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/2023/09.

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:

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 File:Allam Medical Building.jpg 3 3 DMacks 2023-09-24 07:02
2 Translation of poetic works 4 2 Jmabel 2023-09-24 16:03
3 Since most of the files I have transferred from frwiki have been retained for pd-textlogo, why not delete the redundant files on frwiki? 12 5 Grandmaster Huon 2023-09-27 20:39
4 {{}} 2 2 Jmabel 2023-09-24 16:11
5 FoP reform status by jurisdiction 6 3 Piotrus 2023-09-27 05:48
6 Stalled category moves 20 6 Yasu 2023-09-30 15:05
7 c:Category:Deletion requests by country 8 6 Adamant1 2023-09-26 05:32
8 Best file format for 3 minutes 4K video of building demolition 6 3 PantheraLeo1359531 2023-09-25 16:03
9 Extraneous "thank you" in notification template 5 3 Jeff G. 2023-09-24 19:37
10 Categorisation and IP edits 8 6 Jmabel 2023-10-01 02:54
11 Details overhead lines 5 4 Tuvalkin 2023-09-27 16:54
12 Commons:Media of the day 2 2 PantheraLeo1359531 2023-09-25 18:01
13 Uncategorized categories 5 4 Adamant1 2023-09-28 19:45
14 Upload error 11 4 Alexmar983 2023-09-26 18:44
15 Vehicle aprons? 3 3 Jeff G. 2023-09-28 00:10
16 Bad category-renaming 22 6 Joshbaumgartner 2023-09-29 01:52
17 Category:Weymouth harbour 3 3 2A00...2CD9:5CB4 2023-09-29 13:10
18 Why licence not reviewed 3 2 Admantine123 2023-09-29 05:22
19 Deletion process 3 3 Jmabel 2023-09-30 15:07
20 Undo cropping vandalism 9 7 Beao 2023-09-30 15:32
21 Category:Images with watermarks that should not be removed 2 2 Jmabel 2023-09-30 17:11
22 Category:People of the Republic of Ireland 3 3 Jmabel 2023-09-30 17:12
23 Renaming Categories 2 2 Jmabel 2023-09-30 17:19
24 Category talk:Unidentified woodland “Pant Du” in northern Wales 4 3 Dogfennydd 2023-09-30 21:10
25 Commons in 20-50 years - a look into the future 3 3 Jmabel 2023-10-01 03:08
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive

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

September 16[edit]

Hello, it looks like the original file was overwritten in 2018 by a file which appears from the file info is a copyrighted image. Could someone have a look and delete the latest version if it is a copyright otherwise move it to a different name so original can be used. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good spot. I've reverted and flagged the copyvio revision for deletion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Revision deleted DMacks (talk) 07:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 17[edit]

Translation of poetic works[edit]

Question: Which is better, translating the contents of a file of a poem or poetic work literally (i.e. word by word and accounting for grammar and other subtleties), or taking a translation of said contents from an (obviously) free source that preserves the file's poetic nature?

Context: Commons has several sound files for the German national anthem "Deutschlandlied", some more commonly used than others across the projects and usually with captions. The captions themselves tended to be literal, rather than poetic, as is the Swedish TimedText for one of the files. Songs fall under the scope of this discussion because of their inseparably poetic nature and will never or almost never have lyrics in prose. While I concede that literal translations are useful for reading the precise semantics of original works, I always leaned toward the view that the translator ought to retain such works' poetic character. This might not be important when there are no authors to translate them at all, but what about those who have? In the case of the "Deutschlandlied", Project Runeberg hosts a scan of a 1916 book containing a poetic translation, pages 11 to 12. I would just go ahead and replace the caption with that translation, but in the absence of Commons guidance, I find my self in a moot situation. After all, translations like that are not official, and there probably will never be one anyway. Has there ever been a discussion about how to deal with poetic works, particularly in relation to poetic translations by noteworthy authors?

I am keenly aware of the Translators' noticeboard, but since I am discussing guidelines, I thought it better to bring the discussion here for a sooner and clearer clarification on Commons' position on the matter. FreeMediaKid$ 10:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I don't think either is "better", and having both versions available (presumably under distinct filenames) would be good.
  • I presume you know -- but just in case -- that since the fall of the Nazis, only the third verse is used. The earlier verses, whether translated literally or poetically, are a touchy matter in present-day Germany, to say the least. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • You presumed correctly. The reason I chose one of the short versions of the same anthem uploaded to Commons was out of concern for tact and sensitivity, and I did feel slight embarrassment making the anthem the subject of the discussion, though it could have been worse. Anyway, it looks as if neither approach to translating poetic works is more desirable than the other. While it was not quite the answer I was hoping for, it does imply that I have , which I will likely do to one of the short versions of the song other than the one cited. Additionally, I could also add the entire contents of the Project Runeberg book (not just the section on the "Deutschlandlied"; that's awkward) to Wikisource, but that is if I had edited the project at all, let alone the Swedish Wikisource. My contributions here on Commons will do, and someone else can claim credit for bringing the book's contents there. FreeMediaKid$ 07:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @FreeMediaKid!: "the go-ahead to add free poetic translations by noteworthy authors for every other similar file" Again stating something you presumably understood but didn't state: "as long as they are public-domain or free-licensed". - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since most of the files I have transferred from frwiki have been retained for pd-textlogo, why not delete the redundant files on frwiki?[edit]

