Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

October 30

User created derivatives which may be deliberately offensive or used for harassment

At the copyright VP a derivative of a correctly released photograph was raised as potentially problematic. The following DR has been created not for copyright reasons but because the derivative only exists to demonstrate an offensive stereotype.

Though the file is currently in use, if this stereotype needs illustration, then it should be possible to find actual uses of the stereotype to provide in a Wikipedia article about this topic. The use of user created images which may be potentially racist or hateful for other reasons has been a long running issue for Commons. User created derivatives such as this are quite likely to be reused to harass others, in this case specifically other Wikipedians, and this should remain a consideration when assessing whether there is a sufficient argument for "realistic value" per scope which may outweigh potential misuse to create a hostile environment here or off-wiki.

If our project's policies are not clear enough on when the website terms of use and our consensus that this remains a non-hostile environment make user created content inappropriate to host on this project, then maybe we are overdue to amend that gap. -- (talk) 13:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

I think COM:INUSE is a very useful guideline, because it means that we don't need to get involved into these discussions, especially considering that sister project can have varying standards. I am against any change to COM:INUSE. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
Certainly it's useful, however I disagree that the Wikimedia Commons community has no say in whether content is sufficiently of realistic educational value to host here rather than locally, especially when the media is explicitly targeted both at Wikipedians and creates a hostile environment. Again, any specific language Wikipedia can and do choose to host whatever local content they feel is necessary to their goals, if their scope and media policies are different to Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 16:31, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
, I agree with you about hostile content, but on that image you completely missed the point. Self-irony is a healthy thing, let them have it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
The unflattering stereotype of Janusz seem to be used in many mimes and in books like this one. I think it is equivalent to en:You Might Be a Redneck If… which self mock segment of US population. I am not fan of either stereotype but I do not find the Janusz stereotype any more offensive than Redneck one and I agree with others here and at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosacz janusz.png that we can let plWiki people to police themselves. --Jarekt (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
The question is not if Janusz is an unflattering stereotype, the question is if the photographer finds it abuse of its photograph which is not intended for adopting to an unflattering stereotype. I should say : delete for raeson of abuse.--Havang(nl) (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

November 04

Carl Albert

Hello, User:CarlAlbertArchives placed a lot of images in Commons. Although the descriptions on the pictures are at times very sloppy, it is a great treasure on the US politics in the 1970s. However, the thing is, that every picture is categorized in Category:Carl Albert, even if Mr. Albert is not depicted in the picture. As a result, this category is overcrowded, while it would be better to place the images in a hidden “Images donated by the Carl Albert Center”-category, or something similar..

Ideally, there should be a bot, which goes though the uploads of User:CarlAlbertArchives and change the category from “Carl Albert” to ““Images donated by the Carl Albert Center”. Is there anyone around, who is technically skilled enough to make such a bot? Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 11:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Jeff5102 and others: On a second look, it seems that this would be better served by manual, individual assessment of each of these 2725 photos than by a mass move from Category:Carl Albert to Category:Images donated by the Carl Albert Center: That would/will allow better categorization (which improves useability) and the latter cat seems more suitable to be transcluded by a new entry under the Creator or Institution namespaces. I will start working on it later this week, but at a pace of a handful of photos each day — more people are needed to help dissiminate this interesting collection. -- Tuválkin 15:13, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Great work! I am thinking of categories concerning Carl Albert's birthday in 1976, the House delegation trip to Eastern Europe in August 1975, and the Korean-U.S. Interparliamentary Conference. July 22-23, 1973. If I fid some time, I'll work on them. Please tell me if you can think of some others. One thing I saw, was that everybody was wearing name-tags at the 1976 birthday-party. That might help for spotting some notable people, who were still unrecognized by the Carl Albert Center. Thanks again,Jeff5102 (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like great ideas, yes. Carl Albert will need to have this own by-year categories, like so many movie stars and other celebrities, too. -- Tuválkin 12:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Good idea! I already made a "Carl Albert in 1976"-category. There will be more to follow. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 21:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 06

May I start a proposal to add an inbuilt MP4 to the Webm-ogv converter in the upload wizard?

We will not store mp4, just convert it to open formats such as WebM and ogv. All cameras record in mp4, the uploader is required to convert it to mp4, otherwise, they can't upload to commons. Conversion takes time, expensive computers, etc. It should be understood that conversion will take place either on the uploader's computer or WMF's servers. By doing the conversion on the WMF server we can increase the number of video files. And by not keeping the mp4 file we are not hampering with WMF's goal. By not allowing the conversion we are certainly hampering upload of many educational videos. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:32, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: I was recently thinking about this. It's actually more simple than what you say. We can simply allow Mp4 uploads but disable downloading of the original. That's really all there would be to it. The main issue here is that as far as I know, there is currently no functionality to disable downloads of original files while keeping the transcoded files up. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:45, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Btw, when Commons allowed Mp4 files due to a bug (That was fun!) we saw what happens when this is allowed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz What you see is actually after downloading it. No way to restrict a file download if you can see it. If you have a solution don't tell us, you will be far more rich with money from youtube/Netflix. BTW Are you aware of Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video -- Eatcha (talk) 15:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
List of United States MPEG-2 patents states that on 14 February 2018 the last patent expired, what does that even mean? -- Eatcha (talk) 15:09, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: No.. when you watch an MP4 file on Commons (in the Commons video player or embedded on a sister project), you are actually watching a transcoded version, a WEBM file. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz what do you mean by "watch an MP4 file on Commons"? I don't think files are streamed as mp4. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Exactly, when you watch an MP4 file (which currently you can't because they were all deleted!), it is actually streamed as a WEBM. The original isn't used for streaming. It is only available as a download. For example, was once a valid link. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz I don't have a problem with mp4, we are using google-vision API ( see Computer-aided tagging designs ) and pretending that we support free software/formats, etc. Maybe WMF shouldn't have asked comments at Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. -- Eatcha (talk) 15:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
@Eatcha: I don't understand. If we enable MP4 uploads but disable downloading the original file, what you say is accomplished. The only difference is that the original MP4 is actually stored (but not publicly accessible) on WMF servers. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Alexis Jazz Maybe the proposal should be split into two parts. 1) convert to webm/ogg and don't keep the mp4 and 2) don't allow mp4 downloads, stream transcoded webm but keep the original mp4 file.

I am afraid that there are still some users who will object to mp4 storage, I prefer the second one as it would save wmf's money by getting one timeless trascoded than 1). Please introduce changes if you wish. --Eatcha (talk) 16:59, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Eatcha: The biggest issue here is not consensus (getting consensus to enable MP4 for autopatrollers shouldn't be a big issue, for others may be harder), but developers. Disabling downloads of original files requires developers. So it may take forever to make that happen. Your original proposal of converting the MP4 and throwing away the MP4 (like Video2Commons does) probably requires even more development time. Although I can't be sure, I don't know how MediaWiki works. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

H264 patents hasn't expired, so this this gonna be a legal greyzone. WMF-Legal have not commented on the task. Also note that this proposal is exactly what phab:T157319 intends to do --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 19:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

On August 26, 2010, MPEG LA announced that royalties won't be charged for H.264(patent expiring in 2027) encoded Internet video that is free to end users.

And if you are eager to know the rates see . These rates don't apply to WMF as it's not-for-profit org. -- Eatcha (talk) 02:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm not a lawyer nor have time to look into all the legal mess surrounding patents. However, my second point, that this has been on the wishlist for a long time, still stands. Will you provide the patch to add this feature, and potentially maintain it? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei you mean delete the patch that's restricting MP4 uploads ? They're streamed as Webm anyways. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:45, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No. "an inbuilt MP4 to the Webm-ogv converter in the upload wizard", as the section header suggests. Under what format the video is streamed as is irrelevant. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
If they(MP4 files) are streamed as webm, then they must have been transcoded somewhere. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Maybe I just have to delete the mp4 after the transcoding. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And change the displayed extension on the filepage to Webm. -- Eatcha (talk) 04:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, they are transcoded by the videoscaler cluster, under the MediaWiki job queue, and by the TimedMediaHandler extension. However, to me, transcoding it after it is uploaded looks like a violation of the linked RfC. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I interpret the RFC as "Do the worst to MP4 extension", what's worse than deleting the MP4 after uploading it and transcoding to Webm. (You can't stream it, can't download it because it's nuked. In favor of open formats like webm) Similar to De-adminship, where users once removed from administering power don't contribute anymore. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Do you object to transcoding and nuking MP4? -- Eatcha (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm neutral on this matter personally. However, I am against implementing something that might be against a previous RfC without establishing an alternate consensus first. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) heh. Though, could you explain your understanding of the difference between Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#Partial_MP4_support_-_Contributions_only and Commons:Requests_for_comment/MP4_Video#No_MP4_support? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
No MP4 support: Don't allow MP4 uploads, that's it.(Which means forget about streaming or downloading MP4). You must transcode MP4 on your device to upload it.
Partial MP4 support: Allow users to upload MP4 files, transcode them to webm. Don't allow mp4 streaming. But keep the MP4 files.
(What I am saying in this proposal is "nuke the mp4 files after transcoding to webm because it doesn't matters who transcodes it, we can't stop users from recording in MP4") -- Eatcha (talk) 05:40, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
And maybe we shouldn't even try to "Editing a webm file is like running for oversight rights or even more difficult" -- Eatcha (talk) 05:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I see. I don't think I get what you mean by the "Editing a webm file ... difficult". --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Try editing a webm and a mp4 video on you would get what I mean.(Try not to install any add-ons as a normal user.) --Eatcha (talk) 05:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah it's gonna take too much time messing around just to get it running... User:Zhuyifei1999/sandbox. I see what you mean that it's difficult. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The transcoding fix is not going to change anything. You are still left with uploads from questionable sources, which has always been the main critism of mp4 uploads. There are plans to fix that at phab:T132650. Browser support is irrelevant, as the server transcodes the files to other formats anyway.
"should have not asked" is not the way we work around here. If an majority of the community does not like it, then it does not get done. Period. It does not matter wether this case goes straight to the developers, the result is going to be the same one. --Snaevar (talk) 18:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Practical issues: Transcoding takes time: File:Politparade.webm#Transcode_status the fullHD version alone took 5 hours and the other sizes had to be transcoded to. The 4K transcode actually cannot be done, because it is larger than the uploaded file and breaks the 4GiB limit. How is the wizard supposed to handle this issues? Stall until the transcoding of all sizes was successful? Or create the description page and hope that a successful transcoding will be possible? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

