Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Commons:Y Dafarn)
Jump to: navigation, search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help desk Village pump
copyrightproposals
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note


  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page


Search archives


 

Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


Oldies[edit]

Content pages[edit]

What the heck is going on with the count of "content pages" (which I thought were only "gallery" pages in the main namespace)? It has increased by over 75,000 (a whopping 58% increase) in the last 3 days with nowhere near that level of new main-namespace pages shown on Special:NewPages over the same period. Did someone recently change which namespaces count as "content" on this wiki? - dcljr (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

BTW: can't be new links added to existing pages in the main namespace, either, since there haven't even been that many total RecentChanges in NS0. (To clarify: the last 500 such edits as I post this extend back to midday on June 8th [UTC], but there was definitely an increase of more than 33,000 additional "content pages" in that time period.) I suppose a new link could have been added to a widely-used template that previously didn't have any (internal) links on it… Would that cause this kind of steady increase in "article count"? Hmm… I notice that (again, as I type this) there are 136190 items in the "jobs" queue. Could that be circumstantial evidence that this has indeed happened? - dcljr (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
It's now up to 318,417 (as I post this), meaning it's more than doubled in the last week. - dcljr (talk) 01:30, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I figured it out: this settings change, which was done as part of Phabricator task 167077, added the "File:" namespace to the list of Commons' "content namespaces", meaning the content-page count will now continue to rise nearly as fast as files are uploaded (AFAIK… since almost every upload now results in a File: page containing at least one wikilink). It also means the "true count" of content pages (under the new definition) is nowhere near the count currently observed; the wiki would have to be recounted from scratch to fix this. Was this change ever discussed anywhere on this wiki before it was made? - dcljr (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I'll take that as a "no". OK, please see #Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?. We need to decide how to respond to this change. - dcljr (talk) 04:32, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

150 old postcards[edit]

Old road to Gibraltar.jpg

I recently had to act fast. In a secondhand bookshop I got the opportunity to select lots of old postcards from the heritage of a postcard collector. The seller give me only limited time before he sold the collection on to professionals. (They buy these collections and then sell the individual postcards on the internet) After two hours work I selected 150 interesting postcards wich I intent to upload to the Commons. However this means I had pay out 300 euros (around 2 euro per postcard for high quality and special postcards) More than the usual 50 eurocent in the postcard boxes with enormous amount of junk. Then I spend about an hour to select 3 or 4 postcards. Is it posible to get some compensation for the outlay? I have selected postcards from all around the world (the deceased was wel travelled). I will need assistence to classify the Japanese ones.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Bulk unsorted price maybe 50 Euro-cents but if you have 150 interesting postcards in your possession then you may well have 150 postcards worth 2 Euros or more each – which is what you paid for them. To the right collector... some maybe worth more. Take it that this may be your first purchase of PP's. Get to know the market and sell them on. There is a big difference between a ordinary picture postcard of (say) Amsterdam Harbour and a rare ones that commands a few Euros more. If the Japanese ones are pre-war then all the better. Tell you what. After you have uploaded them -so I can see them, I might offer to buy the whole lot for what you paid for them via Paypal. Will even pay the post & packing... how's that! P.g.champion (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
To categorizes the Japanese postcards you may need some country specific knowledge. So you could ask here as a starting point on the talk page of: はがき P.g.champion (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
you could submit for a rapid grant, https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Project/Rapid or talk to your local chapter for some funding. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 01:55, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Hankow waterside.jpg
I am not really a postcard collector in the sense that I only keep the postcards for reference and posible rescan. I am only interested in the historic images to upload to the Commons not the postcards themselves. If posible I photoshop them to remove stains, marks, discoulouring (I scan Black-White when the original image is Black and White) I have a box with scanned and uploaded postcards, one inbox with still to scan and upload and one small box wich has license limitations (most not yet 70 years old). If someone is really interested I can sell a specific scanned postcard, but I am not setting up a shop. I will be setting up a work category for the 150 postcards.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Kobe postcard.jpg
It is OK Smiley.toerist. Think we know where your coming from. You spend some 300 euros on cards that you knew would be of value on WC. Yet, you have no interest in the post cards themselves - just the images. Reading between the lines, you know that these are traded on eBay but you are primarily a WP contributor and not a eBay trader. You don't need to be a experienced trader to get your money back. Suggestion: Upload images to WC and the scans of the back of these postcards. Wait a while, for other editors to review and add provenance. Then ask around, friends, family and neighbours to see if the a have a spotty teenager that knows e Bay inside out and would love something to sell on your behalf. Tell them that you bought this for x and anything more they can get for you, you will spit the profits 50/50. You selected a 150 postcards and the seller had a cash buyer before him. He may well have given you a discount for a bulk purchase for 'selected' post cards that are worth more. You may have found yourself in the right place at the right time and seized the opportunity to buy. Trust your instincts. P.g.champion (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

As you see I started uploading to the Commons. The dating and the corrert licensing can be tricky. Is the Gibraltar one under a Spanish or GB license? I there a anonymous license for China? I will put all such uploads under the hidden workCategory:Postcard collection Smiley Toerist.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Localities around Arad[edit]

Săgeata Verde, Arad.jpg
Arad Mândruloc 2017 5.jpg

I took some pictures along the tramline to Ghioroc. There is also a village Mândruloc. I suppose these are in Category:Villages in Arad County but I am not certain. Could someone classify these places? More pictures wil be uploaded.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:57, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

They are both in Arad County as you suspected. Ghioroc is a commune and Category:Ghioroc, Arad is classified as such. ro:Mândruloc, Arad is a village in Vladimirescu commune. I've created a category for the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 07:01, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
I created a new category: Category:The Green Arrow.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Fine by me, though you might find the category full of copyrighted images of the comic book superhero before long. =) - Themightyquill (talk) 08:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
See history. Maybe use the Romanian name Sageata Verde?Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Marginalizing women[edit]

I believe issues parallel to this one have occurred before. Women photographers are steadily being moved into Category:Female photographers from the United States‎. There is no analogous male category, so the effect is that men are simply "photographers" but women are "female photographers."

I personally can't see any reason to divide photographers by gender. Unlike, say, singers or actors, they do not do significantly different things based on their gender. Also, if we break down by gender, what happens to any photographer who happens not to accept the gender binary? Again, I see no reason to highlight that.

I'm bringing this here rather than just COM:CFD because I'd really like to see us adopt a broad principle here, not alter one category. At the very least we should not create a "female" subcategory & remove all women from a main category that thereby becomes entirely male. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

There was "women-novelistgate" in 2013, which received quite a bit of media coverage ([1], [2] etc.) and which led on to the "Qworty" scandal, but I'm not sure that it affected Commons very directly... AnonMoos (talk) 17:20, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
this is a replay of the women authors controversy. it will be a constant conflict as people tinker / "fix" categories. there might be some utility to the ontology arguing, except that the answer is wikidata. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
It's discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/01/Category:Female writers from the United States. There's still no conclusion four years later. --ghouston (talk) 00:07, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ah. And I see I'm the one who raised essentially the same issue four years ago. - Jmabel ! talk 00:17, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
well, duh!? and you were amply supported by the academics. i kinda agree, but have moved on. with all the wikidata functionality, why waste time on the dead end here. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 02:05, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Ghouston -- The whole "CfD" process on Commons is fairly fundamentally broken (as has been discussed here before), so it's not too surprising that a discussion has lasted over 4 years... AnonMoos (talk) 03:30, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Jennifer Beals, probably female
From User:Blackcat´s talk page, who is currently creating these categories, I understand that he will create the corresponding male categories after he has separated the female entries. I´d appreciate if he explained the general concept behind the male/female categorization - especially at which levels the split(s) should occur (Will there be Category:Female photographers from California as well?), how the loss of overview will be dealt with (Will there be a parallel Category:Photographers from the United States by name?) and why he didn´t move Category:Jennifer Beals to the female photographers but left her in the general photographers category (I can see some hints that she might be a woman). Generally, I´d prefer to mark gender in just one high level category such as Category:Women by name and to dissolve all gender separation in the deeper levels. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 13:56, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I created "Female photographers by country" just because there was a pre-existing "Female photographers" category filled with anything (to asnwer to your question, Rudolph: no, but just because I have only moved to "Female photographers from the United States" all the names that were into "Female photographers". Sooner or later I would have placed Jennifer Beals in that new category, too. But, I guess, the point is not that). If we decide that there are professional categories that do not need to be split between "male" and "female" I am fine. But is a work that must be done and on which we must discuss. Otherwise we cannot complain if someone creates a "female" category that must somewhat be expanded and subcategorized.Thus any discussion that states what can be split between "male" and "female" and what doesn't have to is welcome. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 14:13, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply - you are right that this is not about Jennifer Beals, but I thought her picture would add something nice to the discussion :-) I fully understand your point about adding to a category for orders sake even if the existence of the category is hardly justifiable (I filled Category:LGBT politicians from Germany yesterday even though I had suggested it´s deletion by CfD). But if a part of the category system lacks support, is inconsistent and could be deleted without a true loss of information, we should probably delete it. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 15:55, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
i hope everyone is open to being interviewed by the guardian, since they may be coming around with a "women's novelist" reprise. have your wiki'splaining ready. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 22:19, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

