↓ 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/07.

Please note:

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.
Have you read our FAQ?
For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
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).
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:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded.	0	0
2	New designs for logo detection tool	27	9	Sannita (WMF)	2024-07-11 13:33
3	New York Public Library	8	3	Infopetal	2024-07-09 20:15
4	Technical needs survey proposals	10	6	Bawolff	2024-07-12 08:00
5	Categories by day: date format?	14	5	RZuo	2024-07-07 21:26
6	We need someone to maintain CropTool	13	5	Pere prlpz	2024-07-07 22:06
7	German currency files without machine-readable license	8	2	Rosenzweig	2024-07-09 17:35
8	POTY (Picture of the Year) competition needs help!	5	5	Bawolff	2024-07-12 07:48
9	Long term preservation of media files	8	3	PantheraLeo1359531	2024-07-09 06:44
10	Distributed_by	2	1	Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )	2024-07-08 20:00
11	Negative boosted AI images	11	7	Prototyperspective	2024-07-10 20:09
12	License template request: AGPLv3 only	4	2	Veikk0.ma	2024-07-12 00:00
13	Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon	1	1	RamzyM (WMF)	2024-07-08 03:45
14	ISO 24138 - International Standard Content Code - ISCC	5	3	Bawolff	2024-07-12 07:34
15	Identifying and categorising special building in Japan	3	3	JWilz12345	2024-07-09 00:42
16	Potentially confusing page naming	7	4	LPfi	2024-07-13 19:51
17	U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates	1	1	Keegan (WMF)	2024-07-10 00:02
18	Does Pywikibot still work?	3	2	Watchduck	2024-07-10 17:02
19	"campaign323@ISA"	1	1	Jmabel	2024-07-12 01:59
20	STL files visualization	3	3	Prototyperspective	2024-07-12 14:46
21	Template for Most Valued Image Closure on COM:VIC	1	1	Contributor2020	2024-07-12 16:10
22	Deletion nominations using only no-fop as reason	8	4	Mazbel	2024-07-14 03:27
23	Potential copyright problem -- best course of action?	3	2	Rlandmann	2024-07-13 22:52
24	File:Baron Moncheur, F.R. Coudert, W.D. Robbins LCCN2014719398.jpg	2	2	Geohakkeri	2024-07-13 15:51
25	Category:2024 shooting at a Donald Trump rally	4	2	Elizium23	2024-07-14 02:33
26	New version of the upload wizard doesn't seem to collect enough licencing information	1	1	Kerry Raymond	2024-07-14 02:31

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023)
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.

August 24

Redundancy 'Wikidata Infobox' and 'Object location' in category descriptions

Hi, there is a general redundancy in many categories having two coordinates, one from WD via {{Wikidata Infobox}} and the other via local {{Object location}} (~175.000 matches). Besides redundancy there is sometimes a layout problem with {{Object location}} below {{Wikidata Infobox}} (e.g. Category:56 Wiśniowa Street in Warsaw, ~1500 matches).

In many cases coordinates in {{Object location}} are

either taken from WD (via parameter wikidata, e.g. Category:Église Saint-Nicolas de Sivry or Category:Ztracené skály (both coords and wikidata-parameter); ~21.000 matches)
or copied from somewhere and identical (with a certain precision) to the wikidata coordinates. Often a legacy problem, as {{Object location}} was there before {{Wikidata Infobox}}.

Bots are cleaning up stuff shown in the {{Wikidata Infobox}} elsewhere in the category description, but not for {{Object location}}. I'm consolidating redundant coordinates and removing {{Object location}} manually when I stumble accross. But in general it would make sense to

remove {{Object location}} per bot in the two cases above (where nearness of coordinates due to rounding should be used instead of identity)
and afterwards consolidate coordinates wherever necessary. Let's see what is left after first step. Coordinates should be corrected on WD and {{Object location}} should be removed from the category description.

--Herzi Pinki (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In principle, that's reasonable. The problem is that I think there are more eyes watching Commons for vandalism than watching Wikidata, so at this time getting rid of explicit coords in Commons probably makes us more vulnerable to vandals. But we've already accepted that risk for birth & death dates, so I guess we've crossed the bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I have often wondered about this situation, but rarely dared to remove {{Object location}} due to a lack of relevant guidelines/precedence. Personally, I think coordinates attract less vandalism than other data on Wikidata, so I am not too concerned. --HyperGaruda (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: but, like changing a date, it is very insidious vandalism when it happens, because it is so hard to tell a legitimate correction from vandalism. - 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

At least changes in coordinates are fairly easy to doublecheck with map services like OpenStreetMap or GoogleMaps. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: Only if there are landmarks to go by. If we have (for example) an old picture of someone hiking in a forest, and someone changes the coords, it is very hard to tell a correction from vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would the categories in question not almost always be for landmark-type features? At least I have a hard time coming up with other categories that need coordinates and I don't think Cat:Hiking in forests will be one of them. How would you tell the difference in the current Commons-based situation anyway? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HyperGaruda: You are right, I am wrong. I was thinking of an issue that has arisen for photos (moving coords into the SDC), not categories. (There might be the occasional category for an event that has a particular location, but that's an edge case.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I understand where you were coming from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if vandalism is the concern, and hinders us removing / consolidating duplicate and eventually contradicting coordinates, we are done. I do it manually anyway. Wasn't there a feature planned to protect some properties by special rights? I check the compactness of coordinates on WD from time to time using something like this query. BTW, if there is an infobox with a map, I do not have a look at other coordinates (unless I'm there for checking purposes).

Some bots do copy coordinates from the descriptions to SD and nobody seems to care for the messages when the redundant information is not in sync any more. I suppose, we have a much bigger problem with wrong coordinates than with vandalism on coordinates. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Ever since Wikidata and SCD were inflicted on us, I have solved countless «discrepancies» between the geolocation data in a file’s {{Object location}} or {{Camera location}} or a cat’s {{Object location}} and the geolocation data transcluded thereon from Wikidata via {{Wikidata Infobox}}. In all those cases, the latter was wrong — that maybe due to Wikidata’s porosity to spammers and vandals, to its smaller community, to its own workflow… I don’t know and I don’t care: What I care about is accurate geolocation data in Commons’ file and cat pages, and that can be achieved by {{Object location}} and/or {{Camera location}}. Should a discrepancy occurr, it should be manually fixed by human users who actually know the subject, and Wikidata is very welcome to syphon off that sanitized info back to its GIGO machine (as it did and does with with so much of Commons’ content), to be therat eventually mangled and confused again at which time rinse and repeat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Do you synchronize back to WD discrepancies you have found, @Tuvalkin: ? Or don't you care for the discrepancy and fix only the commons location? (Until someone comes around and fixes it the other way round).
If the commons coordinates are much more reliable than the WD coordinates, and we can agree on that, we could as well remove the coordinates from the Wikidata Infobox instead for the purpose to solve the redundancy. My process is to fix the coordinates on WD and than remove the {{Object location}} here on commons. I admit, I do not care for the location copied to SDC. Your point Tuválkin is about data quality and not about vandalism (if we assume good will for all those automatized copy-pasters). {{Camera location}}, btw, is something completely different and not in the scope of my proposal. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do attempt to synchronize every time I notice one of those distance/discrepancy notices in a file or cat. When Wikidata and global login are working properly (so, about 90% of the time), I successfully enact that synchronization. There might have been cases when that correction was later undone on the WD side, but right now I cannot track any example.

