Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/06.

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 and gaslight at a meeting place in the village of Amstetten, Germany. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
# Title Replies Participants Last editor Date/Time (UTC)
1 Location/town in Slovakia in 1993? 6 4 Smiley.toerist 2022-06-18 13:58
2 Unexplained date change on image, cameras time set incorrectly, and useful cat removal 3 1 Djm-leighpark 2022-06-18 19:52
3 Searching structured data; replacements of the category system 4 3 Jmabel 2022-06-19 16:35
4 Is there any way to limit a search by file license? 6 5 Robkelk 2022-06-19 11:58
5 Almost duplicates 4 4 Bjh21 2022-06-19 00:41
6 How to identify people in an image? 2 2 HyperGaruda 2022-06-19 05:05
7 No P180 property for this file in SD 3 2 Smiley.toerist 2022-06-19 11:47
8 Transformation of an image 2 2 Animalparty 2022-06-19 19:19
9 Desktop Improvements update 2 1 SGrabarczuk (WMF) 2022-06-23 21:42
10 Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images 11 4 RTG 2022-06-22 13:42
11 Photo inherited from photographer - required information? 6 4 SternaElegans 2022-06-22 21:48
12 Old, vintage, historical, or what?... 3 3 Jmabel 2022-06-23 00:03
13 Copyright question 8 2 Jmabel 2022-06-23 20:27
14 Maquettes 8 5 Vysotsky 2022-06-25 07:56
15 Commons Archive 3 2 Yann 2022-06-24 15:51
16 Spectrum 2 2 Arlo Barnes 2022-06-24 15:06
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 11[edit]

freedom of panorama in the US: paintings on buildings[edit]

Hi, newbie here doing some research about FoP. I've understood that freedom of panorama in the US only applies to buildings, which do not include other 3D arts and 2D art. However according to Leicester v. Warner Bros., paintings on the exterior of buildings are integral parts of the buildings, thus included in the FoP. Is it safe to say that those paintings, murals and graffitis are with FoP so suitable for Commons (talking only about paintings right on the buildings, not about posters or separate paintings which are not parts of buildings)? Taking the mural in Quebec City for example, if this were located in the US and within time period of copyright protection, would this mural still be under FoP in the US because it's an integral part of the building? Thanks --Suiren2022 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 16[edit]

Location/town in Slovakia in 1993?[edit]

I had a group hiking trip in Slovakia in 1993. I cant remember the locations.

-- Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:25, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the pictures look like Category:Levoča Town Hall. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:01, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: Please apply Category:Unidentified locations in Slovakia to your images. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is certainly Levoča. The two towers are easily identifiable. During the trip we where mostly hiking in the countrysite and visited almost no towns. Thanks.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:28, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you want to add the exact gps to each image use {{Location|40.0000|-73.0000}} with the GPS data from Google Street View. --RAN (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 17[edit]

Unexplained date change on image, cameras time set incorrectly, and useful cat removal[edit]

Can anyone please indicate why this unsummarised change has been made. I've requested an explanation from from Kolforn but its simply been reverted. I have little reason to believe the shooting device's date/time was incorrect? Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am pleased to note Kolforn's change has been reverted which I AGF was a mistake (I do weird mistakes myself all too frequently). Thankyou. -- 13:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
I noticed a few updates to this file both before and after I posted this, the problem possibly been fixed before I posted here, for which I apsologise, but by day was pretty disruptive (and while no excuse I may have had the post edit session open for a very long time). I am interested to note the highlighting of a copyright issue when using the E7i device that the bots don't seem to be handling, and I also note Kolforn has chosen to re-apply {{Taken on}} unsummarised using only the date and not the time portion as per the bot example. I confess I'm not clear why a template labelled {{Taken on}} is being used to set a location setting (timezone which be a more logical choice) and its doesn't look to be a good practice and I'm not clear why this stuff isn't handled in the upload wizard or a bot if its really needed. I'm kind of sitting back and observing and wondering if I have to throw the dog (ie bin the mobile phone) but this is all getting too hard. Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kolforn has altered the time/categories in a number of other images of mine at the Whyke Amphitheatre pop-up music event of Sunday 14 June 2022 where two of my camera date/times were set incorrect (totally my fault), as illustrated here. I'm not a Time Lord able to go back and re-take the images so (actually I suppose I might be able to hack the Exif but thats as dodgy as at the Whitely tortoise removing audit evidence from the syslog when master has rebooted the financials server by mistake to enable a Shultz explanation from the audits) so I've attempted correctly or incorrectly to use {{Wrong date}} and {{Invalid Exif date}} to indicate the problem. Three questions arise in my mind from this: firstly should Category:Photographs taken on 2022-06-12 be removed in this circumstance, or should the category be removed altogether; secondly, what is the best practice way of handling this surely not totally uncommon situation; and thirdly, how do we know what timezone is in operation - especially as the 60D appears to know nothing about time zones (and daylight saving!) and the sx240 does but perhaps its exif doesn't, what is best practice there? These questions may have been covered elsewhere but I'd appreciate any pointers. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Searching structured data; replacements of the category system[edit]