There are all sort of issues with intersection categories, but I don't think the marginalization argument is valid. You can google "women writers" and "female writers" and find any number of references to the topic which suggest that women somehow may write differently to men, and there are even university courses on the subject. Making the category could be about singling them out for special treatment, rather than marginalization. In any case, once there's a category for male writers too it's resolved (of course there will still be people you can't categorise as only male or female, either because there's no information or because they identify as neither or both, but that's usually the case in categorisation.) Whether the intersection is meaningful for other occupations, like photographers, is kind of irrelevant, since it's just an intersection category and it's just one way that Category:Women can be subdivided. I think occupation actually tends to be more meaningful than nationality / place of birth / place of residence at least, since it's usually the thing that gives people their notability, and there are no complaints about Category:Women by country. However, most of the contents of Category:Women by occupation should be moved to Category:Females by occupation, judging by the names of the categories, and Category:Nurses shouldn't be in there, it's not the 1950s anymore. I do think that intersection categories are just a kludge in the absence of better software and shouldn't be taken to excess, e.g., three-way intersections like "Female writers from the United States" may be going too far, but there's no policy that can prevent people creating such categories. --ghouston (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was thinking too. For example, too often I see "beauty pageant contestants" or "winners" subcategorized to "women of...". Since there are male (either gay or heterosexual) beauty pageant and since nurse is no longer an only female profession, is unappropriate to confine those categories as females. My sixth sense would suggest that - unless a subcategorization by gender or sex might be useful for those occupations based on physical strenght (typical example: sports, subdivided into men's and women's competitions) - we don't need to subcategorize people's categories by gender with few exception (i.e. feminists; writers; television presenters; models; actors/actresses). Of course we must open a discussion and state exactly what occupations can allow a "female" subdivision and what don't have to. -- SERGIO (aka the Blackcat) 08:05, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I created Category:Female nurses, which seems fair given that Category:Male nurses already existed. I'm not sure why we need both Category:Females by occupation and Category:Women by occupation (and likewise for males/men). Given that "women" only covers the ages of 18–40's, according to the Category:Women header, and "men" only the ages of 20–59 years (this is already strange stuff), and people can have occupations outside this age range, the females/males categories seem to be the ones worth keeping. --ghouston (talk) 05:25, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
So according to Commons categories I am no longer a "man" because I am too old? Now I feel personally insulted. But not as appalled as I am by the distinction that women 40-59 are distinguished from younger women by being described officially here as "mature women" without any analogous distinction being made for males. Did all of the sexists and ageists on Commons get in a room together and come up with these insulting distinctions, or did the evolve from a bad but "natural" process? - Jmabel ! talk 16:21, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I changed the descriptions on Category:Women and Category:Men to be less offensive and better match Wikipedia (since we are linking through Wikidata) and started Commons:Categories for discussion/2017/06/Category:Mature women. --ghouston (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

How to easily add photos taken and donated by others to Commons?[edit]

Hi! I am updating Wikipedia for my customers. Sometimes I am also adding pictures for them. Normally it is not easy for them to add the correct CC license on their web page (don't know why but that is the case) so I have asked them to add the photo they are donating to Google Photos and tell the license there. Now one of the photos I've added was removed "because anyone can create a Google account". Anyone can create also a Flickr or Twitter/Instagram account too so now I am left clueless - how to easily add photos taken by others to Commons and prove that they have a free licence on them? I was told to ask the customer to send [3] an OTRS request and read that the queue is 53 days (!) long. Phew! A long time to wait. So my solution in this case is to add the same photo to Finnish Wikipedia instead but I would like to know the answer for the future. Donating photos via OTRS does not sound like a solution either due to the long wait. I don't think my customers are willing to create an account here just for donating a photo and if they would do so, I assume you would still want a prove about the release rights of a press photo. So should I just forget about adding photos here taken by other people? Kind regards, --Jjanhone (talk) 03:00, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi @Jjanhone: If you are sure that the customer is actually the copyright holder (be aware that the great majority of the time, the copyright holder is the photographer and not the subject), then have the customer send the email to OTRS following the instructions on this page. You don't need to then await a response before uploading, just make sure to include {{subst:OP}} in the "permission" field while uploading. This helps ensure that the file won't be deleted while the email lies unread in the queue. The OTRS agent may require some kind of evidence that the person emailing is the copyright holder, but once they receive the ticket, they will mark the file with {{OTRS received}}. Then, depending on the outcome of their interaction with the customer, they will either have the file deleted if they are unsatisfied, or mark the file with {{OTRS permission}} indicating they believe the ticket to be good. If on the other hand, you are not sure that the customer is the copyright holder, then we are not going to accept the license, and you should not attempt uploading the file either here or on local Wikipedias. Never claim {{own work}} on images you have not created yourself, and only use a license tag that corresponds to the actual legal license. I hope this clears it up. Storkk (talk) 08:03, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
or use flickr which for historical reasons, is "trusted" more than google photo. sending a backup email is good, but currently broken. as noted they may still get doubted that they have photographer permission, make sure it is a "work for hire, including transfer of rights", or take your own photo and upload to your flickr stream. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:15, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your answers! --Jjanhone (talk) 05:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

360-degree video for virtual reality headsets[edit]

I am talking with an organization which wishes to share some videos on Commons for playing on virtual reality headsets. I expect that in the future questions about this will become more common for Facebook's Oculus Rift, the Microsoft HoloLens, the Google Daydream, the HTC Vive, and whatever else plays these. The videos for these device seem to be called "immersive video" or "360-degree video" and Wikidata has an entry. Maybe they are also called "3D video". I do not know much about this.

  1. Can someone confirm the name for this concept? Is it "360 video"?
  2. To what extent is it correct that immersive files can be webm, ogv, or other Commons-compatible format?
  3. How much should the Commons community worry about any kind of non-free, anti-wiki elements in the file package of a webm containing an immersive video? I do not understand much about video files, but if the file is webm, and the content has correct copyright licensing, then can anything else be non-free about one of these videos?
  4. What conversations about immersive video files have already begun on Commons?

I looked around a bit. I found this -

It seems like there has not been conversation on Commons about this yet, correct?

Thanks for any guidance. Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: This is an excellent question. For what it's worth, files like File:Antigenic-Properties-of-the-Human-Immunodeficiency-Virus-Envelope-Glycoprotein-Gp120-on-Virions-ppat.1004772.s010.ogv are really just rotating videos of an otherwise stationary object rather than some kind of immersive video or 3-D construct. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:44, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
sample video - maybe this is one?
Yes, that simple rotating video is not the concept which I want. This video of a festival might be a 360 video but I am not sure what these videos are. These can never play properly as square video because the point of these is to record in 360 degrees and to be viewed in a headset which allows the viewer to see a different view by turning in any direction. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@Bluerasberry: It appears those are inward-facing, whereas you want outward-facing, like (in my experience) panning around from one spot in Google StreetView.   — Jeff G. ツ 04:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

All 360 videos are (often) high resolution warped 'normal' videos, which are then marked for a certain 'spatial perspective' and a video player will then render a 'unwarped' cropping of this video either on your 3D headset or your screen. The sample video is a nice demonstration of this kind of video. While we technically can upload such 360 files without problem, there are several problems here if you want to actually enjoy them in 3D. These issues are all linked in the earlier mentioned ticket. (webm has no standard to mark the perspective, MediaWiki cannot extract the perspective for reuse, our web player doesn't support it yet etc). It's easy to do, but we don't have people who are working on providing the software support. Engineers wanted. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:49, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

VLC has a beta build out that supports this. It's easy to playback the video in the current player and this beta and to see the difference. This won't work for our ogg and webm videos i suspect (because no support for perspective metadata). —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 14:23, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
@TheDJ: Thanks. Can you tell me if I am understanding this correctly? If Commons were to be able to host this content, then I think the following would need to happen first -
  1. Some industry players like Facebook, Microsoft and others would need to present a free standard structure for the metadata
  2. The WebM Project team would have to consult with other open source communities (like that VLC project) and choose to adopt the proposed standard from industry players
  3. Someone at the WMF would have to implement the WebM standard
  4. Now users can upload 360 videos to Commons which are usable perhaps in Commons and definitely in standard players
I am seeking to have broader conversation about what would need to happen next. How accurate does what I described sound? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:01, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
  1. This stuff is usually pretty free form, not much to organize there
  2. Google already created a spec for WebM as they needed it for youtube (i guess). While not completely official, I suspect that this will just turn out to become the de facto spec. Not sure how many players other than Youtube support it however. Ogg will likely never see support for this, as webM is overtaking it rapidly as a format.
  3. There is a ticket for it. Although you don't need someone at WMF for that. Anyone can submit patches.
  4. You still need to adapt the player to then process that information and change the projection. Browsers/Operating systems don't have default support for this yet. Not hard. if you have enough time. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Category:PD-Gov license tags[edit]

This category contains over 1000 files despite it should only contain categorizing templates. May a more experienced user please purge it?--Chienenkatze (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

I have another question: How can I undo this change (added [[Category:[[Category:Foobar]]]]; removed {{uncategorized}}) ? Do to later changes I can't undo it. Thanks in advance!--Chienenkatze (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

✓ Done Yann (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
The wrong categorisation was because of a bunch of changes by User:CFCF like this. I fixed it now by moving the category-lines into the noinclude part. I protected the templates as well to prevent such things in future. regards. --JuTa 21:00, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
PS:It will take some days until the jobqueue will handle all the images and then they will disappear from the cat. --JuTa 21:02, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Hot-cat interferes with Notes[edit]

