Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/07

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

Commons Gazette 2023-07

Volunteer staff changes

In June 2023, 1 sysop was elected; 1 sysop (bot) was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.

Election:

Removal:

Other news

We've partnered with the Wikimedia Foundation to adopt a tool called Flickr2Commons. We want to look after it and extend its features with the long term in mind. Keep your eyes open for "Flickypedia", which we plan to re-release towards the end of the year.

A representative of the Wikimedia Foundation elaborated that they would be working together with the Flickr Foundation and that future updates would be posted on Commons:WMF support for Commons.
  1. ↑ Nigeria Passes New Copyright Act 2022!. World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) (May 12, 2023). Retrieved on 30 June 2023.

Edited by Abzeronow, Donald Trung Quoc Don and RZuo.

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

--RZuo (talk) 19:05, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

It's strange when you just write ((self|PD-user-w))

When it is simply written as {{self|PD-user-w}} (such as File:Arbitrary-gametree-solved.svg), the project name and author name ("Example " is displayed) is incorrect --Vcvfou698069 (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

That is definitely suboptimal! And the template is apparently being used properly; the fields besides the license name are marked as "default: empty" and "optional" so why does the template choke on an acceptable syntax? Elizium23 (talk) 07:19, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Because the sub-template of {{PD-user-w}} has required fields but the parameters are missing. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
User:Qef who did this has not been active in over a decade, so they won't be available to help sort this out. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Paintings in the public domain

Am I missing something here. Seems to be a lot of items still in red? Copyright has expired! Broichmore (talk) 11:13, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

See Commons:URAA-restored copyrights. Several of the paintings are still protected by copyright in the USA. Per Commons:Licensing, Wikimedia Commons only accepts media that are explicitly freely licensed, or that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work. --Rosenzweig τ 12:11, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Why? He's an Englishman and the work was done in England. The paintings are in a London museum. Broichmore (talk) 13:04, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
And our servers are in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 15:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
As Jmabel and Rosenzweig say, we have to follow US copyright law where any artwork from the UK after 1927 has restored copyrights due to a US law (URAA). There will be artwork restored next year as the US copyright will expire. I don't like URAA either, but it's a law we have to follow. Abzeronow (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Renaming a file which pictures a disputed territory

Getting straight to the point, should this file (Fishing ships repair facility - Kerch, Russia - panoramio.jpg) be renamed to Fishing ships repair facility - Kerch, Ukraine - panoramio.jpg? If so, I am quite sure there are other files that would have to be renamed as well. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:25, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

While I often prefer a neutral middle ground (like "Kerch, Crimea" in this case), renaming it to "Kerch, Ukraine" would make sense, considering the picture is from 2007 when it was undisputedly in Ukraine. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:54, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, though it would be worth adding the year into the filename, perhaps [File:Fishing ships repair facility, Kerch, Ukraine 2007 - panoramio.jpg] - MPF (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Night like this.png

Is it okay for the nominator to close a deletion request after a day with no votes? I feel a bit iffy about that--Trade (talk) 11:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Huh. While it's likely a legitimate action for the specific uploader to be blocked, I think two different users need to be involved in such an action. I find this at least irregular. --Enyavar (talk) 12:05, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I hope we can convince Yann not to close his own DRs in the future since he have a bit of a habit of rushing them Trade (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: did you notify User:Yann you were starting a topic about their actions? If not, that's a bit rude. It's like the digital equivalent of gossiping behind someones back.
After this file was nominated for deletion another admin blocked the uploader for these kind of uploads. Bit pointless to keep it open so Yann deleted it. Multichill (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I was trying to figure out if closing ones own DR was within the guidelines Trade (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, since David S. Soriano was blocked by another admin for a month for uploading such files, to me this validate a speedy deletion. Yann (talk) 18:30, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
@Yann The point Trade is getting at is you shouldn't close your own deletion request/discussion. It should be another admin that deletes the files and closes it the request. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 20:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Of course, unless this is considered a speedy deletion. If there is any issue, I will undelete this. Yann (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Language of categories of literary works

Hi, It seems to me that the categories of literary works should be in the original language of the works (with redirection in English).

What do you think? Yann (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't mind these changes, but for Category:Romance of the Three Kingdoms, would it be in Category:三國演義 or Category:三国演义? Abzeronow (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
According to Romance of the Three Kingdoms, the original title is 三國演義, so this should be used. Yann (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
三国演义 would be the title used by most Chinese speakers, but 三國演義 would also have the fact it was the original title of the work. I could see similar dynamics with Category:Water Margin and Category:水滸傳, as well as Category:Journey to the West and Category:西遊記. Abzeronow (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  •  Oppose @Yann: If you don't mind me asking why literary works in particular? What's so special about books that categories for them should be in the original language compared to everything else? The reason I ask is because there was just a proposal related to having categories for political parties in the "original language" that went no where. Partly because who opposed the change thought the proposal should be to alter the policy in general instead of just applying an exception to it in a single edge case. I don't really see why the same shouldn't apply here. Even though apparently it's not a proposal for some reason. I.E. there should be a proposal to have the policy in general changed instead of trying to make exceptions to for weird edge cases. In the meantime "Beyond Good and Evil" is clearly more common and widely used then "Jenseits von Gut und Böse." So I don't really see why the name of the category should be changed unless the policy is. The same goes for the other categories. That is unless there's a good reason why literally works should be treated differently then everything else. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:02, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • You said "Beyond Good and Evil" is clearly more common and widely used then "Jenseits von Gut und Böse." If you are an English speaker, yes. Otherwise no. Why making a rule for literary works? Because they are made of words. Da Vinci didn't name his work "Mona Lisa" or "La Joconde". But Nietzsche named his work "Jenseits von Gut und Böse", not "Beyond Good and Evil". Yann (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
most cats of publications are already titled in their original languages.
but for a small number of works that have popularly known names, like War and Peace, Romance of the Three Kingdoms, Detective Conan... i think it's better to retain the popularly used English names. especially if they have been adapted into movies, games, etc., they are often associated with such English names, even if the names sometimes are not literal translations.--RZuo (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
We should be consistent in our naming scheme. We shouldn't have to look for the translation if we know the original name of the work. And we can have different categories for adaptations: a French novel adapted in a Hollywood movie should have a French name for the original work category, and the English title for for the movie. Yann (talk) 19:00, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
that will lead to problems for subcats. should Category:Cosplay of Dragon Ball become "cosplay of ドラゴンボール"? Category:Audio files of Arabian Nights become "audio files of أَلْفُ لَيْلَةٍ وَلَيْلَةٌ"? RZuo (talk) 21:05, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "Don Quixote" is no less Spanish than "Don Quixote de la Mancha". Spanish-language references to the book are almost as likely to abbreviate the title this way as English-language references. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
    To be finicky, "Quijote" has been the officially sanctioned Spanish spelling since 1822 (from the top of my head). The 1605 original was spelled "QVIXOTE" in allcaps, so YMMV. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:00, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don’t dislike "Война́ и мир", but is should be noticed that the stress marking "а́" instead of plain "а" is not used outside dicionnaries and primers, and certaininly not for a novel that’s surely not entry-level Russian. Besides, even "Война и мир" is the current spelling, post-1917, while the original was titled "Война и миръ". (Compared with the Quixote case above,) this might be relevant as the pre-1917 spelling the trailing hard sign denotes did distinguish the homophones "миръ" (peace) and "міръ" (world), which the current spelling does not. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • "Tour Eiffel" is not a root category about the building: "Eiffel Tower" is, despite it being an undisputable French building. The same goes for books.
Just so that there is no misunderstanding, I am totally fine with Category:Книга_Большому_чертежу or Category:Földrajz a polgári fiú-iskolák számára, as long as that non-English category only contains files or possibly sub-categories with scans from different editions. Essentially, the leaf nodes of the category tree - we actually should keep them in the language they were published in. Almost nobody will search for these titles unless they already speak <Russian/Hungarian/whatever>, and if someone stumbles across them for a different reasons, the other parent categories make clear what the book is about. As soon as there are scanned editions in different languages (say, a German translation for an original Swedish book), the parent category of both editions should be the English title.
We just can't have a rule that the original language must take precedence for the root category of major book titles. The parent category of Category:Les Mille et Une Nuits, trad. Galland would have to be :Category:ألف_ليلة_وليلة translations, right below :Category:ألف_ليلة_وليلة?? And let us not forget that the הברית הישנה and the Καινή Διαθήκη were written in different languages, so what's the correct parent category for these two books? Or, the root categories are in Arabic, Greek or Chinese, but the subcategories are kept in English again? This is entirely unpractical, even with some redirects. With the current setup, this way lays madness. The original title instead of the literal English translation might be okay with books like Category:Theatrum Orbis Terrarum, where the Latin name isn't usually translated to English anyway.
 Support YES to keeping the content of single complete editions as the leaf nodes under original-language categories;
 Oppose NO to moving the whole branches of each book title, especially internationally known bestsellers with multiple translations and adaptations.
--Enyavar (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose Goes against COM:LANG policy. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:50, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Editor perception of problematic images

This discussion was initiated by an editor. Am I correct in assuming that any image in Commons has been scanned many times by CSAM programs and poses no threat to anyone of being accused of child sex abuse? --WriterArtistDC (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

  1. @WriterArtistDC: I have no idea what you mean by "preception". A "precept" is a "general rule"; I don't think there is such a word as "preception".
  2. We cannot presume that every image on Commons has been scanned even once by anything. At any given time, some images have been uploaded in the last few seconds.
Jmabel ! talk 02:33, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  1. This is called a typo.
  2. I was referring to the images in this particular article, none of which are recently uploaded.--WriterArtistDC (talk) 02:45, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    There is no systematic (let alone automatic) process for scanning image files on Commons, if that's what you're asking. It's a Sisyphean task. Most files that are problematic in one way or another get fished out early by individual users who patrol recent uploads. Others are found later during curation work, some go undetected for many years. Files that have been around longer are more likely to be OK, but that's about it. Does that help? El Grafo (talk) 13:22, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
What file on that page are you concerning about? Some of the files could be regular personality rights violations but definitely no sexual abuse. GPSLeo (talk) 14:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

By now, every image at Commons older than ?? has been scanned numerous times by GPT-style big-data learning alogorithms. This leads to the question that if CSAM should be among them, this software (which is supposedly near-AGI) has long since been reported to the responsible authorities, since otherwise it would itself violate the law? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C.Suthorn (talk • contribs) 15:13, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Anyone good at identifying near-shore marine life?

