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/2023/02.

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 Slight issue with template acting up in image caption 0 0
2 Dezoomify images from REALonline 5 3 Marsupium 2023-02-04 17:14
3 Cat for intentional photos of half faces? 4 2 El Grafo 2023-02-06 10:16
4 What is this? 4 2 Smiley.toerist 2023-02-07 21:55
5 Voting on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct is closed 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2023-02-02 19:17
6 Cultural template help 1 1 No Swan So Fine 2023-02-03 04:46
7 PDF cut and paste text 2 2 C.Suthorn 2023-02-04 09:10
8 Category pages that look like quasi-Wikipedia articles 17 7 Chris.sherlock2 2023-02-07 13:29
9 ANN's images 4 4 El Grafo 2023-02-06 10:47
10 Category deletion request 2 2 Koavf 2023-02-05 22:49
11 Garbage in Metadata 3 3 Yann 2023-02-06 13:09
12 again 2 1 Túrelio 2023-02-08 08:21
13 Feedback on technical design of Information-like templates 1 1 TheDJ 2023-02-06 13:48
14 Can portrait images in articles use AI generated avatars from a series of photographic references? 6 5 King of Hearts 2023-02-09 01:29
15 Image stored fragmented 5 4 Pigsonthewing 2023-02-06 22:22
16 ceratosaurs naricorns 1 1 Jmabel 2023-02-06 18:48
17 Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE 1 1 Lemonaka 2023-02-06 19:57
18 New details about the Private Incident Reporting System 1 1 Tuvalkin 2023-02-08 08:47
19 Categorising gallery page for Mohandas K. Gandhi in Category:Gallery pages of criminals 8 6 Jmabel 2023-02-07 21:01
20 Wanted: server kitty - deletion-process partly broken 3 3 Chris.sherlock2 2023-02-07 13:26
21 Categorization of media representing country names 3 2 Tuvalkin 2023-02-08 08:44
22 Calidore and Pastorella 2 2 HyperGaruda 2023-02-08 20:35
23 Not all of us contribute to commons 2 2 From Hill To Shore 2023-02-08 17:44
24 File:Articulo Meson.png 1 1 Monster Iestyn 2023-02-09 05:01
  • 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.
Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [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.

January 07[edit]

Slight issue with template acting up in image caption[edit]

See this discussion on the file page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noliscient (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 01[edit]

Dezoomify images from REALonline[edit]

Hi everyone, do you have advice to get the full resolution of images that are hidden behind a canvas element from REALonline, for example at I've tried some tools from Help:Zoomable images and couldn't succeed yet. (PS: For now I've uploaded a screenshot in low resolution at File:Vision of St. Anthony - Saint Anthony Altar - Church of St George, Spišská Sobota.png.) Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 10:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC), 15:37, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done - shame about the watermark, imareal don't actually own rights to a 700 year old image.. Stemoc 18:51, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
About the watermarks: The image is PNG (lossless) and the watermark is a mono-color text, repeated without variation and inserted by adding the color values of the original pixel and the watermark pixel. It should be possible to undo that by substracting the color value of the watermark. Probably there is a software that can semi-automate this? C.Suthorn (talk) 19:03, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
could do it myself if it was any other image using cloning method but this image is a historical art so might end up with little blotches so won't take the risk Stemoc 19:35, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, thanks a lot and sorry for the late reply! How did you get the image? The website has photos of other parts of the same altarpiece as well that I'd like to upload and apart from that it would be useful for the future to know how to get images from that site and others. Thanks a lot in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cat for intentional photos of half faces?[edit]

Half face portrait of a mysterious woman with a mask.jpg

this composition is quite common in photos and paintings. is there a cat for these?--RZuo (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"intentional" as being the photographer's intention, instead of commons users' cropping.--RZuo (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then there's also combining two faces like the poster of The Ides of March (2011 film).--RZuo (talk) 12:25, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo also related: File:Tingling_(4055018578).jpg and File:The American Museum journal (c1900-(1918)) (17537515404).jpg, both in Category:Fraction 1/2. El Grafo (talk) 10:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 02[edit]

What is this?[edit]

