Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Delinker

Does anyone know what's up with User:CommonsDelinker/commands and moving categories? I'm not sure I've seen any of these succeed in the last week or more. Is this still an effective way to move a category? If not, do we have anything else better than doing everything by hand? - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Joe, link fixing and cat moving are two different engines under the same hood. The latter might have been stuck, pinging Steinsplitter. The first entry Category:Anonymous-EU is done but has a caching problem. I touched 10,000+ files, but then I didn't feel like working on that anymore... --Achim55 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Achim55: Thanks. Yes, I was aware that they are separate. Looks like they are now working. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy new year!!!

Is there any way to see the statistics for 2021 like how many files were uploaded and / or deleted, how many new users Vs. blocks and retirees, and how many edits were made, file depicts and file captions were added, and just general statistics about Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) for the previous year? Maybe having an annual January 1st (first) "Last year in data" would be a good idea. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is year of death not mentioned in Category of Cas Oorhuys?

I don't see a year of death in the categories of Cas Oorthuys' category? This info is included in Wikidata and in the info box of the Commons category. Is there an explanation why this data is not included in Commons from Wikidata in this case? Wouter (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It may have been as there were several date of death statements and this despite that they had the same year.

As some of the ranks of statements with P569/P570 of the item were incorrect, I adjusted them and the year of death category appears. See d:Help:Ranking for details. --- Jura1 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! For me, this is an incentive to check whether all data from Wikidata is properly entered in Commons. Wouter (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

To confirm what Jura1 suggested, this is normal behaviour for Wikidata and Commons. The Wikidata Infobox template on Commons sees two dates in Wikidata with the same rank and doesn't know which one to use for the category. If one date is marked as preferred rank on Wikidata, the template will retrieve the preferred date and ignore the rest. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

There was a bot marking full dates as preferred rank, but it stopped running because the search took longer than the 1 minute computational limit for searches. If anyone has suggestions on how to get around the 1 minute limit, here is the place to discuss it. Several other error detection searches have come up against the limit and no longer run. One trick was to break the searches up into smaller parts and concatenate them, but now they too are at their computational limit. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

A weakness of the ubiquitous {{Wikidata Infobox}} is that when Wikidata has multiple values for critical dates (e.g. when the true value or even a "best value" is unknown), even if they are all in the same year, the infobox fails to add a year category. There was a bot (perhaps still is) that removed pre-existing manually added year of death/birth categories simply because the info was in Wikidata. This doesn't seem to have been the case here, but when the Wikidata infobox fails, manual categories are called for, even if its a less precise category like Category:1910s births. --Animalparty (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Public domain cutoff date reference, appearing on a Wikipedia Upload file wizard, needs to be changed from 1926 to 1927

For the Wikipedia Upload File wizard, starting at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard the date for the first option listed under "This file is not my own work/The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" needs to be incremented by a year (now that we've started a new year) to read "First published in the United States before 1927".--Thomas H. White (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thomas H. White: This comes from MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us. Commons doesn't locally override it, so Commons uses the value from TranslateWiki. It has already been updated on TranslateWiki (see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us/en), but the updated translations haven't reached Commons yet (or EN wiki, etc.). I don't know the method by which translations at TranslateWiki reach Commons or how long it takes — I'll keep an eye on it and maybe temporarily insert a local override if it is still wrong after the Wednesday deployment to Commons. —RP88 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Thomas H. White: There are tickets for this at phab:. If you need the specific ones, I can find them for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Photomontage

Hello there, Im trying to photomontage and I cant seem to figure it out. Im trying to replace one of the photos, the one with the bridge in it, in this picture File:Cincinnati Photomontage V1.jpg with my photo File:Cincinnati Ohio.jpg. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Hi, and welcome. You would have to download the montage, replace the bridge photo in it, upload another version with a new filename (and attribution for all the component photos) consistent with COM:OW, and then convince 10 projects to use it. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks and do you know what I can download or use to replace that one image. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Note that you should not overwrite the existing montage unless you have a goahead from the person who created it; you should create a similar one of your own and upload under a distinct filename.
Assuming you are working on a typical computer with a typical browser, you should be able to right-click and get a choice of "save image as...". NOTE that you will want to go to the full-resolution version of the montage before downloading that (although you might want to start with some smaller size for your own image, if you are recapturing it from Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Im using a chromebook. but where do I go to do this editing like a website or something? Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Have you considered using a gallery instead? Broichmore (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: Not sure what you mean by "where do I go to do this editing like a website or something?" You don't normally edit images on a website. You edit them with software like GIMP or Photoshop. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: What image editing software does a chromebook come with? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To butt in, Chromebooks are made to be very cheap online netbooks and they by default force users to use Chrome Canvas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess Chrome Canvas is what I was looking for when I asked that question. Note I have no experience in editing pictures on a laptop/computer. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot photomontage on chrome canvas. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Translation problem: what is 'debt' for ?

Hi all. I just get this landing page here after following redirections from UploadWizard's discussion page.

And that is my question: what is 'debt' for in 'Solve bugs & technical debt' of section 'Goals' ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Does en:Technical debt/fr:Dette technique help? El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

sounds good - because 'debt' was a notion I ve never met before. Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

all MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page are broken

Hi all, the MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page, (i.e Funnel Metrics for Upload Wizard...) section 'More metrics' are all broken with following message.

Dark mingle logo
Can not find page you are looking for.

Trying the server url gives us the following reason:

MINGLE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
We've stopped supporting Mingle and have deleted all Mingle SaaS instances as of July 31, 2019.

Can someone realign them ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

"Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency and similar cases

I found a user called ""Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency", now blocked (for smaller screens), which purports to be the marketing account for a company named Growzillas. Now I actually can't find a single logged action to this account's name so I'm assuming that it was blocked for "spamming" on the basis of its username. My issue with this practice is that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot here.

Companies often hire top photographers and top graphic designers who can create high quality images, often stock images. There is a clear lack of stock images and if companies would refrain from uploading things that are only meant to make investors happy there might be a mutual benefit from having corporate accounts around, namely if they are VTRS confirmed they can upload collections from their archives or stock photography of their products, in many cases lots of products make "mundane" things that are copyrighted and no free image exists of.

I just wonder how we can maximise the amount of high quality stock images of things we can expand, I just don't think that our current conduct of immediately deleting anything even remotely promotional is a good model, for example a couple of months ago a Vietnamese cinematic company released behind the scenes images of a film production to the Wikimedia Commons and Vietnamese Wikipedians attempted multiple times to have those images deleted because they were seen as "spam" at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, but here local admins saw them as having educational value. Having photographs or even 3D designs of modern copyrighted things actually donated by the corporations that sell them might be better than blanket banning any company, in fact we should probably welcome such open displays of a corporate conflict of interest (COI) over an undeclared one that goes under the radar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The account was blocked because it created a spammy userpage. Ruslik (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Why is the "descrption" field of file is required

Usually the "caption" field can play the role of description, and it is used more commonly. So I don't think "description" should be required. --SolidBlock (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@SolidBlock: No, actually the description field is probably the much more used. Caption is "structured data" and probably over time will become quite useful, but most Commons users are a lot more focused on wikitext than structured data. Obviously for many photos the two can be identical, but look at something like File:Lowman Building and Lowman & Hanford, ca 1909 (MOHAI 5990).jpg. You wouldn't want all that in a caption. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hvordan lægger jeg et uploaded billede ind på en side?

Hej! Jeg har uploaded billeder, som jeg gerne vil have flyttet hen til en bestemt side: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig". Hvordan gør jeg det?

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Niels, billederne ligner fotografier af fotografier. Ret? Hvis det er tilfældet, skal vi have en tilladelse. --Achim55 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Valnød: Bemærk venligst at Commons her er et internationalt projekt og at jeg løbende har flyttet dine billeder til de respektive kirkers kategorier (Det kræver lidt erfaring at finde disse kategorier). Hvad mener du med "Døbefont i Sydslesvig"? . Vi har så vidt jeg kan se ikke pt en sådan kategori. Dine billeder ser ud at være fotos af papirbilleder, er det korrekt? Bemærk at Commons i forvejen har billeder af en del af disse døbefonte.--Hjart (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Ja, billederne er fotografier af mine egne fotos, der er taget med film, før digitaliseringen. Når jeg uploader samtidig med, at jeg har siden, der hedder: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig" åben, er der nogen af billederne, der automatisk bliver lagt ind på siden, mens andre ikke gør. Det er dem, jeg gerne vil kunne overføre til siden. Jeg går ud fra, at jeg skal indsætte det enkelte billedes filnavn på siden, men der er kun søgefeltet, hvori jeg kan indsætte filnavnet? og det virker naturligvis ikke. Når jeg på Wikimedias Commons søger: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig", fremkommer pågældende side.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

Jeg har fundet følgende vejledning, men kan ikke få det til at virke:

Billedbeskrivelse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Sydslesvig er nu den nordlige del af Slesvig-Holsten, så der finder vi kategorier som Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

-- Achim55

Hej!

Ja, det er fine billeder. Jeg har imidlertid efter megen farten rundt i Sydslesvig for flere år siden taget billeder med film af samtlige romanske granitdøbefonte i Sydslesvig, som jeg gerne vil have lagt ud på nettet. Det ser ikke ud til, at der er andre, der har lagt en tilsvarende samling ud. Derfor har jeg affotograferet dem med digitalt kamera.

Mit spørgsmål er igen, hvordan lægger jeg billederne ind på en given side?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Niels, der er ingen side Døbefont i Sydslesvig, hverken her eller på da:Døbefont i Sydslesvig, heller ikke "Døbefonte ...". Misfortolkede du søgeresultaterne som en side? --Achim55 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Det er på denne adresse, at jeg finder: Døbefont i Sydslesvig.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=D%C3%B8befont+i+Sydslesvig&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=S%C3%B8g+&type=image Valnød (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Det der er ikke som sådan en "side". Det er en søgning du har kørt og som har fundet nogle relevante billeder. Jeg vil anbefale at du kategoriserer dine billeder i Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein.--Hjart (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Svar til Hart!

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Det vil jeg prøve. Så håber jeg, at det kommer til at virke.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Nu har jeg prøvet at uploade endnu to billeder og under kategorier skrevet Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten, men billederne vises ikke på pågældende side?

Hvad skal jeg gøre?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Jeg retter lige: Jeg har uploadet to billeder og under kategorier skrevet: "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten", men billederne vises ikke på denne side.

Hvad skal jeg gøre?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej Niels. Der er ingen kategori "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten" som du skrev på File:Havetoft kirke i Sydslesvig, granitdøbefont.jpg. Det skal du redigere som Achim55 beskrev ovenfor. Det skal være "Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein" på engelsk pga alle kategorier her på Commons bør have engelske navner. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Tak for hjælpen.

Det var lige den oplysning, jeg manglede.

Nu fungerer det.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Mixed up coordinates of two pictures, corrected it, but now there is a discrepancy with SDC

I just found out that I mixed up the coordinates for File:Groene Hartpad between Alphen aan den Rijn and Aarlanderveen.jpg and File:Groene Hartpad view of The Hague from Zoetermeer.jpg. I have swapped them; now they are correct. But now I get a message that there is a discrepancy between the coordinates and the ones stored in SDC. (Which is, of course, correct.) What should I do now? MartinD (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Just copy paste the coordinates from the template into the structured data field. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

You could also remove the SDC data completely. Probably a bot will eventually restore it, but it may take weeks or months. You also should watch out if the picture is used in any Wikidata items or in templates that now have the old coordinates.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give it a try. I don't think these pictures are used in templates. They are merely illustrations of a Dutch hiking route. MartinD (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

It worked, thanks a lot! MartinD (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

How do I change the base text to talk about disputed identification in images?

See: Template:Disputed identification --RAN (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@RAN: How is that supposed to differ from {{Disputed}}? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That tag is for disputing the copyright! We have at least a dozen images where people believe that the person named in the title of the image is the wrong person, and others believe it is the right person. It is good to have them together with the same tag so that they can be looked at with new evidence in the future. We need to keep the images and discuss the evidence for and against, because other sites have copies our images, especially Alamy. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you looking for {{Fact disputed}}? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

That is the closest, I think we should have a new tag for disputing the identification of a person, as opposed to the date or location. The bulk of the images in the old disputed category are old cars, and flora. I temporarily redirected the new one to the old one, but I would like a new category and a new tag just for potentially misidentified people. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps a parameter for the type of dispute would work, adding it to a specific category but keeping the same template otherwise. We could easily get dozens of such templates (cars, flowers, fungi, flags, maps, ...), which would lead to problems e.g. keeping them all translated to all languages. There should be a discussion on what categories of disputes need their own subcategories etc., but I think it would be quite easy technically and much easier maintenance-wise. –LPfi (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps specific categories would do the trick, so experts can sort through the hundreds of images and see the category that they are experts in. --RAN (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Urdu Translation (Cat-a-lot)

Please add Urdu transltaion of this toll. Translation is here >User:Obaid Raza/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/ur.Obaid Raza (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Doing…, a few fixes still to be done. --Achim55 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Achim Please see now, I fixed it.Obaid Raza (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Done. Many thanks! --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Kan jeg omdøbe billedets tekst?

Hej! Jeg har lagt billeder ind på nedennævnte side, men vil gerne have filens navn på nogle af billederne omdøbt, så kirkens navn står først, og at der desuden kommer til at stå granitdøbefont og ikke kun døbefont. 1)Kan jeg selv omdøbe filen? 2)Er der en anden, der kan og vil omdøbe den? 3)Kan jeg slette filen og derefter lægge den ind igen med et nyt navn?

Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej Niels, gå til filsiden (for eksempel File:Aventoft kirkes døbefont.jpg) og tryk Shift-Alt-m . Så kan du tilføje et bedre filnavn. En anden vil derefter omdøbe denne fil. --Achim55 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hej!

Tak for hjælpen. Det fungerer.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Dotted line does not appear in SVG

Hello, I have a problem with Libre Draw. On my screen, I see in my drawing dotted (dashed) lines as I drawed them. But when I convert it to SVG and upload it to Commons, the dotted lines appear as normal, continous lines. How can I solve this? Ziko (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Edu.gov.ru

Moin Moin together, this template has a parser error. Can someone tell me, how i could fix it? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no template:Edu.gov.ru/en. You should follow Help:Autotranslate in setting up the autotranslation. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Problems finding the railway museum in Nuremberg

There is a railway museum in Nuremberg; kidseropuit.nl. I tried all manners of categories for acces but I cant find it. From Category:Nuremberg, Category:Rail vehicles in museums in Germany, Rail transport, Museums, transport in Nuremberg, etc, etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:DB Museum Nürnberg - Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I created Category:Rail vehicles in the DB Museum Nürnberg to make it easier to find historic rail vehicles in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Between building

Anyone knows anything about this strange buiding and its function?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's an office building with a triangular floor plan, wedged in between two other buildings: [1]. Goes into Category:Steckelhörn 11. --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright on a photography from Louvre Museum

I uploaded a better version of this file File:AphroditeHeadKaufmannCl010277188.jpg, but I realize that this version, with free access on Louvre museum's web site, is in fact under copyright (for the photography, metadata : © 2000 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Hervé Lewandowski). I reverted the page to the previous version, but I donnot know how to request for deletion of only an upload. There is no indication for the source of the preceeding version of 2019 (it cannot be the "own work" indicated), clearly it is the same photography, but with a lower resolution, so perhaps free copyright because of that ? Proz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

thank you ! Proz (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikidata-based category redlinks being auto-added

A number of PDFs and DjVu files have been automatically included in redlink categories, the links to which seem to be based on Wikidata item statements of these files. See:

Category:Artworks digital representation of version, edition, or translation (9000+ files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of literary work (1400+ files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of short story collection (15 files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of posthumous work (3 files)

Can someone track down the source of this? Most likely it's some template used by the Book template.

I'm not sure if there's a policy about doing something like this, but IMO these are low quality categories. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veikk0.ma: that would be me! Please ignore the mess while we're cleaning up and remodeling. Will remove them soon. Multichill (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Veikk0.ma: These tracking categories have been removed. It will probably take some time for them all to empty out again. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

How many selfies are allowed?

Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)

However, I understand that it is allowed to upload selfies for the purpose of decorating user pages on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

How many selfies are allowed?

And if you upload a selfie, what category do you set it to?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ox1997cow: I'd say the number of personal images to decorate one's user page would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For exmple if you are active on many projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikipedia etc), then maybe more personal pictures would be okay, whereas if you're only active on one wiki then it probably isn't justified to have 10 out-of-scope pictures for decoration. Regarding categorization I'd say just marking all personal pictures with {{User page image}} below the {{Information}} template is enough.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

We don't seem to run into a "limit" for this. It's more about people who do contribute never having had more than anyone thought was reasonable, and the ones that raise an issue are from people who just didn't use any project for more than uploading them and trying to use their user page as a CV or band advert. And yet this second group also seemed to want a vast number of awful photos to try and illustrate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

"Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)" is probably not the most accurate way to phrase this. There are many situations where a person is close enough to some topic discussed on some Wikimedia Project that would make their selfie reasonably useful for an educational purpose. Remember that there is no "notability" standard for Commons and we inherently include a lot more content than other Wikimedia projects.

I know of one administrator who has uploaded many, many personal photos of the food they eat, the kind of thing many people post to Instagram along with their selfies. If we're going off of their uploads of personal photos, I would guess the allotment should be in the hundreds. Mysteryman blue 17:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how many foods are not represented on the Wikimedia Commons, there are many Wikipedia articles about random pieces of food from a country that are not covered here at all, probably because people have the idea that "Uploading photographs of food is for Instagrammers", we should probably only use the term "personal image" when an image really has no realistic educational value, a selfie of a person in a traditional costume that isn't represented anywhere else on the Wikimedia Commons is in scope. Just click "random" on a Wikipedia and see how many articles lack any images, even if they're about a subject that is very common like a brand of a chain of stores with thousands of locations visited by millions of people every day, in fact such an image may have already been deleted as "promotional" and "spam" before. Limiting selfies is a good idea, but it's also wise not to be overzealous in deleting them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. Before nominating an image for deletion or deleting it, think "do we have a use for this?" regardless of it being a selfie, a family album photo or promotional content. User selfies are allowed even if they are useless, other selfies need to have an educational use, and many have. The main problem is that random selfies are too badly described to be useful.