I believe the community on frwiki has a low TOO that doesn't reflect practices here on commons and wikimedia as a whole. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You should probably give a read to COM:TOO France and ponder if frwiki was correct in keeping those files local. Especially since you were blocked for your actions in regards to them. -- ferret (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can all agree that this is below TOO. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:07, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
France doesn't use sweat of the brow, so most of the logos are too simple to be copyrighted. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 22:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While I would guess that the logo you give as an example is below TOO in France, it's probably close enough to the borderline that if fr-wiki is more comfortable retaining as locale, I can certainly imagine a fair rationale for them to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Still have plenty below TOO files left in frwiki. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 00:02, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For File:Logo-groupe-sos.webp you forgot to copy across the author and date information, which I have now inserted. If you are going to transfer files from any other wiki projects, make sure to do a manual check that all information has come across. In this case, the French wiki template seems to insert "inconnu" ("unknown") for any blank fields, while Commons does not. This means if you leave everything to the automated tool, you will lose a lot of valid information. I note that the French wikipedia users said you were relying on translation tools rather than knowing their language yourself; if you don't know the source language enough to replicate the valid information here, I would advise against attempting any more transfers from other languages. I have not checked any of your other transfers yet for any similar mistakes. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is WP:PROXYING and/or canvassing, this user has been blocked indefinitely from frwiki (and enwiki, probably dewiki soon) for machine translations and for asking deletion of logos above COM:TOO after uploading them to Commons.

Links: [1][2][3].

No file has been "retained" since there were no deletion requests.

Logos uploaded by Grandmaster Huon can be found here since they don’t show up in Special:Uploads because of FileImporter. —Thibaut (talk) 05:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I be unblocked from frwiki? Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I was blocked from frwiki for those concerns, enwiki is a different story, and dewiki is in good standing. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 06:38, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Grandmaster Huon: Your block on fr-wiki is not Commons' affair (except for raising a bit of a yellow flag). However, your using Commons to canvass for changes on fr-wiki (proxying, as mentioned above), or to ask about how to be unblocked on fr-wiki is Commons affair, and is not OK. I'd hate to have to block you here, but if you continue doing this I pretty much have to. The only way to be reinstated on fr-wiki is to appeal your block on fr-wiki. Your talk page on that wiki says how to appeal. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you! Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:39, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 19[edit]

Hello! Who can find files from the Italian government website through PetScan and apply the appropriate license? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MasterRus21thCentury: presumably in theory anyone can. Can you be more specific? - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 22[edit]

FoP reform status by jurisdiction[edit]

We have a great page on Commons:FoP, but I could not find a corresponding listing on how local WMF chapters are trying to lobby for law changes, if at all, plus other relevant changes in legal jurisdictions per country. Ping User:JWilz12345 who inspired me to start this discussion with several examples. Also ping User:Ymblanter who recently on en wiki told me in the context of Ukraine that "WM Ukraine is aware of this and, as far as I know, they think it is not possible at the moment." Perhaps they could elaborate here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:41, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if this is useful as you talked about local chapters, but the page "Commons talk:WMF support for Commons" is essentially the centralised talk page for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF), and as far as I know many local chapters communicate through them (I could be wrong). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:24, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for bringing up this topic, Prokonsul Piotrus. I'm not personally aware of a comprehensive listing that details how local chapters are lobbying for law changes or other relevant legal jurisdictions. However, I will ask around to see if such a resource exists. In the meantime, you might find the WikiLegal for Commons page useful. It's a space where Commons contributors can suggest topics that require input from the WMF Legal Department.
I will also like to appreciate Donald Trung for pointing out the "WMF support for Commons talk page" as a centralized talk page for the WMF. You are correct to some degree; the page does serve as a centralized location for ongoing WMF support for Commons. However, it is worth clarifying that it is not a communication channel for local chapters. Hope this helps - Udehb-WMF (talk) 12:52, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which is exactly why there should be a centralised village pump for all "corporate" (WMF + local chapters). There was popular support to create a page like "Commons:Lobby" where we could organise lobbying efforts when I brought it up at the copyright ©️ village pump a few years ago, but it's somewhat difficult to organise these things. It's best to start with a large centralised "big net" / "big umbrella" project and then specialise as the needs for specialised spaces emerged (like how multiple village pumps were created out of this one), Freedom of Panorama (FoP) laws are very much within the scope of the Wikimedia Commons and no other Wikimedia website is as affected by them as this one, so why aren't there open and public communication lines between the uploaders and the people lobbying to make it easier for the uploaders?
Not everything has to be decided in closed meetings that take place within hours, we can have large open discussions that can take weeks or even months. This would also make it easier for other lobbying organisations to find us and discuss their efforts and help co-ordinate multi-organisational campaigns with other interest groups. Vietnam recently lost a lot of FoP, are there any efforts to lobby the government of the Socialist Republic of Việt Nam? I can't find any Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or Wikimedia Vietnam (WMVN), if they even exist, publications on this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:02, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello again, Prokonsul Piotrus and everyone involved in this discussion,
I have done some digging and found a resource that might be exactly what you're looking for. The Global Advocacy Resources page on Meta-Wiki contains a wealth of information on advocacy efforts, including those related to copyright and FoP laws. This page was created by the Global Advocacy team, and it includes material from both WMF and various Wikimedia Affiliates and community members. Specifically, if you expand the table under the "Copyright" section, you will find a list of campaigns and approaches that different chapters have taken since 2016 on various copyright topics.
For those who wish to follow up or have specific questions, you can reach out to User:FPutz_(WMF) via email I hope this helps! -Udehb-WMF (talk) 15:37, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Udehb-WMF That is much appreciated. May I suggest linking this from relevant country sections at Commons:FoP? For example, Ukraine FoP section should link to the "Wikimedia Ukraine Freedom of Panorama Campaign Report 2015". And the fact that I don't see anything related to Korea means that Korean community has never tried to reform the local laws?? @Revi (WMF)?? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stalled category moves[edit]

