Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
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/2021/04.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [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.

April 07[edit]

Idea: explicitly disallow nudity uploading from otherwise non-contributors[edit]

COM:NOPENIS is a decent guideline that allows for the deletion of a lot of nudity uploaded, but in my opinion it doesn't go far enough. Many nudes, which may be educational, still have potential consent issues. Therefore, I would suggest a blanket ban on uploading nudity by users who have few other global contributions (and are therefore not a part of the community). This is not an RfC, I'd like to gather some thoughts before formalizing this as a policy. This would allow us to deal with potential consent issues much better, as well as deleting many nudes of iffy educational value much less controversially. (ping Mo Billings as someone potentially interested) Elli (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I do support this, as I don't see a purpose in allowing everyone to give us their nudes. If you've made global contributions, no big deal, but if you're trying to troll the commons? yeah no. stop with that. JackFromReedsburg (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. There are perfectly good contributors where this is all they do. Conversely, there are contributors in other subject matter areas who do nothing but copyvios. - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose per Jmabel. Besides, proposals belong at COM:VPP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a proposal, I wanted some thoughts first. Elli (talk) 02:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I understand the reasoning behind this proposal, but I think it is both too broad and not broad enough. The issue here is really that Commons makes little or no attempt to enforce what COM:PEOPLE says about consent. Uploaders are not informed about consent concerns like they are for copyright concerns. Just as with copyright violations, I would expect to see more uploads from new users that have consent issues, but, just as with copyright violations, having a history of uploads does not mean that users are not going to upload problematic images. I think that a lack of edits on Commons or other Wikimedia projects is one factor in evaluating uploads, but it isn't a sure sign that the uploads have consent issues even if they involve nudity or sexuality. We should be more clear in what we expect from uploaders, especially where it involves images of identifiable people. It would be helpful if more experienced users added Template:Consent to their own uploads so less experienced users got used to seeing it. Mo Billings (talk) 02:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I was unaware of that template. Maybe adding it to the upload wizard would be a good idea? Elli (talk) 03:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
-- (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Why do you keep trying to make it seem like I am responsible for other editors actions here? I didn't propose this - Elli did. I didn't propose the consent checkbox - Masem did. I don't think either of those proposals are very well thought out and I don't support them. I am concerned about consent issues here on Commons. We can disagree about it, but please stop harassing me like this by making me look like some kind of ringleader. Thanks. Mo Billings (talk) 15:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I have posted this exactly once. I am not intending to forum shop, nor was I intending to start an RfC or a vote, as I explicitly mentioned. I simply wanted to gather the community's thoughts here. It's clear that this is something that would not be popular - which is fine - but your response, here and elsewhere, was been entirely over-the-top and unnecessary. Elli (talk) 16:35, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
It is an inescapable fact that that the Mo Billings account was pinged in the opening paragraph of this thread. That ping makes this thread directly connected to the existing pattern of forum shopping. It is also an inescapable fact that as the opener of this thread, your account is also active on the English Wikipedia discussion, but those 4 posts there were not mentioned here. Highlighting the facts that forum shopping and cross-wiki lobbying exists and these connecting patterns is not "over the top", they are facts. -- (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I pinged Mo Billings because we had discussed this particularly, including him leaving a message on my talk. I'm not here to defend Mo Billings' behavior - I think it was inappropriate - but you are conflating us (and did so again at the recent deletion you opened). Elli (talk) 16:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. Please stay aware of the obvious pattern that has developed over a matter of days, whether fully intentional or not. No doubt you agree there are now too many related threads created about this in a very short time, which is far more likely to create opposition rather than positive discussion. -- (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
