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.
IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation project
Just a note that there is currently an ongoing discussion on meta regarding the possibility of changing the way that IP editors are handled on Wikimedia projects. I don't believe this project has been otherwise notified. GMGtalk17:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
No, we just started working on that part! Starting to post on some Village Pumps where we speak the language, added it to m:Tech/News/2019/32 to make sure the rest get the news on Monday and so on. Comments on the Meta talk page are very welcome. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I asked this once before but cannot find a link to the conclusion that they contain public information and are devoid of commentary, that would meet the threshold of originality. So I am soliciting opinions again as to whether post 1977 funeral notices meet the threshold of creativity to be eligible for copyright. They follow a rote pattern, the named of the deceased, the day of death followed by "devoted [insert husband or wife and insert name of spouse], beloved father of [insert names of children]", the funeral director fills out a form. Funeral notices are different from prose obituaries, they are paid advertisements placed by the funeral home. They are free of copyright prior to 1977 as advertisements without a copyright notice. Here are some examples from before 1977, the wording has not changed in 200 years: Category:Funeral_notices_in_the_United_States. This time I want to link to the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 2019-08-03 21:22:20 (UTC)
In general these notices, largely based on notices of which the copyright has expired, would be {{PD-text}} for me. To put it bluntly, they are barely more copyrightable than a shopping list. - Alexis Jazzping plz23:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Seeking help from an admin. This template should be deleted. However Trzęsacz gamed the system by forking the template to a slightly different name Template:BBC Your Paintings (spaces in name) and re-added use cases. The DR closer User_talk:JuTa#BBC_Your_Paintings is saying the template can't be deleted because it now has use cases and must go through a new DR. This is silly, we don't delete a template and then immediately re-create it under a slightly different name, and be required to start a new DR for it! Because if the new DR closes delete, Trzęsacz will simply fork it again to different name like Template:BBC-Your-Paintings (dashes in name). The point of the DR is to delete the Template regardless of its name or forks. -- GreenC (talk) 04:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenC, Jeff G., and Rodhullandemu: Worth noting that the first template was deleted for being unused, not on the merits of the argument (which could well have been heading for no consensus). Secondly, was the second template an exact copy of the first one? Not being an admin, I can't check. But from the glimpse I had this morning, before the deletions, it looked as if the second template might have been a bit more careful than the first to note that the original source location was now unavailable.
Since no consensus decision was ever made on the underlying merits of this template (and as User:Begoon noted in the discussion, there is a reasonable case for it), the speedy looks a bit hasty to me, and the template could be a strong candidate for deletion review. Jheald (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, I do think it maybe deserved a little more thought. If a picture came from BBCYourPaintings, then that is where it came from, and, I would have thought, important information to retain. If BBCYourPaintings is then moved/transferred to something else then that doesn't change where the image came from. In the same way we don't let people change our article on w:Nikola Tesla to say that he was born in/came from Croatia, because Croatia didn't exist in its current form at that time - instead we give the contemporaneous location and mention that his birth place is now within present-day Croatia. I was born in Lancashire. The place where I was born is no longer classed as part of Lancashire, yet it is still absolutely correct to say that is where I was born.
For a better understanding of why I am sympathetic to the template being retained, read my (hypothetical) Flickr/iPix scenario at the DR. --Begoon22:15, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
I know how to find out where a particular Commons file is used. But is there a way to find a list of where all your uploads are used, without going through them one by one? Or perhaps a way of being notified when someone uses one of them in a new place? Marnanel (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
You are right. In Denmark Freedom of Panorama only applies to building. In case of artworks the creators has to be dead for 70 years before the artworks becomes free. That goes no matter where the artworks happens to be. Unfortunately I don't known the creators in question but I have asked at da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Moderne kunst i Aarhus. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
I categorise this image on the basis of the elements in the picture. However there are deeper meanings such temporary nature of most things. Is it posible to classify images for the deeper meaning. This is of course subjective, but could be usefull to illustrate some philosophical concepts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
I think if anyone categorised an image such as this beyond what is actually visible, yes, that would be subjective. The problem would be "where do you stop?". You could certainly use it in some article to illustrate some deeper or abstract concept, and that would be up to the other editors of that article to argue, but here I think we prefer to deal with concrete categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
This Commons proposal has been raised to ensure a vote exists on Commons for the recent Diversity Working Group recommendation to change Wikimedia Commons licensing policy.
Although I usually filter out WD edits from my routine watchlist view, this queary is being flooded by thousands of edits tagged with Created claim: (d:P179). The edits are legitimate (BSicons), but I would expect them to be filtered out when the checkbox labelled "Wikidata" under the section "Hide" is ticked off. Any ideas? -- Tuválkin✉✇11:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@大诺史: Thank you, that fixes it. However the mentioned checkbox in Special:Watchlist is rendered useless (and misleading) when WD edits are filetred out in Special:Preferences, making it cumbersome to casually filter WD edits on and off on the fly. I would rather have Created claim (and other such) edits properly disappeared/reapeared by means of said checkbox — and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Is this a bug, or is Created claim (d:P179)not a Wikidata thing? -- Tuválkin✉✇11:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
There is a picture taking walk arount Stockholm, but somebody would be interested in Wikimedia Commons meetup? We can talk about our issues, have a look on the tools, Structured Data, etc. Juandev (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
As long as the logo shows only text and not any of the Simpsons characters, this should be ok. Can you please provide a link to an example? De728631 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's unlikely that the image was taken in Kazakhstan; they are not exactly known for wearing loincloths, I'd say. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Iconic photograph of Wright brothers first powered flight, 1903. Today still subject to a copyfraud claim of commercial rights by the Imperial War Museum even though the photograph was never donated to the museum, and still demanding money for the bizarre copyright claims, despite past correspondence on precisely this photograph.
I've uploaded lots of Canadian and US images, from World War 2. Canadian images are public domain due to age. US images, taken by DoD employees are public domain because all images taken by DoD employees, as part of their official duties, are public domain.
I thought some UK WW2 images were also free, due to a decision about Crown Copyright... When I went to download an image from the Imperial War Museum I read it was released under a non-commercial license.
@Geo Swan: See User:Fæ/email/IWM. There have been related discussions over the years, search our archives. You may choose to ignore copyfraud claims and "watermarks" by the IWM for works that are clearly expired Crown Copyright, or public domain for other reasons. My own uploads include the (unenforceable) claims by the IWM for completeness, and some irony. All evidence is that in the years since my original emails, the IWM has doubled down and become even more unapologetic for its copyfraud claims, even when this causes alarm to its own curators and professionals. Middle management whose primary concern is selling postcards and charging academics over 100 quid a pop for a reproduction of a public domain photograph, rule the roost. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, literally not Crown Copyright. Once rights have expired, HMSO have no say on republication. --Fæ (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
FAE is totally correct in every aspect here. What's saddening is that I've noticed commercial stock image houses, take images from Commons and put them up for sale on their own sites. Something quite common on eBay as well. I have also seen out of copy-write images owned by institutions loaned out to stock image houses for sale. Indeed I could point you out images that clearly (by photogrpher, view, camera, and date) could only have come from the IWM that are not to be seen on their site but can be bought exclusively through particular third parties. The IWM is not the only culprit there are others world wide. Broichmore (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Broichmore, I have seen stock image companies sell photos I took personally, and placed in the public domain. Do a google image search using your own commons ID and you too may find these companies are re-selling your free images. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Fæ, thanks for your link to User:Fæ/email/IWM. I thought you combined tact and clarity. If they didn't respond to your 2nd email message, do you think they realize you were right, and they were wrong? Or do you think the manager you corresponded with just didn't understand copyright?
So, for World War 2 images, from the IWM, what license do you recommend?
