Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/07

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Annual contest Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP)
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP)

This is to invite you to join the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) campaign to help improve Wikipedia articles with photos and win prizes. The campaign starts today 1st July 2020 and closes 31st August 2020.

The campaign primarily aims at using images from Wikimedia Commons on Wikipedia articles that are lacking images. Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photo images, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years.

Please visit the campaign page to learn more about the WPWP Campaign.

With kind regards,

Thank you,

Deborah Schwartz Jacobs, Communities Liaison, On behalf of the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Organizing Team - 08:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

feel free to translate this message to your local language when this helps your community — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romaine (talk • contribs) 2020-07-01 08:24:25 (UTC)

Non-commercial use licence - Is it possible sometimes?

In 2017 I made these authorized shots at en:Accademia della Crusca, Italy. There was some kind of agreement for a cc-by-sa licence back in the days, but I no longer have emails archived about that, and neither they can find. I cannot remeber if it was more a verbal agreement and I regret the situation looks unclear now. They are now telling me they would prefer the images to have a non-commercial licence. Is it possible, in some very special cases, to change this? Or will we just have to delete all the images? I really have no idea what to do, any help or suggestion would be very welcome. Thank you. --Sailko (talk) 15:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

We do not accept NC licenses as the sole license under any circumstances. However, we won't need to delete the images. They are not the copyright holder, so are not in a position to offer any sort of copyright permission, assuming the original works are all PD. Unless you signed some statement that allows them to restrict your ability to exercise your rights as copyright holder, they do not have any claim to the images once they are already made. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. I will discuss more with the insitution, and I think I can also use this disclaimer (as it is a public insititution from 2012) in order to avoid posible legal issues in the future. --Sailko (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sailko, I do not want to sound heartless, but your arrangements with Accademia della Crusca for access to the objects are yours. Once photographs are taken you are the only copyright holder, and after the upload the images belong to the community. From the community perspective even unauthorized shots, taken against the house rules are OK as long as objects are in public domain. We do not encourage people to break the rules but do not have any policies which would justify deletion in such a cases. I realize that such position might complicate future access to similar material, and as community we should do as much as possible to help in any way very valuable contributors like you, but deletion of images or even license change to more restrictive license would be taken only in a special cases as an exception to a rule. You are welcome to blame out policies in your future talks with the institution. --Jarekt (talk) 21:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
This discussion just reminded me whether we should revisit File:Notre-Dame de Montréal Basilica Jan 2006.jpg by Diliff, which was deleted because the photographer signed a non-commercial agreement with the property owner (see w:Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Notre dame basillica delist). In my opinion, even if the entity that controls access to a photography location requires a photographer to sign a waiver agreeing not to use the image for commercial purposes, Commons may nonetheless be able to accept such images. After all, if the photographer never agreed to transfer or share copyright with the property owner (in contrast to w:Burning Man#Photography restrictions) and the property owner has no copyright interest in the original work (either because it is PD-old or because it falls within that country's definition of "public place" for the purposes of COM:FOP), then I don't see how the property owner can make a copyright claim against the image. Reusers are at no legal risk here because the image violates no copyrights. Whether the photographer could be liable for breach of contract if other people use it outside Wikimedia would depend on the actual contract terms, so we'll be particularly sensitive to uploader requests to delete. But if they are OK with having it here I see no reason not to allow it; any legal uncertainty around the image is merely COM:NCR. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
There are no copyright reasons for that image deletion. If this case was discussed now and the user feels that breaking the house rules exposes him to potential legal trouble and he wants it deleted we could delete it as a courtesy to the user. Otherwise it should be kept. That image was deleted 14 years ago, Diliff if you are OK with it I would just undelete the image. --Jarekt (talk) 02:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Same forwarding behavior in Wikimedia Commons as in Wikipedia (currently Wikimedia Commons: manual forwarding, Wikipedia: automatic forwarding)

Forwarding in Wikimedia Commons is treated differently than in Wikipedia (here manual forwarding there automatic forwarding)

I would like to see Wikimedia Commons automatically redirect as well. (As in Wikipedia, you could always find your way back to the redirection if you wanted to). --Molgreen (talk) 12:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

This was discussed very early at Template talk:Category redirect#Redirect?. The explanation why there is a separate redirect template for categories was essentially:
  • With a normal redirect, people would keep putting content into the category page that is not to be used.
  • Nobody tends to notice the little message on top of the page: "Redirected from foo".
And then there was Commons:Requests for comment/Hard category redirects REDIRECT. De728631 (talk) 14:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi De728631, okay, I get it. Thanks for your feedback.--Molgreen (talk) 14:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 22:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Book template effectively eats itself

Could we please agree to fix the {{Book}} and remove the inset image of the book that simply duplicates the book being displayed on the same image page?

There's no really good reason for doing this, it means that every single book includes a link to itself. In addition the infobox display space can be halved as every field being displayed is then limited to only go as far as the left-hand edge of the inset book image.

For example File:George Engelmann -botanical notebook 8 - Cereus (IA mobot31753003969836).pdf on my display has multiple unnecessary extra lines do to excessive text wrapping. Due to the IA books project I may be becoming the most active user of this template, and I'm wondering if I should create my own version just to work around its bad display.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Book template from day one had "image" parameter meant for display of the title page. Originally the template was mostly used for books stored as one image per page and "image" was storing a filename of the title page. Once we started to use PDF/DjVu files the expectation was that "Image page" is a parameter with a page number of the title page which will be shown. Once we began to use Wikidata to store most of Book metadata, so it can be shared with Wikisource and other projects the page number usually comes from there. In a rare case when the title page number is not provided (here or on Wikidata) than the template's fall back is the first page, hopefully as a reminder for the users to specify the title page number either in the template or at Wikidata. If there is consensus to do so I could create "noimage" boolean parameter to suppress image addition, it is just not an issue which was ever requested before (as far as I can recall). --Jarekt (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Having just used this for 176,000 multipage PDFs, yes it needs to be suppressed. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Some CC sites

Does anyone know if there are any issues with using material from the following sites:

They all make claims to have CC (usually CC0) material. JimKillock (talk) 16:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Each of them is user-submitted content, so I would treat it just like Flickr; if it looks like the uploader did in fact create the material, then it's OK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Feedback on movement names

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language if necessary. Thank you!

There are a lot of conversations happening about the future of our movement names. We hope that you are part of these discussions and that your community is represented.

Since 16 June, the Foundation Brand Team has been running a survey in 7 languages about 3 naming options. There are also community members sharing concerns about renaming in a Community Open Letter.

Our goal in this call for feedback is to hear from across the community, so we encourage you to participate in the survey, the open letter, or both. The survey will go through 7 July in all timezones. Input from the survey and discussions will be analyzed and published on Meta-Wiki.

Thanks for thinking about the future of the movement, --The Brand Project team, 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: The survey is conducted via a third-party service, which may subject it to additional terms. For more information on privacy and data-handling, see the survey privacy statement.

NARA template category issue

Category:National Archives and Records Administration institution templates is flooded with individual files; I have not, so far, been able to track down the cause. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I think I've fixed this in Special:Diff/430340095. --bjh21 (talk) 17:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that it will probably take a few weeks for the changes to be visible in the category itself, since templated category moves are done in the background by MediaWiki. --bjh21 (talk) 11:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Is it safe to upload the protest photos under Hong Kong national security law?

Starting from last night, the government mention Anyone advocating independence, liberation or revolution in public can be immediately arrested (Even showing "Liberate Hong Kong" images). Is it safe for Wikipedia user to upload these photos? Many media and news agency can have well protection for the staff, but Wikipedia don't have this policy. Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC) member, Tam Yiu-chung, even said the media reports involving Hong Kong independence, police violence and other news may also be accused of inciting separatism and subverting state power 【港版國安法】譚耀宗指傳媒揭警暴或犯煽動顛覆政權 記協：條頸架咗把刀. Can Wikipedia commons can provide the measures, to ensure the safety of the user to upload the media and not be arrested. --45.8.223.9 03:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by safety measures. Ruslik (talk) 05:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No.
At this moment the safest course of action for anyone living in Hong Kong would be not to edit articles about Hong Kong and not to upload photographs to Commons taken in Hong Kong, probably of anything. Subverting the state could have an extremely wide interpretation. --Fæ (talk) 06:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

I think it's unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation would divulge the IP address or other information about a pseudonymous uploader who didn't break any US law to Chinese authorities, but that's just my personal opinion. But even then, an uploader could be identifiable if they by accident have their real name in the Exif data or have associated their pseudonym with their identity publicly somewhere. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

"I think it's unlikely that the Wikimedia Foundation would divulge the IP address": I would tend to agree (or would want to agree) however Wikimedia Foundation will obey to a US legal decision, and that fact escape to us and escape to the Wikimedia Foundation as well. Nobody knows what the next day will be or what the agreements between the countries will be, for example Usa / China. + see below Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a safe bet that should a state sponsored agent have already hacked the WMF servers, or have means to sniff connections during routing at the hardware level, like, er, we know some government agencies have for telecomms that cross their borders, then the WMF will wash their hands very quickly of any liability for damages, and probably do not have the right resources to "prove" they are secure.
... and this scenario isn't even close to being a conspiracy theory. --Fæ (talk) 18:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
True, WMF servers can be hacked, especially by governmental or non-governmental entities which have substantial technical means. Christian Ferrer (talk) 18:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No server-side hacking is necessary, it is a reasonable assumption that the NSA and the governments of China and Russia are already capable of decoding every encrypted Internet packet. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Haven't the revealings of Edward Snowden shown that these agencies have, in fact, a hard time with encrypted communication? Much of the surveillance, at least back then, relied on unencrypted connections. Personally, I wouldn't see them as so all-powerful as some people think. But I think that a discussion of this topic here will not be very fruitful. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
besides, it is inappropriate to advise here any risk whatsoever, however laudable the action we are talking about. Christian Ferrer (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Governments can also apply pressure in other ways.. Anyone here recall what happened to a French admin over a contentious photo of a military installation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
That story is described here. Apparently it was only possible in this form because the administrator, a rather prominent figure and then President of Wikimedia France, was easily identifiable. Most volunteers who use a pseudonym and don't divulge their personal information should be safer, but of course there are no guarantees. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Open for signatures - Community open letter on renaming

Dear all,

There is an open letter that requests a pause to renaming activities being pursued by the Wikimedia Foundation 2030 Brand Project.