Sigmaringen station 1998 2.jpg

I suspect these are connectors for train heating, but I'm not sure. Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is a Category:Steam heated trains, but little else I coud find about the steam heating of trains.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The image description at de:Dampfheizung (Eisenbahn) calls this a Dampfheizungskupplung, so a steam heating hitch / coupler / coupling / connector. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In use?
I created Category:Steam heating coupling and added wikidata:Q116726316 in Wikidata. Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Voting on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct is closed[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

The vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now closed. The results will now be counted and scrutinized to ensure that only eligible votes are included. Results will be published on Meta and other movement forums as soon as they become available, as well as information on future steps. Thank you to all who participated in the voting process, and who have contributed to the drafting of Guidelines.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 03[edit]

Cultural template help[edit]

Could someone please help me create a template for the South Australian Heritage Register? Similar to the Template:Cultural Heritage Australia. I'm really not so technically minded. Many thanks! No Swan So Fine (talk) 04:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF cut and paste text[edit]

The Library of Congress newspaper archive stores scans as a pdf and has incorporated mapped text. I know I can get that when I store a word document as a pdf, how is done with a scan? I don't use Adobe software, so it is a function when you use Adobe software? Is there other software that will create a pdf and do OCR, and map the OCR to the text for free? See a typical page for the LOC here: --RAN (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PDF is by Adobe, but it is a free format. Free OCR software is often based on Tesseract. So any free OCR software that offers PDF output is likely to have (at least the option to) output of PDFs with an image of the OCRed text with the OCRed text mapped to it. C.Suthorn (talk) 09:10, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 05[edit]

Category pages that look like quasi-Wikipedia articles[edit]

