Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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:


 
Village pump of 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 12[edit]

Wiki Loves Africa 2019 results are out ![edit]

Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpg
And the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019 WINNERS are .... 1st place prize goes to the image Playing in the Nuba Mountains by Marco Gualazzini taken in South Sudan. 2nd Prize goes to Peekaboo by Summer Kamal taken in Egypt. 3rd prize goes to Teenagers in street by Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed (also from Egypt). The prize for Women in Sport goes to Girls fighting by Yvonne Youmbi from Cameroon. Finally, the prize for capturing a traditional form of play goes to Horses by Sofiane Mohammed Amri in Algeria. Congratulations to all the prize winners and all participants :)

All winners may be found here : Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019/Winners

Anthere (talk)

July 28[edit]

Category:Lychakiv Cemetery – K[edit]

Should the files be deleted as there is no FOP in Ukraine? In addition, are tombstones counted as artworks? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It is an 18th century cemetery. There are bound to be PD-Old tombstones in there, so you cannot just wholesale delete the files in there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll check through the files in the cat, nominating the tombstones of people the died recently as FOP (taking that tombstones are arts). (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't art require more than a name and date on a tombstone? Modern tombstone use a programmed lathe to carve in text typed from a computer onto a block of granite, it isn't really art, unless choosing a font is an act of creation. Only elaborate tombstones with carved figures are art. RAN 05:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Art" --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

August 03[edit]

This is quite embarassing, but I inadvertently clicked the wrong box in Catalot and emptied the catalogue Category:Second Politionele Actie. How can I restore these files? There should be a revert button, but somehow I cant find it. --Joostik (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I solved those. Still don't understand where that revert button went. Joostik (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 04[edit]

Movement Strategy online surveys - opportunity to share your thoughts about reworking movement structures[edit]

Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.

The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.

Here is the link to the survey.

Here you can find more information about the survey.

With any questions, please contact me on my meta user talk page.

Thank you for your kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. If this is not the right place to post such message on your wiki, I apologize. Feel free to move it where appropriate according to your guidelines. Thank you!

August 08[edit]

Overdiffusion of categories[edit]

This is a pressing matter, the policy on commons:Categories does not seem to cover over-diffusion of categories It has been discussed before on the Village Pump, See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories which went into the subject at length. This is a terrible blight on the project. I have seen many times one image put into a category of one, and then nested in as many as 4 preceding empty cats. Or small villages with 20 images, diffused into as many as 16+ categories. All the images hidden away from sight... So many categories and nesting as to make images useless and difficult to find. For example look at category:19th-century people of Brazil; this is a good case for saying the image should appear twice, once in 19th-century people of Brazil and again in whatever obscure category editors want to waste their time with, like People of Brazil in 1898. We need to cut down on useless / obscuring nestimg (example: category:People of Brazil in the 1820s. Surely this needs to be addressed? -Broichmore (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Could we add excessive creation of person by year categories? In many cases, all images of a person are diffused into "John Doe in <year>", even if there's only one image of the person for one or more years. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any problem with those categories Oxyman (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If there are very few file by century is OK, for many by decade is often enough (if not overkill). There must be very few subjects on the project that demand by year; not even the Taj Mahal. Broichmore (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom of a wider problem - that if I want to find an image representing a broad category such as Category:Automobile maintenance, I necessarily have to browse a multitude of child categories to find the best image for my needs. FastCCI can only show a limited set of images and PetScan is not very user-friendly and you just have to know that it exists. If we had a solid integrated solution for this problem we could get uniformly detailed with each category tree without having any issues.
For the immediate purpose of this discussion, though, I agree that the number of available files should be considered more directly when deciding how many subcategories should be used, but keep in mind that there are probably categories that should be diffused despite having small population, like Category:People of Grenada. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A solution can be to create pages such as Campanula with links to the subcategories. A problem is the maintenance of the pages. Wouter (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You Tuvalkin seem to miss the point that Over-categorization is an entirely different subject. If you care to look at the link I posted here in my first sentence you'll notice I did not originate the concept. You can also notice from here at overdiffused categories that I'm not the only person to raise concern on the issue. The size of the project is a victim of its own success, it was not envisaged that it would get to its current size and policy has to adapt and evolve to accommodate that. I realise that, to some filers, not being able to access, find and thereby use files is not an issue, but to others it is. You'll notice that Getty or Alamy don't fall into this trap. We are the only aggregator of images on the web that does. Again we are hiding away images from plain sight and rendering them useless; and trivialising the subject by calling it my pet notion is not going to change that. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In many instances there is no need to split by date, when all you need to do is sort the files by using pipes. See Category:History of Portsmouth. I.E. History of Portsmouth|1813. Meanwhile 1914 in Portsmouth has only one file, last time I looked you shouldn't make a category out of one file. Not to mention that the file itself is probably a scene off Southsea, which just makes my point even better, about hiding files. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Categories by year do have an advantage as well, as they allow to integrate the local files into the wider area's history. Category:1914 in Portsmouth holds only a single file, but is part of Category:1914 in Hampshire. Note that File:AE1 (AWM P01075041).jpg has been added to six categories that provide access via various paths, compared to the single category File:Tower Bridge 2004 3 edit1.jpg is in; see below. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "Tower Bridge in 2004" really the best possible and only category for this file? Is it helpful? Why is such a beautiful image hidden in one of dozens of subcategories of the "History" branch?

