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
copyrightproposalstechnical
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

December 10[edit]

the caption thing[edit]

Thanks for adding it, I now added and translated my first caption.

Why doesn't it take the description from the {{Information}} automatically?

Also when I view the file at another wiki (not Wikimedia Commons), the captions utility widget is not present. --Gryllida (chat) 22:41, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

@Gryllida: there’s been a fair bit of discussion on the subject, here and at COM:VPP. Briefly, since the captions go into a database they’re licensed differently from file descriptions (CCo rather than CC BY-SA, I believe), and this feature is the first to appear under the auspices of the Commons-specific COM:Structured data effort.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:10, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
They are confusing and duplicate metadata for no clear benefit. I recommend ignoring them, or as many of us already have, disable them in your preferences. -- (talk) 23:17, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
I assume that by “disabling in your preferences”, you mean enabling the Hide-Captions gadget? If so, and for clarity on how many is “many”: according to Special:GadgetUsage, 50 out of 38,791 active users have it enabled (0.13%). Jean-Fred (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, that’s exactly the kind of metric that allows a good understanding of how a wiki works, Jean-Fred, good job. I’m one of those 50, btw. That thing, being absent from a file page’s wikitext, doesn’t fit anywhere my usual workflow, anyway. Not to say that individual descriptions of media items, as opposed to their categorization, is usually a wasted effort. -- Tuválkin 19:53, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    • But the measure doesn't include those like me who consider it a crappy idea, minimize the tool, but still want to be able to see what's going on when someone adds a caption to my photos (so far, more vandalism than good captions on those, by the way). - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
      Sure, this is not meant to be, nor can be, a mood barometer about Captions :)
      @Jmabel: Have you noticed a pattern in the vandalism? We can think of adding AbuseFilters to curb it. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@Gryllida: In case you have not seen it yet, you may be interested in Commons:File captions. If there are things on that page that are, say, confusing ; or if the explanations are unclear − please do point it out, either here or on the talk page (or feel free to edit the page directly). Jean-Fred (talk) 23:57, 12 March 2019 (UTC)
Considering the tiny size of our active community, 50 people making the effort to suppress captions, because they litter image pages with redundant chaff, is large, thanks for the count. -- (talk) 00:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
and getting tinier every day. but have no fear, you have turned off the functionality, even as they make your uploads more accessible. however, your custom template without a wikidata field images (File:The Dead Stretcher-bearer Art.IWMART3688.jpg) are on their own. how dare they interrupt your process. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 12:08, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
The only stats I have don't seem to show a decline in participation. As for my creation of the IWM template in 2013, making sarcastic comments because I did not use Wikidata several years before it was realistically useful, is beneath you, try doing some basic analysis before getting your shotgun out and blasting everyone please. Thanks so much. -- (talk) 09:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@: I don’t know how you define “Active community”, so it’s somewhat difficult to interpret your statement. However, there are (and have been for years) clear definitions used, Active editor (who make 5 or more edits in a given month) and “Very active editor” (who make 100 edits or more in a given month). Based on the data at stats.wikimedia.org (and unless I have made mistakes in my calculation), in January, Wikimedia Commons was the second most active community, on both metrics − behind en.wp, and just ahead of Wikidata (with de.wp and es.wp following). (As far as I recall, this has been the case since end of 2011 − although I can imagine Wikidata and Commons overtaking each other depending on the month). Based on this data (reproduced in the table below for convenience), I don’t think one can deem the Wikimedia Commons active community “tiny”.
Moving back to the usage of Hide-Captions Gadget: what we know is that 67 users enabled it − 16 of which have not edited in the last 30 days. So, regardless of how you want to define “active community”, the only way to interpret this number of 51 'non-inactive-users' (having edited at least once in the last 30 days) having enabled it is by comparison to the total number of 'non-inactive-users', which as I stated above, is 38,791 active users. The rest is speculation. You may choose to believe that these 50 users are not-only non-inactive-editors, but that all or most of them are of the 12,282 active-editors, or of the 2,190 very-active editors (or however else you may want to arbitrarily define “active”), and I can see the reasoning here (“the MostVeryVeryActive™ are the ones annoyed by this!”), but there is simply no data to back that up − the fact that almost a quarter (16/67) of the gadget users are non-active users (no edits in the last 30 days) would tend to disprove it.
Now, I don’t discard the feelings of these 51 users which obviously (at least at the point where they chose to enable the gadget) had a bad experience with Captions − in fact, I care so much about these users that I made the gadget for them in the first place ;-) I’m also aware, that the gadget is not necesarily the whole story as some users may have hidden captions directly in their common.css. Either way, the fact that 51 users did “make the effort” (aka: tick a box) to hide captions does say something ; but we have to stay realistic on how big that number is, and stick to the facts − that 0,13% of non-inactive users have hidden captions.
Thanks, Jean-Fred (talk) 09:26, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Active editors Very active editors
en.wp 71808 5172
commons 12282 2190
wikidata 12130 2159
es.wp 11521 757
fr.wp 9985 1072
de.wp 9619 1337
it.wp 7346 631
pt.wp 3995 309
Not sure I understand the point of stats from other projects, which are significantly different in nature to Commons. "Very active" by the definition you apply is almost meaningless, as 100 edits on Commons can be done in 5 seconds in 1 user action, using standard tools like cat-a-lot. I tend to look at User:Fæ/Userlist and the account names that regularly appear in discussions like DRs and noticeboards, these are the people that create 80%+ of all Commons content.
However this is a tangent, captions was rolled out without a meaningful consensus and has corrupted Wikimedia Commons by introducing a CC0 field for users on a project that since inception has been CC-BY-SA. This is fundamental, will constantly confuse new users, and stupid to get wrong in the first place. The only reason for doing this has been the covert take-over of Commons by Wikidata obsessives, not the long term interests of Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 09:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jean-Frédéric: You said that «we have to stay realistic on how big that number is, and stick to the facts». Well, I stick to the fact that you’re the one who brought up the matter of how many people are disabling captions. Nor , nor Jmabel, nor I ever said that captions are problematic because many people think so. I’d still think captions are a bad idea even if everybody else were positively in love with it — which is not the case. Obfuscating arguments about every new poorly designed contraption by bringing up numbers of users “using” it is what WMF sycophants usually do, not the carmudgeons «clinging to their Monobooks». -- Tuválkin 13:44, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
