Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2021/07.

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:


 
Village pump in Sabah, Malaysia. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

July 23[edit]

Page creation logs[edit]

1947 in Vietnam

While attempting to view all public logs of "Category:1947 in Vietnam" I can only see that it was deleted, but oddly enough I cannot see who created the category before it was deleted. How can I do this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: You (all of you) are all welcome to join me in asking for page creation logs here on Commons at phab:T12331.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:, odd, when I proposed new technical features through the Phabricator (like the ability to view all images in a category and all of its subcategories) they get turned down because "The Phabricator is only for reporting bugs", anyhow, I think that it would be wise to start a new Phabeicator task for Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

!Voting (add page creation logs)[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, did the people at the Phabricator really asked for "community consensus" for a technical feature that just allows people to view more information???!!! Wow, basic improvements always need "community consensus" but mass-deletion and mass-blocking tools ⚙ get introduced with minimum discussion because of "community needs". I think that before someone at the Phabricator asks for "consensus" for these things they should first ask themselves "How would this feature possibly disadvantage anyone?". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a no-brainer. More information is better, and page creation logs are an invaluable tool.  Mysterymanblue  17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnat (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • {{{s}}} Per Donald Trung, is there is a downside to including this? My impression was that the database already has this information but isn't displaying it on Commons on a technical level. Else, it's fine if starting it will have page creation logs from now. I also don't get why it wouldn't also be a tool in reconstructing or discussion category organization, which is the main source of issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Flickr account holder request[edit]

Anyone with a Flickr account, could you ask the uploader of this Flickr file (File:Little BeeEaters by Bob Wagener (49494648073).jpg at Commons) for the location where it was taken, please? The answer should be somewhere in Africa, but Africa is a huge place, and the file is pretty useless without the location - but very useful with it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks like the Flickr account is a club, not an individual, which could make this tricky. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Still worth a try though! The request might get through. I'd do it myself if I had a flickr account. - MPF (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: - excellent, thanks! Now to wait and see if there's any reply . . . :-) MPF (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Diffusion of categories of artists[edit]

Hi Autofun6, I’m struggling to understand why you created this category containing 5 files. We only have 14 paintings by this man. Why do we need to look in two different categories to view them. One of the advantages of being an independent catalog rather than a museum website is that we can offer a viewing of all the paintings of an artist in one place and you’ve just thrown that away. It’s maybe ok if you have multiple screens. How can you compare pictures against each other, if you split them up? We already have a problem with people uploading the same picture multiple times, because of poor or no appropriate filing. These pictures were already catted to Yale. There was no need to diffuse this mans work by separating them out. Again what are you trying to achieve here. Please tell? Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It was to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art. If you want to be able to see all of the artist's works in one place, I would think a gallery would be the place for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, however the paintings are not defined by their museum rather they are by by their artist. You have diffused the artist in this case.
A painting is defined by its content, not by the wall of some museum its hanging on.
This over diffusion of of cataloguing images is robbing us of the opportunities of matching a painting to its original draft; be it sketch or wash. We can no longer see it against it's lithographic version either. Or its companion piece in a set if we only have a painting of one and an engraving of the other. To do that we need multiple screens, 4 or more as described here in this paragraph. Separate screens may be required, open, to view a single image's different versions I.E. sketches, paintings, wash (watercolour), Lithograph / engraving. etc, aquatint, other picture in a set...
If you want to do something like this, obviously you legally can. Should you not also copy the images in the main cat, as we do by images from Google art project?
As an aside galleries are a waste of resources, they need maintenance and that's seldom done. They get in the way of search, because they have precedence they are always presented first. They are fundamentally more suited to Wikipedia than here. They're for a far different audience. Anybody that's catting unknown files in a serious way just doesn't use them. Broichmore (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the "over diffusion" complaint, especially that such diffusion is "robbing us of the opportunities of matching". I have felt the same way. This applies to other categories as well. Perhaps one of the problems of using Cat-a-lot without actually looking at each image? Krok6kola (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The "diffusion of categories" complaint seems to be a case of wanting to see the images instead of wanting to find them. The category system enables us to search in more dimensions, including the question of where, when it comes to items like paintings. At the time of writing, the category Category:Paintings by museum by artist covers the location of the works of 538 painters, and - when fully categorized - the works of Marcellus Laroon the Younger would fit neatly there. So the category provided by Auntof6 is just one step in the right directon, and should be applauded instead of criticized. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I pondered this myself, when I considered creating Category:Paintings by Gustav Klimt in the National Gallery, Prague. It would have exactly 2 paintings (Category:Water Castle (Klimt) and Category:The Maiden (Klimt)), if their online catalogue is up-to-date. It seems that creating the category is one step in the right direction (towards completeness). Aavindraa (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rsteen:Paintings by Pablo Picasso are spread over a 1000 museums.
Rather than have one place to find them, your advocating that creating 1000 sub cats to store and separate them into, is an optimal improvement on seeing? The preferred way. Are you?
Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?
The only reliable search query on commons (even better than artist), is museum ownership, but that tells you nothing about the content of the file. You seem to think content is secondary, or that filing images is better served by classification rather than the visual. Really?
There is an ongoing argument on wikimedia, on whether or not "museum ownership" should be a hidden cat or not. If its hidden then its a supplementary cat as I alluded to earlier. IMO they should not be hidden cats, but they are supplementary and secondary.
If some admin makes your "by museum" cats hidden, What then? Broichmore (talk)

