen from a medical school.". I would say that it would be wise to undelete these images 70 (seventy) years after the death of Zhu Yu and if need news breaks of his death this deletion request should be categorised in "Undelete in 2XXX" as these images are valuable and pretty well known as an early 2000's internet meme often used in demotivational posters. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:48, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

No Copyright - Non-Commercial Use Only (Q47530884)

Or 'NoC-NC' for short, described at http://rightsstatements.org/page/NoC-NC/1.0/ ; what does Commons make of this, is this a non-copyright restriction? This is a material question, as I am trying to figure out whether I should upload https://download.digitale-sammlungen.de/BOOKS/download.pl?vers=e&id=11163067&ersteseite=1&letzteseite=322&nr=&x=10&y=6 (from which the phrase 'arbeit macht frei' is thought to have originated). Arlo James Barnes 02:11, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Arlo Barnes: I'm sorry, but the license restriction "‐NonCommercial" AKA -nc- (noncommercial) is not usable by itself for Wikimedia Commons. For the reasons, please see Commons:Licensing/Justifications.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:27, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think you are missing the point. Your post and the linked page seem to be about copyright licences. But the original question is about non-copyrighted material. The Wikidata item says:
Works that are in the Public Domain and have been digitized in a public-private partnership ...
Brianjd (talk) 05:50, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The source seems to be dated 1873, further confirming what I said above. Brianjd (talk) 05:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Arlo Barnes and Brianjd: I see, please use {{PD-old-assumed}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:13, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
See the REM-Urteil (a work with expired copyright is copyrighted [in Germany] if it has been scanned or fotographed. REM=Reiss-Engelhorn-Museum). Commons reaction: Files that had to be deleted, were "reuploaded" (undeleted) by Admins, that do not plan to ever enter Germany. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:59, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I read the statement as an alternative -nc licence. For nc use you can use the statement as licence, for other uses (and for upload here) you need to evaluate the copyright status of the work or the licencing terms at the original source. The "no copyright" seems plain wrong, unless there are publication rights involved, relevant only for until recently unpublished works, which may be the prime class of content (not copyright, but a copyright-like restriction that I think we do honour). –LPfi (talk) 17:37, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of file File:Characters of Asterix.png

Why was the Characters of Asterix picture deleted?

It was on the List of Asterix characters article for a long time and nobody complained.

The only change I did was to upload a version in a higher resolution.

It's my first Wikipedia page edit so please bear with me if I didn't do it the right way.

BTW: This is the picture in question (or at least a similar one): http://images2.fanpop.com/image/photos/12200000/Everybody-asterix-12243899-1024-768.jpg

There are many many versions of it everywhere on the internet (and even posters, jigsaw puzzles, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu.miu (talk • contribs) 13:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@Manu.miu: Most images on the internet are copyrighted. We can't accept copyrighted images here on Commons unless the creator has given them a permissive license (see COM:NETCOPYVIO). On Wikipedia (which is not where you are right now), some copyrighted images can be used under the Fair Use doctrine, which requires them to be used at a low resolution, among other things (see en:WP:NFCC). – BMacZero (🗩) 15:01, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@BMacZero: Ah, I see. Thanks for the explanation! So should we put the low-res image back? Cause it was there before and now neither the high-res nor the low-res version is attached to that article anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Manu.miu (talk • contribs) 06:49, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Manu.miu: ✓ Done.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks a lot mate! --Manu.miu (talk) 05:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Manu.miu: You're welcome. For the record, I found what you were writing about on enwiki and made this edit, which almost everyone could have made.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@BMacZero @Manu.miu On Wikipedia fair use images can not be used or uploaded! On the english language version of Wikipedia and a small number of other Wikipedia language versions of Wikipedia that address an audience coming mainly from a legislation that knows fair use and that have an agreed by its community local wikipeda fair use policy fair use images can be uploaded and used. However Wikipedia is a multi-lingual multi-national project and the english language Wikipedia (one of about 300 wikipedia) is the extreme exception. Wikipedia has more than 50 million articles and only a very small part of this articles are written in english and part of the english language Wikipedia. Commons only uses English as a lingua franca because among native english speakers very few speak any other language than english at all. In 2001 3 language versions of Wikipedia were created - english was only one of these. C.Suthorn (talk) 07:35, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Each Wikipedia is a separate project. When speaking in a cross-language context, it is no more meaningful to speak of "Wikipedia" having a policy that to speak of "U.S. states" having a law. Yes, it is sloppy when people refer to the English-language Wikipedia as just "Wikipedia". I'm pretty sure I never do that in writing, though in casual speech even I do that. Still, it's pretty common usage when writing in English. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I often use plain "Wikipedia" even in writing, then usually meaning Wikipedia in Swedish. If you don't mention the language version, there should be an understanding of context, which usually exists among Wikipedians, but not in the general public, which will misunderstand. So, yes, that sloppiness should be restricted to fora where the understanding can be expected. At Commons it usually cannot, as nobody knows what Wikipedia an unknown user is talking about – and everybody is unknown to somebody. –LPfi (talk) 18:14, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
There is a simple answer: Just say "enwiki" or whatever (I don't know the language code for Swedish). Brianjd (talk) 05:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Server-kitty.jpg: triple licenced CC BY 2.0, GFDL and CC BY-SA 3.0

Every time someone adds a stupid licencing tag, Brian kills a kitty.

Someone just used this image to illustrate Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Should Heavily used template go on the template page or the /doc page?. Then I went to its description page and saw its crazy licence notices:

  • CC BY 2.0, a permissive licence.
  • GFDL 1.2+, a copyleft licence.
  • CC BY-SA 3.0, added as part of the GFDL migration.

To me, this file perfectly illustrates everything that is wrong with copyright - even with free licencing. Thoughts? Brianjd (talk) 07:04, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: This is a valid example of en:Wikipedia:Multi-licensing.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:20, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: My issue is not with whether it is valid, but rather whether it makes sense. Who expects to see CC BY and GFDL next to each other, or CC BY and CC BY-SA? Does anyone think that an ordinary user, not familiar with copyright, can make any sense of this? Brianjd (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Brianjd: Perhaps something that would solve this is using {{Multi-license}}.  Mysterymanblue  08:24, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue and @Brianjd: Now, yes. In the heady days of yesteryear, not so much. Consider the history of this file. Tim Avatar Bartel uploaded Image:Computer-kitten.jpg with "{{cc-by-2.0}} and {{GFDL-self}}" licensing 22:41, 9 June 2006 (UTC). When Gurch uploaded her DW Image:Server-kitty.jpg 00:20, 27 November 2007 (UTC), that was licensed the same. Then we had the big license migration, which added the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license for this file in 2009. It wasn't until years later that Rd232 originated {{Multi-license}} as a template 15:48, 5 July 2012 (UTC). Every copyright holder is allowed to license their work however they want, on as many platforms as they want, and every reuser is allowed to pick whichever license works for them, regardless of the presence of {{Multi-license}}. If necessary, de:Datei:GNU Free Documentation License Version 1.3 dreispaltig.pdf can fit on one page and still be legible. Do you have the time to go back to old files and apply that template? I surely don't.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:36, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Or do you want recent changes filled up with them? For the reuser it is often good to have files with the exact same licence, so that they need to evaluate just that one, not whether some other licence is equivalent for their purposes. We could have a user interface making that sort of things clear, at least for GFDL, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA and a couple of other much-used licences. –LPfi (talk) 17:21, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Everyone seems to be missing the point, namely that this specific combination licences is weird. But now that we have moved on, I always liked {{Self}}: has there been a discussion about {{Multi-license}} vs {{Self}}? Brianjd (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Original descriptions

Suppose someone uploads a file to some other site, say Flickr, with a description. Someone else then imports the file to Commons, along with its original description. But in this new context, the original description is irrelevant. Or is it? If the original uploader is notable, does that make their descriptions notable too?

For example, in Category talk:Rosie Robinson#Original Flickr descriptions, another user suggested deleting all the original Flickr descriptions from files in that category. But every file in that category is also in the category "Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream". The category Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream is massive, suggesting that this Flickr user is notable.

Since we can't agree on what to do in this case, and this could have relevance to other categories, I am bringing it up here. Brianjd (talk) 06:59, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Frankly, this strikes me as downright bizarre. Here is the edit that set all this off: [2]. This is obviously not what normally does or should go in an image description on Commons. I get that this is what was on the original image on Flikr, but Commons has a different purpose than Flickr, and there is obviously no need to have five paragraphs of someone's personal thoughts, along with a bunch of spammy "follow me on Twitter, Instagram, etc" type links. Commons:Guide to layout states, in part, "Commons is a project focused on content, nothing else. Galleries, file description pages, and categories are intended to make browsing and finding that content easier." I can't see how telling a little story about how the photographer feels about the image subject, the gate outside their house, their car, their dogs, their boyfriend, the coffee shop they stopped at on the way to the photo shoot, or the conversation they had before any photos were shot is in any way part of the image description. I'm not sure why the preceding comment brings up notability, that's more of a Wikipedia thing and generally not an issue on Commons. If there are more images with this same problem, these overblown, unhelpful observations should all be removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Beeblebrox: If these files were nominated for deletion, we would be asking questions like: "Is the photographer notable? Is the model notable?" So notability is a Commons thing too, though "notable" is really shorthand for "in scope". Indeed, in this case, I suspect that not only is the source notable, but that this notability is the reason that these images have been kept. If a source's notability is a good enough reason to keep their images, why isn't it a good enough reason to keep their descriptions? Brianjd (talk) 07:45, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
    • If we have a guideline that says we can't keep these descriptions in their current location, surely we can find a better place for them? Brianjd (talk) 07:46, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
keeping the original description in a collapsed box seems a reasonable compromise to me, though I'm no fan of these subjective ramblings and agree such descriptions are not great for commons Oxyman (talk) 07:58, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Commons is a media repository, not a "random essays about image subjects repository" so I would argue that, no, there is no better place for them on this project. Keeping such material is explicitly not what Commons is for, and I do not feel a compelling case has been made to make an exemption here. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:24, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Before we talk about whether we want to have those descriptions, it might be worth taking a moment to consider whether we can have them. A description may be subject to copyright even if the picture it describes has been published under a free license. That may not be compatible with the CC-BY-SA 3.0 we apply to everything other than files and Structured Data at Commons. --El Grafo (talk) 18:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
That's an interesting question. Only the image itself was verified (at that time) to be under an appropriate license for Commons. I think this is a non-isuse with most image descriptions as they are matter-of-fact descriptions of what the image depicts, as opposed to a five paragraph essay on the entire day surrounding the image being produced. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Poor quality of PNG previews

Does anyone know why PNG previews of this SVG file are so poor? --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 10:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Obivan Kenobi:
I'm guessing the complaint is fuzzy text. The SVG is littered with Inkscape clones of a Gaussian blur filter. 
<filter
   style="color-interpolation-filters:sRGB"
   id="filter2816"
   x="-6.1409769e-06"
   width="1.0000123"
   y="-4.4753422e-05"
   height="1.0000895">
  <feGaussianBlur
     stdDeviation="0.00025922239"
     id="feGaussianBlur2818" />
</filter>
The standard deviation is small, but if width and height are interpreted as fractions or if the blur is rounded up, small objects could be blurred. SVG filters have been around for a long time, but support is often buggy. In addition, the WMF renderer is 4 years old.
I see no reason to have any Gaussian blur filters in the map. They should be removed.
The displayed height of the characters is small. I saw font-size as low as 9; the image is 2,387 × 1,711. Displayed height of most characters will be a few pixels. The file has also converted text to curves. Painting those curves will not be as effective as the font scaling in TrueType/OpenType fonts. The used fonts include the proprietary Arial Narrow which probably does not have a substitution entry. I would keep ALL the labels as text rather than curves. WMF's SVG converter (librsvg) does not handle the SVG textPath element, but I would still not convert path text to curves. The textPath element displays correctly in many browsers. Some year, WMF will update to a renderer that understands textPath. The SVG file has other issues. Unneeded namespaces (Visio). Poor font spec ("Sans" instead of "sans-serif"). Glrx (talk) 19:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Glrx: Thank you very much! I will try to fix the problems if I will be able to. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 20:28, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

English Socialism

Main galleries: Commons:Deletion requests/File:INGSOC flag.svg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ingsoc logo from 1984.svg.