For sure, I thought taking this discussion to enwiki, and to the WMF (in a way - certainly not the Commons community) before the community first, was a bad idea. Elli (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is an excellent idea and I would fully support it.
However I can't see any way to implement it. We're unlikely to add AI cock-spotting to the upload wizard. So how would this see new uploads as "acceptable" or "not acceptable"? I would see an ineffective implementation as worse than none. One thing worse than an unwanted dickpic is the same thing, but free-ranging and uncategorised or named. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:25, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose - Solution looking for a problem. Also the consent box thing sort of makes this moot - Of course anyone can tick a box and still upload it anyway but nudity here as far as I know has never been a problem - There's just a few bad apples in the bunch. People photograph all sorts of things and we shouldn't disallow one "genre" of uploaders because of a few problems here and there. –Davey2010Talk 11:33, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Davey2010 Here you say "nudity here as far as I know has never been a problem" but elsewhere you just said "apparently there were child porn issues here years ago". How do you reconcile those two statements? Mo Billings (talk) 16:07, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Fair point. I assumed CP was no longer uploaded here (because I was under the impression if it was then one way or another it would appear on some noticeboard somewhere because this is Commons and everything ends up at a noticeboard here.... bit like EN really). It's also dawned on me I !voted delete on a potential revenge porn image so it was indeed wrong of me to say "nudity's never been a problem" when it obviously has. I still don't believe there is a problem atleast not a problem big enough to warrant this sort of action. As I said above there's just a few bad apples out there nothing we cannot handle. –Davey2010Talk 16:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
This is your account's 326 edit to Commons. Yesterday the same account was canvassing on this topic at en:User talk:Jimbo Wales, and on that project, the account has yet to reach 700 edits. Cross-wiki lobbying, insisting on WMF board level attention, the uploading of a deliberately disruptive self created "Donald Trump watching porn image", and targeting long term contributors for personal argument, is unusual behaviour for a new account created 13 months ago and with a total global edit count of 1,000. I'm sure that others can reach their own conclusions as to whether this strange new account behaviour is of concern. -- (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure you're accusing me of something, but what is it exactly? I started a discussion on Mr Wales' talk page about a 2011 WMF board resolution, since he is a member of the board. I was unaware of that resolution until someone here mentioned it in a discussion (I don't remember who). How is that "canvassing"? How is that discussion in any way a problem? Which long term contributors am I "targeting" for personal arguments? You mean Audioboss and their copyright violations? I make no apologies for calling them out on their proven falsehoods. This is a discussion started by another user (not me) to gauge support for something. If you don;t support it, that's fine. I don't either. But why are you cluttering up the discussion with these kinds of baseless accusations? What is your goal? Why all the focus on me? What have I done to upset you so much? Mo Billings (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I see no good reason for this. But there is an other topic: Spam on these file pages. So I would support semi protecting all pages in these field. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:27, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Not sure I've noticed this as an issue. Do you have some examples of spamming of nudity files? -- (talk) 19:32, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
With some outreach we can find contributors to fill that gap. Needs the good angle tho. Yug (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the above seems to have no logic at all. How is child porn relevant to a discussion about new users being able to upload nude images? Obviously no one is allowed to upload child porn. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting info.svg Info Mo Billings has been locked as a sockpuppet. -- (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
  • This makes no sense. "This would allow us to deal with potential consent issues much better, as well as deleting many nudes of iffy educational value much less controversially." I would suspect that people who would want to use their nudes for educational purposes on Wikimedia Commons would probably not want their other works linked with their account, I can see a high quality contributor making an undisclosed second account to upload a nude to use at a Wikipedia article or to illustrate something (in an educational sense), this would essentially force users to "out" themselves. Content should never be judged by the uploaded but by the content itself, even a broken clock is wrong twice a day and a good clock can be a minute behind. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