I'm not very familiar with how category pages work on Commons. One of the bullet points in COM:CAT#Creating a new category states A short description text that explains what should be in the category, if the title is not clear or unambiguous enough on its own. is acceptable, but I'm wondering about a category like Category:Midway Theater, Allentown, Pennsylvania which seems to be an attempt to create a quasi-Wikipedia article on Commons. The content on that category page seems, in my opinion, to go beyond what would be considered a "short-description" and basically seems to be someone's own original research. I don't know about the licensing of all of files populating the category, but most if not all of them seem to be licensed as {{PD-US-no notice}}. The files include newspaper advertisements and newspaper articles about the theater, these all appear to be cut-outs or clippings and there's no way of knowing whether they were covered under the copyright of the entire paper. None of the files seems to be used in any Wikipedia articles, which is another reason why I think the category page was created to be a de-facto article so to speak. My understanding is that print advertisements were required to have separate visible copyright notifications on a per ad basis, but newspaper articles (text and photos) were not required to do so and instead were covered by the copyright notice for the entire newspaper as whole. If my understanding is incorrect, then perhaps the files are OK as licensed; however, I'm not sure about the stub-like article content at the top of the page and hoping others can clarify whether it's OK for Commons. -- Marchjuly (talk) 02:50, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Putting aside the whole copyright question and whatnot, I'll usually either shorten long descriptions to a few sentences or just delete it whole cloth depending on if it's clearly OR or not since this isn't Wikipedia. Especially if the information is only tangentially related to the category. That said, I don't think it necessarily hurts to have a basic description if it helps people understand better what the images are about. Even in cases where it's not referenced (at least if it's uncontroversial). Like if it's a category for a historic building that burned down and was rebuilt several times, cool. Have a short description about it since the information provides context for the images. Three huge paragraphs going into mostly pointless historical minutia is clearly overkill though. There's no reason that stuff can't just be added to Wikidata or the descriptions for the individual files. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The description is a bit much; if it were sourced, I'd suggest turning it into a Wikipedia article, but without that, we can't. @Atwngirl: this is basically your work. I assume you had sources. Could you consider adding appropriate citation and moving the bulk of this to en-wiki? I assume some of this can be cited from exactly the newspaper stories that are among the uploaded clippings.
Also, Atwngirl: the uploads are at least mostly yours (I didn't go through them all). U.S. newspaper content from 1936 can very well still be copyrighted until 2031 (etc. for later dates). The ads are probably good, lacking copyright notices of their own, but of course clippings of individual articles don't have "copyright markings". There is usually a single copyright notice for an entire daily newspaper. Certainly the newspaper would have been copyrighted. We'd need a specific reason to believe that copyright was not renewed. Do you have a basis for that? You appear to know what newspaper they were from. If you need some assistance if figuring that out (I'd like to keep these if we can), you can probably get that at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but please in the future sort out that sort of thing before uploading. You presumably don't want to go through this amount of effort just to have your work deleted as copyright violations. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The paper is The Morning Call of Allentown, Pennsylvania, which did not renew any copyrights. I think the history is good, since we do not have an article. It provides search terms for someone looking for images. If it was on Wikipedia, we would just need the lede, the first few sentences, from a Wikipedia article. --RAN (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Personally I'd be all for it if the length was chopped down to one reasonably sized paragraph like in Jmabel's example. It's way to long as it is though. People shouldn't have to scroll through almost half a page before they get to the actual images. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Atwngirl has been around a long time and more or less single-mindedly has been contributing memorabilia related to Allentown, PA. She is either an enthusiastic private historian of the town, or more likely has some official connection to a historical society, library, or museum in that town with privileged access to many of these items. I have not seen any declaration to that effect, but it would be nice to know the background here, because considering the extensive history of that one building in question, there may be much more where that came from. Elizium23 (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is interesting to me because many of the photos of the South West Sydney that I’m taking are significant for their area, but may not be significant enough to entail an article in Wikipedia. However, I have found quite a lot of information on the subject of the photo. I would like to add detailed information, but I’m wondering if I might need to create a seperate resource off-wiki using a CC license as this sort of data won’t be allowed here?
I’d love some clarification in this. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Chris.sherlock2: I wonder if Wikispore could be useful for this sort of project? I certainly think that more small wikis would be a good thing! :-) (I've got an idea for a local wiki at ). — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 09:19, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wonder if a local history spore might be worthwhile? Lots of local history just cannot get onto, but is still very important. It would still need to ensure that NOR and citations are used, but it would be pretty interesting! I know many local historians would likely love it. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just as an example of what I think is entirely within reason for a category about a building: Category:1012 First Avenue, Seattle. A lot of what is here is name changes, when stories were added, what was in the building, when the facade changed, all of which are likely to be useful in categorizing photos, including whether they refer to this building. guess we could have a proper en-wiki for this building, because it has Seattle Landmark status (so we'd have the notability), but what is here would still be pretty stubby for Wikipedia, and it doesn't seem likely that a non-stub about this will be written, at least in the foreseeable future. - Jmabel ! talk 04:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I appreciate all of the responses my OP has received so far. Category:Melody Circle, Allentown, Pennsylvania is a similar page to the one about the Midway Theater that was also created by the same user. Again, a few sentences or even a short paragraph would seem to be OK as an introduction to the images found on the page, but these two category pages (there might be more) do, at least in my opinion, go beyond that and seem to be more of an attempt to create an English Wikipedia article about these buildings on Commons, without necessarily having to deal with all of the policies and guidelines of English Wikipedia. If the content can be reliably sourced per en:WP:NOR or if the buildings are English Wikipedia notable in their own right per en:WP:NBUILDING, then there's probably a way to incorporate all or some of this content into a newly created or already existing English Wikipedia articles. I'm not sure, however, it's such a great idea to allow it on Commons just because no such articles about these buildings may currently exist. I don't think Commons was ever intended to be a en:WP:ALTERNATIVEOUTLET for English Wikipedia as a place for others to what might be considered their own "original research". If these category pages are the result of efforts on behalf of a local historical society or similar group, then perhaps the content would be best hosted on said group's own website or own wiki-site than Commons if it's not appropriate for English Wikipedia. — Marchjuly (talk) 15:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I mean, at the very least it's not in a discoverable place. Who among us, seeking encyclopedic information on an item, visits its category page on Commons? Furthermore, the polyglot nature of Commons militates against it becoming an alternate enwiki repository of this stuff. Elizium23 (talk) 15:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't necessarily disagree with any of that, but at the same time this does seem to be sort of related to COM:PS#Excluded educational content, at least it seems that way to me. Would similar text content be allowed, for example, on a Commons user page per COM:PSP? I get that Commons isn't English Wikipedia and thus the latter's policies and guidelines don't apply per COM:NOTWP; however, it doesn't seem as if Commons should be the place for posting or hosting an individual's or group's original research per COM:NOT#Wikimedia Commons is not an encyclopedia, dictionary, guide, or book. — Marchjuly (talk) 17:42, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd put the information in Category:Cinemas in Allentown, Pennsylvania in the same category. It's useful and interesting sure, but still better served by cited somewhere else. For instance Wikidata. I'm not sure most of those cinemas would qualify for individual Wikipedia articles, but that's the kicks sometimes. That said, I'm pretty sure the bar for inclusion is a lot lower for articles about geographical locations then other subjects. So I don't see why it couldn't be included in [1]. It looks like there's already a lot of overly detailed, unreferenced material in the article already. So really what's the difference at this point? There's no reason Atwngirl can't cut the article back and include whatever she wants to there instead of putting it on Commons where no one is going to see it. BTW, it looks like she hasn't even edited the article before and it's been edited thousands of times by a single user in the meantime, which is interesting. Either way, the article could definitely use more people editing it and a more diverse range of information about Allentown. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Betzs Restaurant, Category:Allentown Trust Company and Category:Cigar Manufacturing and Marketing in Allentown, Pennsylvania are yet some other examples of this. This user has created more than a thousand new category pages since 2016. Many seem like a typical Commons category page that has mainly files and very little if any textual content. Others start out that way but then textual content is subsequently added to them through “minor” edits until they start looking like articles with image galleries. Whatever the reason for creating them, a pattern has been established and more of these category pages will probably be created in the future. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe we've indicated enough of a consensus that this stuff is (1) OR and (2) out of scope for Commons, so shall we officially discourage this user from continuing? It's been 3 days since her last edit, so I assume she's on a bit of a break and hasn't had opportunity to notice, or participate in, our discussion here. Elizium23 (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could just be busy and haven’t logged in recently. I’ve added a {{Please see}} to their user talk page (I should’ve done that sooner and my apologies for not doing so) to let them know about this discussion. — Marchjuly (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ANN's images[edit]