CSuthorn It's similar to Video2commons, you add all the description and upload the file and go to do other work and when you return the file is alredy uploaded. We are not discusiing on increasing the rate limit here, if you have a large file than you can't upload it today or after the implementation of this proposal. It's about the files within the upload limit. Upload limit is decided by WMF. If you like to transcode your self then there is no problem with that, this proposal is for those users who can't afford a nice computer or don't know how to transcode or are too lazy o do that. -- Eatcha (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
It is a question of UI design and user expectations. If I am a naive user and upload a file (not even knowing it is 3GiB in size) then I will expect, that after uploading something will happen. If I have to wait for 2 days before the wizard tells me, my upload succeded, or if the upload "succeeds" but I cannot view my uploaded file for days, what will I think about the wiki software? At iOS the file size is normally hidden to the user (and the file is not even .mp4 but .mov). It is not about allowing something in the wizard, but to create a scenario for the user experience and it does not look, as if you have put much thought into this. --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
CSuthorn If a file is larger than the limit, the upload wizard will block the upload, the user doesn't need to wait for 2 days. It's up to the WMF to decide , and again it's not a discussion on UI but transcoding mp4 on the wmf servers. Implementation will be discussed after this proposal is accepted and checked by wiki legal staff. -- Eatcha (talk) 06:49, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
What if the original file is < 4GiB but the resulting file is > 4GiB? How would the wizard block the upload without prior knowledge that the resulting file will be > 4 GiB? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
As for the size of the file, both formats provide relatively similar compression, so the difference in the sizes of the same files of MP4 and WebM formats is not that significant. However, WebM files tend to be a bit smaller than MP4 files. Please give examples to prove that I am wrong, if you disagree. -- Eatcha (talk) 07:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I gave the example in my first post: the transcoded 4k-webm is larger than the uploaded 4k-webm. As you say mp4 and webm have similar sizes. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:34, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • CSuthorn Can you clarify ? I said if you transcode a MP4 file to Webm it's gonna be smaller. Why are you even talking about "transcoded 4k-webm is larger than the uploaded 4k-webm" we are discussing about transcoding mp4 to webm. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:30, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) The file sizes depends a lot on the compression settings. phab:T191572#4124959. There is no generalization on which format is larger or smaller. Yes, on a bitrate vs quality graph, VP9 achieves better quality given same bitrate than H264, but there is no "same quality" transcode option.
So, videos transcoded by v2c easily end up larger than the input, given a high constant quality encode option, especially on videos with high fps or resolution who are often originally encoded with constrained quality. Since you asked for an example, the input of File:Wasserfall_Rabischschlucht_20190819_4K_60FPS.webm is 369978195 bytes (353M)
I know what you might be thinking; hey, VP9 2160P is 105736159 bytes (101M), and that is smaller. Ok first, that is a 1216x2160, instead of the original 2160x3840, so if we assume the bitrate is linear to the number of pixels, then we get 333903660 bytes (318M), and that is just slightly smaller than the input. Second, v2c transcodes under the assumption that we might be holding the only copy of the video, and we want the output to be really good, for archival purposes; videoscalers transcodes under the assumption that there are better copies; they are "compressing" the video rather than "archiving" it.
And then there's the issue of "if we are enabling this service for mp4, why not other formats like mov, which C.Suthorn mentioned?" --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:57, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I should add, one could possibly construct an H264 that will end up larger after transcode, by transcoding a much-larget-than-limit VP9 to H264, limiting the bitrate so that the resulting MP4 is just slightly smaller than the limit. Because H264 and VP9 will encode differently, compression artifacts of H264 will be caught by VP9 when it is transcoded back, resulting in... a lot of unnecessary junk clogging up the VP9 stream. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei Can we please test it on external video downloaders(that don't upscale):
Here two popular videos on YouTube: ,
Try downloading it using
or using
or any other site or software which doesn't upscale files. -- Eatcha (talk) 08:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't know what you are trying to say. youtube-dl is what v2c uses and does not upscale files. I don't use random websites to download videos. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei but you do use FFmpeg with best arguments ? -- Eatcha (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Define "best arguments". It's all about trade-offs --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 14:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Zhuyifei1999 Lower constant of rate factor, although that's the best thing about it. --Eatcha (talk) 17:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The lower the crf, the lower the qp, the larger the file size, and eventually what you get is madness --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 17:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

One point we should bare in mind: As with AV1 there is a new and better free codec then VP9 it is unclear how long we will use VP9/VP8 as main codec. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

GPSLeo This should also be added in the proposal, in my opinion, it depends on WMF IMO -- Eatcha (talk) 09:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I is also important because AV1 can use webm, mkv and mp4 as container. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • An obvious alternative here is to provide and promote an open source app for the purpose of converting the file client-side, then upload only open source content, and the site would have no concern. Video conversion may be costly in terms of processing power, i.e. it could "break" the servers or at least clog them up. ~ R.T.G 12:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • RTG You mean advertisng for an app that is not owned by wmf? And please note that Video2commons runs on wmf's server, it doesn't break anything. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:52, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The app could be augmented with video upload, ffmpeg could be integrated. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
      CSuthorn I will add this in the proposal. Thanks for suggestion. -- Eatcha (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
      • @Eatcha: Well I say "promote" in the sense that everything the WMF does promotes a creator of some sort of work. Not actual advertising. But it would be quite an advert for an app to be made part of the WMF package x). ~ R.T.G 16:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
        ffmpeg is actually more popular and older than commons Android app. I had no I idea that it(commons app) exist. --Eatcha (talk) 16:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Eatcha, Zhuyifei1999: I'm still trying to figure stuff out regarding licensing. This information isn't public, [1] is pretty much it. The statement "royalties won't be charged for H.264 encoded Internet video that is free to end users" is, for the purposes of your proposal, completely meaningless. It means that Commons could legally offer H.264 encoded content for download. (users may or may not be able to play content in their browser, depending on what codecs the user has installed)
  • There is no differentiation between encoders and decoders. You pay for both or none, as far as I can tell.
  • You have to pay if you want to provide a user with a decoder and/or encoder. For this reason, any solution that includes hosting some H.264 decoder on WMF servers that runs on computers owned by users will cost millions of dollars. BAD idea.
  • Providing said decoder in, say, the Commons app: same story. BAD idea. Commons app may be able to utilize codecs provided by the OS though.
  • Utilizing the H.264 decoder in browsers to feed video frames into some VP9/AV1 encoder.. probably okay, but possibly sketchy and should certainly be examined by legal before deployment.
  • H.264 decoding on WMF servers, like Video2Commons does currently. This is a big question mark. WMF uses open source software which includes no patent license whatsoever. This could be resolved in a hilarious manner by buying a cheap smartphone and using duct tape to attach it to a WMF server. I guess the smartphone would actually have to decode the video, but such a thing actually could be set up. I doubt you'd even need more than 10 phones for this. More elegant solutions would be to use the decoder in a GPU, a dedicated hardware decoder expansion card or..
  • ..all kidding aside, offers codecs with patent licenses. The question with all this is: can that legally be used this way? MPEG LA: "Includes right to manufacture and sell AVC encoders and decoders with the right of End Users to use them for personal and consumer (including internal business) purposes without remuneration but not for other uses". So the question here is: is decoding videos (server side) that are uploaded by users classified as "internal business"? I have no friggin' idea! And I can't figure out what other uses may exist. The whole thing is aimed at businesses who want to offer H.264 video, not those who just want to decode it.
We need legal for an answer. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Just as a reminder: we already had this discussion once in 2014 and the result was the rejection of mp4 on commons.--Pristurus (talk) 19:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
IMO, we should support MP4. But as Pristurus mentioned, it was rejected by more than 250 voters. The legal department will not consider this until we open an rfc and overturn the previous consensus, which is hard. Maybe we can influence some more users to vote in favor of MP4, by stating the downsides of not allowing MP4. --Eatcha (talk) 03:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
May be we should revisit this issue. Lack of support for MP4 files makes it very hard to contribute videos. The currently supported file formats, are not supported by many tools and I think ist is hurting our project. --Jarekt (talk) 20:33, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Oh yeah, if possible we should over turn the previous consensus. Do we need more participants. But this time the RfC should mention the downsides of not allowing MP4, gonorrhea for videos, AIDS for the servers, and bla bla bla... --Eatcha (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 07

Is Estonia in "Western Europe"?

Category:Music of Estonia is in Category:Music of Western Europe. It strikes me as odd to describe the Baltics as "Western Europe". I would think "Northern" and possibly either "Eastern" or "Central", but not "Western". - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Based on Western Europe, no. It is part of Eastern Europe. -- (talk) 16:54, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The article en:Northern Europe has a number of different classifications. Depending on whose classification you read, Estonia can be in
  • Eastern Europe (CIA Factbook - divisions are North, West, South-west, East, Central, South-east and South)
  • Northern Europe (EuroVoc - EU official terminology - divisions are North, South, West and Central& EastEast)
  • Northern Europe (UN Geoscheme - divisions are North, South, West and East)
So Estonia is certainly not Western Europe. However, I am not happy with User:Fæ moving it to Music of Eastrern Europe without looking at the bigger picture. I see a number of other countries that are not normally regarded as being in Western Europe in the same category. Looking at this type of classification elsewhere in Commons, maybe it would be best to merge "Category:Music of Western Europe" and "Category:Music of Eastern Europe" back into "Music of Europe". If we want to split Europe up, then it should be done for all categories (Transport, Cathederals etc) not just music. Martinvl (talk) 20:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly in music, I would categorize it as Northern Europe. Guido den Broeder (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

November 08

Extending eligibility time for G7 vote

Can the community vote on extending eligibility of G7 to 2 weeks. The reason for my request proposal is so recent uploaded files that the users don't want anymore have more time to be eligible for G7. Please come join this discussion. --VKras (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

@VKras: I think this was discussed recently, but I can't find it. Anyway I oppose this. Those files can be nominated in a regular DR. In fact, I think a week is already fairly generous. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: This discussion can be found on Commons talk:Criteria for speedy deletion. --VKras (talk) 16:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@VKras: I knew it. Well, my view is still the same. Your rationale for extending the period is in order to have the period extended. That is, the reason to allow users a longer window for G7 is to increase the window in which G7 can be used. In other words, the reason for your request to extend G7 eligibility to two weeks is to give users more time to apply G7. In a similar vein, I'm adding a fifth wheel to my car in order to increase its wheel count.
You see where I'm going with this? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I don't see the need. From my experience, uploaders usually notice within a day if they made a mistake. In other cases, the reasons for deleting their uploads are less simple and usually merit a DR. The longer these files can be speedied, the more likely it is that they have found their use in Wikimedia projects or outside them. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 18:29, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
We have guidelines, not dumb rules. The 7 days is just an indication of what is considered a recent file. Multichill (talk) 17:08, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

November 10

How can I stop deletion of photos?

Greetings, 2 days ago (7th Novemeber, 2019) I got notification of deletion some photos of Bengali author Salman Aziz [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] In previous times, those were flagged for deletion, but after providing these references they kept the photos and I also have author's personal consent to use the photos. I don't know how to stop deletion. Please someone help me in this case. Deletion page of photo

Sincerely --S Kahn (talk) 11:07, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

The files have not been deleted, but a Deletion Request has been started (again). In the last DR User:Geo Swan said there was an OTRS ticket (without mentioning the number), User:Ankry kept the files, and you said, you did not know about this ticket. Now the files do not have an OTRS ticket attached. Maybe it would help to finally insert that ticket? --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

I have asked for clarification at the OTRS noticeboard. De728631 (talk) 14:00, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Greetings, C.Suthorn (talk) and De728631 (talk) thank you for your messages. Please help me to get OTRS ticket for the photos and do something so that in future those are not again flagged for deletion because I don't know how to fix it! I would be grateful to you, if you help me! Regards --S Kahn (talk) 12:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Strange MediaWiki issue

Please go to the bottom of Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07 and also look at its source. Instead of contents of Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 only #ifexist:Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is displayed. What may be the problem? Too many transcluded templates? --jdx Re: 13:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Could someone with more technical knowledge about Mediawiki than me have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07? It seems that Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is not included correctly, although the page source looks fine to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Above comment by Srittau merged from Commons:Village pump#Problem with inclusion on DR page. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Transclusion size might be too big. Happens on other DR pages too, such as Commons:Deletion requests/2019/10. (Talk/留言) 15:45, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
What 大诺史 said. Resolve some other DRs and Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 should show. (tested it in preview already) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
See en:Wikipedia:Template limits. (Talk/留言) 15:52, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Also mentioned here. I think adding a message box to all DR lists would be a good idea, as this will most probably happen again. Ahmadtalk 13:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)


There is an ongoing dispute over the depiction of this map. Specifically it is about the political adherence of a certain region. A straw poll on how to proceed has been opened at the talk page where additional uninvolved input would be welcome. Please feel free to weigh in there. De728631 (talk) 13:13, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of photographer's contributions to create "racial" stereotypes

Refer to Village pump/, mentioning here as the discussion is actually about projects scope for hosting user-created media rather than copyright. The derivative remains problematic. It uses a monkey to promote a "racial" stereotype. The derivative was created apparently for the amusement of some Polish Wikipedians, rather than due to external use of this specific photograph. The photographer who is active on Commons is not happy or comfortable seeing their contributions here being used to promote a "racial" stereotype or "racial" joke, despite the derivative surviving a DR. -- (talk) 14:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

