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
Help deskVillage pump
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:

Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates of Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [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.

April 15[edit]

Mysterious category[edit]

On those files :Parthenon 1, Parthenon 2, Parthenon 3, category "North-East view of the Parthenon" is mysterious to me. If it is inquired on the file, it appears twice (which does not interfere with the tag which normally prohibits that); if it's not inquired, it still appears and I don't know where this information comes from. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

You speak of the doubled category. I do not understand, too, but as info: I purged the file pages and also did null edits. So let’s hope this will be fixed in some hours (recently a similar issue lasted for another day). — Speravir – 23:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
The problem is still not resolved. Some people work on it... nearly 1000 views for those files! --Io Herodotus (talk) 03:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

They had the category within the description, perhaps that is the reason for that. Erechtheum 2 still has its category within the description (I didn't do any edit on it). --Io Herodotus (talk) 11:49, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I fixed this one, and this does not display anymore the category twice. Strange, it is. — Speravir – 01:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)
No, it's not properly fixed yet, look closely. --Io Herodotus (talk) 03:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Regarding the category issue the edit has fixed this! If you did not see this this is or was a caching issue. — Speravir – 23:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Categories are written (usually on the bottom) in the file, they can be modified. This not true for this file. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Look at that one : Mausoleo !...--Io Herodotus (talk) 16:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

(insert) Oh … my … gosh! — Speravir – 23:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Try to remove "Category:Eastern side of the Erechtheum" on that one : Erechtheum 3 !!! --Io Herodotus (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
  • Some people keep searching, even if not many people write on this problem here (nearly 1000 views for some pictures)... No one has found the solution yet. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:05, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
See now also #Subcats missing below. — Speravir – 22:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
And also this discussion, which is tracked in T247187. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:54, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Impossible to connect to Phabricator. "You must verify your email address to log in" nothing there. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Conclusion: At the creation of a file on commons wikimedia, if the category is inquired within the description, this creates a bug which is yet impossible to fix (hoping someone will resolve the problem). --Io Herodotus (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The problem seems to be nearly solved. If the category is inquired within the description, this no longer creates a bug, (I tried tried it). The files I have mentioned may be modified... except that one : Erechtheum 3, impossible to remove "Category:Eastern side of the Erechtheum". --Io Herodotus (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

May 16[edit]

RFC: Acceptance of the Brazilian Flickr photostream mturdestinos (163189519@N03)[edit]

For the sake of settling this problem once and for all, I request comments from the community to decide

Are photos from accepted or rejected on Commons?

Fact: is operated by the Brazilian Ministério do Turismo (Ministry of Tourism).

I believe they are acceptable on Commons for the following reasons:

  1. Todas as fotos com a tag MTurDestinos são de domínio público e tem permissão de uso livre e por tempo indeterminado para uso total e irrestrito e gratuito em praça nacional e internacional, exceto as imagens com a tag “fotos humanizadas 2018” que possuem pessoas onde o direito de uso é pelo período de 05 (cinco) anos a contar do dia 03 de Abril de 2018.
  2. Ministério do Turismo released a statement, which confirmed the authenticity of this Flickr account and its licences.

If the decision is accept, then this section will be a useful reference whenever someone DR such files.
If the decision is reject, then please list 163189519@N03 at COM:QFI so no future import is possible.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to invite @Érico, Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior: because they had dealt with photos from this account.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
My English is not the best, so I am using the translator. As mentioned, MTur images are in the public domain and can be used freely without any restrictions. Based on that, I uploaded these images to Commons. Soon after, I received a warning from user @Ronhjones: on my discussion page that the images could be deleted, thus questioning the veracity of the license. As @Érico: is a Commons administrator and I have a certain affinity with him on Wikipedia in Portuguese, I decided to ask him about this question and suggested using {{Attribution}}. The suggestion was accepted, so I asked him to restore the images to include the respective tag. Marquinhos talk 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly we'd have to stay away from the “fotos humanizadas 2018” since those have rights that expire (I've never heard of such a thing, bizarre: if you use it in a book is the book supposed to vanish in 2023?). I think probably we should make up a special template for the uploads from this account, much as we do for particular open-ended OTRS tags. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. The statement of Brazilian Ministry of Tourism clearly allows the use of these files under our licence. Érico (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the Brazilian Ministry of Tourism legitimately wants to share these images freely. The only thing they have done wrong is they have mistakenly tagged their images with the CC Public Domain mark rather than a CC license. Since it looks like they are at least requesting attribution ("Crédito obrigatório"), using the {{Attribution}} tag seems appropriate. They definitely shouldn't be deleted. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 17[edit]


Feedback required — Preceding unsigned comment added by Red-back spider (talk • contribs) 10:19, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Can somebody delete:

1) the first two versions my file from May 14

2) the last two versions File:Jehovahs Witnesses Warwick.jpg

LibreOffice User (talk) 13:45, 17 May 2020 (UTC)