Dear colleagues,

we in Wikimedia RU are currently starting to preliminary discuss an opportunity of a contest which, among other nominations, may contain images generated by artificial neural nets or other similar technologies.

Evidently the images should be within the COM:SCOPE. But what other precautions would you advise? Or could you share any other ideas related to the images of this kind? Thanks! Dr Bug (Vladimir V. Medeyko) 18:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. There have been a lot of discussions lately about whether images created by AI are likely to accidentally infringe copyrights. After all, they only know what they've ingested from other works.
  2. There seems to be a consensus that when any sort of AI is used, the specific AI should be identified as clearly as possible, as should whatever prompts it was given. - Jmabel ! talk 20:03, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A recent article on TechSpot about AI-generated images: Researchers discover AI models generate photos of real people and copyrighted images. --Túrelio (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Commons:AI generated media (still in development). It might be a good idea to at least leave a not on the associated discussion page. El Grafo (talk) 10:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category deletion request[edit]

I started a category with a misspelt name; can be deleted:

Category:Dominic Daly

There is a category which is correctly spelt and should not be deleted:

Category:Dominick Daly

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 21:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There is no Category:Dominic_Daly. Odd. I've marked it for deletion now. —Justin (koavf)TCM 22:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 06[edit]

Garbage in Metadata[edit]

File:Trainatschipholairportstation.jpg There seems to a lot of garbage in the metadata. I dont know wat went wrong in the extract script.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems there are 7029 bytes in the EXIF tag UserComment. According to the EXIF this should be ASCII text, but it seems there is just random bytes there (at least I haven't been able to discern a pattern). Some other software apparently shortens this representation because of 00 bytes, but according to the specification, 00 bytes are not supposed to be string terminators in this specific field, so our implementation is technically more correct. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 10:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done I removed the garbage with Gimp. Yann (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


File:Rana Kazkaz.jpg - since November 2020 undetected on Commons, despite a fat "Getty Images"-watermark in the center. :-( --Túrelio (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Milu.jpeg - another Getty-Images-image[2] undetected on Commons since 12 years! --Túrelio (talk) 08:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feedback on technical design of Information-like templates[edit]