If you want all pictures on one page, then put them on a page (a gallery). Categories are not pages. -- Discostu (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

More than once a museum has a picture and exhibits it to the public, but it is not the property of the museum. The heirs of some famous artworks have no place to keep it safe and they often want the public to be able to have a look on the picture and can not do it in their own homw. So there is some kind of agreement that the museum takes care of the security, pays insurance and in return can show it to the public.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Broichmore. To answer your question: "Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?" No. I am definitely not saying that. You should be able to find a painting (or other works of art) by an artist, according to its subject, its location and the time of its inception. That is why I write about organizing categories along different dimensions. For an example, see Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi rsteen, Picking out a simple artist like Carl Frederik Aagaard doesn't really prove your point. The cats represented look very neat, but the content of each is easily found in the commons database using simple SQL or even simpler search terms ...
Where is it shown that File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Rosenborg ved vintertide - 1853.png is representative of a snow scene; (for example) by being assigned to Winter in Denmark (its only suggested by the title in another language), or Snowy landscapes in Denmark, and or in Trees in snow in Denmark.
What about File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Parti fra Capri.png where does it indicate this is of Paintings of palms.
To find these, you have to see them, if your catting is not driven by including key words into the descriptive text.
Surely that's what users are presumably looking for, and need from our catting; stuff that defies a simple search.
One good thing, is that, though you don't say it, the entire body of work is located in one place at Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Sadly to get to it, you have to click through Category:Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard by subject, and finally to Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard to find it.
I know that it (Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard) represents his entire collection here, because I have 3 screens. Not everybody does.
Still its an improvement on your other showpiece Category:Carl Locher where there is no central focus, anywhere.
This sort of catting IMO is not helpful. Just an opinion. It might not do any harm with simple one trick ponies like Aagaard or Locher, but it is inadequate for Picasso, or Turner, or indeed almost any 19th century engraver you could name.
Going back to the main point about the more interesting Marcellus Laroon the Younger, why are we hell bent on diffusing any artists body of work into separate cats, when there is no need for it. prost. Broichmore (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The underlying issue here is the fetish for creating multi-dimensional intersection categories. There should be a better solution. Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art really only needs to be an intersection of Category:Paintings and Category:Collections of the Yale Center for British Art. Category:Paintings might be a bit big and difficult to navigate without a decent tool. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to the policy about over-categorization. Section: Major categories. Its clear that museum ownership is a different branch from an artists body of work. Therefore its a necessity to copy the files from "Paintings by Marcellus Laroon the Younger in the Yale Center for British Art" back into "Marcellus Laroon the Younger"?
A sign of over catting is where you have to open two screens to see the same subject matter or not?
Again this artist is defined by their body of work not the museum he's hanging in. Broichmore (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Isn't forcing file's title to be its url a previous limitation[edit]

Hi, isn't the Common's feature of having the image's title as its url a previous limitation of mediawiki software? I think this issue was resolved specifically for Wikidata q-items.