Lots to identify in Category:Charles Richey Sr. Viewpointi I got there yesterday at a super-low tide and took a bunch of photos. Somewhere between 30% and 50% show plants or animals probably worth identifying, and other than Pisaster ochraceus I'm hopeless.

Examples:

Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

maybe on reddit or some forums frequented by marine biologists you could get help faster.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

BaGLAMa 2

The BaGLAMa 2 tool displays statistics up to and including January 2023. It has not been updated since then. However, one of the statistics only goes up to December 2022, which refers to files related to the Benglish language that often have names in Bengali script. I therefore suspect that after November 2022, a file with a name in Benglish script was added, causing the BaGLAMa 2 script to crash, and that the script has not been able to run since january 2023, nor has it been fixed. One possibility would be to remove the statistics for the bengalic files and restart the script, another would be to fix the script.

https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/#gid=1016&month=202212&giu=bnwiki&server=bn.wikipedia.org

--C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 09:10, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if the tool could be fixed, too. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:49, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
The bug report for this is: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/glamtools/issues/96/the-tool-baglama-2-is-not-showing-data — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I have no login for bitbucket. It is also not mentinoened there that it is probably gid 1016 that is stopping it to work. ping @Magnus Manske C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 03:29, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

upload a file

help. I'm new and I don't know how to upload a file 1- what is the extension of a file to upload it 2- what program do I need to upload the file thank you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aldo R. Suarez Asuarez Art (talk • contribs) 12:48, 7 July 2023‎ (UTC)

Category:2020 photographs of Hannover

Do we have community consensus for creating such categories and mass-moving there files from Category:2020 in Hannover? Ymblanter (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Courtesy @Labintatlo: Ymblanter (talk) 09:53, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
And what about moving files from YYYY in CityCity to MMMMM-YYYY in CityCity? In my Opinion these Categories with photographed, day-date, month-date often do not help but make finding images more difficult, as a search for YYYY in CityCity will get no results. That is only possible with tools like deep cat, catscan whatever. Tools that are not known by reusers. Therefore this information of date and place shuld be moved to SDC (and it is something that can often be done by bot). ping @Multichill @Schlurcher. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 10:43, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I do not have a strong opinion either way, but I think we should decide on one format and stick to it. I had a hundred of photographs moved on my watchlist today, and I am not sure I see an added value for the move. Ymblanter (talk) 14:00, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For the ones that are specific to photographs taken on a particular day, there is a longstanding consensus not to take those below country level.
Category:2020 in Hannover is much more typical, and I see no advantage to Category:2020 photographs of Hannover. Typically over 90% or our media will be photographs. There's no point to moving them down a level. - Jmabel ! talk 14:33, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
See also Category:Photographs of Hannover by date, Category:Photographs of Germany by date by city (guess how many of them reach at least 50,000 inhabitants). --A.Savin 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
I think these must be upmerged to photographs of Germany by day and Hannover per year, I guess we have consensus for this. Ymblanter (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't have any problem with Hannover by month if there are enough photos to merit that (I'd say 500 or more per year). - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree with this, smth like August 2020 in Hannover would be ok if there are enough photographs. But I am not sure I am happy with 2020 photographs of Hannover. Ymblanter (talk) 15:48, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I reverted the Hannover category, but I did not look at the others. Ymblanter (talk) 11:59, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose split. These "photographs of" and "black and white photographs of" are multiplying, and they're utterly useless. It's particularly annoying when we have a useful split like "2023 in Hannover" as a sub of "Hannover", but when "Photos in Hannover" comes along it's then rippled into a hundred new split sub-categories.
As JMabel says, we're about photographs as our default position. In a few cases, we might have "maps of" or "diagrams of" in addition, as they're the exception cases. It's rare that photographs are the exception case, so rae that we will ever need a category stating that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
my habit is usually adding my files to "month yyyy in city", but i often see other users moving them somewhere further down and i dont care. i find it pointless to move them to "city photographs taken on yyyy-mm-dd" though.
"yyyy in city" is too broad for most big cities. breaking down into months is sufficient for most cities.
categorising by month has another advantage over by day, as quite often events last over several days. they will appear in one/two single monthly cats but with daily cats they will be spread all over the place. users wont see the connection between them.
imo, "month yyyy in city-district / village" (1 level below city/municipality) should be the lowest level in date-place intersection cats.--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
So, I would say the consensus that we should disestablish "Hangover photographs taken on 2435-12-09" etc. is clearly there, now sadly the more difficult part: to find someone willing to do all the cleanup work (properly, if possible). --A.Savin 22:16, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@A.Savin: amused by your "hangover" typo. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
I can do at least some of this, but we probably need to write it down somewhere, so that we do not come to the issue all and all over again. Ymblanter (talk) 07:25, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
just saying, actually this "city date" format is not that old.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?ns14=1&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=intitle%3A%22photographs+taken+on%22+-prefix%3ACategory%3APhotographs&sort=create_timestamp_asc
users have spotted this peculiar cat tree structure early on, but those cfd are still open. XD
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&ns4=1&prefix=Commons%3ACategories+for+discussion&sort=create_timestamp_asc&search=%22photographs+taken+on%22
there're some more cfd.
so, the earliest discussions were started only a few months after these cats emerged, but unfortunately those discussions have still not reached a conclusion.--RZuo (talk) 08:24, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
the earliest "month yyyy country photographs" was probably Category:September 2013 Sweden photographs created at 10:51, 11 March 2016‎ by User:J 1982.
most earliest such cats were created by this user on that day https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&namespace=14&newOnly=1&target=J+1982&wpfilters%5B0%5D=associated&offset=2016031113&limit=300 .--RZuo (talk) 09:30, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion requests: Use descriptive reasons (nominators and/or closing admins)

Randomly came across Commons:Deletion requests/File:Suðurlandsvegur, Hellisheiði, Aug. 16 (2) - 7.jpg and thought: Hm, Reykholt is a quite respected contributor (last active in 2018), so what might have been the "no educational value" issue? As an admin, I was able to check the deleted image and saw that it was a blurry photo of the Hellisheiði plateau near Reykjavík, Iceland, taken from a moving vehicle, probably a bus. If this were the only image of Hellisheiði we had on Commons, or one of a few, I would even say that it has educational value, as it still conveys the typical look of Hellisheiði's landscape from the road there. But as there are many, and many better, photos in Category:Hellisheiði, I completely agree with the deletion, as that photo doesn't add value to the selection there. Still, non-admins would have been left to wonder what the reason for deletion might have been. If either the nominator or the closing admin had just added something like "blurry picture from moving bus, quality too low", everyone could understand why it was deleted. So, and this is the point I want to make here, I recommend to always use descriptive reasons, so for example not just "no educational value", but also a short reason why there's no educational value. This enhances transparency and shouldn't cost too much time. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

+1 -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 20:45, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
As long as it's one or the other (i.e. as long as there's a reason somewhere on the page), I agree.
While we're on the topic, I know that some admins use "per COM:CSD" or similar for their speedy deletions. We should probably have some sort of guidance against that. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 22:04, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
 Agree -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 Agree –LPfi (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Scanning images for copyright violations?

How does Commons scan contributions for copyright violations?

If my memory is correct, someone with Wikimedia Commons deleted an image uploaded by Creator:Stephanie Kelton, because it was a photo of her taken by a professional photographer. She insisted that she had purchased the copyright, not just a print of it, from the photographer; Wikimedia Commons would not accept it.

I ask, because Wikipedia:KKFI just got caught with a copyright infringement on their website, and they are looking for some means of protecting themselves besides haranguing all their volunteers NOT to upload anything to their website about which the copyright might be plausibly questioned.

Thanks, DavidMCEddy (talk) 21:07, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@DavidMCEddy: Mostly we just have a lot of eyes on it, and also try to abide by the precautionary principle, which is to say that if there is any reasonable doubt about the copyright status of a file, we choose not to host it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks very much. DavidMCEddy (talk) 23:12, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason why we dont have a bot scanning for copyvio? Surely we could limit it to new users to keep the volume down Trade (talk) 02:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Where can i read more about the case with KKFI? Trade (talk) 02:16, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: how would you propose that a bot be able to detect the copyright status of an image? Much of the time it is hard enough for humans to do. - Jmabel ! talk 05:17, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
wikipedia:Content ID (system) is a thing, and it works for Google at scale, so I don't see why WMF could not implement a similar system if they were suitably motivated. However, WMF has a metric ton of volunteer labor to throw at this problem, and probably a much lower volume of daily uploads, so I doubt it would come to fruition in the foreseeable future. Elizium23 (talk) 07:40, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
That system relies on registered copyright claims in a non-public database, if I understand the Wikipedia article correctly. That is little use to us. The proportion of copyright violations that would be covered by that system (or our possible own version) is tiny and thus not worth spending money or manpower on. –LPfi (talk) 10:41, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel, as a first step it would help patrolers and patroling admins, if a bot checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload and, if present, tag them as copyvio-suspect. This step could be done completely automatically in order to save the time and bandwidth of patrolers. --Túrelio (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe just mark them as missing permission Trade (talk) 15:52, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I dont. Just need to check if the image have been published online before. Trade (talk) 15:53, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There are at least 2 things which could be done by a bot:
  1. Tag files from an external source by new users with "no permission" (except when there is already a license review).
  2. Tag files from an external source and without a license as copyright violations.
This would improve quite a lot cleaning the backlog of copyvios. Yann (talk) 16:02, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
reminds me of User:OgreBot/Uploads by new users, a pretty good tool. RZuo (talk) 16:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
checked every upload for hits in the web prior to time of upload means it is going to flag every PD image that is already online, every sub-TOO image that is already online, etc., and (barring some really clever tech) miss anything that is differently cropped; might or might not find something that's just differently encoded, depending on how it works. In short: yes a bot could give us some clues (pretty much the same ones we get with TinEye or Google Image Search) but cannot "scan for copyvios" as such. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggest to accept old files with GFDL presumed

According to {{GFDL-presumed}} it is not a valid license but a speedy deletion candidate. I have checked the iw links and as far as I can tell the only wikis that have more than a few files marked with this template are meta (463 files in m:Category:Presumed GFDL images) and English Wikibooks (196 files in b:Category:Presumed GFDL images). Apart from that there only seems to be a few random or not clearly categorized files.