Please see "Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Ingsoc logo from 1984.svg#When to undelete?", I would like some clarification on the copyright © status of these files. They are from the United Kingdom and were made for a film. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:36, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Color problem

Hi, I don't understand why 2 versions of the same pictures have different colors:

  • TIFF
    TIFF
  • JPEG
    JPEG

The second is simply the JPEG export of the first (with Gimp). I checked with Chrome and Firefox: idem. Any idea? Yann (talk) 23:29, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: Go to the file pages, go down to Metadata section, and click extended details. Both show the color space is uncalibrated. I suspect that means a viewer can use any color space it wants. You are probably seeing raw RGB and sRGB views. Glrx (talk) 00:06, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I would argue that any "print from wet collodion negative" should be strictly black and white, to reflect the light sensitivity of the wet collodion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd disagree. Color of 19th and early 20th century photo prints could vary for different reasons, including details of chemical process and the type of paper the photograph was printed on to - not always "strictly black and white". Having worked with original archival materials I've long been aware of this. I tend to think of the notion that it all should be black & white as coming from how it was reproduced in mid/late 20th century books, and am surprised and sometimes annoyed that this preconception that "old time photos should all be in strict black & white" has persisted into the internet, when there is no technical need to save money on printing costs by sticking with black & withe, and much of the rich variety of tones of vintage materials can be fairly easily reproduced digitally... though perhaps I'm getting into a rant better at some other time and place. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 05:24, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
The actual JPG image is grayscale, just like the TIF: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/85/Louis-Auguste_Bisson_-_Ypres%2C_Belgium_-_1986.37_-_Cleveland_Museum_of_Art.jpg. The thumbnail shows pink; I suspect this is an other thumbnailer color profile problem. JPG file has a ProPhoto RGB color profile. MKFI (talk) 07:02, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
@Glrx: Actually there is a color profile, I just checked with Exiftool. I have no idea why it doesn't show here. I uploaded a new version, which is a bit better, but still not the same colors. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Image acceptable in a Wikipedia article?

Would a screen shot of a page from an 1890s trade catalogue (https://archive.org/details/waltermacfarlaneco.vol11890s/page/n237/mode/2up) be acceptable? BFP1 (talk) 14:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks @Jmabel: BFP1 (talk) 16:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

FastCCI.... a useless tool

This tool is very necessary, for example, to see all the images in a subcategorized category. However, FastCCI is neither fast nor useful. Every time you click on the tool, the message "establishing connection" appears and it gets stuck. Never in my 10 years of work at Commons has it worked for me only 1 time. So I propose to remove this tool or change it. --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 14:49, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

"Useless" is an accurate description. I remember trying to use it to cross categories describing image subjects with categories describing copyright statuses (as there is no obvious way to search by copyright status), but could never get it to work. Brianjd (talk) 15:01, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Categorization question

While doing categorization work, I discovered that Category:Women of the United States by name is a hidden category while Category:Men of the United States by name is not. Is this supposed to be that way? I seem to remember that all "(gender} of (country) by name" categories were hidden years ago and then unhidden at some point.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:27, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

It was made hidden a month ago by user:Allforrous. You can ask them for the reason. Ruslik (talk) 20:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
If I thought it was okay for one editor to declare consensus on behalf of the entire project, I wouldn't have bothered with asking here. Thanks anyway.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:11, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
I have unhidden it. It's more like sometimes an editor does something they think is a good idea without proper discussion. I'll put a note on the talk page asking why. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
There are many such cats hidden that shouldnt be. Ships by name (flat list) and various Museum collection names. Broichmore (talk) 13:18, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

determine available image resolution (for a list of paintings)

Is there a good way to add an indication of the resolution of the available image to a list of paintings (2nd column)?

Maybe there are four or five basic resolutions:

  • 1. Wikipedia infobox resolution: maybe 300px wide (sample)
  • 2. Commons/Wikipedia file description page: is that 800px ?
  • 3. zoomable on details: depends on actual painting size (there are columns with W and H in cm), not sure what a good measure would be
  • 4. printing quality (same size as original, dpi?).

Maybe also:

  • 5. printing quality A3 size

How to call the resolutions?

  • < 1 very low
  • < 2 low
  • < 3 medium
  • < 4 high
  • 4 very high

I suppose (1.) and (2.) can be determined from image properties.

For (3.) and (4.) let's assume that the image has a reasonable quality relative to the pixel size. How could these be determined? --- Jura1 (talk) 10:09, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

A better way to present this could be to calculate potential dpi at a few resolutions, e.g. A3 and original painting size.
File:La Sargantain.JPG at 3114 pixels × 4528 pixels
Format original painting size A4 A3
size 63 cm × 91 cm 210 mm × 297 mm 297 mm × 420 mm
dpi 126 dpi × 126 dpi 376 dpi × 387 dpi 266 dpi × 273 dpi

Ok, without the distortion ;)

Something is probably missing .. --- Jura1 (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

I added two columns to the table mentioned at the beginning: "dpi" (at original painting size) and "A4" (dpi at size A4). --- Jura1 (talk) 21:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)


After some back and forth, here the scale now at a Wikidata list (2nd column):

# label benchmark criteria dependency
1 very low image width < 300px (Wikipedia infobox size) file
2 low Wikipedia infobox size image width < 800px and image heigth <600px (file description page default) file
4+ high or very high A4 print >300 dpi at size A4 (larger of width and height compared to 297 mm) file
3+ medium or higher Commons file description page default all other (not 1, 2, 4+)
5 very high print in original size currently not used. Should be based on dpi at original painting size. Reasonable dpi depends on size file and original size

The query checks for 5% within the limits. Small paintings (<A4) could be at "3+" while having higher resolution.

It's an approximation that could allow to find paintings that could benefit from better images. --- Jura1 (talk) 14:36, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Pontormo - bh gern 181150 post.jpg

File:Pontormo - bh gern 181150 post.jpg
Image of artwork with a useless bottom row, containing the filename and an incorrect licence.

I tried to overwrite this file with a cropped version; here is my proposed upload summary:

Removed unnecessary bottom row, which contained the filename and a useless licence logo (the author died hundreds of years ago, so this is definitely public domain). No objections to cropping were raised at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Pontormo - bh gern 181150 post.jpg.

But I received this error:

Upload failed! [api] Received error: abusefilter-warning : ⧼abusefilter-warning-overwriting-artwork⧽

Was it wrong to crop this file, despite the lack of objections? Should it be saved as a new file? Or should I ask for help to bypass the abuse filter? Brianjd (talk) 05:14, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

@Brianjd: Sorry, overwriting by you with such a crop of that artwork is unacceptable as "crops of files you didn't upload" per MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-overwriting-artwork. Only Maltaper may make such a crop and keep that filename. Yes, it should be saved with a new filename.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:29, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
I see that Maltaper is still active here, so I will see if they respond before taking any further action. Brianjd (talk) 05:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I don't really understand this. The part I was trying to crop out is not actually part of the artwork, so why should the rules about overwriting artwork apply? Brianjd (talk) 06:07, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Multichill, Perhelion as editors of MediaWiki:abusefilter-warning-overwriting-artwork.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 07:04, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an exception to the rules. In this case, the easiest way is to reupload the cropped file and ask for deletion of this one as duplicate. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:14, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Where could I find a kind vector contributor who could create an SVG of this non-free logo on Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Kabul_Municipality_logo.png ? --Weaveravel (talk) 10:38, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe try Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop!  Mysterymanblue  11:39, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
But wouldn't an SVG be equally unfree? - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, if the PNG is not a free image, then the SVG would not be free. The en.WP allows some low resolution images under the fair use rationale, but Commons does not allow fair use. IIRC, en.WP will use non-free SVG logo if that SVG came from the organization, but it does not create SVG fair use images from PNGs because SVG files are not low resolution. The request is a lost cause unless and until the logo is a free image. Glrx (talk) 16:46, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
That image is copyrighted, and does not belong to Commons. Commons only accepts free content. FanNihongo (talk) 07:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Question about categories

