This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
hi, from where comes the text "c:Category:Bègue (surname)". thanks --JotaCartas (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See section above for Extra text in category. Rather than have duplicate discussions, I will mark this section as resolved. Please follow the discussion in the other section. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons Gazette 2023-09
Volunteer staff changes
In August 2023, 1 sysop was elected. Currently, there are 186 sysops.
See: Category:Anne Roselle where "c:Category:Anne Roselle" appears. Where did it come from? Did I turn on something by mistake in my preferences? Anyone else see it? RAN (talk) 17:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good evening forum users! How do you feel about sorting by year the first ladies of states? The wives of presidents and monarchs are very often put in the same row. --MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 18:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the Swedish page about the town of Radom, not a word is mentioned about the 33.000 jews living in the city at the time of ww2. They nearly all got killed in Treblinka.
This is Commons, not Swedish Wikipedia. Raise this issue there, though the article is just a short stub there. Ruslik (talk) 20:04, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"OAuth" tool for "Find images for Wikidata" of "PetScan"
When I want to add an image in WDFIST tool linked from "PetScan" (Find images for Wikidata) a get the following message "E1:You haven't authorized this application yet! Go <a target="_blank" href="/wdfist/query.php?action=authorize">here</a> to do that, then reload this page.", bu the link is not working (at least for me). Does anyone know how to go to the "OAuth" tool?? --JotaCartas (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
misscategorization and overcategorization
It is ok to fill up a category with files which is not the main subject causing the whole category to appear another category while having better categories for the images to be allocated to ?
Problem 1: a railway bridge from a pedestrian view has barely anything to do with year rail transport
Problem 2: the category now looks like bridges photographed rather than a year rail transport category 9pm (talk) 13:21, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@9pm: I can't make any sense of "the category appears now more to bridges photographed than a year rail transport category". Just doesn't parse. Can you reword (either in English or some other language)? - 17:34, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just rewrote the whole sentence , I hope it makes sense now and thanks for the corrections 9pm (talk) 20:18, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'd probably put them in both (though I doubt I would ever have created something as narrow as Category:2023 in rail transport in Catalonia). These are not big enough categories for additional images to be a real problem. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please help with file move (reversion)
I am trying to revert (move) a file to a its original filename. The new filename is breaking links on Wikisource. I can't just undo the file move/rename because a bot has performed another edit since then.
Although I have removed the redirect on the original filename, and it shows as not existing, the page mover won't let me rename it to the original filename because it says it already exists. I have tried purging both files.
The current filename is Blessed Be God, A Complete Catholic Prayer Book (1925).pdf
The original filename is Blessedbegodcomp00call.pdf
Can anyone help? Or tell me where else to post my request? Thank you. Laura1822 (talk) 20:09, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
THANK you!!! I have been beating my head against the wall over this! Thank you for fixing it so promptly. Laura1822 (talk) 20:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are five separate files. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing wrong with a quasi-gallery like that, but it belongs in the description, not in "other versions". "Other versions" is for other versions of the same image, not other images of the same object. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an extremely narrow interpretation of the "other versions" field I don't agree with. As the documentation says "Links to files with very similar content or derived files;". Having photos of the same car in other versions is no problem at all and shouldn't be moved to the description. Multichill (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: But they are not "very similar". They are just of the same vehicle. File:Aeolus Haoji 006.jpg is so different you wouldn't even guess it had any relation unless it were linked like this. "Very similar" is thing like a colorized postcard based on a particular black-and-white photo, or two shots from the same camera position taken seconds apart. I've absolutely never seen "other versions" used the way it was on this photo. I see you've reverted, and I won't edit-war, but I think you are wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For objects like sculptures it's common to have the other views also in the "other versions". Just a different view of the same object, just like with this car. Multichill (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: Never seen it, but then I don't do a lot of work here on other people's photos of sculptures.
Question: why isn't that (multiple images of the same sculpture) just done as a category? That's certainly what I would do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as it's open ended, yes it makes much sense to create a category for a sculpture, or for a vehicle model. Most importantly, you don't need to update each of the other versions whenever a new version is made. A big plus for categories! But I can't see any harm in creatively using the "other version" parameter like in this case. Naturally, editors should be discouraged from making really extensive galleries that way, but a couple photos of the same object from a different angle... well that is (imo) what may be expected right there. Just compare the crop-feature, it allows the embedding of hundreds of cutouts from the original file, in the original file's description-block: and yes, as "other versions"! Prime example I encountered today: this PDF with 160+ other versions. Another one is this JPG with 60+ other versions. Yes I think this many cutouts are annoying and counterproductive, but someone made them.) --Enyavar (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the same car, at the same time, and in the same place. These photos are more closely related to each other than they would be to photographs of other cars of the same model; linking them to each other like this seems like a reasonable thing to do, and it certainly doesn't harm anything. Omphalographer (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"other versions" is so often used as "related files". maybe it can be renamed as such.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to do about this, IMO. "Other versions" is just other related files, loosely defined. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 01:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Guidelines for naming visual arts works
I've found some works by Félix Vallotton that are misspelled ("Valloton"). Is there a guideline for naming works of this kind or is ot completely up to the uploader/renamer?
It's pretty loose -- remember that not all filenames are even in Latin characters -- but, yes, spelling should be corrected. Unless there is something actively wrong with the title originally chosen, I would not make the sort of larger edits you are proposing here. For the first and last ones, in particular, other than spelling you seem to be proposing less informative names. Also, for the fourth and fifth you are proposing to change the language of the title, which (to put it a little strongly) is how wars start. - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(in the first case, it should be noted that it is not an original work; in the fourth and fifth cases, I added the translation after the original title in French.)
Again, I stand by my statement that changing the language of a filename is a way to start a war. If you insist on doing it I won't stop you, but I certainly won't participate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These files are images of works of art which have original names, assigned by the artist, in French. Including those original names in the filename should not be controversial, especially if there's other reasons the filename needs to change anyway (like the artist's name being misspelled). I agree that renaming other files, like photographs, can be controversial, but this isn't one of those cases. Omphalographer (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would be in favor of that change. That being said, those category names are established and there's no immediate need to change them, whereas these file names need to change anyway to correct the spelling of the artist's name. Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carnby: No, don't go there. File names should only be renamed when incorrect and never to just improve them. See Commons:File renaming: "In general, Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution."
You're welcome to add a correct caption. Multichill (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So just correct Valloton in Vallotton?-- Carnby (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't even do that because the sources seem to mix both variants. Multichill (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK "Valloton" is just a common mispelling. Another mispelling is "Valloiton".-- Carnby (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vallotton's last name is signed in three of these five pieces (the other two are signed "FV"); there's no ambiguity in how it should be spelled. Omphalographer (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Iranian copyright law
We have a large list at User talk:GTVM92 where the nominator is questioning whether Iranian copyright law applies to images of The Shah and his family. Can we aggregate them into one list? I can see where a few that are attributed to non-Iranian news agencies would not fall under PD-Iran, like File:Iranian and British royal families.jpg, we can eliminate them from the list. RAN (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Each of these cases are different. At least for File:Shapour Bakhtiar portrait 1.jpg, the question is valid. For other pictures, it depends where, when, and by who they were taken. We usually assume that pictures are published in the country where they are taken, unless we have information saying otherwise. Yann (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those are two out about 50 nominations. I think we can aggregate the remaining ones, and leave off the ones where they are attributed to a non Iranian news agency or the image may have been taken during exile because of the age of the person pictured. --RAN (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
identification request
Maybe someone knows these gentlemen? I found a handful of pictures with him in the uncategorized files, but they lack a precise description. GeorgHH • talk 17:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No idea, but the license of this file is wrong. It can't be PD-US for a 2004 photograph. Yann (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the license, but the creator field claims "Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Administrator. Office of Public Affairs. Office of Multimedia. (10/15/2014)", while the file's metadata claims 2004. Is this because the photograph was published or perhaps donated in 2014? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: --GeorgHH • talk 13:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine
User:Cactinites recently moved Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine with a justification of "As per the Wikipedia page". Was this discussed? Is Cactinites perhaps unaware that Russia also invaded Ukraine in 2014? Or that many Wikipedias (including both Ukrainian and Russian language projects) still use the title with "2022" included?
Concur. If this was done without a CfD or equivalent, then it should certainly just be moved back, and if someone wants to move the category they need to develop a consensus to do so. This is obviously not an uncontroversial move, and no one should be making controversial moves unilaterally. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I think the files should have been moved, but at least the description in the inbox for Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine says "ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe since 2022." It's also a sub-category of a lot of other ones for events that took place in 2022. So as things currently are it seems like Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't include the pre-2022 conflicts. Again, that's not to say files should have been moved, but the description in the infobox at some of the parent categories at least need to be removed or changed in the process of restoring things so it doesn't seem like Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine is just for things that happened after 2021. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
New guy here - updating an SVG diagram image and I'd like to contribute it to the commons.
This is my very first post. I am looking to replace an existing image with one I updated for accuracy and detail. If this is easy to do, I could see contributing by editing more images that need work.
I have a few questions:
1) What is the proper process for updating a SVG image file? (I updated it using Adobe Illustrator, and I'd like to replace the existing if possible)
2) Is there a "design guidelines" page that tells me what colors/fonts/styles should be used when generating imagery for the commons?
3) What are my rights to use this image in a youtube video?
@Spdorsey: usually on Commons, you don't want to overwrite other people's files (see COM:OVERWRITE) unless you have their consent. Instead, you want to create your own version and mark it as a derivative work ({{Derivative works}} on the file page of the original, {{Derived from}} on yours. In particular, this keeps it clearer what aspects are authored by whom. Given that there doesn't seem to be anything actively wrong with the image in question, I'd strongly recommend going that route.
Commons has few, if any, design guidelines, except for a preference for vector formats such as SVG where they make sense. We're a repository, and we try not to get into fights about which version is "better". Those editorial decisions are generally left to the various Wikipedia articles, etc., that use the files.
If you want to use an image in a YouTube video (and, for that matter, if you want to make a derivative work) you need to abide by the license for the individual file. There are a wide variety of licenses here, but all provide for reuse, derivative works, etc. Without knowing the specific file, its hard to say what are the specific requirements for reuse.
I hope that answers your questions, but please follow up if it does not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, the tool named Adiutor coded by @Vikipolimer has been adapted to Wikimedia Commons. Those who are interested are requested to enable it in the settings. Regards, KadıMessage 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Malformed deletion nominations
See: here where they are malformed, but need to be deleted, because unfocused. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! I wonder if any guidance can be obtained re: what is and isn't allowed in a brief gallery intro regarding references. Is it helpful to interlink to 3-4 sources to substantiate content in the brief intro's text, is it not helpful or is it even expressly forbidden? For example, can the brief intro on a gallery about a person be linked to show that what is said about h is dependable, can the wording refer to an encyclopedia such as Britannica or none of the above, if there is no Wikipedia article about h. I have tried to find a guideline or the like on this, but have not been successful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think there is any firm rule. In many cases, you'd do better to work up a Wikidata item, though.
