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.
Hello,
Does Commons have a "good picture" tag analogous to the good article tag in Wikipedia? If so, what is the process to apply the tag? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily PeterEasthope. Many many files here are from traditional archives like the Library of Congress or the University of Zurich, and many others are taken from online from sites like Flickr. These are uploaded by Commons contributors, but are not created by them. GMGtalk17:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there an upload Wizard without "Add metadata" step?
I am not willing/interested in using Wikidata and I will never use it. Is there a way to make uploading less tedious by using Upload Wizard version without it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
If you look at my user page, you will see a link to upload by simply providing wikitext and file. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 14:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
@Mateusz Konieczny - also, if you want to replace the sidebar "Upload file" link so that it always takes you there, instead of to the wizard, you can put something like this in your common.js:
//Use basic upload form//remove old linkvarelem=document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);//add new linkmw.util.addPortletLink('p-participate','/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=experienced','Upload file','n-uploadbtn','Basic upload form',null,'#n-recentchanges');
Not exactly the internet as a whole, but from what I read here (in German), there is some service disruption affecting the Facebook group (Facebook, Whatsapp, and Instagram). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
...psst...cunning plan: nobody answer him, that way he'll figure all the international intertubes are totally out of action... --Begoon20:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Suppressing "If the work is not a U.S. work" warning for {{PD-US-expired}}
We made this change a while ago, but I forgot to make sure everyone who doesn't frequent COM:VPP was aware of it. {{PD-US-expired}} now has some new parameters. These parameters allow you to suppress the "If the work is not a U.S. work" error message if the file is a US work, or you provide another license for the source country.
country: the two-letter ISO country code of the country where the work was published. If it's "US", the error is suppressed.
1: if the first unnamed parameter is a license template, the error is suppressed and the second license is also shown. The syntax is the same as you would use for {{PD-Art}}).
ImageAnnotator hasn’t been working properly for almost two months, at least: After each and every use it says «Exception Error: Version inconsistency after saving. Please reload the page. Could not save your note (edit conflict or other problem). Please copy the text in the edit box below and insert it manually by editing this page.» If one ignores this scary warning and refreshes the pages, it eventually works, but it’s not easy to guess. So, people at the WMF — what scares inexperienced users is not wikitext, it’s this kind of unacceptable technical errors. Your mission is not to reshape the wiki concept till you finally smother it into gamified irrelevance, your mission is just to keep the machines running so that we can go on creating free knowledge. -- Tuválkin✉✇05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
So is there any way to preempt "ownership" of part of the UI that is broken and the "owner" doesn't seem to get around to fixing it? - Jmabel ! talk23:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This is a more serious general problem for users who rely upon the tools we have been given and can't write our own. OK, we are all volunteers, but the feedback paths for problems aren't always obvious, and when you ask the person whose name is attached to a tool, a reply can be either absent or inappropriate (e.g. the recent "Don't disturb Wikipedia" response). Much as I support local efforts and local autonomy, isn't it about time that WMF put some serious budget commitment to putting tools on to a professional service basis? Because otherwise, people are just going to drift away and find something else to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I am telling y'all the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) should step in wherever the community can't and take over the maintenance of widely used tools if the original maintainer has left the project or died. The German-language Wikipedia has a Technical Wishlist where Wikimedia Deutschland will build whatever tools German Wikipedians demand of them and some of those tools have made it to Wikimedia Commons, as such a large scale project as this is Wikimedia Deutschland should step in and give Wikimedia Commons a bi-annual wishlist or at least an embassy where we can bring our technical problems. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:38, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Saudia or Saudi Arabian Airlines
Hi all. It has come to my attention that there might be a "naming dispute" with regards to this airline. Majority of the wikis (as seen from wikidata) 21 of 35 entries uses Saudia. In addition, the official website uses "Saudia" too ([1]). Can we have a discussion about this? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 09:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
They've apparently switched it a few times. I'm not sure if it's the name of the company, or just a trading name painted on the aircraft.[2]--ghouston (talk) 11:27, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Eatcha is developing a bot to review youtube files. That will surely help with the huge backlog. However, IMHO videos often contain far more materials that might violate copyright, so a human review is still necessary.
If this is agreed upon, then I can think of two different approaches to process these videos.
1. Bot-reviewed videos seen as similar to non-processed videos.
This means they will only be put into a cat Youtube videos reviewed by a bot, which will be a subcat of Category:License review needed (video). Only image-reviewers can further process them.
2. Bot-reviewed videos seen as similar to Category:PD files for review (also similar to bot-reviewed Flickr photos)
This means the licence is verified by the bot, but a human review is good to prevent other copyright violation, even though the human review is not urgent. And who can be trusted to add reviews? Only image-reviewers? Autopatrollers? Autoconfirmed? Flickr photos are considered human review unnecessary so long as the file is the exact same size as the flickr original and the flickr account is not blacklisted.
I think a community decision is crucial and it will affect how the template, the bot and reviewers' scripted tool are designed, so I bring this up here in advance.
In summary, which following option regarding bot-reviewed (youtube) videos do you agree with?
Human review is not necessary.
Review by image-reviewers is necessary.
Review by an extended group of users is necessary.
I support #2, but accept #3 for autopatrollers as well. If #2, bot reviewed videos will be tagged with template:youtube bot reviewed for example, which will be replaced with a {{LicenseReview}}. If #3, they will be tagged with youtube reviewed|user=youtubebot which will be replaced with youtube reviewed|user=Example.--Roy17 (talk) 21:42, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The photo File:Kharput Greek-Orthodox refugees - C.D.Morris - National Geographic, Nov. 1925.jpg states in the filename and text description that the deportees in this pic are Greeks in the 1920s, but the Flickr file identifies them as Armenians and the film The Promise uses the photo to illustrate the Armenian genocide. I've seen other uses of this photo to represent the Armenian genocide.
http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/online_exhibition_3.php says regarding that image: "In 1922-1923 Near East Relief evacuated 22.000 children from orphanages in interior Turkey to Syria and Greece
This picture shows part of the 5.000 children from Kharput en route on donkey back and foot.
"Story of Near East Relief" by James L. Barton, New York, 1930, p. 152" - seems to be different? WhisperToMe (talk) 14:16, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Indeed the text is as what was said on the talk page (page 537 is p. 62/196 of the PDF file), and (page 557 is page 82/196) -- however this doesn't say that the population in the picture directly was Greek nor Armenians, simply that they were "Christians". I know the user said that a Greek book identified the people in the photo as Greek instead of Armenian, but the original document just calls them Christians. Apparently this march took place after the fall of Mehmed VI (identified in the text as "Mohammed VI") in 1922. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, regardless of what later publications claim, the railway cars feature the Greek inscription ΣΠΑΠ, which stands for the Piraeus-Athens-Peloponnese Railways. So the photo was definitely taken in Greece, and is likely from 1922/23. Constantine ✍ 22:00, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Is is only me seeing this video upside down? It was uploaded in 2014, it had no new uploads, and I made 12 of the 15 edits in its history — yet I never noticed before it was like this. What’s (litterally) up? -- Tuválkin✉✇14:58, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --4nn1l2 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Unsourced or unreviewed flickr photos from other wikis
insource:/[Ff]lickr/ insource:/\{[Tt]ransferred/ -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by trusted users" -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR" -incategory:"Items with OTRS permission confirmed"
Try searching this or an alternative of your choice, you will find 1000+ photos. Some of these do have unclear copyright. To correct them, admins on the source projects need to be involved.--Roy17 (talk) 20:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Narrowing it down further: insource:/[Ff]lickr/ insource:/\{[Tt]ransferr/ -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by trusted users" -incategory:"Flickr images reviewed by FlickreviewR" -incategory:"Items with OTRS permission confirmed" -incategory:"Extracted images" -"own work"
The idea is, identify all files from other wikis (I use /\{[Tt]ransferr/), find flickr-sourced ones in them, and filter out acceptable ones. So my method wouldnt find unreviewed files that have {{Transferred from}} removed. Please share if you have better methods.
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Nuclear football
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.
The takedown can be read here.
Are you Hungarian? Do you speak Hungarian? Is this rude?
