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:


 
A village pump in Burkina Faso [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.

August 24[edit]

Please move File:Peraturan_Presiden_Nomor_52_Tahun_2010.pdf into File:Peraturan_Presiden_Republik_Indonesia_Nomor_52_Tahun_2010.pdf. It's just a little bit mistake. Mnafisalmukhdi1 (talk) 06:12, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Done. --ghouston (talk) 07:17, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

October 08[edit]

SDC Coordinates discrepency[edit]

File:Queen Mary 2 coming into NYC for the first time 2004.jpg has a flag saying the location does not match. This is true, as the "SDC coordinates" indicate a place far from the wide river that the large ship needs. But what is SDC Coordinates, and why doesn't the template say what it is or how it can be erased or adjusted? Jim.henderson (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like the bot who added the Structured data coordinates “40.84706/-74.157714” sourced it from the commented out template in the source code. This is a bug that should be reported to the bot operator.
At the same time − what was the point of commenting out the template with the wrong coordinates? Wouldn’t the file page history be enough?
Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Replaced the SDC coordinates with the ones from {{Location}}. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:03, 8 October 2020 (UTC)
Started a barebones help page at Commons:Structured data/Reconciliation and linked it from the warning template − hope that helps. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

More on this. By copying the data (e.g. the coordinates) from file description to SDC creates a redundancy. It is not defined, which of the values is the source value and which one is the copy. This is true for all data copied, not only for the coordinates. To fix the discrepancy, which of the two data has to be changed? To check coordinates, you would have to check both values, and find the better matching one (or, even a third best value). This happens also, if coordinates are not commented out, but were fixed by purpose (e.g. [1]). A bot creates the redundancy, a bot shall fix it. Currently, there are about 2100 Pages with local camera coordinates and mismatching SDC coordinates. The other way round, could we fix the SDC coordinates and the bot will copy the coordinates to the appropriate templates in the file description. Any strategy? I tried to create a discrepancy with inception (P571) by changing the SDC data ([2]), expecting another error message - nope.
If certain SDC data are clearly defined as a copy, where (only) a bot will care for resolving inconsistent values by re-copying, or if this is done immediately by a checkin-trigger, the message could be removed. No need to bother community. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:52, 8 October 2020 (UTC)

Herzi Pinki {{Location}} template is happy to take coordinated from either source: SDC or the wikitext. So in other words one could keep them in SDC and remove them from Wikitext leaving just empty {{Location}}. --Jarekt (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Not quite the answer. What you expect to correct wrong coordinates is to fix the SDC coordinates (which is not possible e.g. via 'Perform batch task') AND to remove the values from the description. If this is the case, why can't a bot do that? What about other redundancies e.g. with the capture date? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 06:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
“Why can’t a bot [remove the wikitext value]” → Many users are happy enough with Structured to see wikitext data being copied to it, but not enough for the data to be removed from the wikitext − not in general, and especially not by a bot. Bot operators, accordingly, are not removing information from the wikitext. This might change in the future when there is more trust in SDoC, but I don’t see it happening soon.
Jean-Fred (talk) 13:58, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I do not understand, why I should correct information in two places but one, only because a bot has done redundant copies of information as part of some strategic initiative (means more WMF than community). No problem, if the bot should not remove redundant information. But than still the question remains, what is the primary source for the coordinates (a link to the specification, not a plain answer please)? A bot is dull, she can only copy without understanding. Thus, when the primary coordinates in the wikitext are corrected, the bot could copy again just performing her dull everyday procedure. What I feel in my heart: The bot is used to do edits by the sheer number, and not by correctness. The bot does not care for correctness. The community is abused to fix inconsistencies created by the bot. We have a quite limited community. Use it with care.
simply said:
  • can a bot take the job to copy changed data from the wikitext (assuming this is the primary source) to the SDC when both values differ (to be sure, if both values differ and wikitext data was changed later)?
  • will it help to just remove wrong SDC data to trigger the bot to copy again the corrected values from wikitext?
  • do you SDC guys really want remarks, error messages and proposals for improvement of the overall process?
best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 15:51, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer @Herzi Pinki:, and apologies for the delayed answer.
First, let me clearly say that I understand your position: when you are doing the good work and fixing coordinates, it should not be made more difficult than it needs to be. I can see how answering “if you change the wikitext, please also fix the structured data!” would not be appropriate − I would not mind doing it, but I understand that others have better things to do.
To answer your points:
1/ “Can a bot resolve the discrepancy based on the latest wikitext version” → Probably yes. It should be discussed in case there are situations where this would not be good (I can’t think of any at the moment)
2/ Yes, if you remove the SDoC coordinates, then the warning will go away and my understanding is that a bot will eventually come around to sync it again − I have tried documenting that at Commons:Structured data/Reconciliation.
3/ Is that a rhetorical question? :-) Not sure whether I qualify as a “SDC guy” (mostly, I identify as a Commons contributor) − but yes, of course. :-)
(One more thing: it may seem obvious, but you are also free to do nothing about it and leave someone else to fix the problem.)
Jean-Fred (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
ad 1 & 2: thanks.
ad 3: @Jean-Frédéric: it was a rhetorical question and it was not. I'm loosing confidence in the work done by the WMF and done by various projects, that this work is shifting from focusing on community to being focused on marketability and ROI (and community is not considered worth an investment, at least on the software side and related stuff). More community wanted, but without taking care of it. Ease the work of the community as much as you can - nope. The Upload Wizard is a nuisance. The user interface of wikidata is a glitch, it is optimized for bots and tools, but errors / CRs against the user interface to help manual fixes are handled with extreme precaution (to stay polite). For me I observe: Taking action is contributing more to the Wikiversum than talking about action - a pity, as it will decrease the number of contributors.
My initial argument was a simple question, I did not get an answer in first place and only a vage option in second. With you, Jean-Fred, communication sometimes escalates from a simple question to something like this. What is the point? My impression sometimes is that you are trying to keep the expectations of support quite low (instead of just supporting). I don't know whether you are a SDC guy, but as you are taking the job of giving answers, maybe you are. Only personal notes, the technical point is quite clear now. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 19:58, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing wrong SDC data would almost certainly be the right thing to do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I am pleased that my confession of confusion has provoked a learned discussion among experts, even though I don't understand much of what is being said. Eventually, I hope, the warning flag will link to a page that explains how people like me, who know some places well, can fix location errors without spending much time in studying how the sparsely documented bots, structured data, and connections to Wikidata work. That will show that the flag is meant seriously as an invitation to adjust those errors. Jim.henderson (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Jim.henderson: The warning now links to Commons:Structured data/Reconciliation. It was put together quickly, so I’d be grateful if you could have a read and assess whether it makes sense / would have helped you figure out what was going on. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 10:26, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

October 13[edit]

Anti-flooding proposal for Gadget-ACDC[edit]

Marking this as withdrawn by proposer. As the proposer, don't reopen this please. Blatant off-wiki canvassing, the club mentality, and off-wiki personal attacks demonstrates that the topic of Structured Data has become one where civil discussion and basic proposals are impossible to raise openly, even by established editors. Now washing my hands. -- (talk) 08:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Proposal
All edits creating structured data statements by the gadget ACDC must be marked as minor in order to minimize watchlist flooding and recent change flooding.

The tool that anyone can use to make thousands, or millions, of edits Gadget-ACDC is responsible for flooding watchlists with changes that are marked as "major" and are not bot changes, despite behaving precisely as a bot account. The tool may be used to make multiple edits to the same file, there being no "rules" about how structured data statements should be added in a way that minimizes their disruption. As of today, most of the edits shown on my own watchlist are edits using ACDC.

