Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/06.

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:


 
Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 05[edit]

Category:Tones and I[edit]

I've asked for help at Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I on 30 April 2021 but have received no reply. At the Category:Tones and I page there is an infobox, it contains contentious information, specifically: year of birth, date of birth and middle name. This information is not supported by reliable sources and may violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. How can this be removed from that infobox? According to policy it should be removed immediately.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shaidar cuebiyar: For the future: it might have been better to ask at Category talk:Tones and I than Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I.
  • All of that info comes from the wikidata item Tones and I (Q62887629). Date of birth is referenced there. Anyway, if you have references to the contrary, Wikidata would be the place to take it up. I don't think privacy can possibly apply to information cited from NRJ. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up. The NRJ article does not give her birth date. The closest it comes is repeating the claim, seen in Australian media, that she was 19 at the time of a performance (not precisely dated nor verified by the artist or management). There is no indication of a middle name here. The NRJ cites from an unnamed article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
    • Nick Bond of news.com.au is cited at wikidata for her birth date. However that article presents this as a claim by other media outlets and also discusses another date put forward. Note: the English WP article has had both dates at different times but neither (nor other contenders) has been supported by the artist/managers. There is no indication of her middle name.
    • I believe wikidate has it wrong and will try there, next.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Good if you know your ways around there or otherwise can do what has to be done. Usually what has to be done on Wikidata is to give dubious facts a lower "rank".
      Over here, we can choose what data is selected for display in the infobox. On Swedish Wiukipedia there has been much discussion on the issue, and one thing that has been done is to exclude data without source (or just citing Wikipedia) and data with lower rank. The infoboxes also allow for overruling wikidata with explicit parameters. I don't know how the template over here works.
      LPfi (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

May 30[edit]

When is a photo out of scope because of being a "holiday snap"?[edit]

I nominated several photos of Kasteel Hoensbroek for deletion because a tourist was posing on them, while there were similar photos whithout the tourist. But none of the deletion requests was honored.
One of the examples on the Commons page about the project scope explicitly states that "holiday snaps" "are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" and therefor out of scope, see Commons:Project scope#Examples. For me these photos clearly are holiday snaps, but apparently other people think differently. Can someone explain to me why these photos are not holiday snaps? (perhaps @Missvain: who kept these photos?) And what is the definition of a holiday snap? When/in which cases are photos indeed holiday snaps and when not?
See:

JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am inclined to see a small number of such images on Wikimedia Commons, it would be odd to have a lot of pictures of tourist destinations but never any tourists. On Wikimedia Commons we have a culture that wants pictures without any humans in them as much as possible, but I would argue that how tourists interact with "a tourist magnet" has educational value. Honestly, I would want to know how tourists from the 1930's interacted with colonial tourist spots, but unfortunately very few of such images have been made available online. The term "holiday snaps" is deliberately vague. In fact those are the type of photographs we do want to have, as people tend to go to interesting places, it would be better than people only staying in their local village and only uploading photographs from there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Donald. I've sometimes taken similar images of tourists I don't even know for this sort of reason.

