Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/12

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

Remove visual editor

Hello. A few minutes I noticed that my edit window changed to VisualEditor. I was adding a gadget so I very well may have caused this. Is it possible to revert back to the old edit window, and if yes, how? I find the visual editor very clunky and requiring a lot more clicks. This is IMO inadequate for categorization work in Commons. Thanks. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 00:40, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

In the beta tab, untick Visual Editor and click on Save. Bidgee (talk) 00:58, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! That did it. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Backlog of deletion requests

On Wikipedia I noticed a user added an image which I recognised as being a scan from a book. Seeing it had been uploaded to Commons and assuming this was the correct process, I clicked "request deletion" (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Albert Park Circuit 1950s.jpg for details). I noticed the same user had uploaded several files from a website which it would appear doesn't allow reproduction without permission, so I again requested deletion (see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Surfers Paradise Raceway.svg for details and the other files). But having checked back I see no-one has commented on these discussions, and indeed there is a backlog of months of files which haven't been discussed. I don't mean to appear rude, but for potentially copyrighted material this doesn't seem good enough. I know I probably should have tagged them for speedy deletion instead but I don't think that is permitted once a deletion request is opened? The same user also uploaded File:Wuhan Street Circuit.png and File:Circuit Pau-Arnos.png in apparent breach of the Ts&Cs of [1] (see also their talk page User talk:Apeiro94#File:Adria Circuit 2021.png where a file was deleted which had been taken from the same website) and also there is File:Charlotte Roval.png which is in breach of another websites Ts&Cs [2]. Thankyou for your assistance. A7V2 (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion Requests (DR) are open for a minimum of 7 days, for clear copyright violations, you should have used {{Copyvio}} and only use DR when copyright is uncertain. Bidgee (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bidgee Actually, I understand that non-controversial requests can be closed earlier (as keep, by any user; or as delete, by an administrator), provided that someone actually sees them. This is particularly true for copyright violations; Commons:Deletion requests#Closing discussions says:
Deletion requests for obvious copyright violations can be closed earlier. Brianjd (talk) 02:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Apeiro94: as uploader. @A7V2: since there was a response with no ping. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You might be interested in {{Pinging}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
We are in need of more admins. I am working on some of the oldest DRs, from February 2021, but the backlog is not decreasing or too slow to notice. See COM:ADMIN for tasks and procedures to get involved. Ellywa (talk) 23:18, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes with only 204 admins (and assuming not all are going to be active) it seems like a LOT of time would be needed. Probably people not being particularly comfortable or familiar with copyright and such would be a problem too. Given it's true I should have tagged for speedy deletion instead, is that still an option now that I've requested deletion? I will tag all the other files I've mentioned now. Thanks. A7V2 (talk) 00:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bidgee I see many files that are eligible for speedy deletion that are instead nominated for normal deletion. Normally the reason is G7, but sometimes F1, and rarely other reasons. I also want to know if I can tag these files for speedy deletion after a normal deletion request has been started. Brianjd (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Brianjd: I have added tags to the two pages I opened a deletion discussion for. I don't think there's any benefit waiting to delete clear cases of copyright. My thinking is that the original copyright holder shouldn't have to have their work here for longer than necessary due to someone here's mistake (me in this case). If it's not allowed, it probably should be! A7V2 (talk) 23:33, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Brianjd: Yes, non-controversial DR can be closed before 7 days but that tends to be for clear case copyright violations. Bidgee (talk) 03:04, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD issues in 74 categories.

Category:Free emulation software Copyright and PD issues in 74 categories.

In files in the free emulation software category,

In 74 categories from A to Z,

Some files contain copyrights and PDs.

Copyright without the owner's permission and files with PD's permission

It's being left unattended.

The files are in Korean, Japanese, English, Chinese, German, Russian, French, and Italian.

In numerous documents, uploaded public files are being used without copyright discussion.

Here

Free emulation software (Category)

Subcategories This category has the following 74 subcategories, out of 74 total.

Free emulation software has 74 categories.

Duckstation, Joiplay, Redream, etc. that have been confirmed to be deleted.

Three needs to be deleted along with the category.

I think we need to consider whether to preserve or delete the remaining categories left empty.

Among these categories, it is important to check whether the uploaded files have copyrights and PDs.

There are dozens of files that need to be deleted and left unattended.

From 1964 (emulator) to ZSNES, we'll investigate everything in alphabetical order (A to Z)

All copyrighted and PD files must be deleted.

Out of the 74 categories,

Copyright and PD files without the owner's permission may be uploaded countless times.

End users should be prevented from uploading it.

Weki Media has copyrighted and strongly denied PDs.

If there's no way to solve this problem, Weki Media's public use will be damaged.

Unless this is resolved, damage can be repeated. 125.181.255.254 16:39, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

This user has left the same message on several discussion boards. I have closed down the duplicated discussions and only this one remains. Feel free to continue the discussion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:06, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
If someone wants to dig through there, there looks like there's a few problematic images, but mostly it's free icons and interface shots of free software.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Global ban for 1Goldberg2

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: RfC/Global ban for 1Goldberg2. – Mrakia 12:07, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Privacy violation?

Someone uploaded a newer version of an image and want it to be renamed. It looks like they want to hide privacy violation, but this is not the way to do that. But is it copyright violation, or just someone who doesn't wanna be on Commons with a picture? Can someone (an admin or?) take a look at that, or look with me? I'm not sure. See: File:Alice_Pasche.jpg. Thanks! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:17, 3 December 2021 (UTC) PS it's a cross-wiki upload from fr.wiki

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:34, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
You claim this is not the way to do that. Why? I think this is exactly that way to do that. Brianjd (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Richardkiwi. Brianjd (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I see now that the file was overwritten with "junk"; in that case, you are right: this is not the way to do that. Brianjd (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
This was already 'done', so why are you meddling? There was no need to ping me afterwards or to 'suggest' something on my talk page. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Richardkiwi I didn't know that {{Done}} meant that we weren't allowed to continue the discussion. I don't see it in the documentation for that template. Perhaps you would like to add it? Brianjd (talk) 12:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Upload form Url

Hello all, is there any way to mass Upload Bengali pronunciations form here? —MdsShakil (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@MdsShakil: Not while they have a CC BY-NC-SA licence. Non-commercial licence restrictions are not allowed on Wikimedia Commons. --bjh21 (talk) 17:07, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bjh21 According to Ticket:2018060410003007, Licensing is not a problem. Copyright holder agree with following license as mentioned here. —MdsShakil (talk) 17:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Mozart Sonate (manuscript).djvu

Hi, This is actually different that File:Manuscript of Violin Sonata No. 27 in G major, K. 379.pdf. I can't find the source, and I am not even sure what it is. Any idea? Yann (talk) 17:12, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyright of photos of product wrappers

New user here. Suppose I buy a cookie at a store and then decide to take a photo of the cookie wrapper so that I can then upload the image. Would it be correct to mark the image as my own work?

I'm asking this because I'm planning to take photos of products whose wrapper contain the octagonal labels (e.g. "High in sugar", "High in fats", etc.) and upload them. I've already upload one photo, but before I start taking more photos, I wanted to make sure that they don't go against the guidelines.

Rdrg109 (talk) 18:18, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Category autocomplete is now case sensitive?

Hello, in the last few days I noticed that Category autocomplete has become case sensitive for a number of subjects (for instance - "Fishing boats of Portugal", but many others). I noticed this at home, and now in a different computer at the University, so it's not something from my system. Anyone else noticing this, too? What may have caused this (unwanted) change? -- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

I've noticed the same thing. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I have also. It could lead to starting unnecessary categories perhaps. Krok6kola (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm guessing that this is due to a change in Cat-a-lot. I've added a comment here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, using HotCat for a while already, has something changed recently? There are no longer all auto-suggestions for case-sensitive input - for example when I go by "Openstreetmap maps of fran...", there is no suggestion to continue with "...France", but just "...Frankfurt". I have to manually click and correct each letter that need to be upper case in order for the suggestion going with France, in that case "OpenStreetMap maps of France". This has become quite a hassle, because I now have to second-guess categories a lot more often. What do I need to change in my preferences; or is this something that Programmers need to fix? --Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

i dont know whether this is related to hotcat, catalot or the search bar.
right now i also find that, if you type in the search bar in the upper right corner "Category:Videos from W", no matter whether the W is upper or lower cased, you cant find Category:Videos from Washington, D.C..
maybe some part of mediawiki broke.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I can not at upload choose Category:August 2020 in Baden-Württemberg, already "August 2020 in Ba" does not give enything. It soed not matter which case I choose. This has been occurring for a few days. May be someone can file a Phab ticket?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Same here, the case doesn't matter, I guess (working with HotCat). — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot has reverted to the previous behavior for me. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Can confirm; it is frustrating to not know what caused this though. Thanks to whoever fixed it. --Enyavar (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

New user script: Warn you before opening large files

Hi, everybody! I have just created a new user script that gives you a warning if you're about to open a very large file from a file page. The default setting in the script is to give you a warning (a popup box asking you if you really want to open the file) if the width or height is larger than 10,000 pixels, or if the file is larger than 100 MB, but these are both configurable per user (see instructions on the script page). If you want to try it out, add the following line to your common.js: 

mw.loader.load( "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jon_Harald_Søby/warnOnLargeFile.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" );

The script also works for old versions of files in the file history table on file pages. Hope it will come in handy! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

looks like a great tool! i propose making this into a gadget.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
This should become a tool, because for users using mobile data opening such a large file can become very costly for them (I assume). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Many coloured ligths

Any idea what these ligths are used for?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

i tried googling "railway signal five light". it does appear that there are real railway signal machines that look like these five light combos, but it's kinda weird that ten of these are put together? and facing no rails? and all switched on?
my wild guess is they're probably being tested?
maybe you could ask the station operator's social media https://www.instagram.com/renfe/ https://twitter.com/Renfe ? RZuo (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: I haven't found anything here nor there. I'm pinging ping @CFA1877 and Savh: , Spanish "rail" users. — Draceane talkcontrib. 09:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I'm sorry, but right now I don't remember seeing such a case like this. I mean, I don't understand what (and why) are all the lights on and in that position, out or range. My impression is that these lights are not in regular service. And if they are in service, I do not know the purpose. CFA1877 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it has nothing to do with signialing, but is some kind of monitoring system for the same of electricity supply for the different railway line sections. But why this would be needed to visible on the outside is a mystery. It makes me think of the monitoring ligths you often see by banks of computer hardware.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, that makes more sense. But, as you say, it is a mystery that it is on the outside. CFA1877 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Hiddencat or not hiddencat?