What's the action you're seeking here? We already had a deletion discussion in the DR you mentioned (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Nosacz janusz.png). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Presumably it would fall under "courtesy deletion"... AnonMoos (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Original discussion was archived before the photographer responded. One outcome could be a second DR, especially if more factors arise. -- (talk) 19:12, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
@Misiek2, Pawel Niemczuk, Jdx, Jarekt: would an image with the same text of a man who fits the stereotype and with his face replaced with a non-existent one be a suitable replacement? I'm asking before I put in any work. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:24, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Alexis Jazz:: Replacing this picture with a picture with a non-existent person's face would render the picture inadequate and thus useless as for quite a long time this kind of monkey is strongly and inseparably associated with the figure of typowy janusz (typical janusz). And typowy janusz, as I explained in the deletion request discussion, is a humorous and a bit mocking representation of a stereotypical Polish male and his stereotypical features (mainly vices). What more: this kind of memes do not compare Poles to monkeys but rather utilise the fact that these monkeys look somehow oddly and funnily. Replacing the face of this particular kind of monkey with a face of a random (or non-existent) human being is as pointless as replacing a picture of Eiffel Tower with a picture of some different structure, lets say, Gliwice Radio Tower: it somehow resembles the Eiffel Tower but is made of wood, is shorter, is not located in Paris. Briefly: it's not the Eiffel Tower. Pawel Niemczuk (talk) 14:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Again, it's not for Commons to be a free host for user created content. Either Wikipedia articles about racial memes can have real source materials or they can't. Plenty of free hosts are available for user fantasy drawings. -- (talk) 19:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
I thought this was about Charles and/or the monkeys.. if it's not, Symbol keep vote.svg Keep and you should take your complaint to plwiki, because we're not going to editorialise on other projects. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Wrong way, this is a case of plwiki changing Commons' scope. Nobody is trying to dictate what plwiki wants to host. -- (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
COM:INUSE. If you think plwiki is wrong, convince plwiki to remove the image from their article. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:45, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The photographer of this image doesn't appear to be aware of what the CC-BY-SA-4.0 license does. This could be a serious problem even irrespective of the current issue.
@Charlesjsharp: CC-BY-SA-4.0 (and in fact, every license we allow here) permits anyone to use and modify your work, without contacting you (but with attribution). You explicitly agreed to this by choosing that license when you uploaded your work here. You can request that people adhere to other requirements (and if you want to do that, we can create a custom template for you that makes them clear), but you cannot enforce them. Though they can result in people using your work in ways you don't support, we require these licenses because that freedom makes it safe and easy for other re-users such as news sites and educators to use your work, the vast majority of whom will be using it in good ways in line with your requirements. Does this make sense? – BMacZero (🗩) 21:31, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Uploaders of properly-licensed images can't require us to delete them, but sometimes we make "courtesy deletions" anyway... AnonMoos (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That's fair, but I think it is very important that Charles is aware that he doesn't have the rights he thinks he has over re-users, particularly on other sites that might not be as accomodating. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Obviously this is not about "race" (as we know, there are no human races, but if there were, the race would be slavic or caucasian, not polish), but nationality. Is the file still problematic, if seen as a depiction of a national stereotype? --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Like depicting the Irish as stupid, or people from African countries living in mud huts (or exactly the same as plwiki, as monkeys)? Are we going to have to be even handed and host user created images of those very real and in use stereotypes? -- (talk) 20:27, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • As I don't understand the text, I don't really know if this discussion is besides the point or not. Anyway, isn't the image mis-attributed? The photographer doesn't appear to be the author. Jura1 (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Problem with inclusion on DR page

Could someone with more technical knowledge about Mediawiki than me have a look at Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07? It seems that Commons:Deletion requests/2019/07/31 is not included correctly, although the page source looks fine to me. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:33, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved up to jdx's section. (Talk/留言) 15:46, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Sometimes reading the VP makes sense. Thanks! Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 15:51, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

picture does not match reference

Hello everyone. I was warned via OTRS that this file does not match the image pointed to as a source for it, which can easily be proven. Since I don't know the original source of the image, I bring the case here.--Leon saudanha (talk) 16:48, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Hey Leon saudanha. I found the source and updated the information as best I can manually. may be able to fill in some gaps that I messed up. GMGtalk 16:57, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
Hi GreenMeansGo. Grateful for the quick resolution of the problem :-). Greetings!--Leon saudanha (talk) 17:03, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

November 11

Blanked out copyrighted image

This pictured statue is limited by European freedom of panorama laws, so I have blanked out the copyright bit, but the Flikr bot can't review the license as the image doesn't match the source, can anyone review the license on Flikr please? ~ R.T.G 01:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Has quality"

I have mostly been ignoring structured data for Commons photos, but some recent changes to images I took or am otherwise following seem almost certainly wrong.

What does it mean for these to say of these "has quality" "hotel"? Isn't that what "depicts" is about? What does "has quality" add here? @Shameran81: you seem to be the main one adding these, can you explain why this is "has quality"? - Jmabel ! talk 04:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

hi there @Jmabel: Yes, I used the AC/DC tool, it's just out, this semi-automates adding structured data to all images that are already in a category. In this case, all these images were in the category Hotels in Seattle. Do they not have the quality of being a hotel .... I'm somewhat new to structured data, I will attend a wikidata/structured data hackathon tomorrow am, so I'll check in then with how to be more specific and reclassify the images as needed. Great photos Joe! I should have figured all these Seattle hotel photos were your doing. Shameran81 (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'll add that I'm not sure how that image of the restaurant workers was in the Hotels in Seattle category -!
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shameran81 (talk • contribs) 04:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it you are effectively asserting that the image has the quality of being a hotel. It isn't a hotel. It depicts a hotel. But I may misunderstand. This just surprises me -- a lot -- based on what I had read about how these properties were to be used. - Jmabel ! talk 04:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
You make a good point. I will only say that "playing" with this new tool means the edits have more scale. I'm aiming to improve structured data, and I'm still learning. The good thing is, it's a wiki! I'll check in again tomorrow per my note above. Shameran81 (talk) 05:08, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Posted at Commons talk:Structured data#"Depicts" vs. "has quality" asking people to look here and comment if they are more knowledgeable than I. - Jmabel ! talk 16:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I made a mistake in using "depicts" which is more meta rather than has quality. I am going back to redo these, but patience, as ACDC is powerful! Happy to do a skill-share at the next cascadia meet up if you haven't already used this new tool. Shameran81 (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm not really interested in working on structured data. I'm just interested in not having it misapplied on my photos! - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

"Nominate for deletion" extension

What extension does the "Nominate for deletion" button use? Does anyone know if it's used on any other wikis? It seems a much simpler system for creating relevant nomination subpages than e.g. w:WP:MFD. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 05:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I believe this is Help:QuickDelete. Jean-Fred (talk) 08:42, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Bug in a template


There is a bug in template : "" : "Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 237: Tried to read nil global nul."

--ComputerHotline (talk) 06:57, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fixed by Mike Peel Module_talk:Coordinates#Lua_error_in_Module:Coordinates_at_line_237:_Tried_to_read_nil_global_nul. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 07:58, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Should we have more bureaucrats?

We have 7 bureaucrats, but Krd pretty much single-handedly maintains the Commons:Bureaucrats' noticeboard. Only one other bureaucrat dealt with one request this year. This doesn't seem like a healthy situation. If Krd goes on vacation or gets the flu, there's nobody. And if Krd isn't sure about something, a second opinion is not likely to come in unless more bureaucrats are pinged.

Perhaps we just need one or two extra active bureaucrats. Or maybe we need to think in an entirely new direction?

This post was triggered by Martin Urbanec who requested a bureaucrat to confirm the outcome of a proposal on Commons. I'm not sure such a confirmation would be very valueable, but currently it would be difficult to even obtain such a confirmation. Krd prefers not to assist me in general, he is free to make that decision and I don't want to force him to assist me either. But I personally have virtually no representation by bureaucrats because of this. So far I am doing fine without that, but if proposals require bureaucrat confirmation that's going to be a problem. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 15:33, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Since you didn't specific the request they asked to be "confirmed" by a 'crat I can't really comment on it but most, if not all, discussions don't need a 'crat to confirm anything. If a close is contested they can get a second opinion at the admin noticeboard. Admins are trusted members of the community and should be able to handle proposal closures. That is part of their job after all. Asking for a 'crat to confirm anything is a little silly. On Commons, 'crats have a few extra buttons over administrators. That's it. Their job is to maintain the few additional account rights that admins can't add or remove. Previously they also handled renames but that has gone global. Krd isn't the only active 'crat anyways. EugeneZelenko is quite active as well and I would assume available to assist if needed. If we require additional 'crats I would expect one of them to say so. They are clearly competent enough to realize when/if they need help. --Majora (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: oh, right. phab:T237177. Understandably the TEM: proposal is dropped due to new information, but the light for MOD: should still be green. That is, it was green until Multichill threw a spanner in the works. As for EugeneZelenko, I hope Eugene still likes me. I still think one or two additional bureaucrats wouldn't hurt. When I requested Account Creator on the bureaucrats' noticeboard, it simply wasn't dealt with because Krd didn't. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • User:Krd is great but single-handed. I support more bureacrats for Commons in general. This is not because of phab:T237177. 4nn1l2 (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Majora: while there are a few names I could think of (who may be just as qualified, so don't take offense please), I think you are one of the more obvious candidates because you are generally impartial and uncontroversial. Would this be something you'd consider? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Don't think I've pinged User:Krd yet.. I know you're not too fond of me, but it's obvious you are single-handedly dealing with the Bureaucrats' noticeboard. A helping hand or second opinion wouldn't hurt, would it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:44, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the vote of confidence, Alexis Jazz. I do appreciate that. However, I've only been an admin for a little over a year. I wouldn't want to overstep any boundaries by assuming that I've been around long enough to gain 'crat level trust in such a short period of time. --Majora (talk) 02:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I think we do need more bureaucrats. Krd had 46 bureaucrat actions in 2019, EugeneZelenko had 8, Odder had 3 and JuTa had 2 bureaucrat actions, adding interface admin rights to their account (see Quarry:query/40091, there is most probably an easier way to set it up, but I'm currently editing via mobile). So, out of 59 actions, Krd performed 46, that's around 78%. Sometimes, a bureaucrat is not sure about what decision to make. In such situations, English Wikipedia uses w:en:WP: Bureaucrat discussions. Here, having such discussions seems to be pretty much impossible. Although Commons is not as bureaucratic, I still support bureaucrat chats as they can help in the process of decision-making.
But about asking a 'crat to close that specific thread, I think it's unnecessary. Even in English Wikipedia, admins normally close such threads, not 'crats. Bureaucrats can/should determinate consensus better than others, so they close controversial discussions like RfA, RfB, request for bot flag etc, but not such normal discussions. Ahmadtalk 11:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Summary report over several years at Quarry:query/40093. It looks like a low burden when there are 7 appointed Bureaucrats, possibly because the 'leadership' role has diminished in practice. For example, the community is not calling on Bureaucrats to lead reviews of policy or to make proposals for change. If this is to be revisited, we may have a discussion of how active a Bureaucrat should be to keep wearing the hat, especially given that past Bureaucrats have handed the hat back while they are busy, picking it up again when they have more time. As an example, based on the unique Bureaucrat role for granting rights, 99of9 last made a Bureaucrat rights action in 2017 while Jameslwoodward and Ellin Beltz do not appear to ever get involved in these actions. Perhaps when electing a Bureaucrat, folks might ask more questions about exactly what they are going to do that needs the Bureaucrat group membership, as well as why. -- (talk) 12:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    I prepared a more accurate report for 2019 at Quarry:query/40095 (Quarry:query/40093 counts all right changes, both administrative and bureaucratic, but 40095 only counts bureaucratic right changes). A detailed report is still available at Quarry:query/40091. Ahmadtalk 15:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Other bug in a template

In a description of some images, there is some code (style="margin: 1.5em auto; width:100%; background-color:#FFFFE8; border:2px dotted #aaaaaa; padding:1px;" and |}) wich display. The code appears especially here : [2], [3].

