Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:VP)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

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

Please note


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

Contents

October 21[edit]

Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:25, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Flickr will start deleting photos in 2019-02[edit]

Flickr today announced changes to its pricing structure. I think this part is highly relevant to Commons:

*Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.

This means that in just over three months, Flickr will start deleting photos, including ones that might be useful for us.

We should try to preserve as many useful (freely licensed and in scope) photos as we can here on Commons over the next three months. Does anybody reading this have any experience with the Flickr API? Is it possible to automatically generate a list of non-Pro users with more than 1000 photos that have at least one freely licensed image that is not yet on Commons? It should, ideally, contain information on how many such images the user has and when the account was last active. I think manually searching for random search terms is going to miss many good photos, so I propose this automated approach; obviously the photos still need to be manually checked for COM:SCOPE compliance, flickrwashing, etc. Tokfo (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fæ maybe knows. But this is a job for https://www.archiveteam.org/. They probably know. This is a huge operation though.. They could probably use our help in terms of bandwidth. Hell, they could use WMF's help. And damnit, Slowking4 said we are too dependent on Flickr and now this happens. Slowking4 deserves way more credit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The total number of (public) photos for any account can be found using an API call like https://www.flickr.com/services/api/flickr.people.getInfo.html. The same call shows the date of the first photo uploaded and if they are a Pro account.
I would not be sure of the best way of finding a list of the most interesting users. Intuitively I would look at the accounts which contribute to groups which are most likely to have high educational value content.
Note that any search and test pattern would have to stick to the 3600 queries/hour limit, which is probably fine with a bit of thought.
In terms of my volunteer time, I would be most interested in running batch uploads for a few highly valuable accounts, preferably where there are more than 10,000 photographs to upload. I would presume that whatever Flickr's new strategy for driving people to subscribe is, any accounts on 'the commons' will be exempt. Sadly I have two free accounts with large batches of archive images in them which I will probably let go. For me, Flickr was a good alternative to Wikimedia Commons where non-commercial photographs could be parked, even "secretly", for future projects. I guess the alternative is my hard disk, and if that goes "pop", hard luck. -- (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
"I would not be sure of the best way of finding a list of the most interesting users."
One way (which will not be sufficient) is to look at accounts of which (some) photos were already imported here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume the change will affect organisations as well as individuals. I'm curious about how long it will take before "pro" accounts that aren't renewed will have photos deleted: all accounts with over 1000 photos should be considered at risk. Some Flickr accounts were created by people now deceased or organisations now defunct. (e.g., Phillip_Capper or Hone Morihana who was apparently John Clarke.) --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
it did not take a genius to anticipate this: it is the monetization cycle of life. we might want to talk to our friends at internet archive. they will take them all. https://archive.org/details/image our flickr tools will be less effective as the prolific photographers are driven off, so we need better tools to upload from IA. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should proactively archive (with InternetArchiveBot?) those we use as {{Flickrreview}}, so we don't have future dispute over whether it was actually marked CCL or not? — regards, Revi 04:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
IABot doesn't actually archive pages, to my knowledge; it just searches through the existing archives. (I run a Toolforge tool which does [send requests to] archive pages, but it only archives the same pages over and over again.) Jc86035 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Then we probably should consider doing such thing with other stuff or... making IAbot do it? — regards, Revi 05:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
IA bot does archive pages in use as sources, see also w:User:InternetArchiveBot. we need it for image sources here, anyone want to ask cyberpower to bring it over? problem with "no crawlers" remains, maybe need archive.is for those. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Good to know. Beside missing new images this is also problematic for missing source and further categorization existing images. Rudolphous (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I just realized we must clear CAT:FLICKR till the deadline or we might lose valid CC image. — regards, Revi 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, although it won't be a popular one, we could mass import all free licensed images and place them all into "provisional categories" where editors can pick files that are out of scope and/or copyright violations for removals, these categories could be organised per account so if one account tends to be mostly out of scope or non-compatible with COM:LICENSE then we could just empty the whole category. The current way Wikimedia Commons is organised with tools like Flickr2Commons is to be completely dependent on imports from there, heck I can't remember how often I inserted pictures from Flickr into Wikipedia articles simply because no photographer from Wikimedia Commons itself bothered to take it. Maybe we could also try to contact Flickr to run a banner atop pages to invite photographers to Wikimedia Commons and explain what the project scope is so rather than being dependent on Flickr we could actually have a large number of original content. I can't think of a single other website that Wikimedia Commons is so dependent on and we should salvage what we can and it might be a better long-term plan to import everything and then delete a large number of files before the content is lost. Honestly I was expecting this to happen ever since Verizon gave Flickr away to some small company no-one every heard of, it's no wonder that Flickr can't sustain itself because without Yahoo!'s/Verizon's servers there are simply too much images to store.

Maybe we could ask the Wikimedia Foundation for help with a mass-import or to try and make a deal with Flickr. Getting the Internet Archives involved is also a great (and necessary idea). Importing everything that's freely licensed and then sorting through it might be the best long-term plan, most copyright © violation-hunters go through Flickr images most of the time now anyhow and having maintenence categories that could take a couple of years to go through is better than perhaps losing the internet's biggest source of free images.

By the way, is all of Flickr The Commons already on Wikimedia Commons? I think it would also be a good idea to import all of the public domain images from there and add them into a few maintenance categories. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


See this comment by Flickr "All of our institutional Flickr Commons accounts are already exempted. Further, we've been talking with the E.D. at Creative Commons generally about the changes and they have shared their concerns and priorities with us. There's lots more that we'll be working through and detailing in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!". Also this comment by CC. When they talk about "the Commons" they mean this, not us nor CC images in general.

I've said before that our strategy of treating Flickr as photo resource to mine, but not engaging with the photographers, is wrong. Rather than uploading people's photos by bot, we should have been inviting them here. Both Flickr and Wikimedia Commons only survive by being communities of people. Neither would survive if just an accumulation of photos that nobody sought to grow, improve, curate, manage, and discuss. The new Flickr owners know what matters is their active users, not the JPGs on a server, and I support their attitude that they don't want to see users as "the product" like Facebook does, but wants to generate income in a more transparent honest way.