I recently made some changes to template information, with the promise to keep working on that project and get the sibling templates sorted out as well. In the proces of looking into this, I discovered several consistency problems that should be dealt with and I've made a proposal and listed some suggestions at Module talk:Information. Your feedback is welcome, as I want to make sure we arrive at a proper solution that will last for a while. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can portrait images in articles use AI generated avatars from a series of photographic references?[edit]

AI Avatar generators can create images using a collection of real photographs. If they look nothing like the real one, but manage to illustrate well the person portrayed, can these be used to illustrate articles, having the person who gave AI command to generate the image as the author? Guilherme Altmayer (talk) 17:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guilherme Altmayer (talk • contribs) 17:18, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Seems to me that the only way they would do that is by being derivative work, deriving from multiple photos. The fact that we can't trace the exact chain doesn't make them any less derivative. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If a human artist views photographs or videos of a subject/model, and then sits in his studio and paints/draws a representation of that subject, that would be perfectly permissible to use the artist's work to illustrate the subject's article. Is this still a derivative work of the photographs and videos which were viewed by that artist? Now let's do music. Elizium23 (talk) 18:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, no, not in general. They are likely to get away with it, because it's hard to prove, but for just this reason we don't usually allow someone to hand-draw a picture of a living person based on photographs/videos and then upload their drawing to Commons to illustrate an article about that person. For example, this drawing I did of S.J. Perelman probably would not be acceptable on Commons. I considered it OK for my site because, like most people on the Internet, my personal standards for that are lower than Commons'. But I can't see why we would treat AI more leniently than human artists. - Jmabel ! talk 22:21, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    If you can't trace the chain, there is no actionable incident of copyright infringement (whether you're dealing with humans or AIs). Nosferattus (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Actually, in the human case, we do allow and have allowed the practice; Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/07#Illustrating known people? has some examples. COM:TOO is essentially about information theory: is there enough entropy generated through original human creativity to cross the threshold? As an extreme example, if I extracted one word from each of 100 novels and assembled it into a 100-word sentence, I would be the sole copyright holder of that sentence. (And if I did so randomly or algorithmically, then no one would be the copyright holder of that sentence.) -- King of ♥ 01:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image stored fragmented[edit]

See: If I use save_as, I get a fragment. When I inspect the image, I can see it is stored as over 100 rectangles, each a portion of the image, plus one thumbnail of the entire image. Do archives store this way to prevent downloading, or to speed loading in your cache? Is there a way to download the entire image at full size and full resolution? RAN (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Probably both to prevent downloading and to speed loading. I've used this technique in systems where we also had a clean download option. It had some real advantages for speeding loading back when most people didn't have high-speed Internet, less important for that now. But certainly the decision not to offer a full-res download has to be conscious. I know we have some tools that can usually get around this sort of thing, but I haven't used them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Some archives are still hoping to monetize their collections, while more progressive ones load their entire archives to Flickr Commons, and rely on more modern techniques in raising money. A decade ago, I had a university archive charge me $20 just to send me a photocopy, not even a scan, of an image that my own family had sent to the archive three decades earlier. --RAN (talk) 19:09, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Maybe User:Fæ/dezoomify can help. -- Herbert Ortner (talk) 19:35, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ceratosaurs naricorns[edit]

I have a couple of Questions that may be answerable —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • that may be answerable: especially if you actually ask them. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Global ban for PlanespotterA320/RespectCE[edit]

Per the Global bans policy, I’m informing the project of this request for comment: m:Requests for comment/Global ban for PlanespotterA320 (2) --Lemonaka (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New details about the Private Incident Reporting System[edit]

Please help translate to your language


We have an update about the Private Incident Reporting System (PIRS) development.

We have created an FAQ on the project page to help answer your questions. Please check it, and give feedback, or ask additional questions if you have more.

Best regards, Trust & Safety Tools team.