Edits are marked as being by the using account, but the user has no option to mark the edits as minor. The gadget was developed by Lucas Werkmeister (talk · contribs). -- (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Votes
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer. -- (talk) 09:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Fæ, what do you want me to do about this? I said just yesterday on the talk page (section link) that there’s no technical way to mark any structured data edits as minor, as far as I’m aware. --Lucas Werkmeister (⧼Talkpagelinktext) 09:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    Raise a Phabricator ticket, get the system fixed. There's no doubt that you have good intentions, but the current behaviour of this gadget is unacceptable. A "bot" that massively floods watchlists with millions of edits should be blocked until it is fixed, that is the norm for this project, just because a few folks are fanatical about Structured Data, does not make any bot that touches it exempt from project norms, such as flagging bot edits as bot edits or marking them as minor. -- (talk) 10:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
    “Millions of edits”? According to Special:Tags, over the last 13 months, there have been 520,000 edits made with AC/DC. Jean-Fred (talk) 14:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    Diese Edits sind aber nicht gleichverteilt über 13 Monate und 1 Million User, sondern sie kommen stoßweise und betreffen gerade solche User, die viel Content beisteuern und den selbst hochgeladenen Content im Auge behalten (WAS JA GERADEZU GERFORDERT WIRD VON DEN HOHEN TIEREN HIER). Schon wenn 1001 Edits innerhalb von 24 Stunden (und es sind ja nicht 24 Stunden, die Edits schlagen viel schneller auf!) aufschlagen, ist die eigene Beo wertlos. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:31, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Apologies, you are correct, it's hundreds of thousands of edits rather than millions. Could you explain why people are still complaining about their watchlists being filled up with crap they have no interest in, and why you are still finding excuses not to fix this problem and instead marginalize them as fringe contributors to this project? Thanks so much. -- (talk) 16:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
      I am taking this discussion very seriously − which is why I am trying to have it grounded in facts − how exactly is this finding excuses or marginalizing anyone?
      Conversely, I find your characterization of “a few folks […] fanatical about Structured Data” certainly marginalizing ; and while I can’t know who you mean by that, personally I find that this adjective has very negative undertones − I hope we can agree that this kind of characterizations are unhelpful to a productive discussion. In the same way, qualifying the gadget implementer as “fanboys” is not helpful, as I’m sure you realized as you saw fit to redact this comment − whether it was targeting Lucas Werkmeister (as the author) or myself (as the one who initially made it a gadget). Can we discuss things without throwing around unfortunate epithets and/or incorrect numbers? Jean-Fred (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This thread is being canvassed off-wiki. Consequently any outcome of this as a vote process will now lack any credibility or legitimacy in terms of assessing a consensus.
Was the content of your remarks, including the odd objection to text that is not actually here, apart from you writing it, influenced by any off-wiki canvassing, some of which is blatant harassment and abuse against your fellow Wikimedians?
Thanks -- (talk) 14:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Do you always answer questions with other questions? Do you always refuse to acknowledge (let alone address) the points made by your interlocutor? Do you always conclude that community discussions, should they not go the way you would hope, are necessarily influenced by external shadowy forces?
To answer your question: I am not aware of any canvassing of that thread, off-wiki or otherwise. By extension, none of my remarks were possibly influenced by any canvassing (whether alleged or confirmed). Abuse has no place anywhere on the Wikimedia projects, which is precisely why I take issues with divisive and offensive comments that you made in this very thread.
Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
You are way, way over-blowing use of "the f-word", presumably deliberatedly to create a tangent. Yes, I removed it, because it was unhelpful, just as you having now raised complaints several times about something that is not here proves. I had thought you would be more sensible than to waste 500 words gaming discussion complaining about an innocuous and humorous word based on a 2009 comedy film, that was not here until you insisted on using it, which by definition pretty accurately reflects that some folks are obsessive about inserting structured data that nobody is actually using into Commons. Go read Fanboy (disambiguation), the word means what it means, nothing more, it's not a swear word or harassment, stop pretending that it is. -- (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Pictogram-voting-question.svg Question Could also be marked as Wikidata edit, too? -- Tuválkin 10:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
No, because they’re not Wikidata edits – it’s Structured Data on Commons. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
The description of the Gadget says Edits are tagged "ACDC", so it is possible to filter the watchlist and not see the edits by the tool. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Except, you can't. The watchlist design allows to filter for tags, but has no facility to filter out tags.
The Phabricator request should be to automatically mark all edits with this tag as minor or more generically, make it possible for users to mark major/minor edits of this type, which ought to be a fundamental feature for any type of project edit; it's bizarre it's been left out. -- (talk) 17:16, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
You can: Save a number of watchlist filters: one that shows all edits, that are not file name space edits, the other filters all show only file name space. The first all bot edits, the next all minor edits, the next all non minor non bot edits that have any tag but the acdc tag. This way you will see all edits that are neither acdc tagged or not tagged at all in the file name space and non minor non bot. No this is not a joke. It is what I am doing because of user:Multichill and user:Schlurcher. I have repeatedly asked for help at village pump and may be at phab and at user:RIsler (WMF) but this is obviously community consensus and work as designed. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I think this is asking for the wrong flag. My watchlist, too, has been filled with automated structured data changes over the past weeks – but those have been the changes of BotMultichill and SchlurcherBot, adding structured copyright information. And because those bots used the “bot” flag (which, unlike the “minor” flag, is supported by all Wikibase APIs), I can easily filter out those changes in my watchlist if I want to. Fæ correctly points out that AC/DC behaves much like a bot account – consequently, it already sets the “bot” flag on its own edits: all that’s missing is the “bot” right on the user to make that flag effective. , if those edits you complain about come from a small set of users, then I suggest you ask those users to request the bot flag for their accounts (or create separate bot accounts for their AC/DC edits), so that their edits can be filtered out using the appropriate flag. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Is this a joke? You are washing your hands of any responsibility and expect to force everyone that uses your gadget to request a bot flag on a new bot account to access it? The answer would be to block this gadget until it's fixed. This is like someone giving away free guns on a street corner, and making it everyone else's problem to ensure they have a gun license.
Flooding is a real problem, and this gadget is a cause of it by design, not a symptom of users behaving badly. If the later were true, then we can start creating a list of users that need to be threatened with blocks for misusing a bot tool without a bot flag. -- (talk) 17:43, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Here's a list of recent users. Will users pinged here please cease using the ACDC tool without correctly using a bot flag account to do so, thanks!:
@Jarekt: @Rachmat04: @Christian Ferrer: @Raymond: @Nikki: @Strakhov: @Sadads: @AntiCompositeNumber: @El Grafo: @Jean-Frédéric: @J budissin: @Sandro Halank: @Spinster: @Tetzemann: @F. Riedelio: @Ciell: @Seewolf: @DanielleJWiki: @Lucas Werkmeister: @B2Belgium: @Higa4: @QTHCCAN: @Daniel Baránek: @Librarian lena: @DavidJRasp: @Caddyshack01: @Pduive23:
-- (talk) 19:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Heu no, this is not a BOT. Just for info the ping did not work, I noticed this discussion in my watchlist. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:18, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear, you are supporting this proposal because you prefer the edits marked as minor, rather than the alternative suggested of requiring all gadget users to use bot accounts. -- (talk) 19:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Neither, I have no specific opinion. This is not a BOT thus it should not be required any bot flag, I'm have no strong opinions about the fact to mark the edits as minor or not; or about all other alternative possibility that will allow to make them disappear for watchtlist, e.g. a selectionable filter in the watchlist interface, for this tool alone or for all semi-automated tools. Christian Ferrer (talk) 04:29, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
I have made 256 edits with AC/DC over the course of 13 months, many/most of which on my own uploads. The biggest batch was 132 edits 8 months ago ; the next one is 41 edits 1 month ago. Do I really “need to be threatened with blocks for misusing a bot tool”? Jean-Fred (talk) 12:28, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
This actually seems to be true though: according to this database query, 10% of AC/DC users are responsible for over 80% of the edits. Encouraging these users to use a bot account, and/or to keep in mind that their AC/DC edits can flood other people’s watchlists and space them accordingly, could be a way forward? Jean-Fred (talk) 12:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment mw:Snippets/Mark_minor_edit seems relevant. --Snaevar (talk) 19:00, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose As we do not have similar rules for VFC or Cat-a-Lot. But I am open for a discussion on mass editing tools in general. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:39, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Actually the opposite is true. Users can set Cat-a-lot preferences to make edits minor or major, and it's rather irrelevant for VFC, this is rarely the cause of flooding and almost everything it is regularly used for, like deletion requests, you would want shown in watchlists.
This proposal is not for a new "rule", it is to ensure that users are free to mark these edits as minor, or make it a default, in exactly the same way they can for cat-a-lot. -- (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
That sounds more like a feature request. Do we want to start having a proposal for every feature request? --GPSLeo (talk) 07:39, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
This statement is illogical. The "feature request" would be to have a new type of Wikimedia Commons user edit that:
  1. cannot be marked as major or minor,
  2. will appear in everyone's watchlist who is unfortunate to watch the edited file pages,
  3. makes no change at all to the wikitext,
  4. the changes cannot be searched using the Wikimedia Commons search engine.
Please provide a link to the proposal that agreed this fundamental change in the way that this project functions. In the meantime, how about not blaming everyone that asks basic questions about why, for being bold enough to ask. Thanks -- (talk) 09:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
The comparison to VisualFileChange is, actually, quite relevant. I had a look at the “custom replacements” VFC edits (which are unlikely to be deletion requests) since September 19th 2019 (same timeframe as AC/DC): there were 964,328 such VFC edits, and only 109,855 marked as minor (11%) − hence 854,473 major edits, vs 533,413 AC/DC edits.
