Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/07

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


The site appearing as the source of various autographs and illustrations is given as but links now lead to which appears to be a gambling site. Mcljlm (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could we blacklist that along with   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The last stable URL in Internet Archive appears to be July 2012, after which it briefly turned into a Turkish website before redirecting to a domain registration site and finally becoming the Indonesian gambling site of today. What a trip! If current dead/hijacked links can be archived, that would be ideal. --Animalparty (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Updated UAE law

The UAE copyright law was recently updated last year, coming into force in January this year. The 2003 law is now repealed. Impacted page is COM:CRT/United Arab Emirates.

but I'll not prolong Wikimedian photographers' expectations: no freedom of panorama still in UAE even in the new law. They just changed "broadcasting programmes" to "broadcasts."

The link: (found on the "notes" of the WIPO lex entry of the law that only contains the Arabic edition). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is out!

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

Hi, Greetings

The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is announced!

We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition. This year saw over 8,584 images represented on commons in over 92 countries. Kindly see images here

Our profound gratitude to all the people who participated and organized local contests and photo walks for this project.

We hope to have you contribute to the campaign next year.

Thank you,

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Repository of 400k pictures under CC-BY, mostly from underrepresented countries

MV Likoni, uploaded via Crowdsource, and best picture of this ship we have so far
We had "Textile Mills in ..." categories for most US states, but zero picture for Pakistan, the 4th largest textile producer in the world

Hi all,

Here is a repository of 400k pictures under CC-BY:


  • Mostly from Africa and other underrepresented regions. These are the regions from where Commons and the Wikipedias need pictures the most.
  • All pictures are recent.
  • More than 30% of the pictures are of good photographic quality.
  • A good 5% of the pictures show something that has a Wikipedia article but no Commons picture yet.


  • No geolocation nor description. This limits us to pictures where the subject can be identified, for instance ships/military/devices/streets/signs/etc.
  • Labels are unreliable.
  • No date. You only know that all pics were uploaded between 2016 and now, so please mention that in the description.

Please use the search bar to find relevant pictures, flex your detective skills and Google Street View to identify the place with 100% certainty, and upload them where they fit :-)

Pictures imported from the Crowdsource app dataset so far: Category:Contributed via Google Crowdsource app

Thanks! Syced (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Great! As for date: {{other date|between|2016|2022}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Another "con": all faces are covered in Gaussian blurs. While this is sometimes desirable, it's super-inconvenient in terms of any picture of a particular person. - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • If you click on the source link to check if the license fits, you are suggested to log in on Google. I don't think this is a proper way to go: source page and license should be visible to everyone, not just to those who happen to have a Google account and bother to login. Therefore, the pictures should be deleted due to licensing issues, and not uploaded from this source anymore. Regards --A.Savin 07:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @A.Savin: I disagree. We allow uploads of pictures scanned from books that not everyone can access, and a picture from a Web site that only some people can access is similar. COM:EVID doesn't have any requirement for a lack of paywall or similar. It might be a good idea to put these pictures through Commons:License review, though, so that one licence reviewer with a Google account can confirm the licence for everyone else. --bjh21 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Syced another con: much of the public space in Pakistan is ok here because of {{FoP-Pakistan}}. For Africa, unfortunately, the number of countries with suitable freedom of panorama can only be counted by one's hands: Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritania, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. For other countries, perhaps only sceneries, nature, flora and fauna, very old / ancient buildings, ordinary houses or structures with no artistic touches, and cityscapes (where individual architectures are de minimis) are OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Is it really a con of the dataset itself? :-) It is true that a lot of the pictures are from Africa, but most seem to not be pictures of buildings, see for instance Thanks for the reminder! Syced (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Syced: you're welcome. And, take note of some concerns opened by other editors above my message. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Can we not get a bot to import all these images, and put them into a holding category for review? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • @Pigsonthewing: While there is plenty good here, the majority are not worth having and (by my quick estimate) well over 10% will involve copyvios because of what they portray. So I'd be really hesitant to bring them all into Commons on a fully automated basis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • After browsing a few hundreds pictures (and importing 26 of them), I agree with Jmabel's estimation numbers. A bot would have to be really smart to identify whether the picture should be imported or not without any human help. Browsing 400k pictures manually is not realistic either, so maybe something semi-automatic could work, for instance pre-selection then import using the right settings? It is a lot of work, but the opportunity to amend our geographical bias is hard to ignore. A link and explanation with sufficient warnings at Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography#General_collections could be a good start. Syced (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it allowed to re-nominate photos as a quality image?

For a few years now, I have nominated several of my photographs to be Quality Images. Some 121 received the affirmative vote, and a few did not pass the filter, some because they were not centered (it was fixed by cropping them) or they needed a perspective correction.

These days I am learning to handle the Gimp, and I wonder if it is possible to nominate these photos again, in case I make the pertinent modifications that, due to my ignorance, then I did not know how to do. --Drow male (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Drow male: Probably better to ask at Commons talk:Quality images. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, thank you. Drow male (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fair use and Commons

Why is it impossible to upload fair-use files on Commons? If I correctly understand, Commons was created to simplify usage of the same file in multiple Wikipedia projects, but It’s need for fair-use files too. 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Because only some marginalized areas (the state between Canada and Mexico for example) allow fair use and only very few wikipedias (en for example) have a rationale for use of fair use. And: For each case that you actually use an image under the fair use rationale you have to write an individual text explaining the rationale for the specific use of the specific image. That does rule out reuse and therefore it does make no sense to lobby for fair use in commons. It is not simple and it cannot be simple. C.Suthorn (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also COM:FAIR and the WikiMedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But there's more to it than that. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. The intent is to host content that can freely be reused. Inherently, material used on a "fair use" basis cannot be freely reused. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crop tool

It's obvious from several recent, and unresolved, posts on Commons talk:CropTool that the near-essential Crop Tool is badly broken. Can someone fix it (perhaps by rolling back changes), or should it be disabled and links to it removed from other pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

maybe only remove it from tif-file-description-pages. jpeg works mostly. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's failing on jpegs for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vinayaraj user categories

Vinayaraj has kindly shared a great number of images with commons, and has categorized them in his own user categories, which is also great. Unfortunately, however, he named these user categories by simply adding "Vinayaraj" to the end of them, which is frequently confusing since many of these categories are latin names for plants and animals. These were nominated for discussion by Charlesjsharp and then Vinayaraj asked me to rename them all to "by Vinayaraj" for clarity. I deleted the first one, but I didn't realize just how many there were. Can anyone help do this mass renaming with a bot? Thanks! -- Themightyquill (talk) Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speedy deletion script/tool/gadget

Like in en WP, where there are Twinkle, Ultraviolet, and RedWarn among others which provide for one-click speedy deletion nomination, are there any such things here on Commons? I couldn’t find any such thing on preferences. MxYamato (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MxYamato: "Quick Delete" under preferences/ Gadgets - but I see you use an iPad, and that may not be available on mobile, only desktop, view. See Help:QuickDelete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help nominating personal photos for speedy deletion

A user, @Ambika kushwaha simraungadh has posted a good deal of personal photos, som explicitly labelled as “Ambika fb” (fb for Facebook I guess). See this. Can someone please help me nominating them under CSD F10, and notifying the user on their talk page. I’m a little new to Commons and couldn’t find a tool/script like Twinkle or Ultraviolet over here. Thank you. MxYamato (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MxYamato: In general, I find the best tool for this is VisualFileChange. Takes a little learning, but if you are going to do this sort of thing it's worth it.
However, in this case this user has all of seven uploads. Surely that is not too much to do by hand. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, thank you. He has seven, yes, but I use an iPad and its keyboard has a small trackpad. My wrist pains. MxYamato (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MxYamato: Hi, and welcome. Reporting of a copyright violation here is with {{Copyvio}} is generally accompanied by a post of a notification to the user talk page of the uploader using {{Copyvionote}}. Alternatively to using those manually, you can click the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, under the "tools" section, which does all of the work for you. Please do one of those. If you don't see the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, you can use the JavaScript method of enabling AjaxQuickDelete on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets once and then refresh once (to see my extra buttons, search User:Jeff G./common.js for "window.AjaxDeleteExtraButtons"). TwinkleGlobal has some rudimentary function here (search m:User:Jeff G./global.js for Xiplus to see my implementation). To notify users, use the User Messages gadget. See also COM:TOOLS.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, @Jeff G. for the information. However, the issue at hand is related to personal photos posted users who have no constructive contributions, and their deletion per CSD F10. Your provided info is useful to me still, thanks. MxYamato (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MxYamato: I use my 'Speedy F10' button for that.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nice, trying to put those things on my script file now. MxYamato (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Abuse filter overwriting artwork

Is there any easy way around this? I don't upload over originals, but it's not uncommon for me to be doing a restoration, someone changes the information template to an artwork (or the original I've created a copy of used it already), and then, if the files are greater than 100MB, I can't use the chunked upload script (because of the abuse filter), and I can't use the regular upload (because greater than 100MB, and simply removing the Artwork template doesn't seem to remove them from the filter. If it helps, File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.png is the file in question in this case.

I think someone presumed Artwork = painting, which would be fine if people didn't keep slapping it on every lithograph, poster, photograph and illustration they could find. Honestly, I kind of dislike the template for several reasons (its fields don't fit well with a lot of use cases people try to force it onto) but I can live with the rest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: You just need to include the word "overwrite" or "overwriting" in your edit summary. -- King of ♥ 18:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Really? Well, that's useful knowledge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unfortunately that abuse rule is in place to prevent people from overwriting artworks when they shouldn't be doing that. It's only a warning so you can choose to ignore it, but I can understand it's a bit annoying to have to upload a 100 MB file again. I looked into adding an exception if the same user is adding a new version, but I'm not sure if that is possible in the abusefilter. Multichill (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Italian law change may impact images of cultural heritage subjects

"Reusing images of Italian cultural heritage from Wikimedia Commons will become more difficult".

"According to the new Italian National Plan for the Digitization of Cultural Heritage (Piano Nazionale di Digitalizzazione, PND) images can be published on the Wikimedia projects, but to reuse them for commercial purposes you need to ask for permission and pay a fee."

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are non-copyright restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I disagree. Commons should only host media that can be re-used, even commercially, for free. The above proposed restriction clearly prohibits free commercial re-use. -M.nelson (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@M.nelson: So are you saying we should not host trademarked but uncopyrightable logos? You're welcome to propose that, but I can tell you pretty confidently that you'll be voted down. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: If trademarks prevented all commercial re-use, I would agree. But I believe trademark infringement only applies to "mis-using" the trademark (for example re-using it in a way that misleads a consumer or implies sponsorship), and therefore there are legitimate ways to re-use trademarked content. -M.nelson (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It may be a form of COM:Non-copyright restrictions, but the dictates of the upcoming Italian law already do not conform with the principles of the Definition of Free Cultural Works. There are four such freedoms — "freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it," "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it," "the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression," and "the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works." The under-review law will trample upon the first, third, and fourth freedoms.
As per what is indicated on the Wikimedia blog article, it is the first time this media repository was mentioned. The law mentioned it as: "The download of cultural heritage reproductions published on third-party websites is not under the control of the public entity that holds the assets (e.g., images of cultural heritage assets downloadable from Wikimedia Commons, made “freely” by contributors by their own means for purposes of free expression of thought and creative activity, and thus in the full legitimacy of the Cultural Heritage Code). It remains the responsibility of the cultural institution to charge fees for subsequent commercial uses of reproductions published by third parties." In the original Italian text ([1]):
Il download di riproduzioni di beni culturali pubblicati in siti web di terze parti non è sotto il controllo dell’ente pubblico che ha in consegna i beni (ad es. le immagini di beni culturali scaricabili da Wikimedia Commons, realizzate “liberamente” dai contributori con mezzi propri per fini di libera manifestazione del pensiero e attività creativa, e quindi nella piena legittimità del Codice dei beni culturali). Rimane nelle competenze dell’istituto culturale l’applicazione di corrispettivi per i successivi usi commerciali delle riproduzioni pubblicate da terze parti.
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is a substantial restriction on freedom, but I think we just have to roll with it, if that's the law as passed. It is unreasonable for us not to host copies of ancient works because Greece and Italy want to enact some form of eternal copyright-like protections. Our current copyright rules block uploading some files we potentially could, but we're talking 25-40 years at worst, usually for hundreds of millions of people, not eternal protection of BCE works for laws of one country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes anyway, Wikimedia Italia is doing its best to stop this cultural heritage law from being implemented. From the Wikimedia blog article: Wikimedia Italia sent an open letter to representatives of the Italian government, calling out not to add restrictions on images of cultural heritage in the public domain licensed under an open license on Wikimedia projects. We will keep asking that, to push our country to align to international standards on openness and civil society participation to the conservation of its own heritage. There is already no FOP there, but adding such restriction adds fuel to the no-FOP-in-Italy fire. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If this rules are as strict as I understand from the discussion and quotes here I think they would be in conflict with with European contracts because of restriction of press and research freedom as there is no exception for education, research and reporting. I understand that they want some restrictions for commercial use like there are for pictures of identifiable humans. But with this they would prohibit nearly every publishing and using of photos of old buildings. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

New Sign language videos not displayed properly

Hello all,
Is there a (new) known issue with video display ? Making video files being displayed as audio files ?
We uploaded videos produced by the same programing tool in 2018 and 2022. The early video is displayed properly in Commons / Wikipedia. The later one is displayed as an audio file, but when we open it in a browser ( ), the browser displays it as a video file. When we inspect the html code, the first one is considered by mediawiki a `video`, the second one is considered an `audio`.