@LibreOffice User: We don't normally revert past versions unless there are issues like copyright violations. Is there something in particular going on here? - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Red-back spider: in this file File:Jehovahs Witnesses Warwick.jpg author make mistake. The file that he uploaded in by mistake exists separately: File:Jw headquart.jpg. In my file I made a mistake in the first two versions. Therefore, I ask you to delete the first two versions in my file, and the last two versions in this file - LibreOffice User (talk) 09:31, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@LibreOffice User: As I said, we don't normally revert past versions unless there are issues like copyright violations. No such issue exists here. And, as far as I can tell, no such issue exists at File:Jehovahs Witnesses Warwick.jpg. The current version of that appears to be identical to the original; there is one differing version in between. As far as I an tell, you had nothing to do with that latter file, right? If you want something deleted there, I suppose you can start a Deletion review, but I can't see why it would result in a decision to delete, unless that differing version is a copyright violation.
I feel like this has taken up a lot of my time to tell you things that amount to what I said in the first place -- we don't normally revert past versions unless there are issues like copyright violations -- and I won't be replying further on this matter, though of course anyone else is free to do so. - Jmabel ! talk 17:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

May 18[edit]

Main page full of links[edit]

Hello, maybe this has been discussed earlier, but allow me to question why we have so many links on the main page. I have counted all links and clickable tings on the English main page of Wikimedia Commons. I may have missed something, but my result was 291!

My question to you dear colleagues: couldn't we have a main page that is much more simple? My ideal would be a clean page

  • with a short explanation what the site Wikimedia Commons is or does,
  • and then three, four or five big items to click on: for example, "search content", "contribute content", "learn more".

Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 09:35, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

What could be more simple than, picture and media of the day, photo challenges, highlights, "Participating" template and the sidebar with loads of links and other things. I think it should stay how it is, but remove all the different language Wikimedia-Commons from the bottom of the page.(not the footer) --Red-back spider (talk) 10:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Hello, the current main page might be "simple" to people who already know Wikimedia Commons well. For new people, it must be difficult to find the useful information among all those links. Ziko (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I also think the page should become redesigned with a responsive layout and with content that promotes our project. I think everyone with an idea should create a page and then propose this as the new main page. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I would oppose removing the different language Wikimedia-Commons from the bottom of the page. It is at the bottom and generally out of the way for English-speakers but can be very useful for non-English-speakers who land on the page. And I would say that, considering the very different reasons someone might be coming to the page, it would be hard to make it a lot simpler.
FWIW, I always access the page on a PC. It wouldn't surprise me if it could be made much more responsive for viewing on the very small screen of a phone. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
I looked again at the main page, and I think it is fine. I like the combination of thinks that change: daily (photo and video of the day), seasonally (photo of the year, etc.) and sections that are always there: Link to monthly photo challenge, highlights with links to Featured pictures, Quality images, etc., and links to images organized by content , and links to potential activities. I think it is a good and simple jumping of page. --Jarekt (talk) 18:48, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe current is overloaded, but complete content removal and leaving only text description seems to be a terrible idea Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

May 20[edit]


User:Copyfraud has been blocked (by User:Morgankevinj; notified); the reason given on their user page is "Your account has been blocked because the username does not meet our username policy" yet the reason in the block log is "Inappropriate username: and uploading unfree files after warnings".

For background: User:Copyfraud's uploads - over 50,000 - consist entirely (apart from a tiny minority of accidental uploads, which are being dealt with by routine deletion nominations; several of which I recently initiated; AFAICT, no-one else has nominated any of Copyfraud's other uploads for deletion; I've made inadvertent uploads of more non-free content than that, as part of batch uploads, with no drama) of PD content from the British Museum, over which that institution controversially claims copyright.

I have some concerns:

  • the username does not seem contrary to policy
  • the discrepancy between the reason given on the talk page and in the block log
  • there have been no such warnings
  • there is no evidence of any uploads of non-free content, apart from the tiny minority referenced above
  • a block on the basis of "uploading unfree files" in this case is likely to deter others from making similar mass uploads of PD content, which Commons has previously - by policy, precedent and consensus - accepted.

For the latter reason especially, I think this deserves wider discussion. I hope to see a prompt unblock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Clearly a sock, but there are no edits outside uploaded files, their personal user page and some light categorizing, so not problematic. The name is initially concerning, but at a second glance seems to be fine. The freedom of the files seems fine.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:00, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I have unblocked the user MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Currently problematic or not, socking to escape a block (which is what I assume this is) is not acceptable. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:06, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Why do you think that the user is socking to circumvent a block? Another possibility is that the uploader is scared by the legal issues with the {{PD-Art}} tag and therefore prefers to use a different account to upload these files so that the British Museum won't know whom to potentially sue for copyvio. This would explain the username, "Copyfraud".
I'm concerned about the names of some of the files. Many files have very generic names like File:Print (BM 1943,0410.493).jpg and File:Print, book-illustration (BM 1879,1011.1027).jpg. --Stefan2 (talk) 00:39, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Stefan2: Then rename them, or discuss on their user talk page, but that is not a reason to block someone. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
There are very good reasons why one of our colleagues may wish to make such uploads anonymously. There is no Commons policy that says they may not operate a second, pseudonymous account. For all we know the uploader could be a member of BM staff who is outraged with the institution's attempt to usurp our right to use this material. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:18, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Andy, you're not usually so disingenuous. You know that Copyfraud isn't a member of BM staff. You know exactly who Copyfraud is because you have been involved with this from day one. Here you are leaving a note on their talk page the very same day the account was created. You suggested a set of images from the British Museum to upload and then Copyfraud uploaded them. Bitter Oil (talk) 16:48, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bitter Oil: I have reviewed the user history and Copyfraud uploaded a few hundred files labeled as British Museum documents prior to Andy's message about the British Museum. Timing isn't evidence of a connection as it could instead demonstrate an existing editor seeing sudden activity on one subject and making a comment to the user responsible for the activity on that same subject. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:17, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Even if this account is a sock of an established user, I would consider this a valid application of COM:IAR with respect to our multiple account policy (which, apparently, we have yet to write). The purpose of the socking (if true) is to prove a point (in a non-disruptive way) and to evade legal trouble under an interpretation of the law that courts in many countries, the WMF, and Commons community have rejected. As the spirit of our socking policy is ensure the enforcement of our internal policies and guidelines, it is not against the spirit of the project. -- King of ♥ 17:53, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
'Bitter Oil' is globally blocked as a sock. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Based on the pattern it looks quite obvious who is operating the User:Copyfraud account (no, I'm not going to mention them). Not sure how much protection it will offer. Multichill (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I do think this username is not appropriate and must be changed. Imagine if you are users who want to reuse the files, you scroll to the file info and find that the uploader is called Copyfraud. What would you think? Most users unfamiliar with Commons would not understand that the username is irrelevant and that PD images do not require attribution.
Stewards should force a name change, even unilaterally, because it uploaded 50k+ images.--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