@Achim55, 4nn1l2, Verdy p, and Auntof6: and others is it certain that Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is an administrative category and hence should be provided with hiddencat-tag?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

This is clearly not an administrative category and should not be hidden! Brianjd (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
See the policy at Commons:HIDDENCAT, which mentions that many non-topical categories are hidden, but doesn't say what categories should be hidden.
This category seems non-topical and administrative to me. Spot-checking some similar categories, I see several that are hidden and one that's not. But in the absence of any guidelines/policies of what categories should be hidden, I'd say it's up to individual editors. Not ideal, I know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6 I don't see how this is any more administrative than, say, the subcategories of Maps by source. But perhaps I am simply demonstrating your point, that this situation is not ideal.
Also see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11#Categorization question, which points out another inconsistency and suggests that this is a larger problem. There are also countless other discussions about hidden categories. Brianjd (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Brianjd and disagree with Aunt6 here. This is a category by source, and there's no need to hide it. Hiding categories are those needed for maintenance purpose, and that do not provide metadata classification. But the indentification of sources is an important goal of Wikimedia, and it should not be hidden (even if these sources imply some possible maintenance to assert their legal right for imports).
Things would be different if these sources are jsut from individual users (private categories created by them for their own purpose, even if I think that these categories should not even exist, unless that user has a known, verifiable and asserted identify with public interest, e.g. from known artists, that decide to make their creations opensourced or in the public domain, in that case we'll need a proof from them and an assertion securely checked: in that case knowing these sources should not be hidden because we'll need that to preserve neutrality and correctly tagged contents that may be oriented so that reusers will know who has an interest, posibly commercial, to publish that content; but most users in Commons create opensourced contents or uploads photos from the observable public space and we can still track them by the fact that they are the uploader, without needing any categorzation; but some users upload a lot of things and want to organize their work and present it by subcategories, or to track their current work progress, and possibly add their own maintenance categories in their TODO lists, and in my opinion they should better just create subpages in their users pages to collect links to these contents, and otherwise categorize them in normal categories for general topics).
For now this category for contents uploaded from a public museum are properly tagged and subcategorized as a subcollection for that museum, and this does not need to be hidden at all; it is clearly not "administrative" and clearly not for maintenance purpose, and it has excellent value for metadata purposes and labelling, just like we have categories for images in the public domain coming from US agencies (such as the CIA) which are not neutral when they are built as a large colelction supposed to cover a whole domain of knowledge and present it according to their view (such collection may not be really exhaustive to cover these domains, even if these sources are considered "reliable" only because they are wellknown and easily verifiable as their sources, rather than for the content itself which may be tweaked and politically oriented, for example the presentation of borders and international claims as they are recognizd by the US, but not necessarily every country in the world)! verdy_p (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, on the other hand, a category that currently contains 6000+ files is rather useless for people searching for images, the original purpose of categories. --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
This is also the case for categories created for various US or UN agencies... This does not mean that categorizing content there is enough! We need other categorization scheme by topic (subjects, epochs, artistic styles, colors, materials...). The same is true for categories related to public libraries. May be that category is now overpopulated and could be improved by splitting it further in subcollections. verdy_p (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio Not necessarily. Having this category displayed in the categories lists on individual files might be useful. Some people can apparently scan long lists of images quickly; this might be useful for them. But most importantly, there are tools that can combine multiple categories and other criteria, such as FastCCI and PetScan, and categories like this could be very useful with such tools.
If you still want to divide this category into subcategories, go ahead. Creating this category was obviously the first step towards achieving that.
So however you look at it, this is a good category to have. Brianjd (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, that this is clearly not an administrative category. Not to mention, that by marking this hidden nearly 1400 images got first marked as uncategorized and were then categorized under "Estonian Museum of Natural History" which is plain stupid. Yes, it would not be enough to mark images only into that geological collection category, but that [i.e the fact that this category contains a lot of images] does not make it an administrative category. That should be so obvious, that I don't see what is there to even ask about it or to make that kind of edit in the first place. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is a tracker category added by {{EMNH geo}} and according to Commons:Categories source categories are hidden. This has been standing practice on Commons for many years.
Images should be categorized by topic too and not only be in this category. You might find Commons:Guide to batch uploading & Commons:Guide to content partnerships useful. Multichill (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. Clearly just placing something in this category would never be sufficient categorization.
  2. @Multichill: So are you saying that if someone takes an image of something in that collection at that museum themself, they should not add this category? - Jmabel ! talk
Exactly, source categories are to track who took or contributed a file. So for example Category:Images from the Rijksmuseum should only contain image that are from the Rijksmuseum (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio) and not photos by people who visited the Rijksmuseum. Every file, regardless of it's source, should also have one or more topic categories like Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam or Category:Models of ships in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
Generally source categories are used for tracking and not split up and diffused into subcategories like normal topic categories because that would make it harder to track these files. Tools like https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/ work on these (flat) tracker categories. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
It is kind of common, that images should often be placed into multiple categories. Only this one category would not be enough anyway, but that is not a reason for it to be a hidden category.
For instance, we have this file. There are categories "Sapphire", "Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection", and "Photographs by Tõnis Saadre". In my opinion, only the last of them should be hidden category and not the one with the museum. Why should there be a big number separate categories (like "Gemstones in the Estonian Museum of Natural History" and similar)? And if a visitor takes a photo of an item in that museum, then that visitor is also an image source. Why should that be treated differently? (that is: visitor images in main categories and museum-made images in hidden categories) Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) 
@Multichill Which part of Commons:Categories says that source categories should be hidden? Brianjd (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Not hidden. We should hide "non topical" categories. Many categories arrive as a result of some non-topical source (a particular museum, a particular specialist photographer) but they then turn out to have strong topical value too, either from some specialism, or simply because the originator is so prominent in themselves that the group becomes significant.
This category (>6k) is too large to be of much navigational value though, so these images need some additional sub-categories adding. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Since the previous discussion I initiated was mentioned here, I spot-checked random members of Category:Men by name by country and discovered there's no consistency whatsoever, if anyone cares.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Server error for old revisions of file

Looking at the description page File:40_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg, the File history table is not displaying previous revisions, but instead the text "Thumbnail for version..." as a clickable link. Clicking on it gives an error message, such as "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.e3/archive/e/e3/20060220184425%2140_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg". I don't see any deletion or revision-hiding in the log for that file. I spot-checked a few other files with old revisions, and they seem to display properly, so it's not a universal problem with file-history display. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Language clarification on UK legislation uploads by Fae.

Courtesy link to a Bot request. Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Language_clarification_on_UK_legislation_uploads_by_Fae. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Website

Hello, what type of license do the images on this site have? Can I use them in wikipedia? Your admirer --AngryBiceps (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@AngryBiceps: Hi, and welcome. Technically, they are offered under the "Standard YouTube License", which we do not accept, per COM:YT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you :) AngryBiceps (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@AngryBiceps: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Restoration at a future date

When I come across an image that needs to be deleted, but will be in the public domain in 10 years, how do I mark it so it gets auto-restored on the correct date? --RAN (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: On a DR page, you can use a noincluded cat like Category:Undelete in 2031. On a file description page, you can include your reasoning in a copyvio or speedy template.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:02, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
If there is a deletion request for the file, add <noinclude>[[Category:Undelete in 2031]]</noinclude> (please don't forget the "noinclude" tags) to it the deletion request page. If there is not, add it the file name to the others on the category description page of Category:Undelete in 2031 after it the file was deleted. Adjust the year as needed. --Rosenzweig τ 18:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:18, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

png to svg

What is the best free online png to svg converter that gets it right the first time, there are a half dozen online that do a poor job. I want to convert File:CGA Örbom.png. --RAN (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • I spent years working in computer graphics (CAD, to be specific) and I'm pretty confident in saying that there is no great way to convert raster to vector. At best, you can get some degree of approximation. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I do not see that image as a good candidate for vectorization. Digitizing the individual lines would require a lot of coordinates and would make the file huge. In addition, the vectorization would start copying the noise in the cross hatching rather than giving the expected sharp and colinear edges. Unlimited scaling also does not seem reasonable. At small scales, all the lines blur together to give a good image. At medium scale, we can appreciate the image and see the lines. I suspect at large scale, the lines would overwhelm the image unless one stepped way back. Glrx (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks! I was able to do an etching into a nice svg, but it took me a long time to get it right. I will see if I can find the image to show you. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Unsigned bot

Hi, The "Unsigned bot" stopped working. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Yann: I have not yet gotten a response from Eatcha about this request.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Insufficient data from a SPARQL request on wikidata

I pull images through a SPARQL request on wikidata, to access the license, and to give proper credit I use the following request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3a##FILENAME##

Like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aAnnunciation%20(Leonardo).jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aLa_belle_ferronni%C3%A8re,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg

Now I noticed a problem on File:Annunciation (Leonardo).jpg. I am not getting the author (the photographer), but only the artist, and in the data I receive the author (photographer) is only mentioned in the Categories field and nowhere else. On File:La_belle_ferronnière,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg (from the same Artist and the same author) I can access the author (photographer) via the artist field because there is a separate Photograph object. How can I reliably access the Author via the API to give proper attribution? Thanks. DarthBrento (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Adding data + document file formats

Have there been recent discussions about what data + document file formats to add to the list of "acceptable file types"? --SJ+ 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Copyfraud vs. watermark