This is a longer problem, TL;DR warning. Some of the responses of the questions here ought to be in Help:Search in some clearly understandable manner.

The original question was how to list/search sub-categories easily, and it seems to be best answered by using Special:Search and either giving the category in the advanced field, or use a search string like "deepcat:"Pictures by Madboy74" deepcat:"Coats of arms of Transilvania"" for specific category search or intersection search.

However this have lead me to numerous discussion and closed issues telling that Structured data should have replaced the (hard to use and inflexible) Category system. While this is an unrelated question (whether it should or not) I started to examine how to search by structured data. Generally it seems searching is not supported for the common people, since it's only available by using the geeky properties with no lookup whatsoever, like haswbstatement:P170=Q15136093, clearly unfriendly, but at least works. The syntax is described here in WikibaseCirrusSearch and WikibaseMediaInfo to some extent.

However, I have completely failed to look up this image by trying to look for creator (P170) with "some value" (I can't even guess where this come from) with a qualifier Wikimedia usrname (P4174) containing a string. The search haswbstatement:P170=*[P4174=Madboy74] doesn't work, but it seems haswbstatement:P170=* doesn't, either, while it seems like it should.

So, my main questions:

  • Is there any way or concept for Average Joe to search by structured data?
  • Where does some value come from, and how to search for its qualifiers?
  • How to find that specific image by that specific structured data?
  • Does anyone think structured data could be used instead of the category system ("are we there yet")? Is there any past discussion about this? Maybe some summary of all the alternatives (dead or alive) to the Category system, and their state of readiness?

Thanks! --grin 12:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: there is a lot of information that we carry in the categories that is not, and in many case cannot currently be, modeled in the structured data. For example, if we have a poster for a concert where a particular band is on the bill, it certainly belongs in the category for the band, but as far as I know there is no correct way to reflect that in the structured data system. Also, far more files are well-categorized in terms of what they represent but have little or no content-related structured data. And from what I've seen of the structured data people have added to some of my photos, nearly half of the "depicts" are wrong or trivial (e.g. who really cares that a picture "depicts" a stop sign when mainly it depicts a building, which is not listed in the "depicts"). - Jmabel ! talk 15:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ha! 2 days after I wrote that, someone did exactly that: File:Carbonado fire station 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Structured data was made to replace categories in the long term, but there is no plan yet. I think the transition could last one decade. You asked for searching. The new search tool was made to be used like Google: Just type in what you are searching for without any special syntax. If you want exact results you need to use the old search engine or the query service. I invest much more time in the structured data statements for my files then for the categories and I see that some other users do the same. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to limit a search by file license?[edit]

I'm looking for a wide variety of SVG icons, but for re-use reasons I need them to be CC-0 or Public Domain - no license restrictions whatsoever. Is there any way to limit a search so that I only see public domain files? (And if there isn't, how can I ask for this feature?) --Robkelk (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is possible in several ways, as the files are in (hidden) categories by licence. You could enable seeing hidden categories in your preferences, but the point is that any tool that can search for category intersections is able to find such images. Wikipedia:PetScan (Catscan) is the most well-known such tool. I've understood that also Special:Search and perhaps Special:Mediasearch can do that, with a suitable query. –LPfi (talk) 16:05, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is broken in several ways. Commons offers a large number of licenses, but most files use one of only three licenses: cc-zeo, cc-by-sa-3.0, cc-by-sa-4.0. But then there are few files with cc-by-sa-4.0-really-obscure-language-version. It is worse with PD. a PD-older-than-110-years-sculpture-published-before-1951-in-oklahoma file may be in that very license category, or in PD-for-unknown-reasons, of in PD-oklahoma, or in PD-older-than-65-years or in PD-sculptures-in-USA, or in cc-by-sa-4.0 because the fotographer decided so. While cc-zero and most PD-... may be subcategorie of the same main-PD category, one PD-category may be missing for being the PD-published-by-employies-of-cron-depandency-of-former-duchy-of-bla and have some restriction. Maybe this would be solvable with SDC, but I am not aware of a help page or tool that would do that.
However, if you simply search for "in category cc-zero and file type svg" you will find more than 90% of the files, that match your query. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:15, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: as you can see trying to use the category system for this doesn't work at all.
It's easier to use structured data for this. Files that have been put in the public domain by the copyright owner have the statement copyright status (P6216) set to copyrighted, dedicated to the public domain by copyright holder (Q88088423) so you can filter on that in the search. Multichill (talk) 10:38, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Robkelk: This is pretty simple using Special:MediaSearch. Enter the search query and choose "No restrictions" from the "license" drop-down. I don't know what source this uses, so it may be that other techniques will find files that this doesn't. --bjh21 (talk) 11:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all for the help. --Robkelk (talk) 11:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 18[edit]