British Museum images[edit]

The British Museum are making the majority of the 1.9 million images they hold available under Creative Commons 4.0 license. Is there any plans to upload these images to Commons? You can see details here. Thougn may be the non-comercial use will be a problem. Keith D (talk) 23:14, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

@Keith D: The announcement names a "Creative Commons 4.0 license", but unfortunately that links to CC-BY-NC-SA-4.0, which as you say does not allow commercial use. Commerical use must be allowed for files on Commons, so these files are a no-go. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:51, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
This assumes that the BM own copyright in reproduction of the works concerned, and are thus in a position to issue such licences. As the works are all long-since copyright expired, they do not seem to be in any such position. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:56, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Over 71K of them are already in Category:Uploads by copyfraud. You can help by categorising them, and adding structured data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 08:14, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
We can upload any 2D reproductions of 2D art under {{PD-Art}}. Other images are not under a compatible license. -- King of ♥ 13:47, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
I have created this template for their 2D reproductions: {{Licensed-PD-Art-cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}. This will allow noncommercial reusers in countries with a lower COM:TOO than the US to use the images. -- King of ♥ 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Does that template actually reflect the WMF position? I don't recall that I've ever seen the statement "The Wikimedia Foundation's position is that these works are not copyrightable in the United States" (i.e. with the country-specific qualifier) used before; only "The official position taken by the Wikimedia Foundation is that 'faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain'". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
No, not really. {{Licensed-PD-Art-cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}} seems to contain an altered text compared to {{Licensed-PD-Art}}.
I use {{Licensed-PD-Art}} quite a lot combined with a valid Commons license as an extra safeguard to prevent images from getting deleted because someone thinks the image is not covered by PD-art. For example when a frame is included in an image of a painting.
I'm not sure if we should keep {{Licensed-PD-Art-cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}}. It seems to imply that cc-by-nc-sa-4.0 is a valid license for Commons, which of course it isn't. Multichill (talk) 15:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The purpose of {{Licensed-PD-Art}} is not just a safeguard in case courts and/or the WMF change their ruling, but has value to current reusers who live in a jurisdiction where "sweat of the brow" is copyrightable. {{Licensed-PD-Art-cc-by-nc-sa-4.0}} just gives them an additional option to use these images for noncommercial purposes, as opposed to not being able to use them at all. We have long accepted noncommercial licenses so long as they accompany another license which meets Commons' minimum requirements. -- King of ♥ 21:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 21[edit]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Viruses in Humans and Animals.pdf[edit]

This file was just deleted. A different version of it was promptly reuploaded.

Before this happened, I managed to see, but not save, the now-deleted version. The footer did contain a copyright notice, but also clearly said that the article is under CC BY 4.0 (and data is under CC0 1.0).

The new version appears to have a problem with the footer and it is not clear what the copyright status is.

Meanwhile the information template says “Own work”.

I don’t know what to do about this. Request undeletion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianjd (talk • contribs) 13:26, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

The username matches the author name, and PDFs are notoriously difficult to modify so I have no worries about an impersonation attempt here. I see that the file description is still tagged CC-BY-SA-4.0, so it may help to clarify with them what their intent was in removing it from the PDF text. As a courtesy, especially for newbies, we often allow uploaders to retract their CC licenses within a short period of time (e.g. a week) if they didn't actually intend to release it under a free license; we should check with them to see what they were trying to do here. -- King of ♥ 13:46, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
From User talk:Rsudireddy#File:Viruses in Humans and Animals.pdf:
This file is a copyright violation for the following reason: Copyright at bottom of page
This might explain why the uploader attempted to remove the notice. Brianjd (talk) 14:37, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Upon further investigation, it looks like an attempt at self-promotion per [1]. While the original paper is CC-licensed, the uploaded version fails to attribute the authors as required by the license, and as an authorship hoax it constitutes vandalism. I have deleted the file. -- King of ♥ 15:08, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Apparently Rsudireddy reuploaded, again, quite disruptive. I wonder, too, whether this PDF is in project scope: "Excluded educational content […] Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text." On the other hand this follows: "However, Commons can be used to host such material if included in a shareable media file that is of use to one of the other Wikimedia Foundation-hosted (WMF) projects, so scanned copies of existing texts that are useful to other WMF projects (e.g. to serve as the basis of a reliable, verifiable source) are in scope." So, if you, Rsudireddy, want to use is at source, please enter the page here where the PDF is used. — Speravir – 22:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
@Speravir: Actually, "peer-reviewed academic papers" are explicitly permitted per COM:SCOPE. However, a paper which falsely states its authorship is of no educational use. -- King of ♥ 22:45, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. — Speravir – 22:58, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

SignBot has no operator?[edit]

I wanted to leave a message for SignBot’s operator, but didn’t get very far. User talk:SignBot redirects to User talk:Zhuyifei1999, where it appears all messages are promptly archived without being resolved. User:SignBot claims that the bot is operated by User:Zhuyifei1999, which says that this user is no longer active.