--ComputerHotline (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

@ComputerHotline: there are several problems here and the wikicode isn't very readable. You should create Creator:ComputerHotline so you can transclude that directly. User:ComputerHotline/about should be moved to the template: namespace, or you could migrate to {{Not public domain}}. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The issue is related to recent conversion of {{Information}} template to Lua code. It is also discussed at Template_talk:Information#Rewrite_in_Lua_(again). It seems like the new code handles wiki tables than the old code. If number of templates using wiki tables is small than it might be easier to change them. --Jarekt (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: : create a creator template ??? I've more 70000 files on commons ???? I can't. --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@ComputerHotline: I can. You want me to? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:16, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
ComputerHotline, I rewrote your template so it uses html tables not wikitables (at least in English version). That should fix the issue for now. --Jarekt (talk) 23:53, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. --ComputerHotline (talk) 08:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Image order

Hi, we want New Year logos for Tatar wikipedia, like this File:Снеговик в масштабе.png and this File:Wikipedia-logo-v4-ru-xmas.png. Is it possible? --Derslek (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎

user:Shameran81‎, user:Carlinmack‎, user:Jackiekoerner‎, user:Thsmi002‎ have worked together today to remove 17 files from Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎‎

While I take no stance if the category is appropiate, or if the files are, I consider it obvious that the images (as long as they exist) belong in the category (as long as it exists).

What is going on here? --2A03:2260:2009:0:0:0:0:1 20:00, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Off-wiki trolling. Unfortunately some prawns have nothing better to entertain themselves. -- (talk) 20:07, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Striking the casual use of British English prawn, it's creating a distraction when the word "misguided and probably delightful people acting in good faith" would serve. -- (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that many images in that category have nothing to do with computer technology‎‎. I just looked at File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg what computer technology‎‎ does it depict? Which images were removed? --Jarekt (talk) 20:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
There is no trolling going on here. Edits are clearly being made in good-faith, with the intention of improving Commons. These kinds of comments are not helpful. Dominic (talk) 20:38, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Unfortunate that it apparently didn't occur to anyone to just ask them what they are doing instead of reporting them as if this is a problem to be solved. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
[Note: I'm here because this edit war is getting discussed around lots of places and I heard about it]. I think its inappropriate to describe these users as trolls. It appears to be an edit war, and these users are acting in good faith. If people are going to be accused of trolling, I think diffs should be provided, and arguments provided as to how and why they are explicitly acting in bad faith, as opposed to just people disagreeing with you. If diffs and argument aren't going to be provided, I think the accusation should be withdrawn. Bawolff (talk) 20:46, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I would also add, do any of these images actual depict computer technology? Seems like a better name to be technically more accurate would be: Category:Tech company logos and jargon in body paint on sexualized nude women Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I mean, if we're going to talk about trolling. I opened up special:relatedchanges for that category. As of this writing the most recent edit, is User:Tm editing File:Female nudes by Exey Panteleev - 02.jpg diff to change the description (reverting to an older version) from "Two naked woman stand side by side, one on the left being taller. Painted across the stomach of the woman on the left is "500 GiB" and on the right is "500 GB"." to "Backstage GIF <a href="" rel="noreferrer nofollow"></a>. Two naked woman stand side by side, one on the left being taller. Painted across the stomach of the woman on the left is "500 GiB" and on the right is "500 GB".. No edit summary was given. At a glance, I do not understand how Tm's edit could be considered appropriate. Why would you add a link in the wrong html format that can't even render, which would be appropriate in the source field maybe (If fixed to use a wiki link instead of html), but certainly doesn't belong in the image description. Bawolff (talk) 21:01, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Just readding proper descriptions, deleted by the users above, as can be seen if anyone cared to see this files histories. Tm (talk) 21:04, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tm: Can you clarify why a misrendered link is part of a proper image description for the file. To me, it seems like descriptions should include proper wiki syntax, and not link to authors or sources (As there are other fields for that). Additionally, as someone trying to look in from outside, I'd really appreciate if edit summaries were used so that the history page would be easier to follow and I would be able to better understand the reasoning behind the reverts. Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment And also see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology and the cover made bt technology magazines about this images and whom requested the deletion of this images and them you can see that: 1-This images have a proper category; 2-This is just another attempt to censor and decontextualize this images of what they really depict. Tm (talk) 21:13, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Are you really saying that this edit readds "proper descriptions"? Airplaneman 21:15, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes it is. Or is it the removal of the dexcriptions what this image depicts and an link to a backstage video (GIF) an proper description? Remember that besides the user above, user:Seazzy is making this edits and this user was the one that opened all, or at least, several of the DR´s below. Funny coincidence? Or is this a concentrated effort to remove this images from a proper catwgory and destreoy all proper context given in the description as to what the flickr author meant to represent symbolically in this images?
[edit conflict] To me at least, a nude portrayal of computer technology, would be for example, a video of someone without clothes writing code on a computer. There is a difference between portraying a technology, and portraying a buzzword associated with the technology. If there was a picture of a clothed person, wearing a shirt that has the facebook logo, I would not consider that a depiction of facebook. I don't know why that suddenly changes because people are naked. But perhaps the exact name of the category is a side issue. Many of the edits that the group that the original complaint seems to be about, is giving neutral, perhaps clinical, descriptions of what the picture depicts. I don't see how mass reverting, without even a reason in an edit summary, is appropriate. Descriptions help people find the photos they want. Why are we reverting people better describing these images - we need those better descriptions so that people who want these images can find these images when they search. And to be clear, I haven't looked at everyone of these edits, perhaps some of them might be justifiably reverted, I haven't seen any yet, but I haven't read every edit in this little edit war. I just object to the blanked reverting of what mostly looks like constructive edits, without even an edit summary to say the reasoning of the revert. Bawolff (talk) 21:25, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I did not revert the text added to the descrption. I merely readded what was the original description on the file, that shows what was the intention of the flickr author. Tm (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Sorry, meant to show other DR´s.
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - z-index.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Binary prefixes (41983361972).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - before.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:HTML output - Exey Panteleev.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Erlang (9690003046).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - display.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Full Stack (Exey Panteleev).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:RSS feed icons painted on a naked woman (by Exey Panteleev).jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - QR code.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - Proxy.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - MongoDB's "WHERE".jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Radio button and female nude.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Body painting - float left right.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:SQL - DROP TABLE.jpg
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Bling-bling - iframe.jpg