I don't think the suggestion to relax our "educational scope" requirement has any chance whatsoever. That's a core part of this project. There are other websites that seek to archive the web. There are 400 million CC photos on Flickr (though many will be -NC). -- Colin (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Dump a million files and expect someone to review them later seems like the normal thing to do here.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've done some quick numbers on this (independent of the discussion here so there may be some overlap). I was surprised by how much of a source Flickr seems to be - around 15% of image description pages, 7.5 million of them, have a link to a Flickr page (which presumably almost always indicates it was sourced from there.)
Looking at 5000 randomly-sampled Flickr accounts which have been used to source pictures on Commons, and weighting the result by the number of images on Commons which appear to be linked to those accounts, approximately 1/3 of our Flickr-sourced images were sourced from accounts which may now be at risk. The majority were sourced from pro accounts (or Flickr Commons accounts, which per Colin's note above seem to be be safe); images sourced from "smaller" free accounts are a relatively negligible share of the whole, perhaps around 5%. The numbers were similar with a sample based on the most frequently used source accounts, once Flickr Commons was taken into consideration. These numbers are all a bit rough but I suspect they do broadly reflect reality.
These numbers do seem to suggest that "at risk" accounts make up a fairly large chunk of what we source from Flickr, but not the overwhelming majority. And, of course, a fair chunk of the most active accounts may well switch back over to being pro (it's quite likely that many were in previous years and have let it lapse because, well, it became essentially a free service!) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add the useful bit! What I'll try and do is put together a list of accounts which seem most likely to be of interest to us - ones we've used as a source reasonably often already (so they're likely to have Commons-relevant material and licensing), where there are a substantially larger number of images on Flickr than we seem to have here (so there's scope for import work), and where they are potentially at-risk (large, not Pro). I don't have the capacity to analyse the license of those accounts' images and do any importing, but hopefully this is something that might help support manual review of the situation. I'll try and get it posted tomorrow. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. Useful analysis here and on your blog. There may also be a small proportion of users here who upload their own Flickr photos and who we can hope would carry on uploading their new photos here. Flickr plan to delete the oldest photos first, which are also the ones perhaps most likely to have been hoovered up here already, leaving the new material. Wrt Flickr userbase, there appear to be a number of people treating it simply as a free cloud backup (1TB was a huge backup for JPGs). They will likely have dumped their photo shoots largely unedited, and any good photos are mixed among the rubbish. At the other end are the pro photographers who only used Flickr to show off a portfolio, which itself will be substantially smaller than 1000 images -- if you don't realise how great they are after a few dozen photos, then you never will. In between are photographers with a following who upload new interesting photos regularly to keep their profile high, or amateurs sharing their lives with friends and family without any Facebook hassle. Even though the 1000 image deadline is months away, there may be some who decide now is the time to trim their portfolios or to simply delete an unused account. Those using it for backup may delete the account once they have backed up to Amazon or elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I just thought of something.
We're already losing images.
No joke. Once people read the announcement, some would have started deleting their own pictures themselves, the ones they care least about, to get under 1000. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am deleting my Flickr images every day. I have around 7000 there, which I used to illustrate my blog posts, and I am slowly taking them elsewhere (the main work is to update the blog posts). I am not going to stay on Flickr in any case, because now I do not have any respect for them. They are mostly landscape photos, and my estimate is that only about 30-50% are worthwhile to upload on Commons (of which many already are here). The rest are not suitable: Freedom of panorama issues, scope issues, and many are taken from points where we already have Commons images of superior quality.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick remark without having read the whole discussion: There are also many, many pictures on flickr that are of no use for Commons whatsoever (of the personal photo type, lots of duplicates and near-duplicates etc.), so I'm opposed to any kind of automated blanket upload from flickr, creating an additional huge pile of not very satisfying work for Commons volunteers. But the approach mentioned by Alexis Jazz ("look at accounts of which (some) photos were already imported here") might work. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the infobox pictures for the first 10 actors from the 70s, 80s and 90s on w:List of African-American actors. And the first 10 for the main ceremony on w:60th Annual Grammy Awards. This seemed sort-of random for mostly American celebrities, although I'm not sure it really is. Results: 5/40 no image. 22/35 Flickr, 4/35 by Gage, 11/35 Commons, 2/35 other, 4/35 at risk. I am mostly surprised so many actually have a pro account. Please note I haven't been cherry-picking here, if I had done that I would just list Jennifer Lopez and Morgan Freeman.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

7/10 from Flickr, but none at immediate risk. 3/10 Commons users. Let's look at the first 10 from the 80s..


7/10 from Flickr again, 2 Commons users, 1 other. Two at risk. What about the 90s?

  • Tequan Richmond no image
  • Rhyon Nicole Brown no image

Let's try the first 10 for the main ceremony on w:60th Annual Grammy Awards.

  • Gary Clark Jr. Flickr account with 737 photos (Alize Tran)
  • Joe Saylor no image

List of heavily used at-risk accounts[edit]

Okay, here we go. These are the top 50 "at risk" flickr accounts, as ranked by to the number of existing pages which have at least one link containing their flickrID - this isn't perfect but it's a decent first approximation to "number of files sourced from there". (This omits any links using the human-readable labels rather than the 97499887@N06 type flickrIDs, but it's a decent approximation - 96% of pages with a Flickr link have a flickrID identifiable somewhere.)

I've started leaving some notes matching them up to Commons categories - please feel free to expand these. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Flickr user Linking pages Total images Category Notes
97499887@N06 145067 166130 Category:Images from Forest & Kim Starr hard to count with subcategorisation but we may have the vast majority of these already. Petscan reports 203259 images in the category tree below it which is more than were posted to Flickr (perhaps some duplication?)
31582298@N08 124895 196750 Category:Photographs by the National Assembly of Ecuador ~65% on Commons
72739078@N00 69870 103499 Category:Photographs by S. Pakhrin 57k images so incomplete (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?). May be some not in tracking category.
133821783@N02 26440 79512 photos appear to be filed as "US Army" and not attributed to the institution, so not easy to count, but ~30% on Commons
22539273@N00 23927 153395 Category:Files from Guilhem Vellut Flickr stream just 5k images so very incomplete, <5%. Not clear why the mismatch between images in the category & inbound links; perhaps not all are properly categorised? (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
40561337@N07 20330 19127 Category:Photographs by Peerapat Wimolrungkarat more or less complete
10021639@N05 20044 32768 Category:Photographs by the Ecuador Chancellery 60% on Commons
48776503@N05 17975 32735 Category:Images from US Naval Forces Central Command Not all images appear to be in the category; others may be filed as just "US Navy". About 50% on Commons
58927646@N02 17244 19415 Category:Photographs by IngolfBLN 85% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
40948266@N04 16592 27217 Category:Photographs by Björn S. about 75% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
122521784@N04 14710 37058 Category:Images by Valder137 about 40% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
75302333@N02 14584 23832 Category:Files from Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream about 60% on Commons (note apparent lack of filenames/descriptions though)
30084118@N00 14443 24982 apparently no tracker category, probably only ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?) – Flickr account deleted!
42130586@N02 14118 40552 Category:Photographs by the Saeima Administration probably <40% on Commons
126433814@N04 13779 24661 Category:Photographs by jeremyg3030 probably ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
64337707@N07 13319 14320 apparently no tracker category, probably ~90% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
133711121@N07 13043 18273 apparently no tracker category, probably ~80% on Commons. (Confusingly, while images seem to be CC-BY, the overall profile seems to have a generic non-commercial-use restriction. Not quite sure how that works.)
14583963@N00 12832 35864 Category:Photographs by David Short probably ~35% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
133200397@N03 12204 135892 Category:Photographs by Sergei Gussev probably ~10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
61765479@N08 11832 15486 Category:Photographs by the African Union Mission to Somalia (may be other categories, numbers in this one seem a little low). Perhaps 50-75% on Commons.
130251635@N03 11581 163204 Category:Photographs by Miguel Discart Category shared with other Flickr accounts - probably <10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
79383703@N08 10755 11393 No clear tracker category. Probably about 90% on Commons.
60393599@N03 10548 18772 Category:Photographs by the National Police of Colombia With lots of subcategorisation. ~50% on Commons.
33398884@N03 10224 13501 Category:Photographs by Ben Sale ~75% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
50415738@N04 9768 16822 Category:Photographs by sv1ambo ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
21612624@N00 9722 16417
10352740@N03 9474 64836
37691369@N08 9381 18548
77712181@N07 9295 10812
74711243@N06 8861 21930
49251707@N07 8666 38325
99279135@N05 8641 15343
130961247@N06 8601 7539
75116651@N03 8178 46243
51811543@N08 8126 12499
23690396@N02 8060 12193
96396586@N07 7815 11763
55426027@N03 7509 11942
140656059@N03 7426 33037
63368911@N00 7315 11754
65581273@N05 7298 16107
122801678@N03 7164 148873 Category:Photographs by Miguel Discart Category only has some images; others unclear (possibly no tracking category?). Probably <10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
78404784@N07 6965 15343
135812973@N04 6836 26818
24415554@N04 6656 15466
17364971@N00 6531 6552
55289779@N00 6421 50799
35591378@N03 6279 6668
92793865@N07 6188 16691
22147358@N04 6149 6434

I am probably the most likely currently available uploader for many of these accounts due to custom methods like Fæ/Flickr API detail. Where I appear as uploader, please drop me a note if any appears to need a refresh. For some accounts there are very good reasons to avoid updates, or uploading at all. For example Category:Images from US Naval Forces Central Command are better uploaded from the official DVIDS site, where all photographs with the official VIRINs should appear; uploading from Flickr is certain to create duplicates as the two different versions are not digitally identical as they vary by EXIF data, hence the API does not flag up the duplicate error. In the example of Category:Photographs by the National Assembly of Ecuador, uploading all photographs becomes controversial, as there have been many deletions due to limited educational value and many are near duplicates.