It's not only the diffusion in itself, it's also what criteria are chosen to subdivide a category. "By year" is an easy choice, but I don't think it's always the best. In many cases it doesn't matter if an image of the Tower Bridge was taken in 2014, 2015 or 2016. A building doesn't change its appearance that fast. More relevant questions for someone looking for a picture would be: From where was it taken (which side does it show, what's in the background)? What time of day is it? Does the sun shine or is it cloudy? Is the facade sunny or is it a backlit shot? When you diffuse a category, better create several relevant branches and routes from the top category to the files that have been diffused to subcats. Categorizing by year is a task a bot could fulfill. If you're a human being with a brain, create categories that actually help users find relevant images. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a genuine problem that has been discussed before see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories (link also provided by originator of this discussion) If there was any consensus to be derived from that I think it is that by date categories are OK but media should also have another category be that from angle or part details or some other aspect. The problem with Tower Bridge is that no one has created these categories. But we need more categories to solve that problem not less. I do not think it helps to mix this problem with the alleged over-diffusion of categories problem this project supposedly suffers from Oxyman (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why in Category:History of Portsmouth for example the images cannot reside in that master category and in different places such as (angle or part details or some other aspect) I.E. Views of Gosport from Portsmouth. Certainly if filed by year they should also reside in the main cat. My point is we should be able to scan through hundreds of images on a page rather than open an endless list of cats to see anything. May I also point out that dates cant be separated by a bot with accuracy, The most common fault of any image dating from before the mobile phone era is accuracy of date. Just one example: Images are commonly dated by the year of publication, even if the image is already 10 or 100 years older. It's also self evident that a poorly designed category or one in the wrong place will create an excessive amount of admin just to keep it up to date. A good example of that is Category:Ships by name which was renamed and made into a hidden category. It has since had to be continually revisited to to keep it up to date. Broichmore (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The real problem is not the over-diffusion of categories, but rather the fact that MediaWiki (without using third party tools) is unable to display ALL images of a category and all sub-categories. With such a functionality, properly implemented, there would no longer be any need to go through all the sub-categories to get an overview of all the existing content. Okki (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I agree with you, have you requested such? Again, the project is growing at an ever escalating rate. I don't see that there is the software out there for the task, or the funding / commitment for a new database to accommodate what your suggesting. Meanwhile it doesn't solve our immediate problem. I have to say which only became an issue for me when I noticed it on hunting for images to populate Wikipedia. Broichmore (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that having more categories is useful because "the project is growing at an ever escalating rate" Oxyman (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with you but (in practical terms) only from the birth of the iphone, from that point the sheer quantity of available images starts to go through the roof. Prior to that there are surprisingly few images out there. Broichmore (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A tool show images of category up to sublevel (1,2,3, etc to be chosen)... is wishful. Wo can create that tool within commons? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, the foundation, which receives millions each year and should be able to hire enough developers to solve this kind of problem. But unfortunately I have the impression that Commons is completely neglected :( Okki (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

[edit]