The problem is with images that are mainly a picture of the non-notable person, and where the background is more or less incidental to the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea behind the holiday snap rule is to avoid posed photographs where the people in the picture are not even acting naturally, rather posing for the photograph with the purpose of showing it to family and friends, Therefore making it only of interest to the people involved. Oxyman (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I interpret the "holiday snaps" line to refer not to photos of a posing non-notable individual, but to photos that don't usefully depict anything other than such an individual. Even with photos of the second type, I don't bother bogging down the DR process with them: if there are enough useful photos of the subject without people in them I just dump the people ones in a subcategory such as Category:People in Bryce Canyon National Park. That keeps them out of the way of people who aren't looking for them specifically, which is really the only reason we would delete them, IMO. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
For the Taj Mahal there is a category Visitors of the Taj Mahal with images such as this one and that one. I agree with Donald Trung that how tourists interact with "a tourist magnet" can have educational value. Wouter (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn't. Ever. It's out of scope because it doesn't meet COM:SCOPE, i.e. there is a lack of reasons why it could potentially be within scope. But being something else as well, such as a "holiday snap", "personal photo", "selfie" or whatever doesn't remove it from scope. Many things are both holiday snaps and valued images within scope - particularly if they're older and of a location where there would be few holiday snaps otherwise.
On the other hand, a holiday snap of Ibiza, Cancun or the Pyramids of Giza might find it hard to pass SCOPE, as there are already a surfeit of images from that place and time. But it's not ruled out. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The only time I really object is when the same person is in hundreds of images, grinning into the camera. It feels like that person is engaging in self promotion. Krok6kola (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your reactions; this is beyond my expectations. So now this discussion is about multiple questions:
  1. Would it be good to have some photos of tourists at tourist destinations, about how humans interact with tourist magnets?
  2. If yes: what kind of photos should that be? Should they be only taken of non posing people, only of people who are acting naturally? For instance: people waiting in a line, having fun, taking pictures, looking at objects in a museum, and so on.
  3. Are photos with posing non-notable people OK? Or only if there are no similar photos of the subject without people? Or certainly not when the same person is in many images, grinning into the camera?
  4. Should the Project scope be adjusted, or only the example with the "holiday snaps"? Should "holiday snaps" be defined here?
  5. Was it right that the photos of Kasteel Hoensbroek which had a deletion request were kept?
My personal answers:
  1. Yes, I agree. Otherwise there would be a gap in an important way people spend their holidays. It would be odd to have only photos of beaches, Disneyland, the Eiffel Tour, museums and so on without people. These images should be in a category like Category: People at visitor attractions and it's subcategories.
  2. Yes: those photos should only be taken of non posing people, only of people who are acting naturally, like the second photo of Oxyman, from Sibiu. I have no problems with these kind of photos at all.
  3. No, photos with posing non-notable people are not OK. Certainly not when the same person is in many images, grinning into the camera. For me "many" is already three, not hundred. I think self promotion is certainly not within the scope of this project. Perhaps an exception can be made if there are no similar photos of the subject without people or if they wear typical clothes, characteristic for a certain period or area of which are few or none other images in Commons.
  4. "Holiday snaps" should be defined on the Project scope page.
  5. No, I don't think so, otherwise I would not have nominated them for deletion. The same person was posing on the first six of the photos while there were similar photos without a posing person. Another person was posing on the three others, taking pictures of himself in the mirror.

JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB:
    • I see a photo above that I took in Sibiu. I see nothing that Oxyman took there.
    • Are you saying that, unlike all other human activity, posing for tourist photos is completely out of Commons scope and, in particular, my other photo (the one at Narada Falls) is out of scope?
    • If so: what about places, in particular, where people routinely go for the purpose of photo shoots (third and fourth images added to the gallery above)?
    • I agree that we don't want Commons overrun with routine tourist shots. This is right in the same category with unremarkable cats and unremarkable human penises, but it shouldn't mean in any of these cases that the subject matter is entirely out of scope.
Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: I apologise for the mistake, I did not look well who was the sender and maker of the Sibiu photo.
      • The question about posing for tourist photos is: Are those photographs "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I think they rarely are, especially not when there are similar photos without posing tourists. And I think that the example of "holiday snaps" at Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose refer to this kind of photos. I agree with this policy.
      • The third photo seems OK to me: that is not a photo of a tourist posing for the photographer, but a photo of a photographer taking a photograph of a person in an odd position. And these two photographs are not about a tourist attraction with a posing tourist next to it, what spoils the photos. So you are right: it is not as black and white as I initially thought.
JopkeB (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @JopkeB: But the last two are photos of a tourist attraction: the ruins of the former Northern State Hospital, probably the single main reason outsiders visit the city of Sedro-Wooley. And one of the main things they do there is pose for photos. It seems to me that is part of what we need to depict. Similarly for any other tourist attraction. We don't need a hundred almost interchangeable tourist snaps (see remarks above about penises, or pet cats) but we do need some. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions. But we still do not have a definition of and criteria for "holiday snaps". To continue this discussion and hopefully bring it to a good end, I have some questions and proposals:

  1. Does anyone know where I can find the discussion about this policy, how did this policy come about? Perhaps we can learn what exactly is this rule about.
  2. I searched for other discussions about the holday snaps policy on Commons, but I could not find one. Does anyone know of such a discussion?
  3. I searched with Google and found a website about holiday snaps. It is about "holiday memories". I see photos of people, probably of vacation companions of the photographer. These people most of the time are posing. I see family group portraits, photos showing were people are (for instance at a tourist attraction) or proud to be on top of a mountain. Elsewhere I found that you send such photos to your (close) friends and family.
    1. Can we derive a definition from these observations? I propose:
      1. "Holiday snaps" are photographs meant as personal memories of someone's vacation. They show one or more holiday companions posing for the camera/photographer at a holiday location or at a tourist attraction. Determining factors are:
      2. people who are holiday companions of the photographer, not locals or other people who are accidently on the photo
      3. posing for the camera
      4. at a holiday location or tourist attraction.
    2. Does anyone has a better idea? Do you have amendments? Do you agree?
  4. After we have agreed on a definition, we should determine wether there are exceptions to the policy rule that holiday snaps are not allowed on Commons. I propose:
    1. The photo is used in another Wikimedia project.
    2. There is no other, similar photo of the tourist attraction without posing tourists. I think this exception leaves in Commons plenty of examples of tourists posing at tourist attractions.
    3. The people on the photo, other tourists, are not posing on the photo, but acting naturally, just being tourists.
    4. The person(s) posing on the photo is/are not (a) non-notable person(s) but famous/well known or there is a Wikipedia page or Commons category (with many other photos of them not posing at a tourist attraction) about them.