The museums, know what they are doing, as do the stock houses; they look for revenue. Commonly magazines and book publishers will prefer to pay the museum or stock house for use of PD images. For several reasons, they save time, they don't have to worry about legal clearances, they can defer any potential liability back to their source, and of course they can write it off on the tax man as expenses anyway. Broichmore (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You could take a look at licence PD-UKGov. You must take care to ensure the artist / photographer was on active service at the time of creation, and paid to do the art by the government. If there is any doubt you will have to defend it. If he was in the army for all of WW2, lived till 1990 and painted a scene outside of a government installation of a warship on the Clyde in 1943, on his time off you will probably see it deleted. If the artist died by 1948 and came from a country with the 70 year rule, then your OK. Historical images have to be assessed on a one by one basis for Commons eligibility. That goes the same for any other worldwide institution. Broichmore (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Recent actions by User:Techyan against User:Shizhao
Hi to all,
This is to raise concern over recent actions by User:Techyan against User:Shizhao in the deletion of two photos.
After that, User:Techyan reuploaded the picture with the some parts of the original picture pixelated. The picture did not pixelate the member whom wanted to have his picture removed. It led to another request for deletion by another member of the Chinese Community at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Qu_Tianxiang_Victor_Chyu.png.
After both pictures were deleted, User:Techyan initiated a verbal attack at the Chinese Wikipedia at his Chinese Wikipedia's user page in big-character poster style (where he is an admin there), which translated as actions of Shizhao, PhiLiP and myself were problematic, and contained personal attacks against myself, PhiLiP and Shizhao, with bullying content against User:K.Y.K.Z.K. I didn't see my comment stating that the pic was "group bullying" got any problem as I received out-of-site direct requests (direct-message-style-request).
I hope the community could discuss this issue, and to see whether Shizhao's action to delete both pictures were right. If Shizhao's action consisted of wrongdoings, I would also hope to know the reason, as I personally did not see any wrongdoings incurred within.
I have checked this page; it's an Indonesian govt website and there is no mention of copyright. I thought that it will be okay to upload the pictures from the page here. However, I need to double check; if any experienced wiki-commons user can confirm, that will be appreciated. Dhio270599 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Absence of a copyright claim means that all rights are reserved by the percieved or implicit publisher; this is so since 1973, at least. -- Tuválkin✉✇11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: : That's probably the best non-copyrighted picture on the topic that I have found. I mean, yeah, that's fairly ugly, but.... better than none. By the way, thank you Tuvalkin and HyperGaruda :)
ps: I unironically love grammar nazis (hahahaha). HyperGaruda, if you have time, it might be good to ask for constructive criticisms on that matter from you in the (near?) future. Gotta polish my article before that; the article's awful. :( Dhio270599 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Same file, different licence
Tea ceremony implements.jpg and Utensiles pour la cérémonie du thé.jpg are pretty much the same (one is brighter, the other one is darker). However, they have a different licence (one is PD-self, the other is Attribution) and were uploaded from different Wikipedia projects. Do we have en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia admins around here who can check the (probably deleted) file history? --D-Kuru (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
original en-wiki upload was 03:47, January 31, 2004 by User:Exploding Boy. He just wrote "Photo by Exploding Boy" and didn't specify a license (not unusual in 2004, pre-Commons: the default license, which at that time was GFDL, would have applied). 19:07, September 24, 2004 User:TakuyaMurata took the liberty to add {{CopyrighedFreeUse}}, which User:Dromygolo corrected to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. While, as far as I can see, Exploding Boy never overtly confirmed that, he did make a subsequent edit, adding a category 22:41, May 13, 2006, and left that in place. - Jmabel ! talk23:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Do we have an fr wiki admin here that can check the information (uploader/provided source/etc.) of fr.wikipedia? --D-Kuru (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't contributing to Commons at that time, and I have actually no idea how to find from which Wikipedia page it was actually imported? There is no history associated to [2], not even a deleted one. So I can check any deleted page you want, provided I can find it. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
It is there: [3]. It was uploaded to fr.wikipedia and transferred to Commons with the correct spelling, but in 2017 User:CAPTAIN RAJU renamed the file with a spelling mistake. The first upload to fr.wp from 2004 is not shown in the public logs. You probably will not find anything more than what was transcribed on the Commons description page, where it is noted that the first upload to fr.wp was on 2004-10-09 10:08 by Dromygolo with the license tag Attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Update on the consultation about office actions
Hello all,
Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.
This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.
For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.
Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.
Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: So even though the better image is at the worse name, we move the description text etc. and live with the worse name? Is that a policy? Because I'd be more inclined to re-upload the better image where we already have the better filename, description, and attribution situation, adding just the image & its source info there. - Jmabel ! talk21:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
I haven't noticed any policy, but I'd be inclined to keep file where it was uploaded first, given that it's the higher resolution version. It seems more polite to the original uploader. Improving the description just needs copying the wikitext from the duplicate upload, and the file could probably also be renamed under criterion 2. --ghouston (talk) 23:44, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: Even though it was part of a batch upload of a Flickr feed, misattributed as to who took the picture, and the name is lousy? - Jmabel ! talk16:21, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
First reload the better picture to the better named file, transfer the necessary texte and then suppress the lesser named file. -.-Havang(nl) (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Movement Strategy online surveys - opportunity to share your thoughts about reworking movement structures
Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.
The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.
p.s. If this is not the right place to post such message on your wiki, I apologize. Feel free to move it where appropriate according to your guidelines. Thank you!
undeletion request for newbie
Could someone help please. We have a Prof who has recently had a Women in Red biog written about her. We have been trying to encourage her to donate a selfie. She is trying to understand that she does not own the copyright of photos that she didnt take. I am trying to encourage her as she could be a good source once she understands our strict copyright stance. She has loaded a picture of her and her daughter which she took. Her user name is Mvgalea. Could that be undeleted? She has also tried to donate a picture of Amanda Fosang which does appear to be taken by her. Can you please leave this in place and I will request deletion if it turns out to be definately a copyvio. So if you have the time and rights .... could you undelete the picture of her and her daughter loaded by Mvgalea. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Videos from Crimea by year}} places the media file only in "Russia" category after 2014 (the year when Russian military has moved into the peninsula). To the best of my understanding Commons has never taken a stance on the annexation, and all other categories have been categorised in both countries, thus making it easy to find what one is searching for with the minimum chance for flame wars. Has this approach changed? If so, I have not seen any discussion about that, and I would like to figure out how I can see if the concensus is to revert back to dual categorisation after the annexation. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: What is your reason for breaking my edit with <noinclude> and then after that protecting the page? You can trivially see on Category:Videos of 2018 from Crimea the notice no longer shows up after your edit, and it worked after mine. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 10:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason is, categories "Ukraine" and "Russia" require permanent diffusion and shall not be included in the categories using this template. --A.Savin10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for rolling back and applying the parameter to the template. I want to add that this time the interaction with you was very much more productive than it usually is, I hope that this is not an accident and that you will continue striving to become a good admin. Be well! ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 15:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you would like to search for a person's name, you can just use the "Search Wikimedia Commons" field on top of the page. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If you want to add a picture of a person to Commons that should be found then first use a meaningful file name, add an image description into the relavant field and then use proper categories. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 09:12, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
{{Cc-by-sa}} is actually not a licence template but a warning to remind the user that they forgot to specify a CC version number. The all-caps template, however, is a valid tag for CC share-alike version 1.0. So if at all, it should be redirected to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
There are 10 images with the name starting 'Sigma SD-14' and ending with a big number. These are all pictures taken in Amsterdam in november 2009.
I see no category 'taken with Sigma SD-14'. This can be created. This is the only meaningfull part of the names.