Rather than a panicky rush upload by January, I suggest a wget type grab and put the dump on a server, which volunteers can pick over for the next couple of years until we feel all the value has been sucked out of it. I'm sure the WMF can allow a 10TB dump on Labs, and all the above are probably less than that. Perhaps a friendly WMF person could be asked to do it, based on this volunteer generated list? -- (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • You know, how important is the original Flickr file to copyright reviewers? When I do make copyvio checks I only need a) the uploader's identity, b) the EXIF, c) the upload date and d) the image content as other information does not contribute anything. All this info is usually passed on when Flickr image is uploaded on Commons, so I wouldn't think that the original image disappearing would create any doubts about the copyright status of the file uploaded here. I think the main concern are files which are on Flickr but aren't on Commons yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing files for curation[edit]

If you're uploading a large number of files from a flickr stream and don't have the time to completely curate them all (finding derivative works, adding categories, adding descriptions, useful filenames, etc), please add them to a category like Category:Files from XYZ Flickr stream needing cleanup, then add {{Flickr mass upload needing cleanup}} to the category. This will place the category into Category:Files from Flickr needing cleanup, which will make it easier to track what flickr imports need curation. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working in an adaptation of the script in User:Fæ/Flickr API detail to upload from Flickr accounts dealing with Spain. I was wondering whether there was a specific category or template to state they must be curated. --Discasto talk 10:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


Flickr will not delete CC photos[edit]

[1] Just announced. --Masem (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Official blog post. The caveat is that users with >1000 images will not have their CC images deleted but will be blocked from uploading any more photos. So they have a choice: stop uploading, start deleting photos themselves, or upgrade to Pro. Flickr have said that charities and similar organizations are likely to be offered free Pro accounts. But this still means that ordinary users who have maxed out their account, may start deleting CC images on their on accord. And the deadline for uploading a CC photo that stays past the deadline was 1 November, so we won't be seeing anyone converting their photos to CC to escape the axe. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think this significantly reduces the problem (and prevents disused accounts from collapsing) but it does mean that some reductions are still likely. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good news. I would frame it like this: users with CC-BY-NC photos will be able to change to license to CC-BY-SA so we can import before they delete. If they refuse to change the license, it's not our problem and we shouldn't care about those photos. Therefore, we should import as many compatible photos as we can, somehow get as many Flickr users as possible, as quickly as possible, to release non-CC photos, and we don't have to hurry to get non-commercial photos released under a non-NC license for inactive Flickr users. Wumbolo (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I just deleted the >1000 photos from my account just to discover I hadn't to. When you read the e-Mail Flickr has sent, you do not read any CC exception and because they announced to start deletion with the oldest (and probably most linked) photos, as a user, you will start deleting probably those that haven't been heavily linked. Expect some people manually deleting photos due to Flickr's mal-information. -- 131.173.213.170 13:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 02[edit]

Want to play a game?[edit]

Hi all. I've added a new game to @Magnus Manske's distributed game: you can now match Commons categories to Wikidata items. It's based on searching Wikidata for the names of categories that are not yet linked to a Wikidata item. Please be careful when playing it, though - around 35% of the suggested matches so far have been accepted (so 65% rejected). Please let me know if you have any feedback/suggestions for improving it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice made. Maybe a few more lines explanation in the intro would be nice. Rudolphous (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rudolphous: If you can suggest a few lines, then I'd be happy to add some. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Great tool. It would be nice if a P373 (Commons category) property were also added to the Wikidata entry upon matching. Einstein2 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 07[edit]

Free pro wrestling photos from LyleCWilliams.net and WildcatBelts.com?[edit]

Apparently, LyleCWilliams.net released its extensive photo gallery into the public domain a few years ago ("Feel Free To Use These Pics (Except Direct-Linking to Message Boards, etc.) Please Just Put A Link to My Site From Yours!!!"). A detailed listing of these photos are available on this page over at Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia may have permission to use championship belt photos from WildcatBelts.com according to this discussion on its pro wrestling WikiProject. It doesn't look like any photos from either website were ever uploaded though. 173.162.220.17 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not confident that the statement from Lyle C. Williams is a release into the public domain. It looks to me like an {{Attribution}}-style licence. The only question is whether "use" includes redistribution and creation of derivative works, and whether the licence is irrevocable. As for WildcatBelts.com, the discussion is quite clear that the release isn't adequate for Commons, being only for non-commercial use in relevant articles on English Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 00:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 09[edit]

Baptism (denomination)[edit]

We have a well-populated Category:Methodism, but I can't find a corresponding category for Baptism. (I suspect this may be because of the other meaning of the word baptism, the act rather than the denomination.) Is there something out there I'm missing, or should I create it? If the latter, Category:Baptism (denomination) or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are not methodists also baptists? Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: No, they are not: some points of doctrine in common, but quite distinct, especially from an institutional point of view. Among other things, Baptists have no hierarchy: there is no such thing as a Baptist bishop. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Found it: Category:Baptist. Seems misnamed. What do others think? - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
here you go https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q93191 ; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8289318 -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
How does that in any way address whether it is a poorly chosen name? - 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Rename it to "Category:Baptist Christianity" like suggested at d:Q8289318? --ghouston (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
you are making a nomenclature argument. you might want to look at the ontology at wikidata, and use a theological dictionary as a source to cleanup the categories to reflect the consensus of scholars. do not know what you mean by "Baptism"; that is not a consensus useage. 98.169.251.154 01:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ontology at Wikidata? If this is an attempt at comedy, it fails, and badly. I've seen category mistakes all over Wikimedia projects but Wikidata is sometimes indiscriminate in its usages, whereas it should be trying to unify. By failing to resolve discrepancies between even en:WP and Commons, to cite a relevant example, before seeking to be an authority, it fails in any sense of usefulness and merely becomes a maintenance burden for anyone who cares for accuracy. Look at the history of Wikidata:Q4834920 as regards to geocoodws for an example of failure to take sufficient care. I've long thought that Commons is wrongly obsessed with quantity over quality, but when "service" projects of dubious usefulness take the same position, we are ultimately doomed. I see our ideal customer as, e.g. a picture editor of a newpspaper, broadcaster or reputable website, and we should be offering a different, if not better service than Alamy or Getty Images. We are failing at even aspiring to do that. </rant> Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
not much hope of displacing Alamy or Getty. we lost that battle. their entrenched power in a trusted distribution channel will not be displaced by a free alternative. rather, by the non-leader gatekeeping activity here, we drive away creative photographers; we are settling to be a walled garden in support of an encyclopedia only. the category nomenclature debates without an ontological structure, as at wikidata, limits support of that project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
If you are referring to the branch of Christianity to which 15% of Americans belong, it's the Baptists. "Baptism (denomination)" is just wrong, and as a former Baptist I didn't even recognize that as referring to the Baptists, instead probably referring to some tiny group of Christians I had never heard of.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:03, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
_@Prosfilaes: So what would be an acceptable category name? The current Catagory:Baptist is certainly not parallel to how we designate any other denomination. Is Ghouston's suggestion of Category:Baptist Christianity likely to be acceptable to Baptists? - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As a decidedly former Baptist, I hate to speak for them. But I don't see why that would be a problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:38, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