April 10[edit]

What format to upload an image in[edit]

I'm going to upload an image onto Commons. All of the copyright checks out, insofar as it was created and published in 1870, and its author died in 1899, (Source: making it undoubtedly in the public domain.

However, as it's a fairly detailed image (a panoramic sketch of an entire town) and the viewer's experience relies on that level of detail, I wanted to know how I should upload it without being completely unreasonable. As an example, the LOC has available a 154.7 MB TIFF, but I'm not sure a file of that size would be acceptable. Any pointers? Maybe convert it into a bitmap or a PNG? I don't want to compromise any of the detail in the image, but I don't imagine people will appreciate having to download a 155 MB file just to view it. TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Jmabel! I'll get to work uploading the TIFF. As it turns out, the Library of Congress has almost 200 works by Ruger of the same style, and I see surprisingly little of that work on Commons (none of which ostensibly have the original image quality), so that could be a fantastic (if excruciating) project which could benefit a great many Wikipedia articles. In fact, it seems like he was especially prolific in the Midwest. TheTechnician27 (talk) 15:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Automated uploads high resolution images from the Library of Congress collection has been done in the past, see Category:Images from the Library of Congress. One of these uploaders might be willing to upload this set for you too. Multichill (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
      • @Multichill: I'll see if I can get in touch with someone who's done one of these mass-uploads like , as I think these could be a fantastic asset to almost 200 articles (or more, given the LOC hosts over 1500 panoramic maps from miscellaneous artists). In the meantime, I'm having trouble just uploading one of these]], unfortunately. For some reason, the Upload Wizard hasn't been working, stating "This file did not pass file verification" and sometimes another message I neglected to write down about the server and expected time. The file as downloaded from the LOC uses the extension .tif, though I also changed it to .tiff just to see if that would somehow solve the problem. Attempting to upload another TIFF from the LOC (this one: returns the same error. TheTechnician27 (talk) 21:28, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
        • You probably want to give User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js a try. Multichill (talk) 20:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @Multichill: I went ahead and installed it. All of the chunks returned "Chunks uploaded", but the last three lines read: "Assembling chunks"; "Still waiting for server to rebuild uploaded file"; "FAILED: stashfailed: This file did not pass file verification". I'm going to give it another shot changing one minor thing, and it's currently uploading, but I think the Upload Wizard may not have been at fault here, since it can also upload in chunks and returned a very similar error message. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:13, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
            • Actually, I just noticed that the error is "stashfailed" and that there's an option for "use stash and async", so I'm going to try disabling that and see if this works. Update: "FAILED: stashfailed: Chunked upload is already completed, check status for details." I guess I'll try clearing the upload stash and seeing if that resolves it. Basically just throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks at this point. TheTechnician27 (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
For large images, JPGs look better than TIFFs on Wikipedia articles, even though they are lossy, which is why it's good to have both versions. See also Commons:File types. The LOC often hosts JPGs at a smaller maximum resolution than TIFF counterparts, so I use free online image converters like Online Convert to convert TIF to JPG (or desktop software for large files). --Animalparty (talk) 20:56, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
@Animalparty: Definitely. I just wanted to make sure there was an original quality version up on Commons as well. However, I'm going to do what Odysseus1479 seemed to do when they ran into a similar issue and, as you noted, just upload the high-quality jpeg from the LOC as that'll work best for Wikipedia. Then I'll worry about the TIFF later. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
TheTechnician27 This image is already uploaded as a tiff back in 2018 by Fæ. We now have 3 copies of the file. The tiff and a png and jpg uploaded by yourself. The problem here is uploading files from public museums and not naming, them as the museum would, and not using the most suitable template. The project is continually automatically scraping up on an ad hoc basis PD museum collection images. Before uploading its a good idea to study how the uploading scrapers have named others in the collection and mimic that format. When uploading the image you used the wizard, which did not pick up the exiting file as it was in a different format. If you use the wizard You should change the format template from information to artwork and make sure you note the collection reference number in the right place to stop scrapers from uploading other versions of the same file. An example where this can go wrong is with images from ArtUK; Wikidata is assigning Q numbers to all images it finds in ArtUK. Where the scraper cant find an image on commons, that has that collection number, it will upload competing images automatically. Commons can only warn you that an image is already loaded if the checksum matches. The other thing you need to do, is cross reference other versions of the same image in commons within the template of the file, to warn other users about what you have done.
Last, but not least its an idea to check (first before doing anything) if there are any images still to cat against the author. Category:Albert Ruger was 24 images and one sub cat, there were 419 images awaiting catting to Albert, now done. Broichmore (talk) 18:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

April 12[edit]

Line numbering coming soon to all wikis[edit]

-- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 15:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Now this is some good news! Thank you to everybody who made this happen! -- Tuválkin 17:28, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Awesome, thank you!--Vulphere 03:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 13[edit]

User contributions to check[edit]

Please, control contributios made by PeterParaguay. All are copyvios, easy to check. I can not do it, because I am a new user and the filters dont allow me to do it. Thanks. --Aama223 (talk) 02:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Aama223: All uploads are subject to deletion, thanks for the report.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 02:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Ongoing Video Upload Issues[edit]