See the worldwide coverage by tech press and websites, some of the biggest ones and them see that removing that descriptions of pages is a deservice. This are images that cover technology and this attempts at modify it can only be called censorship or contextualization. Tm (talk) 21:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how the DR's are relevant. What is reasonably useful for an educational purpose is something that reasonable people can disagree on - thus there was a discussion, and the community decided to keep, and that was that. Are you saying that people who argue for deleting a file are then not allowed to ever make constructive edits to the file description pages? That seems weird to me. I haven't read all of the edits, but the edits I've read don't seem to be removing descriptions - just clarifying them or making them more accurate or even fixing formatting - are you saying having accurate descriptions is inappropriate? (I'm not sure what you mean by contextualize here. There's a lot of ways to take that word. Are you claiming that the new summaries are not neutral and thus put the images in an inappropriate context? I'm just not sure I'm understanding your point correctly). Thanks. Bawolff (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Tm, Those images do not depict technology, they depict naked women (often without heads) with some random tech jargon or icons pained on them. They are of no use in articles related to technology and the image descriptions and file names should reflect that. I am a frequent user of Wikipedia, and I often use it for work. I do not want closeups of vaginas or penises in the search results when searching for computer terms like "HTML output" or "SQL - DROP TABLE". --Jarekt (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
When this people were the ones nominating them to deletion, removing descriptions that give context to this images, when they know what this images are and come from, i see they deletion of original descrptions as an attempt to censor. They didnt try to enlarge the conection between what this images symbolically represent images and their nudity. They merely deleted all that was related with technology, and so did a deservice.
This images are an artistic representation of technology, that have been covered by the The Next Web, GQ Italy and the french newspaper Libération, in their proper context. This author gave an interview to an interview to the tech page of Mail.Ru where he talks about his project (that connects nude photography and technology], that is covered by the Category:Nude portrayals of computer technology‎‎. Besides these newspapers and tech sites, other covered this same project, like Being news in Reflex. Or Violet Blue "an American journalist, author, editor, advisor, and educator" covers this same project. Or some more eamples like the cover of the Russian "Hacker Magazine" of January 2012 was by him" or of the ukrainian "SHO Art Magazine" of July\August 2012, had photos published in "nude art photography" book.
Will Commons preserve the context of this images as did all this newspapers, some of the biggest tech websites, that publish images with the same subject and of the same author and speak about his photos and work, always covered this images as an mixture between tech and nude photography and Commons will destroy the context of this photos, just for the sake of pleasing some users with an agenda that shouldnt justify this attempt at censortship? Tm (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
So from what I understand, your concern is that these edits interfere with the artistic integrity of the work, by modifying the original description as given by the original author. I don't really feel that that is the point of the description field. I view it as a field that describes what is depicted in the work (regardless of how the author titled it) so that users can know what the image is of. Secondly it is for search so that people can find the works. I'm not aware of a general commons policy that descriptions must respect the artistic wishes of the author, or that even it should - A description is not a Title. As precedent, the german federal archive images had a separate field for original title - we did not just blindly keep the original title because that's what the author intended. Bawolff (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC) [Edit: Since with all the edit conflicts I ended up responding to something slightly different then what I was originally - I would add, I don't think the notability is at issue anymore - there was a DR it was closed. But commons isn't just a collection of notable artistic images (It explicitly not a place to showcase artistic skill we have artistic images because they are "educational" not because they are artistic, but there is a lot of overlap) - its a collection of images useful for an education purpose - to that end, image descriptions should describe the image so that people can find and understand the image and use it for educational purposes - as that is the purpose of commons.] Bawolff (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I´am not saying to blindly keep the original description as it is, such that i kept all the addictions by the above user, but deleting all the information, as their were doing in this case, takes this works out of their proper context and intent of the image. Think that if every context information from "El Tres de Mayo" painting by Francisco de Goya, what you would end with would be something in the likes of "Soldiers with rifles shooting at civilians". Also i´vw moved the oCategory:Nude portrayals of computer technology to Category:Project "Geekography" by Exey Panteleev (nude portrayals of computer technology) to be more specific and given an temporary description, in that category, of what this images are. Tm (talk) 22:26, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
To be clear, if any of the edits totally removed the description and left nothing there - that would be inapropriate and should be reverted with an appropriate edit summary. But descriptions should be relavent and accurate - if there's information that's not relavent or not acurate than it should be removed. Of course that can be a judgement call, which is why when people disagree they should (politely) take it to talk pages and be clear in edit summaries as to the rationale for reverting to the previous version - which did not happen here. Bawolff (talk) 22:40, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that the original information, that was removed by the above mentioned users, was relevant and accurate. Instead of improving the description, these users totally removed what this images were symbolically representing, i.e. the intention of the artist i.e. the context of what made this images more than simple depictions of straight forward nude photography, and merely replaced them with an description what was merely seen, without any artistic and simbolic context to what was depicted. I merely readded the original description, besides the one of what was written by the above users and made improvements to two or three images descriptions. I didnt deleted any descriptions, simply reaaded the necessary context that was deleted by the above users. Tm (talk) 23:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I think we disagree on that, but fundamentally that's a side issue. After all edit-revert-discuss is a fairly standard ways wiki happens. What I mostly object to, is that they were reverted without edit summary. In my view, reverts, particularly reverts of things that aren't obvious vandalism should always have an edit summary explaining why the change was reverted. And more generally, where there is clearly a difference of opinions between editors on what should be on a page and there is no reason to assume that the other party is totally unreasonable, reaching for a talk page to discuss the issue first, instead of immediately reverting the edits Bawolff (talk) 05:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Reverting without a summary is worth a reminder of guidelines. If Tm was responding to an apparent tag team, who chose to avoid declaring why they were acting in concert so there was no explanation to take in to consideration, then that is an issue that needs to be explained very clearly to those editors as well. That has not happened yet, based on their user talk pages. Maybe you would like to provide them with that explanation, considering your apparently knowing them all in real life? As a reminder, it is worth highlighting the good practice that is normal for editathons, that groups of "students" and their mentors say that this is what they are up to on their user pages to avoid any misunderstanding about apparent team actions not being meatpuppetry, or repeated test edits not being vandalism. Thanks in advance. -- (talk) 12:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry but what is the problem of description? We can save both: "Original description: ... <br> Visual description: ..."
    For the title, we can do the same by adding a prefix: "Body art: ...original name..."
    But coordinated POV Pushing is bad anyway. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Now that the category has been moved, there's still a few loose ends from what I can tell.
  1. I don't know that we would really use the parenthetical descriptor on any similar category. Moreover, the parenthetical and parent category for nudity doesn't apply to the entire set. (e.g., [4]). Also an image like this doesn't depict nudity. It depicts underwear, which we don't categorize under nudity, we categorize it under women's clothing.
  2. Also on the issue of the parenthetical description, most of these images don't actually depict technology. This is just some lady with her shirt off. This depicts a mathematical concept, and not an inherently technological one. On the other hand, images like this and this should be categorized under logos of companies and body paint. If we had a brick wall with the facebook logo painted on it, we wouldn't normally categorize that under technology, because it doesn't directly depict technology; it depicts the logo of a company.
So besides be unnecessarily cumbersome, the parenthetical is simply wrong. These need to be individually categorized according to what they individually depict. GMGtalk 13:38, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
"parenthetical is simply wrong" is not policy or fact as far as I can work out. Unless my database check is wrong, Wikimedia Commons appears to have 1,150,701 categories with brackets in them. This does not imply that the 'project' category being used needs brackets or would not be better English without them, but it is a style choice not a failure against any policy or guideline. -- (talk) 14:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
What does the raw number of parenthetical categories have to do with whether this parenthetical is accurate or necessary? There is no other "Project Geekography by Exey Panteleev" from which we need to disambiguate, as we need to disambiguate the 18 different ships named Enterprise. It is also not factually accurate (i.e., "simply wrong") as the images do not universally depict either nudity or technology. This is normal practice, and is well covered in COM:CAT.
When a category contains a universal theme, we categorize the category itself. When a category represents diverse themes, we categorize the images individually. GMGtalk 14:12, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Unbundling what you are probably saying, I think:
  1. Yes the content of an image gets categorized for how it appears and its potential reasonable use and reuse, not just a project or group it happens to be part of, whilst if the quality is at the group level (like year or period often is) then these might well be kept to the parent group category.
  2. With regard to policy or guidelines, I am unaware of any that makes use of brackets "simply wrong" or "simply right", which means if multiple parties are interested or it's a controversial topic, then it needs discussion of some sort to agree stylistic changes. If there is something about this in COM:CAT could you provide a more explicit reference? As a side note, "disambiguation" is different on en.Wikipedia to Commons, as there are fewer 'rules' about how to go about it and the implication that brackets are used for necessary disambiguation is not a norm, even though it may be a rationale.
  3. The category in question is a bucket category related to the project in addition to the hidden photographer category, there is no reason to remove it, or hide it, nor is there any specially good reason to add subcategories given the modest numbers, nor does its existence and persistence stop folks adding useful different descriptive categories.
Thanks -- (talk) 14:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Categorization is the one thing that is most consistent across projects, probably more so than anything else. Both of us are natives that have contributed more off then we have on it. So let's assume for the sake of argument that we both pretty well know the lay of the land here.
"Simply wrong" is not a policy based argument; it is a natural language argument. It would be no more or less accurate to include a parenthetical description of "blonde hair". Some of the images depict blonde hair, and some of them do not. We use parenthetical disambiguation routinely for categories, but we do not use them routinely or at all for "collection" type categories (e.g., Category:Harris & Ewing Collection, Category:Portrait photographs in the Metropolitan Museum of Art‎, Category:George Grantham Bain Collection). GMGtalk 15:03, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Okay, so for "simply wrong", I'll read "not great". Maybe the best way is to propose a new name that probably none of the parties involved will care to disagree with, preferably avoiding talking policy unless there is something demonstrably relevant out of COM:CAT.
P.S. WRT LOC uploads, some collection categories do happen to have brackets for various reasons, for example Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (ppmsca.15831), again not because there are any Commons policies or guidelines at the current time that constrain how this works. -- (talk) 15:07, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
For "simply wrong" you should read "factually incorrect". If you need a specific quote from COM:CAT it is here, specifically: Pages (including category pages) are categorized according to their subject, and not to their contents. Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (ppmsca.15831) should also probably be moved to simply Category:Members and activities of the American Colony, because there is no other similarly named category that this parenthetical is disambiguating. But the more appropriate comparison would be Category:Members and activities of the American Colony (horse riding), because only one of the two images in that category depict horse riding. To include the parenthetical (horse riding), is therefore factually incorrect. GMGtalk 15:22, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I understand the point, but categories are not subject to the same "disambiguation" rules that Wikipedia articles are under. In the example of using ppmsca.15831 in the category name, that's actually very useful, especially as the included images do not have the old-id format in their filenames, in fact they do not even have the LCCN in their names and the category does not have any text in it that contains this sort of ID data either. This is a tangent, but when using batch upload tools using generic searches for key IDs is an easy way to filter out relevant or irrelevant potential categories for automated use. It is perhaps a failure for Commons that we have no guidelines that address these technical search/naming issues, but it also has the benefit that a mass uploader is not subject to arbitrary constraints for automated naming of files or categories, so long as the outcome is useful and usable. -- (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
That doesn't seem to actually address the issue of this description being factually incorrect. GMGtalk 15:36, 13 November 2019 (UTC)


Considering the backgrounds of two of the long term contributors to the above discussion, both of whom were strenuously objecting to the word "troll" to describe the actual off-wiki trolling going on about these images (which I have no intention of promoting), incorrectly interpreting my words to be a trolling allegation against the on-wiki contributors, I thought it was worth taking a closer look at the accounts listed as I had never heard of them before. The intention here is to let the facts speak for themselves and as I write this, this is the first time I have examined the accounts in any way.

User1, 288 total edits

Based on their English Wikipedia page, they were an OCLC Wikipedian-in-Residence, so are very familiar with Wikimedia projects and policies. On Commons, nearly all of their edits to this project have been on 8th November and 11th November, in fact, today has been really significant for their account here. They have no other apparent interest in Commons images of nudity or the human form.

User2, 314 total edits

Almost all edits made between 8 November - 11 November, around 30%+ on the nude photographs. Commons has their highest number of contributions.

User3, 72 total edits

Past Wikimedia speaker and presenter, very involved in Wikimedia projects, part of the grants committee. 80% of edits to Commons were made 10th November & 11th November and around 50% of those on these nude images.

User4, 496 total edits

Mostly an established English Wikipedian, with a nice track long if a modest record of uploading useful portraits of notable people, until, no surprise, today 11th November when there are a rush of edits on this category and a few other explicitly sexual images.