    Er: I recommend ignoring them, or as many of us already have, disable them in your preferences (emphasis mine). Jean-Fred (talk) 13:48, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Indeed, I just noticed it myself. Well, I cannot talk on ’s behalf, but it at least doesn’t read like he’s crowing that’s a big number, merely showing Gryllida that it is possible to disable this. -- Tuválkin 13:56, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
I used the definition I used because we need definitions to be able to talk about things (and then we can indeed argue how good the definition is) − otherwise such discussions are meaningless. You made the claim that our active editing community is tiny without defining the term − which made me curious and prompted me to dig into the data.
I do get your point regarding tools like Cat-A-Lot ; as for the data, Cat-A-Lot is enabled by 1,866 non-inactive-users, not quite the 2,190 very-active-users but close indeed (interestinly VisualFileChange is enabled by a mere 406? Could need some publicity :))
The comparison with other projects is made to avoid having numbers in a vacuum ; I’d say relevant at the very least is Wikidata, which certainly has both a very discrete editing pattern (1 action = 1 edit, one racks them up very quickly) and the large ecosystem of mass-edit tools.
Regarding whether this is a tangent: again, you stated that “many” users choose to disable it in their preferences − which again made me curious to check the actual data of the usage of the gadget (that I happen to have created, hence also my interest).
I think my point is that there is enough to criticize on the way captions were rolled-out (the issues you list, although I’m not sure how many would agree with “the take-over of Commons by Wikidata obsessives”, and rather file it as a conspiracy theory), and that the concerns were expressed clearly by unhappy/concerned users (scoop: I was also not fully happy with this roll-out), that we do not need to deviate from facts and eg inflate the numbers of folks who hid it in their preferences.
Jean-Fred (talk) 13:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
A "conspiracy theory" is only theoretical if there is no evidence of a conspiracy, even a tacit one. A Venn diagram of participants in the related discussions about captions, shows how Wikidata advocates have dominated the false perception that the Commons community ever wanted captions, ever asked for captions or ever established a consensus.
Right now, we still do not know what this WMF funded bonus "functionality" is for, what to do with existing copyright violations they create, or why it might be worth duplicating text in titles and descriptions in a uniquely CC0 text box.
Hm, an unnecessary captions box that encourages and misleads new users to commit systemic copyfraud. Which side of this do you want to be on? -- (talk) 14:30, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Note that Gadget-Hide-Captions is not the only thing interfering with the Wikidatan toy – I never used that gadget, for the record. There is also my amateur UI tweak and possibly some other solutions based on CSS. Certainly more than 51 Commons users are unhappy with the default settings in this respect. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sure, of course ; and to be honest I’m one of them, as I use Compact-Captions (again, I care so much about these users that I made two other gadgets for such user customisations :) Jean-Fred (talk) 17:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The long term goal is to replace file names by IDs so that there are no problems with renaming and languages anymore. As far as I know there where many similar wishes at the yearly technical wishes surveys. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:00, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Firstly there is no community consensus for such a freaky change.
Secondly, unique IDs for every file already exist. You are free to use them for projects, if you really want to. The use of automatically generated IDs is behind the scenes and has been since this project was first launched, there is no benefit to dropping filenames, which are easy for users to understand and reuse.
Thirdly, no, it's not a long term goal for this project. -- (talk) 17:27, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Do you want to make a survey about something if there is no example for an alternative? We first need a better working system before we can decide to delete the old. (OK, you could say the current system is working very well and no change is needed. I do not think so.) I do not know what "behind the scenes" should be at a wiki, everything is public and all tools are open source everyone invited to change something. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:59, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Are you saying that file names that are meaningless to everyone are better than ones that many but not all people understand? Seems a bit backward to me. - Jmabel ! talk 21:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Sounds like a quick way to stop everyone from using Commons, or maybe the intent is to turn Commons into a kind of file storage completely directed by Wikidata. It seems to be the strategy of Structured Data, so you'll soon have to create a Wikidata record to do anything significant on this project. The forcing of "Creator" to always map to a Wikidata record being a good example, if it does not, then that is flagged as an error. Super, let's have a vote on whether we want Commons to be entirely run by Wikidata wizards and any remaining obsessive Commoners can be slowly painted into the corners where we can be ignored. -- (talk) 22:16, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
You only will need these IDs when you make changes by a bot or other mass edit tools or if you embed these images, but I think no one is typing the filename to embed a image in a Wiki everyone copy-pastes the filename or uses the embed code. For the downloaded file you could generate the filename by the captions or get the file with the ID as name like what is your personal preference. --GPSLeo (talk) 22:29, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Unique IDs already exist. There is nothing to stop you using them, if you really wanted to. Clearly you cannot find a file by using captions because they are not unique. I am not sure where you are getting this from, hopefully not a Structured Data plan. -- (talk) 22:35, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: See Commons_talk:Structured_data/Archive_2018#The_future_of_file_names from April last year. Suffice to say, the suggestion of getting rid of file names was ... not ... well-received, and I would think might not be back any time soon. Jheald (talk) 23:33, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Who sayed soon? 2 or 3 years are a long time in the internet. --GPSLeo (talk) 23:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: I think the points made in that thread would be no different in three years, and probably no different in ten years. It may be possible that one will be able to additionally refer to files (or at least file pages) as M43219876, in analogy to Wikidata Q-numbers. But I see no prospect of file names disappearing. Jheald (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
You are probably right that (almost) no one is typing the filename to embed a image in a Wiki, but plenty of us are typing part of the file name into the URL bar of our browsers to get back to something we recently worked on. - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