To gauge the flooding potential, let’s look on the number of days where there were more than N edits made with either tool (depending on where you’d draw the line of what would be flooding):
Days with: VFC custom replacements AC/DC
> 100 major edits 383 days 274 days
> 1000 major edits 166 days 129 days
> 10,000 major edits 17 days 8 days
So unless my SQL is wrong (always possible), this would indicate that however you want to slice it, VFC custom replacements have been more likely to generate flood than AC/DC.
Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
This example appears to prove the opposite. For VFC "almost everything it is regularly used for, like deletion requests, you would want shown in watchlists". Nobody is complaining about VFC flooding, because users are not being put out by it. The entire point of this proposal is to be able to mark edits as minor; which apparently you actually agree with, but are disagreeing to make some sort of political point that having a meaningful consensus is not something one should ever be bold enough to attempt and that we should hide these discussions in Phabricator where the vast majority of active contributors to this project with large watchlists would never see or never engage with. Consensus should be a good thing, not something to shoot down, or result in off-wiki personal attacks and lobbying. -- (talk) 17:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
To clarify: as far as I know, deletion requests are made with VFC using the “Nominate for deletion” mode. As I said, the numbers above are specifically about the “Custom replace” mode.
(“The entire point of this proposal is to be able to mark edits as minor” [emphasis mine]: the proposal is literally “[edits] must be marked as minor”.)
Jean-Fred (talk) 10:33, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
For what it's worth: I use VFC heavily, mainly for two purposes:
Work on batches of photos that I myself uploaded. Obviously, it is unlikely someone else is "spammed" by that.
Refinements and sometimes other improvements to categories. I would guess that most of the time people whose photos are affected by that would want a notification. - Jmabel ! talk 23:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose at this time. My sense is that, if done manually, I would expect almost all of the edits I'm seeing in the history to be marked as major because they add content. If flooding messages is the problem, then the flooding of edits is the root cause, and generating more material than can be reviewed would be what needs to be stopped. "Solving" the problem by making the minor edit flag mean something different from what it is supposed mean, just to get past some other unrelated problem, is an obvious violation of the most basic principles of system design. I would not be entirely adverse to a modified fix of allowing the user to choose, except that it seems to me that the intent would be to abuse that choice and mark changes minor when they are not. A better solution would be to add a separate flag to allow picking out mass changes in the same manner as bot edits are marked. Mangoe (talk) 00:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose by Mangoe. And. by the way, actual bot edits to add structured data are currently much more prominent in my watchlist. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:49, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Correction: Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose marking gadget edits as bot edits. Symbol support vote.svg Support the workaround marking these mass edits as minor edits to avoid flooding of watchlists. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:42, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ihr diskutiert hier hin und her, argumentiert mit Regeln und Präzendenzfällen. Aber: SDC hat eine neue Qualität nach Commmons gebracht und die bestehenden Regeln und Abläufe sind damit überfordert. Die User sind damit überfordert. SDC kann so nicht funktionieren. Eher wird es User vertreiben, die viel Content beigesteuert haben oder das derzeit noch tun. Ich habe bereits in der Vergangenheit ein Moratorium für SDC-Edits vorgeschlagen, bis zumindest die bekannten Probleme gelöst sind. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
How about just proposing to add a filter to the preferences to be able to exclude structured data edits from being shown on the watchlist / causing mails? This would be more useful than any of the suggested workarounds. The problem with structured data is that it is a new feature. So many old files get structured data by bots or by gadgets like AC/DC, filling up the watchlist entries. I could support stopping certain tools for structured data addition, such as Special:SuggestedTags, because this tool suggests mostly tags that are wrong or way too generic. But this is not the question here and at least many AC/DC edits appear to be correct, in spite of being a nuisance to some people because of watchlist flooding. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 15:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support this proposal as a step in the right direction, although I would either block that app or preferably mark those edits as bot edits. My watchlist is useless since it started and at the beginning I didn't even know where they come from, was it announced and agreed upon somewhere? Let alone the amount of useless and wrong data that is being added there. Most people using the app just add very generic information like "it depicts a building" or "it depicts something in Spain" although much more accurate infos like "it depicts this church from that town" would be possible (but of course it requires more effort). To me, as said, close to bot behaviour. Poco a poco (talk) 08:04, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Poco a poco: The behaviours you describe seems to be from other tools: the watchlist flood is likely more from the bots adding SDoC than this gadget ; and the “it depicts a building” from either Computer-aided_tagging and/or Suggested_Edits. Can you double-check? Just to make sure we are all talking about the same things :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 08:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
    In answer to the question, nobody can supply a link because there is no proper consensus to flood everyone's watchlists with dubious structured data edits using the ACDC gadget.
    Reminder, we block other people's accounts for watch-list flooding and then refusing to fix it. -- (talk) 09:03, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose requiring a bot flag to operate this tool as a hacky workaround. The tool may "behave" like a bot with its high edit rate, but in terms of what it actually does it's just a tool. Symbol support vote.svg Support support for marking edits as minor, in Mediawiki and the Tool and/or filtering out tags from watchlist. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:47, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support for marking edits as minor, in Mediawiki and the Tool and filtering out tags from watchlist.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:16, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose I'm not convinced by the proposal and this is a useful tool. Pyb (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Users must be able to remove the junk (User:BotMultichillT and User:SchlurcherBot - afaic) from the watchlist. I support every measure to make that happen. Now. Alexpl (talk) 09:37, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    @Alexpl: For clarity, this proposal would specifically not address the problem you are raising (as I understand it), because these two bots are not using the ACDC gadget which is under discussion here. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC) - If I click "filter bots", but several bots get not filtered, somebody messed up. So something needs to be done. If some modus operandi for this problem here is implemented, it can be used for other problems as well... So. Alexpl (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    Nur dass die hier vorgeschlagenen Lösungen eben mehr als ADAC betreffen würden und eine massgeschneiderte Lösung aussschliesslich für ADAC garnicht wünschenswert ist und dass SDC so wie es ist ein Problem ist und keine Lösung, noch nicht mal eine Lösung auf der Suche nach einem Problem. (ach ja, und Hinweis auf das Forum, wo gerade die Teilnahme an einer Strategiesitzung angepriesen wird, wo es angeblich möglich sein soll, derartige Probleme zu thematisieren) --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    No. I really dont want to talk to any those people. They screwed up and their "additions" should be reverted for extreme Zeitraubing and wasting storage space. But to allow every user to ban them from the watchlist, is the next best thing. Alexpl (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Useful gadget that the author has put effort into. And should not be marked as bot edit. -Premeditated (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, Fae, it's your turn, instead of complaining about other's great work & tools. "Raise a Phabricator ticket, get the system fixed." Cheers, --Jcornelius (talk) 15:56, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
    These work and tools by others are not great, if they fill up watchlists of users. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:29, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
    I filed phab:T265573, and upped phab:T174349. Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose This proposal is flawed in several aspects:
    • It is a solution to an ill-defined problem. It seems like the cause for this proposal is that the proposer’s watchlist was one day flooded by AC/DC edits. Did this happen once, twice, every day? Was the flood caused by a single user, a handful of users or many users? Were these users newbies or experimented? Did this flooding happen to anyone else? Unclear. Now don’t get me wrong: I’m not disputing that flooding happened, nor that it is a problem that even one person was flooded even only once. However, it is a good idea in general to try to understand the problem before putting a solution forward: it helps finding the right solution (random example: if the flood was coming from newbies [it is not], then the tool could be resticted to autoconfirmed users). I certainly don’t expect others to do that work (because, yes, it takes time and effort to crunch data) ; I’m
    • It is not done in a spirit of collaboration. One wonders why the proposer did not go to the Gadget talk page or the author’s talk page and say “hey, I got flooded really bad today, is there anything that can be done?”. Seeking dialogue is always a worthy first step.
    • It would be a strange double-standard: as noted by GPSLeo, VFC edits are not systematically marked as minor, and as I have showed above, spurts of VFC “custom replacements” not marked as minor have been taking place more than for AC/DC.
    • It is not implementable. It is not possible, technically, to mark SDoC edits as minor. I don’t know why this is the case, and arguably it should be changed (which is why I raised it at phab:T265573). But I’m baffled that the proposer put forward a proposal they knew was not implementable. It either makes this proposal pointless (and is then a gross disrespect of everyone’s time), or, based on this comment, was a ploy to get into a situation where the gadget “should be blocked until it [can conform]” − an outcome for which there would be no real legitimacy: some users might agree with the proposal that edits should be minor, but disagree that it is worth blocking the tool over it − if that was the goal, surely a proposal “Let’s block the gadget until X” would have been more useful and respectful.
    • A minor point, as noted by Mangoe above: it is at odds with the definition of minor edits. As we do not have, to the best of my knowledge, a policy/guideline on Wikimedia Commons about minor edits, I will assume that meta:Help:Minor_edit applies. It states that “A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute.” Now, Structured Data edits are many things, but clearly uncontroversial is not one of them :-)
    I would argue that the proper solution for this is either phab:T174349 or phab:T247433#6562667. We should definitely keep pressure on WMF to address these issues as soon as possible.
    Jean-Fred (talk) 16:01, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
I can't see the point of continuing this vote, off-wiki canvassing makes it pointless and a closure by anyone at this point would lack credibility as to what "consensus" would now mean. Thanks -- (talk) 16:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

October 18[edit]

PopComPics - Website to check popularity of user's Commons pictures[edit]

PopComPics

Hi all,

I have created a little web app to check how many times each picture of a certain Commons user has been utilized in Wikimedia projects. I called it...

PopComPics (Popular Commons Pics)

Hopefully it can be useful to some of you as well. If you know of a better place to announce this tool please don't hesitate to tell me.--Renek78 (talk) 18:43, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Renek78: I just tried it. Input my username. Nothing happens. How does it work? Thanks. Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:02, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Additional: Something flashed up to tell me it can't cope with more than 20,000 images. I have 23090 images here. Could it show, say, the first 1000? Rodhullandemu (talk) 20:07, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Try https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=Rodhullandemu&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1. This does not look as nice and is limited to the top 1000 images, at least for the details. But it works. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:16, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rodhullandemu, the top 20000 pics should appear after a while. Just now I am about to implement a loading animation so it gets clearer, that the data is still being downloaded. Gonna need a bit more time. Thanks for trying and giving feedback. Edit: There is a general problem with certain filenames, which contain special characters (e.g. "_, @, &, ...). Need to have a look at that. Robert Flogaus-Faust, this site is nice! Should have asked here before wasting my time on coding something up... --Renek78 (talk) 20:33, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
glamorous breaks on my account. I suspect that most queries will timeout and leave any of these tools hanging when handling large numbers. -- (talk) 11:43, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
I just tried https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=F%C3%A6&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1 and it worked just fine on my computer, but the tool needed a couple of minutes to go through those 5262104 files. However, the details are still restricted to 1000 files, which is just a tiny part of your 98858 files that are used somewhere. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:12, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
Rodhullandemu, I think I was able to fix the problem. Your username works okay now on my computer. It is a painfully slow process for this amount of pictures though. Needed to wait roughly a minute until the table was rendered and 2.6MB of data had to be downloaded. But I have some ideas to improve the loading time a little. Thank you again for trying it out. Helped me to improve it.
, I was not able to find the user you mentioned. --Renek78 (talk) 21:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@Renek78: Thanks for taking a look at it. I realise I may be an edge case (in so many ways) but it's nice to have choices here in case, for some reason, one or other tool is inoperational. Late here, and I'll try it tomoz. Cheers. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:42, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
If my account is not shown, that's probably due to not character encoding correctly. "F%C3%A6" = "Fæ". -- (talk) 09:43, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi , there was a treshold of 3 characters in place, after which the user name search engine only kicked in. I removed this artificial limitation. Your name works for me now. But same problem as with Rodhullandemu: You need to be very patient. Thanks for the hint. --Renek78 (talk) 11:00, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Any request for users with more than 4000 pictures fails suddenly. Maybe the API limit has been changed. Sorry, nothing I can do there... --Renek78 (talk) 20:29, 20 October 2020 (UTC)
Works again. --Renek78 (talk) 21:46, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 19[edit]

How to mark images with upload issues?[edit]

All images from Special:ListFiles/Kállai Szaby have had some problems during upload that caused them to not load completely. Which template from Category:Image cleanup templates should be used to mark them? Gikü (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gikü: {{Broken file|filetype=JPEG}} seems like the one. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:56, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
@BMacZero: It is, thank you! Gikü (talk) 17:00, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October 21[edit]

I have to refresh the page often to see all thumbnails[edit]

Working on "Media needing categories as of ...." I have sometimes to refresh the page very often (20 times or more) before I see all the thumbnails. For example on this page. Is there an explanation or better what to do to avoid this problem? Wouter (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I've also seen that happening on Wikidata with long illustrated lists. I thought I filed a bug, but couldn't find it so I created phab:T266155. Multichill (talk) 16:13, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This often means a problem with internet connection. Ruslik0 (talk) 16:15, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
FYI A speedtest gives download 80 Mbps, upload 18 Mbps, ping 17 ms and jitter 4 ms. Wouter (talk) 17:19, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with your internet connection, see the linked bug. You can see the bug in action at Special:NewFiles. Multichill (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

October 22[edit]

Interface issues on page previews[edit]

Hello. When hitting preview after source-editing on any page, I see {{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|{{ns:6}}|[[File:{{PAGENAME}}|350x220px|none]]}} '''Remember that this is only a preview.''' Your changes have not yet been saved! → Go to editing area on top of the edit box. I thought something broke at MediaWiki:Previewnote, but that interface page hasn't been edited since 2013. Anyone know what is causing it? (on a separate note - I see the language list on the left in much larger font than the rest in the menu, when previewing this message before saving) Rehman 08:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Maybe some database issue that causes MediaWiki to show the code literally. Because it's almost the same as other wikis that have either data issues on the other end.
125.167.116.97 11:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Biggest file and picture with the highest resolution on Commons?[edit]

What is the biggest file (in how much it takes place on the servers) and what is the highest resolution picture you've got?

125.167.116.97 11:29, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

PS:I'm new here

There are several files tied in first place as the biggest file, at 4GB in size (at the file size limit), those are: File:Politparade.webm, File:Köln_Hauptbahnhof,_Juli_2020_02_part_1_of_2.webm, File:Genderwahn.webm, File:Dyke_March_Cologne_2020_01_part_1_of_2.webm, File:Dyke_March_Berlin_2020_003_part_1_of_2.webm and File:Dyke_March_Berlin_2020_002_part_1_of_2.webm.--Snaevar (talk) 12:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi, and welcome. We also have 107 images in Category:Gigapixel images, some only completely available as tile sets due to file size. I think my largest upload is File:Waldseemuller map, complete 100%.jpg, 29,700 × 16,500 pixels, 490.05 Megapixels, 440.6 MB.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:44, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
An interesting observation, thanks to an apparent glitch, the largest reported media file is one of the recent COM:IA books uploads File:Books_from_the_Biodiversity_Heritage_Library_(IA_pliniussecundus00plin).pdf.
This is reported as being 4,473,916,666 × 4,473,916,666 pixels (20 exapixels)... it does not display.
Runner up is the apparent computer generated image File:Symbole Beyou .jpg at a modest 65,500 × 65,500 pixels, which does display. -- (talk) 15:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
The really funny part of the IA file, is according to the metadata, the physical size of the page is 758x758 kilometeres big. For the curious, list of high resolution files at https://quarry.wmflabs.org/query/49341 . Bawolff (talk) 02:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Nice measurement, that's more than big enough to neatly cover the entire surface of France. Perhaps we could propose a WMF grant of a couple of billion euros for a big print out? -- (talk) 21:14, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Images with intentional white space[edit]

Why are images marked with {{Do not crop}} placed in Category:Images with intentional white space? Many of them do not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

October 23[edit]

File:Demo-Berlin-Kanzleramt-FFF.jpg[edit]

Auf antrag von user:FkMohr hat user:Fridolin freudenfett die datei File:Demo-Berlin-Kanzleramt-FFF.jpg und eine reihe weiterer von mir erstellter dateien umbenannt. ich halte die umbenennung nicht für gerechtfertigt, sondern für vandalismus, da nun ein generischer dateiname verwendet wird, und nicht mehr zu erkennen ist, was eigentlich auf den betroffenen bildern zu sehen ist: nämlich ein spezifischer protest gegen den sog. autogipfel der bureg. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:11, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Solche Umbenennungen sind Vandalismus und eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Der Dateiname ist Bestandteil der Attribution. Aber Rechte der Fotografen interessieren hier ja schon lange niemanden mehr. Meine Konsequenz ist es, daß ich seit der facebook-Aktion gestern überhaupt keine Bilder mehr nach Commons lade. Aber das interessiert ja auch niemanden, es stehen morgens genug Idioten auf, die was zu verschenken haben. --Ralf Roletschek 12:27, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Der gewählte neue Dateiname ist ja der Beschreibung entnommen. Es macht wenig Sinn, wenn der Dateiname länger ist als die Beschreibung selbst. Zudem war in dem Text auch zu lesen, was eben nicht auf dem Bild zu sehen ist. Bei einem der anderen Bilder waren auch Falschinformationen und Schreibfehler enthalten. Welchen Sinn macht eine ganz kurze Beschreibung in Englisch und gar keine auf Deutsch? Bitte auch bedenken, dass es auf allen Kategorien-Seiten sehr unschön aussieht, wenn der Dateiname so extrem lang ist. Das Hochladen der Bilder ist zu begrüßen, bei der Bestimmung des Dateinamens sollte man jedoch etwas nachdenken. Bemühungen zu einer Verbesserung mit Vandalismus zu bezeichnen, ist auch nicht gerade freundlich. Gruß --Friedo (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Eine Urheberrechtsverletzung ist keine Verbesserung. Es ist hier Standard, zu verlangen, daß die Bildbeschreibung im Dateinamen zu stehen hat. Was Sinn hat oder nicht, ist hier nicht gefragt. --Ralf Roletschek 13:25, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Das hast Du falsch verstanden; die Beschreibung soll natürlich unter Beschreibung stehen, stattdessen wurde sie in den Namen geschrieben. Der Name soll "sinnvoll" sein und das Bild kurz beschreiben, aber nicht erklären, interpretieren oder kommentieren. Mein Umbenenungsantrag kann auch keine Urheberrechtsverletzung darstellen. Ich bitte darum, (gut gemeinte) Verbesserungsvorschläge nicht zu verunglimpfen. --Friedo (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Gut gemeint ist nicht gut gemacht. Der Dateiname ist teil der Attribution und darf bei CC-Bildern nur vom Urheber geändert werden, bei GFDL wäre es kein Problem. Eine Änderung der Urheberangaben ist eine Urheberrechtsverletzung. Ich habe es nicht falsch verstanden, es gibt hier zahlreiche Leute, die verlangen, daß die Beschreibung im Dateinamen steht. --Ralf Roletschek 15:32, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Worauf ist diese Ansicht begründet? In welchem Abschnitt der Lizenz wird das verlangt oder wer vertritt diese Rechtsansicht? Der Dateiname ist jedenfalls nicht ident mit dem Werktitel, dessen Nennung die Lizenzversionen vor 4.0 noch verlangt haben. Creative Commons selbst schenkt z. B. hier in diesem Tutorial (für die ältere 3er-Version inkl. Titelangabe) dem Dateinamen keinerlei Beachtung [3] Und wer, wenn nicht die Urheber der Lizenz selbst, soll denn sonst wissen, wie man es richtig macht? --Herby (Vienna) (talk) 19:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Worauf dieser Unfug begründet ist, weiß ich auch nicht. Mir wurden jedenfalls schon hunderte Bilder umbenannt, auch wenn im Dateinamen bereits Datum, dargestellter Ort und Urheber enthalten waren. Das reicht einigen eben nicht. Besonders aktiv ist diese Unsitte bei Flugzeugen anzutreffen, da wird zwingend verlangt, daß die Kennung im Dateinamen enthalten ist und sonst nichts. Alle Bilder, die das nicht erfüllen, werden in eine Kat. ".... bad Filenames" einsortiert. --Ralf Roletschek 10:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Beide Namen sind nicht optimal. Der alte ist klares getrolle. Der neue Name ist dann aber etwas sehr kurz, vor allem weil es viele FFF-Demos am Kanzleramt in Berlin gab. Wir sollten das jetzt aber nach Commons:Forum verschieben oder auf englisch weiter diskutieren. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC!
Es ist keine FFF-Demo. Der Veranstalter war FFF. Die Veranstaltung war keine FFF-Demo, weil sie dann Freitags stattgefunden hätte und nicht Dienstags (Anlass war der Auto-Gipfel), weil dann Schüler teilgenommen hätten (nur FFF-Aktivsten und Journalisten, die Polizei hat wegen Covid nur 50 Leute zugelassen), weil Du dann da gewesen wärst und fotografiert hättest. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

100% Ack to FkMohr/Friedo. Filenames must not be Descriptions, they just should be descriptive! For crediting its always possible to use URL with curid to be safe against renamings. --Itu (talk) 12:11, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Deep-Linking is only possible by filename, not by curid. As it is, the file cannot be found at all: It doesn't tell about the Auto-Gipfel (not by name, not by description, not by category, not by depicts). A rename request for another image from the series has been declined, because the rename would be against the rules. Same is the case here. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:36, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
As I already wrote, both names are bad. The original name is definitely to long. But the new one is definitely to short and matches the renaming criteria "ambiguous name". --GPSLeo (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Deep-Linking not possible? Did you mean Hotlinking? Is it true that Hotlinking is not possible with/via curid? If so then hotlinking should be avoided. --Itu (talk) 08:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Are you actually argueing to break millions of Wiki-Sites, that use the MediaWiki-Software and Instant-Commons (an official extension of the MediaWiki-Software)? (Example: https://en.vikidia.org/wiki/Alabama -> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5c/Flag_of_Alabama.svg/120px-Flag_of_Alabama.svg.png) --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
„millions of Wiki-Sites“ ....
However, if Hotlinking is wanted for MediaWikis then software should manage commons-Renames.
And if filename is not perfectly bad, normally it remains as Redir. --Itu (talk) 21:16, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, Itu: millions. If you count in the WMF sites, it is millions+hundreds more. Nearly every Hosting provider in Germany offers MediaWiki as a "one-click-app" for free to hosting customers. For decades the .de-top-level-domain has been the most used top-level-domain after .com. Nobody can know the number of public available installations of MediaWiki, but Germany alone may account for a million or even millions of instant-commons instances available in the internet. Of course, Germany only has a poulation of ~82M, while the world has 7.8 billion people. Therefore it might actually be that there is a billion of MediaWiki web-sites. And even a single one of these might account for a billion page (media) views every month. Renaming does break these sites and renaming is actually never needed. It does make sense, if the uploader requests renaming of a newly uploaded file, or if the name of a file is hatespeech. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Please do not forget names that are meaningless, or simply wrong and misleading. I am not sure why the image with the excessively long name qualified for renaming because the name was apparently not wrong (criterion 3), even though it might be now and even though excessively long names are not recommended. But I do not believe that millions of sites break because your file got renamed. Anyway, redirects should be able to fix most of the problems (as you were told already) and a better (though not excessively long) name can and should be chosen. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:54, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Dieser ganze Umbenennungsvandalismus gehört abgestellt. Ein Dateiname kann auch DSC0815.jpg sein, das wäre genauso gut oder schlecht. Oder wir schaffen die Dateibeschreibung ab. --Ralf Roletschek 10:38, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
This opinion is obviously opposed to the current rules. DSC0815.jpg is not an acceptable file name according to Commons:File renaming, but it is entirely meaningless (except, possibly, for the photographer; criterion 2 for file renaming). Personally, I am more interested in fixing obvious mistakes, mostly misidentified flowers (criterion 3). If the photographer of a misidentified image is an active commoner, who also performed the wrong identification, I usually correct as much as possible without having the file renamed and then explain my reasons to the photographer on their personal talk page. If they do not have their files renamed within at least a week (or sometimes a much longer time), I request the file to be renamed. The problem is that this takes a lot of time. Therefore, I have got a rather long list of files with obvious errors that I have not dealt with yet. However, if I am impatient and change something making things even worse, then I am very glad if I am told about my mistake nicely and without insults, so that the problem can be fixed asap. Claiming that someone commited vandalism will hardly help, especially if it so obvious that this was not their intention. My recommendation for User:FkMohr and User:C.Suthorn is that they should do their very best to agree on a useful name that is neither too long nor too short, respecting each other's opinion and sticking to the rules. This can get the problem solved without wasting too much time and effort. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Autsch! Ich hatte Ihre Babel-Box nicht gesehen, weil sie unüblicherweise auf Ihrer Diskussionsseite steht. Hier also nochmals in deutscher Sprache: Ihre Meinung widerspricht offensichtlich den gegenwärtigen Regeln. DSC0815.jpg ist kein akzeptabler Dateiname gemäß Commons:Dateien verschieben, sondern es ist ein gänzlich bedeutungsloser Dateiname, ausgenommen möglicherweise für den Fotografen (Kriterium 2 für eine Umbenennung). Ich persönlich interessiere mich mehr dafür, offensichtliche Fehler zu korrigieren, hauptsächlich fehlbestimmte Blumenfotos (Kriterium 3). Falls der Fotograf eines fehlbestimmten Bilds ein aktiver Benutzer auf Commons ist, der auch die Fehlidentifikation durchgeführt hat, dann korrigiere ich meist so viel wie möglich, ohne die Datei umbenennen zu lassen. Außerdem erkläre ich meist dem Fotografen auf seiner persönlichen Diskussionsseite die Gründe für meine Änderungen. Wenn der Fotograf seine Datei nicht innerhalb einer Woche (oder manchmal auch innerhalb eines viel längeren Zeitraums) umbenennen lässt, dann beantrage ich das. Das Problem dabei ist, dass das eine Menge Zeit kostet. Deshalb sitze ich auf einer ziemlich langen Liste von Dateien mit offensichtlichen Fehlern, mit denen ich mich noch nicht beschäftigt habe. Wenn ich allerdings mal doch zu ungeduldig gewesen bin und etwas verschlimmbessert habe, dann bin ich sehr froh, wenn man mir meinen Fehler nett und ohne Beleidigungen mitteilt, so dass das Problem so schnell wie möglich behoben werden kann. Es ist da wenig hilfreich, jemanden des Vandalismus zu bezichtigen, insbesondere wenn es so offensichtlich ist, dass das nicht die Absicht war. Meine Empfehlung für User:FkMohr und User:C.Suthorn ist, dass sie so gut wie möglich versuchen sollten, sich auf einen brauchbaren Namen zu einigen, der weder zu kurz noch zu lang ist, wobei sie die Ansicht des anderen respektieren sollten und sich an die Regeln halten. Dann kann das Problem gelöst werden, ohne zu viel Zeit und Mühe zu verschwenden. P. S. (und das steht nicht im englischen Text): Es ist immer äußerst bedauerlich, wenn ein so aktiver Mitarbeiter wie Sie offenbar wegen eines hier nicht ausgeführten Ereignisses auf Facebook diesem Projekt den Rücken kehrt. Aber Ihr Rückzug ist natürlich Ihre Entscheidung, auch wenn ich diese bedaure und nicht verstehe. Mit freundlichen Grüßen --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
While there are no specific policies dealing with file name length, please consider technical limitations, such as when downloading such files to a local pc: Windows only accommodates 260 characters including the file path (folder structure). --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:17, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT: does not always work as expected[edit]

I have experienced that in categories such as Category:Jim Lauderdale DEFAULTSORT is required because otherwise it comes under the J of Jim in the subcategories. In the Category:Lauderdale (surname) the DEFAULTSORT does not work however. In that category is also given Category:Mandy Lauderdale, sorted on the M of her given name. In the subcategories of Category:Mandy Lauderdale her name is sorted correct althought there is no DEFAULTSORT used. The wikidata work apparently correct in that case. I checked a few other names in the huge category of Surnames and there it seems correct. Is there an explanation for that? Wouter (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In surname categories people are or should be sorted by their given names, because otherwise all Lauderdales would be sort under L within Category:Lauderdale (surname), which could become a bit unfortunales in large surname cats like Category:Smith (surname). Thats mostly done by the {{Wikidata Infobox}} where used in the individual peoples cats. Otherwise it shoulkd be done manually. --JuTa 14:04, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
PS: the DEFAULTSORT is nor needed in i.e. Category:Jim Lauderdale because it uses {{Wikidata Infobox}} and "given name" and "family name" are set in the corresponding wikidata item. --JuTa 14:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Indeed now DEFAULTSORT is not required anymore. I checked it yesterday in Category:Bluegrass musicians and the it came under the J of Jim. Apparently it takes a night before wikidata does its job. I checked other categories of people I have created where I added the DEFAULTSORT because the sorting was wrong. Now it is correct without the DEFAULTSORT. Wouter (talk) 08:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
A nulledit might help to the at after something was modified/added on wikidata for it. --JuTa 16:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
I created a few hours ago Category:Daniel Ioniță. The sort was wrong in for example Category:Translators from Australia. A purge did not help but indeed a nulledit did help. Thanks. Wouter (talk) 16:48, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Any other examples?[edit]