@Ghouston: (and anyone else): Do you think I should just change the weirdly named Category:Baptist to Category:Baptist Christianity, or does this call for a CFD first? - Jmabel ! talk 04:32, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the best I can suggest, but I'm hardly an expert. It's confusing because Category:Baptists has already been created for individual Baptists, and although that's also the title of the enwiki page en:Baptists, it uses the word to refer to individuals. So if you want a category to group the individual Baptists plus their other stuff like churches and cemeteries and organizations then it seems like a term like "Baptist Christianity" is needed. That's what enwiki uses at en:Category:Baptist Christianity, which seems to be how it got into Wikidata. Grammatically you can ask "What is Protestantism?" but asking "What is Baptists?" sounds wrong, and apparently "What is Baptism?" is also wrong. There are also Commons categories Category:Baptist churches and Category:Baptists by country but no by-country category for the entire movement. However, the reason your original search failed was because you were searching for "Baptism", and the proposed renaming wouldn't help with that. Mentioning "baptism" in the category description may help more. --ghouston (talk) 05:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Renaming Category:Baptist to Category:Baptist Christianity. No one here seems to have an objection, and it is hard to see how it could be anything but a plus. - Jmabel ! talk 00:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10[edit]

Voltaire[edit]

So I was looking for a particular portrait (not this one) of Voltaire. It wasn't on the Wikipedia page, but I figured all of those were likely hosted at Commons where I'd likely find my goal via categories. I got distracted. Looking at the first WP image I saw this "This file has been reviewed by a human, (User:Diannaa), who has confirmed that it is suitable for Commons." Seeing that, I thought I'd do a good deed and download the WP image and upload it to Commons. It was only when I was typing in the details that I noticed: "Immediate source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolas_de_Largilli%C3%A8re,_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_Arouet_dit_Voltaire_(vers_1724-1725)_-001.jpg"

So not only is the image on both WP and Commons, but it makes me wonder how many are similarly duplicated, or at the very least are labeled "confirmed that it is suitable for Commons." I don't know if this means the WP image should be deleted or what.

I'm not a coder but I suspect this could easily be remedied by some kind of bot script thing, perhaps doing hash-verifications and/or adding an "inbox"-type category (list) to verify the confirmation again upon "relocation", and perhaps a WP deletion of the "relocated" confirmed and verified images (assuming that's what policy calls for) and/or the "confirmed that it is suitable for Commons" tags.

Ultimately this may or may not affect the Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons#Backlog Status, hopefully for the better.

As for this particular image, the history is strange. The "original" colours are poor and the "repaired" colours are terrible, and then the oval "borders" are ridiculous. There must be a better medium.

The image I was looking for is almost this: File:D'après Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Portrait de Voltaire (c. 1737, musée Antoine Lécuyer).jpg However there is an almost identical copy of it emphasizing the mischievous smirk. portrait-de-voltaire-copie-1800-1850-.-.jpg, a slightly lighter version of File:D'après Maurice Quentin de La Tour, François-Marie Arouet, dit Voltaire (château de Versailles).jpg.

I don't know if anyone wants to address this, comment, or educate, but I'm grateful in advance for any feedback. I'll check back soon. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: The portrait of Voltaire you linked to above isn't on Wikipedia at all. If you go to w:File:Nicolas de Largillière, François-Marie Arouet dit Voltaire (vers 1724-1725) -001.jpg all you'll see is a mirror of the Commons page. You can tell the difference because the WP page doesn't have "Edit" or "History" buttons, but it has "View on Commons" and "Add local description" buttons. It does have its own Wikipedia talk page, however. This is the standard state of affairs for images on Commons: they're mirrored on all the individual projects, but aren't actually hosted there. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, but that's not what I was asking about. I would improve my questions if I knew how to pose them with a better vocabulary and insight into Commons. Please reconsider my queries and comments above. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Files about to enter public domain[edit]

According to Commons:Hirtle chart, works published in the U.S. in 1923 with a copyright notice and with that copyright notice renewed will enter the public domain in 2019, which is now less than two months away. What tag will be appropriate for them? We don't seem to have a Template:PD-US-expired or anything similar. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It was being discussed at Commons talk:Public Domain Day. I think PD-US-expired is a good 1923 and after license as works begin to become PD in the US in 2019. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

Art Institute of Chicago[edit]

Good stuff

Just a heads up to these new CC0 high resolution images. --Izno (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

see also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/10#Art_Institute_of_Chicago. maybe we should ping user:multichill. need to evaluate artwork for artist copyright. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Already uploaded quite a few of the paintings, see d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Art Institute of Chicago and Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago. Some other collections are incoming too. Multichill (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fanciful 1861 Japanese illustrated book of the US Revolutionary War[edit]

High quality scans here. The book is Osanaetoki Bankokubanashi (童絵解万国噺) by w:Kanagaki Robun. Not sure if it should be uploaded here or Wikisource or both.にこねこ (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikisource, and probably you should crop to content for better readability. Vulphere 10:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
nope. first create multi-page pdf with a publisher program, upload to internet archive, and then upload here with IAuploader. then create wikisource index page from here. see also s:Help:Beginner's_guide_to_adding_texts (sorry not in Japanese, a much smaller project [2]) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Darker version[edit]

Third Class Carriage (1856-1858) by Honore Daumier.jpg
The older version looks darker and seems to be more correct in tone. This carriages where dark and not well ligthed. However if I look at the size of the file the new one is significantly bigger. What happened?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wmpearl: Where did you get your version of File:Third Class Carriage (1856-1858) by Honore Daumier.jpg?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
maybe we should suspend overwriting, since we seem to have a cadre of overwriters, who appear to photoshop with minimal documentation, and a new upload would require a source. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:25, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I suspect that with the new upload picture was taken of the painting without the optimal ligthing conditions. If extra stray ligth comes in it creates a kind of mist effect. The same picture with adjusted levels: File:Third Class Carriage (1856-1858) by Honore Daumier.adjusted levels.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Limiting overwriting is problematic as there files wich need regular updating such as metro maps. If needed the older version can be given a new naam. For example: File:AVE.png. Most articles always need the latest version.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:24, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with HREFs[edit]

Hi all, i see alot of pictures (mostly probably imported from Flickr) that contain HTML HREF elements which are not rendered by Wiki. Could we just convert them into Wiki external link syntax or should those be revmoved? --Arnd (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aschroet: From what I have seen, most of them are advertising, such that we better serve our users by either leaving them alone or removing them.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46[edit]

19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[edit]

w:Category:Characters created by Stan Lee[edit]

Hello.After the death of the person, I think we should add a lot of pages to Category:Undelete in 2089.How do we collect all the targeted pages? Thank you ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 07:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see it as all that productive; we'll probably have much better sources in 2089. Also, I can't think of a single work for which that is clearly the right year. He's an American author, so copyright lasts for 95 years from publication for pre-1978 works; he works for Marvel, so most of his works are corporate and thus 95 years from publication, and very little of his work was solo, so we'd have to worry about copyrights of coauthors.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:14, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of PDF files of Wikibooks[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Communication Theory.pdf