Any hint to share ? --Yug (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link: File:LL-Q33302 (fsl)-Yug-chinois.webm. Probably the upload is incomplete. If you download the file from the media-link you provided and compare it to the file you uploaded, you will most likely find, that the uploaded version is some bytes smaller. --C.Suthorn (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yug  ? C.Suthorn (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is this image good for commons?

First image featured at:, they say at the bottom: Articles and photographs published online in the Yomiuri Shimbun are protected by Japanese copyright law and international treaties. It cannot be used by reprinting or sending to the Internet without the consent of the copyright holder such as the Yomiuri Shimbun. © The Yomiuri Shimbun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VScode fanboy (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VScode fanboy Commons canot accept contents that are not free for free culture or unrestricted commercial uses. The statement proves that it is OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK for publication here. Unless you will ask for allowance of commercial license from the copyright holder, via correspondence or email (COM:VRTS method), which may be time-consuming. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternatives to Information, for academic papers?

Is there a template like {{Information}}, or {{Book}}, for academic publications? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload form

The upload form, Special:Upload, is getting longer and longer. I use this very often, and it is getting annoying. Can somebody collapse the extensive introduction and delete the link to the upload wizard which is recently added? I cannot find the source. It is not used by newbies I suppose... Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ellywa: Try MediaWiki:Uploadtext or MediaWiki:Uploadwizard-summary.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ahh, thanks Jeff G.! Ellywa (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ellywa: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 22:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help needed

I posted an image on my user page. It has annotations and therefore This file has annotations appeared. Is there a way to post the image without annotations? Thanks. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sadko: Hi, and welcome. You could reupload it as a new filename without annotations and as a COM:DW, and ignore errors.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jeff; I shall do just that. Which license would fit best? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Sadko: The original CC-BY-SA-2.5 Generic. Or use bjh21's solution below.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can add {{ImageAnnotations|inline=hide}} anywhere on the page to disable annotations for all inline images on the page. See Help:Image-Annotator#Inline display of annotations for more details. --bjh21 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done. Your help is much appreciated. cheers — Sadko (words are wind) 23:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flickr help please

I came across an image on Flickr which I want to add to an article on WP. I see a lot of images here from Flicker but I don't know to go about using the image. What documentation is required? — Ineuw talk 01:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Ineuw: Most images from Flickr are not acceptable on Commons, and you don't indicate what image you are talking about. For a more specific answer, please either link the image page (URL) or say what its license is. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ineuw: Also helpful would be what URL the licensing verbiage links to.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all for the clarification. That's why I asked a general question to begin with, if it's worth the bother: flickr re: Wikipedia Ponevezh article for the article on Wikipedia.
A similar image is already in their gallery, but I thought this would add to the perspective.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ineuw: As you can see at the Flickr page, there is a note on the lower right side: © All rights reserved. So unfortunately we cannot use this file at Commons or Wikipedia. Only Flickr images with a free Creative Commons licence or images without a copyright restriction may be transferred to Commons. For more information on how to find acceptable Flickr files, please see also COM:WHERE. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Ineuw: Generally: Start the Upload Wizard. It has 2 buttons. The second is "import from flickr". The wizard will do all that is needed to import from flickr. A Flickr Review bot will later review the license. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My thanks to all for the info. I never explored why Flickr is given such a prominence, like its own controls on the upload wizard.— Ineuw talk 18:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia to Commons

I seem to remember an experimental one-click tool to migrate images from Wikipedia to Commons without downloading to your hard drive. Do we still have a tool to perform that function? --RAN (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): AFAIK this is now a built-in function. E.g. have a look at en:File:UKExpenditure.jpg. It should have a tab that says "Export to Wikimedia Commons". De728631 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see it now, thanks! I never noticed the tab before. --RAN (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): See also w:en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Propose statements for the 2022 Election Compass

Hi all,

Community members in the 2022 Board of Trustees election are invited to propose statements to use in the Election Compass.

An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

July 8 - 20: Community members propose statements for the Election Compass

July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements

July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements

August 2 - 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements

August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements

August 15: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision

The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August. The Elections Committee will oversee the process, supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance team. MSG will check that the questions are clear, there are no duplicates, no typos, and so on.


Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


someone import this is now 30 years old iran pd Baratiiman (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Baratiiman see [2], for your information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Belgian FOP, non-commercial??

Apparently, the ManagingIP article on Belgian FOP claims the Belgian FOP, which was introduced in 2016, "non-commercial."

"According to the provision, FOP duly authorises the reproduction and communication to the public of works protected by a copyright, but said reproduction and communication to the public should not affect the normal exploitation of the work, nor cause an unjustified prejudice to the author. This limitation intends to create a good balance between the purpose of the freedom of panorama on the one hand, and the author's rights on the other hand. This limitation notably narrows the exception to non-commercial purpose, as confirmed by the preparatory discussions of the Parliament. It means that any third party cannot invoke the FOP to commercially exploit reproductions of works located in a public area or communicate it to the public without the author's consent."

Is this the real meaning of Belgian FOP clause of: "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author"? Perhaps Wikimedians from Belgium should clarify this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This may be the reason why SABAM still has the guts to restrict free culture uses of the famous Atomium of Brussels. See (now claims Belgian FOP is non-commercial). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: If this is true, we should restore {{NoFoP-Belgium}} and delete {{FoP-Belgium}}, many photos of buildings and sculptures, other public arts in Belgium. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow clarification from Belgian Wikimedians is needed first before making any immediate conclusions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I think it's good to have a discussion here too. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, who are Belgian Wikimedians? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow that is what I call to every Wikipedian / Wikimedian editor, user, contributor, and photographer from Belgium in general sense. Wikimedia itself is composed of WikiCommons, all Wikipedias, and other wiki-sites managed by Wikimedia Foundation, like Wikivoyage and Wiktionary. I call Wikimedia "Wikimedia-verse" or "Wikimedia universe." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: "Wikipedian" was a typo. I want to see Belgian Wikimedians who know Belgian copyright laws well. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow no, Wikipedian refers to one who is a regular contributor or user of a particular Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is the most-recognized site of all under "Wikimedia-verse," there has been a tendency to call everyone involved in "Wikimedia-verse" as Wikipedian even if Wikimedian is a more proper term. Nevertheless let's focus on the Belgian law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@AnneJea, Taketa, Sam.Donvil, and Geertivp: FoPbelgium has been nominated for deletion for being non-commercial only. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The clause was mentioned in the discussion back in 2016 when the FoP law was introduced. It apparently wasn't considered a show-stopper. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Belgium. --ghouston (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ghouston is right. The Belgian Copyright Act, Art. XI 190 is clear. Please don't waste your time on old discussions. Vysotsky (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vysotsky: however, both the ManagingIP article (apparently contributed by a Belgian lawyer as per the author info) and the SABAM management of Atomium seem to disagree that Belgian FOP allows commercial exploitations of works in public space. Or does the so-called lawyer missed an important point in parliamentary discourse back then? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course they disagree: they earn their money in the field of copyright. And no, the lawyer didn't miss an important point: she just framed the law in a way more suited to (supposed) copyright owners. Vysotsky (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just because this was discussed in 2016, does not mean it was thoroughly and conclusively discussed and that we should dismiss new insights made afterwards. The key part of the clause seems to be ...geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk... / porte pas atteinte à l’exploitation normale de l’œuvre... ("...does not affect the normal exploitation of the work..."). Let's say Atomium inc. sells postcards. If someone else takes a picture of the Atomium per FoP and starts selling it as postcards too, they are competing with Atomium's own postcards, thus affecting Atomium's exploitation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The conditions are mentioned in the template. It's not unusual that works published under FoP have restrictions that wouldn't be present in purely freely licenced works. E.g., the condition in Dutch FoP that an object must be depicted as it appears in its public location, or unclear status of derivative works (e.g., you probably can't use photos of a statue to make a copy of the original statue without violating the copyright). --ghouston (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I searched the web whether Atomium has started legal action, but I did not find anything. Just wait until they do (which I assume they will not, because the FoP is clear). They could easily write a letter to the legal dept of the Wikimedia Foundation without any cost. Still they claim you should pay, per their website. (@Ghouston: By the way, "Dutch" refers to a language, common to a part of Belgium and the Netherlands. If you talk about "Dutch FoP" you will probably mean to say "FoP in the Netherlands, but we can understand, like we understand "Holland" as a pars pro toto for the Netherlands. The low countries have a complex geographic history... our language was even spoken in the Northern part of France, the Flanders area) Ellywa (talk)
en:Dutch, it's idiomatic in English for it to refer to the Netherlands, as well as the language. --ghouston (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Two questions

  1. How do I remove From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository posted bellow my nick on my user page?
  2. Is there a way to organize my list of created categories via A-Z template, akin to this version?

Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello. I don't know how the table with your articles and categories was created at the Serbian Wikipedia, but I can answer your first question. The string "From Wikimedia Commons..." comes with the skin you are using to view the Commons website. You can change the general appearance in Special:Preferences → "Appearance", where the MonoBook skin for example does not show the Wikimedia Commons credit in that particular place. However, there is no way to remove just that line of text and keep your current skin. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does the logo File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg exceed the COM:TOO Japan?

(TOO = Threshold of originality)

Nintendo has not licensed the logo under the CC licence (and it's unlikely they will licence their images under CC licence), but I'm not sure if it exceeds COM:TOO Japan or not. Do you think the lamp dots on the "Super" text exceed the Japanese TOO? Stylez995 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Given the examples at COM:TOO Japan (in particular the cup noodles with the wavy line through the text), I'm leaning toward below TOO. If File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg is to be kept, it will need the {{PD-textlogo}} "license" instead of its current CC license. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How can I batch relicense my works already uploeaded to commons?

Hello everyone, I want to relicense some of my works to CC BY, which were previously licensed under CC BY-SA. How can I do it except modify them one by one? --Raccoozzy (Talk) 14:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can do that with VFC (Visual File Change). Enter your user name to get a list of your uploads, than choose replace text from the drop down box. However you should not replace the license, but add the new one as a service to existing reusers. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you, I'll try the VFC.--Raccoozzy (Talk) 12:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categorization help

I'm going to categorize File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 47.jpg to something more specific to the image subject, to at least make Category:Balete Drive less "crowded." While it may seem a fence, PropertyCasualry360 says otherwise: According to Merriam-Webster Online, a fence is “a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards.” A wall is “1a: a high, thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for defense —often used in plural; b: a masonry fence around a garden, park or estate; c: a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth); 2: one of the sides of a room or building connecting floor and ceiling or foundation and roof; 3: the side of a footpath next to buildings.” If this is not a fence, then maybe a wall, but what is the most suited category for this (perimeter/outdoor) wall? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whatever "fence" category you add, the image still belongs in Category:Balete Drive. Or were you thinking of "Fences on Balete Drive" as a subcategory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I don't think letting it remain on the category supposedly for the road itself is good in the long term. It causes overpopulation to the category. The road segment adjacent to this structure is File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 45.jpg itself. It is one of the uploads of the infamous uploader Judgefloro (talk · contribs), and doesn't even depict the road itself. But I find it useful, and I think of categorizing it based on the structure is the best way to help slightly depopulate the road category (but raising its quality based on image content). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Likely category is Category:Walls in the Philippines as it also includes File:Banga National HS Field SoCo td (2019-12-18) 02.jpg. Perhaps I have found a suitable category for it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Arbitrarily removing images from valid categories, or moving them to orthogonal categories, is not how we deal with overpopulation of categories; indeed to so so is damaging to the project. In any case, even with the image included, Category:Balete Drive has just 296 members; hardly a bothersome quantity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seriously doubt that this is a photo is of the same person

I don't think this photo[3] is of former CNN-host Riz Khan. It's probably another person with the same name. Ezzex (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File moving