Almost duplicates[edit]

Hi! I uploaded the photograph file:Otto Schlegel 2.jpg a few days ago. Now I discovered that the same picture already exists with the name file:Otto Schlegel by Hermann Ohm.jpg. They are similar except for a slight difference in cropping. What is the procedure for that? --Dipsacus fullonum (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dipsacus fullonum: Hi, and welcome. You may link them via the Other_versions parameters in their Information templates.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:42, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
And use the {{Other version}} template when doing so. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dipsacus fullonum: Alternatively, if you think your new version is unnecessary, you can request that it be deleted by editing the description page to add {{SD|G7}} within seven days after uploading. --bjh21 (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 19[edit]

How to identify people in an image?[edit]

I know there is a way to identify people in an image, with a small yellow square around them and their name appearing when one overs over it. I would like do know how to do that.
Thanks in davance. Veverve (talk) 02:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the Help:Image-Annotator. In a nutshell, use the button Add a note just underneath an image. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No P180 property for this file in SD[edit]

SNCV route Corbion Sugny in France.jpg

I want to connect the picture to wikidata item Q95379991.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is already in Category:Remains of tram line 510C, so connected with Bouillon - Pussemange tram line (Q95379991) (which need label and description in more languages, now only in French and Dutch). For structured data, choose that tab on the file description page (under the Summary heading) and add a "depicts" statement (P180). –LPfi (talk) 11:00, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is now visible in the structured data, so I added it there. There an connection via the categories, but it is preferable to also have a direct connection in SD. Search engines work better with SD.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transformation of an image[edit]

I want to show the intermediate steps made in transforming an original image to a better derivative copy. See File:John_Howard_Lindauer_1983_(upscaled_whitebackground_enhanced).jpg#Transformation. Is there a standard way of showing the transformation? Is keeping the key intermediate steps wrong? RAN (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's not wrong, just needlessly detailed bordering on pedantry IMHO. We have {{Retouched picture}} and {{Other versions}}, etc. Since the version is highly retouched (by man and machine) from the original, {{Retouched picture}} should definitely be added to the final transformed image. --Animalparty (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 21[edit]

Desktop Improvements update[edit]

Making this the new default

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years. Our work is almost finished! 🎉

We would love to see these improvements become the default for readers and editors across all wikis. In the coming weeks, we will begin conversations on more wikis, including yours. 🗓️ We will gladly read your suggestions!

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more. The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on more than 30 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only, although it will always be possible to revert to the previous version on an individual basis. Monobook or Timeless users will not notice any changes.

The newest features
  • Table of contents - our version is easier to reach, gain context of the page, and navigate throughout the page without needing to scroll. It is currently tested across our pilot wikis. It is also available for editors who have opted into the Vector 2022 skin.
  • Page tools - now, there are two types of links in the sidebar. There are actions and tools for individual pages (like Related changes) and links of the wiki-wide nature (like Recent changes). We are going to separate these into two intuitive menus.
How to enable/disable the improvements
  • It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by selecting "Vector (2022)". Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
  • On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.
Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter. You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us.

Thank you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 21 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Join us on Tuesday

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 28 June 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location. The following events will take place on 12 July and 26 July.

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file and copied to Etherpad. Olga Vasileva (the Product Manager) will be hosting this meeting. The presentation part will be given in English. At this meeting, both Friendly space policy and the Code of Conduct for Wikimedia technical spaces apply. Zoom is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy.