PDF is a very different format with different uses. As a community, do we support this [clarification: this nomination for deletion]? (clarification added after Leaderboard's reply) Should we encourage Wikibooks to upload those PDF files locally and re-enable uploads for all their users? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't see why support should be removed. One reason why upload has been restricted on Wikibooks to uploaders is to encourage free material to be uploaded here. It may be different, but there isn't any copyright reason to do this... Leaderboard (talk) 10:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
out of consensus nomination: "Converting pdf files to djvu is not generally necessary and depending on file size and image content, may reduce quality unnecessarily" Help:Creating a DjVu file; per Commons:File types pdf is allowed. need to have a broad consensus before deleting files like this. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:19, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
The wikisource beginner's guide starts with the instruction to upload the scanned copy to commons in DjVu or PDF formats. See wikisource:Help:Beginner's guide to sources Thincat (talk) 21:36, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploading images of which the copyright expires end 2018, 2019, etc.[edit]

I want to upload images of stamps of which the copyright expires 31-12-2018, 2019, etc. Instead of waiting each year till the first of January, I want to upload them all now, adding all the required categories and the category "undelete in 2019", "undelete in 2020", etc. Should I then nominate each file for deletion or is there an easier way to achieve that? Wouter (talk) 16:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

I think attaching the category to the deleted file won't work, since deleted files don't show up in categories. You can either file a mass DR and put the DR page in the right category, or ask for speedy deletion (criterion G7) and list the files on the Category:Undelete in 2019 or whatever category page. --bjh21 (talk)
Please do not do this, Wouterhagens. What you are purposing is that the already overworked admin corp of Commons spend a whole bunch of time deleting and undeleting your images because you don't want to wait? That is nothing short of disruptive behavior. Deleting and undeleting large batches of images takes time, a lot of time. If you were a new account that knowingly uploaded copyright violations you would be blocked on the spot. And please do not DR copyvios or G7 requests. DRs are currently months behind schedule and while we (at least I hope it is more than just me) are working through them doing so just leave clearly deleteable images hanging around for way way too long. Please do not knowingly upload copyright violations. --Majora (talk) 21:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, for content in the public domain in 2019, please wait for a few weeks. For content which will be in the public domain in 20 years or longer, AND that can't be hosted anywhere else, then it should be OK, but Commons should only be used as a least resort. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the answers. The "easier way to achieve that" was just to avoid the deleting and undeleting by humans. My thought was to put them in a "waiting room" and that a bot checks each beginning of a year whether they could be released. I will wait till the beginning of each year to upload the images that just became free of copyright. Wouter (talk) 08:28, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I would appreciate such a waiting room system. (suggestion: files only visible to the uploader and administrators) I have some files waiting for many years for a legal upload and I cant anticipate when I will die. It is not something you can leave instructions for in your will. By the way: Some files involve research for dating and authorship. As much as posible I do my own research before uploading a file. However it is not always posible to date and determine if it is realy anonymous. This can best be discussed on Wikipemedia forums with knowledge about the subject, but in cases where no source links can be supplied (for example some scans of old postcards), it is necessary that discussion participants get a look a the file. The risk is very low but I cannot totaly exclude temporary copyright violations.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:05, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Change coming to how certain templates will appear on the mobile web[edit]

CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:34, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
This has actually appeared like this on my mobile telephone and phablet for a couple of weeks now. So maybe this message is a bit late? Although I haven't read anything about it in Tech News, anyhow this is a major improvement as "Page issues" was extremely misleading, in fact things like WikiProjects were listed as "Page issues". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:12, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
You may have been part of the A/B test that recently happened. The work has been mentioned in past issues of Tech News. [8] [9] It's easy to miss. I have added a new note to Tech News. It will be in the issue that comes out on Monday. I'm glad to see you like the improvements. Here's to more to come. :) CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • It really speaks volumes that a WMF staffer uploads a JPEG screenshot to Commons with an incorrect copyright status statement and leaves it uncategorized: Bad at tech stuff, bad at legal stuff, and bad at curation staff — and yet this is one of our «User Experience Designer»s… -- Tuválkin 21:32, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Tuválkin - Oh boy, I'm definitely guilty of not making a substantial enough effort to review the policies regarding the various types of copyright. I appreciate you calling me out — it's a good learning opportunity, and I would welcome any guidance from you : ) As a newcomer to this community I've definitely still got a lot to learn and will aim to better follow best practices going forward. AHollender (WMF) (talk) 18:02, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Concerning categories, I’d be delighted to help a genuine newbie, but you’re not one, are you? You’re an WMF empolyeee. If they think it’s a good idea to hire people who don’t know the basics of wiki editing (adding cats is pretty basic), let them make sure you get properly trained by paid specialists before you start, instead of relying on volunteers to prod you along.
As for the file format you chose for this screenshot, I’m struck speechless: This is not about specific Commons’ or WMF’s habits and policies; JPEG should be used only for photos and scans, while PNG is the correct option for screenshots. What kind of professional training on web design fails to hammer that down in lesson 001?
-- Tuválkin 19:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
As Alex mentioned, he's new to Commons and we're all helping to get him up-to-speed on everything. As anyone who was once new knows, it's complicated. If you're going to be disappointed at someone, let it be me for not catching it sooner and helping Alex. I've been around longer. :) Thanks to Slowking4 for taking a moment to add the licensing and category information. The help is appreciated. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 18:26, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
it's all good. turns out there is a template for screenshots. the WMF does complicate things for use of logos, with trademark. special case, for which they should have a learning pattern. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:10, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
We do have a learning pattern! Thanks for the healthy reminder, I just sent it to Alex. :). CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @CKoerner (WMF): So, when a genuine noob makes a mistake, s/he risks to be eviscerated by any random admin or other user and that’s business as usual, but when a WMF employee makes a mistake (or three mistakes in one single edit as in the case at hand), we’re to back off and let him find his ropes? I think it should not be like that: The WMF is a very rich employer, thanks to donations recieved due to unpaid and often unthanked volunteer work; WMF employees better be professionals above any reproach. -- Tuválkin 19:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
don't know why you have become so solicitous of newbies, in order to attack the WMF? is it any wonder why employees choose not to interact or learn intricate special license cases? take him to AN/U, it would be par for the course. or you could demonstrate your newbie solicitude, by tutoring some newbies. can't wait. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 23:22, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Will show you my tutoring mad skillz when you spot trolling us with your mangled capitalization. -- Tuválkin 23:24, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

[Update] Free Music Archive[edit]

Hello.

This wonderful website Free Music Archive will be shut down.

I've started to upload here [10] musics under free licenses.

This link permitt to access at free licensed musics (PD, CC-by, CC-by-sa).

Update : shut down at Nov 16th : [11].

--ComputerHotline (talk) 20:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe someone could arrange for a systematic import from this website? Hopefully as it would be sad to see so much music get lost, also it would wise to contact the Internet Archive. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:44, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Correction, all the content will be made available through the Internet Archive, however having "an extra back-up" on Wikimedia Commons would be preferable too. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:50, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ComputerHotline - When you upload these does anything need to be filled out or is it done automatically ?, I've never uploaded MP3s before - I have a select tool that basically means I can download all of these with a click of a button but I didn't know if come uploading I would need to fill anything out, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 20:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Also agreeing with Donald Trung 『徵國單』 an import tool would be a lot easier and probably quicker. –Davey2010Talk 20:47, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
I use this tool : [12] but I uncheck "video" and "subtitles" box. I use it for each music. --ComputerHotline (talk) 20:56, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
ComputerHotline - Just found out before you answered :), Only problem is that you can't select multiple files ?, Unless that's changed I can't see how this method is viable ? –Davey2010Talk 21:01, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
"Only problem is that you can't select multiple files ?" : Exact. --ComputerHotline (talk) 06:52, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

November 14[edit]

The Motd/2018-11-14 (en) has mistake.[edit]

In the template {{Motd/2018-11-14 (en)}} is written "International Space Sation" (without "T" after "S" in the word "Sation"). More correct is "International Space Station". Could you fix it? -- IEPCBM (talk) 10:29, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 10:46, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing puzzle left by Jan Arkesteijn[edit]

JA upload, scanned from print #73

Could anyone help out with sourcing the original high resolution scan of this Toulouse-Loutrec poster? The quoted source at MMFA has a maximum 763x1030 image and no EXIF data. It could be that there is a zoomable image somewhere on unlinked pages, but I have yet to find it. The high resolution photograph, 4,417 × 5,910 pixels, is credited to Peter Schälchi, who appears to be a professional photographer for galleries, though the EXIF data on the Commons version is not original, including a claim of Public Domain Mark, and is worth overwriting to correct back to a verifiable version. Unfortunately, as with many of Jan Arkesteijn's uploads, this high quality photograph has been tampered with, shifting yellow to become more orange, visibly different from the smaller version of the same photograph of the same print at the MMFA quoted source.