The files on meta are in my opinion interessting as they are suggested wiki logos and a part of the history of wiki.

So I wonder if we could make an exception from the "not acceptable" just like we do with {{Grandfathered old file}}. For example files uploaded no later than 2006.

I know that if we make an exception to allow the files from meta then other files could end up on Commons too. But as metioned above it does not seem to be more than a few hundred and some of them are perhaps not even eligible for copyright and they are allready on a wiki project and wiki servers. So I do not think there would be any legal risk to accept them. --MGA73 (talk) 18:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Most of these have close to zero meta data. On their own they are pretty much pointless. They could potentially be useful for historic reasons, but if imported straight the way they are now they are devoid of context. If they at least had a little bit of a description along the lines of "this draft for the XY logo competition was created by User:Z" ... That way, they would really be stretching the boundaries of COM:SCOPE as well. Unless someone wants to go through all of them and add proper documentation, I think it's best they remain at meta. El Grafo (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
It is correct that there are very few meta data. It was not unusual years ago that there were no meta data. Many of the files are in use in pages like m:Wikiversity/Logo/archive-vote-1#Gallery and I think that in such cases it is easy to see the context. If the file is not used in a page it would be much harder to figure out that the file was uploaded as a part of a logo contest.
As it is right now then even if someone makes a good description etc. then the file could not be moved to Commons because {{GFDL-presumed}} is not accepted. --MGA73 (talk) 13:40, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess what I'm trying to say is: I would feel much more inclined to support an exception to that if they had well-curated meta data on their file description pages. Why bother making exceptions for something nobody cared about at all for 15+ years? El Grafo (talk) 14:10, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I can understand why. I cared but I have to admit I was busy on other wikis so I did not do much about files on meta :-) Anyway I will go to meta and ask if we should delete a bunch of files with other issues. --MGA73 (talk) 14:44, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Category for publications by organisations？

i'm thinking of creating a cat as a flat list for cats like Special:AllPages/Category:Publications of (e.g. Category:Publications of the United States government Category:Publications of European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control). they are publications whose authors are organisations.

currently there're Category:Publications by author, which i assume is for persons, and Category:Publications by publisher, which is about the publishing company instead of the author.

should there be such a cat? what's a good name?--RZuo (talk) 22:06, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

This sounds more like a metacat than a "flat list. But, really, in this case organizations are functioning as publishers. - Jmabel ! talk 22:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
i think i'll name it cat:publications by organization.
there's actually already Category:Documents by organization.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Sitting high

In Munich I took pictures of people sitting high on a bridge in the evening sunligth. These sitting places are only accessible with a climb. Is there any special category for people sitting high?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:56, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I would rather our volunteers dont get themself killed by doing such risky positions Trade (talk) 02:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
There are more risky walks and sitting places. I have added a fifth image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smiley.toerist (talk • contribs)
I did not find a category like the one you mentioned. It should be under the Category:Sitting. You could start and create one. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Except for the last one, these really are nothing out of the ordinary: they're sitting about 1.7m over the walkway, not much different than dangling your feet off the upper bunk of a pair of bunk beds. But the last one does seem like we might want a special category, for people walking/sitting on the superstructure of a bridge (as the usual walking/driving surface). Similarly, I'm sure we have some images of people walking the cables of a suspension bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 02:14, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Category:Rooftopping is a related concept.--RZuo (talk) 08:21, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Problems with those images

I have recently requested a split. Please note that I am in no way asking for this plit to be reverted.

Here is the summary of the situation:

  1. The image File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg (Open Clip Art).svg was uploaded in 2006 on WCommons by @Gryffindor: , allegedly from Open Clip Art but with no URL
  2. @Patricia.fidi: added the alleged Open Clip Art URL, but stated the image was their own work
  3. The Open Clip Art link is permanently dead so nothing can be checked
  4. In 2014, @Superbenjamin: uploaded a new version of the file, all the while keeping the Open Clip Art license. This license was kept despite the fact the user made no mention of the new version of the image they uploaded being on Open Clip Art (the now-dead URL was not changed).
  5. The two images have now been split. The 2014 image is at File:Flag of Comtat Venaissin.svg. However, the version uploaded by Superbenjamin does not have proper licensing since it does not fall under the Open Clip Art license, and there is no mention of a source for this image or that the image is own work.

Veverve (talk) 12:06, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

As far as I can see the new version is just a minor edit of the original version (change of color and thicker lines). The original version was licensed {{Cc-zero}} via the {{PD-OpenClipart}} template.
Usually we assume that if someone upload a new version on top of an old version they accept the existing license. If someone just make minor edits I doubt they are above COM:TOO and therefore eligible for copyright. I would worry more if it was a completely different file. --MGA73 (talk) 14:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@MGA73: what license do you feel I should add to the newer version, then? Veverve (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@Veverve: I added {{Cc-zero}}. --MGA73 (talk) 15:49, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Cat for ukrainian soldiers training in uk?

i cant find the cat for things like https://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/news-and-latest-activity/news/2022/july/22/20220722-royal-navy-training-ukraine-sailors-as-part-of-uks-support-to-country . RZuo (talk) 13:37, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

As most of these trainings are not public we will not have much or even any photos of this. I think you would need to create a new cat. GPSLeo (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Given taht Category:Military people of Ukraine in Vinnytsia exists, I would suggest starting with Category:Military people of Ukraine in the United Kingdom, adding "in 2023" if per-year categories are desired. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:49, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

"Intersection" categories

It seems to me that category like Category:Republican Party governors of Washington (state) is a sheer liability. If I'm looking for a governor of Washington State, why should I have to know their party to find them? (Oddly, the same has not been done for Democrats.) It's not like Category:Governors of Washington (state) is such a prohibitively big category as to need a split like this, either.

I see this all the time. It's as if someone gets a charge out of chopping up categories finer and finer, and the way our customs on Commons work, pretty much anyone can split things up like this, and it is very hard ever to get consensus to lump them back together. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

i agree. imo most cats should only be about one concept. political affiliation (party), government office (like state governor), gender, year of birth, nationality... are all distinct concepts. intersections like Category:Republican Party governors of Washington (state), Category:Members of the Danish Folketing by political party are really impractical. RZuo (talk) 23:15, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Creative Archive Licence

Hello! I've just uploaded this image from People's Collection Wales, which uses the Creative Archive Licence, but I couldn't find a tag. So far as I can tell the licence is appropriate for Wikimedia, so is it just that a tag doesn't exist yet?

Also, for some reason the image has gone blurry post-upload, any ideas? Thank you, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope: Looks like the Creative Archive License has a noncommercial limitation, which is not compatible with Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:45, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
That's disappinting. It seems Cadw has shifted its media from the Open Government licence to Creative Archive, so none of it will be accessible in the future. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Confusingly, and unhelpfully, they say (my emboldening): "The People's Collection is using (with some modifications) the licence developed by the Creative Archive Licence Group". The modified licenece itself includes "2.1 The Licensor hereby grants to You a Non-Commercial, No-Endorsement, payment-free, non-exclusive licence within the United Kingdom..." and "6.4 The Licensor reserves the right to change the terms of this Licence at any time..." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:49, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Problems with newly uploaded files (mostly PDF's) feeding Wikisource

Hi, I raised this problem at Wikisource scriptorum and it was suggested I should also rise it here.

I have suffered repeated problems with files I upload to Commons and their display in Wikisource (mostly PDF's but occasionally DJVU). I will use File:The life and opinions of Tristram Shandy (Volume 3).pdf as an example.

I have previously transcribed vols 1 and 2 of this 9 volume work, but the volume 3 scans are so degraded as to be largely illegible. To try and fix this, I downloaded each of the page images from the source (as JPEG's) and combined them into a single PDF (I have an up-to-date, legitimate version of FoxitPDF Editor and also a legitimate but somewhat elderly version of Adobe Acrobat). In both cases, this resulted in a file size over the 100MB limit for Commons, so I set about reducing the file size. I eventually settled on a c.48MB file which is very close to the original JPEG's in quality. I uploaded it as a replacement on Commons.

However, this file will not display in Wikisource. On [1] it appears as a hyperlinked file name; on individual pages there is no image; and if I attempt to edit a page, a pop-up appears saying 'Failed to initialise OpenSeadragon, no image found'.

If I go to the Wikisource page holding the file ([2]), there is no thumbnail, only a logo icon and a hyperlink. It gives the correct file size and number of pages but states the page size as 0 x 0 pixels, as it also does in the file history at the bottom of the page.

If I click on the hyperlink, it takes me to the Commons page for the file. This is displaying all information correctly (i.e. page images, file size, page size and number of pages). If I re-download this file from Commons, it opens and displays properly in Abode Acrobat (both editor and reader versions), FoxitPDF (both editor and reader versions) and SmallPDF.

As I say, I have had this problem with other uploaded PDFs (mostly file fixes, as I usually use DJVU for my own new uploads). Is this down to Commons and, if so, does anyone have any suggestions as to the cause of the problem and how to rectify it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisguise (talk • contribs) 12 July 2023‎ (UTC)

  1. if the file was shrunk at the cost of its image quality, then you shouldnt have shrunk it. use User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js instead.
  2. have you tried purging all the relevant pages on commons and on wikisource?--RZuo (talk) 17:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

1902 video

This 1902 video on YouTube, "part of the Mitchell and Kenyon collection", has a modern commentary.

