Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
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:


 
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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


May 30[edit]

華北交通アーカイブ (North China Transportation Company Archives)[edit]

Kyoto University has recently released under CC-BY-4.0 the 華北交通アーカイブ, archives of 40k photos taken by North China Transportation Company (and others). (More info: [1][2].) Quality is pretty good. So far a handful has been transferred by a user. I wonder if someone would like to get in touch with the Uni to arrange for a systematic upload here. Or, if someone wants to unilaterally upload the entire collection.--Roy17 (talk) 21:42, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wonderful! Looks worth uploading, even if metadata is not always present. Syced (talk) 11:43, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Nice collection.--Vulphere 06:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Fyi, the breakdown of the archive holdings: 39,775 images (38,797 photos plus 210 images of notes on their wrong side totals to 39,007 images from the North China Transportation Company.)
Name of the archive:
華北交通写真
(North China Transportation Company photos)
Maintained by: w:en:The Kyoto University Research Centre for the Cultural Sciences which originated from the Institute of Oriental Studies Tōhō Bunka Gakuin, funded by w:en:Boxer Rebellion compensation.
Basic collection: used for public relations composed of (specified on each photo):
  • Manchuria Railway Northern China Headquarters
    満鉄北支事務局
    (1937–1938) with notes on the wrong side of each image.
  • 293 photos by Kuwabara Jitsuzō
    桑原隲藏
    (ja) taken between 1907–1909.[1]
  • 252 photos by Kaizuka Shigeki
    貝塚茂樹
    taken in September 1936, a researcher at the Institute of Oriental Studies.
  • Mizuno Kiyokazu
    水野清一
    and Hibino Takeo
    日比野丈夫
    took images in December 1940, part of which included in this archive.[2]
Sources
  1. Kōshi yūki
    考史遊記
    by Kuwabara Jitsuzō
    桑原隲藏
    , Tōkyō : Kōbundō, 1942.
  2. Mizuno, Seiichi ; Hibino, Takeo. ::223 images from Sansei kosekishi
    山西古蹟志
    (1956). Kyōto : Nakamura insatsu kabushiki kaisha shuppanbu. Series: Kyōto daigaku jinbun kagaku kenkyūjo kenkyū hōkoku [Kyoto University Humanities Institute Reports].
--Omotecho (talk) 20:33, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 01[edit]

OgreBot 2[edit]

OgreBot 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This bot wipes source, date and author fields, resulting in files getting tagged for deletion:

In response, Magog the Ogre said "I've already explained this to you several times. Please stop contacting me about it." Actually not sure it's been more than once, Magog the Ogre has been contacted about the issue many times by many people. I had to search a bit and found the actual defense: it's in the FAQ for the bot.

Q: Why did the bot remove the date and author and/or source field from a file?
A: The license on the image page seems to indicate that a) the file was uploaded from a local wikiproject, and b) the uploader from there is not the author (despite what the bot transfer code says). This means that information about the original upload isn't relevant: so the bot has removed it. For example, some common such licenses are {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{PD-art}}. This is a pretty common edit; if you think it's made a mistake, let me know.