We can answer questions asked in English and a number of other languages. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 21:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 22[edit]

Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images[edit]

I am trying to upload two albums from Flickr (this one and this one), using Commons:Flickr2Commons. I made a test by only uploading File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).jpg.
However, I have an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0. What should I do to have Flickr2Commons add a {{cc-zero}} into the licensing section of all the images I want to upload from this user which are under CC 1.0?
The image belongs to Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream, which has no problem with the CC 1.0. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from their "About us" section, "Published photos/videos are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I think there might be a way to change all the licenses at the upload stage with Flikr2Commons, but if not, archive the "About us" section on the Wayback machine, and get someone with the ability to write a script or program AWB and swap out all the tags automatically in a few minutes. Alternatively you just upload them all and spend a couple of hours copy/pasting the appropriate tags. ~ R.T.G 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: thanks for your input!
  • The individual pictures are given as being under CC 1.0 (e.g., this one); and all pictures on WCommons imported from this Flickr account are marked as such in Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream. So, which statement of license has priority, CC 1.0 or 4.0?
  • Who do you think I should contact to make a script? Apparently, Flickr2Commons is very easy to use; and for what I want to do it does the job very well, except the part with the licensing problem. So, I would prefer not to have to try other Flickr import scripts.
@Magnus Manske: sorry to bother you. Since you are the script's screator, could you tell us if there is a way to accomplish what I want? Veverve (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: We know of eight different "CC 1.0" licenses per COM:L#Well-known licenses (the unnumbered ones start at 1.0), please be more specific.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "cc1.0", it's "cc0 1.0" (or PD1 or something like that). I have come across this before and if the uploader is active, they generally change the licenses for me, if it is their own work. Send them an email on Flickr and explain that you are trying to upload to Commons for Wikipedia, that cc0 is not sufficient, that you need cc1 or better. I think they have a way of changing the licenses as a batch, I'm not sure how that works though. ~ R.T.G 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only trying to upload a small portion of the streams images, use the Commons uploader. It can handle a few hundred images and you can copy paste the relevant license. Bit of work in that if there is hundreds of images but if there is only a few dozen it might be feasible. ~ R.T.G 11:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: The uploader is active... but the uploader is also the official Flickr of the state of North Macedonia, so I do not have much hope for an answer or that the team behind the account will go throught the administrative red tape to change the license of their 30 000 images.
I am trying to upload around 100 images, so doing i manually is not something I will do.
All images within Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream are marked on WCommons as either under the {{cc-zero}} or CC 4.0 license, and are from the same uploader. @Alex Cohn: even reviewed this image and marked it as being under CC 4.0 (despite the page of the image stating it is under PD). So, are the licenses used and their inconsistency really a problem? Veverve (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just using the {{PDMark-owner}}? This is used for many organizations for some reason publishing their photos with PDMark instead of CC-Zero. In 2020 we decided to accept this. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: The issue is manually adding the license for hundreds of photos. Copy/pasting for an hour can be a daunting task I guess. @Veverve: Their "About us" says cc-by-4, but they have selected public domain tags consistently. The confusion with the Flickr PD tags is: one is for the author, and one is for someone who promises it is public domain. Macedonia government are either releasing to the PD, or they know for sure these images are PD, otherwise they are liable for any sales lost, not to mention the cost of deciding in court how much that liability should cost. If these 33,000 images are in copyright, that is a LOT of mistakes on their part. So it is public domain (for those marked as PD identified), under the direction of a government body. ~ R.T.G 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with VFC this would not be much work. The different license in the description is an other problem. For videos from YouTube we always use the license written in the description or the video itself if these license differs to the selected one. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit difficult to follow there. They've used this public domain tag up to 33,000 times as a recognised government body. Government bodies are authorities on legal matters. They do have the authority and responsibility to license these images to the best of their ability. If the authors are not working on the governments/publishers behalf, that is 33,000 accidents. They'd have had a few complaints by now. It is definitely right to use PD on the ones published with a PD tag on Flickr in this circumstance. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo inherited from photographer - required information?[edit]

I had a photo deleted [1], I believe because I did not supply some essential information. I inherited the photo from my father, so I believe that I do have the right to put it into the public domain, but I could use some guidance on getting it right this time. Specifically-

  1. Does the fact that I am licensing an inherited work affect which licence I should use?
  2. How do I ensure that all the required information is present so that this doesn't happen again?
  3. Is it possible to edit the information after uploading a file?