When a note is added into the picture and saved, and then a category is added using Hot-cat, the note is deleted for some reason. It can be fixed before saving (the user is always asked it the edit is OK and so can put the notes back before saving the edit), but it is annoying and the main advantage of Hot-cat (it should be fast) is gone. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:54, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Bug says everything’s a "Fave"[edit]

This has been happening to me today: All hyperlinks in a filepage replaced with "Fave". Any ideas? -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 01:16, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

OMG are you sure your computer is fine? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:35, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I had since three days, especially when the Internet is slow. Everything fine when refreshed several times. Jee 02:09, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Same here, though my connection is far from slow. Probably somehow related to the Favourites Gadget. --El Grafo (talk) 09:50, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I installed the Favourites Gadget but this doesn't happen to me. What browsers were you using? (I am using Firefox for iOS version 7.5) Poyekhali 09:56, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
It keeps happening, maybe once every 10 filepages I open; I report the same situation as El Grafo (fast connection; good after refresh). Using Firefox 52.1.2 on WinXP here. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 13:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was using a Linux Mint with Firefox when it happened – sorry, don't know the software versions. Right now I am on a different machine with Linux Mint 17 and Firefox 50.1.0 and it does not seem to happen. --El Grafo (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Me tonight I got "Unfave" when opened a file, lol :). For info it also happened with my authorized tools in the "View and restore deleted pages" page. Another observation is that the links work even if they are replaced by "Fave" or "Unfave". Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
But I understand why I got "Unfave" instead of "Fave", it was because the file I tried to open was already in my favorites...Christian Ferrer (talk) 21:28, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Christian Ferrer: Is "fave" the new "watch"? In what dialect?   — Jeff G. ツ 21:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: fave and watch are two different things a user can do to filepages. -- Tuválkin Tuvalkin 01:10, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Perhelion: My understanding: In MediaWiki:Gadget-Favorites.js: mw.util.addPortletLink($('#p-views').length ? 'p-views' : 'p-cactions', '#', '-', 'ca-fave', '-') can execute before DOM is ready, returning a false / null / undefined value. $('a', link) then selects all links on the entire document, instead of just on the link added by fave gadget. How would you fix this? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

@Jeff G., Christian Ferrer, Tuvalkin, El Grafo, Poyekhali: I've made a small change to the gadget. @Zhuyifei1999: The problem comes pretty sure from function "toggleLink", it used a very common variable name "link" as global (I changed also the window.focus.event). If the problem still exist, the variable should be made local (in this function). The author of the gadget is User:Dschwen. (PS: Maybe it is a bug of jQuery) -- User: Perhelion 13:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Perhelion: The variable is scoped with a IIFE... unless being unstrict make it the window scope?! Unless the scope of variables is determined by the environment of the caller, not the environment of the function definition (I thought the latter)?! Anyways, I feel the behavior of jQuery is actually expected --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 16:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the bug still appearing? @Zhuyifei1999: Yes, theoretically the variable is only in the scope of IIFE, but as we can see something as changed this var external, very strange. Maybe it is a Firefox bug. -- User: Perhelion 20:48, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

List of my uploads ordered by usage?[edit]

Is there a way to list my uploads ordered by global usage (i.e. the number of pages of wikimedia projects in which my upload is used)?--Forna (talk) 08:27, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

@Fornaeffe: Yes, there is: GLAMorous - just enter you user name (without the User:). Check the "show details" box for a full report with links to the articles for your top 1000 images. --El Grafo (talk) 09:58, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you very much! I was unable to find it anywhere... --Forna (talk) 12:48, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

mass revert?[edit]

The Category:Kansas and Category:Texas A&M University were recently deleted from all files by User: Balancing Act using Cat-a-lot. For most files this was not the right move. They should have been sorted in sub-cats. Is there a way to do a mass-revert? Or must this be done one by one? --Jahobr (talk) 17:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

You can try to use Cat-a-lot. Ruslik (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
For someone with the rollback right it is possible for all files, where this cat removing is the latest step in version history. For the others it is not, but you can use Cat-a-Lot in special page for contributions of user Balancing Act, like already Ruslik has written. But when you have to use Cat-a-Lot anyway you can do it for all files, so: Go to Special:Contributions/Balancing Act and move all the files to where you think, you could directly move the files into suiting sub categories instead of reverting the changes. — Speravir – 22:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

File.ogg audio file information bugs[edit]

I uploaded a series of LibriVox recordings (listed below). They all seem to have uploaded just fine, and they seem to play just fine. However, the top of each file page says: "Invalid Ogg file: Cannot decode Ogg file: Invalid page at offset 319" (with varying page numbers), whereas it should says something like: "Ogg Vorbis sound file, length 27 min 47 s, 67 kbps". The size of each file displays in the category listing at Category:LibriVox - House of Atreus, but the file size and other information isn't appearing on the individual pages for each file. What is happening here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Checked File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg, the file does not have 'OggS' capture pattern in position 320 as expected according to ogg container format documentation. I have no idea how some media players are able to play this file. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
This is the file as it comes from IA. The file plays both through their site and via the player installed here. If there is a problem, what can be done about it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Method 1: Find out how media players can play these apparently corrupted-per-specification files, and file a bug report to MediaWiki extension TimedMediaHandler so that it works properly.
Method 2: Sanitize / remux each file like I've done to File:Oresteia Prefaces.ogg.
Method 1 would help to make things work for any similar files that may get uploaded in the future, but method 2 is much much easier. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I would need instructions to know how to do Method 2. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: There may be other softwares, but I used FFmpeg. The command is ffmpeg -i <input_filename> -c copy <output_filename> --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

How to download all files within a category ?[edit]

Hello All, I'am looking to list ways to download all files in a given category. Given a commons category's name as input...

  • Is there a 'LINK' to do so ?
  • Shell/terminal scripts to do so ?
  • Software ?

I would like to know about these field. --Yug 09:05, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

JS library would be plus. --Yug 15:49, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Commons:Imker (batch download) --Steinsplitter (talk) 09:18, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Projects[edit]

I have particular concerns about cat hierarchy within geo-political/geo-administrative categories. Are there Commons projects (as there are on Wikipedia), producing consensus guidelines around these, and other, issues. I can't imagine that we could resolve problems or disputes if there aren't, otherwise we would be just making it up as we go along. A village pump response would just rely on those who just happen along rather than those who have taken a deep interest and time over a particular subject. Acabashi (talk) 23:41, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