It is clear that an external event has attracted these editors to these images. Could someone explain the coincidence, were they perhaps all at the same physical Wikimedia related conference, or all part of the same Wikimedia interest group, and have effectively been tag-teaming on this category? If so, considering how experienced some of these people are elsewhere, including making presentations on the subject, edit warring over "pron" or otherwise giving any appearance of tag-teaming on sexuality and nudity on Commons, is not a good look for people who are involved in WMF funding or receive funding themselves. Thanks -- (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Only after you explain why you feel you are owed an explanation of good-faith editing, and why you think it is ok for you to rank other users in this manner. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Really, weird account behaviour verging on SPAs does not warrant a closer look? This is some serious circling of wagons going on. If this carries on to be a sustained disruptive pron/anti-pron campaign which disrupts the mission of this project, then it will be worth us doing a deeper dive on all the accounts involved and the weird coincidence of interests and loyalties of the folks now turning up to brush away scrutiny and good governance.
Thanks for your interest, maybe you are in a position to give some quiet advice to some of these folks acting unwisely but no doubt in good faith, or would you like to help by providing a more neutral and wider analysis yourself?
Forgot to ask, could you confirm how you found this thread on Commons or if you were linked to it from elsewhere? I'll go first, I watch the Commons VP every day and I'm interested in actions of User:Tm because of their massive history of contributions to this project. I have no other involvement with these folks or these images. -- (talk) 22:20, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I would be interested in doing an analysis myself, but it will take some time to go through the histories before I'd be able to give it the proper attention it deserves. I would note, there is an in-person editathon going on, it is not unusual for people with similar interests to edit on a similar topics and in-person events. They can be fun experiances, there are lots of ways to contribute to Wikimedia, and we shouldn't discriminate because of the means of how people edit. There is nothing wrong with people cooperating on good-faith editing - which is all that is going on here afaict. Bawolff (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Many portray for example HTML tag usage, whether one considers that "computer technology" or not I suppose depends on definition. (For that matter, some individual examples aren't nude either.) Note that "Nude portrayals of computer technology" is a Wikimedia Commons specific neologism, not the label used by the photographer. Possibly this should be brought up on Commons:Categories for discussion rather than here? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's get a few things out of the way. 1) This was the basis of some discussion off-wiki IRL. That's why it suddenly attracted a good deal of attention. 2) No, they did not canvass anyone here. I specifically was the one who asked whether this was currently being discussed on Commons and they simply answered my question. 3) Before we accuse editors of trolling, we should probably consider whether they are users who are new to Commons, who are learning about the site in an edit-a-thon environment, because that's exactly what this was.
    We really haven't put our best foot forward as a community here, and we managed to do so pretty publicly. , you of all people, who have led edit-a-thons yourself, should be among the first to COM:AGF and stay COM:MELLOW in this type of situation. GMGtalk 22:36, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Please read my actual words about who the trolls are. My issue is with off wiki trolling and the prawns that participate. Factual analysis of patterns that should be explained is nothing our community needs to shy away from. Data and facts are not bad faith allegations. -- (talk) 22:55, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I know who they are. We were all in the same room all of an hour ago. I just explained the situation I think fairly adequately. You are spitting venom at good faith new Commons contributors, and I don't think you would take very kindly to it if the situation were reversed. So can we please adopt a posture more conducive to collaboration? GMGtalk 23:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Exactly. Calling people trolls and prawns as a first resort because they are removing images from a category that is obviously wrong is extremely poor behavior. We all know you're the poster child for making a scene about any change you don't like to any image that has someone's gaping asshole in it, bodypaint or no, but attacking other people and engaging in name-calling without even trying to talk to them first, which is what this entire thread is, is just shitty, although not surprising. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:37, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Beeblebrox, Your comments about other users are crossing the line into personal attacks. Please stop. That said, I do not agree with Fæ's digging through users edit history in order to prove something about edits which seem to me perfectly reasonable. Many people, like the person who started the conversation, are hiding behind IP addresses, but few who are not are being followed and analyzed.--Jarekt (talk) 00:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
We all know you're the poster child for making a scene about any change you don't like to any image that has someone's gaping asshole in it
Presumably, your behaviour is now normal and acceptable for someone who is privileged and trusted to be a member of checkuser, oversight, sysop teams on the English Wikipedia.
With regard to circling the wagons, how on Earth am I presumed to know folks I had never heard of were physically in a meeting together and happen to own these accounts that rarely otherwise contribute to this project, and were apparently encouraged to do this via a meeting that I had also never heard of? I have no idea how many of the contributors apparently making special efforts to drop into this discussion are involved in that same meeting that apparently created this circus by their actions.
Given the violent use of sexualized language here, it is worth re-iterating that asking questions about disruptive and unhelpful collective patterns of behaviour on Wikimedia Commons should be the norm, and should not be used as an excuse to make attacks against those asking basic questions.
Nearly forgot to ask again, Beeblebrox, given the fact that vast majority of your activities are not on this project, could you confirm how you found this thread on Commons or if you were linked to it from elsewhere? Perhaps you could provide a link to the meeting being mentioned, that might aid transparency and accountability? -- (talk) 06:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@: The link is somewhere in this area, and a room full of thirty or forty people who got a crash course in how Commons welcomes new users. The result was not a stunning endorsement for Commons among contributors to other projects, and for me, as someone who does contribute here quite a bit, it was a bit embarrassing. The way you know all this is by asking them. I'm sure they would have been happy to tell you the circumstances where they suddenly decided to start contributing to Commons, because since Friday, we've had whole groups of people trying to teach people to do just that. GMGtalk 07:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Except that the category was obviously correct, if poorly named. I don't suggest that anyone new to a particular wiki start widely messing around with categories on a bunch of pages; it's easy to miss how things work and break a bunch of pages. One person doing starting to break a category is frustrating; a number of new people doing so smells of sock- or meatpuppets.
I agree with Fæ that personal attacks on Fæ are a bit hypocritical for your complaints. Nudity and sexuality on Commons are frequent targets of attacks, and need people willing to defend them if we are going to cover that subject well.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@: I re-read your comment after taking a little break from this discussion. I think I may be misunderstanding what you mean by "trolling". To me, trolling is a very serious allegation, that someone is intentionally editing in a disruptive pattern in bad-faith. As it is a serious allegation, in my opinion such allegations when made should be backed up by facts (diffs), specifically: (1) a link to the community norm/policy the person is alleged to be violating, or if it is disruptive in a way that is not covered by policy an argument as to how it would be widely considered generally disruptive behaviour. (2) Evidence that the user is intentionally doing this, and the disruption is not accidental or in "good-faith". An example of this is if the user was warned about the behaviour,linked to a policy page, or otherwise knows that the norm exists (e.g. if they have referenced the policy page before). If it is common-sense, then a warning might not be necessary, but it should be something so obvious that active editors in good standing would universally agree that the edits are disruptive. (3) Evidence that the user actually behaved in this way, such as a series of diffs giving examples of this behaviour. I'm very disturbed to see accusations of this nature that don't seem to have these things backing them up. Nobody has explained what precisely was wrong with the edits such that it is a violation of norms and not just different people disagreeing what the page content should be. Nobody has shown that any of these users had it explained to them why these edits are disruptive (For that matter, I would like to know this to). All that's been stated is that some of these contributors don't regularly edit commons, but I don't think that's a point of contention, or at least its unclear how their newness relates to the accusation of trolling. That said, maybe you mean something different by trolling - you mention off-wiki trolling, but surely you care about the results on-wiki, so I'm confused as to what you mean. You also keep referring to people as prawns, originally I assumed you meant it as a petty insult, since as wiktionary says prawn is slang for someone who is stupid, or someone who's face is ugly. Such name-calling would certainly be unbecoming of any contributor of Wikimedia Commons. However, re-reading your comments, based on context perhaps you're suggesting that these editors are what are commonly referred to as meat-puppets, and that the "troll" is the meat-puppet master? If so, I've certainly never heard the word prawn used in this fashion in the Wikimedia verse, could not find other examples when I looked for it, and I would generally ask that when making such allegations that you use clear language, as its already a tense situations and misunderstandings over unclear verbiage just serve to exacerbate tension. With all that said, if indeed this is what you intended to say, I still think such allegations should only be made if evidence can be furnished. For starters, some argument that the actions of these people are actually disruptive and against policy, since if the edits of these editors are not against policy, then at worst if what I assume you are suggesting is what you are actually suggesting, is that someone is encouraging people to make positive contributions, which is hardly trolling. Bawolff (talk) 05:31, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I am feeling we are facing a campaign of fake news as well as sexualized personal attacks by people who know exactly what they are doing and have the tools and authority for this to carry the threat of making my future volunteering work impossible. Here's a quick fact check:
I have not called these users trolls.
I have not called anyone ugly.
I have not called these users meatpuppets.
I have not called these users prawns. Despite this, I have struck the silly word as it's being used to create irrelevant distracting tangents.
Thanks for your long response. Could you explain what this meeting was, how many of the participants in this thread are connected to it, and why users who are now being described as newbies despite some having several years being part of funded Wikimedia related projects, were encouraged to club together to focus on controversial and graphically sexual photographs on Commons with the inevitable off-wiki interest created? Thanks -- (talk) 06:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
My belief that you called these users "prawns" comes from [5] and [6]. I'm not sure how to take the first comment any other way, but I apologize if I misinterpreted you. I see that you struck the word and clarified that its British slang. Thank you for the clarification - I'm certainly willing to chalk that up to being a misunderstanding. Most of the rest of those words were me being confused trying to interpret a phrase I did not have the cultural context for. As for calling those users trolls - sure you're not calling these users trolls, but I guess you're implying they are (perhaps inadvertantly) part of a trolling campaign, and thus you are calling somebody a troll. I guess I still wonder who precisely is the person that is the troll in this situation. As for the meeting. It was WikiConference North America - its an annual major conference in North America. This year it was in Boston and attracted about 350 people. While the IRL meeting is an explanation to the question that was raised as to how this random group of not normally active editors started all editing on this topic - in many ways I don't think that should matter. I don't think there's any reason for you or anyone else to be expected to know that. I think we should treat people the same regardless of where they came from. If instead these users happened to meet in irc and do the same thing - I don't think our response should be particularly different than whatever it should be in the current case. My understanding of what happened - some people were working on images in this area, doing what they believed to be constructive edits, drama ensued and they got frustrated, people noticed that some people at a certain table were kind of looking frustrated and asked them what was going on, and I guess joined them. As more drama built, more people started talking about it, and more people got involved. Its a large conference, and for most of it I was in other rooms doing other things so I cannot attest to everything that happened. By the time I got involved in this it had already escalated into quite a bit of drama and was pretty late in the day. Bawolff (talk) 06:59, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
So you were in the meeting and GreenMeansGo was in the meeting together with these users, and this has only come out after repeated questions about how folks are finding out about this thread. Anyone else? Come on, you know as much as I do what circling the wagons is. It's a bad thing to do, it's anti-good governance, and whether by coincidence or choice, forming an effective tag team to brush off questions, or just repeat tangents to wikilawyer the possible meaning of individual words from those asking obvious questions and asking for facts, is exceptionally bad and manipulative when the participants are not being upfront about their potential conflict of loyalties.
The problematic edits from folks that are rarely contributors here are understandable, they could do with some advice especially for being careful with images that have been highly controversial and attracted anti-pron warriors in the past and continue to do so off-wiki today. The parachuting into this discussion by long term contributors and those wearing significant trusted hats, without a reasonable explanation of having a direct connection to the same users, giving a false impression that it is happening by accident, is, disappointing.
WRT giving false impressions, opening with I'm here because this edit war is getting discussed around lots of places and I heard about it now reads as deliberate obsfuscation. Unhelpful to working towards a collegial environment.
-- (talk) 12:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

To aid transparency, as getting declarations of these connections to the physical meeting is worryingly like pulling teeth, starting with a database search this morning, here is a complete list of all accounts editing images in the Geekography category since 8 November, and whether the same users are demonstrably published to have been at the Massachusetts Wikiconference. In addition accounts "dropping in" to this discussion who have now confirmed their attendance, or have been published as attending, are included:

Editors who were at the Wikiconference 2019 (total of 5)
Carlinmack (talk · contribs), Shameran81 (talk · contribs), Seazzy (talk · contribs), Jackiekoerner (talk · contribs), Thsmi002 (talk · contribs)
Discussion contributors here who were at the conference (total of 3)
Bawolff (talk · contribs), GreenMeansGo (talk · contribs), Dominic (talk · contribs)
Editors who were not at the Wikiconference 2019 (total of 5)
Tm (talk · contribs), Masum Ibn Musa (talk · contribs), Jarekt (talk · contribs), Krassotkin (talk · contribs), Marcus Cyron (talk · contribs)

Let me know if any of these basic facts are wrong; and it's worth reiterating the following -- Factual analysis of patterns that should be explained is nothing our community needs to shy away from. Data and facts are not bad faith allegations. Thanks -- (talk) 11:32, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

  • OMG how many letters... Thank you for the ping. --sasha (krassotkin) 12:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is there a point to all this sleuthing? There is no transparency issue. You jumped the gun and called a bunch of people trolls when they weren't. It doesn't require five pages of text. It requires a "my bad" and we can go back to talking about the actual substantive content. GMGtalk 14:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    There needs to be "sleuthing", or as I would call it in plain English, "stating basic facts", because of the persistent failure at the start of this thread for anyone to honestly and openly explain what happened, even though you and others were perfectly well aware that all these users and yourselves were in a room together, targeting this content. The evidence shows, the pattern of edits that concerned Tm was problematic and at no time did any of the experienced mentors think to provide this explanation upfront for Tm's benefit or the benefit of these misguided and badly advised editors.
    Yes, there are trolls, they are just not the people in this list, nor have I said anywhere that they are. Please stick to evidence and the order of events here, rather than repeating fake news and joining others who are keen to make out that I'm an evil defender of "gaping asshole"s when I'm apparently the only Wikimedian raising questions without any direct involvement and has done so with no surprise undeclared potential conflict of loyalties undermining my reasoning.
    The doublethink being presented is rediculous and now looks like tactical gaming rather than making any positive suggestion. Rather than attacking me for tangential and ever more fantastic reasons, why not use your interest and experience to give proper advice to the users in question on their talk pages, or publish a recommendation back to the Conference organizers about what should be learned from this failure and project disruption by the conference attendees for your future events.
    Here's a quick fact check:
    I have not called these users trolls.
    Thanks -- (talk) 15:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
    [7] GMGtalk 15:51, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the diff, showing that I wrote Off-wiki trolling. @GreenMeansGo: if you have any evidence that one of the above accounts is engaging in off-wiki trolling, please send the evidence to WMF T&S rather than making these claims on-wiki. Thanks -- (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to deny what you plainly said, while accusing me of spreading fake news, then I will consider this discussion satisfactorily concluded by means of diverging realities. You can keep your Trumpisms, and I'll do fairly well without them, thank you very much. I have nothing against you personally, and you should know that. We've worked on and off together for years now. But I won't tolerate gas lighting as a rhetorical tactic. GMGtalk 21:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
"off-wiki" is not "on-wiki".
Calling that gaslighting is bizarre.
Those that were at the meeting, guiding these editors to mass edit these controversial nude images for reasons that have yet to be explained instead wasting thousands of words wikilawyering over what "off-wiki trolling" might be flipped around to mean, and choosing to parachute into this discussion without making their personal role in these events clear upfront rather than solely taking potshots at Tm, have a problem. The same "mentors" are in the best position to provide proper advice to this group of "trainee" editors, and to recommend preventative action that might actually avoid this happening again next year or at the next U.S. based WMF Affiliate editathon that chooses to target Wikimedia Commons files.
This is not gaslighting. It is not a personal attack. It is reaching conclusions and making recommendations based on the available hard evidence. -- (talk) 05:16, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Are we going to get an apology for the poster child for making a scene, or are the demands for apologies going to be one-sided? There also seem to be real concerns about how it was done and why that would be frustrating to other users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Things are now less fixed, after a fashion