Aranka Hegyi
Hello, I uploaded this picture some months ago and I named it based on Google translates take on the title of the photo. I checked her name in the translator and it was saying one of them, "Hegyi" translates as "Mountain". But ever since I uploaded it I've needed to ask a Hungarian, she was a large lady who was almost never seen without a waist tightening device... So if her name is not actually Mountain, she might not have appreciated it. However, if her name was Mountain... she probably would have preferred it to show, right? I mean then it would be her persona, the mountain of a woman, right? ~ R.T.G11:13, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Church banner versus religious standard
Hello,
There is some doubt about the use of Category:Church banners (sometimes used) versus Category:Religious standards (largely used) and subsequent subcategories. It has been suggested that Banners is more adequate than Standards. May-be a natif speeking english feels better whether banner or standard is most adequate. --Havang(nl) (talk) 12:51, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Standard seems to have two meanings, standing support called a standard, and emblem called a standard. Standards are associated with en:standard-bearer, and standard-bearers in religious processions may have led to name standard for the religious objects of the type File:St. Laurence's Church, Lurgashall 80.jpg which is a hamp and horizontal rod (the wooden part as you say) carrying a religious emblem (the cloth). Those are at commons mostly categorised religious standards and, especially when actually used in processions, processional standards. --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Street names (part 2)
This is a follow-up to the previous discussion which indicated that "Streetname, City" or "City streetname" should be the approach to follow for the naming of categories. The next question would be how to name a street which runs through various suburban areas? In London, we have the appropriately-named "London Road" (A23) which runs south from Streatham through Norbury, Thornton Heath and Broad Green to West Croydon. I had thought that the approach would be "London Road, [area]". However, we have Category:London Road, Croydon, Thornton Heath to which Category:London Road, Croydon is now redirected. I have doubts over whether this is the correct approach as it means that images from West Croydon/Streatham etc will be placed under Thornton Heath which is a different area. Any views? Lamberhurst (talk) 13:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Problem is that it is the self same road, not two roads or more. There is no recognised border for areas of London Like there is for London Boroughs, so an image of somewhere between two areas will get randomly assigned to whatever area, or as was the case here not categorised at all. We need a single top category per street for the Category hierarchy to make any sense. It was being listed in the category structure as separate streets which was misleading. Of course once a single category has been assigned to a single street further subcategories can be created. But there will always be issues about the borders of undefined areas. Oxyman (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
Licence reviewer recall?
I stumbled upon a reviewer's work. He had reviewed a handful of his own uploads. Other than that, he did very few reviews. IMHO, these reasonably amount to removal of his reviewer right. Should this be posted on COM:ANU or dealt with directly from here?--Roy17 (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: many LRs (and even admins) are/were unaware of the "don't license your own stuff" rule. I made several aware myself.. Removal of LR is rare unheard of, I think. At least this was by no means reason for removal, I'll be surprised if your case is. - Alexis Jazzping plz08:09, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Removal of User:Wilfredor's reviewer right
Finally the queue for review is sorted chronologically. I was checking what the longest-waiting files were, and found a bunch in the queue because they had been reviewed by User:Wilfredor, aka The Photographer, and reverted by User:Majora: 13 files.
On the other hand, I could find only 8 files reviewed by him (in random order): 1234.
Four more are suspicious in a way. All 3 accounts are globally locked. Wilfredor and these accounts edited the files within a few minutes.
For the reasons that Wilfredor has reviewed his own uploads (13 counts), and he has rarely used the right (8 counts), I propose his reviewer right be removed.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
It would have been great to ask me to do the job of reviewer instead of asking to withdraw the rights. However, I totally agree, due to this demand now I have no will to do this work, please, immediately remove this flag. thanks --Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose First of all, VP is not the appropriate venue to raise such issues. Please take it to COM:LRR or COM:ANU. Secondly, has anybody talked to User:Wilfredor to stop reviewing their own uploads on their talk page? If so, have they continued to review their own uploads? Thirdly, 3 globally locked account. So what? Is User:Roy17 insinuating those accounts belong to User:Wilfreddor? If so, where is the concrete evidence? Why has not the main account been blocked/locked? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
VP is the most general forum, so yes it is appropriate for matters that have no formal procedures. LRR is requests for licence reviewer. Nine remaining files reviewed by Wilfredor were done way before Majora reverted his bad reviews in Sep 2018. Why those accounts were blocked (within a few hours, Mriyarules within 18 min) could only be answered by WMFOffice. How Wilfredor managed to edit these short-lived accounts' files within a few minutes is beyond me.
The facts are, out of 22 reviews we could find, Wilfredor made 13 (more than half) own reviews, another 4 related to globally locked accounts and 1 dummy, even though the reviewed files look OK and Wilfredor himself was not affected by WMFOffice action.
No, VP is not the right venue just because another was not considered. Above are a series of allegations about manipulative use of sock puppets, but missing is the necessary links to SPI cases. To put evidence of illegitimate accounts, first go to COM:SPI, before it begins to look like you are using megaphone tactics on other noticeboards. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
You got up on the wrong side of the bed perhaps? WMFOffice never replies anywhere (they make a statement sometimes, but never reply to anyone), if they did reply anywhere they wouldn't start with "hey" and if they did they wouldn't bother talking about videos of planes, and if they did they wouldn't disclose information like this, and if they did their signature link wouldn't go to my talk page, and if it did they wouldn't sign with "Definitely not WMFOffice". I didn't imply to actually be WMFOffice, I just poked some fun at their secrecy. - Alexis Jazzping plz01:44, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Is there concensus, that on distribution maps of biological species, national borders should be added or left out? I notice a user is removing borders from many maps.--Roy17 (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons can host both kinds of maps. It is up to editors of specific projects to decide which maps to use. Ruslik (talk) 20:25, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Certainly someone should not upload a map with borders over someone else's map without borders, nor vice versa. Use a different filename. This is pretty basic COM:OVERWRITE stuff. - Jmabel ! talk22:15, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
Colonias_europea_en_América_siglo_XVI-XVIII.png should not have been reverted. The borders on it are actually inaccurate because the map depicts an era before they existed. Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 16:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
if you don't like File:Colonias europea en América siglo XVI-XVIII.png, you're welcome to upload a new file. The borders are useful as one of the few subcontinental landmarks that might be familiar to readers. There is an anachronism problem, but that may or may not outweigh the value of borders in the eyes of the users.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
It was clear where this proposal was headed, so I closed it. However, "previously published" is a widely accepted practice but not codified in policy anywhere. I fail to see how that is good practice. Shouldn't we publish this unwritten (okay, it's on OTRS, but that's no policy or even guideline) rule? - Alexis Jazzping plz07:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi all, should Commons implement a new filter where it forbids IPs and new users from adding a caption if they content of their caption is a language. I.e. English, español, francais, etc. won't be allowed in the caption table at all if the revision user is an IP or a new users. Also, probably implement one that forbids input of emojis into the page. Can't seem to find a filter that does these stuff. 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 05:37, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Hornstrandir1: Fixed your link. Kazakhstan is considered to be partially situated in Europe. However the larger part of the country is within Asia. At the moment, the Category:Volcanism of Kazakhstan is not in Category:Volcanism of Europe by country. As you can see, other categories of countries with parts in both Europe and Asia are in the European category and the respective Asian one (Russia, Turkey). This is useful, especially if there are volcanoes in both the European and Asian parts of a country. You added the Template:Countries of Europe. This template shows all European or partially European territories, therefore all the countries including Kazakhstan are listed at the top. There are different ways in which you may use the template but as far as I can see none where you can exclude countries (which wouldn't be a good idea anyway I think). So I'd say leave it like this or don't use the template. Cookies4ever (talk) 13:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Auntof6: The infobox had run out of permitted CPU time (10 seconds), so it became unpredictable. The cause was the number of founded by (P112) statements in United Nations (Q1065), all of which point to country items that are themselves very large. I've limited this to a max of 20 now, and that's sped up the runtime significantly (~2.5 seconds), so the error messages and categories no longer appear in the category. Pinging @RexxS: for awareness, but I suspect this is a performance issue on the Wikidata side of things rather than in WikidataIB. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:01, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it «run out of permitted CPU time», of course, due to an excessive number of P112 in Q1065. That’s simple and obvious and any newbie can understand it, unlike wikitext syntax, which was a devious ploy by jealous geeks to keep control of the projects in their perfid hands. So glad that Wikidata is here to give everyone a chance to make meaningful edits without needing to worry about any of that geek stuff. Yay. -- Tuválkin✉✇12:45, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
"a devious ploy by jealous geeks to keep control of the projects in their perfid hands"? Sure, you made my day. I don't know what you smoke, but it is a good one. ;oD Yann (talk) 13:03, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: It was an uncommon technical problem, and I quickly implemented a work-around when the issue was reported. Your sarcasm is not helpful. Mike Peel (talk) 20:05, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
A Google search gives this with the drescription "Peter Svedbergs "Äng" vägg i hallen med transportmöjligheter norrut.". So the artist is probably Peter Svedberg, but not the one on the Swedish Wikipedia (born in 1644). Wouter (talk) 20:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
That's in Sweden. The Swedish freedom of panorama situation is complicated, but even if it would be applicable to online publication, this work of art doesn't seem to be depicted at an "outdoor location"? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:41, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Apparently this is inside the Odenplan subway station in Stockholm, so this does look like a FoP/derivative issue. De728631 (talk) 22:10, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
I created a new Category:Kungsträdgården Metro station (artwork) for the many artworks of the Kungsträdgården station. There are more public underground spaces in Sweden with artwork. I think we should wait until some takes issue with this or the legal issues are clarified. We are in Europe, not the hostile legal jungle of the US.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Policy about over-categorization
@Eddaido: wrote some doubts about my editing (User_talk:Morio#Please stop) and I'm somewhat confused. For example, this edit [3] which the user Eddaido did after my edit is an 'overcat' based on the Commons' "Over-categorization" policy (Commons:Categories#Over-categorization), in my interpretation. If this my interpretation is wrong, I need to change my editing policy. Therefore, to make sure, I would like to ask other editors' opinions. thanks,--Morio (talk) 13:53, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. Your point about possible ambiguity is reasonable (not rare to have multiple same or very similar models). About that, I try to edit after identifying the individuals, through confirmation of appearance of each and confirmation of the collection lists of the museums. Though I still don't understand well what made @Eddaido: feel the edit was a problem, I will be more careful to continue editing according to the Commons' policy.--Morio (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thx Multichill! That video would be more interesting if it interviews the staff and talks about the VR game and the burgeoning industry. Instead it just looks like a stealth videotape of someone trying out VR porn game, without any meaningful info, and is too shaky.