  • To the best of my knowledge there are no such projects. Could you give some indication of the sort of problem you see? - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Commons does have Wikiprojects: Commons:WikiProject, but they are considerably less prominent than in en-wiki. Commons Wikiproject guidelines are not as generally accepted as Wikipedia project guidelines and they are not often used as arguments in disputes. MKFI (talk) 06:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Jmabel:@MKFI: Many thanks for responding. I've looked at the Commons projects and none seem to cover my concern, and possibly a future bone of contention, viz:
England geo-political/administrative entities typically for importance starts with England (1st level administrative order), then Counties (2nd level administrative order), then County districts (3rd level administrative order), and then Civil parishes (4th level administrative order). This follows accepted political/administrative hierarchy. On Commons this works fine when it comes to civil parishes, rightful placed below the others, and which is always rightly higher up the cat chain than any subservient settlement within them, these added as sub cats. The problem as I see it arises when the name of the civil parish is the same as a settlement within the civil parish. In these cases a civil parish is more significant, and I believe the actual plain name should prioritize the civil parish without any definition, ie '(civil parish)' in brackets next to it. Any hamlet or village lower level settlement with the same name within that civil parish should have its status under the civil parish added after its name, ie (hamlet) or (village). This is not obtuse as any search for a name will go to the plain name first (as with all cat searches), which if this refers to the village, the more important civil parish and its photos is sidelined by a bracketed afterthought.
In many cases there are so few photos that it is not worth separating settlement and civil parish, but in others there are so many photos that separation is advisable to avoid confusion. This general type of separation works well on Commons, for example with churches ['St Andrew's Church (stained glass)' under 'St Andrew's Church']; and would we change 'New York' as 'New York (state)' for the sake of 'New York City', or change 'Essex' to 'Essex (county)' for the sake of its Uttlesford district. I am suggesting that where a civil parish and village within it holds the same name, the undoubtedly more important civil parish should hold the name, and the village should be bracket-identified as such, as I have done here and here. Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 21:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Acabashi: I know practically nothing about administrative organization of England but this seems sensible. In my opinion you can use this scheme, and perhaps write a note of this in Category:Subdivisions of England to aid other users. We get a lot of mass uploads from Flickr/Panoramio/etc. and users sorting the results are often not very familiar with all the topics.
Commons has a smaller community, and that community is spread thinly among many languages, millions of categories and tens of millions of files. And since files and categories generally require less collaboration per page than articles there is a tendency to just "do your own thing". Category tree structure is perhaps where most collaboration is done, but even then there is less firm organization structure than bigger wikis. MKFI (talk) 10:17, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Prioritising putting civil parishes ahead of the village they are named after: The village is more significant to viewers and is the most commonly understood term of that name, even though the parish is larger.
In particular, note that when an English district (3rd level) is named for a town/city, its the town that gets the base name, while the larger district is put at a disambiguated title. So Category:Canterbury is about the city, while Category:City of Canterbury is the district. This was extensively discussed on WP, and the same approach should be applied to parishes. See my more detailed comment here.
A side problem is the parish is the administrative unit, and its the administrative unit that holds status as a city or town. ie If Foo-town is a town in Barshire, then legally its the parish of Foo-town that is the town, not the urban area, and that makes Foo-town (town) confusing.--Nilfanion (talk) 13:13, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Acabashi: I'm not sure this is a problem. Few parishes have so many pictures that it's a problem to scan through them looking for pictures of the particular village (the main culprit is the Geograph project, from which a million or so images were imported by a bot and mostly allocated to parishes). Wikipedia articles tend to cover both parish and village, and I can't see any reason why Commons categories can't do the same. If there's a need, just add a subcat of "Foo village" within the "Foo" category. Dave.Dunford (talk) 13:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: Your edit summary has confused me. I'm pretty sure that is Acabashi's proposal is (1) only split if needed, and (2) if a split is needed put the parish at "Foo" and the village at "Foo (village)". That's what pretty much your suggestion, but you described at as "oppose"? My position is the contrary one to the proposal, which says if a split is needed "Foo" should be the village and "Foo (civil parish)" the parish (rationale is above).--Nilfanion (talk) 16:09, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
@Dave.Dunford: Apologies, you're right, I suppose I am supporting the proposal. What I was objecting to was the idea (which maybe wasn't being suggested) that every parish category should have a subcategory called "Foo village" (or "Foo (village)") when in most cases there's no need, all the photos can simply go in the parent category. I'm with Acabashi on the hierarchy too: parish above, village below. This also works if a parish contains more than one village or hamlet, which doesn't work if it's the other way round. Dave.Dunford (talk) 17:41, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
OK thanks, that makes sense. Either way around the village category would be a sub-category of the parish category (parish above, village below). The only real difference is what "Category:Foo" actually contains. My view is that category should be as useful to people searching for media as possible, which means making Category:Foo about the most common, actual day-to-day meaning of "Foo" (which is the village). That means the less common meaning (the parish), gets a disambiguated title, even though it is a larger geographic area.
IMO this is exactly the same situation as with districts (everything from Ashford to Wokingham); Barnsley is about the actual day-to-day meaning of "Barnsley" (the town), while the less common meaning (the district) gets a disambiguated title (Category:Metropolitan Borough of Barnsley). I see no reason why parishes should be any different, apart from to make it harder for people actually looking for media.--Nilfanion (talk) 17:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes the common convention has generally been to have the parish disambiguated and the settlement at the base name. If like Whitchurch the parish doesn't include the village a hatnote can be included. As pointed out we have done the same with districts, this is also like Liverpool vs Liverpool F.C.. We don't want disambiguation pages at the base name if we have 2 categories about variations of the same place (DAB pages are for situations where substantially unrelated topics share the same name like Poughill), as users can just navigate through the category tree per w:WP:DABCONCEPT. In the case of Barnsley the other different meanings are far less important to Barnsley in South Yorkshire taken as a whole can be considered primary and images intended for the district can be defused. A further question that has been raised before is where the village and civil parish are spelled different on the OS but are simply alternative names. See Category:Stainton Dale and Category:Staintondale. In this case probably "Stainton Dale" should redirect to "Staintondale" and the parish be at "Stainton Dale (civil parish). Similar to Category:Stratford-upon-Avon and Category:Stratford-on-Avon District. Crouch, Swale (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 19[edit]

"Roman Catholic" vs. "Catholic" (part 2)[edit]

Ok, here we go again.

User:Beyond My Ken has kindly asked me to stop doing what I proposed in the previous discussion. He says that "No Roman Catholic church in the United States identifies itself as anything except "Roman Catholic". You will not find "Latin Church" anywhere on them, and we should not identify them in a way that they themselves do not use, and which baffles the user."

The reason because you probably won't see "Latin Church" in the US was already explained here. Fortunately, the Catholic Church is not an American community but a worldwide one, and so in many places the distinction "Latin Church" is necessary (please read en:Latin Patriarchate of Jerusalem, [4] and en:Latin Church).

Anyway, I've not replaced "Roman Catholic" with "Latin Church", as he has told me in my User talk. I've not created a category called "Latin churches in India". Instead, I've categorised churches that are part of the Latin Church into Category:Catholic churches of the Latin Church in India and churches that are not part of the Latin Church into their respective category under Category:Eastern Catholic churches in India (same with Iraq, Ukraine, etc). As I explained in the previous discussion, churches under Category:Syro-Malabar Catholic churches in India and Category:Syro-Malankara Catholic churches in India are also "Roman Catholic churches", because "Roman Catholic Church" is a synonym for "Catholic Church", as stated in en:Catholic Church. Instead, in Commons "Roman Catholic Church" has been used sometimes as if it where the Western (Latin) part of the Catholic Church, in opposition to "Eastern Catholic Church", which is absolutely wrong.

As I tried to explain in the previous discussion, many churches are wrongly categorised because of that confusion. In fact, as you can see in [5] [6] [7][8] [9] [10] [11] [12][13][14] [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22], I'm nearly checking church by church if they are correctly categorised, not simply moving all churches from "Roman Catholic churches" to "Catholic Churches of the Latin Church".

I would like to ask something to User:Beyond My Ken: What does "Roman Catholic Church" mean for you? There are two opposite options:

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Latin Church" (aka "Western Church", the part of the Catholic Church that uses Latin rites)
Then all Eastern Catholic churches have been wrongly categorised for years. Examples: [23]

[24] [25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33].

  • "Roman Catholic Church" means "Catholic Church" (the whole Catholic Church, that includes the Latin Church and the Eastern Catholic Churches)
Then this message was wrong and the way we have been categorising in Commons has also been wrong for years.

Sorry, but there wasn't a previous consensus on this, not on where to put Latin churches and Eastern Catholic churches. If there was, it has been ignored for years [34]. There existed only two contradictory ways to work, and people have been using one or the other without any criteria. --Grabado (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Grabado is making what is essentially very simple into something overly complex. To wit:
  • There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches".
  • There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.
  • "Catholic" in the name of a church is no guarantee that it is part of the Catholic Church: the Eastern Orthodox Church is technically the "Eastern Orthodox Catholic Church". "Catholic" simply means universal, and is used by churches that are and are not related to the Catholic Church
  • The categorization of churches by the rite they use is perfectly acceptable as long as it is a parallel hierarchy and does not replace the long-standing "Roman Catholic" categorization hierarchy. It is this replacement of "Roman Catholic" by "Latin Church" performed by Grabado which is objectionable and disruptive, because:
    • (1) it was done without consensus
    • (2) it is not what our users expect to find
    • (3) it does not accord with normal usage in the real world (one will search high and low for an indication that a Roman Catholic parish identifies itself as a "Latin Church")
Given all these factors, Grabado needs to realize that they have no consensus to make the changes they desire to make, and that the changes they made were disruptive and unwise. They need to undo the changes they made as soon as possible, and perhaps even stop editing religion categories, as their judgement on this appears to me to be untrustworthy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
@Beyond My Ken: I really appreciate that you've taken your time to respond to me. Could we keep discussing it a little bit? (Please: just a little) Because I think one of your points is completely wrong:

There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church.

This is not true. In fact, this is the problem: There's no something called "Roman Catholic Church" and then 23 Eastern Catholic Churches that are in communion with it. According to your idea, if the Eastern Catholic Churches tomorrow would broke the Communion with the Roman Catholic Church, the Roman Catholic Church will remain the same since the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. That is wrong, according to en:Catholic Church (many people agreed with that in the previous discussion, like User:Ghouston, User:Jkadavoor or User:Revent).
What we actually have, always according to en:Catholic Church, en:Catholic particular churches and liturgical rites and en:Global organisation of the Catholic Church , is a "Roman Catholic Church" that is made of 24 sui iuris churches, all of them in full communion with the Pope. That is, the "Roman Catholic Church" is formed by one Latin Church (en:Latin Church) and 23 Eastern Catholic Churches. If you don't understand this, I really cannot help. If we can agree at least on this, I'll be absolutely opened to work to solve the problem and even revert any change i've made, If the final consensus reached implies to use another name for the categories. But we cannot make any progress if we don't agree with something that is a fact, stated in the first line of its Wikipedia article--Grabado (talk) 20:08, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are) no one except specialists are going to look in a category called "Latin Church" for something that in the real world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and no one looking for images of the Maronite Church, for instance, is going to look under "Roman Catholic Church" or "Catholic Church". We are here to serve our users, and that means to categorize things the way they expect them to be categorized. Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy if that mirroring makes it difficult (or indeed next to impossible) for people to find what they're looking for.
Your mistake (again, accepting for the moment the validity of your explanation) is in confusing the church's structure with a category hierarchy that is useful and valid for this repository. That you keep pushing this point, in the face of no consensus, indeed little to no support from other editors, is a problem, as is your refusal to clean up the mess you made. You are preaching the wrong argument to the wrong audience, and you need to realize that and move on.
You said on your talk page that if someone had just told you back in May "No", you would not have gone ahead with the changes. Well, someone is now saying "No" to you -- several in fact, here and on your talk page, so it is now incumbent on you to stop and backtrack and undo what you did. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:34, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Looking now at the extent of what you've done, I think I'd be within my rights to call for you to be blocked for the extensive damage you've done to the the Roman Catholic category hierarchy. You've not only changed RC to "Latin Church", you've added unnecessary layers of categories, and you've done this country by country, all of which makes it much more difficult to undo. The changes you've made on your own will take a team of editors many days to undo -- and you did this all without having a consensus to act, because no one told you "No, don't do it"? You have screwed up this hierarchy good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Beyond My Ken: "Accepting your explanation of the structure of the Catholic Church does not mean that structure must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy". I get the constant feeling that I'm being ignored. Have you read my first message, where I asked you a question? I've NEVER said that the structure of the Catholic Church must be mirrored in our categorical hierarchy. Actually, mi first proposal was THE OPPOSSITE: forgetting all about the Latin Church (as we do in eswiki).