Do you think File:1946 Kurdistan et groupements Kurdes isolés.jpg (a map of Kurdistan from 1946) belongs in the category Category:Old maps of Kurdistan? I think so. Do you think repeatedly and baselessly removing categories is vandalism or not? To me the answer is only common sense. GPinkerton (talk) 13:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Yes, but not "Maps of Kurdistan" because it is too old. It should also be in "Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions" but not "Kurdish inhabited regions" because it is a map. Please read COM:OVERCAT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:11, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I suggest you to take a look at this citations (specifically page 155). In short, map does not show "Kurdish-inhabited regions" but a political concept from the 1940s. --Orijentolog (talk) 14:52, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the user who has been claiming the file should not be in any categories related to either maps or Kurdistan. They bizarrely quote from a book about maps of Kurdistan (in which this map appears and is discussed) to try and prove their POV that the map of Kurdistan somehow does not show Kurdistan and therefore does not belong in Category:Old maps of Kurdistan or Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions. They have repeatedly vandalized the file in the recent past [3], removing these categories and replacing them with others. GPinkerton (talk) 14:59, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the user who is one of the most active categorist in Asia-related topics on Commons, as well as the author of sh:Kurds (250k) and sh:Geography of Iran (400k), both the largest articles about this particular subject which exist on all Wikipedia projects. Just for the record. Regarding the disputable map, it indeed shows Kurdistan as well as this similar map shows Italy, as well as Italian-inhabited regions. The only problem is that both are not properly marked, i.e. colors show only an outdated irredentistic concept. Seems like you don't understand difference between regions, political entities, inhabited regions and political fantasies, all of which have specific categories on Commons. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:20, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Those articles are filled with unreliable and fringe sources (Izady? really?) and they do not give an impression that the user is as knowledgeable as is claimed by the user themselves. Are you addressing me or Jeff G. with your claim that Seems like you don't understand difference between regions, political entities, inhabited regions and political fantasies, all of which have specific categories on Commons? It's clear you yourself are arguing from a fringe position here, since it's already been said that your removals of the pertinent categories Category:Old maps of Kurdistan or Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions (and tendentious self-justifications for this vandalism) violate the basic principle of common sense. (See above.) It's time for you to drop the stick and realize consensus is against implementing your strange recategorizations. GPinkerton (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Twisting story again, claiming I'm one who's holding a fringe view, while promoting archaic irredentist piece as realistic and credible. Or that I'm speaking to Jeff, while it's clear who did I cite and below who I left text. --Orijentolog (talk) 15:44, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Who is "promoting archaic irredentist piece as realistic and credible"? What rubbish! GPinkerton (talk) 15:45, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The one who put irredentist fantasy map from 1940s into the category Kurdish-inhabited regions. --Orijentolog (talk) 16:57, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Both I and Jeff.G have told you that the category Category:Maps of Kurdish-inhabited regions is the correct category and that your fringe views are not acceptable. Please stop promoting this ethnic POV now. GPinkerton (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: is not yet familiar with whole issue here, so don't take his reply as final. Truly funny how promoter of irredentist material accuses me of "ethnic POV." --Orijentolog (talk) 17:13, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Everyone that has disagreed with Orijentolog has had ample to time to judge the perverse line of argument Orijentolog is using to justify vandalism, and now Orijentolog is denying that they even disagree! What a mind that can perform such gymnastics! GPinkerton (talk) 17:18, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Fallacies and insults again. Jeff did not disagreed with me, he just answered your initial question and that's it, probably without knowing what's the issue here (because you didn't even properly describe it in intro). And I don't say he'll necessarily agree with me, he can check the issue little deeper and state "my final opinion is that...," or he can ignore everything. His right. --Orijentolog (talk) 17:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Pure special pleading. Commons is not a forum and it is obvious to everyone that your personal views on how categories are incorrect, as several users' interventions have proved. Drop the stick. GPinkerton (talk) 17:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
There's no any "special pleading" in describing his answer, summarized, as quite hastily and superficially. --Orijentolog (talk) 18:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
I will allow others to judge whether your denials that consensus is against you are special pleading or not. I call it sealioning: it is more than clear you opinion is unsupported by anyone but yourself, whereas the opposite holds true of the users who have opposed your quaint ideas. GPinkerton (talk) 18:37, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
No twisting please, alleged my opinion is supported by all citations (which you misrepresented), all Wikipedia articles, all scholarly literature and all professional maps. There's no even one scholar who support your claims. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
You are confused. It is you who is making claims. The facts, as I have told you, are revealed to be against you, just like consensus is against your undesirable changes (since reverted as vandalism). GPinkerton (talk) 21:33, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Reply tool available

Hello, all.

The Editing team is offering the [reply] tool to everyone at Commons. This tool makes it easy to reply to a comment in a discussion. It automatically adds your signature at the end, and it counts all the ::::colons for you. There is a visual mode for anyone who prefers that, and a live preview for people using the wikitext source mode.

If you want, you can turn it on now at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-betafeatures. You can also test it on this page by clicking this link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump?dtenable=1 These options will give you the [reply] button plus other tools, such as the [subscribe] tool. Only the [reply] tool would be turned on for everyone. Everything else will remain accessible only through the Beta Feature.

If you don't like the reply tool, you will be able to turn it off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion.

Contributors who deal with tech stuff may wish to put these two pages on their watchlists: mw:Help:DiscussionTools and mw:Help:DiscussionTools/Why can't I reply to this comment? The second page is useful for de-bugging.

This tool has been very popular at other wikis, but I particularly wanted to ask you all what you thought of it. It gets used about 20 times a day here at Commons. I expect that it will be most useful at pages like this, and less useful for voting-style pages. What do you think? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:04, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

One note about the future:
Later (maybe November, maybe not), the Beta Feature will get a new feature, called mw:Talk pages project/Usability.  The two main ideas are:
  • to show more information at the top of a discussion (e.g., how many comments have been posted, perhaps a bit similar to the numbers posted at the top of Commons:Administrators/Requests), and
  • to discourage newcomers from pasting non-discussion content into talk pages (or is that only a problem at the Wikipedias?).
If you have the Beta Feature enabled whenever the new Usability feature is available, you'll see the first steps there. If you don't have the Beta Feature enabled, you won't. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
I like it! It's unobtrusive, optional, and works with existing talk pages rather than trying to replace them with something else. Also thrilled to see the new option to subscribe to individual sections of a talk page. Quick question though: does this automatically send a ping to the person I'm answering or do I still need to ping them manually? mw:Help:DiscussionTools doesn't seem to have any info on that … – El Grafo (talk) 07:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@El Grafo you can simply type the Klammeraffe codepoint and select the username C.Suthorn (talk) 11:17, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know, and that is useful and very convenient for pinging other people I'm not technically replying to directly. But when I click "reply", it already says (in this case) "Reply to C.Suthorn" in the background of the typing area. So it clearly has recognized who I'm replying to and I was wondering if the system maybe automatically sends a ping. Just curious: did you get a ping from this message (assuming you did not also subscribe to this section, of course …)? El Grafo (talk) 12:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
No pings unless you link the username. If you type the @ symbol, it will give you a list of previous participants in that ==Section==. You can also search for any username you want.
Auto-pinging has been suggested. I think the product manager even supports the idea, but I'm less certain. I wonder whether we will want to ping individuals so often, once it becomes normal for people to subscribe to discussions. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:10, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I get an error message for that link "This page does not currently exist..." Thanks I will continue to try to get it to work. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:21, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Goran tek-en, I'm sorry. I had a typo in the link. Please try it now. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Whatamidoing and the tech team for adding this here - I use the reply tool at EN and find it extremely helpful (8 years on and I still mess up indentation!) and I find the subscribe feature helpful too so thanks all again for adding these here, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:06, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the kind words, @Davey2010. I am most grateful for the [reply] tool in a long discussion on a busy page. No more counting :::::colons, and almost no edit conflicts! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:09, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
You're welcome, Haha I know that feeling - There's nothing worse than replying to a comment where there's already lengthy discussions above and below that comment .... Very grateful for this tool too :), I never gave edit conflicts a thought actually, See another bonus to this tool :)Many thanks, Regards –Davey2010Talk 17:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Whatamidoing (WMF) I think what we really need is smarter pings. For example, if a user is pinged in a discussion they are also subscribed to, the system should be smart enough to notify them just once. And this should work no matter where the ping came from: the reply tool or manual editing.
On my first try of the reply tool, I did not ping the other user, and now have no easy way of editing my comment to add a ping. I need to go back to editing the page manually (which is fine for me, as I am used to it, but might not be so good for other users) or add a new reply with a ping (which is just messy). This seems like a serious usability problem. Brianjd (talk) 12:57, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Whatamidoing (WMF) I don't understand, that link takes me to this page and subject? --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Do you have Javascript enabled in your web browser? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ditto as well. Not coming up for me as well (and I have javascript enabled as well). SHB2000 (talk) 06:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes for javascript. But I now begin to think that is my expectation for this tool and not understanding where it is supposed to show up. I did think I would see it in "edit code" mode but now I understand this is wrong. On this page I now can see [reply] in the "normal view" mode and will test it. Also what I now understand not all type of pages in all the different projects e.a. wikipedia, commons have this function. So I think everything is fine now, thanks for all support. --please ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:12, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@SHB2000, please tell me more. It's not enabled by default yet (although that might happen ~90 minutes from now). If you click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&dtenable=1&safemode=1#Reply_tool_available and look at this comment, do you see a [reply] button right after my signature? Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

This is ✓ Done. Everyone should have access to the [reply] tool now. If you don't want to see it, you can opt out in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 05:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Nice tool. Thanks --- Jura1 (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone with a add all photos from User:L.G.foto to a category 'Photographs created by L.G.foto'?

Hi all

The user L.G.foto has shared 1000s of amazing aerial photos he took during his career as a pilot taking aerial photos. Please could someone who knows how to mass import images into a category mass import then into something like 'Photographs created by L.G.foto' so that I can show them where their photos are used and how many people see them? Currently BaGLAMa 2 and GLAMorgan only work off categories.

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 10:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Request taken by Vysotsky. Will be finished this week. Vysotsky (talk) 11:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Vysotsky thanks so much :) John Cummings (talk) 11:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@John Cummings: ✓ Done. Vysotsky created Category:Photographs by L.G.foto and added 998 files to it, and I added the remaining 783 files using JeffGBot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Total image usages in Wiki: 1353. Distinct images used in Wiki: 413 (=23.16% of all images of this category). Vysotsky (talk) 13:32, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks so much guys, really appreciate it, 400,000 views a month is pretty great. John Cummings (talk) 15:24, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@John Cummings: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:44, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

C. J. W. Russell

Hi, Any idea about C. J. W. Russell, the author of these paintings:

Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:42, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: https://www.daao.org.au/bio/version_history/c-j-w-russell/references/ Says Australian rather than American. Glrx (talk) 14:25, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: Here's an Australian Natives Association wiki article quoting The Advance Australia 14th September 1909: http://ausnatives.org/AustralianWikipedia/Russell,_C._J._W.,_fl._1840-1860 . The quotation does not mention painter, but the wiki article links to three watercolors digitized by the State Library of Victoria. Only one of those paintings is in the Commons Cat. Those paintings can be found at the SLofV with
The artist is identified with the same stylized name as the title of the ANA wiki.
Glrx (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
More here: [4] & [5]. Not to be confused with the American artist Charles Russell. CJW Russell's house and Indian lodge, Shoalwater Bay, 1857 (WASTATE 1638) is by a different, uncredited, hand. "CJW Russell" in this case was the subject building's resident, not the artist. The ANA page seems to conflate C. J. W. Russell (born London, 1810; died 1874), with C. W. Russell (born Tangil circa 1873). It's not clear which person's portrait is on that page, but I suspect it is not the artist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:07, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Dainsyng.gif

Hi, I'm from German Wikipedia.