Individual editors and affiliates can sign with their logged-in account to show support.

The letter focuses on concerns about the process, and not about specific naming choices. With 50 major chapters and affiliates and 600+ individuals signing the statement, and more than a dozen translations, we are seeing great interest in this issue.

Related to this: the branding team is conducting a survey that runs until July 7. There is concern that the consultation process and options on the survey do not adequately reflect community sentiment, given the effect name changes for the foundation and movement would have. This served as a motivation for the open letter. Useful links are below:

  • Brand survey for individuals - Qualtrics survey. If there are options you would like to highlight outside of the three provided, it is possible to write in your own options and views at the end of the survey.

There will be a WMF board meeting scheduled in July to discuss the branding issue, so it is important to express your views now.

Thanks - Fuzheado (talk) 13:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

MOTD emergency

We just went an hour and a half with no COM:MOTD on the main page; I quickly found something and stuck it in Template:Motd/2020-07-04. But Template:Motd/2020-07 is still barely halfway filled, so I'm calling on everyone to help fill in the blanks. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

We just had a discussion about changing to MOTW, but was assured by long term contributors that there were enough active volunteers to make it work daily rather than weekly, and work at a higher quality.
Do we need another go at that discussion?
My mistake, it's not closed yet. Go vote on it:
Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Turn MOTD into MOTW
--Fæ (talk) 16:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcement for License reviewers

You can now visit User:EatchaBot/Files-requiring-license-review-sorted-list for a sorted list of users by number of files requiring license review. This includes images, videos and sounds. Updated every 48 hours. // Eatcha (talk) 16:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I would like to add that there is now a new optional parameter on {{LicenseReview}} called custom_text, allowing reviewers to review a website and document evidence other than a free license. For example:
  • File:Dave Leduc - MLWC 2018.jpg: I reviewed a Facebook post which named the pseudonymous author on August 30, 2018. As the Commons account predates the photo, it serves as proof that the Commons uploader is not an impostor and is therefore authorized to release the photo under a free license.
  • File:廖城兰（大马美食家食公子）造型照.jpg: The uploader has had various copyright issues in the past, so I'm not just going to believe that they took a photo with an expensive medium format camera without evidence. I reviewed a Google Drive folder showing the camera being set up for the shot, thus substantiating their claims.
King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

I've just come across Template:Georgian boundaries. From the way it is written, especially the bolding, it could be read as advice or as a chilling warning. Is such a template useful/a good idea, and if so how should it be distributed across images? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 18:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Such warnings seem important, if you're a re-user from Georgia you might accidentally use a map that can put you in jail. A similar warning exists for Socialist symbols, please see "{{Communist symbol}}". Wikimedia Commons should be as "safe" as possible for re-users, the warning isn't saying that we will punish people, it's saying that the Georgian government may punish them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:24, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the problem is that we could have much more warnings for every region limiting freedom of speech and press. We do not have warnings like "Sharing this in Belarus/China/Turkey/North Korea could result in repression by the government". And I think we should not create such. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue may be similar to the discussion on Hong Kong above, which seems to tend towards no warning. If kept and used like the Communist one, this raises the further question of what it should apply to. Presumably all maps of Georgia? Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

{{Geogroup}} has aesthetically worsened. What should I do?

In the last couple of weeks {{Geogroup}} has been edited by User:Verdy p, and it is causing a serious layout problem for hundreds of category pages using it. I have requested the fix or the reverts, but he doesn't even recognize the problem. As a result of his edits, hundreds of minor edits like this might be needed, which is likely to expend quite a many hours or days. Should I accept his edits and consume some days fixing these categories, or can I revert his edits? Could somebody restores the template's function as of 14 April 2020, 19:43? --トトト (talk) 15:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Worsened ? It has been internationalized and properly aligned with the Infobox. You did not recognize that the problem was in the few categories that you maintained in Japan. This tempalte is not specific to Japan... There's no problem at all in the few samples you indicated to me.
Yes some edits may be needed, but very few compared to the tons where this works properly. And it has been internationalized as well (including for Japanese). Your asserted problem of alignemnt is based on a false assumption: that the "alignment" is identical on your screen with all browsers, all languages, all fonts installed. And I made sure that it works also on all sizes of displays (including small ones on smartphones), and with several themes in user prefererences or in the Mobile version of the wiki. verdy_p (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Note that this tempalte is usually located below the infobox, beside the listed members of the category, it's not an "informative" template but a search tool for helping categorizing the contents (medias) which are at the bottom of the category pages, after the subcategories (and frequently needed for overpopualted categories where many items have not beedn subcategorized properly or were categorized in the wrong one). It is not a navigation box for visitors browsing the categories or searching some relevant content, but a tool for maintainers...
Its size is properly set, it does not obsucre the content of the category pages. It is minimized to jsut what can fit, but still it is translated. View the pages using a different windows size, or with the mobile version, or on a smartphone, or using a different suer language. You'll see that your assumptions based on the old versions were in fact completely untrue. verdy_p (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
  • No, it is an informative template even for visitors, as it enables one to search an image as if in Panoramio. After your edits this small box became impossible to be placed above {{Prefectures of Japan22}}, for example, as it tries to come under another template. For example, in this category page, it is not longer shown above {{Prefectures of Japan22}}, but right to it, thus enlarging {{Prefectures of Japan22}}'s height when browsed in a small display. Ugly. Back then {{Geogroup}} was more versatilely placed within a page, under various page layouts. Why are you minizimizing it as for maintainers only? And being used in a non-U.S-related category is completely irrelevant. The fact is your edits have destroyed the layout of categories which were neatly set prior to June 23. Please fix it to be able to placed above another template, if choiced. Or should I create another one from the version of April 14? It used to be a simpler, and thus more usable template. --トトト (talk) 22:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Your terms are excessive. I've not "destroyed" anything, and you still don't want to see that this template has a VARIABLE content, it can use different texts, can have more or less items displayed, the lecngth of the text can vary depending on language, fonts, OS, browser, zoom level... It has always been floatting, I did not change that. Your assumption that the change of size is not what you like is wrong, the size has always been variable, including the width depending on zoom and user preferences in the wiki or in the browser. All I did was to make sure the tempalte had a minimum size without wasting space, because it is floatting, and allow it to be internationalized to other languages (including RTL languages: Arabic, Hebrew). verdy_p (talk) 14:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Anyway your page is also a very bad example of what NOT to do in HTML and what not to expect.Yuo've placed te Geogroup template at top before everything, so it's notmal that it starts at the stop. And as it has also been floatting, it was also displayed at the same level as the two translated description texts in English and Japanese, and then only you had the tempalte sowhing the list of preferectures, so it has ANREADY below the Geograoup template (illogically). Don't blame me for things you did incorrectly yourself ! Your statements are simply compeltelty false. You are lying (and in addition I complain about your attitude because you've already sent birds name against me, I've been patient but now you continue here). verdy_p (talk) 14:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And it looks fine even after... Nothing is "broken", as was stated. verdy_p (talk) 14
32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

What's so bad with 14 April 2020 version?