A lot of renames give an error. Sometimes it works, when I rename it manually. One time I got this error: "[38511fb1-6b46-40bb-b0fe-bb5e17bea810] 2022-07-14 11:09:46: Fatale fout van type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"" Does anyone else have problems with renaming? Some files go easy, some not. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also experienced such errors when moving files, I guess since yesterday. Most times I get this error message: “An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".” IMHO the problem seems not to be related to specific files – most times if I try again the renaming works, sometimes it doesn’t. Can I do anything to help with fixing this problem? --Aristeas (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard's issue was a "Lock timeout exceeded" issue. During the request there was no swift issues reported, so its probably unrelated. We've had occasional issues with lock timeouts when moving files for a long time now (I have no idea if its actually a deadlock, or if lock contention is just slow) so this is not really a new issue I think. On the other hand, maybe it was previously fixed, I'm not sure, which could mean something new happened. Looking at logs, there was 19 lock timeouts related to file moves on commons (many for the same file) in the last 15 days (And 1 on en wikipedia). Possibly its just a one off issue, or there was something weird about the file - so i suppose wait and see if it continues to happen. As for helping fix things - in cases where there is a sudden spike in an error that is not new, better flagging it to devs can be helpful, for example by filing tasks in phabricator since the people with the power to fix these things only read VP pages rarely. If you're not sure if an issue should be filed as a phab task, or if anyone is already working on it, you can also ask on #wikimedia-tech irc channel (That said, don't be afraid of politely filing tasks in phab even if you are not sure. If something shouldn't have a task or already has one, it will just be closed which is no big deal). That said, Aristeas: if you're interested in directly contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites, let me know, and I can connect you with resources depending on what skills you have and where your interests lie. Bawolff (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment and help, Bawolff! As far as I can tell file moving seems to work flawless again, so the problem seems to be fixed. That’s great! Richardkiwi, does it work for you again, too?
Thank you also for the information and advise about reporting such technical issues, Bawolff. Next time when such a things happens (and persists for a while) I will try to file a reasonable phabricator task.
I fear that contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites is not something I could do; I am fluent in Python (and somewhat in C++, PHP, JavaScript and some more exotic programming stuff), but I have neither any experience in handling big databases nor with all these tools which are used today for handling issues etc. ;–) But thank very much you for your responsiveness and offer!
All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problems anymore with renaming. Great! = Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Disable the NewUserMessage extension

Its not very useful to use the NewUserMessage extension to automatically welcome newly-created accounts due to possible:

  • Spam/vandalism-only accounts
  • Long-term abuse (LTA)
  • Unacceptable usernames

So I think anyone may vote here to remove the NewUserMessage extension and instead use {{subst:Welcome}} to manually welcome new users. 12:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Per community consecus, Meta has also removed the NewUserMessage extension for the simillar reasons above. 12:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Prove it. We have welcomed new users for at least a decade.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welcoming a user that is not a vandal or spammer manually after days of registration is better. 12:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you want to take on the burden of doing that over 10 million times in the course of 14 years like User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome, and SieBot before that? We have consensus for installing the extension recorded at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. Also, proposals belong at COM:VPP.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Special:Version and you will see that this is an extension. 12:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With the current development of the Growth tools I think there will be an alternative to the bot message in the future. While waiting for this we can keep the current way as it is not a huge problem and worked for a long time. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ukrainian Govt image upload blocked

I just tried to upload the image from [4] which is open licensed per [5], using Special:Upload; this failed with "Copy uploads are not available from this domain" (the domain being ""). Why is that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: It looks like MediaWiki:Copyupload-allowed-domains includes many subdomains of, but not that one. You can ask for it to be added at MediaWiki talk:Copyupload-allowed-domains. --bjh21 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. bjh21 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

MP4 patents expiration date

The "MPEG-4 Part 14" (also known as "MP4") format was released in October 2001, as far as I know US patents expire 20 (twenty) years after publication. But assuming that they got some crucial patents that stay in force until Late 2022 and early 2023 would that mean that the Wikimedia Commons could then finally host ".MP4" files?

Or is it a lot more complicated than that? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

According to Meta-wiki page (m:Have the patents for MPEG-4 Visual expired yet?), the mp4 patents haven't expired yet. If unsure, call your legal expert. --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is more complicated. ".mp4" is a container format and a camera developer could decide to create his own video or audio encoding and only publish the decoder, but not the encoder, as free software. In that case the MediaWiki-Software would accept some ".mp4"-files, but reject others. Most uploaders would not understand, why this is happening and how to fix (i.e they have to transcode a stream in the file) it. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
C.Suthorn, Well, that doesn't sound like a copyright-related restriction. Can't someone theoretically do that for any file type? -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Basically only for container filetypes. In the case of .mp4-files recently HEVC-encoding has been added by smartphone companies. WEBM is also a container format, but is has been created to only include streams with a free format. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Going over all the reasons for banning MP4 uploads to the Wikimedia Commons I realised something, the "non-free" part isn't a lack of freedom restricting copying, it is a lack of freedom because it's patented proprietary software. This is essentially "a non-copyright restriction" and not an issue of letting re-users copy whatever they want. Non-copyright restrictions are explicitly allowed under the rules of the Wikimedia Commons specifically because a lot of them never expire (think trademarks). If new patented encoders can always be made by new companies but that these videos can still be played on other media players made by unrelated companies, then how would the patented underlying software matter to the encoded content?

I genuinely don't see why we have been shooting ourselves in the foot for decades now over non-copyright restrictions. MP4 is the industry standard and even with all the patents on it basically everyone uses it as the de facto standard because the restrictions placed on it neither harms educational re-use, it doesn't prevent others from altering MP4 content, nor does it prevent people from using MP4 commercially, so what is being restricted here? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:00, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To edit a mp4-file you need to reencode it. mp4-decoders are free, mp4-encoders can be free or not. WM phiosophy says, that everything needed to create an entity at MW (article, file, script) has to be free (while a jpg can be created with Photoshop, you can use Gimp instead) --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Donald Trung: See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/11#Proposal 2: Allow uploading of MP4 files, only provide transcoded Webm files to download/stream. Nosferattus (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nosferattus, which at the time was overwhelmingly accepted, so why isn't it implemented?;There are tonnes of educational videos not being uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons today purely because that proposal which was overwhelmingly voted for wasn't ever implemented. -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:WLM India Wikidata ID

Template:WLM India Wikidata ID forces every image into the main category for the building being pictured. For example, this image is fixed into Category:Taj Mahal even though it is another subcategory, and this one is fixed into Category:Red Fort. You literally cannot diffuse those main categories and in theory since every image within the Taj Mahal category structure could use the template the main category would contain every image inside it and be unmanageable. Does this make sense? There are 4600 transclusions and for a number I saw, the building is the only category so this will require a manual duplicate categorization before we remove this from the template. I don't think this template is alone in doing this. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{Kenya Monument}} has the same issue.
There probably should be an argument that lets you override this "automagic" categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The template's maintainers probably won't see what you've posted here. Either ping them, or, better, post in its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Already did that. Yeah, it's a larger issue I can see. I just wanted to see if the principle issue was problematic to anyone else. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's long standing practice to never use templates to add topic (non-hidden) categories. New users not aware of this practice discover the magic of templates and introduce it again.
I've cleaned it up many times before. A bot can directly add the template. In this case replace "{{WLM India Wikidata ID|Q9141}}" with "{{WLM India Wikidata ID|Q9141}}[[Category:{{subst:#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|item=Q9141|property=p373}}]]" (slightly more complicated to get the new category at the bottom).
After it updated all files, the offending category logic can be removed from the template. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ricky81682: ✓ Done the bot added the categories directly and I removed the template based categorization.
@Jmabel: are you sure about {{Kenya Monument}}? Looking at the source it only adds a hidden tracker category. Multichill (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: You're right, I was wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Problems with uploading files above 100 MiB

Hey dear Wikimedians,

since the 12th July 2022 (I guess), I have trouble with uploading files larger than 100 MiB. It seems to be a database error. Do you have those problems, too?

Thank you and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@PantheraLeo1359531: I suggest using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (doc at User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me
Error occurred in BigChunkedUpload
@Jeff G.: Unfortunately, this creates the same error. Seems to be a server-side error :( --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right now I have problems uploading 20MB files. So far all were re-uploaded at a second attempt. I guess something is not stable at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I uploaded 144MB File:Experience the world's first ski descent of K2 with Andrzej Bargiel.webm earlier today, with one retry.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:33, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
20220713 21 13 52-Fehler in Datenbank "local-swift-eqiad".png
20220714 15 36 38-Assistent zum Hochladen von Dateien – Wikimedia Commons.png
Hm, that's weird :o. I have some other errors like these. Do also larger files work at your upload process? --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I got a similar, probably the same problem: Uploading a new version of a file (far below 100 MB) I get the error message: “An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".” I already got the same error message several times today when I tried to rename some files. Hm, sounds rather serious … and blocks me, as I wanted to upload a bunch of improved and new photos :–(. Is there anything I can do to help to fix this? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Supplement: On a second try the upload worked, but I am still concerned as these error messages sound (for a non-expert like me) like a serious problem. --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am actually positivly impressed, that the Upload Wizard now shows meaningful error messages. I did no longer believe something like that would happen.
I am also experiencing errors with uploads, mostly the assembling stage fails. But with retrying I can upload 3.9GiB files. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In logs, I definitely see a large spike in swift errors starting 16:00 UTC july 12. I filed phab:T313102 Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Tim Starling just restarted the server in question. Hopefully that fixes things. Bawolff (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bawolff: Maybe you can take a look into phab:T309094. Upload has three stages: Upload, Assembling, Publishing. During uploading you can get information from the API (info, warning, error, code fields and uploadprogress), during assembling and publishing polling the API only returns "assembling" or "publishing". There could be returned a progress information in percent and there could be returned additional information (assembling stage: "actually assembling the chunks", "reading metadata from file", "analyzing for embedded URLs or malicious data"; publishing stage: "moving the uploaded file", "inserting/updateing database table XY"). Then users could actually give meaningful error reports to developers. C.Suthorn (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've tested with some files I wanted to upload, now it works smooth for me. Thank you :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For me it seems to work fine again, too. Thank you very much, Bawolff! --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hidden links to sales sites in images

I noticed that when hovering over the top RH corner of File:Kiara Advani snapped promoting 'Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2'(6).jpg a hidden button called "visual search" appears - which, when clicked, takes me to a sales site. Assuming that we should not be linking to sales sites, please could this be removed?, and any other similar links also removed. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doesn't happen for me. @Arjayay: can you be more specific about the environment you are running in (browser, OS, skin)? - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could be an Edge thing, if it looks anything like this. I use Firefox and this also does not happen for me. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jmabel and HyperGaruda - it turns out to be an "Edge-thing", rather than anything on the commons image - it was the first time I'd seen it, and, having turned it off, it should be the last - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploaded images' are displayed dark

What process creates the various pixel sizes for download? Is it an app that reduces the image when clicked to display? Please note my comment about the displayed size and the original. The uploads are not displayed properly. Please see this original and this screen shot All images appeared darkened. — Ineuw talk 18:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably because the low-resolution image was uploaded as a .png. See Commons:File_types: "On Wikipedia... PNG thumbnails are not sharpened, but JPEG thumbnails are. For more complicated images, such as photographs, engravings, and such, PNG displays an inferior thumbnail." In my experience PNG often distorts color as well as quality in thumbnails, and I generally only use PNG for rather simple line work or signatures needing transparent background, e.g. here or here (and I'm not even sure the first example is warranted). I think images from Internet Archive/Google Books are almost always better uploaded as JPG, although there might be some good reasons to use PNG for files originally created as such. --Animalparty (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i dont think this is a sharpening issue. Looks more like a gamma issue or something to do with colour profiles. Maybe Bawolff (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2022 (UTC) p.s. the image is not dark for me on my phone.Reply[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. It's very interesting, especially about .png rendering. — Ineuw talk 16:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo challenge May results

Kitchenware: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Alexanderwerk kitchen scale 1910-1920 sm.jpg Preserving jar opener - patended by Havolit - 1950s 2022-05-27 (focus stack).jpg Asando cuy.jpg
Title Alexanderwerk kitchen weight
scale circa 1910-1920
Preserving jar opener - wood,
metal, plastic - patented by
Havolit, manufactured in 1950s
Asando cuy a la brasa a la puerta
de una tienda en Baños (Ecuador)
Author Mariojan photo Franz van Duns Saldeplata
Score 7 5 5
Asian gardens: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
image Water reflection of Kinkaku-ji Temple with a tree on a rock in the pond, Kyoto, Japan.jpg Arakurayama Sengen Park - Japan.jpg Hakone 20220507 174848.jpg
Title Water reflection of Kinkaku-ji
Temple with a tree on a rock
in the pond, Kyoto, Japan
Arakurayama Sengen Park, Asama,
Fujiyoshida, Yamanashi, Japan
Rhododendron garden, Japan
Author Basile Morin Otto Domes Ka23 13
Score 17 9 8

Congratulations to Mariojan photo, Franz van Duns, Saldeplata, Basile Morin, Otto Domes and Ka23 13. -- Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How would I best go about flagging images with obviously incorrect dates?