User:CommonsDelinker/commands seems to be stalled out again for category moves. I tried the documented way of kickstarting it, but that seems to believe the bot is already running. Jmabel ! talk 23:10, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Posting again: does someone know somewhere more useful to post this? The bot has now been stalled out at least 3 days, creating a significant backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Grin, Magnus Manske, Mdaniels5757, Steinsplitter, Zhuyifei1999 as Maintainers. @Jmabel: I also left a pointer at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Stalled category moves.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:57, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's SteinsplitterBot's job to actually move the categories; CommonsDelinker just removes the commands once the other bot moves them. Nothing anyone other than Steinsplitter can do AFAIK; I left them a message 11 days ago without reply. —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How can a function this essential be left entirely at the mercy of one person? - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is exactly one person more than nobody. Think about that. grin 16:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Which means we have a system with no redundancy at all. And that's exactly what I'm thinking about. We shouldn't be in a position where features break if something happens to one person. Why aren't trusted bot-users routinely sharing out their duties and their code, backing each other up, etc.? - Jmabel ! talk 20:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The best answer I have is that they are busy humans who have neither the time nor the trust for robustness.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:59, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: if the entire community here is ready to rest so much trust in them, you'd think they'd have some trust for one another. - Jmabel ! talk 21:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: There is a different level of trust needed from system administrators than from wiki administrators. SteinsplitterBot is still running rotation and other tasks, but not the category moves. OTOH, Steinsplitter hasn't been heard from in 12+ days. I did most by moving the cat pages and using Cat-a-lot. I need an Admin to look at either zapping the move to Category:Mount Chokai, deleting that cat to make room, or merging the histories. Same for Category:Lake Chokai and the other mentions of Chokai, some minus the merging. Same for Category:Pierre Alexandre Tardieu minus the merging for Kusma. I disagree with the move to Category:Glass lookout in Crestón island for El Nuevo Doge because things are on islands, not in them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 02:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: man, I was really trying to avoid anyone having to do so much by hand! As for in/on island: it varies with the island. "In the Isle of Wight" is perfectly normal, though not universal. I have no idea on the particular island in question, but sometimes we do things like that also for consistency across parallel categories. For example, we have Category:Buildings in Capitol Hill, Seattle even though anyone who lives here in Seattle would say "on Capitol Hill". But, elsewhere in the same city, they'd usually say "in Crown Hill" and how can anyone be expected to know unless they are very local.
On the Chokai thing: I guess I'll do the necessary deletions. And then I'll get a night's sleep. - 05:22, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: am I correct in understanding that you plan to do the actual moves, or does someone else need to do that?
I've also renamed the relevant Wikidata items. When the move is complete, they will need to be switched to link the relevant Commons category (another thing the bot would normally have done). - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Open question: when the moves are complete, should we undelete the history on all of these restored non-macron categories? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Yes, I made the rest of the cat moves. Our cat move capability moves the references in most Wikidata items, but I had to change the Commons category (P373) properties on Wikidata myself, as in this edit. Re "undelete the history on all of these restored non-macron categories", yes if/when an Admin has the time.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:33, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: I still see Category:Mount Chōkai, Category:Lake Chōkai; I wouldn't be surprised if there are others. Presumably there is still more work to do here. (BTW, I did maybe half a dozen "Chōkai" cats by hand as well.) Anyway, I'll try to find the ones that are complete and undelete their histories. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yasu: I would welcome your opinion on this.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would second Jeff G.'s opinion: "yes if/when an Admin has the time". @Jeff G. and Jmabel: you guys are doing great job on those "Chokai" things BTW, much appreciated. Yasu (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: One reason why bots are generally run by individuals is that Commons really doesn't encourage shared responsibility for bots. Commons:Bots refers to the "operator", singular, throughout, and {{Bot}} only allows for specifying a single operator. As Commons:Role account explains, whether shared accounts are allowed at all seems to be a matter of uncertainty. So a bot operator might reasonably conclude that Commons doesn't want shared bot accounts. In the absence of those, a backup operator could run the same code under a different account, but bot approvals are per-account so this would require a new approval for the backup account. That's time and effort that can be more interestingly applied to making new or improved bots.
So I think if you want to encourage more redundancy in Commons bots, the best way would be to improve our policy so that it treats such redundancy as the norm and explains how best to achieve it. --bjh21 (talk) 10:23, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"same code under a different account" is what I had in mind. And, yes, I think we should strongly encourage that. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: As the original developer of CommonsDelinker, @Magnus Manske should still have some working code, although it may not consider Wikidata.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:38, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately I have no access to sbot, so I cannot even check the logs about problems. I wrote an email to Steinsplitter, maybe helps. grin 18:48, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 23[edit]