I work a lot on Seattle history, and things like what we have for Category:62-68 South Washington Street (Seattle) are pretty typical for the city's older buildings. Certainly a link to a Britannica article would be useful (especially in the absence of anything in any of our sister projects). Four sources seems to me to be pushing it a little, though: at that point, why not write a Wikipedia article? - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! I'm sorry I do not know the slightest thing about how to work up a Wikidata item. Wish I did. Could you please do one at the gallery for Jacob Truedson Demitz? There is an article on French Wikipedia, but creating one in English has proven controversial, and I am too close to the subject to avoid a COI problem. A lot has happened ref-wise, though, since one was deleted years ago. Maybe someone else will do one with updated info. Thanks again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've connected that to to the relevant existing Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Search for files not in category
Is it possible to search for files whose page text contains string X but which are not in Category Y? Would be very helpful when diffusing, expanding categories etc. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great – thank you so much. Is this syntax documented somewhere? (I did look, but didn't find it.) There might be other tricks that are useful to me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File:Ketchikan, AK - Fire Engine No. 1.jpg: underlying image seems fine, but no thumbnails for me. Duly purged & it won't let me re-upload as a new version, says it's an exact duplicate, so I don't see much I can do from my end. Is this failing for others or just for me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I can see all thumbnails of that. --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now so can I. Guess it was a short-term glitch. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But now I'm having the same problem with File:Ketchikan, AK - taxidermied wolf in entrance to a shop on Water Street.jpg, and this time I can't even see the underlying image (instead I get "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.60/6/60/Ketchikan%2C_AK_-_taxidermied_wolf_in_entrance_to_a_shop_on_Water_Street.jpg"). Commons obviously has it, because I can't upload a "duplicate". I'm guessing there is some sort of server-synch'ing issue.- Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This photo shows a lamp turned on during the day. I wanted to categorize it as such, but we seem to lack even a cat for lamps (or any lighting fixture) in on state, ans also in off state. Seems like a glaring absence, pardon the pun. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 05:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: If no one has yet created such a category at any level, it means that users have not yet considered such a category necessary, and they did not consider it appropriate to complicate the categorization with this distinction. Even with many other machines and devices, we do not have separate categorization branches for on (functional) and off (non-functional) state. However, Candles have a subcategory of Category:Burning candles. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I suspected that such a category does not exist because it was never created, as one could say about… well, most anything. I suspect that the paucity of contents in cats like Category:Vehicles in motion is that Commons deals mostly with static images, whereon the on or off state of most devices cannot be easily (or usefully) ascertained — a glaring exception (heh) being exactly lighting devices. Therefore I do think that such a new cat is warranted.
What I meant with the o.p. is to stirr up ideas about the new cat’s name and categorization; mentioning Burning candles as part of Candles is a useful analogous, and a good candidate for a subcat.
In terms of English, what would be the suitable wording?
@Tuvalkin: Such a category would certainly be useful, but we probably have to assume the fact that no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories.
I'm not very good in English, however, if there is a choice of more synonyms, preference should be given to the term that is as internationally comprehensible and unambiguous as possible. According to my vocabulary, the word "lit" is a bit ambiguous - it can mean both, shining object and (passively) illuminated object. Another requirement is that it should be possible to attach the relevant criterion in the same way and in the same form to the names of all subcategories, including categories with long descriptive names, e.g. "Exterior lighting fixtures at train stations" or "Luminous road signs". --ŠJů (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point about "lit". Maybe "alight", then? The most generic cat should not be constrained to electrical lamps, so "on" might not be ideal.
I cannot share your concern about the possibility that «no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories», though: That’s what many of us do every day, and love it. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came across the interpretation that the word "alight" is inappropriate for electric lights. The available online dictionary does not even indicate this possibility.
If you are willing to sort photos of lamps and light objects into a deep categorization, I wish you a lot of perseverance. --ŠJů (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Lit lamps" is probably the most colloquial English. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's probably best to have a similar or identical format for all kinds of "electrical devices that are switched on". most devices cannot be lit.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This so called upgrading of a postcard is a comprehensive degrade, and should be uploaded as a different image. The label in the bottom left is not a watermark, the yellow sky is typical of the house style printing back in 1890-1905. I have contacted @Jan Arkesteijn: about it.
Apologies too him, but this issue is too important to leave, just on his talk page.
Also when you edit his talk page a pop up appears indicating this user was blocked on 8 November 2018. Is this some unwanted artefact? It certainly took me by suprise. .Broichmore (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Embarrassingly enough, I just noticed the edit was back in 2008. However nobody has reverted this type of work it would seem. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: that user was blocked for unwanted behavior which included overwriting files with horrible versions, just like what happened here. These files are tracked in Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review. Why did you remove it without reverting it to the original file? By removing the category and not reverting you're saying the current version is fine. If you encounter such a horrible overwrite by another user you can just undo it with a link to COM:OVERWRITE. Multichill (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now reverted to original file. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had already sorted this out by uploading the original postcard as a new file and linking it into this so called improved file, so please revert your edit. Many thanks. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a particular procedure for doing this type of correction? I just relied on deleting the check this cat, which has loads of files in it... Broichmore (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: Please feel free to revert me with appropriate comment. Since you hadn't said here that you had sorted this out, I assumed your initial issue still stood unaddressed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see now that your strategy of reverting back to the original is the best method, So I've gone along with it and added two extra files, a cropped version , and a modified version. Broichmore (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Elon Musk family tree removed
This edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Elon_Musk&oldid=726496691 removed the Elon Musk family tree from his category. The remover described it as clutter, but for people with extensive family trees, we do have trees embedded in the category. It is a visual navigation device to move through the family. We don't take a screenshot and post it, because it is dynamic. People are currently working backward and adding to it. We have these trees for almost everyone with an extensive tree with Wikidata/Commons entries. I have no objection to it appearing collapsed with a click to open, but I do not remember how to add a collapse feature, can anyone help? --RAN (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably reasonable to have it there, but it definitely should be collapsible. You can just stick it inside an HTML DIV element with class="mw-collapsible". There are probably templates to do this more cleanly, but that will work. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Yann: The problem now is that the reader isn't aware that the chart exists when it is collapse using this method. See: w:Sir Hector Og Maclean, 15th Chief where the collapse feature was baked into the template, and it leaves behind a title and an outline box. I think the collapse feature needs to be baked into the template. Unless you think of a way to make it more like the one at Maclean, any ideas? I haven't edited the template in years, the last time I edited it I worked on the colors. --RAN (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The bot applies the "duplicate" tag to delete the most recent duplicate file. However, in this instance, the newer file are actually better because they give details about "Sanborn maps." The other file does not have this valuable information. Also, the file nominated for deletion has better licensing as well. What is the best way to delete the older files instead (reverse the tagged file)? There are many of these files like this. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: It's late, I'm tired; I suspect that just using VFC on Category:Duplicate to get rid of the bad bot edits is the quickest way to do this; deal with the side that should be deleted later. I'd do this myself but I'm about to head to bed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, I don't use VFC. Can I just remove the duplicate tag manually? -- Ooligan (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: sure, I was just trying to save you some tedium. It's a tool very worth learning if you want to avoid repetitive editing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try VFC. I undid some bot edits manually. Yes, "some tedium" as you said. I am unlikely to learn VFC soon enough to help with these files.
@Ooligan: Yeah, this one is a tough place to start on VFC, because it would require regular expressions, but it's very worth learning. Let me see if I can deal with this one for you. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, Your help is very much appreciated. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To fix the root cause, shouldn't one block the bot that uploads all these identical files instead? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily, if it is uploading files with with good metadata over files the were uploaded haphazardly without that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what the bot is doing. It appears to do upload thousands of files we already have without any regard to current Commons content. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted on my talk page, I have been traveling with limited availability, so I have not been able to fully respond. I shut off the bot when I was notified, so there are no longer new duplicates being generated, and I don't really get why it is being brought up in this thread as there is no ongoing emergency. The DPLA bot has uploaded nearly 4 million files now in the last few years. It operates at a high volume. 2000 uploads are a drop in the bucket, and can sometimes happen in just a few hours—there have been over 115,000 uploads this month. I am not saying that to be dismissive, but Enhancing999 is severely misinformed to claim it is uploading "without any regard to current Commons content", and if that were the case, this would have been a much larger problem before now. A project of this magnitude, involving hundreds of contributing institutions, has a lot of code and a lot of edge cases to handle. It's impossible to guarantee there will never be a bug. At the same time, I am always dedicated to cleaning up anything that goes awry, if given the chance. Dominic (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several bugs me a bit here.
First, OptimusPrimeBot does its job (mostly), it marks duplicates as duplicates and let human decide what human should do with this duplication (and no, it's not a nomination for deletion, that's up for the human to decide). Don't blame the bot (or its owner, or the {{Duplicate}} template) for that. That said, given the amount of files, maybe generating first a wiki page with the list of duplicates would be better in this case. @Don-vip: would it be possible?
Then, DPLA bot also does its job (mostly), uploading pictures, again don't blame the bot. The weird thing is that duplicates are both uploaded by the same account on a short period of time and there is some data that should make the duplicate obvious "before" the uploading. For intance, File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpeg uploaded on August 2021 and File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpg on April 2022. Both have the *exact same name* (except the extension jpeg/jpg) and include what seems to be an *unique* identifier. I totally understand how big imports can be complicated (and I must say, humans - myself included - often do much more errors than that) but here, I feel that the duplication could have been easily prevented. @Dominic: (when you'll have time of course) is there anything you can do here to prevent that from happening again?
Hi @VIGNERON! As long as there are less than 5000 duplicates overall, the wiki page already exists at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListDuplicatedFiles&limit=5000 . As I have disabled the duplicate detection until this dispute is settled and I don't risk to see my bot blocked again, the list will grow every 3 days by about ~300 files (on average) unless some user or bot performs a large upload of duplicates such as the recent one done by DPLA. vip (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Don-vip's bot could skip the DPLA stuff and leave it to the uploader to proceed with the promised cleanup before any further uploads. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/08#File:Chess_edt45.svg,_File:Chess_Bdt45.svg for prior discussion. In the hope of avoiding everyone just reverting each other: User:Double sharp, can you explain why you have, over the years, repeatedly tried to make this file a duplicate of the inverted bishop file? Per Commons policy, there should not be duplicates: if elephants were truly identical to inverted bishops, then the files should just be redirects, but the edit history suggests they are not identical and the elephant file should be restored to depicting an elephant. You point to w:Ferz, which states "the ferz, represented by an inverted bishop, may move to any marked square", but surely the solution is to make pages like that use the inverted bishop file they say they intended to use, rather than to overwrite whatever different file they happen to be using with a duplicate of the inverted bishop. Pinging also the other editors who've edited this file, User:Shlomo, User:NikNaks, User:Koavf. -sche (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with User:-sche. If some picture description says "incumbent president" and there is a picture of the outgoing one, we do not overwrite File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg with Joe Biden's face, but rather change the article to reflect the new reality. If User:Double sharp insist of the picture of inverted bishop to represent a ferz, he can edit the diagram code and change the el to Bl. Alternatively, he can change the description into "The ferz, represented by an elephant, …" Or he can choose any other picture to represent the ferz, e.g. inverted king, inverted queen or even the regular queen, as used for ferz in w:en:Tamerlane chess. AFAIK there is no convention which picture should be used for a ferz.--Shlomo (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was trying to make it consistent with the long-standing convention at en:Template:Chess diagram to use e for inverted bishop. The two are not interchangeable: an elephant pretty much implies that we're illustrating one of the historical "elephant" pieces (and not all RS would actually draw an elephant, though some would), whereas an inverted bishop could mean "anything vaguely bishop-like" according to the problemist convention.