I don't see the wiping of these fields as helpful. We could add some sort of maintenance category to {{Transferred from}}, {{Original upload date}} and {{Original uploader}} or something or the bot could insert {{Unknown}} in some cases maybe, or simply add a "to be checked" category. Wiping fields just pushes files into categories that result in them getting tagged for deletion. Any ordinary user that would go around making edits like these would likely be blocked, I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. What OgreBot 2 does is technically correct.
The files moved via commonshelper already have a maintenance template {{BotMoveToCommons}}.
The problem is on the users who do not bother helping check the files, but keep tagging files for nsd, npd, etc. Look at File:Lyell 1840.jpg, All source information is still present. It requires review. Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this file should not be considered reliable and the file should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Once the review has been completed, this template should be removed. For details about this file, see below. Check now! And that's true. en:File:Lyell 1840.jpg is not deleted yet.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the bot has been performing this action for 7 years, and was community sanctioned to do so. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz' real contention is with a) the policy of deleting unsourced files and b) Jcb's practice of mass tagging any of these lazily transferred files (which is quite a few of them). I am quite sympathetic to both of these contentions, as I don't believe we should be deleting obviously public domain files, nor mass tagging files that obviously have a source but in the wrong field. But blaming the bot is just shooting the messenger here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Changing Jcb is not possible. That's been tried and all I got out of it was more spurious stalking allegations. Jcb is like a force of nature. While I will occasionally curse the wind, rain or blinding sun it doesn't mean I expect change because of my cursing. That's also why I didn't ping Jcb here. (also, I don't know for sure if he is the only admin doing this) Accepting forces of nature as a fact of life, the community (including your bot) will have to change to suit the way Jcb does things around here. Refusing to do so will ultimately damage the project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: again, I share your concerns. You are asking me to change the bot's behavior to leave intact incorrect information simply so that it doesn't run afoul of an administrator with a quick trigger finger. Surely some other solution can be found. Maybe someone should follow Jcb's edits? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Got the T-shirt. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And per this discussion, I stopped watching Jcb's talk page. So I surely can't go watching Jcb's edits. And based on my experience, I can't really recommend anyone to volunteer for that job. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Maybe you should?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre:, anyone else.. any takers? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I believe it is reasonable for users to make a good faith effort to correct issues for pseudo-speedy deletion tags which you place on a page. You still have the option to go through the formal DR process if you object to a removal. Alexis Jazz feels strongly about this so he is the best candidate, but this means he would be following your contributions. Can you agree to this on the provision that he doesn't compile lists about you in his userspace? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that I could agree with any way of being followed by this particular user, I think that should be clear. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: okay, now what? Btw, I doubt I would single-handedly even be capable of correcting everything. The sheer edit volume of unchecked VFC edits can't be matched by manual investigation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Misuse of VFC is indeed worrisome. As far as I can remember, User:Jcb deleted a file which I had left messages on its talk page waiting for others' opinions, and a file in DR that had had some discussions (towards keeping).--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to think about this one for a while before I responded.
@Jcb: as far as I am concerned, you are not acting in good faith. I tried to resolve this with your input, but you are unwilling. Therefore, in my role as a fellow administrator, I am providing a warning: if you impede Alexis Jazz from adding legitimate sources to a page, then you are a) acting against policy (removing a source) and b) directly acting against the spirit and goals of this project (attempting to get legitimate media deleted) and c) directly acting against the community's stated wishes that you cease and desist with such behavior. Therefore, if I see that you take any such action, I reserve the right to block your account. Please consider this a warning. You may consider that this is an unfair warning, since I own the bot referenced in this thread. But I do not consider this an issue with the bot: I consider this an issue with your behavior. Feel free to appeal my warning to the community.
@Alexis Jazz: Please feel free to follow Jcb's contributions and correct any source errors on the pages he edits. Please take care that you do not add spurious sources (e.g., "internet", "a book", "US government", "loc.gov", etc.) and that you act in good faith and don't do anything stupid. If you act in good faith, and Jcb tries to stop you, I will deal with him as stated above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't interpret or accept this as an official warning that could e.g. be 'appealed'. This is a malicious attempt to threaten a colleague, with suggestive nonsense arguments. Please refrain from any next step in this harmful behaviour. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Jcb even took this to AN: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Threathening / disruptive behaviour by admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 07[edit]

General maintainers[edit]

This is an idea I've been mulling over for a while. Input is welcome.

Some Commons users do a lot of maintenance and other work here, but they may not be interested in becoming an administrator or not deemed suitable by the community.

When it comes to administrators, there are two reasons we can't promote everyone to be an administrator: the community doesn't trust everyone with the mop and for the WMF administrators (to be precise: anyone who can view deleted content) are a legal liability. Being an administrator on a Wikimedia project also carries some legal risk for the administrators themselves because of that.

A general maintainer wouldn't quite be an administrator, but would be given access to various tools. They need to be users who can be trusted not to abuse their tools (similar to, for example, rollbackers), but don't need overly extensive copyright knowledge (like a license reviewer) and the community doesn't need to trust them with sanctioning other users.

A general maintainer could:

  • Move files
  • Delete their own files and revisions (very handy for mass-uploaders who spot a bad file after uploading and map makers who need to delete inaccurate old revisions of maps)
  • Speedy delete abusive uploads (not including copyright violations)
  • Hide abusive page revisions (vandalism)
  • Handle G7 requests that fully meet the G7 criteria. (original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content)
  • More easily close-keep DRs as they have DelReqHandler, but by default they should only close DRs that any user would be allowed to close: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." (but read more below)
  • Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
  • Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
  • Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)
  • Enable 2FA
  • Edit protected templates (templateeditor)
  • Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)

Unlike an administrator, a general maintainer couldn't:

  • Do license reviews (unless they also apply to be a license reviewer)
  • Block users
  • Restore files (undelete)
  • Deal with DRs and copyvios (but read more below)
  • Perform history merging and splitting (this requires undelete)
  • Configure Upload Wizard campaigns (upwizcampaigns)
  • Work on abuse filters

To be determined:

  • Edit pages protected as "Allow only administrators" (editprotected) and fulfill edit requests
  • Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages (protect)
  • Rollback. Obviously they would be trusted with it, but as rollback can't be disabled afaik, some users may actively not want it?

General maintainer status could simply be requested at Commons:Requests for rights and could be granted by any administrator without discussion, similar to requests for filemover or autopatrol. Obviously, only properly experienced users should be made general maintainers.

If a general maintainer also wants to engage in dealing with DRs (including close-deleting them), copyvios, etc (which technically they can), they need a community mandate very much like an RFA. For the community, the bar to support such a request will be lower than the bar to support adminship.

To prevent an endless accumulation of GM accounts as people often naturally move on as years pass by, to retain GM status the user should make at least 1 edit per year.