Is there a reason why the categories here are all named so differently (United States law deletion requests‎ vs. Japanese law deletion requests)--Trade (talk) 03:37, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks to me like the adjectival forms are used, except those make for awkward constructions in some cases, because if we said "American law deletion requests" or "British law deletion requests" it may be considered unexpected or undesirable in some way? Elizium23 (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I spent some time creating deletion requests by country categories for stamps recently. At least IMO it's usually better to use the adjectival forms. Except it doesn't work with the United States specifically because "America" really refers to the continents of North and South America, not the country. So we are kind of stuck with it. There's a few others exceptions to. Like New Zealand versus New Zealander. I don't think either way of doing it is super intuitive, but at least using adjectival forms somewhat separates categories for deletion requests from normal ones. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:00, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
British copyright law is also an incorrect term as the UK copyright law also applies to Northern Ireland and the other oversea areas. GPSLeo (talk) 10:11, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: en:United Kingdom lists the demonym as "British". What would you prefer, "UKish" or "UKian"? @Trade and Adamant1: Also, for the US, as an American, "American" is more acceptable to me than "USian" or "USish". See also en:Demonyms for the United States.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:13, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Or, these categories could simply be left alone and we avoid any ambiguity. No solution appears to be perfect, so we pick the one that is least bad. Ambiguity is always bad. Huntster (t @ c) 13:43, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We could also change the wording to "of the" and then just use the infinitive form of the name. "Deletion requests related to laws of the United Kingdom" GPSLeo (talk) 17:14, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd totally support that. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Best file format for 3 minutes 4K video of building demolition[edit]

I want to upload a video that I have filmed in 4K quality. I need assistance in which format and resolution to upload.

I’ve posted a week ago to Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop#Best file format for 3 minutes 4K video of building demolition but didn’t receive any replies. In order to get any interaction I do now post here as well. Please answer there. --Frupa (talk) 12:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi! I recommend the VP9 codec (*.webm) with high quality. If you don't edit your videos, you can convert your video in the same color, chroma subsampling, bit depth and bitrate (usually between 100 and 200 MBit/s) (and frame rate). The video will be also rendered in lower resolutions, so you can upload the best quality you have. I convert with FFMPEG, this allows you to execute the settings you want to have. An example for a command in FFMPEG could be: FFMPEG -i "INPUTvideo.MP4" -c:v libvpx-vp9 -crf 7 -pix_fmt yuv422p10 -c:a libopus -b:a 512000 -preset slow "OUTPUTvideo.webm". Greetings! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The video will be rendered in different resolution on Commons, to be more preciseful --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    The help page at commons recommends two pass transcoding for optimal result. I wonder, if this is better and if it is really a difference to set the pix_fmt. Also I noticed that a VP9 transcode is often significantly larger (bitrate, file size) than HECV-mp4. C.Suthorn ( - (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PantheraLeo1359531, please look again what I posted on the linked page. I have no difficulties using FFmpeg. It’s just that the output file in VP9 at 4K is 28GB in size!
The upload form Special:Upload states the maximum upload size can only be used by transfer via URL (will my private URL be visible to everyone?) and the limit is still 4GB. MP4 is not allowed, though. This way I could only upload a VP9 at 720p version. Can we arrange for any other transfer method to utilize the 4K quality? --Frupa (talk) 11:09, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Damn, that's a lot :D. FFMPEG sometimes exaggerates the file size. Sometimes I monitor the first part of the conversion to check if the bitrate will be too high or I split the source file in several smaller files to adjust the sizes for the other files if the first is bigger (can be done via MKVToolNix). Yes, it can be complicated sometimes. It is also possible to enter a desired bitrate, but this is only a bitrate that is targeted and not the obligated one. You can split your three minutes into 30 second files via MKVToolNix GUI and adjust the CRF or the bitrate and watch it while converting (via FFMPEG). If you see that the bitrate exceeds the desired bitrate heavily, you can kill the process and try again at a lower desired bitrate. When you find the perfect command, you can apply it to the other split files. This needs patience, but with this, I am able to achieve 10% over the original bitrate to preserve quality and to avoid inflated file sizes. Hope it helps! :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:03, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 24[edit]

Extraneous "thank you" in notification template[edit]

Why does {{Discussion-notice}} (when used in English) end with the words "Thank you."? If I'm having to tell a mendacious editor that I'm reporting their behaviour, I'm not asking them for anything and I certainly don't want to thank them.

I can't see the words in {{Discussion-notice/en}}. From where do they originate? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:10, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's in {{Discussion-notice/layout}} as {{Thankyou-tag}}. Elizium23 (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you (!) I've removed it. People can always add their thanks manually if they wish to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: Thanks for removing it. It was there from the first edit 18:31, 11 January 2012 by Rd232.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:37, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorisation and IP edits[edit]

Problems of categorization: Category:Islamophobia and Category:Anti-Islam have redundant categories. I tried to eliminate redundancies but some "user" comes, reverts your correction and even adds "more" redundant categories! Normal, there is a cast system here, worse than in medieval India. Admin, user, IP. Anybody can have prejudices against IPs (I am a user, I know better than IPs...) This arrogant attitude is one basic reason why some people simply do not want to become "user"s here. Enjoy your playground. 21:16, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have provided a section heading for your comment inserted into the previous discussion. I have also linked the categories you mentioned for the convenience of other editors.
I have taken a look at your edits and you provided no edit summary. Explaining what you are trying to do goes a long way toward helping others understand your actions. If you don't try to communicate, you shouldn't be surprised if someone reverts your edits without communication. Being logged in can help with communication but you can still communicate while logged out; it will just require more effort from you to achieve the same result. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:08, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also: unlike "the caste system of medieval India," nothing prevents anyone who may legitimately edit from an IP address from creating an account instead. The choice to edit with no identification other than an IP address is yours, not ours. Unless, of course, you are dodging a block, in which case you should not be editing here at all. - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Odd question, but why is "Category:Anti-Islam" a sub-category of "Category:Islamophobia" and not the other way around? As the latter is described as being a form of "racism" (which is odd as neither Christianophobia nor Atheophobia are categorised as "racism" despite Islam not being a race). In fact, "Category:Christianophobia" is a sub-category of "Category:Anti-Christianity" and not a category of "Category:Racism by targetted group". I'd argue that the idea that all Muslims are a single race in itself is a form of racism. Also, the current categorisation scheme also makes any and all criticism of Islam a sub-category of racism. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:14, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just my hot take, but probably because people can't even mildly criticize a religion or anything related to one without adherents crying foul about the person being prejudiced. Which is something that seems to be particularly pervasive in Islam for some weird reason. But that goes for all super conservative belief systems. Although I'd agree that it makes more sense to have Category:Islamophobia a child category of Category:Anti-Islam, not the other way around. It's at least better then trying to figure out if criticizing Islam is a form of Islamophobia or not in order to justify how they are currently categorized. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Mmh, I suppose $Religio-phobia can be practically indistinguishable from racism under certain conditions at a local scale. If there is a green minority in Legoland of which most members practice Bobism, and the vast majority of Bob's worshipers in Legoland are green, hating green people and hating Bobbers becomes the same thing. Locally, it doesn't matter if there are green people elsewhere that do not worship Bob, nor does it matter that there are blue Bobbers far away in Fabuland. Legolanders hating Bobbers can be racists; that doesn't automatically mean that green and blue people are the same. Not arguing either way, just offering an alternative interpretation. El Grafo (talk) 14:36, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not dodging anything, but I suspect you are trying to provoke me so that I call you names and you get me blocked. Go to home... 19:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then I stand by my statement that the "caste" analogy doesn't match the facts. The choice to edit from an IP address is yours. It is not an accident of birth, nor is it something anyone else has imposed upon you. - Jmabel ! talk 02:54, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 25[edit]