I joined Commons rather recently. Seeing MOTD for the first time, I believed it's another great window for people around the world to see varied fascinating moments of life. Personally I try to find stuff about science or from the lesser known parts (especially in East Asia) for MOTD. I'd rather put things up for discussion if I feel they may be too boring or not suitable. Sadly some other users seem to take advantage of the freedom to list files and have no regard for quality.--Roy17 (talk) 18:16, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
You can not delete the media of the day site without discussion. Just replace the file and description with an other and then explain why on the talk page. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
I have created the Category:Musical groups on ships. This is a missing element in the Category:Musical groups by location. I did some searching in de ferry ships from Stockholm, but there must be many more music artist working on ships. (Ferries and cruise ships) Maybe there needs to be a separate category for single artist on ships or more generaly performers on ships. I am thinking of magicians, dancers and other non-musicians. Help filling these categories is needed.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, uploading Fram to commons would certainly be a technically novel way to prove a point to the WMF. How could he release his personality rights, though? ;) The Land (talk) 20:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I've marked that one with noinclude. I guess that's of the number of DRs, so 8 or 9 for a typical DR archive, which isn't too bad.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:35, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
There are numerous daily DR archives that are transcluding specific DRs in that category. Perhaps a bot should go through and mark all of the Category:Undelete in XXXX with <noinclude>? Killiondude (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
The NASA Image and Video Library is one of the main repositories of NASA images. From what I understand, it curates images from other NASA sites. It has an API to assist pulling metadata. Myself and others commonly upload images from the site, which is time consuming. I am proposing a tool similar to Flickr2Commons. At this time I do not have the skill set to make such a tool myself. I can discuss the specifics, but wanted to propose the idea here to see if such a tool could be supported. Kees08 (talk) 04:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
That would be a great idea, especially since NASA is a part of the United States government and their images are in the public domain and the fact that we already use a lot of images from NASA. If no volunteer would build it I'd suggest contacting the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) but that is rarely (if ever) fruitful. Have you tried approaching people who imported some of their works before with technical skills if they could help? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:33, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Javascript Canvas access
Hi,
since Commons-Images are originating from upload.wm.org, there is no way to script extensions on commons.wm.org that would have access to the imagedata, correct? I was experimenting with image analysis via canvas objects, but the blocker seems the getImageData() from upload.wm.org.
@Zhuyifei1999: Think, I got it. this.$toAnalyzeImg = $( '<img>' ).attr( 'crossorigin', 'anonymous'); ... needed to do this right at construction of the element. Couldn't do it later. Thanks!--Aeroid (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Android app: Feed for adding captions
Hi, we posted about this back in March, but we're soon launching this feature so we wanted to give a reminder (also going out in Tech News later today):
Soon, users of the Android Wikipedia app will be able to add captions to images on Commons. Those who take up that habit will be invited to the edit action feed, where they’ll be fed images from Commons (including descriptions) and be asked to add captions, or translate them to their language, where they are missing. This will only be shown to editors who have made a number of unreverted edits in the action feed (which also includes Wikidata descriptions). If an edit gets reverted, the the count starts at zero again. This is an anti-vandalism measure: we don’t want to specifically invite people to do this unless they’ve shown they can be reasonably trusted. There's a similar feature for Wikidata, and the vandalism rate for this feed has been much lower than for normal edits through the app.
The reason for these features s that our (in the general Wikimedia sense) readers mainly read the wikis on mobile phones; our editing tools are focused on desktop and keyboards. This will be a problem for us: Wikipedia (and thus Commons) became a big thing because everyone who read it could add information. If this is not true in the future, we’ll have a harder time getting new editors. The developers are working on a number of different solutions, including, of course, trying to make the kind of typical content creation that we’ve always done easier on mobile. However, we’re also looking into if there are specific tasks that could be specifically well suited for mobile users. You can read more at mw:Wikimedia Apps/Team/Android/AppEditorTasks and see how it looks, including screenshots, and ask questions or give feedback on the talk page. There will be a CC-0 notice. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Pre-creating categories for Wikimania 2019
Every year during Wikimania there is some confusion about categorization of images, and it is usually quite some work to clean up and move images afterwards. In the volunteer group Knowledge savers we thought we should help out by pre-creating the most common categories, to help participants put their images in the right place from start. We recognize this is not standard procedure, but also promise to help clean up after the conference, should any categories remain unused. I did create a few categories before realizing this might need to be brought up. Is it okay if I continue or are there any strong opinions against doing this? Ainali (talk) 11:50, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Others work which no longer exists
If I had a picture which was my own work, depicting another artists work, which was purposely destroyed with the authorisation of the artist, and no other evidence existed except my photo thereafter, would I have a right to the license of the photo? ~ R.T.G16:15, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
@RTG: Yes, but you couldn't safely upload it here until the other artist's work fell into the Public Domain or you had written authorization from the other artist approved via OTRS. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me16:39, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I would say so, yes. Should Category:Bar stools be dissiminated to classify its contents «by type» or «by style», these oddballs would certainly deserve a special places, even if only in a mixbag. However I would for now categorize them as alsoCategory:Wall mounted objects, which is a nudge in the right direction. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Kelly Cutrone
In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me.
The takedown can be read here.
Sure. If a copyright-holder wants to get a copyviolating image taken down from Commons, Flickr or any other U.S.-based site, he/she needs to file a DMCA request. --Túrelio (talk) 09:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Structured Data on Commons - IRC office hour on Thursday, 18 July
The Structured Data development team will hold an IRC office hour from 17:00-18:00 UTC on Thursday, 18 July, in #wikimedia-office on the freenode IRC network. Meta has information on joining the meeting, as well as date and time conversion. Please join us to discuss forming statements for structured data, properties that may need to be proposed on Wikidata, future plans for SDC, or anything else you might want to discuss. I look forward to seeing you there, I'll post a reminder before the meeting starts. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 15 July 2019 (UTC)
Today I noticed another problem, a delay of categorization. When I placed any picture or subcategory to any category, it is not visible at the category page and appears several minutes later. Maybe, all processes are busy and delayed. --ŠJů (talk) 17:09, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
the welcome message, that new users get automagically, contains a link to special upload. the form at special:upload can be sent without choosing a license from the drop chooser. I deem that an unlucky combination. either the welcome message should link to the upload wizard, or special:upload should require the selection of a license. both might reduce the number of uploads by new users without a license. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Note that the messages differs by language, and some older notes on user talk pages are not updated (because the template was substituted by its source code). Whether this is good or not might be up for another discussion. View all the translations from Template:Welcome/i18n. -- Rillke(q?)22:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Kazakhstan begins intercepting HTTPS Internet traffic of all Citizens forcefully
Hi, I just saw this from a post on Wikimedia-l. This is even worse than blocking Internet. I am not sure what we can do, but we should do something. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Nothing can be done. It would be technically easy to circumvent the interception, but wiki users would need to know about that. In that case kazakh authorities would know too and counter the measures. WMF or wikipedians could lobby the kazakh government to exempt wikipedia from the interception, but kazakh authorities will not undermine their actions. Wikipedia could sent in the foreign legion by helicopter for a coup d' etat but that seems a bit extreme. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That's shocking. Browser vendors can have a joint strike against this privacy invasion - and hopefully will. It can't be in Google's interest nor in Microsoft's or Mozilla's. -- Rillke(q?)16:29, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Purpose of User:J budissin/Uploads/ categorization
What is the purpose of categorizing all uploads to one user's own subpage? Also, why does it detect country from which file was uploaded, why is that important? Is it only for archival purpose or also for checking licensing and other matters? --Obsuser (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Some use this for easy patrol of new photos of a certain topic. I use a few for auto-collection of a city's beauty. :) --Roy17 (talk) 16:10, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
REST URL to get captions
Using a REST URL, I am trying to get the English caption for this file.