How can we have a bot regularly editing pages all over the site without an operator being responsible for it?

Anyway, my message was that the bot reminded me twice in twelve minutes, with exactly the same reminder, to sign my posts. I haven’t edited for a while, so it might take a while to re-establish the habit; repeating the exact same reminder is not necessary. Brianjd (talk) 14:25, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like an easy fix, don't forget to sign your posts and the bot will never bother you again. Multichill (talk) 15:36, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Sounds a bit insulting, but maybe that’s just my opinion.
Also fails to address the main point, that this bot appears to have no operator. Also, I found another issue with the bot that can’t be brushed aside so easily: Special:Diff/421081613. Brianjd (talk) 04:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
  • The user went to 'retired' in March 2020 but still seems to edit a bit. User talk:Zhuyifei1999 is not encouraging either way but I wouldn't say there's no operator. So it's the problem is bad enough, an administrator should block it as it's clear the operator isn't going to help. If the operator wants to retire and leave the project, then they can have an active user take operator status for them or not be surprised if people block their bots if they break. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
    • That active user might be me, one day. I can code, but I would have to learn Python and Toolforge. Is it worth it? Brianjd (talk) 14:14, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Up to Zhuyifei1999 really. Send a message (perhaps email) and if you can, take it over. Else, if it acts up, it'll be blocked and someone will port it into Signbot2. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Creative Commons[edit]

Hello, I have been considering contributing photos here to this site but am looking for a more detailed description of the creative commons deal. If I upload using say a V 3.0 CC Atrib. Share and share alike release, does that require anything that uses that image has to be released under share and share alike yet still apply a copyright to the entire product/book etc? Thank you for any insight on this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2600:8802:2200:1430:9921:1125:1817:9B4B (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

@2600:8802:2200:1430:9921:1125:1817:9B4B: The CC-BY-SA-3.0 legal text says "This Section 4(a) applies to the Work as incorporated in a Collection, but this does not require the Collection apart from the Work itself to be made subject to the terms of this License." So the Share-Alike provision would apply to alterations of the image itself, but not to a larger work that contains the image, such as a book. The book's author would not be required to apply the CC-BY-SA license to their entire book. I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice - do I need to say that around here? – BMacZero (🗩) 19:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
This seems also to be the position of Creative Commons themselves. See the post by Ondřej Filip here. De728631 (talk) 15:41, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Peter and Paul[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Peter and Paul. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:04, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Seems to have been a false "own work" claim. The uploader's other uploads have been nominated for deletion. Kaldari (talk) 01:26, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Centralized discussion on standardizing format of COVID-19 maps[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject COVID-19#Continued discussion on standardizing map format. Sdkb (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Please feel free to issue invites anywhere else on commons this notice might be useful. Sdkb (talk) 21:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 22[edit]

How can I get rid of "File information" box?[edit]

It looks like Wikidata integration and I will certainly not use it. How can I hide it? I tried adblock, what made it mostly hidden but its non-descriptive name (###ooui-php-6) makes me worried that blocking it will block actually useful things.

How can I fully hide unwanted "File information" box? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: It can be done by setting your user preferences: Preferences > Gadgets > Files & Categories: checking Hide Captions/Collapse Captions and Hide Structured Data Tab should help. --— Draceane talkcontrib. 12:28, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Draceane: Caption hiding is sadly broken, and not just for me - see MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Hide-Captions.css Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny: You might not want to use "File information" box, and that is fine, but when others use it, that might be the place where the metadata about the image lives. You might be able to hide it but than you will only have partial info about the file. --Jarekt (talk) 14:31, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I am perfectly fine with complete hiding it. If in year or two it will become (unfortunately) actually used then I will reconsider my decision. Currently it is basically never adding any useful info Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Uploaded images are not showing on Wikipedias, and Wikidata[edit]

I noticed that a couple of images, that have been uplaoded recently, are not showing on DE-WP, EN-WP, and Wikidata, even though their links in articles appear to be correct.
Example images: c:File:Fiona Fiedler.jpg, c:File:Lucille-Mareen Mayr (2018).jpg.
Images produce Redlinks in articles. Affected articles can be found from de:Kategorie:Wikipedia:Defekter Dateilink, and its EN-counterpart.
The problem appear to have started on Friday, 22-May-2020, with c:File:Dieter Buchhart.jpg - resp. the article on DE-WP where it is shown to be used in - being the first one I noticed (the pending deletion request should play no role here to my understanding and experience).
Do we have a technical issue of some sort ?
Thanks, and Best regards, --Archie02 (talk) 16:39, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I think it's best to start a phabricator ticket on this, I also do not see anything wrong with the link in the article or the item. Ciell (talk) 17:54, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
How do I do this ? --Archie02 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
(And why is she called 'Fioan' in the file-name? Ciell (talk) 17:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC))
Typo by the file uploader, but should be of no relevance in respect to this problem, as the same behaviour is shown by other image-files, too. --Archie02 (talk) 18:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
I've filed a bug report on Phabricator at phab:T253405. For instructions on filing a bug report, see mw:How to report a bug. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:10, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
The bug has been fixed now. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