Any more thoughts about which rights should (not) be included? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If this has protect & editprotected, the bar needs to be higher than granted-whenever-a-certain-admin-likes-it. The deletions... someone needs to implement them so that they cannot delete arbitrarily. It would be very bad for a rogue GM to go and delete the main page. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This could theoretically easily be fixed by creating "Commons:General maintainers/requests" where people can vote on who becomes a GM with a lower bar for accepting them, maybe at 60% (sixty percent) or better at 75% (seventy-five percent), I'm afraid that the hat will be given too quick to Deletionists, but if this new category of users will be subject to the same level of scrutiny as administrators are but with a lower bar for entering, then this could become somewhat of "a sysop internship" and/or "sysop-assistant" and GM's will be able to tackle a lot of admin backlog without being admins themselves. This proposed system has many benefits but we should add a lot of scrutiny and options to appeal their decisions in right from the start. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Very good point. Is the main page the primary concern? Maybe the main page should be restricted to interface admins. (not possible in MediaWiki I think, but probably possible with AF?) If this can't be overcome, protect and editprotected should be left to admins. I moved those two to a new list. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
A rogue GM going on a deletion spree is also a concern. That INC incident took ages to revert --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: what if their deletion was rate limited? Say, 10 deletions per minute or so. Maybe even just 5. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
An even better option would be only allowing GM's to delete "File:" And "File talk:" Pages and maybe categories. Or maybe just pages created by themselves. A better solution would be creating some sort of tool that requires them to link to a deletion request while deleting a page, this way they could help with deletion requests but not with speedy deletions and any deletion done by them will always be backed up by consensus (theoretically). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Client-side 'tools' are not to be trusted to enforce a certain requirement. If granting of permission was based on consensus rather than an admin's discretion then it would be fine, but right now, any enforcement has to be server-side, so someone has to implement it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Promote more sysops. Problem solved.--Roy17 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I tried. :(   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually would vote for you to become a GM, in fact I think that you and the other user with over five (5) failed RfA's, Fæ, would make great GM's and I probably think that if both of you (and many other users) would become GM's first that you would convince more users to be trusted with admin tools. In fact, I remember seeing a discussion on the English-language Wikipedia where there was a discussion of "splitting up admin/sysop powers "to democratise Wikipedia" and fight backlog". I hope that one day sysops will become like Bureaucrats and only become a flag needed for the most trusted users and have plenty of users who can help with most backlogs. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: in some cases, general maintainer could be a step towards future adminship. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

June 08[edit]

Photo challenge April Results[edit]

Beginning and end: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Begin and end of a cheesecake.jpg Arch chatsworth beyond-limits 2009.jpg Staircase of the abandoned Central Hotel in Annan, Scotland (DSCF8956).jpg
Title Beginning and end of a cheesecake Lots of beginning and ends but no full circle Staircase of the abandoned Central Hotel in Annan, Scotland (DSCF8956)
Author Sally V Kmtextor Trougnouf
Score 12 11 9
Prisons: EntriesVotesScores
Rank 1 2 3
Image Kresty-Gefängnis in St. Petersburg 2H1A3220OB.jpg Fort Boyard en2013.jpg Bayreuth St.Georgen Ordensschloß 3240080.jpg
Title Kresty-Gefängnis in St. Petersburg am Ufer der Neva. Russland. Fort Boyard (fortification), Île-d'Aix, in Charente-Maritime (Fr) Bayreuth Correctional Facility
Author Kora27 Pierre André Leclercq Ermell
Score 19 17 14

Congratulations to Sally V, Kmtextor, Trougnouf, Kora27, Pierre André Leclercq and Ermell. --Jarekt (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed great pictures. But, as happened recently, we again have a horizontal scroll bar on the whole of VP, at perfectly ordinary screen resolutions. Why can the images not be displayed one above the other?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Secretly photographed women – personality rights?[edit]

Hi there, Commons community. I'm a bit concerned about the personality rights of some people in pictures I stumbled upon. It's about the photos by this uploader, which are all about Taiwanese "school girls" or other young women. It seems clear to me that the majority of the pictured females were not aware that they were photographed right at that moment, and they don't seem to attend a public event or the like. That doesn't mean that the photographer didn't ask them afterwards whether it's okay to publish their picture – but what does Wikimedia do, to make sure he did? If I got this right, finally it's all about trusting the uploader. And I really ask myself, whether simple trust is enough in this case, where it seems that except from two pictures these were all secretly shot. Am I making a too big fuss about it or is there something I understood wrong? --King Rk (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't read Chinese, so I don't know what are the descriptions, but if these are not used pictures of non notable people, they are out of scope, and can be deleted for that reason. Just create a deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that might be a solution for some of the pictures, but not for all. For example it would make sense if an article about a school or university would feature a picture of a student in their particular uniform. --King Rk (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Those do seem to me a bit creepy.
What is the rule in Taiwan about photographing people in public places? In France, I know this is a no-no; in the U.S., being in public is implicitly consent to be photographed; I don't know about Taiwan. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
For an (I think) non-creepy example from the U.S.: File:Seattle - Cap Hill street basketball 01.jpg. I did not have explicit consent from the people in this photo. I relied entirely on the fact that if you are out in the street in the U.S., that is implicit consent to be photographed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate to use any of these pictures on an article about a school or university. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Though our entry about consent requirements in Taiwan seems a bit vague, I've filed several of these images for deletion:
--Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Túrelio, let's see what happens. --King Rk (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for scans?[edit]