Note: If we cannot or do not want to enforce this rule and delete photos which meet these criteria, the rule might be useless and better be removed. Then we can indeed move all those photos of posing tourists to categories like Category: People at visitor attractions. But I think Commons would gain in quality if we would enforce this rule. JopkeB (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the existence and enforcement of this rule (as someone who has never uploaded a vacation picture to Commons). The advancement of free media should include all free media, not just what we, in all of our ignorance of the world's many possibilities, consider "useful". On a less ideological note, I feel as if "holiday snap" is a case within COM:SCOPE sufficiently covered by other policies within COM:SCOPE.  Mysterymanblue  06:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a guideline about holiday snaps as we don't want to become a family album host. But I think we need an assortment of such photos. I'd be glad to include some complete family albums, perhaps a few hundreds, but not millions, and tens of photos of tourists posing at the Eiffel tower, not thousands.
I think both a person posing for a photo and the photo itself are valuable and in scope. The actual holiday snaps are authentic. We want to document the culture of taking holiday snaps. Enough is still enough.
LPfi (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The course of thought of this discussion seems to go towards keeping photos of tourists posing at visitor attractions within Commons, whether they are considered to be holiday snaps or not.
My conclusions so far:
(1) We do not have a definition of, nor criteria for "holiday snaps" as mentioned in the Commons Project Scope
(2) There might be doubt about the desirability of "holiday snaps" as an example of photos being out of scope in the Commons Project Scope.
My comments:
(1) Untill this matter is settled or more clear, I'll use categories like Category:People at visitor attractions to store these kind of images. I will no longer nominate them for deletion.
(2) This is outside my area of interest; I do agree with the current policy. So I recommend that you raise this matter with the competent Commons authority because now there seems to be a gap (or at least a lack of clarity) between policy and implementation of one of the aspects of the Commons Scope.
JopkeB (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the English word for "meterkast" (Dutch)?[edit]

Meterkast - what is it in English?

In the Netherlands every house and building has a "meterkast", a small closet in which gas, electric and water flow into the building; for each of these here are flow meters. From there gas, electric and water flow through pipes into the house/building. Here are also the main taps, in case of an emergency or reparations to shut down gas or water for the whole building. I assume that other countries have similar closets, but I cannot find a proper category, nor a proper English word. My questions:

  1. Is there already a category for these meterkasten?
  2. If not, what is the English word? Wikidata does not give a translation. Google Translate gives 'fuse box', but that is only a part of a meterkast.

JopkeB (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

JopkeB We have Category:Gas meters and Category:Water meters for example but not a category for the box/closet/room they are in. --MGA73 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I like the question: this could off course be a completely Dutch efficiency thing. :)
Interglot gives "meter cupboard", but there no English article by that name. German translation on Interglot gives no hits, but they for sure use a closet for their collection of in-house meters as well. Ciell (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note also that UK practice doesn't run water through here. Water meters in the UK are still in the minority, except for new-build estates. Our water supply enters separately, finds its own route through the house (often a mystery to householder and plumbers alike) and not having a meter, has no great urge to share an accessible meter box. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers.

  1. I conclude that the correct name would be Category:Meter cupboards for indoor "Meterkasten" and Category:Meter boxes for boxes outside. Is it correct that a parent category for Category:Meter cupboards would be Category:Cupboards? (For me it would be more logical to have Category:Rooms or Category:Closets to be the parent category because it is about a room with a door; a cupboard is often thought of as a movable thing.)
  2. And I conclude that my assumption that other countries have similar closets, is not true: there may be other solutions.
  3. @Ciell: It might not only be an efficiency thing but also be obliged by law.