I have the same issue with the image I uploaded today: c:File:S. S. Arunagirinathar.jpg. Please look into this. Thanks.--Kanags (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Image of Rodolfo Guevara Dato not shown in page[edit]

Comment moved from Talk:Main page (via VPT, I didn't see that this discussion existed). Storkk (talk) 10:07, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, i recently created the Rodolfo Dato wikipedia page. I uploaded an image of him and placed it on the page. When viewing the page, the image is not shown, just the filename. Thanks. Stephentalla (talk) 08:00, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Courtesy links: en:Rodolfo Dato, File:Rodolfo Guevara Dato.jpg. Confirming that for me, attempting to use the file on a Wikipedia (tried a couple) fails. Storkk (talk) 10:10, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
And en:File:Rodolfo Guevara Dato.jpg, which would normally show the Commons image with "This is a file from the Wikimedia Commons. Information from its description page there is shown below." instead shows "No file by this name exists, but you can upload it." Storkk (talk) 10:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
...I see this was already reported above. Consolidating the discussion... Storkk (talk) 12:40, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

This issue is not resolved. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Amplitude problem ytcracker defcon27.jpg. I just checked in the last couple of minutes and this file, at least, still has the problem. Brianjd (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Further fixes were pushed, I checked a few of the images in this discussion and they seem to be working now. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:08, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May 23[edit]

Idea of a video contest on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hello everybody.

In few years, on FMA website (archived page here and actually page visible here), there was a video contest aimed, in particular, at promoting the public domain and works under free license.

Question : couldn't we do a similar thing on Wikimedia Commons ? It would be great I think in terms of the attractiveness of the site.


--ComputerHotline (talk) 06:28, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

That sounds like a good idea, especially since the ability to upload videos to Wikimedia Commons has been expanded in the last few years, so this would be a great idea. In fact, Wikimedia Commons can use a lot more educational videos that aren't "just from Google's YouTube website". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

United Kingdom General Register Office certificates[edit]

Are these certificates okay for Commons?

Are GRO certificates of birth, marriage, and death okay to be uploaded to Commons (from a copyright perspective)? An example of a GRO birth certificate is at right: it was issued in 2007, but the actual content of it dates from 1868. I'm assuming it's covered by crown copyright, and the UK government advice used to be that "copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms." and that users "are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print." But I haven't been able to find the same information in a non-archived web page. Can anyone help me? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Crown copyright does not apply to works that were published before 1970. So, if the design of this form hasn't changed since 1969 or earlier, then these certificates would be ok. Otherwise I'm afraid they're still copyrighted and non-free. There is a chance though that the meta:Open Government Licence would apply, but I'm not certain about this. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Hmm, interesting, thanks! I'll see if I can dig up some examples from pre-1970 then. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Samwilson: That would be great. On another note, would you mind uploading File:Birth Certificate - George Edward Meek 1868.jpg with a higher resolution? In its current state it is almost not readable and so the file is hardly useful for our purposes. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: no can do, I'm afraid: I didn't upload it. I was just using it as an example (found in Category:Birth certificates of the United Kingdom) because I have a dozen of these certificates that I'd like to upload (mine are all high-res). I'll do some more research first. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Oops, my bad. It was in fact uploaded by one Ggbarber and not by you. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Moixera de pastor (Sorbus torminalis) acabat de néixer - Santa Perpètua de Gaià - 2.jpg[edit]

This file is currently nominated for deletion. The uploader wants to delete it; it’s eligible for CSD G7. But the only reason for this is that the species is wrong. Is there an expert in this area who can help save this file? Brianjd (talk) 07:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Another user has passed the question to the English Wikipedia’s reference desk. Brianjd (talk) 11:48, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
    • It doesn't take an expert to change the category to Category:Unidentified plants in Spain (sorry if I'm offending any Catalan nationalist sensibilities there, you can make a subcategory if you really like) and move the file accordingly. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
      • In that case, it should also be renamed. Can you do it? (if so, I'll change the category). Thanks! --Pere Orga (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Pere Orga: As I said, "and move the file accordingly." If you don't have filemover privileges, you can always request a move at User talk:CommonsDelinker. Or, in this case, given that we are discussing it, you can tell me what title you want. I can read Catalan pretty well, but would not presume to write it. - Jmabel ! talk 02:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
          • @Jmabel: Please can you rename File:Moixera de pastor (Sorbus torminalis) acabat de néixer - Santa Perpètua de Gaià - 2.jpg to File:Planta desconeguda - Santa Perpètua de Gaià - 1.jpg. Thanks again! --Pere Orga (talk) 15:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
            • @Jmabel, Pere Orga: I have added a rename request to the file. Brianjd (talk) 00:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
              • @Brianjd: Moved. And I added a presumably appropriate category for the location. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Wow. I didn’t know about such categories. But I’ve seen many files nominated for deletion on the basis that the subject is unidentified. Brianjd (talk) 02:15, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
        • @Brianjd: Some images (especially low-quality images, or things like a very generic picture of people on a beach or in a bar) are clearly worth nothing if they are not identified but, in general, lack of identification is a poor reason to delete a well-shot photo. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