Hello! I have noticed an alarmingly widespread problem of files whose dates (and resulting placements in categories) are obviously incorrect. Just take this one single category as an example, which features photographs which obviously were not taken in January. How would I best go about flagging images like these? —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Actually, the problem seems to be so widespread that it may be worth considering a way to flag entire categories like that as well. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Typically, a bogus January 1 date is an "overprecise" date where all that was really known was the year. I'd just change 2003-01-01 to 2003. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Thank you. But what about files where the years are wrong as well? —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VulpesVulpes42: are they things you can correct or things you need to flag for someone else to correct? Can you give an example? - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I suppose that I could correct some of the dates myself, or at the very least replace the incorrect dates with more honest statements such as "Unknown date". The problem is that this issue is so widespread that it would probably take quite a long time to manually go through all affected files. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@VulpesVulpes42: Using (for example) VFC to change the date is exactly as easy/hard as using it to add a tag, no? Admittedly, I don't know exactly what you are running into, I'm just thinking of similar stuff I've run across. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
FWIW, though, you could create an appropriate subcat of Category:To be checked to mark files that need review on this basis. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Alright, thank you for your helpful input. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • The entire Bain Collection we store, is marked as "1900" even though they start in 1910 and the current tranche released by the LOC is at 1924 at Flickr Commons. --RAN (talk) 04:07, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

National Resources Conservation Service Aerial Photography

Hello all, I am interested in categorizing/adding aerial pictures from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) (currently the National Resources Conservation Service) for Clarke County, Georgia. I tried looking through the NRCS category, the Clarke County category and the Georgia category to no avail. I am pretty new here, where should I start if I am looking to reach out to my library about adding their collection to wikicommons? Is this even appropriate? Thank you in advance.--Ivangiesen (talk) 15:05, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Movement Strategy and Governance News - Issue 7

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 7, July-September 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the 7th issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News! The newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the implementation of Wikimedia's Movement Strategy recommendations, other relevant topics regarding Movement governance, as well as different projects and activities supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team of the Wikimedia Foundation.

The MSG Newsletter is delivered quarterly, while the more frequent Movement Strategy Weekly will be delivered weekly. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive future issues of this newsletter.

  • Movement sustainability: Wikimedia Foundation's annual sustainability report has been published. (continue reading)
  • Improving user experience: recent improvements on the desktop interface for Wikimedia projects. (continue reading)
  • Safety and inclusion: updates on the revision process of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines. (continue reading)
  • Equity in decisionmaking: reports from Hubs pilots conversations, recent progress from the Movement Charter Drafting Committee, and a new white paper for futures of participation in the Wikimedia movement. (continue reading)
  • Stakeholders coordination: launch of a helpdesk for Affiliates and volunteer communities working on content partnership. (continue reading)
  • Leadership development: updates on leadership projects by Wikimedia movement organizers in Brazil and Cape Verde. (continue reading)
  • Internal knowledge management: launch of a new portal for technical documentation and community resources. (continue reading)
  • Innovate in free knowledge: high-quality audiovisual resources for scientific experiments and a new toolkit to record oral transcripts. (continue reading)
  • Evaluate, iterate, and adapt: results from the Equity Landscape project pilot (continue reading)

Other news and updates: a new forum to discuss Movement Strategy implementation, upcoming Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees election, a new podcast to discuss Movement Strategy, and change of personnel for the Foundation's Movement Strategy and Governance team. (continue reading)

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category renaming request

Hello! As per the Commons:Rename a category guide, I am posting here to jumpstart a discussion on renaming (and thereby merging) two categories. The two categories are Category:Athens, Georgia and Category:Clarke County, Georgia. Athens (as per the wikipedia page) is a consolidated city-county, which means Athens is the same as Athens-Clarke County. There is no point to have the category Clarke County containing the category Athens, Georgia, because they are the same. I would like to effectively merge the two categories and their associated subcategories and files. While it wouldn't make much difference if Athens, Georgia or Athens-Clarke County, I would propose to follow the naming convention of the other counties in Georgia, i.e. to use Athens-Clarke County. As that would make the most sense for that kind of categorization. I open to other suggestions to help solve this organization problem.--Ivangiesen (talk) 12:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ivangiesen: en:w:Bogart, Georgia and en:w:Winterville, Georgia seem to be part of Clarke County, but not of Athens though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oops, I see this discussion is best held at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/07/Category:Athens, Georgia. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Can the content of a Tiktok video be CC-licensed?

Related question: can the image at a specific timestamp in the Tiktok video be CC-licensed? "This screenshot at mm:ss is available per CC-BY-SA; the rest is not" ? DS (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Related question: May the image (screenshot) of a TikTok video be CC-licensed if it is cropped, edited to remove identifiable icons, etc., from the app? ProfGray (talk) 19:26, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A screenshot can be licensed of course as any other still image. On the other hand cropping and removal of icons does not result in creation of a derivative work as the modifications would lack originality. So, in the latter case the modified image cannot be licensed separately from the initial image. Ruslik (talk) 20:33, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, removal of TikTok's app-specific icons or design are not necessary, as long as there's sufficient consent by the TikTok creator of the image (i.e., the video from which the screenshot is taken)? Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 09:25, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, rephrase. a) Does TikTok Corporation present creators with the option of applying the CC license to any content posted on the TikTok platform? b) If so, can a creator specify that the license applies only to a given image within the video, and not to the rest? DS (talk) 14:37, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can I change the date of an image?

浅草寺境内 露天風景(羽子板市).jpg

For example the image on the right is certainly not from 1899. All other images uploaded by the same user (User Uploads) have the same date. Am I allowed to simply change it to the date of upload? --Lupe (talk) 18:43, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Lupe: In general I wouldn't just assume that the upload date is the date the photo was taken. Better to put {{other date|?}} to mark the date as unknown, or maybe {{other date|<|2015-04-23}} to indicate it was taken before some date. In some cases you might be able to get a good date from the Exif metadata at the bottom of the page and stick that it {{Exif date}}. In this case, though, the "Date and time of data generation" is unknown, which is a bit odd. You could assume that the "Date and time of digitising" is also the time when the photo was taken, though I wouldn't. --bjh21 (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
30.12.1899 is OLE automation date ("Excel date") start point and was likely autogenerated when the EXIF "Date and time of data generation" is unknown. That date can certainly be removed, or like Bjh21 says you can use {{other date|<|2015-04-23}}. MKFI (talk) 07:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, thank you. I changed the dates. --Lupe (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Lupe (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About National Geographic maps

Appreciated community:

I've noticed that there are maps from National Geographic uploaded to Commons. I wanna know if there are restrictions for uploading maps of National Geographic to Commons. I also want to know if there's any problem if I upload a map of National Geographic with watermark.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and God bless you. Babelia (talk) 18:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Would you mind to giva an example, please? I've never popped into any of them. B25es (talk) 18:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A lot of older National Geographic maps, some as late as 1963, are here because they have fallen out of copyright. @Babelia: do you have any examples more recent than that? I would suspect that any such would not belong here. - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Appreciated Jmabel: in regards to your request of examples of post-1963 National Geographic maps posted in Commons, I found a relatively recent map (exact year not provided) of Los Angeles, talking about ethnicity in the city.
By the way, thanks for answering my question.
Greetings from Colombia and God bless you. Babelia (talk) 13:39, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The license of this file is probably wrong. However it may accepted on Commons under either {{PD-USgov}} or {{PD-CAgov}}. Yann (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Finding unlinked images

I linked these approx. 1000 images to the matching Wikisource project, but I may have missed linking some. Is there a way to find unlinked images in the categories (volumes 1 to 4). — Ineuw talk 04:16, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Renaming Category:Toaru Majutsu no Index to Category:A Certain Magical Index, which is currently used as a redirect page

Hello! I'm planning to rename the current Category:Toaru Majutsu no Index to Category:A Certain Magical Index because the latter is more appropriate in line with the English title license by the English publisher Yen Press for the light novel. Unfortunately, Category:A Certain Magical Index is currently a redirect page so I'm wondering if the two category pages can switch their places? Thank you so much for your time reading this! Centcom08 (talk) 10:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]



When I want to upload a file with this, I have this error message : [9c798435-10e0-40ca-8267-17ee3b691ea1] 2022-07-20 18:50:39: Erreur fatale de type « Error ».

Why ?


--ComputerHotline (talk) 18:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mine reads as follows:
Internal error
[cfa31650-998d-4c3a-9770-82d7f8b790b9] 2022-07-20 18:55:43: Fatal exception of type "Error"
  — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:56, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. --ComputerHotline (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not UploadWizard bug. There is a server problem affecting all uploads. The workaround is just trying to upload the file again then it works most the times. --GPSLeo (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Announcing the six candidates for the 2022 Board of Trustees election

Hi everyone,

The Affiliate Representatives have completed their voting period. The selected 2022 Board of Trustees candidates are:

You may see more information about the Results and Statistics of this Board election.

The Affiliate organizations selected representatives to vote on behalf of the Affiliate organization. The Affiliate Representatives proposed questions for the candidates to answer in mid-June. These answers from candidates and the information provided from the Analysis Committee provided support for the representatives as they made their decision.

Please take a moment to appreciate the Affiliate Representatives and Analysis Committee members for taking part in this process and helping to grow the Board of Trustees in capacity and diversity. These hours of volunteer work connect us across understanding and perspective. Thank you for your participation.

Thank you to the community members who put themselves forward as candidates for the Board of Trustees. Considering joining the Board of Trustees is no small decision. The time and dedication candidates have shown to this point speaks to their commitment to this movement. Congratulations to those candidates who have been selected. A great amount of appreciation and gratitude for those candidates not selected. Please continue to share your leadership with Wikimedia.

What can voters do now?

Review the results of the Affiliate selection process.

Read more here about the next steps in the 2022 Board of Trustee election.


Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 19:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Files uploaded via Mobile app have wrong dates