If this one can be tracked down, there are several other photographs in the same collection that could be "refreshed" from a verifiable source.

Thanks -- (talk) 12:13, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Is this useful ? — Racconish💬 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Hi,
There are quite a lot of copies on the Net of this work of art:

Regards, Yann (talk) 12:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

These are interesting sources, we probably should upload some of these alternatives, though some will need stitching so will have no true EXIF data. In terms of the JA source, that may take more digging. Easiest comparison is EXIF + max resolution:
  1. LOC, no remote access to full digital copy (may be worth further checking, this is not always technically true)
  2. Van Gogh Museum, 1,482 × 2,000, EXIF says Hasselblad H5D-50c MS, which is a different camera
  3. NGA, 3,019 × 4,000, so research quality but a different crop and the EXIF data is very different
  4. INHA, 3,965 × 5,000, zoomable behind IIIP, so a research quality image worth uploading, but it is restitched so no EXIF and not the JA version
  5. Christies 2,378 × 3,200, no meaningful EXIF so though JA has downloaded from this source this is not the same photograph
So, none is a match so far, though at least two are excellent alternates to upload that can be verified for correct colour and EXIF data.
Perhaps we have to write off the JA version as unverifiable as the source is dead, and so just presume the colours are false and clearly mark it as such? I hesitate to put it up for deletion due to being misleading, especially misrepresenting the professional and named photographer, but this may still be an option when the alternatives are hosted and it will be arguably redundant. -- (talk) 13:08, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

-- (talk) 13:33, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

apparently the Musée des beaux-arts de Montréal is distributing photos via google drive https://www.mbam.qc.ca/salle-de-presse/ [13] (here is another example from the exhibition in 2016 File:Ambassadeurs - Aristide Bruant, by Henri de Toulouse-Lautrec.jpg), perhaps you could contact them presse@mbamtl.org -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment before you dig through EXIF data and resolution, there's a simple method of excluding some candidates. All these scans have been made from different original prints: Check the red number in the bottom left corner! The print number is 73 in the JA upload. --El Grafo (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
    Excellent observation. If this apparently tampered with copy of print 73 is the only photograph we have of that print (as it seems to be), then it should not be deleted. However the misleading EXIF data needs fixing and the photographer should be named on the image page along with a notice that our version does not match the photographer's original. -- (talk) 13:45, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
There is quite a significant colour variation among the versions at these different institutions. Compare the coat of the man on the left, which varies from blue to green or to pale blue. The prints are differently numbered so there may be some real life variation, separate from the variation in photography, processing and presentation. Perhaps some prints have faded. For this image, there may be no "correct colour". This is part of the reason why we discourage overwriting art images just because the happen to be the same "work of art". Perhaps we should include the source institution in the file name? The INHA image is actually only 2636x3451 when you compare the actual print size, vs 3987x5286 in Jan's photo.
Wrt the colours of Jan's version, it does look like he has enhanced the saturation and contrast, but without the source image, we can't tell what degree. Depressing to see he continues to attempt to shift the colour of cream-coloured paper to make it look like a Xerox photocopy sheet. Perhaps {{Inaccurate}} is sufficient? I wouldn't suggest overwriting unless we can find another copy of that photograph of that print. Btw, what is the "misleading EXIF that needs fixing"? If you are meaning the PD Mark, then that doesn't seem to be "misleading" anyone except Fae.
Most JPGs downloaded from these zoom viewing apps have no or little EXIF. This is a shame and can mean the photographer or scanner goes uncredited. But also it often means the JPG lacks a colour profile. Although it can be assumed to be sRGB, there is significant benefit in embedding this in the JPG, so that all viewers see the correct colours. The EXIFTOOL can extract sRGB profiles from one JPG and embed in another, though in fact most such profiles are copyright. Ha! Hidden inside all our free images are chunks of copyright belonging to Adobe or Microsoft, etc. You can get a very high quality and totally free sRGB profile by downloading Argyll CMS. -- Colin (talk) 13:53, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
I have to fully agree with Colin here, additionally although Jan Arkesteijn’s uploads are in fact a manipulation of these works of art many of them actually do illustrate interesting alternative colour schemes which in many cases make the depicted scenes look more realistically. Alternative variants of existing art works are well within scope as they illustrate an alternative style and/or interpretation of existing works, it’s almost ironic that Fæ suddenly acts as if we now have years of “Jan Arkesteijn backlog” that will cost volunteers time and creates whole category trees filled with various categories completely based on Jan Arkesteijn uploads we need to “fix”, I’m not against these maintenance categories, per se, in fact I’d welcome them as Jan Arkesteijn has done quite a lot of “damage” with Adone PhotoShop, but the template Colin suggested is probably enough and it beats the deletion of educational content simply because Fæ only perceives the EXIF data to be false, but even in that case the creation of a potential template like {{Inaccurate EXIF}} or {{Possibly inaccurate EXIF}} would be more beneficial than outright deletion. In fact a couple of months ago I uploaded illustrations of banknotes from a 19th (nineteenth) century book from the Manchu Qing Dynasty which someone on the English-language Wikipedia pointed out to me were fantasies created by historians to sell fake banknotes for high prices to Chinese collectors and unfortunately many today still believe these lies, eventually I just added the information that the depicted banknote was of a fantasy, but the fantasies themselves (though inaccurate) can still be used to illustrate fraudulent ways that collectors were being scammed in purchasing fake banknotes in Imperial China, I don't see Jan Arkesteijn’s works as much different and personally find his versions created with Adobe PhotoShop to look more pleasing, but do agree that the original should be uploaded and used when illustrating the referenced works. It’s better to upload the originals with correct EXIF data as separate files and tag the inaccurate ones than waste all of our time with deletion discussions and unnecessary removal of EXIF data. Whenever I see people use our files they usually link to Wikimedia Commons or even a version of that page on the Meta-Wiki or the English-language Wikipedia and almost always use the license specified in the description. Also EXIF data often isn't accurate as a book that’s digitised in 2016 but published in 1766 will state that the book is from “2016”, would anyone suppose that reusers will think that the book was published in the year that it was digitised? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:16, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
Can I be quite clear that, AFAIK, the only thing wrong with Jan's JPG is the white/colour/saturation. It is that aspect which I think warrants an {{Inaccurate}} that would discourage use on projects or by others -- for those images where we don't have alternatives that are as high resolution/quality. There is no consensus that there is anything wrong with the EXIF. In another JPG, there was a query about licence version, but in this, all I can see is Fae upset that Jan tagged the image as PD in BOTH the file description template AND in the EXIF. Jan also may have added some other tags concerning title/author/source, and only Fae seems upset about this additional embedded metadata information. He has this idea that EXIF is "official" and represents a statement by the "source". Nobody else shares this view. So let's not go down the route of {{Inaccurate EXIF}} nonsense. I care very much that artworks on Commons that are sourced from professional institutions are visually identical to their sources, because that's just being respectful and honest, and any edited versions must be clearly indicated in their filename. Nobody gave two hoots about EXIF tags till Fae started gravedancing on Jan's uploads. -- Colin (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Müller piano[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Müller piano Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:25, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

  • This is one of many images by this uploader to be deleted as copyvios, although the others haven't become external legal matters. I suggest that we should nominate all of their other uploads for deletion, at least any that are claimed as "own work" or where the licensing trail is other than perfectly clear. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 14 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Actually, it looks like someone beat me to it, just didn't remark here. Deletion request is Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by آیناز تدین. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

November 15[edit]

Free Music Archive will be shut down tomorrow[edit]

Hello.