What should we do about files with non-malicious inclusions?[edit]

A few years ago, we had a problem with people distributing movies by appending a rar or zip to a jpeg. This prompted some searching around to see what other files might be problematic. The problem was eventually fixed mostly through the use of ann AbuseFilter. A few files didn't appear to be malicious, but seemed extremely strange. I just got around to asking about one of them on StackExchange, and it led to the solution of quite a few puzzles: weird editing software. The question is now what we do about them. For example:

To me, the only really clear case to strip the file is the last one. The second one is pretty close, but Embedded Image 2 is arguably at least as good a photo... but was it knowingly licensed by the uploader as well? For crops that contain their own originals, should these originals be systematically extracted? Any thoughts welcome. Pinging @Dispenser, Ninjastrikers, Jdx, Srittau: who contributed to the discussion last time Storkk (talk) 14:42, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

I'd say we should opt on the safe side and remove the cropped images in all cases, due to the unclear licensing. Sebari – aka Srittau (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Non-sRGB color profiles are retained in thumbnails, and the Commons community has historically not been in favor of automatically removing or adjusting custom color profiles. As for the RussianPolish nesting dollsimages, I'd agree that saying they were knowingly released under a free license is a bit of a stretch. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 16:45, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm all for keeping reasonable color profiles, but you could use 40 bytes (e.g. a succinct but full English sentence) describing the color of each individual pixel and still have enough room for a regular ICC profile in the ridiculous color profile of the last one. Storkk (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
Korzoneczek was only every active on Wikimedia for a short burst in 2016, but it would be super interesting to find out if they knew why their pigeon photos were so enormous. Storkk (talk) 14:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
To me whatever we find in file metadata would be OK to keep, if it was worth keeping. In the 3 examples above I would clean them and reupload, following the Principle of least astonishment. --Jarekt (talk) 13:33, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 24[edit]

The "Welcome!" bot is unnecessary[edit]

I think that the "welcome" bot should be deactivated on Commons, it serves no purpose at all to long-term abusers than just feeding the trolls. 01:00, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

The Welcome message is not designed to discourage LTA socks, which (I imagine) are a small minority of new user registrations, but to help and encourage new good-faith users. I also fail to see how it "feeds the trolls". – BMacZero (🗩) 17:53, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

RFC: Supreme Federal Court of Brazil[edit]

Hi all!

I would like to ask about the possibility of using images published on the site of Supreme Federal Court of Brazil. On the website, there is the following statement:

In Portuguese: "Todas as fotografias oferecidas no Banco de Imagens do Supremo Tribunal Federal são protegidas pelas leis brasileiras de direitos autorais e podem ser utilizadas, de forma livre e gratuita, desde que sejam atribuídos os créditos, no formato “Nome do Fotógrafo/STF”"
In English: "All photographs offered in the gallery of the Supreme Federal Court are protected by Brazilian copyright laws and can be used, freely and free of charge, as long as credits are attributed, in the format "Name of Photographer / STF""
Source: Reprodução de Conteúdo, STF

Érico (talk) 04:57, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

It looks good. However, note that a template called STFBr was deleted in 2018, on the basis of a previous version of the website. The current license on the website apparently appeared near June 2019. wait for more people to look at it before you start uploading. -- Asclepias (talk) 16:38, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support Looks good to me. This is a sort of {{Attribution}}. Maybe we should have a dedicated template. De728631 (talk) 16:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
I speak no Portuguese, but it seems reasonable to consider this a free licence.--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Structured Search[edit]

Hey everyone, i've released a tool that some of you might find of use. It's called Structured Search and provides another user interface to the Commons search engine. I developed this tool for two reasons:

  • To provide a friendlier user interface to show the richness and beauty of all the wonderful free content that is available here.
  • To showcase the possibilities of Structured Data on Commons.

I've made it so that it's easy to search for other images that have structured data: try clicking on any image on the first page that you get, then look for ‘depicts’ statements in the image detail pane. There are also options to search for categories and exporting queries to PetScan. For those of you who want to access the tool from a regular Commons search results page i've made a little userscript.

Check it out here. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 20:51, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

@Husky: Thanks. It's pretty cool. IMHO it would be nice having more results per page. Cheers. Strakhov (talk) 21:56, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Strakhov:, thanks! I would definitely like to have more results as well. Unfortunately, i'm getting lots of HTTP 429 'Too many requests' errors when i have a list of 40 results from the Commons API, so i've limited it to 20 now. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 22:26, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Husky: it stopped working for me about an hour ago ("Loading..."). :( Strakhov (talk) 00:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Husky: Same, getting
Uncaught (in promise) SyntaxError: Unexpected end of JSON input at bundle.js:18 at /hay/sdsearch/async https:/
. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:38, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for reporting. This has been fixed. Huskyoog.jpg Husky (talk to me) 07:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

May 25[edit]

"Add links" button missing from sidebar[edit]

FYI: Since a couple of days the "Add links" button is missing in the sidebar on Commons. But interwiki links and "Edit links" buttons are still available once the page on Commons has been linked from Wikidata. Feature or bug? --MB-one (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation loop related to movies[edit]

There are two kinds of cats that will lead to loops—filmography of XYZ and actors of movie ABC. Example: cat:Ewan McGregor → Ewan McGregor filmography → Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) → Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors → Ewan McGregor.