Template:Motd/2019-07-29 is now a video of a private pool party. Really? Neither is the quality good (dimly lit and shaky), nor do I find anything educational. The pool party shown has nothing to do with the portrayed lady's involvement in STEM. It was imported and added to motd by a brand new account.--Roy17 (talk) 15:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi, i had not seen this thread. Hence everyone can just nominate a MOTD-file without discussion I saw no problem in replacing it without discussion. (I would contact an author in a less clear cut case) --Jahobr (talk) 19:07, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Although anyone can add a file to motd without discussion, IMHO it is polite to discuss whether a nominated entry should be replaced. I agree with User:Jahobr this case was quite clear cut. It was a rather promotional nomination. Thanks for changing!--Roy17 (talk) 20:24, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 10:27, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This will only apply to file movers. The rate limit was designed to curb vandalism, so when legitimate users run into it, it's not configured correctly. As such, I choose not to seek consensus as this is a technical matter, like an oversensitive spam filter.
However, if you do have objections (keeping in mind this change will only affect file movers who must be vetted to obtain that right), you can voice your concerns either here or on phab:T228317. Thank you. - Alexis Jazzping plz18:19, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Oppose The rate limit did it's job. The only time I found Arjoopy reaching the limit was when he moved files named "Birkungen" followed by an date. Other cases have 6 or less moves per minute, according to the time of the edits. After looking at the history of all of the moved files and the files in that category, it is clear that none of them did have dashes prior to being moved by Arjoopy. Despite that, Arjoopy moved the files to file titles with dashes on the grounds that they where being harmonized, which clearly is not the case. As such, the moves where not in an accordance with the Commons:File renaming policy. So, illegimate file moves.--Snaevar (talk) 20:52, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
I haven't expected to cause this discussion, but anyway, I'm an editor like anyone else here and when I bother to move dozens or hundreds of files by hand, I obviously do this for a reason. If you guys agree, I'd like to continue harmonizing the file names in Category:Photographs by Michael Köhler to the yyyy-mm-dd scheme; otherwise I stop doing this but imo that'd be a pity. Best regards, Arjoopy (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Testing is now available for all statements in structured data. Currently, Commons only supports depicts statements. Upcoming support for other types of statements allows concepts related to the file to be more fully mapped out. For example, File:Ahotel.jpg on test-commons can support statements such as depicts:hotel, location:Sant Cugat del Vallès, license:Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International, all with corresponding links to Wikidata.
Visit Test-Commons to try adding, editing, and removing additional statements to files. This initial design is very simple, more work will be done on it. After you've tested it out, let us know what you think on the SDC talk page. The team would like to hear about bugs, confusing elements, or anything else that might come to mind relating to statements when trying things out.
Here are the known issues we are currently working on fixing:
What are essential license and source tags for old newspapers?
I've uploaded some materials from old (1906, i.e. >100y.o.) newspapers of Russian Empire. E.g. voters lists, jurors lists, house sales lists, advertizements, some newspapaers as a whole.
I've put PD-text and CC-BY-SA-4.0 license tags, and specified the source (the name and year of newspaper).
The lists do not contain any creative work, and newspapers issues may contain some creative work (e.g. some articles), but in any case the authoring, if any, has expired long ago.
I clarified the licensing in Undeletion requests and with Jcb user as well.
Now I have a 'derivative work' messages, which is unclear because I've specified the source.
Could someone clarify how to publish such documents without having them been deleted?
Thanks
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Alx90865 (talk • contribs) 23 July 2019 12:31 (UTC)
@Alx90865: Could you please link a couple of the file pages in question, rather than leave other people to do detective work to find out what you are talking about? - Jmabel ! talk14:42, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Lists of names and lists of data without any original commentary are {{PD-ineligible}}, you can add multiple licenses that are applicable. RAN 18:06, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Major undiscussed change to category
@ProtoplasmaKid: Was this move discussed anywhere? I don't understand the rationale for changing the name. "Americas" as a term is unambiguous, since it clearly refers to both the North and South continents, but "America" is ambiguous as it can refer to only the United States. This change also does not match the title of the en.WP article on the subject, which has had quite a lot of discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:40, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Categories are named in English, and "The Americas" is the least ambiguous way of referring to North and South America in English; America will usually mean just the US. A category name in Spanish would probably be América, but that's a different language.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I'd say that Constantinople is a better name as the Ottoman government itself used the term Constantinople (قسطنطينيه - Ḳosṭanṭīnīye) which could be demonstrated by the fact that this coin uses the term "Constantinople Mint" and not "Istanbul Mint". I'm sure that examples of Ottoman maps using Istanbul existed, but Constantinople was by far the more common name, we can't call Leningrad St. Petersburg or refer to Sparta as Sparti because the contemporary names are different from the historical names. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:30, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
"chopped" photos?
special:search/intitle:"chopped" there are around 40 photos of persons which use chopped in their titles. First impression that comes to my mind is "human flesh char siu". IMHO file names like John Doe chopped may not be appropriate. The word should be removed without creating redirects. What do you think? Pinging two users who uploaded the bulk of these @Momocalbee and 고려: .--Roy17 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I know they used the word chopped to express that photos were cropped. I wanted to ask whether the community thinks it is necessary to rename the files.--Roy17 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
We would need to examine the original files. My understanding is that these are different photographs and therefore Commons should host both unmodified originals, and both are good quality regardless of resolution or format. --Fæ (talk) 08:48, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
@Xaris333: Yes, the license is Public Domain, so you can create derivative works and crops freely. In fact, all images on Commons must have a license that allows the creation of derivative works. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:05, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Captions with wrong language
Hi, I noticed that some people added captions with the wrong language, i.e. [5], [6]. I think we need a new warning template translated in as many languages as possible. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:15, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone is sending coded messages through Commons, interesting. Google Translate starts one of the descriptions with "The overseas Chinese wrote the knives" before throwing its hands up in failure, so that might mean something; or not. In any case, I think deletion and a block would be in the best interests of Commons.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:21, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The Chinese texts are gibberish, unless someone figures out they might be some secret codes. I am more concerned about the images.
Searching by file type and size among recent uploads, I found two more:
I've deleted all the uploads from the three accounts you found and blocked them all. It is pretty obvious the accounts are related. If not socks then meatpuppets. You can hide a lot of rather dangerous things inside of images and I'd rather not wait for further confirmation in case it is something particularly bad. In any case, the images were clearly nonsense and I deleted them as such. If you want to request a CU, Roy17, may I suggest filing a request at COM:CHECK. --Majora (talk) 16:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
The ones I saw were too small to have anything really dangerous; it was 788 bytes, including the PNG overhead. The post I'm responding to was 620 bytes; it might fit with some work. I'm pretty sure we were looking at a short message, no longer than a paragraph in length.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
For months, volunteers from working groups have been thinking about how to improve how our communities work(online and offline) and how the Wikimedia Movement works in general. Now they want to know what you think, so they designed a survey they would like you to complete.
The survey has 9 thematic areas (like Community Health, Products and Technology, Diversity, Advocacy...). You can choose to answer the questions of one or several of these thematic areas.