We have photography barnstars, copyright watcher barnstars, etc. How about a barnstar to award users who scan books/illustrations from books?--Roy17 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Call it Archivist's Barnstar or Librarian's Barnstar?--Roy17 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I Symbol support vote.svg Support the creation of such a barnstar, I've often run across people who have donated and/or uploaded many high quality scans, maybe a separate barnstar for people who upload books and people who upload other scans. The Librarian's Barnstar could feature books in its design while the Archivist's Barnstar could feature a scanning machine or a document with a red stripe in the middle signifying that it's being scanned. Just some suggestions... --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support as what Donald Trung said, separate awards.--Vulphere 06:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Sounds nice, but what image should go with it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not designer material, so I wrote here hoping artists would pick up my idea. XD --Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 09[edit]

Graphics by User:MIT Harvard Observatory[edit]

Over at the en:wp I was astonished to learn that "Inflatable Pleasure Craft" are the backbone of the economy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, amounting to 55% of the nation's exports, so I had a look at some of the other uploads by the creator of that graphic, (many of which are used by several wikipedia editions), and was not less astonished to read that "Snowmobiles and golf carts" make up 11% of the exports of Spain, to say nothing of the surprisingly robust Telephone industry in Antarctica. Someone may want to look into this... --Janneman (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The thirteenth strike of the clock that throws all others in doubt.
  • Is someone willing to go through all of looking for little anomalies, or are we going to throw them all out? That seems to be the choice. I don't have the patience to do the former, so unless someone else does, I'm inclined toward the latter.
  • For the short term: would anyone mind if I tag these all with {{Fact disputed}} and point back to the present discussion? That is, I won't have a specific fact to dispute on each one, just that they come from a tainted source.

- Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Good catch, Jmabel. The few I peekd on had only a generic link to the source’s front page, not to any specific page or document: What a mess! -- Tuválkin 21:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Contacting the site's owners. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel, Tuvalkin, Janneman: I received this e-mail from Cesar Hidalgo, the professor in charge of the project:
"Hi Brian,

Trade data can sometimes be surprising, bu these seem legit. I had a group of students upload these files in 2012 as part of a class project. Antártica is a legit customs zone, and I think the case of st Vincent is about a recreational inflatable vehicle.
Thanks"

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BMacZero (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @BMacZero: I cannot tell whether that is an objection to {{Fact disputed}} or not, nor can I tell if you are saying that you'll take on sorting out the mess. - Jmabel ! talk 01:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: If overwrites are what's needed, that's something I can do. As far as whether we actually trust the source, I think it's beyond me to decide that, though I will try to get them to explain further. Feel free to apply {{Fact disputed}} in the meantime. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I will add the template; feel free to take it from there. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • These should now all be marked as {{Fact disputed}}. It's possible I missed something: VFC was being a bit temperamental.
    • My own guess is that these are at least mostly accurate, but that people took some real liberties with the wordings and they should all be checked. I strongly suspect that the account in question was actually used by several people, not just one, which makes accountability very tricky. Also, things like this would be much more natural as SVGs instead of JPGs, so it would be possible to drill down into the smaller areas. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that you/we've all been had. And you're still being had, what with the professor's answer: I think the case of st Vincent is about a recreational inflatable vehicle. Erm yes, what is that supposed to mean...? Exactly. --Janneman (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

June 11[edit]

Can I request removal of metadata on some images[edit]

I selected to remove GPS location when I uploaded some images. However, it didn’t get removed for some reason. Is there a way to request an admin to remove it without deleting the files. If this is not possible, can I re-upload it and request the old version to be deleted? --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atomicdragon136: I'm not sure, if the removal is possible. But the second option is certainly possible. You can upload a new version without metadata and ask for the removal of the old version at COM:AN (you can ping me there). --MB-one (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atomicdragon136: as MB-one said you can take the second option by uploaded the new version of the image and request for the removal at COM:AN.--Vulphere 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atomicdragon136: “I selected to remove GPS location when I uploaded some images.” − was that option part of the upload tool? If so, may I ask which upload tool were you using? I’m trying to flesh out use cases and existing functionality for phab:T218057. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: the Upload Wizard will prefill the {{Location}} template with GPS coordinates from Exif metadata, so Atomicdragon136 might have cleared those fields thinking the location data would be wiped from the file itself. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the GPS coordinates can still be easily retrieved: [9]. At present, the only solution is to upload a new version, as MB-one suggested. clpo13(talk) 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Category talk pages, can we make them more useful?[edit]

Currently category talk pages are almost always redlinks, in fact it's quite rare to find one that’s actually being used. This is not to say that they’re useless, in fact no talk page or internet comment section truly is, but on Wikimedia Commons we just haven't utilised them to their full potential yet. Therefore I would like to see if my proposal would be a good idea and if there might be consensus for it.

If you add a category to your watchlist it rarely changes, in fact I’ve come across many categories not edited for over a decade, even if you’re interested in its sub-categories and the files within it, you would have to watch each and every one of them Individually. Deletion requests could affect files in these categories but unless you watch the file in question, you won’t know that it has been nominated for deletion. I propose that a bot would automatically list all relevant deletion requests on the talk page of a category, that way if you watch a category you will be informed of any ongoing deletion requests and a log will be kept of all files listed in a given category nominated for deletion. Speedy deletions could potentially also be listed if the need for them exists and it would also be desirable to have the bot who adds these deletion requests also add an archive template to automatically archive threads older than 365 (three-hundred-and-sixty-five) days, this way category talk pages won't become cluttered but the links to the deletion requests won’t get lost.