JopkeB (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB: From my experience, Category:Meter cupboards for indoor "Meterkasten" and Category:Meter boxes for boxes outside is fine (although Category:Meter cupboards is somewhat unamerican, perhaps the more direct translation Category:Meter closets), but larger ones could also be called Category:Meter rooms or Category:Utility rooms (convenient places I have seen contain water heaters, alarm systems, HVAC systems, water sprinkler systems, and demarcation points for phone & cable, as well as the occasional extra freezer).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
A significant difference - UK at least - is that "meter boxes" are publicly accessible. Or at least, accessible to meter readers, who don't need the occupant's permission (or presence) to let them access the box and read the meter. So this box is also limited as to what's in it - there's no easy way to shut off the supply, or to abstract electricity from someone else's account (It can be and is done, but it's theft and leaves traces). So a meter box will still often have a meter cupboard indoors too, with no meter, but the fusebox. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: there might be a reason why the Dutch don't like to mix electricity and water though :p. Every house has a separate boiler room, except for very old buildings maybe, where these are just below the sink/in the attic/etc.
@JopkeB: Yes, indeed we have regulations to have these at the front door! Must be for safety, right?
@Andy Dingley: recently most of us received 'smart meters' that just automatically sign through your numbers, but "back in the day" they would just charge you for an estimated amount if you did not fill out in the form they would send you every year, or let the meter-men in. My previous flat did have a central water meter, but that is an exception over here. This is where we can also find the fuses for our personal apartment, and this is where internet/tv/telephone/fiber enters your apartment as well. Ciell (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The German equivalent word would be "Zählerkasten" (counter box). This word already exists and is used only for the electric part, but the word can be used in a broader sense as well and would fit. The words for the instruments are "Stromzähler", "Gaszähler", "Wasserzähler", "Wärmezähler". This invention looks like a specific invention of the Netherlands and it is part of the building code. In Germany people think that you should not have combinations of water and power or gas and power near each other. Just in case something leaks, or you need to replace one of the meters there is always a bit of water or gas spilling and if it hits the electric part it is of no benefit. So you can not find something similar in German houses. Gas, water and power would enter the house at different locations. Power and telephone cables comes from poles and enters over the roof in older buildings or in rural areas. But whenever there are newer buildings power and telephone lines are also underground now.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

May 31[edit]

Categorizing uncategorized images[edit]

I have been spending a lot of time recently categorizing uncategorized images uploaded by DPLA bot, but am I wasting my time? Is there a bot that will categorize these images? I note that when I upload a photo usually a bunch of (often superfluous) categories get added to it. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the kind of images and on the kind of categories you are adding. But my general experience with uploads by DLPA bots is that they are just dumped into Commons and then left here without useful categories. So what you are doing is valuable work (but an uphill battle). -- Discostu (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Discostu good to know its not a waste of time, but feels Sisyphusian! Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone pointed out this thread to me. DPLA uploads are currently only categorized by source institution on upload. There are no real topical categories we can add programmatically based on the data, especially when working at the scale of millions of files, since manually inspecting each upload would create a bottleneck. That is how it was ever since the bot was approved, but I think the {{Uncategorized}} only recently started being added to these. (It's being added by another bot, and I don't necessarily mind either way if the community wants to consider these "Uncategorized", depending on what you your needs are.) The goal here is not to dump these on the Commons community or create work for others, though. We are currently actively planning further development of the bot to improve synchronization, so we can iterate on the data over time and add SDC statements. If you have any suggestion on how we can improve the format of the automated uploads, I'm certainly open to making improvements. Dominic (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if it simply clumped large numbers of images of the same object, identifiable in museum uploads by the fact they have the same accession number, into a single category. This would mean that you could tag the category as a "desk", as "mechanical furniture", as "18th-century furniture", and as "marquetry", rather than each image, and it would make it a lot easier to find multiple views of a thing, especially if museum visitors have also uploaded images. We might also have a automatically-suggested-tags feature; I understand the Growth Team of the WMF is working on similar already. HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 03[edit]

Video2commons scrubbing metadata?[edit]

I just uploaded a video of mine using Video2commons and noticed that it lacked metadata. It's really not great if our in-house tool for video conversion is failing to preserve highly useful information about a video such as when and where it was taken, and this also makes it harder for us to detect copyright violations (as a lack of metadata can be a key indicator that a contribution is not someone's own work). Can we resolve this? {{u|Sdkb}}talk 02:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The only metadata that is shown for videos on the file description page is audio and video encoder version info. Other metadata may be in the original file. You will need to download the file to check for the metadata. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 04[edit]

Search media[edit]

The presentation of the images without their titles ist not very helpful, for searching optical informations e. g. for a building one has read mentioned without illustration.--Ulamm (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, I switched back to the old search engine for now, but I believe that the mediasearch can improve if it simply takes all the old features and adds them to the new search engine. At least give us options within the search engine. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
+1 - The old layout was much much better - for instance I needed to know the uploader of a set of images and obviously this now isn't available unless I hover over or click on the image first which is ridiculous when there's 50-100 images!.
Donald Trung Thank you for this bit of helpful info - I don't suppose you could very kindly tell me how to disable it ?, Thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010:, first click on "Preferences" and then ... [REDACTED] it, just click on this link 🔗. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Donald, Many thanks for that greatly appreciated :), Take care and stay safe. Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