While I’m no friend of Wikidata, even I can see how having that discrepancy warning can be beneficial to both projects. Is it confusing for the casual browser? Maybe, but Commons is a wiki, we don’t hide the wrinkles: «Hey look, right now two repositories curate this item’s geolocation with different values, it will be fixed.» The casual browser should become used to this kind of things.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ok. thanks. My primary proposal was to remove {{Object location}} when the location is identical or nearby to the WD location (or even just taken from WD by using parameter wikidata=). In this case either both are correct of both are wrong, but wrong location will not jump into your eyes. Then as a second step to manually consolidate divergent locations. There is no sense in keeping them just to make readers get used to this kind of discrepancy. I think, this does not in any way contradict your intentions. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you remove {{Object location}} from a page, trusting Wikidata will keep the data carefully curated by human users, experience says it will not work. Keeping both sets of values causes no harm when they agree and is a useful warning to curators when they don’t.

Even in the odd case that vandalism or honest mistake currupts the data on Commons’ side (it can happen), having its previous value in Wikidata as a sort of backup would simplify a later correction.

I cannot see any advantage in the proposed removal and I ask for this section to be closed: This deceased equine is pinning for the fjords.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really redundant as the template provides a link to view coordinates.

Another advantage of {{Object location}} there is that it's prefilled for use on images.

Obviously, both points could be addressed differently. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and also, it interacts with {{Geogroup}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

August 25

Fæ's talk page

This got much too far beyond its initial purpose. Let's not resurrect old disputes. If the shit hits the fan, everybody looses. Yann (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Fæ is long departed, and User talk:Fæ is breaking under the number of template transclusions. Can anyone see why a bot is not archiving it, as is supposed to happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting bot-archived just fine – last archive was a few hours ago, at 07:55, 25 August 2023‎ by User:ArchiverBot. The oldest thread there is only five days old. The problem is that ~ 270 different deletion notices have been served in the past week or two. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wait what happened to him Trade (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: After the Nth time that they (Fæ's preferred pronoun, though I'm sure I've also slipped and used "he" at times) were a target of what they, at least, perceived as homophobic remarks, they quit. Some of the remarks were definitely exactly that. Oddly, the one that put them over the edge was something I think they misconstrued, but I can see how they read it that way in the context of what had gone before. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's really horrible! :( -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad User:Fæ/Civility, Commons:Civility, Commons:Harassment, and Commons:No personal attacks never went anywhere. Nosferattus (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, all that went somewhere. It was used to get rid of other “undesirables”, such as AlexisJazz (blocked at 1st strike over a transparently bogus accusation), while it was pointedly not used in order to keep around someone’s darlings like INeverCry (finally blocked after their 3rd serious meltdown). Fæ had almost always managed to present a formidably thick skin against all those slings and arrows, but it eventually become too much. It’s a huge loss for Commons, but we know that both the WMF and even some of our admins have the goal of seeing the end of this project, or at least its transformation into something most of us would not want to be a part of. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To be exact, Fæ left the project so abruptly that at the time a batch of them was running, which was then cancelled. Fæ takes the view that the reasons for them departure are open for all to see, if only they wanted to see it. There has been doxxing and death threats and no active help or solidarity. Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Suthorn, you wrote, "Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community."

Toward that purpose, in what form could action(s) be taken at this time? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For a start, the person who doxxed Fæ, could be repremanded. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel and C.Suthorn: Could you point to a specific diff, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: My remark wasn't related to any one diff, but it was this discussion that led to Fæ's departure. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: The lack of Admin action against Beeblebrox in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox appears to have contributed. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision? This user is now also globally banned. We should not reopen the request, but something like this should definitely not happen. GPSLeo (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@GPSLeo: Please feel free to open a new request on Fæ's behalf. I don't have access to the source materials. Pinging @Beeblebrox as mentioned above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote, I do not want to open a two year old case. I would only take this into account if there would be a new compliant on new problematic behavior. There are no deleted pages connected to this case and of course I do not have access to the information of the banning T&S team. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Strange. So potentially T&S wasn't even aware of it?

Seemed to me that Fae was one of the most productive contributors to Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if not the most. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rodhullandemu’s closing note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox says «it should go where it belongs: WMF T&S. And it has.» -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think this is a matter of nobody having noticed: Rodhullandemu (the globally banned former admin you mention) was sanctioned several months after their closing of Fæ complaint against Beeblebrox, and, if anything, their stance as the closing admin appeared to be sympathetic to Fæ. (To muddle the matters further, both Beeblebrox and I, who would sharply disagree about Fæ’s merits, did oppose sanctioning Rodhullandemu…: see User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4/Block.)

Be as it may, I support any action that would cause Fæ to reconsider his leaving Commons.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

who wanna tackle an enwp checkuser and the gang on wikipediocracy? next thing we know would be those users evaporate from wikis and become the next victims... (if i disappear, you know who...)

keep in mind that wikis collect your ip etc. so not only your online presence but also your real life might be affected.

"Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision?" did you also notice that user's closure was actually reluctant? because the gang had quickly mobilised to derail the original complaint? RZuo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to parse out whatever it is this comment is supposed to mean, and as far as I can tell it is saying that I, in my capacity as a CU on en.wp, use that position to doxx people so I can destroy their lives. I'd like to suggest that this discussion be closed and that this inflammatory lie be stricken. This is nasty, unfounded personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell of the bot configuration on that page, it will all be swept away within a week. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure exactly what is being asked of me here? This is all very old news and I don't have anything to do with how Fae's talk page is archived. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I'm going to assume good faith and suggest you read the thread. You were not mentioned in terms of the original subject (the archiving of the talk page, which has been worked out) but in terms of what several people see as your role in hounding Fæ off of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fae was trying to get me kicked off of Commons, by claiming I was directly encouraging people to doxx them or throw bricks at their house or some nonsense like that, which, if I had done, would certainly be something I should be kicked out for, but it simply was not true, and when it didn't work, they dramaquit. That isn't hounding someone off.

I admit I do not care for Fae, who, just like rodhullandemu, is quite skilled at playing the victim and the bully at the same time. That is not a trait I enjoy encountering. I'd ask again what it is anyone wants from me all this time later. I'm not stopping Fae from returning, that option is 100% open to them whenever they wish to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
#MeToo. Actually a huge injustice that RHE is banned and Fæ is not. Either both or none, dear WMF... --A.Savin 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

August 31

Barriers to Cross-Platform Collaboration - Wikipedia / Commons

In The Signpost an interesting article based on interviews with editors on Commons and (English) Wikipedia:

Signpost article The five barriers that impede "stitching" collaboration between Commons and Wikipedia by Tilman Bayer
Scientific publication (CCBYSA4.0): Unpacking Stitching between Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons: Barriers to Cross-Platform Collaboration by Yihan Yu and David W. McDonald

Perhaps we can start some action on reducing the barriers. Ellywa (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

After a cursory reading, it seems that categories is the culprit. Heh, not even in my most dishevelled curmudgeonly of rants I would resort to hyperbolize that the WMF would try to mask their failiures in Commons by pointing a finger to “power users” and our work with categories. And yet, here we are. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main solutions suggested in the article is to increase our use of Wikidata. I hope as it becomes more prominent, it will indeed help us in the ways suggested. Regarding the Boeing 777 section, I don't think there's actually a problem there needing solving. It is overwhelming, but there's lots of positives to our extensive collection of pictures of Boeing planes. I think our "Good Pictures" system, though a bit hidden away, can be a great system for letting users find the quality pictures for general usecases. ~Mable (chat) 07:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize until reading this article that I had only checked English Wikipedia for requested photos, despite the fact that I live in Japan. Checking the Japanese Wikipedia there's many more requested photos for places in Japan including even in my town.Photos of Japan (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I seldom look at Requested Photos at all, because they are so sparse and seldom accompanied by geographic coordinates. WikiShootMe shows a map with red dots. It doesn't depend on a particular language, except whatever languages are used to describe a particular Wikidata item. The majority of the red dots are unimportant, being for things that no longer exist or don't need a photo. And some of the green dots could use a second or third picture, but on the whole it's a rich list of targets.