March 13[edit]

Art in the metro of Brussels[edit]

Are the metro stations in Brussels 'public space' for the purposes of the FoP Belgian license. It is not very clear. There are many artworks in the metro: see Art Dans Le Metro.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

IANAL, only my legal conception. a) Railway stations including metro stations are public places, unless otherwise explicitly mentioned in a law and/or a case decision. b) Public interiors are to be treated same way as public exteriors, unless... (idem). c) in COM:FOP Belgium there is no mention of any restriction on metro stations and/or interiors. Given that all, d) I would say, no problem about metro station photos in Belgium. --A.Savin 15:24, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that these stations are closed of at nigth when the trains no longer run. So in a strict sense it the spaces are not permanently open. The public accessible spaces in the metrostation is compagny space, where the transport compagny in principle can impose its own rules. It can ask junks to leave the station. It is similar (except for the longer opening hours) to a shopping hall. Is a shopping hall a public or private space?Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, as said IANAL (and much less a Belgian one), but metro stations are public transport buildings, and public transport buildings are for me clearly places dedicated to the public, despite the fact that they may not be open 24h/7d and an entrance fee (=ticket charge) is required to enter. Shopping malls are places dedicated to public either, though of course some countries may have distinct (case)law on that. --A.Savin 16:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
There is a Category:Art in MIVB station, with examples, so it is no problem.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:05, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Archiving external links on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

As there seems to be consensus to archive links to external websites on Wikimedia Commons (Mobile 📱) this would actually need to be implemented with a bot (or by someone who wants a bot for this task), however as wants to important more content and as other users I've asked like Mike Peel don't have the expertise to archive external links someone should be able to archive them. I've seen several users who already archive their links so maybe someone who can run a bot to do this could take up this ask.

Should I otherwise file this on the Phabricator? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I didn't say I couldn't do it, I said it already existed at InternetArchiveBot, and that you should ask @Cyberpower678: to turn it on here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:23, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: My bad for misunderstanding you. 🙇🏻 --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:43, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Copied from "w:en:User talk:Cyberpower678#Wikimedia Commons (again)" (permanent link 🔗 / Mobile 📱).

"Please see this at Wikimedia Commons and if possible reply here, I thought that Fæ would run his bot as he has already bot-archived several links but he's too busy, if you need any advice on how to run file pages ask him. As I don't watch this page please reply on Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung (talk) 14:17, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trung, you need to be patient. I just got done making Wikidata work which was not an easy job for me. I'm only one person. You have filed multiple Phab tasks to have IABot run on Commons. Please just watch those tickets for changes. As long as they aren't closed, they are still on my radar.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 16:10, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, for some reason the ping didn't work. Anyhow could you post the relevant Phabricator tickets to the village pump there, maybe more people will invest their free time in them if they're made aware. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:28, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trung, How? They don't know how to set it up with IABot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 19:30, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
But they do have experience bot archiving links. For example see Fæ's attempts which were successful, but he says that he would rather focus on creating content. So there is already some precedent. --Donald Trung (talk) 19:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)" - Text released under CC BY-SA 3.0 unless otherwise noted

From what I get from the text he or she doesn't know how to set up the Internet Archive Bot for files but for whatever reason doesn't want to discuss it here where there are users with literally years of experience with files on Wikimedia Commons. @: and @Mike Peel: apparently there are Phabricator tickets filed for this, but as Fæ, as you have already successfully bot-archived external links 🔗 in the past could you give him/her the code needed for the task? I don't really watch the Phabricator that closely to know if either of y'all have responded to any of these tickets but since the two of you do massive operations with bots here I thought that maybe y'all could help out. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:35, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