June 06[edit]

Copyright law change in the European Union: do we need a new PD-EU-ToO tag?[edit]

Background: reproductions of works of visual art in the PD that don't surpass the COM:TO aren't subject to copyright anymore, not even under related rights like the sweat of the brow. I'd like to know your opinion here: Commons talk:Copyright rules#Copyright law change in the European Union: do we need a new PD-EU-ToO tag?. Thank you, Chianti (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

upload of derivative image failed[edit]

I uploaded a derivative of File:Historic American Buildings Survey, E.O. Taylor, Photographer March 1, 1934 VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST (FRONT). - William Garrett Plantation House, Texas Route 21, San Augustine, San HABS TEX,203-SAUG.V,1-3.tif using this tool [1] . I have used it several times in the past and it had always worked, but not this time. The result should have been here File:Historic American Buildings Survey, E.O. Taylor, Photographer March 1, 1934 VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST (FRONT). - William Garrett Plantation House, Texas Route 21, San Augustine, San HABS TEX,203-SAUG.V,1-3 (edit).tif -- Jim Evans (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That looks interesting. The upload has not failed. However, the image is not visible via the link in my browser but when I click onto the empty space where the image should be or download the maximum resolution, the image is shown. All the automatically downsized smaller images seem to be broken (just black and white). --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I was able to fix it by reuploading it as a changed file -- Jim Evans (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

June 07[edit]

Google's site for 3D images is shutting down[edit]

Google's w:Poly (website) is shutting down on June 30. It has lot of freely licensed 3D object images.[2] Can someone interested import or archive them? Thanks —Vis M (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything there worth having? Within COM:SCOPE? In a format that we can technically handle? Of sufficient quality to make it of interest? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is definitely worth importing all the free images from that website, 3D images are becoming more popular because of the popularisation of augmented reality and some schools are even using 3D images to train surgeons and other high precision jobs so it would be a crime against education to not host them. Even if we don't have a media-player for them now it might be wise to import them before they're lost from the public forever. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, Commons could support one format of 3D images, STL (see Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types). How useful will a conversion be? Could we host more types? Certainly it's a medium which can be very educational (e.g. w:Gömböc), and tactile displays are coming eventually. It's also useful for making images; we have a lot of files created with Blender, especially medical images, and if they are flat images, modifying them is much harder. Given the time constraint, grab it and toss out anything really useless afterwards?

Separately, if it's shutting down, could the community, if any, come here? That'd improve our 3D capabilities no end. HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on redirects from EXIF data taking place at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard[edit]

Not sure if anyone cares about these links, but there is a discussion going on at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ regarding the redirects created for links found in the EXIF metadata on Commons file pages. I requested an admin make a redirect that I could not because it had a url in the name, and I am being met with a surprising amount of opposition and even one call to delete all existing redirects from file metadata links (1277 total as of now). I am truly surprised at this and don't understand the reason why there is so much push-back for what I thought was an innocuous request to make a harmless and helpful redirect. If anyone has an opinion on these Wikipedia redirects for the EXIF metadata links found on Commons file pages, please weigh in on the discussion there. Thanks. --Yarnalgo (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is this an English Wikipedia discussion? -- (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't trust the English-language Wikipedia, they are obsessed about combatting "spam" and "salting" articles. For example, when you upload a photograph from an Elephone device it will link to "en:Elephone" which is a "salted" article because it's "spam" and "a non-notable company" despite being a Chinese company that sells its devices in dozens of countries around the world. The Czech-language Wikipedia does have an article about it, I have been able to find dozens of independent news companies covering this company for over years, but the page's history shows constant speedy deletions and then "Permasalting", I don't think that the Enwiki should dictate to other Wikipedia's what's notable and what's not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Every time I upload a photograph from my "main camera" it links to a "Permasalted" or "Indefsalted" page. The problem here is that many people at Enwiki are hostile towards "links that lead to nowhere" rather than "fixing" those links by actually writing content. Wikimedia Commons should not be removing any links from its EXIF data in any language for any sororal website. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@: It's an en-wiki discussion because the request is for redirects on en-wiki.
It amazes me that anyone thinks 1200 redirects is a lot. It's not unusual to have half a dozen redirects on en-wiki for a single biographical article, so this is no more redirect burden than 200 or so biographical articles. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Good. There's nothing of import to discuss on this VP. -- (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 08[edit]

Photo challenge April results[edit]