But yes, I mixed it up with the similar File:Chess ell45.svg and so forth, where there had not been a "B" at all and the change meant that there wasn't an inverted bishop left. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I guess the fact that it's "e" means that it's inevitably going to be associated with elephants, so I have uploaded a complete set of inverted bishops at the "B" locations, reverted the "e" locations back to elephants, and edited the en.wp articles and documentation to match. That should settle the matter; my apologies for the confusion. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Train-the-trainer course: OpenRefine-Wikimedia
Hi all,
From November 2023 until April 2024, there will be an intensive online train-the-trainer course for candidate OpenRefine-Wikimedia trainers. OpenRefine can be used to batch edit and upload files on Wikimedia Commons; it is frequently used by librarians and in the cultural sector.
The training has room for up to 8 motivated participants.
To each their own... (and having several tools for the same thing is a good thing, if one break there is an other one ready). Personally, I strongly suggest people interrested in mass imports to at lest try and take a look OpenRefine. True it can be a bit more complicated at first but there is much more potential. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bitesized youtube videos will be more useful for noobs like me. (mw video player is atrocious.) anyway thx for the guide.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons anniversary
Commons turned nineteen today, so some sweets for great occasion. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Cute :-) It sure was not super predictable as teen. Looking forward to adulthood ;-p Any bigger celebration planned? I would love for us to use the anniversary opportunity to attaract more attention, as Wikipedia had and now Wikidata does. Zblace (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there's no rule that the sets must have the same naming. In my opinion names in this category are completely useless and meaningless -- users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures, because the name "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10)" describes the origin, but not the main subject of the picture. Regardless of my opinion, you can always request a rename using the "rename" template, but a rename from specific to meaningless is rarely accepted, especially when requested by someone other than the original uploader.
I think this is wrong for several generic reasons:
We have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of images from third party sites, named in series in the manner of this image's original upload. Many, as in this case, use the title of the work for which the image is an illustration.
Series names are meaningful
Arbitrarily renaming images from series can be detrimental to the work of colleagues who collaborate with GLAMs and other partner organisations on mass uploads
The claim "users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures" is clearly bogus.
The original uploader is no longer active; but I collaborated with them on a number of aspects of their bulk uploads.
An undiscussed name change should if challenged in good faith, be reverted and a discussion opened.
I think we should discuss the generic points, and if necessary document a policy that such naming should be preserved (if necessary; we could adopt a model which preserves the original name and appends the new label; say: "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843"). I also maintain that the specific image should have its original name restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your right, we should name files the way the Museum describes them, which is the case here. This has been reinforced over time by our uploading bots. I notice he's named the file, by what would normally be the caption, and he has additionally dispensed with the BM identifier suffix. The latter is considered a unique identifier in itself. Also to mention the subject is identified as being (the archaic) Shaj Soojahool Moolk, if a rename were to be sanctioned this would be it Portrait of Shaj Soojahool Moolk (BM 1970,0527.2.4).jpg . Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see some situations where it wouldn't be useful to files exactly how the Museum describes them. For instance, say I scan and upload a couple of hundred images of a postcard series and name them all as "author, series number, title", but I'm missing a few. Then someone uploads a the two that I'm missing from a museum and name their images something like "British Museum, Prints and Drawings collection, Accession number 1970,0527.2.4." I don't really see how that's at all helpful even if that's how the file is named on the museums end. Not to mention we already have the file description for that information anyway.
I can kind of understand why it would be useful for bots so they don't upload duplicates, but at the end of the day file names should be descriptive and it's not like bots can't just read file descriptions to ascertain the exact accession numbers of similar files to what they are uploading. "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843" doesn't describe what's being depicted in the image though. Plus it's just needlessly obtuse on top of it. I guess you could name the file something like "Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843 (BM 1970,0527.2.10).jpg", but again I don't see what actual good it does to have the accession number in the file name. If were me I'd just name it something like "Lowes Cato Dickinson 1843 lithograph of Shah Shujah" and call it good there. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Commons:File naming: "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray".
@Wieralee: files are not necessarily seen in the context of a particular category. It as often as not appropriate that the name of one or more of the categories of a file belongs as part of the file name. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) My point is that Commons:File naming is inadequate in these circumstances. 2) The image in question depicts a late from Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects. 3) I am not arguing that files should necessarily repeat the category name; I'm arguing that files named in series should preserve that naming. 4) The file is in Category:Shuja Shah Durrani - the current name repeats that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Perhaps "is a file which shows the appearance of a late prisoner"? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My guess is that he meant "plate." As in a full page illustration that was printed separately from the book's text. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This got much too far beyond its initial purpose. Let's not resurrect old disputes. If the shit hits the fan, everybody looses. Yann (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:Fæ is long departed, and User talk:Fæ is breaking under the number of template transclusions. Can anyone see why a bot is not archiving it, as is supposed to happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's getting bot-archived just fine – last archive was a few hours ago, at 07:55, 25 August 2023 by User:ArchiverBot. The oldest thread there is only five days old. The problem is that ~ 270 different deletion notices have been served in the past week or two. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait what happened to him Trade (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: After the Nth time that they (Fæ's preferred pronoun, though I'm sure I've also slipped and used "he" at times) were a target of what they, at least, perceived as homophobic remarks, they quit. Some of the remarks were definitely exactly that. Oddly, the one that put them over the edge was something I think they misconstrued, but I can see how they read it that way in the context of what had gone before. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, all that went somewhere. It was used to get rid of other “undesirables”, such as AlexisJazz (blocked at 1st strike over a transparently bogus accusation), while it was pointedly not used in order to keep around someone’s darlings like INeverCry (finally blocked after their 3rd serious meltdown). Fæ had almost always managed to present a formidably thick skin against all those slings and arrows, but it eventually become too much. It’s a huge loss for Commons, but we know that both the WMF and even some of our admins have the goal of seeing the end of this project, or at least its transformation into something most of us would not want to be a part of. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be exact, Fæ left the project so abruptly that at the time a batch of them was running, which was then cancelled. Fæ takes the view that the reasons for them departure are open for all to see, if only they wanted to see it. There has been doxxing and death threats and no active help or solidarity. Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.Suthorn, you wrote, "Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community."
Toward that purpose, in what form could action(s) be taken at this time? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision? This user is now also globally banned. We should not reopen the request, but something like this should definitely not happen. GPSLeo (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: Please feel free to open a new request on Fæ's behalf. I don't have access to the source materials. Pinging @Beeblebrox as mentioned above. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I wrote, I do not want to open a two year old case. I would only take this into account if there would be a new compliant on new problematic behavior. There are no deleted pages connected to this case and of course I do not have access to the information of the banning T&S team. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange. So potentially T&S wasn't even aware of it?
Seemed to me that Fae was one of the most productive contributors to Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think this is a matter of nobody having noticed: Rodhullandemu (the globally banned former admin you mention) was sanctioned several months after their closing of Fæ complaint against Beeblebrox, and, if anything, their stance as the closing admin appeared to be sympathetic to Fæ. (To muddle the matters further, both Beeblebrox and I, who would sharply disagree about Fæ’s merits, did oppose sanctioning Rodhullandemu…: see User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4/Block.)
Be as it may, I support any action that would cause Fæ to reconsider his leaving Commons.
who wanna tackle an enwp checkuser and the gang on wikipediocracy? next thing we know would be those users evaporate from wikis and become the next victims... (if i disappear, you know who...)
keep in mind that wikis collect your ip etc. so not only your online presence but also your real life might be affected.
"Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision?" did you also notice that user's closure was actually reluctant? because the gang had quickly mobilised to derail the original complaint? RZuo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to parse out whatever it is this comment is supposed to mean, and as far as I can tell it is saying that I, in my capacity as a CU on en.wp, use that position to doxx people so I can destroy their lives. I'd like to suggest that this discussion be closed and that this inflammatory lie be stricken. This is nasty, unfounded personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can tell of the bot configuration on that page, it will all be swept away within a week. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure exactly what is being asked of me here? This is all very old news and I don't have anything to do with how Fae's talk page is archived. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeblebrox: I'm going to assume good faith and suggest you read the thread. You were not mentioned in terms of the original subject (the archiving of the talk page, which has been worked out) but in terms of what several people see as your role in hounding Fæ off of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fae was trying to get me kicked off of Commons, by claiming I was directly encouraging people to doxx them or throw bricks at their house or some nonsense like that, which, if I had done, would certainly be something I should be kicked out for, but it simply was not true, and when it didn't work, they dramaquit. That isn't hounding someone off.
I admit I do not care for Fae, who, just like rodhullandemu, is quite skilled at playing the victim and the bully at the same time. That is not a trait I enjoy encountering. I'd ask again what it is anyone wants from me all this time later. I'm not stopping Fae from returning, that option is 100% open to them whenever they wish to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
#MeToo. Actually a huge injustice that RHE is banned and Fæ is not. Either both or none, dear WMF... --A.Savin 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found)
Thanks Jeff G., my tech-savvy here on Commons is limited (not sure if there's something that needs to be re-set or a cache than needs clearing). The enwiki article uses the thumbnail version of the file, which is still displaying rotated 90 degrees clockwise. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cl3phact0: You're welcome. Steinsplitter's bot can run every 10 minutes, but it has not run in the 98 minutes since 09:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gravity defying photo now properly oriented. Thanks again. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Help in cropping the image
Can someone crop this image File:Lipisingh.jpg. Basically, above her head the background shows people. I want to cut that portion. Bring it upto hat worn by her.-Admantine123 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the last several hours, https://geohack.toolforge.org/geohack.php doesn't work. The links return message "504 Gateway Time-out". Unfortunately, almost all links from the coordinate templates in the Commons go through this page, so all other map features and services are unavailable. ŠJů (talk) 18:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nearly hole Toolforge is currently down. There are multiple problems.
It looks like the queue at User:CommonsDelinker/commands has not been serviced at all in about 20 hours. Does anyone know if anything can be done about that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel A restart looks to have fixed it. Probably due to the toolforge/wmcs issues recently. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mdaniels5757: looks like that solved the file replacement queue, but not the category move queue. (Thank you, sincerely, for solving half the problem.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Yeah, that's SteinsplitterBot's thing (CommonsDelinker only removes them when they're done). I posted on Steinsplitter's page. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration
Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request temporary interface administrator and administrator rights for the purpose of integrating and deploying the Adiutor tool to Wikimedia Commons. I would like to have these privileges for a duration of one week. You can find comprehensive information about Adiutor through this link. I believe that having these privileges will greatly assist in the successful adaptation and deployment of Adiutor, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient process throughout the integration. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Warning: This is no longer a current request, it has already been done.