User:Nilfanion opposed to that proposal because "is entirely removing the distinction between the Latin church and the Catholic church as a whole". So, please. First step: do we recognise that we've been following two different criterias? Second step: What does the community want? Keep the distinction and mirror the Catholic Church structure or not? --Grabado (talk) 06:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

What the community wants, Grabado, is what you have consistently and aggravatingly ignored: it wants that state of these categories returned to what they were before you began meddling with them. That is the bottom line, that is the be-all and end-all of this discussion,. Your continued attempts to "win" the discussion are in the way of that, which is why they are being ignored. Your pedantic and unnecessary questions will continue to go unanswered, because you simply are not getting the point: change the categories back to what they were.. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposal[edit]

Unless User:Grabado acts immediately to undo the changes that they made to the Roman Catholic hierarchy and return it to the state it was in before they started to edit it, I propose that they be indefinitely blocked from editing The Commons, as their judgment about what edits are useful and which are disruptive appears to be extremely poor.

  • Support as proposer. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:52, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Neutral: I'd much rather find a milder remedy such as a topic ban -- I think an indef block is probably excessive -- but I've also been very frustrated with Grabado's unilateral changes against obvious consensus in matters related to religion. - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I, too, would normally hesitate to jump to an indef block, were it not for the extent of the damage caused by Grabado and their consistent reluctance to undo it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote oversat.svg Strong oppose. Beyond My Ken is terribly wrong on stating There is a church centered in Rome, headquartered in Vatican City, headed by the Archbishop of Rome, otherwise known as the Pope. This church is unversally known as the "Roman Catholic Church" or the "Catholic Church", and parishes throughout the world identify themselves as "Roman Catholic". These churches use the "Latin Rite", but are not generally identified as "Latin Churches". He is wrong on the next point There are other churches which stand in communion with the Roman Catholic Church, or in personal communion with the Pope. These are not "Roman Catholic" churches, they are called whatever it is they name themselves, such as the Coptic Catholic Church, or the Maronite Church or the Melkite Catholic Church. These churches uses different rites from the Roman Catholic Church. We had discussed in depth about it earlier. Feel free to find the previous discussion.
I can understand why Beyond My Ken think so. Here in India, "Roman Catholic" simply means to the public as "Syro-Malabar Catholic church" and the Latin church is called explicitly "Latin church". This is because Syro-Malabar Catholic church is more prominent here. Similarly "Roman Catholic" simply means the Latin church where that church is prominent. But this will not change the truth that Roman Catholic Church is a union of Latin and Eastern churches. Jee 02:38, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • India is not the world. The consensus here is that what you are call a "Latin Church" should be called a "Roman Catholic Church". In countries where the Latin rite is dominant, that is what those churches are called. Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic? In fact, let me quote from en:Catholic Church in India: "There are 168 dioceses in India organised into 30 provinces. Of these, 131 are Latin Catholic Church, 29 Syro-Malabar Catholic Church and 8 Syro-Malankara Catholic Church dioceses," so your statement that "the Syro-Malabar church is more prominent here" is clearly untrue. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • 1. "Why should we accept the nomenclature of a country where only 1.55% of the population is Catholic?" Who said so? In fact Grabado is following the nomenclature what English Wikipedia and Britannica following. 2. For India, it is not about the number of dioceses scattered in a large country where not much catholic population. They are concentrated into a few states. Further the latin church is very new here compared to the other two churches. Jee 03:23, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Who said so? The editors of the Commons reached a consensus that said so (and despite your claim, English Wikipedia does not follow the "Latin Church" usage), and I doubt your arguments that we must follow the practices prevalent in India is going to change that consensus. It certainly explains why Grabado did what he did, attempting to impose Indian practices on Wikipedia without a consensus to do so. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
1. It seems you didn't see Catholic Church also known as the Roman Catholic Church and Roman Catholicism. This is not limited to English Wikipedia; has followed by 130+ wiki projects. 2. I hardly see Grabado has a connection to India. Jee 03:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did see that, and that is not a reference to the use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:53, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is indeed a confusion on whether "Latin" or "Western" is more acceptable. The only link I saw in English Wikipedia pointed to this where it used Western Catholic Church: "30. The Sacred Council feels great joy in the fruitful zealous collaboration of the Eastern and the Western Catholic Churches and at the same time declares: All these directives of law are laid down in view of the present situation until such time as the Catholic Church and the separated Eastern Churches come together into complete unity." So "Catholic Church" may meant "Western Church" prior to that decree on 1964; but not now. I asked some priests here for a better official reference. Will be back if got one.) Jee 04:35, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Neither "Western" or "Latin" is acceptable. This may be out of your experience, but every single Latin-rite Roman Catholic church in the Western world is called a "Roman Catholic Church", and that is what they should be called, as the standing consensus holds. You want to change it, find a consensus of editors that agrees with you. So far, looking here and at Grabado's talk page, there is not one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I got a reply with this link. Jee 06:13, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
"The use of "Latin Church" as opposed to "Roman Catholic Church", which is the change that Grabado made". Again: No, this is not the change I've made. --Grabado (talk) 06:29, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Your statement does not accord with the reality of what you did. PLEASE RETURN THE CATEGORIES TO THE STATE OF WHAT THEY WERE BEFORE YOU ROYALLY FUCKED THEM UP. I do not want to spend the next week or so reverting your changes, but if you leave me no resort, I will have to do so, and when I have finished I will press much more forcefully for you to be blocked as a disruption to Commons. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • This proposal doesn't make sense to me. You want Grabado to *both* undo the changes *and* be indef blocked? --99of9 (talk) 02:41, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • It's not too hard to understand: I want Grabado to undo the changes or be indef blocked. If Grabado undoes what he has done, then I will withdraw the proposal, but if he does not, and the proposal gains sufficient support, then he can be indef blocked until he pledges to undo what he has done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:58, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't know what the matter is here but please take it as a note as an Indian citizen we respect all the religions in the country. As per Christianity is concerned whether we are a few we don't distinguish between Roman Catholic and other Catholic. We all believe we believe in one God and that's what we are united irrespective of Roman Catholic or Protestant or any other Catholic.@Yann: u too from India what do u think?as I find this proposal not appropriate(The indication of India and Roman Catholic made me comment here)--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 05:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please don't clutter this discussion with irrelevancies. No one has said anything about the Indian respect for religion, because it plays no part in this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment In the Western world (ie where either catholicism or protestantism is dominant), there is no need to change anything. In the English-speaking countries Catholic churches self-identify as "Roman Catholic", and are commonly called that, so Roman Catholic should be used not just Catholic for the West. Jkadavoor, the official guidance of the church should take second place to the actual common usage on the ground in the West for churches in the West. The existence of the Eastern Catholic churches shouldn't complicate the situation for churches in the West. It is sensible to make changes for those countries where Eastern Catholics are significant, and only those countries. There is also a case to improve the global categories for the church, as in those that are not country-specific.
I think the present situation could be seen as consensus for Grabado's changes outside the West, a consensus against within it and no consensus on the global cats.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:36, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
The complaint is that categories like Category:Catholic churches in the United States contain subcategories like Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, but Wikipedia says Catholic churches and Roman Catholic churches are the same thing. They've got 55 pages of archives in w:Talk:Catholic_Church by the way. But apparently there's no acceptable alternative name for the Roman Catholic subcategories. --ghouston (talk) 10:07, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I was coming to quote ghouston's early comment at Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2017/06#References. I think English Wikipedia and probably other Wikipedias may be discussed this a lot and made the current stand. And Commons too needs to follow that path. That English Wikipedia article has so many references. I added one more. (BNK's arrogant and threatening comments make this discussion difficult to participate. I'll not comment more unless he stops it or an admin asked him to stop.) Jee 10:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to redirect Category:Catholic churches in the United States to Category:Roman Catholic churches in the United States, with the Eastern churches as a sub-cat. I'm really not sure what to do about the Western Church but there is no reason why we can't use Catholic and Roman Catholic for different parts of the tree (based on local preferences).--Nilfanion (talk) 10:47, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I would agree with that proposal, Nilfanion. Actually it is what we do in eswiki and it is more or less like my first proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Just to throw in a remark without having read the whole discussion: There are Western Catholic Churches that aren't "Roman". Im thinking particularly of the en:Old Catholic Church that separeted from the Roman Catholic Church in the 19th century. The Old Catholic Church in Switzerland (there called "Christkatholische Kirche", "Christian Catholic Church"), a church recognized by cantonal governments, has basically the same theology and rites as the Roman Catholic Church - but doesn't recognize infallible papal authority, therefore separated from Rome after the First Vatican Council. Gestumblindi (talk) 10:24, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: Yes, you're absolutely right. There are other Christian Churches that consider themselves to be "catholic". That is why I've explicitly asked here about "the whole Church leaded by the Pope". --Grabado (talk) 10:31, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

First question[edit]

Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church is also known as "Roman Catholic Church" [35]. Here in Commons, we've been treating both concepts as if they where different things. No matter what term we finally chose to solve it, no matter what solution we finally choose, even if we finally decide there's not consensus to choose between any solution and the best would be doing nothing, do we agree on this? Do we agree that we have a problem?