For promotional images, I'd say that if they have been used elsewhere in serious marketing, they are in scope, and we do not have too many. E.g. Advertisements in the Netherlands has next to no contemporary content, and Advertisements in the Netherlands by year and by decade end in the 1960s. This is of course mostly for copyright reasons, but if some company or established party lets us have their promotional material under a free licence, that is a valuable contribution.

–LPfi (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "educational" is subjective, this doesn't just extend to advertisements (an issue I brought up last week) but to basically anything the person doing the patrolling might not have any interest in. A couple of years ago I uploaded files of a nationally active organisation in the Netherlands and first a logo image was nominated for deletion and then the deleting admin wanted to empty the entire category as "out of scope", despite multiple users pointing out to them how these images could be used and I eventually writing a piece on Wikipedia about this article (which I rather have not done as I didn't want to give the organisation more attention as it promotes pseudoscience) and the original file was undeleted but because the discussion was controversial it was closed as "no concensus". What is and isn't "notable" enough for the Wikimedia Commons (despite having no notability policies and guidelines) depends on the beholder, even being mentioned in a Wikipedia article isn't enough for some users. My largest issue with hunting selfies is that we don't always know if the person is notable or not, a cricket player famous in India might not be known to a Mexican file patroller and all they see is "a personal image", this is why deletion requests are generally better than speedy deletion templates as at least there is a chance that someone knowledgeable about the subject will come across it.

Accounts like the "Swiss National Library" were simply lucky that no anti-shared account admin was patrolling when they registered (even though shared accounts aren't against the rules here, many admins still act as if they are), what can and can't be considered "educational" is always difficult to tell, I know nothing about Maram Pitti and currently there are no images of it at the English-language Wikipedia, but if someone would upload images of a game of it and a Polish or Hungarian patroller sees it they might think that someone is just uploading personal images of a game they played.

What would be interesting is if a Wikimedian would upload a selfie of themselves every year to show how they age and how their style changes over the years, but it would be problematic if hundreds of people did this... At least, I can imagine it being so, although I think that we already have a different policy for Wikimedian at Wikimedia-related events as I have found many images of random Wikimedians at some "community" event.

A couple of years ago I tried to save a selfie uploaded by a woman I would ascribe Poe's Law to (as in I couldn't tell if I were dealing with a low competency user or a troll, but assuming good faith I assumed she was the former), she uploaded a number photographs of herself in a United States military uniform with an award she won, as she was a Non-Hispanic African-American female and basically all other depictions of people with that award were Non-Hispanic White-American males I argued that her inclusion would be different, or at least "representative" of a different demographic but most were still against the images' inclusion simply because it was a new user uploading selfies in ALL-CAPS and seemingly unaware that the Wikimedia Commons wasn't Twitter. I can't remember if the images were kept or not or what the award was she won, but selfies are always a difficult subject because it's difficult to tell when a selfie crosses the vague line between "educational" and "non-educational". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Guidelines regarding file redirects to a different filetype

Hello!

I found File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png and Com:Deletion requests/File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png which made me curious. I've always thought that there isn't a problem with keeping both vector and raster versions of a file. This raster was deleted and redirected to the vector version. Is this according to guidelines? I couldn't find any answer on Com:File redirects nor on Help:File redirect. Pinging @Missvain: as deleting admin.Jonteemil (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: per COM:REDUNDANT, redundant or low-quality files only get deleted on a case-by-case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Coins of China

Should this tag's year be updated to "before 1972" on this category page here: [2] This tag:

Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies before Error: Invalid time..
Photographs of currencies used in 50 can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on the design has expired, because terms of use of 50 prohibits the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies without permission. The copyright term in 50 for currencies is + {{{3}}} years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/50#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.

ERROR: Standard of the duration of copyright protection is invalid. Check the first parameter to make sure that it is "death" or "design".
ERROR: Copyright term not specified. Specify the copyright term in this way: {{Currency-category warning|1=death: after the death of the designer, design: after the currencies were designed|2=Country|3=Copyright term since year of death or design}}.
ERROR: The copyright term is invalid. Check the third parameter to make sure that it is a number.

Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

~~Can you clarify?~~ Ruslik (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, this was a caching issue. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

"Homes for wayward girls": category?

Do we have a category for what used to be known as a "home for wayward girls" (usually meaning young, unmarried and pregnant, sometimes broader than that)? Examples: Category:Home of the Good Shepherd, File:Lebanon Home, ca 1920 (MOHAI 1096).jpg, File:Group on porch of Florence Crittenton Home, Seattle, circa 1900 (MOHAI 8844).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

For Ireland, there's Category:Magdalene asylum. --Rosenzweig τ 02:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Which has as its only parent category Category:Religious scandals. As far as I know, the three I've given as examples do not have scandals associated! (In the case of the Home of the Good Shepherd, I'm quite sure of that; it lasted until 1973, and I know several women who passed through it, all of whom are more positive than not about the nuns who ran it.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Photo challenge November results

**Top views of vehicles: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Taxi Driver pull car to the front line to pick up passengers	An old Nissan Sunny with cats taking a rest on it.	Sport boat below Bamberg lock in MD canal
Author	Mojtabagolestani97	Annatsach	Ermell
Score	37	17	14

**Hedges: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Hedges protecting on the Vieux chemin de Lille.- Bailleul (Fr)	Landscape with hedges in the snow near Alfreton, Derbyshire, England	Snow-covered hedge
Author	Pierre André Leclercq	Kmtextor	Sudzie
Score	18	16	13

Congratulations to Mojtabagolestani97, Annatsach, Ermell, Pierre André Leclercq, Kmtextor and Sudzie. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much, @Jarekt. This is good news that makes me glad. Happy new year 2022 Pierre André ^(talk) 09:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories for merging

Hello all, while working on Wikidata I discovered some pairs of categories which might be candidates for merging. They however all need a human eye, some may be two different people with similar birth and death dates.

If you'd like, you can move these to a different place where it's easier to track those which have already been fixed. Cheers,--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment, to anyone who picks these requests up, it is probably better to redirect than to delete, as many category names will likely be searched for by others and if you use HotCat the software automatically categorises the file in the correct category (plus a bot automatically re-categorises files in redirected categories). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- Some cases fixed, mostly with redirects. Exceptions were non-English category names and over-specific disambiguations that are not needed. --Marsupium (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion requests default action

What happens to Deletion requests that get no response? Is the final action deletion or kept? How long are they kept open before final action is taken with no responses? --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

they are open until they are decided; Commons suffers from a shortage of good admins, that's why it may take a while --Isderion (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The closing admin makes a judgement call. If the case is obvious and the admin agrees with the nominator's argument (usualy citing breach of law, policy or precedent), they will delete. Like many Wikimedia projects, we have a shortage of admins and there is a backlog of deletion cases. For cases that aren't clear cut, the admins will wait till the case gets to the end of the backlog, when other users may jump in and comment. The current backlog is up to May 2021. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to the hard work of admins like Ellywa, the backlog is now actually up to June 2021! Mysteryman blue 23:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

And like Rosenzweig, and perhaps more, as I do not check all efforts, but I had a friendly DR-edit conflict with admin Rosenzweig with the DR's from May 2021. Ellywa (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

ImageNotes

I'm not seeing the ImageNotes at File:Seattle - Pedestrians outside Bon Marche, 1951 (51765882752).jpg, nor do I seem to be able to add more. Does anyone know what is going on? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you talking about Help:Image-Annotator? If so, I'll have to leave it to others to reply as I have never used it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I use it a lot on old Seattle photos from the Municipal Archive. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I took a look at the image again. The ImageNotes still weren't showing up but then I clicked the image to enlarge it. When I clicked back into the main image screen, the ImageNotes suddenly appeared. It may have been a caching issue. Can you check if it is working for you now? From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see all twelve notes. Tested on two different browsers. --77.50.104.110 03:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I can see them, too, but it took some time for them to show up, after lots of JavaScript loaded. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

So it must be some sort of caching or timeout issue. Still not working for me. I hope to remember to get back to it in a few days & see if it works again, there were still more notes I was planning to add. (Other images with annotation work fine for me, and of course I did try a hard refresh of the page on my browser, which accomplished nothing.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted military building photo

I remember that I posted a photo of a Brazilian Navy headquarters in January 2016. Looking for that photo today, I realized that it was deleted and they didn't notify me. Are there any Wikimedia Commons rules that prohibit photos of military buildings? That photo was in a public place, not in a restricted area. I want to get it back or give some good explanation, please. --Porto Neto (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Porto Neto: Hi, and welcome. I don't see any record of any of your uploads in January 2016 having been deleted. What was the filename? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi! I don't remember but probably "Sede da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Or "Prédio da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: --Porto Neto (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

@Porto Neto: looking at you deleted contributions (admins only), the most recent deleted files you edited are the ones listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Porto Neto from 2015. You can see all your uploads. Unless it got oversighted (which I doubt), you either didn't upload the photo here or you used another account. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok. I probably separated the photo to upload at the time but I ended up forgetting to upload that one. Unfortunately I no longer have the photo. Thank you, @Multichill: . --Porto Neto (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Do we still need language links under templates?

If this sounds interesting, consider reading MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js#Do we still need language links under templates?. Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Copy written?

Is this file:Shami and Kumar.png copy written? I would assume so. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, a source is given, but there's no indication at that source of the claimed free licence. I've tagged it for deletion as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Thanks, but please notify the uploader when you tag a file as a copyvio. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

When did that become a policy? Isn't this why we run 'bots? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Hey I just want to make this clear. That is my IP address and somehow I wasn’t signed in when I made that question. Just saying that so I am not accused of sock puppetry. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Is it possible to get rid of that account? Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: I replaced that signature for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Jeff G.: ! Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Kaleeb18: You're welcome. I moved your reply per COM:TALK. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: "the uploader should be informed of the impending deletion" has been a part of COM:DP exactly since this edit 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC), and mostly since this misspelled edit 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC), both 15+ years ago. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion policy#Overview of procedures (and 2006 is the same), that's regular deletions via {{Delete}} and COM:DR though, not speedies as copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley: Ok, then. "copy the displayed {{Copyvionote}} template to the end of the uploader's talk page to notify them" has been a part of that same policy exactly since this edit 14:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC), and mostly since this edit 12:26, 29 March 2018, as derived from the Admin-supported consensus archived at Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1#Clearer instructions for the copyvio template. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2022

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

How to download a full resolution image hidden behind a canvas?

Hello, I'd like to download the full version of this. I remember there is a tool for that which I can't find. Does anybody know where to find it? Commons:Download tools doesn't help here. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marsupium: Please see User:Fæ/dezoomify, which works with that URL directly. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That worked, image is now at File:La rue Chérif Pacha (ruines).png. :-) --Marsupium (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marsupium: For pictures, JPEG is better. I completed the license {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Marsupium: You're welcome! The reason any png photo here will look fuzzy when scaled down is due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: Thanks for your improvements of the file page! I wasn't sure if 1889 is the death year … now we've done the same research at the same time it seems.

Yann, Jeff G., the 130 MB PNG is what I got by using http://ophir.alwaysdata.net/dezoomify/. Looking deeper into it now, I've noticed, the AUC Collections use IIIF with the respective full res file at https://digitalcollections.aucegypt.edu/iiif/2/p15795coll9:149/full/max/0/default.jpg. Is it worth to upload the JPEG and delete the PNG? --Marsupium (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

We can have both. PNG is better for archiving purpose. Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Fictional flag, real issues

There is a file called "File:Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg", it is of a flag of which no historical sources attribute it to be the flag of the Nguyễn Dynasty. The image is educational and it's in scope, but I thought that might it be wiser to request for it to be deleted for a week at the Wikimedia Commons and then only restore it on articles discussing its existence as it is essentially an unsourced myth anywhere else. And with how little evidence actually exist about its usage during the Nguyễn Dynasty and the only actual contemporary source confirming its existence pointing to it being half a century older than its purported use and claiming it as the flag of the Revival Lê Dynasty, I think that it's safe to say that there is no historical basis for this flag ever being associated with the Nguyễn government or its Emperors. I really like this flag, it has a beautiful design, but as far as I can tell it's 100% (one-hundred percent) fiction to attribute it to any Nguyễn Lord or Emperor.

It came to my attention because more recently some people have started inserting it into different articles. I found the original propagation of this myth, I think that user "Editorfree1011" probably just took the unsourced claims by user "Ngockhanh6bnt" at face value and inserted them into the English-language Wikipedia. Usually user "Lệ Xuân" would have reverted it but she's less active lately. This issue is systemic and can't be blamed on one user anymore, but we need that file to debunk it. I still think that my "Commons cleanse" idea might be the easiest solution.

Note that this flag is educationally valuable and at a Wikipedia page that debunks it's historicity the file should be used, but it shouldn't be used elsewhere. The thing is, Vietnamese-language Wikipedia admins have tried to delete it here, but the issue with deleting it here and then restoring it to be manually inserted into relevant articles is that it would essentially be the Wikimedia Commons dictating which free educationally useful content other Wikimedia websites are allowed to use. Which is why I wanted to open up a village pump discussion about it. User "Greenknight dv" thinks that this might be a good idea.

Note that I'm not advocating for it to stay deleted, only for a sort of "cleanse" where it would be removed from pages where it spreads misinformation and we'd then manually restore it where it actually does serve an educational purpose. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's in scope, then keep it. It's obviously valuable to make the description accurate or even to warn about obvious fallacies, but it's not Commons' role to second-guess other projects, nor are we particularly equipped to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the only way to resolve media being used improperly in other projects is to post on the talk pages of said projects. The reality is that sometimes, misleading or even outright false associations will be made between media posted here and what is included in other wikis (including, of course, wikis that are unrelated to the WMF but use Commons content). As long as we locally have accurate information and descriptive file names, that's all that we can do here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Might want to add "fictional" to the filename. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Koavf's / Justin's proposal, I actually posted a proposal in the proposals village pump to have a bot leave talk page messages on files where such an issue was raised (similar to files that are being up for deletion now), there seemed to be consensus for it. But the only way to actually have a global bot that operates like that is through the Community Tech Wishlist which I am unable to submit anything to. If a "new" user (as in a user with not much edits locally) randomly starts removing a file and leaves a message in another language then it's very likely that they'll get blocked and as I don't want to be globally banned I wouldn't go around removing a fictional flag just for encyclopedic integrity. Unfortunately we don't have a system that alerts users that a file is disputed (which would also bring more conversation here from diverse perspectives who have access to different sources). But yeah, I think that requesting it to be renamed might be better as its current name is highly misleading and a jihad against fictional and proposed flags isn't a good idea as many are in scope for other reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

There are two confirmed questions that will be asked during this Call for Feedback:

What is the best way to ensure more diverse representation among elected candidates? The Board of Trustees noted the importance of selecting candidates who represent the full diversity of the Wikimedia movement. The current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Europe.
What are the expectations for the candidates during the election? Board candidates have traditionally completed applications and answered community questions. How can an election provide appropriate insight into candidates while also appreciating candidates’ status as volunteers?

There is one additional question that may be presented during the Call about selection processes. This question is still under discussion, but the Board wanted to give insight into the confirmed questions as soon as possible. Hopefully if an additional question is going to be asked, it will be ready during the first week of the Call for Feedback.

Join the conversation.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Ageism in category definitions

On Category:Old men , Category:Old women and subcategories, we have, for example:

Definitions

1. Babies (female) (birth – 24 months)

2. Girls (2–12 (puberty))

3. Adolescent girls (13–17 years)

4. Women (18– )
5. Young women (18-39 years)

6. Middle-aged women (40-59 years)

7. Old women (60+ years)

Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology).

The designation of anyone 60 or over as "old" strikes me as ageist. The cited source no longer says whatever it once may have done about such age-bands.

There are BLP issues in categorising people in such a manner; and doubly so if it is done by a subjective assessment of their appearance, rather than a known DOB.

[In resolving the matter, the repeated text should be templated]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I couldn't find any policy or guideline applicable for Commons that can handle this possible matter. The closest I can think are COM:IDENT and COM:CAT. Also, the BLP issue is ~~something that Wikipedians should handle~~, and meta:Living persons is now redirected to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm unclear why you think this is a matter or Wikipedians; many of the images in these categories are not used on any Wikipedia. Commons users are bound by both Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (from which: "Defamation: Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category.")) and, more forcefully, by this Wikimedia Foundation resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

...Good point, and COM:BLP redirects to COM:IDENT. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeas, this whole classification is wrong. Unless we know exactly when the picture was taken, and the date of birth of the person, these categories should not be used. Yann (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

These definitions are also cultural, I have seen Dutch textbooks use "Baby (birth - 18 months), Peuter (18 months to 3 years), Kleuter (3 years to 6 years), Etc." (They also used "tiener (12-17)" and "Adolescent (18-21)" while I have also read Dutch definitions like "Baby (birth to 12 months), Dreumes (12 months to 24 months), Peuter (slightly different dates than before), Etc." Age groups are largely cultural and as society changes I wouldn't be surprised if adolescences gets pushed back to 20~25 years in the future and if human longevity can be extended then 80 (eighty) might be considered the minimum age for "old" in the future and for a 4 (four) year old a 12 (twelve) year old is incredibly old to them. So not only are all these terms cultural and can differ significantly within the same culture, but whatever can be seen as "young" or "old" is subjective. I am not against these categories, but I can see how they can be confusing to people as different cultures maintain different concepts of age groups. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

From the Dutch-language Wikipedia article "Adolescentie": "

De leeftijden die beschouwd worden als onderdeel van de adolescentie, verschillen per cultuur. In de Verenigde Staten beschouwt men adolescentie als beginnend rond de leeftijd van 13 jaar en het duurt tot ongeveer 24 jaar. De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie daarentegen definieert adolescentie als de periode van iemands leven tussen de het 10e en 20e levensjaar. De Van Dale stelt dat een adolescent een jongere is van ca. 15 tot 20 jaar.