I will show how it looked like before User:Verdy p makes changes after 23 June. Please see April 2020 in Yamagata prefecture. Versatility of this template in a usage like this should be kept. Moreover, the box looks neat as it is vertically slim even when the parameter level=1 is inserted. Opinions of other users are expected. --トトト (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

OS you don't wnat any internationalization of these custom templates you did and don't wnat any adaptation to different browsers/languages/fonts. Dates indicated jsut by digits are just wrong as well, and in everywhere else the lateral navigation to sister categories are at top before the content of the categoy itself (its description, its detailed navboxes for its own **sub**categories (not parent categories, the infobox). Even the Geogroup is a detail of the content, and should be after the navigation between **different** prefectures (outside the current category).
You are illogical and ignore the basic needs of this international wiki which is also not specific to a single language (not just Japanese or English).
The two boes have NEVER been esually sized, their hight varies, one of them (the Geogroup) being floatting and sized to fit well with infoboxes. And visibly you don't want infoboxes there are well (sooner or later they will be added by any one) verdy_p (talk) 16:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
And your statements about "my sincerity" is just a personal attack. I did not attack you with personal judgements like you did repeatedly. My intents are clear and to offer the best for everyone. I did not break anything. You just did not look enough about the effect: did you try the mobile version? Did you try to reduce the window ? Did you try to use another language ? Did you try to use zoomin in your browser (liek many do for acessibility reasons). Your statements that the two boxes should "neatly" align vertically had never been true. And you add extra vertical spacing with extra newlines, this is just a quirk and pollution. verdy_p (talk) 17:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
I rarely use Japanese as dault setting when visiting commons. Visitors also browse around commons in English. So what I am demanding has almost nothing to do with the language setting. --トトト (talk) 17:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
So you don't care about languages, font sizes (zoom in browsers), mobile versions, other themes in user preferences.... you seem to live in a small world. Anyway why do you want to post the lateral navigation box at the **bottom**. And what would happen if there's a wikidata infobox added ? Your assumption would be destroyed as well.
Lateral navigation should be at top (and compact) before the infoboxes and all tools and description in the main part. These Geotools have always been placed at the bottom (yes they are informative, and most often they don't work as they are external tools, their list is expansible or reducible as well: the Geotools have already had several ones disabled as they were broken, no longer working, or pending other external changes. They are NOT part of Commons itself (in fact thye should finally be integrated in the Wikidata Infobox where there are already other external tools displayed at the bottom (such as Reasonator). These tools are just complements of the infobox. Many odf them are legacy/unmaintained. verdy_p (talk) 17:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps most of the your edits on {{Geogroup}} are to intendedn to adopt with {{Wikidata infobox}}, I guess? If so, why don't you creat another variant of this template, {{Geogroup3}}, for example, specially designed for {{Wikidata infobox}}? Currently {{Wikidata infobox}} is providing no useful information at categories like Coats of arms of Germany, showing the meaningless letters Q9560456 Wikimedia-categorie. I see it takes a decade or two, or even a century for {{Wikidata infobox}} to be trully useful at all of category pages in commons. So maintaining a category without {{Wikidata infobox}} is still important. That is the rationale of my demand. Besides, I have never seen this template used inside {{Wikidata infobox}} up until now. --トトト (talk) 18:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Responding to multiple deletion requests

Hywel72 has requested the deletion of several of his images (about 80), using separate deletion requests for each file. I am not making a complaint; Hywel72 is free to request deletion of the images, but in the absence of other issues we are free to keep them. I have reviewed some of the images and commented on the DR pages: several are useful or potentially useful, but I have only identified one with a clear reason for deletion. I think most of the images could usefully be kept, but I am reluctant to spend the time needed to review them all.

Is there a way to retrospectively group the individual requests into a batch request, so that I and other people can comment on them collectively? Verbcatcher (talk) 01:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

  • You could create a page that transcludes them all (the same was the daily DR page does) and has a section for comments on them collectively. If you want to be more ambitious (probably with some sort of tool, but I don't know what would work) you could then "demote" all their headings by one level, and use that new page in DR instead of including them directly in DR. Seems like it might be more work than it's worth; someone else may have a suggestion. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: I've done this on a couple of occasions where it was clear that a bulk DR would have been more appropriate. I created a new DR, copied the existing DRs into it, replaced each of the original DRs with a redirect to the new one, and made appropriate changes to all the pages that transcluded the DR. It was a lot of work and I can't really say I recommend it unless you're expecting a lot of discussion and manage to catch it early. In this case many of the DRs have additional reasons, and people (me included) have provided image-specific responses, so I think it's rather too late. --bjh21 (talk) 18:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you both. I have made a page of transclusions at User:Verbcatcher/Sandbox that I will use to track the requests. It seems too much effort to submit it to the DR system, and it might lead to confusion. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Photo challenge May results

Sensors: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 1 3
image
Title 26.2 MP CMOS full-frame sensor of
Canon mirrorless RP camera		 Device interior of a bourdon
pressure gauge for water
pressure display		 Medical mercury thermometer in front
of its velvet-lined protective
cardboard box. Hand-painted numerals.
Author Islander61 F. Riedelio Franz van Duns
Score 14 14 12
COVID-19 pandemic: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Covid-19 San Salvatore 08 Covid-19 San Salvatore 02 At the train station in Bamberg
Author Alberto Giuliani Alberto Giuliani Ermell
Score 36 24 16

Congratulations to Alberto Giuliani, Ermell, Islander61, F. Riedelio and Franz van Duns. --Jarekt (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

My work is useful

Hello everybody.

Indeed, I just noticed that all of Chris Zabriskie's music originally present on FMA has just been deleted. So I did very well to save them on WikiCommons especially during confinement. Here is the category containing them: Category:Audio files created by Chris Zabriskie from Free Music Archive.

Regards.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 06:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your hard work. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you from me as well. It's quite useful but it seems like the wayback machine has the text at least (see here for File:Chris Zabriskie - 02 - Cylinder Two.ogg). I don't think the files are saved so that's a great job. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Unsplash validator?

Just an idea. The "date published" is available on Unsplash images, at /info. So for instance:

The date stamp could potentially be parsed out and checked. If the date stamp is less than June 1, 2017, then the image can be validated as CC0 (see w:Unsplash). Assuming Wikipedia's usage would be quite low, this seems a reasonable potential way to check and use older Unsplash images. JimKillock (talk) 09:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Interproject connection fails

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T257266

Tonight, some fail or delay shows here. When I link any WikiData item to a Commons category, Wikidata displays that category as existing and reports no error. However, the Commons category page ignores this conntection and is not abble to read data from the connected Wikidata item. This apply to newly created interproject links (older connections seem to work correctly). --ŠJů (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@ŠJů: Hm, over on the Wikidata project chat someone reported that interwiki links were missing from some Commons category pages. (I created T257266 to track that issue.) Your issue sounds related, but I’m not sure if it’s the same or not – can you provide some more details and/or link to some affected categories? For example, the categories in the other issue can still read other Wikidata information via {{Wikidata infobox}} (only sitelinks seem to be affected), whereas what you wrote sounds like that’s broken too? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 22:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): The last examples are Category:Column shrine in Lochotínský park and Category:Hudební pavilonek (Lochotínský park). Wikidata Infobox reports "NO WIKIDATA ID FOUND!", although Wikidata items exist and contain correct links. --ŠJů (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Added the template for the relevant Phabricator task T257266. William Graham (talk) 03:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@ŠJů, William Graham, and トトト: The problem should be fixed now – affected pages (not sure if this is limited to categories or not) will have to be purged, though. (They can probably be found through Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox with problems – there doesn’t seem to be a more specific category for uses of Wikidata Infobox with no item ID.) --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 07:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

200,000 complete books, and counting

Batch upload project page

Good news everyone!

While we spending more time at home during lockdown, we've been running a project over the last fortnight more systematically to import books which are thought to be public domain, and seem of educational interest from the Internet Archive. It's going well, with over 200,000 books uploaded so far (storage size of 3 Terabytes). There have been several discussions around how best to do this, how to format the hosted PDFs, and how to overcome some bugs along the way; refer to the project page for details.

You may be interested in improving articles about the authors, using sample pages to illustrate Wikipedia articles, or maybe you could help better categorise or refine the image pages descriptions. Some of the books are themselves notable and might be of interest to create articles for, or use to start a transcription over at Wikisource. Not all the works are in English, and if you have language skills especially in French, German, Spanish and Latin, you could lend a hand with tidying the file page, filename and looking at encouraging reuse.

Top level categories populated so far include:

We don't yet know how many books we will be able to upload with reasonable reliability that they robustly comply with our licensing requirements, but we are hoping double the numbers... Special thanks to @ShakespeareFan00: for requesting the first uploads and continuing the good work of chasing up copyright issues. --Fæ (talk) 15:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Flag categories for LGBT+, Pride, Sexuality and fetish groups

The area of Category:LGBT flags and Category:Sexual orientation flags‎ is a bit messy, making it harder for folks to check whether a flag they are interested in using is available. It is proposed that there should be a main parent agreed as Category:Pride flags, as by definition the reason to create a flag is for people to waive it or wear it to show their pride, or at pride events. It is also unclear why "sexual orientation flag" should be separated from "LGBT+ flags", and if the "LGBT flags" is changed to "LGBT+ flags" this might help tidy up any confusion. For example LGBT+ organizations welcome all potential sexualities, so separating them out for Commons categories does not make sense.

Raising as a discussion to avoid the potential for lots of separate category rename discussions which could go on without reaching a timely conclusion. The aim here is to use the categories to make the images easier to find, not to resolve external political debates, so please help illuminate any tricky areas of possible debate with good quality sources. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree, that makes sense and would be good to have a clear system. But there is one little problem to be solved: Where to put the Category:Heterosexuality flags then? I think these cat can not be a cubcat of Category:Pride flags. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Not sure there is any logical reason why not, pride flags would include any variation if the definition is any flag that someone would use to show their pride in their gender, sexuality or kink. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought pride only refers to LGBTQ sexual minorities. But by checking en:Pride (disambiguation) I found that this is also used by conservatives and racists in a kind of counter movement. But that should not be a reason not using the name here for these cat. I think Category:Heterosexuality flags are not used by these groups. They are more for people showing them as part of the same emancipatory movement like LGBTQ. --GPSLeo (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Why the nature bridge over the Ófaerufoss in the Eldgjar in Iceland collapsed

re: Photos of the former Nature Bridge over the Ófaerofoss in the Eldgjar, Iceland

Dear Wikimedia Commons

We were with our family in Iceland in August 1980, and we visited the Ófaerufoss waterfall in the Eldgjar and at that time there was still the nature bridge over the Ófaerufoss in good shape. And we and our children went over the bridge. And we shot nice photos of the Nature Bridge. It was later destroyed by melting ice in the Spring of 1993 flooding. This year there was a particularly high snow load on the highlands, and it was said there was a large ice barrier luring upstream of the nature bridge. I was told by an Icelandic Official that there were voices postulating to blast this barrier into pieces in order to protect the Nature Bridge, but the authorities decided to not messing with Nature, so the blasting was not done, and the Nature Bridge was destroyed.