@Vikipolimer, Thanks for notifying us. Your contributions for Adiutor improved many Wikis. We can use this tool here also, it would be very beneficial because tagging and reporting process is hard in Commons. I am pinging bureaucrats in order to evaluate this request: @99of9, @Ellin Beltz, @EugeneZelenko, @Jameslwoodward, @Krd, and @Odder. KadıMessage 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Context for those who (like me) had no clue what Vikipolimer was talking about: meta:Adiutor. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that all existing rollouts are on Wikipedias, and that Commons is a bigger project than the existing venues. Are we confident that it is well suited to Commons? For example, has the list of speedy deletion reasons been customised to suit Commons deletion reasons? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@99of9, yes you can test the gadget. Commons:Adiutor I've already start the adapting process. If you want new features for commons, I can add lovely. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 05:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I have enabled the gadget and will try to test it out a bit (so far I've found that things like: "CopyVio check" means only checking some text on the page, nothing to do with the image, so does not hit 99.9% of Copyvios on Commons). If the gadget already works, what is it that you need to edit with interface administrator rights? --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@99of9, I am currently in the process of adding templates and configuring settings that will be applied universally across the gadget files. Authorization for this task was granted a couple of hours ago, and I have just completed the initial setup. There are only a few minor tasks remaining, and once I finish those, my work will be complete. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 06:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to be very cautious with suggestions of this sort when it seems that whoever designed it doesn't really understand the Commons situation and the assurance "everything is fine" is how many major disasters have started. I would like to see a test period of several weeks rather than a speedy rollout. At present I do not have sufficient information to vote in favor of any rights for this deployment. I reviewed the page linked to us by Jmabel, since the proposor didn't. I see three things which are listed for Commons. All three things are currently quite automated and I fail to see any reason to implement a second layer of code on top of what is currently working well. Perhaps Vikipolimer would be so kind to explain what exactly the benefits are of a system which reproduces what we already have? I would ask that folks take a quick look at the amount of information provided by the devs for this, see https://gyazo.com/892670f648c5b03d0884e46a6adaaa77 for a screenshot. "Adiutor: a tool that assists users in various operations" is insufficient information when compared with other existing addons. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Ellin Beltz, I believe there might be a misunderstanding. The features mentioned on the Meta page regarding Commons are actually additional enhancements specifically designed for Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, most of the features listed in the section above are already in operation on Wikimedia Commons. I must admit that I find the assertion that I lack an understanding of Wikimedia Commons a bit discouraging, if I may be candid. I kindly request that you take a moment to visit this page to gain a better understanding of what is actively available in this project. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 01:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also a bit concerned. Just for one example, the list says, "Editors can request page move". How will that differ from the current "Move" tab in our existing UI? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, This gadget module (Page move request) serves the purpose of facilitating page transfers to new destinations. Typically, auto-approved users have the capability to execute page moves via the [move] tab on pages. Nevertheless, there are instances where the target page boasts a multi-version history and the source page is subject to move protection. In such scenarios, only administrators possess the authority to carry out the transfer. This tool is specifically designed for the submission of requests for these unique migrations that require administrative intervention, as well as requests from users and newcomers who lack the ability to execute page migrations independently. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: Which sounds like a description of exactly how Commons "Move" tab already works (possibly minus the existing "Move and Replace" option, I can't tell whether that was an oversight in your description or a difference in the behavior). How will this differ? I am concerned, looking at the list, that this is a solution to which there is no known problem. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, It's just puts a template to the page. So than I have a question for you, why you need this template on Wikimedia Commons? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 04:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: Are you describing current behavior, or what your tool does? Because current behavior is:
If you have filemover capabilities, it offers "move and replace": on your own authority, you can move the file to a new name, and implicitly edit all instances where any other WMF wiki references the file to use the new filename instead.
And, yes, there are some circumstances where the move will fail, mainly if you try to move to a blacklisted filename, or if the filename you want to move to already exists; in the latter case, if the move really is correct, and if you can't just move the interfering file, you need an admin to delete it; I'm not going to try to cover every edge case here.
If you don't have filemover capabilities, then it simply adds {{Move}} with the appropriate arguments. Among other things, this categorizes it to get the attention of an admin or filemover.
How does that compare to the behavior of your tool?
(I am very concerned that you are ready to go live with this when we don't even have a list of how its various capabilities compare to the tools we already have. I see nothing on the list for which we do not currently have a tool in our UI. And tools break, and tools need to be maintained, and I really don't want to see a bunch of dual maintenance. But first, please address my specific question about the comparison for this particular feature.)- Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe the tool duplicates other existing tools, but it's good to have something with better design, upkeep, and one-for-all functionality.
i enabled it as soon as i saw it was added in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and tested it. so far i'm mostly satisfied. it seems decent. but i continue using the existing old tools just because i'm more familiar with those and dont have the time to learn this new tool for now.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: my concern isn't so much where it may duplicate other tools as where it may almost duplicate them, but with less functionality. Conversely, I'd be very interested if there is anything actually new here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read this thread and also the linked pages (meta:Adiutor and Commons:Adiutor) and their talk pages — and I am, for now at least, not using this. Really fishy — someone from the developer team could at answer questions? And really was there a specific coverage of Commons and yet the main namespace considered was ns:0 (article/gallery)…? -- Tuválkin✉✇ 12:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin, @RZuo The Adiutor gadget has been successfully integrated into Wikimedia Commons gadgets, and as a result, this request can now be marked as complete. We're pleased to inform you that the gadget has been optimized specifically for Wikimedia Commons and comes with a host of new features tailored to enhance the Wikimedia Commons experience. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 12:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s why you’re ignoring questions about it? Done deal, moving on? Yeah that’s the WMF shills’ style, but seldom this much on the nose. -- Tuválkin✉✇ 12:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin, I'm not ignoring the questions, I'm not a WMF employee, I'm just a volunteer like you, I've made a tool available to help people here as much as I can and this request is no longer relevant, in addition if you have any questions please ask them on the meta page. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I appologize for my harsh tone — it was prompted by (what I interpreted as) your use of “corporate speech” but was not warranted. (You can still answer Jmabel’s questions, though.) -- Tuválkin✉✇ 14:22, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin, Also I already answered your question, how would the gadget be ready to use if we didn't adapt namespace etc. Have you ever tested it before asking this question? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 13:59, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I continue to have the same question, and I don't see it addressed by Vikipolimer or anyone else. Is this functioning just as a different UI to existing Commons tools? If so, fine. If not, then what are the functional differences from our various tools for the various purposes? Is there anything actually new here by way of functionality? We need, and I mean that word need, a description of these differences and additions. Otherwise, we are being presented with a new tool with mystery behaviors that may or may not be desirable.
I'm not so concerned about functionality that merely gives information, but it is clear that this tool can execute actions. In particular, I still cannot tell if you get a different result in some scenarios if you use Adiutor to move a file, as against the existing "Move & Replace". - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, sorry I miss that question, I'm kinda busy but let me answer this question, Adiutor' does not move a file, it only helps the user who cannot move a file to request that it be moved, other than that, the operations that can be done with adiutor are listed on its page, if you have any questions or comments about the tool, please voice them on the tool's page. And here's the list what editors can do with Adiutor:
Features
Editors can create speedy deletion requests.
Editors can nominate files for deletion.
Editors can request page protections
Editors can request user blocks
Editors can request page moves
Editors can see the recent diff on a page.
Editors can check the copyright status
Editors can see the user widget on user's user page.
Editors can see recent changes of the page.
Editors can issue warnings to users.
Editors can report copyright violations.
Editors can create an investigation for sockpuppetry.
Editors can report sockpuppet or sockpuppet master.
Admins can block users by user blocking module.
Admins can perform speedy page deletion and batch page deletion.
Admins can finalize the nominated files for deletion.
@Vikipolimer: Yes, I've seen the list. I wasn't asking you to replicate it here. What I am asking is for each of these features where we already have a tool, how does the behavior of Adiutor differ from our existing tool?
So far you've effectively said that the "move" tool here duplicates part of what we already have, but is less functional. Can you understand why we would like to understand more of what this does and doesn't do? Not a "feature list", an actual description of how it is functionally different from our existing tools for many of these purposes. - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel I apologize, but I believe I may not fully grasp the complete scope and logic of your question. These are some inherent features that can be removed if they are causing you any harm or kept if they are not problematic. These features in this gadget may already exist in another tool, which should not hinder you from using the other gadget. We aim to keep the gadget as versatile as possible and have consolidated various functionalities that users activate across different tools into a single centralized gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 15:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: Let me try another concrete example. You say, "Admins can block users by user blocking module." Does the UI you provide either omit any of the capabilities we have at Special:Block/USERNAME or add capabilities that we do not have there?
And, at the opposite extreme, let me try the most general question: what existing problem or problems on Commons is this tool intended to solve? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, I appreciate your perspective, which seems to differ from the current approach. It's important to note that the user blocking module within the MediaWiki interface serves as a practical tool designed to streamline processes. If your intention is to provide constructive criticism, please feel free to continue doing so. However, if you prefer not to use this tool, you have the option to disable it. Any discussions regarding the removal of this tool from Wikimedia Commons should be directed to the community for consideration. The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page. It's crucial to clarify that your concerns seem to be centered around the tool's operations rather than its existence. It's worth noting that aside from your perspective, there are users who have provided positive feedback and find value in using this tool. I may not fully grasp the specific issue you are advocating for, but if you have any suggestions or advice for me as the developer of this tool, please feel free to share them in the discussion section of the meta page. Regrettably, it appears that I may not be able to provide further assistance on this matter at this time, as our discussion seems to have reached an impasse. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 21:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: on its dedicated page: can you please provide a link to the page you are talking about? And I'm not rejecting the tool: I'm saying that when we add a tool here, we normally discuss what it does, how it differs from existing capabilities, etc. and I've seen none of that, so I frankly have no informed opinion of your tool. Perhaps the answer to what I've asked is somewhere, but as far as I can see the only link you have provided is to meta:Adiutor, and all I see here is an assertion that a blocking capability exists, not what it can and cannot do. If it is less flexible in how blocks can be done, I think we need to know that. When we are bringing in new admins who are learning the admin tools for the first time, if we have two different blocking tools and one has less flexibility, we need to be able to tell them that rather than have them possibly start using the less capable tool and not know they are missing something. I'm not asking rhetorical questions here, and my intent is not hostile. I've been asking questions trying to get what to me seems the basic information about a newly introduced tool, and so far I do not believe you have been answering them, or if you have I certainly haven't understood your answers. - Jmabel ! talk 21:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel Understanding a gadget doesn't solely come from asking questions; it's through hands-on experimentation that you truly grasp its capabilities. While this gadget boasts a myriad of features, it's easy to get fixated on one aspect and find yourself caught in an unending loop of inquiries. I've endeavored to provide comprehensive explanations, and you'll find a detailed list of what can be accomplished with this tool in its feature set. It's important to note that this gadget is still in active development, and I welcome any suggestions you may have for additional features. Please feel free to share your ideas; your input can help shape the future enhancements of the gadget. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 22:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: I am not rejecting the tool either. I am not asking you to replicate a list of words which do not provide understanding. I would like one concrete example of how this is supposed to be better, more helpful, more advanced or more useful than the system we have now. I would appreciate documentation on the tool, as I showed above in the gyazo link, it is the only tool without any documentation in any language. And while you might understand it - it's obvious that the admins here do not understand and the answers we are getting sound like advertising for something wonderful. Why would we not want to use something wonderful? Obviously we do. Slow down a little and read the words of what is being written to you. People are asking for examples, not platitudes, and certainly not expecting you to get upset. Specifically from the link page you keep linking, it reads "support from the Wikipedia community play a vital role in further developing Adiutor into a more functional and user-friendly tool." What I see here is that it's not functional without instructions and also without instructions it's not user-friendly. Since there is no documentation, there is no way to understand what it does. Cheerleading and boostering isn't educational. Because you think it's that great - of course we'd like to use it - but you have to explain how and why it's better or important not just that it exists. You have several administrators trying really hard to work with you "support of the community" and all that, but I do not see that you are trying to work with us. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:42, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I simply cannot find what you wrote above "The tool's functions and additional information are well-documented on its dedicated page" any documentation at all for Wikimedia Commons on the page which is linked here https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Adiutor. Thank you. Ellin Beltz (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Ellin Beltz, this tool is compatible with the current MediaWiki UI as it is coded using MediaWiki JS and OOUI. Additionally, it can be used in a modular fashion, making it easy to add new modules and edit existing ones. This tool can be easily customized by interface administrators, and its code structure is not complex. You can access the documentation through the following links.