" Which acknowledges this difference, from what an older Dutch friend told me the term "

tiener

" and "

puber

" were historically used in the Netherlands but thanks to Americanisation (or perceived Americanisation) the term "adolescent" is used for the entire age range, which according to Wikipedia is being pushed by Dutch child psychologists. There appears to be no singular definition for many age ranges, and most of the above examples are just for the European Netherlands, let alone if one would include other cultures. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm far from convinced that we should be labelling a 60-year old, even one known to be that age, as "old". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

There is also the issue that we are labelling, for example, images of people drinking alcohol as "adolescents", and therefore under 18, apparently based solely on visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Not all photos of alcohol-drinking people need to conform to the ludicrous notion that one needs to be older than 18 to be able to do so (while driving motor vehicles at 16 and killing civilians abroad at 17 is A-OK). I had my first beer at 14, thanksverymuch — I didn’t care for it and it was legal there and then, but am I under arrest now? Tl;dr: what do you even mean? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Satellite images of New Zealand

Hi all - I note that several hundred images in Category:Satellite pictures of New Zealand are simply titled in the form (e.g.,) File:ISS016-E-14445 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg. I'd like to start identifying some of the locations and changing the titles accordingly, but I'd first like to know whether I should keep some of the ISS catalogue information in the titles. If so, what would be a good format for the titles? I'd like to keep them consistent if possible. Here are several options:

Which would be best - or is there a yet better alternative? Personally, I prefer option 3, as it indexes alphabetically by what the view is of. Grutness (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a crazy thought, but would it be possible to use the object location in a map as http://wikimapia.org, whereby the images are indicated as red dots. With the cursor you can go to such a point that gives then a very short description. By clicking you can get the satellite image. Wouter (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Probably beyond my capabilities. I edit a lot on En:Wi but my skills on Commons are pretty limited. If I can rename the files with actual locations, though, it'll be easier for someone with more nous on Commons to do that later. Grutness (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with choice 3. And you probably should keep the redirects, because some of these are likely to be referenced from outside of the WMF sites. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Grutness: your renames are not in line with the principle of file renaming that files shouldn't be renamed unless something is wrong. Renaming just to improve file names like you did at File:ISS014-E-13796 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg shouldn't be done. Multichill (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: I think that this falls within criterion 2, specifically "The only piece of meaningful information is a broad location, such as a city, province, or country". "North Island of New Zealand" covers half a country. @Grutness: I'd go for the first or third of your options so as to keep the whole catalogue number together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjh21 (talk • contribs)

@Multichill and Bjh21: That's exactly the reason why I want to do this. It's pointless having 1000 images simply saying they're of half the country when they're clearly of a specific location, and it's no help to people who want to use the files if they have to trawl through all of them to find a particular image. Criterion 2 seems to apply to this task. It's analogous to having a photo of the a specific street in Liverpool with the title "England". Grutness (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the "daily category" of a file?

Hello. Could anybody tell me what is the "daily category" of a file? Sometimes, I see a message like this one, in capital letters:

WARNING, NO DAILY CATEGORY FOUND, PLEASE MAKE SURE DATE IS CORRECT AND MONTH IS IN ENGLISH OR A NUMBER.

Thank you very much in advance for your answer: 2A02:A03F:6480:9E00:25EA:3A97:BFCF:6BD8

I've never seen that. In what context do you get that message? I see you were not logged in when you asked this. Do you have an account here, and is this about photos you yourself uploaded? Can you give a link to a photo that has this problem? Or is this something that happened during the upload process, in which case were you using the Upload Wizard or some other means of uploading? - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Are we possibly talking about something related to Category:Permission pending - no daily category existing? - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- That would come up if a file was marked with {{No VRTS permission since}} and there was no valid date associated. There might be something parallel for another template that expects a date. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  @Jmabel: Not exactly. Please see Template talk:Permission pending#Bad error message. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg

At File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg the image is showing up in the George W. Stigleman category and the Photographs by George W. Stigleman category, it may just be a caching issue, can someone else peek and see if they see both categories. When I edit the categories, I only see Photographs_by. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , I see it too. From what I can tell the category "George W. Stigleman" can't be edited out, so a template is likely causing its inclusion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

ːː Looks like Creator:George W. Stigleman Sr. is adding this category. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I removed the category from the Creator page. I believe the cat is not needed on the Creator page; his Creator page links the category without it via Wikidata. Glrx (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the category issue from Creator templates, thanks! I created the category problem when I created the template, only because I have seen it in other examples. --RAN (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki system malfunctioning?

Category moving edits of a certain file are not being reflected, i.e. realized. The file doesn't appear in the new category, but continue to stay in the old category. This is frustrating. --トトト (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@トトト: Given that you rolled it back, it's pretty hard for anyone else to check on whether it was just a caching issue. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Hamburg S-Bahn station

Wich stations? Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: In the second photo, where did you see the -en ending? The sign next to the clock is a timetable announcement displaying the departure time to Neugraben, but it is not the name of the local station. As to the first pic, I don't know either. The sign above the benches is just an advertisement for some cemetery gardeners. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

After playing with contrast and brightness, I found also that the sign on the very left edge of the second image says "Süßwaren" (sweets), so that's just a shop and not the station sign either. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

See those blue brick walls and what seems to be a railyard in photo 2? Looks like an older version of Elbgaustraße. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I was also thinking about some stations in the northwest area. It might also be Eidelstedt. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding image #1: that pointy roof to the left with a sphere on top is the tower in File:BahnhofOhlsdorf S-Bahnbereich.JPG without a doubt, meaning this is Ohlsdorf. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

- Is File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 3.jpg also Ohlsdorf? I suspect File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 5.jpg, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 6.jpg, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 7.jpg belong to Bahnbetriebshof S-Bahn in Hamburg-Ohlsdorf. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  - Yes, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 3.jpg is also Ohlsdorf. There is a station sign just left of the train above the ticket vending machines. As to the files 5 to 6, it is entirely possible that they show the former Bahnbetriebshof. The modern hall that can be seen here was built ten years later but the track configuration looks the same. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: Update Wikimedia Commons' default markup for 'Use this image' Inbox

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T299064

I have raised a ticket to change the default text component of the markup snippet generated by our "use this image" links, on file pages, so that it will use the structured data caption, where available, instead of repeating the file name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Not used files by user

Is there a tool or a gadget to list all files uploaded by X that are not used on any page in any project? Wostr (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Wostr: Can you give some context as to why you would want that? I'm guessing that only about 10% of all images on Commons are "used" in this sense within WMF projects. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I have over thousand files uploaded, some of them were meant to be a replacement for files (a few thousands) that are going to be proposed for deletion. I can easily see all files uploaded by me using Special:ListFiles and in the same way files of a banned user (most of them will be proposed for deletion). However, I can't – other than manually – check which files uploaded by me are already in place, which are still not used, and which files of this banned user need to be redrawn and replaced by correct ones. Wostr (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Why are files being deleted solely as the uploads of a banned user? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
- That is not the reason for deletion, but that discussion is not about those files. Wostr (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there a good editor / organizer for Wikimedia?

I've been pretty active lately uploading images and reorganizing them (categories, etc.) where nnecessary. Now I've been doing all of this manually via the website; adding categories; or editing the source text to apply multiple edits; that kind of thing. But I think I heard/read one time that there are tools to more easily move multiple images for instance. Is that true and does anyone have experience working with it? If so I'd like to know more, because that would be great for some jobs... Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

VisualFileChange (see under Preferences | Gadgets) can do a lot, but it's not the friendliest. Please ask me if I can help with anything specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at the description of that tool it's not exactly what I was looking for, but I'll let you know if I decide to use it and need any help! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RagingR2: Check also Help:Cat-a-lot and Help:HotCat. I remember what it was for me to work categorization without these and other stuff such as Help:VFC and MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js: It got suddenly so much better! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, sounds great. I have enabled it but even though I emptied my browser cache I don't see it appearing on category pages yet. Maybe I am doing something wrong... I'll try again later. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@RagingR2: You may need to close and reopen your browser the first time. You will also need to enable java script for Wikimedia Commons if you use a script blocker like "No Script." Cat-a-lot should appear as a tiny icon in the bottom right of your browser screen on categories and search result pages; it is often easy to miss. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

THanks, it works now! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons: references for files' metadata are now live

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T230315

Hello everybody! A small, yet important change is coming to Structured Data on Commons: users are now able to add references to a file’s metadata.

References were always a part of the project, but until now they weren’t visible to end users, nor was there an interface to add them. This has been fixed with the current update.

References for Structured Data on Commons will work exactly like they work on Wikidata: you can use URLs or items for reference; adding, removing and changing references will share the same experience of doing it on Wikidata; and there will be no limit to the number of references that can be added.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): I'm testing the references features (which is great, btw) but still find a lot of Wikibase warnings (check this example). Is this the expected behavior? Thanks —Ismael Olea (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Olea thank you for noticing me. I'll pass this bug to the dev team, and they will investigate the problem. I guess something should be fixed, since from a Wikidatan point of view, it shouldn't behave like that. I'll keep you posted asap. ~~~~ Sannita (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Can an image with extraordinary aspect ratio appear on the front page as Picture Of The Day?

Chinese scroll showing Hajj pilgrimage routes

Posting here because Commons talk:Picture of the day is low traffic and my question there was never answered. This scroll image passed Featured Picture review last year. I'd like to be able to include it in Picture Of The Day, not least because it relates to the Hajj, which is an important topic for Muslims, who make up a quarter of the world's population. Because the aspect ratio of this image means it is not legible on the front page in its original form, I took the step that has been used in the past for FPs on English Wikipedia and extracted part of the image to act as a preview on the front page. That scheduled image was reverted since the extract did not have Featured status. This I can understand, but the question remains of how this distinctive, time-relevant Featured Image can appear as Picture of the Day. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Is there any equivalent of {{Wide image}} for tall images? - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
No, but you are welcome to develop Module:Tall image and {{Tall image}}. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm probably not taking it on but if someone wants to, the clear model is Module:Wide image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

unable to publish my work that i want to change something in Wikipedia

rabi crop is my website but whenever i share my website pics it got deleted please help me regarding this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kumar singh good (talk • contribs)

Your so far only deleted upload is File:Kharif Crops Examples.png, which was deleted as it is considered an advertisement. In addition, how should anbody here know that rabicrop.com is your website? Furthermore, having an image on your website doesn not necessarily mean, it's your own work, it might be licensed from somebody else. But whether this license is compliant to our policy COM:L, how should we know, when there is no information on your website. Finally, the terms of your website state "You must not: Republish material from Rabi crops / Sell, rent or sub-license material from Rabi crops". --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

You could go through the COM:VRT process to establish that the web site is yours. And/or you could indicate any relevant licensing on your web site, then cite it as a source. But, in either case: we don't want advertising, and you can only license work for which you own the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Flag of South Korea (1949–1984).svg is doubtful.

The 1949 flag law stated that the construction was the same as the current one (File:Flag of South Korea (construction sheet).svg). Therefore the flag in 1949 should look like File:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht: We (Commons) don't usually try to make the judgements in disputes like this: we host the various variants. But if you think a particular image (or description) is incorrect, you can use the {{Fact disputed}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The talk page of a file or talking to an author should usually be the place to discuss content issues, it is not that content accuracy doesn't get discussed here (it does, as such files are commonly being overwritten with more accurate versions as new information is uncovered), but these discussions happen more often on file talk pages and user talk pages, not unlike where content is usually discussed at Wikipedia's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
- @Jmabel and Donald Trung: File:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg was moved to File:Flag of South Korea (1949-1997).svg twice, but each time its original uploader, who was also a file mover, moved back the name to (1984–1997). Two years ago a user started a name discussion in File talk:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg but no one has answered. Few days ago, I also dropped a message on its original uploader's talk page, but he/she did not respond.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Image of the Day

Today is the 15th, but it seems the whole day the IOTD for the 14th was shown!? --84.135.119.170 20:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Never mind, it just updated - may have been a cache related problem..

Category:May Torok von Szendro

Hello! On this page, 3 inscriptions are incorrect. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:May_Torok_von_Szendro The Muslim passport (which I sent to a Hungarian editor) is for a non-Christian name. The signature is not a signature, but a seal, and it is not countess Török but Djavidan. The image highlighted in the passport also depicts a Muslim lady, not the false Török May. How can these be improved? puskas.istvanteleheting.hu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajokka (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 January 2022‎ (UTC)

@Lajokka: Hi, and welcome. Please use internal links. You are welcome to edit directly or use RenameLink or {{Rename}} to correct those faults, as needed. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Jeff.

I’ve just started editing Wikipedia these days, I don’t know anything yet. Djavidan Hanum was my aunt, so I got into editing at my age of 65. People have a right to know the truth. You can reach me at: puskas.istvan@teleheating.hu Lajokka (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The image on the passport is the same image we already have of her, I don't think I understand what the problem is. It also matches the image found at other reliable websites like Geni and Familysearch. --RAN (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
This is a mistake. The Turkish passport bears a Muslim name, which is Princess Djavidan Hanum.

countess Marianne Török is a fatal mistake, because Marianne is the older sister to the Djavidan.

Half-sister, only their mom is common.

This lady (Djavidan) was never baptized, her only European name was established by a court, and that is "Puskás Májuska".

I uploaded her verdict, but it went here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inheritance_lawsuits,_a_claim_lawsuit.jpg

Because I'm still lame in wikipedia editing.

If you can, please help change the picture because it is outrageous to depict a queen with a passport picture. Lajokka (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The passport picture is so low resolution that it is useless. Are you asking for it to be deleted? --RAN (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello RAN! You're right, but I don't have a better passport picture. Let's change the face instead. I have a picture of a princess dress, but I don’t know how to change it. This image is also unpleasant because, according to contemporary newspapers, she was a remarkable beauty. Lajokka (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Unexpected search results

To help with some pending DRs from a mass upload, I just tried this search — and the results are, so to say, unexpected: Isn’t -incategory:"foo" working anymore? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I thinks it does work. "-incategory" results in all files with Portugal, but not in the category. Do I miss something? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Your search link comes out as 'Portugal -incategory:"Photos_uploaded_from_Flickr_by_Matlin_(needing_check)"'. The use of the "-" character (minus in this case) removes results from Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Matlin (needing check), so all the files showing Portugal that were not (uploaded by Matlin and needing check). Getting rid of that minus character results in this other search, showing Matlin's uploads one might want to check if one was in or very familiar with Portugal, which I guess is what you were going for. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G. and C.Suthorn: Never mind, you are right: I have no excuse for overlooking that "-", been using it correctly for years. I blame the coffee! (but lack or excess thereof…?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Categories that can't be edited/removed -- any help??

Does anyone know why some of the files in this category seem to have the category "hard coded" into them? Category:Stations of the Cross in the Netherlands

1) I can't move the files to a subcategory (stations number 1 to 14) using cat-a-lot;

2) When I go to a file's page, the category shows up at the bottom, but it can't be removed or edited,

and 3) when I open the source text for those files pages, I don't see the category listed in the source. How does this work? WHY does it exist? And how do I circumvent or change it? So that I can move these files to their suitable subcategories (stations 1-14).

P.S. I have also seen this same phenomenon in categories with historical photographs in the Netherlands; i.e. black and white photographs from our national heritage service. When those photographs (or a category of them) shows up in the main category for (for instance) a city, and you want to move it to a subcategory like "Historical photopgraphs of [city]", sometimes you can't; which is pretty frustrating.

Greetings and thanks for any help, RagingR2 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@RagingR2: Some times, categorization is not simply present in a subcat’s wikicode, but transcluded through templates. When Cat-a-lot attempt to remove that non-existent reference, error ensues. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@RagingR2: If you can point to a specific file that you are having problems with, we can identify where the existing category is coming from. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@RagingR2: Looks like you ran into one of my old batch uploads. I think the clean up bot died in one of the Toolserver/Toollabs/Toolforge mishaps.

Maybe time to kill {{RCE-subject}}. In these cases the trick is to replace {{RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie}} with {{subst:RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie|subst=subst:}} (example). Things that are not mapped ended up in Category:RCE suggested categories. Multichill (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

By "kill {{RCE-subject}}" I assume you mean just remove that block of code from the source text of a specific file? If have no idea how these templates work in general ; I have never worked with them. But replacing the block of text as you suggested should be doable even for me. :) By the way if I look in the source text for File:Kruiswegstatie_I_-_Tilburg_-_20355327_-_RCE.jpg for instance, I see (at least) three templates mentioned onder the License header: RCE-license, RCE-subject|Processiepark and RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie. Are these other templates not a problem? Is it just the RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie one that I should edit/remove???

P.S. And in the example that you linked, I see that you removed the RCE-Subject completely and replaced it with a normal category.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore: This is one example: File:Kruiswegstatie_I_-_Tilburg_-_20355327_-_RCE.jpg

The category "Stations of the Cross in the Netherlands" appears at the bottom of that page; but it can't be edited or removed; there is no (−) (±) buttons at the bottom, and if you press "edit" the category doesn't show up in the source text either.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Zie Commons talk:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed#Oude templates opruimen. Multichill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Something is terribly broken in Template:Artwork

Village pump/Archive/2022/01

File:Alphonse Mucha - Poster for Victorien Sardou's Gismonda starring Sarah Bernhardt.jpg was converted from {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}, and the parameters were not changed, but here's what's being passed to the "Artist" field:

|Author={{Creator:Alfons Mucha}} Restored by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]

But the only thing actually shown is the creator template for Mucha. The rest of the credit line is removed.

This is... obviously broken. You can't just strip credit from people. What on earth is happening here? How many files are affected? Who thought this was a good idea?

Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: Actually the creator template should have been put into the |artist= parameter, but since there is a Wikidata entry, we don't need that either. I removed the creator template from the "Author" field and your work is now being credited again. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This topic has also been started at Template_talk:Artwork#This_template_is_stripping_credit. and answered over there. No need to create additional drama. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Multichill: I apologise if this came off as dramatic; I wasn't sure who to contact about the template, so figured that a message here would be a good heads up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden: In the rare case where there is a need to post in two places, it's best that one post be just a link to the other, possibly with a brief comment for context. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Hoping to download a full-res map

When you expand the image at https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/digital/collection/maps/id/84/, there is clearly a very high-res map digitized somewhere. Does anyone have any idea whether there is a way for us to download it? It is a much higher-resolution version of File:The City of Seattle Harbor Department Map of Central Waterfront District, February 1918 (MOHAI 13448).jpg, which is so low-res as to be illegible. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Looking at how the tiles are downloaded, you can get a high resolution version from this URL https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/iiif/2/maps:84/0,0,20000,20000/5000,/0/default.png, increasing or decreasing the 5000 value increases or decreases the resolution. Dylsss (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

New tool for coloring the world map

I'm moving to her the pose below from Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Tool for coloring the world map:
"I've created a python code that makes effortless to color the world map. Feel free to check it out:[3]--Mikey641 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)"

Look like usfull tool. -- Geagea (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

There's a similar tool for coloring the states of the U.S. (with a GUI) here: https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/ Nosferattus (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Scan the world

Hello. A series of 3D images have been uploaded to Commons in the .stl format. While they seem to be freely licensed, the description associated with these files seems a bit promotional. Let me quote it for you:
This object is part of "Scan The World". Scan the World is a non-profit initiative introduced by MyMiniFactory, through which we are creating a digital archive of fully 3D printable sculptures, artworks and landmarks from across the globe for the public to access for free. Scan the World is an open source, community effort, if you have interesting items around you and would like to contribute, email stw@myminifactory.com to find out how you can help.
While the "Scan the World" initiative may be non-profit, MyMiniFactory certainly is not.
As you probably don't know what I am talking about, here is an example File:Burj Khalifa.stl. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I would say that moderate self-promotion is not nearly as problematic as the lack of an actual description and any categories that aren't simply about themselves and the technical nature of the file.
I would not discourage them from uploading, but I would feel perfectly free to overwrite the so-called description. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but "they" (being the company) are not doing the uploads. User:RuleTheWiki is uploading them and then adding them to Wikipedia articles. It was severe enough that it was brought to WP:COIN. I brought it here as it is obviously outside the purview of a Wikipedia noticeboard. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

(You didn't mention the Wikipedia issue in your original post.) Wikipedia has far more concern with conflict of interest than we do on Commons. Basically, if the image is useful, we don't generally care if it's somewhat self-promotional. The uploader, especially someone uploading third-party work, doesn't have real "ownership" over the description, especially if the description as originally given is not useful. I believe the licenser actually could put a statement like that as part of the required attribution, but it appears they haven't, so we can just overwrite it with a useful description. The problem isn't with the files themselves, it's with the description, right? - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, Jmabel, it is the description which is visible when a thumb of these 3D images is clicked (and it's necessary to click to get the 3D experience). If I had to guess, it was mainly the email address bleeding through that got it reported to COIN. I have already told the uploader they are not obligated to copy the source's description. And at the very least it should describe the file and not be a generic text. Thanks you so much for your feedback. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

As a concession to @AndyTheGrump i have rectified the description for all files that i have uploaded. RuleTheWiki (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@RuleTheWiki: Thanks for updating the description. However, at least File:Burj Khalifa.stl has an unrelated but important issue: it is not compatible with COM:L. The source provided at the file description page only leads to this user/project page. Had it been correctly pointing to [4], it would have been immediately clear that it is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 rather than CC-BY-SA 4.0. That means commercial use is not allowed, which means that per our own rules it's not allowed on Commons. Any chance they can change the license at myminifactory.com? Because otherwise we'd have to delete it ... --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

You'd have to ask @Jonathanbeck because apparently they're the person behind 'Scan The World' and their uploaded objects are under CC-BY-SA, I'm not sure if that's the correct license or the one listed on their user page on MyMiniFactory is the correct one. RuleTheWiki (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I see that File:Burj Khalifa.stl has been nominated for deletion as "Derivative work of the Burj Khalifa; the design is considered copyrighted by its architect(s)." No comment on whether that is valid grounds, though I would note that I'm unsure how the file (relating to a building 2722 ft high) could be the result of a 3D scan -you'd need a helicopter to scan it, which seems rather unlikely for the open-source Scan the World project. More to the point, the issue with licensing seems to apply to other Scan the World files too: both File:Big Ben (detailed).stl and File:Statue of Liberty.stl seem to be marked CC-BY-NC-SA on the MYMiniFactory website, and there may well be more. There may be further legal issues too: I note that File:Scan the World - SMK17 - KAS2036 - David With The Head of Goliath (Donatello).stl, also uploaded by Jonathanbeck has a notice indicating that "the uploader of this file has agreed to the Wikimedia Foundation 3D patent license..." No idea whether such a notice is ever necessary (it might seem unlikely for this file at least, since the object scanned dates to the Renaissance) but the fact that it is there has to be an indication that someone thought it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

NB: I think that patent template may be a default thing you have to agree to when uploading anything .stl. There were some concerns about this when 3D model uploads were enabled, but I can't find the discussion right now ... El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

MediaViews for files on Commons

Just fixed the pageinfo link so that for files we now have a direct link to the statistics. Take a file, click on page information in the left toolbar, scroll to the bottom and you'll find a link to the MediaViews. In my opinion much more interesting than the page views for files. Multichill (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't even know this existed -- El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Update on Nicholas Alahverdian images

Hello everyone. On request of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, we have restored the images previously deleted following a takedown request. For clarity, this affects the following files:

You are welcome to discuss this action at COM:DMCA#Nicholas Alahverdian. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Template Creation

I believe that the creation of templates on Brazilian political party websites that allow the reproduction of their files would be of great help. to make it clear, the parties that allow this are: PSOL [5] and PCB [6]. For me, the main reason for creating these templates is to show that a given site follows the Wikipedia Attribution Licenses, also because the sites belong to parties that are registered with the TSE. And with that, officially becoming a party.

Something that also makes me make this request is that images of logos, images of party affiliates and other images involving parties are uploaded here, but there is no notice that can be included about image licenses.

An asterisk, if the creation of these templates is implemented, I would also like to mention the sites of the PSOL deputies, since they adhere to the Creative Commons License by-sa 3.0 BR, which is compatible with Wikipedia. [7], [8] and [9] Luiz79 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk to the Community Tech

Hello

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 19 January (Wednesday), 18:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. This external system is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy. Click here to join.

Agenda

Bring drafts of your proposals and talk to to a member of the Community Tech Team about your questions on how to improve the proposal

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, Spanish, and German. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the Community Wishlist Survey talk page or send to sgrabarczuk@wikimedia.org.

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

Join online
Meeting ID: 85804347114
Dial by your location

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Question regarding DR transclusions

Hello!

When a DR is created at the same page as a previous DR a problem arises. The current DR gets shown at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/YYYY/MM/DD and the previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/YYYY/MM/DD. This is of course because the entire DR page is transcluded onto both the current and archive DR page. When the second is closed both DRs will bo shown on their respective archive page. Is there anyway to fix this? Something like a partial transclusion?Jonteemil (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jonteemil: Hi. The software doesn't support partial transclusion to both pages. Noincluding any closed section would unfairly remove it from display in the archive(s). We are used to seeing the history of DRs of a page (or a mass of pages) when it is renominated for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

An easy technical solution would be to automatically create second (2nd, or third) pages when nominating the file for deletion (again), for example "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious file.whatev" and then "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious file.whatev/2nd nomination" and that only the second nomination is transcluded in the current list of DR's, second pages can easily be added to talk pages using "Kept2", "Kept3", "Kept4", "Kept5", Etc. for every nomination. The first DR would automatically be "noincluded" but visible when visiting the DR page itself. Since the software can already see if a page had earlier been nominated for deletion I don't think that such a solution would be technically difficult. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: I'm confused, where would you noinclude what, exactly? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

It looked quite clear in my head but I can see why it might not have translated well into text, as an illustration it would look like this:

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude ==

Original deletion nomination. (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

Then a second (2nd) nomination

== <noinclude>File:Dubious image.whateverdude</noinclude> ==

<noinclude>Original deletion nomination.</noinclude> (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022, not at 30-05-2023.)

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude (2nd nomination) ==

2nd (second) nomination (only transcluded at 30-05-2023.)

Now because the second (2nd) page is a sub-page of the first (1rst) page it will change to:

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude ==

Original deletion nomination. (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

<noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious image.whateverdude (2nd nomination)}}</noinclude> (Not transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

And because the first (1st) page is already the original it is easily accessed through subsequent nominations. It is really simple and all edit buttons will remain visible and will bring you to the relevant page, the original page will be transcluded on subsequent pages but not in general deletion request lists. I hope that I've now managed to explain it clearly. So the 2nd nomination page has "<noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious image.whateverdude}}</noinclude>" at the top. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , it would work probably like these concept pages, I changed the "== Exmaple.jpg ==" to "; == Example.jpg ==" to not break this page.

This deletion discussion is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

== File:Example.jpg ==

Example of a good argument as to why this image should be deleted. --Not Donald Trung 『不是徵國單』 (Probably some Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep, an even better argument why this image should be kept. --Also not Donald Trung 『也不是徵國單』 (Definitely Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Kept: Per "User:Also not Donald Trung". --Mrs. Sysop 『管理員』 (Discuss my actions 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

== File:Example.jpg (2nd nomination) ==

I believe that this image should be deleted because of (insert argument here). --Someone that really doesn't like this file『刪除宣導者』 (Come talk to me, if you dare! 🤬💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Delete, per nominator. --Sick of example images『我不喜歡』 (Doesn't follow the news 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Both of these pages are transcluding each other, but could be transcluded separately. Neither page would show up in the other's DR list, so old discussions would only be visible where they are relevant. This would require so little changes that I think that the software could automatically make this a thing for new DR's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Both of these pages are transcluding each other, but could be transcluded separately. Neither page would show up in the other's DR list, so old discussions would only be visible where they are relevant. If this is correct I guess it's good. It's too bad that you have to create a new page each DR, eventhough it will be transcluded to the old one, but I guess this is a good solution as is possible. I think the new DRs should be transcluded onto the first one rather than vice versa though.Jonteemil (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

In the above proposed system users wouldn't have to do anything, the software automatically detects if a current DR for the image or group of images exists and automatically makes a sub-page that transclude the first (1st) and / or any prior deletion discussions, the "Nominate for deletion" button would do all the work and the end user would see no difference, other than that daily lists of DR's aren't cluttered with long gone old discussions only relevant to the current discussion.

Theoretically I also want Undeletion Requests (UDR's / UnDR's) to link "See also's" to prior deletion discussions, but that would require them to also have their own sub-pages, which despite already being approved by the community doesn't have a bot doing it. So even if there is consensus for a change someone with the technical know-how needs to implement it. The above would most likely just be an uncontroversial maintenance change, but if nobody who can do it will do it it will simply remain a proposal. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Significant

Hi! I raised a question at Commons talk:Project scope/Precautionary principle about what the word "significant" mean. "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." So as I understand it we should not delete files just because there is a small risk that a file is not free. The risk has to be significant. Question is how much significant is. Since the Precautionary principle is important I think it would be fair to make a post here as informatin. --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a subjective word and different admins interpret it differently. Admin A: "Just because a file is a hundred years old with no listed author doesn't mean that it's in the public domain.", Admin B: "This file is over a century old by an unknown and/or anonymous author, it's unlikely to still be copyrighted." And both admins are right. The word probably just keeps the people that think that any suspicion is bad at bay, for example "This file has no metadata it must be copyrighted" despite scanners not always recording metadata and many image editors removing them or people removing them for privacy reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Donald Trung and think there will be always some room for interpretation; we will not be able to achieve full consistency in decisions based on PRP. It should, however, prevent deletions based on mere suspicion without real base. The "no metadata" issue is a good example. Often, people nominate current "own work" images for deletion because the resolution is small and there is no metadata; this can be reasonable grounds for suspicion and for a deletion request indeed (often, such images are taken from somewhere on the web), but doesn't mean automatic deletion - we first have to check whether there is anything to confirm that suspicion, as it's absolutely allowed to upload your own images in lower resolution and Exif is not mandatory. Personally, in such cases, if I don't find any web source for the image with reverse image search tools such as Tineye and Google Images, and the uploader is otherwise in good standing (not known e.g. for mass copyright violations), I tend to keep such images. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

On a related topic of due diligence before nomination: When new uploaders participate, they tend to choose the default settings because our instructions are ambiguous. When you ask for the date, they choose the date of uploading, rather than the date of creation. They also choose own_work, because they think you are asking who scanned it, or who uploaded it. We can fix these things with a little research, sometimes the correct information is in the filename. Before people nominate them for deletion, they should do some minimal due diligence to see if they can fix errors. I see so many deletion nominations because a scan isn't "own work" or the the image wasn't taken on today's date, despite all the correct information in the filename or at the linked source. There are at least a dozen public domain images nominated in the past two days whose only crime was the uploader ticking the box "own work" for a scanned image. See for instance Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Cadgepole and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hemen Gupta.jpg --RAN (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrongly categorized photos at Category:Commodores

The category has a blend of one group and another group using the same name. One group is an American R&B; the other is some sort of military orchestral band (or something like that). I don't know who's interested in such cleanup... or suggestions. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The correct cat would be Category:Navy Commodores, a cat, that already exists, but I don't know how a bot could possibly solve that, it's probably a task for humans. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Been there, done that

It was as well two commodores of the US Navy, also in two sub-cats. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. I've also requested a move on the category, ensuring that something like this doesn't happen again. George Ho (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Where will this be discussed? The correct name for the cat would be Category:The Commodores, not some weird stuff with long brackets. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I went to the category and found a small handful of photos from a rinky-dink concert held well after the group's prime. It suggested to me that this yet another category created solely to support a Wikidata infobox. As for any confusion, adding explanatory text and/or hatnotes to the category page worked just fine for years and years. Is there a reason why people refuse to do that anymore?RadioKAOS (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrong preview of PDF pages

Hello everyone, the preview of pages of File:Grammatica Germanicae Linguae.pdf consists of a lot of white space. Does anyone know what the problem of this file is? Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I hate when people scan the entire scanner bed and do not use the preview feature to set the scan boundary. This is the first I have seen it compiled into a pdf, usually after one page you notice the error and set the scan boundary. --RAN (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

RAN, but why within the PDF all looks fine? --Arnd (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Films of France

When does a film enter the public domain in France? There is no specific mention of films in our copyright page for France. If it is considered a collective work, who is part of the collective? Would that include everyone listed in the credits? --RAN (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): In France, films enter into the public domain 70 years after the author's death (usually the director, but other people involved may need to be taken into consideration, when they gave special artistic input). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --RAN (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Audio recording from Gallica

Hi, Does anyone know how to get the audio recording from Gallica (French National Library)? As usual, everything is done so that we can listen, but we can't download them. :(( However some are undoubtedly in the public domain in France and in USA, so OK for Commons, e.g. [10] ; publication date: 1907, composer: Umberto Giordano (1867-1948), lyric artist: Giuseppe Armanini (1874-1915). Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: I think I figured it out, though I didn't test it on other entries. Just drop the parameters from the URL and append '/f2.audio'. e.g. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1080412z.r=fonotipiaphonotypie?rk=21459;2 becomes https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1080412z/f2.audio. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann and BMacZero: Please mind that this is originally an Italian recording, so you could use {{PD-Italy-audio}}. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Alsdorf steam activity

I scanned several 1986 slides of a working steam locomotive at Anna coke plant by Alsdorf. (Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 1.jpg to Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 6.jpg). The location is close to Category:Bahnhof Alsdorf-Annapark but clearly an other subject. Some new categories are needed for the 'Coke plant', the industrial rail operator and locomotive type.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: There is Category:Grube Anna for the general mine business, and the locomotive is a Category:Henschel D 600. De728631 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I created Category:Anna coke plant because all of these show parts of the coke facility too. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Customizable image data for geographical maps

Sorry if this is off-topic here. I’m looking for ready-to-use but customizable image data that can be used to build your own maps. In particular this would be (SVG?) contours of countries (or regions within the countries) together with coordinate data where labels should be placed and probably other coordinate data for correctly placing the contours next to each other. (Ideally data that can also be used with LaTeX/TikZ, or that could be converted without too much effort.) Is there something like this available on Wikimedia Commons? I’d expect such data to be somewhere since many people are creating maps with all kinds of data for Commons; I’ve had a look at Commons:Map resources and think that contours may be available from (some? of) the SVGs at Commons:Map resources/Blank location maps, but I’m missing how I could get the corresponding coordinate information. Also the online tools linked there don’t seem to provide such data, they just let you create a map online and download an image file. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:6C3E:7981:B6EC:318B 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect you might find someone at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop who knows more about this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

As you've already found out, image files don't normally carry coordinates to locate them. The "proper" way to do this is using en:Geodata (vector data of country outlines, in your case). Natural Earth is a good starting point for that, and it's all Public Domain (some of that is available at Commons in the Data: namespace, but it's difficult to find and use). In order to handle that data and turn it into a map, you'll need a Geographic Information System. en:QGIS is a great GUI-based option, but there are alternatives. It takes a bit of learning to get into this whole thing, but if you're into making maps it opens up entire new worlds. And it's really not difficult at all once you've got the basics down. Whether that still counts as "ready to use" is another question ... --El Grafo (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn’t know about Natural Earth and for the moment it seems to be indeed very close to what I was looking for. Thank you very much! I’ve downloaded the 1:100 Cultural Vectors set and managed to read in the shapes and attributes file, so I’m quite confident this will do for me. Yes, further digging into the matter will take some time I think… --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:8A8:D58:68EF:5C0 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Awesome, good luck with that! --El Grafo (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 7th February 2022. (continue reading)
Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Accidental duplication (more or less) of a file

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#File:Prangs_Valentine_Cards2.jpg - Just complicated enough that it's probably best to discuss before acting. Basically, a badly documented set of files led to a JPEG getting generated off a TIFF...which already had a JPEG version, and now both JPEGs, differing only in the settings chosen when converting to JPEG, are FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Somebody has some catalogues raisonnè published by '24 Ore cultura' during 1996-97 in the series 'Cataloghi ragionati artisti '800 lombardo'?

Somebody has some catalogues raisonnè published by '24 Ore cultura' during 1996-97 in the series 'Cataloghi ragionati artisti '800 Lombardo'?