Additionally if undeletion requests could each get their own dedicated sub-pages maybe a bot with sysop rights could list them or simply recognise them from the same file name. Currently there is already a bot that leaves messages on other Wikimedia websites for deletion requests filed on Wikimedia Commons affecting them but a lion’s share of files on Wikimedia Commons aren’t used on other Wikimedia websites and by increasing the amount of people who see (un)deletion requests better arguments for and against (un)deletion could be made. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trung -- Currently the problem with category talk pages is exactly the same as the problem with the "Categories for Discussion" process (as has been discussed here several times before): You can have many images in a category on your watchlist, but unless you have the category page itself on your watchlist, you won't even know that a discussion about the category is taking place.
You seem to be trying to solve a completely different problem (though I'm not entirely sure what it is...) AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete uploads - issue apparently resolved, dealing with backlog[edit]

Per phab:T190988, the issue causing broken cross-wiki uploads of files larger than 5MB seems to be resolved. There are still more than 6500 files in Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption), though. Many of these are usable and would be fine after some cropping, as only smaller, non-essential parts of the images are affected, for example in File:1308MANMariupol.jpg or File:CampusFørde.jpg (in the latter, a larger part is affected, but it's still usable and even in use in Norwegian Wikipedia in this defective form). Others are unsalvageable, such as File:Casinoneuchatelrotonde.jpg or File:AWO Ortsverein und Begegnungsstätte Dallmin alte Schule.jpg. Occasionally, the images seem to be out of scope anyway. Would you agree on dealing with the entries in the category in a step-by-step approach, as follows:

  • Review the images individually.
    • If in scope and useful without the missing portion, crop, remove maintenance category.
    • If apparently not in scope or not useful withouth the missing portion, file a regular deletion request - thus giving the uploader a chance to re-upload and/or explain why it is in scope.

What do you think? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There was ocnsensus: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/04#A_new_procedure_for_incomplete_uploads. Since the bug is fixed sooner than expected, the bureaucratic steps in that proposal can be dropped.
I don't think DR is necessary. CSD F7 should be less work, but admins should give a slightly longer grace period, say 7 days, to these files. The uploader must be notified by a message on his/her user talk page. The message should contain instruction on how to overwrite a file.
It seems that lossless cropping is not possible for these corrupt files: https://github.com/danmichaelo/croptool/issues/134 , so they could only be cropped with the precise mode in CropTool. I hope someone with the technical knowledge can confirm it's not possible.--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I supported that proposal as well, but it seems now partly obsolete. I would prefer using an existing standard procedure that ensures a workflow as much as possible. Many of these uploaders are not very active on Commons or have not been active here after the upload at all (random example: User:Mquekel, only contributions two damaged uploads in February 2018). Roy17, what do you think - in cases where cropping seems to be sufficient (for example, in File:Aalscholver langs het water.jpg the bird is still completely in the picture), would you notify the users anyway or just do the cropping? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah right I forgot. They should be notified even if the photos can be cropped and kept. That's what we should do to respect the creators, but, if the community finds it too cumbersome, simply crop and keep without notifying is fine, since as you observed, most are new users and didnt even notice that files were broken.--Roy17 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi, Roy17: I created two templates: {{Incomplete upload}} and {{Incomplete upload notification}}. It is easy to tag all the 6514 files at Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption) with the first template and notify the uploaders with the second one by VisualFileChange.
After a month, volunteers can deal with the files (crop or delete).
See File:Wikipedia survey-Access Denied.png and User talk:4nn1l2test for test cases. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I think some photos can be cropped and kept without notifying the uploaders. They are the ones with only tiny corrupt portions that do not affect the subjects at all. For example, File:African Star Apple.jpg, File:Agfa Mortsel.jpg, File:Acquapole® Elastic Pole.jpg. Overwriting with an original and cropping do not make much difference.
@4nn1l2: thank you for creating the templates! If no one has objection, I think we can start notifying people.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a problem. Some users cropped the image but uploaded it as a new file. What should we do with these? History merging? Just delete the broken one? Or keep both, but remove the maintenance cat and insert a message telling users to use the cropped one?
Example: File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道.jpg vs File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道 (cropped).jpg
(This is not a very good example, because the original was transferred using commonshelper so there isnt a need to preserve the original uploader's contributions. There's also something strange: 15% of the original was cropped but the size went up to 5.09Mb.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

June 12[edit]

Israel in 1375, or 1590?[edit]

Israel came into existence in 1948, is it ok to have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1375_maps_of_Israel, or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1590_maps_of_Israel ?

We don't have a category of, say https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_the_United_States_by_period "History of the United States in 1375"; quite rightly so, as United States did not exist then. Then why do we have it for Israel?