Spent much of the afternoon trying to upload a video. Uploading a webm file through the standard "Upload file" link (left sidebar). Each time all goes through fine, complete the "Describe" page and "publish" then wait an age and eventually get a "Internal error: Server failed to publish temporary file." with a "Retry" button below/right. Retry, wait an age and same happens, and again. So remove download, upload again (20 mins), go through it all again and get same result, etc. I've uploaded the .webm file to [] 615 MB (the .mp4 versions on my own website are lower quality) - don't bother uploading it as I'm prefer it be flagged as my name (for license/attribution/etc.). I feel I'm pretty committed and keep trying but/and after the video transcode issues (mentioned before) I can see a lot of contributors just giving up and not bothering to contribute to the project.PsamatheM (talk) 16:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Got there in the end after so many retries. Video issues need addressing if people are to be encouraged to release media through Commons.PsamatheM (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Next time you get that issue, follow the instructions at [1]. There are several bugs where users with ADSL connections can't upload to wikimedia commons.--Snaevar (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@Snaevar:the upload went fine (so connectivity OK), entry of description (captions, categories, etc.) fine but the "publish" stage after Description took an age then reported Internal Server Error so connectivity still OK. The linked instructions look more like connectivity issues or am I missing something?PsamatheM (talk) 19:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Sometimes I uploaded a cropped to 20M video, and after it was published uploaded the full video with the version upload function (this version upload also shows the progress of the individual chunks, the assembling of the chunks and the progress of the publishing). --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Screenshot from TV[edit]

Hi. I started a deletion request because I found a TV screenshot, but the uploader says this is not valid because I am an anonymous user and even he blanked the request and made a move: Commons:Deletion requests of unregistered user. Is this correct? Thanks. -- 20:30, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

  • You are perfectly entitled to make a deletion request as an anonymous user, unless you are evading a block. - Jmabel ! talk 20:42, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

April 14[edit]

Is there still consensus for the MP4 ban?[edit]

Sometime ago I saw a village pump discussion here talking about improving video uploading to Wikimedia Commons (I can't find it as the website is "basically broken" for me on my mobile device at the moment, hoping that the next MediaWiki software update will fix it), in it a user (as far as my memory is accurate) pointed out that an old ban on MP4-format files on Wikimedia Commons may no longer have consensus as people today aren't as much for "open-source purity" as they were a decade ago citing that PDF files are now allowed on Wikimedia Commons. So before making this a proposal, is it likely that Wikimedia Commons might start allowing MP4 files? And are there still copyright © issues with this format? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

No, actually there was a new conseus for limited MP4 uploads. The developers where asked to implement that in phab:T258540. That new conseus is linked in the bug.--Snaevar (talk) 10:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
BTW other wikis based on the MW software play MP4 perfectly well (or at least, play in the not great user interface). Once implemented we should encourage campaigns like wiki loves to have users uploading short mp4s. -- (talk) 10:59, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
PDF is now "open", no? It's an ISO standard, and royalty-free. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I can see how I misworded that, I meant to write that PDF is a proprietary file type that we accept. So it would only be logical to also accept MP4 (and by extension MP3) files as these are extremely common file types, unless there some unforseen barriers that I am missing. Because the acceptance of PDF-type files indicates that there is at least some consensus somewhere to allow for free content, even if the content is in an unfree file format. Think of how some people plaster a watermark that says "Copyright © Idiotsville Museum - ALL FREAKIN' RIGHTS RESERVED" on a scan of a public domain 2D artwork, alright, maybe these situations aren't completely compatible, but as far as I'm aware there are no copyright protocols that disallow other manufacturers from reading proprietary file types, otherwise Mango Computers (metaphor) would've made every file made on a Mango Computers device unreadable for Microsoft Windows and Google Android users years ago to keep their costumers locked into their ecosystem. Of course, I might be missing something obvious, and there might be a reason for limited MP4 acceptance as opposed to the (more desirable) unlimited MP4 option. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The thing is, like Donald mentioned from the start, users on commons nowadays do not care about whether the format is free or not. That can be seen in the difference between the votes in the original WMF RFC and the new one listed in the bug. But, since you are interested, the WMF as an non-profit organization will not pay any royalties for MP4, the WMF itself has even confirmed that. As for PDF, it is a free format now.--Snaevar (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hypothetically, could the International Organisation for Standardisation ever change their mind and ask the Wikimedia Foundation for royalties because Wikimedia Commons hosts MP4 files? Can for-profit re-users of Wikimedia Commons MP4 files be expected to pay royalties to the International Organisation for Standardisation simply for using this format? I'm trying to figure out how unfree MP4 files really are. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The issue isn't copyrights at all – ffmpeg can read mp4s, and it's available under the GPL. The issue is patents. MP4s can contain H.264 or H.265 video, and those require patent licenses from MPEG LA for the former and a couple different groups for the latter. I don't know much about patent law, but the issue at stake isn't just "a proprietary format or not". PDF is fine because it isn't patented. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
The no royalties on WMF´s part is an "Internet Broadcast" licence. MPEG LA have an press release on it.--Snaevar (talk) 13:34, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Video Upload[edit]