Well, having seen the rename, the issue now is that the parent Category:Portrayals of computer technology actually contains nothing that isn't part of "Project 'Geekography' by Exey Panteleev". Assuming that any of the images needs to be retained (which I would question), I see no reason for two categories: one category encompassing the entire exhibition ought to suffice. Mangoe (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Avoiding over hierarchical categories should be the norm, but frequently is not the outcome from category warring.
Where contextual source text is being blanked, this should be consistently restored as good practice, and those that may choose to persist in blanking should receive warnings that this is disruptive. -- (talk) 06:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
For context, I've been following discussion on these images since I became aware of the DRs above about a month ago, and briefly dropped by the edit-a-thon mentioned above. Is this really considered "contextual source text"? For content that is clearly an artistic representation, I find it misleading for the description to be solely of what the content represents. Airplaneman 20:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is best practice to preserve reasonable source context with the image, but that does not mean that we cannot add to that source context or data, such as translations, better keywords to find media in searches or plain meaningful descriptions of the media content where the source context may not be sufficient or even incorrect. There's nothing wrong with the addition of descriptive text presented; even not using an edit comment for this self-explanatory addition of what the "radio button" as used in the file name is not of itself controversial. -- (talk) 05:35, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Hello everyone. When I give presentations about Wikimedia projects, I explain that the mission of our movement is to expand free access to information and to encourage participation in Wikimedia projects. I emphasize how the distributed community works by assuming good faith in others and by being bold. I am primarily involved in editing Wikipedia however I regularly search Commons for educational purposes. When I attended Commons-related events at WikiConference NA, I was eager to learn ways to implement structured data on Commons to existing image files and categories and improve the search user experience with this additional layer of metadata. Our movement is growing in terms of contributors and technical tools. Structured data offers editors new pathways for discovery, it did for me; it's exciting to join Wikimedia in this way and contribute to improve the quality of the freely-licensed image repository. Shameran81 (talk) 22:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Overemphasis on being bold is quite problematic in many cases, especially when it means that someone has to go around to many pages and fix what the newbie broke. I'd much rather newbies start by uploading their own works and figuring out how things work there. Assuming good faith should include assuming that the people who added categories in the first place did so of good faith, so if you are "removing images from a category that is obviously wrong", maybe you should stop and think, because the person who added it didn't see it as obviously wrong. If someone calls you a troll, perhaps assume good faith and consider that you may have been doing something problematic, instead of getting outraged.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Governance and preventative action for WikiConference North America 2019

@Seazzy: Given the following evidence:

  1. The only deletion requests raised on this project were the 16 DRs created on 25th & 26th September (ref Quarry:query/40059). All DRs were the "Geekography" nude images that are the focus of this discussion. All were closed as Symbol keep vote.svg Keep.
  2. Though the Commons account has a longer history, the significant majority of the total contributions have been directly related to these deletions.
  3. The single contribution to noticeboards on Commons in 2019, has been Vandalism and bad faith from User:Tm on 29th September, which was again about these images and which was closed with the advice to "not go running to the admin noticeboard every time something contentious happens".

While being open to new evidence that would change the context, these facts alone make it appear impossibly unlikely that the fact that you were at the Wikiconference in the editathon for new Commons users, could be unrelated to the fact that precisely these "Geekography" nude photographs were chosen out of literally millions of other options for mass editing by others (who may be presumed to have acted in good faith). Could you explain your involvement and how this happened?

To the outside observer, it appears that the conference editathon event was deliberately misused to resurrect old battleground behaviours targeting the same user and the same images that were going on less than 2 months ago and that the "mentors" for the event failed to be alert to this potential misuse. It would be good to see some positive recommendations as to how potential misuse similar to this possible example, might be avoided at future editathons for Commons new users.

@Tm, Majora: for information as the mentioned target of a past complaint and related closing admin.

Thanks -- (talk) 12:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

@: Thank you for being clear & explicit in your concerns. I feel this is the first time I properly understand the who/what/why of your concerns. Bawolff (talk) 15:17, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Since it’s okay to be bold, here’s my «positive recommendation» to avoid this kind of issue, and possible a whole host of other issues: Just disband all kinds of meatspace, large scale events. These are only atendable by an elite of affluent users capable of frequent, worldwide travel, heavily skewing the sample of those who will have a voice in «shaping the vision for 2030» blah blah blah, and end up promoting all sorts of nonsense (check this very page for ocurrences of "cool") that goes against the workflow of those who are creating most of the content. Wikis are to be created and used online — so keep all collaboration and meta discussion online too. -- Tuválkin 16:05, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
This would need to be a proposal on Meta, and not on any local project. On Meta, it's almost certain to get no consensus. Besides that, to the extent that this disadvantages people from certain geographic regions, then the WMF should continue to fork up those sweet donation dollars for travel scholarships. There were around 100 scholarships given out for WikiCon NA in Boston, without which about a third of the people there would have been absent, myself included. At the end of the day, we are the ones whose work is the reason the WMF gets those sweet donation dollars, and so we should be the primary ones to benefit from it, second only to our readers and reusers.
There were also 300 to 400 attendees at this year's WikiCon NA, and this was the only hiccup from all of that. That's not bad odds, besides the fact that these events provide a valuable opportunity for collaboration, and also for other stakeholders to engage in the movement. There were representatives there from Microsoft, Facebook, Google, and There is no other way we have to engage in these institutions and try to convince them to leverage their position to help us progress access to free public knowledge. GMGtalk 16:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Im surprised to hear you say that - between wiki loves monuments/earth/etc and mass imports from glams (which are often cemented in meat space meetings) - I would imagine commons probably has one of the highest ratio of content coming from meatspace events of any wikimedia project. As far as wikimedia 2030 crap, probably true of some meetups, i dont think it was very prevelent in this one. Bawolff (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Heh, sorry for derailing. What I wrote above, although rooted on my genuine views, was a sort of Modest Proposal in the here-now. I’ll go back to work now. -- Tuválkin 02:11, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

In the light that this has been a complex issue, and as said before even working out that parties commenting in this thread were actually "in the room" when this team editing targeted at "Geekography" nude photographs were taking place, was made problematic as they decided to avoid declaring that potential conflict of loyalties upfront. Further that it is not possible for anyone not at the WikiConference to state for certain exactly who that was part of the Wikimedia Commons team editing were also physically at the WikiConference. It may even be relevant to know who had scholarships to be there, as this may change the nature of formal agreements, behavioural policies and reporting commitments. None of this information is apparently available for public scrutiny. The Commons Village pump does not seem to be the right place properly to resolve this issue as many of the relevant parties are "not present", nor is it the right place for the most critical stakeholders in the WikiConference to agree what preventative actions should be taken to avoid precisely the same type of governance problem for future editathons recurring.

A formal approach of raising a complaint seems appropriate and a constructive step if handled correctly, considering that on the landing page for the conference it states that the (m:WikiConference North America) User Group documents best practices and shares lessons learned with other Wikimedia communities planning and hosting conferences and similar events. The user group was recognized by Affcom in 2016, which gives it the authority to use the Wikimedia brand and bid for funding as an affiliate with a legal agreement with the Wikimedia Foundation in place.

For these reasons, I believe the next step should probably be an open letter to the conference planning team,[8] which can summarize the concerns that this apparent hijacking of a conference training event which apparently deliberately manipulated good-faith new contributors into effective meatpuppets as part of an existing "anti-pron" campaign based on the evidence provided to date. Fixing this could be as simple as agreeing the test topics for edits using an openly published editathon wishlist which experienced project members can recommend changes for if they may be unnecessarily controversial. Pinging those in the conference planning team should they have alternative suggestions for how best to log/report this issue and publicly commit to preventative action. The pings are partial, if anyone knows of on-wiki linked accounts please add them:

Thanks -- (talk) 10:17, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • Alternatively, we could consider that this was a content dispute among a handful of editors, and that this continual conspiracy mongering has done nothing but detract from efforts to resolve the actual dispute at hand. That the content under dispute involved nudity does not constitute a systemic crisis which requires extraordinary intervention to accommodate. That no one attempted to discuss the issue with the contributors, and that we opened this discussion by summarily accusing them of being trolls also did not help resolve the dispute. At this point, demanding a manifest of conference attendees and scholarship recipients is beginning to look a bit hysterical. GMGtalk 15:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The same day this thread was opened the claim that the users were being maligned as trolls were made by Dominic and Bawolff, including creating the precise false claim of trolling being alleged against others by using "I mean, if we're going to talk about trolling" being directed at Tm. Both Dominic, Bawolff and yourself were later confirmed as having been at the conference where this was editathon happened, turning misguided new editors into meat puppets for a long-running "anti-pron" campaign by someone who had been targeting Tm with hounding complaints only a matter of weeks before. That obvious potential conflicts of loyaty were not disclosed upfront, is why this discussion itself is evidence of the gaming tactic of circling the wagons. You all know each other, you all knew that each other were at the event, this make you part of a knowing tag-team against Tm.
None of the "mentors" at the meeting has stepped up to recognize that this was a problem, instead preferring to constantly try to sweep this under the carpet as quickly as possible, while making Tm look like a troll, even using those words.
Fact check:
  1. This is not "conspiracy mongering", the facts have been explicitly laid out for anyone to review. There is no allegation of a conspiracy here, just summarizing facts.
  2. Nobody has called this a "systemic crisis" or asked for "extraordinary intervention". No "intervention" whatsoever for these accounts has been proposed, apart from a positive suggestion the responsible "mentors" to provide proper advice to those that participated in the misused editathon, this has been ignored.
  3. Nobody, apart from those "defending" the editors who happened themselves to be conference participants, has called them trolls, because on-wiki trolling is not done off-wiki, no matter how often this deliberate and disruptive fake news is repeated.
If you have nothing positive to suggest for future preventative action, as seems to be the pattern here, and if the conference planning team has no formal alternative to suggest, I shall get on with drafting the open letter summarizing the evidence of this governance failure and the apparent deliberate misuse of the Wikiconference for the User Group. Several of them know me personally and have even worked with me on projects, so I would be surprised if it gets brushed away as "trolling" or similar.
P.S. I strongly object to your use of the word "hysterical", if you do not understand why look it up and educate yourself. Do not direct it at me again, or anyone else on this project please. -- (talk) 16:30, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure they will give your open letter all the seriousness it deserves. GMGtalk 16:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Go take a long hard look in the mirror, before casting more stones. Thanks for your time and your valuable feedback as an experienced trusted user who could have provided excellent advice to these new contributors. -- (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I was at WikiConference North America 2019, and I'll just say publicly what I said to the edit-a-thon participants privately: I am glad that there was an in-person event where people could give each other moral support when dealing with emotionally difficult subject matter that would have been depressing to deal with alone. I won't comment on specific edits that were made because I haven't reviewed them, but I strongly support the use of a community event for encouraging editor engagement in subject areas that can cause distress. Clayoquot (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Certainly, that's a good thing, something quite relevant for the WM-LGBT+ user group I am part of and we would want for our events. Ensuring that there is a shared good practice that any collective team work in editathons follows the same practice we have seen advised for Wikipedia focused WIRs in Universities, in particular, that students and teachers will state on their talk pages that they are taking part in an event, is also something we would all want.
A topic that has already been the focus of dispute(s) should be treated with caution, and giving the appearance of a covert tag-team or meat puppetry should be carefully avoided. Any specialist group with a potential or likely collective bias and interested in tackling a controversial topic would be well advised to talk through their approach, preferably openly and on-wiki in advance of the editathon. -- (talk) 18:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 12

Different Wikipedias redirecting to Commons' upload page

I don't know if this had been discussed before, but after being on various DR discussions, in particular, the DRs of various logos, that there are one or many more Wikipedias redirecting their upload pages to that of Commons. This has created the issue, IMO, of users uploading alleged non-free content to Commons, as they have no longer the option of uploading locally (for example, Spanish Wikipedia). While Commons policy is clear and I'm not seeking to change it, I find it problematic that certain users continually upload non-free content and attempt to justify it by claiming "encyclopedic value" as an attempted, and clear invalid rationale to keep it. Had these WPs continue to allow local uploads, we would have less of this issue. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 16:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

See, my impression is that this could be intentional for Wikipedias that don't want to manage files locally - implicitly also excluding any non-free content - and thus punt it all to Commons. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 16:15, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
It is intentional and indeed the default: meta:Local uploads policy "By default, all projects have local uploads disabled and rely entirely on Wikimedia Commons". MKFI (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
It's definitely problematic, because (1) there's an inherent conflict between the needs of the Wikipedias and Commons policy, (2) it adds to the backlog of DRs (I've seen numerous DRs that should have been closed, but have yet to be). ––Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 19:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
I doubt it will be changed - the problem was that some smaller wikis allowed local uploads but had few administrators to check for copyright violations, see meta:Requests for comment/Disable local uploads on smaller wikis. The point of using Commons is to let our community watch for copyvios. Some larger Wikipedias like swedish or spanish simply do not allow any fair use content (or local equivalent) and thus have no need for local files. The decision to allow local files is really decided by the community of each Wikipedia - if they do not wish to use local files then we should not push them to do so. Commons is intended as the common image bank after all. Any uploads here must conform to Commons policies. MKFI (talk) 20:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Chipping in on a nuance here: "The point of using Commons is to let our community watch for copyvios" is not exactly a fair statement -- the Commons community has taken upon itself the responsibility of checking for copyvios -- the point of using Commons is to create a shared repository for all Wikimedia projects. Its useful to distinguish between the "why" that the community on commons reviews the content, and the "why" of the vision of the project -- "making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content". Like the widespread adoption of Wikidata on smaller wikis, in my experience, folks describing using Commons because it allows a better environment for sharing those media files in the long run. Many local language Wikipedias and WikiSources choose not to be as strict about copyright because of how little social relevance there is of that issue in their area, Sadads (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Uploads that claim that the file should be kept for Educational purposes should be CSD (speedied). There is not any reason to take the slower Deletion request route for those. Wikisources are supposed to have only content which is out of copyright or with a free licence, so if there is an user from wikisource that uploads non-free files, then (s)he is probably violating the policy on wikisource aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 01:06, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I agree, but the problem is that certain uploaders are quite reactive and so a CSD tag would be quickly removed and it would result in a DR in any case. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Searching depicts statements - coming soon

Sorry that it's slightly blurry.