20:51, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@Quiddity (WMF): Please sign your posts. -- Tuválkin 08:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 07[edit]

Categorising gallery page for Mohandas K. Gandhi in Category:Gallery pages of criminals[edit]

Like many public historical figures, especially ones of protest, both good and bad, sympathetic and unsympathetic, Gandhi spent time in prison. Gandhi was imprisoned repeatedly in the context of his opposition to the unjust regime prevailing at the time. Historical hindsight justified Gandhi. However he was tried, convicted and imprisoned (and not later pardoned afaik). There is material here from the 1930s, here, here also from the 1930s and here from the 1920s. Online, a list is here and confirmed in sources in NYT, Time, The Guardian and National Geographic. Categorising the gallery page of Gandhi in gallery pages of criminals has been reverted on the grounds of Gandhian philosophy and I have received a block for reverting the revert. Can Gandhi be re-added or should criminals be defined differently than those convicted of a crime?--Darrelljon (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, "Criminal" has a very negative connotation which is not needed here. A category "Gandhi in prison/jail" is factual and might be OK. Yann (talk) 08:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In my opinion Yann is right: not everybody, who has been imprisoned, is a criminal.
Holy cow! That is some extraordinary bias and POV talking right there. Yes, it seems unfortunate that "criminal" is a term with a negative connotation, but since when did the Court of Wikimedia Opinion outrank sovereign states' ability to govern and discipline their citizens? A person convicted of crimes is known as a criminal. Nelson Mandela was a criminal. Jesus Christ was a criminal. Moses was a criminal. Bonnie and Clyde were criminals.
I ask, pray tell, where is our list of convicted non-criminals? What are our criteria for exempting properly-documented criminals from being listed as such? What is our policy on sourcing that excludes ones which are unfavorable to anyone who may be a personal hero of administrators? Elizium23 (talk) 12:41, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So also Martin Luther King, John Brown, Charles I of England, Louis XVI of France (and Marie Antoinette), Lula da Silva, etc.? Oh, and Nathan Hale? Seems pretty silly to me. Conversely, not Hitler because he was dead so didn't have a trial for his obvious crimes? Technically true if "criminal" just means everyone who has been convicted, but terribly misleading. - Jmabel ! talk 16:27, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Oops, I forgot the Munich Beer Hall Putsch, so Hitler is in on a technicality. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems we need to use more neutral language, avoiding "criminal", "terrorist" and the like as such. Perhaps convoluted category names such as "people convicted for claimed crimes" must be used, but I hope there is some more elegant solution. Just removing certain "good" individuals can never be consistent and would lead to edit wars on persons like Lula da Silva. –LPfi (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wanted: server kitty - deletion-process partly broken[edit]

Could a „server kitty“ reboot or take a look at WMF’s Commons-servers? Since Saturday approximately every 10th file-deletion, which I try to execute, is not performed, instead I get error-messages in red writing:

  • Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: In der Datenbank „local-swift-codfw“ ist ein unbekannter Fehler aufgetreten. (most frequently)

But also:

  • Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Die Datei „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-public/d/d4/Juruks_Macedonia_7.jpg“ befindet sich, innerhalb des internen Datenbanksystems, in einem inkonsistenten Zustand.
  • Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Das Verzeichnis „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/p/3/0“ konnte nicht angelegt werden.
  • Fehler bei Datei-Löschung: Das Verzeichnis „mwstore://local-multiwrite/local-deleted/8/f/8“ konnte nicht angelegt werden.

Also, when using our default-script to delete file-duplicates, I get the following error-message:

  • API request failed (backend-fail-internal): An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-codfw". at Tue, 07 Feb 2023 10:31:16 GMT served by mw1425

When I repeat the deletion after such an error-halt, it is always executed properly. So, the cause of this phenomenon is obviously not with the file itself. ‒Túrelio (talk) 10:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, I also get a lot of errors. I reported some. See phab:T328872 and phab:T328914. Yann (talk) 12:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don’t know if this is related, but I’ve been having backend issues storing text that goes along with images I’m uploading. Same error! Super frustrating, especially when I upload 20-40 images at once. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization of media representing country names[edit]