As for putting pictures in our tangled category tree and finding them, I've often wondered why we don't use #HashTags. Our two most used systems of tagging require some kind of registration in advance. Category, or Depicts, must first be created in Commons or as a WD Item. Categories must fit into correctly determined places in the existing tree, and Wikidata Items must fit into an existing Properties network. Hashtags just grow spontaneously; the uploader need not understand the existing structure. The majority of hashtags end up not really mattering, but there are usually enough good ones to work modestly well. And, once established, they could be connected to, or perhaps replaced with, Cats & Items by habitual cat wranglers such as me. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 01

Odd thumb/display problem

File:Ketchikan, AK - Fire Engine No. 1.jpg: underlying image seems fine, but no thumbnails for me. Duly purged & it won't let me re-upload as a new version, says it's an exact duplicate, so I don't see much I can do from my end. Is this failing for others or just for me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I can see all thumbnails of that. --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And now so can I. Guess it was a short-term glitch. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But now I'm having the same problem with File:Ketchikan, AK - taxidermied wolf in entrance to a shop on Water Street.jpg, and this time I can't even see the underlying image (instead I get "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.60/6/60/Ketchikan%2C_AK_-_taxidermied_wolf_in_entrance_to_a_shop_on_Water_Street.jpg"). Commons obviously has it, because I can't upload a "duplicate". I'm guessing there is some sort of server-synch'ing issue.- Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

& a similar problem for File:Ketchikan, AK - waterfront along Water Street 05.jpg. Click-through for full image gives "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.ba/b/ba/Ketchikan%2C_AK_-_waterfront_along_Water_Street_05.jpg" - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: These are all working for me. OTOH, phab:T345285 is still unresolved. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cats for lit lamps

This photo shows a lamp turned on during the day. I wanted to categorize it as such, but we seem to lack even a cat for lamps (or any lighting fixture) in on state, ans also in off state. Seems like a glaring absence, pardon the pun. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: If no one has yet created such a category at any level, it means that users have not yet considered such a category necessary, and they did not consider it appropriate to complicate the categorization with this distinction. Even with many other machines and devices, we do not have separate categorization branches for on (functional) and off (non-functional) state. However, Candles have a subcategory of Category:Burning candles. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suspected that such a category does not exist because it was never created, as one could say about… well, most anything. I suspect that the paucity of contents in cats like Category:Vehicles in motion is that Commons deals mostly with static images, whereon the on or off state of most devices cannot be easily (or usefully) ascertained — a glaring exception (heh) being exactly lighting devices. Therefore I do think that such a new cat is warranted.

What I meant with the o.p. is to stirr up ideas about the new cat’s name and categorization; mentioning Burning candles as part of Candles is a useful analogous, and a good candidate for a subcat.

In terms of English, what would be the suitable wording?

(Of course, the new cat I originally sought will be the one chosen from above +" in daylight" or somesuch, with {{See also cat}} to Category:People wearing sunglasses at night, with some shared parent cats.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: Such a category would certainly be useful, but we probably have to assume the fact that no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories.

I'm not very good in English, however, if there is a choice of more synonyms, preference should be given to the term that is as internationally comprehensible and unambiguous as possible. According to my vocabulary, the word "lit" is a bit ambiguous - it can mean both, shining object and (passively) illuminated object. Another requirement is that it should be possible to attach the relevant criterion in the same way and in the same form to the names of all subcategories, including categories with long descriptive names, e.g. "Exterior lighting fixtures at train stations" or "Luminous road signs". --ŠJů (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good point about "lit". Maybe "alight", then? The most generic cat should not be constrained to electrical lamps, so "on" might not be ideal.

I cannot share your concern about the possibility that «no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories», though: That’s what many of us do every day, and love it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I came across the interpretation that the word "alight" is inappropriate for electric lights. The available online dictionary does not even indicate this possibility.

If you are willing to sort photos of lamps and light objects into a deep categorization, I wish you a lot of perseverance. --ŠJů (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Lit lamps" is probably the most colloquial English. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

it's probably best to have a similar or identical format for all kinds of "electrical devices that are switched on". most devices cannot be lit.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Energized in American English, or perhaps synonym Category:Energised in Commonwealth English? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 07:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration

Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request temporary interface administrator and administrator rights for the purpose of integrating and deploying the Adiutor tool to Wikimedia Commons. I would like to have these privileges for a duration of one week. You can find comprehensive information about Adiutor through this link. I believe that having these privileges will greatly assist in the successful adaptation and deployment of Adiutor, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient process throughout the integration. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Warning: This is no longer a current request, it has already been done.

@Vikipolimer, Thanks for notifying us. Your contributions for Adiutor improved many Wikis. We can use this tool here also, it would be very beneficial because tagging and reporting process is hard in Commons. I am pinging bureaucrats in order to evaluate this request: @99of9, @Ellin Beltz, @EugeneZelenko, @Jameslwoodward, @Krd, and @Odder. Kadı Message 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Context for those who (like me) had no clue what Vikipolimer was talking about: meta:Adiutor. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that all existing rollouts are on Wikipedias, and that Commons is a bigger project than the existing venues. Are we confident that it is well suited to Commons? For example, has the list of speedy deletion reasons been customised to suit Commons deletion reasons? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@99of9, yes you can test the gadget. Commons:Adiutor I've already start the adapting process. If you want new features for commons, I can add lovely. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 05:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have enabled the gadget and will try to test it out a bit (so far I've found that things like: "CopyVio check" means only checking some text on the page, nothing to do with the image, so does not hit 99.9% of Copyvios on Commons). If the gadget already works, what is it that you need to edit with interface administrator rights? --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@99of9, I am currently in the process of adding templates and configuring settings that will be applied universally across the gadget files. Authorization for this task was granted a couple of hours ago, and I have just completed the initial setup. There are only a few minor tasks remaining, and once I finish those, my work will be complete. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 06:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to be very cautious with suggestions of this sort when it seems that whoever designed it doesn't really understand the Commons situation and the assurance "everything is fine" is how many major disasters have started. I would like to see a test period of several weeks rather than a speedy rollout. At present I do not have sufficient information to vote in favor of any rights for this deployment. I reviewed the page linked to us by Jmabel, since the proposor didn't. I see three things which are listed for Commons. All three things are currently quite automated and I fail to see any reason to implement a second layer of code on top of what is currently working well. Perhaps Vikipolimer would be so kind to explain what exactly the benefits are of a system which reproduces what we already have? I would ask that folks take a quick look at the amount of information provided by the devs for this, see https://gyazo.com/892670f648c5b03d0884e46a6adaaa77 for a screenshot. "Adiutor: a tool that assists users in various operations" is insufficient information when compared with other existing addons. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ellin Beltz, I believe there might be a misunderstanding. The features mentioned on the Meta page regarding Commons are actually additional enhancements specifically designed for Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, most of the features listed in the section above are already in operation on Wikimedia Commons. I must admit that I find the assertion that I lack an understanding of Wikimedia Commons a bit discouraging, if I may be candid. I kindly request that you take a moment to visit this page to gain a better understanding of what is actively available in this project. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 01:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also a bit concerned. Just for one example, the list says, "Editors can request page move". How will that differ from the current "Move" tab in our existing UI? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, This gadget module (Page move request) serves the purpose of facilitating page transfers to new destinations. Typically, auto-approved users have the capability to execute page moves via the [move] tab on pages. Nevertheless, there are instances where the target page boasts a multi-version history and the source page is subject to move protection. In such scenarios, only administrators possess the authority to carry out the transfer. This tool is specifically designed for the submission of requests for these unique migrations that require administrative intervention, as well as requests from users and newcomers who lack the ability to execute page migrations independently. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Which sounds like a description of exactly how Commons "Move" tab already works (possibly minus the existing "Move and Replace" option, I can't tell whether that was an oversight in your description or a difference in the behavior). How will this differ? I am concerned, looking at the list, that this is a solution to which there is no known problem. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, It's just puts a template to the page. So than I have a question for you, why you need this template on Wikimedia Commons? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 04:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Are you describing current behavior, or what your tool does? Because current behavior is:

If you have filemover capabilities, it offers "move and replace": on your own authority, you can move the file to a new name, and implicitly edit all instances where any other WMF wiki references the file to use the new filename instead.
- And, yes, there are some circumstances where the move will fail, mainly if you try to move to a blacklisted filename, or if the filename you want to move to already exists; in the latter case, if the move really is correct, and if you can't just move the interfering file, you need an admin to delete it; I'm not going to try to cover every edge case here.
If you don't have filemover capabilities, then it simply adds {{Move}} with the appropriate arguments. Among other things, this categorizes it to get the attention of an admin or filemover.

How does that compare to the behavior of your tool?

(I am very concerned that you are ready to go live with this when we don't even have a list of how its various capabilities compare to the tools we already have. I see nothing on the list for which we do not currently have a tool in our UI. And tools break, and tools need to be maintained, and I really don't want to see a bunch of dual maintenance. But first, please address my specific question about the comparison for this particular feature.)- Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

maybe the tool duplicates other existing tools, but it's good to have something with better design, upkeep, and one-for-all functionality.

i enabled it as soon as i saw it was added in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and tested it. so far i'm mostly satisfied. it seems decent. but i continue using the existing old tools just because i'm more familiar with those and dont have the time to learn this new tool for now.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: my concern isn't so much where it may duplicate other tools as where it may almost duplicate them, but with less functionality. Conversely, I'd be very interested if there is anything actually new here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read this thread and also the linked pages (meta:Adiutor and Commons:Adiutor) and their talk pages — and I am, for now at least, not using this. Really fishy — someone from the developer team could at answer questions? And really was there a specific coverage of Commons and yet the main namespace considered was ns:0 (article/gallery)…? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, @RZuo The Adiutor gadget has been successfully integrated into Wikimedia Commons gadgets, and as a result, this request can now be marked as complete. We're pleased to inform you that the gadget has been optimized specifically for Wikimedia Commons and comes with a host of new features tailored to enhance the Wikimedia Commons experience. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why you’re ignoring questions about it? Done deal, moving on? Yeah that’s the WMF shills’ style, but seldom this much on the nose. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, I'm not ignoring the questions, I'm not a WMF employee, I'm just a volunteer like you, I've made a tool available to help people here as much as I can and this request is no longer relevant, in addition if you have any questions please ask them on the meta page. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appologize for my harsh tone — it was prompted by (what I interpreted as) your use of “corporate speech” but was not warranted. (You can still answer Jmabel’s questions, though.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin, Also I already answered your question, how would the gadget be ready to use if we didn't adapt namespace etc. Have you ever tested it before asking this question? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I continue to have the same question, and I don't see it addressed by Vikipolimer or anyone else. Is this functioning just as a different UI to existing Commons tools? If so, fine. If not, then what are the functional differences from our various tools for the various purposes? Is there anything actually new here by way of functionality? We need, and I mean that word need, a description of these differences and additions. Otherwise, we are being presented with a new tool with mystery behaviors that may or may not be desirable.

I'm not so concerned about functionality that merely gives information, but it is clear that this tool can execute actions. In particular, I still cannot tell if you get a different result in some scenarios if you use Adiutor to move a file, as against the existing "Move & Replace". - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, sorry I miss that question, I'm kinda busy but let me answer this question, Adiutor' does not move a file, it only helps the user who cannot move a file to request that it be moved, other than that, the operations that can be done with adiutor are listed on its page, if you have any questions or comments about the tool, please voice them on the tool's page. And here's the list what editors can do with Adiutor:

Features

Editors can create speedy deletion requests.
Editors can nominate files for deletion.
Editors can request page protections
Editors can request user blocks
Editors can request page moves
Editors can see the recent diff on a page.
Editors can check the copyright status
Editors can see the user widget on user's user page.
Editors can see recent changes of the page.
Editors can issue warnings to users.
Editors can report copyright violations.
Editors can create an investigation for sockpuppetry.
Editors can report sockpuppet or sockpuppet master.
Admins can block users by user blocking module.
Admins can perform speedy page deletion and batch page deletion.
Admins can finalize the nominated files for deletion.

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 14:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Yes, I've seen the list. I wasn't asking you to replicate it here. What I am asking is for each of these features where we already have a tool, how does the behavior of Adiutor differ from our existing tool?

So far you've effectively said that the "move" tool here duplicates part of what we already have, but is less functional. Can you understand why we would like to understand more of what this does and doesn't do? Not a "feature list", an actual description of how it is functionally different from our existing tools for many of these purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel I apologize, but I believe I may not fully grasp the complete scope and logic of your question. These are some inherent features that can be removed if they are causing you any harm or kept if they are not problematic. These features in this gadget may already exist in another tool, which should not hinder you from using the other gadget. We aim to keep the gadget as versatile as possible and have consolidated various functionalities that users activate across different tools into a single centralized gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 15:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: Let me try another concrete example. You say, "Admins can block users by user blocking module." Does the UI you provide either omit any of the capabilities we have at Special:Block/USERNAME or add capabilities that we do not have there?