The developers are finishing up the ability to search depicts statements in the search bar without any advanced tools or using haswbstatement. This change will go live within a few weeks. It is available for registered users only, is opt-in by default, but can be turned off at any time in a user's search preferences once the feature is here. I'll provide an update when I know more about when this will be available. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

If I search for "haswbstatement:P180=Q66001615", I get a single file, that has the depict-statement "Dyke March Berlin 2019" - just as expected.
At wikidata the item is an "instance of" Q4154060 (Dyke March)
However, if I search for "haswbstatement:P180=Q4154060", I get three files of Dyke Marches, but not the one from the first search, even though it depicts the Dyke March Berlin 2019, which is an instance of a Dyke March.
That is not, what I would have expected?
--C.Suthorn (talk) 19:48, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: yes, this is a symptom of search's current inability to crawl the hierarchy of Wikidata's ontology. While fixing this is not on the current development roadmap, it's still something the team would like to correct in the future. While it doesn't help with searching, querying is getting easier with the (very beta) SDC Query service and you should be able to write SPARQL queries that would return all the entries you're expecting. Again, querying and searching are certainly two different things, but we're getting there in stages. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow that is awesome. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

November 13

Photograph family Tairraz

I uploaded the scanned postcard and only later I discovered that the photografer only died in 1975. I will nominate the picture for deletion until 2046. However I discovered a interesting website: How can I preserve this background license information on the Commons? The first two phographers are PD. On the French Wiki, there are mentions of Georges Tairraz, but no article on him or his family. I pointed this out in the French 'Bistro'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Cool Tool : Play ISA and win some prizes with the Wiki Loves Africa MetaData Weeks

FB posts WLA ISA Year Campaigns.jpg

This is a quick announcement and call for All Commonists to come and play on the ISA tool. The images in this first Wiki Loves Africa MetaData Weeks or Africa At Play! were originally submitted to Wikimedia Commons as part of the Wiki Loves Africa 2017 photographic contest. There are prizes to be won! The competition closes on 29th November You can enter the competition here:

The ISA Tool was created to provide a fun way for participants to add information/ tags / descriptors that identifies the elements that makes up each image by linking it to existing WikiData statements (it was named the coolest multimedia tool at the recent WikiData Conference). ISA is one of the pilot projects for the Structured Data on Commons project and helps to make images more useful as illustrations of articles, and also more easy to search for - it is multilingual too! (It is a tool that is so cool it won the multimedia award at WikiData Conference 2019.) Islahaddow (talk) 15:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

November 14

Is there more automated upload method than Upload Wizard?

Using Upload Wizard I still have to cut and paste the category 100 times and and cut and paste the description 100 times if I am uploading 100 tombstones from a cemetery, is there a better way?. RAN (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I haven't used any of them myself, but there are a number of tools designed for bulk uploading described at Commons:Upload tools. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:42, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
RAN in Upload Wizard there is this link under first image properties to copy them to all the images... --Jarekt (talk) 04:45, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks ... I will try both tomorrow! RAN (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Sea of blue links in the infobox

See: Category:John_Lane_Miller and how his employers run together in what looks like one blue link. Can we experiment with a semicolon or comma to separate them? Or make them bulleted? Any other suggestions? RAN (talk) 13:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): The difficulty here is knowing what separator works in all languages - I'm not sure how multilingual semicolons or commas are? Bullets tend to take up too much horizontal space. As a possibility, I've tried added a few extra pixels of whitespace between each link in {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}, does that look clearer? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 05:47, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't see much of a difference. A comma would work, but we still have entries with commas in the names which will lead to confusion. Some geographical entries still have something like "City, State" even though we have been changing the primary name to "City". I agree a bullet would take up too much precious space. RAN (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, before, after. It's deliberately a subtle effect. I've made the gap slightly larger now. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Who owns the copyright for a United States Passport photo of a person

The US government sets the standard for how the picture is to be composed, the background to be used, the lighting, what you can wear, your facial expression, and how the face is fit into the aspect ratio of the image. Does the US government composing the image make it free from copyright? Or does the anonymous clerk at the CVS store own the copyright to your image? RAN (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Not a clerk but a company they work for. Ruslik (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Currently, anyone (me, you, my grandma, a clerk at Walgreens) can take a U.S. passport photo and submit it, as long as it complies with federal requirements. The photo is not necessarily (and probably not often) created by an employee Federal Government, although the passport the bears the photo is. I strongly doubt that a drugstore image submitted is free from copyright per {{PD-USGov}}, unless Mike Pompeo himself comes and directs all aspects of light, composition, and focus of the shot before a clerk presses the shutter button. I do fear we host a large amount of passport photos with uncertain provenance uploaded in good faith assuming PD-US Gov. --Animalparty (talk) 06:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
I think such photos aren't in the public domain, as the one taken the photo isn't necessarily an employee of the US government carrying their official duties out. Anyone can take that photo, and it's only "included" in your passport. Ahmadtalk 08:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Kinga Kijak-Markiewicz at PhotoClaim, a legal site for photographers, writes: "passport photos are not subject to copyright", because they do not meet the threshold or originality. And pre-1978 passport photo images would have to contain a copyright notice since a discernible copy has been distributed. RAN (talk) 13:20, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • I have heard the argument that passport photos don't contain sufficient creativity for copyright because their format is so strictly specified by the government. I don't think it has ever been litigated and doubt it ever will, so we can't know for sure. If that is not the case, Ruslik would be correct. An extremely rough search indicates that we have generally deleted passport photos, and despite the comment on the top of Category:United States passport photos it only seems to contain old pictures with other PD justifications. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:13, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • There is probably no PD-USGov argument here, at least no blanket one. As pointed out, these photographs can be taken by anyone. I suppose it's possible there is a TOO argument, but in practice, I don't know that I've ever seen Commons apply TOO to the entirety of a photo itself. Mugshots can also be heavily regulated in their composition and format, but we do not allow this as an argument to overome TOO. GMGtalk 21:24, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
    • While I'm no copyright lawyer, I think the argument that because a photo must comply with Federal requirements it falls below the TOO is bogus. By that logic, almost any simple portrait with a plain background would be Public Domain, including this image on the cover of last week's Time Magazine (or this one) --Animalparty (talk) 22:46, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 15

Gigantic STL files without thumbnails

Does File:SrpxMen700 14062019.stl (3.03 GB) work for someone else? The STL files from this user are the only ones that don't work for me. Maybe they are just too big. See also File:Menger33209 500 20052019.stl (1.67 GB). Can STL files be scaled down? More importantly, are such gigantic files conceivably useful? There must be some written or unwritten limit. I just don't know where it is? Watchduck (quack) 01:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I am surprised that we can't render a thumbnail of an STL file. It isn't much use if we can't see what it is. RAN (talk) 13:45, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

The Wikipedia page on Wikimedia commons requires refs

The section in Wikipedia w:Wikimedia_Commons#Quality includes description of Featured pictures, Quality images and Valued images, but cites no sources. Would anyone be able to add citations to the most relevant commons policy pages, as well as ideally some third party refs about it? Also there's no mention of Wiki loves X or similar competitions which are probably notable. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:28, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Editing of file captions does not work

Firefox 60.9.0esr on Windows 7. On a file page containing a caption (e.g. File:Ono 1.JPG) I press "expand", then "edit" and modify the caption(s). Unfortunately, "publish changes" button (nor "cancel") does nothing. I use Collapse Captions gadget and my common.css does not contain any code related to file captions. I think it started yesteday. Does anyone have similar problem? --jdx Re: 09:14, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx: Does it work if you disable the collapse captions gadget? This may be related to @Zhuyifei1999's changes to the gadget on the 13th. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
It never worked for me. --Havang(nl) (talk) 09:49, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: You are right. Editing works when the gadget is turned off. --jdx Re: 09:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Which gadget has to be turned off? --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Bij Voorkeuren -> Uitbreidingen onder het kopje "Interface: Bestanden en categorieën" bij "Collapse Captions: Collapse the File captions interface". Wouter (talk) 13:12, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jdx, Mike Peel, Havang(nl): Method 4, see if that fixed it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:27, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

@Zhuyifei1999: It seems to be all right now. --jdx Re: 22:03, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

image size in category view

I can change the size of image thumbnails, using my preferences, but I can't seem to change the size of images in category views. Have I missed a setting to do this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

  • I also miss the feature. I would also like to be able to change the default display of 200 files per category page. Unfortunately, m:Community Wishlist Survey 2020 specifically excluded Commons and some other projects from submitting proposals. 4nn1l2 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Would this workaround help: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/08#Larger_thumbnails? MKFI (talk) 07:47, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Wow! There is also a gadget. One only needs to activate "LargerGallery" at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:15, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Categorising by EXIF

Half of the pitures in Category:ODI Summit 2014 are by Tracy Howl, the rest by Paul Clarke. However this is only apparent from their EXIF data. Is it possible (is there a tool) to add categories and/ or creator templates based on that, or do I need someone with a bot to do that for me? There will be other similar cases, so it's not just case of manually ploughing through just this set. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:19, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Bot. -- (talk) 22:22, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

November 16

File: Pedro arrupe.jpg

There is a confusing box here. Do you know for sure if this part is correct: After carefully checking the validity of the license , this image can be copied to Wikimedia Commons , thus making it available also to Wikipedia in other languages ​​and to other Wikimedia projects. But the cancellation of this copy should not be requested nor should the template be inserted
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jzsj (talk • contribs) 00:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

(Replaced external link with inter-wiki link. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC))

Yes, it is correct. It's a tag/template to notify users that the file should be kept locally, rather than having the file only on Commons. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 00:58, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response, but please be clear: may we copy this to Commons as the statement says or must we not copy it and use it in English Wikipedia? Jzsj (talk) 07:31, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Yes, you can transfer it to Commons, but it is missing the details (such as source, author, etc) generally needed on Commons and may be subject to deletion if uploaded here. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, GSW-FR(ALS). 07:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Somebody talk to Erika39

Somebody please tell the user Erika39 (talk · contribs) to connect the categories he creates to Wikidata, I am tired of telling him but he has never answered why he does not. --Adriel 00 (talk) 02:43, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

You can suggest but they do not have to do it. They are a volunteer and can chose to put any amount of effort as they wish, just like other users. You can also ask other users to help make any needed improvements to any categories they create. MorganKevinJ(talk) 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)