I would like to know if we can import this image to commons. There is no author, source or licence information on this page, but I think this image could be old enough so that it doesn't matter --193.171.152.10310:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Excessive and duplicating files in category - Advice needed
I've been working on cleaning up the categorizing of the Category:ADR images and Category:US DOT hazmat symbols (moving the diagrams into a separate category for ADR images, and separating out the United States from the world,etc.) One of the things that's become obvious is the sheer number of duplicates, particularly of the .PNGs and Category:Diagrams of ADR markings, where we have 4 and 6 of the same symbol in some cases. I think it would be make sense to start removing some of the older raster (PNG, gif, JPEG/JPG) and consolidating the duplicates, but I'm not sure the best way of handling this. (If the problem isn't clear to other editors trying to reply, or you'd like more details, I can elaborate further, just ask.)--The Navigators (talk) 11:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Batch videos/photos from wikimedia chapters to be reviewed
When yall as sizeable organisations batch upload, could you please find a reviewer or admin among your members to add the reviews instead of queuing them? Since these stuff come from you, reliable wikipedians, they shouldnt queue up. Reviewers could focus on other third parties' media if you could do this little favour. A recent example: all the videos in Category:Celtic Knot Conference 2019. Thank you!--Roy17 (talk) 12:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Often this would mean allowing self-reviews, or reviews which some people would describe as akin to self-reviews. Is that what you're suggesting? Nemo14:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
@Nemo bis: not exactly. These files are more similar to {{Self}} files. Some people just publish them on youtube or flickr first, then take advantage of v2c or f2c for the conversion, but leave them to us reviewers when review may not be necessary. I dont know about other reviewers, but I often skip these when I see a big pile, and work on more urgent files.--Roy17 (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Misidentified images should be recategorized and in some cases renamed, but when they are within project scope not deleted. IMO this shouldn't be seen as a deletion requests issue. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Site licences
Can we update the templates Photograph, etc, (and the Upload Wizard etc) to have a field to provide the source of the licence. Here in Queensland, a number of Government departments and other organisations use CC-BY site licensing (e.g. [13]). There is no CC-BY mark on the individual webpages, e.g. [14]. This cause images uploaded from such sites to be rejected (somewhat arbitrarily) by people who don't check for the site licence. As the template and Upload Wizard are currently setup, they have a field for the source of the image (a URL in this case) and one for the permission CC-BY-4.0 but they do not provide for a field for the "source of the permission". The current presumption is that the individual files (or the source page from which they were taken) display the permission, but this is not so for site licenses. I think there are at least 3 options for the source of the licence: "shown on the image", "shown on the source", and "site licence" with a field for the URL, but maybe there are other scenarios that I don't experience where the licensing is decouple from the image and the image source. Kerry Raymond (talk) 21:01, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
That is not documented in the Photograph template (which calls for a licence tag)? And how do you do this via the Upload Wizard? Kerry Raymond (talk) 10:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Someone says this is not the AFDM-5 but instead the AFDB-1. I'm no expert, can someone take a look? - Alexis Jazzping plz02:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Having compared images of AFDM with AFDB floating drydocks, that someone may be right, at least concerning the drydock class. As far as I can tell, AFDB drydocks rest on ship-shaped pontoon sections, while AFDM drydocks seem to have a completely rectangular footprint. AFDM walls also look like the only ones sporting huge rectangular recessions on the outside, which I cannot see in the linked image. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
AirAsia or Air Asia
Hi all, I would like to bring this question up. Should we follow AirAsia or Air Asia for naming files/pages/categories. The official website uses AirAsia but many (as in MANY) files here uses Air Asia. Should all files using Air Asia be changed to AirAsia under criterion 3 or keep as it is? 大诺史 (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 12:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
File names are loose. We often leave minor misspellings alone. For media filenames, stability is more important than precision. - Jmabel ! talk16:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Hello. Every time I view my uploads, the list also includes older versions. I know there is a check box stating "Include old versions of files", but I don't want to be unchecking the box every time I view my uploads. Viewing the latest uploads should always be the standard for every account. If someone wants to include older versions of an image, they should have the option to change in their preferences to include these older versions. Do we have something like that in our preferences already? — JudeccaXIII (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
JudeccaXIII, I also prefer not to see old versions by default, and a longer list page (250 items), so I alter the link via javascript. Putting the following in your common.js should work:
//ensure mediawiki.util loadedmw.loader.using('mediawiki.util',function(){//call on page loadjQuery(function($){//Alternative uploads link - show 250 - no old versions//remove old linkvarWlElemU=document.getElementById("pt-uploads");WlElemU.parentNode.removeChild(WlElemU);//add new linkvarrUser=mw.config.get('wgUserName');mw.util.addPortletLink('p-personal','/wiki/Special:ListFiles?limit=250&user='+rUser.replace(/ /g,'+'),'Uploads','pt-uploads','List of files uploaded',null,'#pt-mycontris');///////////////////////close functions});//jQuery( function( $ ) {});//mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {
If you think this behaviour is an issue, you may report it at Phabricator, project mediawiki-extensions-uploadslink. Personally, I think this list should have one of the beautiful gallery views. Who cares for the upload summary? Upload Wizard doesn't. -- Rillke(q?)00:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Rillke, I'd support the list having more options (a configurable 'gallery' would be nice), and the ability to save (persist) the user's preferred 'mode' as their default. See phab:T229719. --Begoon03:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Other statement support is live on Commons
Support for properties other than just depicts is now available on the structure data tab of file pages. Not all datatypes all supported yet, so not all properties are available initially, but you'll find you can make much more complete statements with all of the new properties open for use. You can have a look over the Properties table to find examples of what can be added to model file data, such as location, license, instance of, to name a few. The development team looks forward to seeing new models put in place, and I'll keep the community informed about improvements and support for new datatypes when they become available. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for arbitrary qualifiers support! Looks like Commons need bot to migrate license information to structured data.
What are plans for reporting/querying? Wikidata still unaware about references on Commons :-(
When uploading with UpWiz, one can fill a) a file name b) a description c) a caption d) categories e) WD depicts - all more or less referring the the file's content and a lot of redundant information. Redundancy isn't the issue, the issue is that you have to type everything in. Seeing many uploads by Wikimedia sponsored event attendees, lead to the conclusion that it's not only me. Most of them only bear one and the same description, no matter which subject or person they depict. Sometimes categories are corrected/specified by gnomes; however the description is rarely updated. -- Rillke(q?)16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Tools like VisualFileChange and CropTool will have adopt structured data. However, they most likely can't before there is consensus about a schema / how data is migrated/ the idea started to materialize. -- Rillke(q?)16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
The structured data fields will remain incidental and inconsistent. All "Wikimedia sponsored" events should focus on encouraging new users to enter good wikitext and good use of templates in the wikitext space, not confuse them with filling in (unintegrated) structured data fields that remain hard to query and unrecognized by most of our mass editing tools. --Fæ (talk) 17:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Structured data is definitely make sense for Wiki Love Monuments (aren't monuments IDs used already?) and flora/fauna images in Wiki Love Earth from internationalization point of view. Wiki-text descriptions could be automatically created from Wikidata. Sometimes participant of Wiki Love Something use completely irrelevant descriptions. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
"Wiki-text descriptions could be automatically created from Wikidata", that's not how it works. Nobody is creating image page wiki-text by sucking data out of wikidata. It actually sounds a bit silly, as for my uploads projects like PAS, this would lead to 10,000 images at a time having identical descriptions, despite being about different objects with different findspots. --Fæ (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Does anybody force to use same description for thousand files? But Wikidata description may be good starting point for caption(s) of single upload. Also images with automatically generated captions will benefit from updated translations in Wikidata. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
It will be also interesting to experiment with automatic captions based on structured data. Sure, it may work in limited area, but flora and fauna media will definitely benefit from such feature. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Rillke, it's important to observe what the users are doing in response: even experienced users are now very confused by Special:UploadWizard (this used to be our path to help users upload files in a simple way; not it's more cluttered and requires more skills than the basic upload form!). We need a decluttering campaign for the interface. Nemo15:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The Internet Archive's Wayback Machine
As this proposal (Mobile 📱) for backing up external links on Wikimedia Commons through the Internet Archive has been open for a couple of months now and it has received a myriad of support views with no opposition. While it is unlikely to be implemented anytime soon due to the people capable of developing a bot to implement this system such as Fæ not having the time to work on it now, it wouldn't really be useful to leave the proposal open as it’s already been de facto accepted.
I think that an admin can now close it as "Accepted" and that it might be best to create a separate page named "Commons:Wayback Machine" that links to the proposal and smaller scale projects. This page can be used to document the deployment of the proposal and the policy surrounding it (or in this case what the Wayback Machine is, why linkrot is/was a problem, how it makes license reviewers’ lives easier, Etc.) and maybe it should also list a tip to users to also place an external link to the copyright license in case this isn’t present on the source page (for example a website which hosts many images on many pages but have it hidden away somewhere on another page that all works on the website are licensed with a Creative Commons license, although I myself prefer specialised templates for that).
Just to be clear, this page should at the time being only state that there is consensus for all external links to be backed up to the Internet Archive, not that it is currently implemented as linkrot can still affect files today and of course unreachable links won’t be able to be retrieved plus some websites disallow archiving and copyright licenses can change (despite Creative Commons licenses being irrevocable) and a more recently archived external webpage might not reflect what was written there at the time of upload, but for these cases license reviews are more reliable. And the list goes on and on, but so does the list of videos needing their licenses reviewed (12,113 videos needing review as of 11:54, 29-07-2019, Central European Time). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
The long term solution would be to have User:InternetArchiveBot run here too. Either Kaldari or Cyberpower678. The behavior should probably be the same as on Wikipedia and the main difference is that the primary namespace is 6 (files) instead of 0 (articles on Wikipedia, galleries here). Not sure if either of them is planning to spend any time on this. As a short term solution someone can implement a simple bot to backup specific url's. See for example this code I've been using for a while for things I add to Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: , well, I know of the page "User:Fæ/Wayback" which is a good example of how it could be implemented here, also gallery pages aren't imported from external websites so it would be pretty useless to run it as the primary namespace to archive. But this post is not necessarily about the actual archiving but about the open proposal which has been open for quite some time. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:10, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Can you help review images for Wiki Loves Monuments UK 2019?
Hi all
Wikimedia UK is supporting the annual Wiki Loves Monuments contest again this year, and I am looking for 25-30 volunteers to help review and filter the entries.
The contest finishes at the end of September, with reviewing and judging taking place immediately after that. We normally have several rounds of reviewing during October, enabling us to reduce the expected 10,000+ entries down to long list of a few hundred from which the winners are selected by our panel of judges.