And, at the opposite extreme, let me try the most general question: what existing problem or problems on Commons is this tool intended to solve? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, I appreciate your perspective, which seems to differ from the current approach. It's important to note that the user blocking module within the MediaWiki interface serves as a practical tool designed to streamline processes. If your intention is to provide constructive criticism, please feel free to continue doing so. However, if you prefer not to use this tool, you have the option to disable it. Any discussions regarding the removal of this tool from Wikimedia Commons should be directed to the community for consideration. The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page. It's crucial to clarify that your concerns seem to be centered around the tool's operations rather than its existence. It's worth noting that aside from your perspective, there are users who have provided positive feedback and find value in using this tool. I may not fully grasp the specific issue you are advocating for, but if you have any suggestions or advice for me as the developer of this tool, please feel free to share them in the discussion section of the meta page. Regrettably, it appears that I may not be able to provide further assistance on this matter at this time, as our discussion seems to have reached an impasse. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 21:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: on its dedicated page: can you please provide a link to the page you are talking about? And I'm not rejecting the tool: I'm saying that when we add a tool here, we normally discuss what it does, how it differs from existing capabilities, etc. and I've seen none of that, so I frankly have no informed opinion of your tool. Perhaps the answer to what I've asked is somewhere, but as far as I can see the only link you have provided is to meta:Adiutor, and all I see here is an assertion that a blocking capability exists, not what it can and cannot do. If it is less flexible in how blocks can be done, I think we need to know that. When we are bringing in new admins who are learning the admin tools for the first time, if we have two different blocking tools and one has less flexibility, we need to be able to tell them that rather than have them possibly start using the less capable tool and not know they are missing something. I'm not asking rhetorical questions here, and my intent is not hostile. I've been asking questions trying to get what to me seems the basic information about a newly introduced tool, and so far I do not believe you have been answering them, or if you have I certainly haven't understood your answers. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Understanding a gadget doesn't solely come from asking questions; it's through hands-on experimentation that you truly grasp its capabilities. While this gadget boasts a myriad of features, it's easy to get fixated on one aspect and find yourself caught in an unending loop of inquiries. I've endeavored to provide comprehensive explanations, and you'll find a detailed list of what can be accomplished with this tool in its feature set. It's important to note that this gadget is still in active development, and I welcome any suggestions you may have for additional features. Please feel free to share your ideas; your input can help shape the future enhancements of the gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Vikipolimer: I am not rejecting the tool either. I am not asking you to replicate a list of words which do not provide understanding. I would like one concrete example of how this is supposed to be better, more helpful, more advanced or more useful than the system we have now. I would appreciate documentation on the tool, as I showed above in the gyazo link, it is the only tool without any documentation in any language. And while you might understand it - it's obvious that the admins here do not understand and the answers we are getting sound like advertising for something wonderful. Why would we not want to use something wonderful? Obviously we do. Slow down a little and read the words of what is being written to you. People are asking for examples, not platitudes, and certainly not expecting you to get upset. Specifically from the link page you keep linking, it reads "support from the Wikipedia community play a vital role in further developing Adiutor into a more functional and user-friendly tool." What I see here is that it's not functional without instructions and also without instructions it's not user-friendly. Since there is no documentation, there is no way to understand what it does. Cheerleading and boostering isn't educational. Because you think it's that great - of course we'd like to use it - but you have to explain how and why it's better or important not just that it exists. You have several administrators trying really hard to work with you "support of the community" and all that, but I do not see that you are trying to work with us. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I simply cannot find what you wrote above "The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page" any documentation at all for Wikimedia Commons on the page which is linked here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Adiutor. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Ellin Beltz, this tool is compatible with the current MediaWiki UI as it is coded using MediaWiki JS and OOUI. Additionally, it can be used in a modular fashion, making it easy to add new modules and edit existing ones. This tool can be easily customized by interface administrators, and its code structure is not complex. You can access the documentation through the following links.

Documentation:

𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 10:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 04

Degrading of a postcard by a blocked? user.

This so called upgrading of a postcard is a comprehensive degrade, and should be uploaded as a different image. The label in the bottom left is not a watermark, the yellow sky is typical of the house style printing back in 1890-1905. I have contacted @Jan Arkesteijn: about it.

Apologies too him, but this issue is too important to leave, just on his talk page.

Also when you edit his talk page a pop up appears indicating this user was blocked on 8 November 2018. Is this some unwanted artefact? It certainly took me by suprise. .Broichmore (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Embarrassingly enough, I just noticed the edit was back in 2008. However nobody has reverted this type of work it would seem. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: that user was blocked for unwanted behavior which included overwriting files with horrible versions, just like what happened here. These files are tracked in Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review. Why did you remove it without reverting it to the original file? By removing the category and not reverting you're saying the current version is fine. If you encounter such a horrible overwrite by another user you can just undo it with a link to COM:OVERWRITE. Multichill (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now reverted to original file. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I had already sorted this out by uploading the original postcard as a new file and linking it into this so called improved file, so please revert your edit. Many thanks. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a particular procedure for doing this type of correction? I just relied on deleting the check this cat, which has loads of files in it... Broichmore (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Please feel free to revert me with appropriate comment. Since you hadn't said here that you had sorted this out, I assumed your initial issue still stood unaddressed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see now that your strategy of reverting back to the original is the best method, So I've gone along with it and added two extra files, a cropped version , and a modified version. Broichmore (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 05

Elon Musk family tree removed

This edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Elon_Musk&oldid=726496691 removed the Elon Musk family tree from his category. The remover described it as clutter, but for people with extensive family trees, we do have trees embedded in the category. It is a visual navigation device to move through the family. We don't take a screenshot and post it, because it is dynamic. People are currently working backward and adding to it. We have these trees for almost everyone with an extensive tree with Wikidata/Commons entries. I have no objection to it appearing collapsed with a click to open, but I do not remember how to add a collapse feature, can anyone help? --RAN (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably reasonable to have it there, but it definitely should be collapsible. You can just stick it inside an HTML DIV element with class="mw-collapsible". There are probably templates to do this more cleanly, but that will work. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Yann (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: The problem now is that the reader isn't aware that the chart exists when it is collapse using this method. See: w:Sir Hector Og Maclean, 15th Chief where the collapse feature was baked into the template, and it leaves behind a title and an outline box. I think the collapse feature needs to be baked into the template. Unless you think of a way to make it more like the one at Maclean, any ideas? I haven't edited the template in years, the last time I edited it I worked on the colors. --RAN (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN: We keep our collapsible templates in Category:Collapsible templates; see also Category:Archival templates. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 06:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple better quality duplicates nominated for deletion by bot.

I left a message on the bot owner's talk page, but I wanted to let someone here know before they get deleted.

See File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpg and more map files here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Duplicate

The bot applies the "duplicate" tag to delete the most recent duplicate file. However, in this instance, the newer file are actually better because they give details about "Sanborn maps." The other file does not have this valuable information. Also, the file nominated for deletion has better licensing as well. What is the best way to delete the older files instead (reverse the tagged file)? There are many of these files like this. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: It's late, I'm tired; I suspect that just using VFC on Category:Duplicate to get rid of the bad bot edits is the quickest way to do this; deal with the side that should be deleted later. I'd do this myself but I'm about to head to bed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, I don't use VFC. Can I just remove the duplicate tag manually? -- Ooligan (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: sure, I was just trying to save you some tedium. It's a tool very worth learning if you want to avoid repetitive editing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I will try VFC. I undid some bot edits manually. Yes, "some tedium" as you said. I am unlikely to learn VFC soon enough to help with these files.

Fyi, see:

User talk:Don-vip#Multiple wrong duplicates nominated for deletion

and Don-vip note to DPLA bot owner here:

User talk:DPLA bot

and here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListDuplicatedFiles&limit=5000 Thanks, @Jmabel -- Ooligan (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Yeah, this one is a tough place to start on VFC, because it would require regular expressions, but it's very worth learning. Let me see if I can deal with this one for you. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel, Your help is very much appreciated. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan: Done, you can look at my contribs if you want to go through by hand and set up the {{Duplicate}} tags going in the opposite direction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To fix the root cause, shouldn't one block the bot that uploads all these identical files instead? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not necessarily, if it is uploading files with with good metadata over files the were uploaded haphazardly without that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what the bot is doing. It appears to do upload thousands of files we already have without any regard to current Commons content. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dominic: do you care to respond to that? - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on my talk page, I have been traveling with limited availability, so I have not been able to fully respond. I shut off the bot when I was notified, so there are no longer new duplicates being generated, and I don't really get why it is being brought up in this thread as there is no ongoing emergency. The DPLA bot has uploaded nearly 4 million files now in the last few years. It operates at a high volume. 2000 uploads are a drop in the bucket, and can sometimes happen in just a few hours—there have been over 115,000 uploads this month. I am not saying that to be dismissive, but Enhancing999 is severely misinformed to claim it is uploading "without any regard to current Commons content", and if that were the case, this would have been a much larger problem before now. A project of this magnitude, involving hundreds of contributing institutions, has a lot of code and a lot of edge cases to handle. It's impossible to guarantee there will never be a bug. At the same time, I am always dedicated to cleaning up anything that goes awry, if given the chance. Dominic (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Several bugs me a bit here.