Our opinion, however, is that man messes around with Nature all the time. That it would have been fortunate to do one good deed to Nature, and preserve the natural bridge, because it was ‘built’ by Nature. Separately we have sent a few good photos to Wikimedia commons.

Prof. Lueder Deecke, Medical University Vienna Austria lueder@deecke.com and Prof. Volker Deecke Cumbria University Ambleside UK volker.deecke@cumbria.ac.uk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deeclu (talk • contribs) 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Deeclu: , I think that you can just upload these photographs using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard. The people who answer e-mails tend to be OTRS volunteers, who as far as I know don't typically upload submitted photographs. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

What is wrong with my upload?

Hi there, One of my pictures I uploaded is tagged as "nominated for deletion"

File:Linguist Charles Fillmore.jpg

I explicitly mentioned its source from berkeley university and mentioned its writer.

Here is my source: https://www.icsi.berkeley.edu/icsi/blog/chuck-fillmore-dies-at-84

What is wrong with my picture?

Thanks, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Hooman Mallahzadeh: The template on the image page, proposing its deletion, explicitly says "This file is probably copyrighted as there is no evidence on the source website that the image is free.". The footer of the source page says "Copyright © 2012-2020 International Computer Science Institute (ICSI). All Rights Reserved.". On what basis do you think you - or does anyone - have the right to reuse the image? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Hi, and welcome. Exactly what gives you the right to issue the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license for that photo?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing and Jeff G.: Hi, The only source for the linguistist Fillmore is his page on the Berkeley university.
You are correct that this sign "Copyright © 2012-2020" is under the page, but this picture is freely available. I really don't think that Berkeley university becomes angry for such a use.
If Wikipedia does mention every sign, it does not progress and become a obsolete, over years.
I think because of the advantage science and reaching the final goals of Wikipedia as prevalence of knowledge, we should not make obsession, at least for universities, the place which its goal is prevalence of the newest knowledge.
Yes, you are right, if I have take it from some company, that does not agree with its prevalence, then my work would not be correct, but I think Berkeley university and Fillmore himself does not disagree with its use in this manner.
Thanks again, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: I think you are wrong. Why don't you write to International Computer Science Institute (ICSI) or the photographer or their lawyers and ask them?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Nowadays nearly every website has such a sign (perhaps for making their site beautiful). I think, by this manner (asking for every picture), We should not introduce such a well known and important linguist by a simple picture of him.
By this manner I should delete this picture. :(
I can imagine that by this manner Wikipedia losses its importance in retrieving of knowledge over near future.
Thanks again, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: This is not English Wikipedia. If you only want to use it there and cannot get a free license, please see en:WP:F.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: See for such a well known person, this sign does not mean that "Do not use this picture at all", perhaps this sign says that do mention my source when «you paraphrase the text», only. Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: Wikimedia Commons respects other people's copyright; and expects all contributors to do so, too, without exception. Links to guidance on this matter have been left on your talk page, already. If you do not abide by Commons' copyright policy, you will be blocked from editing here. Is that clear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Hooman Mallahzadeh: "Freely available on the Internet" does not imply public domain. Please read Commons:precautionary principle. - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Yes, I understand!
But perhaps I will never upload any picture into Wikicommons.
Thank you again, Hooman Mallahzadeh (talk) 17:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Racial stereotyping in art

Category:Black people in art and its subcategories contain a mixture of positive representations of Black people and historic images which use outdated racial stereotypes (example). I'd like to split the negative images into sub-categories. What name should be used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep it simple, perhaps "historic representations of black people in art". Though some will be intentionally racist, not all will be deliberately negative racial stereotypes when created, but it's a difficult thing to judge which would cause offence today in different contexts. How these should be displayed to our readers and reusers may be something to work on, without crossing into 'censorship'.
For those interested in the topic of presenting racist materials, there is a discussion at meta:Talk:Black_Lives_Matter#Scientific_racism that lists example articles and images that badly represent the material and in some cases promote misinformation about race. Where and how we improve this situation is something still being thought through. --Fæ (talk) 13:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of using the word "historic" in category names, as the meaning of it is not clear. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 (to King of ♥). - Jmabel ! talk 21:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Sure, what would work better? --Fæ (talk) 21:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps just diffuse it by decade? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Does Commons have a template that could be used to mark "objectionable" items for expert review and potential deletion (apart from the normal DR process)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No.
There would be grounds for a form of 'expert review' depending on who we think is an expert, but each type of objectionable nature would need a consensus about whether we need to see certain types of warnings (e.g. Nazi symbols, a legal requirement in some countries) or a level of sourcing (e.g. misleading maps or flags to settle disputes) or level of unique educational value (e.g. sexually explicit photographs).
Stepping beyond creating a backlog of 'expert review' might be an issue against NOTCENSORED. --Fæ (talk) 10:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
This was about 'objectionable' in the context of materials expressing views or representations of certain groups, where the views or representations expressed could be deemed racist or extremist (even if the material is from prior to contemporary times.). Commons may not be censored, but given that some European jurisdictions (and internet platforms) are considering tougher laws and policies about extremist media online, up-to effectively blocking entire domains, having the discussion seems timely. As you are certainly aware balancing appropriate context for academic use of contentious images, against the potential to offend or as you justifiably mention the need to comply with applicable local legislation, does not necessarily have easy solutions. Commons contributors are not necessarily legal (or for that matter academic) specialists, which was why the option to flag something for review by someone more qualified was desirable.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Bot making errors – ZDF Terra X Redaktion

I presume this account is a bot User:ZDF Terra X Redaktion, @ZDF Terra X Redaktion: – it is making errors on the changes to the category:Videos by Terra X placing English descriptions into the dates area of the summary info tables. See for instance File:Die Himmelsscheibe von Nebra (CC BY 4.0) .webm Can someone help get this corrected? I left a note on the user talk page. JimKillock (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't think this a bot because the edits are way too diverse. While unresponsive as of yet, the account appears to be a user-operated group account. Let's wait and see if they respond to your requests. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Announcing a new wiki project! Welcome, Abstract Wikipedia

Hi all,

It is my honor to introduce Abstract Wikipedia, a new project that has been unanimously approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees. Abstract Wikipedia proposes a new way to generate baseline encyclopedic content in a multilingual fashion, allowing more contributors and more readers to share more knowledge in more languages. It is an approach that aims to make cross-lingual cooperation easier on our projects, increase the sustainability of our movement through expanding access to participation, improve the user experience for readers of all languages, and innovate in free knowledge by connecting some of the strengths of our movement to create something new.

This is our first new project in over seven years. Abstract Wikipedia was submitted as a project proposal by Denny Vrandečić in May 2020 [1] after years of preparation and research, leading to a detailed plan and lively discussions in the Wikimedia communities. We know that the energy and the creativity of the community often runs up against language barriers, and information that is available in one language may not make it to other language Wikipedias. Abstract Wikipedia intends to look and feel like a Wikipedia, but build on the powerful, language-independent conceptual models of Wikidata, with the goal of letting volunteers create and maintain Wikipedia articles across our polyglot Wikimedia world.

The project will allow volunteers to assemble the fundamentals of an article using words and entities from Wikidata. Because Wikidata uses conceptual models that are meant to be universal across languages, it should be possible to use and extend these building blocks of knowledge to create models for articles that also have universal value. Using code, volunteers will be able to translate these abstract “articles” into their own languages. If successful, this could eventually allow everyone to read about any topic in Wikidata in their own language.

As you can imagine, this work will require a lot of software development, and a lot of cooperation among Wikimedians. In order to make this effort possible, Denny will join the Foundation as a staff member in July and lead this initiative. You may know Denny as the creator of Wikidata, a long-time community member, a former staff member at Wikimedia Deutschland, and a former Trustee at the Wikimedia Foundation [2]. We are very excited that Denny will bring his skills and expertise to work on this project alongside the Foundation’s product, technology, and community liaison teams.

It is important to acknowledge that this is an experimental project, and that every Wikipedia community has different needs. This project may offer some communities great advantages. Other communities may engage less. Every language Wikipedia community will be free to choose and moderate whether or how they would use content from this project.

We are excited that this new wiki-project has the possibility to advance knowledge equity through increased access to knowledge. It also invites us to consider and engage with critical questions about how and by whom knowledge is constructed. We look forward to working in cooperation with the communities to think through these important questions.