Hi, can be there on Commons this Czech logo of Simpsonovi (The Simpsons)? --Patriccck (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As long as the logo shows only text and not any of the Simpsons characters, this should be ok. Can you please provide a link to an example? De728631 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
De728631: Link to the file: File:Logo Simpsonovi.png. Can be there on Commons this logo without background (see this)? (Someone will delete background of the file.) Will be this file OK (after deleting background)? --Patriccck (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patriccck: Yes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This file is probably OK. --Patriccck (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 11[edit]

Imperial War Museum Non Commercial License ...[edit]

Iconic photograph of Wright brothers first powered flight, 1903. Today still subject to a copyfraud claim of commercial rights by the Imperial War Museum even though the photograph was never donated to the museum, and still demanding money for the bizarre copyright claims, despite past correspondence on precisely this photograph.

I've uploaded lots of Canadian and US images, from World War 2. Canadian images are public domain due to age. US images, taken by DoD employees are public domain because all images taken by DoD employees, as part of their official duties, are public domain.

I thought some UK WW2 images were also free, due to a decision about Crown Copyright... When I went to download an image from the Imperial War Museum I read it was released under a non-commercial license.

Which, if any, UK WW2 images are free to re-use?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: See User:Fæ/email/IWM. There have been related discussions over the years, search our archives. You may choose to ignore copyfraud claims and "watermarks" by the IWM for works that are clearly expired Crown Copyright, or public domain for other reasons. My own uploads include the (unenforceable) claims by the IWM for completeness, and some irony. All evidence is that in the years since my original emails, the IWM has doubled down and become even more unapologetic for its copyfraud claims, even when this causes alarm to its own curators and professionals. Middle management whose primary concern is selling postcards and charging academics over 100 quid a pop for a reproduction of a public domain photograph, rule the roost. Thanks -- (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@: If the IWM claims copyright on items which are Crown Copyright, the Queen's Counsel may be interested.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Which Queen's Counsel? There are 1695 of them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Whichever party is responsible for enforcing Crown Copyright in the IWM's jurisdiction.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Literally, they are not Crown Copyright. -- (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think you mean the Queen's Printer (Controller of HMSO and Director of OPSI) who manages Crown Copyright. Nthep (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, literally not Crown Copyright. Once rights have expired, HMSO have no say on republication. -- (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
FAE is totally correct in every aspect here. What's saddening is that I've noticed commercial stock image houses, take images from Commons and put them up for sale on their own sites. Something quite common on eBay as well. I have also seen out of copy-write images owned by institutions loaned out to stock image houses for sale. Indeed I could point you out images that clearly (by photogrpher, view, camera, and date) could only have come from the IWM that are not to be seen on their site but can be bought exclusively through particular third parties. The IWM is not the only culprit there are others world wide. Broichmore (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Broichmore, I have seen stock image companies sell photos I took personally, and placed in the public domain. Do a google image search using your own commons ID and you too may find these companies are re-selling your free images. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • , thanks for your link to User:Fæ/email/IWM. I thought you combined tact and clarity. If they didn't respond to your 2nd email message, do you think they realize you were right, and they were wrong? Or do you think the manager you corresponded with just didn't understand copyright?
  • So, for World War 2 images, from the IWM, what license do you recommend?
  • Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The museums, know what they are doing, as do the stock houses; they look for revenue. Commonly magazines and book publishers will prefer to pay the museum or stock house for use of PD images. For several reasons, they save time, they don't have to worry about legal clearances, they can defer any potential liability back to their source, and of course they can write it off on the tax man as expenses anyway. Broichmore (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You could take a look at licence PD-UKGov. You must take care to ensure the artist / photographer was on active service at the time of creation, and paid to do the art by the government. If there is any doubt you will have to defend it. If he was in the army for all of WW2, lived till 1990 and painted a scene outside of a government installation of a warship on the Clyde in 1943, on his time off you will probably see it deleted. If the artist died by 1948 and came from a country with the 70 year rule, then your OK. Historical images have to be assessed on a one by one basis for Commons eligibility. That goes the same for any other worldwide institution. Broichmore (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

Automatic categorisation of annexed territories[edit]