First, OptimusPrimeBot does its job (mostly), it marks duplicates as duplicates and let human decide what human should do with this duplication (and no, it's not a nomination for deletion, that's up for the human to decide). Don't blame the bot (or its owner, or the {{Duplicate}} template) for that. That said, given the amount of files, maybe generating first a wiki page with the list of duplicates would be better in this case. @Don-vip: would it be possible?

Then, DPLA bot also does its job (mostly), uploading pictures, again don't blame the bot. The weird thing is that duplicates are both uploaded by the same account on a short period of time and there is some data that should make the duplicate obvious "before" the uploading. For intance, File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpeg uploaded on August 2021 and File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpg on April 2022. Both have the *exact same name* (except the extension jpeg/jpg) and include what seems to be an *unique* identifier. I totally understand how big imports can be complicated (and I must say, humans - myself included - often do much more errors than that) but here, I feel that the duplication could have been easily prevented. @Dominic: (when you'll have time of course) is there anything you can do here to prevent that from happening again?

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @VIGNERON! As long as there are less than 5000 duplicates overall, the wiki page already exists at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListDuplicatedFiles&limit=5000 . As I have disabled the duplicate detection until this dispute is settled and I don't risk to see my bot blocked again, the list will grow every 3 days by about ~300 files (on average) unless some user or bot performs a large upload of duplicates such as the recent one done by DPLA. vip (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Don-vip's bot could skip the DPLA stuff and leave it to the uploader to proceed with the promised cleanup before any further uploads. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File names

I read the file naming page (and associated talk page) but cannot find any rule on naming files with the goal of having them at the top of each category. Maybe Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen covers it, but not explicitly. Benespit takes great photos of Korean cars, but they start all of their file names with a zero and a blank space - presumably to get more eyes on them. To me, that violates the logic of the Commons. The File naming talk page doesn't appear to get much use, which is why I am raising the issue here. I raised this question on Benespit's talk page a minute ago, so it's not like there is any conflict. No matter what, I think this would be worth mentioning in the File naming guidelines. There are a lot of uploads, so renaming them all will take a while. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not against the rules, but kind of annoying.

Really, if there is a matter of picking more useful images out of a large category, the right (and much more collaborative) way to do that is a gallery page rather than competitive file-naming. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

as long as files are sorted by default alphabetically, under whatever regulation you come up there will still be the first "char" allowed, and users can still exploit those "permitted" sequences of chars.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Having thought about it, I think that Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen is actually all that's needed - adding a leading zero and a space is neither meaningful nor helpful. Car photos are usually named <year><manufacturer><model><submodel><color><view><numeral> (not all elements are always present), because it helps people find images. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i just have 2 ways here to add such numbers in a meaningful way. say i take 2 photos of the same car from different angles. i can just name it "01 beetle" and "02 beetle". serial numbers can be not only at the end but also at the start, right? or i change to a username that starts with a long string of "0 ", and then prefix all my uploads with my username. is that meaningful?--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. Competitive file naming goes against the purpose of the Commons. Pictures should be given descriptive names which help users find images - not your images, but the images they seek. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 02:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if you still dont understand, there is no rule prohibiting serial identifiers being at the start of filenames. in fact, there are plenty of them, e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/File:IMG.

here's a user whose name is exactly what i forecasted: User:0 0 0 zoome 0 0 0. there is also no rule prohibiting prefixing filenames with usernames.

therefore, such filenames are meaningful. RZuo (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

the way to get the pictures at the top of each category is not giving a bad name, it's using {{DEFAULTSORT}} in the description

Hsarrazin (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And conversely, if you want to remove a file from the top of a category, you can {{DEFAULTSORT}} it somewhere else. Please don't rename files just because you don't like where they fall in a category, except in the limited cases listed under COM:FR#FR4. --bjh21 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also add a sort key for selected categories -- it doesn't have to be via a DEFAULTSORT, which affects all categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can also add sortkeys to individual images. And maybe just that should be done to move excellent, good and valued images to the top of the category for that they were voted as excellent. good or valued. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm completely opposed to the (potentially competitive) use of sort keys to bring particular images to the front of a category. If you want to select out the most useful images, that is pretty much the canonical purpose of a gallery page. Or, if there are a very small number and a good consensus, they can even be placed in a <gallery> element at the top of the category page itself. (And when there is a single clear best image, that should be the image for a corresponding Wikidata item, if such an item exists.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Train-the-trainer course: OpenRefine-Wikimedia

Hi all,

From November 2023 until April 2024, there will be an intensive online train-the-trainer course for candidate OpenRefine-Wikimedia trainers. OpenRefine can be used to batch edit and upload files on Wikimedia Commons; it is frequently used by librarians and in the cultural sector.

The training has room for up to 8 motivated participants.

More info about the course, and a link to the application form

Timeline

Now until September 15, 2023: application period. Read more and apply here.
October 1, 2023: all applicants are notified.
November 1, 2023: train-the-trainer course starts with a maximum of 8 participants.

All the best! Spinster (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just read Commons:OpenRefine and gained a strong keenness about Commons:Pattypan. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

To each their own... (and having several tools for the same thing is a good thing, if one break there is an other one ready). Personally, I strongly suggest people interrested in mass imports to at lest try and take a look OpenRefine. True it can be a bit more complicated at first but there is much more potential. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

bitesized youtube videos will be more useful for noobs like me. (mw video player is atrocious.) anyway thx for the guide.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 06

Gallery intro refs

Hello! I wonder if any guidance can be obtained re: what is and isn't allowed in a brief gallery intro regarding references. Is it helpful to interlink to 3-4 sources to substantiate content in the brief intro's text, is it not helpful or is it even expressly forbidden? For example, can the brief intro on a gallery about a person be linked to show that what is said about h is dependable, can the wording refer to an encyclopedia such as Britannica or none of the above, if there is no Wikipedia article about h. I have tried to find a guideline or the like on this, but have not been successful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there is any firm rule. In many cases, you'd do better to work up a Wikidata item, though.

I work a lot on Seattle history, and things like what we have for Category:62-68 South Washington Street (Seattle) are pretty typical for the city's older buildings. Certainly a link to a Britannica article would be useful (especially in the absence of anything in any of our sister projects). Four sources seems to me to be pushing it a little, though: at that point, why not write a Wikipedia article? - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much! I'm sorry I do not know the slightest thing about how to work up a Wikidata item. Wish I did. Could you please do one at the gallery for Jacob Truedson Demitz? There is an article on French Wikipedia, but creating one in English has proven controversial, and I am too close to the subject to avoid a COI problem. A lot has happened ref-wise, though, since one was deleted years ago. Maybe someone else will do one with updated info. Thanks again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've connected that to to the relevant existing Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Search for files not in category

Is it possible to search for files whose page text contains string X but which are not in Category Y? Would be very helpful when diffusing, expanding categories etc. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: You can simply use -incategory:foo in a search. For instance "Dave Dunford" -incategory:"Images by Dave Dunford". --bjh21 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's great – thank you so much. Is this syntax documented somewhere? (I did look, but didn't find it.) There might be other tricks that are useful to me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 07

I guess I posted a copyright violation perhaps

My File:HP IL Fire District Map and oblique axes address grid.jpg file might not be in accord with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. I guess I should tag it for deletion?