There is much to do as we begin designing a plan for Abstract Wikipedia in close collaboration with our communities. I encourage you to get involved by going to the project page and joining the new mailing list [3]. We recognize that Abstract Wikipedia is ambitious, but we also recognize its potential. We invite you all to join us on a new, unexplored path.

Yours,

Katherine Maher (Executive Director, Wikimedia Foundation)

  1. ↑ Abstract Wikipedia
  2. ↑ User:Denny
  3. ↑ Abstract Wikipedia mailing list

Sent by m:User:Elitre (WMF) 19:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC) - m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement

Deselect pdfs when searching

How does one change search results to skip matches in pdfs? Jura1 (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

-filemime:pdf --Fæ (talk) 19:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Where does one find out about such useful features? On the search results page there is no hint on better search strategies AND with badly chosen search terms the wiki software likes to list PDFs as result, that do not have any connection to the search. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
The 'help' icon below the search bar takes you to mw:Help:New filters for edit review. Unfortunately this was a recent change away from mw:Help:CirrusSearch which has a lot of nice technical details that do not force the user to make use of the widgety fancy user interface that WMF devs apparently think users want. None of that detail is findable from the default help link, which seems, frankly, bizarrely unhelpful.
@Kaganer: any feedback on why Commons no longer has easy findable directions to the CirrusSearch options? Maybe someone can make the "new filters" page point to it? --Fæ (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't know :( --Kaganer (talk) 22:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Kaganer, where did you get a link to mw:Help:New filters for edit review? Because I see on the top right of Special:Search below the short search form and right beside a question mark still a link to mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:CirrusSearch (also ping @C.Suthorn, Fæ, and Jura1). The issue here is not to find the help page, but to find the needed info in the huge help page. But the extended search interface uses the CirrusSearch syntax in background, as far as I know. — Speravir – 00:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
(Ha, Jura1 definitely found the relevant part of the Cirrussearch help page: mw:Special:Diff/3950727/3952294. :-) — Speravir – 01:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC))
Has this just been changed? Unless I'm seeing things, yesterday a search results page had the help link pointing to the 'New filters' page, now it seems swapped back to the CirrusSearch. As usual, should have taken screen shots. --Fæ (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, Kaganer I mixed you both up. Fæ I cannot double check this. You may have seen this, but the underlying link is provided by MediaWiki:Search-helppage which has no version history here, so it is imported from TranslateWiki where is only translatewiki:MediaWiki:Search-helppage/en existant with a very short history. — Speravir – 22:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Just spotted the unpredictable link. On the Watchlist the search help link goes to CirrusSearch, but when you do a search the help link now goes to the less precise page about New filters. Obviously that's not good inconsistency. --Fæ (talk) 12:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
For me, it's the other way around: The link on Special:Search goes to mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:CirrusSearch while the one on Special:Watchlist... actually goes to mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:Watching pages briefly, before being updated by JavaScript to point at mw:Special:MyLanguage/Help:New filters for edit review instead. I wonder if you've managed to find a way to make that JavaScript run on Special:Search as well. --bjh21 (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
No it's that way around for me too, wrote it down wrong. --Fæ (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
In that case I think the explanation is that that's not a "search help" link. It's a help link for the current page that just happens (in the Vector skin) to be close to the search box. Switch to MonoBook and they end up on opposite sides of the page. --bjh21 (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Great. Now we know it's confusing, but by design.
We could probably recommend a task to improve the skin layout so that there is a help button for the search bar, or built in to the search bar, regardless of the page it is on. The initial comments here make it clear that most/many users have never looked into the parameters available for searching, like the excellent regex search options. --Fæ (talk) 13:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Wording of Special:UserLogout

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T257653

Page Special:UserLogout looks (approximately) like this:

Do you want to log out?

Submit

While it is technically an HTML form, there's nothing to "submit". Perhaps the wording could be improved? —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Andrybak: Since this is a MediaWiki special page, you'll be more likely to get a response from someone who can do something about this on the bug tracker[1]. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done: [2]. —⁠andrybak (talk) 08:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation categories

I have never seen a disambiguation category before. At Category:George Blumenthal one entry is automatically in the category, and the other I placed manually, how is it supposed to work? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): You can find loads of them in Category:Disambiguation. I don't think I've ever seen the DAB cat used as a parent category; listing the categories in the description text seems like the common way to go. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Speravir 02:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Cropping

Sorry if this has been asked a million times, but what's the protocol on how to crop an existing picture? Like do I download it first and crop it and reupload it even if it's from Flickr? Because the license says I'm free to adapt it right? Or do I crop it on here somehow? What should I do? This is the picture I want to crop: File:Bay of guaymas.jpg (to focus on the two islands in the center). EstrellaSuecia (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

You are free to reuse, modify, and redistribute the image for any purpose, as long as you retain attribution to the original creator. Crops of existing images should generally be uploaded as new files rather than replacing the original: see Commons:Overwriting existing files. A handy tool to easily crop images while faithfully retaining all the metadata is CropTool (this also "indicates if changes were made", as required by the CC-BY-2.0 license). For 2 examples, see File:Olga Nethersole LCCN2014696230 (cropped).jpg (crop uploaded as new file so as to retain original unmodified), and File:William H. Kendal, by Sarony, NY.jpg (crop replaced original, as only white borders were lost). --Animalparty (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
@EstrellaSuecia: If you crop that (and I agree Croptool is the right way), be careful to choose to upload the crop under a different filename: do not overwrite it. - Jmabel ! talk 17:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Indifference

File:Global Youth Climate Strike - Charlottesville.jpg File:Global Youth climate Strike - Charlottesville .jpg no difference.

(pun indented) --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

C.Suthorn, I'm sorry, but what are you wanting here? These are two completely different photographs. — Huntster (t @ c) 12:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
It is probably not the best practice to have two photos whose names differ only in capitalization, but since we decided that capitalization is significant in filenames, it's going to happen now and then. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
Actually the names differ not only in a capitalization, but also in the number of letters. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

BTW: I did not know, that mpeg1 was an allowed file format. Only thumbs do not seem to work, which is a pity because the MOTD of the day for 17th is really nice, if only it had a thumb image. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Updating coordinates?

I've just updated caption, description and coordinates of a photo (File:Site of Dunham Hill station geograph-3316171-by-Ben-Brooksbank.jpg) that was uploaded a while ago from geograph.org.uk, but has been updated there in the meantime. It is useful to illustrate an article. Now there is a warning that "There is a discrepancy of 18100 meters between the above coordinates and the ones stored at SDC (53°13′26″N 3°4′2″W, precision: 5 m)." and a request "Please reconcile them." Well, I'd like to do so, but how? Where can I find the SDC data to update them as well? Or will that eventually happen automatically (as it IMHO should)? --Schlosser67 (talk) 19:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

@Schlosser67: You'd think so, but it wouldn't hurt to update the Wikidata item. Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
The wikidata entry for the station (topic of the article) looks fine location-wise. I've added the photo. Let's see what happens now. There seems to be some other entry for the image that I haven't found yet ... --Schlosser67 (talk)
This has nothing to do with Wikidata, Rodhullandemu sent you in the wrong direction.
The coordinates have been copied to the structured data (SDC=Commons:Structured data). Because you corrected it in the template, but not on in the structured data, you get this warning. You can go to the structured data tab on the file to see it. The easiest way is to probably remove the structured data coordinates and some robot will come along to add the (corrected) coordinates again. The warning message could probably use a bit of improvement and maybe a link to a help page. @Jarekt: any chance you can have a look at this? Multichill (talk) 21:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
As Edsger Dijkstra said, "avoid unmastered complexity". Make of that what you will. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, I've deleted the coordinates in the structured data. Never looked in there before, didn't see any reason for it. There really needs to be a user guide for it! I can see why changes to the file description aren't automatically applied to the structured data (people can err), but it should be possible to update the latter with a single action. --Schlosser67 (talk) 08:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
@Schlosser67: A small hint (and only obliquely related to your question): if you tag Geograph-derived co-ordinates with source:geograph (as I've now done on this image), Geograph Update Bot will automatically keep the co-ordinates on Commons synchronised with Geograph. --bjh21 (talk) 11:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Must be realistically useful for an educational purpose?