Media representing country names are trivially categorized, directly or indirectly, under the relevant country categry, usually under Category:Symbols of Country. This is now being questioned at Category talk:Rendered name of Albania, and a consensus is sought. -- Tuválkin 22:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Well there's {{Vertical header}}, so as far as I can tell, much of "Rendered name of [country]" can be replaced and deleted.
More on-topic: I agree that "Rendered name of [country]" is consistently in "Symbols of [country]" for most countries, and that seems fine to me.
I don't see any "[...] of Albania" category that would be a better parent. TilmannR (talk) 22:58, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Aside note: I totally agree with you concerning {{Vertical header}}, too, and I think that rendered texts as a way to equip Wikipedia with legible text to make up for technical defficiencies in representing specific typesetting issues (script coverage, complex rendering, etc.) should be a thing of the past. These images were created and uploaded to Commons to fulfil a need (either actual or due to someone’s lack of tech skills), and some have been meanwhile replaced with {{Vertical header}}, I suspect. Should the ones that are unused be deleted? Maybe, but that would be a matter for a separate discussion.
Maeanwhile, however, these images are hosted in Commons and we should have a scheme to categorize them. And of course this is about Category:Rendered name of Country, where, for some values of "Country", we have an interesting palette of typographic and calligraphic variety, not just about Category:Vertically rendered name of Country, which doesn’t exist and is unnecessary.
(I would also like to point out that there is a general Category:Symbols of countries, and among its subcats we can find Category:National symbols — which may be the kind of “official” stuff this user apparently cannot think outside of.)
-- Tuválkin 08:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tangentially related, but since you acted super defensive about it, what exactly is the point in or meaning of the word "rendered" in categories like? --Adamant1 (talk) 06:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 08[edit]

Calidore and Pastorella[edit]

Hi. Would anyone here be able to find an original scan of this picture (the original source is a book published in 1909) and upload it to Commons? Thanks. ~ DanielTom (talk) 09:20, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That could be quite a challenge, but not impossible. The artist in question died in 1952 and so, as a UK citizen, her works entered the public domain only this year. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:35, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not all of us contribute to commons[edit]

This board is very busy, so I am just wondering if there is a better board for those of us who only visit here as consumers, not contributors?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 17:11, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ottawahitech: The discussion areas are divided by topic rather than status of the user. What sort of topics are you wanting to raise? That will dictate the best place for you to comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:44, 8 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

February 09[edit]

File:Articulo Meson.png[edit]

Hi, I am unsure what action to take regarding the image file File:Articulo Meson.png. I believe it should be deleted, but I am new to Commons' deletion process and I couldn't figure out if any reason for deletion at COM:D applies here (I have never had to do this before on this wiki). If it helps, I'll explain why I believe it should be deleted.

I first came across it while recategorising images in Category:Unidentified Coleoptera about a month ago, and was puzzled as it didn't appear to belong here. Translating the Spanish-language text in Google Translate confirms that it has nothing to do with Coleoptera (scientific name for beetles) whatsoever, but instead is about a village in Colombia. Digging into the history and usage of the file, it appears it was first uploaded by user Lorenapuentesca (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) in January 2016, and the image is used only by their user page on Spanish Wikipedia. This user also was the original one who erroneously added the file to Category:Coleoptera (in 2019 it was moved to Category:Unidentified Coleoptera and Category:Valued images of Coleoptera (what, why???!!) instead). According to the user page's logs, this same userpage was deleted by admins twice before its current version: deletion reason messages seem show that it had the same text content as the image as far as I can tell.

So, it appears this image may purely exist for the purposes of this user's user page, and this user hasn't made any edits on any Wikimedia wiki since uploading the image and creating the user page 7 years ago. Back to reasons to delete, would this fall under COM:NOTHOST, or COM:ADVERT? Or something else? Or is the image fine to have on Commons in the end and I should leave it be? Monster Iestyn (talk) 05:01, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can you upload a file to Commons after the author has changed the license?[edit]

All of the images in this album on Flickr used to be licensed under CC BY 2.0, which is apparent by clicking on a photo, going to the bottom, and clicking "License History". Since, these images' licenses have been changed to CC BY-NC 2.0. Since CC licenses are irrevocable, is it okay to upload these files to Commons? (please ping) – Pbrks (t • c) 06:21, 9 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]