File:Dainsyng.gif (a happy flower/plant) is used very often in German Wikipedia. I cannot understand why we could use it for the last 12 years, but now it has to be deleted. That make absolutely no sense to me. [6][7]

Please restore it. It's a beautiful image and is used regularly (it's not an "unused file" like written in the Deletion request)

Thank you very much! Best regards, -- Toni Müller (talk) 13:46, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Toni Müller: The deletion request actually said:
unused files are probably out of scope
This does not mean that all files are unused. It means that some files are unused, and those files are out of scope. Of course, this file is the opposite of "unused": it seems to have been used just about everywhere. But even widely used files must be deleted if they have copyright problems. Brianjd (talk) 14:18, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
But it has been used everywhere for 12 years. Why is it suddenly a problem now? Since that was never a problem for more than ten years, I don't understand the sudden deletion. -- Toni Müller (talk) 14:26, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@Toni Müller: No one did anything for 10 years. That does not mean everything was OK for 10 years. It just means that no one noticed the problem for 10 years. Brianjd (talk) 14:32, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
According to the linked discussion on Toni Müller's talk page, Yann suggested asking here if this file could be included in Commons:Grandfathered old files. Brianjd (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thank you :-) So? Could it be included? -- Toni Müller (talk) 23:52, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Georeferencing map images

Is this the right place for Wikimaps Warper queries or does it have its own help forum? I have recently started georeferencing with Wikimaps warper. I see there is a warp_status flag. Is there process or check on this, or do I just set the flag to "warped" once I have rectified the file? Is it possible to get the latitude/longitude values for the map from the georeferencing process or do I have to exract these by hand? Is it possible to view all georeferenced maps in a particular area? If I am viewing all the maps in a category in Commons, is there a way of showing which maps have been georeferenced? Thanks Kognos (talk) 15:44, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

@Kognos: There is a Category:Georeferenced maps in Wikimaps Warper. Maybe the best place for discussion is en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Maps. --sk (talk) 06:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Potd/2021-11-22

@Charlesjsharp, Arjuno3, Ato 01, Bjankuloski06, Richardw, Clarice Reis, and ValeriySh: Because File:Panther chameleon (Furcifer pardalis) male Nosy Be.jpg already was a POTD on 9th August 2019 (according to Commons:Picture of the day/Instructions it should be chosen only once), I decided to choose another image. Please update POTD descriptions in your languages. --jdx Re: 17:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

PDF preview image upload

Is there a tool that will upload a PDF preview image from Commons (e.g. [8], [9], with relevant metadata, as a Commons image file, to save having to download it locally and re-upload it, it manual metadata entry? If not, could someone make one, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Antonio González

Hi, Any idea who is this artist? We have 2 watercolor paintings by him:

Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:04, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Possibly [10]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Was on an expedition to the Antilles (1796–1798). de:Nicolas Baudin has: "
Der Mineraloge Alexandre-Philippe Advenier († 1803), der Chirurg Jean-Louis Hogard und der Maler Antonio González, die im Anschluss an die Expedition eine zweite in den spanischen Teil von Hispaniola (die heutige Dominikanische Republik) unternahmen, sahen die Heimat nicht wieder.
" ("The mineralogist Alexandre-Philippe Advenier († 1803), the surgeon Jean-Louis Hogard and the painter Antonio González, who made a second trip to the Spanish part of Hispaniola (today's Dominican Republic) after the expedition, never saw their homeland again.") Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for creating the WD item. Yann (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Also [11] refers to "unpublished 27 page manuscript by André-Pierre Ledru that lists the plant material that he collected in Tenerife during the expedition of Nicolas Baudin (en route to the Antilles) that visited this island between November 1796 and March 1797. Manuscript includes 16 watercolours (likely made by Antonio González) and it was written in Santa Cruz de Tenerife (date 18 Ventose year 5 = March 8, 1797) ... Natural History Museum of Paris (manuscript number 2547)." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Transcription assistance request

Can anyone make out the name and address of the recipient (at the foot of page 2) of the above letter, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:29, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

"Captain C. St John Mildmay, Hollam, Dulverton, Som[erset]". I wouldn't have got the "M" in the surname, but a person of this name and address is found in a couple of places on the web [12][13][14]. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Future Perfect at Sunrise: Great sleuthing. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

The sort order is now wrong when using {{subst:lle}}

Hello. I'm looking for a solution. In template language pages (/lang), when I use the template {{subst:lle}}, the languages' sort order is disorderd. You can see the same problem as I do by doing this:
　1. Visit the /lang page (for example, Template:Terrorism symbol/lang).
　2. Replace the entire page with {{subst:lle}}.
　3. Show preview.
As far as I can tell, the order of the languages in this module has gone wrong, so the template's order has gone wrong, too. Could you tell me how I can fix this? Thank you. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 06:49, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

FootyBystander

Can a sysop please look at the uploads from FootyBystander (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log) ? This uploads screenshots of television stations in series. I don't think that's allowed under copyright law. Thanks very much --Steindy (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Take a look at the sources and the associated license information! Which is found in the YouTube-Video descriptions below: „... License Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed) ...“ [CC BY 3.0]. — It is an official YouTube account from the creator. The creator puts the videos in YouTube himself. --FootyBystander (talk) 22:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I have read on the page of beinSPORTS: „Copyright 2020 Digiturk Bu siteyi kullanarak sözleşmeyi kabul etmiş sayılırsınız.“ So what is correct? --Steindy (talk) 22:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Steindy: I'm not sure what here you think is a problem. In order for them to offer the CC license, it is necessary that they are the copyright holder. - Jmabel ! talk 02:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Unclear how to handle a couple new uploads

Hi. I've been editing files for Wikimedia for a long while, but I'm unclear on some policies. I've recently been seeing images I uploaded at en-wiki being replaced with updated images uploaded here. Both are logos where the name of the organization had changed. And, in both, the uploaders assert that they created the image, even though the image is on a website (which they did not include as a source). I'm thus not sure they are the actual creator or just went with defaults to get the file uploaded (following the path of least friction on en-wiki). In one case, I'm also not sure if the image may be public domain due to copyright policies in the country in question. In the other, I'm not sure if it might qualify on {{Pd-textlogo}}, as the logo is technically stylized text, but the stylization is not merely a font.

It's not clear to me how I should get these issues adjudicated. I tried marking the first one with {{Wrong license}} but have seen nothing addressed about it in three months, suggesting I made the wrong choice. Should I just use the "Report Copyright Violation" option in the sidebar, explain why I think they might be copyvios but also just may be licensed incorrectly? (And, if so, wouldn't it be better if that option were labeled "Report **possible** copyright violation"?)

I also note that one of them is a JPG of something that should probably be an SVG. I've got an vector version that I can use, but the results of this will decide if I upload here or on en-wiki as FUR. Trlkly (talk) 12:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Out of date logos, should not be overwritten but kept. -Broichmore (talk) 16:02, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

What to do whith a gallery page that looks good but is made by a sock master?

User:Justlettersandnumbers has removed all the images of gallery page Paintings of Lierna Lake Como because it was made by a sock master, Alec Smithson. See discussion on Talk:Paintings of Lierna Lake Como. But the originally gallery page looks good to me. What to do? Can I reverse the changes of Justlettersandnumbers? What is the policy about contributions by sock accounts on Commons? --JopkeB (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB: The current discussion at Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion#Creations by blocked or locked users, and the previous discussion linked there, is relevant. Even though these discussions are actually about blocked users, they seem to be motivated by sockpuppets, and they raise similar issues to the one you mention here. Brianjd (talk) 04:34, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Brianjd: Thanks for your answer. But I still am not sure what to do, I could not read a clear conclusion in the discussion. One says: "we can't afford to lose useful content created by a banned user", another wants to delete uploads of banned users. But what to do with gallery pages? Does anyone has a concrete answer? --JopkeB (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I think it is ridiculous to lose good content because of an issue with who created it. I say this as an individual, though: I don't think there is a clear consensus.
Perhaps someone can restore the content and take responsibility for the edit that restores it. I don't think that raises any copyright issues, since by placing it here in the first place it was put under an appropriate CC license. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
As I've already said to JopkeB, I'm not familiar with Commons rules and practices, so my removal of the sockpuppet content content may well have been a mistake; if so, I apologise. It is a little surprising to me that there is no equivalent here of the en.wp G5 speedy deletion criterion. I do know this, though: not one word that that LTA says can be taken at face value; every single detail needs to be exhaustively verified. Any licence attributed to a page by Alec Smithson should be treated with the utmost suspicion. Ping to Voceditenore who is also familiar with this user, and has uncovered at least one blatant hoax in this project (sorry, I can't remember where that was). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 18:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers: but why should we doubt a page that basically took a number of images in a category, uploaded by a variety of users, and placed them on a gallery page, using captions drawn from their descriptions? - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't know, Jmabel – because the "variety" of uploaders are all socks of the same hoax editor, who as already stated above cannot be trusted for any claim? MARKANT23, Olasander and Endora21anni are all plainly Smithson socks. Two paintings (this and this) in that page are not sock uploads; one of them (the former) actually mentions Lierna in the file title. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:45, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, Justlettersandnumbers. This was but one example of Smithson's multiple hoaxes, that time under the guise of Endora21anni (talk · contribs). The problem with his image pages is that he uses them to make false assertions, connections and aggrandizements for the town of Lierna and various members of the Natoli/Biotti/Polli families. I've cleaned many of them up in the past, e.g. [15], [16], but have now just given up. Justlettersandnumbers is absolutely correct—you cannot trust *anything* he and his socks post here. He attaches "Lierna" to items that have nothing to do with that town, fakes sources and copyright information, etc. etc. For a complete picture of his cross-wiki abuse see Wikipedia:Long-term abuse/Alec Smithson. Voceditenore (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

P.S. Biotti is a prime example of the spurious links/coats of arms, etc. he tries to make for this family. If you check the Links section you can see some of the other now deleted pages he created for its members and those of the Polli family. Voceditenore (talk) 15:20, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Voceditenore, that is exactly the blatant hoax I was thinking of. It's a perfect example of why Smithson and his socks cannot be trusted – a painting by a living painter, subject to copyright, uploaded as a PD-old work by painter of the eighteenth century. I repeat: not one single word can be trusted. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:09, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Mass upgrading from CC BY-SA 3.0 to version 4.0

Hi! I have uploaded so far over 500 pictures taken in my local city, many of which might depict interesting subjects such as disappearing cityscapes and buildings and so on. The public city museum is interested in the pictures as well, and I have talked with them. They always publish their pictures with the newer CC BY-SA 4.0 lisence, and so do I novadays. Many of the city museum's pictures have also been published here in Wikimedia Commons as well. The problem is, a vast majority of my pictures were still coming with CC BY-SA 3.0. Updating the lisence (as a creator) of all of the over 500 pictures individually would be a very tedious task. Is there a bot, that could run this task automatically instead? Perhaps after putting them all in a certain category which separates the picture from the other? --Ximonic (talk) 02:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