You'd need to be able to commit to a minimum of 4-5 hours online reviewing, during the first two weeks of October. As reviewing is done online, volunteers can be based anywhere in the world and you don't need to have any UK connections. I'm not looking for expert photographers, but you should have a basic ability to be able to distinguish a good photograph from a poor or mediocre one. Training in the Montage online reviewing software is available.
Every day, a few hundred media-files are uploaded without a category. As of today, the Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention shows us that from 24 January 2015, there are 1,637 "uncategorized files per day X"-categories with each a few hundred files. Is there a community or portal within the Commons-environment, that tries to categorize those files in a (semi-)professional manner? Almost every day, I categorize a few manually, but I cannot do that on my own. Best regards,Jeff5102 (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I was just looking through that list and I'm seeing many pictures like this where I can't categorize them properly (don't know where they are, who built them, their purpose), is there any way way to figure out this info? I'd like to help categorize. DonSpencer1 (talk) 19:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The uploader is the one who in most cases knows best what the image shows. Uploaders should receive a bot notification for every uncategorized file. Rather than pointing them towards Commons:Categories which is far too long and complicated, the notification should contain an easily understandable explanation of how categories work at Commons, similar to Commons:FAQ#How do I best categorize my own pictures? --Sitacuisses (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
That's a good idea, however, I suspect that most uncategorised media files come from new users and may not know all the intricacies of the category tree, so maybe the standard message should also direct them to the help desk, or maybe Wikimedia Commons should have an "adopt a user" programme like many Wikipedia's have, this way more experienced users can also teach novice users about other (and more important) things such as how copyright and freedom of panorama works. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:20, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
For new users it is indeed good to direct to places where they can get help about categories. I add categories on average each day to about 100 images of the Category:Media needing categories requiring human attention where in general I select only the valuable images and images of good quality. What I find most important is a full and good description. More important than forcing to add categories which may result in adding categories that do not exist by using the local language. Important in the description is to avoid typing errors in the name of the place or using abbreviations, to give the name of the country although that may sound silly to the uploader, describe what you see on the photo and not something like “beautiful view” or “here we had a break” or “our hotel”. With a good description it is easier to find the image and also to put it in the right category. Wouter (talk) 14:59, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I noticed that a lot of new users who don't speak English that well can have issues with how categories work on Wikimedia Commons, the best solution would be to use Wikidata to add alternative names in different languages for every category, then have a bot mass create redirects for them, and then people can add files in every possible language, HotCat already directs people to the correct names, if the MediaWiki Upload Wizard would categorise these files into the directed category rather than the category redirects then this would also never be an issue. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:33, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
While something along those lines might work, it won't be as simple as adding redirects for everything. There will be a ton of name clashes across languages written with the Latin alphabet. - Jmabel ! talk16:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)
My experience is, that some users upload a few pictures of their pet projects, and then they disappear. Thus, I do not see much in educating new users. I would prefer some experienced users categorizing the files that can be categorized, and deleting the remainder of the files that really, really cannot fit in any category. Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
That's a kind of statement that almost infuriates me. We don't need to educate them, but we do need to support and guide them while they fill in the upload form. How many hours of my life have I spent with needlessly uncategorized or overcategorized files. Only yesterday (for the umpteenth time) I added Template:use sub-categories to a user's talk page. This time, the photographer turned out to be fairly experienced and eager to learn. He thanked me and told me that he had been under the impression that the upload form was asking for as many categories as possible. I can hardly imagine any field where we could save more hours of experienced users' time than with more instructive file upload forms. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
1.4 TB uploads help
Dear Wikimedians,
I am planning to upload 6000+ pdf scans (1.4 TB) of Chinese chorography books in public domain. My internet connection to wikimedia server using pywikibot is quite unstable. I am uploading text to Chinese Wikisource. The pywikibot often stops for errors when it runs on my Windows Server. But when I upload the text file to PAWS [1.2] and run the bot there, it can continue without disruption. So predictably, the big PDF upload will not work smoothly if I use pywikibot.
My server isn't public accessible. But the files are in a net drive and requires the last page removed. I will consider contact the staffs.--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
I have an unstable wired connection which goes via my home electricity, and unpredictably drops out and needs manually resetting every few weeks. My longer running Pywikibot uploads are designed to cope with connection failures by waiting for increasingly longer periods between retries. I suggest accepting the limitations of your connection for large uploads (so long as you are using chunk uploading anyway) and look at trapping errors so that your projects can brown out and recover rather than crashing. The good news is that your robust upload module will be reusable. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: That's about 250MB for each PDF.. is that right? The limit for UploadWizard was recently raised from 50 to 500 files at a time for autopatrollers. That would theoretically allow you to upload them in 12 actions. Still a pain. I don't know if UploadWizard is more resilient to unstable connections. Maybe you could upload to archive.org and import from archive.org here. Also, make sure the compression is optimal. I assume the PDF files have JPEGs embedded, a tool like jpegoptim might help. - Alexis Jazzping plz14:39, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
Yes. The average size is correct. I think UploadWizard is not quite stable in my chrome even when uploading 30 large files. I don't what to compress them because I see them as sacred history and want them to be backed up here as clear as possiblt.--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: Just to clarify: "chorography" in the sense of "making maps" (an obscure word, I had to look it up) or is this a typo for something else? - Jmabel ! talk15:52, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
The Chinese term 地方志 literally means "regional records". zhwp article is linked to the enwp article en:chorography, which says "Chorography (from χῶρος khōros, "place" and γράφειν graphein, "to write") is the art of describing or mapping a region or district,[1] and by extension such a description or map.[2]" I think this close to the Chinese term. Many 地方志 are written by local governments, covering aspects of the region, including history dating back to the ealiest time recorded and big events, population, literatures, government,successful students in imperial examinations, geography, engineering rojects and so on, like a local encyclopedia. Some of them covers only some aspects, and may be written by goverments or individuals. Some of them covers several regions, often contentrate on a particular aspect. Do you have a better word for this?--維基小霸王 (talk) 14:16, 17 July 2019 (UTC)
Just as I was preparing to upload, the school server I am using which was connected using windows remote connection has been infected by a ransomware. All files, inculding the 1.4 TB pdfs mentioned above and almost 10 TB other data has been encrypted. All files were appended .id_<10 digits>_.YOUR_LAST_CHANCE. I have seen online reports [in Chinese] by others who are in the same trouble after remote connection. I really shouldn't have used my school server from home at summer vocation. So regretful.--維基小霸王 (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: No. But since the scans are downloaded from a net drive, they are still there. User Midleading agrees to help the upload. Regarding to private content, they are just lost.--維基小霸王 (talk) 00:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand, how hard could decrypting randomware-encrypted files be? Just screw the heck out of it with symbolic execution... Does anyone have the ransomware binary executable? --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:15, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Right. I thought if decryption is possible it must be somewhere; I did not consider the case where somewhere means sent to the attacker and then deleted. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 03:50, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the randomware is called Nemesis decryptor. Anyone know how to deal with it? I have contacted online expert from Chinese secruity software 360, they say there is no way to decrypt the files. --維基小霸王 (talk) 03:55, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Not me. I have never done a reverse engineering on a ransomware nor have ever been affected by one. However, I would not trust Qihoo on this matter either. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: What "net drive"? Anything publicly accessible? That would make uploading easier, just add that thing to the whitelist. - Alexis Jazzping plz03:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@維基小霸王: Doesn't seem publicly accessible in the sense that you could upload by url.. For about $25 you can get a Amazon Workspace, but bandwidth cost seems to make it expensive. I imagine upload and download speeds would be very high though. - Alexis Jazzping plz04:53, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
This is actually public accessible, though I can not think of a way we could use a server to download it, maybe ask Microsoft to donate some license to WMF so we can use toolforge for this kind of stuff? I'm not sure if it can handle TB of data thoughViztor (talk) 04:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
NEVER enable "Server" and "Remote desktop"! He has been infected because he used "remote desktop" to connect to his computer!--MidleadingBot (talk) 11:47, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If I view File:Causeway Bay Time-lapse videos (afternoon).ogv without logging in, I would see all the different languages by clicking Other languages, but it only shows English when I'm logged in. It should show all regardless of the logged-in user's UI language since that's what Other languages is meant for. I guess the problem is in the layout template but I cant figure it out.--Roy17 (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Many thanks for whoever solved the problem! The bug seems to be resolved, even though I cant figure out what the bug was or whose edits debugged it. I tried looking at all edits in template namespace since 31 July.--Roy17 (talk) 12:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I think there was a general majority preferring leaving such categories be in that previous discussion. Again, it quite irks me that for something being done for supposed consistency reasons, stuff like Category:14th-century maps of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia being named after the 20th century family that founded it, and thus being especially anachronistic) gets left alone and instead it starts with the hot-button topic of Israel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Israel was a country that came into existence in 1948. Note that on en.wp, you have "Israeli by year" that starts in 1948 (link). To add "Israel in 1931" is like adding "Category:Rhodesia in the 11th century" to [[Category:Great Zimbabwe]]: this is "fake history", an attempt to give a state a history it doesn't have.