Many of the files uploaded via Mobile app have wrong dates. I have corrected some manually but things are getting out of hands. Please creat a bot which automatically corrects these dates, preferably based on the Upload Wizard engine. --トトト (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Here's my piece of advice, do not use the Wikimedia Commons mobile app, simply use the mobile version of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard whenever you're on a mobile device. I tried the mobile app a few times and it completely misrepresents what content can be hosted here (it says that only own works are allowed, despite the fact that free works in the public domain exist), it messes with your uploads, and it's not user-friendly at all.
Meanwhile the website works just like the website. Sure there are quite a lot of things that the website does better for desktop users that mobile users don't get, but at least it's functional. I'm convinced that a lightweight web-wrapper would probably make for a better mobile app than the one we have now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:56, 11 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I have notified a user to do so. Why doesn't WMF stop this application from using ? A crap app bringing a mess to the community should be demolished as soon as possible. --トトト (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Greetings, thank you for your heads-up. I will definitely look into this carefully. A quick glance shows that the dates are correct in several of my updates - but as I say, I will definitely look at this carefully. Again many thanks, Daderot (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The app uses an exif date, but if there are more dates than one, it may chose the wrong one ("digitized at" - may be the date of fotography. "last edited at", ...). A foto taken with the smartphone will normally not have different dates. C.Suthorn (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It seems that the app uses the upload date, but claims it is the EXIF date. Is that what you mean? For my purposes, the app is much easier to use than the website from my phone. There seem two things that should be done: 1) fix the app; 2) write the bot described above to correct the erroneous info in commons. Probably many people use the app, so a bot would be much better than hand corrections. cheers, Daderot (talk)
Generally I agree with you. But if nobody fixes it, nor develops a bot for the correction, nothing changes. I myself cannot creat such a bot. Why didn't WMF do anything until now? --トトト (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can we have a link to any other file with the same problem, preferably uploaded by a different user? The files reported above were uploaded using an old app ("3.1.1~1c9267ca0" - this dates back to September 2021). This might suggest that the particular version had a bug, but it's also possible that that the two were using the same version might be coincidence. Having more data points would help debugging it. whym (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC) (EDIT: As apparent from comments made by others below, my comment here was a bit misleading. Sorry about that. I was under the impression that the latest release would be 4.x. It is not, although the latest beta release is. whym (talk) 09:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC))Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two files I have encountered are via 3.1.1~1c9267ca0.
So, how about this one?
Why a photo taken on 9 July 2022 16:24 (JST, +UTC 9:00) should be in Category:Photographs taken on 2022-07-10? It doesn't make sense. --トトト (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info File:Archibasis oscillans male 10.jpg via 2.13.2~757c7b008, much older version.
--トトト (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the examples. If someone consistently experiences the problem and other people don't (I personally don't), it is likely to be a problem dependent on devices and other conditions of the phone and the operating system. As a former developer working on the app, I'd like to see what I can do, but this kind of problems can be difficult to deal with, even just to reproduce without having the same device. whym (talk) 14:07, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, but this version is the one you'll get on the google play store till now (I really know that because I regularly have to de- and reinstall because of another bug causing complete hanging between uploads). But I also did use the Beta version in the past without success. I can try any version of course. Perhaps it's of help to know that it's the German language version here --Subbass1 (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update (edited): the language version is not the issue, but the saving date: if the pictures were edited and stored before uploading, that date will wrongly be used although the exif capture date regularly remains on the files. That really should be fixed asap. ---Subbass1 (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Subbass1 What version of Android are you using?[6] Some features of the app might be less stable with older Android versions, especially those with smaller shares nowadays.[7] My phone is Android 12 and the app is 4.0.1~66f8f97d0 (beta version installed from Play Store), and I don't seem to experience the same problem. Also, if you are using a custom camera app, that might be the issue. whym (talk) 14:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm using Andoid 12 and tried both the beta and the normal one you get on the play store. No difference. No custom camera app. And I doubt that timezone is the problem. As I wrote: the app seems to use the saving date (after edits/modifications), although the capture date is still present. Language version/setting also doesn't make a difference. I'm not sure, I think in my very first beginning it was ok (with another phone), but the most of my 15000 files uploaded with the app (huh!) show this problem, mostly it's a thing of a few days, nevertheless. Besides fixing it - yes, it would be a good idea to program a bot to correct it. Add: For editing I use Google Photos. --Subbass1 (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the investigation! Could you please link to one of the files that you uploaded with the beta version, that showcases the problem? I just wanted to check that you were getting v4.0 on beta (as opposed to an older version, which occasionally lingers for a while due to Play Store cache etc issues). Misaochan (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't remember the exact files uploaded with the beta, sorry, that's why I just reinstalled the beta (joining the beta programm on play store), but without success, it regularly quitted completely when calling the settings page, sorry. My last upload (non-beta) is a completely unchanged/-edited picture which was saved not before today, the date is correct here, cause capture and saving date match. The problem only appears (but that's the normal case here) if there are some edits were made online on google photos and so the saving date differs from the capture date. (I then save it locally for "overall view" reasons, but that's not related to this bug (although I know that the quality degrades with every JPG saving) --Subbass1 (talk) 05:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We hoped that this hypothesis (saving date vs capture date) would be correct, so one of our volunteers managed to test it. Unfortunately his results don't seem to quite match that. Would greatly appreciate anyone's input in that GitHub issue as we try to figure out the cause.Misaochan (talk) 04:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks fo the GitHub hint, will follow that. I still think that it's capture/saving-related. If these are different (means you edited afterwards), the saving date will be picked up (german: "Speicherzeitpunkt"). --Subbass1 (talk) 06:17, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All the examples come with three date fields in the exif. Exception is one file with only one day date difference, that may be timezone difference. The other have the "correct" and "incorrect" date in exif. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Syced: , as an app developer, iirc. --Subbass1 (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks all for your feedback! I just tried uploading something and it seems that dates are fine, in particular it is not using upload time, but indeed some of my recent uploads with the same smartphone and timezone have the issue. The app is open source, anyone is very welcome to check what could be the issue and post findings on the ticket, I believe this can be fixed once we find out where exactly the problem is, thanks all! Syced (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Syced I really don't know what you tried to prove with that upload
C.Suthorn (talk) 15:29, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a way to find out if any of the uploads with wrong dates were uploaded with v4.0.0 or later? The reason I'm asking is that there are actually two main versions of the app on the Play Store at the moment - the v3.1 version in production and the v4.0 version in beta. v4.0 has been out for a while and we have 3000+ beta users (compared to 7000+ production users), so if this problem is common, it should have been encountered in v4.0 if it exists there. So if it doesn't exist on v4.0, then it sounds like the quickest way we can try to fix the problem would be to push v4.0 to production ASAP. We were initially holding back to try and fix a few remaining bugs in beta, but this issue should take priority, so we will just do a quick release to production in that case. But first we need to know if v4.0 has the same problem.
Sorry for the inconvenience, Android is unfortunately a very difficult platform to target due to the large number of different devices and different OS versions, unlike iOS, and also we are run mostly by a few volunteers and part-timers. We tried a few fixes, but none of the core developers have been able to reproduce the problem, so it has been difficult to ascertain whether our fixes worked. Best, Misaochan (talk) 16:30, 18 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No reason for a sorry.. Unfortunately I for myself can't test it at the moment, because the beta doesn't work here at all at the moment (quits by calling the settings page, Android 12, latest update pack for One Plus 9) --Subbass1 (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, could you submit a crash report for that please? Once it crashes, it should prompt you to send the report to us. Also, not to minimize the Settings issue, but so we can continue work on this problem... is it not possible to try an upload without going to Settings? Misaochan (talk) 10:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did hours ago. And ok, it could be possible to use for testing without changing settings. Will try. I guess the date bug itself is tracked down already and will be fixed shortly. Thanks for all your work! --Subbass1 (talk) 18:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Update: We are currently working with a few people who can reproduce the bug on our GitHub issue tracker. Please note that there actually may be a temporary increase in the number of files with erroneous dates as we are all actively trying to trigger the bug in order to determine the cause and solution. Apologies for that, there is no other option as the Commons beta cluster functions differently in this regard, so we have to try on production Commons. We hope it will pay off in the long run once we can actually solve it. Misaochan (talk) 10:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps with Crimea shaded as Russian: Please provide rationale for non-deletion

Several maps created by user Stasyan117, where Crimea is shaded as Russian, has been suggested deleted. I sympathise with why they have been nominated for deletion, since Crimea is Ukrainian and occupied, whilst the author of the map (who by their own account “lives in Russia”), has shaded Crimea as belonging to the occupier.

The maps may therefore easily be perceived as Russian propaganda. That's what they look like to me, and presumably to other readers too, since there have been deletion suggestions.

Currently, even just a single map (Map of Russia - Moscow Oblast.svg) is used across 18 language editions of Wikipedia, and on some of the editions on several articles, e.g., on 32 articles on the Czech version. As such, this single map alone may be perceived as poisoning rather a large number of Wikipedia articles with pro-Russian, anti-Ukranian propaganda.

Under the current circumstance of active warfare between the nations, why are these maps allowed to be kept? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral and fact-based? Bjornte (talk) 21:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Pinging @Stasyan117.
  • Usually in cases of disputes like this, Commons remains neutral: we can host multiple maps giving different versions of the same thing. The different Wikipedias (etc.) can then choose which to use. But there can be some issues about how the description says what the map represents.
  • @Bjornte: I'm assuming this is about File:Map of Russia - Moscow Oblast.svg, File:Map of Russia - Tver Oblast.svg, and File:Map of Russia - Kabardino-Balkaria.svg.
  • It is possible that we may want somehow to indicate on maps of Russia from recent years whether they represent the generally internationally recognized borders or includes territories that Russia itself claims, but to which its claims are not generally recognized. Or someone could create maps that "shade" disputed territories differently. Similar issues exist many places in the world (e.g., quite near there, the breakaway Transistrian portion of Moldova). You might look to examples like that for how it is handled for other countries. I've never looked very deeply into it. It is always useful in a case where there is any dispute for the description of a map to indicate whose view of the matter it represents. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Yes, a map, drawing, photograph or other media item that is a lie belongs in Commons as a record of someone lying. We can of course say it's a lie or that it's the POV of the mistaken side of a controversy or some such thing, but the documentary evidence of the lying ought to remain. This definitely includes maps that falsely claim someone else's territory. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Bjornte: I think the simplest answer to your question is "Commons is not Wikipedia". Where Wikipedia tries to find a single "Neutral Point of View", Commons' approach is to host files that allow for any reasonable point of view to be depicted. "Crimea is currently occupied by Russia" is such a reasonable point of view. We also have a rule, COM:INUSE, that says that files that are in use on other Wikimedia projects are treated as being useful, so they're not deleted even if they're factually inaccurate.
Fundamentally, Commons believes that editorial matters, including which version of a map to use, are a matter for each Wikipedia to determine, and shouldn't be imposed on Wikipedias by Commons. Commons is here to serve the Wikipedias (and other projects), not to control them. This means that if you want your favourite Wikipedia to stop using a particular map, the place to make this happen is on that Wikipedia. --bjh21 (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons should make it obvious when a file depicts a disputed view. In this case the files aren't useful for Commons per se, as they aren't made by an entity of interest, such as the Russian government, but by a single contributor, whose views we aren't interested in documenting. Still, if any project thinks they are worthwhile, it is not up to Commons to think otherwise. –LPfi (talk) 16:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In general every map needs to include in the description whether the map shows the de jure or de facto status of the borders. In this case we can just write "de facto" in the description and upload another version with the "de jure" status. What file is the better one to be used always depends on the use case. As one example for travel planning de facto maps are much more important than de jure maps. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stating "de facto" isn't enough, as it isn't obvious what the difference is. Would Mariupol be "de facto" Russian as of today? Would Donetsk be (some claim the government is a puppet one)? The same with "de jure". I assume that as soon as Russia declared the Crimea Russian, it is "de jure" Russian – according to Russian jurisdiction. How many countries need to recognise Kosovo before it is de jure independent? Editors and readers of Wikipedia need to see by a glance at the description page that a file may be problematic. –LPfi (talk) 16:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The de jure status is defined be the UN. An occupation is no de facto state because it does not have regular executive structures. But of course what "de facto" means also depends on the usage of the map. The explanation why some areas are included in the map and some are not should be explained in the description. But a short description only saying "XYZ with de facto borders" is no reason for deletion. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:17, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do I generate the date "January 1, 1927" using currentyear

How do I generate the date "January 1, 1927" using currentyear like is done in the PD-US license, I want to generate it in text where I wrote a short paragraph explaining the copyright status of individual newspapers. Eventually it will draw info from Wikidata in a field I am proposing for the date of the first issued renewed. RAN (talk) 21:22, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Per {{PD-US/en}}, use "January 1, {{Not-PD-US-expired-min-year}}" to yield "January 1, 1927".   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:29, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:43, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploads by Wikiped Meta and some related accounts

This morning I moved File:Daniel Adam Beadini, English Wikipedia File, 01.06.2022.jpg uploaded by User:Wikiped Meta from Category:Nature of Switzerland by month to Category:Daniel Beadini. This image can be also found on Mr. Beadini's Instagram account. Then I found that essentially all uploads of this user seem to be material about Mr. Beadini looking promotional, with bad categorization or uncategorized, and without any personality warnings. In addition, there is some derivative work of printed matter (non-free?), such as File:Daniel Adam Beadini - Daniel Adam Beadini Gym.jpg. There is even a file File:Missionary Daniel Beadini in his office in Zurich Seebach, Interview New York Times 17.07.2021.jpg. User:Anton Berger and User:Sir Daniel Adam Beadini uploaded similar material. Is all of this acceptable? This is clearly far from my area of expertise. By the way, there is a Wikipedia article sq:Daniel Adam Beadini with many contributions by "Sir Daniel Adam Beadini", "Anton Berger" and some IPs. The latest one is from "Wikiped Meta". --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
Note: I moved this here from the copyright section because it may concern different things than copyright. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've seen a few photos and I have found one that is promotional (it's something in German saying "¡Apúntate a mi gimnasio!" or something like that, just a piece of advertisement) for what I think there's a something to say "Delete".
Another one, the one you metioned about a missionary in Zürich, I don't know if the person there is a missionary or if the picture was taken in Zürich; I see a man with a beard and I've categorised it as Men with beards. I couldn'i find a category about men with ties, so I didn't categorised it into.
A third photo are two men in a bar or so. No categories applied yet. Category:Unkonown fellows in the World? B25es (talk) 18:54, 17 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alright, thanks. I know that categorization is awful, but most of the images show Mr. Beadini. I suppose that I'll try to categorize some of the images and look up how to file deletion requests for the green flyers or posters. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another small improvement to MediaSearch

Hello everybody! The Structured Data engineering team wants to share with the community another small improvement to MediaSearch: since yesterday, you can get an image suggestion (with a confidence score) for a particular image, by looking up its relevant Wikidata item.

In order to do so, you just have to type custommatch:depicts_or_linked_from=Qxxx in the search mask, where Qxxx is the Qid number of the subject you're looking for.