I am almost a first-time user, so please forgive any inadvertent breaches of protocol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SternaElegans (talk • contribs) 16:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @SternaElegans: You never answered the question you were asked at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Joan Payzant.jpg, so after a few weeks the deletion went ahead as unchallenged. You can still presumably get it undeleted by addressing the issue, but at this point it needs to go through Commons:Undeletion requests. - Jmabel ! talk 18:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this - yes, I missed the question because I had forgotten to update my user profile following a change to my email address, and only was made aware of the deletion by a friend, much later. I'll contact Undeletion requests and see what happens. SternaElegans (talk) 21:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
ad 2: there is {{PD-heirs}} for example. Best wishes, --Mateus2019 (talk) 20:12, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateus2019: the image was licensed with {{Cc-by-sa-3.0-heirs}}, which seems appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Who is the photographer? When he died?" was asked at deletion request - which precision is needed for "When he died?"? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Mateusz Konieczny: As much precision as is available. But that's not the point. The point is that if your picture is nominated for deletion as a possible copyvio, and you don't respond at all, it will probably be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 21:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old, vintage, historical, or what?...[edit]


For a Frenchy like me it's some times hard to find the right Commons' english denominations. That's for all vehicles (land, air, water) I can find in 'uncated'.

How may I be sure it's an historical truck, a vintage automobile or just an old bike??? Before 1900? Before WWI? WWII? B&W pics? Before Diesel? Before Hybrid? After this world? Question of dates of production? If they are still made? If they are so rares?

Please, let me know? Thanks. lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those terms should be used in categories on Commons - they're fundamentally subjective, and what things qualify will change as time passes. Categories should be precise and stable: 20th-century trucks, 1930s automobiles, etc. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Pi.1415926535. This isn't a foreign vs. native-speaker issue, it's a fuzzy vs. clear thinking issue. These are poorly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

Copyright question[edit]

If a record is public domain and someone digitizes the record and releases the digitized verzion for download without a specified license, is it public domain? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ilovemydoodle: Hard to answer that with full generality.
  • "Record" is so ambiguous: "sound recording"? "statement of a fact"? "transcription of a proceeding"? etc.
  • "Digitizing" also covers a lot of ground: e.g. remastering a sound recording can involve copyrightable creative choices.
So it would help a lot if you asked a more specific question. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: "Record" meaning vinyl record. "Digitized version" meaning a sound recording of said vinyl record in a digital format. – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ilovemydoodle: If the original recording was, indeed, public domain (determining that can be a very tricky problem for sound recordings) and there was no significant creativity involved in the digitizing, then the digitized version should still be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright question 2[edit]

@Jmabel: What is the copyright status of something recorded in 1926? – Ilovemydoodle (talk) 19:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Jack Dempsey and Alonzo Victor Lewis, Seattle, ca 1923 (MOHAI 3174).jpg

We don't seem to have a Category:Maquettes. Do we have an equivalent under another name? I'd want to put it on the image shown here. Maybe Category:Models of sculptures? But I want something specific to a small preparatory sculpture, the equivalent of a sketch. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So create the category yourself. DS (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: in my experience, often there is an oddly-named category that I turn out not to have known about. This is one where I could imagine a lot of possible names. I don't want to create an effective duplicate. Of course, if no one comes up with something, that is exactly what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Category:Models of sculptures should do. Alternatively, Category:Maquettes could be between (Category:Sculptures and Category:Models by subject) and Category:The Kelpies maquettes‎   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes are not, strictly speaking, models of sculptures; they are proposals for sculptures which may or may not be made. A distinct category would be sensible. (Be aware that "maquette" is also the French word for scale model, and we have many files which use the word in that context.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes is also the Dutch word for Category:Architectural models or Category:Scale models. See e.g. this file. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can mean that in English, too (and we all borrowed it from the French). @Vysotsky: in Dutch, does it (as in English) have the connotation of being a model of something you propose to build/make rather than a model of something that already exists? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - as in this file (1981) - the Stopera (1986) wasn't built yet. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

Commons Archive[edit]

Hi, Does anyone know why I can't upload CR2 files to Commons Archive? It used to be possible, but now I get the message IMG_9732.CR2 [9529eda1381cd250ac6b2183] Exception caught: No specifications provided to ArchivedFile constructor. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: You might want to ask at the community portal there or file a phabricator task.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That project seems to be stalled, but good suggestion: phab:T280807. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Being new to the commenting on Wikipedia pages, have noticed incorrect dates for example the Zx Spectrum computer, I while not long out of high-school sold one at Morphetville and know often the dates fort information such as these are way off. Possibly reversed order and even incorrect crediting. 18:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a resource for the production history that could be linked from the root cat for the computer model line? Arlo James Barnes 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]