(Assume I don't want to bother to contact the Fire Department to get permission.) Jidanni (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jidanni: probably so. You're a little out of the usual 7-day window to just ask for a courtesy deletion of your own recent upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

[I've nominated it for a deletion review]. - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. (I hope my mistake doesn't affect my "scorecard", if any.) Jidanni (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Everyoen maeks misstakes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons anniversary

Commons turned nineteen today, so some sweets for great occasion. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cute :-) It sure was not super predictable as teen. Looking forward to adulthood ;-p Any bigger celebration planned? I would love for us to use the anniversary opportunity to attaract more attention, as Wikipedia had and now Wikidata does. Zblace (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to imagine how it will look like in 2050 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 08

File:Chess edt45.svg again

See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/08#File:Chess_edt45.svg,_File:Chess_Bdt45.svg for prior discussion. In the hope of avoiding everyone just reverting each other: User:Double sharp, can you explain why you have, over the years, repeatedly tried to make this file a duplicate of the inverted bishop file? Per Commons policy, there should not be duplicates: if elephants were truly identical to inverted bishops, then the files should just be redirects, but the edit history suggests they are not identical and the elephant file should be restored to depicting an elephant. You point to w:Ferz, which states "the ferz, represented by an inverted bishop, may move to any marked square", but surely the solution is to make pages like that use the inverted bishop file they say they intended to use, rather than to overwrite whatever different file they happen to be using with a duplicate of the inverted bishop. Pinging also the other editors who've edited this file, User:Shlomo, User:NikNaks, User:Koavf. -sche (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with User:-sche. If some picture description says "incumbent president" and there is a picture of the outgoing one, we do not overwrite File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg with Joe Biden's face, but rather change the article to reflect the new reality. If User:Double sharp insist of the picture of inverted bishop to represent a ferz, he can edit the diagram code and change the el to Bl. Alternatively, he can change the description into "The ferz, represented by an elephant, …" Or he can choose any other picture to represent the ferz, e.g. inverted king, inverted queen or even the regular queen, as used for ferz in w:en:Tamerlane chess. AFAIK there is no convention which picture should be used for a ferz.--Shlomo (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I was trying to make it consistent with the long-standing convention at en:Template:Chess diagram to use e for inverted bishop. The two are not interchangeable: an elephant pretty much implies that we're illustrating one of the historical "elephant" pieces (and not all RS would actually draw an elephant, though some would), whereas an inverted bishop could mean "anything vaguely bishop-like" according to the problemist convention.

But yes, I mixed it up with the similar File:Chess ell45.svg and so forth, where there had not been a "B" at all and the change meant that there wasn't an inverted bishop left. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I guess the fact that it's "e" means that it's inevitably going to be associated with elephants, so I have uploaded a complete set of inverted bishops at the "B" locations, reverted the "e" locations back to elephants, and edited the en.wp articles and documentation to match. That should settle the matter; my apologies for the confusion. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File names in series

I requested of User:Wieralee:

Please undo your August 2021 rename of File:Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843.jpg. The file is part of a set, named sequentially, and logically, as can be seen at Category:Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects.

They have declined, saying:

there's no rule that the sets must have the same naming. In my opinion names in this category are completely useless and meaningless -- users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures, because the name "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10)" describes the origin, but not the main subject of the picture. Regardless of my opinion, you can always request a rename using the "rename" template, but a rename from specific to meaningless is rarely accepted, especially when requested by someone other than the original uploader.

I think this is wrong for several generic reasons:

We have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of images from third party sites, named in series in the manner of this image's original upload. Many, as in this case, use the title of the work for which the image is an illustration.
Series names are meaningful
Arbitrarily renaming images from series can be detrimental to the work of colleagues who collaborate with GLAMs and other partner organisations on mass uploads
The claim "users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures" is clearly bogus.
The original uploader is no longer active; but I collaborated with them on a number of aspects of their bulk uploads.
An undiscussed name change should if challenged in good faith, be reverted and a discussion opened.

I think we should discuss the generic points, and if necessary document a policy that such naming should be preserved (if necessary; we could adopt a model which preserves the original name and appends the new label; say: "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843"). I also maintain that the specific image should have its original name restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your right, we should name files the way the Museum describes them, which is the case here. This has been reinforced over time by our uploading bots. I notice he's named the file, by what would normally be the caption, and he has additionally dispensed with the BM identifier suffix. The latter is considered a unique identifier in itself. Also to mention the subject is identified as being (the archaic) Shaj Soojahool Moolk, if a rename were to be sanctioned this would be it Portrait of Shaj Soojahool Moolk (BM 1970,0527.2.4).jpg . Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can see some situations where it wouldn't be useful to files exactly how the Museum describes them. For instance, say I scan and upload a couple of hundred images of a postcard series and name them all as "author, series number, title", but I'm missing a few. Then someone uploads a the two that I'm missing from a museum and name their images something like "British Museum, Prints and Drawings collection, Accession number 1970,0527.2.4." I don't really see how that's at all helpful even if that's how the file is named on the museums end. Not to mention we already have the file description for that information anyway.

I can kind of understand why it would be useful for bots so they don't upload duplicates, but at the end of the day file names should be descriptive and it's not like bots can't just read file descriptions to ascertain the exact accession numbers of similar files to what they are uploading. "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843" doesn't describe what's being depicted in the image though. Plus it's just needlessly obtuse on top of it. I guess you could name the file something like "Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843 (BM 1970,0527.2.10).jpg", but again I don't see what actual good it does to have the accession number in the file name. If were me I'd just name it something like "Lowes Cato Dickinson 1843 lithograph of Shah Shujah" and call it good there. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) Commons:File naming: "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray".

2) All these files are grouped in a Category:Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects. Why should the file names repeat the category name? This doesn't bring anything new... Wieralee (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Wieralee: files are not necessarily seen in the context of a particular category. It as often as not appropriate that the name of one or more of the categories of a file belongs as part of the file name. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1) My point is that Commons:File naming is inadequate in these circumstances. 2) The image in question depicts a late from Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects. 3) I am not arguing that files should necessarily repeat the category name; I'm arguing that files named in series should preserve that naming. 4) The file is in Category:Shuja Shah Durrani - the current name repeats that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

depicts a late @Pigsonthewing: I have no idea what you meant by that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: Perhaps "is a file which shows the appearance of a late prisoner"? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 06:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that he meant "plate." As in a full page illustration that was printed separately from the book's text. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"plate". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this rename by Wieralee is ok. retaining the identifier id string might be better, though.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 10

Check location

I used the board on the train in

to identify Category:Ciano train station. I cant match with the other features in the category. There are sheds but no shed with a railtrack besides it. File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg is the same place. The same train type leads me to the conclusion, that this should be Reggio Emilia station. Be again I miss identifying elements to confirm.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

this train station should be around Parma as it is obviously the same train as File:Parma station 2002.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Licensing tutorial en.svg

could someone plz fix errors in the codes of File:Licensing tutorial en.svg? i'd like an error-free version for translation into another language.

the same request had been made at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop&oldid=800212376#Licensing_tutorial_en.svg Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_93#Fix_Licensing_tutorial_en.svg.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 11

Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found)

c:File:Canada Permanent Trust Building Sept 2006.jpg displays incorrectly in the article w:Canada Permanent Trust Building. If this is something I could repair myself, please let me know how to so. Otherwise, if someone could fix the problem, it would be appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: I used rotate template's parameter 'resetexif' (instead of degree number) to reset the EXIF orientation information of this file for you. Let's see how that works. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jeff G., my tech-savvy here on Commons is limited (not sure if there's something that needs to be re-set or a cache than needs clearing). The enwiki article uses the thumbnail version of the file, which is still displaying rotated 90 degrees clockwise. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cl3phact0: You're welcome. Steinsplitter's bot can run every 10 minutes, but it has not run in the 98 minutes since 09:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gravity defying photo now properly oriented. Thanks again. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help in cropping the image

Can someone crop this image File:Lipisingh.jpg. Basically, above her head the background shows people. I want to cut that portion. Bring it upto hat worn by her.-Admantine123 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done Broichmore (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Largest file?