As an example, custommatch:depicts_or_linked_from=Q146 will return you pictures tagged as depicting cats, custommatch:depicts_or_linked_from=Q144 images depicting dogs, custommatch:depicts_or_linked_from=Q2934 images depicting goats, and so on.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:51, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): How do I see the scores? I am just seeing the normal image results without any scores here. Also, do you know if it is possible to produce this type of query in the API? Thanks! Dominic (talk) 16:40, 19 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominic You should be able to see the scores, even though they are just a way to guess how much the image is relevant to the topic... I'll do more investigation about it. Anyway, yes, you can produce the query in the API if you want. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:04, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominic The score appears in the JSON version of the search, you'll see the _score item that will tell you the relevancy score. I misread the original message from the dev and thought it was visible in the usual interface, my bad. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 08:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


How re-create logo for Commons? Example. There is description that it was "Vectorised" so what? Eurohunter (talk) 16:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eurohunter: Vectorized SVG logos scale better.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 17:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: How to do that? What program to use? I assume he took it from actual video cover and "cleaned" it around (how?) or he created it from scratch (how?)? Eurohunter (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eurohunter: Please see COM:SVG.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 18:49, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: Do you mewan Help:SVG#Convert it? If I press Shift+Alt+B then I can hear error sound. There is no option such as "Trace Bitmap". I think it's not related to Inkskape. Eurohunter (talk) 19:28, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jeff G.: Do you use Inkscape? Do you know how to undo one move instead of whole few steps if you use Bezier tool? Eurohunter (talk) 17:52, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Eurohunter: No, sorry.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:03, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Cleveland Municipal Stadium last game played in the stadium December 17, 1995.jpg

This image was uploaded by User:Escapedtowisconsin in 2008. They also uploaded a higher-resolution version of the photo on Flickr, but not under a compatible license. More recently, User:Angelgreat uploaded the higher-quality version over the older file. Was this an acceptable action, or is the newer upload a copyright violation? User:Escapedtowisconsin hasn't been active for many years, so we can't easily ask them. - Eureka Lott 16:02, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • As I understand it, unless someone is explicit about licensing only the lower-resolution version of an image, we presume that the license also applies to higher resolutions. - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 22 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Анатолий Чубайс.jpg

Whether these edits [8] [9] can be considered reasonable or should they be reverted? --Xunks (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Xunks: Seems weird, but since it was marked for speedy deletion anyway, and the time had expired, it's all pretty much moot. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • The problem is the file is still in use in several projects, and it should either be deleted or returned to its original state. And, in my opinion, the initiative of a repeatedly blocked user on unauthorized shadow deletion deserves an administrative assessment. --Xunks (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • It should be deleted, but for some reason when I try to delete it, it fails. I believe others have tried as well, hence the current text. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        What's the reason why it should be deleted? No reason has been stated in the speedy deletion template, nor in the deletion request discussion. There was a "no permission since", but nothing about why the information on the page isn't sufficient. –LPfi (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • I'm not the one who tagged it, but I'm pretty doubtful on the claim of "own work" by a user with no other uploads, and no edits other than adding this image to articles in numerous Wikipedias immediately after uploading it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:46, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @Jmabel: I wonder how did Leonel Sohns (talk · contribs) guess that this file could not be deleted by a technical reason, not being an administrator? --Xunks (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cover art of Since I Left You

Hi community of Commons, I normally work on eswiki, and since i've been working on this album from The Avalanches, I've got a question about the cover art of the album, the cover art originally has this mark of paint, but it's more extended the version withouth this mark of paint, the paint that has the cover art comes from this painting named: The Sinking of USS President Lincoln made by Fred Dana Marsh around 1920, (making the painting probably 100 years old), apart, the typography of the album is pretty simple and it maybe isn't to original to be above threshold of originality, so my question is, can i publish the cover art of the album?, or can i use another version of the cover art?, such as a cropped version of the painting, or 2 files, one with the cropped version and the typograhy in the other. Hope i get answers gm or gn Emoji u1f490.svg Wyffiowanna talk? 18:27, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Wyffio: Please see COM:SIGN#Images in signature.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:45, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyffio: sounds public domain to me. A U.S. painting from 1920 should be PD, and I don't think you can ever get a new copyright just by cropping a detail. If you are uploading to Commons, make sure you explain the situation in the "permission" section of {{Information}} or of some similar template. - Jmabel ! talk 04:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel ok, so i can use a cropped version of the painting, but what about the typography, as i said it's quite simple and it may be not enough to be above TOO, so can I use a separated version of the typography? Wyffiowanna talk? 19:46, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyffio: It is an Australian band, so I would expect Australian law to apply. TOO Australia is very low and sweat of the brow applies. That alone might put both covers in copyright.
I would say the first image with the paint mark is not suitable for Commons. (It is not a simple shape, so I believe it is also above TOO US.)
The 1920 Sinking of the USS President Lincoln by a US illustrator (1872–1961) is probably PD. The cover image has tightly cropped a portion of the lower right corner; it has also flipped the x-axis (painting has standing figure pointing to the right, but the cover has him pointing left). More significantly, the colors are different. The cover has whiter whites, and the intense blues have been muted. I do not know if that is intentional or just the distortion from multiple copies.
Looking further, I found an Australian thesis about copyright that addresses some issues. Alan Hui, 99 problems but a riff ain’t one: How sampling helps copyright promote originality, A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The Australian National University. The thesis describes the manipulation to the painting to make the cover and implies the color change is deliberate: "Flip Recolour and reshade" (page 10).
Given the deliberate color manipulation, I would say both covers are in copyright and may not be uploaded to Commons without a free license.
Glrx (talk) 21:51, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx This clears my question about posting the entire cover art, in that case, as one of the questions, is it possible to use a cropped version of the original painting?, it's just cropping and modifying the x-axis, making the guy standing point to the left, and only. that... no other modification such as less saturated colors, and brigther whites... a simple cropping and mirror, i don't think that may be violating a copyright rule. Wyffiowanna talk? 22:03, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wyffio: I believe that would be OK, but I'm not an expert. I believe the copyright is weak. If Alice takes a picture of the Statue of Liberty, then she owns the copyright to that image and Bob may not use the image without her permission. That does not prevent Bob from standing in the same spot at the same time of day and taking a similar picture. Copyrights may be strong. My own drawing of Donald Duck does not avoid the Disney copyright. Glrx (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Glrx In what I've read, i can probably use a cropped and modified version of the painting, but it will be by complete chance, that it could be tagged as a copyright violation. Hmmm... well, thanks anyway, i'm probably going to try using a cropped version of the painting and see if it doesn't get deleted by copyright, thank you for helping with my question. :-)Wyffiowanna talk? 00:31, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements

Vector 2022 showing language menu with a blue menu trigger and blue menu items 01.jpg

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on 26 July 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 19:00 UTC on Zoom. Click here to join. Meeting ID: 5304280674. Dial by your location.

Read more. See you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 16:19, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Inkscape bezel

How I can undo just one step from a few using bezel tool? If I have to undo all of few moves then I have to start all over again and in this way it's totally impractical. Eurohunter (talk) 18:52, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't know about Inkscape but in comparable graphics software you would use the backspace key to undo only one step of a complex operation. C.Suthorn (talk) 20:11, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Program to make gif

I wish to make a gif similar to File:AC wave Positive direction.gif . What program I should to use? 18:02, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gimp is free software, that gives you maximal control about the gif you create. Create a Layer for every frame of the animation. Name the layers with the scheme "layer (200ms)" to set the speed of the animation then "export as" "gif". Gimp will offer to create an animated gif. You should however export as "webp". That is also animated, but the newer format and allows millions of colors instead of only 256 with gif (that will cause dithering and large files unless you are very careful with the colors you use). C.Suthorn (talk) 20:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.Suthorn: I tried to use Gimp but I am dont able. I have uploaded "Image for help request.jpg" in commons. I wish that the left circles column go from up to down and right circles column go from down to up, perhaps going out of borders and in loop. Many thanks in advance!!! --Gatto bianco (talk) 10:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Convenience link: File:Image for help request.jpg.
@Gatto bianco: I'm not at all sure your request is clearly enough worded (I don't understand what you want after reading it) but the best place to make a request like this and have it seen by someone who works on this sort of thing would be Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop or possibly (less likely in my opinion) Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vote for Election Compass Statements

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

Hi all,

Volunteers in the 2022 Board of Trustees election are invited to vote for statements to use in the Election Compass. You can vote for the statements you would like to see included in the Election Compass on Meta-wiki.

An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

  • July 8 - 20: Volunteers propose statements for the Election Compass
  • July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements
  • July 23 - August 3: Volunteers vote on the statements
  • August 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements
  • August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements
  • August 16: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision

The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August


Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

copyright violation

File:St_Helena_with_Extreme_E_livery_(2020).jpg is NOT CC licensed. Both the original uploader and User:FlickreviewR 2 have, unfortunately, violated Das Boot 160's copyright. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 19:21, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Looks like Flickr user Das Boot 160 initially handled the licensing selection wrong on Flickr, and later corrected it, but it also looks like even originally they seem to have written "© All rights are reserved, please do not use my photos without my permission" so the original situation was self-contradictory. I imagine in the circumstances deletion is the right thing to do, but it's not completely obvious, especially because the image is in use. I'll start a deletion review. - Jmabel ! talk 19:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Distribution of files from categories by years

Hello! In March, Wikimedia Commons administrator Butko began modifying some site templates to organize Wikimedia Commons files into child categories. For example, photographs of several departments were sorted by years - the Presidents of Russia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, the governments of Poland, Russia, Moscow, Tatarstan, the Russian Ministry of Defense, the State Duma and the Federation Council, the Senate of Poland, RIA Novosti, etc. On July 14, I made a request to bot growers, but user Multichill rolled back the edits. What would you say about this? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:44, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

FYI: Discussion was here - Commons:Bots/Work requests#Distribution of media files by years --Butko (talk) 18:54, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Butko, К сожалению, пришлось вынести на общий форум из-за отсутствия ответов с 16 июля. Кроме того, на общем форуме больше участников, которые могут высказать своё мнение по этому поводу и разрешить данный спор. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Templates should only add a hidden tracking category and shouldn't be used to add topic categories, see also the previous topic at #Template:WLM_India_Wikidata_ID. You shouldn't be mixing tracker and topic categories like you're doing at, 2022. The things I'm saying here are long established practices that might even be documented somewhere. Multichill (talk) 21:12, 20 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is somewhat different - at the Federal Archives of Germany, the photos are distributed by year, but with a duplicate in the general category, where there are more than 85 thousand photos. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 06:10, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That shouldn't have been done either, fixed.
You and Butko have absolutely no community consensus to re-introduce the system of automatic categorization based on templates. So don't revert me and don't ask Butko to do it. Multichill (talk) 09:41, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For everyone's information, the established practice of avoiding templates for topical categorisation, is documented under Commons:Categories#Major categories: "Topical categories shouldn't be included through templates." --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:57, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Media missing permission

Can anyone explain, why a good deal of files, having {{No permission since|month=June|day=6|year=2022}} template with exact date, are not displayed in the corresponding category Category:Media missing permission as of 6 June 2022, but are bulked in the root category instead? --Xunks (talk) 03:32, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Xunks: A better question would be why does Template:No permission since/doc say it takes no parameters. The documentation provides zero information on what it is doing. The files just need to be manually reset. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everything is ok now, thanks. --Xunks (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Bot stopped to create maintenance categories like that automatically. This particular one was created after file was tagged. Template checks if category exists. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes. I had to recreate a few but most of them just required a blank line to reset and move things to their proper categories. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:34, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikidata Infobox in galleries

Hi all. I'm thinking of extending Pi bot's edits so that they also auto-add {{Wikidata Infobox}} to galleries that are linked to from Wikidata, along with categories. I'd appreciate any input on this. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I'd be in favor of this. - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Obviously, Wikidata Infoboxes should be wherever a (content) page is linked on Wikidata. I'm surprised that your bot was only doing categories until now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:26, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No, that's not obvious. Galleries, guideline and help pages (among others) often have a thought-out layout, where the infobox may fit badly. The template doesn't offer any means to customise it to suite the specific usage, so you cannot make it fit (other than by moving it to a less disruptive part of the page). Categories usually at most have a short description in a few languages, so the infobox is less likely to disrupt anything there. –LPfi (talk) 10:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @LPfi: It's generally easier to fit in with categories, but not always. I'm not sure that galleries would be too different - and if there are cases where there are layout issues, just moving it in the page might be the easiest approach, as you suggest, or tweak the format? But bear in mind that people browse with different screen widths, so what's optimised for one screen size may not work well for others. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:25, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I am for it. To get to Wikidata from the gallery, you have to switch back to the parent category and hope there is an infobox there. --RAN (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Isn't there a "Wikidata item" link in the left margin, for pages linked to Wikidata? –LPfi (talk) 11:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