Details overhead lines[edit]

There many interesting details by overhead lines. Certainly the tensioning system. I am thinking about Category:Counterweights but it should be tensioning weights. (There are modern systems for tensioning wires without weigths but I cant find in the mass of pictures) [4] Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:49, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are many types of overhead lines with different supports wich are categorised. For example: File:Hollandsche Rading 2020 6.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Such categories would certainly be welcome, if anyone wants to take the time to create and populate them. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For the tensioning system, you probably want to be in Category:Overhead line tensioners, or its subcategory Cat:Automatic tension balancers for the weights specifically. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:16, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Conversely, there’s Category:Tram overhead lines in Lisbon (details), dissiminating these in a different direction. -- Tuválkin 16:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, This page needs care. Please help adding descriptions in various languages. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added some captions --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:01, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uncategorized categories[edit]

Over the last week or so, User:Billinghurst and I have made a pretty major attack on uncategorized categories, resolving somewhere over a thousand of them between us. Relatively little of the remaining work is specifically admin work, and I'd sure appreciate some help from others. The majority of the remaining uncategorized categories fall into one of two groups:

  • Totally legitimate categories that have content and just need the right parent categories.
  • Categories (with or without existing content) that ought to become cat redirects to some other category that has already been established.
    • In this case, it's probably best if you are a filemover so that you can also move their content after redirecting.

Note that Special:UncategorizedCategories is not updated in realtime. It was updated about 14 hours ago, and a fair amount of work has happened since then, so some files in the list are already dealt with, but you can see that easily enough for any particular category by clicking through.

Thanks in advance for any help. - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A little additional comment. Some of these categories are linked to Wikidata, so adding {{Wikidata Infobox}} is a easy, useful administrivia task (noting that the template is in the edittools list), which also can do some useful categorisation itself. You will often see categories that would do well to be added to the topic page in Wikidata, so you can have a double win of uniting content across Wikimedia. Also, some of the empty categories could just be deleted, so don't be afraid to just tag them for that, after reviewing Commons:Deletion_policy#Categories.  — billinghurst sDrewth 22:46, 25 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll probably help out when I'm done with a few other things if there's anything left to do by then. Just an FYI, but I'm always looking for projects to work. So if either one of you (or really anyone else) ever have anything like this you want help with feel free to ping me or leave a message about it on my talk page. It's really to bad there aren't more Wikiprojects on Commons for these types of things or at least a group for non-administrators who like to do maintenance so they can coordinate. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I too, have been working on them as well. They do seem to remain long after a proper Cat is found. Before I continue (probably made a few mistakes LOL) but all the empth ones that connect to nothing, I have been adding speedy delete Is this ok in the cleanup? Oh Ijust saw the above note on "could just be deleted" I will keep on keeping oñ Photo Archives (talk) 18:38, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think the list is updated every four days. Not great, but it's better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:45, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 26[edit]

Upload error[edit]

Hi folks!

I wanted to upload a bunch of images, but it seems like the publishing and then uploading does not work (UploadWizard). The error messages are: "error", "Diese Datei hat die Dateiprüfung nicht bestanden" (This file has not passed the file check), and it takes much time until the error messages appears. Do you also have issues?

Thanks --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The uploaded files number on Special:Statistics seems also to stagnate at 97837000 files --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:27, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
same here. Also it might be related with renaming not working as well...--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can someone rename this file to "Chiesa di San Donato" in the string, for example?--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PantheraLeo1359531: I had the same problem. I've reported it as phab:T347416 since I couldn't find an existing report. --bjh21 (talk) 16:49, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems to be happening to everybody, as comments flow in Telegram group. B25es (talk) 16:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for letting us know :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:55, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All main WLM uploaders are on hold in Tuscany as a result. It's obvious at this point, but just for you to know--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:05, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems to work again :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:16, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems to be back working! (I uploaded one file) B25es (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also renaming now works.--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 27[edit]

Vehicle aprons?[edit]


Any idea on how to categorize these typically early 20th-cent. added sloping pieces at both ends of a tram car, ostensively meant to discourage tram surfing? I tried the word "apron" but doesn’t seem to be what’s needed here. -- Tuválkin 16:48, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Skirt? Best I can see is Category:Rail Guard. -- Broichmore (talk) 17:07, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps a new Category:Surfer catchers under Category:Rail Guard?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:10, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Bad category-renaming[edit]

blue person’s eye
person’s blue eye
Domenico Ghirlandaio, Portrait of a Lady

(Yes, it’s about bad category-renaming, not about bad-category renaming — adjective nouns are not always clear. Anyway:) I saw this just now in my watchlist:

Joshbaumgartner talk contribs (Moving from Category:Women with brown eyes to Category:Brown women's eyes)

While I’d agree that brown women have mostly brown eyes, this new cat name would be substandard and worth a renaming on its own of it were created anew; as it is, this is not at all an improvement and I think it should be reverted ASAP. (Cats for other colors, genders, and body parts should be checked for analogous edits.) -- Tuválkin 18:10, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, that is an absolutely wrong move. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This appears to be part of a systematic set of wrong moves like this. @Joshbaumgartner: did you discuss this with anyone, or just make these moves unilaterally? - Jmabel ! talk 19:04, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notified Josh of this discussion.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you Jeff G., this issue was raised on my talk page. I recognized my mistake and am already addressing the issues raised. Thank you, Josh (talk) 23:28, 27 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: Evidently, those discussions were insufficient to convince Tuválkin and Jmabel that you would stop doing those bad renames and revert the bad renames you had already done.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:05, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well they weren't the ones who talked to me there, so I have no idea if they read there or not, hence why I mentioned it. Josh (talk) 00:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those users are @Pigsonthewing, From Hill To Shore, and Infrogmation: They opened two threads in Josh’s talk page, more than 24h ago. -- Tuválkin 00:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
...where I have not had the courtesy of a reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jeff is criticising me for not pinging Josh, but
  • this is VP, not ANU, and
  • I actually did (or {{U}} doesn’t do that?).
Anyway, Josh still didn’t revert these cat renamings. -- Tuválkin 00:43, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuválkin: No criticism of you, just fact. Some people don't notice the pings, and Josh hadn't replied here yet. I pinged you because I was writing about you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:51, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, Tuvalkin did ping me, which I did see when I logged on, but Jeff G.'s talk page post was more prominent, in any case, both are appreciated. Thank you, Josh (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I certainly hope that Tuvalkin merely didn't check Category:Women with brown eyes and see that it (along with most others of the same ilk) had been fixed before they made their latest comment claiming it hadn't, or the many that had been addressed before even their starting of this thread. I additionally hope that they aren't being intentionally disingenuous in trying to suggest that I am being unresponsive to the concerns raised or unwilling to fix any mistakes made. There is still some more to do, but the work continues. As for response times, I do not live on Wiki, so it may be a day or so at times between activity. Don't assume that means I'm ignoring your comments or any such thing. Josh (talk) 04:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I think part of the confusion is that you have recreated categories like Category:Women with brown eyes but also retained categories like Category:Brown women's eyes. Checking the former may suggest the issue is fixed, while checking the latter would suggest that it isn't. I understand that you are in the process of fixing things but it would be useful if you could explain your plan. For one thing, you may need the intervention of an admin to merge the page histories to preserve the attribution of editors' work (categories don't usually have extensive histories but the principle is that we try to retain contribution histories for all pages, wherever possible) and preserve the record of previous renamings so future editors will be able to tell what has already been tried. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:29, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can certainly see where you are coming from on the category history question. I am not sure how big of an issue it is, as categories aren't really like articles or files or such. Categories are routinely deleted, re-created, merged, redirected, etc. without much concern for the histories as part of normal category maintenance. Having participated in thousands of CfDs, I can say I've never seen anyone argue against a category move/delete/etc. on the basis of history retention. If you think it deserves more attention though, I am not opposed.
It is clear that moving 'people with color eyes' to 'color human eyes' categories was an error, one I got as soon as it was pointed out. In one, eyes are the subject and in the other it is the people, so they shouldn't be conflated.
One of things that I think is getting missed is that these categories were not a nice homogenous well organized tree when I first started making edits. They were a glob of different approaches to naming, structure, and content. Indeed, within a given group (women and adolescents seem particularly popular), there may be a bit of consistency, but none throughout. This is why I started working on the categories in the first place. Now I have readily acknowledged I should have had some discussion first before making some of the changes I have made, a fact that some here would like to use as a cudgel to batter me into my grave with. I appreciate your comments as you have laid out some very good and concise concerns regarding some names.
As for where I am going with the work, I am first going through and reversing the commingling of 'eye' and 'person' focused items (primarily those resulting from my mistake of merging 'people with color eyes' categories). Note that in many cases, there was only an 'eye' or 'person' focused category for a given color/person combination. This means restoring the 'people with color eyes' category if it was redirected or creating it if it never existed, and then putting media that is 'people' focused into it. I am retaining the 'eye' categories as eyes and people being two different subjects is a constructive point that was raised in some of the comments, and I don't wish to disregard that input.
That said, dealing with comments (not yours) that are less about constructive critique and more like the person on the freeway you accidentally commit some minor driving sin near so they lay on their horn and scream obscenities for the next 5 miles, making you wonder if you stumbled into an episode of Beef, is certainly not helping the cause. Josh (talk) 21:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: You «certainly hope» I’m not being «intentionally disingenuous»?! Guy, you trawled through thousands of files with your preposterous category renamings that should never be done in the first place, and the moment you were called out on it you should have undone the whole thing. Yet it’s been over 36h and this nonsense is still on, affecting almost 300 files and subcats on it’s own — let alone all the other categories about eye color you messed. So, you didn’t have time to fix it yet, but you have time to whine about imagined grievances? -- Tuválkin 12:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I note that Category:Brown women's eyes, Category:Blue women's eyes, Category:Girls blue eyes, etc. still exist and are (in varying degrees) populated so, no, this is not all cleaned up. @Joshbaumgartner: are you clear on what needs to happen here? And are you willing to make it your top priority to clean this mess, including emptying the badly named categories and tagging them for deletion? If so, fine, and get to it. If not, then I think we have a serious problem here. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I respect a lot of the contributions you have made to several CfDs and other discussions which we have participated in together over time. That said, when an admin tells you that you had best do what they are saying or there is going to be a big problem in a regular discussion forum like VP or CfD it is a bit chilling.
There are valid concerns that have been raised by some and I am taking action to address them and happy to discuss things constructively along the way. I am not interested in responding to threats and abuse however. If you feel that I am not acting in good faith, or am being intentionally harmful to the project, then you should raise that on ANU for discussion. If you are just trying to make your point forcefully, remember that as an admin, you carry certain authority, even if it is not your intent to wield it as such. An admin should be leading the effort to promote constructive dialog and good faith, not be threatening users with a problem if they don't make doing what you say a 'top priority' and 'get to it'. Josh (talk) 22:31, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Joshbaumgartner: I was simply asking if you are committed to fixing this. At the time I wrote that, you had not given a clear indication that you were. Since then you have, so we are fine. Yes, FWIW, if someone creates a mess this size and doesn't take on the task of fixing it, it would be an admin issue. If, on the other hand, they clean up their own mess, fine. I've been in that position myself a couple of times. I've also, more times than I can count, been left in the position of cleaning up someone else's mess because they basically walked away from it. - Jmabel ! talk 00:44, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for clarifying. Given the rank hostility shown out of the gate by some, I fear that regardless of what is said or even done, there are those who will refuse to be satisfied. You and I both have done a lot of CfD's, which is very often a task of cleaning something up that others have done, so I get where you are coming from on that one. I have no intention of abandoning anything. Josh (talk) 01:52, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're not ignoring our comments, why does your most recent spate of editing involve moving Domenico Ghirlandaio's Portrait of a Lady (shown above) from Category:Adolescent girls with green eyes to Category:Green adolescent girls' eyes? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just for the record, that file was moved out of Category:Adolescent girls with green eyes two days before this discussion even started. No, I have not gotten to restoring that category yet. Josh (talk) 20:53, 28 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 29[edit]

Category:Weymouth harbour[edit]

I have just identified File:Weymouth ? (4641607).jpg as being of Poole Harbour and have requested a rename. I have also tried to edit Category:Weymouth harbour by removing this image from the info-box in the top right corner but am unable to do so. I'm not sure why the File:Weymouth ? (4641607).jpg was used in the info-box given its prior status as Category:Unidentified locations in the United Kingdom 02:20, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Wikidata Infobox}} draws its content from Wikidata. As long as Wikidata says that is the image for this item, that is what will display in the Infobox. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll have a go at editing the Wikidata page sometime today. (dynamic ip) writing as 2A00:23C2:8B08:E501:D0FC:F2C5:2CD9:5CB4 13:10, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Why licence not reviewed[edit]

I have cropped one image from a licence reviewed file. Why the licence of this cropped image is not reviewed? File:Umesh kushwaha, khiru Mahto, Nitish Kumar (cropped).jpeg.-Admantine123 (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Admantine123: Because there is nothing to review. It's a crop from a source (the uncropped version) whose license was already reviewed. It's not as if your crop exists separately at the external source. - Jmabel ! talk 05:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Admantine123 (talk) 05:22, 29 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 30[edit]

Deletion process[edit]

Hello. I uploaded a Flickr picture of a TV screen in order to use it in the w:thought broadcasting article in the English Wikipedia. A user on Commons nominated the image for deletion, another user voted !keep with the rationale that the logo of the broadcaster (NY 1) is too simple to be copyrighted and that the TV screen is blurred enough to be de minimis. Yet, after a week, a third user closes the deletion "discussion" as deleted. Is this the normal course of action in Commons? So far the discussion was 1-1. Seeing that there was no consensus shouldn't it have been prolongated?? The discussion can be seen here. The Blue Rider 13:41, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Deletion on Commons is not a vote and the majority view only takes precedence when the case is in a grey area where law or Commons policy don't provide a clear answer. Most times there is a clear policy or legal issue that weighs the discussion one way or the other regardless of the perceived consensus of a discussion. As I am not an admin I can't see the deleted file and can't comment on the merit of the deletion. However, the comment supporting keep mentions de minimis, so you must have included some copyrighted material in the image. I assume that there must have been significant enough material for the closing admin to think retention is not appropriate. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: as the closing admin, would you like to expand on the reasoning for the deletion here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As an admin I can look at it. Clearly a shot of a copyrighted NY1 broadcast. Definitely reasonable to delete as a copyright violation. The de minimis argument might be worth considering if there were some special value to the image, but there isn't, it's a generic photo of a TV showing a broadcast, so no reason to stretch for a basis on which it might be defensible. - Jmabel ! talk 15:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Undo cropping vandalism[edit]

Can someone please fix this file, cropped, when it should just have the watermark deleted. Why can't I undo it, by the way? --Broichmore (talk) 13:47, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done The crop is okay, no vandalism for sure. It's common to crop away watermarks from pictures, and in this case there is no possibility to remove the watermark otherwise, either. --A.Savin 13:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sadly not the case, it’s not common to over crop pictures. There is significant cropping here destroying the overall perspective. The watermarks can be deleted with effort. He could have should have made a new degraded version of if too lazy too fix. This is not his call!-- 14:18, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How come "destroying the overall perspective"? --A.Savin 14:23, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Art and historical photographs follow different rules to what your talking about. The picture looks cramped now. The original artist and publisher could have cropped it and didnt. There is software these days that can fix it. Come to that the original uploader could have cropped, and didn't. Cropping is a minimalist undertaking for this type (or any other) type of work.-- Broichmore (talk) 14:46, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm with Broichmore on this one. Beao should have uploaded their version under a distinct file name. I'll revert it with a remark to that effect, but I'm not sure why Broichmore couldn't just have done that themself. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I created a version without the watermark and without cropping. Wouter (talk) 15:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'll keep this in mind, but please assume good faith. Beao (talk) 15:32, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: You mentioned being unable to reverse the file change. I notice you tried the "undo" function in the main page history but did you try the "revert" function in the separate "File History" section below the licences? From Hill To Shore (talk) 15:31, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Images with watermarks that should not be removed[edit]

Hi, I've noticed the template Template:Don't remove watermark directly adds images to the Category:Images with watermarks, which could lead to confusion when working on watermark removal, as most images with watermarks are supposed to have their watermarks removed. I've created the Category:Images with watermarks that should not be removed and added it to the template. Do you think this is a good idea, and should we remove the direct link to Category:Images with watermarks and maybe make Category:Images with watermarks that should not be removed a subcategory to Category:Images with watermarks? --Beao (talk) 15:58, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something along those lines seems reasonable, though I'd wait for a bit of discussion before deciding exactly what. - Jmabel ! talk 17:11, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is there a reason why we cant just call the category 'People of Ireland'

Very few people uses the full name of the country outside of formal contexts Trade (talk) 16:09, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There would be confusion between "People of Ireland [the sovereign country]" and "People of Ireland [the geographic landmass]". Such a change could also encourage edit wars that reflect real world political tensions on this issue; if the current category structure is stable, I'd advise leaving it alone. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:29, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
+1 to From Hill To Shore. I say leave it alone. - Jmabel ! talk 17:12, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming Categories[edit]

A few weeks ago I started the process for renaming two categories, Category:Fort Polk and Category:Fort Lee (Virginia). Both refer to places that were renamed earlier this year, and have since been renamed on Wikipedia and Wikidata. With no comments opposed to this renaming, it seems that it is ok to proceed at this point. However, these categories both contain hundreds of images, and I don't know the process for renaming a category and automatically moving all of the images and subcategories as well. - OdinintheNorth (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@OdinintheNorth: Unfortunately, the bot that we usually use for this currently appears to be broken, so we have a backlog at User_talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#Category_move_commands. Normally I'd say wait till that's fixed, but it's been two weeks and I'm beginning to think that may be "never."
Files are easy enough to move: VFC and Cat-a-lot are some of the popular tools for this. Subcats present more of a problem, though. Without the bot, subcats & the interwiki link on Wikidata need to be changed by hand. There aren't a crazy number of subcats here, so it might be tractable to do by hand if you are inclined to do so. If you don't know how to do the Wikidata piece (and aren't interested in learning) ping me & I'll deal with it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:19, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category talk:Unidentified woodland “Pant Du” in northern Wales[edit]

I have identified the location of over 90 files, all requiring renaming. Some need purging of inaccurate geolocation data and their category name needs changing. The 'owning' category name also needs changing and moving. I have put the information about the files location on the above talk page. Do registered users have any means of carrying-out bulk renames etc. or do I have to put a rename request on all files in the category? 18:55, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link: Category talk:Unidentified woodland “Pant Du” in northern Wales. - Jmabel ! talk 18:57, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Other than the geolocation part, these changes are easily made. @Dogfennydd: could you please weigh in here on the proposed change before someone acts on it? Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the ping; I’ve responded on the talk page (I suggested a different renaming since the nominated name only applies to the southern wooded area, whereas the photos are of the northern area). Dogfennydd (talk) 21:10, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons in 20-50 years - a look into the future[edit]

Hi folks!

I want to hear your opinion: What do you think Commons will look like in 20 or even 50 years? Will it only grow like before or will there be new impulses, milestones, functions or even revolutionary aspects? And what about other projects like Wikipedia or the movement of free knowledge in general?

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There's so many interesting things to speculate, address or discuss in that regard and maybe there could be some charts or reports with some work on that.
  • We'll have more sophisticated scripts, AI, bots, and tools that populate the category structure that we establish now and only much less so in the future. These identify plants, animals, categories, etc automatically and import huge amounts of media.
  • WMC will be filled with many terabytes of porn videos and gore that get displayed for everybody at unexpected searches and categories, an issue which I have repeatedly raised but which so far has not been constructively engaged with. I suggested, for a start, a policy that requires media of nude people to not be put in irrelevant categories like children's games or specific foods, amending the policy that currently only discourages "low-quality" "amateur" porn.
  • Lots of other media beyond gore and porn will lose copyright protections.
  • More code issues will get implemented by that time. For example, it could be more easily possible to modify existing images such as via allowing the upload of attached xcf files so other users can directly edit elements of media. For further speculations, just look at the code issues and wishlists.
You'd have to specify things more clearly in terms of which aspects you're interested in. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
50 years? Imagine trying to say in 1973 what some computer thing would look like in 2023. Even the people at SRI and Xerox PARC would have been seriously off the mark (though probably closer than anyone else). - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

October 01[edit]