I suggest we move all the early https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Israel_by_year for the Ottoman Period into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_by_year the later ones (1920–1948) should be sorted into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, in favor of renaming and recategorization of the categories under Category:Eretz Israel.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment, there is not an en.wp article about "Eretz Israel", (it is a redir to en:Land of Israel). Also, for those unknown with the name "Eretz Israel": I have virtually never seen it in academic literature, but it is often used by (right wing, or religious) Israelis, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      “Eretz Israel” is Hebrew (in English transcription) for the “Land of Israel”, as explained in the article you linked. And it has been used in both academic and non-academic literature, by right-wing, left-wing and whatever-wing, by religious and secular Jews as a geographical description of the region (before 1948 often as a synonyme to “Palestine”).--Shlomo (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If some of them are maps of the Biblical holy land (with territories of the twelve tribes and such), then they are not maps of the Ottoman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with AnonMoos. Before the Ottoman Empire, we've got the Category:Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), the Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem, several Islamic caliphates, the Byzantine Empire, the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Judea, Canaan (sorry, I got bored trying to link all related categories). The X-year map categories contain more anachronisms than just Israel though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: We don't have a category […] History of the United States in 1375… True, but we do have categories like Category:1590 maps of Iraq, Category:1540 maps of Pakistan, Category:1588 maps of Germany, Category:1588 maps of Italy, even Category:1843 maps of Washington (state) and MANY others like these. Do you suggest to reorganize them too?--Shlomo (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is very simple to understand. Commons:Project scope: "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all. It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." All countries have a history therefore history by year is the correct way to make media available to all. Commons does not comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. It serves wikipedia in all languages including Hebrew Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia. Removing the category 1375 maps of Israel and moving page Category:1375 maps of Israel to Category:1375 maps of Palestine It's even worse. -- Geagea (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Germany and Italy existed in 1588, just not as countries. I'd prefer to see Category:1375 maps of Mamluk Sultanate, but I think retrospective names are too useful to be deleted. In the one entry of 1375 maps of Israel, File:Abraham and Jehuda Cresques Catalan Atlas. Eastern Europe view from the south.F.jpg, it should be part of Category:1375 maps of Israel and Category:1375 maps of Palestine, as both exist in the modern world. Given the scale of the map, Mamluk Sultanate would be more accurate, but if you're going to include smaller modern regions, the smaller modern regions can use modern names.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
… existed, just not as countries. You can say the same about Israel. As for the rest, I don't opose keeping and using these categories, especially where they seem to be useful for the users. I just don't agree with efforts to delete all “anachronistic” categories containing the world “Israel” while keeping the other ones.--Shlomo (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you please maybe try to resolve this problem in one go? Then summarise the consensus into a guide and publish it somewhere like cat talk:Israel. I have no interest or knowledge in this problem, but I'd like to point out it's been brought up by Huldra just two months ago: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#"Category:Israel_by_year".--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite, then people seem happy to move things to Ottoman Empire or British mandate. Actually, [[Category:Eretz Israel]] is better than [[Category:Israel]]; at least with the first we don't connect it directly with a specific country existing today. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And why shouldn't we connect it with a specific country existing today? And why, if we shouldn't use those convenient associations, should we start with the most politically charged example? Why not move the Iraqi and Saudi Arabian categories first?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As I answered below: en:Palestine (region) Palestine for the region has been used all the time, and is still used by scholars, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all <year> maps of <anywhere> categories. They make the maps impossible to browse, by breaking them all up into tiny individual categories. Far better to only have "Old maps of <place>" categories -- subdivided geographically, to gather like with like, then with the category view ordered chronologically, to present maps of a similar age together. Jheald (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It may also be worth exploring how leading external sources categorise such maps. Here are the catalogue entries for a couple of such maps (1720, 1597) from the British Library: [10] [11]. They are each subject-categorised as Palestine -- Maps -- Early works to 1800 and Israel -- Maps -- Early works to 1800, these being the standard Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) strings for such items.
    On the word "Palestine", the Palestine Exploration Fund (founded 1865 and still very active) offers the following [12]: "The term 'Palestine' is a widely-attested Western and Near Eastern conventional name for the region that includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria. Its traditional area runs from Sidon on the coast, to Damascus inland, southwards to the Gulf of Aqaba, and then north-west to Raphia... The term 'Palestine' has over many centuries retained its relevance as an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region. It has no political associations when used by the Palestine Exploration Fund." Jheald (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It was very political around 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian specifically renamed the province of "Judaea" with the semi-obscure word "Palaestina" (i.e. Philistia, previously mainly referring to the south coastal plain area) for the intentional and malicious purpose of spiting the Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Palestine has been used about the region virtually all the time, see this GA on en:Palestine (region). "Israel", however, is associated with states; some 2000–3000 years ago, and one since 1948. The name "Israel", alone, was never used about the region, it was associated with a people, (ie Jews), Huldra (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the last state named "Israel" before modern times disappeared in 722 or 721 B.C., but a map of the Biblical holy land with territories of the 12 tribes and such could still be called a "map of Israel" regardless of which year it was made in. And "Palestine" also has some problems -- such as being completely anachronistic before about 135 A.D., and being used much more often by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area for several centuries before about 1900 A.D. (during that time it was basically an Exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Israel is frequently used about the region, and likewise, Palestine is associated with a nation and people in the modern world. And again, it seems problematic that Category:1375 maps of Saudi Arabia and Category:1375 maps of Libya are not an issue, but Category:1375 maps of Israel is. "Saudi Arabia" is a nation name first used for a nation created in 1935 referring to a particular ruling house established in 1744. Any rules here should be far more general than just Israel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 14[edit]

More eyes requested for claims about alleged microstate[edit]

I would appreciate some geographer's eyes on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Paraduin.png. The assertion is basically than someone's house and a bit of land is a "microstate" with it's own flag, however I have find no independent sources and there is no Wikipedia article. As far as I can work out, based on the absence of non-self published websites, the flag is a bit of fan-fiction and fails to meet Scope. If someone can provide meaningful sources otherwise, that would be great.