Examples of educational value are given in the negative - what is obviously NOT educational. We want to encourage a group of university instructors and instructional developers to contribute to Wikimedia in an upcoming workshop. If they can't find a specific project to contribute to or an image request, what kinds of "thought" questions could we pose that would encourage them to upload to their Wikimedia account? Would you suggest finding a general category and identifying some image that might fit that category or? And should they describe the value they expect their image might have when they upload it? A newbie Wikimedia user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coastsyl (talk • contribs) 21:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Coastsyl: Are you intending to get them to contribute specifically as photographers or in some other capacity? - Jmabel ! talk 22:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
  • A useful question might be "what documentation do I wish I had from the past?" and particularly "what information is likely to be unavailable in the future unless I preserve it?" As example, most of my enwiki and Commons editing is in relation to railroad history. Very often, I have trouble understanding how platforms and tracks and staircases were arranged at a station (and particularly how they changed over time), and I am very thankful when photographs and floor plans are available to clarify. Because of this, I take many mundane photographs of how stations are arranged, with a special focus on those that are likely to change in the future. Many of them will never see article use, but they will still be valuable in the future as documentation of what was.
A biologist might answer "I often have trouble finding images of rare species, because the reference specimen is in an obscure archive" and work to photograph specimens for Commons, or to upload old photos or drawings that are in the public domain. An architectural historian may answer "It's easy to find images of famous buildings, but often the architecture of everyday buildings is poorly recorded" and take photographs of houses and convenience stores and other often-ignored structures. An experimental chemist or physicist may answer "I have trouble replicating some older experiments, because lab equipment has changed and it's not always clear what was standard" and take photographs or make drawings of typical setups for well-known experiments or standard reactions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I like this approach and want to add: a good description can make the difference between a useful image and a holiday snapshot. An image of a random train station somewhere in the world taken at some unknown time might not be very valuable, while the same image with a known train station at a given time might.
Another question to ask: What makes me special, that is, what images can I take that most others can't? This might be a special hobby or you might take pictures of the obscure village where your parents live. Working at the university might give you access to specialized equipment, biological or chemical specimen or illustrations from out-of-copyright(!) books that are not easily accessible to the general public. You might know/meet notable scientists who have a Wikipedia article but no useful image. You could ask them to allow you to take a photograph. --rimshottalk 05:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: These potential contributors will be instructors or learning designers who are learning about OER and Wikimedia NOT professional photographers - Coastsyl (talk)

Thanks for suggestions @Jmabel and @Rimshot - --Coastsyl (talk) 14:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

  • @Coastsyl: I guess my question wasn't clear. Most of what people do here on Commons does not consist of taking photos. Is your main intent here for people to take and upload photos (in which case the advice above is good), or are you looking into other ways of contributing? For an arbitrary example, someone who knew a lot about automobiles could go through Category:Unidentified automobiles and its subcategories and make potentially enormous contributions by identifying and categorizing. Similarly, for someone strong on the local history of a particular place edits like the ones I made here or here enormously increase the usefulness of a photo that is already on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I am always troubled by not wanting "private image collections", all my images I take are private until I publish them and make them public, and of course when I have more than one photo of a subject, it is a collection. It is so ambiguous it can be used as a reason to delete anything. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
No, just a general comment on Commons notabilty while we are on the subject. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Erinnerung

The MOTD of tommorow is a MPG1 file and it does not come with a thumb. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Fix a template

Hey all, how can i fix Template:Iraqyear? Flag of Iraq, from 1924 until 1959 File:Flag of Iraq (1924–1959).svg, and then Iraqi Republic (1958–1968) File:Flag of Iraq (1959–1963).svg. Looks Ba'athist Iraq years and currently Iraq's flag is current. But before ba'athist Iraq, the used flag is not correct. --Ruwaym (talk) 01:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Johnuniq: I guess you can do something. --Ruwaym (talk) 17:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

I think {{Iraqyear}} shows the flags below; the categories are examples which should show the corresponding flag (I haven't checked).

if YEAR < 1991 : File:Flag of Iraq (1963-1991); Flag of Syria (1963-1972).svg • Category:1990 in Iraq
if YEAR < 2004 : File:Flag of Iraq (1991-2004).svg • Category:1991 in Iraq
if YEAR < 2008 : File:Flag of Iraq (2004-2008).svg • Category:2004 in Iraq
otherwise : File:Flag of Iraq.svg • Category:2008 in Iraq

I think you want the following inserted before that:

if YEAR < 1959 : File:Flag of Iraq (1924–1959).svg • Category:1958 in Iraq
if YEAR < 1969 : File:Flag of Iraq (1959–1963).svg • Category:1968 in Iraq

Is that the plan? The numbers do not seem to be agree with the file titles. Johnuniq (talk) 04:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

@Johnuniq: Exactly. Six flags from 1920 to our time. --Ruwaym (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
What about the fact that the numbers in the title in the last line do not agree with the if conditions? Johnuniq (talk) 23:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: If we want make it more correct, we need start from exact days instead of years. So esasily my suggestion is: 1920-59 File:Flag of Iraq (1924–1959).svg , 1959-63 File:Flag of Iraq (1959–1963).svg, 1963-91 File:Flag of Iraq (1963-1991); Flag of Syria (1963-1972).svg, 1991-2004 File:Flag of Iraq (1991-2004).svg, 2004-08 File:Flag of Iraq (2004-2008).svg, 2008-now File:Flag of Iraq.svg. Only Hahsemite Kingdom of Iraq is disputed, but normally independence of the colonies is related to the colonizer, when they says: ok, choose your own capital. But Iraq was for Ottoman empire, you can mix both Ottoman flag and File:Flag of the Arab Federation.svg for years 1920-24 (then change start year of first flag i suggested). What i suggest is form "Flag of Iraq" in EnWiki. --Ruwaym (talk) 01:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I updated Template:Iraqyear. See the test at sandbox2. Please check. Johnuniq (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I checked, you did great. Thanks. Just put File:Flag of the Ottoman Empire.svg for before 1920, (or 1921). Mandatory Kingdom of Iraq starts from 1921. --Ruwaym (talk) 23:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Maps of West Bengal Districts

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I find that nearly all the maps of the districts of West Bengal, India are correct. After the division of 24 Parganas into North and South 24 Parganas, the South 24 Parganas share border with Bangladesh.

Either the maps show whole of South 24 Parganas sharing border with Bangladesh or the border (thick black line) ends at North 24 Parganas. Please do the needful. Cheers.... Anupam Dutta 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Jmabel: , Your clarification has led me a bit of research and thinking.... Well, <<WestBengalDistricts numbered de.svg>> and the map of "Uttar Dinajpur" in the article <<Districts of West Bengal>> are the latest. Now even in these correct maps, the International border is limited upto the land part and doesn't cover the river till it reaches the Bay of Bengal... All other types of maps the boundaries of North and South 24 Parganas are wrong... Hope I have been able describe myself clearly. Cheers.., Anupam Dutta 22:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: I presume you are referring to File:WestBengalDistricts numbered de.svg and probably File:Uttar Dinajpur district.svg, used in the English-language Wikipedia article Districts of West Bengal. I don't see anything in particular in either of those that distinguishes international border from district borders. And I don't know the subject well enough to begin to fix whatever you have in mind.
User:Furfur and User:Debjitpaul10, can you help out here or do you know who could? - Jmabel ! talk 23:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear @Jmabel, The 2 maps that I mentioned are the ones you mentioned... Now, in the map File:WestBengalDistricts numbered.svg , you will notice the eastern border of South 24 Parganas... Compare this with the 2 above mentioned maps... bold black line ends above 2cm above than it should... And in other maps in Districts of West Bengal the North 24 Parganas touches Bay of Bengal... Hope that are helpful.... Cheers... Anupam Dutta 03:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@Anupamdutta73: yes, you're definitely right that most of the maps showing West Bengal district boundaries present in Wikimedia commons are incorrect on the fact that they show North 24 Paraganas touching the sea border. Those two maps File:WestBengalDistricts numbered de.svg and File:Uttar Dinajpur district.svg were updated by me after I noticed the error. I have not still updated other maps though. Could I take the responsibility to update the rest @Jmabel: @Furfur: ? – Debjitpaul10 (talk) 04:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Dear@Debjitpaul10, So relieved to bring the matter to the notice of the right person.... Also please note the International boundary should go 2 cm down to include the Icchamati River (most probably) till it reaches the Bay of Bengal.... Cheers.... Anupam Dutta 06:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anupamdutta73 (talk • contribs) 06:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello all, I will update the map File:WestBengalDistricts numbered de.svg within the next days. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 15:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
... ok, I finally did it. Thanks for the notification. --Furfur ⁂ Diskussion 20:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Structured data

Commons asked me to fill structured data, to create claims.

I have a problem. Are the items the same as categories in Wikimedia Commons?

For instance on File:Al-Muttaqin-2020-3.jpg, I would like to add "column" in structured data But the item is understood as "column of a newspaper" and I cannot find "column (architecture)"

We already fill categories. What is the purpose of those claims except on very specific cases ?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 12:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus: This is a very contentious issue. Category names are solely in English, and so are not particularly accessible to non-English speakers. They're also not necessarily precise: categories about artists often contain a mix of images of the artist and images by the artist. Structured data is based on Wikidata items, which are translatable and often have many translations, and there are enough properties to make fine distinctions about the relationship between the image and some items.
In your specific case: If you type "Q4817" into the depicts box, the right kind of column will appear. This is because "Q4817" is the Wikidata identifier. If you ever run into this problem in the future, you can find the Wikipedia page for the concept you're trying to add, then click "Wikidata item" on the sidebar. The ID will appear in the header of that page. Vahurzpu (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Also note: adding structured data is not a substitute for adding categories. One of the reasons this is, as Vahurzpu put it, "contentious" is that a second system ("depicts" via structured data) was added, largely paralleling categories, but independent of it. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for your answers. This seems complicated. I don't know how the search engine works, with those statements or with categories or both. Very often it doesn't find what I'm looking for, when I click on something I would like to open it writes "haswbstatement:P180=Q(...)". But that's probably another question. --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know what information to enter.
    Let's talk about a bridge for instance
    What to enter?
    just bridge
    category with the name of the bridge
    transport
    country
    What precision is needed ???--Io Herodotus (talk) 12:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If not already done you should read COM:DEPICTS maybe some of your questions are answered there. Current policy is most precise statement what in most cases will be the same as the category. For many information there are specific properties for. Like e.g. country (P17), located in the administrative territorial entity (P131), location (P276) or located in protected area (P3018). --GPSLeo (talk) 13:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
If statements are the same as categories, a bot could very well do that. --Io Herodotus (talk) 04:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Vahurzpu makes it sound that the contention behind these two models is that the Wikidata mechanism is label-indenpendent and thus can be multilingual, while the wikitext-based Commons categories are hardcoded (usually in English). Well, to make a long story short, it is very much not the issue. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 06:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
    • @Tuvalkin: Fair point. That was more responding to "We already fill categories. What is the purpose of those claims except on very specific cases?", which as far as I can tell is one of the criticisms of the system. Vahurzpu (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Upload mistake for Der ewige Jude poster