I suggest to rename them 'Amsterdam Nov 2009 xx' (number 01 to 10)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:Taken with Sigma SD14 Something like this? It existed for a long time. I am unsure about the files you are talking about, but normally I would advise against renaming unless the name is misleading. ℺ Gone Postal (〠✉ • ✍⏿) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
There are to many of them. 14 and still counting adding the the categories 'Taken with Sigma SD14' and '2009 in Amsterdam'. Probably a photografer trying out his new camera.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
That would be a quite handy tool, but I'm not aware of any such alert. Also, I don't think the traditional watchlist system can be used for this task because it works with edits made to specific pages. However, files are not added to a category by putting text into the category page, but by adding the category name to the file page. So what you are looking for is a scan for every new file that checks if "Category:Foo" has been involved. And categories that are added after the initial upload would even be harder to track. Now, if there was a way to access the counter in the category page that shows the number of files in a category, this might be possible in theory. De728631 (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Quick note, for people who like plenty of warning: Commons will be read-only for maybe half an hour on 26 September 2019. If you remember the big m:Server switches, this is like a miniature, staggered version of it. Proper announcements will be forthcoming later, but feel free to mark your calendar now, and to reach out to anyone who might be trying to schedule an event that day. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
New tools and IP masking
Hey everyone,
The Wikimedia Foundation wants to work on two things that affect how we patrol changes and handle vandalism and harassment. We want to make the tools that are used to handle bad edits better. We also want to get better privacy for unregistered users so their IP addresses are no longer shown to everyone in the world. We would not hide IP addresses until we have better tools for patrolling.
We have an idea of what tools could be working better and how a more limited access to IP addresses would change things, but we need to hear from more wikis. You can read more about the project on Meta and post comments and feedback. Now is when we need to hear from you to be able to give you better tools to handle vandalism, spam and harassment.
You can post in your language if you can't write in English.
I think there is an API call to query for images by SHA1 hash. What are you trying to do, exactly? It's hard to tell if this is the solution you're looking for. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:55, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there a search tool or utility that displays in a gallery all the images belonging to a given category (including its subcategories)? Without the utility hundreds of subcategories may have to be individually examined in order to view the available images, for example Category:Genera of Hydrozoa. --Epipelagic (talk) 05:53, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There's been some discussion of this at Commons_talk:WikiProject_Tree_of_Life#Wikidata_Infobox_and_taxons. On my side, it's easy enough to modify the script that Pi bot runs, so that it starts adding the infobox to taxon categories that are currently using Taxonavigation. The infobox is currently used for around 40,000 taxons (either manually added, or cases where taxonavigation isn't present), see Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox for taxons, and it seems to work well in them (and I'm always happy to make further tweaks to the infobox if there are any issues). So this is a case of determining what the community consensus is. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
What I understood from your point in a nutshell is: "Wikidata Infobox" is good abd this is the same my point of view, and based on this, we need to replace "Taxonavigation" with "Wikidata Infobox" ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 (talk) 08:51, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. The infobox is much clearer. The only downsides are that we lose the "APG IV Classification"/"IOC Classification" labels; and on the plant example we loose "Domain: Eukaryota • (unranked): Archaeplastida" and "Cladus: angiosperms • Cladus: eudicots • Cladus: core eudicots • Cladus: superrosids • Cladus: rosids • Cladus: eurosids I". Do these matter? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
My opinion comparing both box types: a. Taxonavigation gives a horizontal header for categories, which looks much better on PC displays. I don't know if the vertical Infobox may be in advantage on mobile devices? b. The vernacular names of the Infobox are hardly readable in vertical style (try it for Category:Accipiter collaris! 7 lines for the english names only...). That's why I prefer the horizontal {{VN}}, which calls vernacular names from wikidata plus can be emended manually (which I did for Category:Acacia pubescens). Additionally, VN calls the interwiki links for galleries and for categories. c. The list of databases is possibly better at the Infobox than the list below the Taxonavigation. I like it that the list can be collapsed. But it seems that on each page it has to be collapsed manually. Because many people never need any databases and just want to search for images, it would be nice, if there was an option at the preferences to have it always collapsed. Some databases like Catalogue of Life, Algaebase and other are still mostly missing at Wikidata for some reasons. d. The main advantage of the Infobox is that is is easily updated, if there are changes in classification, e.g. a new subfamily. e. The main disadvantage of the Infobox is the failure for the correct author citation of the scientific name. That was already discussed last year and has not yet been solved. --Thiotrix (talk) 20:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
@Thiotrix: The vertical layout of the infobox maximises the number of images in the category that you can see when you first open the page - having content horizontally pushes the first image quite a way down on my screen, in some cases you might even have to scroll to see it, which is a problem as that's Commons' main product. The infobox also hides most of its content on mobile, just to show the basic context before you get to the images. You can set the various parts of the infobox to be collapsed/shown using some javascript in your user space, see Template:Wikidata Infobox for instructions. I've just fixed a bug with the VN formatting so it should look a little better, but that does still get messy when there's a lot of information to display. I'll look into importing more of the taxon database links into Wikidata - that's straightforward with a bot. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Wiki Loves Africa 2019 results are out !
And the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019 WINNERS are .... 1st place prize goes to the image Playing in the Nuba Mountains by Marco Gualazzini taken in South Sudan. 2nd Prize goes to Peekaboo by Summer Kamal taken in Egypt. 3rd prize goes to Teenagers in street by Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed (also from Egypt). The prize for Women in Sport goes to Girls fighting by Yvonne Youmbi from Cameroon. Finally, the prize for capturing a traditional form of play goes to Horses by Sofiane Mohammed Amri in Algeria. Congratulations to all the prize winners and all participants :)
What to do with these? I'd say we could move them to the actual langcodes they should be, or if they are valid create the Template:langcode. I only know zh-guoyu-bpmf is quite unlikely a valid one. The user was writing in w:Bopomofo. I'd move the description to the file page and delete the motd templates.--Roy17 (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
zh-guoyu-bpmf does not exist at MediaWiki and will not be used. ku-Arab is correct. de-ch needs to be moved to the correct de-CH --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:19, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I translated the bopomofo into zh-hant and added them to the files. The templates and cat can be deleted now.--Roy17 (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Should users be able to create disambiguation pages in the gallery namespace? If yes, should they mimic the Wikipedia´s format or should a different format be used? For example, should a specific number of thumbnails of example files be present on the page in addition to a text summary of each topic since unlike Wikipedia commons is a media focused project. I created this section in response to Commons:ANU#Jcb & Evrik but please keep the discussion here focused on disambiguation pages. Any discussion about Jcb´s block of Evrik should stay in the ANU thread. I respectfully request that Jcb abstain from closing this discussion. MorganKevinJ(talk)18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
No, in Commons we use Category namespace for navigation, not Gallery namespace. This exact discussion has been started about a dozen times for the past few years (e.g. here) and the outcome has been the same. Please remember that Commons is not Wikipedia. Within the Wikimedia projects, Commons has a specific function with specific demands. Jcb (talk) 23:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose According to the template used on the files "This work might not be in the public domain outside the United States and should not be transferred to a Wikisource language subdomain (or as a file it should not be migrated to the Wikimedia Commons) that excludes pre-1924 works copyrighted at home." MorganKevinJ(talk)23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I had recently stumbled across w:jp:ファイル:Zeni1kanbun.jpg on the Japanese-language Wikipedia and this is not unique, for a couple of years I've found dozens of images on the Japanese-language Wikipedia which were "{{Own}}" and released with a compatible license suited for Wikimedia Commons. Now these images would be very useful on other Wikimedia websites as well as other websites in general, and while I am very happy that local Wikipedia's allow for local uploads (as all "fair use" stuff can get dumped there), but this image is completely within scope of Wikimedia Commons and the fact that it's exclusive to the Japanese-language Wikipedia limits it.