I don't want to publish them because are still on copyright but I want to use them for improving existing pages of painters, creating a page gallery for the catalogue, and also improving some existing paintings Infos. Some examples of how the cover appears are here.

The artists in the series are one by book, six in totalː Mosè Bianchi (1996), Giovanni Carnovali detto «Il Piccio» (1996), Tranquillo Cremona (1996), Francesco Hayez (1996), Emilio Longoni (1996) and Pompeo Mariani (1997). If you even have only one of them I will be happy to work together to improve the artist in question.

P.sːEven if you have other catalogues raisonnè by Italian artists of the 19th century feel free to contact meǃ.

Thanks for your timeǃ, Niketto sr. (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

WCQS beta 2 release on 1 Feb 2022

Hi all, this is a reminder that the next major Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS) release, WCQS beta 2, will be on 1 Feb 2022. Please see here for more details. Thanks! MPham (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

File:Port d'Ancône depuis San Ciriaco (Petit, 1903).jpg

I found File:Port d'Ancône depuis San Ciriaco (Petit, 1903).jpg looking for files without a license. I was able to find [11], which identified the date and location of creation. I can't decide if "Petit" is the name of an individual photographer or the name of a studio. The collection entry is not any more helpful. Some searching found w:Pierre Petit (photographer) with the right name and lifespan, but he seems to be more of a portrait artist. Can anyone else find anything? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we tend to store more portrait photography leading to some bias. People prefer loading contemporary images of locations, but we need historic images of people for identification. I love how the French government website adds a rote copyright notice to each image, no matter what the actual copyright status is. Another good example of Copyfraud. The image was taken in Italy which only awards 20 years of copyright protection for images taken in Italy. --RAN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Good point, I had forgotten about {{PD-Italy}}. Thanks! --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Creator template should contain the valid license

Does anyone else think that the Creator template should contain the copyright information? Currently we store that information at Wikidata. For instance at Ansel Adams (Q60809) we have "copyright status as a creator=works protected by copyrights [in] countries with 50 years pma or longer". See: Creator:Ansel Adams where we display things like VIAF and other Identifiers, less of interest. Couldn't we have "Works protected by copyrights in countries with 50 years pma or longer" appear as the bottom line of the template? I would save clicking through to Wikidata from Commons to see what the status is. It would just require pulling the information from Wikidata, and would be updated when Wikidata gets updated. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the Wikidata modelling of copyright is very sophisticated at the moment and replicating it in a limited template form has the potential to cause greater confusion. For example, the Wikidata information you cite gives copyright based on a person's death but does not model whether the creator had works published in multiple jurisdictions (with separate copyright rules) or if they produced works in different media (some countries apply different durations of copyright or no copyright at all for some types of media) or if they worked for an employer who may have obtained the copyright and released it under a different term (for example, the works of government employees in many jurisdictions become PD much sooner than private creations). I don't think the data is available on Wikidata to map all of that yet and I can't think of a good way to represent it in the Creator template that doesn't expand it exponentially from its current form. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

security feature

There is a special overhead structure to protect the railway from falling electricity wires. How can this be classified?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:16, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest placing it in Category:Rail safety infrastructure or a subcategory. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:19, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

How about Category:Overhead line supports? I once created a category containing this name. Overhead line gantries are similar, but the fact is not all overhead line supports are of truss structures. --トトト (talk) 15:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Category:Rail safety infrastructure. There might be a further category for this type of temporary protection for overhead power lines (they're put in place when cables are being replaced above critical infrastructure such as roads). They're not railway infrastructure as such (at least not permanent), certainly not part of the (railway) overhead line equipment. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Scope: academic articles

I believe academic articles published in peer-reviewed journals such as this one are in Commons scope. Is this correct? 4nn1l2 (talk) 20:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: Yes, I have personally uploaded dozens. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@4nn1l2: To clarify: I could not load the web page you linked, but just to be clear, articles are in scope as such, but must be properly licensed, of course. E.g. the upload I just made is licensed CC BY 4.0. So as long as it has the proper license and meets a few other criteria, then yes, it's appropriate for Commons. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Dont understand the message

Hi, I don't understand this message "Warning: Default sort key "Tabery, Marta" overrides earlier default sort key "Taberyová, Marta"." If I look at the source code of the category, the default sort is correct. What is the point of this message? --Juandev (talk) 10:56, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If one were to remove the {{Wikidata Infobox}} the message disappears, so it looks like it's doing something strange. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:59, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Juandev: The problem is that you cannot sort something two ways: you must choose one sort key (at maximum). In this instance, because the category includes {{Wikidata Infobox}} and that template uses information from d:Q64850421 in order to make a local sortkey that you cannot see in the code of the category, when you insert a second, local sortkey here, it conflicts with the initial one imported from Wikidata. The solution is to remove the local one and make sure that the data about the person's surname and personal name are correct at Wikidata. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:00, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

And to elaborate, d:Q37238554, is about the surname "Tabery", which is also known as "Taberyová" in Czech (but curiously, not in Slovak). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 11:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

.MP4 (again)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T258540

Back in 2019 there were several proposals to make uploading video files to the Wikimedia Commons easier (see above), among these was the proposal to allow MP4 (.mp4) files which was approved with 15 (fifteen) people voicing Support and a lone person voicing Oppose. However, despite there seemingly being concensus to allow the uploading of MP4 format files the MediaWiki Upload Wizard still doesn't allow them. This seems like a minor technical switch that can simply be turned on, right?

I found a treasure trove of video's over a century old on Google's YouTube streaming service, often by people who have been dead for almost a century, but importing these to the Wikimedia Commons ain't as easy as simply downloading it from there and then uploading it here. Format support is necessary to have an open platform anyone can contribute to. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

For context, all films issued during the Nguyễn Dynasty period in Vietnamese history are in the public domain, but using the Video2Commons software to import those here usually means having to wait like 4 (four) or 5 (five) hours before the file is uploaded. This system stops even passionate people from taking on video uploading projects, let alone noobs (novice users). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that the way video2commons works? Isn't it possible to start v2c, then go back, start the next v2c process, then go back etc - then check the next day in the own uploads if all files succeeded? --C.Suthorn (talk) 22:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think so, as I fell asleep with my last video, but you can't categorise the video in Video2Commons. But the current exclusion of .mp4 files also disincentivises new uploads as many users don't know about the other systems to upload. (As was expressed in the previous debate.). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Uploaded PNG previews of SVG files: delete or?

what should be done when someone uploads PNG previews of SVG files? for example, File:Screenshot (167).png.

my impression of past experiences is that all these files would be deleted. RZuo (talk) 13:50, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

@RZuo:

Foregone deletion would violate policy. See COM:Redundant which states identical images using differing file types are considered for deletion on a case-by-case basis.

In this case, the PNG file is in use. I suspect that usage may be replaced with the SVG, and then a DR might succeed. The PNG has been around since Nov 2018, so I could see opposing a DR merely to preserve any external links that may have been made in the last 3 years. Several times I have followed links to Commons files only to discover the file has been deleted.

PNG versions can have a purpose. Sometimes a PNG of an SVG will be uploaded to illustrate rendering errors. WMF uses librsvg, and it commits several rendering errors. Such a PNG might be used in a talk page to describe the bug, so replacing that PNG with the SVG may be inappropriate. For example, some SVG rendering bugs have been fixed, so the SVG file would no longer show the rendering error. The PNG would be in use and not subject to deletion.

Glrx (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I prefer saving the png, in many cases where a coat-of-arms is in svg, and is derived from the png, there have been small detail changes in color and in the choices of lions and eagles taken from stock svg files. This has been leading to drift away from the original in subtle ways. --RAN (talk) 03:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
the case here is, the PNG is uploaded after the SVG.

someone sees an SVG. out of the blue they download/screenshot the PNG previews generated from the SVG (those links underneath the pic on file pages), and then upload that PNG on commons.

it's NOT "PNG versions that have a purpose". and it's NOT "svg derived from the png". it's plain junk uploaded by some clueless users. RZuo (talk) 09:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Unused PNG previews should be speedy deleted IMO (no DR needed). — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

PDF with password

Hi, Any idea how to remove the password in File:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi, Vol-001.pdf? Thanks, Yann (talk) 22:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: I uploaded the "PDF with text" version from archive.org. This has two benefits: it is not password-protected and it comes with searchable text instead of having scanned images on each page. Now there's still the URAA issue left though. De728631 (talk) 23:16, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@De728631: Your version still has a problem, but I found another version without a password. The URAA issue is only for this edition, as this was previously published in small parts. Thanks, Yann (talk) 23:30, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

@Yann: If you have access to Acrobat DC, this can be done with that program. Otherwise, there are some fly-by-nite websites that will unlock PDFs for you and allow you to download the new versions. I would only use these if you have some solid ad-blockers in your browser and as long as you only upload documents that are not sensitive (who knows what these guys do with your uploaded PDFs???). Let me know if you need more help. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:53, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I tried with Adobe Acrobat DC Pro, but I still can't remove the password. Yann (talk) 13:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I found an easy way: open with Google Drive, print as PDF, enjoy! Yann (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Holocaust survivors classed as "freight"

I have twice reverted User:Wefrewe at File:Mother and daughter liberated from Bergen-Belsen train - 1945-04 - Clarence L. Benjamin.jpg, for their instance (per edit summary) in classifying holocaust survivors as "freight". I trust I shall not need to do so again. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

These carriages are called "Güterwagen" in German ("goederenwagon" in Dutch) and that translates to freight trains in English. So this is not about the people riding it, but the type of train used.

The inhumanity of transporting people like in freight trains is quite well documented. Looks like a case of lost in translation. Multichill (talk) 18:03, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Güterwagen translates as "freight wagons", not "freight trains". The vehicles may be freight wagons; that does not make the people freight, in any language. The edit summary I quoted (in full: "These people are freight for German") was made in English. For shame.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have again removed their classification as freight. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

what's your point? they were transported in german freight trains, do you refute that?🙄--RZuo (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Andy, are you really language shaming another user for not speaking proper English? And yes, these people were transported in freight trains so Category:Freight trains in Germany is correct. Multichill (talk) 21:10, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

No. And please keep your nasty insinuations about me to yourslef, as I have asked you previously, and on more than one occasion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

this whole thing seems like a storm in a teacup, but i suspect it's a case of overcat anyway, the file is already in Category:Holocaust trains shouldn't that category be in the relevant parent cats? Oxyman (talk) 21:05, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Desktop Improvements update and Office Hours invitation

Hello. I wanted to give you an update about the Desktop Improvements project, which the Wikimedia Foundation Web team has been working on for the past few years.

The goals of the project are to make the interface more welcoming and comfortable for readers and useful for advanced users. The project consists of a series of feature improvements which make it easier to read and learn, navigate within the page, search, switch between languages, use article tabs and the user menu, and more.

The improvements are already visible by default for readers and editors on 24 wikis, including Wikipedias in French, Portuguese, and Persian.

The changes apply to the Vector skin only. Monobook or Timeless users are not affected.

Features deployed since our last update

User menu - focused on making the navigation more intuitive by visually highlighting the structure of user links and their purpose.
Sticky header - focused on allowing access to important functionality (logging in/out, history, talk pages, etc.) without requiring people to scroll to the top of the page.

For a full list of the features the project includes, please visit our project page. We also invite you to our Updates page.

The features deployed already and the table of contents that's currently under development

How to enable the improvements

Global preferences

It is possible to opt-in individually in the appearance tab within the preferences by unchecking the "Use Legacy Vector" box. (It has to be empty.) Also, it is possible to opt-in on all wikis using the global preferences.
If you think this would be good as a default for all readers and editors of this wiki, feel free to start a conversation with the community and contact me.
On wikis where the changes are visible by default for all, logged-in users can always opt-out to the Legacy Vector. There is an easily accessible link in the sidebar of the new Vector.

Learn more and join our events

If you would like to follow the progress of our project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

You can read the pages of the project, check our FAQ, write on the project talk page, and join an online meeting with us (27 January (Thursday), 15:00 UTC).

How to join our online meeting

Join online
Meeting ID: 89205402895
Dial by your location

Thank you!!

On behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation Web team, SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 22:11, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah. I had been wondering where these awful changes were coming from. I am glad there is an opt out feature. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:26, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, these changes have made interwiki navigation more difficult, thankfully the English-language Wikipedia doesn't use them now, but when I went to the French-language Wikipedia and Vietnamese-language WIkipedia I couldn't find language links anymore, only a box that they were "moved up" where I oddly found an ugly mobile-looking minimalistic interface. As someone who almost exclusively edits from a mobile device I would like to see the Mobile interface be more like the desktop interface, not vice versa. I already feel bad for the people that will join Wikimedia websites after these changes have been made standard. In the past few years I've seen several calls by people to make the GUI of Wikimedia websites "more minimalistic" because it currently looks "nostalgic", rather than seeing the current GUI as "a relic of the past" it is good to look at it as being more practical and easy to navigate while other websites have been updated to "hide" everything away in order to not clutter the interface for small screen users (PDA's, PDA phones, smartphones, iPhones, Tablets, Etc.), but we already have a separate mobile interface for smaller screens, I know that complaining about it won't actually change it and for me I won't see these changes because I opted out, but I don't see a practical reason why these changes were implemented as I don't see them actually improving "the desktop experience" for people. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Doubts with the categorization of pastures and grasslands

I have been trying to categorize images of agricultural and livestock areas and I am getting confused especially with the categories: pasture, meadow and field. Can someone help me with this?

How would you classify the following photographs?

Private fenced farm that is used by grazing with cattle. ¿pasture or meadow?
Fenced private farm that is mowed. ¿pasture or meadow?
Communal or state-owned land where cattle are usually herded in summer. ¿Mountain pastures, meadow or field?
Private arable farms generally cultivated with cereals such as wheat, corn, etc. ¿farmland or Grain fields?

Juenti el toju (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Pasture, not likely to be used for hay production. (short grass) Enclosure is active (with wires) and is used to restrict cattle. Enclosures along public roads are for restricting acces to the public, not necessarily cattle management.
2. Meadow: Clearly used for hay production. (long grass) Can also used for pasture, if cattle are in the picture
3. Pasture. no enclosure and can only be used for seasonal pasture. With cattle it is obvious.
4. Grain fields are a subclass of farmlands. In this picture the crop has been cut. Certainly not a other crops (potato, beet, salat, etc) leaving raw earth.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Author

Is the author field always meant to contain the name of a human (except that case where the monkey took a photo) or can it contain the name of a photo studio? if the image is attributed to a studio rather than a person, should that be in the Source field? I have seen both, but I remember seeing in a discussion that it was only meant for the name of a human, so that a death date can be ascertained. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The author field can be used to attribute a work to something other than a specific person. The {{Creator}} template supports "workshop of", "circle of", "school of", "studio of", etc. In fact, the legal author of a work is not always a human, some jurisdictions support "work for hire" or corporate authorship. Under US copyright law when a work is made as a work for hire the author is not the individual who actually created the work, instead the entity that hired the individual is considered the author, and thus a corporation can be the legal author (see U.S. Copyright Office Circular 30). So, at least in the US, it is possible for a photo studio to be the legal author of the photos made by their employees. The chart at Commons:Hirtle chart shows how corporate authorship can affect copyright duration in the US. Some jurisdictions, particularly civil law jurisdictions such as France, have nothing like work for hire or corporate authorship, although under French law a corporation can be considered the author of a collective work if the corporation directs the creation of a collective work where the personal contribution of multiple authors is merged into the overall work and it is not possible to separate the work into pieces that can be individually attributed to the contributors. —RP88 (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, cogently answered! --RAN (talk) 06:27, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Assistance would be useful.

I'd like to swap out any usage of User:Adam Cuerden in the author field of {{Information}} for Creator:Adam Cuerden, specifically because the Creator template allows me to handle some things related to British grants of copyright a bit more elegantly (You'll note I included a statement in it making the release, insofar as necessary, explicit. Anyone up for some botwork? It shouldn't cause any problems other than minor visual display ones in rare cases. Alternatively, I could try to update probably 1,000 files by hand, but I really don't want to. {{Artwork}} is much more finicky, so it's probably best to output that as a list instead for hand revision. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@Adam Cuerden:

Done. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

HotCat bugs

Hi, I'd like to report two bugs I often encounter when using HotCat:

First, MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Cursor_jumping_to_the_end, this one here is unresolved and has already some more input and thoughts about it than what I can give here, so please check out what Nikki wrote about it.

Second, there is an annoying tendency to change and then drop user-input categories, seemingly at random. Upon confirming the new HotCategorized categories with the "Save" button, it may happen that one of the new categories gets exchanged for another new category; which then leads subsequently to dropping the one that gets changed in the Edit dialog. This may or may not have something to do with the editing line still open (it gets closed automatically when you use the Save button). This bug has plagued me for months, but I couldn't reproduce it until today, in the case of the attached screenshot-series. Sorry that I cannot provide any technical insight into the problem. --Enyavar (talk) 14:18, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Is this allowed? (almost 24.000 renames in 24 hours)

See here: to make a sort of set, Gaegae did almost 24.000 renames in one day [12]. I can't figure out if this is just right, or it is abuse of the file mover rights? - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:34, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

For me these mass moves are not covered by the COM:RENAME guidelines. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I thought, too. I can ask it themselves, but they are from Israel. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

These files are files that should upload by me with COM:Pattypan tool. But the tool is broken. See the last 5 posts in Commons talk:Pattypan. So User Matanya helped me and uploaded the file using different method. But the files uploaded without "(" ")". So that should be harmonize to further exam. The files renamed (did not finnished yet) in a compliance with COM:RENAME guidelines option 4: "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs." and the edit summery says: "4. harmonize the names of a set of images". -- Geagea (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

it also says: "Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons’ upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists."

which scenario do you think applies? --Isderion (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a part of a set as the set is File:....(997....).jpg. The last part is the set. You may consider them as mu own uploads if you wish. -- Geagea (talk) 19:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

@Geagea: I think these renames are probably justified under criterion 1 (original uploader requested), since even if they were uploaded under a different account they were uploaded on your behalf. However, I don't think they would have been justified under criterion 4. The footnote for criterion 4 only specifies two narrow cases. The first is where an external system (complex templates and Wikisource are mentioned) requires a particular naming scheme. The other is where a single source (such as a large book) has been split into pieces for loading onto Commons. Neither of those obviously applies here. I also notice that your new names don't have ')' characters in them. I do hope you haven't renamed 24,000 files to the wrong names! --bjh21 (talk) 19:33, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

A. truth, they have only '(' and the ')' will follow.

B. I do think that the last parts of the names are set. Not because the are in the same category but because I named them. I am trying to handle this large uplod after frustration from Pattypan tool. So please be helpfull. If you have another method to do the rename I'll be glad to hear. If yoy think that criterion 1 (original uploader requested) is better, it's fine with me. Matanya, can you comment her. -- Geagea (talk) 19:51, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I really don't mind what you name the files, the only reason I am the uploader is pattypan's shortcomings. matanya • talk 20:42, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

in no way is a rename by adding only brackets (and here only the left brackets) for 20k files justified in any way. such "harmonisation" is a waste of resources.

file mover right would be immediately revoked for such careless and inappropriate use... but this is a sysop... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ --RZuo (talk) 19:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't matter if he is an admin. It's no play-tool. Everybody makes mistakes, but this is not good. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)←

My take is this: Just because you're the uploader doesn't mean you get to make nonsensical renames and I point blank refuse any renames that don't make any sort of sense irrespective of who's the uploader. Now all that being said Geagea has since stated "they have only '(' and the ')' will follow." which I'm fine with however I don't understand why they couldn't of added both brackets in the same rename as the names now look ridiculous and nonsensical.