You should be able to use COM:VFC using the "custom replace" function to do so. Regular expressions can be a little fiddly to work with - ping me if you have issues. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! I will look into it. --Ximonic (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ximonic: You shouldn't even need to use regular expressions: just a straight-out replacement of text. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I carried out a test on three pictures of which two were 3.0 and one already 4.0. The tool seemed to ignore the 4.0 and executed the changes on those with 3.0. Just so that it would replace the template. So far it looks promising. I will test a bigger sample later today. --Ximonic (talk) 05:37, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ximonic Instead of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}, I would rather see {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0}} (based on {{Cc-by-sa-2.5,2.0,1.0}} or {{Cc-by-sa-3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0}}) or, if you are willing to include future versions of CC BY-SA, {{Cc-by-sa-3.0+}} (based on {{Cc-by-sa-2.0+}} or {{Cc-by-sa-1.0+}}). Brianjd (talk) 08:34, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0}} was supposed to be a broken link: I was surprised to see that it already exists, but does not seem to work; it is not in the category CC license tags. Also, @Ximonic could make their own licence tag, making future licence changes easier. Brianjd (talk) 08:36, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
In case anybody is bored right now: Template:Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0 could use some love in terms of categorization and documentation. El Grafo (talk) 08:40, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0 would seem a nice way to go, though it's a bit jarring that it's missing the attribution head text (where it now reads this: wm-license-cc-by-sa-4.0-3.0-text). It needs some work. --Ximonic (talk) 03:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I took a look at fixing {{Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0}}, but obviously it requires editing interface messages, which I believe rely on translatewiki.net. That's a whole can of worms I'm not sure I want to get into. However, Ximonic, wouldn't {{Cc-by-sa-2.0+}} accomplish what you're wanting to do, if you're willing to allow 2.0 and 2.5 as well? — Huntster (t @ c) 04:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Huntster and Ximonic: {{Cc-by-sa-2.0+}} includes not only 2.0 and 2.5, but also future (not yet released) versions. Brianjd (talk) 13:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Huntster and Brianjd: Yes, I saw it. It might be the best way to go afterall. Thank you! I think this conversation has overall been quite productive. Atleast we've done some mapping of the state of license templates once again, and found something to improve. --Ximonic (talk) 14:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Creative Commons licenses are irrevocable. One can add additional license options; I suggest multi-licensing by adding 4.0 to 3.0 images rather than changing. Reusers can take their chose of 3.0 or 4.0. I have had discussions with other users saying that replacing old licenses is not strictly prohibited, noting that Commons:License revocation is an "essay" not a "policy", and have replaced old licenses with newer versions on their works. Since the old licenses cannot be revoked, this seems to create a paradox of "secret licenses" - there are completely valid license options for reusing the work, but they cannot be seen by reusers without hunting through image history. This seems to me to rather contradict the spirit of irrevocable Cc licenses, which is why I suggest multilicensing when one wishes to update. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:12, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Infrogmation This is a good explanation, but note that where there are two valid licences, it is multi-licensing, even if it is not labelled as such. Brianjd (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
    There is also another reason to include all valid licences in the description: if a user sees the file used elsewhere, and wants to verify that it is used in accordance with the licence, they may need that information. Brianjd (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
My personal preference is "{{self|GFDL|Cc-by-sa-4.0,3.0,2.5,2.0,1.0|migration=redundant}}".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Rename requests in Bengali

Hi, requests like this have the same meaning when translating. Zuiden (dutch) or South (english) - It's only a difference in a character. Although I have experience enough with renaming, I don't know if this should be declined or if this is really a mistake in the Bengali language. Maybe someone knows more about this? Thanks in advance. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:01, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Nobody answers, and now it's renamed without leaving a redirect, while the file is more than three years old. 1,5 years ago I got a lot of comments about not leaving a redirect for files 1-2 years old. Some users here were not so nice to me then. So: don't ask for my help here, if I don't even get an answer for the above question and the fact that I see other file movers (renamers) don't leave redirects, while I got all the blame back then. I'm not going to play a police officer and talk to all those renamers/file movers/mods that don't leave redirects, even if a file is 10 years old (or something). Don't count on me...- Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 17:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Richardkiwi: I, for one, would have felt quite out of my depth involving myself in anything written in Bengali. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: So would I. @MdsShakil: Why did you not leave a redirect?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an spelling errors in Bengali. (দক্ষিন → দক্ষিণ) This spelling is not common/not used anywhere so redirection has not been placed but sadly I don't noticed the Upload time. Today i created all redirects without this. Thanks you all and sorry for that —MdsShakil (talk) 02:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Doge2.jpg

The picture that i posted of my dog, File = Doge2, was nominated for deletion, and it said that is wasn't mine. I explained that it was for educational purposes to show to docility of whippet puppies. Will you please help? Thx, InternetScavenger89 (talk) 04:49, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@InternetScavenger89: Did you read COM:L? Did you heed the warning when trying to upload File:Doge2.jpg that it had been deleted before?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Closing the comment period for the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Draft Guidelines

Thank you for your continued comments and ideas on the Universal Code of Conduct enforcement guidelines. Your responses have helped to build a stronger Universal Code of Conduct.

If you have not already provided your comments, now is the time as the drafting committee has been meeting to update the enforcement guidelines. The drafting committee wants to consider all comments as they make their updates. Please submit any comments by the end of November. The Committee hopes to finish its revisions before the end of the year, and the revised guidelines will be published as soon as they have been completed.

The next steps for the Universal Code of Conduct include conversations about ratification of the enforcement guidelines. There will be a conversation about ratification on Nov 29.

The Wikimedia Foundation will make recommendations to the Board of Trustees about the ratification of the guidelines in December. The recommendations will inform the next steps in the Universal Code of Conduct process.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Is Category:Water in Islam a meaningful category?

Is Category:Water in Islam a meaningful category? Input into the discussion is appreciated. --Jonund (talk) 17:23, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I have found a copyright violation picture here. The source of the picture is here - the uploader claims it's his picture but it's not - it's actually the picture of someone called Blaž Weindorfer. Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:01, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

General question about wikidata and commons.wikimedia

Is there a policy or practice where a person in wikidata has a "statement," such as "date of birth"="11 May 1963" that the Commons category of "1963 births" should be deleted, because it exists in wikidata (for the same person)?

Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 01:19, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Not automatically, no. The statement has to exist in Wikidata and the category page has to use {{Wikidata Infobox}} to generate the category. If one of those are missing, you'll have to apply the category manually. I can't recall what happens when the automatic and manual categories are applied at the same time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

SVG files rendering different colors in pages

Hi. I hope it's the correct place to discuss about that.
I realised that SVG files render a sensible different color in pages, e.g. the european flag in this page.
The file is set with offical RGB value given by european union for rendering on a screen, for the blue it's correctly rgb(0,51,153)    #003399    , even in the PNG preview like here or here (tested with a color picker too). But when you open this page, or another one with the file, and you pick up the color rendered, you see it's rgb(0,48,154)    #00309a    . (tested with multiples browsers)
I tested it with multiples files and u always have a difference. So is it a problem in the files i watched, or for all SVG files? Is there a way to fix it?
I know it's just a little difference, but what is the purpose to set an exact official value if the rendering is different? If it's a SVG problem, don't we have to chose another file type for important flags? --Harmonizator (talk) 07:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@Harmonizator: I can confirm the same on Firefox 94. However the 255px thumbnail does show the correct colors: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/255px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png, but when the same image is displayed on the Wiki article both the blue and yellow stars are changed, blue as shown above and yellow from    #FFCC00     to    #FFCD00    . CSS overlayes could have this effect, but I couldn't find anything that would cause this. MKFI (talk) 08:18, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sure. I maybe hadn't express myself good with my bad english, but yes it's for all colors, maybe except simple one like white, black, and pure red, green, blue and maybe pure cyan , magenta and yellow. (but i had'nt test it)
I also forget to say that this doesn't happend with PNG files. So, if it's not possible to fix it, maybe we should use PNG files or another type of files for flags or other things like this with an official value. --Harmonizator (talk) 09:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
PS: sorry, actually PNG files look to have a very poor quality.
This may after all be something browser-specific; if I copy the rendered PNG to an image editor it shows the correct colors, but if I open the same PNG in Firefox and take a screenshot I see the color change. With Internet Explorer colors do not change when I view the article. MKFI (talk) 10:12, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Ha ha ! I didn't think to use Microsoft !
For me, the problem is the same with Microsoft Edge, but i have heard it's based on something common with chrome or Firefox. So you mean the real old Internet Explorer?
But it's strange cause in this diff, i saw color difference with the PNG, and it was before i discover the problem of the SVG rendering. --Harmonizator (talk) 12:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
PS: and after verification, the difference is exactly the same than the SVG rendering, but maybe it's cause i used an online tool to test the PNG file, so with my brower. I have to start to test files with an image editor.
Actually, for me most important is the rendering on Wikipedia, and i don't really care about what happends in Commons which is mostly for contributors. But I know anything about technics used, is what we see in Wikipedia only a PNG preview for an original SVG files? --Harmonizator (talk) 12:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Harmonizator and MKFI: off topic, you might want to make use of {{TTrgb}} next time. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:30, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure what "The file is set with official RGB value given by European Union for rendering on a screen" means. Just the term "RGB" does not specify a standard color space. It does not tie the values to to specific CIE colors or an ICC color profile (see w:en:ICC profile). Often RGB means the device color space — the numbers sent to the device to control the primaries' intensities. Different devices display different colors when given the same device RGB values. Cathode ray tubes work differently from flat panel technology. Even within the same technology, the displayed colors for the same RGB values may differ.
In order to get consistent color displays, individual devices may be calibrated/color corrected. That means that desired RGB values are mapped into new R′G′B′ values to show the desired color. There are instruments to do color calibrations. A simpler approach just assumes that all Model XYZ screens will have similar characteristics so they can share a common color correction.
SVG uses the sRGB color space. See w:en:sRGB. The sRGB color space does expect a particular sRGB to display a particular CIE color. However, the sRGB color space requires mapping to a particular device's RGB values (a color correction) to achieve that goal.
Here is what happens. The color specification in SVG is sRGB. The SVG agent uses some color correction routines to map sRGB values into device RGB values to get the specified sRGB color. Those are the values that are sent to the screen. When you do a screen capture, you obtain an array of the device's RGB values (not the original sRGB values). The number differences that you see are the color corrections.
PNG files can give different results. I believe the ordinary PNG file does not imply any color profile so its RGB values are just sent to the screen without any color correction. Such a file would look different on different device technologies. PNG files have the ability to specify that they use sRGB or some other color profile (see w:en:Portable Network Graphics), but I suspect the PNG files you tried did not do that. If the PNG does not do any color correction, then the values sent to the device are the RGB values and those values would be in the screen capture.
When an SVG file is included in a wiki article, the SVG file is not sent to the user. Instead, the SVG file is converted to a PNG file, and the PNG file is displayed on the page. Presumably, the PNG file would use the sRGB color space, so the RGB triples in the PNG file would match those in the SVG file (note that the agent rendering the SVG image has no idea about the ultimate user's color space, so it must use a standard color space). It's possible that the render sets the PNG flag to say it is sRGB, so the screen captured RGB values would be the color corrected values.
Glrx (talk) 16:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Glrx: Looks like you know exactly what Harmonizator’s sentence («official RGB value given by European Union for rendering on a screen») means — you just think it is incorrect to issue an sRGB triplet as a colorimetric standard, fair enough, and then you try to obfuscate the matter with a wall of text nobody asked for.
The matter is that sRGB triplets stated in the source SGV files are not being transposed one-to-one onto the PNG thumbnails generated on the fly by Wikimedia software, being instead altered through an undocumented color correction algorithm. Looks like you think this is a good idea, while Harmonizator and others might think it’s a bad idea. I for one want to know where documentation about this can be read. (I confess I’ll be mainly looking for its off-button, but always keen on reading about this stuff.)
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:25, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea what the EU wants. A claim was made, but no source was given. I have no problem with colormetrics specified with sRGB values, but the OP just said RGB (not sRGB). It is likely the EU means sRGB, but I do not know that they did.
"The matter is that sRGB triplets stated in the source SGV files are not being transposed one-to-one onto the PNG thumbnails generated on the fly by Wikimedia software." That does not fit the facts above. Harmonizator said the triples in the SVG file and its PNG rasterization https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/320px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png are the correct ones. I did not go poking around in either file to check that assertion, but it is logical that the triples are the same. The PNG is the result of WMF using librsvg to process the SVG file. If the triples are the same, then libsrvg processed the colors correctly. The only issue is whether librsvg set the sRGB flag in the PNG output. Given Harmonizator's story, I believe librsvg set that flag. When browsers display the SVG or the PNG, then they should use the sRGB color space.
I would expect the color picker in a graphics editor to provide the sRGB values specified in the SVG or the PNG. It does not make sense to do anything else.
The problem is the screen grab. I would expect that to obtain the device RGB values from the screen buffer. A screen grab would not know about any color transformations that were made. I would expect that the inverse sRGB transformation on the screen buffer triples would be close to the original sRGB values.
Who said it is an "undocumented transform"? The sRGB color space is well defined. The display you are using right now should be stable. All the transform does is map the given sRGB triples to the triples your display needs to best approximate the sRGB triple. It is not a 1:1 mapping because different displays use different primaries, different gammas, and other different properties.
There is plenty of information about color space transformations. There are also operating system calls to control the transformations. For Windows, see the https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/api/_wcs/ documentation and https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/win32/wcs/basic-color-management-concepts concepts. In Windows, a programmer would setICMMode(ICM_ON) to enable color transformations before writing sRGB triples to the display. If ICM_OFF, then device RGB space is used. A screen grabber has access to the color buffer, but it does not know which mode was used to write the pixels.
Glrx (talk) 00:08, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
This is going too technical for me, but i wanna give this precisions:
  • I never make any screenshot to pick up the rendered colors, I use live color picker extensions, and different ones which give me the same result.
  • Even if it's not the subject, European Union gives this official recommandation for RGB values here, and since 2004 and maybe more. --Harmonizator (talk) 09:22, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