This wonderful website Free Music Archive will be shut down tomorrow (it's writted here).

I've started to upload here [14] musics under free licenses.

This link permitt to access at free licensed musics (PD, CC-by, CC-by-sa).

--ComputerHotline (talk) 10:07, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Although it would be wise to import now, they've stated that "nothing will be lost" and that everything will be migrated to the Internet Archive so thankfully we could import for there, but is there a tool to import Audio files from the Internet Archive? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
As me and Donald said above we really need an importing tool ..... whilst Video2Commons is great it's not practical to upload one file at a time, Unless a tool is built then I'm afraid it's more than likely you'll be left to it on your own, Thanks for your work in uploading these though it is appreciated. –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Ok. --ComputerHotline (talk) 14:08, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Art Institute of Chicago has 50,000 images on their website designated as CC-ZERO or free of copyright restrictions - should they be uploaded here?[edit]

Hello, apologies if this is the wrong place to post this, I've squirreled away in the background across various Wikimedia wikis over the years but have had little interaction with the community on Commons.

I've recently been doing some work improving image descriptions of pieces at the Art Institute of Chicago. Most of this has consisted of finding pieces in their catalog and copying back the relevant information here. While working on some of the ancient Greek pottery (as good a place to start as any), I noticed that the image for the piece was CC0 licensed. Clicking through, I discovered this license notice which states that the Art Institute provides, on their website, fifty thousand images which they offer licensed under a CC0 license (or images of two-dimensional works they believe to be in the public domain.)

As best I can tell, there hasn't really been a large-scale effort on Commons to upload and categorize these images. This collection may be particularly helpful for their 3-dimensional objects (such as the Greek pottery I was exploring above), where photographs of ancient sculptures aren't in the public domain under US copyright law. Most of the images they provide are high-resolution and high-quality, since they also exist as the Art Institute's internal references.

Should I help kickstart an effort to get these images onto Commons? elektrikSHOOS (talk) 17:43, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

  • We discussed this (VP?) recently. There's an issue where they claim CC0, but annotate this as "accreditation required", so it's not a valid licence. We shouldn't upload such images until that's resolved (Using CC-by would be fine, but we'd need some traceable agreement on that first). Andy Dingley (talk) 18:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Isn't that backward? If they license the image under CC0, and then say that some additional this-or-that is required, doesn't that invalidate the additional this-or-that, and not the CC0? GMGtalk 19:59, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • If I'm interpreting their license page correctly, they have it licensed as CC0 with the attribution as more of a suggested "please give us credit" than as a legally binding requirement. Either that or someone on their web portal doesn't understand CC licensing. I can probably email someone at the Art Institute and get clarification. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 22:03, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I do not see a demand for AIC credit. https://www.artic.edu/image-licensing states the images are CC0. (In the T&C linked page, they state "Creative Commons Zero (CC0) license". There is no doubt about which license.) The image licensing page then states, "The museum requests that you include the following caption with reproductions of the images: Artist. Title, Date. The Art Institute of Chicago. This information, which is available on the object page for each work, is also made available under Creative Commons Zero (CC0)." I do not see a conflict. The images are CC0; there is a request but not a demand for AIC attribution. They only request the caption information, and they make it clear the requested addition is also CC0. Commons is free to ignore the request, but in the normal course of copying the files, we would identify the source as the AIC website. Glrx (talk) 20:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
see also Commons:Village_pump#Art_Institute_of_Chicago; Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/10#Art_Institute_of_Chicago, and Category:Collections of the Art Institute of Chicago. if you want to do a mass upload, you will need to Python, or GWtoolset, or request here Commons:Batch uploading after evaluating artist copyright. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
Given that there are a lot of these, I think we'd want to do a special license template that both indicates the CC-0 and passes along the request for attribution. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 15 November 2018 (UTC)
They do state on their own licensing page that while they believe all of the images are free of additional copyright restrictions they can't guarantee they are copyright free internationally for some of the more recent works. (Both Nighthawks and American Gothic, for instance, are not copyrighted in the US due to lack of renewal but may still be copyrighted in other countries.) A batch upload would have to (obviously) include human review to verify all of the images are in fact free to upload. elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2018 (UTC) (actually, both of those paintings are already on Commons so my point here is a bit moot, but you get the idea elektrikSHOOS (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2018 (UTC))

Free Music Archive : Update: Closing Date Pushed to Dec 1[edit]

Due to a few very generous donations, we are able to keep the site up, as-is, through the end of this month. We will still not be adding any more new uploads to the collection and are proceeding with our plans to back up the entire current MP3 collection at archive.org.

We are in talks with a few organizations who have very substantial interest and whose values align with ours. As negotiations continue, I may write more updates here as we move along and may be able to announce a new parent org for FMA in the coming weeks. Nothing is set in stone though so we still face shutdown, and if you have questions or want to help, please contact us using the Closure Comment form (below).

In the meantime, donations large and small do keep the lights on here, and we are so thankful for your support!

source

--ComputerHotline (talk) 22:51, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This is great news! Too bad that the Wikimedia Foundation doesn't spend any of its endowments on creating a team that "adopts content" and helps with batch uploads, it's sad that we don't have a taskfoce + noticeboard to deal with these types of things, I know that people like can do mass-imports but I really don't know of any other contributor here that does anything at their level, I'm just glad that there's a bigger chance now that the Free Music Archive will be saved. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 16[edit]

Request for protection[edit]

I am an administrator on the English Wikipedia. I would like to request that my user talk page be protected from edits by IP users; there is a block evader(Vincent9000)on Wikipedia who, when detected, comes here and vandalizes my user talk page here(since they can't there). They did so today both as an IP and by registering a vulgar username attacking me. 331dot (talk) 09:23, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

✓ Done Semi-protected for 3 months. --jdx Re: 10:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Category page with categories (how to)[edit]

Hi, re Category page [15] If I include three categories, it is listed under last category letter only. How to categorize, to assign three categories in order to appear the item in three categories on the page [16] Under letters K S and M

thx (Grybukas (talk) 09:52, 18 November 2018 (UTC))
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Grybukas (talk • contribs) 10:33, 17 November 2018‎ (UTC)
  • @Grybukas: Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, pages can only appear in a category once.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:51, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

November 18[edit]

Flickr images[edit]

Hello, I think the feature of direct transfer of files from Flickr using UploadWizard should be extended to autoconfirmed users also because I don't know why users need to be "trusted" to upload images that will automatically go through a review process. See more information about this at this link.--√Tæ√ 07:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@:, pardon, I probably should've specified Commons:Village pump/Proposals, but if we had a technical village pump that would've been more appropriate. But before this could become a proposal we could debate the pro's and con's here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:35, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Suggestion for witing and running old postcard scripts[edit]

Out of the discussion in Commons talk:Structured data/Get involved/Feedback requests/Statements 2#Garbage in garbage out:

I agree that we can also do the clean up of bad metadata after the convertion, but some actions dont have to wait and can facilitate the convertion. It would help if we can relialably identify the old post card files. All such files should use the 'postcard' template in the source text.
  • One should run and create scripts that convert all mention of 'carte postal', 'briefkaart', 'postal cart', etc into the template in a similar way as the date scripts that convert the diverse inputted date formats.
  • In principle if a post card category is used, their should be a 'postcard' template in the source text. However there are exceptions: For example a picture of a post card stand at a tourist shop. In reverse a 'postcard' template in the source text should always require the inclusion of minimall one postcard category.
  • Many checklists are posible: 'Post card' in the file description but not in the source, etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

It would if one old postcard example is used in the projectpage with an postcard editor such as Nels. In Wikidata the postcard property would be very usefull in searches.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

An typical example of a usefull file needing licence cleanup: File:Concarneau 028 L'arrière-port et le quai d'Aiguillon dans les premières années du XXème siècle.JPGSmiley.toerist (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Alvan Holmes Corner[edit]

I recently had three images deleted and have not had a satisfactory explanation as to why. I now understand that EVERYTHING FOUND on the Internet is copyrighted, but don't understand that especially when the source is something like https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond01stge/page/n9. a book that is 138 years old, and obviously from a public source.