How should this be avoided? Which one of these two kinds of cats should be banned, or both, maybe?--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

After some pondering, I think it makes more sense to have filmography of XYZ rather than actors/cast/crew of movie. Each film/TV series/play is a work of the artist. Person -> Person's artistic creation. This flow seems to obey the hierarchic principle better.--Roy17 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That kind of loop is fully acceptable. -- Tuválkin 22:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not only acceptable, but desired. Going from an actor’s work to the actor is just as useful as going the other way. Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Loops are a problem when categories have a diffusing relationship, meaning that if category A is in category B, then all files from category A also could be considered part of category B. Here Ewan McGregor → Ewan McGregor filmography and Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) → Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors are non-diffusing relationships, while Ewan McGregor filmography → Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) and Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors → Ewan McGregor are diffusing relationships. Unfortunately, it seems like Commons does not have a good way of distinguishing between them. I've started a thread a few days ago on this topic: Commons:Village pump/Technical#Mark subcategorization as non-diffusing. -- King of ♥ 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

May 26[edit]

Translating for zh variant[edit]

Hello. I am wondering how to translate for zh variant (zh-hans, zh-hant, zh-CN, and so on) in the {{YouTube CC-BY}} or other similar templates. When I trying to translate it, I get a error: Translation to Chinese (China) is disabled: Translate in zh please. However, the translation does not fall back to zh when the display language is set to zh variant. It falls back to English now.--Njzjz (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Copyright question[edit]

I am looking at this page, and it claims that this video is Public Domain. I intend to spend my own money to purchase this video and upload it to Commons (which, given that it's allegedly Public Domain, should be fine). Please tell me why I cannot do that. ;) -- Wesha (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Anyone can say a video is in the public domain. Do you trust them? I’m not convinced. Brianjd (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • And that's why I'm talking to you guys here. I want assertion that my purchase will be accepted on Wikipedia as PD before I spend my money buying it. As such, please specify what sort of evidence will convince you, and I will demand that evidence from the company along with my purchase. ("none" is not an acceptable answer). -- Wesha (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wesha: I am not a lawyer, and I don' think anyone here is operating as one. Personally, I would not recommend spending your money on this. If it is public domain, there is probably somewhere to obtain it without that sort of expenditure. If you want more expertise on copyright information (but it will still be short of being advised by an attorney), Village pump/Copyright is a better place to ask than this page. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • You see, the film reel itself may be public domain, but the high-res scan of it may be not readily available (As in, if I was to buy an expensive film scanner, go to a library that stores that reel, and convince them to feed that film reel through it, it will be "free" - but I will still spending money. So if somebody has already done it, why not just pay them?) -- Wesha (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wesha: Before you try to convince us, convince yourself. Are you convinced? If so, tell us why and we might be able to work from there. Note that, under the relevant Commons policy, the burden is on the uploader to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain or under a free licence.
      Also note that this is not Wikipedia. Not that there is a single Wikipedia to begin with – there are many Wikipedias, one for each language. This is the Wikimedia Commons. All these projects are run by the same organisation but all have their own rules, sometimes very different rules. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      The problem is, I have convinced myself many times before, but the deletionists always win so I'm tired of wasting effort. These cases are crystal clear to me, but one copyright troll is pretty adept of convincing others (especially about the Russian copyright law s/he has no understanding of), refusing my offers to hire a professional lawyer -- with my money -- so it hurts me deeply when I see items in my possession get lost for humanity forever (I'm not immortal, you know), but when it's my effort spent that is wasted, it's fine - humanity's loss not mine, but here we are talking my money. -- Wesha (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • All the deletion requests you linked to are still open, so the “deletionists” haven’t “won” (yet). Also none of them has a coherent argument for keeping the files. Brianjd (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Wesha has since converted “offers to hire a professional lawyer” into a link to a DR as well. At least this one is closed and has some attempt to argue this issue, although the arguments offered there seem ridiculous, as does this discussion. I expect that this will be my last comment. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        1) Discussion of that DR is where I for the first time offer to hire the professional IP lawyer; anybody who cares can find my exact words there. 2) You are saying that as if the copyright law in its current form (completely ignoring the concept of "abandoned IP", like the proverbial "dog on a pile of hay") isn't ridiculous. -- Wesha (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The footage is credited to U-I News, I can't find any renewal notices for them, does anyone have information on the company? I see them credited here. I can find nothing at the LOC, they must have a longer name. Can Anyone help? I am assuming that the company selling the footage has done their due diligence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Category display issue[edit]

Category:Toki Pona in sitelen sitelen has two subcategories. When I move up one category to Category:Toki pona sitelen they are in the category tree but when I move up yet another category to Category:Non-Latin Toki Pona they aren't. What's going on here? And why? Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 06:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

This problem no longer persists. I still don't know why, though. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Love —LiliCharlie (talk) 04:45, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

English names of categories[edit]

After this edition; should we not give English names of categories? Tournasol7 (talk) 09:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

There are a number of exemptions in Commons:Naming_categories. Ruslik (talk) 09:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps you will want to start with the official policy, which describes Commons:Naming categories as a “failed proposal”. Brianjd (talk) 10:57, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It’s not clear that Capela de Santa Catarina has an established English name. I searched the web for “Saint Catherine chapel Viana do Castelo” and the top result was a YouTube video with the name “Saint Catherine’s Chapel”. If there is no established English name, the policy is to use the original name. Brianjd (talk) 11:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