I recently noticed that we have a lot of podcast audio files under Category:Podcasts and its subcategories. It's unclear to me whether most of these files are in scope, and I'm inclined to suspect that they are not. Some notable podcasts may be in scope as a topic (e.g. a Wikipedia article about "99% Invisible"), but this doesn't mean that every individual episode is in scope as well. Additionally, it's likely that some of these files contain excerpts of copyrighted content; the sheer volume of the podcasts makes them infeasible to review.
Is there any clear educational use case for this content, or should I start nominating some of it for deletion? Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably some of it -- maybe much of it -- is out of scope, but it would take a long time to work through. I'd say you'd want to give any of them at least a fair amount of sampling before nominating.
Seems to me that any appropriately licensed episode of a Wikipedia-notable podcast is probably in scope, just like almost any photo of a Wikipedia-notable person. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please go ahead and start purging the podcast category Trade (talk) 22:09, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All right. I've started with two large groups of podcast files which are both out of scope and likely copyright issues:
Is it really all that frequent a use case? - Jmabel ! talk 03:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think so, it has thousands of transclusions and probably more common than free software screenshots Aaron Liu (talk) 13:21, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
File names
I read the file naming page (and associated talk page) but cannot find any rule on naming files with the goal of having them at the top of each category. Maybe Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen covers it, but not explicitly. Benespit takes great photos of Korean cars, but they start all of their file names with a zero and a blank space - presumably to get more eyes on them. To me, that violates the logic of the Commons. The File naming talk page doesn't appear to get much use, which is why I am raising the issue here. I raised this question on Benespit's talk page a minute ago, so it's not like there is any conflict. No matter what, I think this would be worth mentioning in the File naming guidelines. There are a lot of uploads, so renaming them all will take a while. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not against the rules, but kind of annoying.
Really, if there is a matter of picking more useful images out of a large category, the right (and much more collaborative) way to do that is a gallery page rather than competitive file-naming. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as long as files are sorted by default alphabetically, under whatever regulation you come up there will still be the first "char" allowed, and users can still exploit those "permitted" sequences of chars.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having thought about it, I think that Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen is actually all that's needed - adding a leading zero and a space is neither meaningful nor helpful. Car photos are usually named <year><manufacturer><model><submodel><color><view><numeral> (not all elements are always present), because it helps people find images. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i just have 2 ways here to add such numbers in a meaningful way. say i take 2 photos of the same car from different angles. i can just name it "01 beetle" and "02 beetle". serial numbers can be not only at the end but also at the start, right? or i change to a username that starts with a long string of "0 ", and then prefix all my uploads with my username. is that meaningful?--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. Competitive file naming goes against the purpose of the Commons. Pictures should be given descriptive names which help users find images - not your images, but the images they seek. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 02:46, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if you still dont understand, there is no rule prohibiting serial identifiers being at the start of filenames. in fact, there are plenty of them, e.g. Special:PrefixIndex/File:IMG.
here's a user whose name is exactly what i forecasted: User:0 0 0 zoome 0 0 0. there is also no rule prohibiting prefixing filenames with usernames.
therefore, such filenames are meaningful. RZuo (talk) 12:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the way to get the pictures at the top of each category is not giving a bad name, it's using {{DEFAULTSORT}} in the description Hsarrazin (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And conversely, if you want to remove a file from the top of a category, you can {{DEFAULTSORT}} it somewhere else. Please don't rename files just because you don't like where they fall in a category, except in the limited cases listed under COM:FR#FR4. --bjh21 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also add a sort key for selected categories -- it doesn't have to be via a DEFAULTSORT, which affects all categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also add sortkeys to individual images. And maybe just that should be done to move excellent, good and valued images to the top of the category for that they were voted as excellent. good or valued. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm completely opposed to the (potentially competitive) use of sort keys to bring particular images to the front of a category. If you want to select out the most useful images, that is pretty much the canonical purpose of a gallery page. Or, if there are a very small number and a good consensus, they can even be placed in a <gallery> element at the top of the category page itself. (And when there is a single clear best image, that should be the image for a corresponding Wikidata item, if such an item exists.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Copyright question regarding set of images
Would the images in this article be suitable to be uploaded onto the project? They were taken by an individual from the United States military and released by the FBI following a FOI request, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} might be applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMrapids: Probably OK for the ones that are, as you say, taken by an individual from the United States military, but do note that is not the case for some images there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: The "Courtesy" and other copyright lingo is unclear to me, so which ones would be OK to upload? (There are 8 images in the article, so you can say image 1, 4, X of 8 if that is helpful) Thanks for the quick response! WMrapids (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMrapids: 1-unclear because uncredited. Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 2-unclear: came through FOIA, but they don't say whether the original photographer was known to be a federal gov't employee. Again, Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 3,4: clearly no, non-gov't sources. 5-8: taken by an individual from the United States military, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} applies. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Image 4 is was taken by Clarence Cooper, with the article saying "Many of these photos were later taken by a helicopter pilot with the US Army named Clarence Cooper". Would {{PD-USGov-Military}} apply for image 4? WMrapids (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@WMrapids: Missed that. If it's clear that he took it in the line of duty, that would be fine. But it sounds like he might not have, and the credit suggests that they believe it is copyrighted. Note that the military/gov't is not the source. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the librarians at San Diego State University Special Collections explain it well here Guidelines for Photo Permissions. however, at the flickr feed, Peoples Temple / Jonestown Gallery they all have the default "all rights reserved". you might try emailing Rebecca Moore, per [1]. you should expect deletion nominations with a "personal photo, not a part of official duties"; good luck --Arnoseven (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello everybody. I am also writing here to draw your attention. I want to delete these 4 files that I uploaded 10 years ago. I think this issue needs a wide discussion. Thanks to all of you! --►Cekli829 10:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see no "controversial issue" here. You appear to be alone in believing that ten years after the fact you should be able to revoke your irrevocable license. And, while I am trying to assume good faith, your argument that the background constitutes copyright infringement is either insincere or naive. Clearly that is de minimis, and if the concern were genuine it would be, at most, a reason to blur elements in the background, not to delete the photos outright.
Also, if you canvass (as you did here), you are supposed to mention that on the original discussion, which you did not do. (I see no mention in the original deletion discussion of you posting to the Village pump.
You also have no need to canvass, as people who are interested in your discussion will naturally come. There is no need to rush. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your wiki will be in read-only soon (Wednesday 20 September 2023 for one hour)
The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.
All traffic will switch on 20 September. The test will start at 14:00 UTC.
Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.
You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.
You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 20 September 2023.
If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.
Other effects:
Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.
I am currently performing media tranfers of logos that fall below TOO from frwiki to commons, can this be turned into a full-fledged initiative that I can lead, and can some stewards or global sysops delete the local copies of files, my goal for this project is for frwiki to substantially have a substantially lower amount of local files than it is currently. --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 16:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
frwiki has its own sysops and its own policy regarding logos, stewards can’t delete files there.
A lot of the logos you imported here on Commons are clearly above COM:TOO.
Hi. It's the second time this issue has occurred, as you can see here (please if you want to fix it, don't recover it, it should be uploaded as WLM file, just remove it entirely). As confirmed by User:DarwIn, we had to clear the history of another file from 2017 yesterday. Apparently, there could be a rather peculiar bug in the WLM Italy app.
This user has been a precise uploader in the past and not particularly messy. Therefore, what happened may have seemed absurd the first time, but now that it has occurred again, it's quite baffling. Essentially, when he tries to upload at least this specific file, it ends up becoming a new version of "random" (well... both times of high quality) files from years ago.
While we are troubleshooting this issue, please keep an eye out for any similar occurrences. It appears to be related to the image in some way because it only happens with this snapshot and not this this one, but the app might be somehow involved in this problem.
If there are any other occurences please share... Alexmar983 (talk) 16:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
According to the user, he used a different PC but a very similar or the same title so that could be the bug. The other file involved yesterdays was this one (sysop can see the deleted history), maybe he switched from Italian to English... i have to ask again. We will try again with a totally different title, a very long one, but it's clearly also something missing in the app interface that is not showing some warning.--Alexmar983 (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can not simply keep this file. We have no information on what license the uploader wanted to upload the file. We have no guideline to use the license we have for the text as fallback in such cases. So the uploader needs to upload the file again. GPSLeo (talk) 16:42, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's what I siad he will do... the more important thing is the bug. There are 1000s of file uploaded already via this app and IF that warning is not active any newbie using a generic title is uploading new versions in random old files... that is more important now as an issue...--Alexmar983 (talk) 17:14, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I checked and found no possibility to prevent this as the app does not set any edit summary and checking for the oauth_consumer in AbuseFilters also seems to be broken. The general limitation of file overwrites that is planned anyway would also prevent this and could be turned on immediately. But I wanted to wait until the bug in the testing environment is fixed. GPSLeo (talk) 18:45, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am surprised this option is even possible...especially for an app targeted at newbies who statiscally use exisiting short recurring titles a lot...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How on earth this was not noticed during the past two weeks? Most of Tuscan WLM users are trained and they usually avoid "simple" file names, this one was not one of the most active one but he informed me as soon as he noticed the bug. There must be other users who saw this after 1000s of files...Let's hope we were lucky and that was the first case...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:02, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've reverted File:Before Sunrise.jpg since it's in use on several Wikipedias and it seems inappropriate to leave those pages broken while we hunt the bug. --bjh21 (talk) 18:49, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course it is, as we did with the other file which was not used... but we need focus on this bug... it could appear again in other apps...--Alexmar983 (talk) 18:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Here's a Quarry query to find revisions tagged OAuth CID: 5309 that aren't the first revision of a page: quarry:query/76629. There are only ten, so I'll revert all the remaining ones. --bjh21 (talk) 19:35, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great. Thanks.So my guess was correct, it couldn't have been the first occurence... I will check if there are some Tuscan one to inform the uploaders and when I have time inform other people, I have also left a post on Facebook of Toscana Wiki to avoid short string... I really don't have so much time but I'll do my best--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes I see some are legit. Other ones even if uploaded after few minutes by the same user probably are not, in that case (I see one here) it's the uploader deleting a sequential number with the same one as part of a series, de facto hiding a file. In any case these users have to be informed and checked... I am sending already private messages...--Alexmar983 (talk) 19:59, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks! I've reverted the ones where the previous uploader was a different user and left {{Dont overwrite}} on the appropriate talk pages. The query could probably be improved, but I don't have time today. --bjh21 (talk) 20:32, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Russian copyright laws’ validity in occupied Ukraine
I noticed a city flag, File:Flag of Krasnyi Luch (LPR-recognized).svg, is tagged as not subject to copyright in Russia. But as far as I can tell it was published by Russian occupation authorities in occupied Ukraine, where Russian law is invalid. We should respect the actual law, and not implement war policies of violent, coercive governments where they violate sovereignty of legal, democratic governments.