edit published mage copyright

I have uploaded images and need to change the copyright to PUBLIC DOMAIN - where can I edit this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HollywoodShui (talk • contribs) 21:01, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@HollywoodShui: Hi, and welcome. Why are they PUBLIC DOMAIN, both in the source country and the US? Please be specific. Once you determine the appropriate template to use, you can use that on each file description page as appropriate. See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:35, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consulted a rights lawyer and because they are earlier than 1926 and per the death date of the artist - they are legally considered public domain. Do I need the lawyer to write up an official letter? HollywoodShui (talk) 02:06, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, just use the appropriate public domain tag (or tags) in lieu of a license: e.g. something like {{PD-old-70-expired}} or {{PD-old-auto-expired|year of author's death}}. - Jmabel ! talk 03:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HollywoodShui: See Help:Public domain and Commons:Hirtle chart for help choosing the right Public Domain rationale and template. Credible evidence of the time and place of first publication is often essential: see COM:EVIDENCE. Unpublished media created before 1927 might not necessarily be in the public domain. With regards to files like File:Manuel Rosenberg sketching.jpg, vague sources like "inherited from relative" are often insufficient, unless said relative truly was the legitimate author or copyright holder. --Animalparty (talk) 03:30, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I need to change the "inherited from relative" how can I edit that? I do not see a portal to edit it. “Copyright counsel has advised that works of authorship created before January 1, 1927 are in the public domain because the term of protection as set forth in the federal copyright act (17 U.S.C. §§ 303-305) has expired.” HollywoodShui (talk) 18:12, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @HollywoodShui: If I understand correctly from your other postings, you inherited the copyrights when you inherited the images, you can release them under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}. The images are up for deletion, your need to use Commons:Wikimedia VRT release generator to make a legal claim by email and list all the images that are part of this collection. Pre 1927 images can still be released into the public domain. It is probably best to call the source: Source=Manuel Rosenberg family archive and create Category:Manuel Rosenberg family archive, to keep all the images together. -RAN (talk) 21:46, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I am new to Wikipedia and Wiki Commons. The first images I downloaded I wrote that I inherited from relative because they are in our family files. I consulted a lawyer and I do not need to prove I own the right because images created and dated before 1926 are in the pubic domain. I would like to change this information on the photos because you are asking me to fill out a series of complex forms to prove I have the rights. I do not need the rights. They are PUBLIC DOMAIN images. Do you understand now? HollywoodShui (talk) 22:52, 27 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Since your are not making a claim of {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}} we will delete all those that are from 1927 onward. I will let the speedy deletions go through and not challenge them. This would be 5 images, some by him and some of him. --RAN (talk) 00:39, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • What's that? Here we have a contributor who wants to get this sorted out, and you threaten with deleting things. Please ask them to make that claim if you think it is needed. –LPfi (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not threatening to delete them, someone already added them to the speedy delete queue, and I am not challenging the deletion. I can't add {{Cc-by-sa-4.0-heirs}}, because I am not the heir, and it would requite an OTRS sent. However I can add the license {{PD-US-no notice}} for the ones gifted to to Rosenberg by other artists that are post 1926. An image is made public (published) when it leaves the custody of the creator. See: Commons:Publication. I am very interested in Manuel Rosenberg, I added entries for a half dozen of his publications to Wikidata, created an entry for him at Familysearch and migrated copies of images of him there, since Familysearch accepts fair-use imagery. I found a birth and death date for him and located his obituary and funeral notice. I also organized all the images into categories. See: Manuel Rosenberg and created a Creator template for him and added it to each image that he created. I used all my spare time for a full day working on it. --RAN (talk) 17:36, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I cannot find any mention of that in Commons:Publication, which you linked. In Finland indeed, selling an artwork (or transferring it in a number of other ways) changes its status, and I assume the same is true in the rest of the EU, but there are other wordings for different types of "publication" (that word itself is not used), and anyway, these might not be EU images. –LPfi (talk) 12:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We have two types of images we are talking about, images of original artwork, and photographs. Commons:Publication means different things for different objects. A painting or drawing is an original and no copies are made, it is displayed to the public. With a photograph, the original creation is the camera negative, when you distribute a print of that original creation to the sitter (the public), the publication clock starts. Some jurisdictions only rely on a clock based on the death of the creator. --RAN (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can this 1887 Pears Soap Advert be uploaded if it is trimmed?

This was found on the web or It would be trimmed just to show just the illustration and title. The illustration is from an original 1887 painting Soap Suds by James Hayllar. It would be included in the article James Hayllar. BFP1 (talk) 06:05, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The painting was purchased for advertising use by Thomas J. Barratt who died in 1914. BFP1 (talk) 06:52, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now purchased the print. Does this make any difference? BFP1 (talk) 08:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was from The Illustrated London News 1888 BFP1 (talk) 08:59, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes you can upload this, even the uncropped version if you like. You could add Template:PD-UK-unknown and Template:PD-US-expired. Strange enough perhaps, it does not change whether you own the physical paper. You do not own the copyright, that is expired. Ellywa (talk) 09:19, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you that is helpful. BFP1 (talk) 10:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And the correct tag would be {{PD-old-100-expired}}. - Jmabel ! talk 14:37, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I would add the full version, then use our crop tool to isolate the image from the text. --RAN (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template for ficticious maps

There is a template {{Fictitious map}} which does two things: inserting a clear warning in the file description; and imparting the Category:Maps of fictional places or locations. However, that same "Fiction map"-Category has many subcategories, and using the template on any file that is in one of the subcategories, basically creates duplicate entries in the parent category. Like, for example, all maps in the Category:Maps of The Man in the High Castle alternate history. My suggestions are to either remove the template from such files, or remove the forced categorization (after checking each such file that it still gets categorized in that category branch). I already started a discussion on the template talk page, which was not much frequented ;-) --Enyavar (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a template is, in most cases, unnecessarily pedantic and policing. Are we expecting readers or media users to be dumb enough to not know that Maps of the Land of Oz don't represent real places, or even the borders in Maps of The Man in the High Castle alternate history do not represent actual real-world reality? Like if someone is looking for a map of the US, will they just blindly choose the first map at random and go straight to publishing? And even if they do: it's their stupidity and loss, not Commons'. Commons should not beat people over the head with disclaimers that should be obvious. --Animalparty (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I seriously doubt that this is a photo is of the same person (Silva)

I don't think that this is the same person as the American actor Frank Silva (known from the tv-series Twin Peaks) who (according to English wikipedia) died in 1995. This pictures is now used on several wikipedias in the biography of the actor Frank Silva. The photo on English wikipedia seams to be the authentic one. (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not the same person, so it should not be used in articles about Frank Silva (Q939138). (The Wikidata item uses the above image.)
es:Usuario:Francisco_Ignacio_Silva_Torres aka Frank Silva
Glrx (talk) 01:39, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move requests

Hi, not particularly familiar with all the workings on Commons, I just see how some things here affect WP. I'm looking to have Category:492d Bombardment Group (United States Army Air Forces) moved to "Category:492nd Bombardment Group (United States Army Air Forces)", and the associated pages there moved as well. Would also like to see this applied to any other pages with numbers ending in "2d" and "3d", instead of the correct ordinals of "2nd" and "3rd". Thanks - wolf 19:53, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @Thewolfchild: The usual place to request this is User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. I think the instructions there are pretty clear, but ask questions if you have any. You would have to go through and enumerate the affected categories yourself, I'm afraid. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • Like I said, "not particularly familiar with all the workings on Commons". Now that I've posted this request, would one of the admins here be able to make the moves? - wolf 19:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: Where are you getting these spellings?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 21:09, 21 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Spellings? What spellings? - wolf 19:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: Sorry, I was not specific. How are you finding 'pages with numbers ending in "2d" and "3d", instead of the correct ordinals of "2nd" and "3rd"'? See also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 00:39, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: you say you've posted the request, but I don't see them at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. Jmabel ! talk 04:05, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't say I posted a request there, just here. I came across the improper ordinals while editing various USAF articles. So, will someone move this page? Also, Jeff G., why should I "also see COM:SIGN"...? - wolf 12:53, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: See "If nicknames are used, make sure they can be attributed to a specific user." there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't really think this is the appropriate venue to complain about my signature, perhaps post your concern on my talk page. - wolf 02:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: As I said above, "You would have to go through and enumerate the affected categories yourself" in making the request. Yes, it would be good to have a set of requests that would make them all correct.No, I'm not changing one particular category to be inconsistent with the others. Much better to have them all wrong in a parallel manner than have them inconsistent, though of course having them all correct would be even better. - Jmabel ! talk 14:32, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, from what I seen, the wide majority of articles on WP comply with the guidelines on ordinals. There is a mix where images (hosted on Commons) are concerned, but I'm not about to try and chase them all down. This is the first Commons Category I've come across that needs changing. Apparently I can't just do that myself, so followed a link here. If either one of you, now that you're aware of it, could move it... that would be great. - wolf 02:45, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: move request posted. - wolf 16:00, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Thewolfchild: that doesn't work. A bot cannot follow an English-language instruction like 'Please move all cats ending in "2d" to "2nd"'. Some human has to go through and do the enumaration. As I have said twice already, "You would have to go through and enumerate the affected categories yourself" in making the request (or, I suppose, find someone else who cares enough to do so). - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Has this pictures widget ever worked for anyone?

Has this ever worked for anyone? I have never received a response other than this:
Has this ever worked for anyone? (2).png

What is the point of over-categorizing so much in Wikimedia Commons, if then users are not offered effective tools so that they can see large amounts of images in a short time? – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 13:20, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pinging @Dschwen as maintainer of the FastCCI gadget and backend.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:52, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@El Mono Español: Please see Help talk:FastCCI.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:54, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I've been saying for years that we should have a "View all" option for categories that includes all of its sub-categories and that this could have editable functions like "View all, except for XXX". Unfortunately neither the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) nor Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) has expressed any interest in creating an annual or bi-annual tech wishlist for the Wikimedia Commons that would allow for such obvious improvements to be prioritised. I think that we as a community should petition both the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikimedia Germany (WMDE) to allocate more resources to improve the basic functions of this website. Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) and volunteer-made tools are great, but they're not enough. In fact, Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) was literally created because of all the technical limitations that categories have today that could easily be build upon by a dedicated team of developers. My wife is a JavaScript developer so if they are looking for more people I'd ask her to tell her friends in the field. But unfortunately I have seen little indication that the WMF and WMDE are willing to actually invest the resources to improve these features.
In fact, searching within categories would have also been easier if Wikidata allowed for all categories to have an item and that these were sub-ordinate to each other, then the MediaSearch function could do what I suggested above using SDC. But that proposal also isn't likely to be adopted, so the technical limitations will stay unless people actually start working on it. I think that if people want to browse through all good pictures in a family of categories that SDC should be able to help with this, but currently the MediaSearch search engine isn't optimised for this either. Face-sad.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:23, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a remark that if a tool traverses through subcats, it has to look for recursion: there are definitely loops in the cat hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 21:50, 26 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I would like to know more about computers, but I don't understand what you are saying. What I do know perfectly well that the service can be improved. Until then, I will stop subcategorizing on Commons, and I encourage everyone to stop too. I know that the intention is good, but the result is disastrous: hundreds of categories that do not even contain 5 images. Would it be convenient to establish a minimum to be able to create a subcategory? For example, 15 images minimum. Because otherwise, in my opinion, overcategorizing is counterproductive. – El Mono 🐒 (talk - 10:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My remark wasn't particularly addressed to you; it was addressed to anyone who tries to build such a tool. If they don't do it carefully, there are situations where it will loop forever (or until something times out) because there are loops in the category hierarchy. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 28 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes creating small subcategories is useful: for consistency, for getting a few different images separated from a lot of different ones in a large category (blueprints in a category with mostly photos, or the like), to have files automatically get all the relevant categories (by being placed in that subcategory), etc. But I agree that splitting a single relatively small category is often harmful. –LPfi (talk) 12:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also small categories can be quite useful when there is a corresponding Wikipedia article. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Toolbar at top's "Reuse this file" has bug

Sorry I don't know the name of it but if I go to an image like File:Obelisk2.jpg there's a toolbar above the image with items like

  •     File
  • File history
  • File usage on Commons
  • File usage on other wikis
  • Metadata
  • Reuse this file

The first five are just links to sections but the last one, "Reuse this file", converts the menu to a submenu with the following items:

  •     Download
  • Use this file
  • Use this file
  • Email a link
  • Information
  • Emblem-unreadable.svg

The real problem is that the when the close icon (the "X") is clicked, it returns to the menu

  •     File
  • File history
  • File usage on Commons
  • File usage on other wikis
  • Metadata

and the "Reuse this file" option is gone.

I don't know if this menu is from a gadget or core functionality or where to file a bug report. (Note there's also a doubled use of "Use this file" in the submenu that's also a usability issue. The actual menu has icons to distinguish them but this is not a good solution.) Jason Quinn (talk) 03:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Another thing I noticed about this menu is that its state appears to persist somehow, likely with a cookie. This is also bad design. I basically never use this menu and it had become just something I ignore but the menu's state had been "stuck" in the submenu for a long time (years?) without me even realizing it. Jason Quinn (talk) 03:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Czech tram specialist needed

I uploaded images to Category:2022 in tram transport in the Czech Republic. However I am not good at determining the tram types in Olomouc. Some look very similar.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

When is a photograph made public

The definition of publication at Commons:Publication includes legalese: "to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered". I read that the "circle of a family and its social acquaintances" that are viewing a performance or object are the circle or family of the creator, if the creator's family view it it does not mean it is made public. At deletion review it is being interpreted as the circle or family of the person appearing in the image. The interpretation being used is that the person posing for an image made by a commercial photographer is not the public, but is a member of the family referred to in the legal clause. Does anyone else interpret it this way? RAN (talk) 02:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • If I have someone take a studio photo of me, and I show it only to my family, I cannot see that would constitute "publication". It has not been made available in public, it has been seen in a private context. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Per the legal definition at Wikisource:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 5/Sections 502 and 503 circulation "outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" is publication. Cleary it is referring to the family of the creator. Artwork can be a landscape or abstract, so why would it refer to the person posing for the camera. Section 2 describes "display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process" That describes a copy of the original work displayed or making a copy using any process. The original work is the camera negative, and any positive print is a copy. --RAN (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It mentions "a family" which means "any family". Not the family of the creator. Not the family of the sitter, but any family circle who happens to see the work. Furthermore, this definition is USA only. On Commons a work should be not copyrighted any more in the country of origin, where other definitions are used. Have you found any USA lawsuit where it was judged that your interpretation is correct? For instance the buyer of a physical print of a photo publishes the work in a book or newspaper without a valid licence from the photographer and this was considered lawfully? Ellywa (talk) 06:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The correct link is Wikisource:United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101. And there, the words "outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" are only used in the context of performance or display or exhibition of a motion picture, not in the context of publication. --Rosenzweig τ 15:47, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: The statement

"the words "outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances" are only used in the context of performance or display or exhibition of a motion picture, not in the context of publication."

is false. The phrase is used in the definition of "publication" as well as "motion picture exhibition facility". Here's the "publication" definition:
“Publication” is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display, constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication.
To perform or display a work “publicly” means—
(1) to perform or display it at a place open to the public or at any place where a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances is gathered; or
(2) to transmit or otherwise communicate a performance or display of the work to a place specified by clause (1) or to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance or display receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.
Glrx (talk) 18:09, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. That is a bullet point list. The definition of publication is one bullet point, the definition of what performing or displaying a work “publicly” means is another. Said phrase is not used in the definition of what publication is. It's used in the bullet point right below that one, but that's not in the "definition of publication" context. --Rosenzweig τ 18:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
17 USC § 101 is a set of definitions, and they are not independent.