Mitchell died in 1952, Kenyon in 1925, but we don't know who made it. Assuming it is PD, does anyone have the wherewithal to upload it, without audio, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:44, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

File:Champion Athletes at Birmingham (1902).webm. — Racconish 💬 06:24, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Motd/2023-07

Could someone kindly fix the width issue which seems to also affect later months ? Thanks, — Racconish 💬 06:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Re: Category:Alternative logos of free software

I create logos for free software when they have none, or use an unidentifiable icon. For this purpose I created this category in the public domain. I also created, but not uploaded yet, an icon for LibreOffice which uses a blank white page as their logo. Am I allowed to include it there, considering I have no idea what the law is, and what is LibreOffice policy is on the subject? — Ineuw talk 07:27, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

imo most unofficial logos are of little use/value.--RZuo (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Undo

Hi, can you remove new version of this image, i was testing croptool. Thx Bikar Orxan (talk) 14:23, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Bikar Orxan: done. in future you should carry out tests on File: JPG Test.jpg.--RZuo (talk) 14:46, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Bsicon pages

The image catalogue pages no longer display correctly. Until recently, only the icons that actually existed were shown, while missing ones were hidden. Now a red link shows instead. Has there been an edit somewhere that inadvertently caused this? Useddenim (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallery details gadget

…broken, again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Extended confirmed rights and extended confirmed protection

Should we add an extended-confirmed user right and extended-confirmed protection to Commons like in Wikipedia? This group is created as an intermediate rights between confirmed/autoconfirmed users to template editors, autopatroller, and file movers and have the following rights:

  • The ability to move files but they cannot bypass the redirect.
  • Can have some rights from autopatroller such as uploading MP3 files and editing others' user page but they cannot patrol page which requires the user become patrol or patroller.
  • Can edit extended-confirmed protected pages
  • Requires the account to be at least 90 days old and 1000 edits and granted automatically when the user reached the threshold.

The extended-confirmed user is a good alternative because the user don't need to request rights and the extended confirmed users are granted automatically when the user is 90 days old and made at least 1000 edits.

The extended confirmed protection is also an alternative to template protection. It is good for:

  • Pages with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users such as Commons:Deletion requests
  • Templates where general community editing is still required when template protection is too restrictive.

Vitaium (talk) 04:10, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

@Vitaium: several things here don't make sense to me:
  • What do you mean by "bypass the redirect"? Do you mean "delete the resulting redirect" or do you mean something else?
  • "Pages with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users such as Commons:Deletion requests": at first I couldn't even parse this. Am I correct in understanding that it means to say "Pages, such as Commons:Deletion requests, with disruption coming from autoconfirmed users"? And even then I can't tell what you are driving at. You are probably referring to some history of disruption that I'm not familiar with. Could you spell that out?
  • "Templates where general community editing is still required when template protection is too restrictive." Maybe it's because it's late and I'm tired, but I can't even parse that. Could you rephrase? - Jmabel ! talk 05:26, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Vitaium (talk) 05:55, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We do not need a new user group for this. We could create a protection level allowing only autopatrolled users to edit. I do not see a need for rights between no extended rights and autopatroll rights. GPSLeo (talk) 06:44, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
What about we should make autopatroller granted automatically for users that are 30 days old and 500 edits? Vitaium (talk) 08:11, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we should not add this right based on edit count as this would mark much disruptive behavior and especially copyright violations as patrolled. But we should use the candidate list a bit more Commons:Requests for rights/possible autopatrolled candidates. GPSLeo (talk) 10:22, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Because of the availability of mass upload tools to all users (a major discussion in and of itself), it is vastly easier to get to 500 edits on Commons than other wikis (especially without being noticed by other editors). Autopatrol on Commons will always need human review rather than being granted automatically. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:37, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose We already have enough problems of filemovers' not understanding COM:FR and making moves with no basis in policy. Widening file-moving permissions will only make that worse. --bjh21 (talk) 11:28, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose as I agree with bjh21. File renaming is abused allready. --MGA73 (talk) 14:48, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
 Oppose, pe the above. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:09, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Bsicon pages

The image catalogue pages no longer display correctly. Until recently, only the icons that actually existed were shown, while missing ones were hidden. Now a red link shows instead. Has there been an edit somewhere that inadvertently caused this? Useddenim (talk) 20:36, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallery details gadget

…broken, again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:00, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Photo challenge May results

feathers: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Victoria crowned pigeon Western Crowned Pigeon
in Geneva, Switzerland.		 Peacock feather close-up
Author Roy Egloff RomanDeckert Mister rf
Score 10 9 7
Macro photography: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Close up photograph of wing of Papilio
demoleus (Linnaeus, 1758) - Lime Swallowtail		 weibliche Schwarze
Habichtsfliege (Dioctria
atricapilla) mit Morgentau		 Caterpillar of the small
frost moth on a rose leaf
Author ManaskaMukhopadhyay Carsten Siegel Ermell
Score 12 11 10

Congratulations to Roy Egloff, RomanDeckert, Mister rf, ManaskaMukhopadhyay, Carsten Siegel and Ermell. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

@Jarekt: This has once again added horizontal scrolling to the page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:47, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: not for me. What's your screen width? - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
My screenwidth is reasonable. This is a recurring problem which I have raised previously. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:55, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Andy, Sorry about it. I made it more narrow. --Jarekt (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Unidentified politicians: What is "unidentified"?

Hi all! Categories like Politics have an influx of at least a dozen portrait images of assumed politicians per week. Others like Politicians contain between 150 (last month) and way over 2000 (last year) images. This category is of course way too broad, so its purpose is essentially identical with Unidentified politicians and/or Politicians of unidentified countries. There are several people who volunteered to identify all these politicians by name and/or country, and sort them accordingly. The principle of categories for unidentified politicians has been around for a long time, and several sub-categories like for example Category:Unidentified politicians of Europe, the US, etc. date back to the mid-2010s. I created several more of them (one per country, and also a template for that) because I see these categories as a necessary step in processing all these images so that each face gets properly put into the correct, corresponding category. The end goal of course is, to have not a single file placed directly in Politicians of..., because everyone is placed in sub-categories by name, gender or party affiliation. (For most countries, we are far away from that, but it's okay, Commons is alive).

Questions emerge on how that processing gets properly done. Some fellows say that it's fully sufficient to categorize Mr. PvR-06863 (actually, it's "Jiří Vítek") into "Politicians of Czechia", because he can be easily identified via the image description - no further action needs to be taken, and so my edit that moved him into "Unidentified..." was reverted. The same occurs with Mr. Kunc MG 4672-4-1536x1536 (the description says it's actually "Petra Kunce"), and Mr. Vranov na lodi Viktorie 2021 (the description says his real name is "Aktuální fotografie."). So, this last one did have neither the name in the image title, nor in the image description... but the image gets used in an actual article about the person, so again, the identification is obvious from the file usage and no further action needed to be taken. So, in short, people are protesting that these images already are identified according to their sense.

My own claim is: If a portrait sits uncategorized directly in (eg.) P.o. Colombia, at least the filename should include a full name of the person, otherwise it should instead be placed into the corresponding Unidentified p.o. Colombia: The image description doesn't help at all in the category view; most images are labeled with the name; and by moving them to "unidentified" I am merely pointing out that the image needs forther processing.
The whole issue actually began when I started to sort through "Unidentified politicians", where I try to find out their country and a category with their name as stated in the filename or description. If the category with their name stays red, they don't have a Commons-category and I place them as unidentified.

Because of the conflicts I mentioned above: in the sense of "Unidentified people"-categories, what counts as "identification" of a person?

I don't think I need to point out that creating the correct category should be done by local people, and according to local customs and name usage, which might not be reflected in the files already. The best I can do quickly while sorting through Unidentified is putting the portraits into the right countries, and make suggestions of a possible category in red, like so, or so.

A solution to the issue might be to change the name of the "unidentified" category branch. "Politicians of Brazil to be categorized", "Improperly named images of politicians of Saudi Arabia", "Politicians of the United States to be classified"... I think that would be unwieldy, so I like "Unidentified". --Enyavar (talk) 17:05, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

In my view, "Unidentified" should mean we actually don't know who it is (missing name or so little context that you can't tell what country, office, etc.). Otherwise, yes, it probably should be a "to be categorized" maintenance category. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Trying to keep myself short: Who is "we", and how do we actually know or not know? Some editors are able to read Arabic and Korean; some editors will know who "AOC" and "RFK" are just from such improper descriptions; some editors will point out that names are wrong, incomplete or misspelled, so that everyone else only appeared to know. On the other hand, when I browse badly-named files in a category, I don't know who is depicted.
I forgot to mention the guideline Overcat that lead to my reasoning; and I forget to mention the people who found issue with my approach and who might be eager to claim that I did everything wrong: @Rudolph Buch, Gikü, INS Pirat, and Jklamo: Hi! On the other hand, I have no idea who appreciated my approach. I found that someone(s) just quietly cleared a lot of unidentified images from the Brazilian and Mexican categories into proper categories, no idea who. --Enyavar (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate your efforts to improve categorisation, and I welcome the creation of new categories for people that can be linked to wikidata (and thus use the Wikidata Infobox for even better identification). But I share the view that the "Unidentified" categories are really meant for images of completely unidentified people (like this], not to be a maintenance category for other purposes (insufficient description, insufficient categorisation, etc.). Jklamo (talk) 13:08, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:160128_BZ_Fin_EU_Europagebouw_Amsterdam_4184_(24671667945).jpg&oldid=743945760 is unidentified.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:160128_BZ_Fin_EU_Europagebouw_Amsterdam_4184_(24671667945).jpg&oldid=783295635 is identified. RZuo (talk) 19:52, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

UploadStatsBot

It looks like User:UploadStatsBot has not run in over 3 years. Is there any acceptable substitute? - Jmabel ! talk 22:34, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Deletion nomination error