As a way forward IMHO Geage should immediately stop mass renaming for the sake of one bracket and should add both brackets in the same rename (they however may add the other bracket to the names first), If they cannot do that they should be desysopped. (As per this reply the filemover right cannot be revoked from admins). –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

if i counted correctly, User:NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh has just done 568 moves to add only "()". RZuo (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

See COM:VPT NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh 06:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Too many licenses?

I've found this file (and its derivatives):

I'm not sure about all these licenses – is it correct to pile on 10+ licenses to cover the sources?
Specifically, the {{PD-CzechGov}} template surely doesn't cover data provided by government agecies (it's designated only for the official works such as flags or laws.). Therefore it's inappropriate to use this license for this file. I know very little about copyright/copyleft rules in other countries than Czechia, but there could appear the same problem.

— Draceane ^talk_contrib. 21:31, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

With so many sources this could be possible, but not only the Czechia licenses are wrong, the German is too. I did not checked the data itself for all cases but is has to be {{GeoNutzV}}, {{Data license Germany-attribution-2.0}} or {{Data license Germany-Zero-2.0}}. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:59, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Rhine flood 1987?

I got eigth pictures of a floot on the Rhine. On slide film was developed in januari 1987 (1-4), the other with the same type of subject on march 1987(5-8). (see Category:Rhine floods by year) I tried to find on internet a more precise dat for the flood, but could not find anything for the year 1986 or 1987. There must some German documentation of all the floods on the Rhine.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:20, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

It does not appear to have been any major flood in 1987 and the photos indeed do not show any significant flooding. Ruslik (talk) 12:17, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Are you totally sure about the dating of the photos? There are reports about a flood (Hochwasser) of the rhine in 1987 in Austria and Switzerland. For 1986 there are documents about a flood in Bonn[13], which is just across the rhine river from Königswinter. --Túrelio (talk) 16:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The flood in Bonn is to early. The pictures are are taken in the winter (no leaves). It could be december or november 1986, but certainly not earlier. In the dark winter period I dont take many pictures, I could take two months to fill a 36 pictures film but no longer. As the next film is developed in march, the pictures must be at the end of first film. I suspect it is a minor flooding, wich would happen quite often in Köningswinter along the riverfront.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:21, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Redesigning the file page ?

Anyone else feel like the file page needs a major redo ? Things I'd like to see:

Horizontally center the image
max-height and max-width the image to fit within the viewport and resize it based on browser viewport size
Add some visual bordering of the image area. Possibly just dark gray ? Might be too strong.
Remove the old Stockphoto Gadget (which I helped develop once)
Add a new 'file toolbar' directly under each image (but above 'Original file'-line).
Add 'share', 'download'/other resolutions and 'use' buttons into this toolbar, to replace stock photo gadget and make it part of core
Move things like media viewer, 'rotate', panoramaviewer and other gadgets into this 'file toolbar'.
Move file history into another tab, next to file information/structured data
Move file usage into another tab, next to file information/structured data
After all that is done, there is also a lot of work to be done around the file information and file license templates and logic, but that is far more complicated I think.

What are your thoughts on the file page design ? What would you like to see ? I'm just trying to gauge what ppl think, and if it is worth my time to mock up some things using a gadget. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:58, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

@TheDJ: What is the goal here?
Also, when you say "File history" do you just mean the upload history? What is the advantage of "hiding" that behind a tab, rather than it always being easy to see just by scrolling? (Similarly for usage.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel here. While some of these suggestions have definite merit, I don't see the point of hiding elements behind tabs. Are you worried about page length for some reason? Also, I would suggest the max-height/-width thing be optional, as some folks may still wish to limit bandwidth usage. The hardware folks may also take umbrage with the idea, since it would (I imagine) mean each image would have to be re-rendered server-side to the desired resolution often with each view request. — Huntster (t @ c) 17:15, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

goals:

More focus on the image, in more skins and on more devices.
Get rid of stockphoto, which just screams 2009 and hasn't been maintained in years
Cleanup the area directly under the image, which is cluttered with all kinds of tools/gadgets and give each of them a proper home in a visually consistent way.
Move things that no one but editors use out of sight for normal users. On a side note, the file/upload history is also problematic for google. Google images often features thumbnails from the history instead of the primary image in their image results. I haven't really figured out why. Anyway, virtually no one but editors/curators need this/cares about this.
Overall, I want something that feels like it is about the image and what to do with it, instead of being a data dump ground. MediaWiki being a terrible image repository/host is one of the most frequent complaints I hear from non-Wikimedians. You only have to look once at a flick page to realize it could be so much better (no matter how much they f'ed up their business model)

@Huntster

"hiding elements behind tabs" well, maybe it won't be for some users, maybe there'll be a toggle, maybe its based on usergroups or maybe I'll just collapse some of it. No idea exactly, other than that 99% of visitors shouldn't be confused with this extra 'internal' information.
"as some folks may still wish to limit bandwidth usage" It has nothing to do with bandwith. It will be the same image there is now, it will just resize/become smaller where required.
"each image would have to be re-rendered server-side to the desired resolution often with each view request" No, that isn't the plan.

Anyway, they are some ideas, and I think that after 14 years of standing still it is time we make some improvements, I feel more pain for having ever helped to have make StockPhoto gadget a reality every single day. And some of these things would be rather simple to implement if we put our minds to it (and i can bring it serverside eventually). —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you make concept images of these ideas? I am not so sure if we should make the default interface more "consumer oriented" rather than "producer oriented" (not sure how else to differentiate between editors and non-editors), I have thought that the general layout of file pages can use improvements for years, but I like the idea of adding a "toolbar" and in general #6 seems like a good improvement. In fact, something like Microsoft's Ribbon interface might be wise to emulate. Though I'm not a fan of making the images bigger, though I could change my mind on it if the changes don't really break the editing interface for mobile users and the other options actually make it more "user-friendly". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"Could you make concept images of these ideas?" I'm not good with photoshop, that's why i wanna make a gadget. But that is gonna take some time, so before i sink my precious time into this, a round of input. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

TheDJ, 1) Perhaps there is a better way of sectioning off the data, but I still advocate leaving everything on the same page. 2 and 3) Unless you're suggesting loading the whole image each time the page is viewed, and then dynamically resizing that, then all the resizing is done server side. Doing that for a majority of page requests will add a significant load to our servers. No, it's not determined *how* large of a load, but I have to imagine it would be other than insignificant. All that said, I completely agree with the idea of revamping how tools, sharing, etc are displayed in a file toolbar. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"then all the resizing is done server side." This is not true. we 'preselect' specific sizes serverside. That doesn't mean it is the only way images ever get sized. I think my 15 years of being a MediaWiki developer give me slightly better insight as to how all of this works. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 23:57, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

It is very good and healthy to periodically bring this up. One thing I recommend is to consider possibly making the difference between uploader and author more apparent. I have uploaded many thousands of images, but am the author of almost none (save for a few restorations or derivative collages). Yet I've seen my user name "credited" outside of Wikimedia for public domain images I've merely uploaded. While this may speak more to the comprehension of reusers than the user-friendliness of Commons, anything that can improve the user end searching, displaying, and reusing process should be considered. On a related note: are there studies, surveys or reports that show how people actually use Commons? I mean besides the gnomes like me and others who volunteer our time to curating and improving the content. I'd hate to think it's a total waste of time, and third party feedback and metrics would allow better allocation of resources. --Animalparty (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

"the difference between uploader and author more apparent" Unfortunately this is very difficult as this distinction is not that well made by the pages themselves. However it is one of the reasons why I think filehistory (or worse, copy pasted import history) is problematic/unclear to most users. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 00:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

And very badly done in the Upload Wizard, which asks who created the file, and says nothing about the work. Then we call people copyviolators, because they "claimed own work" for files they uploaded. I think that should be the place to start making the distinction between author of the original work, author of the derived work (or photo, regardless on whether it is a derived work legally), and the uploader. There may be several layers, so we should be careful with our wording. The information template doesn't make it easy to add this information (you need separate templates such as {{Photo}}, and you need to know how to find them), so some adding of fields or linking good documentation might be needed. –LPfi (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that is a separate problem. Animalparty seems to know what they are doing and the file descriptions they create are correct. Its other ppl that are interpreting them incorrectly. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 12:35, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

In the upload form "Date" could also be better described. For historic photos, new uploaders are confused as to whether you are asking for the date the photo was taken (1930), or the date the photo was scanned (the date in the metadata, 2012, that gets autoloaded), or the date it was uploaded to Commons (2022). I constantly see images nominated for deletion because the nominator is expecting the earliest date, but sees the current date. I also see a lot of nominations for Source=own_work, when someone takes a photo or scan of an artwork, and the nominator is expecting the source to be the name of the museum, not the creator of the uploaded photo, which is now a derivative work. All the previous examples are correct, just not the one expected by the nominator. We should be clearer which one is expected right in the form. --RAN (talk) 00:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
- It is indeed a problem. It is a compulsory field and the user is supposed to click the date on a calender that shows the current month. That interface makes you assume a recent date is requested. Clicking the field to start writing something else (such as "before 1850") does not work, adding to the assumption you are supposed to use the calendar. {{Other date}} is not linked anywhere, and its documentation not that easy to grasp, not even is there any advice on the ISO 8601 form – a date of 10/11/12 is little use. –LPfi (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
For SVG files that display the "Render this image in [language dropdown]" (e.g., File:Map of Septimania in 537 AD.svg), state it may be possible to add translations with the SVG Translate tool and add a link to the application with the file queued up (e.g., translate file). Glrx (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Qusta ibn Luqa

Can someone help me over at File talk:Qusta ibn Luqa.jpg? That picture which is used in quite a few community wikis is very misleading. Thank you Xn00bit (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

See Template:Fact disputed. --Animalparty (talk) 05:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I renamed it into File:Galenus (cropped).jpg, recategorized the image and removed it from the wikidata item. It disappeared due to that from several languages. Can you correct the remaining ones Xn00bit? Ellywa (talk) 06:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

@Ellywa Thank you! I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're requesting. The remaining ones of what, exactly? Xn00bit (talk) 11:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I meant to say, the use of the image on Wikipedia articles in various languages. You can find these when you scroll to the bottom of the file page. This has been completely solved now. No action needed imho. Regards, Ellywa (talk) 12:13, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Non-sourced "classification" of non-living but present-day people and providing sources

Hello! Recently a debate has been brought to my attention: an editor have put a person (and images about him) into the "Gay people" category, and when another editor removed that and asked for a source the original editor rejected the request and a reverting war was started. (It was not a one-shot vandalism, more of an editor with an unreliable source and strong intent.) Apart from the lack of civilised behaviour the question was raised whether there is some policy or guideline about sourcing such "statements" about people on Commons? Since they're deceased the WMF Biography of Living Persons policy doesn't apply but in Wikipedias it's generally a base guideline that disputed facts shall be accompanied by reliable sources. Is there a Commons related policy around? I have failed to find one. Thanks! --grin ✎ 08:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no such a category on Commons as "Gay people". Ruslik (talk) 12:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh please! Notice the topic and skip commenting on my wording. There are a lot of categories of lgbt, jew, criminal, whatever categories, and I am confident that most people get the point of the question instead of trying to concentrate on a specific topic of (critique thereof). (Also if I wanted to link anything specific I would have done just that, but it is a general question, not a specific one.) grin ✎ 13:12, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that when a fact is disputed, you add {{Fact disputed}} to the description page and start a discussion on the talk page. With "facts" that may be defamatory, I'd remove them and start the discussion. I think any disputed statements should be removed or stated to be disputed (unless there is convincing evidence – this is not a free card for trolls). You shouldn't put people in disputed categories, while a "people claimed to be" category or similar can be appropriate in certain cases. I don't think we have a guideline, so this is just common sense. –LPfi (talk) 10:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

So evidence to convince other editors should be on the talk page, However, if reusers are likely to mistrust the description, a link to the talk page, directly to the evidence or some other suitable page should probably be used ("see [[target|short description of link target]]"). –LPfi (talk) 11:02, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. While this isn't ideal, it's better than nothing. grin ✎ 20:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

License of screenshots

Hello! If I created screenshot of free software on Android, I must use license of software? Can I choose license that doesn't match with license of software? I can't use free license for it because I did it in Android? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DustDFG (talk • contribs)

@DustDFG: , have you seen Commons:Screenshots and Commons:Derivative works yet? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@DustDFG: Hi, and welcome. See also COM:SIGN. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's help Rehman

Hi all; let's support our colleague Rehman, he is a great Commoner and Wikipedian, and currently is in a critical economic situation. Here you can support; any donation and sharing this campaign is highly appreciated. Regards --A.Savin 18:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

After what seemed a good start, this seems to have pretty much stalled out 2 weeks ago at less than 10% of its goal. I strongly encourage people to consider donating. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Cory Doctorow post on "copyleft trolls" mentions Commons

"A Bug in Early Creative Commons Licenses Has Enabled a New Breed of Superpredator" ([14]):

Upgrade on Upload: Anytime someone tries to upload a CC image with a pre-4.0 license to a repository like the Internet Archive, Wikimedia Commons, Thingiverse or Github, they should be asked if they are the creator, and, if so, should be prompted to upgrade the license to the current version;
Upgrade in Place: Every repository that hosts CC works that carry pre-4.0 licenses should send an email to every account holder urging them to opt into a process to upgrade them immediately to the latest license.
Warnings: Every repository that hosts CC works that carry pre-4.0 licenses should place a prominent warning on every page that includes these works, explaining that this work uses an outdated and disfavored license and that a failure to correctly attribute it could attract a $150,000 statutory damages awards.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

argument kinda falls apart once you look at the details "So this is beyond copyleft trolling: they’re not threatening someone who made a small attribution error and was technically in violation of their license: rather, they sent repeated threats (I missed the first one) to someone who correctly attributed their client’s image." So yeah the validity of the issue isn't an issue. This is just Pixsy carpet bombing all uses. They don't need to look for license technicalities with that approach (heck they don't even need to own the copyrights if they can frighten enough people). Also I'm not sure I agree with doctorow's interpretation of the 30 day clause "For the avoidance of doubt, this Section 6(b) does not affect any right the Licensor may have to seek remedies for Your violations of this Public License." so you can still sue infringes for infringements up to that point. Even if the lack of warning means you decide its not worth trying to prove wilful infringement that's still a potential $30,000 per infringement. So for example a video with 89K views that nicks one of my images could still be sued for north of $2 billion (except we’re both in the UK so I'd have to settle for actual damages which is unlikely to be more than a couple of £100).

Really this boils down to the social question of how much enforcement is allowable. If its none then the license is essentially public domain. Even if we require warnings before asking for money the license is still functionally PD since re-users know most people won't bother. So if we want the license (and its virality) to mean anything we're kinda reliant on the psychopaths in the grass to give it teeth.Geni (talk) 17:23, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

That last part seems overly pessimistic to me. Creative Commons worked out and published some enforcement principles recently, which seem relevant here; I’ll quote the brief version:

The primary goal of license enforcement should be getting reusers to comply with the license.
Legal action should be taken sparingly.
Enforcement may involve monetary compensation, but should not be a business model.

And this part applies more specifically to Wikimedia Commons:

If you are a platform that accepts uploads of CC-licensed works by third parties, you can require uploaders to agree that they will enforce copyrights of their works in line with these principles, and you are encouraged to require 4.0 licenses for uploaded works.

So I don’t think rel[ying] on the psychopaths in the grass is a mindset we should adopt. Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 21:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Cory mentions in his article Flickr-user Nenad Stojkovic, who seems obviously to be a customer/client of the despicable Copyleft trolls of Pixsy. Shouldn't we consider to ban all his images from Commons, as we have done and do with Marco Verch's images, in order not to expose re-users? --Túrelio (talk) 13:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

That seems appropriate. There's Photographs by Nenad Stojkovic and these search results. Thankfully there doesn't seem to be that many articles and such that would be impacted. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:35, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

See now: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposal to ban uploads from client of copyleft-troll company Pixsy from Commons. --Túrelio (talk) 15:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Some thoughts

All files on Commons should contain license metadata. It will not help if an image is printed, but if the file is used on a website, then the file's metadata may satisfy the license requirements.

All files on Commons that impose license conditions beyond an accepted published license should be deleted. For example, some contributors us a CC-BY license but add that their name must be placed on the same page as the image. A CC-BY license lets the user choose a reasonable method of attribution.

Glrx (talk) 18:53, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Glrx, wrt your 1st statement: no, I don't think so, as the reader has no direct access to the metadata. Apart from the fact that many re-users strip metadata from images when they edit or downsize them.