I was cleaning the Copyfraud category and there are several examples of institutions adding watermarks to images so that you have to pay if you want a clean copy to publish in a book. I don't think that is copyfraud, no one is falsely claiming they own the copyrights, they are just making a monetary decision to force you to pay if you want a higher resolution, watermark-free copy to publish in a book. Most of the other examples are clear claims of copyright of public domain images. See: File:Copyfraud darmstadt.jpg (watermarked with the name of the institution) versus File:Hiram Boardman Conibear obituary.png (rote notice added to every article from every year) and File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg (my favorite). I want to remove the watermark ones from the category, unless the watermark specifically makes a copyright claim. What do you think? I will add in the category "Images with watermarks". --RAN (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Eizabethan Prosthetic Arm
  • This is a good example of Alamy making money from a photgraph that is freely available on the internet - compare it with the image on the right. I know for a fact that the original photgrapher does not receive a penny from Alamy (or anybody else for that matter). In their blurb, they claim that their fee is for "for access to the high resolution copy of the image".
Would the watermarks on this image, were it to be loaded from Alamy, be construed as "Copyfraud". Martinvl (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I would say not fraud, just a smart business model, find something free and then find a way to charge for it. In economics class, it was called "selling ice to the Inuit", now it would be called "selling bottled water when water from the fountain is free". P.S. I just warned a person at Wikidata that dedicated a photo collection to the public domain, that they should have done it by creative commons with attribution since Alamy does not always pick up the attribution data from Commons if it isn't formatted consistently. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
I have separated the images that are "watermarked to prevent free use" from those making a false claim of copyright ownership (copyfraud). Museums and archives use both techniques to prevent free use, and to encourage paid licensing of a higher-resolution, watermark-free image for commercial purposes. --RAN (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Searching my uploads

Is there a way to just search for svg files in my uploads? --RAN (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User talk:Fæ

User:Fæ is sadly no longer active, but User talk:Fæ is still very busy. Automated archiving there has failed, and the page is exceedingly long; can someone familiar with the bots that do such work please take a took, and fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I changed the bot parameters, hopefully it works, and I also hope Fæ doesn't mind. :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Has someone taken over Fae's role in uploading the new image releases from the Library of Congress? --RAN (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
AFAICT, no-one has taken on any of the very useful tasks Fæ used to undertake; I asked about this here, recently, and got no replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@Richardkiwi: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I am back to loading individual ones manually, which is time consuming, and I only do ones of interest to me. I asked him to teach me the software before he left, but I asked too late. There also was a problem with his uploads from the LOC, in that maybe one in 500 images didn't load, for whatever reason, and was skipped. I wanted him to go back and see if he could reload the missing ones automatically. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Chrome extension for cropping that scrolls down past the bottom of my screen

I am not sure if I can describe this easily. I cut articles out of public domain Library of Congress newspapers for Commons, mostly obits. The LOC scans a double page and displays the double page. I want to be able to to do a screen grab of just the obituary, where I create a rectangular box to cut and paste the image of the article, but I want the box to continue to scroll past the bottom of my screen. All the Chrome screen-grab extensions I have tried so far allow me to create the rectangle for cropping, but they stop at the bottom of my screen, and I have repeat the process for the bottom half of the image. If I make the image small enough to fit on my screen I lose resolution and cannot perform OCR. Now I download the whole double page image and have to search for the obituary again by reading both pages, sometimes I can't relocate the name I am looking for on the double page. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

@RAN: You could increase the resolution of your video card to the maximum your monitor supports, or upgrade one or both.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Another workaround I have been using is to change Graphics Options > Rotation > Rotate to 90 degrees. It has the length of the article now oriented with the horizontal length of my screen, but reversing it is difficult, my computer does not support hotkeys for the change back and forth. You are right, probably better to get a new kick-ass computer and bigger monitor. --RAN (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Use bigger hardware to overcome lousy software, that's one solution of course. My fvwm allows my setting a large virtual resolution. When I maximise the browser window all the image would fit on my (virtual) screen and the window manager would handle the scrolling. Might not work that well with truly huge files, but for any newspaper scan the approach works well (avoid resizing the window manually, as the normal size would then also have to be restored manually, unless you have a button for setting a default size, but such a button is easy to configure). –LPfi (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
@RAN: would temporarily switching to a different browser be an option? In Firefox you can just right click somewhere on the page, then go "take screenshot" -> "save full page" (and then crop to the desired portion of the page afterwards). El Grafo (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

RfC Structured Data on Commons Stable Interface Policy

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T290671

Hello everybody! The Structured Data engineering team would like to share with the community the draft of a new operational policy, regarding the stability of public interfaces and data formats here on Wikimedia Commons. The policy is largely based on the same operational policy established on Wikidata back in 2016.

This policy will not impact the project's content, nor the community processes, but the team wants to follow community process for its adoption. Any user interested in providing feedback on the policy can do so in the relative talk page.

We would like to wait until Sunday December 19 for any feedback on the proposal. If there are no objections by the end of the week, the policy should be considered adopted. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The blanking of "User talk:Rodhullandemu"

For context, user "Rodhullandemu" has recently been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) likely for threatening a poor vandal that just wanted to have some fun. I had the idea to open up a thread here to discuss if it might be wise to unblock their ability to upload images here but in light of this ban such a discussion would be futile. In relation to this I noticed a recent trend that the WMFOffice has started blanking user talk pages as they did here. Not only did they remove other people's comments they removed the archiving system, in fact the WMFOffice seems to systematically remove anything except for block notices, sock-tags, Etc. which just seems like spiteful gravedancing to me. While blanking user pages is (unfortunately) acceptable, blanking user talk pages is something that as far as I know isn't something that is regularly done in any non-Francophone Wikimedia website.

Would it be wise to make a policy or guideline against the blanking of User talk pages and then ask the WMFOffice to respect that? I personally do not see what benefit it has to blank user talk pages. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

 Comment, I am afraid to talk directly to the WMFOffice as I am convinced that they simply ban-without-appeal anyone that interacts with them, the fact that Rodhullandemu stated multiple times that he was talking to the Trust & Safety Team makes me believe that this was the case, if anyone would talk to them do not mention that such a policy was my suggestion. As the growth of users getting WMF banned seems exponential with no transparency, so I can only assume that very little or no reason could be a cause for a ban. So this policy suggestion is not something against the WMFOffice simply weighing in if the current practice is beneficial to the community or not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: FYI, I corresponded with them via email in 2019 about Hasive, and my account lived to tell the tale.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, While I find the ban warranted (i.e. among other reasons for exporting the conflict on WD), I have no objection to restore the archiving system of his talk page. Since he uploaded many images, there is a need to send a DR notice somewhere, if anyone wants to monitor his page. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. That is one reason. We should also not hide history. We cannot just pretend these users never existed.
For the user page, I believe we should not blank them either, as long as the content isn't objectionable (if edits during the conflict were, restore an older version and add the template to that).
I think the spirit of the attribution clauses of many free licences require that we attribute the users' presentation of themselves (including possible links to an external site), not a blank page with a "banned" template. If I cannot trust WMF to keep my user page, then I would have to make the author line point to an external page inste4ad of to Commons.
–LPfi (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
There is no requirement for the WMF to keep your userpage if you are globally banned. -- Guerillero 10:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Realistically for WMF globally banned users, the userpage should be blanked and locked with a message to redirect any editing queries to another venue. Both for the user's own wellbeing and to prevent the usual peanut gallery effect, good faith editors leaving messages not realising they will get no response, other editors using the talkpage as some sort of shrine and so on. The 'breaking archiving' argument is largely pointless, for a globally banned user, notifications serve no purpose, as they will never be able to do anything about it personally. If the page is locked for editing, nothing will need to be archived in the future. The same argument is perfectly valid for someone who is temporarily blocked/banned however, as they may return at some point. That is almost certainly never going to happen with a WMF banned user. That they had many contributions is a red herring, any media on commons nominated for deletion will show up in the usual places and have the usual audience. With the only real difference being the absence of the globally banned user. The idea that somehow the deletion discussion will be missed, and by implication treated unfairly, if Rodhullandemu's talkpage does not contain a notification is bordering on 'this user's contributions require special treatment'. I might actually make it a suggestion to the WMF T&S team they do implement a blank & lock policy, because allowing other editors to constantly notify someone who has been forcibly seperated from the community is not good for their mental wellbeing. Better to make a clean break of it. Only in death (talk) 11:39, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that for the talk page, archiving and adding a template explaining the situation would be the best solution. The archives may still be interesting for many purposes, so hiding them away is usually not a good idea. For the user page, as long as we keep any works of the user, we need to attribute them, and linking a blanked page for attribution is nonsense. If the WMF doesn't respect this, then WMF cannot be trusted for attribution purposes, and anyone should link to a page under their control instead, if they have a persistent one. We do not want attribution links to go to Facebook pages instead of Commons, so respecting the user page is not only a question of being fair and true to the spirit of the attribution requirement. –LPfi (talk) 14:04, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I have the target of the redirect at User talk:GeographBot on my watchlist, and find that useful, even though obviously GeographBot itself will never benefit from deletion notifications. While I'm not likely to add any humans' user talk pages to my watchlist for this reason, I can easily imagine that others might, and that to me would seem to justify keeping user talk pages unprotected except where there's an actual problem that protection would solve. --bjh21 (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Is this about a matter of policy, or about objecting to the ban? The OP seems to be conflating the two things. It also seems a little paranoid to say that the office will ban you just for talking to them. It makes it hard to take this seriously to see such a ridiculous sentiment expressed. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:29, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I see nothing wrong with WMFOffice's actions - They exist purely to boot people out. Expecting them to mess around with archiving is bit OTT. They should continue to blank pages and if people really wanna re-add the archive back then fine. I agree with their userpage blanking too. –Davey2010Talk 23:25, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge October results

Autumn leafs: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Faggeta di Canfaito (Marche,
Italia) nella nebbia autunnale		 Autumn trees against the sky
in Six Mile Canyon near
Virginia City, Nevada, USA		 In the Bruderwald in Bamberg
Author IvoK. Semiautonomous Ermell
Score 24 14 12
Loneliness: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Lonesome dromedary in
Wahiba Sands (Oman)		 In a beautiful town,
in the south of France		 Одиночество в большом городе
Author DEspel Celeda Андрей Малков
Score 14 13 12