Having said that, I am sure there are a lot of other places that needs updating, too, (eg Saudi Arabia). I have started with Israel/Palestine because that is the region I know best.
And saying that you can just add "Category:Palestine (region)" doesn't really answer it. "Palestine" has through the millennia also named a geographical area, while "Israel" has always been named after a state. The closest would be to call it en:Eretz Israel, or Category:Eretz Israel, which denotes a (undefined) geographical area,
In short: I could agree that the place in 1385 or 1931 should both have "Category:Palestine (region)" and "Category:Eretz Israel" (in addition to, say "British Mandate of Palestine" for 1931, etc). But having "1931 in Israel" is simply fake history. Huldra (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not "fake history"; it's an anachronism that may or may not be acceptable. Effectively, "1931 in Israel" is a shorthand for "1931 in the territory that is Israel now." In this particular case, that is especially controversial, but it is the same thing we are doing with a category like Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1859. There was no Washington State in 1859, but it's a lot simpler to shorthand it this way. - Jmabel ! talk19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
The point is that "Israel" denotes a specific political entity, while "Palestine" is a name which has been used for centuries (if not millennia) for a geographical area (It is has also, lately become associated with a political entity.) We can therefor compare using "Palestine" for one area with using St. Petersburg/Leningrad for another area. But we can not compare using "Israel" with using St. Petersburg/Leningrad: that would be like classifying "Great Zimbabwe" under Rhodesia.
User:Huldra -- I think there's a consensus that due to certain sensitivities, Israel CANNOT be the first guinea-pig case, or be uniquely singled out from all other nations. I'm not sure that there's any general will to eliminate such quasi-anachronisms from Commons at all, but if there is any degree of support for such, then you need to start with someplace OTHER than Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
The problem is that at the present Commons does "make history". The examples mentioned above, (like "Category:1476 in Italy", or "Category:1576 in China"), we can associated them with a roughly geographical area. "Israel" is associated (in modern times only with a special political entity (which does not even have fixed borders), which started to exist in 1948. (Scholars regularly refer to the region as en:Palestine (region))
First of all, as was discussed here before, "Palestine" is completely anachronistic for any year before 135 A.D., while during most of the Ottoman Empire period, the word was used far more by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area. But leaving all that aside, whether or not "Israel CANNOT be the first guinea-pig case, or be uniquely singled out from all other nations" is a valid argument in the abstract, it reflects the consensus of a number of people on Commons now, because the extreme selectivity of certain editors has raised suspicions of bad faith. All that elevated abstract hi-falutin' rhetoric of the Palestine Exploration Fund may be fine in its own place, but it has nothing to say on the subject of bad-faith editing on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We can associate Israel with a roughly geographical area that existed back before Palestine was a name. If Israel doesn't have fixed borders, than China (cf. Tibet, cf. Taiwan, cf. Aksai Chin) doesn't either.
If you want to change how languages are handled, don't start with Montenegrin. If you want to change how death dates are handled, don't start with Elvis Presley. And if you want to change how countries are handled, don't start with Israel. Moreover, if you're not going to do these changes everywhere, don't start them in a place you're interested in. If you're not going to fix the Saudi Arabia or Washington examples, don't start changing the Israel examples. That's how we get inconsistency, and if it's even a slightly contentious example, that's how you get heated arguments about bias.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
According to PEF, "Palestine' is first attested in extant literature in the 5th cent. BC, when it appears in the Histories of Herodotus (Hist. 2: 104, etc.) as Palaistinê. It seems to have its origins in the root form p-l-s-t , denoting the land of the Philistines, though it has generally in Western usage referred to a much wider region than coastal Philistia, including the area that is known in Biblical, Rabbinic and Samaritan literature as the Land of Israel (Eretz-Yisra'el) or ancient Canaan. The term 'Palestine' has over many centuries retained its relevance as an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region. It has no political associations when used by the Palestine Exploration Fund." As for earlier Biblical "Kingdom of Israel" reference, "In contemporary scholarship the united monarchy is generally held to be a literary construction and not a historical reality, pointing to the lack of archaeological evidence." (to quote from the lead of en:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy))
So what is used by scholars ("Palestine") is "completely anachronistic", while a made up Israeli history is not.
Huldra, I'm sure that you're well-intentioned at some level, but the PEF stuff is irrelevant right now, because the basic fact is that people on Wikimedia Commons simply don't want you to do this in the way that you've been doing it so far -- i.e. uniquely singling out Israel alone among the 200 nations of the world. That means that you can start working on some nation(s) other than Israel, in order to build up a track record to show that you're not unduly singling out Israel, or you can leave off. All the PEF rhetoric in the world won't help you in this immediate situation. AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't particularly want it done at all; modern political lines are the clearest, easily recognized way to precisely divide up the world, even if they are anachronistic.
All this argument is just reinforcing in my mind the point that you aren't concerned about the general case, you just care about this case. And completely deleting "Israel in year" and not messing with other anachronistic names, even way, way more anachronistic names, is just not going to fly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have said: I started with the "Israel pr year", as I mostly edit the Israel/Palestine subjects; that there are other areas that needs "cleaning up", too: undoubtedly.
And it is rather amusing that you seem to take this as a "eternal categories", when in fact, AFAIK, they only came into existence 3, or 4 years ago; all, AFAIK, created by User:Geagea. It is rather frightening that one editor can create so much "fake history", Huldra (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you misunderstood: I never thought Geagea created the Slovenia or Washington (state) categories......only the ones relevant to Israel. And again: the Middle East is the area I know, so of course I start there. I know next to nothing about the history of Slovenia or Washington (state), or indeed many (most?) other countries outside the Middle East.
I feel this is like pointing out a mistake in, say, chemistry figures, and are met with the protest "Hey, there are mistakes in the physics and biology figures, too! Clean them up first!" ....but, but, but.... I hardly know any physics or biology....Huldra (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. It's a design decision; do we have anachronistic "Location by year" categories? As a design decision, both sides have their positives and negatives, and it's important to be consistent throughout the site. IN BIG BOLD LETTERS, LET ME REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE, IT IS NOT AN ERROR, IT IS A CHOICE. You've got to address the global choice, not just this little chunk of it.
The fact that you want to call out Geagea here despite me pointing out that there's nothing inconsistent with what he was doing compared to what was going on in the rest of Commons smells of the toxicity of these battlezones, where good faith is rarely applied. Of course he created those categories, because that's the area he knows.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
And I reacted against it, because that is the area I know, too. But me pointing this out (and not dealing with all other areas which I know nothing about) "smells of toxicity"? Huldra (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Huldra -- I feel slightly sorry for you, but not really too much, because there are good ways and bad ways of approaching politically sensitive issues, and you chose one of the bad ways... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Well then, can somebody please point me in the direction where/when this global CHOICE was made? (AFAIK, all the categories I have reacted agains have been made in the last 5 years.) Huldra (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Some of the “anachronistic” categories exist since 2011 (Category:1799 in Poland, Category:1250 in Germany etc.), many more of them have been created in the last 5 years. Anyway, a system that has been used for last five years without being questioned and which as for now covers hundreds of categories worldwide shouldn't be changed by one editor's decission for one specific country without a community consensus (all the more contrary to explicit objections). Especially if the country in question is a hot topic and the editor in question obviously has an issue with it. I agree that an anachronistic labeling system for categories of countries is (at least) questionable and probably should have been discussed before. But a private guerilla against one specific case is not the way to change it. Even if you'd succeed, sooner or later some editor or robot will change it back for the sake of consistency, unless you question the structure as whole.--Shlomo (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Shlomo, I do not have "an issue with" any country in the Middle East (I don't live in the region, I am neither an Arab nor a Jew (neither is anyone in my extended family, AFAIK), BUT: I have a great interest for the history/geography of the region, and I know it "a bit" after about 80-90K edits about the region during the last 14 years. (Also, Geagea, (who started these "Israel in the 13th century etc"), state that s/he lives in Israel, but it is me you say "have an issue"? Hmm.)
And I am certainly not starting a "private guerilla", and I object to such language. But I am passionate about Wikipedia giving the correct information: Wikipedia should reflect reality, to a "wished for reality".
Today Israel is defined as a "Jewish state"; but in the 1870s about 3% (if I recall correctly) of the population was Jewish. To add "Category:Israel in the 1870s" to any file is simply wrong: if gives any reader a completely false impression. If there was anything relating to Jews in the area in the 1870s, then we have [[Category:HaYishuv in the 1870s]] covering that, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying that everyone lives in Israel has an issue? That whole paragraph strikes me as highly inappropriate.