Thanks -- (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You are now forumshopping for what already is a frivolous request. Just accept that you can't always have things your way and move on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Micronations are almost always just self-proclaimed "countries" and none are ever recognised, even the most widely known micronations are unrecognised States so I fail to see how Paraduin is different because it has no Wikipedia article. Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it should be disqualified from being on Wikimedia Commons. In fact even Wikipedia says as much about micronations see "Micronations, sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects, are small, self-proclaimed entities that claim to be independent sovereign states but which are not acknowledged as such by any recognised sovereign state, or by any supranational organization. They should not be confused with microstates, which are recognised independent states of a small size, nor should they be confused with unrecognised states, which may have legitimate claim to sovereign state status.[1]:5" (source). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd say all these files related to self proclaimed ideas should be put under cat:user page images. The creators are merely using wikimedias and Commons for self promotion just like NorthFace does, so I think Fæ has a valid point and is not forumshopping.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF partial bans and Wikimedia Commons[edit]

In light of a recent partial ban on the English language Wikipedia in the form of w:en:User:Fram (Fram) being banned by the WMF for a year and 2 (two) days and the enormous backlash it received, it might be wise to adopt a local policy regarding "WMF bans". WMF partial bans have been applied to both the German and English language Wikipedia's and I see no reason why it wouldn't be applied to Wikimedia Commons anytime soon.

Though I can see the need for WMF partial bans as users being bullied by prominent members of the community can receive a boomerang to the face if they try to report these people to the community and admins with long-term civility issues are basically immune from scrutiny, the WMF has chosen to not handle their banning strategy in a transparent way, and unlike bans placed by members of the community which in theory would be able to be appealed, WMF bans cannot be appealed, ever.

Although I don't think that we can stop the WMF from issuing partial bans (and this could be a good thing as it will prevent them from globally banning people who are productive elsewhere), we could regulate these. First of all I suggest creating a list of WMF partially banned users somewhere, including a local one here at "Commons:List of WMF banned Commons users" and create a log of which users were previously banned with their expiration dates.

It might also be wise to force them to be more transparent and warn users on-wiki or force the WMF Office account to create a mail template to leave on users’ talk pages.

I also suggest that unless the reason for a ban would require an Oversighter (or “Oversighter equivalent”) revision deleting statements that the WMF should notify the community about the allegations and openly allow input from the entire community by posting it either to the village pump or a dedicated page (such a "Commons:WMF partial bans/Discussion"). This is not to say that we can veto any WMF, but that if WMF office bans are a last resort, then we, as the community, should be able to address these issues internally and that the WMF office should only take action if this cannot be resolved by the community. Also if an editing restriction is more desirable than this should be able to be discussed.

Note that I am not starting this discussion here to import any drama from any other Wikimedia website, I am simply seeking to open a preventative discussion to make sure that if “a high profile user” would ever be WMF banned from Wikimedia Commons that we would have a system in place to make sure that no drama will arise from this issue. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely fine to have a category, although a permanent listing there might be considered unwise for those that have "served their time". The exact nature of such a category could be discussed. Fine to ask them to leave a template on the user talk page, although we cannot force them to do anything. Absolutely not fine to require the WMF to post allegations publicly. "Requiring" them to do so would be like requiring a fish to breathe air. It simply isn't workable and they won't do it. It is their standard operating procedures to not disclose such information and to treat all of it as private. That is their prerogative.

The WMF is allowed to do what they wish to enforce the Terms of Use as they see fit. They are the ones that created them and they are the ones that the global community has entrusted to enforce them. Bans placed by the WMF have multiple levels of sign off and are not used unless absolutely necessary. They aren't banning people just for the hell of it. The farce that has become the Fram situation was because of a step of apparent mercy by the WMF. Mercy in the fact that they were partially banned and not globally locked with the key thrown into the nearest volcano like what has been done in the past. Unless we want to mandate our own community to start enforcing the Terms of Use I personally think we should allow the WMF to continue to do what they deem necessary to uphold the terms everyone of us agrees to every time we hit "Publish changes". --Majora (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I disagree, if I understand the proposal correctly (adding users banned elsewhere to a Commons category). I can't see why a project-specific ban (by the community or by the WMF) that isn't applicable to Commons should lead to the creation of a category here. Such matters don't concern Wikimedia Commons as a project. If the WMF (globally or partially on Commons) issues a ban that affects Commons, it's a different story. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it was my reading of that sentence that the category would apply to WMF bans that apply specifically to Commons. Commons users banned elsewhere are definitely irrelevant. We have quite a few good standing members of this community that have been indef blocked/banned on other projects. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: the right place would be meta, but I doubt meta will be safe for that, so a local copy wouldn't hurt. According to User talk:Fram#Seeing as you're not banned here the ultimate reason for the ban was [13]. Welp. If that's reason for the WMF to ban someone for a year, I'm done for. And Jcb blocked a WMF employee, it's a miracle he's still around considering what Fram was (according to Fram) banned for.
If the accused agrees to have the reason for the ban made public (which Fram has no problem with), the WMF should release all they can to clarify their reasons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I would personally take Fram's word with a grain of salt. The WMF said that they reviewed many instances of issues and I believe them. Again, such office actions are signed off on by multiple people so they would need to convince multiple people that office action is a) warranted and b) necessary. I can't imagine incivility like what you linked to, while a problem for the long term health of the community, would rise to the level of having multiple people agree that a ban is necessary by itself if there was not plenty of other reasons to cause alarm.