In case anyone thinks that this shouldn't be hurried, we lost a great number of useful videos because of a license change which could've been verified if the licenses were archived, who knows how many free licenses we lose every day because of linkrot. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I absolutely did not say I didn't know how to set it up with Files. I absolutely did not say I wasn't working on it. Please stop misrepresenting my words. I have code modifications in the works to expand IABot onto commons. I did say you need to be patient. I spent a considerable amount of time adding Wikidata integration into IABot.—CYBERPOWER (Chat) 15:01, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Mount Kearsarge[edit]

Mount Kearsarge, Warner, United States (Unsplash).jpg
Found this in Category:Wilmot, New Hampshire. Disc was not enlightening. I would like to kindly inquire as to the possibility to get it out of there, as there seems to be no relation to the topic at hand. Or could somebody please tell me? Yours sincerely, --G-41614 (talk) 20:52, 14 March 2019 (UTC) No, really, I don't get the point of this pic in that category.
Ah, yet another out-of-scope Unsplash image with misleading categories. Those images were automatically categorized with the town based on the coordinates, though that's not useful for images like this where the location is irrelevant. I've added better categories. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2019 (UTC)
  • (Funny thing — back when we started adding stuff from Unsplash, the main issue was that their website almost never added additional info about their images’s locations, with minimalist legends and scrubbed metadata.) I would say that all photos could/should have geolocation, but surely, yes, for some (like scans) that’s a pretty irrelevant data nugget. -- Tuválkin 09:53, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 15[edit]

Communication tools[edit]

Please see Commons:Talk pages consultation 2019. Ignore the "talk pages" name; this isn't (only) about the Talk: namespace.

Nutshell: People complain about how hard it is to communicate, so the WMF has decided to do something next year (maybe something big, but probably something smaller) to make communication between contributors easier.

Your task: If you don't tell them what Commons wants, then they'll probably do whatever the Wikipedia editors want. So: Something to make it easier to coordinate Wiki Loves Monuments? A way to talk to Wikipedia editors without leaving Commons? Help with multi-lingual communication? Think about what you need to do every day, and what might make it easier for you, and then tell them. Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:33, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Images by vs. Photographs by[edit]

We have "Images by" and we have "Photographs by". Is "Images by" the standard for contemporary Wikimedia contributors and "Photographs by" for historic commercial photographers? I get the feeling this is what is implied, but it is not followed by everyone. RAN (talk) 20:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

For my personal user categories, I have "Photographs by" as a subcategory of "Files by", which also includes subcategories for maps and other non-photograph files. In that case, "Images by" would be neither accurate nor useful; however, most Commons photographers only upload photos and not other file types. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, it seems like the "Images by" for photographs only are outliers, but too annoying to migrate just to have harmonization. RAN (talk) 21:55, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
Collections often have non photographs. -- (talk) 23:16, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Creator templates[edit]

At one time the norm was to create a "Creator template" for each photographer or other creative person and add it to the top of the category such as seen here: Category:Photographs_by_Severin_Worm-Petersen, it was done sporadically because the template had to be created by hand, now they are created on the fly with Wikidata. Is there any consensus to automate the process and add them to all categories that contain the output of a creative person? RAN (talk) 22:01, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Creating such templates I think would be a generally good idea. As for adding them to categories, in many cases images of an artist's works may simply just be put all into the main category for the artist. As that would likely have a {{wikidata infobox}}, in such cases I would think showing a creator template as well would be unnecessarily redundant, and just clutter the page. But where there is a subcategory, specifically for the works of the artist, that in general would not have a wikidata infobox, then I can see that there could be a good case for showing the creator template instead. Jheald (talk) 14:15, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I am only suggesting it for the categories of the creative works themselves, not the person category, which would use the standard infobox. RAN (talk) 18:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, automating the creation of creator templates would be good. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:07, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 16[edit]

Mandatory categorization[edit]

This was written elsewhere by @Jheald:

Commons expects uploaders to make a reasonable attempt at decent categorisation. Uploaders that do not make such attempt, including large-scale upload projects, can expect to be blocked until they start to make such an effort.

Is this based on any policy? I find it unsettling and hope this is not accurate, as some people might be wholly unable to add categories, for lack of language skills, technical hurdles, or any of several imaginable impairments. (I’m saying this even though I think categorization is the most important job around and that categories are the glue that keeps Commons together.) And it’s no big deal for some of us to browse page after page of uncategorized images and use Cat-a-lot to add one or two cats to most of them and thus set the ball rolling by putting them where they can be further categorized later. (Less so for non-image files, but those are a relatively minor concern, in terms of sheer numbers.) -- Tuválkin 09:48, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