"Said phrase is not used in the definition of what publication is."

When the definition of "publication" references a performance or display of a work publicly, then one goes to that definition for more information. A display to a family is not necessarily a public display. This topic raised an issue about whether the display of a photo to a family constitutes publication. That answer is likely no due to the definition of "publication".
Glrx (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I should be noted that current definition of publication is quite different that it used to be. We should not apply the former for hundred-years old pictures. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:29, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why do you think that "current definition of publication is quite different that it used to be"? What changed, what laws changed? And why should we not apply "the former for hundred-years old pictures"? Is there some law or similar that says so? --Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Simply because the copyright laws changed several times since then. We always apply the law relevant when and where a work was created or published. And most of the time, the old laws had shorter copyright duration and criteria less strict than the current laws. We already have had this discussion on Commons. Yann (talk) 20:13, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"We always apply the law relevant when and where a work was created or published"? No, we don't. We apply the laws in force now. If those laws, for example, extended the duration of copyright and the change was retroactive, we apply the longer duration term, not the one that was in force when the work was created or published. --Rosenzweig τ 21:31, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The U.S. 1976 Copyright Act (effective from 1978) had a definition of publication in the law, which changed the previous common-law definitions to an extent (and a lot for situations like this). See Commons:Public art and copyrights in the US for some information on the changes, though it is not focusing on this aspect. The law was not retroactive in that the definition in force before 1978 is still used to judge situations before then. Really, laws cannot be "retroactive" in the way you mention; you cannot always apply current law to a situation in the past -- you have to use the legal standards of the time. A retroactive copyright law is one that can revive copyright in works that were public domain; however that only applies going forward -- you can't convict someone of a copyright violation for something that occurred when it was considered public domain. You could use current definitions if a copyright term was made retroactive, since the term would then be based on the definitions of current law. The U.S. has not made any terms retroactive though (other for the URAA, but only so far as lack of notice and renewal; in all other respects older laws still apply). Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:43, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We're dealing with the legal status works have now (to determine if we can host them, right here and now, or not), not with the legal status they may have had when someone was perhaps committing a copyright violation. In some cases, older law is still applied for current legal questions (like, two non-US examples, in German law with anonymous/pseudonymous works before mid-1995 or in Spanish law with authors who died before a certain date still getting an 80 years pma protection term), but that is then based on some kind of current law, be it transitional regulations in a new law or court decisions as judge-made law. So no, I still don't think the statement "We always apply the law relevant when and where a work was created or published" is correct. --Rosenzweig τ 14:25, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
True. It's probably more accurate to say in the event of retroactive copyright terms, older laws become less relevant. With non-retroactive changes to copyright law, older laws are usually still in full effect when determining what the older copyright terms were. Most copyright laws are not retroactive. The EU is different in this way, though the text of older law is still relevant if it results in a longer copyright term than the current terms. And the URAA puts a unique twist on things, such that it involves the state of foreign law as of 1996 specifically, which for some EU countries predates the time they implemented the EU directive. In most of the rest of the world though, laws are not retroactive, so older stuff is often relevant, and even in the EU things like who owns copyright can still be based on older standards, if copyright was transferred then. Carl Lindberg (talk) 15:56, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Jmabel: Sounds like publication to me (in the US), but not for the family display that you point to. A public display (even outside a family) does not prove publication. I am a member of the public. Say I go to some random studio and have a photographer take a picture of me. The photographer owns the copyright. The photographer either sells or gives me a copy of his photograph. That act transfers the ownership of a copy, and that transfer (which happened before my displaying it to my family) is publication. Compare. If I take a photograph of my friend and give him a copy, then I am transferring ownership of a copy but not to the "public" and not for the purpose of subsequent public display, so that gift is probably not publication. If I take a photograph of my movie star friend and give her a bunch of copies so she can drop them off at auditions, then that is publication because I expect the copies to be subsequently distributed to the public. Glrx (talk) 14:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This does not quite gel with the language of United States Code/Title 17/Chapter 1/Section 101, which apparently equates "the public" with "a substantial number of persons outside of a normal circle of a family and its social acquaintances". To which you then would have to distribute "copies or phonorecords of a work [...] by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending". Nor does one person sound like the "general public" mentioned by the Berne Convention. --Rosenzweig τ 15:57, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is more the definition of "public place". Publication is usually the distribution of copies. Display or broadcast is usually not "publication". The EU concept of "making available to the public" does include public display and broadcast, and many EU copyright terms are based on that instead of actual publication, so sometimes it is really that which is meant when someone says "publication". For the U.S. situation, the term is incredibly tortured, since courts had to come up with their own definition before 1978. Because of the consequences of publication without notice, courts developed the concepts of "limited publication" versus "general publication". Only the latter lost copyright. One example of limited publication would be an author giving copies of a book to publishing houses, to see if they are interested in publishing it. The publishing houses would have no right to further publish things until they sign a contract to do so with the author. General publication would be when the books were sold to the public. Courts could differ in the definitions of "limited publication" though. One definition used by some circuits was distribution to a limited set of people, for a limited purpose, and no right of further distribution. All three of those conditions had to be satisfied. Other definitions may be copies made generally available to the public. Selling copies almost always constituted general publication though.
Another thorny question when it comes to photographs is who exactly owns the copyright. In today's law, a studio photographer would own the copyright unless a contract specifies otherwise. Before 1978, this was not so clear, with courts going both ways. Other laws have also changed stances on that -- the UK used to have most commissioned works be owned by the commissioning party; today that is far less often. Some countries once deemed ownership of photograph copyrights to be whoever owned the negative (a couple still do). With that ownership comes the right to first publish something.
Yet another thorny situation, specific to the U.S. before 1978, was the concept of "common law copyright". In the U.S., a work only got federal copyright protection once it was actually published (with notice), which started the copyright clock. Before that, it was considered "common law copyright", which was more nebulous and defined by the courts, but could last indefinitely until something was published.
For a photograph from a studio long ago in the U.S., if you believe the studio owns the copyright, then to me it's hard to think that the photo was not generally published when copies were sold to a customer. It was distributed to a limited set of people, but not for a limited purpose, and not restricting further publication. Copies were not generally available (though a studio might still be able to sell prints), but copies were sold. On the other hand, if a court decided that the common law copyright was implicitly transferred in that situation, i.e. the commissioning party owns the copyright, then likely it would be considered unpublished and owned by the pictured person, until they decided to give out copies. Court cases have gone different ways, depending on circumstances. Nothing about this is easy. There is no one definition of "publication".
I wrote some of same thoughts, and gave links to some papers which go over the U.S. complexity, in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minerva Kohlhepp Teichert 1908.jpg. Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:18, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Clindberg: I've just read what you wrote in said deletion request. So basically publication in the US, before 1978, was defined by various court decisions which sometimes contradict themselves – that does sound indeed very much like Common Law to me. Those definitions (which also partly depend on the notice requirements) are very different from the current US definition introduced in 1976/78 and also differ from the Berne Convention definition. I think we should have a paragraph about these pre-1978 definitions in Commons:Publication. If we can come to a consensus that basically says that pre-1978 US photographs by studio photographers are usually considered published per these older definitions, it would perhaps make some decisions easier. --Rosenzweig τ 15:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, that's what I have argued. If there are several interpretations of the law, we should use the one which allows us more latitude. In short, we should always look for a (valid legal) reason to keep a work rather than a reason to delete it. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Preventing Flickr duplicates

Hi, regarding

I don't know how the Flickr2Commons tool works. But obv it currently still doesn't detect duplicates well. Is there a way to mark the original image as "hey, this is the same image as on flickr (link)" or something. So that atleast that way duplicates won't continue to be uploaded. Because obv the duplicates should be deleted, but that won't prevent it from being uploaded once more, because the detection fails. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thibaultmol (talk • contribs) 06:15, 30 July 2022‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Thibaultmol: In my opinion, any automated tool that uploads to Commons should not be permitted to do so until it prevents upload of duplicates. See COM:VPP#Block mass upload tools that don't prevent upload of duplicates and also COM:SIGN.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is a bug that require better maintenance, Flickr2Commons is probably one of the best tools we have despite it having quite a number of issues. It simply needs more competent eyes on the code to solve its issues, why propose such a blanket ban when we literally have server tools that detects duplicates and admins that basically delete and redirect duplicates in a semi-automated manner? Flickr2Commons should not be banned, especially since almost all modern high quality photographs of places come from that website and only a limited number of privileged users can import from Flickr using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard. Flickr is the platform for most online talented photographers, not the Wikimedia Commons. In fact, I can't think of a single good photographer I know off-wiki that isn't on Flickr while I know 0 (zero) IRL that contribute here, why ban the main tool used to import from our most important source of museum, archeological, architectural, and other types of educational photography?!
It's better to simply improve the tool than to prevent tens thousands of good uploads because perhaps a few hundred might have a few temporary issues. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:55, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickr upload with the Wizard is only limited to autopatrol rights. Every User doing good contributions can and should have this right. There are good reasons for this. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:26, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're operating with the assumption that everyone has the same level of knowledge as you do, but that's not how novice users work. Imagine being a Wikipedian and you write a lot on Wikipedia, you see that quite a number of images on Wikipedia articles come from Flickr so you'll click on it and find that they were imported using Flickr2Commons, well, now the tool is blocked. Oké, so now are trying to import other images from Flickr but there aren't handy tools to do so, Autopatrol right isn't simply given to every user, it's usually requested. A novice won't be given that right and that might be a good thing, but if that user is simply a novice they won't even know that the "Upload from Flickr" option exists, this is because that button is only visible to Autopatrolled users. We also can't tell people to go "educate themselves" because they probably don't even know that this option exists and it won't even come up in their mind to search for something they don't know exists.
There quite a number of Flickr importers that simply never upload their own photography nor are there that many other websites where it's easy to do large amounts of imports from that makes an admin consider that user to be worthy to be autopatrolled. This will simply create extra unnecessary boundaries reducing an already small amount of importers and reducing the number of potential future importers by an unknowable amount over what can be considered to be a minor issue. The value gained from having high quality educational images by some of the best photographers to have ever walked this Earth is higher than the few minutes it takes to delete a few duplicates for an admin. Those images might be on Wikipedia forever, almost every major city in the world has a collage of high quality images of which quite a number were contributed from Flickr, but a duplicates are usually solved within a few days as they are almost immediately detected. The pro's of having Flickr2Commons be easily accessible simply outweigh the con's.
People go out of their way to find free high quality educational images on Flickr to import here, why make that process more difficult for people? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:37, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ran a little experiment myself (see above) using photographs from Kiev / Kyiv and one photograph from a Catalan museum and in all cases Flickr2Commons detected the duplicates, just in different ways. This tells me that the tool has the ability to detect duplicates but that there is some issue where it doesn't properly communicate with the server, isn't this just a software bug that requires a technical solution rather than a policy change? The proposer at the top of this section is clearly someone who commonly uploads using Flickr2Commons and simply wanted the tool to be improved (as far as I can tell), I can't read them wanting to ban a tool they use the import the high quality images with that in both cases above were clearly detected. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What examples did you use? Because there is a difference between an image that was already uploaded (VIA FLICKR) but I noticed that duplicate images that originally were from a different source don't get detected. For example I uploaded
But this was already on there but originating from a different website
I assume it's just doing duplicate check based on flickr filename/link but not on actual file checksum? ♦♦♦thibaultmol♦♦♦ (talk) 21:01, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I am not totally wrong every files gets checked by the checksum to prevent uploads of duplicates. You have to suppress this check actively during the upload process by setting the "ignorewarnings" parameter to 1. --GPSLeo (talk) 21:34, 30 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "same" file from different sources is very likely to differ with respect to EXIF-metadata. Most sites make changes to EXIF (adding their own identifier, removing location info, ...) resulting in a different SHA1. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:10, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Claes Gerritszoon Compaen