Congratulations to IvoK., Semiautonomous, Ermell, DEspel, Celeda and Андрей Малков. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Question about image deletions

huge apologies but I have no idea how to post a discussion! Do people just edit this section and talk?? I have had a series of photos deleted that I uploaded. I took the photos so there is no copyright on them. I don't know if I checked the wrong box when uploading, but I replied to comments I received on those images a couple of months ago to confirm I was the author. Perhaps I did not reply in the correct area as I was not notified of a reply. @Taivo deleted some of the images and I tried to comment on their talk page but I can't see where my comment appeared. I have been casually adding to wiki over a few years but only do bits and pieces so have never joined the chat areas before so don't know how to actually engage/chat to other editors. MRichards01 (talk) 03:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

This is the right way to post a comment, yes. I see you got some answers from Taivo and in the deletion requests and their talk pages (the talk pages of those are for meta-discussion and seldom used). If you have questions on any individual files, just ask. Asking the closing administrator, such as you did with Taivo is one recommended route, but as you started this discussion, you can equally well continue here. Please link the deletion request or the deleted image, so that it is more easy for others to check what happened. For Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by MRichards01 it seems there is conflicting information, but perhaps these are just free access, not free to edit and reuse. That is a common problem: "free" or "open" are not well-defined. For your own photos a few ways to provide evidence have been suggested, but there are more ways. –LPfi (talk) 13:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

"White American history"

I believe Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/12/Category:White American history probably deserves broader attention than a typical CFD, so I am mentioning it here. - Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Recordings of EmacsConf in Wikimedia Commons

I've contacted the organizers of EmacsConf through #emacsconf to ask them about uploading the recordings to Wikimedia Commons. For what I could perceive from their answers is that they are willing to do what would be more beneficial to the community and these are some questions that popped up.

  • Will it be useful to Wikimedia Commons?
  • What would be the differences to uploading them to archive.org?

It is worth mentioning that all the recordings can be found in the official site of EmacsConf. In addition to that, anyone can contribute to that site as explained in the Edit section of the page (this requires running some commands in the command line).

Additional context: Some of my reasons for proposing this idea were (1) People can contribute by adding subtitles in 444 languages (2) Subtitles vandalization can be easily reverted by contributors to this site (3) Contributors don't need an account (4) Adding subtitles to a video is frictionless thanks to the user-friendly interface of Commons (5) Videos can have structured data which make them easier to find (i.e. part of (P361) EmacsConf (Q103942956), instance of (P31) lightning talk (Q926186), language used (P2936) English (Q1860))

I would appreciate any information to make a better decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrg109 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2021‎ (UTC)

The videos have been published and can be found in Category:EmacsConf 2021.
  • Will it be useful to Wikimedia Commons? As stated in Welcome, "Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely licensed educational media content". All talks of EmacsConf meets these requirements, so there's no problem in uploading them.
  • What would be the differences of uploading them to archive.org? Each of them have their features. Some users might prefer to use archive.org, while others Wikimedia Commons.
I think my questions have been solved.
Rdrg109 (talk) 17:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Questions about Wuppertal rail 1990 pictures

I try to find the locomotive type '360', but its not Category:Henschel DHG 360 C.

These stainless steel coaches where typical in Germany, but cant seem to find them in Category:Railway coaches of Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The '360' locomotive is a renamed DB Class V 60. The coaches are N-class coaches of Deutsche Bahn. --Raugeier (talk) 12:09, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Do you know the type of (old) electric locomotive? I cant read any dentifying number. It looks old with a flat nose.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks a lot like an E 41. (DB class 141) -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The filenames of both images should be slightly corrected as the station is called de:Oberbarmen (not Oberarmen). --Túrelio (talk) 11:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

University of the Netherlands: video lectures from scientists which should be uploaded

Lecture by chemist prof. dr. Nathaniel Martin (Leiden University) about the history of antibiotics.

Dear fellow wikipedians There are some interesting 15-minute lectures of scientists which are Creative Commons and should be uploaded to Commons and used on the English Wikipedia. Here is the license which states that all videos of this YouTube channel are Creative Commons:

There are already many videos that are used on Wikipedia, especially in Dutch (I contributed to adding these Dutch videos a lot myself):

But, there are also a lot of English videos that still need to be uploaded to Commons so they can then be used on the English Wikipedia. Here are 56 video’s in English:

I uploaded already 7 of them:

Now it is pity that the tool to (semi-)automatically upload videos from YouTube to Commons does not work so well:

However, you can do this via, for example, the following tool: [3]. Commons does not accept mp4 but does accept webm format, so the videos have to be converted to webm. A small number of these videos maybe will not find a consensus to add them to Wikipedia. This has happened in the past because a small number of videos are seen as not neutral enough or of too low a level. But the vast majority are of excellent quality. This must therefore be considered on a case-by-case basis. But this is a lot of work to watch all these video’s so that’s whay I call for help. Sometimes the titles of the lectures are a bit provocative or not so neutral, but you can solve this by starting the video on second 20, for example via |start=20|. See example above. You can determine which frame is used as thumbnail, if desired, via |thumbtime=909|.

So hopefully people will want to help out with this, either to upload the video to commons or to add them to the English wikipedia. --PJ Geest (talk) 13:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC).

Problem with reuploaded pdf multipage file

Hello, for the first time, I reuploaded a pdf correcting two pages of the pdf, but the reuploaded File:Guinault - Sergent ! (1881).pdf does not show correctly, neither at commons nor at wikisource. How to get it correctly done. --Havang(nl) (talk) 11:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Commonist, not working?

I just tried to upload pictures, with Windows Commonist. Worked last time, long time ago. Now "Fails". Error messages says someting like "Invalid cookie header", and "Token parameter must be set". Anybody knows what happened? What can be done? I have like 100 pictures, muste be uploaded with pre-set license and categories, so Upload wizard takes way too much time, it must be uploaded one time all stuff. Note that it is the Source, Author, Permission, License that has templates, but that does not work with Upload wizard. Any suggestions? Or any batch "change-image-parameters" available? --Janwikifoto (talk) 22:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

At the risk of being "that guy", did you clear your cache, log out and log back in, or use a different browser? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Commonist uses a windows java program. So it does not upload from a browser. I can not see how a browser would affect. --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
BUT, but, there is the Log4j security holw, that affects Java... maybe Commonist and other Java has been disabled on Commons front-end...? --Janwikifoto (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Janwikifoto and Koavf: Sorry, Commonist does not work at the moment. Please see Commons talk:Commonist#missingparam: The token parameter must be set for details. You may use VFC to change your file description pages en masse.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

WCQS upcoming release to production

We are excited to announce that Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS), currently in beta, will soon be in production with a planned General Availability date of 1 Feb 2022.

Please see this page for more details: [4](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:SPARQL_query_service/Upcoming_General_Availability_release)

Thanks for your patience! MPham (WMF) (talk) 08:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

IPs deleting structured data

Every day there are around 30 edits by IPs just deleting all structured data of files. Is there a possibility to create an AbuseFilter to prevent this or do we need to request a new Mediawiki feature for this? --GPSLeo (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: This is wrong board, try to ask at COM:AN. Or directly Steinsplitter. It is kinda hacking, but is is possible to some extent. Anyway, it seems that recently there have been some unskillful changes to ABF, so the Italian IP vandal can still delete SDC statements, but another IP cannot undo it due to ABF. :-) 91.221.17.220 14:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)


Is this a good idea?

User:Niketto sr. has begun using Magnus Manske's ListeriaBot to create and manage galleries such as Paintings depicting the Ciociaro costume. I'm not sure this falls within policy. Galleries are supposed to be collections of particularly good images on a specific subject curated by the community. These galleries warn that the bot will eliminate manual entries, so that the community can not change its work. It seems to me that that is outside of our understanding of Commons Galleries. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 13:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

If you wish to create and manually maintain Gallery:Paintings depicting the Ciociaro costume, there seems to be nothing stopping you. It can happily exists alongside the page mentioned above, which seems both useful and interesting. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Yann and User:King of Hearts, you often have a different point of view from mine. Is this a good idea? Thanks, .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 17:22, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I don't see any issue here, if someone wants to create and maintain such galleries. We can have different types of galleries, with or without comments, order by date or by another criteria. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

David Shankbone converts license to public domain

I have a technical request - is anyone able to change the license of all of user:David Shankbone's uploads from Creative Commons to public domain? He invited this in September 2021 at User talk:David Shankbone.

Background - David Shankbone is probably the world's most popular photographer in terms of how many times his photos have been published. He became popular because his photos were good, they were of celebrities, he took a lot of them, and they were the only freely licensed photos which existed for many people. Newspapers and magazines around the world used them whenever they mentioned a celebrity and needed a free photo. This is a flagship photography collection of Wikimedia Commons, and changing the license to make the files more free would be useful.

Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

As this is an astonishing move, it should be doublechecked whether this is really his authentic will. In addition, it should be clarified whether he means really "self-public domain" or CC-Zero.--Túrelio (talk) 20:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
He probably does mean "self-PD", but of course he can't do that.
Also Shankbone's website is dead, so who knows what's going on. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
@Túrelio and Andy Dingley: On his talk page suggestion to change Wikimedia licenses he says that recent posts to his flickr account reflect his wishes, where he is using the Creative Commons Public Domain Mark 1.0. I am willing to try to contact him for clarification if someone makes the case that doing so is necessary, but Shankbone is a person who understands Creative Commons labels and I think him asking for "public domain" while using and referring to the CC public domain mark on flickr passes our usual standard for a statement of licensing wishes.
Whatever the case, if we have more free permission, then - what next? There are about 5000 images here. Someone suggested to me by private message that we could use a unique template comparable to {{RogerPuta}} or {{PD-Highsmith}}. If we had such a template set up, then is there a process for removing all existing copyright licenses to replace it with such a template? What sort of consensus or review process should we have before doing something hasty? Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: PDM is not a recommended license, and it is best avoided if an alternative is available. I think the Highsmith idea is pretty reasonable. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:39, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed on both aspects. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I get it, public domain does not exist everywhere, and CC0 is much more clear intent. The plan is for a CC0 license since his intent is to make the images maximally free, right. Then we set up a template like highsmith with a CC0 license, then sort out a swap from existing license templates to this new one. Let me see if I can contact Shankbone. Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
draft letter

Hello David,

We at Wikimedia Commons have a request: could you agree to apply this license, the CC0 1.0 Universal (CC0 1.0) Public Domain Dedication, to your Commons uploads? https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

Thanks for stating your wish to assign a more open and permissive copyright license to all of your Wikimedia Commons uploads as you stated on your account talkpage. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:David_Shankbone

We discussed your statement in the Village Pump forum. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/special:permalink/614506479#David_Shankbone_converts_license_to_public_domain

The situation is that the copyright dedication that you are using on Flickr is for "public domain" as understood in the United States and some other countries, but for countries without a legal concept of public domain, that status does not apply and consequently the files carry some copyright restrictions. We interpreted your statement to mean that you wanted to maximize openness and use, but there was a request that we get your clarification. For comparison, here is the license you applied on Flickr. https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/

If you agree, then either forward this email to permissions-commons@wikimedia.org where it needs to go, or just reply to me and I will forward it to that address.