There is mistakenly uploading a high-resolution for the 1938 exhibition poster for Der ewige Jude (File:Plakat der ewige Jude, 1937.jpg) what I found on this webpage from the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, but I accidentally uploading this postcard [3], and I'm very sorry about this. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

@ZmeytheDragon16: I don't understand your intent here. At File:Plakat der ewige Jude, 1937.jpg, you have now twice overloaded the original images that, while higher-resolution and clearly based on the same underlying work, do not conform with the source information given on that page and appear to be based on different photographs or scans of the underlying work. (The first one is cropped differently, the second is differently colored) They are not simply higher-resolution versions of the original image.
But maybe that's what you are already saying, when you say you "accidentally uploaded" a "postcard".
Anyway, I have reverted to the original image. Feel free to upload either or both of these differing variants, each under a different filename, with correct source info, and then use "other versions" to link the variants. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
But I recently upload this postcard (File:Der ewige Jude postcard.jpg) to Commons, which similar rather than poster. --ZmeytheDragon16 (talk) 03:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Attacked by a Bot

A Bot is threatening to delete my picture tomorrow.

I replied the first day I received notice (about a week ago). The threat didn't explain where I was to reply so I must have replied in the wrong place. Can somebody stop the Bot from deleting my picture?[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jim_Evans#Copyright_status%3A_File%3APropst_House%2C_Hickory_North_Carolina_%28edit%29.jpg ] Jim Evans (talk) 14:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

@Jim Evans: As far as I know, no bots are authorised to delete files: only (human) administrators can do that. It looks like when you uploaded the picture using DerivativeFX, it didn't provide any description at all for it. I've copied the description (with some obvious updates) from the original and removed the speedy deletion notice, so the file should be safe now. --

bjh21 (talk) 14:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks very much Jim Evans (talk) 19:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Jim, it’s usually also rather useless to answer a bot. You should at least ask the bot owner who you find out on the bot’s user page. But asking here was also a good decision. — Speravir – 02:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Number ou numeral?

File:Bali 8, Pha.png should be in which category ? Category:8 (numeral) or Category:8 (number) --Io Herodotus (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Old photo

I have an old photo of a person (who has a Wiki article) who lived between 1834 and 1902. Would it be reasonable to assume that the photographer died more than 70 years ago and that the photo is not copyrighted anymore? Regards, Mycomp (talk) 04:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Mycomp: That depends on the country? Where do you think the photo was taken? Can we see the photo online somewhere?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Mycomp and Jeff G.: For 19th-century photos, we have {{PD-old-assumed}}, barring a specific reason to believe it doesn't apply. Which is to say, there are a handful of reasons a 19th-century photo might still be in copyright, but we lean toward assuming they are OK. - Jmabel ! talk 17:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: For US photos taken in 1900-1902, {{PD-old-assumed}} does not yet apply.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That is why I said "19th-century". - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: and @Jmabel: : Thank you for your replies. I was thinking of the photo at the top in this link [4]. Regards, Mycomp (talk) 01:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Clearly not a picture of a man in his 70s, so presuming it is correctly identified, it has to be well before 1900 and if you lack more concrete evidence, use {{PD-old-assumed}} for permission. I'd probably give a date based on his appearance and date of birth as {{other date|between|1854|1890}}. - Jmabel ! talk 04:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Mycomp (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Recheck Youtube file licence

On this File:Catullus 9.webm video the licence has been updated, after it failed a first check. Can I get {{Licensereview}} to re-run the YT licence check? JimKillock (talk) 21:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure how to check a YouTube license, but any admin who does can clear this up.
  • @Eatcha: as the person who nominated this for deletion, can you help out here? - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Are you sure that the framed images on the wall behind the speaker also have free licenses?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@JimKillock: Can you please add the source for File:Catullus 6.webm. And File:Catullus 9.webm is now reviewed by the bot, but the DR is still open and I don't have the authority to close that. -- Eatcha (talk) 05:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eatcha: Re File:Catullus 6.webm, yes will do. If an admin can close the delete request that would be great.
@Jeff G.: Copyright law allows "incidental inclusion": this is rather like "freedom of panorama": just because a copyrighted image is in shot, it is not infringing that copyright, so long as the use is incidental. I will admit this gets a bit of a minefield; did the author place the images in deliberately etc; but I suspect copyright law will have to be flexible in cases like these where people are simply filming on their home environment, and not attempting to make particular use of the artworks. I hope that is OK. Thankfully the newer videos avoid this problem. JimKillock (talk) 07:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Help - Barnstars

Hello everyone! :)

I'm an admin at SqWiki and I look after the WikiLove extension and the whole barnstars subject. We have personalized the WikiLove extension to include more than 250 template barnstars in our Wiki, almost all following a certain standard (we aim for Hi-Res) and we are continuously looking to expand the collection. We've got all the barnstar images we use from Commons but there is a need for new ones and a couple of remasterings on some old ones (Lo-Res --> Hi-Res). The problem is that we have a small community and we don't have any graphic designers. Is there someone interested in helping here? :) If someone would accept to take requests, basically I'd talk with him personally on his user page about the barnstars we are interested in, they would create them and add those in here, helping our community specifically and practically other communities too who might use them. Also, I'm interested in dealing with barnstars and appraisement systems in general so if anyone has something to discuss on them, I'd be happy to get involved on that and maybe help back. Maybe our WikiLove version could be helpful to other Wikis too (if it gets translated). Even though this is more of a Meta subject. Anyway, if anyone is interested to help, please let me know. Thank you! :) - Klein Muçi (talk) 11:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Hey Klein Muçi, just FYI: if you don't find anybody here maybe try Commons:Graphics village pump and/or Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop as well. --El Grafo (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@El Grafo: Thank you for telling me! Would you be so kind as to copy-paste/move my request there like it is needed? I was made aware of the existence of such pages only now. I'm not too well-known with the Commons Community in general and I'm not sure on how to go on and ask there. - Klein Muçi (talk) 12:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Posted a quick heads up message at the graphics VP, the Illustration Workshop is probably better suited for specific/individual requests. hth, --El Grafo (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! :)) - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

about the consistency between categories of Wikipedia and of Wikimedia Commons

I'm an editor who mainly work on categorization of Chinese Wikipedia and multi-language pages linking on Wikidata. Considered that the main language of Commons is English and English Wikipedia takes a leading position, I have tried to create Wikidata links according to Commons and English Wikipedia. However I got totally confused when I found that Category:Heating stoves links to wikipedia:stove and Category:Stoves links to wikipedia:kitchen stoves. I know It's not broken, but it could be a barrier for creating meaningful links on Wikidata, especially Wikidata needs consistency between categories of Commons and of English Wikipedia. So that's why I proposed this problem here. Please help. Don't be afraid that new categories don't correspond to other 300 language versions of Wikipedia. The consistency between Commons and English Wikipedia would helps a lot because Commons mainly works in English. And if we don't start now, I'm afraid there will be more and more similar however different categories in both places.

Additionally, it seems more easily to create, merge, and delete categories on Commons with Cat-a-lot and the templates like{{category redirect|the category you want direct to‎}}, {{Move|New name|Reason|2020-07-20}}, {{SD|the criterion code of speedy deletetion}}. I have used these templates lots of times to deal less-used or unuseful categories.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 12:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

  • I very much disagree with the direction of this. We are an international project, much more so than English Wikipedia. I do not mind if Wikipedia is categorised in a similar manner to Commons, and I do not mind if Commons editors look at the way ENWP does something when several approaches are appropriate, but I would really not want to contribute to a side-project of ENWP. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
  • +1. - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Rebuild all Wikipedia logos needed?

Watching en:wikipedia:Slogans I noticed that some Wikipedia logos are different to other one. For example, nahuatl logo use narrowed font, russian alphabet use italic, friulan and latgalian use different font, Albanian use large letter spacing, and other differences... Is there needed to rebuild all Wikipedia logos? --151.49.35.229 19:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Changing the logo for a project needs consensus on that project. See m:Requesting wiki configuration changes for details of the process. So you'd need to get consensus at each project whose logo you wanted to change. Good luck! --bjh21 (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
No changing, only fixing. Where you have read changing? --151.49.35.229 20:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
How are you proposing to "fix" the logos without changing them? --bjh21 (talk) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that minor fix don’t need consensus. Consensus is requested for totally new rebrand logo imho. --151.49.35.229 03:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any exemption in m:Requesting wiki configuration changes for minor fixes, but you can always submit such a request and see if it gets anywhere. --bjh21 (talk) 10:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

File names in English vs other languages

Commons accept filenames in all languages but it seems that files often end up being changed to English.