Fossils and Sediments: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 2
image Werkforum Dotternhausen-Stenoperygius DSC0776.jpg Alligator prenasalis (specimen AMNH 4994) -20120521-RM-224539.jpg EchinodermataOrdovicianFossils ErfoudMorocco MuseeCantonalDeGeologie-Lausanne RomanDeckert20210424.jpg
Title
Deutsch: Stenoperygius sp im
Fosilienmuseum des Werkforum Dotternhausen
Fossil of a crocodile in the AMNH Who ate who? Echinodermata
fossils from Morocco
Author Wuselig Ermell RomanDeckert
Score 23 22 22
Angles and Squares: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Hochhausfassade in Tel Aviv.jpg Tristairs.jpg OrigamiBoxes 5149.jpg
Title Hochhausfassade in Tel Aviv triangular stairwell,
Genoa Italy
Square origami boxes
Author Sadarama Ddgfoto Changku88
Score 25 17 17

Congratulations to Wuselig, Ermell, RomanDeckert, Sadarama, Ddgfoto and Changku88. -- Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

British flag ratio proposal[edit]

Please see my proposal at File talk:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg#Ratio about a potential change of design to the (semi-)official specifications. It has sadly languished without comment for some time. GPinkerton (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

June 09[edit]

Images of "unnotable" people[edit]

I believe it is categorically unfair that we delete images of "unnotable" people en masse but keep random photographs that Wikimedians take of themselves or others at Wiki events. My view is that we should allow all free content on Commons, including images of "unnotable people". However, since it seems unlikely that such a radical change would be made to policy, I'll just say that every rule should be applied fairly. We should not allow ourselves an exception. Besides, every person who uploads a photograph to Commons is a contributor; we shouldn't delete new contributors' "useless" photos because they haven't earned their keep yet.  Mysterymanblue  07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • There is an administrator (forgot which one) that has an image of a random Sikh man on his page because that was once "the picture of the day" ("frontpage image") of Wikimedia Commons, can't remember where I saw it. While I agree with you in principle, those images should depict the people doing something that could be used to illustrate something in an educational setting. For example a photograph of a random farmer milking his/her cows should not be deleted if no alternative image exists. I think that this mentality to want to delete these images exists because businesspeople (businessmen and businesswomen) use it for blatant self-promotion and members of (still) unknown garage bands. As long as the image is educational it should stand. Especially since Wikimedia Commons doesn't have any notability standards, but does have a specific scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:HOST, speedy deletions under the F10 rationale should not be done only because the subject is not notable. Undeletion requests may be accepted for those cases where the sysop has deleted mistakenly.
Any contributor should expect to be able to upload a reasonable number of images of themselves or related events, in fact, a few years ago there was a promotional programme to get new contributors to fill out a profile with a photo as their first test edits. However, if a new account has only a couple of edits, and a selfie they uploaded was never used on their user page, then it's not unreasonable to delete it as out of scope.
Commons literally has no COM:Notability policy, the link here is a redirect to project scope, which is a much wider interpretation of educational value, which can be interpreted to include historic, cultural and illustrative value. For example, Commons lacks portrait photographs of people with different medical issues, especially non-white people; for such content "notability" is completely irrelevant, in fact most such photographs can be expected to be of anonymous subjects. -- (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreeing 100% with the above — F10 is being systematically misused. Future generations of Commons admins will have a lot to work on concerning undeletions. -- Tuválkin 10:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sad but true. I had my try a few weeks back, about a women who published at least three books (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diane Nilan.jpg - which would make here automatically notable in "de"). No matter if and when she gets an Wiki-page, a picture of here could be still of educational use for 3rd party users. But admins arguing there with "en", while the closing admins uses wikidata to prove non-notability. Ridiculous - as if we don't create new wikidata-objects every single day. Commons is a mess and Data not complete ... --Mirer (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

June 10[edit]

A clean start[edit]

Hey, At my discussion page, (User Talk:Scaledish), I have received a final warning due to uploading copyrighted files. Please note, I do not contest this warning, I find it to be just given my track record leading to that point. Since that warning, a year has passed. I have continued to edit Wikipedia and as a result have familiarized myself with copyright policy to a greater degree. Due to the warning, I placed a unoffical sanction on myself not to upload any more files, as a block would be horrible. Last night, I violated that sanction by uploading File:AnomChat.jpg to Wikipedia, later moved to the Commons. After that upload, I have realized that since my warning, I have grown as a editor significantly and would like to continue interacting with the commons. I mean no harm, and I made a huge mistake in uploading without fully understanding copyright.