Wrt your 2nd statement: that's an old issue. AFAIK it's consense on Commons that the licensor can ask for a placement of the credit near the image, but cannot demand/require it. The same for asking for a specimen/sample copy of print-products.

But all these subtleties are not the issue of the problem/case described in this thread. While it should go without saying that contributors to Commons can take legal action against infringers on a case-by-case basis to ensure their copyright is respected, the case presented in Cory's article is a systematic approach to intentionally financially exploit re-users. Commons/Wikipedia is misused by such people as a distribution platform for their activity. This should not be allowed, IMO. --Túrelio (talk) 20:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

@Túrelio:

If the file has metadata, then that metadata may offer protection against copyleft trolls because the attribution exists. If a user strips the metadata, then that user loses the possible protection. In general, stripping metadata is a bad idea.

If the user demands or requires the attribution (or any additional condition), then the file should be deleted. I know the difference between a request and a demand. Requirements beyond a standard license offer additional trip points for trolls.

Adding metadata is offered as a defense for those who might be caught in the troll's net, so it is on point. Glrx (talk) 20:58, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Adding the metadata where none has been provided might be beneficial, but it has a lot of problems, including the risk of invisible metadata staying the same when visible metadata is corrected. Unless we enforce metadata that on its own satisfy the licence's requirements, then it does not protect reusers from copyleft trolls like those described in the column. It does provide some protection for/against careless users.

I think requiring attribution is fair, and there are cases where the form of attribution, such as including an institution, might be important. Requiring a byline is incompatible with the CC licences, as is any other requirement not explicitly allowed by the licence. This is a standard feature of free licences (otherwise somebody could add e.g. a requirement to pay $5,000 for each view).

–LPfi (talk) 09:57, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What exactly do people mean by "metadata" here? "Metadata" can be anything other than the image itself. (A date is metadata. Arguably, even a meaningful filename is metadata.) It looks to me like people have something much more specific in mind, but have not said what. Are we talking about something embedded (e.g. via EXIF) or are we talking about something else? And exactly what data are we talking about? - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the wording by Glrx clearly implies that they mean metadata included in the file itself, such as Exif. We do include much metadata on the file description page, so that would be nothing new, and if the filename were meant, it would have been mentioned explicitly. –LPfi (talk) 17:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

So this would involve a somewhat different solution for each file format? And what exactly would be the metadata in question, a correct copyright & license notice? - Jmabel ! talk 18:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose so, but the details would be complicated. In my understanding the Exif fields are not well-defined, at least not defined to be using any sensible character coding (I think they are assumed to be ASCII). And I think it is easy to argue that Exif is not a reasonable to the medium way to provide attribution at, say, a web page. Converting the file to a format without such metadata would lose it, without the reuser noticing. If trying to add the information to fields already present, it is easy to screw everything up. –LPfi (talk) 18:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I mean metadata that is embedded in the file. If the file is just copied, the metadata will travel with it. Sadly, there are many different metadata formats, and even within a particular metadata vocabulary, there is often ambiguity about how to use the vocabulary. Consequently, applications that manipulate files with metadata may discard some or all of the metadata. Creative Commons' licenses have simple requirements. CC developed the Creative Commons Rights Expression Language (ccREL). Commons files could contain several ccREL statements. In particular, there could be a cc:attributionURL pointing to the Commons file description page which should have additional required information such as modifications to the original. Yes, it is easy to screw up, and many files on Commons have screwed up attribution. Glrx (talk) 19:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Source

When someone scans with a scanner, or takes a photo with their iPhone of an object, isn't the object itself the "source", or am I wrong? I have been seeing deletion nominations based on the premise that you can't name the object itself as the source. I think people are tagging uploads because they are expecting to see a website listed, or a museum collection listed, not the object itself. See for example: File:Gobierno Civil. Plaza Temple.jpg --RAN (talk) 05:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You do not need a documentary or URI source, no. A perfectly valid source is, "I photographed it". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Koavf: "I photographed it" or "I scanned it" is only suitable for the electronic image that is uploaded here. It does not address the copyright status of what appears in the image. If the object that appears in the image could be subject to copyright, the photographer/scanner has created a derivative work. We need to understand the background/source of the object to confirm that the photograph or scan has not been made in breach of copyright. If there is some other reason why the object does not retain copyright (such as through Commons:Freedom of Panorama) then that needs to be explained on the file page. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, but he didn't ask that. He just asked if some additional source is needed, which is not necessary. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:19, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This appears to be a photoshopped scanned postcard of a line drawing of a building drawn in Valencia, Spain circa 1920 to 1940. Without information about the lifetime of each copyright holder and the date and country of the architectural drawings and each image's first publication, how can we possibly determine whether or not the resulting image is PD? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

And how can we have {{PD-Italy}} on a picture of Spain? - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The correct license would be "PD-Spain-photo" or "PD-EU-no author disclosure", does this mean almost all historical objects scanned or photographed, where the object itself is the source, must be deleted? It seems to go against Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle which requires "significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file." We have >1,000 postcards not attributed to an author where we only know where the image was taken. But lets concentrate on the big issue, rather than one specific postcard. I will ask again: When someone scans with a scanner, or takes a photo with their iPhone of an object, isn't the object itself the "source", and is listing source=object, a valid reason to tag the upload for deletion. Does an object have to come from a museum or a website to be housed at Commons? --RAN (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Except in cases covered by Commons:Freedom of Panorama, a copyrightable object that appears in an image needs to be identified. The level of identification required depends on the age of the object. For extremely old works, an identification as basic as "a tapestry from an unknown artist dating to the 12th century AD" would be sufficient as that is clearly outside of any copyright protection. For objects that are more recent, we need more evidence of either the identity of the creator or the date of publication/creation to make a judgement on which copyright rules apply. A postcard from Europe dating to the mid-20th century could very well be in copyright in 1996 (the URAA date for most countries) which would mean that US copyright would still apply regardless of the status in the origin country today.

So no, it doesn't have to come from a website or museum but we do need an explanation beyond, "I found it down the back of the sofa." From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If we are talking about this specific object: FOP-Spain=Works permanently located in parks or on streets, squares or other public thoroughfares may be freely reproduced, distributed and communicated by painting, drawing, photography and audiovisual processes. --RAN (talk) 22:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No one wrote source="I found it down the back of the sofa." they wrote source="postcard", the question is: Is it valid to tag images for deletion where the source is the object itself? Here is another example of tagging for deletion based on a flawed premise: File:La porallée en 1230.jpg was tagged for having no license, when it did have a license, but a better license was more appropriate, and easily changed. It was switched to a license based on the original creative work of 1650, rather than a license based on the derivative work made by the uploader in 2020 when they took a photo of an engraving from the 1600s with their iPhone. Despite all creative works by the engraver being in the public domain, this image appears headed for deletion. Again we have the image itself providing the evidence, yet we are still deleting, despite our own rules in Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle. With this object again, the rationale for moving forward with deletion is that source cannot be the object itself, despite what information the object itself contains. One delete !vote says: "[delete] without credible evidence of a source". To me this appears to be counterintuitive and not in the spirit of the Precautionary Principle. --RAN (talk) 22:23, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I will try again as you are not understanding my point. An object cannot be a source of an image. However, an explanation of the object can tell you if the image is a derivative of a copyrighted work. For example, "source=postcard" is no different than "source=book," "source=statue," "source=archive," "source=the internet" or "source=the back of my sofa." All of these are meaningless statements that tell us nothing about the image origins or the copyright status of the object in the image. We need more details, either in the source field or elsewhere on the file page. "Source=postcard from Germany" is a slight improvement as it at least narrows down which set of copyright rules apply. "Source=postcard sold in Germany in 1926" is much better as we have both a location and date of publication. If the extra details on location of publication and date are in another field within the file page then that is fine; it is the entirety of the explanation that appears on the file page that matters rather than a specific field. I have commented on the image you linked with a !vote to keep the file as it appears to be a mechanical reproduction of an image already in the public domain. As with all Wikimedia projects, the views of individual editors will vary; it is the strength of evidence presented by the commenters that the closing Admin will consider, rather than the number of votes cast. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We both made our points, let's hear from others. --RAN (talk) 23:43, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no copyright issue with both images mentioned above, so I closed these DRs. However I changed the source to {{Own scan}}. Yann (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Re-coloured photographs

I found this photograph on Meta's Facebook which is derivative of a public domain photograph. As far as I can tell colouring in black and white photographs constitute new copyright, am I correct in thinking this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: That depends on the TOO where the coloring was done. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:48, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In 1987 it was ruled that Ted Turner colorized versions of PD black-and-white movies were eligible for new copyright protection as a derivative work. If you are concerned, you can always take the colorized version, desaturate it to black and white and upload it. You could even recolorize it using one of the many AI coloring programs free online, like MyHeritage. Courts have ruled that a human has to create the work, the now famous ruling was that a monkey operating a camera could not be the creator. See Wikipedia:Monkey selfie copyright dispute. We can assume an AI is covered by that ruling until a court rules otherwise. --RAN (talk) 00:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks everyone, I actually was familiar with the monkey suit (no pun intended) and know about PD-Artificial Intelligence, as I haven't been able to recover the TOO information for Việt-Nam and as my initial suspicion was that this DW would constitute new copyright I think that I'll look for a robot that can do the colouring for me, as I really like the linked photograph and want to try to create a similar effect of a Mandarin. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:19, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Can I find all usages of all my media?

Can I somehow see all usages of all media I uploaded?

I can see it on individual pages, but there is no overview of all usages.

I like to know where is my stuff being used, just for my interest:)

--Running (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

https://glamtools.toolforge.org/glamorous.php?doit=1&username=Running&use_globalusage=1&show_details=1 you can play with the settings to get different summaries. RZuo (talk) 08:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Template for expired UK published editions

I've been using {{PD-because}} with File:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg and the copyright link to present a published edition as public domain in the UK after 25 years of first publication and ineligible for copyright in the US. Perhaps that kind of a template similar to either {{PD-UKGov}} or {{PD-UK-unknown}} is long overdue. Any volunteers? --George Ho (talk) 03:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

You know what? I just went ahead and created Template:PD-UK-published-edition. More help is welcome. --George Ho (talk) 01:18, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

"Disposable" files

i was checking Category:Media needing categories as of 6 June 2021 and found these files

Extended content

16:1516:15, 6 July 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Le score r(p,a).png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:1416:14, 6 July 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:La similarité s(p,q).png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:1016:10, 6 July 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Section entrante.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:0916:09, 6 July 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Section sortante.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

12:4712:47, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 7.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:4412:44, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 6.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:4212:42, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 5.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:4012:40, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 4.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:3812:38, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 3.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:3612:36, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 2.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
12:3212:32, 3 July 2021 diff hist +289‎ N File:Matrice vecteur propre 1.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

11:4711:47, 26 June 2021 diff hist +279‎ N File:Page rank.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:4511:45, 26 June 2021 diff hist +279‎ N File:Vecteur propre.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:4211:42, 26 June 2021 diff hist +279‎ N File:Nouvaeu graph.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:3911:39, 26 June 2021 diff hist +279‎ N File:Le graph de la diapo 25.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:3511:35, 26 June 2021 diff hist +290‎ N File:Graphique pour la corrélation de voisins entre degré à degré.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:2911:29, 26 June 2021 diff hist +290‎ N File:Tableau pour la corrélation de voisins entre degré et degré image 5.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:2711:27, 26 June 2021 diff hist +290‎ N File:Corrélation combinée entre degré et clustering.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:2411:24, 26 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Distribution de degré sortant.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:2311:23, 26 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Distribution de degré entrant.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:2111:21, 26 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Distribution de degrés entrants et sortants.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:1611:16, 26 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Distribution de degrés.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
11:1411:14, 26 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Graph de réseau orienté.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

08:0908:09, 17 June 2021 diff hist +234‎ N File:Formule intermédiarité.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
08:0708:07, 17 June 2021 diff hist +234‎ N File:Formule proximité .png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
08:0608:06, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Graphique pour la corrélation de voisins entre degré et degré.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
08:0508:05, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Tableau pour la corrélation de voisins entre degré et degré.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
08:0308:03, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Graphique pour la corrélation combinée entre degré et coefficient de clustering.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
08:0208:02, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Tableau pour la corrélation combinée entre degré et coefficient de clustering.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
07:5807:58, 17 June 2021 diff hist +234‎ N File:Formule coefficient de clustering.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
07:5607:56, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Graphique de distribution sur les degrés sortants et entrants.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
07:5507:55, 17 June 2021 diff hist +281‎ N File:Tableau de distribution sur les degrés sortants et entrants.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
07:5307:53, 17 June 2021 diff hist +280‎ N File:La matrice d'adjacence .png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

15:4515:45, 14 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Diamètre.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
15:4415:44, 14 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:La matrice d'adjacence.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
15:4215:42, 14 June 2021 diff hist +292‎ N File:Lien de 2 vers (1+3) .png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
15:4015:40, 14 June 2021 diff hist +291‎ N File:Lien de (1+3) vers 2.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

16:5316:53, 6 June 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Cours MdR-SIREN-2021 Activité B-Image 4 par Yibo MA.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:5116:51, 6 June 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Cours MdR-SIREN-2021 Activité B-Image 3 par Yibo MA.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:4916:49, 6 June 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Cours MdR-SIREN-2021 Activité B-Image 2 par Yibo MA.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:4616:46, 6 June 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Cours MdR-SIREN-2021 Activité B-Image 1 par Yibo MA.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload
16:3216:32, 6 June 2021 diff hist +278‎ N File:Cours MdR-SIREN-2021 Activité A-Image 1 par Yibo MA.png ‎ Cross-wiki upload from fr.wikiversity.org Tag: cross-wiki-upload

16:2216:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist +222‎ File:Graph de réseau orienté en arbre.png ‎ ‎Added [fr] caption: Graph de réseau orienté en arbre
16:2216:22, 24 May 2021 diff hist +267‎ N File:Graph de réseau orienté en arbre.png ‎ Uploaded own work with UploadWizard

they are "used" on some frwv pages in the user namespace. i skimmed thru the pages. they seem to be some kind of assignments for a class in a master programme at a paris uni.

my conclusion is that the files were used for that one purpose only, like Category:Disposable goods. and frwv is being used like a free online postit host.

the problem left behind for Commons is, how to categorise these PNG files (if they should not be deleted)?

pinging@Solstag.--RZuo (talk) 08:56, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I would categorise such files in Category:Wikiversity images, almost all files in it are included on frwv user pages.

In my opinion the files listet are within the scope since they are probably subpages of fr:v:Modélisation_des_Réseaux_(M1_SIREN,_2021) ---> fr:v:Modélisation_des_Réseaux_(M1_SIREN,_2021)/Activité_B.

There are links to about 25 user pages below (section Activités ), all of which also contain images for the project. GeorgHH • talk 14:54, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Ni! Hello @RZuo and @GeorgHH and thanks for giving attention to this. Yes these files belong to course assignments. I'd love for there to be a mechanism on Commons so that my student's uploads would be auto-categorized like " "Category:Assignments of {name of the class}", to be placed under "Category:Wikiversity images". Maybe a script could detect all images linked from under a course's assignment pages and add this tag afterwards? I wouldn't call them disposable as those sudents might want to look back at what they did, and students of later years use them as reference for their work, and other teachers might find inspiration in what is done there. But it does bother me that I end up having them dump all these images on Commons without any categories. I could ask the students to categorize the files, but I don't think it would work. It's already difficult for them to get that they use Wikiversity but upload to Commons, and to tolerate issues with Commons' anti-spam filters (as there's no way for me to tag my students as confirmed users in Commons). Let me know what I can do to help. Solstag (talk) 19:40, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

someone has to do the categorisation. either you could use COM:Cat-a-lot, or you could send {{Please link images}} to all your students before assignments and deduct points if they cannot follow. just some suggestions. RZuo (talk) 14:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Banning IP edits in general

In the last time I did a lot of patrolling. I checked the edits of IP users and my experiences are showing to me that we have a huge problem with accidental edits and a lot of spam. The most IP edits are okay, but only because of some people doing things like mass categorization with many hundred edits as IPs. When banning IPs I think we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users", they just would create accounts for them.

The time we need to check and revert so many edits is much more then the good contributions added to commons. With the time saved we can check the edits of new users and contact them to help. This is much more important for getting new contributor then the ability to edit without an account.