I ask you, the community:

Do you agree that Wikipedia says that the "Catholic Church" (the whole Church leaded by the Pope of Rome) is also called "Roman Catholic Church" and that we shouldn't contradict this statement here in Wikimedia Commons?
--Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No matter the result of this, I'll revert any changes to the previous status quo once the community had reached any consensus about this question or if an admin requests me to do it previously, as I've said in the Administrators' noticeboard. Even if the community agrees there is a problem, I'll revert my changes to the previous status quo before keep discussing about any actual proposal. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC).

Symbol keep vote.svg Agree, as proposer. --Grabado (talk) 10:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No. This is a leading proposition (implying there's only one alternative), and also doesn't actually say what Commons should do. To clarify, this should be a relatively simple (set of) questions: What to call the global category tree? What category name to use for institutions, that call themselves Roman Catholic, in the West? How about regions where the Latin church is not the dominant local variant of Catholicism?--Nilfanion (talk) 10:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Of course I don't say "what" commons should do. I just ask you: Should we do something? People like Beyong My Ken still doesn't agree with the first line of en:Catholic Church (he told me: "even if you are correct (which I don't believe you are)"). We cannot reach any consensus about how to solve something if we doesn't agree that we have something to solve. This is the first step to even start discussing any proposal. If the community doesn't event want to solve the problem, I'm not going to make more proposals (like I already did)--Grabado (talk) 10:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
A statement of principle is a waste of time. You don't need to hold a discussion to say "Commons should generally follow Wikipedia", we know that. You also know full well how contentious this was on WP. While it has consensus, that's not the same as unanimous agreement, so your comment does NOT accurately represent the reality of what happened on Wikipedia. What is productive is working out what Commons should do about it. Please close this section.--Nilfanion (talk)
I honestly don't know what to do when people keep saying that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not part of the Roman Catholic Church. --Grabado (talk) 10:57, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Given how complex this situation is you will always get people saying that, and the best thing to do is to explain to them the difficulty, not just tell them they are wrong without saying why. The above is an empty appeal to authority, which is likely to annoy people not persuade them. Its also badly phrased: The Pope leads the Latin Church, not the entire Catholic Church. For instance, the Syriac Catholic Church is led by its Patriarch, not the Pope. Focus on what Commons should do about it, perhaps the discussion on WP will find something constructive (but I doubt it - the problem with Latin Church is its completely unrecognisable).--Nilfanion (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
@Nilfanion: Ok, I'll take your advice. Thank you. But I believe that is more or less what I've been trying to do since the beginning. Just one small hue on the last thing you said: the Pope leads the Latin Church, but also the whole Catholic Church. Even when every sui iuris Church has its own Patriarch, the Pope has ultimate authority (As an example: the en:Eritrean Catholic Church was erected by Pope Francis as an autonomous sui iuris metropolitan church in 2015; here you have the Apostolic Constitution). --Grabado (talk) 12:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Well, there's something which could be done with little effort. Complain on w:Talk:Catholic Church that the enwiki category system is broken: it has exactly the same issue as on Commons, with w:Category:Roman Catholic church buildings used as a subcategory of w:Category:Catholic church buildings. See if somebody there can solve it. --ghouston (talk) 11:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
✓ Done [36] --Grabado (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Grabado: You continue to attempt to lead the discussion to the place you want it to end up, and you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position, I simply do not agree with it in regard to your solution to it for cetgorization. Further, I'm not interested in debating the church's hierarchy with you, because the only real issue here is that you made massive changes to Commons categorization (which, as Jmabel said on your talk page is not an epistemological exercise, but a way for people to find things) without even a scintilla of a consensus to do so, and that you steadfastly refuse to clean it up. Stopping your changes is not enough. If you want a debate on the merits, then return the categories to what they were before you messed them all up, restoring the long-standing consensus, and then you can open a community discussion to see if there's a new consensus. I refuse, however, to debate that issue as long as your edits remain in force, a Sword of Damocles over the head of the community. Fix your egregious disruption, then talk can take place, not before. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken:: "you continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying. I can't speak for anyone else, but I do understand your position". If you understand my position now, I'm happy. But you cannot say that I "continue to assume that no one understands what you are saying", if in your first message you said that the Eastern Catholic Churches are not Roman Catholic Churches [37] and you've been discussing about it with another user.
I've already made clear my position in the Administrators' noticeboard regarding whether I should revert any changes or not. I'm not going to discuss the same thing in two places at the same time. You've already opened a discussion on the Administrators' noticeboard and I've said there all I had to say about that. --Grabado (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Actually, not on the Administrators' noticeboard itself (took me a while to find the comments in question) but on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems (more precisely Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Grabado. But over there they said to resolve it here. So, Grabado, if you want the discuss it there rather than here, we are at a bit of a standoff. - Jmabel ! talk 21:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
[38] --Grabado (talk) 21:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Grabado: You are being terribly disingenuous. I have never said that the Eastern Churches are not part of the same overarching Church as the Roman Catholic churches, and your continuing attempt to portraying me as saying so is simply a way to deflect attention from what is the only real issue here: you made a change (or, rather, a huge series of changes) that you think is right without having consensus behind you, and now you refuse to return to the status quo ante, after which discussion of your proposal can proceed -- however, no consensus discussion is going to take place while your disruptive, non-consensual changes remain in place. Restore the state of categorization to what it was before you meddled with it, and you can discuss the name of the pins the angels are dancing on to your heart's content, and if enough editors agree with you, changes can be made -- but not before you undo what you have already done, not simply stopped doing it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment OK, now as ghouston asked a talk page discussion is started at en:Talk:Catholic_Church#Our_whole_category_system_might_be_broken and two experienced users (TSP and Chicbyaccident) agreed that "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope. It was discussed earlier too. Now BNK is asking to shut down that discussion which I didn't understand. The only merit I see in his argument is he is saying Grabado acted without the consensus. It is not true. When Jmabel questioned his edit earlier, we had discussed about it. The only point we didn't arrive on a consensus is, to find a suitable name to identify the Latin Church (Western Church). This can be discussed further. But I see no need of further discussion on the main point, that whether the "Catholic Church" and "Roman Catholic Church" are, as applied to a specific church organisation refer to the entire church that is under the leadership of the Pope or not. It is clearly set so in English Wikipedia and most other Wikipedias. Commons should provide a matching category for the Wikipedias. Jee 03:19, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Sorry, but you're entirely missing the point, which has nothing to do with the stuff you're referring to, and everything to do with Grabado editing without consensus (Grabado cannot have had a consensus to make the massive number of edits to categories he did if, as you admit yourself, the discussion didn't "find a suitable name", because he made those changes with a name that he, alone decided was appropriate), disrupting a long-standing category hierarchy, and refusing to restore the state it was in before his edits. The combination of disruptive editing and what we call on en.wiki "I didn't hear that" behavior, is the one and only issue here at the moment. When this stuff is settled, and the category hierarchy is restored to the state it was in to begin with, then and only then can a consensus discussion be held to determine what the next step is. Grabado's going to en.wiki with a Commons matter is grandstanding, since the en.wiki community doesn't determine what happens on Commons (or vice versa). Grabado is, in fact, doing everything possible except the one thing he should be doing: reverting his edits so we return to our starting point and his damage is undone. To me, that's sufficient grounds for blocking, but, frankly, I'm getting pretty tired of banging my head against this particular brick wall, and having all the energy sucked out of me by an intransigent POV editor with an idee fixe that he will not let go of. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Could you clarify what was (he stopped editing for the time-being) wrong with Grabado's edits? As you didn't participate in the first discussion, I can make a small summary. Earlier the category structure was not matching with other wiki projects; Eastern Catholic Churches were out of Roman Catholic Church. Grabado placed them inside. So the parent category Roman Catholic Church now includes all Eastern Catholic Churches as subcategories and the Latin Church directly under Roman Catholic Church without a subcategory name. As far as I know this is the system Spanish Wikipedia follows. Nilfanion or somebody else opposed it as it is confusing. But we failed to arrive into a consensus to call a name for the Latin Church. While checking the official pages of vatican.va, we can understand why this confusion. They rarely address the Latin Church with a name. So we've only two options; 1. find a name for the Latin Church 2. add them directly under the main cat (Roman Catholic Church) without a name as in Spanish Wikipedia. Your demand to restore the early state (kick-out the Eastern Catholic Churches out of Roman Catholic Church) is not acceptable as it is not the truth. Let me know if I understand your demand in a wrong way. Jee 04:29, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Above all, what was wrong with his edits is that he made major changes when there was no consensus to do so, and when the status quo ante did not have any serious problems, and when quite a few people had actively objected to the direction he wanted to go with this.
  • At the risk of repeating myself: the category hierarchy is not an exercise in abstract logic, epistemology, etc. It is a means of helping users readily find files related to particular subject matter. As long as it is clear what goes in a particular category, and that category name is one that users are likely to use and to understand, things are fine. Unintuitive names are a much bigger problem than ones that are not strictly accurate. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • Categories like "Latin churches of the Catholic Church" seem unwieldy to me. But using "Roman Catholic churches" when it's ambiguous and doesn't match the primary meaning on Wikipedia seems confusing. If it's just a disambiguation issue, with multiple meanings for "Roman Catholic", maybe they could be disambiguated with "Roman Catholic (Latin) churches" or something. --ghouston (talk) 05:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
  • (Edit conflict) Jmabel, could you elaborate a bit more with an example? I checked his edits; but didn't find anything particular. I saw some edits he reverted on your request. That is a simple one and easy to solve. I agree with you that Wikimdia projects are intended for common people and so should be easy to understand. But that doesn't mean we need to keep a misinformation even after we find it untrue. As I commented here, George Alencherry and Baselios Cleemis are Cardinal of the Roman Catholic Church. They voted in the last Pope election. So if I need to find a church during my travelling, I'll prefer any Roman Catholic church than an Orthodox church. I don't care whether it is Latin or Syrian. Here in Kerala people go to the nearby or convenient one irrespective of their rite. I can understand in some places where only Latin Church exists, people may note be aware of other Catholic Churches. This is not a simple topic for somebody outside. (The concept of more than one Rite in one Church is more complicate to understand.) Jee 05:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
Congratulations, BMK Could we go back and start discussing about how to solve the problem I reported? --06:04, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