The comment was made, and can be found, in the context of two threads on the Commons talk:Structured data page, specifically this thread (on categorisation) and this thread (on GLAMs).
Possibly I overstated the position, but particularly I had in mind large organised upload projects. I do think we do expect such projects to make some reasonable attempt at categorisation, along the lines of the advice given at Commons:Guide_to_batch_uploading#Categories; and projects need to be aware that that expectation is not going to go away with SDC. In 2019 I don't think the community finds it acceptable for the images from such a project just to be dropped en-masse into an "images needing categorisation" dump category, with no further effort made. If a project did start doing that, I suspect they would be gently stopped and asked to think again, and not be permitted to go on uploading until they had a better plan for categorisation -- or at the very least not to upload uncategorised images at a faster rate than the community (or they themselves) could absorb and process. Jheald (talk) 13:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I would say that minimum expectation is have some meaningful category for the batch itself, such as Category:Harris & Ewing Collection. That is a meaningful persistent category with (usually) meaningful titles and descriptions that allow the images to be found through search even if they're uncategorized further (or for the purpose of categorizing them further). Still, a category like that can take hundreds of hours to sort properly, and it's not uncommon to have to spend 20 minutes trying to identify the subject of a single photograph because of a typo or misspelling. If we require GLAMs to commit hundreds of hours to highly granular categorization in order to donate their collections, I would say that most are simply going to opt out, as most won't have the resources to do so. So the question becomes do want that media, even if it means it may be years before it's all properly sorted? I'd say the answer is usually going to be yes, since even if a particular image is eventually categorized three years from now, the project is still better off in the long term. GMGtalk 14:35, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that we shouldn't expect donating organizations to do extra work to map their images to Commons categories. However, if the images have data already associated with them like tags or a location, I think Commons bot operators should make some effort to translate those to categories (my bot does this automatically with no intervention from me). The categories are often broad and not in a "final" state, but this accelerates the process of diffusing the images and probably saves editors a lot of hours across the entire lot. BMacZero (talk) 17:54, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
If someone is looking for examples, the recent Frank Bond uploads don't come with very useful tags, so they aren't a great example. Any of the Commons:Batch uploading/University of Washington Digital Collections uploads are a much better example (e.g. Category:Images from the Wilhelm Hester Photographs Collection to check). BMacZero (talk) 17:57, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
Nobody should ever be threatened with a block for poor categorization. It is far worse for the community to have 10,000 files categorized with "painting", "Paris", or "19th-century", than having the same files with only a collection category. Please avoid making statements that incorrectly represent Commons policies, especially when talking to GLAM representatives. Thanks -- (talk) 14:47, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
A block is certainly excessive, but I disagree that using very general categories is worse than having no categories at all. A lot of my batch uploads go into categories such as Category:Seattle, and I feel this makes it much easier for editors who are interested in the Seattle area (or whatever topic is concerned) to find the images and use their knowledge to diffuse them into more specific categories. If I didn't do that, a lot of the uploads would probably never be noticed or processed by anyone. I add collection categories and check categories, but much fewer people go looking for those. BMacZero (talk) 17:41, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
(Probably worth noting that these categories come from tag data at the source, they aren't just added willy-nilly to the entire collection. BMacZero (talk) 17:44, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
I agree that every leafward step files are made to take down the category tree is useful, serving to invite users with relevant knowledge to refine & diffuse them. There is the drawback that the addition of a single category immediately removes the uncategorized state, but this can be mitigated by use of the ‘(Batch) to be checked’ type of maintenance cats. When categorizing by only one or a few of several possible ‘dimensions’ (e.g. by location or main subject), or fairly coarsely because I’m not familiar enough with the pattern of subcategorization in a given area, I generally decline the system’s offer to remove a {{Check categories}} in the expectation that further improvements will eventually be made. It seems un-wiki-like to require everyone who touches a file to leave it in a near-perfect state of categorization (rhetorical exaggeration); ‘a little better’ should always be ‘good enough for the time being’. While I’m all in favour of discouraging thoughtless bulk uploads that create more work for others than they add value, that’s a somewhat subjective judgement to make, and blocks shouldn’t be on the table until users have shown themselves to be uncoöperative, uncommunicative, or decidedly at cross-purposes with the project’s aims.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 20:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)
we need to make a good category easier to do as a part of the mass upload process. right now upload wizard gives you a warning, but does not make suggestions. warning people, and blocking people are not a substitute for making categories easier. need to improve the process. you should expect non-existent categories until the UX design is improved, and blocks will have no effect. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:10, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Name of category[edit]

Hey guys, I was wondering if we can move Category:Wild Fire (band) to simply Wild Fire. Is that possible?--Épine (talk) 15:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea because people will probably confuse it with Category:Wildfires. It's also possible that other organizations exist named Wild Fire. By the way, COM:CFD is the normal place for discussions like this. BMacZero (talk) 17:33, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

March 17[edit]

Jacked-up buildings[edit]

Seattle Electric Co carbarns, Seattle (CURTIS 1116).jpeg

Do we have a category for buildings jacked up like this? - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I think the closest you can get at present is Category:Buildings on piles in the United States, but if you have more Category:Buildings on piles in Washington would be reasonable.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
  1. that latter would be Category:Buildings on piles in Washington (state).
  2. I could use that, certainly better than nothing. Still, that includes things like File:Cocodrie Louisiana Houses on stilts.jpg which is a very different thing than a jacked-up building. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
those are not necessarily jacked up, nor piles but Category:Crib piers -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks on crib piers, I'll add that. The caption, from University of Washington Libraries says "jacked up," and all other things being equal I'm inclined to guess they are correct about that part, though I have certainly caught them out in errors before. - Jmabel ! talk 04:08, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

metadata Exif/Wikidata[edit]

How to give a bot the task to add metadata from a uploaded picture on commons to the infobox (like date of photo via exif, description or label via Wikidata, statements like located in the administrative territorial entity from Wikidata)? Regards, Conny (talk) 11:34, 17 March 2019 (UTC).