With this introduction I want to start a discussion on this for later creation of a proposal with all details, like which namespaces should be protected. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

A key problem with this is that many editors start out by making IP edits before creating an account. If I had needed to create an account before experimenting with Wikimedia projects, I would never have participated at all. By closing the project to named accounts only, we are likely to intensify the reduction in active editors in the long term. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I think moth users start with uploading their own photos where an account is already required. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:19, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Support It's a great idea, especially that movements in this direction can be observed on other wikis, some of them even have already banned IPs. It is exactly like you have said – a small number of IP editors make tons of good edits, while tons of IP editors make a few crappy "test edits" (or just pure vandalism). These good IP editors, if forced to create accounts, could be later granted "autopatrol", what would reduce amount of work for patrollers. And of course getting rid of vandals and ordinary morons would reduce amount of work for everyone and the time saved could be spent on more productive activities here. Anyway, I think that editing of structured data (including file captions) should be banned immediately for IPs. It is very hard to find a good SDC related edit made by an IP. --157.25.186.137 13:58, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

If IP users are an especially big issue with Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC)-related edits then making an edit filter that disallows from making such edits is a better solution than just blanket banning them / y'all from all editing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:43, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose I disagree with the premise that most good IP edits are from mass categorization, In the past 2 weeks I have noticed One IP Categorize various Churches in London and another IP Categorize Streets in Southwark neither of these were or could have been done by mass categorization. The last time I noticed a Spammer was more than 2 years ago, their edits were easy and took seconds to undo. I can say I would not have started or persisted with editing If there had been a requirement to register. I find that your assumptions that "we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users"" "moth users start with uploading their own photos" to be unsupported by credible evidence, such as statistics or even personal observations. I have sometimes used IP edits when I am away from my home PC and can't use the PC at hand to log in, inability to do this would mean I don't do those edits and would have put me of the project in the beginning. As for mistakes. I make them, admins make them we all make them if we are here long enough. Not a big problem and certainly not as big a concern as problem admins such as Blackcat who has a history of admin tool abuse. Having to log in or register does not deter abuse or unwise edits. Finally it would be a big step to losing our open approachable status/vibe and a step on a journey to being a small clique of people making irrelevant edits that no one is looking at or engaging with. Oxyman (talk) 14:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Your idealistic views clearly show that you have zero counter vandalism exprience. Just use RTRC, let's say for a month, and I assure you will change your mind about IP editors. --157.25.187.217 14:38, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Farsi Wikipedia has banned IP editing (phab:T292781) and it's like paradise right now. No negative impacts whatsoever! 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

It's worth to mention that Portuguese Wikipedia also has very positive experiences in this area. --157.25.187.217 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose per Oxyman. Being welcoming to newcomers is one of the most important aspects of a collaborative, free culture project. At the same time, wikis need a significant pool of good faith contributors that can push the equilibrium toward quality. In my view, we should only change our IP policy when it is absolutely necessary for maintaining the quality of the project, not merely out of convenience. Mysteryman blue 17:27, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

For sure IP editors will not help to "push the equilibrium toward quality". No way. Let's face it, an average internet user is an idiot. I do not think any Wikimedia project needs them. Projects need committed people, at least committed enough to create an account. IMO we need quality over quantity (what is exactly opposite to WMF's views). --157.25.187.217 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose, mostly because this is directly in response to the new privacy measures being taken by WMF Legal. People check IP edits if they can't immediately see where they're from and people will check Masked IP edits. Wikimedia websites should be as open as possible to new users and these websites are some of the last bastions on the internet where unregistered users are still allowed. If Masked IP users cause more vandalism than we have today then it would make sense, but since this new feature hasn't been implemented anywhere it is reasonable to not change anything until after we see if the new IP masking will cause more vandalism or not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:17, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, another WMF's nonsense. Instead of banning IP editors (what would "magically" solve many problems) they are wasting man-hours, i.e. money. Anyway, requirement to create an account has nothing to do with openness. --157.25.187.217 18:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone other than me find it ironic that other than the original proposer, the main proponent here of banning IP editors is an IP editor? - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but the world's largest book burning campaign was conducted by a librarian (Mao Zedong) and the genocide of the intellectuals and basically anyone who can read was done by a school teacher (Pol Pot), so the world is full of irony. While I agree that they do have strong arguments, I am still inclined to disagree with them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose as GPSLeo concedes, "most IP edits are okay", and the assumption banning IPs I think we would not loose those small group of "IP-power-users", they just would create accounts for them is just, that, an assumption. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Support -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:15, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Strong support Should never have been allowed. Perfektsionist (talk) 17:53, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Support - The little they contribute is not worth the trouble they cause to the community & reusers, in my experience, due to the high rate of vandalism (and a huge security & privacy issue for more than 20 years which finally and thankfully is being addressed by WMF). Should never have been allowed in first place.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 17:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. IP editing is a design flaw. --157.25.245.205 18:17, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

As the original proposer GPSLeo themselves conceded, "most IP edits are okay", and they don't contribute exactly "little". There are, as GPSLeo says, "some people doing things like mass categorization with many hundred edits as IPs", which are fine - GPSLeo just assumes that these people would create an account, but I wouldn't count on that. A blanket ban on IP edits without actual research first that robustly shows that IP contributors are doing more harm than good here on Commons (other projects might have other experiences), and this also in comparison to registered accounts (of which many are throwaway accounts doing lots of rubbish edits/uploads, too!), is out of the question IMHO. We shouldn't go by a "IPs are evil" gut feeling here but base our decisions on hard facts. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

You are an admin, but have zero experience in patrolling of recent changes. You just assume that "IPs are good". No, they aren't. Just use RTRC for some time and see for yourself. --157.25.244.244 19:04, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I have quite a lot of experience in deletion requests (though my level of activity varies, granted), and in my experience, IP contributors often bring very reasonable arguments in deletion discussions, for keeping as well as for deleting files, and I wouldn't like to miss them. It's interesting to discuss this with an IP contributor, by the way ;-) Gestumblindi (talk) 19:37, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Commons will still be the free educational media repository that anyone can edit, but they need to register to do it. I agree with the IP above that we need quality over quantity. In defence of Gestumblindi, I'd like to note though that I rarely click the "mark as patrolled" button when I check new files or recent edits. So that log might not be indicative of one's experience with IP vandalism. De728631 (talk) 19:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's very bad. There are not enough active patrollers while clicking on that link costs you virtually nothing. --157.25.242.36 20:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Support IMO, the ratio of good v. bad edits for IP is very low. As De728631 says above, it is better to focus on quality rather than quantity. Creating an account is very easy, and it is not an obstacle for users willing to contribute positively. Yann (talk) 20:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO, for such decisions, we don't really need "IMO's" here but actual, tangible data - i.e. though I have a different perception of IP contributors from my experience (mainly in deletion discussions), that doesn't mean that I am right, and if a true statistical evaluation of IP contributions proves that they do more harm than good in comparison to registered accounts, I will readily change my opinion. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

While I don't have detailed numbers , my facts are based on 18 years of activity on Commons. Yann (talk) 21:00, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Mine too ;-) (nearly - my first Commons edit was on 18 November 2004, so two months after you). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose Is this a joke? If so it's in very poor taste. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 21:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose Apart from the arguments presented (we need real stats), we have a different situation than e.g. the Wikipedias. Over there you can have a small community of contributors and other people will just read. Here we should serve also authors, copyright owners and reusers. Those should be able to comment without searching for an e-mail address or registering an account. I know about myself, that when commenting on anything requires registering a user name, I just don't comment. Even here, it is not clear what one is committing to when clicking "create account", and there is no telling whether the process will be easy or not. –LPfi (talk) 21:40, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Authors and copyright holders who publish here directly have to have an account here anyway. Others, who publish in other places (e.g. Flickr) have to contact VRT in order to their comment have any meaning. And you are right. Commons and especially Wikidata are different. They serve as repositories for wikipedias, wictionaries, etc., therefore they should not allow "anonymous" morons to easily vandalize these projects. --157.25.185.156 06:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There are lots of them that published elsewhere and don't have accounts here, and there is no need to go via VRT to point out that the work elsewhere on the internet is attributed to a named person, not the pseudonym that uploaded it as "own work", or to add details on what a photo is about (I don't think VRT should be burdened with such requests). These persons do not need to know about VRT and other procedures, and banning IP editing means they cannot even ask for advice (you could limit them to certain namespaces, but the right place to ask might not be obvious to them). –LPfi (talk) 09:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

How and where can they ask for advice if they "do not need to know about VRT and other procedures"? On a random page?

What basically means that their request will go down the drain. Anyway, they can create an account. Only usernane and password must be provided, no other data, even an email address, is required. BTW, I think that email address should be obligatory – it would make LTA's life harder if they were forced to create a new email address for each sockpuppet. --157.25.242.36 10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a random page, but a relevant page. If they see a deficiency in the file description, editing that page would not be far fetched. From that page there are links, some of which (ultimately) leads to pages such as the village pump and help desk, and the file description has links to users with talk pages, perhaps to a deletion request. File talk pages may not be well patrolled (are they?), but comments might be seen by people interested in the specific file. Those are all pages that a random visitor should be able to leave comments on. –LPfi (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Support it is how it should be in every Wikimedia project by default. Wostr (talk) 01:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. Hulged (talk) 07:21, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
We should keep in mind that the culture in Commons is different from say, Wikipedia. In the latter, "anyone can edit". We don't have an equivalent of that here. The main way of contributing to Commons, which is uploading, already requires you to register an account first. So the argument that we would be missing out on many good contributions by unregistered users is questionable.
So I think we should restrict IP editing further. How much should we restrict? For the minimum we should at the very least disallow structured data edits from IPs, as most of the vandalism and test edits I see come from captions and marking a property as "prominent" even though that's not how it works. For the maximum, we disallow every namespace except Commons and discussion pages. That way it should significantly reduce vandalism on our files and galleries, while still being open to IP feedback. panda kekok 9 11:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I also noticed something: most of the vandalism came from mobile. Perhaps we can do a trial first where we disable editing in mobile via CSS or edit filter? That way we could see if there's improvement or not. Those who want to continue editing unregistered can always go to the desktop version anyway. Seems like a good compromise to me. panda kekok 9 11:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I exclusively edit on mobile, the mobile interface is already horrible to work with and deliberately handicapped, making it even worse to use is not the solution because forcing people to exclusively use the "Desktop view" will make a lot of tasks more difficult for a lot of people. Unless you mean exclusively ban mobile edits by non-registered users, in any case this anti-mobile discrimination has got to stop. Furthermore, "anyone can edit" and "Ignore are rules" and all the other "Wikipedian" things are also a part of "the pillars of the Wikimedia Commons", this just means that the software is open to everyone to make improvements, IP editors at the English-language Wikipedia already cannot create new articles or upload and "ignore all rules" never meant "ignore all laws" and Wikipedia's hunt down copyright violations as much as the Wikimedia Commons, these policies exist to be open to anyone for improvements. You don't need to register an account to fix categories, fix a license, or nominate a file for deletion and I have seen IP editors do all those things with good faith here. You don't want a copyright violation to fly under the radar simply because the person who notices doesn't want to register an account. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder why people choose to use devices which by design are total crap for uses such as editing a wiki. Do not expect a good software on a crappy basis. Although people are strange – I know a person who prefers to watch movies/Youtube on a 5" smartphone than on a 50" TV.

--157.25.242.36 20:24, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This is something you can say in Poland, this is something you can say in places like Europe, North America, South America, and Oceania... But not something that would translate well in most of Asia and Africa, for many Indians and Pakistanis mobile telephones are their only ways of accessing the internet. The only reason why the editing experience for mobile sucks is because rather than just using "a mini-desktop editing interface" (which already exists, try opening a new section in mobile (although it used to be better a few years ago as the WMF is actively sabotaging mobile users), but for whatever reason the WMF sees mobile users only as consumers, meaning that the only people that would want to edit are the vandals or the very dedicated, as the interface doesn't allow for casual editing without constant frustrations. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you look at contributions from mobile IP ranges from India, Pakistan and generally south Asia and north Africa, you will see that there are not many useful edits. And they are produced not by vandals but by ordinary morons with smartphones who don't know what they're doing. Anyway, you can connect a desktop or laptop to a smartphone through an USB cable or WiFi and use USB or WiFi tethering – the smartphone acts as a modem in this setup. This way you can avoid to use crappy mobile user interface. --157.25.245.179 20:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Replying to (whom I assume is) Jdx, well, you can still upload via the mobile app (although it's a crappy interface that only allows a single upload at a time and purports that the Commonswiki only owns own works, so maybe it's not the best example), but in general Mobile users cannot see categories unless they're signed in, they cannot see talk pages, they only see the files, the reason why vandals are overrepresented among the mobile IP editors is simple, good edits are being actively disincentivised by the software itself. The issue isn't with the people, the issue is with the software. If you only access this website through a mobile browser and never register an account you won't even know talk pages and categories and the like exist, nor can you nominate bad files for deletion, so the fact that the only people that make edits are vandals make sense, the issue is the WMF actively discouraging good edits by mobile users. If the "Mobile" interface changes into a miniature version of the "Desktop view" interface today you'd see the percentage of mobile IP edits being identified as vandalism decline in a couple of months. Humans work with incentives and if you take away the incentives to do good things only bad things will happen. The WMF sabotages the mobile interface, not the vandals, they are simply a product of this disregard for mobile editors. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:44, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Unless you mean exclusively ban mobile edits by non-registered users That's obviously what I meant. I don't support restricting mobile edits from registered users; that would be overkill. panda kekok 9 02:22, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Support Account creation is easy enough and is more private. As others have said, IP editing was a bad idea from the outset. But I doubt this will ever happen.

That said, most problem edits here on Commons seem to come from a handful of accounts, not the IPs. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@Andy Dingley I agree, it is not especially problematic in Commons, except for the severe security & provacy breach use of IPs is in every Wikimedia project. But they would not be missed either *shrugs*. Darwin ^Ahoy! 20:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Comment This would a huge step to take, a major change, and we should consider it slowly and carefully before moving forward. The numbers below are a good start towards aiding an informed decision. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Oppose. My opinion on this is guided by my own experience. I started editing here anonymously. I don't think I would have done so if I had been required to sign up for an account first. I think my experience is unlikely to be rare. The cost of banning IP editing is far greater than just losing IP edits, it also includes losing all the edits from contributors such as me. Marbletan (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Banning IP edits: can we have some numbers, please?

In the comments above I see a lot of opinions based on hypotheses and personal experience. While it's good the hear what's going on "in the trenches", I don't think that this is a decision that should be made on what in the end would be a collaborative gut feeling. When we decided to ban "mobile/web" uploads in 2014, we had good reasons to do so, because Lupo and others had done the research. One basic question we should ask before making any decision is, in my opinion: What is the actual ratio of good vs. bad edits made by IPs, and how does that compare to registered users? "Good" and "bad" are to be defined, but a simple starting point could be looking at the revert ratio. That shouldn't be too difficult to extract that from the database, right? --El Grafo (talk) 11:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@El Grafo: Thanks, that's exactly what I am saying, too. The statistics added below are a start, but there is no comparison to registered users yet. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Statistics

I did some statistics with the data from the API querying with "recentchanges". The edits are between 2021-12-15 13:40 and 2022-01-14 13:42. There are little inconsistencies for unknown reasons.

	All IPs	IPs with >100 edits	IPs with 10-100 edits	IPs with 2-9 edits	IPs with 1 edit	IP edits mobile	All users (no IP, no Bot)	Users with <10 edits
IPs/Users in group	7378	85	449	2299	4545	3803	24540	18039
Edits in group	54983	29975	13304	7359	4545	7889	2866015	48517
% of IP/User edits	100%	54.5%	24.2%	13.4%	8.3%	14.3%	100%	1.7%

Unchecked edits	50874	28252	12530	6858	4230	5550	569508 (autopatrol as checked)	43620
% of unchecked edits	92.5%	94.3%	94.2%	93.2%	93.1%	70.4%	19.9%	89.9%
Checked edits (Revert + Patrol)	4109	1723	774	501	315	2339	2296507 (autopatrol as checked)	4897
% of edits checked	7.5%	5.7%	5.8%	6.8%	6.9%	29.6%	80.1%	10.1%
Patrolled edits	1845	528	211	130	51	673	20488	627
% of edits patrolled	3.4%	1.8%	1.6%	1.8%	1.1%	8.5%	0.7%	1.3%
Reverted edits	2264	1195	563	371	264	1666	39394	1063
% of edits reverted	4.1%	4%	4.2%	5%	5.8%	21.1%	1.4%	2.2%
% of checked edits reverted	55.1%	69.4%	72.7%	74.1%	83.8%	71.2%	1.7%	21.7%

I also want to have a look at mobile edits, I am a working on this. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Added mobile data not divided by edit count. Mean edit count for all IPs 7.5 and 2.1 for IPs edited mobile. The median is 1 for both cases. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:58, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

So overall, we have 55% garbage from IPs among on 7.5% patrolled/checked edits only? Wow, this is even worse than I thought. It also means we have probably around 25,000 bad edits nobody checked. --Yann (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

No reason to assume that edits that aren't explicitly patrolled are all bad. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:40, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Nobody assumes this. Yann assumes that "only" 55% of unpatrolled edits are bad.

--157.25.242.36 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Meh, I expected something like 80%.

@GPSLeo: It would be more transparent if you posted queries/scripts used to create the table. --157.25.242.36 19:52, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I copied the API script and some of the analyze functions to User:GPSLeo/stats-tools --GPSLeo (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Do patrollers typically choose what edits to check? If suspicious edits are more likely to be checked, the garbage would be concentrated in the checked ones, and the percent of garbage could be lower in the remaining >90% of edits. –LPfi (talk) 14:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes of course if you come to a page and see that there is spam on the page you revert these edit. If the page looks fine you do not go to the version history to look if there are unpatrolled edits. If you are actively patrolling with tools like RTRC you can filter for marking and abuse filters. That is why the mobile edits are much more patrolled. To estimate the under reporting you would have to check more edits and look how the rate of reverted edits changes. If the rate of reverted edits does not decrease you would know that the rate of bad edits of all edits is nearly the same as in the checked edits. If you do not not find much more edits to revert you know that the bad edits where already found and nearly all unpatrolled edits are okay. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It does seem that the volume of the IP contribution on Wikimedia Commons is minuscule compared to other sister projects: 54983 / 2866015 = 1.9%. For comparison, the ratio would be something like 20%-30% for English Wikipedia: File:Monthly_revisions.by_agent_type.png. (This also excludes bots.) I remember someone published revert ratio breakdowns for logged-in/logged-out for English Wikipedia a few years ago (or maybe live stats available somewhere?) which could be compared, too, but I cannot find it at the moment. whym (talk) 11:51, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
That's easy to explain, as you can't upload files without an account. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:18, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Which German station in 1979?

It must be one of my earlist interrail trip where I reached Istanbul.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:25, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, was Frankfurt Hauptbahnhof possibly on your itinerary? It was a major train hub in West Germany until reunification, and the steel archs look like they might be those. You might be more successful asking directly in the German WP. The blue button "Stelle deine Frage" means "Ask your question", and people will be able to answer you in English. --Enyavar (talk) 15:47, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

More probable: Karlsruhe Hauptbahnhof - No highrises in the background and the distinctive "nose" on top of the arches. --Raugeier (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Though in the recent Karlsruhe image, the arches have a glass front, not so in the 1979 image - were the glass fronts added later? Gestumblindi (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Those class 181 locomotives were custom-built engines for cross-border service in France and Luxembourg. So I have a feeling that this was taken in Strasbourg rather than in Germany. De728631 (talk) 20:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, yes, it very much looks like the Strasbourg station in that picture you link to. Given what you say about the locomotives, I think that this is most likely the correct answer for Smiley.toerist. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

On the rigth side track, i think I see a French 'crocodile' between the rails. The bagage carriers also look French.Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I have asked for a rename.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

OH I GO TO GERMAN STATION! 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:40, 14 February 2022 (UTC)