{{Videos from Crimea by year}} places the media file only in "Russia" category after 2014 (the year when Russian military has moved into the peninsula). To the best of my understanding Commons has never taken a stance on the annexation, and all other categories have been categorised in both countries, thus making it easy to find what one is searching for with the minimum chance for flame wars. Has this approach changed? If so, I have not seen any discussion about that, and I would like to figure out how I can see if the concensus is to revert back to dual categorisation after the annexation. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is to handle same way as all the categories with {{Crimea notice}}. --A.Savin 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have now edited the template, hopefully it is more rational now. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: What is your reason for breaking my edit with <noinclude> and then after that protecting the page? You can trivially see on Category:Videos of 2018 from Crimea the notice no longer shows up after your edit, and it worked after mine. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason is, categories "Ukraine" and "Russia" require permanent diffusion and shall not be included in the categories using this template. --A.Savin 10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Then why not use |nocat=yes ? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for rolling back and applying the parameter to the template. I want to add that this time the interaction with you was very much more productive than it usually is, I hope that this is not an accident and that you will continue striving to become a good admin. Be well! ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated image with conflicting attribution[edit]

Actually, both could be right. If I understand correctly, the first one is present in an archive of an investigation about the en:Kazakh famine of 1932–33. It does not state that the image is from that time. So it might be that images from the en:Great Famine of 1876–1878 were also present in the Kazakh archive. --MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Judging from clothing and general appearance I wouldn't think they are from Kazakhstan. Joostik (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's unlikely that the image was taken in Kazakhstan; they are not exactly known for wearing loincloths, I'd say. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We have yet another version, this one with correct attribution: File:Inmates of a relief camp by WW Hooper.jpg. Author is en:Willoughby Wallace Hooper and the photo was shot in Madras. Should we merge them? --MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Question[edit]

I have checked this page; it's an Indonesian govt website and there is no mention of copyright. I thought that it will be okay to upload the pictures from the page here. However, I need to double check; if any experienced wiki-commons user can confirm, that will be appreciated. Dhio270599 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Absence of a copyright claim means that all rights are reserved by the percieved or implicit publisher; this is so since 1973, at least. -- Tuválkin 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is a case of {{PD-IDGov}}. But the image quality is a bit... meh... Are you sure you want to upload those? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @HyperGaruda:: That's probably the best non-copyrighted picture on the topic that I have found. I mean, yeah, that's fairly ugly, but.... better than none. By the way, thank you Tuvalkin and HyperGaruda :)
        • ps: I unironically love grammar nazis (hahahaha). HyperGaruda, if you have time, it might be good to ask for constructive criticisms on that matter from you in the (near?) future. Gotta polish my article before that; the article's awful. :( Dhio270599 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 logo.png[edit]

Moved to Help desk. --Patriccck (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Recent actions by User:Techyan against User:Shizhao[edit]

Hi to all,

This is to raise concern over recent actions by User:Techyan against User:Shizhao in the deletion of two photos.

The User, zh:User:K.Y.K.Z.K(at the Chinese Wikipedia) (formerly known as User:TSVC1190(zhwiki user page)), used his legal sock-puppet (User:RochesterS) (whom is listed as a dope at zhwiki [1]) to initiate a deletion request of his own picture due to violation of his own portrait at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:全青岛市最中二的骚年.jpg.

After that, User:Techyan reuploaded the picture with the some parts of the original picture pixelated. The picture did not pixelate the member whom wanted to have his picture removed. It led to another request for deletion by another member of the Chinese Community at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Qu_Tianxiang_Victor_Chyu.png.

Both pictures were deleted by User:Shizhao.

After both pictures were deleted, User:Techyan initiated a verbal attack at the Chinese Wikipedia at his Chinese Wikipedia's user page in big-character poster style (where he is an admin there), which translated as actions of Shizhao, PhiLiP and myself were problematic, and contained personal attacks against myself, PhiLiP and Shizhao, with bullying content against User:K.Y.K.Z.K. I didn't see my comment stating that the pic was "group bullying" got any problem as I received out-of-site direct requests (direct-message-style-request).

I hope the community could discuss this issue, and to see whether Shizhao's action to delete both pictures were right. If Shizhao's action consisted of wrongdoings, I would also hope to know the reason, as I personally did not see any wrongdoings incurred within.