Hi everyone, I would like to find out how I can upload a long video with a duration of 1hr or more on wikimedia commons. I struggle to do that, as result of this I have to cut the videos and make it shorter to upload on wikimedia commons. I will be glad if the community show or teach me the best way to upload a long video on wikimedia commons. Thanks. Jwale2 (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

@Jwale2: Hi, and welcome. You could try using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (documentation is on the talk page).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks, but this is too technical and I don't really understand, can I get something simpler. Jwale2 (talk) 23:51, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
There is a hard limit of 4GiB (4,294,967,295 bytes) for all types of files. Apart from that, any upload method will work, or not. With a good and fast internet connection the upload wizard will upload a 4GiB file, with a not so good internet connection all upload methods may fail. You can try external upload tools like Commonist, Vicuna, pywikibot, pattypan, ... If all else fails you can ask for a server upload at phabricator. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:41, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

April 15[edit]

Photo challenge February results[edit]

Bridges: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Harbourbridge Sydney.jpg Devil's bridge (lo schiaccianoci).jpg Australia sydney.jpg
Title Harbourbridge bei Nacht Devil's bridge (lo schiaccianoci) Harbour Bridge, Sydney
Author Sadarama Repuli Ddgfoto
Score 13 11 11
Wind: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Reiher im Starkwind.jpg Windy Wedding.jpg Südengland.jpg
Title "verdammt windig hier oben" Windy Wedding Baumreihe an einer Straße in Südengland
Author Sadarama Paulhaberstroh DEspel
Score 37 25 11

Congratulations to Sadarama (twice!), Repuli, Ddgfoto, Paulhaberstroh and DEspel. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Native American tribal governments[edit]

I've been looking for, and failing to find, categories relating to Native American tribal governments and their offices. Examples of images for which this would be useful: File:Bay Center, WA - Chinook Tribal Office 01.jpg, File:Carnation WA - Snoqualmie Tribe office.jpg, File:Swinomish Tribal Police Department 01.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 07:25, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Commons UCoC consultation summary is now available[edit]

Dear Commoners,

Thank you for your participation in the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) enforcement consultation on Wikimedia Commons. The summary of the consultation is now available on Commons and Meta-Wiki. Thank you for your help and enthusiasm to keep our community safe and joyful for everyone! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Which category?[edit]

TOPO 1.jpg

This image has as description (translated) "Traffic flow measuring device based on FSK". I have seen such an apparatus also in Belgium and could not find an article in Wikipedia. Which category is it best placed in? Wouter (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Road traffic management? Broichmore (talk) 17:58, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I added also "Radars". Wouter (talk) 18:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

April 16[edit]

Ask about TOO in Colombia[edit]

The concept of the TOO exists in Colombia?, I ask this because this concept doesn't appear in the page related to TOO in Commons or the page about copyright in Colombia either (sorry for my bad english). Sr. Knowthing (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@Sr. Knowthing: Pinging @Aymatth2, Clindberg. If they don't respond, please try asking at COM:VPC.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 04:08, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
@El Rolo Ueeqee: The concept exists in pretty much every country, however information on the exact boundaries for each country is rather hard to come by -- in many countries, there does not seem to have been court cases which determine them (or at least none that have been reported here). The Colombia law seems to require that works are "creations of the mind", but does not define that term further. It would usually take someone who knows how to search legal cases in a country to see if any guidance exists. If there is none, or nothing is reported here, then the TOO pages might remain basically blank. Carl Lindberg (talk) 04:34, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Obras de Oswaldo Guayasamín[edit]

Hello, wondering if this category should better be renamed into: Category:Works by Oswaldo Guayasamín. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Meh, it's been fine for the last 5 years. It's not going to confuse anyone. -- (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I created a new category in English and kept a redirect from the old one. -- Tuválkin 16:36, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

State of the Commons[edit]

Hi there, I wonder what is the current dynamic on Commons. I recently noticed :

  • Commons:Administrators applications are stalled.
    • Adminship votes are harsh, looking for do-it-all-perfect-admin.
    • Activity is concentrated (admins logs)
    • About 30% of 210 admins are non-active.
    • One third of admins (~70/210) have 36+ admin actions per months. The ratio “files (72M) to admins” is 1 million files to monitor per active admins.
  • Commons:Deletion requests' group deletion are stalled (ex).
  • Commons:Deletion requests' daily deletion are stalled (ex).
  • Other community forums are sub-performing or with deficient organisation.