When you have reverted all of your changes, discussion can begin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I object. Improvements were postponed for a long time, despite much needed. Its precise terminology may be altered, but I consider the edits improvements. So I advocate we take it from here. Chicbyaccident (talk) 11:50, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Nope, nothing has been "postponed", because no consensus for a change has ever existed. The "precise terminology" will be decided by community consensus, and not by the opinions of random editors, especially one with 279 edits over the course of 4 years. In any case, the non-consensus edits need to be undone before any change in terminology can be discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Chicbyaccident. I had asked above to give example on what edit seems problematic; but nothing is given so far. If provided, we can look into it. Otherwise no need to revert something that need to be restored after the discussion. Jee 12:26, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't have time now to go through the edit histories and work out what edit several weeks ago started this all. I am not the one who has been seeking some sort of disciplinary action here; I'm just trying to keep the categories useful. - Jmabel ! talk 18:56, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel, your comments here and in the previous discussions are very useful. What we need is such a friendly discussion and I too ready for it. BTW, I tried to make Category:Roman Catholic Church as a disambiguation page as Ghouston suggested above. Feel free to revert if not good. Jee 02:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Chicbyaccident and Jkadavoor for your support. I'm going to revert my changes as BMK has asked, as a first step to continue discussing. Don't worry, I could easily do the same work again if needed. --Grabado (talk) 06:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Just be certain you have a clear consensus before you do. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:39, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-25[edit]

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Help with revert[edit]

Hello. Apologies if this is a FAQ. I am trying to remove the black border around an old photo, File:Gateway_District-Minneapolis-a.jpg. Revert doesn't like me. Thanks if you can help. I've tried purge and tried replacing the image. -SusanLesch (talk) 16:25, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

  • Purge is sometimes stubborn, but both your revisions lack the border, so it’s good now. I hope you’ll be able to see it for yoursel soon. -- Tuválkin 16:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply, Tuvalkin. When I look at them, only the middle one is missing a border. I tried to revert again today, no luck. Your system believes both my new uploads are the same. Stubborn is right! Why do I see them differently, still? -SusanLesch (talk) 15:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Susan, the second and third, active version are byte identical, I just checked. Reload the file description page without cache following theapproach following my signature (this is transcluded content available in several languages). — Speravir – 20:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please purge your browser’s cache . (You only need to do it once.)

Internet Explorer: press Ctrl+F5, Firefox: hold down Shift while clicking Reload (or press Ctrl+ Shift+R), Opera/Konqueror: press F5, Safari: hold down Shift+alt while clicking Reload, Chrome: hold down Shift while clicking Reload

By gum, you are right! I switched to Chrome and everything looks fine. Thank you much, Speravir and Tuválkin. -SusanLesch (talk) 22:37, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

BIG Blue Button will probably break scripts in July[edit]

I left a note about this project at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2017/05#BIG blue button will break some scripts, and I wanted to give you a quick update: It'll probably break things at Commons sometime in the last half of July.

I've recommended that Commons be the very last wiki to get this change, because this community has some of the most important old editing scripts. But you don't have to wait: the required fixes work now. So, please, if you maintain a script or gadget, please check now to see whether it's going to work later, and fix it now. And if you depend upon a script, then please find the people who are supposed to be maintaining it, and make sure that they know about this. Anyone can test scripts they use.

Testing most scripts does not require significant technical skills. Just take your regular URL for editing (such as https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/File?action=edit ) and add &ooui=1 to the end (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Random/File?action=edit&ooui=1 ). See if it works like you expect. If it does, then you're okay. If it doesn't, then there is more information and examples of how other scripts have been fixed at mw:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons.

I don't think that this affects scripts that use the API for editing. I also don't think that this will affect scripts that aren't used for editing (e.g., to add links to pages when you're viewing pages).

If you have questions or need help, then please leave a message at mw:Talk:Contributors/Projects/Accessible editing buttons (or {{ping}} me here). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

June 20[edit]

Parsing myriads of diffs required[edit]

Hello. This request or question is intended for people having access to WMF Labs (that I haven’t) or skilled with MediaWiki API (where I am not). There is a large run of edits by one well-known Commons user, namely: [42], [43], and yet many thousands older. Of these, most are such Commons media maintenance-related job as changing dates in {{uncategorized}}, {{check categories}}, or in [[Category:]] tags directly. But there are several, such as [44] and [45], that tamper with the upload date. As conjectured at MediaWiki talk: VisualFileChange.js #Possibly wrong replacement in the upload date, these were random user errors most probably. How to detect all illegitimate changes and hunt those edits down?

As a side note, VisualFileChange is poorly designed since permits for tampering with important metadata as easily as doing routine maintenance. Especially poorly considered are edit summaries—contrast VFC to HotCat in this aspect—that’s why a complex search&destroy operation is required now. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 12:42, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

This is not "tampering with important metadata". The file upload date is given in the "File history" section, and you cannot change that with VFC or anything else. These changes just affect maintenance categorization. I really don't think this is worth getting worked up over. Storkk (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Which maintenance category does {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}} set? Doesn’t this marker certify that a particular version was uploaded originating from en.WP, not from anywhere else? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Also, we don’t know which else data might be changed, observing thousands identical cryptic “consolidate” labels in the summaries. I found two spoiled {{Uploaded with en.wp UW marker}}s, but who can ensure now that {{Information}} or {{Artwork}} weren’t damaged anywhere? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
If this template has been applied incorrectly, you can fix it, or if this is a large number of images you could ask at Commons:Bots/Work requests for a mass correction. No, the use of this template does not "certify" anything, it appears to be used to make information easier to see and is not used consistently. Were an API or bot savvy user intending to do some analysis or make some mass changes based on upload date, they would not start with looking at the second-hand numbers entered into this template, they would run some SQL against the commonswiki or enwiki databases to use original records. -- (talk) 13:27, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I shouldn’t make a work request before understanding what namely have we to look for. Users with SQL access could do some preliminary analysis, if only to check whether other erroneous patterns are present in the contribs in question. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, however any errors related to this template are unlikely to be a hazard for other contributors, so looking into this any more deeply is not a priority for me. If you can highlight an example that makes it seem more urgent, I still suggest asking for mass corrections at bots/work. -- (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It sets Category:Uploaded with en.wp upload wizard, and the date would appear to only affect the sort order of the files displayed in that category. Storkk (talk) 13:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Category:Uploaded_with_en.wp_upload_wizard is hidden, but isn’t a maintenance category. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 13:44, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
It is a category that exists purely to aid in maintenance, which is what I meant by "maintenance categorization". This is such an utterly trivial error that I personally don't think it's worth investing a tenth of the time we've already spent discussing it. Feel free to continue if you still feel it worthwhile, though. Storkk (talk) 13:52, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is an easy explanation for this: Sometimes maintenance categories get consolidated in order to make it easier to fix things. It doesn't much matter if we have temporary categories shitABChappend 2014 + shitABChappend 2015 + shitABChappend 2016 or dump it all together into shitABChappend or shitABChappend 2017. Same process has been done last year(??) All media needing categories as of 20XY. It's just a maintenance tag without any further use. --Hedwig in Washington (mail?) 06:35, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 21[edit]

Should content pages consist of galleries only or also include File pages?[edit]

Historically, the count of "content pages" here at Commons (shown at Special:Statistics and accessible through API requests) has included only pages in the main namespace ("galleries") containing at least one wikilink (matching the classic definition of an "article" used on most Wikimedia wikis). The count of "uploaded files" has been a completely different thing (one that, admittedly, most people care about a lot more than the number of galleries).

Now, following a change I pointed out almost 2 weeks ago, the definition of "content pages" includes both galleries and File: pages containing at least one wikilink. This means the content-page count will increase (almost) as fast as files are uploaded (assuming they result in "File:" pages containing at least one wikilink, which I believe is true when the Upload Wizard is used). As a result, the content-page count has jumped to around 530,000 as I type this — an increase of around 300% since June 6th.

Unfortunately, this current count is almost completely meaningless, since it contains only qualifying (wikilinked) "File:" pages created after the settings change of June 6th. (Already-existing "File:" pages were not "retroactively" counted.)

To get a "meaningful" content-page count, we will need to have the entire wiki recounted from scratch — something that is being done periodically to every Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikiquote, Wikisource, Wikinews, Wikiversity, and Wikivoyage, but to my knowledge has never been done to Commons.