With thanks,
1233 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropariate venue is COM:ANU. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Same file, different licence[edit]

Tea ceremony implements.jpg and Utensiles pour la cérémonie du thé.jpg are pretty much the same (one is brighter, the other one is darker). However, they have a different licence (one is PD-self, the other is Attribution) and were uploaded from different Wikipedia projects. Do we have en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia admins around here who can check the (probably deleted) file history? --D-Kuru (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • original en-wiki upload was 03:47, January 31, 2004 by User:Exploding Boy. He just wrote "Photo by Exploding Boy" and didn't specify a license (not unusual in 2004, pre-Commons: the default license, which at that time was GFDL, would have applied). 19:07, September 24, 2004 User:TakuyaMurata took the liberty to add {{CopyrighedFreeUse}}, which User:Dromygolo corrected to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. While, as far as I can see, Exploding Boy never overtly confirmed that, he did make a subsequent edit, adding a category 22:41, May 13, 2006, and left that in place. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Do we have an fr wiki admin here that can check the information (uploader/provided source/etc.) of fr.wikipedia? --D-Kuru (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are some. @Arthur Crbz, Harmonia Amanda: Can you please have a look? De728631 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't contributing to Commons at that time, and I have actually no idea how to find from which Wikipedia page it was actually imported? There is no history associated to [2], not even a deleted one. So I can check any deleted page you want, provided I can find it. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That is very weird, given what it says about the original upload log. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It is there: [3]. It was uploaded to fr.wikipedia and transferred to Commons with the correct spelling, but in 2017 User:CAPTAIN RAJU renamed the file with a spelling mistake. The first upload to fr.wp from 2004 is not shown in the public logs. You probably will not find anything more than what was transcribed on the Commons description page, where it is noted that the first upload to fr.wp was on 2004-10-09 10:08 by Dromygolo with the license tag Attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 15[edit]

undeletion request for newbie[edit]

Could someone help please. We have a Prof who has recently had a Women in Red biog written about her. We have been trying to encourage her to donate a selfie. She is trying to understand that she does not own the copyright of photos that she didnt take. I am trying to encourage her as she could be a good source once she understands our strict copyright stance. She has loaded a picture of her and her daughter which she took. Her user name is Mvgalea. Could that be undeleted? She has also tried to donate a picture of Amanda Fosang which does appear to be taken by her. Can you please leave this in place and I will request deletion if it turns out to be definately a copyvio. So if you have the time and rights .... could you undelete the picture of her and her daughter loaded by Mvgalea. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victuallers: You are welcome to post that info with specific filenames at COM:UDR, but it may be better if she does that.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

August 16[edit]

Update on the consultation about office actions[edit]

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-SA[edit]

I believe {{CC-BY-SA}} should redirect to {{Cc-by-sa}}. This affects 5.5k files. A bot should probably be deployed to change the licence.--Roy17 (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Cc-by-sa}} is actually not a licence template but a warning to remind the user that they forgot to specify a CC version number. The all-caps template, however, is a valid tag for CC share-alike version 1.0. So if at all, it should be redirected to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Files currently using it have to be relicensed to {{Cc-by-sa-old}} per previous discussions: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/01#Another_bulk_process_to_delete_large_numbers_of_licensed_files Template talk:Cc-by-sa. @Steinsplitter: could you please run the bot again? cc @Morgankevinj:.--Roy17 (talk) 16:59, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
Same thing should happen for Template:CC-by-sa, Template:CC-BY-sa, Template:CC-by-SA, Template:CC-BY and Template:CC-by. All should be changed per the consensus. No one thought of all these redirects in the discussions two years ago!--Roy17 (talk) 17:05, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 17[edit]

Sigma SD-14[edit]

There are 10 images with the name starting 'Sigma SD-14' and ending with a big number. These are all pictures taken in Amsterdam in november 2009. I see no category 'taken with Sigma SD-14'. This can be created. This is the only meaningfull part of the names. I suggest to rename them 'Amsterdam Nov 2009 xx' (number 01 to 10)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Category:Taken with Sigma SD14 Something like this? It existed for a long time. I am unsure about the files you are talking about, but normally I would advise against renaming unless the name is misleading. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Examples: File:Sigma SD-14 (4093646049).jpg and File:Sigma SD-14 (4093480885).jpg. I will add the category. It is not explicitly stated that the pictures are taken with this camera, but I see no other explanation for 'Sigma SD-14' in the name.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case I agree. Names like this should be renamed per Commons:File_renaming per reason #2. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
"It is not explicitly stated that the pictures are taken with this camera". It says so right there in the metadata. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:54, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