The standard text is below - https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Volunteer_Response_Team#Declaration_of_consent_for_all_enquiries

I hereby affirm that I, David Miller / David Shankbone, am the creator and/or sole owner of the exclusive copyright of the following media work:

I agree to publish the above-mentioned work under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project.

David Miller / David Shankbone 2021-12-17

@Andy Dingley, Túrelio, and King of Hearts: Can any of you please review this email draft before I send it? Blue Rasberry (talk) 00:25, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

I'd swap the first two sentences: compliment first, then request. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:05, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
"The following media work" doesn't make sense since it's not one media work, and providing a link where only the most recent 50 are listed can lead to ambiguity. Also "abide by the terms of the license" doesn't really make sense for PD. I would do instead "I hereby affirm that I, David Miller / David Shankbone, agree to release all images, media, and other files which I have uploaded to Wikimedia Commons under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal. I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, without restriction. I am aware that this agreement is not limited to Wikipedia or related sites. I acknowledge that I cannot withdraw this agreement, and that the content may or may not be kept permanently on a Wikimedia project." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: I agree with King of ♥ on this, but other readers should know that the "reply to me" option is only available for VRT Agents.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:47, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Barbados needs updating

Barbados is now a republic and will not have (e.g.) Crown ownership of anything. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Have they updated their copyright law yet? Ruslik (talk) 19:46, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:53, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@Koavf: We have to wait for them to draft their new copyright law before we change COM:Barbados to refer to the draft. Same goes for passage and implementation.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:53, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure. I'm just pointing out that it needs to be done. It may be gated by a lack of a new law. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 13:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

License review backlog

Hi, There is a huge backlog of Category:License review needed (currently 36,443 files!!!), and Category:License review needed (audio) (currently 8,309 files!). These clearly won't be manually reviewed. This is a big problem: if any of these sources change the license, we can't prove that the file is under a free license (e.g. File:Shah-i Mashhad-1.jpg, source is dead). Do we have any other option? Yann (talk) 22:21, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, https://web.archive.org/web/20081003104432/http://www.b-glatzer.de/sim/ exists but https://web.archive.org/web/20081003104432/http://www.b-glatzer.de/sim/legalnote.htm doesn't. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Porn in commons

Someone please would enlighten me about the status of pornographical images in Commons?

I have noticed several dead proposals (COM:SEX, Commons:Pornography and many linked discussions), and occasional references to various very generic policies about censorship. Despite the vast amount of discussions there is no policy saying yes, porn is allowed, because <reasons> or no, porn is not allowed because <reasons> and the threshold is <this_and_that>. I was thinking of actually linking some of the images here (one can start from here) but I believe many people would be extremely shocked to see those in this open and common discussion. And I guess that is also my point here.

I'd like to request a clear statement here from you (from we all), people. Don't close your eyes and act like it wasn't there. Allow or limit, I don't care which one, but shall be decided, not done by handwaving. Especially for images don't linked from anywhere, just being there for... um... for whatever reason, like there wasn't any porn elsewhere on porn-oriented sites.

I was actually asked about this and these questions have triggered this request.

Thanks for your input, and please: keep discussion civilised. --grin ✎ 11:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Porn should de treated like any other content. The only difference is that we are more careful with low quality files and even more strict with unclear sources for personality rights reasons. And there is also a problem with indented spam and vandalism in these topic requiring more attention on all contributions there. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
"Should be", I am not really sure whether you mean you are not aware how porn is seen and handled in the current society, or how the legal frameworks of various countries handle it, or you simply chose to ignore that. I can assure you that porn is not like an image of a flower, and there may be legal implications providing that category of imagery to underage persons. (If you really don't know about various laws differentiating pornography then tell me and I will provide you with some examples; not that I want to.)
My question wasn't, I repeat again, why it isn't banned, nor have I complained about handling. My request was specifically to describe this category and its handling, instead of acting like it didn't exist. (If you agree, we can write into the Censorship policy that "pornography is allowed since we believe it would be censorship", so it would be a good basis for debate. <hhok/>)
(Obviously specifically writing down that "porn is allowed without restrictions" will have implications for Commons and Wikipedia generally, but it's not my job to foretell the future. Right now it's in the shadow, and there is nothing guaranteeing that it is going to stay there.) grin ✎ 15:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Anything under the slightest suspicion of so-called child-p0rn has to speedied instantenously, uploader blocked and WMF-legal has to be notified. See also {{2257}}. Anything under the suspicion of so-called Revenge porn should also be speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
There are large batches of porn images which are not referenced in any articles. Many of those has pretty dubious licenses, like "cc" license from flickr where the flickr account owner has no personal data and his/her email is at a free and usually anonymising provider, basically providing no authority behind the licensor, and most of them are "verified" by a bot. Also it is not clear how Wikipedia (or Commons) follow various laws about protecting of children from improper imagery (for whatever the present governments deem improper). grin ✎ 15:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
For the latter issue: we have no means to protect children from disturbing images. That is not restricted to porn, but includes e.g. war imagery, crime scenes and medical images. Technical measures have been discussed, but they are thought to be both ineffective and very problematic. And yes, we do want to document pornography, like any other aspect of modern (and ancient) society. –LPfi (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
I can imagine the headline: Facebook hacked, millions of pictures stolen. Facebook denies any responsbility.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
But more likely one day all the pictures get stored on a server in Chișinău by a contractor hired by facebook. And all of a sudden the contractor breaks all ties with Facebook and keeps the pictures and sells it to somebody else because facebook no longer wants to pay the increased storage fees.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 10:37, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
one day the porn videos made by the current porn stars will enter public domain, so it's a question of time when commons have to decide whether or not their videos should be hosted on commons.
my opinion is that at least one video per performer can be hosted on commons for the purpose of archiving, documentation and illustration. there can be a maximum number of number of files allowed, say 10 or 20, since commons probably shouldnt become a host of indiscriminate collection of all videos/films.--RZuo (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Book covers

Hi, Among the backlog, there is a lot of work here. A big part of these files need a permission, but don't have one. I checked the first 400, there are 7,096 more to be checked, not including the subcategories. Anyone? Yann (talk) 11:16, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Commons:First steps

Would anyone know why French in not in the list of languages at the bottom? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:00, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Strangely, :fr is also missing in the list (lower left) of links to the corresponding pages on the wikipedias. May be there is wrong linking on Wikidata. --Túrelio (talk) 13:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
special:diff/572501368.--RZuo (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah yes. @AntiCompositeNumber: Could you explain why you removed these languages? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Problem with a Deletion tag that appears on a not-for-deletion page.

I do not know if this should be here or in the Administrators' noticeboard.

The next comments were copied from this Deletion request, read them, I hope that would be enough to understand, and solve the situation.

 Delete In the current state of the guidelines(are outdated, a mess and puzzling), they have to be deleted. But if they are kept of still not deleted, then I will clarify them as much as I can, and discourage its use in favor of the guidelines that I wrote. FanNihongo (talk) 05:13, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

FanNihongo (talk) 06:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Here you go. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:10, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you very much. FanNihongo (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Street art vs Graffiti

I was trying to clean up the cat Graffiti in London when I noticed there is significant overlap between these two categories, at first i thought it was a case of duplication that has made it's way down the whole local cat structure, but en:wiki has two separate articles for the two concepts. I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two concepts in practice when it comes to categorisation Category:Street art describes it as "Street art is a subset of Public art which denotes unsanctioned artwork in the public space." Category:Graffiti states "This category is for graffiti- and street-art." One of the main differences between the two concepts is public perception, seems too subjective for a category structure. So what is the best way to categorise a spray painted picture on a wall? Oxyman (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, IMO the description needs a fix. Street art is legal, Graffiti is not. Yann (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Is that the whole difference? As a quick search seems to indicate that street art is often illegal while I have seen a lot of legal graffiti. Graffiti just seems to mean "street paintings" while street art is a whole larger category that includes other forms of street art. At least that is what I suspect based on how "Straatkunst" and "Graffiti" are used in Dutch. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Old time graffiti
  • I understand the confusion and I wonder if there is a clear difference today. Artists like Category:Banksy are considered "graffiti artists" and "street artists". "Graffiti" was considered defacement in the past and something to be painted over, but now some of it is seen as "politic protest" and "public art". Krok6kola (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, graffiti can be considered "art" (even long ago). There are no doubt various different definitions of "street art". Here on Commons, we make an important distinction between *authorized* (legal) v/s *unauthorized* (illegal), because Commons has to be concerned with complying with copyright laws. In countries without Freedom of Panorama for public murals and similar works (the United States being an important example of such a country), the artist retains copyright to their work... *unless* it was placed illegally, making it "graffiti". -- 18:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves

This paper:

“An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves vetted to plant family for human and machine learning”, in PhytoKeys (in en), volume 187, (Please provide a date or year), DOI:10.3897/PHYTOKEYS.187.72350, ISSN 1314-2003, Wikidata Q110218751, pages 93-128

describes:

an open-access database of 30,252 images of vouchered leaf specimens vetted to family level, primarily of angiosperms, including 26,176 images of cleared and x-rayed leaves representing 354 families and 4,076 of fossil leaves from 48 families.