Bad idea, unless the EXIF data is known to be highly reliable from a reliable source. Some of my own photographs have location and dates that are so wrong, they put landscape photographs in the wrong country. -- (talk) 13:30, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
It makes sence to describe pictures in Wikidata. How to transport these description made by my self into my upload at commons? Conny (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC).

New tool: QuickCategories[edit]

Hi folks! I want to announce a new tool I’ve been working on: QuickCategories (documentation). It allows you to quickly add or remove categories from pages, e. g. to ensure that all UK Members of Parliament (according to Wikidata) are in Category:Politicians of the United Kingdom (on Commons).

If you’ve worked with Wikidata in the past, you might be familiar with Magnus Manske’s QuickStatements tool, which lets you prepare a series of Wikidata edits (e. g. in a spreadsheet) and then run them all at once. Harmonia Amanda suggested that a similar tool for categories instead of statements would be useful, and so that’s what I built. You specify the page to edit and the categories to add or remove in a big text box:

Page 1|+Category:Category to add|-Category:Category to remove
Page 2|+Category:Category to add|-Category:Category to remove

The page and categories can be separated by a | or by a Tab character – when you copy rows and columns out of a spreadsheet (Microsoft Excel, LibreOffice Calc, Google Spreadsheets, …), columns are usually separated by Tab characters, so that should work out well.

Instead of assembling the list of commands in a spreadsheet, you can also generate it via a Wikidata query. For example, running this query lists all Members of Parliament of the United Kingdom whose Commons category is not a subcategory of Category:Politicians of the United Kingdom. You can copy the last two columns of the results (in Firefox, hold down Ctrl while dragging the mouse across them) and paste them directly into the tool. (Note that the category data in the Wikidata Query Service is only updated weekly, each Monday, so Sunday evening is pretty much the worst time to do this, since some categories might already have been added to a subcategory of Category:Politicians of the United Kingdom without the query service being aware of it.) You don’t need to know much about Wikidata queries yourself to use this – on Wikidata’s request a query page, other users can help you with adjusting this query to your own needs.

The tool supports all Wikimedia wikis, but it’s probably especially useful on Commons, that’s why I’m announcing it here. Feel free to copy or crosslink the announcement on the village pump (equivalent) of other wikis you think might be interested, or let me know if you think I should do it. If you have any questions, please contact me on the tool’s talk page, preferably with a {{ping}} (I don’t check my watchlist on Meta that often, but I’ll see pings on all wikis, including my home wiki, Wikidata). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:56, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

  • In the example given, some of these omissions may be deliberate. Would you really call Bobby Sands a politician just because he was elected to Parliament by his constituency while he was engaging in his hunger strike? Are the various Earls of Devon really to be collectively described as politicians? That's two of the first ten, and spotted by a non-UK person. - Jmabel ! talk 00:52, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: well, you can refine the query of course, e. g. to select only people who held a seat for at least two parliamentary periods, and aren’t representing an abolitionist party, plus whatever other domain-specific knowledge you have. That’s up to the people using the the tool – I tried to find an interesting example, but perhaps I should’ve stuck with one of the existing batches (e. g. adding Category:Figure skating officials, see batch #10). --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 10:02, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Whats the name for this?[edit]

Premetro station Diamant tramaanwijzing 1990.jpg

These ligths give e prediction how long the passenger has to wait. Waht kind of category and can I use for this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment hello, just a hint: It looks to me a kind of signage: In train systems in Japan, we have a unique category. Sorry I can’t show you what it will be in global setting. --Omotecho (talk) 13:23, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Route display? Dunno, I just made that up. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:03, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 18[edit]

Category naming - street names[edit]

Is there a standard approach for categories for streets which have common names, e.g. High Street? I had always thought it was "High Street, [Place]", but I see the approach "[Place] High Street" is being used. The slight problem with the latter is that where the category forms part of another category of the type "Streets by name", it will (by default) be listed under the place name rather than the street name. Lamberhurst (talk) 13:04, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

  • "[Place] High Street" may be the official name, e.g. "Kensington High Street" in London. - Jmabel ! talk 15:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
City Streetname is unusual and should probably be discouraged. --El Grafo (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Both are pretty much interchangeable in British culture "Kensington High Street" is what the street signs use but the tube is called "High Street Kensington" in the case of London there is Category:High streets in London for people looking in Category:Streets in London beginning with H, I listed them under their place name also so people can easily find them using the other common name, this led to some confusion [[1]] which is why I prefer them to be listed under the place name rather than the street name Oxyman (talk) 17:37, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
    • OK, then St. John's Wood High Street, which as far as I know is never flipped around the other way. Didn't think of the tube station being different. - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment While I don't know if it's "policy", I think good practice is to use whatever the official local name is - where that is potentially confusing or there is some common variant, a redirect from that can be useful. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:08, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Possible error while moving a file[edit]

See enwiki about Lee Dixon.jpg. Greetings & salutations, Klaas `Z4␟` V:  22:14, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Find source for file from Flickr[edit]

On a research I found this deep linked file: https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1725/42514022111_27e9762fd8_b.jpg – does someone know, how to find out the “right” Flickr link (with user/user ID and File ID)? I only know that 42514022111 is the file ID of this image. — Speravir – 23:19, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

I had to play a bit with Google: https://www.flickr.com/photos/28433765@N07/42514022111. --jdx Re: 01:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
BTW. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9400936h/f16.image --jdx Re: 02:05, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Thankx, Jdx. This proves, that my search was not good enough. And, actually, the link to Gallica is more than I expected. — Speravir – 21:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

March 19[edit]

Category:Plast[edit]

Hi all, there is a problem to this category.