There are to many of them. 14 and still counting adding the the categories 'Taken with Sigma SD14' and '2009 in Amsterdam'. Probably a photografer trying out his new camera.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Research needed[edit]

Cascade de Coo au XVme siècle.jpg
This is obvouisly a postcard of a painting. Any idea who the painter is. The original painting must exist somewhere.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Search[edit]

How can I add someone to the main search.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGajowiak (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2019‎ (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you would like to search for a person's name, you can just use the "Search Wikimedia Commons" field on top of the page. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to add a picture of a person to Commons that should be found then first use a meaningful file name, add an image description into the relavant field and then use proper categories. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

August 18[edit]

New files in category[edit]

Is there any way to know if new files have been uploaded in a category, without opening it? As a watch list.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MONUMENTA (talk • contribs) 21:00, 18 August 2019‎ (UTC)
That would be a quite handy tool, but I'm not aware of any such alert. Also, I don't think the traditional watchlist system can be used for this task because it works with edits made to specific pages. However, files are not added to a category by putting text into the category page, but by adding the category name to the file page. So what you are looking for is a scan for every new file that checks if "Category:Foo" has been involved. And categories that are added after the initial upload would even be harder to track. Now, if there was a way to access the counter in the category page that shows the number of files in a category, this might be possible in theory. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@MONUMENTA, De728631: User:Captain-tucker/category-tracker has about 44 such counters, using the expensive PAGESINCATEGORY statistical magic word.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:09, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
@MONUMENTA: yes you can. Go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, unselect Hide categorization of pages and save. Then add any category you wanna watch to your watchlist, you could immediately see files added or removed from the cat. Try it out by watching Category:All media needing categories as of 2019. The changes show files moved in or out of a cat, but not whether they were recently uploaded, though.--Roy17 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, @De728631:, I already knew about that impediment, but thank you very much for the interest.
It seems quite complicated @Jeff G.:, thank you very much for the information.
I don't know if it will be as you say @Roy17:, but I will try, thank you very much for the feature.
MONUMENTA Talk 11:01, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@MONUMENTA: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:45, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Motd templates using invalid langcodes?[edit]

While I was fixing Template:Media of the day/layout, I noticed that some langcodes as seen in Category:Motd templates by language might not be valid. They are de-ch, ku-Arab, zh-guoyu-bpmf. (There might be more, but I only checked these ones because of the hyphen.)

What to do with these? I'd say we could move them to the actual langcodes they should be, or if they are valid create the Template:langcode. I only know zh-guoyu-bpmf is quite unlikely a valid one. The user was writing in w:Bopomofo. I'd move the description to the file page and delete the motd templates.--Roy17 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)

zh-guoyu-bpmf does not exist at MediaWiki and will not be used. ku-Arab is correct. de-ch needs to be moved to the correct de-CH --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 19[edit]

Free files on other Wikimedia websites[edit]

I had recently stumbled across w:jp:ファイル:Zeni1kanbun.jpg on the Japanese-language Wikipedia and this is not unique, for a couple of years I've found dozens of images on the Japanese-language Wikipedia which were "{{Own}}" and released with a compatible license suited for Wikimedia Commons. Now these images would be very useful on other Wikimedia websites as well as other websites in general, and while I am very happy that local Wikipedia's allow for local uploads (as all "fair use" stuff can get dumped there), but this image is completely within scope of Wikimedia Commons and the fact that it's exclusive to the Japanese-language Wikipedia limits it.

Maybe a bot should automatically tag local files on (other) Wikipedia's to be moved to Wikimedia Commons and someone on that Wikipedia or other Wikimedia website should then judge if the image is or isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons and then be tagged as being incompatible or to be automatically imported to Wikimedia Commons if found to be compatible. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Gadget-ImageAnnotator[edit]

Try installing Gadget-ImageAnnotator with your code in User:MONUMENTA/MediaWiki:Gadget-ImageAnnotator.js, but it didn't work. I don't know if I did it wrong or it doesn't work anymore.MONUMENTA Talk 11:08, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

August 20[edit]