As for the accused being ok with the complaint being made public, that is rather irrelevant and pretty predicable behavior in my mind. Of course they would be ok with it. In true cases of harassment the accused would want the accuser to be forced to make a public statement. Especially if the accused is a long standing member of the community with lots of backers that would immediately come to their defense regardless of the circumstance. This is very very common and the whole idea behind the enwiki essay, en:WP:UNBLOCKABLES. By forcing a public statement the accuser is opening themselves up to further abuse so, naturally, they would not take the chance or bother to even start such an inquiry. Simple human psychology to not want to put yourself in situations that would cause further distress. The accused being open to such public notice is not what any organization hoping to stop such abuse should care about. In true cases of harassment, it is the accuser that matters and if the accuser doesn't care then they wouldn't be contacting the WMF to begin with. While I can't say for sure why the WMF has certain SOPs, I can speculate that this is why their SOP is to keep such information private. Since by disclosing it the accuser would simply be subject to further problems that the original contact was supposed to stop. --Majora (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that they have looked into more than one complaint. A little more trust in the WMF's procedures is warranted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no special need to pre-empt the discussion at the English Wikipedia. Those that are prepared to research the case can give views on the Arbcom request that is still open, including views about how better to work with WMF T&S, not just with regard to partial bans.
A key difference between Commons and the English Wikipedia is that we have no equivalent to Arbcom. This means there is no obvious equivalent to the points of contact that currently have regular reviews and alerts about T&S cases that impact this project. A useful later proposal, once this specific case has reached a resolution, might be for this community to ask whether Bureaucrats, Oversighters, or (not specifically Commons) Stewards, should have a better relationship or insight for T&S cases where the case itself of claimed targeted harassment, privacy, criminal content etc., has significant evidence based on Wikimedia Commons. My intuition is that the elected Commons Oversighters should have an open invite to join T&S briefings or updates on proposed an recent necessary actions, in a similar way to how Arbcom may be respected by T&S as volunteer colleagues and representative stakeholders; in effect this may already happen on an irregular or less formal basis.
So, let's revisit in a month or two when more concrete local proposals might be sensible to discuss. -- (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

June 16[edit]

Name of the category[edit]

The question to native English speakers. Check the name of this Category:Photos of localities of settlements with blast furnaces in the background. Is it correct in terms of the English language? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blast furnace chip worker: It is gramatically correct but why "of localities of settlements"? That excludes some places. If the important factor re blast furnaces is they they are in the background, I would just go for Category:Distant views of blast furnaces, for which we have several precedents. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker, Rodhullandemu: That works for me, or Category:Blast furnaces (background).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we have more often used "Remote views" than "Distant views". - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

June 17[edit]

Structured Data - qualifiers for depicts statements coming this week[edit]

The Structured Data on Commons team plans to release the first version of qualifiers for depicts statements this week. The team has been testing the feature with the community for a month, and are ready to turn it on for Commons on Thursday, 20 June, between 11:00-12:00 UTC. Adding qualifiers allows users to further develop depicts statements. For example, depicts: house cat can be extended into depicts: house cat[color:black]. You will be able to find qualifiers in the "Structured data" tab on the file page, or in the "Add data" tab in the UploadWizard. This version has a drop-down menu to select qualifiers; an update in the near future will replace the drop-down with an auto-suggest box.

I'll keep the community posted when qualifiers go live on Thursday, after the team makes sure everything is configured and working as expected. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

June 18[edit]

Ideas for assessing copyright for mass upload of German Colonial Society archives 1860s−1930s[edit]

NearEMPTiness highlighted the scanning of around 50,000 photographs which has been put online by Frankfurt University for the public benefit at http://www.ub.bildarchiv-dkg.uni-frankfurt.de, this essay has a useful academic summary. I am considering getting on with a mass upload, which will preserve the catalogue data for future categorization, but effectively kicking this off as a speedy mass upload with minimal filtering or automatic categorization cleverness.

However, though these are old (and interesting) photographs, the scans have been done as a means to preserve the endangered original prints and negatives, not because they are automatically public domain by age. Does anyone have an idea for an easy acid test(s) I can apply pre-upload to skip photographs which are definitely not public domain. My gut feeling after an initial review is to put aside copyright and mark these as no copyright known, however there may be good reasons to filter on specific date and named photographer constraints. If there needs to be a longer review, I can happily park this as a batch upload project for a couple of months, or just move on to other things. -- (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)