Are we in an slump recently ? Are admins overloaded ? Are there some move to improve things ? Or are we frozen by rules ? Other ? Note: I do not want to open an endless forum on how to improve things, but I would like to get a quick sense of where we are in your opinion, so I may act accordingly in coming months and not run blindly into known brick walls. Yug (talk) 17:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

    • @Yug: by "staled" do you mean "stalled" or something else? [now fixed - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 17 April 2021 (UTC)]
    • If 70% of our admins are active, that would be very high. Remember that we don't systematically remove someone's adminship for inactivity, so if someone is focused elsewhere for, say, a year or two, they come back as an admin in good standing. I would guess that some wikis with similar policies are well under 50% active admins.
    • Not all admin activity is going to be reflected by specific use of admin tools. I'm a pretty active administrator, who makes almost no use of those tools.
    • I have no idea what the sentence "We have about 1 million files per administrator with more than 36 admin actions per months" even means.
Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: My hypothesis is that active admins and structuring contributors (not necessarily admins) are overloaded by maintenance of existing and incoming files or pages. These users' attention are divided and diluted across Commons, resulting in stalled DR and suboptimal specialized forums. The 1/3 ratio of active admins is just a part of it. The main point is core and critical pages (DR) are not able to process the provided input properly (with speed and quality). It could be recent and a phase, a wrong impression and misunderstanding of Commons from my part, or a known structural weakness of Commons. If such official process are overloaded (ex: my group deletion been waiting 7 months already) I will have to take it into account, and rather that follow page's guidelines, I will look for workarounds for some of my DRs and others. Like direct DR to admins, increased patience, or repeat my requests until someone picks it up. Yug (talk) 08:55, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
There are other maintenance roles than the administrator, like the Rollbackers - 690 users, Patrollers - 617 users and Image reviewers - 288 users. Admittedly, I have not dug into exactly what they do, but the administrators are not alone. Instead of comparing the total number of files to admins it would make more sense to compare the number of new files in a given time frame to these groups. The DR process has a backlog, sure, but repeating requests is just going to make it worse. Experienced users could always review DR cases and lower the backlog that way.--Snaevar (talk) 14:47, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing the legitimacy of a DR is not mainly a task for people who have been designated admins. Even closing a DR does not require an admin, although non-admins should do this only in clear-cut, uncontroversial cases. Yes, we need more people who will go through the list of DRs and comment intelligently. No one has to select you to do that: you just need a strong sense of policy. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
If we limit the discussion to DR, I agree, more groups can get involved. To share back a bit, the barier for me are : time and not having the tools (call a decision => ask someone admin to delete), not feeling legitimate to handle DR of others (not admin), no fine knowledge of DR rules & avoid votes & conflicts. Participation in DR requires a too high bar in term of experience of DR's rules and free time for me (a common user) to get involved efficiently.
From what i can see, at this level of backlog it's not a phase: the current system & engagement level doesnt works. Commons is a file management wiki, but we are failing (no capable of managing a range of requests) in a systemic way, imo.
Thanks Snaevar for the point on repeated requests, i wont do this then. I personally knows some admins so i will go this way for my personal DR needs.
Jmabel, my limited time-resource and past few years experiences on Commons encourage me to keep focused on my small projects and not get involves into such public and fine process.Yug (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
I guess what I'm saying is that it's not so much a matter of giving more people admin tools; it's more a matter of people stepping up and doing the work. For example for some reason people have opposed User:Jeff G. becoming an admin, but he does a lot more basically administrative work than the average admin. - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
We seem to have developed a habit of requiring totally perfect angels as admins rather than those with human qualities, and keep refusing adequately-qualified candidates and those with ten years experience of adminship on various projects, not to mention a deep knowledge of legal issues such as copyright, data protection and privacy. Not good. Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu IMO, admin on Commons is largely the delete function, a broom. Commons is a files management wiki, acquiring this delete tool and admin status should be much easier. We have 70 Millions pages to monitor. As of now, we have about 100 active users with admin tools. Having 500 active users with admin tools would not hurt. It would just make life easiers for everyone.