Maybe a bot should automatically tag local files on (other) Wikipedia's to be moved to Wikimedia Commons and someone on that Wikipedia or other Wikimedia website should then judge if the image is or isn't compatible with Wikimedia Commons and then be tagged as being incompatible or to be automatically imported to Wikimedia Commons if found to be compatible. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:48, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I believe there can be a cat for people fighting in parliaments (quite often in Japan/Taiwan for example). What should be the name?--Roy17 (talk) 23:26, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I was hesitant to use legislative violence and so I asked, because sometimes it may not really be violence. They might be trying to occupy the speaker's chair for example. Anyway this is still probably a well-established term we should stick to.--Roy17 (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Very nice postcard but unfortunately, the author died in 1953 as I discovered after some research. Not to long a wait. Their many other pictures of this photografer.Smiley.toerist (talk) 22:18, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Upload from lb.wiki Bild-FU-3D?
Is it possible to upload to Commons this picture from the Lëtzebuerger Wikipedia? The uploader, who took the picture, is not active anymore. Does somebody have an answer, or could somebody make an example by uploading the picture? I don't know which template to apply here. Thanks, Eissink (talk) 14:08, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
@Jeff G.: And what if I cropped out the M8 Greyhound (leaving out the 1947 monument)? It is the specific vehicle that I am interested in now (for nl:Tankmonunement), and it is not an original part of the monument. And if so: what license to use then? Eissink (talk) 14:55, 26 August 2019 (UTC).
Dutch Wikimedia volunteers are organizing together with Wikimedia Nederland, this time in Amsterdam on November 22nd and 23rd 2019, and we are looking for enthusiastic Wikimedians (and GLAM-mers! and technical non-Wikimedians!) who want to be there.
The Techstorm stems from an initiative of the Dutch Gender Gap group, to promote women's participation online in Wikimedia projects. Although this is still our foundation, we are now offering a low-threshold introduction to the world of Wikidata, Wikimedia Commons and linked open data to a wider audience.
Do you recognize yourself in the following categories?
Beginning or experienced developers with an interest in Wiki projects;
Experienced Wikimedian who wants to learn (more) about the technique behind Wiki projects;
Data specialist, information specialist and digital collection manager working in the heritage sector and/or library sector who would like to learn (more) about sharing collections via Wiki projects?
Then sign up for participation!
More information about the Techstorm can be found on wikimedia.nl: information about last year's Techstorms can be found on Mediawiki.
There are several chapters who offer scholarships for travel and board.
Our files don't seem well organized. See Waterfalls of Coo, misnamed a waterfall when it should be cascade. The date on the file may be wrong. I'm not an expert but I think this is the The Cascade de Coo, in the Val De La Cascade, in Stavelot, Belgium. Besides a Lake Coo somewhere. I would restructure all the Coo files, then upload every vintage image to be found. I think the Wiki article is en:Amblève (river), If that's the case the image dates from when the cascade was built in whatever date in the 18th century, and before a possible three falls were made into two. Being the best known cascade in Belgium it should be pretty well documented, If your Belgian then you can do the research. Good luck with finding images for it on this over diffused website. I'm sure we have key images hidden away. Broichmore (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Editor Dispute at World Laws Pertaining to Homosexual Relationships & Expression
There is a heated debate about how China should be represented in this map, and I certainly feel an edit war brewing. So I hereby request any concerned member of the community to give it a look and help form a consensus. As one of the parties involved, I agree to abide by the consensus even if it goes against me. Thanks --Vakrieger (talk) 07:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Category for scanned negatives?
There some tecknical categories for pictures taken with camera x. But not for scanned slides (as far as I know). This time I am scanning negatives, wich is fairly unusual as most old images are scans of printed photographs or slides. Technicaly it is different. Dust become white spots instead of black spots and the levels work differently than with slides.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Commons:Deletion requests/File:Minnie the Moocher (1932).webm had replies that do not appear to address the copyright issue. XCould someone look into this? Note I haven't kept up to date with Commons for several years, so policy may have changed.
> Copyright was renewed. Licence tag claim is false. A search of http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/003910311 shows most if not all these uploaded Betty Boop vidoes were renewed from 1959 onwards. See Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2012/07#1932_Bamboo_Isle and [1] page 805. 84user (talk) 01:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
> Keep (I am answering here both for this film and for Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle.) Yes, I agree with you, the copyright was renewed by UM&M and the renewal published in 1959. But...
> What is at stake here is the chain of property title after this renewal : Fleischer transferred its rights to Paramount in 1941, who transferred them to UM&M in 1958, who transferred them to NTA, who transferred them to Republic in 1986. The court of appeal for the 9th district ruled in 2011 there was a failure "to satisfy [the] burden of proof regarding the transfer of rights from UM&M to NTA and from NTA to Republic Pictures" [2]. As a consequence of this judgement, all 22 films at Internet Archive, including Betty Boop's Bamboo Isle and Minnie the Moocher, are considered here to be PD.
How does the failure to transfer the rights from UM&M to NTA affect the original copyright UM&M held (still holds?) in 1959?
The Internet Archive hosting files in no way maintains or claims that they are in the public domain - unqualified people can upload stuff there and there is very little oversight.
The presence of music in the clips, acknowledged as copyrighted Cab Calloway, also makes part of the clip non-public domain. Doesn't Commons policy require the audio be removed?
Replace the image of a ViewMaster with the image of VRglasses in the {Stereoscopic 3D|parallel} template
The {Stereoscopic 3D|parallel}-template is used with LR-3D-images and features an image of a viewmaster:
This file is a stereogram. Stereograms are stereoscopic images or animations which combine left and right frames showing slightly different visual angles to allow for 3D perception.
The stereogram uses the side-by-side parallel-view method. The left frame shows the left eye's perspective, and the right frame the right eye's perspective. It might be possible to view this image without a viewing device by diverging your eyes to visually combine the frames, or a stereoscope may be used.
Nearly nobody owns a ViewMaster today
Nearly nobody knows what a ViewMaster is, or how it is used today
Viewmasters are still sold in toystores, so I suspect people both own them and know what they are. You are probably right about Viewmaster images though. If we do replace the image in the template, a stereoscope be used. I suggest File:Stereoscope (PSF).png, as it shows both the viewer and image. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Back in December 2013, drive-by user HMendez (talk·contribs) decided (out of malice or cluelessness) to edit the Wikidata entry Q3071895, changing the surnames of a well known Portuguese historical figure (Palma Inácio) for, apparently, his own (Mendez). Today, six years later, this error was corrected.
Why information stored in a fledgeling project (in spite of lavish funding and much hype) with a minuscule community of strawgraspers is allowedexpected, asked, thanked, praised to be injected in all other projects, bypassing much vaster and more vigorous user communities and their established work process — that’s a mystery future historians will digress about.
For now, we could at least dislodge this unguarded funnel from our collective backdoor: Even though displaying {{Wikidata infobox}} in categories is useful, as also is the automated interwiki links hosted by WD, we should not remove data off our categories under the excuse that Wikidata «provides» it (often that same data was copied from Commons to WD earlier) for Wikidata is not a trustworthy keeper of that data, with its poor anti-vandalism record and its quirky, arcane interface.