So, the EU gives an official recommandation to render the colors of the flag on a screen, and it's visible in all its website. But when you go on Wikipedia, you don't have this correct colors because of this SVG rendering problem. So, I think we have this solutions:

  • Give a correct SVG file if the problem is in the file used, and not general for any SVG.
  • Correct the way MediaWiki uses to render SVG files on Wikipedia if it's a general problem for all SVG files.
  • Or stop to use SVG files on Wikipedia when we try to give a specific RGB value, for this files or others. (and so this will be a discussion on Wikipedia) --Harmonizator (talk) 09:24, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand your point but I wouldn't do anything about it. The issue it's causing doesn't warrant replacing hundreds to thousands of files or doing something to the MediaWiki. There are known issues with the render software that actually break the file, this is "huh, interesting", the difference is miniscule, smaller than the difference between the same colour on any two office-level computer screens. TFerenczy (talk) 17:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, sure. Maybe all this color things on flags begins to drive me crazy actually. ;)
And actually, the europen flag is the only one I know that have an official special RGB value, so I wasn't talking about thousands pages, maybe just some pictures to illustrate colors.
And, as I said, i don't know anything about the technical part. So if it's complicated, that's not really a problem.
But it's a strange thing to observe, and if they're is a possibility to correct it, it will be welcome. --Harmonizator (talk) 04:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I checked this some more and now I am even more confused: on en:Flag of Europe I see the color change described above, but on de:Europaflagge the colors are correct. I note that this is quite old file, and the articles use different sized thumbnails. Could the problem be that over the years thumbnails have been generated with different image magick versions? MKFI (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Is this correct too? That's a direct link to the png thumbnail used at en:Flag of Europe. If that is OK on its own (i.e. outside the article), rendering the png from SVG cannot be the problem and the actual problem must be somewhere later in the pipe line. Maybe en:Template:Infobox flag, en:Template:Infobox, or whatever comes next does something to the image files? --El Grafo (talk) 12:16, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@El Grafo: the generated thumbnails are correct; somehow it just displays incorrectly in en:Flag of Europe. MKFI (talk) 14:31, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI OK, that's good, I guess. Two more things we can check (sorry for asking, I don't have the proper tools for this available at the moment):
1) Is the version over here on the right OK? That would be a hint that the problem may lie at Wikipedia in particular, not Mediawiki in genreal
2) Is the version at the bottom of the table right above en:Flag_of_Europe#1983–present:_From_European_Communities_to_European_Union OK? That would be a hint that it's not a general problem at en.wikipedia but a more specific problem with image display inside of infobox templates.
Once that's clear we can think about where to find somebody who knows enough about the respective internals to find the actual root of all this … – El Grafo (talk) 15:39, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@El Grafo: the vertical tall flag displays correctly, but the version with E has the same color problem - but now the infobox image showed correctly! @Harmonizator: does the infobox image on en:Flag of Europe show up correctly to you now? MKFI (talk) 07:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

The reference Annex A1 https://publications.europa.eu/code/en/en-5000100.htm states the colors are

  • The colours of the emblem are Pantone Reflex Blue for the surface of the rectangle and Pantone Yellow for the stars. The international Pantone range is very widely available and easily accessible, even for non-professionals.

That defines the colors. The given history has the flag designed in 1955 as gold stars on a blue background. Pantone did not appear until 1963. The Annex states

  • Pantone Reflex Blue corresponds to the web-palette colour RGB: 0/51/153 (hexadecimal: 003399) and Pantone Yellow corresponds to the web-palette colour RGB: 255/204/0 (hexadecimal: FFCC00).

The SVG file uses fill="#039" and fill="#fc0". The CSS color spec says that is shorthand for fill="#003399" and fill="#ffcc00", so the colors are properly specified. There is nothing wrong with the SVG file, but SVG does use sRGB. On a Windows machine, I can press Print Screen to copy the screen to the clipboard, I can paste the image into the Paint application, use the color picker tool to select a pixel, and then click Edit Colors to learn the RGB value. If I do those steps on https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg displayed in the Edge or Firefox browser, then I get the values

  • 0,51,153
  • 255,204,0

Those are the Annex values (but they are not the values that I expected; I expected slightly different color-corrected values). That suggests the browsers do not apply sRGB color correction to SVG files. If I download https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg/800px-Flag_of_Europe.svg.png (a file made by librsvg and open the file directly with Paint, the color picker within Paint gives me the color values stated in the Annex. (I expected those values.) That suggests that librsvg generates color-appropriate PNG files. If I display the wiki pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Flag_of_Europe.svg, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Europe, https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europaflagge, and https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b7/Flag_of_Europe.svg in Edge or Firefox, do Print Screen, and examine the clipboard values with Paint, then I get the RGB values

  • 0,48,154
  • 255,205,0

Those match the odd values reported above, and I expected them to be slightly different than the Annex values due to color correction. All three files were rendered by librsvg into PNG files and then displayed in a Browser, so I would expect them to be consistent. That suggests the browsers apply color correction when they display PNG files. I did not check whether the PNG files were setting a color profile. Glrx (talk) 00:33, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File picking up wrong description, presumable from wikidata

This file is picking up wrong info from somewhere. I assume it's from Wikidata, but after deleting the image from the indicated Wikidata item the info still appears. The file is a painting of a woman reading, but the title shown is "A Village Street with a Performing Bear"; that painting looks nothing like this. Can someone help? --Auntof6 (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

This file is having a similar problem. It's interesting that both paintings are by the same artist, and the incorrect ones they point to are by the same other artist. --Auntof6 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6: It is the structured data within Commons, which is also built on Wikibase, but is not Wikidata. I'll just delete the wrong information. Someone else can either add correct information or not. - Jmabel ! talk 17:53, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, dear, that certainly didn't work. The whole thing seems based on an {{Artwork}} template that relies on structured data! The is exactly the sort of thing that makes some of us VERY unhappy with structured data on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
(after 2 edit conflicts) @Multichill: It looks like both files were uploaded on Commons by your bot last year and linked to the wrong wikidata items in the first edit.[17][18] Both files were uploaded within a day of each other. Are you able to see what went wrong here? I am assuming it was a couple of blips in a batch edit but are you able to tell if any more need fixing?
Jmabel, this is not a Wikidata or structured data problem. It looks like an error in a bot edit. That could happen whether Wikidata was involved or not. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:05, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: but if it were normal Wikitext, it would be much clearer how to fix it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@Multichill: Looks like File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg was totally misidentified in the structured data, and that the way it was described in the wikitext is completely dependent on the structured data. I removed the incorrect structured data, and it basically all went to hell. Since the actual artist only died in 1944, I'm not at all sure this is even public domain.

Apparently similar issues for File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176331 - National Trust.jpg, which I haven't touched. - Jmabel ! talk 18:02, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I've worked out the source of the problem. Art UK and National Trust have got their wires crossed. The Art UK page with a female portrait[19] gives the National Trust reference as 1176330 but when you check that reference at the National Trust website you get a different painting about a performing bear.[20] The bot has performed correctly and collected the linked data from both websites. This is neither the fault of Multichill or Wikidata but the source. I'll have a go at editing Wikidata and the two files to repair the issue. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:21, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
{{Artwork}} accepts a parameter |wikidata= where you can link the wikidata entry for the painting. That's what I've done now for File:Rex Whistler (1905-1944) - Lady Caroline Paget (1913–1976), Later Lady Duff - 1176330 - National Trust.jpg and it seems to work. The only concern there is the US copyright status. De728631 (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, all. --Auntof6 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: exactly. Lady Caroline Paget, Lady Duff (1913 -1976) (Q52256027) & A Village Street with a Performing Bear (Q52255990) (and the other pair) got mixed up because ArtUk mixed up the inventory numbers. My bot would normally never upload files like these and I deleted them. Multichill (talk) 16:27, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File:Baby Krishna 2.jpg

File:Baby Krishna 2.jpg


Is this image in the Public Domain? Google Search reveals that has been around on the web for some time. Uploader claims that "The Infant w:Krishna photograph posted here is the artistic and symbolic picture of Lord Krishna. It is very old and its source cannot be obtained". Perhaps someone here with greater knowledge than me of images of the infant Krishna could confirm or deny? It is in use, by the way, and its a nice picture, albeit low definition, so it would be good to keep if we can.--Headlock0225 (talk) 13:57, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Reverse image search finds a larger version with different colors, but that's as far as I got. --El Grafo (talk) 16:13, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

With the lack of information of the artist, or when or where it was published,reluctantly, I think I will nominate for deletion and see where that takes us. If it was in the public domain your source, El Grafo, is much better quality! --Headlock0225 (talk) 12:02, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

File picking up unneeded categories from parent category

File:La Place du Châtelet by Étienne Bouhot (Carnavalet P 1286) 01.jpg is showing categories that are on the specific category for this painting, Category:La Place du Châtelet by Étienne Bouhot (Carnavalet P 1286). They seem to be coming from something in the text for the file, because when I delete everything in the file the extra categories go away. Can someone help eliminate the extra categories? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I have converted the description template from {{Object photo}} to the more commonly used {{Artwork}}, which does not have that problem, while still calling all relevant information. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:22, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
P.S. {{Object photo}} would have probably functioned properly with that file if the relevant category had contained {{Category definition: Object}}. --HyperGaruda (talk) 11:30, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda Thanks. -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Talk to the Community Tech: The future of the Community Wishlist Survey

Hello!