New categories[edit]

I created Category:Beach access points. In the Netherlands the access points are numbered and often used as postal adres, as there are often beach houses close to the access point. An example is Category:Strandslag 1 of The Hague. See website: Strandslagen Den Haag wih a nummering from South to North. I have no knowledge how this is organized in other countries and beaches.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Protocol for uploading a cropped image from a PD Flickr image?[edit]

Occasionally I find it necessary to crop an existing Commons image to the part relevant to illustrate a particular Wikipedia article (e.g. File:Convent, LA Jefferson College (Manresa House of Retreats) 1937s.jpg; File:Les Docks - Cité de la Mode et du Design crop.jpg ). When the image is from Flickr, which I note in the "source" parameter when uploading the file, this always triggers a manual review, because the file I am uploading will not match the original file on Flickr. When so doing, should I indicate the original Flickr image as the source, or indicate the Commons image as the source? Can something perhaps be added to the upload protocol to indicate that the image is a cropped version of the Commons file, and skip all the duplication of inputs? BD2412 T 16:37, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The review is triggered by the insertion of the template flickrreview. When your source is a Commons file that is already positively reviewed, you don't really need to request a second review for your crop, unless there is something wrong with the first review. You may request a review if you want, knowing it will add to the backlog. The immediate source actually used (Commons) should be indicated. It's good to mention also the original source (flickr), but it is already indicated in the Commons source. -- Asclepias (talk) 17:30, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
It's best to only use the "{{Extracted from}}" template and just use the exact same copyright © license and properly fill in the source, author, and what it is. There is no need for a derivative file to be reviewed as it is licensed the same way as the original. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
Try using the COM:CROPT tool it would have done all this for you, including adding (cropped) as a suffix to the file name. You should always use the upload as a new image option. Broichmore (talk) 15:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Foundation – we try hard to make vandals' life easier![edit]

First I have noticed this topic and then this brilliant proposal: m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation… --jdx Re: 16:47, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I don't think the WMF has much leeway as far as the IP masking aspect of the proposal. This is as much a legal issue as a policy issue, as jurisdictions across the world (including in the U.S.) are taking Europe's lead on internet privacy law. Regarding IPCheck specifically, it sounds like the WMF is intending to build tools that will eventually make IPCheck obsolete in order to mitigate the effects of IP masking. While I'm sure that's disappointing to the author of IPCheck, the alternative would be to leave the community stranded with no way to effectively fight anonymous vandals and open proxies. If you look at the entire thread, MusikAnimal makes some cogent points in response to SQL's concerns. Kaldari (talk) 20:32, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
This is mainly due to an externally changing landscape around IPs, yes, and not that someone one day decided that this would be a fun exercise to do.
For what it's worth, the vast majority of the time spent on this project is around building new tools for fighting vandals to offset problems masking IPs will bring. First out has been a new checkuser tool. There are some other suggestions on m:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation/Improving tools. We really appreciate all feedback on these tools, or other ideas. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 21:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Most IP edits I see are good edits, yes there is room for abuse, but in general most IP edits I see on any Wikimedia website tend to be good faith edits. I'm not really a privacy advocate, but I find this move understandable, plus Checkusers and other privileged users will still have access to IP addresses so this doesn't create that much more issues. Vandalism rarely stands for long and I don't think that this change would really make it that much easier for vandals to attack educational content. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May 27[edit]

requesting some thought and discussion of an issue of ontology facing several categories[edit]

My comment is here: category talk:individual verbs#ontology_and_grammar_and_the_implications_of_their_intersection_for_the_needs_of_Commons. Uncertain of next steps if any. Arlo James Barnes 23:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

May 28[edit]

infobox changes depending on the viewer[edit]

In Template_talk:Artwork#errors_? User:Oursana run into bizarre case of File:Pieter Jansz. Saenredam 005.jpg that sometimes show 2 identical creator templates and sometimes one. It makes no sense to me but I am trying to collect the facts. So fat I know that if:

  • I open the file logged as User:Jarekt I see a single creator. Changing languages does not change things, nor changing the browsers
  • I open the file as IP or as User:JarektBot I see 2 creators.

What do other people see. Does anybody have any idea what is going on? --Jarekt (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Same behaviour here. In Firefox the second creator box disappeared after null edit. But in SRWare Iron (page opened only as IP) neither purging nor null edit worked, (edit:) but after a restart. — Speravir – 04:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Emergency read-only Friday 29 May (UTC)[edit]

Hi everyone, because of hardware failure affecting the Commons primary database that has to be fixed as soon as possible, there will be a window starting at or slightly later than 05:00 UTC tomorrow (Friday 29 May, still 28 May in some areas of the world) when the wiki will be read-only, that is, no edits or uploads will work. This window is scheduled for up to 30 minutes, but will hopefully only take a couple minutes, which is shorter than the eight-minute unintentional read-only period the hardware failure caused in the first place. See phab:T253808 and phab:T253825. You can also read the technical incident report and conclusions on how to avoid this particular error in the future. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:14, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

We (Trizek (WMF)) are setting up banners to warn people, so uploaders have a chance of understanding what's happening. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 12:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for this VP notice and links to the detailed reports. Great transparency for an urgent fix. -- (talk) 13:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)