Support I agree. Some of us here do our own research and some people on Wikidata trust Wikipedia to be right, while very often it isn't. At least if we keep both, a discrepancy will be checkable, and Wikidata corrected. Is anyone in the real world using Wikidata? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Wikidata is widely used by basically any bigger tech company. Examples are Google as an input source to the Knowledge Graph, Apple for answering questions with Siri, Microsoft for Bing, Facebook, Amazon, etc. There is plenty of research about its quality, but in general: the more the content from Wikidata is exposed to more eyes, the more we can assume its correctness. Pieces that no one sees may stay incorrect longer. There should always be a way to have an error correction flow, and then the thing with the quality can be reduced to Linus' law, just as with Wikipedia. --Denny (talk) 03:40, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Irony of fate: very similar things were said about Commons in past. Many technical stuff was implemented to fight vandalism on Commons that affected other projects. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree entirely - just as soon as all the Wikipedias and sister projects stop displaying images from Commons (which can just as easily be mis-described) on their pages, under the excuse that Commons «provides» them (often that same media was copied from Wikipedias to Commons earlier) for Commons is not a trustworthy keeper of that media, with its poor anti-vandalism record and its quirky, arcane interface. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits18:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: Thanks for finding and fixing the vandalism. I don't do anti-vandalism work, do you have any suggestions for how Wikidata could be better at it? My hope is that the more visible Wikidata information is, the quicker the errors will be fixed. Note that according to [5], the Commons and Wikidata communities are roughly the same size. I generally don't think that duplicating data is useful - that only makes sense if people are actively checking through discrepancies, which doesn't seem to happen, and I'm not even sure that this should be done on Commons as it's data curation not media curation. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I've seen many geocoords on Wikidata taken from Wikipedia which has relied on a Geograph image which has just plain wrong coords. I use either one or another reliable source. I don't trust Wikipedia, it's run by idiots. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to quote that. A Commons editor talking about Wikidata saying that "I don't trust Wikipedia, it's run by idiots."!! Please correct the coordinates on all of the projects (or once on Wikidata, and then use that elsewhere)!! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I have a suggestion – we should overthrow one of the pillars of Wiki(p|m)edia – anonymous editing. And also require email validation during registration. Or at least it should be implemented on Commons and WD which are great places for vandals – one vandalism affects many projects and a lot of editors on these projects do not know how to fix it. --jdxRe:18:41, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
We could flag the changes for review and in a way that might help both projects because a user here can help by reverting the vandalism also on Wikidata. MorganKevinJ(talk)20:06, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem I find with Wikidata is that it's frequently not obvious where the data is coming from. If there were some easy way to find what Wikidata pages were feeding data to the current page, it would make it a lot easier to fix the errors. Certainly a lot of editors probably can not figure where the error is coming from if an error in Wikidata is feeding onto a Wikipedia, Wikisource or Commons page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
That wasn't the problem I was talking about; e.g. if you click on Edit (big, bright, on top) of Category:James David Forbes you have no idea where most of the information comes from. There's a tiny pencil at the bottom of the infobox, but it's far from obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:01, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: It's easy to add more pen icons if you want, see en:South Pole Telescope as an example - but then people complain about clutter. Alternatively, if you're previewing the page, look below the edit box and you'll see a list of the Wikidata items used, in the same way as templates used are shown. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:41, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree with Prosfilaes (talk·contribs) that the only issue here is that Commons and WP contributors might not know how to fix errors in data that's pulled from Wikidata. That is something we should work on. It's nonsensical to suggest that keeping all our data locally will result in it being better-patrolled - vandalism on Commons pages can only be noticed by Commons users, but vandalism on Wikidata can be noticed by users on any project that uses Wikidata. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:30, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment it would be perfect if a similar tool as RTRC could be made to check from Wikimedia Commons if unpatrolled edits have been made on items connected to Commons entities. Christian Ferrer(talk)20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose this is throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Commons isn't a much bigger project than Wikidata. We'll lose a lot more by unlinking the data than we would gain. Every project will have a problem with vandalism; the solution is to revert it wherever it happens. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 02:15, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Commons and Wikidata have many errors and fewer people than Wikipedia. My own perspective as a coord checker and category diffuser, and as a coach for ENWP newbies, is that getting people into the smaller projects is difficult. WP is the entry point for editors, and they take considerable time and effort to learn to use its quirky, arcane interface for article writing and the relevant social or political conventions. During that process, they discover these auxiliary things which are not quite part of WP but are vital to certain parts of its operation. They have difficulty adjusting to the different ways of Commons and WD, which use software designed for an encyclopedia and adapted, usually clumsily, for a different purpose. Thus, we get only a trickle of competent new editors in these projects. So, walking in Stockholm or other unfamiliar city with WikiShootMe open, I find red dots for WD items that have no photo because the red dot is in the wrong place. I correct them despite the WD items being mostly in German and the WP articles mostly in Swedish, neither of which I read, but sometimes it seems a lonely business. Jim.henderson (talk) 04:22, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose Even though both projects are subject to vandalism and errors, as a heavy editor of both I have found that Wikidata is more reliable than Commons. Misleading titles and misclassification are widespread on Commons, less on Wikidata. Syced (talk) 02:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment the Wikidata Vandalism Dashboard is a tool specifically to patrol label/description changes in whatever languages you feel responsible for, and nothing else. More patrollers are always welcome. (You’ll need to be autoconfirmed on Wikidata to mark changes as patrolled, but that status is not too hard to reach.) --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Better SVG-Rendering in Browsers than on Commons
The Commons server-side SVG-renderer that turns contributed SVGs into concrete resolutions (rasterizing thumbnails and all image sizes) has a number of issues, especially with rendering text correctly. IMHO the SVG-Engines in current browsers do a better job. Turning off SVG-rasterization and simply serving plain SVGs to browers to render might be an option for some cases, but probably not for all. Does anyone know of a discussion or right place to start one on this topic (if not here)?
The problems I encounter are:
kerning (bad spacing of letters in words),
centered and right-adjusted (text ending not at the right end point),
missing support for text on paths (bending text).
These limitations introduce the need for strange tweaks in general and that make in-line-translation in particular (via <switch>) or even automation of it really hard.
On the other hand, having one reference to build SVGs for, makes it easier to ensure common quality and some SVGs (maybe a relativly small number) might be complex and build for server-side rasterization to deliver smaller PNGs to mobile devices. Also SVGs on commons might use specific fonts avaiable on server side, but typically only on very few browers (e.g. DejaVu font).
But I would argue, that a large part of SVGs are simple and free of constraints that they should be safe to be passed on to browsers to be rendered directly with better results and freeing up server-side capacity.
--Aeroid (talk) 06:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Many want some minimal support for directly serving SVG files. JoKalliauer tried to get the community team to work on it, but it is not in their charter.
There are many SVG fabricator tickets. (I don't think it is the place to seek community support for change.)
Phab:T5593 (epic client-side rendering), Phab:T208578 (selective service of SVG)
Phab:T138665 (interactivity; animation)
There are many SVG files that would be good candidates for browser display. Some SVG fiels are less than 1 kB, so they may be smaller than their PNG rendering.
There are problems with serving SVG files. PNG thumbnails can be small, but many SVG files are larger than 100 kB. File:Gibraltar map-en.svg is a fabulous picture, but it weighs in 0.5 MB, and many SVG files are even bigger. Even if size is not an issue, many SVG files may not display correctly unless they are modified.
Some of your complaints may have workarounds.
kerning (bad spacing of letters in words): bad spacing is often fixed by scaling the image and using larger fonts. Font sizes below 10 pixels can be trouble.
centered and right-adjusted (text ending not at the right end point): this is often due to inadvertent spaces introduced by formatting the SVG. Left justifying some text will not show a trailing space, but right justifying some text with a trailing space will not reach the anchor point. Center anchors with a trailing space are shifted 1/2 space to the left.
missing support for text on paths (bending text): not supporting textPath is a serious limitation on Commons. It has also led to many user converting text to curves, which both increases the file size and makes the image difficult to translate.