Category:Overhead lines suspended by concrete archesIs this contruction only in the Netherlands?Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:42, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

In the USA there are historic examples left, see this blog. Couldn't find mention of any in the UK. -- (talk) 19:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit protections?[edit]

I know on Wikipedia, there is the Wikipedia:Protection policy that protects articles from being edited by those who are not confirmed users. However, I don't seem to find anything similar on Commons. Only asking this because the file QarabaghWarMap(2020).svg is experiencing some edit conflicts, accuracy issues and possible canvassing.--WMrapids (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, found it!--WMrapids (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

October 24[edit]

PD-Art vs. PD-scan[edit]

Having done some housekeeping of sorts, I began to wonder: why should {{PD-Art}} and {{PD-scan}} be two separate templates? They seem to do the same thing and have the same effect. It was suggested back in June 2015 that the difference is that the United Kingdom and related countries may recognize copyrights in PD-Art files (where the work is taken from something of a distance) but not PD-scan files (where you just run a scanner). However, I think even UK law would see PD-Art files as unoriginal, in light of advice given by the British Intellectual Property Office in November 2015 where it says that the European Court of Justice. Not helping is part of the Bridgeman v. Corel ruling that led to these templates existing to begin with actually takes the position that UK law would not recognize new copyrights in such photographs, citing Interlego AG v Tyco Industries Inc and its refusal to give a new copyright to a work that is nothing more than slavish copying. Is the difference relevant somewhere else that I'm not thinking of? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 01:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

"bereits bedankt" nicht mehr verfügbar, wenn man "InPrivate"/"Inkognitomodus" surft, mit einem anderen Browser/PC unterwegs ist bzw. nach dem Löschen des im Browser Cache[edit]

Es wäre prima, wenn "bereits bedankt" dauerhaft wäre. "Bereits bedankt" ist nicht mehr verfügbar, wenn man "InPrivate"/"Inkognitomodus" surft (neue Sitzung), mit einem anderen Browser/PC unterwegs ist bzw. nach dem Löschen des im Browser Cache. --Molgreen (talk) 04:43, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Molgreen: Odd, but I'd suggest that you would suggest this at the Phabricator, as that is where technical suggestions and alterations to the MediaWiki software should go. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
@Donald Trung:thank you very much for the hint. I have opened a ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T266381 --Molgreen (talk) 10:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

File:Circular Quay, Sydney NSW 10th August 1908.jpg[edit]

I uploaded this file and found on it a new licensing comment "manual review is required to verify the file is indeed Public Domain in the source country and in the US". This image like the others I wish to upload was taken in Australasia by a Canadian and published on Flickr by the current holder, a Canadian Community Archive. All the photographs were taken between 1907 and 1910. Am I right to believe they can take the licence CC by SA 4.0? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 12:35, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Eddaido: From what you are saying, I would think they can't possibly take the licence CC by SA 4.0. That would mean that someone owns the copyright and is granting the license. Who are you saying owns the copyright, and where did they grant the license? - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel for responding. The licence CC by SA 4.0 appeared there without my involvement (is this AI?) but I guess the community archive assumes they own the copyright in anything they hold and can publish it with a Public domain licence. Eddaido (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Eddaido, Jmabel: The photo is definitely out of copyright in Australia (it was taken in Australia before 1955, so it qualifies for a "{{PD-Australia}}" tag) and in out of copyright in Cananda (it was taken by a Canadian citizen/resident before 1949, so qualifies for a "{{PD-Canada}}" tag. I believe that the publication date can be assumed to be Christmas 1910 as that was the date the album was presented to Mrs T.J.P. Power by somebody called "Heine". Mrs Power had the right to sell the album whenever she wished which makes this the publication date. It therefore meets all three requirements for a "{{PD-1966}}" tag (One is sufficient). SInce it is out of copyright a CC-SA tag is inappropriate. Rather it should have the tags described above. Martinvl (talk) 20:16, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Many thanks Martinvl. Eddaido (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

RIAA threatens that youtube-dl is illegal and forces GitHub removal[edit]

The Recording Industry Association of America has successfully made GitHub remove youtube-dl yesterday by unilaterally declaring it "illegal", along with variations which have been used for several years by Commons and other open knowledge projects to legitimately and legally extract and archive videos shared on YouTube. This kills a number of our long term projects, such as maintaining copies of verified public domain medical related videos from the CDC YouTube stream.

There are obvious implications as to how Wikimedia projects across our community use YouTube for streaming conferences and video guides, as it can no longer be recommended that videos are shared on YouTube with the intention of later uploading versions to Commons.

An unbiased looking news report is at ZDNet. Apart from recommending that our projects try not to use or promote YouTube, do we have any recommendations of what to use instead? -- (talk) 13:29, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

<snark>Can we unilaterally declare RIAA to be illegal, then? That'd be swell.</snark> Huntster (t @ c) 15:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
It is a clear pattern. YouTube also blacklisted video2commons in 2019 –a clear violation of the spirit of the CC–BY license that many uploaders chose. Google donated 2 Million dollar to Wikipedia in 2010, and the same amount of money again in 2019. Perhaps it wouwld be a good idea for the Wikimedia Foundation to ask Google not to give money, but to teach their daughter company YouTube to share a bit more. If YouTube really puts moneymaking first (as they seem to do), they should stop talking about sharing with ohters and promoting digital wellbeing. Vysotsky (talk) 15:42, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
Its a bit misleading to say they blocked video2commons specifically, if all video2commons did was hit rate limits that apply to everyone. Bawolff (talk) 02:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
You can still download it at https://youtube-dl.org/. Hard to imagine it will disappear entirely. --ghouston (talk) 04:25, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Trouble is, for the past year or longer, YouTube has been actively stamping down on automated downloads of any kind, so working around getting a copy of youtube-dl does not mean you can use it. Every batch upload project relying on YouTube has ended and become unusable as IPs are systematically blocked. They may not openly state it, but Google's actions here are to ensure that YouTube cannot be used for open knowledge projects, it's a money making machine not a public repository. -- (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

October 25[edit]

Nichalp-Upload_script[edit]

Hi, is someone known to have used (or tried) the Nichalp-Script and/or the anuta-Script ?
I'm trying hard to get that stuff to work, and could need every possible help. --Itu (talk) 11:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

If you want to customize code, wouldn't it be a lot easier to use Pywikibot's site.upload module rather than navigating perl scripts which are a lot less used? -- (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Its hard for me to know what brings me to success earlier. With the Nichalp/anuta i indeed feel i'm not so far from .... --Itu (talk) 12:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Removal of interwiki links?[edit]

It's now a trend - is it a policy (and why?) to remove interwiki links from Commons to the Wikipedias? Where is this policy and why is it? Is it another Wikidata "improvement"?

The {{Wikidata Infobox}} doesn't seem to include links to Wikipedias. Sometimes it did / does, but these increasingly aren't working, even when the link is given in the Wikidata item.