The deletion nomination CAPTCHA information says, "Either enter the captcha or give it up. You if a template you are inserting contains an URL, you will be prompted for each page you’re editing. Create an account, do some useful stuff and become autoconfirmed." The second sentence is grammatically incorrect. It should say, "If a template you are inserting contains a URL, you will be prompted for each page you’re editing." The third sentence should be deleted because doing the indicated missions are not required to complete the CAPTCHA. --70.68.168.129 22:26, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

✓ Done I edited the message, see Special:Diff/782881372 for the change. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow! This has always had this weird wording (over a decade)! - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
The first and the third sentences of this message are in no way better. They are insinuating quite clearly that I am vandalizing and should not be doing this useless stuff.
I would understand if you get this kind of message after the third or fifth attempt, but this is the very first message I get when I nominate an image for deletion. Is the person who nominates a copyvio or some other presumably illegal content to be treated like they are vandalizing? --2003:C0:8F37:2200:B07A:24E6:A7CF:30E2 08:26, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I just realized that you had already changed those too. So much better, thanks! --2003:C0:8F37:2200:D4E0:484D:CEAE:7910 11:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Kedarnath and Badrinath photography restrictions

Recently, the photography around Kedarnath and Badrinath temples has been prohibited and the temple authority will take legal action against violators. Not only that, closed-circuit television cameras are installed to monitor the area around the temples. Although such photography restrictions are considered non-copyright restrictions, these restrictions may bring Wikimedia Commons into yet another legal trouble if any of our Wikimedians try to photograph the temples. Therefore, it may affect the operation of Wikimedia Commons in India. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:44, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: it could clearly create problems for the individual photographers, but how could it create problems for Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
If a photographer is caught for photographing one of the above temples and the temple authority takes a legal action against them and if they confess that they have done it for Wikimedia Commons, then Wikimedia Commons will obviously get into a legal trouble. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 15:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The photographer is not acting on behalf of Commons or Wikimedia, so I also do not see how this is an actionable issue. The temple authority may issue a takedown request, and it will be up to the Office to decide how to act. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
There won't be a takedown request considering buildings (including temples) are out of copyright in India as per COM:FOP India. However, the possibilities of a copyfraud are not ruled out. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Can the Comment I wrote when uploading a photo be tweaked?

Yesterday, I uploaded a photo of Mo Foster (File:Michael Ralph "Mo" Foster.jpg). I can't quite remember how I typed his name in the Comment, but I probably wrote "Mo Foster". In any event, the Wikimedia page for the photo shows his name (in the Comment) with a red link. Is there any way to fix that? Many thanks Misha Wolf (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

By default, links on Commons are treated as linking to gallery pages on Commons, not articles on Wikipedia. To link to a page on the English Wikipedia, add w: before the page title in the link, e.g. [[w:Mo Foster]], and you'll get w:Mo Foster. I've edited the description for you. Omphalographer (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Omphalographer, thanks for that. The Comment at File:Michael Ralph "Mo" Foster.jpg still appears to show a red link, though. Thanks again Misha Wolf (talk) 18:52, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The comment is based on the edit summary you provided when you uploaded the file, and can't be modified. Sorry. Omphalographer (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks anyway. Misha Wolf (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Archiving of source URLs by bot

I raised a question at meta:User talk:InternetArchiveBot#Source URLs on commons about whether the bot was archiving Commons' source URLs. I was told:

I used to do that with WaybackMedic and got a pile of grief on different occasions from users who say the archive URL is not the original source image and it should not be archived even if dead. So I stopped trying to help Commons, at least until they figure out what they want.

To be clear, the answer refers to updating links here to point to the archived version, as done on other Wikimedia projects.

Can we confirm consensus for that? What are the issues, if any, with doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems to me that an archive link is actually ideal, in that it documents the state of the source on a particular date. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. Having a snapshot of the original file is something we should want, so I don't understand what those other users are complaining about. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:25, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Not just the original file (which we have a copy of), but, more importantly, the terms under which the image was released at the time we obtained it. It isn't uncommon for sources to change their copyright terms over time. Omphalographer (talk) 18:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:Bsicon pages

The image catalogue pages no longer display correctly. Until recently, only the icons that actually existed were shown, while missing ones were hidden. Now a red link shows instead. Has there been an edit somewhere that inadvertently caused this? Useddenim (talk) 12:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Fix information - Category:Madonna (entertainer) by year / Gaga

I haven't located where and how to edit neither here or Wikidata her infobox at the "Category:Madonna (entertainer) by year" which contains some errors. Under "Alternative names", "Oen, Hong Sen" should be removed. And I think her Description "American film director, composer, film producer, writer, actress and dancer" is not accurate. Isn't mentioned she is a singer. Should be something like "singer, song-writer, and actress". Lady Gaga has a similar description problem in her category (with Italian-Canadian singer"). Thanks in advance.

--Apoxyomenus (talk) 18:08, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

That data is being pulled from Wikidata items Q1744 (Madonna) and Q19848 (Lady Gaga), and can be edited there. (I don't immediately see how it's ending up with "Italian-Canadian" as a description for Lady Gaga, though.) Omphalographer (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The Creator template, rather than just using the Wikidata language description, pulls a combination of properties from the WD entry to build the Creator description. So, for Madonna, it's pulling country of citizenship and occupation, and in Gaga's instance, it's seemingly pulling ethnic group and occupation. I've fixed Madonna's situation, but I'm not really sure how best to deal with Gaga's. Creator prioritizes ethnicity over citizenship for some reason. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:42, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Issue solved with Madonna. I've seen more than one artists with same problems with Madonna and Gaga. Regards, --Apoxyomenus (talk) 20:46, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Sloooooow…

All WMF sites I’m editing right now (commons, en.pt, and pt.wp) are reacting extremely slow, while all other websites and internet services are whooshing at normal speed. All was normal several hours ago, before I left for the great outdoors. Is it just me? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:54, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's not just you. See Wikimedia Status. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 01:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems to be back to normal, now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 04:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Bulk file download

Hi, is there any way that I can bulk download all the files that I have previously uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

@ITookSomePhotos: Have you seen Commons:Download_tools? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:13, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestion, but I don't see that anything there would be of use to me. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 13:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Koavf: Actually, looking again, could you (or anyone) confirm whether any of these tools can be used to do what I want by an ordinary user (not programmer) from a Windows PC, and without the need to install any additional software on the PC. I don't really understand how to these tools, or whether they are designed for ordinary users. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I am not familiar with any method that you can use to bulk download without installing new software or modifying scripts such as e.g. with a Python script. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Ordinary users don't usually bulk download files. Therefore there is no need for an easy way to do it. But you can use any of the tools, if you get it running on your computer. (1753 uploaded files) If I need to bulk download files from commons I use wget or curl. Both are standard software that can be installed at Windows. But you would need to compute the URLs. That is best done with a tool or possibly with an API call. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Speedy delete or delete Uncategorized Mediɑ

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:UncategorizedCategories&limit=500&offset=0

I found this page(s) of uncategorized media, some have images so i will be Categorizing them, but, There are literally 100's of Cat's with no Cat links, empty pages no files etc. Shouldn't these empties be Delete or Speedy delete? I found an old one of mine I forgot to speedy so just did that. It and others will just be sitting there doing nothing and taking up space? I would like to speedy delete request as I go along. Any thought??̴̃ User talk:Photo Archives

  • You can definitely speedy-delete any empty cat that isn't more or less brand new. Give someone a few days for a brand new category, though, it may be work in progress. - Jmabel ! talk 16:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
OK Thanks̴̴ Photo Archives (talk) 17:58, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Structured data

See: File:Charles Frederick Lindauer I (1836-1921) and Louis Julius Lindauer (1838-1915) arrested in 1866 for a robbery posted in the Newark Daily Advertiser of Newark, New Jersey on January 23, 1866.png, we list the people depicted in the news article, but we don't list the publication the news article appears in. Do we have a data field where "Newark Daily Advertiser" should appear like publication=Newark Daily Advertiser. Or should it be lumped in with "depicts=Newark Daily Advertiser"? We do have other publication related fields like publication_date. It would be better if we distinguish between "items about the Newark Daily Advertiser" and "items published in the Newark Daily Advertiser". --RAN (talk) 18:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): As far as I can see, this does not depict even Charles Frederick Lindauer, Louis Julius Lindauer, or the Baldwin robbery. I would have expected significant person (P3342) for the people and significant event (P793) for the robbery.
For the source publication, presumably you want published in (P1433). There is also publisher (P123), but that seems less appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Thanks! "published in", not sure why I did not see it myself. I use depict, because that is the way bots have been scraping category files and auto-adding, and using significant_person gives and error message. --RAN (talk) 18:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Category: Twitter

Category:Twitter was moved, I believe incorrectly as the service continues to be called Twitter, regardless of any announcements about a future name. There may have been some confusion as the logo is currently being changed to an "X". However, I can't move the category back, as the original page is now a redirect. I'm not sure what the best way to handle this is. - Odin (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I reverted the move and will ping you in the COM:CFD I'm starting. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! - Odin (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

History of white Americans

I've had a look at History of white Americans and the gallery clearly shows nothing good ever came from white Americans. The article en:White Americans states that "From their earliest presence in North America, White Americans have contributed literature, art, cinema, religion, agricultural skills, foods, science and technology, fashion and clothing styles, music, language, legal system, political system, and social and technological innovation to American culture," but evidently this is not notable enough to be included in the gallery. I wanted to tag the gallery as POV-pushing but there is no such template. --TadejM (t/p) 22:13, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Hideous. I would be entirely in favor of deleting this. I can say confidently that en-wiki would delete this in a jiffy as a POV screed: I don't see why it should be any more acceptable just because it is done as a photo essay on Commons. And I'm restraining myself enormously to keep it at that. - Jmabel ! talk 23:27, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
+2. Totally worth POV gallery and that's putting it nicely. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot for the opinions. I agree and have now deleted the gallery. If anyone disagrees, please take it to COM:UDR. --TadejM (t/p) 00:23, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Did you gave a warning to the author? Trade (talk) 02:13, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: I for one consciously chose not to. I do not think I would be capable of engaging with this person about this in a civil manner. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 9 July 2023 (UTC)