The template in the right hand side says the category is about w:Plast (town). However, many of the images are images are about w:Plast - the scouting organization Ukraine. Can somebody sort this out please? Borovi4ok (talk) 10:08, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Should be ✓ Done now, please check. --El Grafo (talk) 10:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Red-Blue Chair, Gerrit Rietveld[edit]

Hi all,

How is it that works by dutch designer Gerrit Rietveld are published under free licenses, even public domain without the explicit approval of the rights owner? I did some research and found out that Rietveld is backed up the American Artists Right Society (ARS) as well as for example SABAM (Belgium). for example: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Rietveld_chair_1.JPG (due to permission of the owner of the chair? Unless that's Gerrit Rietveld or his first in line, I don't see how the owner matters in clearing the rights). there are similar cases to be made for other designers like Maarten Van Seeveren etc.

Thanks in advance, O.

@Oliviervd: See COM:UA, and see whether that answers your question. Jheald (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
see also Commons:Derivative works#Isn't every product copyrighted by someone? What about cars? Or kitchen chairs? My computer case? -- all the US judges agree, there is no copyright in utilitarian objects. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:02, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Slowking4: That is COM:UA :-) Jheald (talk) 14:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
except the section at derivatives conveys some of the incredulity of those steeped in the rights permissions culture. a policy page is not enough. maybe we need to black out commons in support of german wikipedia to show the deleterious impact of that culture in the EU directive. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 14:27, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Images which have the description in the title[edit]

I would rename this file at the maximum, - Arleta Mae Shining Star Plummer, Pueblo, Chippewa-Cree of Belknap Reservation.tif - instead of - Arleta Mae Shining Star Plummer, photographed in Pueblo, Colorado, at a gathering of North American Native People. She is of Chippewa and Cree heritage and was raised on the Fort Belknap Reservation LCCN2015633880.tif

I cannot rename files myself but I come across these files a few times now. Is file moving right a big deal? Should I migrate the words to description and request move to an appropriate title when I find these? Or is this to be left alone? It's very untidy on some articles and categories, and I don't think it does anything for the image itself all text all over it pushing it down the page, much as we want to advertise contributors. Any advice pls? ~ R.T.G 13:04, 19 March 2019 (UTC)


Also there is another concern here. This image is 458.62MB. That's right..? ~ R.T.G 13:07, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a 80 Mpx TIF file from a Medium Format digital back … I don't think 458.62MB is much for that ;-) --El Grafo (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
The file name is a bit on the long side, but there's nothing in Commons:File renaming or Commons:File naming that would suggest renaming, so personally I'd just leave them be. Shouldn't keep you from improving descriptions, though … --El Grafo (talk) 14:01, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
When posting here I did consider the title represents a way to ensure an amount of attribution, but I will also post the first encounters which drew my attention, Category:Queen Anne Revival architecture, Category:Hospital for the insane, Cherokee, Iowa, Category:Charles H. Baldwin House, Category:John B. Lindale house and farm, which by coincidence are progressively overshadowing of the gallery effect of categories for the sake of over description and street addresses, not simply descriptive titles. There ought be something if indeed something exists? ~ R.T.G 14:18, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Well, this is a file from a batch upload, and it is necessary to generate filenames automatically based on the metadata. I think these filenames are indeed on the long side but that’s because it’s based on the original title, which is itself long. Of course, the alternative would be to upload such file as LCCN2015633880.tif or something, but per Commons:File naming, filenames are expected to be descriptive.
As for the display in categories, interestingly, MediaWiki’s default is to truncate filenames, but we override this site-wide via MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Long-Image-Names-in-Categories.css
Jean-Fred (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

Don't start renaming these please. People do, but with half a million files uploaded in this format, arbitrarily changing filenames is unhelpful and goes against our naming guidelines to keep harmonization. For specific information on the batch upload you can read User:Fæ/LOC. From my memory, using the LOC title in these filenames has been discussed at least 3 times over a few years, the naming scheme is both within policy and clearly robust in practice. Thanks -- (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

yeah, if it ain't broke don't fix it. people's title conventions are not worth "correcting". you could be a lot more help adding structured data captions in various languages than moving titles to descriptions. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:58, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Request Google update to reflect Wikipedia changes[edit]

Dear all,

In the last few weeks I have been in contact with Commons Wikimedia in order to replace one picture [2] by a different one [3]. Now that the pic has been replaced, both links point to the same one, which is correct. However, via Google research engine, the old picture still shows as part of the results.

To tackle this, Google provides a tool, i.e. Search Console, in order to request an update of its servers' cache regarding a certain URL and recover the most updated data from it. I'd like to make this reguest myself, however, the problem is that the Search Console requires the person making the request to be the owner of the URL in question, and this URL is part of Wikipedia's website.