I believe all licensing depending on the imposition of Russian law on countries outside Russia should be removed, unless there’s some legal opinion legitimizing them. —MichaelZ. 2023-09-16 14:51 z 14:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This would be a problem for other copyright questions. But in this case this was published by a Russian public institution so their copyright and licensing rules apply independently of the location where they publish something. I do not think that the logo was created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia. {{PD-USGov-NASA}} also applies to all photos taken by NASA employees, also if they are not in the US or space. GPSLeo (talk) 15:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, it was published by the “Luhansk People’s Republic,” in Ukraine, in 2018, while it denied being controlled by the Russian Federation. (In 2022 a Dutch court found that the LNR had been under overall control of the RF since May 2014.) Russian law has never had jurisdiction there.
Parts of Ukraine have been subject to a coercive and lawless foreign regime since 2014. Ukrainian enterprises were looted and taken captive from 2014. Ukrainians have had Russian passports forcibly imposed, and now have been forcibly conscripted to die fighting in Russia’s war against Ukraine. It’s entirely reasonable to assume it was literally created by Ukrainian forced laborers captured by Russia. —MichaelZ. 2023-09-16 15:29 z 15:29, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Michael, I understand the point you are trying to make, but I don't think it's relevant. You are effectively saying that a group in rebellion against the Ukrainian government are stuck with a copyright they don't claim and don't want because the laws of that government say they have it, and that therefore material that they consider themselves to have put in the public domain requires them to overtly release rights granted by an authority they don't recognize. The intent to follow Russian law and to place this in the public domain appears to me to be quite clear. - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, and I don’t quite understand that. What I am saying is the work in question appears to tagged with a licence that doesn’t apply in the country it was published in. I’m not expert enough to judge if this is acceptable for use, so I posted here. I suppose it shouldn’t be used unless we can clearly demonstrate that there is an acceptable applicable licence. —MichaelZ. 2023-09-16 18:25 z 18:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is not a license compared to others. This “license” indicates that the author is an employee of the institution and that the work was published under the conditions of the institution. In this case the institution is the Russian federation, but every private company could have a similar license for their works. GPSLeo (talk) 21:42, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Tag for The Unlicense
If images or other media are licensed under "The Unlicense," are they allowed on commons, and if so, how should the copyright status be indicated? Chamaemelum (talk) 20:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
WTH is "The Unlicense"? Could you provide a link to some more information. --Túrelio (talk) 20:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Presumably en:Unlicense, "The Unlicense is a public domain equivalent license for software which provides a public domain waiver with a fall-back public-domain-like license, similar to the CC Zero for cultural works."Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Andy is correct. It is a license similar to CC0 with the following text:
"This is free and unencumbered software released into the public domain.
Anyone is free to copy, modify, publish, use, compile, sell, or
distribute this software, either in source code form or as a compiled
binary, for any purpose, commercial or non-commercial, and by any means.
In jurisdictions that recognize copyright laws, the author or authors
of this software dedicate any and all copyright interest in the
software to the public domain. We make this dedication for the benefit
of the public at large and to the detriment of our heirs and
successors. We intend this dedication to be an overt act of
relinquishment in perpetuity of all present and future rights to this
software under copyright law.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT.
IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR
OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE,
ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR
Probably OK, though the specific reference to "software" gives me pause. Are people in fact using this for any type of file that we ever actually host on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the current evidence, I'd object to use of that licence on Commons. The licence is specifically for software, so any other media released under that licence may not be correctly licensed. The rights holder could later dispute the validity of a release for certain file types and take reusers to court. We wouldn't want to be enabling that sort of behaviour. The licence would be okay for software, but do we allow software uploads on Commons? I can't think of any examples. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
PDFs are written in a page description language based on PostScript. Fonts are legally considered software if they meet certain requirements. SVGs are XML-based. So, if such description languages constitute software, then I would say we do host software. Elizium23 (talk) 00:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Right. If a law talks about copyright of "print materials," but we host them digital scans or as text, or if a law talks about copyright of "photographs" but we host them as strings of 1s and 0s, it is understood that even though we are hosting an abstraction of the original thing, copyright law applies as if we did host the original thing itself. This makes me think that abstractions of software under The Unlicense, such as a screenshot of the program, still fall under The Unlicense. Chamaemelum (talk) 01:08, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like the template people are using is "This work has been released into the public domain by its author, [author]."
Or: "This file is in the public domain because The creator of the game has expressly stated that it is Public Domain in it's entirety."
These examples seem to use The Unlicense, some more than others:
Images created directly by software seem to be an extension of the original software. I.e., someone releases a video game under The Unlicense, and all graphics are created by the video game's software. In this scenario, a simple screenshot of the 3d render of the world in the video game would fall under The Unlicense, in my opinion. A unique creative work seperate from the software, such as a drawing or logo made within the video game, or a book written in a text editor licensed under The Unlicense, would not fall under The Unlicense. That is: is the media a depiction of the software, or is the media its own standalone creative work? Chamaemelum (talk) 01:05, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Check location
I used the board on the train in
to identify Category:Ciano train station. I cant match with the other features in the category. There are sheds but no shed with a railtrack besides it. File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg is the same place. The same train type leads me to the conclusion, that this should be Reggio Emilia station. Be again I miss identifying elements to confirm.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am currently in a dispute with @FrankHM: regarding this image: [2]. This image is based on a purchasable 3D asset on Renderosity by Raul Lunia (Dinoraul). [3]. FrankHM has asserted that he has purchased a standard license to use the model from Renderosity (stated here), and therefore per Renderosity's license agreement he can create images that are copyrightable to him. (Covered in the section "Allowed uses of the standard license" [4]). Would something like this require UTRS to show proof of license? I have concerns that this image is not acceptable under the license regardless, as the relevant section says that the render must satify these criteria: 1. The new work does not compete with the original Product. 2. The new work is uniquely different from the original Product. However, I don't see how a render of the 3d model on a white background could be considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The license for the 3D model is:
"
The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes."
The PRODUCT I have bought is a 3D model (.OBJ file). This file is NOT present in the picture! The picture is a plain .JPG file wothout that do not contain any 3D information.
More:
"The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License."
That is: I can create ANY picture and I can claim copyright of these pictures as long as I do not include the 3D model (.OBJ file).
How I render MY image is not of your concern. If I choose to use a blank background that is MY choice.
Before YOU start claim copyright violation, YOU need to learn the rights (and probably learn to read). It do not state ANYWHERE in the LICENSE file that the render image have to be "considered not-compete or "uniquely different" from the original 3d model"; Rather the oposite. The Buyer are not allowed to change the 3D model!
A render of the 3D model clearly qualifies as a "newly created work" for the purpose of the license, and therefore the non-compete and "uniquely different" criteria clearly apply to it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:09, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where imn the licese file do YOU read "non-compete and "uniquely different"
END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
FOR RENDEROSITY MARKETPLACE ITEMS
GENERAL RESTRICTIONS AND TERMS OF USE:
It is the Buyer’s responsibility to read and understand this license (the “License”). If you are unsure about anything in this License, please send an email to copyrights@renderosity.com before using any Renderosity files.
This is a legal and binding agreement between you (the “Buyer”) and Renderosity MarketPlace, (“Renderosity”). By installing, downloading, copying, or otherwise using any Renderosity files (the “Product”), you have conclusively accepted all of the terms and conditions of this License.
Purchase of the Product from Renderosity grants the Buyer a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable license to use the contents of the encapsulating zip file. The Buyer may use the Product commercially in the form of rendered images but may not distribute the Product or any of the Product’s files. The Artist (Author) retains all copyrights to the files. The Buyer shall not copy, modify, reverse compile, or reverse engineer the Product, or sell, sublicense, rent, or transfer the Product to any third party.
This License does not grant permission to produce a real, tangible replica of the 3D mesh/model/product acquired. An additional license for production rights may be purchased by contacting Renderosity and will be subject to negotiation and approval by the vendor. Renderosity will contact the vendor on the Buyer’s behalf.
The Buyer shall not redistribute the Product, in whole or in part, in any file format for sale or for free. The Buyer shall not store the Product any place where it could be used by another person or party (whether it is on a network or on the Internet). The Buyer shall not convert or recreate the Product to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free. The Buyer shall not use the Product in such a way that the original materials could be extracted. Products sold at Renderosity shall not be used for illegal purposes.
The Buyer may copyright any newly created rendered images using the purchased, original Product files, provided the original Product files remain protected from being extracted from the derivative work. The Buyer may use the Product in rendered images for any personal or commercial projects, as long as the Artist’s work is protected from extraction and the Buyer has not violated any other terms of the License. The Buyer may backup copies on hard drives, CD or DVD of the zip file for personal archival purposes only. The Buyer may not store files online. For Merchant Resource Products, additional permissions or limitations of rights will be specified in of each Product’s readme file. Software programs and utilities may have an additional license from the company or vendor that developed it. The Buyer agrees to be bound by the additional permissions and limitations contained in the Merchant Resource Products and Software Programs or utilities. For any product to be considered a Merchant Resource, Software program or utility, it must be clearly stated as such.
The Buyer retains this License, even if the Artist stops selling the work at a later date, or decides to charge a different price.
OWNERSHIP:
The Artist has verified that all items in the zip file are his/her own original work. Any components of the Product containing work from third parties require documented proof of rights to use, and are on file at Renderosity. All Renderosity Artists represent and warrant that they legally possess the power to grant the Buyer this License for all enclosed materials.
REFUNDS AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE:
Renderosity or the Artist may revoke this License upon receipt of information that the Product is being used in violation of any copyright laws or it is shown that the Buyer has violated any of the terms and conditions above. Upon receipt of notice that the Buyer has violated any copyright laws or the terms or conditions of the License, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.