Hi, Let's try some useless competition. ;o) What's the largest file on Commons? File:Atlas der Alpenländer, 1874 (14243013).jpg is 3 Gigapixels. Yann (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

These are larger:

Disclosure: I used the search function to return any image bigger than 50000 by 50000 pixels ;)

--HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, computer-generated images can be created arbitrary of any size. It doesn't count. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

File:“Declaration of victory after the Battle of Leipzig on 18 October 1813”.jpg is slightly smaller (2.9 gigapixels) but it's a single image rather than several images stitched together. It's also quite a bit heavier at 1.49 GB vs 720.93 MB. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 16:04, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We can even take this to the extreme. My guess is that one video may be the largest file in data, but is uploaded as split file due to the file size limit of 4 GiB (this is equal to 3:20 minutes to 5 minutes of a 4K video from a full frame camera). But if we look at the aerial photographs of Bavaria (ca. 70500m²) by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltunghttps://geodaten.bayern.de/opengeodata/OpenDataDetail.html?pn=dop40 and combine them to a single image of the whole state of Bavaria, we get approx. an image of 650.000 x 915.000 Pixels (40cmx40cm equals 1 pixel), or approx. 600 Gigapixels with approx. 1 terabyte in file size. The common size limit (JPEG, PNG, etc.) is 65535x65535, so it is hard to realize such an image :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we sure podcasts are in scope?

I recently noticed that we have a lot of podcast audio files under Category:Podcasts and its subcategories. It's unclear to me whether most of these files are in scope, and I'm inclined to suspect that they are not. Some notable podcasts may be in scope as a topic (e.g. a Wikipedia article about "99% Invisible"), but this doesn't mean that every individual episode is in scope as well. Additionally, it's likely that some of these files contain excerpts of copyrighted content; the sheer volume of the podcasts makes them infeasible to review.

Is there any clear educational use case for this content, or should I start nominating some of it for deletion? Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably some of it -- maybe much of it -- is out of scope, but it would take a long time to work through. I'd say you'd want to give any of them at least a fair amount of sampling before nominating.

Seems to me that any appropriately licensed episode of a Wikipedia-notable podcast is probably in scope, just like almost any photo of a Wikipedia-notable person. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please go ahead and start purging the podcast category Trade (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I've started with two large groups of podcast files which are both out of scope and likely copyright issues:

Omphalographer (talk) 23:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question regarding set of images

Would the images in this article be suitable to be uploaded onto the project? They were taken by an individual from the United States military and released by the FBI following a FOI request, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} might be applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@WMrapids: Probably OK for the ones that are, as you say, taken by an individual from the United States military, but do note that is not the case for some images there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: The "Courtesy" and other copyright lingo is unclear to me, so which ones would be OK to upload? (There are 8 images in the article, so you can say image 1, 4, X of 8 if that is helpful) Thanks for the quick response! WMrapids (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- @WMrapids: 1-unclear because uncredited. Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 2-unclear: came through FOIA, but they don't say whether the original photographer was known to be a federal gov't employee. Again, Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 3,4: clearly no, non-gov't sources. 5-8: taken by an individual from the United States military, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} applies. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jmabel: Image 4 is was taken by Clarence Cooper, with the article saying "Many of these photos were later taken by a helicopter pilot with the US Army named Clarence Cooper". Would {{PD-USGov-Military}} apply for image 4? WMrapids (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  @WMrapids: Missed that. If it's clear that he took it in the line of duty, that would be fine. But it sounds like he might not have, and the credit suggests that they believe it is copyrighted. Note that the military/gov't is not the source. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 12

Higgins

The Flickr Commons team is stumped trying to identify this man named "Higgins" who appears to be in Manhattan in 1925 and would have been a newsworthy person: File:Higgins LCCN2014718609.jpg. Can anyone identify him? --RAN (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

James A. Higgins might be a possibility, but there're no other photos online to verify. found this thru https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=intitle%253AHiggins+-incategory%253A%22living+people%22+new+york .

https://news-navigator.labs.loc.gov/search doesnt seem to have relevant photos either. RZuo (talk) 09:44, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good clue! I looked to see if he had a US passport, but no, and his obituary has no image. No image at Ancestry either. There are still a dozen or so more from the Bain Collection unidentified, if you want to try. We are in a tranche from 1925 now, but some of the unknowns are from the a decade earlier. I will set up a page of the most prominent unidentified people later today. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

GeoHack is out

In the last several hours, https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php doesn't work. The links return message "504 Gateway Time-out". Unfortunately, almost all links from the coordinate templates in the Commons go through this page, so all other map features and services are unavailable. ŠJů (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly hole Toolforge is currently down. There are multiple problems.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T346130

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T346177

GPSLeo (talk) 18:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

User:CommonsDelinker/commands appears to be down

It looks like the queue at User:CommonsDelinker/commands has not been serviced at all in about 20 hours. Does anyone know if anything can be done about that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

looking into it —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel A restart looks to have fixed it. Probably due to the toolforge/wmcs issues recently. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mdaniels5757: looks like that solved the file replacement queue, but not the category move queue. (Thank you, sincerely, for solving half the problem.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel Yeah, that's SteinsplitterBot's thing (CommonsDelinker only removes them when they're done). I posted on Steinsplitter's page. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 13

Add Wikipedia Screenshot to licenses

Is it feasible to add {{Wikipedia-screenshot}} to the licenses dropdown/radio in both Special:Upload and the upload wizard? Aaron Liu (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is it really all that frequent a use case? - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think so, it has thousands of transclusions and probably more common than free software screenshots Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September 14

A controversial issue

Commons:Deletion requests/4 files uploaded by Cekli829 in 2013

Hello everybody. I am also writing here to draw your attention. I want to delete these 4 files that I uploaded 10 years ago. I think this issue needs a wide discussion. Thanks to all of you! --►Cekli 829 10:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "controversial issue" here. You appear to be alone in believing that ten years after the fact you should be able to revoke your irrevocable license. And, while I am trying to assume good faith, your argument that the background constitutes copyright infringement is either insincere or naive. Clearly that is de minimis, and if the concern were genuine it would be, at most, a reason to blur elements in the background, not to delete the photos outright.
Also, if you canvass (as you did here), you are supposed to mention that on the original discussion, which you did not do. (I see no mention in the original deletion discussion of you posting to the Village pump.

Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential commons UTRS?

Blocked Commons editors with their talk page access revoked cannot usually appeal their block easily, (they could email an admin for help, but that is rarely considered) enwiki already has UTRS, why can't this be extended to commons as well? --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No principled objection on my part, but a bit of an "is it worth it?" Do we have any idea how often this particular process results in someone being reinstated on en-wiki? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump