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
copyrightproposals
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

Contents

October 21[edit]

submitting a tool[edit]

hello,
hope to be in the right place. I am new in Wikimedia Commons, and I've wandered in the website before landing here.
I've signed in, and my username is Rcecinati. I live in Italy.
My small contribution to Wikimedia Commons would like to be sharing a new tool of mine, I am going to introduce.
It is essentially a chatbot development platform , whose name is Telegram Road, and which can be used to create mobile applications for Telegram Messenger (like the name suggests).
The reason why I'm here is that one of the very first developped apps is Telegram Tour, which can show the nearest monuments around you (golocalized), and those monuments can also come from WikiLovesMonuments archive. The Wiki source is clearly declared and shown, and visitors are soon redirected to the WikiLovesMonuments website.
I have read that a mobile Android app was developed with this aim , but it seems to be any longer neither available nor supported. What's more, having chosen the Telegram Messenger base app, we get important side effects, such as :

- no new app is required for installation on the smartphone, only Telegram which is widespread and shared for several apps (chat, bots, ...)
- its UI is known to the user, no learning curve is required
- it's available on Android and iPhone platforms, as well as on desktop
- it's supported and debugged by a large team , granting high security standards

At current time, here are the coordinates to get in touch with Telegram Road and Telegram Tour are

- Telegram Road website : https://telegramroad.com
- Telegram Road bot : https://t.me/Troadbot
- Telegram Tour bot : https://t.me/TroadGeo_bot

Nowadays, only the italian monuments are registered, but the app is ready to import other worldwide contents, should an OK be received and some technical issues be solved.
I hope this can be somehow useful to Wikimedia Commons , and ready to go further steps.

yours
Riccardo Cecinati

—Preceding unsigned comment was added by 88.147.109.29 (talk) 10:21, 21 October 2018‎ (UTC)
  • Signing your posts on talk pages is required and it is a Commons guideline to sign your posts on deletion requests, undeletion requests, and noticeboards. To do so, simply add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your comments. Your user name or IP address (if you are not logged in) and a timestamp will then automatically be added when you save your comment. Signing your comments helps people to find out who said something and provides them with a link to your user/talk page (for further discussion). Thank you.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

October 28[edit]

Backlogging of Deletion requests[edit]

Right now, Commons:Deletion requests has ongoing, open nominations, including ones from five months. I raised an issue in March 2018; there, more admins are suggested. I suggested a PROD-equivalent, but it was unanimously opposed. Since then, six people have been promoted admins; the DR process is still backlogged. If PROD-equivalent idea is still going to be opposed, besides suggesting more admins, how else is DR backlogging to be solved? I could take this to AN, but I'm unsure whether enough admins will be interested in this. George Ho (talk) 21:59, 28 October 2018 (UTC); edited, 02:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

I think moderating COM:AN/U differently could help a lot. Currently a couple of trolls is able to consume a huge amount of energy of admins and other productive users all the time, by starting and maintaining ridiculous discussions, with disruption as their apparent motive. Jcb (talk) 22:28, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
you do not have any evidence to support such a thesis. rather you might consider recruiting and training admins, and redesigning your "soul-crushing" backlogs. we have the Prod equivalent at "Source missing" -- until you take steps to redesign your deletion process, you should expect no improvement of backlogs, regardless of how many you block or ban. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:32, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for proving Jcb's point better than I possibly could have. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
thanks for the ceaseless praise. double down with even more block tools, and study block effectiveness, see what little it gets you. rhetoric is not proof. we have a fundamental difference in how to manage and lead projects. i don't think your approach is healthy. and Jcb has a longer drama board history than even me. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:46, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I see we're back to bashing Slowking4. How sad. Jcb's complaints about AN/U are merely distracting from the real issues. Jcb chased multiple productive users away from Commons. To the degree that there is some clutter in AN/U, that is not even one friggin' percent of the reason we have a DR backlog. Some real issues:

  • Cross-wiki uploads and to a lesser degree the upload wizard. While some users are hell-bent on uploading copyvios, a lot of users simply don't know. They leave everything at default and click upload. They don't even realize it when they license their own work as Creative Commons. (unfortunately this one is barely within our control, WMF does this against our wishes)
  • We waste time deleting personal images when we could just as well simply categorize them. Nobody is holding a gun to our head to delete them and some may even turn out to be educationally useful after all.
  • We should consistently nuke all sock nominations. Don't even look at their merit, just nuke. As long as some of their nominations result in deletion, they will continue. Zero tolerance DENY.
  • ..and do the same with any DRs from users who seem to register for no reason but to nominate files for deletion, per PRP. Unable to contribute? Don't need your nominations. Exceptions only for authors and people who are depicted in nominated photos, but they rarely mass-nominate.
Example: artwork (1) with graffiti (2) outside (3) on grass (4), tree (5) in corner (6).
  • Require users (especially those who are not autopatrolled) to describe what a photo shows using at least 6 meaningful words or aspects. Unable to accurately describe what is in the photo? DR can be procedurally closed by anyone. If you can't see what is in the picture, you are obviously not qualified to nominate it. Or you're a bot. In case of gadget-assisted mass nominations, describe the first 10 or groups of similar images.
  • Take a look at our checkuser team. I suspect they are also understaffed, leaving socks to screw with us for way too long.
  • And the lack of technical users. For a long time (maybe still?) we were plagued by files that weren't deleted despite an admin closing the DR as delete. And the duplicate detection for Flickr2Commons is broken, and the maintainer won't fix it. This also causes a lot of unnecessary work for admins.
  • You know what's funny? Only admins can delete files. And who can be trusted to become admin? Only our most trusted users, plus some idiots who got their mop for free with a bag of Skittles in 2004. They must be trusted with the ability to block users and also the trust that a license reviewer needs, because that's included in adminship. I think there are several users we would not trust to handle user disputes, blocks or even license reviews while they could perfectly be trusted to handle DRs. Sadly, those users will never be given a mop and because there is no separate right to handle file deletion they can't help with the DR backlog.

For the description thing, the description doesn't even have to be useful, we just want to verify you have eyes. Other possible description words for the example: rounded (1) sculpture (2) curb (3) bus stop (4) flood light (5) letter M (6) in all black (7) graffiti, leaves on tree (8), sunny (9), buildings (10), sign (11) with heart on it (12), poop (13) in bottom right corner (14), strangely corrupted ghost (15) woman (16). woman sitting (17) on bus bench (18), tree casts shade on sculpture (19), some clouds (20). Not hard. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not thrilled with the "require users" idea (point #5). It can be either bureaucratic or burdensome, especially to newcomers, to describe what a work, e.g. a photo or an artwork, looks like. I can see your points on other factors, but isn't that another way to ask for more rights for non-admins? I can agree about sock noms, but can non-admins procedurally close such noms? George Ho (talk) 06:46, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
It's not just bureaucratic or burdensome, it is also useful. If "DSC 4012-2 Panorama.jpg" gets deleted with the rationale "unused personal photo" and the admin deletes it "per nomination", what was it? If the nominator had described the picture, we would know (more or less) what was deleted. And what "newcomers" think about a description requirement, I couldn't care less. If you register here, not to contribute or improve media but just to delete things (which is not very common anyway), I'd rather you didn't register at all. Users who do that are usually socks or they cause trouble. They are unable to create which typically also makes them incapable of understanding things like scope.
"I can see your points on other factors, but isn't that another way to ask for more rights for non-admins?" Well file (un)deletion would anyway be a right one has to apply for. Admin-lite?
"I can agree about sock noms, but can non-admins procedurally close such noms?" A few things: technically non-admins can close any nomination, although non-admins lack the buttons to do this conveniently (I'm not sure if/how these buttons could be enabled for regular users. I'd think it's a gadget?). But this would only apply for the description requirement, if we would do that. Sock noms however should be nuked, regardless of merit. All their edits (adding deletion tags, notifying users of DR) should also be nuked. Nuke it and don't look back. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 07:08, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
+1. we need to develop professional standards of practice. escalation of battleground is a distraction from working backlogs. need to develop scaleable methods. backlogs stem from reliance on non-scaleable methods. commons has historically not done checkuser enough to nuke socks, and sock chasing can be a distraction as well. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:12, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Something less related to our admin problems: there are quite a few DRed images that could have actually been PROD-ed or speedy deleted, especially after COM:CSD#F10 came into force. Might be worthwile to go through the DR backlog and renominate for speedy deletion or "no permission" PRODs where possible. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

That's brilliant. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Speedy deletion do not really help against admin workload. Easy DR cases are usually deleted after a week, it's only more complicated or disputed issues that take longer. In my experience, extensive use of speedy deletion tags increases the workload by often having to second guess what the tagger meant and by converting unclear/non-justified speedy DRs to regular ones. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 11:29, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Maybe there's not that much wrong with the process and it's more the technical side that's an issue. Without the help of DelReqHandler, processing deletion requests is cumbersome and time-consuming. Would be interesting to know how many admins have enabled that tool. Myself, I hadn't enabled it for a long time although I knew it existed (don't really know why, probably some basic reluctance to activate any tools, a tendency to keep "default" settings), and became much more active in processing DRs as soon as I began to use it. Or maybe we should start a survey where admins can give their reasons why they don't process more DRs or what could help/motivate them to do more. Gestumblindi (talk) 16:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

  • When trying (really) to solve an issue, we have to find the levers we can operate, or the levers on which we must give ourselves the opportunity to act.
The minimum requirement of activity (question already discussed here, no need to surrender IMO)
The recruitment
End of the RFA? and give the possibility to out bureaucrats to promote the users as administrators on their own initiative. In absolute terms not a bad idea, but when we see the results when a judgment mistake is done inside our project, there is no chance that our community accept that, and no chance that our bureaucrats accept such responsibility. Therefore we can forgot that.
Send mass messages (and not only notices in the watchlist) to our experimented users (number of contributions?) about the fact that we need more administrators. Why not?
Send mass messages to the administrators about the fact that we need active administrators in some specific backlogs
Make the vote requirement less high in the RFA (currently 75% of support)?
Abandon the practice of acceptance by the candidate, e.g. if someone is nominated then they can be elected even if they don't want that? and why not finally? feel free to them not to use the tool.
The working conditions
As well pointed by Gestumblindi maybe we can regullary advertise our tools by mass messages (and not only notices in the watchlist) to our administrators. Maybe on the same occasion that the messages I just referred to above.
development of new tools?
creation by BOTs of galleries pages from the kind of pages that we currently use. In order to create an ever more pleasant (and therefore more efficient) work platform
The obligation to chose kind of categories (not in the sense of our Commons categories, but in the literal sense). E.g. FOP, derivative work, ToO, ect, ect... and then the DRs will be sorted by those categories inside our current kind of pages.

Notes that all those ideas are not necessarily ideas that I defend (or even feasibly teaknically) but simply tracks, in order to be constructive. Do not hesitate to propose ideas, at worst it does not do anything wrong and at best it can generate good initiatives. Regards, Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:16, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just as a note, my goal is to be done with June's DR by the 10th and July's by the end of the month. I've been working through June's pretty much every free moment for the last couple of days. Some of them are quite complex though so they might be left till last. A great deal of the ones currently sitting there are quick, read, verify, delete, type DRs that were just never looked at. --Majora (talk) 18:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
  • There are two templates which are useful in my opinion: Template:Uploaded from Danish Wikipedia and Template:Uploaded from Korean Wikipedia. If we create similar templates for every big or medium-sized project, we can monitor the inflow more effectively. I know some people who are interested to keep an eye on uploads from a certain project, but do not want to be overwhelmed by uploads from other projects. The same idea applies to DR participation and closure. There is a tool which lets you find DRs related to a specific project xwiki-DR. User:SteinsplitterBot/DR is also useful, and should be developed and advertised in our community and other communities. A similar method should be developed to include every DR related to a specific project (for example using Template:Uploaded from Danish Wikipedia, whether used on that project or not). 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    @Steinsplitter: Could you modify Special:AbuseFilter/153 to add such templates or cats upon allowing a cross-wiki upload?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    AbuseFilter cannot perform edits. --Steinsplitter (talk) 11:58, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Another thought: Somewhat paradoxically, it's much easier for users to nominate images for the "full" DR procedure using the "Nominate for deletion" tool than to file a speedy deletion request or marking outright duplicates, both of which require the use of templates with appropriate parameters many users are not familiar with, so we get quite a lot of deletion requests that, for admins, would have been easier to manage and much quicker processed if they used, for example, {{SD|G7}} or {{duplicate}}. Fairly often, I come across uploader's deletion requests that would have qualified as COM:CSD#G7 but waited for weeks without any comment for processing in the DR queue... Gestumblindi (talk) 20:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

October 29[edit]

Blog post: interview with George Oates about Wikimedia Commons[edit]

A useful pie chart showing a breakdown of Commons admins. (Uploaded by Fæ, as WMF blog post images no longer seem to get uploaded by the WMF)

George Oates, designer behind Flickr, Flickr: The Commons and Open Library (among other things) has looked at Wikimedia Commons, and she gives tips on how it can be improved from her perspective. Here's an interview about her thoughts: https://wikimediafoundation.org/2018/10/29/george-oates-conversation/ SandraF (WMF) (talk) 09:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

@SandraF (WMF):, thank you for sharing it with us. Face-smile.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:06, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Two observations based on the WMF post:
"the category system used to organize and tag media files on Commons is confusing..." Yes, the Wikimedia Commons community has regularly talked about tags versus categories. The key obstacle to fixing this, by creating a tagging system in addition to categories, is the WMF being uninterested. It seems contradictory that the WMF chose to make this part of the leading summary. The later example of "Nothing like myth, stories, night, spirits, stars, or the night sky" is precisely a usability bug down to the absence of a Wikimedia Commons tag system. (Ironically, the Community Wishlist Survey has been posted below this thread, while I was writing. Yet again we can add "tags please" to this list, but experience shows it will never be a priority and will stay far below the waterline compared to "mobile stuff", "wikipedia good for PR" and "Visual Editor, or whatever else feels more exciting for developers". </ironic tone>)
"Oates noted that the group of administrators on Wikimedia Commons is internationally diverse, but not so much in terms of gender..." Nobody knows the gender of all of our active administrators. Later in the blog post the summary of declared gender on user pages was a useful pie chart. This gave women/men as 4.4%/38.7% with the majority as unknown. This may be a reasonable observation, but there is no link to what happens at Featured Pictures and the gender of admins, because admins do not control Featured Pictures. This appears to have been a link that the WMF wanted to push as it was not a direct quote from Oates, but there is no general data about the diversity of participants at FP. If someone wants to ensure measurably diverse participation at FP (which would be great), proposals should be based on firmer foundations. BTW "diversity" is not simply "men vs. women", please be a bit more aware of other issues of unconscious bias. The fact that I don't even want to put a name on the other types of bias on the Village Pump, because I would immediately be a target of personal attacks, shows this is a serious community problem.
-- (talk) 11:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Tags, via depicts statements, are a major feature we're working on as part of Structured Data on Commons, and we're targeting a release in just a few months. Early versions of designs and functionality (including search via depicts statements) are up and available via the project page. We started with prototyping search because it's a truly new system that we wanted feedback on as quickly as possible. Early usable versions of adding/editing depicts tags will be available before end of year. There has been extensive work and conversation done on tags over the past year, with more to come. RIsler (WMF) (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
That is not on-wiki user created tags, in the same common-sense way they are user created on Flickr.
What appears to be described are not thematic tags for Commons, but more features on Wikidata. What I see there is automated tags forced on Commons from Wikidata, for which Commons contributors are unlikely to have any control, unless they go and learn how to unpick Wikidata problems and effectively stop helping Commons by spending their valuable volunteer time editing Wikidata properties. Ugh, imagining that gives me a headache from the avoidable mess it creates.
Look, if you want to completely reshape Wikimedia Commons, do it here on Commons with the community rather than using a back door. An obscure wikidata-based discussion on talk pages about structured data is not where the community votes on a fundamental Commons tags proposal. -- (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
The tag system as envisioned is a.) purely for the sake of Commons, b.) not automated (although there may eventually be a tool for *suggesting* tags that can be added if the user wants to do so), c.) under the control of Commons editors. If you don't think a tag should be on a particular image, you can simply remove it, d.) an effort to help improve translations on Commons by utilizing the translations that exist on Wikidata so instead of having monolingual tags, we have multilingual ones. RIsler (WMF) (talk) 16:26, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
That was not the discussion I read. If this is the proposal, please make an actual proposal. Before implementing it. -- (talk) 16:36, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I hope the intent of "depicts" is not equivalent to Flickr tags. Taking several common sorts of thing I've seen as tags on Flickr (though not following their pattern of "no spaces"), I don't believe we'd want the following as depicts values:
  • "spooky", "happy", "beautiful", etc.
  • "pretty girls", "hot hot hot", "naked guys", etc.
  • On a single photo "Alki", "Alki Beach", "West Seattle", "Seattle", "Washington", "Washington State", "beaches", "beaches in Washington", "urban beaches", "sunny day at the beach", etc.
Or is someone saying we do want this? - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Subjective tags would be fine. I would not want to over-control the user options, their usage would evolve and we can imagine ways of connecting related themes. Plus in my view "spooky" and "naked guys" are natural user themes for tags, the sort of thing that reusers actually want to search on. -- (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I don't want Commons (or WMF projects generally) to become an acceptable forum to comment on the perceived sexual attractiveness (or lack thereof) of the people I photograph and whose pictures I upload here. (Nor, really, to gather any other comparable subjective data about the subjects of our images.) There's enough objectification and "hot or not" crap already on the web. I don't think that is part of our mission or scope. - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I understand the point you are making, though on this project I would hope that users would find good ways to nudge towards less 'loaded' tags. Just because someone searches for "sexy guys", does not mean you have to accept tags on images of this type, or that an associated context aware search method would not return, say, "homoeroticism". -- (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
"diversity" is not simply "men vs. women" I've been beating that horse for a while now. I don't expect anyone to listen any time soon. GMGtalk 12:48, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Diversity of thought is more important than any other form of diversity, we're not counting the number of people with spectacles either even though they might also bring in a different perspective from those that aren't visually challenged. Simply looking at what's between someone's legs and not what's between their ears tells nothing about a person other than that. If you see a person and the only thing you're looking at is what demographic they belong to and not to what they can bring to the project then you're looking all wrong at it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:29, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
I disagree. People who are gay, or black, or Mormon, or what have you are going to have interests that are going to vary broadly based on their experiences, and they're going to have a perspective that a member of an out-group is not going to have. Currently, the WMF doesn't collect data on sexual orientation, ethnicity, or religion at all. GMGtalk 17:31, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In the hope that it might get somewhere this time, now created m:Community Wishlist Survey 2019/Multimedia and Commons/Create a tag file system in addition to conventional categories. Please add evidence and observations for a tagging system there. -- (talk) 12:15, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

feedback from an expert in image repositories should be taken on board and acted upon by the community.
important for the community to understand how newbies continue to be astonished by the nudity as featured picture, Commons:Help_desk/Archive/2018/06#Why_is_it_OK_to_have_a_picture_of_a_nude_woman_on_the_home_page?.-- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:57, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
I think that there are many interesting points to consider when we think about the demographics of Commons editors. But even more interesting is how the demographics is perceived when it is not known. Here we have an editor clearly stating that only males are somehow able to deal with nudity in an adult manner while females would automatically get scared of it. I find that not having to disclose my sex/gender is actually a benefit of this community over many others. However, I do think that 4.4%/38.7% statistic is disturbing. Yes, we do have most people who are not identified, but statistically there is very little chance that enough of them are not men. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 15:48, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Pinch of salt. The blog post reads like the analysis was done to support an existing thesis, and it was done by someone apparently relatively new to Commons who for all we know may just have looked for userboxes. There are several ways to declare a gender or preferred pronoun, and the method(s) used to calculate 4% was not published. It would be great if a long term contributor were to examine the admin group's user pages and pronoun preferences (which can be done with SQL) and arrive at an open and repeatable analysis. -- (talk) 16:18, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Correction, finding preferred pronoun from user_properties used to be available (it is public data as the API must be able to return it), but I believe this was suppressed by the WMF in an unexplained development change. The change protects nobody, it just gets in the way of this sort of analysis. -- (talk) 16:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Diversity is more than Male & Female, we need to stop measuring people just by their sexual organs if we truly seek diversity then we need to look beyond that one dimension. Gnangarra 15:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
many interesting points in there … --El Grafo (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2018 (UTC)
Diversity. Oats suggests that "Meet our Photographers" should have a 50/50 women/men split to encourage women. I fully agree with the research that shows this helps encourage women to believe they can join in, and that an "all male" crowd has the opposite effect. However, in practical terms, not all users here identify their gender, very few users upload photographs of themselves which would visually confirm "there are women here", and I'm only aware of a handful of female photographers at FP level. So the result would be that a 50/50 "Meet our Photographers" would list perhaps 10 photographers, with no pictures of female photographers, and give a rather strange impression that actually we don't have many people photographing for Commons. That particularly page isn't in a very healthy state, with most of the photographers listed no longer active, and many highly active photographers not listed. Our problem really is that despite the apparently large size of Commons, the number of active and talented photographers is quite small. Oats suggests "requiring" the FP voters to be more "representative", but doesn't offer any way that, on a wiki, we could achieve that? Would we require voters to declare their gender, ethnicity, sexuality, income bracket, age, political views? And the idea of limiting users to only have 10 featured photographers -- I don't see what problem that is trying to solve? I think perhaps Oats thinks most users on Commons are like users on Flickr -- that they take the photos on the site. The vast majority of photos on Commons are not take by users on Commons. Would a churn of new users at FP improve quality and diversity? I suggest that it would absolutely not, and well, there simply aren't the numbers to contemplate that -- it would die out. There is better diversity at Commons:Photo challenge, and a better inflow of new users too.
Categories Oh yes, categories actually help hide our media, buried 10 levels deep in some obscure mix of unrelated attributes. We very much need to get away from a strict single hierarchy. The subject, the date, the time of day, the weather, all get mashed up into one category. I think categories are the single biggest problem with finding images on Commons. However tags aren't perfect and Flickr isn't perfect.
Nudity. I took a photo of the wife of Finn the Giant. Apparently she's turned to stone holding the pillar of the cathedral. When I posted this on Flickr, it got lots of hits, many more than my photos normally get. When I looked at the stats, most were coming from a Flickr search for "wife". So I follow the link for "wife" search results and ... oh dear, way too much intimate stuff going on there. At this point I learn my Flickr account settings allow me to choose three levels of "Safe search". I had it "off" "You're over 18, and take full responsibility that you're comfortable to see whatever turns up". The next level is "moderate" "You're OK seeing the odd "artistic nude" here or there, but that's the limit.". Top level is "On" "You'd prefer to see photos and video that is safe for a global, public audience" which is what you get if you search without an account.
Glammmur the Feature Picture process does not choose images for the Main Page. That is down to a very small team who I feel don't apply sufficient editorial restraint to appreciate that the Main Page should be like Flickr's default "safe global public audience" who do not want to be shocked and upset at finding an image they do not wish to see at this point in time (or ever). The FP process evaluates the quality of an image, not its suitability for "Main Page". I raised this point at the discussion you link, but it appears you were more interested in doing research than engaging with the community on that issue and following it through. Additionally, I think Commons would benefit from a similar "safe search" feature to Flickr, but there has been a lot of resistance in the past to that, perceiving it to be a form of censorship. I don't really know how to get the community to take that issue seriously, but I think the lack of diversity here is preventing a grown-up world view of this. There is for example, very little argument from a feminist position. Nor is their any pressure from WMF to implement a safe search feature, so you might want to ask WMF why not.
Being part of the problem as noted, we can influence future participation and content by what we show or highlight about current participation and content. Oats chooses to highlight glamour nudity on the Main Page, which is hardly going to encourage any feminists, for example, to join the project. Yet there have only been a handful of nude/partial-nude photos promoted to FP, in contrast with the eleven thousand other featured images. Indeed, any serious analysis of Commons Photographers would conclude that they enjoy the outdoors and wildlife, appreciate great architecture, and seem to spend an awful lot of time inside a church. So if WMF are serious about promoting diversity on their projects, then I would encourage them to ensure blog posts are fairly researched wrt diversity issues and actually represent the community. I think the biggest problem with the article is Oats not appreciating that Commons is not Flickr and the community is different. Most folk on Commons are not photographers or here to contribute photographs as their main activity, and most images here are not in fact taken by users. -- Colin (talk) 12:17, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Colin states that «categories actually help hide our media», which is a puzzling statement. You can either use Commons categories for your searching needs, or not. Even if it’s meant that categories, used the way they are, hide our media — that’s still false, since so called “flat” categories in practice work more or less as the chimeric “tags” everyone’s talking about as if it’s 1993 and the future looks like a battle between Altavista and Dmoz. -- Tuválkin 16:26, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Adding: Of course for flat cats to behave as the tags category-haters want, someone needs to create and populate them. And, of course, this being a wiki — you can, and should, do what you want done. Most people who work in categorization here do it the way they (actually: we) think it’s better — namely with typically many, very detailed categories whose pages show at most a couple hundred media files each. Whoever wants to add to this a whole set of relatively few flat categories with thousands of hits (see this scarse example) will need to work for it. -- Tuválkin 16:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • It isn't puzzling at all, Tuválkin. Take Category:Tower Bridge, one of the worlds most important photographic subjects, well photographed and often sought out as an iconic feature of London. I am presented with a couple of hundred tiny icons 120x80 in size from which I am assumed to try to guess which might be good quality images. Of course, Commons' categorisers don't really want any images at that level at all, as it is too large. So they push images down and down and down till they get a small number. My two good quality FP photographs of this bridge have been pushed down inside Category:History of Tower Bridge, despite being nothing about "history", and down again inside Category:Tower Bridge in 2015. Quite why anyone, looking for a good photo of Tower Bridge would think to look by date in order to find what they want, is beyond me. While the date may well be important for a tiny minority of usages, that is information that could be readily extracting from the file page and the image EXIF and thus added to a search criteria. There is no reason why, in 2018, humans are wasting their short lives, adding that sort of random arbitrary machine-derivable noise into a category in order to make it small. The year the photo was taken is a quite separate attribute from the subject of the photo and should never be mixed. Only on Commons does anyone think to categorise things that way, by combining unrelated attributes. The date is no more important than the viewpoint, the weather, the time of day, or the size of the image. Arguably the most important attribute is whether it is a decent photo or not, and for that we only have a few forums with their own imperfections, and no reliable and straightforward way of ranking results by quality. Ranking by quality (part human, part machine AI) is probably the most important way to improve our search results. Finding images that match the search terms isn't the hard part and isn't why Altavista and Dmoz failed compared go Google -- all could do that. What Google did was return the pages you wanted to see as the first results, sometimes even the "I'm feeling lucky" first result. All that categories, as we have them, do, is absolutely guarantee that if you look for something by category, then you will not quickly find it in the first page of results, and will give up second-guessing which sub category someone has hidden it in. -- Colin (talk) 17:06, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • +1. i stopped using categories to search for media. using google image search, or wikidata, or insert media on wikipedia. the structured data for commons will render categories secondary if not obsolete. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

A lot of George's interview rang very true for me, especially that Wikipedia is incredibly intimidating for the beginner user. Help files are overly technical, confusing, and nearly impossible to re-find. Coding is difficult to understand. Categories do not follow any understandable logic or controlled vocabulary, and it's not possible to add a new category or find out how to get someone to do that for you. Despite the fact that I am a librarian with a background in cataloguing, I have resigned myself to uploading images and adding the single institutional "Images from..." category for each. The Raven's Librarian (talk) 12:39, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I humbly submit for your consideration that perhaps the perspective of a librarian, used to very specific ways of doing things, is not representative of the typical new user. Let me know if you need suggestions on how to let your library/institution integrate better in Commons! As someone who works for a library too, Nemo 13:15, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Nemo! I do agree that libraries have specific ways of doing things, and I am not suggesting that Wikipedia move to a library-ish model. However, years in the library world have exposed me to many databases, help files, and online communities, so I have some ability to navigate in most online environments. But Wikipedia is beyond me...and if I am not a "typical new user", then how must those more typical people feel? But yes, I would welcome any suggestions on how to contribute more effectively to Commons. The Raven's Librarian (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
yet I'd dispute that, the way libraries "do things" is developed from many generations of practical experience, there are very good reason why libraries work at helping people find knowledge. Libraries are also the main way many people first experience any coordinated form of cataloging. We need to listen more those who hold the experience and learn from what makes them so universal. I'm not a librarian the fact that I can go into a library anywhere in the world in any language and readily find what I'm looking for is an indicator they are doing something effectively that we arent. Gnangarra 15:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Raven's Librarian says that «Help files are »(…)« impossible to re-find». You might want to educate yourself about look up a common feature of web browsers commonly named bookmarks. -- Tuválkin 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Raven's Librarian says that «Categories do not follow any understandable logic or controlled vocabulary», which is not true. Surely it’s possible to find inconsistencies in category nomenclature and lacks in categorization of many (indeed most) files, but a wiki is a work in progress. -- Tuválkin 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Raven's Librarian says that «it's not possible to add a new category» — well, now you’re just plainly making stuff up. Try again once you developed some collaboration spirit. -- Tuválkin 16:18, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
  • don't know why you are wasting time with a personal attack, when a new user expresses confusion at the steep learning curve. you would agree that usability issues are commons' problem, not the user? "educate yourself" is not an adequate response. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 00:55, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • To educate oneself is always a good advice and things worth using have “learning curves” — needlessly steep?, maybe: Let’s discuss specific issues — this user posed a few concrete questions, which I addressed. Indeed, unlike yours, my so-called personal attack did address actual matters — what’s yours? It’s always an extra effort to read your contributions, with their quirky capitalization; please make it worth and make your point. -- Tuválkin 20:31, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin Thank you so much for your sarcastic comments and the personal attack. Yes, I have heard of bookmarks, however, internal logic and wayfinding within the help files should allow users to navigate without resorting to bookmarking. Another thing that would be really useful is a non-technical quick-start guide to adding and editing content, linking out to the more technical help pages. I spent several days reading pages in the help files before I gave up attempting to navigate the labyrinth or search for a help page. Searching the Help Centre for "add category" gave the top result as "Help:Editnotices/Namespace/Category/doc". I changed my query to "how to add category" and the top result was "Help:Autotranslate". Neither result provided any help whatsoever. Your comments have served only in further alienating a newbie female contributor. Might I recommend that you re-read the article Please do not bite the newcomers The Raven's Librarian (talk) 14:47, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @The Raven's Librarian: I always want to help people genuinely interested in doing good work (which is not the subject of this thread, rather being one more attempt to erradicate the use of categories in Commons), so here’s a little bit of basic advice whose “spirit” is valid for any wiki editing (not just adding cats) and indeed for most anything that uses any form of markup language (wikitext, HTML, SVG a.s.o.), including even basic interpreted programming:
When you see a file or cat page that includes one category So-and-so and you wanna add to it also category This-or-that, you can click "edit" (this being "edit source" or "edit wiki text" and not VisualEditor, which do not I recommend) and then locate (using you browser’s page search function) [[Category:So-and-so]]; copy the whole thing, paste and overtype to have [[Category:This-or-that]]; preview and save. There, you have added a new category to that cat or file page. Unilke most things in wikitext, categories can but put anywhere in the page source — although it is nicer to keep them in a block at the end. (For more powerful results see also Help:Gadget-HotCat and, later on, Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.)
-- Tuválkin 17:09, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • Tuválkin thanks for the advice. I wholeheartedly support categories, as subject categorization is super useful for gathering like with like, and subject hierarchies can help a user broaden or narrow their search. I have been reading up on categories and applying them to my uploads, hopefully making them more visible. Thanks again The Raven's Librarian (talk) 18:54, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional[edit]

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#Files within Category:Wikimedia in Brazil GLAM initiative with Arquivo Nacional

Flickr will start deleting photos in 2019-02[edit]

Flickr today announced changes to its pricing structure. I think this part is highly relevant to Commons:

*Free members with more than 1,000 photos or videos uploaded to Flickr have until Tuesday, January 8, 2019, to upgrade to Pro or download content over the limit. After January 8, 2019, members over the limit will no longer be able to upload new photos to Flickr. After February 5, 2019, free accounts that contain over 1,000 photos or videos will have content actively deleted -- starting from oldest to newest date uploaded -- to meet the new limit.

This means that in just over three months, Flickr will start deleting photos, including ones that might be useful for us.

We should try to preserve as many useful (freely licensed and in scope) photos as we can here on Commons over the next three months. Does anybody reading this have any experience with the Flickr API? Is it possible to automatically generate a list of non-Pro users with more than 1000 photos that have at least one freely licensed image that is not yet on Commons? It should, ideally, contain information on how many such images the user has and when the account was last active. I think manually searching for random search terms is going to miss many good photos, so I propose this automated approach; obviously the photos still need to be manually checked for COM:SCOPE compliance, flickrwashing, etc. Tokfo (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

User:Fæ maybe knows. But this is a job for https://www.archiveteam.org/. They probably know. This is a huge operation though.. They could probably use our help in terms of bandwidth. Hell, they could use WMF's help. And damnit, Slowking4 said we are too dependent on Flickr and now this happens. Slowking4 deserves way more credit. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
The total number of (public) photos for any account can be found using an API call like https://www.flickr.com/services/api/flickr.people.getInfo.html. The same call shows the date of the first photo uploaded and if they are a Pro account.
I would not be sure of the best way of finding a list of the most interesting users. Intuitively I would look at the accounts which contribute to groups which are most likely to have high educational value content.
Note that any search and test pattern would have to stick to the 3600 queries/hour limit, which is probably fine with a bit of thought.
In terms of my volunteer time, I would be most interested in running batch uploads for a few highly valuable accounts, preferably where there are more than 10,000 photographs to upload. I would presume that whatever Flickr's new strategy for driving people to subscribe is, any accounts on 'the commons' will be exempt. Sadly I have two free accounts with large batches of archive images in them which I will probably let go. For me, Flickr was a good alternative to Wikimedia Commons where non-commercial photographs could be parked, even "secretly", for future projects. I guess the alternative is my hard disk, and if that goes "pop", hard luck. -- (talk) 23:16, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
"I would not be sure of the best way of finding a list of the most interesting users."
One way (which will not be sufficient) is to look at accounts of which (some) photos were already imported here. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 23:54, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I assume the change will affect organisations as well as individuals. I'm curious about how long it will take before "pro" accounts that aren't renewed will have photos deleted: all accounts with over 1000 photos should be considered at risk. Some Flickr accounts were created by people now deceased or organisations now defunct. (e.g., Phillip_Capper or Hone Morihana who was apparently John Clarke.) --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
it did not take a genius to anticipate this: it is the monetization cycle of life. we might want to talk to our friends at internet archive. they will take them all. https://archive.org/details/image our flickr tools will be less effective as the prolific photographers are driven off, so we need better tools to upload from IA. -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:30, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe we should proactively archive (with InternetArchiveBot?) those we use as {{Flickrreview}}, so we don't have future dispute over whether it was actually marked CCL or not? — regards, Revi 04:45, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
IABot doesn't actually archive pages, to my knowledge; it just searches through the existing archives. (I run a Toolforge tool which does [send requests to] archive pages, but it only archives the same pages over and over again.) Jc86035 (talk) 05:22, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Then we probably should consider doing such thing with other stuff or... making IAbot do it? — regards, Revi 05:31, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
IA bot does archive pages in use as sources, see also w:User:InternetArchiveBot. we need it for image sources here, anyone want to ask cyberpower to bring it over? problem with "no crawlers" remains, maybe need archive.is for those. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 19:52, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
Good to know. Beside missing new images this is also problematic for missing source and further categorization existing images. Rudolphous (talk) 07:37, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
I just realized we must clear CAT:FLICKR till the deadline or we might lose valid CC image. — regards, Revi 13:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion, although it won't be a popular one, we could mass import all free licensed images and place them all into "provisional categories" where editors can pick files that are out of scope and/or copyright violations for removals, these categories could be organised per account so if one account tends to be mostly out of scope or non-compatible with COM:LICENSE then we could just empty the whole category. The current way Wikimedia Commons is organised with tools like Flickr2Commons is to be completely dependent on imports from there, heck I can't remember how often I inserted pictures from Flickr into Wikipedia articles simply because no photographer from Wikimedia Commons itself bothered to take it. Maybe we could also try to contact Flickr to run a banner atop pages to invite photographers to Wikimedia Commons and explain what the project scope is so rather than being dependent on Flickr we could actually have a large number of original content. I can't think of a single other website that Wikimedia Commons is so dependent on and we should salvage what we can and it might be a better long-term plan to import everything and then delete a large number of files before the content is lost. Honestly I was expecting this to happen ever since Verizon gave Flickr away to some small company no-one every heard of, it's no wonder that Flickr can't sustain itself because without Yahoo!'s/Verizon's servers there are simply too much images to store.

Maybe we could ask the Wikimedia Foundation for help with a mass-import or to try and make a deal with Flickr. Getting the Internet Archives involved is also a great (and necessary idea). Importing everything that's freely licensed and then sorting through it might be the best long-term plan, most copyright © violation-hunters go through Flickr images most of the time now anyhow and having maintenence categories that could take a couple of years to go through is better than perhaps losing the internet's biggest source of free images.

By the way, is all of Flickr The Commons already on Wikimedia Commons? I think it would also be a good idea to import all of the public domain images from there and add them into a few maintenance categories. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:56, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


See this comment by Flickr "All of our institutional Flickr Commons accounts are already exempted. Further, we've been talking with the E.D. at Creative Commons generally about the changes and they have shared their concerns and priorities with us. There's lots more that we'll be working through and detailing in the coming weeks. Stay tuned!". Also this comment by CC. When they talk about "the Commons" they mean this, not us nor CC images in general.

I've said before that our strategy of treating Flickr as photo resource to mine, but not engaging with the photographers, is wrong. Rather than uploading people's photos by bot, we should have been inviting them here. Both Flickr and Wikimedia Commons only survive by being communities of people. Neither would survive if just an accumulation of photos that nobody sought to grow, improve, curate, manage, and discuss. The new Flickr owners know what matters is their active users, not the JPGs on a server, and I support their attitude that they don't want to see users as "the product" like Facebook does, but wants to generate income in a more transparent honest way.

I don't think the suggestion to relax our "educational scope" requirement has any chance whatsoever. That's a core part of this project. There are other websites that seek to archive the web. There are 400 million CC photos on Flickr (though many will be -NC). -- Colin (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Dump a million files and expect someone to review them later seems like the normal thing to do here.--BevinKacon (talk) 16:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I've done some quick numbers on this (independent of the discussion here so there may be some overlap). I was surprised by how much of a source Flickr seems to be - around 15% of image description pages, 7.5 million of them, have a link to a Flickr page (which presumably almost always indicates it was sourced from there.)
Looking at 5000 randomly-sampled Flickr accounts which have been used to source pictures on Commons, and weighting the result by the number of images on Commons which appear to be linked to those accounts, approximately 1/3 of our Flickr-sourced images were sourced from accounts which may now be at risk. The majority were sourced from pro accounts (or Flickr Commons accounts, which per Colin's note above seem to be be safe); images sourced from "smaller" free accounts are a relatively negligible share of the whole, perhaps around 5%. The numbers were similar with a sample based on the most frequently used source accounts, once Flickr Commons was taken into consideration. These numbers are all a bit rough but I suspect they do broadly reflect reality.
These numbers do seem to suggest that "at risk" accounts make up a fairly large chunk of what we source from Flickr, but not the overwhelming majority. And, of course, a fair chunk of the most active accounts may well switch back over to being pro (it's quite likely that many were in previous years and have let it lapse because, well, it became essentially a free service!) Andrew Gray (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
I forgot to add the useful bit! What I'll try and do is put together a list of accounts which seem most likely to be of interest to us - ones we've used as a source reasonably often already (so they're likely to have Commons-relevant material and licensing), where there are a substantially larger number of images on Flickr than we seem to have here (so there's scope for import work), and where they are potentially at-risk (large, not Pro). I don't have the capacity to analyse the license of those accounts' images and do any importing, but hopefully this is something that might help support manual review of the situation. I'll try and get it posted tomorrow. Andrew Gray (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Andrew. Useful analysis here and on your blog. There may also be a small proportion of users here who upload their own Flickr photos and who we can hope would carry on uploading their new photos here. Flickr plan to delete the oldest photos first, which are also the ones perhaps most likely to have been hoovered up here already, leaving the new material. Wrt Flickr userbase, there appear to be a number of people treating it simply as a free cloud backup (1TB was a huge backup for JPGs). They will likely have dumped their photo shoots largely unedited, and any good photos are mixed among the rubbish. At the other end are the pro photographers who only used Flickr to show off a portfolio, which itself will be substantially smaller than 1000 images -- if you don't realise how great they are after a few dozen photos, then you never will. In between are photographers with a following who upload new interesting photos regularly to keep their profile high, or amateurs sharing their lives with friends and family without any Facebook hassle. Even though the 1000 image deadline is months away, there may be some who decide now is the time to trim their portfolios or to simply delete an unused account. Those using it for backup may delete the account once they have backed up to Amazon or elsewhere. -- Colin (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
I just thought of something.
We're already losing images.
No joke. Once people read the announcement, some would have started deleting their own pictures themselves, the ones they care least about, to get under 1000. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
Well, I am deleting my Flickr images every day. I have around 7000 there, which I used to illustrate my blog posts, and I am slowly taking them elsewhere (the main work is to update the blog posts). I am not going to stay on Flickr in any case, because now I do not have any respect for them. They are mostly landscape photos, and my estimate is that only about 30-50% are worthwhile to upload on Commons (of which many already are here). The rest are not suitable: Freedom of panorama issues, scope issues, and many are taken from points where we already have Commons images of superior quality.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Just a quick remark without having read the whole discussion: There are also many, many pictures on flickr that are of no use for Commons whatsoever (of the personal photo type, lots of duplicates and near-duplicates etc.), so I'm opposed to any kind of automated blanket upload from flickr, creating an additional huge pile of not very satisfying work for Commons volunteers. But the approach mentioned by Alexis Jazz ("look at accounts of which (some) photos were already imported here") might work. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the infobox pictures for the first 10 actors from the 70s, 80s and 90s on w:List of African-American actors. And the first 10 for the main ceremony on w:60th Annual Grammy Awards. This seemed sort-of random for mostly American celebrities, although I'm not sure it really is. Results: 5/40 no image. 22/35 Flickr, 4/35 by Gage, 11/35 Commons, 2/35 other, 4/35 at risk. I am mostly surprised so many actually have a pro account. Please note I haven't been cherry-picking here, if I had done that I would just list Jennifer Lopez and Morgan Freeman.. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content

7/10 from Flickr, but none at immediate risk. 3/10 Commons users. Let's look at the first 10 from the 80s..


7/10 from Flickr again, 2 Commons users, 1 other. Two at risk. What about the 90s?

  • Tequan Richmond no image
  • Rhyon Nicole Brown no image

Let's try the first 10 for the main ceremony on w:60th Annual Grammy Awards.

  • Gary Clark Jr. Flickr account with 737 photos (Alize Tran)
  • Joe Saylor no image

List of heavily used at-risk accounts[edit]

Okay, here we go. These are the top 50 "at risk" flickr accounts, as ranked by to the number of existing pages which have at least one link containing their flickrID - this isn't perfect but it's a decent first approximation to "number of files sourced from there". (This omits any links using the human-readable labels rather than the 97499887@N06 type flickrIDs, but it's a decent approximation - 96% of pages with a Flickr link have a flickrID identifiable somewhere.)

I've started leaving some notes matching them up to Commons categories - please feel free to expand these. Andrew Gray (talk) 21:04, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Extended content
Flickr user Linking pages Total images Category Notes
97499887@N06 145067 166130 Category:Images from Forest & Kim Starr hard to count with subcategorisation but we may have the vast majority of these already. Petscan reports 203259 images in the category tree below it which is more than were posted to Flickr (perhaps some duplication?)
31582298@N08 124895 196750 Category:Photographs by the National Assembly of Ecuador ~65% on Commons
72739078@N00 69870 103499 Category:Photographs by S. Pakhrin 57k images so incomplete (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?). May be some not in tracking category.
133821783@N02 26440 79512 photos appear to be filed as "US Army" and not attributed to the institution, so not easy to count, but ~30% on Commons
22539273@N00 23927 153395 Category:Files from Guilhem Vellut Flickr stream just 5k images so very incomplete, <5%. Not clear why the mismatch between images in the category & inbound links; perhaps not all are properly categorised? (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
40561337@N07 20330 19127 Category:Photographs by Peerapat Wimolrungkarat more or less complete
10021639@N05 20044 32768 Category:Photographs by the Ecuador Chancellery 60% on Commons
48776503@N05 17975 32735 Category:Images from US Naval Forces Central Command Not all images appear to be in the category; others may be filed as just "US Navy". About 50% on Commons
58927646@N02 17244 19415 Category:Photographs by IngolfBLN 85% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
40948266@N04 16592 27217 Category:Photographs by Björn S. about 75% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
122521784@N04 14710 37058 Category:Images by Valder137 about 40% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
75302333@N02 14584 23832 Category:Files from Texas Army ROTC Flickr stream about 60% on Commons (note apparent lack of filenames/descriptions though)
30084118@N00 14443 24982 apparently no tracker category, probably only ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?) – Flickr account deleted!
42130586@N02 14118 40552 Category:Photographs by the Saeima Administration probably <40% on Commons
126433814@N04 13779 24661 Category:Photographs by jeremyg3030 probably ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
64337707@N07 13319 14320 apparently no tracker category, probably ~90% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
133711121@N07 13043 18273 apparently no tracker category, probably ~80% on Commons. (Confusingly, while images seem to be CC-BY, the overall profile seems to have a generic non-commercial-use restriction. Not quite sure how that works.)
14583963@N00 12832 35864 Category:Photographs by David Short probably ~35% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
133200397@N03 12204 135892 Category:Photographs by Sergei Gussev probably ~10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
61765479@N08 11832 15486 Category:Photographs by the African Union Mission to Somalia (may be other categories, numbers in this one seem a little low). Perhaps 50-75% on Commons.
130251635@N03 11581 163204 Category:Photographs by Miguel Discart Category shared with other Flickr accounts - probably <10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
79383703@N08 10755 11393 No clear tracker category. Probably about 90% on Commons.
60393599@N03 10548 18772 Category:Photographs by the National Police of Colombia With lots of subcategorisation. ~50% on Commons.
33398884@N03 10224 13501 Category:Photographs by Ben Sale ~75% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
50415738@N04 9768 16822 Category:Photographs by sv1ambo ~60% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
21612624@N00 9722 16417
10352740@N03 9474 64836
37691369@N08 9381 18548
77712181@N07 9295 10812
74711243@N06 8861 21930
49251707@N07 8666 38325
99279135@N05 8641 15343
130961247@N06 8601 7539
75116651@N03 8178 46243
51811543@N08 8126 12499
23690396@N02 8060 12193
96396586@N07 7815 11763
55426027@N03 7509 11942
140656059@N03 7426 33037
63368911@N00 7315 11754
65581273@N05 7298 16107
122801678@N03 7164 148873 Category:Photographs by Miguel Discart Category only has some images; others unclear (possibly no tracking category?). Probably <10% on Commons (personal account - perhaps not all under a free license?)
78404784@N07 6965 15343
135812973@N04 6836 26818
24415554@N04 6656 15466
17364971@N00 6531 6552
55289779@N00 6421 50799
35591378@N03 6279 6668
92793865@N07 6188 16691
22147358@N04 6149 6434

I am probably the most likely currently available uploader for many of these accounts due to custom methods like Fæ/Flickr API detail. Where I appear as uploader, please drop me a note if any appears to need a refresh. For some accounts there are very good reasons to avoid updates, or uploading at all. For example Category:Images from US Naval Forces Central Command are better uploaded from the official DVIDS site, where all photographs with the official VIRINs should appear; uploading from Flickr is certain to create duplicates as the two different versions are not digitally identical as they vary by EXIF data, hence the API does not flag up the duplicate error. In the example of Category:Photographs by the National Assembly of Ecuador, uploading all photographs becomes controversial, as there have been many deletions due to limited educational value and many are near duplicates.

Rather than a panicky rush upload by January, I suggest a wget type grab and put the dump on a server, which volunteers can pick over for the next couple of years until we feel all the value has been sucked out of it. I'm sure the WMF can allow a 10TB dump on Labs, and all the above are probably less than that. Perhaps a friendly WMF person could be asked to do it, based on this volunteer generated list? -- (talk) 10:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

  • You know, how important is the original Flickr file to copyright reviewers? When I do make copyvio checks I only need a) the uploader's identity, b) the EXIF, c) the upload date and d) the image content as other information does not contribute anything. All this info is usually passed on when Flickr image is uploaded on Commons, so I wouldn't think that the original image disappearing would create any doubts about the copyright status of the file uploaded here. I think the main concern are files which are on Flickr but aren't on Commons yet. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Categorizing files for curation[edit]

If you're uploading a large number of files from a flickr stream and don't have the time to completely curate them all (finding derivative works, adding categories, adding descriptions, useful filenames, etc), please add them to a category like Category:Files from XYZ Flickr stream needing cleanup, then add {{Flickr mass upload needing cleanup}} to the category. This will place the category into Category:Files from Flickr needing cleanup, which will make it easier to track what flickr imports need curation. Thanks! Pi.1415926535 (talk) 07:48, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm working in an adaptation of the script in User:Fæ/Flickr API detail to upload from Flickr accounts dealing with Spain. I was wondering whether there was a specific category or template to state they must be curated. --Discasto talk 10:25, 6 November 2018 (UTC)


Flickr will not delete CC photos[edit]

[1] Just announced. --Masem (talk) 18:03, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Official blog post. The caveat is that users with >1000 images will not have their CC images deleted but will be blocked from uploading any more photos. So they have a choice: stop uploading, start deleting photos themselves, or upgrade to Pro. Flickr have said that charities and similar organizations are likely to be offered free Pro accounts. But this still means that ordinary users who have maxed out their account, may start deleting CC images on their on accord. And the deadline for uploading a CC photo that stays past the deadline was 1 November, so we won't be seeing anyone converting their photos to CC to escape the axe. -- Colin (talk) 19:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I think this significantly reduces the problem (and prevents disused accounts from collapsing) but it does mean that some reductions are still likely. Andrew Gray (talk) 18:47, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Very good news. I would frame it like this: users with CC-BY-NC photos will be able to change to license to CC-BY-SA so we can import before they delete. If they refuse to change the license, it's not our problem and we shouldn't care about those photos. Therefore, we should import as many compatible photos as we can, somehow get as many Flickr users as possible, as quickly as possible, to release non-CC photos, and we don't have to hurry to get non-commercial photos released under a non-NC license for inactive Flickr users. Wumbolo (talk) 15:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

November 02[edit]

Having internal description text in Commons categories?[edit]

Please see this discussion (Category talk:Lion Air Flight 610) regarding whether there should be descriptive text (which may include links to Wikipedia articles or commons pages in additions to the ones automatically added to Wikidata and/or present in the infobox templates to the right)

Some editors argue the text is now superflous because descriptions of subjects and translations are being automated through Wikidata. I am still interested in keeping these internal description texts because I want the topics to show up in internal Wikimedia Commons search queries, which do not read text on Wikidata.

@Jérémy-Günther-Heinz Jähnick: @Jmh2o: WhisperToMe (talk) 22:42, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Wikidata is going to rule Commons over my dead body. Description text here should remain as it is, since it is maintainable locally without having to learn whole new arcane ways of fixing things (which I've had to do several times recently). Whereas we shouldn't supplant Wikipedia, there's no reason why we can't explain tnings to our users, assuming we have any left. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
As far as I know, there is no consensus to remove these, just because something similar can be obtained from Wikidata. Among other things, at least at the moment Wikidata is far more vulnerable to vandalism than Commons, and there is no easy way for Commons users to detect if a relevant Wikidata item has been vandalized. If we want to be able to make sure particular content is not lost, we need control of it within this project. Also, there are many Commons categories containing useful explanatory text that is in no way redundant to any Wikidata content.
If you are satisfied with what you are getting from Wikidata, and don't want to add things like this, fine. But please don't remove things content from category pages that is in accord with Commons standards and guidelines, just because you don't personally find it useful. - Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 2 November 2018 (UTC)
"we need control of it within this project" Perhaps you might like to reflect on the irony of saying that on a project whose content is reused in over 300 others. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Not at all. We've been good at finding vandalism and fixing it promptly, far better than Wikidata and any but the largest of the Wikipedias. My point is that when things propagate, it's crucial that the source be on a well-monitored project. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
"Wikidata is going to rule Commons over my dead body" Please avoid such hysterical hyperbole. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, we keep descriptive wikitext on category pages. It's straightforward and easy for everyone to understand how to change it. We are one of the projects that everyone can edit, not just wikidata wizards. -- (talk) 14:26, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @WhisperToMe: Are you sure that they aren't included in the search results? Trying "2018 aircraft crash in the Java Sea" (the first part of the English description) finds that category and shows info that's only in the infobox. TBH, I'm not sure how reliable/multilingual that is, though. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • @Mike Peel: In particular I'm trying the search in languages other than English, such as Indonesian et al - Without the Indonesian text on the actual page, it won't show up. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @WhisperToMe: @RexxS: has written some new functions that output all labels/aliases/descriptions, and I've just added that to {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}} and used that in the category. It's wrapped with with display:none in the css - so it won't actually appear on the page, but it acts as search engine optimisation. It seems to have significantly improved search, e.g. "Lion Air Penerbangan 610" now finds the category. How does that look? (with apologies to @CParle (WMF): who probably won't like this...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 10:04, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Hehe - that's actually kind of similar to how searching multi-lingual labels works in SDoC, @Mike Peel: so I think it's fair enough (though obvs I hope when we start releasing SDoC functionality people will find it easier to use that instead) CParle (WMF) (talk) 11:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
      • @Mike Peel: Wow! I tried the Indonesian text as a search query and it works! Thank you! I'm wondering if it might be good to consider having a template that puts the Wikidata text in the center of the page so people can see the label in the center. WhisperToMe (talk) 12:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
        • OK, I've now deployed that in the main version of the infobox, let's see how it goes. Please let me know if you spot any issues with it, or if there are any significant improvements to search queries that you spot. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
  • The search is supposed to operate on the page text after the templates have been resolved, I think, so it should find text in the infobox. However, I assume it works on a cached version, and only seems to find English text. I only tested it on a few pages. --ghouston (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
  • I'm unclear about whether Wikidata is so hard to understand, that nobody can figure out how to change descriptions etc, or so easy to understand that vandals prefer changing data there than in wikitext. --ghouston (talk) 22:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)
    • @Ghouston: I'm wondering if vandals would prefer changing on Wikidata not due to ease, but because it would affect many projects at once? (I haven't seen any usage stats) WhisperToMe (talk) 10:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
      • Changing data in one place is easier and less work. Anything that's easier for genuine users is also easier for vandals. You can also vandalise other projects from Commons by uploading a new version of a file, but Commons makes it harder by restricting it for new users. I doubt that the majority of vandals are criminal masterminds, experienced wiki users, or willing to make much effort at all: they just see an edit button, type some nonsense, and leave: they probably aren't calculating where it will have the maximum impact. --ghouston (talk) 20:51, 4 November 2018 (UTC)
        A current theory of increased Wikidata vandalism is that it is coming from Spanish-speaking countries because of the prevalence of "edit on Wikidata" links on Spanish Wikipedia infoboxes. Indeed, it is probably very easy to just click a link and change the label that you see, etc. --RexxS (talk) 23:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

November 04[edit]

File:Bromine vial in acrylic cube.jpg license[edit]

This file has many license templates:

This file had GFDL and CC-BY-SA 3.0 licenses in time of first file upload.

Can the author try to limit (NC-ND, no facebook) the rights to the file in this way? In the end, everyone can apply CC-BY-SA licenses, so NC-ND and "no fecebook" doas not matter. Malarz pl (talk) 08:34, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

No-facebook warning is there as a helpful message to reusers. The problem here is the facebook, not the file. Technically majority of files on Commons are not reuseable on Facebook due to Facebook's terms of service agreement (you are required to be an author of the image or the copyright holder to post to FB). You can also combine as many non-free licences as you want as long as you provide at least one free licence (given, of course, that you are the copyright holder). This file is available under FAL, which is a free licence (in fact it is my licence of choice and the licence that I like the most). Therefore there is no problem with licencing here. Now, the only (slight) problem that I see here is that the user has removed GFDL licence, and because that licence is non-revocable that is questionable. However, the removal of GFDL was done within seconds of upload and normally we consider that as a simple fixing of a mistake. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 09:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
it is paradoxical but par for the course, see also Commons:Multi-licensing. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:58, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-45[edit]

17:29, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ehm Stupid Auto Numbering Mistake. Help, please?[edit]

Hi, I used autonumbering for the titles in this category. It changed the "sixth birthday" bit. I just need to change the names to have an additional number to the end. I hope this makes sense.--Reem Al-Kashif (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Working GMGtalk 19:03, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done GMGtalk 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Open call for Project Grants[edit]

IEG IdeaLab review.png

Greetings! The Project Grants program is accepting proposals until November 30 to fund both experimental and proven ideas such as research, offline outreach (including editathon series, workshops, etc), online organizing (including contests), or providing other support for community building for Wikimedia projects.

We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Also accepting candidates to join the Project Grants Committee through November 15.

With thanks, I JethroBT (WMF) 19:46, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

November 06[edit]

Free Music Archive[edit]

Hello.

This wonderful website Free Music Archive will be closing down. The future of the archive is uncertain, but we have done everything we can to ensure that our files will not disappear from the web forever.

I've started to upload free licensed files from FMA to this category : [4].

This link makes an access to free musics (PD, CC-by and CC-by-sa licenses).

--ComputerHotline (talk) 09:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Some of these files are CC-BY-NC. Please add {{LicenseReview}} to your uploads. I wonder if all these files are in scope. What about original creations of unknown artists ? What is their educational value ? — Racconish💬 10:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
You mean like File:The Zombie Dandies - Halloween Again.ogg? en:Electric guitar does not have a single sound sample. en:Rhythm guitar does have some MIDI files but not a single real-world sample. en:Guitar riff, en:Introduction (music), … and that's only the first few seconds of the song. We're seriously low on examples for modern genres of music as well. --El Grafo (talk) 11:12, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
It may be problem of article themselves. See Category:Audio files of guitar music. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Update : Closing Date Pushed to Nov 16 : [5] --ComputerHotline (talk) 13:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

"Derived work" button[edit]

I'd like to crop or mirror a file which is already at Commons, without needing to go through the pain of filling in its description and categories and licensing and author and source again. Is this possible? How can it be done? Gryllida (chat) 10:11, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

If you discover or upload an incorrectly oriented image, don’t forget about category: Flopped images and related categories. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:16, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. How does the latter link clone anything -- by copy/pasting the respective codes from the source page manually? I understand that this is better than filling in the fields in the upload wizard one by one. But is there not a script for doing this? Gryllida (chat) 10:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gryllida: {{Rotate}}, rotation by 90, 180 and 270 degrees is done right away by a bot. Mirroring is something we hardly ever need here. Don't mirror images of people. Commons aims to be educational, a mirrored image is "false" in a way. The mirroring of File:Great British Swim Finish 2.jpg for example is not really desirable. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:21, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am using it in a page where it floats left. I had mirrored it for the person to 'face' the page. I would be glad to make a mirrored copy. Gryllida (chat) 23:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gryllida: it's also used on Wikipedia. I've uploaded File:Ross Edgley (31843832508).jpg and File:Ross Edgley (31843832508) (cropped).jpg. But even for other projects (like wikinews), I wouldn't recommend it. Someone who is left-handed may appear to be right-handed and vice versa.
@Pigsonthewing: I didn't understand how you could revert it. Turns out I can too. Bug? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:57, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
You are right, we need two files if we really want.
It would be nice if when making a copy I also left a note at the original file, saying 'here is my derivative'. I guess it is not scripted yet and may be scripted in the future. Gryllida (chat) 04:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Gryllida: Maybe you would like Commons:derivativeFX. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 04:17, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
We should very rarely, if ever, mirror images of people. It goes against the spirit of our BLP guidelines to misrepresent them in such a manner. (Obviously this does not apply to fixing mirrored images uploaded from elsewhere). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:10, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Gryllida: I guess etwiki wasn't happy with it either: w:et:Fail:20181106100604!Great British Swim Finish 2.jpg. They took the old revision and uploaded it locally. Don't see that every day. They are using it now on w:et:Ross Edgley, I'll replace it. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

SS bolts[edit]

I am sure, that File:UI 199Fo30141702210003 "Norges SS. Edsavleggelsen" 1941-05-22 (NTBs krigsarkiv, Riksarkivet).jpg needs to be tagged with {{Nazi symbol}}, since the SS bolts are clearly visible. But what about File:UI 199Fo30141702210007 "Norges SS. Edsavleggelsen" 1941-05-22 (NTBs krigsarkiv, Riksarkivet).jpg, where the SS bolts are heavily distorted? I don't know, whether the Hirden emblem is banned in Germany or any other country. --92.216.164.225 20:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

And I don't know whether the slogan on File:Armband-ot-arbeitet.jpg is banned in Germany or any other country. --92.216.164.225 20:32, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
A further question is, whether File:Hitler-Jugend (1933).jpg and File:HJ-Armband-Sanitäter.jpg need also be tagged. --92.216.164.225 20:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Graffiti of swastikas[edit]

I am not sure, whether graffiti of swastikas in a trashcan or crossed-out swastikas need to be tagged with {{Swastika}}. I am also not sure whether File:2011-11-11 15-38-50-Puits Arthur-de-Buyer.jpg (a graffito of a Buddhist sauwastika in France) should be tagged. I also don't know whether France has an anti-Swastika law as strict as Germany or Austria. --92.216.164.225 20:38, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

{{Nazi symbol}} (to which {{Swastika}} redirects) is problematic more generally. It refers to a "symbol ... which has been banned by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany." But there is no blanket ban on such symbols; only on their use in certain contexts (otherwise, the Holocaust Memorial Museum in Berlin, for example, would be breaking the law by displaying them). Furthermore the template claims that "The use of insignia of organizations that have been banned in Germany... are [sic] also illegal in Austria, Hungary, Poland, Czech Republic, France, Brazil, Israel, Ukraine, Russia and other countries...", but I doubt very much that that is true; both for the aforesaid reason, and because use of such symbols is controlled in those countries by the laws of those countries, not by virtue of their being "banned in Germany". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:28, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Want to play a game?[edit]

Hi all. I've added a new game to @Magnus Manske's distributed game: you can now match Commons categories to Wikidata items. It's based on searching Wikidata for the names of categories that are not yet linked to a Wikidata item. Please be careful when playing it, though - around 35% of the suggested matches so far have been accepted (so 65% rejected). Please let me know if you have any feedback/suggestions for improving it! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice made. Maybe a few more lines explanation in the intro would be nice. Rudolphous (talk) 10:50, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Rudolphous: If you can suggest a few lines, then I'd be happy to add some. ;-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:42, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Great tool. It would be nice if a P373 (Commons category) property were also added to the Wikidata entry upon matching. Einstein2 (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 07[edit]

Watchlist bot filter issue[edit]

If I filter bot edits from my watchlist, most disappear, but those by User:ArndBot - which has a bot flag - are still shown. Is there a bug? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

In addition to having the bot flag, bots have to pass a 'bot' parameter when they make edits for the edits to be "bot edits". See [6]. @Aschroet: BMacZero (talk) 19:59, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
I am using a rather old bot framework ([7]). I guess this is the reason for it. I am planning to move pywikibot for the next bot run. --Arnd (talk) 20:37, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Using tabular data for keeping statistics of subscription and views number of some YouTube channels.[edit]

I want to move from ruwiki to Commons wiki work of my bot that updates data of number of subscribers and views of YouTube channels. In Wikidata forum users suggested me to using tabular data in Commons for keeping statistics. Is this correct solution?

P.S. I think that number of subscriptions and views of YouTube channel could not be copyrighted because this is trivial data what uses for informing users.

P.P.S. Those tabular data will be look like this. -- IEPCBM (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Main page does not exist on Commons[edit]

Hello, if I click on the Commons logo in the upper left corner, it takes me to the non-existing Hlavní stránka page. I think this could be caused by the interface language chosen in my preferences, but it should not redirect the Main page to some non-existing page. Does anybody know how to fix this issue? --Dvorapa (talk) 22:50, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

It most likely has to do with MediaWiki:Mainpage/cs defaulting to the translation for main page in, what I assumed due to your global contribs, is your selected language. I'm guessing that is wrong. Is Hlavní strana the correctly translated page for your language, Dvorapa? --Majora (talk) 04:38, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Yes, it is. I see, someone changed it last week on translatewiki.net. Thank you for your help. --Dvorapa (talk) 07:43, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
Maybe this should be somehow banned not happen again once someone will change a word on translatewiki again? --Dvorapa (talk) 07:44, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
✓ Done I recreated the local page in question here. That will override any changes made to translatewiki. Although such system related things should go through that project this seems like something that we should handle locally to avoid this happening in the future. Other main page translations also have local copies so this isn't completely out of the ordinary. Dvorapa, please confirm that this change has taken affect (you may need to clear your cache and/or wait a second for the system to catch up with the changes as mediawiki namespace changes aren't necessarily instantaneous as I've found out).
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Majora (talk • contribs) 21:25, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 08[edit]

File:Ukraine activist Kateryna Handzyuk placard Sorry, so who ordered Handzyuk?.jpg was uploaded by me but other user wants to delete[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ukraine activist Kateryna Handzyuk placard Sorry, so who ordered Handzyuk?.jpg
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PoetVeches (talk • contribs) 12:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Can I ask some admins to join and help in voting of deletion a photo uploaded by me from the Voice of America. User @Ymblanter: nominated the photo for deletion; but I am against deletion; and now we are voting. @Ymblanter: says as if there is a panorama of art, slogan, that is subject to be copyrighted object, but description on the Voice of America reads there are protesters demand to find assassins (see source, there in Ukrainian language written below of the photo: "Protesters demand investigation of attacks on Ukrainian activists" https://ukrainian.voanews.com/a/freedom-house-%D0%BD%D0%B0%D0%BF%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8-%D0%BD%D0%B0-%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%B8%D0%B2%D1%96%D1%81%D1%82%D1%96%D0%B2-%D1%81%D1%83%D1%82%D1%82%D1%94%D0%B2%D0%B0-%D0%B7%D0%B0%D0%B3%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%B7%D0%B0-%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82%D1%96%D1%97-%D0%B2-%D1%83%D0%BA%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%97%D0%BD%D1%96/4597808.html). So, I think this is just photo of a demonstration on street, that has no copyright obvious, every one can photo this (otherwise the Voice of America would put author courtesy obviously on the photo, but there is nothing about it, only "VOA").PoetVeches (talk) 11:56, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Poster is clearly temporary display. So reason for deletion is valid. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:26, 8 November 2018 (UTC)
why nominator is randomly choosing this image of banner, and not the one in use is an illustration of "deletion before collaboration". Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
I nominated this one when it was still in use. The other one is arguably de minimis.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
i agree with you there. you of course understand why the uploader is upset when they are greeted with a deletion template? why should we bother covering protests, when all the photos with banner art will get nominated? it is a malignant assiduity that harms the encyclopedic mission. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Free pro wrestling photos from LyleCWilliams.net and WildcatBelts.com?[edit]

Apparently, LyleCWilliams.net released its extensive photo gallery into the public domain a few years ago ("Feel Free To Use These Pics (Except Direct-Linking to Message Boards, etc.) Please Just Put A Link to My Site From Yours!!!"). A detailed listing of these photos are available on this page over at Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia may have permission to use championship belt photos from WildcatBelts.com according to this discussion on its pro wrestling WikiProject. It doesn't look like any photos from either website were ever uploaded though. 173.162.220.17 22:13, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

November 09[edit]

One photo, two attributions[edit]

Clearly the second image is a colorization of the first, but the second image is attributed to Asahel Curtis and the first to Frank H. Nowell, who was the official photographer of the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. Both images (and attributions) come from the same institution, the University of Washington Library. I know we normally have a rule about not changing content that comes from "authoritative" third-party databases, but is there some appropriate way to add a note to these to the effect that one of these attributions has to be wrong? I've already written to the relevant person at the library pointing out the contradiction, but based on extensive experience I don't expect any explicit response (although they may silently correct their database). - Jmabel ! talk 02:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

i would put the attribution in brackets, "[ ]" , link the two image in other versions, and await institution metadata correction. maybe we need a "metadata disputed" maintenance category? Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
I'd already linked them. Bracketing is possible; if I do that, I'm inclined to do that only on the one I think is wrong. And, yes, a "metadata disputed" maintenance category might be a good idea. I'd be interested in hearing from some of the people who do a lot of uploading from GLAMs think about that. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Photo challenge September results[edit]

Emotions: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 2
Image Little girl laughing with excitement in France.jpg Climbing World Championships 2018 Boulder Final Garnbret (BT0A8401).jpg Disgust by the pool.jpg
Title Euphoria with excitement Tears of joy after winning the Climbing World Championships a childs disgust
Author Basile Morin Simon04 Masse.media
Score 15 11 11
Schools: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Classroom with children in the primary school of Don Puay, Laos.jpg Nursery school, Higashi Honganji, Kyoto.jpg Kids rehearsing for school festival.jpg
Title Classroom with children in a primary school in Laos Nursery school children in Kyoto Kids rehearsing for school festival, Cusco Peru
Author Basile Morin MichaelMaggs Konalouisa
Score 34 12 9

Congratulations to Basile Morin, Simon04, Masse.media, MichaelMaggs and Konalouisa. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

I think that is the first time someone got, two first prizes in one month. --Jarekt (talk) 13:19, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Baptism (denomination)[edit]

We have a well-populated Category:Methodism, but I can't find a corresponding category for Baptism. (I suspect this may be because of the other meaning of the word baptism, the act rather than the denomination.) Is there something out there I'm missing, or should I create it? If the latter, Category:Baptism (denomination) or something else? - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

Are not methodists also baptists? Ruslik (talk) 20:41, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: No, they are not: some points of doctrine in common, but quite distinct, especially from an institutional point of view. Among other things, Baptists have no hierarchy: there is no such thing as a Baptist bishop. - Jmabel ! talk 22:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
Found it: Category:Baptist. Seems misnamed. What do others think? - Jmabel ! talk 22:28, 9 November 2018 (UTC)
here you go https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q93191 ; https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q8289318 -- Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 13:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
How does that in any way address whether it is a poorly chosen name? - 17:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)
Rename it to "Category:Baptist Christianity" like suggested at d:Q8289318? --ghouston (talk) 20:41, 11 November 2018 (UTC)
you are making a nomenclature argument. you might want to look at the ontology at wikidata, and use a theological dictionary as a source to cleanup the categories to reflect the consensus of scholars. do not know what you mean by "Baptism"; that is not a consensus useage. 98.169.251.154 01:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Ontology at Wikidata? If this is an attempt at comedy, it fails, and badly. I've seen category mistakes all over Wikimedia projects but Wikidata is sometimes indiscriminate in its usages, whereas it should be trying to unify. By failing to resolve discrepancies between even en:WP and Commons, to cite a relevant example, before seeking to be an authority, it fails in any sense of usefulness and merely becomes a maintenance burden for anyone who cares for accuracy. Look at the history of Wikidata:Q4834920 as regards to geocoodws for an example of failure to take sufficient care. I've long thought that Commons is wrongly obsessed with quantity over quality, but when "service" projects of dubious usefulness take the same position, we are ultimately doomed. I see our ideal customer as, e.g. a picture editor of a newpspaper, broadcaster or reputable website, and we should be offering a different, if not better service than Alamy or Getty Images. We are failing at even aspiring to do that. </rant> Rodhullandemu (talk) 02:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
not much hope of displacing Alamy or Getty. we lost that battle. their entrenched power in a trusted distribution channel will not be displaced by a free alternative. rather, by the non-leader gatekeeping activity here, we drive away creative photographers; we are settling to be a walled garden in support of an encyclopedia only. the category nomenclature debates without an ontological structure, as at wikidata, limits support of that project. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 16:06, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 10[edit]

German translation behind "use this file"[edit]

The German translation behind the link "use this file" ("Herunterladen") is wrong. It says "vom Wikimedia Commons" but should say "von Wikimedia Commons". I don't know where to change it. --Seewolf (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

It is coming from MediaWiki:Gadget-Stockphoto.js/de. Whether or not vom, "from the Wikimedia Commons", von, "from Wikimedia Commons", or even "von der", "from the Wikimedia Commons" if Commons is considered a feminine noun is debatable (I know zero German so I got my information from Huon on this matter). However, the German article on Commons, de:Wikimedia Commons, uses von and I would assume they are the authoritative voice on such things. So...✓ Done. It might take a second for the system to catch up to the changes as modifications to the mediawiki namespace aren't immediate. --Majora (talk) 21:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

November 11[edit]

Voltaire[edit]

So I was looking for a particular portrait (not this one) of Voltaire. It wasn't on the Wikipedia page, but I figured all of those were likely hosted at Commons where I'd likely find my goal via categories. I got distracted. Looking at the first WP image I saw this "This file has been reviewed by a human, (User:Diannaa), who has confirmed that it is suitable for Commons." Seeing that, I thought I'd do a good deed and download the WP image and upload it to Commons. It was only when I was typing in the details that I noticed: "Immediate source: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Nicolas_de_Largilli%C3%A8re,_Fran%C3%A7ois-Marie_Arouet_dit_Voltaire_(vers_1724-1725)_-001.jpg"

So not only is the image on both WP and Commons, but it makes me wonder how many are similarly duplicated, or at the very least are labeled "confirmed that it is suitable for Commons." I don't know if this means the WP image should be deleted or what.

I'm not a coder but I suspect this could easily be remedied by some kind of bot script thing, perhaps doing hash-verifications and/or adding an "inbox"-type category (list) to verify the confirmation again upon "relocation", and perhaps a WP deletion of the "relocated" confirmed and verified images (assuming that's what policy calls for) and/or the "confirmed that it is suitable for Commons" tags.

Ultimately this may or may not affect the Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons#Backlog Status, hopefully for the better.

As for this particular image, the history is strange. The "original" colours are poor and the "repaired" colours are terrible, and then the oval "borders" are ridiculous. There must be a better medium.

The image I was looking for is almost this: File:D'après Maurice Quentin de La Tour, Portrait de Voltaire (c. 1737, musée Antoine Lécuyer).jpg However there is an almost identical copy of it emphasizing the mischievous smirk. portrait-de-voltaire-copie-1800-1850-.-.jpg, a slightly lighter version of File:D'après Maurice Quentin de La Tour, François-Marie Arouet, dit Voltaire (château de Versailles).jpg.

I don't know if anyone wants to address this, comment, or educate, but I'm grateful in advance for any feedback. I'll check back soon. ~ JasonCarswell (talk) 04:43, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@JasonCarswell: The portrait of Voltaire you linked to above isn't on Wikipedia at all. If you go to w:File:Nicolas de Largillière, François-Marie Arouet dit Voltaire (vers 1724-1725) -001.jpg all you'll see is a mirror of the Commons page. You can tell the difference because the WP page doesn't have "Edit" or "History" buttons, but it has "View on Commons" and "Add local description" buttons. It does have its own Wikipedia talk page, however. This is the standard state of affairs for images on Commons: they're mirrored on all the individual projects, but aren't actually hosted there. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:12, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Files about to enter public domain[edit]

According to Commons:Hirtle chart, works published in the U.S. in 1923 with a copyright notice and with that copyright notice renewed will enter the public domain in 2019, which is now less than two months away. What tag will be appropriate for them? We don't seem to have a Template:PD-US-expired or anything similar. —Mahāgaja (formerly Angr) · talk 09:04, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

It was being discussed at Commons talk:Public Domain Day. I think PD-US-expired is a good 1923 and after license as works begin to become PD in the US in 2019. Abzeronow (talk) 16:16, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

November 12[edit]

Art Institute of Chicago[edit]

Good stuff

Just a heads up to these new CC0 high resolution images. --Izno (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

see also Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/10#Art_Institute_of_Chicago. maybe we should ping user:multichill. need to evaluate artwork for artist copyright. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
Already uploaded quite a few of the paintings, see d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Art Institute of Chicago and Category:Paintings in the Art Institute of Chicago. Some other collections are incoming too. Multichill (talk) 10:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Fanciful 1861 Japanese illustrated book of the US Revolutionary War[edit]

High quality scans here. The book is Osanaetoki Bankokubanashi (童絵解万国噺) by w:Kanagaki Robun. Not sure if it should be uploaded here or Wikisource or both.にこねこ (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikisource, and probably you should crop to content for better readability. Vulphere 10:49, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
nope. first create multi-page pdf with a publisher program, upload to internet archive, and then upload here with IAuploader. then create wikisource index page from here. see also s:Help:Beginner's_guide_to_adding_texts (sorry not in Japanese, a much smaller project [8]) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 15:27, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Darker version[edit]

Third Class Carriage (1856-1858) by Honore Daumier.jpg
The older version looks darker and seems to be more correct in tone. This carriages where dark and not well ligthed. However if I look at the size of the file the new one is significantly bigger. What happened?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:12, 12 November 2018 (UTC)
@Wmpearl: Where did you get your version of File:Third Class Carriage (1856-1858) by Honore Daumier.jpg?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:35, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How to deal with HREFs[edit]

Hi all, i see alot of pictures (mostly probably imported from Flickr) that contain HTML HREF elements which are not rendered by Wiki. Could we just convert them into Wiki external link syntax or should those be revmoved? --Arnd (talk) 11:45, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

@Aschroet: From what I have seen, most of them are advertising, such that we better serve our users by either leaving them alone or removing them.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:40, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-46[edit]

19:21, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

November 13[edit]