If the Artist shows that any of the original material can be extracted from the Buyer's derivative work, the Artist may require both the original and derivative work, and all copies thereof, to be deleted. The buyer may be banned from the site, and downloads may no longer be available. Upon receipt of such a demand, the Buyer shall immediately delete all Product files, both in original and derivative form, contained in the notice.
In the event the Buyer is not satisfied with the Product, a refund may be issued based upon Renderosity’s refund policy. Issuing refunds is at the discretion of the Artist and/or the Renderosity MarketPlace staff. Refunds will be issued only after the Buyer has worked with the Artist to correct the problem. If a refund is issued, the Buyer must delete all copyright protected Product files on his/her computer and any creation that was made using the Product.
NO WARRANTY ON PRODUCT:
THE PRODUCT AND RELATED SERVICES ARE WARRANTED, IF AT ALL, ONLY ACCORDING TO THE EXPRESS TERMS HEREOF. EXCEPT AS WARRANTED HEREIN, RENDEROSITY HEREBY DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES AND CONDITIONS WITH REGARD TO THE PRODUCT. THE PRODUCT IS LICENSED “AS IS” WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND TO CUSTOMER OR ANY THIRD PARTY, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OF THE PRODUCT, FITNESS FOR THE BUYER'S PURPOSE OR SYSTEM INTEGRATION; INFORMATIONAL CONTENT OR ACCURACY; NON-INFRINGEMENT; AND TITLE. THE BUYER AGREES THAT ANY EFFORTS BY RENDEROSITY TO MODIFY ITS GOODS OR SERVICES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED A WAIVER OF THESE LIMITATIONS, AND THAT ANY RENDEROSITY WARRANTIES SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE FAILED OF THEIR ESSENTIAL PURPOSE. THE BUYER FURTHER AGREES THAT RENDEROSITY SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO THE BUYER OR ANY THIRD PARTY FOR ANY LOSS OF PROFITS, LOSS OF USE, INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, OR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND WHETHER UNDER THE LICENSE OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF RENDEROSITY WAS ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES OR WAS GROSSLY NEGLIGENT. Some jurisdictions may not permit the exclusion or limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, and, as such, some portion of the above limitation may not be applicable. In such jurisdictions, Renderosity’s liability shall be limited to the greatest extent permitted by applicable law.
INDEMNIFICATION:
The Buyer hereby agrees to indemnify Renderosity and its directors, officers, agents, and employees and to hold each of them harmless in all respects, including costs and attorney’s fees, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, or causes of action of whatever kind or nature and resulting settlements, awards, or judgments resulting from any breach by the Buyer of the License. This indemnity shall survive the termination of the License.
GOVERNING LAW:
The License shall be governed by the laws of the State of Tennessee. For the purposes of the License, each party hereby consents to the personal jurisdiction and exclusive venue of any court located in Rutherford County, Tennessee.
Force Majeure:
No party will be liable for and shall be excused from any failure to deliver or perform or for delay in delivery or performance due to causes beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to, work stoppages, shortages, civil disturbances, terrorist actions, transportation problems, interruptions or power or communications, failure or suppliers or subcontractors, natural disasters or other acts of God.
SEVERABILITY:
The provisions of this License are severable. If any provision of the License is for any reason held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this License shall be unimpaired and continue in full force and effect, and, to the maximum extent permitted by law, the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision shall be replaced by a mutually acceptable provision, which, being valid, legal, and enforceable, comes closest to the intention of the parties underlying the invalid, illegal, or unenforceable provision. FrankHM (talk) 00:16, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can find the section by pressing "ctrl f" and then searching for the phrase "uniquely different". It's clearly there in the standard license under the section "ALLOWED USES OF THE STANDARD LICENSE" as I previously stated. [5]. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:22, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Furthermore, it clearly states that "The Buyer shall not recreate the Product or convert to any other media format and re-distribute the files, regardless of whether it is for sale or free." in that. In the first place, I feel that the fact that the file is marked as "Frank Markussen's Own Work" is itself a problem. It would be best if we could contact Raul himself, but unfortunately he is no longer in this world. Ta-tea-two-te-to (talk) 04:49, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Flickr Commons team is stumped trying to identify this man named "Higgins" who appears to be in Manhattan in 1925 and would have been a newsworthy person: File:Higgins LCCN2014718609.jpg. Can anyone identify him? --RAN (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good clue! I looked to see if he had a US passport, but no, and his obituary has no image. No image at Ancestry either. There are still a dozen or so more from the Bain Collection unidentified, if you want to try. We are in a tranche from 1925 now, but some of the unknowns are from the a decade earlier. I will set up a page of the most prominent unidentified people later today. --RAN (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, a few months ago SpinnerLaserzthe2nd started importing logos from swiss municipalities on Commons that were previously stored on frwiki. Such logos can be found there: 1 and 2. SpinnerLaserz claims that Template:PD-Switzerland-official makes all swiss municipalities logos ineligible for copyright. I'm unsure about this interpretation. From my understanding its the acts, means of payment and so on that are ineligible, but the logos could still be protected. I would like a second opinion on this. Thanks, Espandero (talk) 11:00, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ARK Are logos are exempted from copyright? Because I do know the municipal logos are officially used by governments. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 15:56, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think it's a mather of the logos being used by the municipalities or not (of course they are). It's more a question of the interpretation of the law. To me it states that the acts, means of payment, ... are public domain, but I'm not sure that it means every image used in those documents are public domain. Since "logos" are not listed in the law I would tend to think they might be protected by copyright. - Espandero (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had emailed the Swiss government to see if the logos were copyrighted. Everybody knows that Swiss coats of arms and flags (all of which are banner of arms) are exempt from copyright in Switzerland. If the government state the logos are still copyrighted, we can move them to the mainstream Wikipedias. I know that years ago, another user (3122WIKI) had uploaded a municipal logo with this template. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brand markers such as logotypes, municipal or otherwise, are primarily covered by trademark legislation. For guidance, I would recommend you look to the logotypes of major Swiss brands as featured on Commons: ABB, Coop, CSS, Migros, SBB, Swiss Post etc., all of which use the same permissions templates in their respective file description. An outlier is the UBS logo on German Wikipedia, which points to the contested nature of the usage but seems to err on the side of caution (see also the UBS logo on English Wikipedia). Standard disclaimers apply. I'm not a lawyer. ARK (talk) 08:20, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Logos that are on Commons are usually concerned by C:TOO, as shown by the exemples above. It seems to me that at least some of the municipalities logos are not in this range. So it's either the logos are in the public domain because of Swiss laws, or they're copyrighted and those that are above the threshold of originality should be deleted and set back on WP:fr. Espandero (talk) 10:28, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the left hand side of the screen showing the image, there should be a link to the crop tool. If not there, here is a link to it Try it out... Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I did it but the original image got replaced by the new one. The original should also be present separately. Admantine123 (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Admantine123: I've reverted your change. Please try again, but on the second screen, select "upload as a new file" rather than "overwrite". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Admantine123: the added image needs categories; the original image still needs at least one category that applies to Nayab Singh Saini. - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: in this case, I'd rather teach him to categorize, and didn't want to ask him to do several things. - Jmabel ! talk 18:48, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We can even take this to the extreme. My guess is that one video may be the largest file in data, but is uploaded as split file due to the file size limit of 4 GiB (this is equal to 3:20 minutes to 5 minutes of a 4K video from a full frame camera). But if we look at the aerial photographs of Bavaria (ca. 70500m²) by the Bayerische Vermessungsverwaltunghttps://geodaten.bayern.de/opengeodata/OpenDataDetail.html?pn=dop40 and combine them to a single image of the whole state of Bavaria, we get approx. an image of 650.000 x 915.000 Pixels (40cmx40cm equals 1 pixel), or approx. 600 Gigapixels with approx. 1 terabyte in file size. The common size limit (JPEG, PNG, etc.) is 65535x65535, so it is hard to realize such an image :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 14:38, 13 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why limit yourself to Bavaria? You want a high-resolution map of a large area, possibly a stitch of Category:100-sheets_Map_of_the_Russian_Empire_1804-1816, where each individual file measures 4900x4500 pixel. The full map is 13x10.25 of those sheets, i.e. 59k-x-50k pixel, that comes pretty close to the size limit. Additionally, it's a good contestant for the oldest largest file. So what you're looking for is old land surveys that cover as large areas as possible with as much precision as possible. --Enyavar (talk) 08:30, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Potential commons UTRS?
Blocked Commons editors with their talk page access revoked cannot usually appeal their block easily, (they could email an admin for help, but that is rarely considered) enwiki already has UTRS, why can't this be extended to commons as well? --Grandmaster Huon (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No principled objection on my part, but a bit of an "is it worth it?" Do we have any idea how often this particular process results in someone being reinstated on en-wiki? - Jmabel ! talk 18:27, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Welp, we on ENWIKI use UTRS for people who have already lost talk page access (usually through further disruption) and people who have talk page access but who cannot follow the unblock instructions on their talk page. As you might imagine, suddenly being sent to a different venue does not improve their ability to understand the reasons for their block and make a convincing unblock request. But the goal should not be to unblock those incapable of being unblocked. The goal should be to provide a means of contact and education that reduces onwiki disruption and allows the appellant to come to grips better than if they were left in Limbo without a point of contact. And a few do come to understand how to address the reasons for their block well enough to be unblocked. Best, Deepfriedokra (talk) 18:50, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's telling that simply being able to navigate the ENWIKI unblock procedure is considered a noteworthy achievement Trade (talk) 19:57, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am curious if UTRS is merely a dumping ground for editors with whom we've lost patience and blocked their talk page, or if it's actually a means for someone to appeal a block successfully. Are there stats kept anywhere about the rate of successful appeals? ~Anachronist (talk) 00:11, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not sure whether this is really necessary on Commons, as the average profile of our blocks is likely different than on :en. Usually we do not revoke talkpage access with our blocks. Typical exception are persistant vandals who continue on their malicious activity on their talkpage after being blocked. IMO, there is little need for such accounts to be unblocked ever. --Túrelio (talk) 19:11, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if these vandals change their ways to become constructive editors someday, how will they be able to contact commons to be unblocked? Since Commons has no UTRS and asking for unblock via email or talk page to other wikis may be considered block circumvention. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not directly related to Commons but UTRS is also available for Global Lock lifting, but there are few volunteers avaliable to process these requests, but other than Meta and enwiki, UTRS is not avaliable on other wikis, there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis.
I think the existing general info-commons@wikimedia.org is sufficient for this very rare case. GPSLeo (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Enwiki info hotline doesn't respond to unblock requests. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
(Edit conflict) The Wikimedia Commons should have a UTRS and I don't think that "there should be a global UTRS and Standard Offer proceedure for all wikis." because "WP:SO" is an essay and not policy and it is simply enforced as policy, waiting 6 (six) months doesn't magically change someone's behaviour and deliberately telling people to wait 6 (six) months before being able to even make an appeal actually goes against the Commonswiki blocking policy which states that blocks are a preventative measure and not a punitive one, the SO is a punitive measure. Talk page and e-mail access could be revoked for many reasons beyond just talk page access, some admins just default to this and sometimes after a user sufficiently doesn't understand what they have been blocked for then an admin can decide that continued unblock requests are "a waste of time" and revokes these venues. Let's say that someone has learned to be less disruptive but they don't have TPA and can't e-mail anyone how would they appeal their block? It is considered to be taboo (and even an indef blockable offense) to request this on any other wiki. A UTRS would definitely solve this problem.