I come here to ask for my options, as I could not find them presented at any page on the wiki. The first thing that comes to mind is a Clean Start as done on Wikipedia, but it appears there is no policy page here - leading me to believe that is not a option. The other thing that comes to mind is talk page blanking, but the ethicality of that is lacking and I fear it could land me in even more hot water than I am already in should another deletion come about. I would like to ask the opinions of others more experienced about how I should continue. Thanks, Scaledish (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Scaledish: Welcome back. I wouldn't worry too much about the past history, just do good work going forward. You could start by helping to clear up the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg. You might want to make a note on your user talk page similar to the first paragraph above. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Jmabel: for the advice, I will review the deletion process to learn how I can clean it up (I did look at that message repeatedly but was unsure of what to write instead of annoying +1s - I ought to understand the process so I can make meaningful contributions to the discussion). I will also post a section on my talk page describing the situation, Thank you for your advice, means a lot. Also a thanks to @Jim.henderson: for making me feel a bit less alone, good to know I am not the only newb who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Scaledish: Many of us started by being stubborn in our stupidity. I did several bad things in English Wikipedia, and repeated them. Then I began to understand, stopped repeating past mistakes, started making new ones, and gradually improved. A break of months, followed by mostly good actions (even old-timers make dumb mistakes) won't erase the bad past, but will make them unimportant. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:GODL-India#What website did this license can be applicable?[edit]

Please look into it once...TTP1233 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @TTP1233: I'm a native English-speaker (U.S.). Neither your title for this section here nor your remarks where you've linked make much sense to me.…
  • …so I tried to work out what languages you speak. Your Commons user page refers us to your Simple English user page, which refers us to your English-language user page, which refers us back to your Simple English user page. None of these contain Babel boxes (see also wikidata:Wikidata:Userboxes#Babel). Could you please clean that up a bit? It would be very helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: CentralAuth says mostly English with some other languages spoken in or near India. My loose translation is "Which websites' content may be uploaded here using {{GODL-India}}?" and my answer is "Websites of the government of India".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of Suggested Edits on Commons: findings and discussion[edit]

Hi everyone. Last year I posted here (as a volunteer) with some concerns about the Suggested Edits feature of the Wikipedia Android app, which seemed to be producing a lot of low quality edits. That led to several conversations with WMF staff working on the app and an invitation to do a bit of focused contract work for the Foundation evaluating the feature's impact on Commons. I've posted the data, findings, and my recommendations here: User:Rhododendrites (WMF)/Suggested Edits.

Some key points:

  • While the overall quality of contributions in this sample was higher than I anticipated based on my initial exposure, there are still several issues related to accuracy and level of detail.
  • The quality was better for captions than depicts, perhaps because of the difficulties in searching for and selecting Wikidata items, which are not always labeled effectively and may not yet exist.
  • Several of the issues may be addressed with clearer instructions (which are minimal at the moment) and small changes to the user interface (such as displaying categories).
  • There is some confusion and miscommunication regarding structured data on Commons. This would be helpful to address by documentation on Commons and a conversation between stakeholders in the future.

Looking forward to your thoughts and questions on the talk page! --Rhododendrites (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter


Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)
A: No.
Further, the WMF account makes no direct connection to a volunteer account.
It's also bizarre to mark up this spam notice for translation. I fail to understand why that's desirable for anyone. -- (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@SOyeyele (WMF): Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Please don't use translation markup, like <translate></translate> and <tvar></tvar> in MassMessages. Adding translation markup requests that the entire page be marked for translation, which is highly undesirable for discussion pages. It is better to leave your message in one language and then link to a translatable page on Meta. You should also sign your messages using the instructions at m:MassMessage, as ~~~~ won't work as expected. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Interwiki linking disabled?[edit]

I'm trying to link from a Commons category to an entry in the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, but it seems impossible. When I try to select language, nothing happens, and I am not able to add the link. This has been the case since yesterday. Is this a known problem, or is there another explanation than it being a technical issue? Vinguru (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

d:Q97204149? Looks like you succeeded. --Magnus (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I did that from Wikidata. While that works in many contexts, it is less than ideal in others. Creating the link while working on Commons also auto-generates a WD element, which is very useful. Vinguru (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I can confirm that doesn't work for me either. --Magnus (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Add links" tool form is unusable, the autocomplete in the "select language" field doesn't work and the form cann't advance to the "title" field. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to do. As here, you can make a visible link with "[[:no:Verjeskiftbrua]]" (which produces no:Verjeskiftbrua) or a link for the left nav with "[[no:Verjeskiftbrua]]", but that last is typically better done by linking to your Commons category page from the relevant Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Me too, I cannot add a link to an Wikipedia article/category page since yesterday. --Elkost (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Serena Lederer[edit]

Category:Serena Lederer has only the painting of this lady by Klimt. I was tempted to rename it to "Portrait of Serena Pilitzer Lederer by Klimt". This category also has informations about the lady (birth, death etc.) which would be deleted. Klimt's major paintings deserve to have a category of their own. What's the right thing to do?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Create a new cat for the painting, make Category:Serena Lederer one of its several parent cats, and move the images of the painting to the new cat. -- Tuválkin 15:23, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 - Jmabel ! talk 19:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • +1 the wikidata wouldn't make sense if it pointed from the person in Wikipedia to the portrait catgeory. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Licenses related to openSUSE[edit]