Gallery details gadget

…broken, again. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:02, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Resolved
Almost solved: q.v. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Legal disclaimer for Indian maps

Hi, I'm not a regular user of Commons commmunity pages, but I wasn't sure if somewhere else was appropriate. On the English Wikipedia, there has been posts from the WMF regarding their communications with the Indian government regarding maps hosted on Commons. [3]. According to Indian law, it is illegal to show maps that depict India's actual line of control, rather than all of the territory it claims. Obviously, trying to alter or remove maps that don't comply with this law is a non-starter, but I thought I would ask if it is appropriate to create a legal disclaimer, akin to something like Template:Chinese boundaries. I checked "Category:Non-copyright restriction templates" and didn't find an Indian equivalent. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:19, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I've figured out how to edit the templates and implemented the change. Hemiauchenia (talk) 02:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Images to dewiki

Hello I would like to know if we can import images as is or not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Althair (talk • contribs)

@Althair: I don't see any problem with that image. It says on the page that it is PD in its country of origin, and given the date of publication (1905) it has to be free in the U.S. That remark replies, of course, to this particular image, not to all images so tagged on de-wiki; anything that was published in 1928 or later would need a specific basis to be PD in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. It says that it is probably in the public domain in Germany, in Austria, and in Switzerland. Unfortunately, the author is unknown. Therefore, you cannot be entirely sure that the author died more than 70 years ago, even though this is likely because the postcard was used in 1905. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:22, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much {{Ping|Jmabel}}, now the problem comes from which dewiki template to use to allow the import, and if that is correct. Althair Talk 13:57, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@Althair: I have no idea what you mean by "which dewiki template to use to allow the import". There is an option on file pages on all of the Wikipedias to export the file to Wikimedia Commons, which invokes FileImporter (which, as it happens, was implemented by Wikimedia Deutschland).
By the way, if you put "nowiki" tags around a ping, the ping doesn't work. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry for the nowiki error, @Jmabel: , the visual feedback mode seems to fail. I meant that FileImporter doesn't allow to import the image because the license doesn't allow it, and I don't see any proper license for the image on dewiki. Althair Talk 17:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
pick one you like from mw:Extension:FileImporter/Data/de.wikipedia#Good.--RZuo (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
How about {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}}? It indicates a publisher, but no author (unless that was on the back, which would be very unusual for a postcard in that era). - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Problem with that "license template" is, that in theory it's supposed to be used only for images where the uploader conducted very thorough research (beyond just a cursory Google search) and were unable to find any information about the author or their date of death. But in practice, it quickly turned into more of a "if it looks old enough and the author isn't stated anywhere on or near it, just upload it with this template". So {{PD-EU-no author disclosure}} for example wouldn't really fit, unless there's evidence that the author's identity was never disclosed anywhere ever since. Which would require a lot if research in spdcialised databases, publications, etc. --2A02:810B:580:11D4:2F4:6FFF:FE72:D65F 19:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Photowalk during Wikimania Singapore

Signup here for Wikimania Singapore photowalk

Commons Photographers User Group is planning to have a photowalk during Wikimania Singapore 2023 those who are interested please Sign up here -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 08:55, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

I've disabled the intrusive animated gif; please upload a static version. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:18, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 08:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Please, close this CfD from September 2022

Here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2022/09/Category:Odesa Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 05:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: ✓ Done. Thank you. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 08:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Unclosed CFDs

The closures of CFDs are less frequent than the closures of deletion requests. Because of these unclosed CFDs, we have chock-full of controversial categories like Technical institutes, Engineering colleges, etc. Administrators and uninvolved editors should look into these unclosed CFDs. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

VRTS for AI generated images

Is there a reason why we have started to do this? I think it is very problematic if the VRTS team starts to go against the Commons consensus regarding copyright of AI works--Trade (talk) 22:14, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

It's fine for a work in the public domain in most jurisdictions to also have a free license. Remember, the UK grants copyright to AI-generated works, so the free license is actually useful there. Just add {{PD-algorithm}} and leave the rest. Nosferattus (talk) 01:44, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Something ineligible for copyright can by its very nature not need permission to be uploaded Trade (talk) 02:05, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: if some countries consider it copyrightable and require a license, are you saying we should not record such a license? That seems a bit odd to me. - Jmabel ! talk 05:37, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
And the relation of the author to the United Kingdom is? Trade (talk) 12:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: At the risk of speaking for someone else: the relation is just that someone in the UK (or another country with similar protections) might wish to use the image and need a license. We require licenses that cover country of origin & the U.S., but we certainly permit licenses that are relevant to other countries. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
It is not relevant for the UK because the user who made it resides in Jordan Trade (talk) 20:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: The UK still grants the prompter copyright within the UK even if they've never set foot there. So if someone wants to reuse the image within the UK, they will need the license. Nosferattus (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
What about the 2000 other AI images that also needs a license to be used in the UK? Trade (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: Unless they were below the TOO, I personally would recommend against using them there without the permission of the person who gave the generating prompt. If someone wanted to bring a copyright infringement case, I'd say they had a fair chance of winning. - Jmabel ! talk 02:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: This is why {{PD-algorithm}} has a warning on it about images being copyrighted in the UK. Nosferattus (talk) 19:15, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
And that warning is sufficient enough Trade (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
A warning is not sufficient if you need to use it in the UK; the license is necessary. That's why we provide the license when available.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
And the VRTS could not consult the rest of the community before changing the copyright of hundreds of images? At this point it cant even be called consensus based Trade (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: What do you mean by "changing the copyright"? Copyright is established by governments, not by us here at Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
The part where hundreds of AI images were changed from being Public Domain to copyrighted Trade (talk) 22:29, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
We can do something like {{Licensed-PD-Art}}, i.e. "this work is PD in the US and many other jurisdictions, but if it's not PD in your jurisdiction, here's a backup license you can use." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Could you try and edit the template so i can see what you had in mind Trade (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I would have hoped this was something Krd would have consulted the community about before deciding that AI images should have permissions. But i guess there is nothing else to do now but to try and sort this license mess out.--Trade (talk) 03:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
That does not answer what we do with the images Trade (talk) 22:38, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
VRTS has more than one possible role is this. In the very case, there may be some pre or postprocessing before or after the AI worked which may or may not be about TOO. There is no reason not to approve such permission. At the very least there is no reason to remove such permission and keep the cc-by-sa tag; it's either PD or not PD, but not both.
Further, even the fact that something is AI created and therefore PD may not be obvious and is a possible case of reasonable ticket permissison. --Krd 18:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
The uploader literally states that the image is AI generated. We either take him on his word or we dont Trade (talk) 01:14, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

As for the whole "if the images are PD in the US but copyrighted in the UK then we need to get permission" argument. Commons have hundreds of paintings still copyrighted in the UK. We dont require permission because the law that protects their copyright does not apply to outside the UK. We just state a warning and leave the reader on to deal with the issue if applicable to them. --Trade (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

That is true that we don't require it (we require PD or license only for country of origin and for U.S. where our servers are located) but, exactly as in this case, we allow the person or organization that holds copyright in the UK to grant a license that is useful in the UK. - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
The image was threatened with deletion if no VRTS was provided within seven days. That is the complete opposite of "we dont require permission" Trade (talk) 01:12, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
That you'd have to take up with User:علاء, who tagged it. However, at that time there was no claim of PD, just a license offered by the uploader, User:Hasanisawi, who had claimed authorship, which علاء apparently doubted. Hanasawi then contacted VRT. Since I'm not part of that team, I don't know exactly what the correspondence involved, but they were obviously satisfied that insofar as this work may be copyrighted, Hanasawi holds the copyright and may grant a license. Later the PD template was added. As far as I can tell, the PD template could have been added sooner, which would have been another way to resolve this and keep the image. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"That you'd have to take up with User:علاء, who tagged it." Then why did you said permission was optional when that wasnt the case? "I don't know exactly what the correspondence involved, but they were obviously satisfied that insofar as this work may be copyrighted" Them being satisfied with an image using the wrong license does not change the fact that the license was blatantly wrong. The only thing you have demonstrated so far is that the VRT are in fact infallible. You know what license Commons:AI explicitly tells us to use so i i would say evicence has already been provided Trade (talk) 02:53, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: "Then why did you said permission was optional when that wasnt the case?" Please don't confuse different matters. The current state of the file page is entirely different than when علاء tagged it. At that time it did not have a PD template of any sort. You would have to ask علاء why they tagged it as "no permission" rather than add {{PD-algorithm}}, but frankly people often use {{No permission since}} on files they could sort out for themselves. Surely that is not the focus of this discussion. As to why علاء doubted that the uploader was the person who held copyright in those countries which allow such files to be copyrighted, again, you'd have to ask علاء. Frankly, you are making a mountain out of a molehill, and I'm done engaging with you on this. - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
P.S.: I personally think the file is out of scope and should have been deleted on that basis. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
con tutte queste abbreviazioni e termini tecnici, continuo a non capire quale il problema hasanisawi (talk) 13:18, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hasanisawi: The problem, fundamentally, is that any time you upload an AI-generated image you should include {{PD-algorithm}}. The rest of this is about (1) whether or not it is OK to also offer other licenses, covering countries in which AI-generated images can be copyrighted, (2) whether User:علاء handled this correctly or not, and (3) whether this particular image is in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
I must underline the fact that the image was not done completely with the AI, because I started with a freehand drawing and then after generating the image, I had to correct many errors with the photoshop program. hasanisawi (talk) 16:13, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hasanisawi: then, assuming the image is not deleted as being out of scope, you would do well to state explicitly on the file page what work is yours vs. the AI's. If I personally were posting something that is part mine and part an AI's, I'd probably post the various phases (if only by overwriting successively under the same filename) to make it clear what work was mine and what was the AI's. As it is, it's impossible to tell whether your work is copyrightable in (for example) the U.S. or not, because it is not clear how much human contribution it involves. - Jmabel ! talk 18:44, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
grazie. ma non si possono caricare le varie fasi di elaborazioni dell'immagine in photoshop , perché una volta che si arriva al risultato ottenuto si uniscono i vari layer in uno solo hasanisawi (talk) 18:59, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
@Hasanisawi: but you can save (and upload) the state where you go from your work to using an AI, or vice versa. And you can certainly give a verbal description of what sort of work you've done by hand, especially if you want to make a claim that there is sufficient human creative contribution to qualify for copyright.
Not something involving an AI, but here's a recent example of my showing (by uploading a version) both what my camera produced on its own and what I did to postprocess the shot into what I wanted: File:Xavier Lopez 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
"Commons have hundreds of paintings still copyrighted in the UK." Really? Could you give a couple of examples please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:03, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Anything painted/published before 1927 by a U.S. painter who died after 1953. File:People-of-Chilmark-Benton-1920-lrg.jpg is a good example, off the top of my head. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. (I misunderstood the claim). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:37, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm in the Legal department at the Wikimedia Foundation and lurk here from time to time. Spitballing here to see if this would be helpful: what do people think of adding a field to the upload wizard's current flow for an uploader to "self-report" whether or not a work was fully generated through a generative AI program. It wouldn't necessarily "solve" the issues of partial generation, but a self-reported tag upon upload might be a useful way to separate the "easy questions" from the hard ones. Thoughts? SSpalding (WMF) (talk) 16:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be useful. - Jmabel ! talk 17:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Search results visual display