Now that Wikidata have the feature of changing title without having to change url, shouldn't Commons also adopt it? So that photographers will be able to upload without having to worry about giving the best title before uploading. Sadly uploader crashes often when uploading several/big files. Wish there was a Draft feature for files to keep them before giving titles and detailed discriptions —Vis M (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vis M: You should be able to draft a file description page and filename locally before uploading with our experienced uploader page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Introducing aliasing is always problematic and always causes problems at the same time it offers solutions. Having one official name for an image is a feature, not a bug. If once uploaded, a file name is needed, there's always {{Rename}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Something like first uploading to a draft area akin to Special:UploadStash (mw:Manual:UploadStash), and then given a name and description before publishing would be very useful. —Vis M (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Youtube also has a "draft" space before publishing. I think same should be implemented for Commons, where the photographer needs to specify only the license & source when uploading. Perhaps then the community also can help to add title, complete description, categorization, etc. This would increase productivity, decrease crashes, and result in more uploads as it is currently a tedious process. This would also help with uploading unidentified organisms, which have to identified using inaturalist.org, etc. —Vis M (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Museum object not an artwork[edit]

What template can I use for a museum/archive object that is not an artwork, lets say an ordinary object kept in a museum or archive. I want a template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". I can only see template:artwork. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the "ordinary object"? Copyright subsists not in "artworks," but rather in "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (with the exception of useful articles). For example, sports trophies, taxidermy, and currency are not generally considered "artwork," but are copyrightable. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This wasn't a question about copyright templates, its about the information template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". Do we just call everything in a museum an artwork, or do we have a different template for say Abraham Lincoln's hat in a museum, or a tin of mustache wax belonging to president Taft? . --RAN (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
For a three-dimensional object, the template "Art Photo" may be preferred to the template "Artwork". Many pages on Commons use the template "Art Photo" for museum objects that may not be artworks. Although the names of the templates use the word "artwork" or "art" and their documentation says that they are for artworks, templates are tools, not rules. Those words will not be displayed in the actual use if you don't want them to be displayed. Only the fields used are displayed. Thus, the templates are adaptable to many cases. The parameter "institution=NameOfMuseum" can be used to display "NameOfMuseum" in the field "collection". If you prefer, can use the template "Information" with an additional parameter such as Other fields = {{Information field|Collection|NameOfMuseum}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021[edit]

In Category:Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021, items of "Khalili Collection Islamic Art" appear, even if they are already categorized as Category:Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

for that only User:MartinPoulter can answer why he included {{Uncategorized}}.
i remember a bot would remove the uncat template in this case in the past but i dont know if it's still active.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Io Herodotus: This results from how I configured my Pattypan template for a bulk upload, which I only noticed after. I am going to go through the recent bulk upload and add additional categories, removing those templates as I go. I clean my mess. MartinPoulter (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks[edit]

A proposal to limit the use of checkuser blocks so that a default of standard blocks, and therefore a standard public appeal process can apply to all cases where the checkuser evidence is not critical has been opened at:

This should be a non-controversial amendment to the block policy as our project's, and all other Wikimedia projects, ethical default is to maximize transparency and accountability whenever reasonable to do so.

Thanks -- (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Get notifications about a single discussion thread. (2021)[edit]

Hello, all.

Soon (early August), the Beta Feature for "Discussion tools" here will be updated. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. If you enable the Beta Feature, then you will get this. Otherwise, you won't see it.

You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL. For example, if you click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump?dtenable=1 you will see new [subscribe] buttons. If you click to subscribe to this thread, then every time someone adds a new comment, you will get a notice via Special:Notifications. (It won't annoy you with separate notifications for typo fixes or additions to comments, just for new comments.)

I'll be subscribing to this thread, so please feel free to subscribe and reply here, if you want to test it out.

I have found this especially helpful for cross-wiki communications, so I have asked the Editing team to prioritize Wikidata and Commons for this feature. I am very interested in learning what you all think, and if there are changes that would help you. You can reply here, ping me to another page, or post your thoughts to mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications (the central page for this feature).