Anybody know what are the possibilities of making up a queue to review image uploads by new users? Say, user's with less than 50 edits, or 10 uploads (or any other value that actual data might say is meaningful)? I find that most of my nominations for DR and speedy deletion are from brand new users who don't yet understand the (admittedly complex) criteria for Commons. But I also find that when I open up latest files feed, and I see a dump of files from someone who has 2k uploads, and are in the process of uploading 50 images, it's mostly just a waste of my time too in trying to patrol for copyright violations. Basically, what would be the benefit maybe or the challenges of instituting a Commons:License review for any uploads by new users? GMGtalk21:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: The OgreBot page actually does quite a bit of what I was looking for. It gives thumbnails (which is pretty essential) and it tags pages that have already been marked for deletion. The one thing it doesn't do is allow user's to "review" an image, so that other's won't come behind them and waste unnecessary time evaluating the same image again. That's a function we find in places like the English Wikipedia's New Page Reviewer right, or the German Wikipedia's Gesichtete Versionen, but which do don't have here specifically for uploads by new users. We have Commons:License review, but that's not going to catch the "own work" copyvios that many new users upload. GMGtalk12:29, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@GreenMeansGo: This one has thumbnails of unpatrolled uploads by new users. After reviewing the image mark the page revision as patrolled and it will no longer appear in this feed. You do need the patroller right to tag revisions as patrolled, but I am willing to give it to you if you want it, since you are an experienced and trusted user. MorganKevinJ(talk)02:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Morgankevinj: Oh. So we do have the version the German Wikipedia uses enabled here on Commons. Wow, that's not really well advertised. Sure. I'm interested to see how active a group it is. GMGtalk10:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
it.wikisource illustrations review
I'm thinking about best strategy for a pretty large work, t.i. fixing many of book illustrations derived from Italian djvu or pdf books. The main issue is a wrong text page, coming from heavy use of CropTool, that simply adds some information to text page of source text - so that, i.e., most of illustrations contain a Book template instead of Information template, they are attributed to a wrong Creator, and often they are categorized as DjVu files.
Images itself aren't optimal, many from them display a disturbing grey or colored background.
I think that a way to keep things in order while working about files could be to mark them with a template, derived from template:Work in progress, but assigning too the file to a temporary work Category, something like Category:Itsource images needing fix. Inside the Category page, I could add some details about work in progress.
This is a pressing matter, the policy on commons:Categories does not seem to cover over-diffusion of categories It has been discussed before on the Village Pump, See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories which went into the subject at length. This is a terrible blight on the project. I have seen many times one image put into a category of one, and then nested in as many as 4 preceding empty cats. Or small villages with 20 images, diffused into as many as 16+ categories. All the images hidden away from sight... So many categories and nesting as to make images useless and difficult to find. For example look at category:19th-century people of Brazil; this is a good case for saying the image should appear twice, once in 19th-century people of Brazil and again in whatever obscure category editors want to waste their time with, like People of Brazil in 1898. We need to cut down on useless / obscuring nestimg (example: category:People of Brazil in the 1820s. Surely this needs to be addressed? -Broichmore (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Could we add excessive creation of person by year categories? In many cases, all images of a person are diffused into "John Doe in <year>", even if there's only one image of the person for one or more years. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If there are very few file by century is OK, for many by decade is often enough (if not overkill). There must be very few subjects on the project that demand by year; not even the Taj Mahal. Broichmore (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom of a wider problem - that if I want to find an image representing a broad category such as Category:Automobile maintenance, I necessarily have to browse a multitude of child categories to find the best image for my needs. FastCCI can only show a limited set of images and PetScan is not very user-friendly and you just have to know that it exists. If we had a solid integrated solution for this problem we could get uniformly detailed with each category tree without having any issues.
For the immediate purpose of this discussion, though, I agree that the number of available files should be considered more directly when deciding how many subcategories should be used, but keep in mind that there are probably categories that should be diffused despite having small population, like Category:People of Grenada. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You Tuvalkin seem to miss the point that Over-categorization is an entirely different subject. If you care to look at the link I posted here in my first sentence you'll notice I did not originate the concept. You can also notice from here at overdiffused categories that I'm not the only person to raise concern on the issue. The size of the project is a victim of its own success, it was not envisaged that it would get to its current size and policy has to adapt and evolve to accommodate that. I realise that, to some filers, not being able to access, find and thereby use files is not an issue, but to others it is. You'll notice that Getty or Alamy don't fall into this trap. We are the only aggregator of images on the web that does. Again we are hiding away images from plain sight and rendering them useless; and trivialising the subject by calling it my pet notion is not going to change that. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In many instances there is no need to split by date, when all you need to do is sort the files by using pipes. See Category:History of Portsmouth. I.E. History of Portsmouth|1813. Meanwhile 1914 in Portsmouth has only one file, last time I looked you shouldn't make a category out of one file. Not to mention that the file itself is probably a scene off Southsea, which just makes my point even better, about hiding files. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "Tower Bridge in 2004" really the best possible and only category for this file? Is it helpful? Why is such a beautiful image hidden in one of dozens of subcategories of the "History" branch?
It's not only the diffusion in itself, it's also what criteria are chosen to subdivide a category. "By year" is an easy choice, but I don't think it's always the best. In many cases it doesn't matter if an image of the Tower Bridge was taken in 2014, 2015 or 2016. A building doesn't change its appearance that fast. More relevant questions for someone looking for a picture would be: From where was it taken (which side does it show, what's in the background)? What time of day is it? Does the sun shine or is it cloudy? Is the facade sunny or is it a backlit shot? When you diffuse a category, better create several relevant branches and routes from the top category to the files that have been diffused to subcats. Categorizing by year is a task a bot could fulfill. If you're a human being with a brain, create categories that actually help users find relevant images. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
This is a genuine problem that has been discussed before see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories (link also provided by originator of this discussion) If there was any consensus to be derived from that I think it is that by date categories are OK but media should also have another category be that from angle or part details or some other aspect. The problem with Tower Bridge is that no one has created these categories. But we need more categories to solve that problem not less. I do not think it helps to mix this problem with the alleged over-diffusion of categories problem this project supposedly suffers from Oxyman (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why in Category:History of Portsmouth for example the images cannot reside in that master category and in different places such as (angle or part details or some other aspect) I.E. Views of Gosport from Portsmouth. Certainly if filed by year they should also reside in the main cat. My point is we should be able to scan through hundreds of images on a page rather than open an endless list of cats to see anything. May I also point out that dates cant be separated by a bot with accuracy, The most common fault of any image dating from before the mobile phone era is accuracy of date. Just one example: Images are commonly dated by the year of publication, even if the image is already 10 or 100 years older. It's also self evident that a poorly designed category or one in the wrong place will create an excessive amount of admin just to keep it up to date. A good example of that is Category:Ships by name which was renamed and made into a hidden category. It has since had to be continually revisited to to keep it up to date. Broichmore (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The real problem is not the over-diffusion of categories, but rather the fact that MediaWiki (without using third party tools) is unable to display ALL images of a category and all sub-categories. With such a functionality, properly implemented, there would no longer be any need to go through all the sub-categories to get an overview of all the existing content. Okki (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Indeed I agree with you, have you requested such? Again, the project is growing at an ever escalating rate. I don't see that there is the software out there for the task, or the funding / commitment for a new database to accommodate what your suggesting. Meanwhile it doesn't solve our immediate problem. I have to say which only became an issue for me when I noticed it on hunting for images to populate Wikipedia. Broichmore (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that having more categories is useful because "the project is growing at an ever escalating rate" Oxyman (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with you but (in practical terms) only from the birth of the iphone, from that point the sheer quantity of available images starts to go through the roof. Prior to that there are surprisingly few images out there. Broichmore (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A tool show images of category up to sublevel (1,2,3, etc to be chosen)... is wishful. Wo can create that tool within commons? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, the foundation, which receives millions each year and should be able to hire enough developers to solve this kind of problem. But unfortunately I have the impression that Commons is completely neglected :( Okki (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
@Broichmore: reminds me of User:Multichill/Next generation categories. We're getting there with structured data. Currently at the phase of data modelling and probably soon robots will start adding things. Once plenty of data has been added, the search engine should be improved so that we can find the example photo by searching for photos of bridges in London taken in 2004. Multichill (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Today I was looking at some unidentified ship images. Very often you need to compare images by eye to identify a ship or a person. Search Google for an image, doesn't cut it a lot of the time.