Has the visual display of files in search results always been confined to just showing a square portion of a page, and I never noticed, or is this something new? Very undesirable when searching for a particular panoramic image, but maybe it's always been that way, in which case I guess it's rare that it's a problem because I never noticed before. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I managed to fix it for myself — see User:Tuvalkin/common.css. (I got this snippet from a discussion about this matter I cannot find right now, sorry.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:38, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Found it! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Mass file renaming per COM:FR#FR6

Hello!

File names with double extensions are discouraged and can be uncontroversially renamed per COM:FR#FR6. There are however 15554 file names that match the regex \.JPG - panoramio\.jpg, see grep.toolforge.com (there is also Special:Search/file: intitle:/\.JPG - panoramio\.jpg/ but it includes redirects of files that have already been renamed). The reason for this, I guess, is that - panoramio.jpg was supposed to be at the end of the file names, but accidently got behind the file extension as well, so now the extension is doubled. Now, I figured I post a request to rename all these at COM:BR but given the large number of files I'd check for the community's blessing first. Jonteemil (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 Support. One question is what to rename the files to. I suggest /(.*)\.JPG - panoramio\.jpg$/$1 - panoramio.jpg/, e.g. "100 4031.JPG - panoramio.jpg" becomes "100 4031 - panoramio.jpg". Another is whether to leave redirects, I suggest yes. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Also once there is consensus I can make the bot if no one else wants to. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That was also what I had in mind. Redirects-wise I have no opinion, but it seems that the community generally is quite pro-redirect. Jonteemil (talk) 20:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
i question the benefit of this mass rename.
the double jpg probably occured because the photo's title on panaramio contains ".jpg".
such double jpg extensions dont seem to create much problems, unlike the double extensions of two different extensions given in the rename guidelines.--RZuo (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess they don't cause any major problem but it's clear that these filenames are a result of an error, so why don't fix the error when we can? What does Mdaniels5757 say? Jonteemil (talk) 19:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it's an obvious error that we can fix fairly easily, so why not? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 23:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: A major reason not to rename files is that it breaks direct external links to the file. For instance, when I recently renamed File:Geograph-5068494-by-David-Hallam-Jones vertical correction.jpg to File:St Wulfrum's Church, Grantham, Lincs. (geograph 5068494 by David Hallam Jones, vertical correction).jpg, the underlying file URL changed from https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8c/Geograph-5068494-by-David-Hallam-Jones_vertical_correction.jpg to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/St_Wulfrum%27s_Church%2C_Grantham%2C_Lincs._%28geograph_5068494_by_David_Hallam_Jones%2C_vertical_correction%29.jpg. MediaWiki doesn't make redirects for these URLs, so any references to the old URL stopped working at that point. Uses of files on MediaWiki sites automatically update when this happens (as long as a redirect is left), but any uses on sites that just embed the bare image URL get broken. So we only rename files where the benefit outweighs this (and other) harm. --bjh21 (talk) 01:11, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I guess that would make sense. Do you think (m)any websites uses the direct URL link to use the images though? Jonteemil (talk) 15:03, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: there are millions of such links. - Jmabel ! talk 15:25, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Like, generally, or are there really millions of links to the files that would be renamed? Jonteemil (talk) 03:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: Generally. No easy way to know for a particular set of files. At some level the system must know when deep links get a hit that doesn't come from pages served by our own server, but I don't think anyone tracks that on an image-by-image basis. - Jmabel ! talk 03:44, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Would it be so hard to track that somehow? If the usage is low to none then I guess the pros would outweigh the cons. Jonteemil (talk) 12:57, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Belaying? or not?

Trying to categorize the first of these two images:

  • Belaying? or not?
    Belaying? or not?
  • when this is what is at the other end of the rope.
    when this is what is at the other end of the rope.

If he were holding the rope like this for a mountain climber I would clearly put this in Category:Belaying. But in fact he is supporting an aerialist, not a climber. Is it still "belaying"? If not, do we have a category any more specific than Category:People with ropes? - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

that's quite similar to wire-flying in movies right? in cantonese we call this person's action literally "pulling wires". i guess american movie industry would probably also have a jargon for this.--RZuo (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

when files are duplicates but depict different things

Apologies if this is a perennial question: what should be done when images are the same but depict different things? In heraldry, two or twenty people/towns/etc may bear identical arms: look at Category:Barry of ten argent and gules or the half-dozen files in Category:Gules a chevron argent which are the same. At present, people introduce slight meaningless variation in exactly how many pixels high the chevrons are so they can upload each coat under its own name without the filter that blocks pixel-for-pixel duplicates stopping them, even though either file could be used to illustrate either arms since they are heraldically identical. Should I do that when I upload coats of arms for people who have the same blazon? Or would it be preferable to prune duplicates and have just one file and put in its description all the places it's the arms of?
On one hand, it's often only by chance that "the arms of XYZ" and "arms of ABC" look the same. People might find it weird to use "Arms of XYZ.svg" to illustrate the article "Arms of ABC"; also, if someone see the file in the article "Arms of FOO", they may change the colours without checking if the file is used for other purposes: looking through Category:Azure a chief gules for an image I could use to illustrate "azure a chief gules" (without caring whose arms they were), I saw someone had changed File:Blason famille fr Richard de Vesvrotte.svg and not bothered to update the categories or captions, which makes me think they wouldn't have bothered to check for uses on other wikis for other purposes, either. OTOH, having a bunch of duplicates arbitrarily differentiated by making one chevron 77px high and the other 78px seems nonideal.
-sche (talk) 18:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

The duplicate files have to be deleted. You can put into the file description the different uses of the same picture. You can make the file name something like "image of a coat of arms used by X, Y and Z" and you can make redirect file names. But there is no reason to have duplicate files. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 18:25, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, does that cover cases where some meaningless variation makes the files technically not exact duplicates even though they're interchangeable (and in the case of heraldry, have the same blazon)? E.g., File:Blason famille Advisart.svg and File:Dampierre.svg appear to be exact duplicates of the descriptively named File:Blason-gueules-chevron-argent.svg (which might be the best member of that set to keep), but File:Blason Fr famille Broussain (Hasparren).svg slightly changes the shape of the chevron, File:Blason Fr famille Burguzahar (Basse-Navarre).svg slightly changes the hue, and File:Blason famille de Poligny (Franche-Comté).svg slightly changes the shape of the chevron again. Do you think people at Commons:Deletion requests would accept that those are duplicates? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm not sure of answer: I feel like I've seen some things kept for 'not being exact duplicates', even when the differences are meaningless and interchangeable. -sche (talk) 18:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
"slightly changes the shape" <- that is a difference of content. Not a duplicate. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 19:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Aha, thank you. So I should (or at least can) do as other people are doing and invent arbitrary slight differences when drawing one town's "gules, a chevron argent" vs another town's so as to make the files technically non-identical so that each filename can reflect one town apiece and I don't have to have a file name like "coat of arms used by X, Y and Z". Cheers, thank you! :) (...nah, don't worry, I'm not going to intentionally upload things that are functionally duplicates. I'm just expressing dismay that it is apparently encouraged.) -sche (talk) 01:07, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@-sche: You can accomplish the positive of that without the negative by creating a redirect from the desired filename to a matching image. You can also multiply-categorize a file, and/or have a category that corresponds to a blazon, with an indication of the multiple different entities that share the same blazon. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@-sche I didn't say that. I spoke of a difference of content. Not of a made up technical difference like adding a "<-- comment -->" inside a SVG. If the difference in two SVGs is a slightly changed color and the reason is not that there a two coats of arms with slightly different color but the reason is to technically circumvent the duplicate rule, than the one with the wrong color needs to be deleted. I have no expertise with coats of arms, therefore I will not start DRs, but sooner or later (sooner= 1second, later=50years) someone else may do that. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 05:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
i've thought about this problem before and my idea is to name the image with an objective description of what it is.
for example, File:Logo of the Socialist Party of Indonesia.svg should be called "five-pointed star in xxxxxx.svg" (xxxxxx being the hex colour code) and so it can be used for not just the logo of this party but any situation when a red star is needed.
exceptions are: 1. the image is so complicated/unique that it probably would not be used by two different concepts. 2. highly recognised image like File:Flag of Vietnam.svg should still be named as such instead of "five pointed star in xxxxxx on a background in xxxxxx (3-2).svg".--RZuo (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Help out with category cleanup

Hello. I've been working with @Photo Archives to improve their categorization skills, specifically around when and how to create new categories. There is a backlog of several hundred categories to review, improve or delete though and it's too much for me at the moment. See their contributions if you'd like to help. Cheers. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 17:07, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

How can it be made clear in the list when a category has been checked and improved? Wouter (talk) 18:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Good question. I could create a page in my user space listing all categories to be checked, or add a line to each category that a user could remove after checking it, similar to {{Check categories}}. Any preference? Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:23, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
That's a lot of very specific categories in a rather short amount of time. I don't have time to go over them right now. I spot-checked one category, Category:Brian Mulroney at the Middlesex Cattlemen's Association and see it's the same tired old bullshit, throw in one parent category and walk away pretending that you've done your job. It didn't tell me anything about when or where those photographs were taken, which is the bare minimum level of categorization that any photos on this site should have.RadioKAOS (talk) 03:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

ːI went back and updated the Description and Author information.It was one of my first tired old bullshit, I know a lot more now and hope to improve. I will check out my old entries now that it has been again, brought to my attention and it is appreciated.