Also the bottom of the left-hand column used to contain a list of Wikipedia links, set by wikitext on the category page. These seem to have both been removed from the wikitext, but also are no longer populated by Wikidata.

Is there a reason for any of this? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

  • @Andy Dingley: Can you show an example where sitelinks present on a Wikidata item aren't working on Commons? It seems pretty obvious that it is best to maintain sitelinks in a single place (Wikidata) if they work, but of course it is a different matter if they don't work. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Today I've been working on sub-cats of Category:Steam locomotives of the Netherlands, such as NS 4050 and NS 5600. It looks like the LH sidebar might be a caching or database delay issue, as they seem to have returned now. However the Infobox is still without any links. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
Andy, when I change my language to NL, the Wikipedia link shows up correctly in the infoboxen, but that's the only language where an article exists for the two examples you give. No link would appear if you're set to another language, though the link to NL will still show up in the left-hand menu column. Huntster (t @ c) 14:36, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
So this is a deliberate action? Don't show any link at all, unless the subject's language and the reader's language are the same, or else it's internationally important enough to have coverage in every language. Go Team USA again 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 14:40, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Yes, because the infobox is an additional link to the traditional ones that always appear on the left side of the screen. It's literally no different than if there was no infobox at all; you'd still have all the interwiki links you would otherwise have. Huntster (t @ c) 14:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

October 26[edit]

Please delete Template:Unsplash/zh-hant and Template:Unsplash/zh-hans[edit]

Only translate in zh. Pseudo Classes (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

WebM - Lossy, lousy or both?[edit]

Hi all. Just uploaded a webm video, which looks a bit lousy / pixelated. Yet exactly the same video on You Tube looks fine. Anything I can do to get a better, crisper, higher resolution? Thanks! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 15:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Llywelyn2000, webm can be quite lossy, so that's part of it. The part you can control is the software you use for the conversion. Most of the free software solutions are absolutely terrible at converting to webm, even with maximum-quality settings selected. Recently, Avidmux was recommended to me, and I strongly recommend giving it a try. Just make sure you select (in the left column) VP9 for video, Vorbis for audio, and convert to Webm. Click "Configure" under Video Output and make sure quality is set to best (can't remember exact wording, not at my home computer atm). The program is a little more technical than other options, but the quality is superb. Huntster (t @ c) 16:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Really thankful for this. One question: why is the upload on You Tube (see my link above) much better yet same file was uploaded to both sites? Llywelyn2000 (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I'm looking back at things, and I'm wondering if you were seeing a lower-resolution version created by the Mediawiki software. I'm not sure how the back-end works for video, but I know the lower resolution encodes get finished first, followed later by the better quality encodes (which of course take more time). When you click on the video at File:Generating WP articles from WD.webmhd.webm and click on the little gear icon at lower right, is "WebM Source" selected or one of the lower resolutions? Honestly, the video is looking pretty good to me at the moment when it is in WebM Source mode. Huntster (t @ c) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
If it's possible for you to use Vimeo, that does the best conversions to Webm that I've been able to find. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: No, HTML5 VP9 player is selected. No idea why. Can't seem to change it to the original. Is this the default? @Jmabel: i used Mirai Video Converter, and converted from a 1.48 GB mov file. Llywelyn2000 (talk) 18:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
Llywelyn2000, I honestly cannot say why. I don't have that as an option, just "WebM Source", "sd 480p", "low 240p", "low 180p", "low 160p", and "low 120p". Anyone have some other thoughts? Huntster (t @ c) 18:10, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Huntster Tried it this morning and the setting is on VP9 player! The quality is also excellent. So it must take time (over 24 hours!) for the MediWiki to finish encoding. If this is correct, then we need to improve it, otherwise users will be deleting their own stuff thinking that it's their fault. Thanks Llywelyn2000! Best regards... Llywelyn2000 (talk) 06:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Huntster, Llywelyn2000: After 31.5+ hours, 3 transcodes haven't finished yet.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I manually reset the transcodes for those that never finished, one yesterday as a test and the rest today. I think something just got stuck with this file, as I've not been having transcode issues myself. Huntster (t @ c) 13:58, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I did a few edits this morning, and uploaded another version here. This time, everything was done and dusted in 14 minutes!!! I'm a very happy person this morning, thanks to all of you!!! Llywelyn2000 (talk) 10:22, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 27[edit]

Two separate Russian FOP deleted cases categories[edit]

Are two separate FOP categories for deleted Russian photos needed? These seem to create some confusion.

Since FOP is now OK for Russian architecture, I think the second mentioned category is superfluous, and the individual casepages should be moved to the first one (I think easy mass recategorization is possible by AWB, but I don't have that type of tool). Also the content at the second (sentence on top) should be moved to the first one. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Is this self-promotion?[edit]

In File:Land_Rover_Defender_110_First_Edition_2020_-_rear.jpg (a photograph of a Land Rover), the photographer (User:DeFacto) replaced the text on the registration plate with the text "D3F4CTO", a letter combination that could easily be read as his username. While blanking out a motor vehicle's registration plate for privacy purposes is commonplace, I believe that replacing it with text that alludes to the photographer's name contravenes COM:ADVERT. Any comments? Martinvl (talk) 22:03, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

My comment, meh. -- (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
You asked this before https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2016/09#Is_this_self-promotion? Oxyman (talk) 23:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

wpUploadDescription stopped working[edit]

Sometime between 02:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC) and 03:50 on the 29th, wpUploadDescription= as a URL parameter to Special:Upload started being ignored. I've long used that to pre-load the Summary box with some boilerplate. But now instead I only get a generic blank {{Information}} template. Anyone know who broke what where? DMacks (talk) 04:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

There were no code changes deployed during that time as far as I can tell (no train this week) - are you sure it was working on the 26th? --DannyS712 (talk) 04:14, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
According to my upload-log, I uploaded a file then that has a description matching my boilerplate (the "Upload a chemical structure" link on User:DMacks). Prior one to that was 02:28, 21 October 2020. I just tried enwiki, and it does work there. The one I uploaded a few minutes ago was manually copy-pasted, not via the URL magic. DMacks (talk) 04:21, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
It looks like a JavaScript issue, as adding &safemode=yes fixes things. I'm also not getting the ImprovedUploadForm. There haven't been any changes to that script either though. That was working the last time I uploaded something on 24 October 2020. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:26, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Krinkle:, who has made a bunch of changes to MediaWiki:*.js in the past few days. DMacks (talk) 04:30, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
I'm going to second blaming Krinkle here, either for creating MediaWiki:Upload-default-description or for Special:Diff/502926856. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:40, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Sorry about that. This wasn't obvious in the old code. I've repaired it, and documented it for future reference. --Krinkle 04:42, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
Works fine now. Thanks for the quick-fix! DMacks (talk) 04:45, 29 October 2020 (UTC)
@Krinkle: I think MediaWiki:Upload-default-description is what is causing MediaWiki:UploadForm.js to force the basic form at line 1255:
// Use the basic form if the description was set *initially*, or if it's a re-upload, or if it's a special
// form
		var useBasic = (originalDesc.defaultValue && originalDesc.defaultValue.length) ||
UF.isReupload ||
document.URL.indexOf('uselang=nlwikilovesmonuments') > 0;
In most cases, originalDesc would previously be empty, but now that MediaWiki is preloading the form server-side, UploadForm can't tell the difference between a blank form and a form with &wpUploadDescription. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:01, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

second wave COVID-19 France maps needed[edit]

In Category:Maps about the COVID-19 pandemic in France there is no map more recent than april 2020. Nothing about the second wave of the pandemic starting september/october. I to put the old files in a new subcategory: Maps about the COVID-19 pandemic in France (first wave).Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:05, 29 October 2020 (UTC)