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 30 November (Tuesday), 18:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Changes to the Community Wishlist Survey 2022. Help us decide.
  • Become a Community Wishlist Survey Ambassador. Help us spread the word about the CWS in your community.
  • Questions and answers

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, German, and Italian. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 20:03, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Unexplained

By chance I noticed the following for which I have no explanation. In the history of File:Nora Grace Skam.png is mentioned on 2021 jul 23 14:36‎ "[es] bijschrift toegevoegd: Foto de Nora Skam España. Interpretada por Nicole Wallace". In the edit mode I don't see "Nicole Wallace" anywhere. Where has that gone? Wouter (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

  • @Wouterhagens: It's a Spanish-language structured data caption. It's there, but it's not wikitext. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: Thanks, but can this be made visible? When I add ?uselang=es to the image URL, I don't see any extra info under "Datos estructurados". When I want to create a new category, I check with a search whether there are more images that make it worth creating the category. So I got to the image with this search. Such a search yields more information than I can gather from the description. Wouter (talk) 12:50, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
      • @Wouterhagens: I know, and I completely sympathize. One of several ways I find structured data on Commons a mess. It shows up not in the "structured data" section, but the "file information" section. Depending on your settings and your skin you may see it different ways; for me, there is a box at at the top of the "file information" section that says, "[Expand]". If I click on that, I see the captions. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
        Thanks, I found it! Wouter (talk) 19:15, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Issue about the Science Wiki 2022 contest

I received an invitation to participate in Wiki Science 2022 and so I uploaded my images by following the links proposed on the competition page for the Italian section. At the end of the upload, however, all the set of images uploaded showed the logo for participation in the 2019 competition. I reported the problem but to date I have not received any answers. So I don't know if I have to reload the images in the world section rather than again in the Italian one. Thanks in advance to anyone who can help me solve the problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buiobuione (talk • contribs) 08:56, 30 November 2021‎ (UTC)

@Alexmar983: Ciell (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Buiobuione: Hi, and welcome. I see User talk:Buiobuione#Wiki Science Competition 2021 has started. From there, I follow the "this page" link to Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2021. I see that this edit in Italian mentions Italy, so I look for Italy there, but do not see it in Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2021#National competitions, so I click "have specific national juries". At the bottom of that page, I see a mention of Italy with a circular upload link. I go back to Commons:Wiki Science Competition 2021#National competitions and instead click the "here" link in "All of the upload forms can be accessed from here" to Commons:Wiki Science Competition upload. On that page, I click link "Italy" to https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UploadWizard&campaign=wsc-it, and use that to upload File:Galaxy (8704358643).jpg, which gets the right logo but wrong description from "{{Wiki Science Competition 2019|it}}". I change "2019" to "2021" in this edit, and all is well; thus, the problem is in how the competition is set up. Then, because I am not the photographer I change to account for that in this other edit. See also COM:SIGN. PS: It's not 2022 yet.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:23, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Buiobuione you did not receive any answer because you did not tag or write in the talk page of the competition... I cannot check 1000s of talk pages. BTW, Italy has no national competition this year, but since it has a lot of upload we created a national category, to simplify the evaluation. I asked User:Reosarevok to update the interface to simplify the categorization process which he did here and he probably forgot to update some templates somewhere.I asked him to double check just in case.
There are no circular link BTW. You have national competitions with some specific descriptions, you have a miscellaneous category for the rest of the world and you have a specific upload for some countries that have no national jury, no national prizes but still can be sent quickly to a specific category.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:27, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Scusami se non ho taggato o scritto nella pagina principale, non so ancora usare wiki nel modo corretto, sto imparando. Spero quindi che il problema si risolva con gli interventi da te indicati e che non sia necessario ricaricare le immagini. Grazie ancora per la risposta Buiobuione (talk) 12:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Buiobuione risolto tutto. Essendo un set di buona qualità e non essendoci concorrenza finiranno probabilmente secche alla finale internazionale. Ribadisco: l'Italia non ha un concorso nazionale, ma essendoci abbastanza foto di origine italiana le ho comunque scorporate da "resto del mondo", quindi per chi partecipa la competizione è minore, e le chance di diventare finalista nazionale e quindi accedere alla finale internazionale più alte comunque. Non ci sono al momento altri set di immagini caricati dall'Italia.--Alexmar983 (talk) 12:22, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
grazie ancora Buiobuione (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikimedia Sound Logo project

The Wikimedia Sound Logo project

Hello everyone,

The Wikimedia sound logo project is in an early development phase -- this stage is for asking all kinds of questions, developing and fielding ideas, finding themes and shaping the direction of the project. Here is a link to the meta page for the project:

https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Communications/Sound_Logo

Your input is welcome. Thank you, VGrigas (WMF) (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

COM:UDR instructions (or lack of)

Like I wrote at User talk:Contributers2020#Closing undeletion requests:

This is ridiculous. This is not the first time I have seen a non-admin close a UDR. COM:DR has clear instructions on who may or may not close a request. Why not just add a statement to COM:UDR?

No answer was provided there, so now I appeal to a wider audience. Brianjd (talk) 11:40, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

UDRs are less frequent than DRs. There is no pressing workload-based need for non-admins to close them. A non-admin cannot close a UDR leading to undeletion. So far we've seen no advantage to non-admins closing these, and they've attracted some editors whose judgement is widely questioned to start with.
So I'm against non-admins closing them. But we should make that clear. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley You're wrong here- Admins have backlogs to clear all COM:DR as well. They are seeing COM:AN as well plus the speedy deletion. Many instances at COM:HD admins solve the issues. COM:UDR is just a simple part of it. Contributers2020Talk to me here 14:02, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue Yeah Lol. But I wanted to also propose that if, in cases the user is just doing disruption in commons including that edit, or a rationale which just say nothing or something like abcdefglolllll, can non admins just speedy close the UDR. Contributers2020Talk to me here 06:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
no action should be reserved for certain users unless specific user rights are needed.
in this case the closure (the file remaining deleted) was legitamate and required no sysop tools. why waste the time letting it stay open and making several discussion threads about it? do you have nothing better to do? then start with Category:Commons backlog!--RZuo (talk) 19:03, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
That is so correct @RZuo. Contributers2020Talk to me here 10:46, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
Closing a request requires trust in the user deciding on it. Admins are supposed to be trusted, while other users have no formal qualifications for this (and usually cannot see the file, unless they were involved). Closures by untrusted users need to be reviewed by other people, and as there is no way to mark the closure as OK but by an admin signing it, there is absolutely no use in having the first, unqualified closure. –LPfi (talk) 17:55, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. "admins" have no formal qualifications either.
  2. users are trusted, unless you think you should not be trusted by default.
  3. if being unable to see the deleted file could be an excuse to keep users from making informed decisions, then by the same logic they should be forbidden to comment on UDR at all. "you cannot see the file, what do you have to say about it?" RZuo (talk) 10:57, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: (2) You are not trusted by default; this is well-established by numerous policies, from blocking Tor editing to requiring legal agreements with the foundation for certain privileges.
(3) This is a false comparison. Commenting on the UDR only requires a user to have knowledge of some relevant aspect, whereas closing the UDR requires a user to have knowledge of all relevant aspects. Brianjd (talk) 11:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. how does "blocking Tor editing" show that users are not trusted? by this logic users with IPBE (being able to use Tor) would be trusted and they should be allowed to perform actions like closing UDR?
  2. when did sysops have to have "legal agreements with the foundation for certain privileges"? should any of them without identity verification with WMF? and how does this show users are not trusted?
  3. where does that whole sentence "Commenting on the UDR... all relevant aspects." come from? did you just make it up?
  4. why would a non-sysop definitely not have knowledge of all aspects? why would a sysop definitely have knowledge of all aspects? how did you even assess their capabilities?
none of these bogus claims make any logical sense. RZuo (talk) 19:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo (1-2) are responses to examples I gave. Just examples. Stop taking them out of context. Here's another example: We don't just hand out adminship; we require users to apply, and scrutinise them and vote on them. (3) I think that sentence stands for itself; accusing me of "mak[ing] it up" doesn't achieve anything. (4) A non-admin would usually not have knowledge of all aspects, as they would usually not have access to the file. An admin might also not have knowledge of all aspects, in which case they can choose to not respond, or ask questions, rather than close the request. Brianjd (talk) 04:43, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  1. "Here's another example: We don't just hand out adminship; we require users to apply, and scrutinise them and vote on them." what does this example show? closing UDR as file remaining deleted requires no sysop rights.
  2. arguing by giving irrelevant examples is pointless.
  3. jokes on you -- very often a file can still be seen in google search or web archives, so that should mean users are allowed to close UDR then? your own incapability to assess deleted files is not a reason to block other users' sensible edits. RZuo (talk) 10:54, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
No new instructions have been added in COM:UDR. Is this discussion been concluded that non-admins have still the authority to close a UDR as not deleted?(of course we cant undelete them). Contributers2020Talk to me here 14:45, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020 No admins have participated in this discussion either. I wonder whether we should take this to COM:AN. Brianjd (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: Stop digging.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
How about a statement to the effect of "UDR is not the place to be bold"? Wait, that link says that you shouldn't be bold on Commons at all. Then why does my talk page have a welcome message that says: Be bold when contributing ...? Brianjd (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Either way, @Brianjd, be bold, is just a advice/essay by a user. Even if we add this, the editor/user without admin privileges is not obliged to follow it. Also @Jeff G., what stop digging means? I am just asking whether yes or no and giving my concerns/opinions. Please maintain civility. And regarding no administrator responding, we can take it in AN as this discussion is on from 20 days. Contributers2020Talk to me here 11:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: You appear to be in a hole, and yet you keep digging. If you do not stop digging, you may not be able to escape the hole.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
May I know why am I in a hole @Jeff G.? Contributers2020Talk to me here 13:39, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: You still post about wanting to close UDRs, when you've been told not to close requests by an Admin because you're really bad at it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
So @Jeff G. am I talking about just myself? Am I the whole non-admin in the universe? No, right? Even though I may do not close pretty non-obvious UDRs and DRs, other editors are there who are non-admins like you. Contributers2020Talk to me here 17:07, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Contributers2020: I haven't closed an UDR as not done in 15 months, and my closures were not questioned.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. Contributers2020 was told to stop closing DRs because they were bad at it. I don't remember anyone saying they were bad at closing UDRs. Brianjd (talk) 04:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#COM:UDR and non-admins. Pinging @Contributers2020. Brianjd (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm neutral on it - On one hand a non-admin closing a blatantly obvious snow-oppose UDR would mean it'd be one less closure for an admin .... and it would also mean admins are being helped out with that backlog but then on the other are people going to close things where they shouldn't be closed (Ie would allowing non-admins to close these in the end be a bad idea?),
Although we're not EN WP:AFD gets on just fine with non-admin closures as far as I know although yes you do get some bad apples there too. Honestly on a trial basis I want to say give it a go see how everyone gets on, If people are making too many mistakes then revert back to admins only. –Davey2010Talk 14:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010 "Neutral" seems inconsistent with your use of {{S}} at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#COM:UDR and non-admins. And this is COM:UDR, not COM:DR; they are treated differently for a reason, as discussed above; therefore w:WP:AFD might not be a valid example. Brianjd (talk) 04:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed I was leaning with support more than oppose but only by 1% which is why I noted I was neutral and supportive at the same time. Thanks for noting the fact this isn't DR - Perhaps if you bothered to read my entire comment you would've seen I stated "Although we're not EN WP:AFD gets on just fine with non-admin closures" so if I'm already aware we're not discussing DR then what's the purpose or point of telling me again ?" The very point to that comment was that non-admins close AFDs and most get on fine with it.
Lastly Brian nitpicking comments gets you nowhere in life - it's a shame you felt the need to nitpick every sentence - What did you achieve out of it ? .... Yeah quite literally nothing but well done if it's made you feel better about yourself!.
 Oppose as per Gbawden and Taivo below. –Davey2010Talk 13:01, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I agree with what AndyDingley said at the start. While I appreciate the sentiment of others wanting to help, the volume doesn't warrant it. And we can't afford to make mistakes at UDR. Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
 Oppose granting non-admins right to close UDR-s. Often this is last chance to make justice and we cannot allow here mistakes. Let's imagine, what happens, if a user complains: my photo was unfairly deleted, I filed a UDR and the guy who closed it wasn't even admin! If allowed, Contributers2020 will start to close UDR-s and this would be terrible. If you really want to help in UDR-s, please apply for administrator right. We are understaffed and any more-less competent user will pass. Taivo (talk) 11:39, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
The COM:AN discussion was archived; I consider both discussions as having a consensus against non-admins closing UDRs, but no meaningful discussion on adding instructions to COM:UDR (or COM:UNDEL). If no further discussion occurs, I intend to add a statement to COM:UNDEL (as that is where all the current instructions are) that non-admins should not close UDRs. Brianjd (talk) 09:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Responsibility towards other projects