Does Wikipedia make these types of requests to Google or do you know whether there is a means by which I can make it myself? --Juan.mart.rubi (talk) 15:22, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

@Juan.mart.rubi: Wikipedia (in your case: the Spanish language version of Wikipedia) is made by a community of volunteer editors. They create and manage all of the content, but they do not "own" the URLs. All of the different Wikipedias and various sister projects (such as this one, Wikimedia Commons) are owned by the Wikimedia Foundation. They provide the infra structure, but they don't engage in anything content related. And they certainly don't manually poke Google whenever something has been updated. So no, nobody's going to do that for you. The only advice I can give is: just sit back and relax. It may take a while, but sooner or later Google will update the image. --El Grafo (talk) 12:32, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Many thanks for your answer! I will sit back and relax then. --Juan.mart.rubi (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

File:UP Activists during Martial Law.png[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:UP_Activists_during_Martial_Law.png

The are no more student activists in the Diliman campus who openly challenged the authorities during Martial Law, not even the UP Police Force. I suggest the owner of the photograph change the caption, like, UP Activists Before Martial Law.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.215.118.87 (talk • contribs) 17:15, 19 March 2019‎ (UTC)

March 20[edit]

Searching captions for vandalism[edit]

On my watchlist last week was where someone had added the caption "Bollocks" to a photograph of a politician. I can not remember which one it was. Unfortunately as captions are, apparently, not examined by the "insource:" option in the normal project search I cannot find it again.

So, how am I supposed to search captions for vandalism, without having to write complex query scripts for the wiki database? Thanks -- (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Query service should be coming soon... as (one hopes) should vandal filtering. Ping @Keegan (WMF): ? Jheald (talk) 14:19, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
So, we are into what, the second month of a successful captions rollout, where they now exist in two different copyright states, and nobody can search for vandalism. No lessons learned, and green status lights for the WMF.
Smart. -- (talk) 17:28, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Image scope[edit]

I have a project for which I collect all information about local charging stations for OpenStreetMap. This includes also location images (one per charging station). Are such images inside Common's project scope? I have already seen images of charging stations on Commons, but this would be a few thousand images (Object and camera location could be added though). --77.119.130.17 17:12, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

I think so. You would have to login to upload. Would these be categorized in Category:Electric vehicle charging stations or a related category?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:24, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Help needed with upload[edit]

Bourgoin, Jules (1838-1907) published in 1873 a book called "Les Arts arabes". Unfortunately it is not abvailable on archive.org, but it is available here. It has some gorgeous pictures (in colour!), like this about a 1300s building I am writing about (on en.wp).

Does anyone know how to upload these pictures easily? Thanks, Huldra (talk) 22:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

@Huldra: I don’t know about “easily”, but offhand, based on a little experimentation with a URL found in the page code, it seems possible to capture pages from there as 5000-pixel-tall JPEGs. (The source images appear to be in TIFF format, but I haven’t figured out how to get at those.) I could try a test run with Plate 51 if you like.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:01, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Odysseus1479 Please do! Huldra (talk) 23:03, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: OK, see File:Panneau et détails à Jérusalem – Les Arts Arabes pl.51.jpg. Not sure about the categorization, but I tossed in a couple for the time being—please check, and let me know if the filename is unsuitable. We should probably create cats for the book & author eventually …
Regarding the INHA book-viewer, it does provide for downloading pages, but the pictures aren’t as large as from the ‘URL hack’ I used: the JPEG version has about half the resolution, while the PDF has about two-thirds (in an outrageously large file to download, which I suspect might contain the entire book as invisible ‘overhead’ despite displaying only the chosen page).—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
I created Category:Jules Bourgoin and Creator:Jules Bourgoin. Regards, Yann (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
And also Category:Bourgoin - Les Arts arabes, 1873, and the book is available from Gallica: File:Bourgoin - Les Arts arabes, 1873.pdf, but not in colors. Yann (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

March 21[edit]

Edit action feed (Android Wikipedia app)[edit]

Hey folks, as you know, our (in the general Wikimedia sense) readers mainly read the wikis on mobile phones; our editing tools are focused on desktop and keyboards. This will be a problem for us: Wikipedia (and thus Commons) became a big thing because everyone who read it could add information. If this is not true in the future, we’ll have a harder time getting new editors. The developers are working on a number of different solutions, including, of course, trying to make the kind of typical content creation that we’ve always done easier on mobile. However, we’re also looking into if there are specific tasks that could be specifically well suited for mobile users.

Soon, users of the Android Wikipedia app will be able to add captions to images on Commons. Those who take up that habit will be invited to the edit action feed, where they’ll be fed images from Commons (including descriptions) and be asked to add captions, or translate them to their language, where they are missing. This will only be shown to editors who have made at least fifty unreverted edits in the action feed (which also includes Wikidata descriptions). If an edit gets reverted, the the count starts at zero again. This is an anti-vandalism measure: we don’t want to specifically invite people to do this unless they’ve shown they can be reasonably trusted.

If you’ve got any comments or questions, you can leave them on the talk page on mediawiki.org, or ping me. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

The plan is to have this done at some point during the next quarter, i.e. April–June.
There will be a CC-0 notice. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2019 (UTC)