which is available on Figshare under CC by 4.0, with metadata, all spread across seven zip files. Would anyone care to automate their upload? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Dataset is now documented as Image collection and supporting data for: An image dataset of cleared, x-rayed, and fossil leaves vetted to plant family for human and machine learning (Q110219451). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

File Remove Icons

I press a big red x button and it said "remove these icons". I had uploaded a file to Wikimedia Commons. The red x button had options like "use this file" and so one. How can I get it back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Itcouldbepossible (talk • contribs) 07:01, 26 December 2021‎ (UTC)

@Itcouldbepossible: Hi, and welcome. That appears to be our QInominator gadget, which documentation is silent on the use of the "X" button and recovery. If refreshing doesn't work, try using the links from another file, and substituting as appropriate. To use that file in a wiki as a thumbnail, use "[[File:Citation Reuse Error.png|thumb|Citation Reuse Error]]". To use that file in a wiki regularly, use "[[File:Citation Reuse Error.png|Citation Reuse Error]]". See also en:H:PIC and COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. No sorry, I have got what I what I wanted. When I click the "reuse this file" button, there are a couple of options like download, use this file, email a link, information, and beside that is a cross. Clicking on that shows options like, file, file history, file usage on commons and metadata. Refreshing the page shows the option reuse this file. Clicking on that shows me the past options like download, use this file etc. Anyway thanks, for trying to help me out. Itcouldbepossible (talk) 11:09, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Itcouldbepossible: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:07, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Something went wrong with Template:China photographs taken on navbox or its transclusions

I checked Category:China photographs taken on 2021-12-19 just now, only to find that it became a redirect page, and I can't figure out who vandalized it.--N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 11:44, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe the problem is caused by this edit.--N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:02, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Soumya-8974 as editor.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:04, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I converted the category China into a dab page after a CfD, which caused a slew of problems I was trying to fix, including categories which used "China" to mean the People's Republic of China rather than China (region). I have made workarounds to these problems and this caused more problems. Maybe I should treat "China" to mean the country a la the categories of Taiwan. --Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:11, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Roger that, but those "China photographs taken on " categories are still redirects as of now, so it seems that my previous efforts didn't work. I just don't want the files in that categories to be moved again to that parent categories which don't have regional differences, causing more unnecessary bot works.--N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably the technical problem is not just caused by changes in Template:Country label. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 17:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I have reverted my recent developments of categories related to China because of the above-mentioned technical problems. I have also make new workarounds on templates to avoid further problems. Soumya-8974 (he) (talk • contribs) 12:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Delinker

It looks like the Delinker is "stuck" in terms of moving categories. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to split Judgefloro DR

COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro is getting crowded, and likely more files may be nominated as I see some poor quality ones found at Category:Makati City Hall; some do not even show the 3 buildings of the city hall themselves, but surroundings like some random trees or plants and sunsets obscuring surrounding area. I am thinking of nominating some for deletion via user category, though the DR may become overly full. Thus I am proposing to manually split the said DR, similar to Minorax's proposal for COM:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Burj Khalifa.

For this case, all threads related to FOP and DR will be split to another DR: COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro (FOP and DW), and be categorized accordingly. The rest that is related to COM:SCOPE and COM:WEBHOSTing issues will remain at COM:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Judgefloro.

While the Burj Khalifa proposal was backed by several users, there has been no move made. Also, the action may impact transclusion to archival daily listings, but I think that is no longer relevant for FOP and DW threads in Judgefloro DR as these can be accessed more easily through existing categories than archival listings. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:28, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Speedy delete versus normal deletion

When you see a speedy-delete that is obviously incorrect, or is incoherent, or contains no valid reason for deletion, can you just remove the speedy-tag, or do you have to go though the regular deletion process? See for example: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Red queen alicia.png --RAN (talk) 20:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, If you can prove that the document is OK, then just remove the tag. If you have doubt, then convert the speedy request to a proper DR. Yann (talk) 21:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Official Photograph of Prime Minister of India Shri Narendra Modi, November 2020 (ISCS version).jpg

Please look into this version and compare it with File:Official portrait of the Prime Minister Narendra Modi, November 2020 (cropped).jpg. Only websites are different but these are same version. Can this picture be kept as original version and link in all wikimedia projects to Narendra Modi.? Best --TTP1233 (talk) 18:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Why not? In addition, it is up to projects to decide what photo to use. Ruslik (talk) 20:50, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Upcoming Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections

The Board of Trustees is preparing a call for feedback about the upcoming Board Elections, from January 7 - February 10, 2022.

While details will be finalized the week before the call, we have confirmed at least two questions that will be asked during this call for feedback:

  • What is the best way to ensure fair representation of emerging communities among the Board?
  • What involvement should candidates have during the election?

While additional questions may be added, the Movement Strategy and Governance team wants to provide time for community members and affiliates to consider and prepare ideas on the above confirmed questions before the call opens. Community members can also organise local conversations during the call. You can find more information about this upcoming call for feedback here.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

File:Coat of arms of Romania.svg

Time for a Romanian version?

There’s been some edit-warring on this, with disruptors uploading the Communist-era coat of arms (the one with the rising sun and ears of wheat) instead of the contemporary one (the eagle). Given a) high visibility b) no need for frequent modifications and c) ongoing malfeasance, I suggest some kind of protection. — Biruitorul (talk) 14:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Biruitorul: ✓ Done. By the way, we also have a specific noticeboard for this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections. Multichill (talk) 14:22, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn’t know that, but will make use of the board in the future, as needed. — Biruitorul (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What is the trick when "save as" has been disabled

I know there are several tricks to download, where "save as" has been disabled: https://www.ebay.com/itm/372732633339 We have a low resolution version, and the image is in the public domain now, no visible copyright notice. See: File:Frick and Frack Ice Follies.jpg --RAN (talk) 18:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): When you hover the mouse over the image, it says "click to enlarge". You may want to do so and then proceed as usual. De728631 (talk) 18:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --廣九直通車 (talk) 09:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Open licensed images relating to AI

Better Images of AI launches a free stock image library of more realistic images of artificial intelligence

Maybe somebody can harvest suitably licensed images from the above project? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

  • @Pigsonthewing: Is there any particular reason to believe the project includes any suitably licensed images? - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    The project prominently displays Wikimedia compatible Creative Commons licenses on the works, like Quantified Human by Alan Warburton. As a Wikimedian I also am a bit skeptical because there are two works in most of these images: the photos and the artistic remixing. Typically designers are not photographers, so we need copyright licenses for both the work and the media which the work is remixing. It is odd that there is no credit to photographers for these. I suppose it would be prudent to write to the artists and ask them about the copyright of the photos, and whether they just licensed them from elsewhere, because photographers do not get credit. These are valuable images which would make good illustrations to popular Wikipedia articles which are hard to illustrate. Blue Rasberry (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    Given the bona fides of both the organisations and individual artists involved, I see no reason to doubt their copyright and licence statements. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:03, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thanks a lot for the lead on this Andy. Wikipedia's concept and understanding of copyright is unlike that which is found elsewhere, and I think asking is helpful before being hasty. I wrote to one of the artists to ask both about the copyright of photo versus remixed work, and I also asked about the explanatory text copyright since the CC license does not purport to cover that at all. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:46, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    This isn't Wikipedia. I don't think our understanding of copyright is very different from any other valid understanding of it. I'm not proposing that we import any "explanatory text". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
    It seems very unlikely that the BBC would be commissioning artists to create stock artwork for others to use without performing due diligence on the copyrights. (And even if the underlying photos weren't by the artists, it seems that the images are adequately transformative in most cases to qualify them as original works rather than derivative works, although I'm not a copyright lawyer.) Nosferattus (talk) 20:10, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
    The Banana / Plant / Flask images by Max Gruber, at the very least, are almost certainly OK. It looks like he arranged the still lifes and photographed them. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Pigsonthewing: I uploaded the first one if you want to license review it: File:Alan Warburton - Quantified Human.jpg. Nosferattus (talk) 20:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Deleting images

We need to delete images I uploaded when I didnt know what copyright was. I believe these are the images that are copyrighted. The ones that have to do with Space 220 and the one picture of the inside of pecos bill. You can find the images here Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 16:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Hi, and welcome. Please see User talk:Kaleeb18#File:Pecos Bill Dining room.webp.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Queering Wikipedia 2022

QW2022 (Queering Wikipedia) is a global conference focused on LGBTQ+ communities and our representation on Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects in all languages.

If you are a Commons contributor and LGBTQ+ or a committed ally, please help shape the proposal by providing feedback on what the priorities should be, and how the event should run. You can give anonymous feedback through the survey link below, or by copying the questions and emailing in your responses in plain text.

For a preview of the proposal, add your support, ask questions or even volunteer to join in and make it a success, see:

Visit LGBT to find out more about the Wikimedia LGBT+ User Group and the different ways of talking with fellow LGBTQ+ volunteers.

Different words and acronyms are used for communities within the rainbow of sexualities and gender identities/expressions (e.g. lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, asexual, non-binary, two-spirit, third gender, LGBT+, LGBTQ+, LGBTQQ2IA*, QUILTBAG, SOGI). "Queer" is used by us to represent all members of these communities and work toward solidarity for those affected by related discrimination.

Thank you!

QW2022 proposal team --QW22 (talk) 12:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is "us"? For example FLINTA* is used by people who identify as queer (LINTA*) and people who identify as CIS (FL). Are pan and poly queer? Is Alice Weidel (lesbian woman, member of german parliament, living in Switzerland, with asian partner and child (rainbow family), fluent in chinese because of having lived in China outside of designated ExPat residences) welcome to the conference? --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:58, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
As the invitation above is also open to "allies," I presume that they are welcoming anyone with a similar philosophy or view point, regardless of the specific labels used. Personally, this is not something for me, although I support the principle of encouraging participation by under-represented groups. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

China vs. People's Republic of China

This week User:Soumya-8974 moved "China" (as country) to the current title "People's Republic of China," without any proposal, discussion or consensus. IMHO it should be restored back. --Orijentolog (talk) 22:36, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

@Orijentolog: the user tried, see Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/04/Category:China, but didn't get much response. Multichill (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Error at COM:Freedom of panorama/Asia

An error has occurred at COM:Freedom of panorama/Asia, in which the transclusion link for China has become "Commons:Copyright rules by territory/中国" (with the subsection header as "Template:中国"). COM:FOP China did not transclude as expected. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: This appears to be more fallout from the edits by User:Soumya-8974.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Which German station in 1991?