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

let's see what happens when the section heading is changed.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tested it and the button shows. This is just what I needed now in an individual Discussion where the the participants keep forgetting to ping me. Ta Zezen (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Changing the section heading should not cause any problems for the notifications. I note that you only changed the spaces in the markup, which is probably not a representative test, but even if the heading was really renamed, you should continue receiving notifications. The software relies mostly on timestamps and comment authors to identify the subscriptions, because unlike section headings, they usually do not change. Matma Rex (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
tested one more time. how about now? :) --RZuo (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
test edit after changing heading.--RZuo (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Passed for me.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
do u still get notifications if someone doesnt sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZuo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo Nope. An unsigned comment can't be reliably distinguished from some formatting corrections, and we don't want to notify about those. (I work on this software.) Matma Rex (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm and I am sending my thanks directly to Matma hereby : I have signed up for notifications for this very thread as a test and I have received 2 of these, not 3. (Which is more than fine by me.)
As a side note: I have also noticed that this tool is also working in at least one smallish project that seems to not have received the relevant Tech News thereof yet. Zezen (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The ?dtenable=1 "secret code" should work on all the wikis, but you have to put that in for every page individually, which is inconvenient. The Beta Feature automates the code for 7 wikis so far (including Meta-Wiki). I hope that Commons will be the next to get this automated. Eventually, I think it will turn out to be very helpful for all those Wikipedia editors who drop a drive-by comment on Commons and then never come back to see your reply. (In fact, I think you're going to want occasional editors to be auto-subscribed to all discussions they participate in.)
In terms of how it works (tech stuff here), it's primarily keying off the timestamp of the first comment. This is more reliable (less likely to change, more likely to be unique) than the section heading. Also, through some sort of dev magic ✨, if someone decided to do a cut-and-paste move of this whole conversation (or at least the first post) to another page, all of ours subscriptions would transfer with it. This means that if someone posts on the wrong section of the Village pump, you can re-locate the discussion without people being upset that they lost track of it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

UploadWizard instructions do not align with actual VRT requirements[edit]

I first want to thank those who made MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-cc-subhead possible, at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/06#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Too often we impose an increasing number of requirements, without thinking about the UX side or attempting to ensure that those requirements are communicated clearly to the end user. Currently, the "Release rights" tab is laid out as follows:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Now, the problem here is that the stuff below "This file is/is not my own work" is collapsible, so if the user selects "own work" they will never see that VRT/OTRS is required for all previously published works even if they are the author. And when someone accuses them of copyright violations, they are rightfully aggrieved and may be discouraged from contributing further. Proposed new flow:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work, and it has never been published online in any form.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work, or it has been previously published online.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication. If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT and send us a copyright release. To avoid imminent deletion of this file, you should add {{subst:OP}} to this field.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Thoughts? -- King of ♥ 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support revised wording below only, oppose original wording: Seems likely to scare people away from uploading photos they also posted to social media. Should put a greater emphasis on the idea that photos uploaded to Flickr, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. do not require VRTS permission, but really only need the original poster to add a licensing line to the post.  Mysterymanblue  17:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    How about we change it to: If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT (either by adding a free license to the location of prior publication or by sending us a copyright release via email). If you intend to ask the copyright holder to send an email to us, you must add {{subst:OP}} to this field to avoid imminent deletion. Anyways, I don't think scaring a few people away is a regression from the current state of affairs, where we give instructions which are not clear or just plain wrong and so most of those photos get deleted anyways regardless of whether the uploader is actually the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ 18:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. I support the new wording, and have updated my !vote accordingly.  Mysterymanblue  23:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 31[edit]

Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee[edit]

Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.

This Committee will have around 15 members. It is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read the full announcement here.

Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy starting from next week here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are flags 3D objects?[edit]

I've always just assumed that they are and many museums prominently display copyright © symbols on scans of historical flags, but as often I see disputes arise over the historical accuracy of flags and often this stems from the fact that people just create their own drawings of flags based on sources (if they provide sources at all) it would be handy to have "the original" for comparison. But as I just assumed that flags are 3D objects I never imported scans of them to Wikimedia Commons, but then I realised, flags are flat, so are they even 3D objects? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the flag is laid flat, no IMO. Yes flags can have textures, but so do oil paintings. -- King of ♥ 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I do not think that flags can reasonably be construed as 3D objects, as their use of depth is typically a matter of practical necessity, minimal, unoriginal, and not an artistic choice made as part of the design process. A waving flag in the wind, however, is a 3D object, and a photograph of it can be separately copyrightable from the flag design itself. King of Hearts brings up an interesting point, though, in referencing oil paintings: sometimes painters carefully control the size of "globs" of paint to create a sense of texture or depth in an image; at what point does this make a painting 3D? The painting at issue in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was an oil painting, but it seemed to be rather "flat" in its style. Could a photograph of a highly textured painting be copyrightable as a derivative work of the painting? My guess is that it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  Mysterymanblue  00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue:, well, I think that an image like this (attempted isolation) probably won't qualify as a 2D object because the flagpole is included, but the same without the pole would. I think. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that if a photo mainly brought out the three-dimensionality of a painting, it could be copyrighted in its own right. Thinking of some Van Gogh works; also I.J. Berthe Hess and Frank Auerbach. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I am inclined to call the pole de minimis, as its visual dimensions are not large and it is not part of the main focus of the image.  Mysterymanblue  00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 01[edit]

FPCBot user message bug[edit]

If a user gets a notification about a promoted featured picture, and the nomination is not the first attempt, the link in the message will still lead to the page name of the first failed nomination. Other bots (Quality or Valued picture) might have the same issue, haven't checked. Look at my user page discussion section for an example. Anonimski (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anonimski: The best person to contact about that is KTC. 1989 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 02[edit]

Has something changed in Commons search integration with Wikidata?[edit]

I have a strong memory that Commons search engine worked in a slightly different way a few months ago. When I typed something in Search Wikimedia Commons searchbox, let's say Amsterdam, one of suggestions in the drop down list was obviously related to Wikidata, it said something like "Files depicting Amsterdam (Q727)", and the search results displayed images that have "depicts: Q727" in their structured data.

Has this changed? Is there a way to force this type of search when I need it? I tried to find it today, and failed :) --Tupungato (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Tupungato: in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there is an option Wdsearch: When searching on Commons, also include search results from Wikidata which could be activated. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tupungato:. Earlier this year, we removed the "files depicting..." feature from the search box, since the new search experience uses depicts as a search input. You can read more details in this Village Pump announcement. CBogen (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 03[edit]

Board Elections Postponed Until August 18th[edit]

Hello, all.

As you know, the Board election was due to open on August 4th. Due to some technical issues with SecurePoll, the election must be delayed by two weeks. This means we plan to launch the election on August 18th, which is the day after Wikimania concludes.

For information on the technical issues, you can see the Phabricator ticket here.

You can also read this announcement in other languages here.

We are truly sorry for this delay and hope that we will get back on schedule on August 18th. We are in touch with the Elections Committee and the candidates to coordinate next steps. We will update the Board election Talk page and this channel as we know more. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Invalid and illegal wiki maps[edit]

Hello, all.

