Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
Help deskVillage pump
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page

Search archives


Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

October 21[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream[edit]

Can please someone explain to me as to how is it possible to Yann to speedy delete 600/700 images without a single evidence of copyright violation, that all before deletion request is opened. Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream being opened Yann showed zero evidence of copyright violations and only showed links of photographers that either had zero photos published or to photographers that had different styles.

As i´ve shown this images were properly licensed and all were taken by the same photographer (except an old family photo and a single image that displayed a nikon camera and 3 images of that displayed sony cameras). But the fact that 4 images ir around 1200/1300 is not proof of systematic copyright violations.

After showing irrefutable evidence that all images were taken by the same photographer and that same photographer was the one that licensed this images, and being supported by all the commented in that deletion request that the files should be kept. Besides that in this edit even @BevinKacon, the one that asked Yann to delete this images, thinks that the images in this DR should be kept and the ones deleted by Yann should be undeleted (BevinKacon, please correct me if i´am wrong).

Well, after almost half year, knowing that this image would be kept and the others undeleted, today JCB, as some times happen, didn't read the DR, and closed te dr as "deleted: per nomination - uploader has given convincing arguments why files from this Flickr stream cannot be trusted". Yann was not an uploader of a single of this images, i´am was a uploader of a great part of this images, if not the majority.

What i get from this? Proofs serve of nothing in DR´s, the fact that all users that commented think that this images should have been kept also are zero, the body of irrefutable evidence value zero. That is valued is some random links and hearsay, as shown by the fact of the deletion of 601 images today and 600/700 in July. Time of volunteers wasted, just because some users think TL:DR but delete and zero proofs are enough to delete 1200/1300 images. And then some wonder why some many people dont contribute at all to Commons, when the show is run the users that make this kind of primary mistakes and still insist in pushing it further.

If there is still some decency in Commons, please comment in Commons:Undeletion_requests/Current_requests#Files_from_Lies_Thru_a_Lens_Flickr_stream, where all the evidence is abridged from the original DR. Tm (talk) 01:29, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  • We actually did learn what matters:

“Please note that in the five months this DR was open, not a single administrator has stated that these files could be kept.”

Not proof, not arguments, not what regular users think, not what the original spotter (BevinKacon) thinks, not what the uploader thinks (Tm), not what license reviewers think (Tm, Tuvalkin, Gone Postal) and most certainly not the opinion of mere extended uploaders+rollbackers like myself and Incnis Mrsi.
Oh no.
Their opinion is what matters. The rest of us can go home. Jcb tried to retract his statement later, but seemingly forgot mid-sentence what he was saying and didn't really take it back. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:59, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
not a surprise. since we have admins who will sock, or block uploaders, in order to delete files. since they are always right, they have nothing to take back. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:37, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
"…we have admins who will sock…": is that an accusation against someone in particular, or just a random aspersion? - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
surprised you would not know about User:INeverCry. and no systemic change to avoid such admin misbehavior in the future. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
You didn't say "we have had admins who will sock…". You said "…we have admins who will sock…". That is a statement that some current admin is guilty of this conduct. But you don't indicate any individual against whom you have such an accusation, so this effectively counts a blanket aspersion against an entire class of people including myself, and I resent it. I don't complain when you bring forward actual complaints about the conduct of individuals, but vague accusations like this do nothing but create a negative atmosphere. - Jmabel ! talk 17:16, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
past cases of admin socking strongly indicate future admin socking. that is not a personal attack, that is a fact. it is not vague, it is very specific. and the low opinion of the admin class here is widely held, among my peer group. resent it all you want, we are way beyond "bad apples"; if you do nothing to improve admin behavior, then you are complicit in the bad admin behavior. not interested in "bringing actual complaints"; i have no confidence in a fair discussion of bad admin behavior here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:01, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
We had INC, Daphne Lantier (same person but hey, both admins!), Russavia, PumpkinSky with HalfGig, High Contrast, Florent Pécassou.. Some cases are old, but these are the ones that were actually caught and I somehow know about. Statistically, there's a good chance we have a socking admin right now. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:28, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Slowking4 and Jmabel, some administrators had, have and will have an history of abuse of tools for whatever reason. From memory, there are 2+1 ex-administrators blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry, but i´ve also fail to see the relevance of sockpuppetry it in this particular case. Tm (talk) 05:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
given the history, we desperately needs some admin leadership, with some "coaching" and "behavior change"; and it will have to be admin to admin, given the admin super-vote mentality in evidence in this case. until then, we will continue to have a battleground of resentment, and assumption of bad faith. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Splitting a building in half...[edit]

St Marks Episcopal Church, Harvard Ave between Spring St and Seneca St, Seattle (CURTIS 169).jpeg

Can anyone think of an appropriate category for the rather remarkable construction project shown here: splitting a building in two and moving part of it as a means of expanding it? - Jmabel ! talk 08:52, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

I've added Category:Building jacking, which doesn't cover the splitting, but the moving. --rimshottalk 22:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Undue influence of en.Wikipedia[edit]

Look here, please – an en.Wikipedian came and declared: “there is a sock puppet of certain our contributor, and the sock uploaded copyvio”, citing some en.Wikipedia edit. No explicit proof of copyvio was presented, and now only sysops can check whether was it copyvio because one Commons sysop deleted the file early applying a perverse interpretation of Commons:CSD #G7. Moreover, evidence of purported sock puppetry was rather weak. But yet another Commons sysop—and also an en.Wikipedian—blocked both accounts and now fails to respond to criticism. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 08:02, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

You know, it is highly suspicious if one account uploads a file at 06:38 and then another inserts it into a Wikipedia page at 06:42. That is a 4 minute time difference! The accounts seem to be at least related. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
It was a copyvio. Clear and unambiguous. --Majora (talk) 17:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Can Majora add the link then? Not here, but onto Commons:Deletion requests/File:Air_conditioner_compressor_inside.jpg currently making impression that a random Commons sysop doesn’t understand policy enough to make deletions for any case but simplest. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Fine. Will you please stop posting this to every board now? --Majora (talk) 17:38, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
Unless my “forum shopping” there wouldn’t be Majora’s notice at the delreq. Whereas without this notice (and accordingly to findings of a CheckUser) there would be no reason for Akajones12 (talkcontribsblock logfilter log) to stay blocked at all. Admit, at the end, that I was right where two Commons sysops—who blindly relied on en.Wikipedian allegations—were not. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
yeah, not a surprise that the vindictive summary process is infecting projects, other than english. should not expect much accountability from people who are always right. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

December 09[edit]

Test passed. How to delete?[edit]

How do I delte this edit of mine from page history. I think the test is taking too much room on Wikimedia Commons server for a single page.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk • contribs) 04:39, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Forgot to put link to that edit: . Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You can't. No one can. Even admins can't actually delete something from the server. "Deletion" to us is actually just hiding edits from the vast majority of people. In any case, the storage space on the server is fine. The Foundation has plenty of space to work with. --Majora (talk) 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
@Aceing Winter Snows Harsh Cold: your test (without compression) takes up slightly less space than File:Cat Briciola with pretty and different colour of eyes.jpg. So the Commons server will be fine. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

December 10[edit]

It is now possible to undo edits using the mobile editing interface[edit]

This was copied from the Technical Village Pump as more people watch this village pump and this new feature probably deserves more eyes than a few watchers of a nascent sub-pump.

It is now possible to undo edits if you use the mobile editing interface, “User:FR30799386” has enabled this and the result here on Wikimedia Commons is as the images above demonstrate you can add an edit summary and the undo will automatically reload the page.

If any of y'all want to have this feature for yourself then please follow the instructions from W:EN:User:FR30799386/undo by copying
, clicking on this link, and then pasting the code. WARNING ⚠: As of writing this this code is still beta software, so each and every revert should be checked after saving. In case there is a bug, its creator requests its users to report it to w:en:User talk:FR30799386. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Olimpíada de Filosofía[edit]

Desde el año 1997 contamos con la presencia de alumnos participantes, coordinadores, filósofos de reconocimiento internacional, profesores y funcionarios. Con el apoyo del Ministerio de Educación de la Nación, en los primeros años luego la Facultad de Filosofía (UBA), ya en el 2008 Secretaria de Extensión (UBA) y estos últimos años Secretaria de Educación Media.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergio Lobosco (talk • contribs) 14:56, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-50[edit]

17:33, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Uncategorized and unidentified categories[edit]

I was told by Auntof6 during this discussion on Turelio's talk page that there have been a few inconclusive debates so far regarding categories which are named "Uncategorized images of <subject>" and "Unidentified images of <subject>".

I suggest having these "uncategorized images of...." categories because:
1. Having main categories that are "clean" (showing only/mainly subcategories) encourages uploaders to actually categorise their uploads into more correct subcategories themselves instead of just piling them onto the multitudes of files that are already there in the main category.
2. Uncategorized images can then also be found via the category system so people who enjoy categorizing media can get to them easier. (See Category:Media needing categories by subject)
3. Having vast amounts of uncategorized media in main categories can bring problems for computers that are slow or create long waits for people who have slow internet connections
4. Having many uncategorized images in the main category can be confusing for new users when they try to search for media via the category system as it can be unclear if the media is in a subcategory or in the main category, or even in both
5. Uploaders who place media into main categories tend to be newbies, placing their uploads in (too many) main categories. The files are often also over-categorized or just incorrectly categorized, i.e. in the wrong category.

I also suggest keeping the "unidentified" categories as these, for me at least, are there for files which can not be identified due to not enough information being provided by the uploader. One can then only hope that someone comes along who actually knows the subject when they see the image, and can then categorise it.

I have noticed that Taterian has placed {{Empty category}} templates into a few "uncategorized images of ..." categories which results in the following text being shown on the category page: "Administrators: Please do not delete this category even if it is empty. This category may be empty occasionally or even most of the time." I can only assume that user Taterian agrees with having these categories. I also noticed that Allforrous has helped in streamlining these "uncategorized..." categories.

The fact that these "uncategorized images of...." categories haven't been formalised, sometimes results in some users taking offence for reasons only known to them and just empty these categories out by shoving the media back into the main category (or even worse by shoving them into an "unidentified" category) so they can put the now emptied "uncategorized" category up for deletion.

Thanks for reading the above and I hope that this time the community can come up with a clear consensus. - Takeaway (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

You misquoted me. I said discussions, not debates. I also didn't say that those previous discussions were inconclusive. On the contrary: I said "the consensus was to leave uncategorized or unidentified things in a main category". --Auntof6 (talk) 21:22, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
While I agree that there is a consensus to keep things that are simply awaiting precise categorization in the main category, there is no such consensus about things that have been examined and cannot be identified. See, for example Category:Unidentified locations in Seattle, Washington. The presence of such a category is certainly in accord with consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 00:12, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
That's a good point: thanks for pointing out the distinction. How can we enforce such use? Maybe change the naming to "unidentifiable" instead of "uncategorized" or "unidentified"? --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Oops, sorry Auntof6. My mistake. - Takeaway (talk) 12:11, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@: There's a big difference between "uncategorized" and "unidentified". The first contains files that need correct categorization, the second should only contain files that are, as you write, unidentifiable. -Takeaway (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
We have a similar situation that should perhaps be handled the same as these: certain categories whose names start with "Other". There are at least four CFDs for these: you can see them at:
Note that some "Other" categories were eliminated already. Not all categories specifying other should be included, but some seem to be along the same lines as this discussion. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:47, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • Categories like "Uncategorized images of <subject>" and "Unidentified images of <subject>" seem like logical contradictions, since images in the first category are categorized to some extent, and images in the second are identified to some extent. --ghouston (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
  • That's true. I suspect those mean that all we know about them is that they depict <subject>, but they aren't categorized by any of the other things that <subject> is usually categorized by. I've also seen some categories with names like "<Foo> to be categorized by country". That's probably more accurate, but if we go that route we're likely to have .ultiple such categories on individual images. --Auntof6 (talk) 01:59, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
I'm surprised there is not a clear consensus for Unidentified subjects categories because Category:Unidentified subjects is linked to from the main page, it must be among the most prominent categories on this site. Oxyman (talk) 02:07, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

I wonder why there's an apparent consensus to leave files that really need further categorization (and often other category corrections) in the main category? What advantage does that give to users of Wikimedia Commons? To have them in "uncategorized..." categories does actually have advantages as I wrote at the start of this discussion. - Takeaway (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You can always add an additional maintenance category like Category:Images from the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition Collection to check, but don't remove them from the corresponding main category like Category:Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. - Jmabel ! talk 16:35, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment There is a strong precedence and existing practice for Category:Unidentified subjects. Auntof6 (talk · contribs) is correct about "uncategorized ..." but that is a lot different from "unidentified ...". If a file has not been categorized, then it rightly belongs in the main category: since an item cannot be both in the main category and a subcategory (COM:OVERCAT), it stands to reason that any file in the main category must be 'uncategorized', so no need for a seperate 'uncategorized' category. I think 'uncategorized...' and 'unidentified...' are two very different cases and warrant seperate discussion, lest the consensus on one be overzealously applied to the other. Josh (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that Uncategorized or miscellaneous cats are redundant to their parents, and also that a few different ideas are getting conflated. IME many Unidentified categories get worked on by users with subject-specific knowledge; although they doubtless tend to accumulate unidentifiable images, I don’t recall seeing any such subcats. To me unidentified reflects a deficiency in the description (and filename) that happens to present an obstacle to categorization, rather than being a matter of categorization per se. OTOH I take uncategorized or similar to mean that somebody thought the main cat was looking cluttered. (I’ve also occasionally seen views of subcats used for the same purpose.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
I ask again what advantage is there for users of Wikimedia Commons to have uncategorized media in a main category and why is it a problem having them in an "uncategorized images of ..." or "images of <subject> in need of further categorization" category? If there are just a few dozen uncategorized images in a main category, I don't see much of a problem and mostly just leave them there or I categorise them. But if there are hundreds, or even thousands of images (this happens whenever there's some image drive going on, or mass uploads occur such as what happened with panoramio, or just uncared for main categories which eventually turn into dumping grounds) it only creates problems as I wrote at the very beginning of this discussion. - Takeaway (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
The only advantage would be the the main category is for two different things: (1) images for which no subcategory exists (we have one photo of Building XYZ on College Campus ABC and College Campus ABC doesn't have a subcategory for Building XYZ) and (2) images that need further identification (I can tell this is College Campus ABC from the EXIF location, but have no idea what building it is and whether it should be put into a subcategory). So moving #2 out of the main category is potentially useful because it highlights the things that need identification rather than things that are only in the main category because no child category exists. --B (talk) 17:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
B, I agree with you if there are a limited number of files left "semi-uncategorized" in this type of main category. In most cases, this would be the "the most specific category that fits the file you uploaded" as advised in COM:CAT. But the problem lies with very major categories which tend to get flooded and which are hardly ever the most specific category for a file. Category:Nature at this moment has 3000-5000 files that need further categorization as you can see at Category:Uncategorized images of nature. It used to be much more but many of the files in its sub-categories have been processed in the meantime . What advantage is there to be had for Wikimedia Commons users in having these 3000-over files placed on to the main Category:Nature? No one will ever go through them to look for a specific file as they'll be spread out over 15+ pages of 200 files each. And it being such a broad category, most of these files have no relation to one another whatsoever. Many people worldwide also have limited internet speeds and/or packages, so for them it would be painfully slow or even impossible to navigate. - Takeaway (talk) 18:59, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

December 11[edit]

Error while uploading images[edit]

I'm getting an error that states none of the uploads were successful. I do got the screen-record and can send it to an email if provided, which can help in understanding the error.--IM3847 (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@IM3847:, you could report it to the Phabrocator, alternatively you could upload the screenshot here and show us how the error looks... But as your error seems to relate to an inability to upload images, have you tried using either different web browsers or different devices or a different Wikimedia SUL-account to Test and see if the issue still affects you? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:49, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: It just shows None of the uploads were successful just beside retry failed uploads link on safari browser. --IM3847 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Adobe Flash & Illustrator content queries[edit]

I can't stop watching the "In Shadow" animation I recently discovered. One particular scene in it with US flag draped coffins vanishing into a single perspective reminded me of something I'd done, a little anti-war activist music video I'd animated for a friend I'd worked on a Burning Man art book with. I have it backed up somewhere but the old 2005 Adobe Flash doesn't play on my 2018 Brave browser. I hated Flash then, and I hate it now. I only did it in Flash because he wanted to stream it, and back then it was still a big file despite my efforts at getting it tight. So here's one of the few things I ever (painfully) animated in Flash (not up to my preferred standards), an anti-war music video for Ian Rhett's "(I Know Why You're) Semper Fi" dedicated to his sister who was serving in Okanawa.

I always intended to share all the vectors with Wikimedia Commons but after that project was done I'd had enough of looking at guns and war machines and wanted nothing more to do with it for a while. One day I'll convert all the Illustrator files to SVGs and upload them somewhere for anyone to use.

Ian gave our co-production a Creative Commons by-nc-nd 2.0 licence when he put it on the site a dozen years ago. I thought nothing of it at the time.

So now I have a few questions:

Can I upload that Flash video? And/or should I convert it to another preferred video format? I would just do it and see what happens, but I don't want to be "that" guy, well meaning or not, who has a lot of upload issues (like I've already done). Also, now that I'm learning more about this stuff, I'd rather try to do things properly, including this.

The music was Ian. The images and animation were me. We collaborated on the concept. He published the results.

So it seems to me that I could publish all of the vector images I used to make the video. I'd like to do this, but I'd like to include the animation in this "collection". I don't mind if some Marines or gun enthusiasts use my vectors but I'd rather this video be right along side that vector collection.

I'd be happier if I didn't have to hand convert the Illustrator files into SVGs. Are Illustrator files allowed?

There are quite a few images that are similar, though I don't expect it would be a problem.

I haven't been in California for over a decade so I haven't seen Ian either. Will I have to contact him about this stuff? Maybe to change the copyright? Or is that even possible?

I have a new much bigger project that I intend to open source too, but from the get go. Much of what I learn here will guide me through decisions I'll have to make on it. Ideally I'd like to publish it all on this Commons.

I look forward to hearing what anyone has to say about this stuff.

Thanks in advance. I'll check back soon. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 06:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

ND licenses are not allowed. Plus, we do not accept Flash files because it is a proprietary format (which is not free content) ViperSnake151 (talk) 15:13, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
Ya. I figured that Non-Derivative thing was an issue. Also the Share-Alike. I understand his wanting credit but I don't understand why he put ND on it.
I hadn't thought the Flash thing was an issue. Good to know thanks.
If I convert it from a Flash file into a another video format (recommendations for conversion tools and formats?) and get him to change his licence would that be good?
I'm assuming if/when I get around to converting the Illustrator files into SVGs (unless something else is preferred) I can upload them with a note that they were used to create that project with a link.
I don't know if that would be considered promotional or just information. While I don't object to promoting the anti-war tribute to Marines, that is free and profits no-one, I find it ironic that back then the Iraq War was new and since then we've added at least a half dozen more countries to our "enemies" list. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 15:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Putin's Stasi card[edit]

What's the copyright status of Vladimir Putin's Stasi ID card, as discussed at [4]? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The ard itself is {{PD-text}} but the photo might be copyrighted. I do not think it falls under {{PD-GermanGov}}, so it might have to wait for {{PD-anon-70-EU}}. --Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Without water marks in some German publications, for instance in Wladimir Putin: Stasi-Ausweis von Ex-KGB-Offizier in Dresden gefunden - SPIEGEL ONLINE. — Speravir – 02:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Jarekt, Pigsonthewing: For {{PD-anon-70-EU}}, there are some restrictions by the copyright law of Germany (for German readers see de:Anonymes Werk (Urheberrecht)#Rechtslage in Deutschland, so for this, it is very likely, that you have wait a bit longer. but you could remove the photo and the problem is solved. Habitator terrae 🌍 13:21, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

December 12[edit]

NL description problems[edit]

Exterieur nieuwe Haagse tram, Bestanddeelnr 902-5659.jpg
I wanted to add a more complete (Dutch) description, but it does not seem to work. The filename will have to be changed, as this tram has nothing to do with The Hague trams.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: I fixed it for you in this edit.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 10:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
please use template:photograph, or File:Ernest Victor von Leyden. Photogravure by Fritz Leyde (?). Wellcome V0026707.jpg, or a custom one like File:Market-Garden - Landings.jpg, not information template, it is better for the metadata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:05, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

December 13[edit]

PD in Argentina[edit]

If a photograph is PD in Argentina (20 years after publication), it is still copyrighted in the US if it was first published before 1976, right? A lot of this user's contributions might be copyright violations (in the US), and they were previously blocked for three months in 2012 for uploading fair use files. Jc86035 (talk) 18:29, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

See Commons:Hirtle chart. If published in Argentine before 1976 without compliance with US formalities then it is in public domain in USA as Commons:URAA will not apply to them. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
you are talking about 27 uploads this year and 3 in 2012, correct? hard to see what the risk of disruption might be. i would hope that engaging with the editor, would be the standard of practice. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:57, 13 December 2018 (UTC)
@Slowking4: I have done so. Nevertheless, the user was still uploading copyvios in 2012, five years after they were first notified that they weren't supposed to do that. Jc86035 (talk) 16:45, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
yeah, nice engagement: "are you sure that the images you're uploading are public domain in the United States as well as in Argentina?", after a wall of warning templates. hammering people for not understanding (respecting) URAA is perverse. and 2012 was before URAA was settled business, and you are of course aware of the Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 21:41, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

December 14[edit]

I'm thinking of creating a Category:PD-People[edit]

What say you? Thanks.DMBFFF (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

What would they do? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 02:23, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It'd be a subcat of Category:Public domain and Category:People. My reason was somewhat lame—to access pictures I could use for forum avatars of a site where the profile pages can't (at least currently) be edited and thus attribution-by-linking back to WC can't be done. If I understand correctly, most images in WC are CC or some variants, and thus use of them requires a link back to WC; whereas with PD such is not the case. My proposed category might help those who can't link back, or easily do so, to find images where such is (I presume) not required. I would also likely have as its subcats Category:PD-women, Category:PD-men (maybe capitalize "men: and "women" ) and Category:Images of people created in the 3rd Millennium in the public domain.DMBFFF (talk) 03:31, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It's a bad idea, although I'm amazed nobody has done it yet, the way date categories get subdivided. Try a category intersection tool, like petscan. Creating intersection categories in the category system itself actually breaks such tools. --ghouston (talk) 03:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
502 Bad Gatway, but you gave me an idea. I'll try Google: Category:People, Category:Public domain, commons.wikimedia—or something like it.DMBFFF (talk) 03:56, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Press the Commons button to the right to fix the bad gateway, but I don't really know how to use the thing. --ghouston (talk) 04:06, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

a bit better

Google: "people" "public domain" "commons.wikimedia" "File:"
About 51 results (0.58 seconds)

Click Commons as you said
Public domain
4 results

I'll try Google images, people, public domain.DMBFFF (talk) 04:16, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

  • Here's a query that gives 30 results [5]. Selecting the depth of scan makes the difference (1 level of subcategories for public domain, 2 for people, in that case. Increasing the depth makes it slower. --ghouston (talk) 04:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

"people" "public domain" "commons.wikimedia" "File:" was unsatisfactory.

Yours got the 30, which lead to this: File:NZ7Y5789.JPG, which lead to Category:CC-Zero: (I think "This file is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication.")
"The following 200 files are in this category, out of 2,869,847 total."

Pf and Ma.

I'll keep trying.

This might do, at least for now.

Thank you.  DMBFFF (talk) 05:42, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
I found this: Help:FastCCI. I can intersect the categories, but I get a gallery that when I click a picture and click back, I have to start the search all over again. Given that I already wanted to do a number of intersections, this has become quite frustrating. So here's how I figure it. Given that these tools aren't helping much and I'm not getting support for my category proposal, I can try to manually search each page of Category:CC-Zero. That'd be about 10 000 pages to view. Another possibility is to pay people to pose while I take their pictures and use them. There is the temptation is to simply disregard CC rules—like most people would do—and just upload CC images and use without linking back—I'm going to have to reduce the size of them anyway. But first, I'm doing to lie down for a while.   :/   DMBFFF (talk) 07:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Assuming you are on a PC and using either Firefox or Chrome (and I'm sure this applies to many other browsers) you can right-click on the photo and open in a new tab, so you won't have the click-back problem. - Jmabel ! talk 08:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Your suggestion works. Thank you, Jmabel (and all who tried to help).  DMBFFF (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Original original[edit]

I refer to File:Guangzhou trolleybuses from behind, 150 and another (1991).jpg. I find it weird when the uploader had touched the image but implied that it was the original from Flickr, especially so when he had also uploaded a retouched and cropped version at File:Guangzhou trolleybuses from behind, cropped (1991).jpg. Why touch the original then? Personally I don't like altering anything that's supposed to be original. In my opinion this case is even worse, that the aspect ratio was greatly altered, and the JPG file became 80% larger, yet the improvement was cutting away nothing intrusive but the top of the utility pole and some stains on the yellow building. @Steve Morgan: your response will be appreciated. Thanks! --Roy17 (talk) 02:25, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Who says it's "supposed to be the original"? Not me. There's no rule or guideline that says Flickr images copied to Wikimedia Commons should remain unaltered, and, to the contrary, I believe they should be altered whenever the Flickr version has flaws such as underexposure, dirt specks picked up by a scanner, or being tilted. I also cleaned a blemish from the sky. Regarding Roy17's comment, specifically, I never "implied that it was the original from Flickr"; I uploaded two versions in 2012, one cropped and one relatively uncropped, but I cleaned up both of them before uploading to Commons (e.g. correcting for underexposure), to make them better on Commons. There's no reason that the exact, original Flickr version of this image needs to be on Commons, in my opinion; if someone wants that (less good) version, they can still obtain it at Flickr. On my computer, the aspect ratio and overall dimensions look virtually the same in my version as in the Flickr version. The file size in MB ended up larger only because the software I used for the improvements, iPhoto, gave me only the choice of either greatly reducing the size or increasing it (an annoying oddity of iPhoto, but I had no control over it), so I chose the latter. The main reason I cropped even the less-cropped version before uploading here in 2012 is that I felt it was too unbalanced, in that there was too much sky at the top for a shot in which the main subject (the two vehicles) are very close to the bottom of the frame. But that's in the eye of the beholder. I could go back and upload a version that is completed uncropped (instead of slightly cropped at top) but retains my improvements for underexposure (etc.) if you really feel it's warranted, but I don't see a strong case for that, and I'd rather not spend the time. Steve Morgan (talk) 10:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
@Steve Morgan:, in the entire description and your initial upload log, you made no mention of touching the image, credited it solely to the Flickr author lindsaybridge, and linked another cropped version, which would make anyone think that this one is not cropped. So everything tells me that I'm seeing an original from Flickr. An original should not be touched!
I'm neutral to adjusting photos, but I dislike making any changes to sth and implying that it's not changed. Your touching and cropping are not what the author intended and should not be credited to him. I don't care if you touch your own work anyhow because it's all yours, but other people's creativity and discretion should be respected and I would never make changes without revealing them. Undisclosed changes are very bad for archival purposes. And no, it may NOT be available at Flickr forever.
If anyone wants the image focusing on trolleybuses only, they would certainly go for the most cropped version. If they want an original, they should take the author's. What is the purpose of this piece of work in progress? It was roughly 3:5, but became 5:9.
I would like to propose three solutions. 1. Reverting to the original, 2. leaving a note in the description referring people to the original I uploaded, or 3. upload the original separately and link these two as derivatives.--Roy17 (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
here would be a guideline about original versions: Commons:Overwriting_existing_files#Unedited_versions. i see there are a lot of users photoshopping without showing originals, but you would not want to be the next Jan Arkesteijn, i.e. File:Odet de Coligny, Cardinal de Chatillon, ca 1552, by Léonard Limousin.jpg. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 03:31, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

@Roy17: I do not know what you mean by "sth". I am fine with your options 2 or 3 (if you are willing to carry it out), but I disagree with most of what you have written here. As I stated before, I do not believe Commons users have any obligation to leave Flickr photos completely unaltered ('untouched', to use your word), and I do not believe that my original description and upload log implied that the photo was an unaltered original from Flickr. That is your interpretation, but I disagree with your assertion that everyone would infer that; the vast majority of Commons users likely don't think about it at all. I have copied hundreds of images from Flickr to Commons over the last 10 years, and I have made alterations (to correct what I see as defects or flaws in composition) to probably about three-fourths of them, either before uploading or immediately afterward – and I intend to continue doing so, as I see nothing wrong with it.
You appear to assume that all Flickr users view the version they posted on Flickr as the best version of their photo, and thus would prefer that it not modified, whereas it is very clear to me that many Flickr users simply have lower standards than me — or lack the software needed to clean up their photos – and are willing to upload photos that are very unexposed, badly tilted, littered with dust specks, etc. On this basis, it's reasonable to suppose that they welcome my improvements, or at least do not object to them. However, since April 2017, I have begun uploading Flickr images completely unaltered initially in almost every case, and then immediately overwriting (as soon as the license is verified) with a corrected, improved version if the original had defects – something I began doing 99% of the time only so that the Flickr license review could be carried out by a bot and not require a human review, not for the reasons you have given. Because of this change of practice, the Commons page now always includes a log of any changes I made to the original, and the unaltered original exists on Commons (and thus can be still accessed even if the Flickr account disappears); it's just not the "current" version of the file. Steve Morgan (talk) 03:48, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
@Steve Morgan:Many thanks for your sharing, but I am afraid I did not make myself clear.
  1. I do not object alteration.
  2. I object your past practice of not stating that you touched the photos.
  3. Your judgement might not be welcomed by everybody. For these images of trolleybuses from Canton, I don't like your edits at all. Coz I care about the city. Every single detail matters. The more the merrier. You only focused on buses.
  4. The same applies to people from other places who are interested in other things.
  5. Your later practice is exactly what I'd expect and fully accept, so that users who might prefer the original can jump straight to the original at the bottom of file histories, instead of sth you handpick for them.
  6. Unless the photos had been taken by you. That would be all your own work. But not others' Flickr collections!
  7. For all images, I see them as historical documents of reality. Any changes to their colours, light, sizes and so on distort the reality. Not to mention the disrespect of photographers' own discretion. Note that these photos digitized from negatives might have well been processed, then that would exactly be the photographers' intention. Some might just like it darker.
  8. Jpegs are vulnerable to alteration. I prefer as little tempering as possible. Commons is not just for wikis. Many people would choose images from here, especially when people are aware of copyright and want to choose sth CC/PD. When they do so, they would apply alteration according to their needs. So I'd say your preprocessing might sometimes be redundant and in case of jpegs not always good for image quality, contrary to your belief.
  9. I am aware of Commons' rules. I repeat, I find it ok that other users do minor improvements and overwrite (I myself would never overwrite). But to me minor refers to cutting insignificant borders (which do not belong to the photos per se) and the like. For these buses, your edits went far beyond minor—cutting a small to medium portion OF THE PHOTOS (because YOU only wanted buses) and changing exposure.
  10. I checked all Lindsay's photos of Canton. I plan to change the current versions by you as derivatives (by replacing the flickr templates etc with derivative templates, which must be done so that I could use flickr2commons) of flickr files that I would transfer again.--Roy17 (talk) 05:02, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

If you alter someone's work and then attribute the result entirely to them, not indicating that it is a derivative work with a contribution from yourself, that is potentially misleading. In these cases it may be harmless, but it is certainly not good practice. - Jmabel ! talk 05:13, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Interesting comments. I was trying to be selfless. Too many people online post other people's photos and fail to give any attribution to the photographer, allowing their readers/viewers to mistakenly infer that they took the photo, whereas I was trying to do the opposite: Allow the photographer to get full credit while I try to remain humbly in the background. Although I still do not agree with all of the comments above, I will try to use my 2017+ practice for Flickr transfers every time in the future. By the way, I will just say that a significantly underexposed photo is not "a document of reality", but rather a distortion of reality (caused by the camera's limitations or and perhaps an inexperienced photographer). And, Roy17, you still have not explained what "sth" is short for, and a Google search did not help me. Steve Morgan (talk) 06:00, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
'sth' is short for 'something'. Second google result for "what is sth short for" (without the quotes.) -- Begoon 07:12, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, Begoon. I have a college degree, and yet I had never encountered that abbreviation. Has to be a generational thing (in other words, I am 'old'), used by people who do a lot of texting. Such abbreviations are not appropriate for use on general talk pages here, in my opinion, only in discussions among users who already know one another pretty well. Steve Morgan (talk) 01:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Very changed geography[edit]

Driving the first piling for the Seattle & Walla Walla Railroad, Seattle, May 4, 1874 (CURTIS 356).jpeg

It seems like it would be a bit odd to categorize a picture like File:Driving the first piling for the Seattle & Walla Walla Railroad, Seattle, May 4, 1874 (CURTIS 356).jpeg in Category:Sodo, Seattle, Washington. That is, indeed the neighborhood that is there now, but as you can see in 1874 it was open water!

Until recent work in the Persian Gulf region, Seattle had the most engineered landscape in the world, so there are a lot of cases like these as I work on old photographs of Seattle. For example, an entire hill, Denny Hill, larger than Russian Hill in San Francisco, was completely leveled in a series of regrades between the late 19th Century and about 1930. Any thoughts on adding categories for geographic features that no longer exist? In this case, I'm not even sure what I'd call it: this was simply part of Elliott Bay at the time; I don't think this was even shallow enough qualify as "the Tideflats" (which were farther east). - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't see the problem of adding categories of the place, or even better "History of" the place.--Pere prlpz (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

private collection template[edit]

I use the template with postcards. Quite often there is the mention of 'private collection' as the source. I also add the template postcard to the source. In the Dutch NL version the template links to nl:Kunstverzameling, wich is an art-collection. However a private collection of postcard is not a art collection. Is there the same link in other languages?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:21, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Norwegian had the same problem. Fixed that and removed the erroneously used compound dash in the Dutch translation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:35, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

This media file has been nominated for deletion[edit]

Hello! I really need your help. The images I uploaded today were mined for deletion. Many of them are used in various wiki projects. For example: File:Gambling - dependence on gambling.jpg File:Depression - a lonely alcoholic in fear covers his face with his hands.jpg and many others... Please explain the reason! I really want to follow the rules of the Wikimedia Commons. I really need your help, I want to fix it!--Rebcenter-moscow (talk) 18:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Rebcenter-moscow. We need to be able to verify that the images are legitimately released under the free license indicated. Assuming you are affiliated with the organization (given your username), if the copyright to the images is truly owned by them, then you or someone else who is authorized to make legal decisions on their behalf can confirm this by following the directions at COM:CONSENT. GMGtalk 18:50, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive answer! Please specify two points вid I understand correctly: 1. the letter should be sent from the mail domain mail@rebcenter-moscow-dot-ru? 2. Signature in the letter - this is my name in Wikipedia? (I myself am the head of and the author of the photos, and independently try to replenish wikimedia) 3. Do I need to install on the page where the photos are loaded, template OTRS pending? ....Thank you for talking to me.....
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pirog1980 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Category:Images that should use vector graphics[edit]

I want to be a SVG.

I go crazy with this category: Why I could found so many exelent photographs in this category (here a few example: [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]). PS: I also found an exelent SVG in the cat. Habitator terrae 🌍 19:54, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

* The images weren't directly in the SVG category, but Category:Kinship was, so by inheritance any image in a child category of that very general category was. I removed the convert tag from that category and added it to the appropriate images in the category instead. BMacZero (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

December 15[edit]

File:Ida M. Tarbell.jpg[edit]

It probably doesn't matter, but I accidentally uploaded a copy of File:Ida Husted Harper photograph by Aime Dupont.jpg - for fairly obvious reasons (the filenames on my computer are rather shorter than the ones here) - into the file history. Does anything need done about this? Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:38, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

To make the revision history look pretty, I was at first thinking of revision deletion, but no: COM:REVDEL#Revision deletion is used sparingly. Just keep calm and carry on. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

December 16[edit]