It must a fairly large station with midtrack non-passenger platforms and high supporting structure for overhead lines.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:11, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

No clue, but maybe you have better chance if you ask at w:de:Portal Diskussion:Bahn? Regards --A.Savin 15:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
It very much looks like Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof. The non-passenger platforms are to load mail to the passenger trains which, had one additional car for mail transport in those days. Sometimes the car itself had postal workers sorting mail during transport. Additional you can see the special kind of roof structure on the right side, which I do not know any other station that has this kind of structure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Giftzwerg 88 (talk • contribs) 20:52, 25 December 2021‎ (UTC)
(Added for comparison: Stuttgart Hbf) The vertical structures of the roof are rare
(Added for comparison: Stuttgart Hbf)
@Giftzwerg 88: Thanks, but please see COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:24, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Auf dem Bild sind Treppenabgänge. Es gibt Kopfbahnhöfe mit Treppen (FFM) aber gerade bei Stuttgart erinnere ich mich nicht an einen Verbindungstunnel? --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:44, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
If it were Stuttgart, it would have to be quite far away from the station building, else you would see that larger roof structure over all tracks, not those smaller roofs on each platform. But, as C.Suthorn says, there are no stairs like this leading to a connecting tunnel in Stuttgart. At least I don't remember any, and I've been to this station a lot in the 1990s. The station in the image also looks similar to Heilbronn Hauptbahnhof, but there are no mail / luggage platforms there. It looks like the image was taken on the platform between tracks 5 and 6, the platform to the left is the one between tracks 3 and 4, there seems to be another platform to the left (presumably between tracks 1 and 2), and it looks like there are more tracks to the right, so there are probably 7 or more tracks in this station. I looked up this locomotive, and it seems that in the early 1990s it was stationed in Mannheim, though I'm not entirely sure. Given that and the similarities to Stuttgart and Heilbronn, it's probably a mid-size station somewhere in the South-West of Germany. A lot of the elements we see are rather generic though, so it's really hard to tell. Unless someone recognizes that chimney-like structure visible over the roof of the platform between tracks 3 and 4. --Rosenzweig τ 13:35, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Stuttgart Hauptbahnhof in 1992. Looking at the pictures there I remember now that some of the platforms did have stairs in the part closer to the station building, but they look quite different compared to the image in question. --Rosenzweig τ 13:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
The second photograph shows the platform schedule, with one train arriving from Ulm (and the station is the terminus), and two more departing to Schwaebisch Hall and Nurnberg. I would say 100% Stuttgart, though I am unsure about the intermediate stops of the Ulm train - it should list Esslingen for example but it does not.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and on another platform the departures are Oberstdorf, Munich, and Klagenfurt. We just need to check the intermediate stations for the train to Ulm - may be Augsburg Hbf? Ymblanter (talk) 13:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Oersingen - Goeppingen - Plochingen. Ymblanter (talk) 13:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it must be Stuttgart Hbf. Local trains from Ulm and from Schwaebisch Hall at the time alway terminated in Stuttgart. Ymblanter (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: The second and third photographs definitely show Stuttgart (see the file names), they are by User:Giftzwerg 88 and were added for comparison. They are not part of the question here :-) --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry, I have misunderstood the issue then. Ymblanter (talk) 14:53, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Do we understand the color code of the passenger cars? Could it be one of the sleeping cars (blue with a yellow horizontal line)? Ymblanter (talk) 14:59, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Hard to see, but it's probably just the color scheme ivory/ocean blue used by Deutsche Bundesbahn starting in 1974. Like the cars in File:Intercity ozeanblau-beige Jenbach 1979.jpg. The locomotive type (top speed: 120 km/h) suggests a local train. --Rosenzweig τ 15:19, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody^. I will rename the file.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Rename to what? If you thought "Stuttgart", that's not it. See my answer to Ymblanter above. --Rosenzweig τ 14:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

The seond an third image are from 2019 and from Giftzwerg88 and from Stuttgart as Giftzwerg assumed the first one may be Stuttgart. While the first one *may* be from Stuttgart in 1991, the Abfahrtstafel in the second one is no argument for that. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:54, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I have already realized this. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Timestamps and version history are confusing. Why didn't I get an edit conflict warning? C.Suthorn (talk) 15:27, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I've posted a note to the talk page suggested by A.Savin asking if someone there knows more. --Rosenzweig τ 15:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
There was an argument about the stairs. Yes I did notice the stairs and took in into consideration. Stuttgart had stairs, and they were amid of the platforms to enable faster change between platforms, and they allowed direct access to the S-Bahn at its north end. The stairs and northern access to S-Bahn was one of the first things that got removed for S21, it was probably around 2012. It was annoying, because this passage allowed short and quick exchange between trains and S-Bahn. Now you need to take a longer walk to the southern access and probably miss your train once in a while, and you need to mingle with people that want to go elsewhere or use other means of transport. So a longer walk could mean you get to destination half an hour later. My photos are more recent and all the platforms got moved outwards to create the gap for the construction. The roofs are only a small remaining part.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, you can see the stairs in the 1992 photos at [5]. They look rather different though, not like in Smiley.toerist's image. --Rosenzweig τ 15:42, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, this definitely cannot be a terminus station. We see the letter "E" in the front of the picture and further back the letters must be "D" to "A". As far as I know, in terminus stations the sections in the head always start with "A", but the sunlit track in the background does not look as if it is the head. The stairways make it even less likely that this is Stuttgart or another terminus. Lantus (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
So we're looking for a station that is not one of the big terminus stations (Kopfbahnhof), but still big enough (apparently at least 7 tracks, as explained above) to have this extra platform for mail / luggage (Gepäckbahnsteig). I guess it's time for the experts to take over :-) --Rosenzweig τ 20:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, and it must be in former West German territory, because this is clearly a Deutsche Bundesbahn station, and the Eastern part of Germany still had the Deutsche Reichsbahn in 1991. East German locomotives were already used in the West though, as evidenced by the 143 type locomotive. --Rosenzweig τ 20:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to disappoint, but the 1992 images at [6] show that Stuttgart Hbf has (had?) the section letters in exactly the opposite order: E is closest to the station building, while A is out there. --Rosenzweig τ 20:45, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

There has been a tunnel in Stuttgart, but this is not Stuttgart Hbf. The vertical structures of the roof aren't that rare: Several bigger stations in West Germany had these, e.g. Düsseldorf, Duisburg, Darmstadt, Dortmund, Bonn, Mainz, Oldenburg, Pforzheim. Darnsradt also had mail/luggage platforms. --Derkoenig (talk)

This very much looks like Offenburg. Offenburg has the stairs at platform section E, has a separate (now: former) platform for baggage and mail between tracks 4 and 5 (but only between those) and has this distinctive canopy (only) on the platform towards track 6. See this picture for comparison. GeorgR (de) (talk) 21:33, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I think you found the right station. Congratulations :-) Everything checks out. File:2014 08 16 Offenburg Personenbahnhof m BR01 1533 7 Gleis07.jpg shows the platform between tracks 6 and 7 visible in the right part of the original image. --Rosenzweig τ 21:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
And File:1996 02 20 Film 523882 Neg 18 OG Bf Gleis 1 IC mit 103 194 7.jpg shows the chimney I mentioned earlier. --Rosenzweig τ 22:01, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! I'm pretty sure this is Offenburg Offenbach. Here is image taken almost exactly from the same perspective: https://abload.de/img/139312offenburghbf09-o6jah.jpg --PhiH (talk) 22:13, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you mean Offenburg :-) --Rosenzweig τ 22:28, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. Yes, it should be Offenburg. --PhiH (talk) 07:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@GeorgR (de): Indeed, and see also this photo for comparison -- IMO nearly the same camera point; note also the tunnel stairs, the chimney, and the top of a mast to the left of it. Regards --A.Savin 02:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this makes sense. The low platform between the tracks visible on the original photo possibly has been demolished, but I accidentally remember at least one such platform in Offenburg in the 1990s (do not remember between which tracks it was though).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks everybody. It must be Offenburg. At the time, I put the slide next to the File:Hausach station 199x 3.jpg, probably taken on the same trip of may 1991. I will rename the file. I also created and sorted Category:Trains at Offenburg Hauptbahnhof PS: File:Hausach station 199x 1.jpg and File:Hausach station 199x 2.jpg Have no date info on the frames, and I suspect it must be an earlier trip, I dont know when the 'DB Class ETA 150' last ran on the line.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:26, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Railbusses as shown on the two pictures were used on the Kinzig Valley Railway until the mid-90ies, 1993 or 1994. Most trains were led by Class 627 DMU by then, but a few railbus trips remained. ETA 150 were never used on that line as far as I know. GeorgR (de) (talk) 16:02, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

File:LohKeanYewWC.png

Is this file allowed on Wikipedia? It was tagged on 22 December as no permission given by IP 222.5.209.151, but it seems like there is a link back to the YouTube channel with the appropriate license. The only other similar example I could find was File:Aerial view of Sultan Ibrahim Stadium (2).jpg, whereby it needs to be manually reviewed first. Is this only done on a case-by-case basis? 218.158.177.233 07:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Creating Wikidata items for all categories

Hi all. We're about half way through the process of linking Commons categories with Wikidata items - we now have 3.6 million categories displaying the multilingual infobox. I would like to see this increased so that all Commons categories are linked with Wikidata items and use the infobox. This means creating new Wikidata items for the categories where there aren't potential matches with existing Wikidata items.