I don't want to hear more about Israel. I would like to talk about the general theory of how Commons should handle these categories. I want a solution where (a) people can find what they're looking for and (b) the solution offers a clear decision, instead of endless arguments. Using modern country borders lets us give locations consistent categories throughout time. Using arbitrary geographic names that happen to coincide with modern country names seem to be about the worst; there's no clear borders, and lots of argument. Let's label parts of the Ottoman Empire as Greece and Macedonia and have no clear rules on the border; that won't be controversial at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What I am tired off is constantly being accused of "having an issue" by editors who for some reason see no issue with their own opinions, or the opinions off those they agree with.
And I am certainly not stating that Israel is the only issue; eg, in "my area" (ie, the Middle East) I see categories like Category:1850 maps of Saudi Arabia. Now, that is just as absurd as Category:1850 maps of Israel. That some people have created a lot of false and nonsensical commons categories should not be an argument for not cleaning them up. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why didn't you start with Saudi Arabia first (instead of singling out Israel alone among the 200 nations on the planet, something which created suspicions as to your motives)? AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
About 80-90% of my total edits are about Israel/Palestine (or is direct neighbouring regions: southern Syria and southern Lebanon), while, say, about 1-3% of my total edits are about Saudi Arabia (and exactly 0 of my edits are about, say, Italy, China or Montenegro.) So for me is was obviously natural to start with Israel/Palestine.
And I was told this was a CHOICE commons have made, but then it turned out that the first time apparently this was discussed was earlier this year, while these categories were made 3, 4 years ago. And to repeat: There is a way to list this, and that would be to list it by "HaYishuv" year. (I know that many people on commons have a distain for en.wp, but at least on en.wp you have quite a lot of editors (with all sorts of opinions) who actually KNOW the Israel/Palestine history/area. That simply seems to be lacking here. (You would never see, say, "Israel in year 1875" on en.wp.) ) To list it by "Israel by year" (before 1948) is simply fake history. If commons is happy with that: then so be it. Huldra (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
en-wiki has a different approach to this, and different goals. Our categories exist mainly to help people find images; theirs serve a bit more of a historiographic purpose. A (presumably less controversial) example of this is that whereas for locations in present-day Washington State en-wiki uses "Oregon Country," "Oregon Territory," "Washington Territory," and finally "Washington (state)", within a span of 50 years, we choose to refer to "Washington (state)" throughout, despite the anachronism. - Jmabel ! talk23:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
So 0 of your edits are about Italy, China, or Montenegro, and yet when told that your changes will have an effect there, you complain that not enough people know about the Israel/Palestine area? Listing something by "HaYishuv" doesn't help the larger world at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:HaYisuv links to en:Yishuv, with would be correct for say, any part of the Yishuv in the area in, say, the 18th hundred. While say, Category:Israel in the 1850s links to exactly nothing on any other wiki. How is that helpful?
Also, this policy is not written in stone: from what I understand, it is no older than 3 or 4 years, and actually any discussion about it was first done earlier this year(!) (that is at least what editors here have pointed to). It looks to me as if some editors just have implemented a new policy, unique for commons, and then people here have made it "the rule" "post factum". That is not very reassuring. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the way Commons works, and in fact it seems like most projects work that way. Someone implements something, then it becomes a defacto standard and either gets formalized or people propose and define alternate standards. This particular "policy" is far from unique to Commons; opening up an old Dewey Decimal System, 973-979 is United States and territories, and 973.1 is AD 896-1607. History of New Orleans? The index gives that as 976.3, which is US/South Central or Gulf/Louisiana.
This is not 3 or 4 years old; Category:New Orleans, since 2004, has been part of Category:Louisiana (now it's deeply nested, but it's still a subcategory), which since 2004 has been part of some variant of Category:States of the United States. (This is for a city founded in 1718, and was not part of British America.) That's a slightly different case, but it's quite parallel to the maps one.
It's not your opinions, for me it's the fact you keep singling out other people.
I've explained to you why I think such categories are useful; it'd be nice to get more than a dismissal as "false and nonsensical". I'd point out the claim that in the 21st century (which is of interest to us all because that is where we will spend the rest of our lives) Israel is a purely political name and Palestine is not political at all is pretty false; as is the claim that China or Italy is a neutral apolitical name for an area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Huldra -- you were a participant in the previous discussion on Village Pump (the reason why this thread has "(2)" in its title)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's go back to that claim that "The examples mentioned above, (like "Category:1476 in Italy", or "Category:1576 in China"), we can associated them with a roughly geographical area." There's a YouTube video that shows this better, but looking through maps the Yuan empire, late 13th/early 14th century, is the first to really reach the size of modern China, and lots of land was lost and lots of land was gained by the Qing Dynasty, and some was lost by the time of the modern People's Republic. China Proper throws another wrench in the works; apparently long after the Yuan empire, there's still a big difference between the western territories and the eastern China. Large areas were once part of China or Chinese states that aren't part of the People's Republic of China, and large areas that are part of the People's Republic of China have for most of history not been a part of China or what are generally considered Chinese states. I don't know how labeling part of, say, the Tibet Empire as "China" is not "fake history". There may be a lot of points that are simple; Rome is part of Italy. What about Nice? Milan (part of Austria for decades)? Ticino (Italian speaking, surrounded by Italy but annexed by Switzerland in the 14th century)? Which is part of the reason this needs to be discussed on more than just a single case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the points that are simple: Rome hasn't been part of Italy (as a country) until 1870. And I agree that using roughly geographical area as criterion would cause a lot of quarrel worldwide. Besides, the categories are usually decorated with flags of the countries, connected with articles and Wikidata items of the countries, so the statement that they are defined by roughly geographical areas is quite untenable.--Shlomo (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A general discussion leading to a general policy would be fine; however, a number of people consider singling out Israel alone not to be the best way to start... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The Cumbria "keep" seems to me a sensible one, and the implications for the present case would be clear. (Also per Jmabel's well-made comments above). Nothing to change here. Jheald (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
It is an 18th century cemetery. There are bound to be PD-Old tombstones in there, so you cannot just wholesale delete the files in there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't art require more than a name and date on a tombstone? Modern tombstone use a programmed lathe to carve in text typed from a computer onto a block of granite, it isn't really art, unless choosing a font is an act of creation. Only elaborate tombstones with carved figures are art. RAN 05:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC) 
Oppose First of all, VP is not the appropriate venue to raise such issues. Please take it to COM:LRR or COM:ANU. Secondly, has anybody talked to User:Wilfredor to stop reviewing their own uploads on their talk page? If so, have they continued to review their own uploads? Thirdly, 3 globally locked account. So what? Is User:Roy17 insinuating those accounts belong to User:Wilfreddor? If so, where is the concrete evidence? Why has not the main account been blocked/locked? 4nn1l2 (talk) 18:23, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Done most were reverted by Prosfilaes.--Roy17 (talk) 15:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
eda.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3A1950_Checker_taxicab_%2834340430700%29_%28cropped%29.jpg&type=revision&diff=357981738&oldid=357981454){kind=link}
![[5]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%AA_%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%B4_%D9%BE%D8%B3%D8%AA_%D8%B3%D8%B1_%D9%87%D9%85_%D9%88_%D8%AC%D9%87%D8%B4_%D8%AF%D8%B1_%DA%86%D9%86%D8%AF_%D9%85%D8%B1%D8%AD%D9%84%D9%87.png&diff=prev&oldid=359435310&diffmode=source){kind=link}
![[6]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:%D8%AA%D9%81%D8%A7%D9%88%D8%AA_%D9%85%DB%8C%D8%A7%D9%86_%D8%B1%D8%AE_%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86_%D8%AF%D9%88_%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B4_%D9%88_%D8%B1%D8%AE_%D8%AF%D8%A7%D8%AF%D9%86_%DB%8C%DA%A9_%D9%BE%D8%B1%D8%B4_%D8%A8%D9%87_%D8%B7%D9%88%D9%84_%D8%AF%D9%88.png&diff=prev&oldid=359435749&diffmode=source){kind=link}
![[7]](https://i2.wp.com/www.safari-center.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/uewb_01_img0010-e1545480808672.jpg?fit=228%2C279){kind=link}
![[8]](https://www.thetimes.co.uk/imageserver/image/methode%2Ftimes%2Fprod%2Fweb%2Fbin%2Ffea2cf62-922a-11e6-8d9f-b994bff2c484.jpg?crop=2333%2C3500%2C-0%2C-0){kind=link}
![[9]](http://www.piplz.ru/datas/photos/page_1808.jpg){kind=link}
![[10]](https://alchetron.com/cdn/joy-adamson-3f21dcc5-6469-4498-87ed-ea7494e9694-resize-750.jpeg){kind=link}
![[11]](https://www.shakariconnection.com/image-files/joy-adamson.jpg){kind=link}
![[12]](https://i.ytimg.com/vi/duvH95fFyK0/hqdefault.jpg){kind=link}
_and_USNS_Spica_(T-AFS-9)_at_Subic_Bay.jpg){kind=link}
- Alexis Jazz ping plz 03:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