Metre Convention Signatories
 
Member states
 
Associate member states
 
Former member states
 
Former associate member states (new category)

There are times when a Commons editor modifies an existing image that potentially affects other Wikimedia projects. For example, until recently, File:Metre_Convention_Signatories.svg identified three types of country - full member states, associate member states and former member states. This file was recently upgraded to include former associate member states. (See image to the right). This upgarded image will automatically and silently find its way into every Wikimedia project where it is used (as is done here). Many projects list the meaning of the colours in the caption to the image, but when this update is done, those projects are not notified that they might need to revisit the articles where they are used and explain the meaining of the countries that are coloured light green.

My question is "Whose responsibility is it to ensure that the various projects keep their captions in synchronisation with updated image? Does it lie with the Commons editor (who has made the action that causes the changes) or does it lie with the team that run the recipient project? If it is the latter, how are they expected to become aware of the changes?

Martinvl (talk) 17:51, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Strictly speaking such widely used files should not be overwritten with new significantly different new versions. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
While I generally agree with Ruslik, in the real world organisations evolve continually with the result that such files have small modifications once or twice a year while occasionally (maybe once every five to ten years) it is neccessary to introduce a significant change to the file, such as in the example given. There is also the problem that in certain Wikimedia projects, the caption includes information, for example a date, which will be invalidated by the new file. Martinvl (talk) 21:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Martinvl, have you seen the COM:Overwriting existing files guideline, particularly regarding files that do not contain the {{Current}} template. It seems that File:Metre Convention Signatories.svg should never have been updated, but rather the new versions created as new files. -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto: Thanks - I was not aware of that particular template. Martinvl (talk) 11:58, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Martinvl: Please sign your posts with four tildes, so that your signature includes the timestamp. I have added it for you.
COM:Overwriting existing files, mentioned above, clearly states that it is not OK to overwrite files with the following:
Changes that reflect different data (e.g. updating a map), where the file has not been marked as updateable
It is clear that this file should not have been overwritten. I am not sure whether simply marking it as updateable now is acceptable. I see no discussion on the file's talk page. Did you discuss this with other users? Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Ruslik0, DeFacto. Brianjd (talk) 12:37, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd say that once it's in use, a file should not have the template added retrospectively, as it was used in good faith as being non-updatable. A solution might be to revert it back to the original state and create a new, updatable version of the file, and add subsequent amendments there. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The file itself has the template {{NoInkscape}} embedded in it. This template was added by the original editor @Getsnoopy: before any other editor had made any contributions to the file. This tells me that it was always the intention of the original editor that the file should be updated so as to reflect the current situation. I have initiated a discussion on the file's Talk Page in which I have requested that the original editor confirm his intentions. Martinvl (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
User:Getsnoopy has since confirmed that it was his intention that the file should be updated as and when necessary. Martinvl (talk) 22:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
@Martinvl, @Getsnoopy, adding the {{Current}} retrospectively, more than 2 years after the file was created in this case, doesn't really answer the question raised at the start of this thread though. It still stands as: if the 'current' template is added to an image after it has been used without it, whose responsibility is it to ensure that the various projects that used it before the current template was added, keep their captions in synchronisation with updated image? -- DeFacto (talk). 07:17, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto: I'm assuming you're referring to the cases where the caption itself has a legend or the like, in which case it would need to be updated (by the maintainers of the page and/or the person updating the image). In many cases that I've seen, however, the caption only has a description and clicking on the image opens the media viewer which loads the image description from Wiki Commons, which would have the legend in the appropriate language, etc. Getsnoopy (talk) 07:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@DeFacto The question doesn't really make sense. It is asking who is responsible for fixing the captions after an image is updated, when a Commons guideline clearly states that the image should not have been updated at all. As a general principle, whoever breaks the rules needs to clean up their damage, so I would say: "the Commons editor". But if the captions that need updating are in different languages, this might not be practical. And I'm strongly opposed to Commons contributors messing with other projects, unless they happen to be active there. So I think there is no good answer to your question. Brianjd (talk) 07:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you @Brianjd that the "do not update" rule has been broken, but it seems that @Martinvl and @Getsnoopy think they have rectified that by retrospectively adding the {{Current}} template. That still leaves the original problem of the maintenance of previous uses. This could be a major problem in an article about the position at a particular date. I think each update should be made in a new file with an "as of ..." date in the title, and perhaps a 'current' version of the file too (containing the {{Current}} template) which could be chosen by editors for articles that need to always show the latest condiditon. -- DeFacto (talk). 09:26, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Unidentified photographs of paintings at the Salar Jung Museum

I almost put this image up for deletion. It's probably a low-quality photograph of a public domain painting. As it is, we lack enough information to tell whether it's public domain or where it might be of some little educational use, leaving it out of scope. Anyone want to take a shot at salvaging it with painter, title and date?--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

And let's add three more, some of which have more serious concerns of public domain nature.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Here are the museum's own photos of two of these (not eligible for Commons because they are unlicenced photos of the 3-dimensional frames); they don't identify them anywhere obvious (I got there from https://www.salarjungmuseum.in/European-Paintings.html
Jmabel ! talk 21:25, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Uploader User:NAGASREENIVASARAO PUPPALA hasn't been active in years, and was only briefly active, so not a lot of chance of hearing from him. - Jmabel ! talk 21:27, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
Three out of four have been found and kept. Only one left to find. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
The one which is left is likely modern.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Created a template for PD collection at Library of Congress but unclear on one part

Hello. I just created this template, PD-Angel, for a public domain collection from the Library of Congress, copying another template that I'd been using for a different collection (example image). However, the part where it says "This template will categorize into Category:PD-Angel." that category is a red link, and I'm not sure how categories in WC are created and I maybe missed a step? Do I need to request this or ask someone with more privs than me? Any help would be appreciated, thank you. Jessamyn (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe I have answered my own question and will read up on the tutorial. Jessamyn (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
That explains why none of my messages answered! --RAN (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Linguistic maps of Algic languages

Looks like the catogory has a lot of duplicates. 217.117.125.83 20:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Intimate images without subject's consent

When I say "intimate images", I am referring to images of genitals, buttocks or breasts, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. This appears to be the case in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research, and I cannot believe what I am seeing there: one user is arguing that these images are OK because just because they are not "identifiable". I argued that there is doubt as to whether the subjects consented, and the other user has not disputed this: they are simply pressing on with the identifiability argument. I am not convinced that distributing these images is even legal.

The only thing more shocking than that discussion is the fact that we don't have a policy on this. Brianjd (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Isn't that what "privacy" and "identifiable people" means? Otherwise it is just one of >10,000 anonymous intimate body part photos we have. I am not sure how the consent argument is invoked, we never required consent forms be signed and submitted for any identifiable people, and these photos are not of an identifiable person. --RAN (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): My understanding is that these are images of random people's body parts without the uploader writing "my body part" or "a model" or something to give some context. Others may be things like images at a nudist parade which has an identifiable person clearly without their consent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
  • We have over 1,000 nude images that do not contain the words "model" or "body part", what will be the fate of those images? From a legal perspective, consent can only be determined if we have a signed model consent form, which Commons has never required for any image. We have over 1,000,000 images of people. --RAN (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
Piggyback photographers
  • It is not always appropriate to ask for written consent for a photgraph. I am a 70-year-old retiree. In order to take the photograph unposed, I did not seek the young ladies' consent until after I took the photograph. Given our age differences, I started off the converstion with "I do not want to know your names or where you live". Fortunately they spoke English. I then explained why I took the photograph and helped them bookmark my upload page on their Smmartphones". Although this example does not involve nudity, the pricipals are the same - the young ladies concerned are the focus of the image, they could be identified (though with difficulty) but unlike people in a parade (nudist or otherwise), they were not exhibiting theselves to the general public nor were they interacting with the photograher until after the event. Martinvl (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • " we never required consent forms be signed and submitted " - The opposite is true: Commons (OTRS now VTRS) does not accept model releases to be submitted. A fotographer may have one in them own archive, but not at commons. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/11&oldid=616246951"