I just noticed that a lot of files related to openSUSE may be uploaded under wrong license. Here are some example:

I am not sure how to deal with these files. Can I edit the license information directly?--立日 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@立日: Is it possible that the image assets were originally released as part of OpenSUSE, and thus would be covered by the GFDL, and that they were recently released under CC-BY-SA 3.0? In this case, both licenses would apply (since they are both irrevocable) and people could choose the one they want to use. See also Commons:Multi-licensing.  Mysterymanblue  23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I am not sure if the logo of openSUSE had ever been released under GFDL. But currently openSUSE Leap as 'collective work' is released under GPL2, which is not compatible with GFDL 1.2 as far as I'm concerned. And 'This agreement does not limit your rights under, or grant you rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component'. Therefore the logo of openSUSE is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which should have been distributed under the same license. As for BSD-3-Clause, it has the similar redistribution limitation.--立日 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

Is there an easy to search for deleted files?[edit]

I wondered, is there an easy way to search for deleted files if you can't remember the file name or uploader, but do know what categories it had and where it came from? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Not for us mere mortals.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Content in File Description.[edit]

GoodDay, I came across this image File:Bollywood Choreographer.jpg, if you look at it's description, it appears to be of self promotional content / advertisement. On Wikipedia this would be WP:PROMO, but the rules here are different.
So is This OK ? Or does it need to be tagged accordingly? what tags would be suitable? -- Thank you In Advance. --STC1 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to have here; we don't care who uploads, as long as the rights are good. On the other hand, several issues to fix, at least/:
    • bad categorization
    • promotional description
Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems the uploader is the subject of the images, while the actual photographer is unknown. I have nominated them for deletion. MKFI (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

"My bad upload"[edit]

@Jeff G.: (and feel free to ping others who often help new users). Since it is so common for relatively new users to need their upload deleted, and since {{speedy|G7}} is rather obscure, I have introduced template {{My bad upload}}. If anyone wants to make friendly tweaks to that template, or to internationalize it, please feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks, I tweaked it.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding more templates may make the system harder to navigate. I suspect this alternate will be rarely used.
The CSD codes are optional, you can advise a newbie to use {{speedy|whatever reason}} or even just {{speedy}} for obvious mistakes, especially same day uploader requests. -- (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@: as long as they follow the instructions and "subst" it, it's basically just a shortcut way to make the request, which will shorten my more-than-daily explanation I end up giving at the help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Korean presidential images[edit]

Comoelto (talk · contribs) is uploading many images from the (South) Korean presidential website, such as File:Moon Jae-in Shavkat Mirziyoyev.jpg. The source page is the image itself making it difficult to identify which page on the website it has come from, but the home page has "© Office of the President. All rights reserved" at the bottom of the page, so is there any evidence "Korea Open Government License Type I: Attribution." even applies? FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

June 13[edit]

Question regarding composite images[edit]

With modern technology, it is now possible to take, say, fifty old photographs of a famous person, and use them as data points from which to generate a unique composite image of that person. Could such an image be released to the public domain by its author, given the minimal input remaining from the original images? If so, could such an image be used in Wikimedia projects, presuming that it is an accurate representation of the appearance of the subject? BD2412 T 19:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "composite image"? Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean that you put in a bunch of photographs and an app or similar program produces an image of the person that doesn't exist anywhere else (one that can be adjusted for facial expressions, lighting, etc.). BD2412 T 21:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of out of rules speedy deletion by some administrators[edit]

After an administrator speedy deleted several of his uploads, be it his own works or photos by other people with the escuse of "Self-delete. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope‎", without opening any deletion request, it seems that the same thread continues, now with another administrator that deletes his own images, with source in Flickr but uploaded by other users under free licenses, not once but at least twice with the excuse "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons", again without opening a proper deletion request, when that image was never before deleted. Why do some administrators not follow the rules that they enforce on other users? Why do they not follow the proper protocol, as all other less users have to? The case in point File:48 Dona Luisa (36884843406).jpg and administrator User:Jcornelius. Why do some administrators circunvent the rules without any consequence? Tm (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems now that this same administrator has changed the license of this images, after the two uploads and his deletion. Tm (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I say this not only bad style at Commons but ineffective as well since you cannot waive a Creative Commons licence once it has been granted. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
And he has made 73 deletions under the same invalid "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons". And yet no one notices it or pretends not to notice. Tm (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)