if you look at these images uploaded to WikiCommens, you will see that all of them have been uploaded to WikiCommens without reference to any credible source. And in most of them, the regions, Armenians, Kurds, Persians, Arabs, as well as other ethnic groups have been introduced as Turkic and Turkic-speaking. ([1] In this map, you can see that the regions that have never been counted as Azerbaijan have been counted as South Azerbaijan, for example, the Kurdish regions of Makrian and Kurdistan province and the Persian regions of Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, etc.) – ([2] The map explicitly refers to Kurdish, Arab, Persian, Armenian, Georgian, and Talysh regions; The Kurdish and Arab provinces of Erbil, Kirkuk, Diyala, Salahuddin and Ninawa in Iraq, as well as the Persian provinces of Qom, Qazvin and Arak in Iran. In this invalid map, even the whole country of Armenia, which has a history of several thousand years in the region, is considered part of Azerbaijan! This map shows several provinces in Georgia as well as mixed areas in Turkey.) – ([3] In this map of Kurdish areas; Kermanshah, Sanandaj and Makrian, the Talysh regions of Gilan, as well as the Persian regions of Qom, Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, Karaj and even the capital of Iran «Tehran» are incorrectly except Azerbaijan!) – ([4] This map is also taken from [File:Idioma azerí.png|this map], but with the difference that a person whose account in Persian Wikipedia has been closed due to multiple accounts and violations of Wikipedia rules, has created it and to the Kurdish areas in the west and southwest, areas In the south and east, the Persians have invaded the Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as parts of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Georgia, and mentioned it with an Azeri majority!) – ([5] This map also has several errors in the Oghuz languages ​​regarding Turkish and Azeri. The Persian-speaking regions of Iran and the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, which I mentioned above, are among these two languages, for example, the city of Erbil in the Kurdistan region and the Kurdish city of Diyarbakir in Turkey, as well as the city of Tehran!) – ([6] The latest map also includes several mistakes in Eurasia!) Now I ask Wikinews administrators to remove incorrect files, such as the ones I mentioned, to prevent duplication between valid and invalid files. You may say that these areas may be among the disputed areas between Turks and other ethnic groups, but are Tehran, Yerevan and Erbil also among these areas? Thank you very much. Ahrir (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ahrir: You can tag any or all of these with {{Fact disputed}} and an explanation of your issue. However, Commons does not generally try to adjudicate disputes of fact when maps conflict. We leave it up to the various Wikipedias to decide which map to use. Not infrequently, Wikipedias in different languages draw different conclusions. It is not Commons' place to tell them which is right and wrong. Again: {{Fact disputed}} lets you raise the issues you've raised here in a more relevant place. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

August 04[edit]

Wealth of public domain images related to the founder of Renault Automobiles (Louisrenault.com)[edit]

I found this website about Louis Renault that contains a wealth of images related to him personally and the early years of the automotive company Renault. As I am already working on a lot of projects I can't adopt this one either, so anyone interested can import from this website, preferably categorise these files at "Category:Files from Louisrenault.com". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Flickr to Commons bot I could request upload from a set of URLs and add an OTRS pending template?[edit]

Hi all

Is anyone aware of a bot or other automated way I could request to upload around 300 images from Flickr the copyright holder wants to share on Commons but doesn't want to change the license on Flickr for? They want to share under CC BY-SA 4.0 which Flickr doesn't offer so I can't use Flickr2Commons.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @John Cummings: I take it that the current Flickr license is not an allowable one for Flickr2Commons? Because if they can come through Flickr2Commons, we can easily change the license with VFC once they are on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel yes its not an allowable one. Also the issue is that its just a list of URLs not a specific collection or their whole photo stream so using Flickr2Commons won't work very well. John Cummings (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If the Flickr user puts the files they want to donate in a Flickr album, this avoids the weirdness of listing URLs and the album can be uploaded as a block. I have a generic 'upload by album' script which can bypass everything else, and tweaking to change the license would be trivial. As 300 files is small, I'd rather not have to invest programming time in any significant customization beyond that. -- (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi (talk · contribs), thanks so much, so I just need to ask them to put it in an album and tell you the album? Would it be possible for your software to use my favourites list as an album so the Flickr guy at the organisation doesn't have to press 320 x 5 buttons? John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If they let others tag their photos, it would be easier to filter by a specific flickrtag, like "wikimediacommons", as detecting these is already in the code. You tagging their photos would be almost as easy, plus they can add more later using that system. -- (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks  :) Currently they don't allow this but I can ask, one other idea, can you use a gallery e.g this as a way to scoop them all up? This would mean I would only need to do 600 clicks which is pretty easy to churn through. John Cummings (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

August 05[edit]

Does anyone know any software to extract pages from a pdf as invidual svgs?[edit]

Hi all

I'm working with an organisation who have agreed to release a lot of graphs to Commons, however they only have them inside a 100+ page pdf. Does anyone know of a program that can easily (ie no command line stuff) allow someone to batch export pages from a pdf as individual svgs?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)