My main issue with the UTRS is that it's all "behind closed doors", by default the bot that places the template on the blocked user's talk page should also include the entire message unless they themselves have selected to not want this to be publicly posted and the response should also be posted publicly on the talk page. The only exceptions should be in cases where privacy is indeed something to be protected.
Well all Wikimedia projects have a small userbase, the largest project, the english wikipedia has only 120,604 active users in the last 30 days. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 20:19, 14 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, most indefinite blocks aren't for copyright violations, but for harassment, vandalism, socking, and other LTA. I don't have statistics, but that's my evaluation as longer-term admin here. I have been contacted by blocked users to other wikis, but the request is rarely in good faith. Yann (talk) 16:45, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What if such LTA's change, the idea that once an LTA, always an LTA is unconstructive. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 18:25, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Potential CU blocks with TPA removed are difficult to appeal as there are only 4 CUs in commons and they are mostly busy, so it is difficult to get the block resolved in a timely manner. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:10, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I haven't been super active on en.wp UTRS the last few years, but Deepfriedokra's description is right on. It should be, they are probably the most active UTRS admin we have over there. By the time someobody reaches the point of a UTRS request, there is a solid chance they are a lost cause, but sometimes the more private one-on-one nature of UTRS seems to really work for some people, and they get unblocked. The only final avenue of appeal after UTRS is the Arbitration Committee, and Commons doesn't have that, so I think this is an idea worth at least considering as a final appeal venue for Commons, but of course it only makes sense if the admins here at Commons are willing to do it. En.wp also used to have the ban appeals subcommittee], which was comprised of a subgroup of the arbitration committe. I accidentally got it disbanded, but that's another story. Commons could try something like that even without an ArbCom, by electing a block appeals committee of something like four or five trusted admins. I do think it is valuable to have a final, off-wiki avenue of appeal that is something more than "just email any random admin you think might be sympathetic" but I'm not sure which model is agood for Commons in particular. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:24, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
UTRS with block appeal subcommittee, best of both worlds. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 04:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Info As a context note for current and future readers, the proposer of this change to Commons blocking policy/procedures has been indefinitely blocked on two language versions of Wikipedia in the last month. That doesn't invalidate the proposal to make changes on Commons but it may help editors understand the proposer's perspective. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:55, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have marked that other conversation as a resolved section and invited the participants to join the discussion here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I noticed the invite. Thanks, From Hill To Shore. As I said in the other thread, I'd be willing to support allowing UTRS on Commons. I agree with the others that this would probably be seldom-used on Commons. I also share the concerns that it would be less transparent than unblock requests on talk pages, but measures to improve communications by those who are not familiar with Commons is a good thing. Abzeronow (talk) 19:03, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The 1ooed millionth file on Wikimedia Commons
Good evening! Today Wikimedia Commons has crossed the milestone of 97.5 million media files, in connection with which I would like to ask the question - will it reach the historical milestone of 100 million files by the end of 2023? In this regard, I have an idea for organizing a file upload marathon, regardless of copyright, and it would be advisable to coincide with several significant dates, such as Thanksgiving, Halloween, etc. MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 11:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Flickr has a lot of free files that can be used for upload, so is youtube. Grandmaster Huon (talk) 19:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MasterRus21thCentury: Can you please explain what you mean by, "regardless of copyright"? Commons has strict policies on copyright, so we need to be careful with phrasing your idea in a way that avoids confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:41, 18 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
With a daily average growth of approx. 30300 files in 2023, we can assume to reach the threshold in 70-80 days, which is end of November or beginning of December 2023 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:07, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do we have tools do search through EXIF data of images on WIkimedia Commons?
Do we have tools do search through EXIF data of images on Wikimedia Commons? I am currently amazed at the amount of Getty images, some of which are tagged as copyright infringement only after months or years. Regards, --Polarlys (talk) 18:50, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Remember Getty also republishes historic images that the Library of Congress has released either as CC, PD, or "no known copyright restrictions". They also republish Associated Press images that the LOC says have never had their copyrights renewed. Those images up to 1964 had their copyright expire. AP images are "made public" by their distribution to news outlets, even if never published in a newspaper or magazine. --RAN (talk) 21:24, 20 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is still a good idea to search for newer images, we generally side with images in archive never being published, until proven so. Considering the above exceptions. --RAN (talk) 04:57, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Richard, thanks for your comment, but I don't think photos of current football matches or concerts fall into this category. Viele Grüße, --Polarlys (talk) 13:54, 21 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are used for temporarily redirecting pedestrians, often due to construction work of some sort going on. There does not seem to be a category that exactly matches this:
Now that we know where to put it, we just need a proper name for the to-be-created Category ... El Grafo (talk) 10:39, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They could be placed in Category:Traffic management barriers which would be a child of Category:Traffic management. Whether they are intended for pedestrians, cars, bikes or trains, they are normally used to separate one type of traffic from another, or to direct one type of traffic away from a hazard. Either way, these are methods of managing traffic. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:28, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This enclosed page has an incorrect description for an image. How do I correct it?
This image from a museum has the correct description of the object in the museum display, as shown in the image.
However, the image description made slight error in what the object,
How can I correct it?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Starlighsky (talk • contribs) 19:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starlighsky: you don't say what image, so there's only so much help I can give, but you edit the text of the description exactly the way you edit here. Or are you asking about changing the file name? If the latter, use {{Rename}}.
Also, in the future, this sort of question is better asked at COM:Help desk. The village pump is more for things that might need broader community discussion. - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't seem to edit the title to an image page. Starlighsky (talk) 23:45, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Starlighsky: Are you trying to change the description or the file name? (I'm guessing the latter.) If it's the file name, please use {{Rename}}, as I said in my intial answer. Also, there should be a "move" option somewhere (location depends on the skin you are using, but typically at the top, over the image), which for people without filemover privileges is effectively the same as using {{Rename}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, it was the latter. I followed your instructions and requested the change. Thanks! Starlighsky (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: It's a disambiguation category. Those are always hidden. Why do you think it "shouldn't be"? - Jmabel ! talk 17:51, 22 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Firstly, it's 22 miles long, in a highly developed and complex country. Secondly it's not best served by 3 arbtrary sub categories.The River Thames or London are not disambig pages, then why this? What are your arguments as to why it should be? Broichmore (talk) 08:56, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: You appear to be assuming that there is only one Allan Water in Scotland, when in reality there are at least two. One is an 8km river that feeds into the River Teviot near Hawick. The other appears to be a longer river that feeds into the River Forth. I am not sure what the 3rd red linked category represents but it is possible that there is a third body of water with the same name in Scotland. While it is rare for two large rivers in a country to share the same name, there are thousands of small streams and tributaries feeding into the larger rivers. It is very common for people in previous centuries (without the aid of instant communication) to give the same name to different rivers. As with all separate entities that share the same name, they must be disambiguated to prevent confusion. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:55, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: you've probably been adequately answered already, but since you specifically addressed your comment to me: a disambiguation category does not have dimensions. I presume that the category referring to the specific body of water in question is not hidden. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 23 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, it looks like the original file was overwritten in 2018 by a file which appears from the file info is a copyrighted image. Could someone have a look and delete the latest version if it is a copyright otherwise move it to a different name so original can be used. Keith D (talk) 22:23, 16 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Question: Which is better, translating the contents of a file of a poem or poetic work literally (i.e. word by word and accounting for grammar and other subtleties), or taking a translation of said contents from an (obviously) free source that preserves the file's poetic nature?
Context: Commons has several sound files for the German national anthem "Deutschlandlied", some more commonly used than others across the projects and usually with captions. The captions themselves tended to be literal, rather than poetic, as is the Swedish TimedText for one of the files. Songs fall under the scope of this discussion because of their inseparably poetic nature and will never or almost never have lyrics in prose. While I concede that literal translations are useful for reading the precise semantics of original works, I always leaned toward the view that the translator ought to retain such works' poetic character. This might not be important when there are no authors to translate them at all, but what about those who have? In the case of the "Deutschlandlied", Project Runeberg hosts a scan of a 1916 book containing a poetic translation, pages 11 to 12. I would just go ahead and replace the caption with that translation, but in the absence of Commons guidance, I find my self in a moot situation. After all, translations like that are not official, and there probably will never be one anyway. Has there ever been a discussion about how to deal with poetic works, particularly in relation to poetic translations by noteworthy authors?
I am keenly aware of the Translators' noticeboard, but since I am discussing guidelines, I thought it better to bring the discussion here for a sooner and clearer clarification on Commons' position on the matter. FreeMediaKid$ 10:01, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't think either is "better", and having both versions available (presumably under distinct filenames) would be good.
I presume you know -- but just in case -- that since the fall of the Nazis, only the third verse is used. The earlier verses, whether translated literally or poetically, are a touchy matter in present-day Germany, to say the least. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 17 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You presumed correctly. The reason I chose one of the short versions of the same anthem uploaded to Commons was out of concern for tact and sensitivity, and I did feel slight embarrassment making the anthem the subject of the discussion, though it could have been worse. Anyway, it looks as if neither approach to translating poetic works is more desirable than the other. While it was not quite the answer I was hoping for, it does imply that I have , which I will likely do to one of the short versions of the song other than the one cited. Additionally, I could also add the entire contents of the Project Runeberg book (not just the section on the "Deutschlandlied"; that's awkward) to Wikisource, but that is if I had edited the project at all, let alone the Swedish Wikisource. My contributions here on Commons will do, and someone else can claim credit for bringing the book's contents there. FreeMediaKid$ 07:19, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@FreeMediaKid!: "the go-ahead to add free poetic translations by noteworthy authors for every other similar file" Again stating something you presumably understood but didn't state: "as long as they are public-domain or free-licensed". - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello! Who can find files from the Italian government website through PetScan and apply the appropriate license? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 12:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why does {{Discussion-notice}} (when used in English) end with the words "Thank you."? If I'm having to tell a mendacious editor that I'm reporting their behaviour, I'm not asking them for anything and I certainly don't want to thank them.
Thank you (!) I've removed it. People can always add their thanks manually if they wish to. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:41, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Done. Because the redirect had a history, it needed to be deleted by an admin. —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
_(412-APD-A200-DSC_0041.JPG)_-_DPLA_-_7d60865708a0e9b95725392abda329a9.JPG)
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpeg){kind=link}
Hsarrazin (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cronopio_dentiacutus.jpg){kind=link}
,_Shri_Santosh_Kumar_Gangwar,_to_discuss_to_upgrade_ESIC_facilities_in_the_state,_in_New_Delhi.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Info The WMF is currently developing a new Private Incident Reporting System, maybe we could use this system for the purpose requested. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:06, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Attention: Parallel vote going on at VP/P. --El Grafo (talk) 09:22, 20 September 2023 (UTC) Was it really necessary to split it up like this?
_-_Houston_Museum_of_Natural_Science_-_DSC01339.JPG){kind=link}