So does that mean that the only images that can be posted are ones that are produced by the user? The upload wizard choices for source aren't clear, they all point to a copyright license. How does one prove that a file, not found on the internet, is eligible for uploading? If I take a picture of something and want to upload it then how can I prove that I am the author?

Similarly I have a cousin who takes a picture of something, sends it to me for publication in an article. How do I cite them? How to I prove that they are the source?

I posted an image Farrar's Island Today.jpg, it was removed. The source is in the upper left hand corner of the jpg. Chesterfield County Department of Parks and Recreation and Virginia Department of Game and Insland Fisheries. How is a drawing produced at taxpayers expense not in the public domain. I know that the Upload Wizard says US Government, but I am a taxpayer and anythng produced by using my taxes is in the public domain, as I have paid for it through my taxes.

Similarly someone deleted File:Farrar_Coat_of_Arms.jpg|thumb|This is a picture of the Farrer Coat of Arms, from the Visitation of London. Farrar CoA is same sans the Gorget]] I anticipate the answer that the file was found on the internet and EVERYTHING ON THE INTERNET IS COPYRIGHTED, even though the source is 138 years old like https://archive.org/details/visitationoflond01stge/page/n9 .

When I compare that innocent offering to something like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Coats_of_Arms_of_the_Crown_of_Castile I am aghast. Those colorful and beautiful examples of coats of arms were surely not drawn by the person(s) who posted them, they obtained them from somewhere, if not on the internet, then from a book. How can they be lgit and mine not? What do I have to do to post my own CoA? Pay someone to draw it? And then how do I prove that I am the source or that my cousin who is the source, has given me permission to use it?

Alvanhholmes (talk) 18:10, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: File:Farrar Coat of Arms.jpg is not deleted.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:13, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, I can see a few versions of that file, and both joint editors of that book have been dead for more than 70 years so I don't see that being deleted. Abzeronow (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
@Alvanhholmes: The US Federal Government has carved out an exception in Federal copyright law for works by Federal employees doing official duties, documented directly in Category:PD-USGov license tags. That does not apply to works by State or Municipal employees or anyone else in the US, except in half a dozen States etc. as documented in Category:PD-USGov license tags (non-federal). You are certainly free to lobby your County and Commonwealth legislators to exempt County and Commonwealth employees' official works from Federal copyright law, preferably retroactively.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

I guess it is back. Just before I wrote the above. I was editing a draft on John Farrar and noticed that my link to the Coat of arms had a <nowiki> in it I would guess it was undeleted.

I still don't have an acceptable answer as to why the Westwood Letter from Lord Farrer is not acceptable. Not that I need it as their is an acceptable citation about it on the internet and in my draft.Alvanhholmes (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2018 (UTC)


I would also like to have an explanation of how image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolas_de_Largilli%C3%A8re,_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_Arouet_dit_Voltaire_(vers_1724-1725)_-001.jpg Is in the public domain, when there is this image on the internet https://www.mcsimonwrites.com/13-voltaires-quotes-that-lighthoused-my-life/

Am I to believe that someone went to the museum, took the photograph and then uploaded it to commons? Next thing I am suppose to believe is that the msimmonwrites image was downloaded from Wiki. I can’t accept that explanation if offered, too much difference in the two.

The point is that there appears to be clever users that know how to successfully upload images otherwise found on the internet. An example of Historical markers used by the various states, especially Virginia. They put these markers there to attract tourists, and in that regard they are not only public domain, but the state benefits financially from as much advertising as possible, and Wikipedia is a source of advertising. A person reading a wiki page because they are personally or emotionally related to the subject and sees a marker sign is motivated to visit that site, knowing that they have found it when they see the sign.

A Virginia Historical marker Farrar’s Island K199 was deleted. So I have joined waymarer to get the email address of the person that uploaded it. Sent email asking permission to use their photo.

I am sure that I will get it, but the question is how can I upload it after I get their permission? There does not seem to be a suitable option at uploader. Finally I visited the Guilford Court House page. There are a lot of great images, some from the US government thus apparently in the public domain,but there were a couple of questionable origin. One of them “The Battle of Guilford Courthouse” came from either history.com or battlefields.org There are most certainly hundreds of more images like these and I am going to search them out. As I don’t understand how one user’s uploads are permissible and anothers aren’t and both came from the internet. What technique was used by the user to upload images that were not in the public domain. Alvanhholmes (talk) 19:31, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

File:Farrar Coat of Arms.jpg has never been deleted, otherwise there would be an entry in its deletion log. File:Nicolas de Largillière, François-Marie Arouet dit Voltaire (vers 1724-1725) -001.jpg was apparently scanned from a book when it was first uploaded. This is perfectly acceptable when the original painting is out of copyright, which is the case here. The information template on that file page referring to the museum was added after the first upload and describes in detail where you may find the original work. It does not mean that someone went to the museum and took a photo of the painting (which would also be allowed).
As to the Virginia marker, File:Farrar's Island Marker K199.jpg was deleted because you took the file from the internet seemingly without permission from the original photographer. At Commons, we have a whole Category:Historical markers in the United States by state with hundreds of images, but all these were either taken by the uploaders themselves or have been explicitely licensed for free use elsewhere.
Finally, you might not believe it but as far as I can see, the images in Coats of Arms of the Crown of Castile were all made by users of Wikimedia Commons either by drawing the images themselves or by combining existing heraldic elements from our collection of free files. Commons:WikiProject Heraldry has a number of very skilled contributors. Some of them may even be professional graphic artists dedicating their free time to the Commons. De728631 (talk) 20:08, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Alvanhholmes asked several more questions on my talk page. Anyone who can answer, please, do. Usually I would mentor a new user in cases like this, but I have way, way too much to deal with right now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:46, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

De72863 Thank you for your precise and detailed explanation. I really needed that. I am beginning to understand all that is involved and required now.

One more question: I have contacted the the person at waymarker that posted the Farrar's Island Marker, asking for permission to use it. I can find no other source for it on the internet. Her name is Donna Skinner. She is also the source of the file "Farrar's Island Today". If she gives me permission how do I indicate that? I can't upload it again, so I would have to notify some administrator would I not?

Thanks Alvanhholmes (talk) 22:16, 18 November 2018 (UTC) Correction to the above. My relative at www.farrarinc.net is the owner of Farrar's Island today I just sent him a copyright request. The owner of Farrar's Islnd marker is talluswm and I sent them an email as well, awaiting their reply before I send a copy of the copyright authorization. Alvanhholmes (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Alvanhholmes: ask the copyright holder to send their permission to OTRS. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

November 19[edit]