Admin status also has a symbolic function, encouraging action and increasing confidence, legitimacy of good willed users.
Last, using Mediawiki:SiteNotice to call for help on DR and rebuild the DR team seems needed. Yug (talk) 07:47, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion have deviated on minor focals, but it seems there is a need to reshape the DR system, and possibly to merge sister-projects accross Wikimedia Commons so the project indeed have a decent human-resource mass. Ex: we have 3 specialized Graphic Labs each barely active. As of now everywhere I go it's sparsely populated, processes are suboptimal, and activity is haphazard. Yug (talk) 17:04, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
I know I'm not an admin but you keep posting things like "We have 70 Millions pages to monitor" when in reality the vast majority of those pages need no attention from any admin whatsoever. My opinion is that if a DR request takes a bit of time then it's probably because there is no rush and nothing is gained by doing it over quickly. My observation is that you seem to be constructing an issue where in actual fact there is none. Oxyman (talk) 18:22, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Oxyman, Jmabel: I double checked Commons:Deletion_requests/2021/02/01, one single day from nearly 3 months ago (1st February 2021). The dozen files I clicked should be deleted but weren't. More anocdetical but still illustrative, my group DR cited above cite ~30 low quality bitmap to delete because they were superseded by better and sourced vector version. Consensus is christal clear. Yet I'm at the 3rd deletion request and 7 months waiting. When we don't acknowledge a problem, we for sure cannot fix it. Yug (talk) 20:05, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
@Yug: If there are DRs that have reached a clear consensus and no one has followed them up, again, you are exactly as capable of closing those as an admin. If the conclusion is "keep," then there is literally no part of the process that you cannot do (you can link the discussion from the talk page, just like an admin can). If the conclusion is "delete," then you can't do the actual deletion, but feel more than free to close a bunch of these, make a list, and link that from COM:AN. I'm sure it will be attended to rapidly. In my view the problem isn't lack of admins, it's that other users seem to feel that admins need to do a ton of work that does not require an admin to do it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
Conversely, if the problem is that there is no clear consensus, that is not an admin issue at all. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
It's mainly an involvement/consensus issue, true. It theoretically could perfectly work with current number of admins and more involvement from the community. But we see it does not happen and does not work.
What are the parameter we can play upon ?
1) Create more engagement, so we get more consensus.
2) Create more admins who get more engagements, and two-in-one close & delete. 100 more admin at average 30 actions/months = increase of 3000 actions / month. Not perfect, but could help.
3) Improve processes. (How).
I think 3 is hard to think out for DR, easy for other pages, it depends. For 2, fast tracking users with experience on DR review toward adminship would help. AFAIK, the core Commons community of experience and hyperactive admins is locked into a "rare nobility" dynamic for adminship : only people with 15k edits/year and a truly complete profile stand a change. Applicants requiring the tool for local use ―not global nor massive― do not deserve the tool, etc. We have an implicit « Spartan requirement ». Application are stalled (see Commons:Administrators). So the only avenue is 1 : Create more engagement, call for help. It's best avenue yet not glorious. Asking volunteers to engage more with the chores while not entrusting them with the tools to lead those deletion chores to the end won't be sustainable. When you repeatedly call for people skills and entrust people to create DR consensus, IMO, respect requires to entrust them with the tool to enforce those DR. Yug (talk) 07:43, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Another avenue I may think of is a patronage of Admin application. 2~3 experienced admins or users initiate an Admin application for a DR-active user. So despite not being perfect candidate, the application can still stand a change. Won't be enough. Yug (talk) 07:52, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
I withdraw myself from this issue. From this short conversation it seems a notable part >1/3 of users think it's all fine as of now so change is unlikely. Only a proper analysis followed by a gentle, skillful and sustained campaign by lead users can lead to DR & Commons Adminship applications improvements. Thanks to this section's contributors, I understand local dynamics better now. :) Yug (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 17[edit]

What can I use as a category name for 'proeve van bekwaamheid' (Dutch)?[edit]