You CAN do that if you looks at 500 thumbnail Images at a time. You cant do it if those 500 images are buried in 3 or 400 cats.
If i want an image to use for Big Ben's dial I want to scan through 500 at a time. Impossible if images are buried in cats holding 1 or 2 files. Searching is totally dependant on cat structue, especially when files hold no key words, for example: dial.
We're getting around a half million new files a month. If you want to dig through millions of uncategorized files, complain that those who are categorizing them are a burden. I think very few of us want to dig through 500 files in a category, so you might be a bit extreme in that example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:09, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: I never said digging through 500 files in a category, In the great majority of countries, scanning 500 thumbnails is a fairly easy thing to do, on the other hand trying to ascertain the contents of 200 or so closely related folders containing 500 or less files is not easy. That is digging as you like to call it.
If we're getting around a half million new files a month, what I'm advocating makes sense. We are wasting huge amounts of resources burying files into cats. I've just been in Old Maps of Finland. The 18th century has one cat of 1780's maps, that has 2 files in it, 1 in a cat for 1780 and the other in 1788. 2 files in a tree of 4 cats. This makes a nonsense of the rule don't make a cat for 1 file, a rule I don't always follow. I use common sense. We obviously don't have the resources to cat half million new files a month into this kind of obfuscated detail. Broichmore (talk) 14:58, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Most of us don't want to go through 500 thumbnails in a category. I appreciate that what's optimal here is largely opinion, but I think your preference is for far more thumbnails than most users.
You can't say too much work is being done on this and that we don't have the resources to do work on this. That's not consistent. People will work on what they want to work on, and people who spend a lot of time on categorizing may just quit if they're pushed to do other things. That's the cost of a volunteer system.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:31, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
PxHere.com
Hello.
I've found this website which contains photos under CC0 : PxHere.com
I uploaded one file for testing: File:Asiatic woman with hat-1066142.jpg. Interestingly, the PXhere version seems to be the original file, while the Pexels version is a compressed version without EXIF data. And the same photographer is An Min on one site, and Min An on the other. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
I am reviewing files in Category:Images from Pxhere. It is wrong to say that the authors are unknown, as it is mentioned for most files on PxHere. They may be pseudonymous, but they are not unknown. PxHere does a very poor job, copying the files from Pixabay, but ommiting to credit the authors. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I dont like these photo collection clone sites, because their sources are very unreliable. We should only import photos from websites that scrutinise provenance of their collections at least as well as we do on Commons. Good examples are all the libraries, archives and museums.--Roy17 (talk) 13:55, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
I don't think we can completely avoid them, but I agree that we should take extra care about these files. I reviewed all the files in the category, and I fixed the author for many of them. IMO these sites are useful, as they have different types of pictures, which Commons contributors rarely take. And the quality is quite good, compared with free pictures from other sources, e.g. Flickr. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:13, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Facebook photos
I'm sure this question must be answered somewhere, but I cannot find a clear answer anywhere at the moment. What is the current situation with FB photos? Are photos posted on public pages allowable on Wikimedia? (What I am looking at is not of people, but buildings.) Laterthanyouthink (talk) 09:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Like any other images on the Internet, Facebook pictures are not free. You need a formal written permission from the copyright holder before uploading them to Commons. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
You can see this wikidata list for examples of how structured data is used with roofs. You should create a page for the roof on wikidata. Then link to that wikidata page by adding a depicts statement to the image. MorganKevinJ(talk)23:55, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
As I understand it, both Zealy (photographer) and Agassiz (who commissioned them) were dead before 1900, so the portraits are public domain as far as making reproductions of them goes. Thus reproductions can be on Wikimedia Commons. Such determinations are made on basis of copyright law - not on questions of ownership of the originals, nor the concept of best serving justice, nor if some group or institution wishes to claim "rights" to copyright expired material. The set of photographs, including any not reproduced in the era, are public domain per US law (more than 70 years after death of last author; more than 120 years after creation) [10]. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 00:31, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Courtesy deletion is a well established practice. If the court case finds in favour of the plaintiff, it would be a good rationale to raise a DR on courtesy deletion grounds even though the expectation is probably that it would fail...
However whether enough Commons regulars want to propose a guideline for how this project should respect historic folk art or individual claims of misappropriation is a puzzle, and the best answer might be for a guideline to focus on how a hosted image might be templated as having these issues, so that reusers are fully aware before they might (mistakenly?) put the image on a book cover or on undergraduate lecture materials, rather than simply demanding deletion from Commons. --Fæ (talk) 11:05, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for writing the following in german, but this is sensitive and it is difficult to get the right way to express it:
Die hier angeführten Bilder, und andere auf Commons und solche, die vielleicht künftig auf Commons hochgeladen werden würden, werden möglicherweise bald oder erst viel später von Commons gelöscht werden. Nicht weil dies rechtlich notwendig wäre, sondern aus Respekt, weil es das ethisch richtige ist. Auch betrifft eine solche Löschung ja nur eine kleine Anzahl benannter Bilder. Dies hat jedoch einen Aspekt, den ich hier einbringen möchte. In Deutschland hat es während des Nazi-Regimes Konzentrationslager - Vernichtungslager - gegeben. Von den damals Überlebenden - Täter wie Opfer und Zeugen - sind inzwischen die allermeisten verstorben. Beld wird es überhaupt keine Zeitzeugen mehr geben. Die Lager selbst wurden bereits kurz nach Kriegsende weitgehend geschleift -allein schon um den Ausbruch von Seuchen zu verhindern. Seither hat es an den Orten Umbauten gegeben. Mal wurde ein Supermarkt errichtet oder neue Wohnungen, oder es wurde ein Dokumentations- oder Besucherzentrum errichtet. Authentische Beweise vergehen nach und nach. Für Leugner des Holocaust wird es leichter Zweifel zu sähen. -- Die Personen auf den hier diskutierten Sklavenbildern haben sich wohl nicht freiwillig fotografieren lassen. Fragen können wir nicht, sie sind lange verstorben. Wenn wir es aber könnten, bestünde dann nicht eine Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass sie sagten: Sieh hin, das ist mir passiert, es ist keine Erfindung, es ist geschehen. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:43, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
:The images listed here, and others on commons and others that might be uploaded to commons in the future, may be deleted by commons soon, or much later. Not because this is legally necessary, but out of respect, because it is ethically correct. Also, such a deletion concerns only a small number of named images. However, this has an aspect that I would like to introduce here. In Germany, there were concentration camps - extermination camps during the Nazi regime. Of the survivors at that time - perpetrators such as victims and witnesses - the vast majority have since died. Beld will not have any witnesses at all. Already shortly after the end of the war, the camps were looted - in order to prevent the outbreak of epidemics. Since then, there have been conversions in the places. Sometimes a supermarket was built or new apartments, or a documentation or visitor center was built. Authentic evidence is passing by. Holocaust deniers will find it easier to doubt. - The persons on the slave pictures discussed here probably did not have themselves voluntarily photographed. We can not ask questions, they died long ago. But if we could, there would not be a likelihood that they said, Look, that's what happened to me, it's not an invention, it's done.