In my opinion the addition of {{Check categories}} to all categories where Photo Archives made the most recent changes. Wouter (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 Support. i've occasionally checked this user's cats. glad to know that i'm not alone.--RZuo (talk) 08:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Imagestacks broken

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T343081

Imagestacks are a feature to scroll through sets of images. See Template:Imagestack. (Here are some more examples.) Currently all of them are broken, and show all images beneath each other. There must have been some bad changes in the Javascript or in the CSS. --Watchduck (quack) 20:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Hidden rules

At Category:Views from automobiles or Category:Views from trains a hint can be found: This category is only for images where a portion of the automobile is visible. IMO this hidden rule is not necessary. There are other reasons for views from automobiles or trains without visible parts of a vehicle. (And nearly nobody is checking the category tree for any local rules.) A view from an automobile can be useful for photographs with motion blur or taken from roads. But no part of the vehicle must be visible for this kind of photographs. Please remove this kind of rules. --XRay 💬 18:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

How do we then know that this is a view from a train or automobile if no part of them is visible? Ruslik (talk) 20:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: We don't. Nor do we know that a given view from a bridge is really from a bridge, nor that a view from a particular high-up viewpoint is not from a very low-flying aircraft. Nor that a typical "nature" picture was taken in its claimed location. But if a contributor says they took an image from an automobile, why should we doubt them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: How do you know something was taken from a vehicle if you are not supposed to set the category? --XRay 💬 05:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Do you have to see part of the Eiffel Tower to set the category Category:Views from the Eiffel Tower? Do you have to see part of a church tower to set the category Category:Views from church towers? Do you have to see part of a roofs to set the category Category:Views from roofs? Do you have to see part of the Manhattan Bridge to set the category Category:Views from the Manhattan Bridge? (And so on with all the Views from categories - except vehicles.) --XRay 💬 05:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
The reasons for Category:Views from automobiles (and so on) even without visible parts of the vehicle are many: distortions due to the glass, blurred objects due to dirt on the glass, shooting position on a highway, distortions, motion blur. I think it is important to set the category, especially when no parts of the vehicle are visible. The information could be lost otherwise. --XRay 💬 05:25, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Eiffel Tower is a en:Straw man type of argument. Ruslik (talk) 08:34, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I do not see why there should be a difference between the meaning of "Views from" depending in whether the object is a vehicle or the object is not mobile. And I see no reason why there should not be a "Views from automobiles with the automobile visible" subcategory. GPSLeo (talk) 08:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I searched for Category: intitle:/Views from/ insource:/only for images where a portion/ and found 90 categories with the hint. --XRay 💬 05:27, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that the text This category is only for images where a portion of the automobile is visible. be removed from all Views from categories immediately. May be the proposal should be moved to COM:VPP. --XRay 💬 16:00, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I've added a proposal at COM:VPP. --XRay 💬 10:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

SDC with wikibase-cli

User:Maxlath's wikibase-cli (Version 17.0.3) now works with commons (at least summary and add-claim). The tool allows to set depict-statements from the command line. Errors can be reported at the wikibase-cli github entry. --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 08:30, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

3D Models

Does anyone know a good place to find 3D models under a free license?--Trade (talk) 01:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@Trade: Is Special:MIMESearch/application/sla / Special:Search/filemime:sla what you're looking for? Jonteemil (talk) 02:04, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I meant outside of Commons Trade (talk) 08:01, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
One source is Category:STL files by source. There are also free respositories that offer not only the mesh itself, but a package with textures etc. In some cases, you may convert the mesh to STL (from DAE, PLY or proprietary formats like *.3ds). Before you upload meshes to Commons, you should make sure that the licensing is valid. Some original uploaders may not know about the licenses much, or took models from other creators. Another website provides a little list of sources: https://makercommons.psu.edu/free3dmodels/. Greetings! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Problems with deletion nomination with Android users editing with the mobile app who have a different number system as standard

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T343668

I stumbled upon Commons:Deletion requests/۲۰۲۲/۰۴/۰۶ which is a deletion request page, that just transcludes Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amirreza Alizadeh Singer.jpg. I found this weird. I made some searches and at least 26 pages match the regex ^Commons:Deletion requests\/۲/. These are all created by different users, but they all seem to use Arabic alphabet, and all related file names also seem to be in Arabic. Also, all of the pages has been made using the mobile app from Android. Now the Arabic signs in the pagetitles, eg ۲۰۲۲/۰۴/۰۶, seem to be dates as far as I can tell. Can it be so, that there is a bug with the mobile app, that when you are using an Android and have the Arabic alphabet as standard, beside from the normal deletion request page, there is a seperate deletion request page created automatically, with the date in Arabic instead of the file name after Deletion requests/? This is my best guess. I don't think so many different users would create these weird deletion requests intentionally. Jonteemil (talk) 01:59, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

To be precise, this is the Persian variant of the Arabic script. Arabian Arabic does not use ۴ and ۶ and in fact Ar-wiki defaults to regular international numerals as can be seen in this page history. As far as I can tell, Fa-wiki uses their own script by default. I wonder if more languages show this problem based on their default wiki numerals, like Bengali. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:02, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Intresting. I will make a bug report. Jonteemil (talk) 04:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: The creation date of Commons:Deletion requests/٢٠٢٢/٠٣/٠١ is 11:15, 1 March 2022‎. Does ٢٠٢٢/٠٣/٠١ perhaps correspond to that date? Or what does it mean? Jonteemil (talk) 04:33, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
See Arabic numerals. The string transliterates to "2022/03/01". Glrx (talk) 13:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, so it is what I suspected. The date. Jonteemil (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, now I got it. When a deletion request is created you add it to the logs, which are in the format Commons:Deletion requests/2023/08/01, but these users does not have the Arabic numerals as standard so it thinks the log format is based off of their number system. So these deletion requests are incorrectly added to a log with their number system instead of our normal logs. I wonder if it's a Android Mobile app bug or a AjaxQuickDelete bug, @Mdaniels5757: might you know? Jonteemil (talk) 17:32, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/٢٠٢٢/٠٣/٠١ is hence the Persian Arabic number system variant of Commons:Deletion requests/2022/03/01. Jonteemil (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
This seems to be an Android app bug. I'd recommend sending a bug report via Phabricator. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
✓ Done: phab:T343668.Jonteemil (talk) 21:22, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: With this search query I actually found two more DRs with another script than Arabic. I'm assuming Bengali as you wrote. It's Com:Deletion requests/২০২৩/০৭/০৬ and Com:Deletion requests/২০২৩/০৬/০৮. Jonteemil (talk) 16:06, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Do I read correctly that this search query finds all Deletion request pages not starting with regular ASCII letters and numbers? If this is everything, it does not look too bad, but it preferably needs fixing. Most indeed are dates in either Persian or Bengali, except for one DR that really is about a page written in Bengali. It looks like all of them have received proper closure. Only Commons:Deletion requests/٢٠٢٢/٠٥/١٦ is still open, but the uploader seems to have retracted the nomination. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:01, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Is Wikimedia Commons blocked in Pakistan?

I have just been a week in Pakistan, and I could not open Commons (it starts loading and gets loading forever). All other Wikimedia projects I tried opened withot any problems. Pictures embedded into Wikipedia articles are shown. Do we know anything about this? Ymblanter (talk) 14:21, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

en:Internet censorship in Pakistan doesn't mention Commons. It says that a block on "Wikipedia" was lifted in February. There's an Arabic version of that article, which is really outdated. IIUC, images are proxied/cached for the articles, which is also why you can see a pseudo-info page for them with a tab called "View on Commons".
Did you try any specific URLs beyond the Main Page? What about the mobile site? Elizium23 (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I could not load the main page, the watchlist, and some specific page, but I do not remember which one. I did not try mobile version. Ymblanter (talk) 15:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
But the result was consistent over the whole week. Ymblanter (talk) 15:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Media files are hotlinked from upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/... so it is absolutly possible. that commons.wikimedia.org is blocked and upload.wikimedia.org is not. Maybe it was an error, when the blocking of wikipedia was lifted. commons.wikimedia.org has been forgotten and uploads.wikimedia.org may haver never been blocked at all. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm) (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Is there any place I should report this for WMF? Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
There are several email addresses on the WMF contact page. Yann (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Not sure it would be extremely efficient, but I will give it a try. Ymblanter (talk) 14:06, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for raising this issue. As of now, I have no official reports of Wikimedia Commons being blocked in Pakistan. However, I'm actively looking into this and will update you as soon as I have more information. Udehb-WMF (talk) 14:15, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Udehb-WMF: Ymblanter (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, thank you @Udehb-WMF -- Ooligan (talk) 22:50, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

WMF response

Thank you for bringing this to our attention. It's hard to fully confirm from the data but we believe that access to Wikimedia Commons may be limited by certain Internet Service Providers (ISPs) in Pakistan. This means that, depending on the ISP, some users may experience access limitations to commons. We are very concerned about this limitation and its impact on our community. Please know we are and will continue to monitor this closely. Udehb-WMF (talk) 07:23, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you @Udehb-WMF: , great to know that you are on it. Ymblanter (talk) 18:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Udehb-WMF, Please, update us here by September 1st, if you are willing and able. Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 01:41, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/07&oldid=793105599"