I've started an RfC about this at: https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Requests_for_comment/Creating_new_Wikidata_items_for_all_Commons_categories

Please comment there if you're interested in this! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

For all categories I am not sure, but at least for all people, places, and objects who have a category on Commons, certainly. We have very specific categories for which I don't see the point of having a WD item (e.g. Category:Black and white photographs of California in the 1990s). Yann (talk) 23:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@Yann: If you didn't know English, a multilingual infobox would be useful in that example. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Moin Moin, i'm not sure, because many people have a category and then under the main category categories for example by year. I don't know if they need an own Infobox? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Multilingual category names could become created with structured data and the Lexemens on Wikidata. Wikidataitems are not made for translations of every page title on Commons. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:33, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
@Crazy1880: "by year" makes no sense, as I've said for a long time, see for example Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/08/Category:Liam Wyatt by year. But if it must exist, let's at least describe it multilingually, so that those that don't know English can perhaps understand what is going on?
@GPSLeo: Please, go ahead and implement multilingual category names via structured data and lexemes. You will find this to be a very difficult task. But in the long term, you are probably right - but in the short term, let's use what tools we have available right now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Wikidata was created to serve other Wikimedia websites, this request simply asks for this mission to stop excluding the Wikimedia Commons. Connecting all categories with Wikidata would allow us to utilise the existing navigational infrastructure (or "legacy infrastructure") and use its best aspects in Structured Data for Wikimedia Commons (SDC) rather than forcing it to re-invent the wheel. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:50, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
+1. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: In theory, this seems a good idea. However, we don't have the manpower to do that in practice. So unless translations of category names could be done automatically, I don't see the point. IMO there are much more important issues to solve first: creating a category and a Creator template for all potential authors, starting with all people who have a Wikipedia article. Then creating a category with {{Wikidata Infobox}} for all places and objects/items which already have a Wikidata entry. Then creating a Wikidata entry for all artworks. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I would say "build it and they will come" even if it takes many years, solving those other issues aren't mutually exclusive with adding more structured data to the existing category and navigational infrastructures. Accurate machine translations will improve over time and more volunteers will come once the system exists, nobody would want to do something they don't know already exists. We shouldn't try to limit our toolboxes based on the amount of volunteers we have today. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
+1, thanks @Donald Trung: . Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Using Wikidata to internationalize the category system on Commons is a horrible kludge. And the existing implementation is quite awkward. Here's a random example: Category:Train stations in L’Aquila. The infobox helpfully explains that this is a "Wikimedia category" and then helpfully explains that it is an "Instance of Wikimedia category". You are then given a list of seven links, half of which are completely useless. It's basically just a box of cruft. Until the implementation is cleaned up, I don't think we should be expanding the use Wikidata for Commons categories. Nosferattus (talk) 19:44, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: I added category combines topics (P971) to the item, the infobox displays more info now. Would love to hear of a system that was less of a kludge. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:17, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: Why can't we just make every category name into a local MediaWiki message (with local translations) and have MediaWiki display the translated MediaWiki message as the title if you're in the Category namespace. That would be 100 times simpler. Nosferattus (talk) 18:53, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@Nosferattus: I have no idea how to do that, but the main issue would be that it wouldn't be structured - so you miss the economies of scale of using Wikidata's structured data to translate labels, particularly for languages where we have fewer editors. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:44, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Stand News

Stand News, a Hong Kong pan-democratic Internet media, permits the use of screenshots from their Facebook live stream, and we have some 3700 images that are categorized under Images from Stand News (with license template {{The Stand News}}). On 29 December 2021, their office is raided by the police, with members of the editorial board being arrested — see this Chinese Wikipedia entry and this English Wikipedia section for more information. They also ceases operation after the raid as well.

Notwithstanding your political opinion and emotion, consequentially we need to archive the sources links of these images to preserve these file sources. Probably, the task will have to be completed by bots. Please leave your comment and possible technical solutions for this issue, thank you.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The biggest problem these images is come from more than 3000 Facebook live and people need to backup the video individually. Is there have any bot or website can save those live video from Facebook? We need to face with the time (they close down all social media within 1 day) and very worry that those images will be delete. It is a big damage for the internet and Wikipedia.

Are photos of unidentifiable minerals in scope?

In August 2021, File:2009-365-349 One of the Arizona "C's" (4189572794).jpg was nominated for deletion by Ra'ike who explained that a “mineral cannot be unequivocally identified using a picture without further explanation”. The photo was copied from a Flickr stream where the photographer commented “just don't ask me what exactly it is”. The question is whether such photos are realistically useful for an educational purpose.

Unfortunately the discussion was cut short when the DR was closed prematurely by a non-admin, causing it to be archived in August 2021. Since then the DR remained dormant. I've relisted it. However, as few people examine aged deletion requests, I am raising attention for this discussion through this board. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:11, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests like these are just a waste of energy and a negative influence on this project. When we upload (large) collections of photos we always have a small part that is of lesser quality. A recurring pattern is that someone nominates some of these files for deletion. Time is wasted and nothing good comes out of this.
But why do these photos get nominated for deletion? It's not like we're saving disk space, a deletion is just hiding the file for non-admins. It's because these files cause noise in our media library. The source of this noise is how we curate our files (categorization) and how our search engine works (not very good).
We already have a category tree for less quality images: The unidentified category tree with this case Category:Unidentified minerals. Than it won't clutter the main tree.
For search we already boost quality based on templates. That's why featured pictures and quality images usually end up at the top of the search results. I've considered implementing a negative boost for issue templates like {{Superseded}} to push these files down in the search results. Maybe time to pick that up again? Multichill (talk) 13:45, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
This is not about whether we save disk space or not. This is about whether we want to curate our collection or let it be overwhelmed by unidentified (and in this case unidentifiable) low quality stuff. COM:SCOPE exists and it is consequently perfectly valid to open related discussions by nominating questionable images for deletion. I do not consider such discussions as a waste of time. Nobody (except for the uploader perhaps) is enforced to participate in such a discussion. My intention was to re-open the discussion for this particular case. This DR should have an open discussion of at least seven days – so far it was just properly listed for two days. Hence, I simply ask all who have an opinion in this particular case to add a comment and/or vote in the deletion request. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:23, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Puh-lease. Didn't I see a recent thread about picking up where Fæ left off? Why would you want to do that when we've already been left with a huge glut of content that's poorly described and/or poorly categorized, with shortcuts taken which make categorization difficult if not impossible (e.g. HABS photos which were obviously taken at a specific point in time, but the date field reads "Documentation compiled after 1933")?RadioKAOS (talk) 15:30, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
@AFBorchert einerseits sagst Du es geht um ein einzelnes benanntes Bild (das im DR schon kept wurde) andererseits ist die überschrift: "sind [alle] unbestimmbaren Bider von [X] in scope". Aber bitte: Dieses spezielle Bild ist wunderschön. M.E. hat es verdient auf der Hauptseite als POTD zu erscheinen. Es könnte auch in der esperanto-Wikipedia als Bebilderung des Artikels über Schöne Dinge in verschiedenen Kulturen der Welt verwendet werden. Und es wird per InstantCommons auf dem mit der MediaWiki-Software betriebenen "Schön-aber-sinnlos"-Wikis im Darknnet verwendet. Damit ist es dreimal in-scope. Case closed. C.Suthorn (talk) 07:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@RadioKAOS and C.Suthorn: Please note that I did not nominate this file for deletion. I just re-opened the discussion of the deletion request which was cut short. Please add your comments to the deletion request. You do not need to convince me. I will neither add a vote to this DR nor close it. --AFBorchert (talk) 07:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Niemand hat Dich gezwungen den DR zu "re-open". Weder Fotograf, noch Uploader, noch ein Bearbeiter der Datei oder Teilnehmer am DR hat das verlangt und auch sonst niemand. Allein Deine Aktion. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Dies war von meiner Seite eine rein bürokratische Aktion. Jeder reguläre Löschantrag hat mindestens sieben Tage zu laufen. Dieser Antrag lief nicht regulär sieben Tage lang, sondern nur zwei, weil er zwischenzeitlich unzulässigerweise geschlossen und archiviert worden ist. Das Schließen wurde sofort revertiert (nicht von mir), aber die Archivierung wurde nicht rückgängig gemacht. Deswegen konnte der Antrag nie ordentlich abgeschlossen werden. Mein Beitrag hier hat nur den Zweck, dass diese Diskussion regulär zu Ende geführt werden kann. Deine Kommentare auf COM:VP werden bei der Auswertung des Löschantrags keine Berücksichtigung finden. Stattdessen solltest Du beim Antrag Deine Stellungnahme hinzufügen. --AFBorchert (talk) 08:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
"Didn't I see a recent thread about picking up where Fæ left off? Why would you want to do that" Yes; I asked if someone could pick up some or all of his tasks. We'd want them to do so because they are overwhelmingly a net positive to the project, to sister projects, and to our audiences. HTH. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Expiry

Does anybody know when the copyright status of author Abbo E featured here expires? Heesxiisolehh (talk) 08:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Heesxiisolehh: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:ITALY.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Seems to be Edmondo Abbo [7], aka Edmondo Abbo della Pina [8], born 1875. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:29, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Genealogy discussed here, in passing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I found the death of his wife, and added it to Familysearch. I also found a Edmondo Nicolò Vincenzo Antonio Abbo born on 8 December 1875 in Genoa, Genova, Italy which may be him, I am hoping to find an additional reference to confirm where he was born. I also posted in RAOGK if anyone can find more info. --RAN (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Still no death date. I found the death of his father and his wife. I wonder why people thought he may be British at VIAF? Are they conflating two people of did he die on a trip to England. I enjoy this type of collaboration. --RAN (talk) 21:02, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Why did this picture get deleted

Hi, Im wondering why this image was deleted. It has no copyright violations and I wouldnt have been able to upload it using upload wizard and using share image from flickr button because it would have told me it was copywritten? Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Here is the file name File:Woody - Move It Shake It Parade - Disney World.jpg. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 02:22, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Infrogmation who deleted the image. FWIW it should not have been speedily deleted as COM:CSD#F3 specifically excludes images taken in a public place. However, the chances of it surviving a regular deletion request are slim, as it depicts a copyrighted character. COM:COSTUME generally draws the line at costumes that cover the entire body and face. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: How was it kept wouldn’t it be considered a derivative work? I’m just confused how the one of woody is but not Elsa. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 13:34, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's because the Woody costume covers the entire person, leaving no skin, whereas the Elsa costume is just the person and some clothing, so the "incidental" defense may apply (which is related to de minimis. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 22:21, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
ok. Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 21:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/12&oldid=620285732"