I stress that this will need to be done whether we accept the change that was made on June 6th or not. However, we need to decide which definition of "content pages" we want to go with before the recounting is done (since it will be a relatively [or maybe extremely] long and resource-intensive process).

Specifically, then, we need to decide between the following options:

  1. The count of "content pages" should include only galleries in the main namespace. (i.e., request a revert of the June 6th settings change and recount the wiki)
  2. The count of "content pages" should include both galleries and pages in the "File:" namespace. (i.e., accept the June 6th settings change and recount the wiki)

Some things to note about the two options:

  • The first option is how things have been done for several years, up to 6 June 2017. The current count under this scenario "should be" around 130,000 (based on the count before June 6th) and represent how many wikilinked galleries we have. Using this definition would have the debatable benefit of separating the count of galleries entirely from the count of uploaded files.
  • The second option is how things stand as of 6 June 2017, but as just explained above, the current count (around 530,000) is now a mixture of galleries and only-recently-created "File:" pages. It is impossible to know what the count "should be" under this scenario, but I'm guessing it's at least several million. (For comparison, the count of uploaded file is just shy of 40 million.) After recounting, using this definition would have the debatable benefit of eliminating "File:" pages lacking links to, say, uploader userpages and/or local pages explaining licensing terms.
  • It is (also) debatable whether the existence of links on "File:" pages (or even gallery pages, for that matter) is even a meaningful way of qualifying such pages as "content". Thus, we may want to consider switching to the "any" method of content-page counting (counting all pages in "content namespaces" rather than only those containing a wikilink).
  • As discussed in the Phabricator task that precipitated the settings change, the intent of the change was to allow Special:Random and Special:Nearby to work with both galleries and files. Currently the navigation menu (left side of page) contains a "hardcoded" link to Special:Random/File rather than Special:Random. With the change, Special:Random now brings up (presumably) either a file or a gallery page. Is this desired? Do we care? (As for Special:Nearby, I can't say much since I've never worked with that.)

So… comments? Should I open an RFC about this? - dcljr (talk) 04:30, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

@Dcljr: I agree that a "content page" on a media repository should probably include the media itself but what practical effect would this have? We already have a magic word for the number of files and it's shown on the Main Pages, so anyone could easily have an idea of how big the repository is. —Justin (koavf)TCM 04:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
The "content pages" count shown at Special:Statistics is also accessible through {{NUMBEROFARTICLES}} on-wiki and tracked at stats:. Many people also gather "content pages" counts for various Wikimedia Wikis (including this one) through the API. If the wiki is going to report its count of "content pages", however defined, it should report the correct count, right? That's all I'm saying. We just need to decide which "correct count" we want to use. - dcljr (talk) 05:16, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Edit: Oops… I forgot: stats: uses it own, different definition of what constitutes "content pages", and does not rely on wiki-reported counts. - dcljr (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't really care one way or the other, but if the File: namespace is included, the Data: namespace should probably be included as well. --El Grafo (talk) 06:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
Clearly the change should be reverted (+1 to dcljr).--Kopiersperre (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about San Fermin posters' license[edit]

Hello! The city hall of Pamplona has uploaded all the posters of San Fermin fiestas since 1846 here. I wonder which of them are on public domain and which of them evidently not, as they were public posters published each year. -Theklan (talk) 21:38, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

  • If we don't know about the specific artists, I guess it's a question of what date is considered safe in a "life + 70" situation. I'd think 150 years is safe (so up to 1867, at present; this would allow or a 20-year-old artist who lived to be 100). After that it gets shadier. Not sure we have a clear policy on this, but if we don't know anything about the specific artist, I don't think anything newer than 125 years could even be argued for: someone could easily have lived 55 years after creating the poster. It looks like the linked site gives the artists' names, so there is a good chance death dates can be worked out, which might allow some as late as the first third of the 20th Century to be used. On the other hand: these are pretty low-res, so not of all that much interest. - Jmabel ! talk 00:13, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe Spain is life+80 for all practical purposes; see COM:CRT.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:16, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

40M[edit]

A few minutes ago we uploaded our 40th millionth file. Hurrah! -- Tuválkin 23:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations Commons comunity! --Hume42 (talk) 08:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Whouuuuu Partyhat icone.png0x010C ~talk~ 20:31, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Does the uploader of #40,000,000 get a prize, a t-shirt or something? Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

June 22[edit]

Japanese text and painting[edit]

Postcard Japanese painting.jpg
Can someone identify the painter? On the backside there is Japanese text.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:09, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I don't think the text on the back is helpful. It appears to read きかは便郵. (I'm roughly ja-1, though, so YMMV) Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

And is this one from Kobe as most of my postcards from Japan are?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

This is almost certainly the Nihonbashi Mitsukoshi flagship store in Tokyo, probably in the 1920s. cf [46], [47] A more precise date could likely be found by looking at when the neighboring building (Mitsui bank?) was constructed, and what was there before that. Storkk (talk) 13:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Following this reasoning it must be before 1929: File:Mitsui Bank and Mitsukoshi Department Store by Koizumi Kishio.jpgSmiley.toerist (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Good and bad news about cross-wiki search results in Wikipedia[edit]

Good news: The cross-wiki search results from other projects are now live in English Wikipedia. Bad news: The search results from Commons are suppressed via RfC discussion in English Wikipedia, meaning users won't see those results in English Wikipedia. Don't feel down yet. Users from non-English Wikipedia may still see the search results in their respective language sites. Feel free to share your thoughts here. --George Ho (talk) 20:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Tit for tat, if the English Wikipedia thinks it can rule above other projects and not being a sister project, and it will can block cross-wiki search results to several projects - including Wikimedia Commons - on the flimsiest of argumenst why then Wikimedia Commons doesnt block all images from being displayed on said Wikipedia? It would be at the same low level, but it would be a fitting answer to such callous act. Tm (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Commons block cross-wiki uploads from Wikipedia? Kaldari (talk) 04:16, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Alas it decided to do it, almost a year ago but fortunately cross-wiki uploads is still very much active. Tm (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
I find it interesting how much effort people who call Commons' content objectionable put into finding the most obscene material – some of it so obscene that one user couldn't help but prominently exhibit it on his personal user page.    FDMS  4    08:26, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Meh, surely we are all bored rigid about the regular dramah ethusiasts shouting porn and sniping about Commons, but from the safety of the English Wikipedia community where the old boys club give a virtual slap on the back for throwing "cunt" or "fuck" into discussions, just to prove how Jimmy's personal interpretation of free speech is alive and well (diff). Perhaps instead of giving a fig for how they mess with their project, you might focus on what you want to see the WMF prioritize to make meaningful improvements to Commons? For example, you could go vote for an implementation of image hashes. -- (talk) 08:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
people will go to a great deal of effort to denigrate those projects that they do not "control". not invented here, is become you shall not pass. such veto behavior would not matter much, except that it ruins a community. Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 20:15, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

There are two problems with allowing Commons search from Wikipedia. The first of course is the NSFW issue, which is a serious one and sadly the Commons reaction continues lack a mature understanding of what the word "censorship" means. Other image sites (Flickr and 500px for example) have ways of rating their content, so there's no fundamental reason why Commons could not and yet still exist as an uncensored repository of material. Freedom is allowing the hosting of content that some might object to, while also providing a user interface with options that permit users to choose what they want to see and when.

But the second problem is the nature of the way Commons is built, which is largely by independent users uploading distinct content, rather than a collaborative structured database. Both projects share a category system which is used by search and is maintained by a community who can watch over entries to some limited degree. But the text on Wikipedia is community created and reviewed and watchlisted. The text on Commons is by and large written by the uploader (or the third-party site from which content is scraped). This makes it much more likely that such text may produce undesirable search results: there are no eyeballs looking at it until it turns up in someones search. How quickly would Wikipedia/Commons be Google Bombed by folk uploading unpleasant images with "Donald Trump" in the description?

On the RFC, Fae suggests using Wikidata to associate search results with Commons images. That's certainly one way of trying to improve the quality/accuracy of results. It depends how well Wikidata is managed and resists vandalism/spam, which I don't know. A drawback is that it would hugely reduce the result set because very little content is linked.

WMF on the RFC said they tweaked the algorithm to "use boosted images". I don't know what they mean by that. Is it images that have passed FP/QI/VI? Or is it images that are in-use on sister projects (like a simple PageRank measure)? The problem with the former is that FP standards are high enough to exclude a lot of useful content, and QI is only valid for images taken by a Commons user, so excludes the millions of imported images. Requiring an image to be "in use" also hugely restricts the result set. All these measures could be used to ensure the top results are better and most likely relevant.

I would very much like my images to be displayed via Wikipedia search. Only a minority of my images get included in WP articles. So there is much content that will not be found. If Google Images turned up NSFW images in its first page of results, one could not use it in an open environment. They quite rightly realise that a "Safe search" option is necessary, though give the option to turn that off. When Commons refuses to implement something similar, the result is the entire site is blocked from WP search results. The result: my images are all censored because the fundamentalists outnumber the pragmatists. Way to go, Commons! -- Colin (talk) 09:48, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

don't know why you are fretting about the same old walled garden on english. there is not a new WMF initiative they will not opt out of, or filter. and yeah, to the extent you have an image at wikidata, that will route around. (and if you want your images used, you will have to edit them in yourself. getting to a thousand images in use is easy.) Slowking4 § Sander.v.Ginkel's revenge 17:09, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

June 23[edit]