Years ago we had an editor at wiki.pt which maintained for years a supposedly "funny" blog-like page at his user space, where he used this kind of images for fun/joke purposes. I recall, among others, a picture of a lynched/hanged black person which was being used there in the context of a joke. The page is long deleted, but this use was tolerated more time that it should have been by the community there - and it was deleted only because a majority voted for it. My understanding is that we (in the movement) should have some kind of definitive/strong tool/mechanism to curb these situations where moral rights are being obviously abused/not respected in one of our projects. I don't believe there is any decision at all that should be allowed to be taken by any specific project, it is rather something that has to be done by anyone that wants to be here, like the ToS and the licensing. And if they don't do it, some kind of Cease and Desist, or Take Down notice should be issued to the infractor, and if not followed, a block (by a steward?) should be placed in the user. The pictures should be kept at Commons, but the Wikimedia projects must use them with responsibility, respecting the moral rights of both subjects and authors. Information about moral rights should also be available at the files/category both for internal and external reusers of the content, as we usually do with trademark and personality rights.--DarwinAhoy!11:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
"Moral rights" seems a confusing phrase here, as it applies in copyright law to the inalienable rights of the photographer, not the photographed. I know the English Wikipedia (and presumably other Wikipedias) block the use of various images, sometimes with the exception for use on specific pages. I suppose the software could let us make certain images opt-in for various Wikis, where the local Wiki has to unblock the images before they can be used on pages. I'm not sure that this is as much magic as you want; the monkey selfie could be used in very racially problematic ways, for example.
I will say that the more anti-democratic you get, the more problematic things are going to get, and the more blowback you're going to get. Local users aren't going to be happy with the WMF coming in and deleting pages the local users aren't chuffed about. Letting pt.WP deal with its own pages with local consensus may not always get you want you want, but neither will the WMF unilaterally making these decisions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:25, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Agree that terms like moral rights are confusing. Rather than any "commons approved" wording, it might be better to simply provide links to good quality sources that explain why specific images are controversial, whether that is respectful treatment of the historic photographs of slaves, prisoners of war, traditional folk art or other issues.
In this way, Commons guidelines and policies do not have to take any position with regard to off-wiki controversies or issues that are subject to political lobbying, but we can and should ensure that reusers are very well informed before potentially mistakenly using images in ways that might cause them or their organizations reputational damage or cause others offence. --Fæ (talk) 13:13, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Delete, or crop to just the faces, on grounds of human decency/consent. We should only host photos of partially nude people that were taken with the freely given consent of the people concerned. If they were slaves, these photos were taken without consent. WereSpielChequers (talk) 22:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I would be against image modifications or censorship of "partial nudity" (i.e. topless women) which would give a false impression of what these photographs were about. I would much prefer to come to a firm decision to either continue hosting the original images at full research quality, or we cease hosting them. If the Commons community is going to establish a definition of human decency or extra-legal retrospective consent requirements for photographs of long deceased people (which by definition would be virtually impossible to meet for many historical photographs), then someone should work on a definition of that. Preferably a definition that can be meaningfully applied to all cultures not just slave ownership in North America, and has some sense of timeliness, rather than introducing new deletion rationales for, say, old PD photographs uploaded from museum ethnographic archives. --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
slaves with european clothes
@WereSpielChequers and Fæ: by the same rationale images of slaves, that were forced to wear european clothes, and who had worn a koteka or lap-lap (oder eine Hüftschnur) instead if they had the freedom to decide, would need to be deleted. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:25, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
This is all very speculative. I'm not sure that continued reductionism using forms of reductio ad absurdum is the right way to take this forward in a way that might convince a supermajority of contributors.
It would be very useful if a GLAM expert on our network could recommend a recognized external standard for the ethical handling and publishing of historic photographs of people, including photographs of slaves, prisoners and the deceased, such as battlefield photographs. A set of external guidelines with their history of practical implementation would be a good starting point for drafting a proposal, should a sufficient proportion of the Commons community feel that guidelines need to either ensure "difficult" content is well marked, or that some types of content should not be hosted on Commons, even if of historical significance. --Fæ (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
GPS-data unreliable.
Hello, the GPS data of my photo's are unreliable. The camera gives the same GPS location to all photo's within a certain timespan of about one hour, cf time 16:31:56 et time 16:17:16 together with several other photo's have got the same GPS-location as time 15:55:18. How can I prevent automatic geolocation at uploading and how can I stop the bot to add geolocation by EXIFdata? Up to now I just let it happen, not caring about correcting manually. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Which tool and how to applie it automatically, so that no camera location is visible any more on commons, without having to do manual action ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:14, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
exiftool is a command line tool. You can create a batch job to make the same change on many files. As exiftool may well be the most used tool of its kind, you will find tutorials in the web. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem is not the Exif data, I don't want to change those, but how on commons the exif dat are interpreted as precise locations, what they are not. May-be the description line Camera location can be adapted to Camera GPS data, approximate location. --Havang(nl) (talk) 20:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
The suggestion is good, but I don't put nothing, it's the upload wizard or Dschwenbot who put {{Location}}. I found in the mean time at Template talk:Location that the problem is also related tot wikidata. And at User talk:Dschwen I had seen that others have the same problem. Is it a idea to change {{Location}} for its automatic use by the upload wizard and by Dschwenbot into {{Location estimated}} , as those cannot guarantee that the location is exact. ? --Havang(nl) (talk) 21:00, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
If you feel that the camera-generated GPS coords are not accurate, why don't you just try to correct them by hand? --A.Savin20:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
@Havang(nl): I'm afraid I'm not going to be the one to do this: I've never used petscan. If it was "all the files in a category" need something added, then VisualFileChange would do it easily, but once it's "all files except..." someone is going to have to bring a different technique. - Jmabel ! talk15:45, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@AntiCompositeNumber: O, great. It seems oke to me. It may please at wikidata. Clever that you excludes the newly added template as well. Does it work for the existing files only, or also for the future files to be uploaded? Can you take care of installing? Thanks. --Havang(nl) (talk) 05:20, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
If anyone knowns of any open knowledge hardware grants that might enable me to upgrade to recent tech, drop me a note. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: Can't answer your first question immediately but as to your second one, have you pursued a WMF grant? They have lots of money and frankly, you having a solid computer is a real asset to the Wikimedia movement. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯07:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
DonSpencer1 (talk) 03:10, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Oppose According to the template used on the files "This work might not be in the public domain outside the United States and should not be transferred to a Wikisource language subdomain (or as a file it should not be migrated to the Wikimedia Commons) that excludes pre-1924 works copyrighted at home." MorganKevinJ(talk) 23:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
.png)
![[2]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:Utensiles_pour_la_cérémonie_du_thé.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sp%C3%A9cial:Journal?page=File%3AUstensiles+pour+la+c%C3%A9r%C3%A9monie+du+th%C3%A9.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Support I agree. Some of us here do our own research and some people on Wikidata trust Wikipedia to be right, while very often it isn't. At least if we keep both, a discrepancy will be checkable, and Wikidata corrected. Is anyone in the real world using Wikidata? Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Comment it would be perfect if a similar tool as RTRC could be made to check from Wikimedia Commons if unpatrolled edits have been made on items connected to Commons entities. Christian Ferrer (talk) 20:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
![[7]](https://agrexpert.files.wordpress.com/2015/04/women-in-fields.jpg){kind=link}
![[9]](http://cdnimg.in/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/13414.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
_(2017-03-08_@pxhere_1051407).jpg){kind=link}
_%C3%A9glise_(03).jpg){kind=link}
_%C3%A9glise,_chaire,_statues_5_et_6.jpg){kind=link}
_rue_des_Moulins,_moulin_sur_la_Durdent.jpg){kind=link}