In Dutch 'proeve van bekwaamheid' (literally: a proof/demonstration of competence) is an exam work with which a student proofs that he/she has the skills and knowledge to practice a particular profession. In the time of the Guilds it was the masterpiece of the journeyman to become a self-employed master craftsmen, for instance a painter or carpenter. Later on it was the exam work for a diploma, like a complicated/advanced piece of needle work to become a teacher of needlework. What English term can I use? I found Aptitude test and Proficiency examination as a translation for the exam, but not for the work. Could I use Aptitude test works or Proficiency examination works? Or what else would be a good English term? Parent categories would be Category:Examinations and Category: Works. JopkeB (talk) 07:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

  • "Aptitude test" would be wrong, at least in U.S. English. That usually has more to do with entry into a curriculum than completion.
  • Historically it was "masterwork" or "masterpiece" but those terms have been inflated to where they mean something even more advanced.
  • So I don't have a specific suggestion. We do (in U.S. English) have a notion of a "project for a degree" done in lieu of a thesis, but that is very specific to an academic degree. - Jmabel ! talk 15:08, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for your information. I found some other possibilities: 'examination piece', 'proof of competence' and 'examination work'. Can I use one of those? Are they not only for papers but also for craft works AND are they for completion an education? JopkeB (talk) 05:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Secret CIA maps[edit]

I found these declassified secret Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) maps, are these considered to be "commissioned works" or "United States government works", I can't find anything else about their authorship other that they were used by the CIA. Did the CIA make these maps themselves or hire people and then kept it a secret? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:14, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think that they are government works. Ruslik (talk) 13:51, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
CIA maps are pretty reliably public domain. Same for their "country reports". - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Groundlevel railway signals[edit]

Sein 74 in Winterswijk 1992.jpg

I created the Category:Dwergsein for this type of railway signal in the Netherlands. Is there a general category for ground level railway signs. The literal translation of 'dwergsein' is 'dwarf signal'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:56, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

You were so close: Category:Dwarf signals. I suggest you move Category:Dwergsein to Category:Dwarf signals in the Netherlands per COM:LP. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:37, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
Category:Ground signals in the United Kingdom has the GB equivalents.Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done --Jcornelius (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 18[edit]

Rapidly blinking images, etc.[edit]

I came across two images which contain rapid blinking at rates that are considered significant by guidelines around content that may be harmful to those with photosensitive epilepsy. As a warning, the links in this contain rapidly-blinking images so please don't click if you are sensitive to that kind of thing. For disclosure, I am not, I merely find them intensely irritating.

It looks to me as though there is no policy around such images, and there doesn't seem to be any technical infrastructure in place to be able to serve these images in a responsible manner. When the image is included on a Wikipedia page (as an example, this revision of the English Wikipedia article Pulsar planet") the thumbnail also blinks at the same rate, and if the image is clicked on it opens the rapidly-blinking image in a full-window version without any additional warnings.

Are such images in scope of the project? If not, should there be (speedy?) deletion criteria around them? If they are in scope, what kind of technical measures can be put in place to host them in a responsible manner (bearing in mind any relevant accessibility laws) across the various wikis, and if those technical measures do not currently exist, what should be done in the interim? And should there be a policy covering them? Thoughts? NoFlickering (talk) 09:07, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Contrast luminosity can be reduced. See en:Wikipedia:Graphic Lab. Yug (talk) 09:36, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Yes I think they are in scope. If they are annoying then users could just not click them. It must be possible to add a warning on them so users do not click them by a mistake. --MGA73 (talk) 14:53, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly in scope, but I agree that they deserve something analogous to a NSFW warning when linked. - Jmabel ! talk 15:14, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
    • The files will also blink, if only a thumb is included in an article. This could be avoided, if they were converted to webm. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

April 19[edit]

Copyright review requestː image from Smithsonian Institution[edit]

As I am writing about a group of Bivalvia mollusks with the same vernacular denomination and I do not have this species to photograph, I would like to know if anyone would know about the possibility of this photograph from above, of Erodona mactroides, have its copyright made possible for Wikimedia Commons. Mário NET (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Mário NET: Sorry, that is not possible without permission from Collector V. Pita until 1 January 2093, as it is not marked CC0 per . Clicking on the image in the box, I found "Usage Statement: CC0", so you may upload it as CC0.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:03, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, so I will download and then upload it here. Mário NET (talk) 14:15, 19 April 2021 (UTC)