I'm currently working on moving files from ja.wiki to Commons but I have seen it many times that when a file is moved to Commons the name is changed to English. And if it is moved to Commons with a non-English name there is chance/risk that someone will rename the file for some reason and then the file end up with an English name.

Currently I have an open question about renaming almost 3k files so they match the original Japanese name here: Commons_talk:File_renaming#1500+_files_from_ja.wiki_are_renamed_so_template_won't_work_-_how_to_fix?

If we think that filenames should be nice and pretty and meaningful then it would make sense to rename all files to English. Like it or not but if I name the file in Danish then only 5 million ppl would understand it. If I rename to English many more would understand it.

Personally I do not like that we rename files just to make them a bit more pretty but there seems to be concensus to move files around so why not take the last step and make file names English?

Categories are in English (normally). Just like with categories there can be a good reason to make exceptions for example with flora and fauna that often uses latin names.

As an alternative we could make file names a number and make aliases or tags in different languages. Just like on Pixabay where the following names link to the same file:

That way each wiki can use whatever language they want when they use the file. --MGA73 (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Files should never be renamed simply to change them from their original language to English, as it violates Commons:File renaming. Move them to Commons with their Japanese filename, and if someone tries renaming any to English, notify them and report it. It's not acceptable. — Huntster (t @ c) 23:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 Oppose However, I may not be against a policy that creates a latin character redirect to a file that is named in an alphabet other than 26 latin characters that exist on everybody's keyboard, as long as those redirects do not interfere with regular file names. This may aid in searching or typing URL directly. Gone Postal 03:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Huntster: I think it would be a bit hostile if we report all renames that are against the renaming policy. Espsecially because it allows renames of files with a "meaningless" name. I'm pretty strict on renames so I think I could find many bad renames. And I doubt there will be much concensus to desys op users for a few bad renames.
If all files have a generic name like on Wikidata and what can be changes is a localized "display name" depending on your language settings then we do not have to discuss if a rename was bad or not.
@Gone Postal: yes I think many users would like that files have names than can be written on what we can find on our keyboard. And if 1) rename to English (or latin characters) or if we 2) do like on Wikidata then that would be possible. --MGA73 (talk) 07:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
While on my photograph and scan uploads I tend to use latin transliteration of russian words (or translations when they are established), I do use cyrillic for some of my uploads, where I feel that it is an appropriate naming convention (pronunciations, titles given in Russian by others, etc). I just want to stress that it makes little sense to tend to the desire of some to have a latin name if we estrange people who contribute to this project. For many individuals chosing a name for their contribution is the joyful moment, and it makes no sense to take that away from an individual who chose to donate their time and energy to help us out. That is why I have said that a latin-only redirect may be a good approach. Another issue that I have is that there's a bug in the renaming that annoys me to no end, it renames .jpeg files into .jpg; I know that I am being pedantic, but mass renames should not be performed until such issues are resolved. Gone Postal 09:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
User:Gone_Postal there is something wrong with formatting of your signature. It shows up as "℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍" and messages after your first signature were not visible. I removed special characters from it so I can see the thole discussion. Can you fix it? --Jarekt (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
The issue seem to be only in Firefox on my machine and in the above discussions each time you sign, no other messages are shown in that section. I think the issue is with the character you used to link to [Special:ListFiles/Gone_Postal]. --Jarekt (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • I enjoy reading filenames in the original source languages. There's nothing wrong with a technically correct manuscript filename being in Latin, or a photo of an early print using a filename in Old Russian with lots of interesting accents. The standard approach is to have titles in different languages in the description and we should be doing far more to encourage volunteers to contribute good translations there first. Abstracting these to multilingual captions or circuitously via Wikidata, can be later things to try, but basic wikitext on the image page itself, using very well established language templates, should be the starting point. --Fæ (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Personally, I'm happy enough if a file name is unique and fairly descriptive in whatever language, and wouldn't put too much thought into them, as we have file descriptions, categories, structured data etc. for more. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Keep the filename with the language used originally for the file. It is easier now to use files directly from commons, via VisualEditor. Also, it is not correct that everyone has a latin keyboard. Just look at Asia, for example.--Snaevar (talk) 22:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
@Snaevar: I agree that redirects can be used but in real life the file is often moved to "the better name" and a redirect goes from old name to new name. It seems to be very seldom that someone create a redirect from "the good name" to the old name. --MGA73 (talk) 12:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, and there are also a lot of newbies across WMF projects who use wrong proccesses, but do not get away with it. There is allready an multi-language file naming policy in place, so that supersedes common practise. I belive the whole structured data development on commons will make the files more searchable, especially again trough VisualEditor, making the language used for the title irrelevant.--Snaevar (talk) 13:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Why would you care which way the redirect goes? - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
For example because redirects are not shown in search results, but the original name.
And as I am already writing: Look at this file, that was renamed to File:Fridays for Future Demo-12.jpg because the old name was "meaningless or ambigous". The original name told about the event, the slogan, the time, the place - the new name only says "fridays for future" probalbly because this was the only ever demo by fridays for future? The foto wasn't even taken on a friday and the people are part of FFF, but it is still not a school strike event! --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Convenience link: File:Fridays for Future Demo-12.jpg. I take it the original name was File:Abfckprämie - Fridays for Future und weitere demonstrieren vor dem Bundeskanzleramt in Berlin während dort über Prämien für den Kauf neuer Autos wegen Covid-19 geredet wird was von der Deutschen Autoindustrie empfohlen wird 12.jpg. This just looks like a bad rename. @FkMohr and Mouh2jijel: The original name is certainly not "meaningless", "ambiguous" or "unmöglich" (impossible), to use the characterizations that were in edit summaries. It is perhaps overlong, but it is within the length handled by all browsers I'm aware of. The move was made despite explicit objections by two different users. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Conversely: why put less information in the description than in the filename? If you put this in the description, then the search will find it. - Jmabel ! talk 19:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Custom tag

To add custom tags is awkwars sometimes. For instance regarding File:Duong-village-PP-2020-2.jpg I click on add the tag "mosque" and it shows the proposals:
Former mosque
The mosque
Mosque
Mosque
Mosque (painting)
Mosque
The showing of these tags must be improved, it's sometimes difficult to know what they are, and it may take a long time of research to find out what they represent. --Io Herodotus (talk) 07:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

More information at Commons:Commons Photographers User Group/Copyright infringement info. --XRay talk 07:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Something went wrong...

Help please... Something went wrong with this deletion request. Thanks! --87.150.1.149 13:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

What went wrong? --Achim (talk) 13:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This is what I am getting:
"This page is a member of Category:Incomplete deletion requests - missing subpage because it is incomplete (you failed to create the subpage Commons:Deletion requests/File:Auswahl-wirtz-matzkeFoto-DSC 7512.jpg. PLEASE fill in all five variables and create the subpage!) (Note: This error may appear due to a caching issue; purge this page's cache to fix it.)"
I have absolutely no idea what that means and what I am supposed to do about it... --87.150.1.149 13:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
No, it isn't to me. Everything is fine the way it is. --Achim (talk) 13:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
O.k., thanks then! --87.150.1.149 13:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

roa-rup

What does roa-rup:John Harvey Kellogg do at Category:John Harvey Kellogg, I have not seen this before. Is it a typo? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

The roa-rup-Wikipedia had an article about John Harvey Kellog. The article was deleted, but nobody removed the interwiki-link in commons. Wikidata was introduced, interwiki links were migrated to wikidata, but the bot doing the migration left out the roa-rup interwiki, possibly because at that time the article in roa-rup did no longer exist. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, it has been so long since interwiki links were displayed that way, that I forgot! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Are photos of "request letter and letter of receipt" by Judgefloro within scope of Commons?

Good day everyone. Are photos under Category:Letter to Josephine Rima-Santiago (Philippines) and Category:Letter (Receipt-Appropriate Action-Feedback) of the Intellectual Property Office of the Philippines (Marou Eduarte - of Josephine Rima-Santiago to Florentino Floro - all uploaded by @Judgefloro: , within the bounds of COM:SCOPE. IMO, these have no educational and valuable use outside Commons. These were uploaded just to merely serve as defense for several DR's involving his files, including:

I've already started Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Letter-Permit to-from Arnel F. Mendoza (Philippines)‎, in which the photos were just merely uploaded for his defense at Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Heritage Park, Library, Museum, BMA Monument, Sports & Community Centers and Municipal Offices (Bustos Municipal Hall), which (along with other defenses he made) were unaccepted.

Accordingly, Judgefloro fails to learn that photos bearing artistic subjects (structures, sculptures, monuments, memorials, et cetera) are derivative works of such works. Those works, in turn, are considered unfree unless an explicit indication of a freedom of panorama exists in a country's copyright law. Unfortunately, no FOP in the Philippines so his defenses are turned down by admins. Therefore, I find these photos showing letters of little or even no use for other purposes, within Wikimedia or outside. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Given the subject, they do seem in scope to me. But even if one would not agree with that, Commons users, especially those with far over a million edits, are (or should be) allowed some personal files that are more or less connected to their editing. While AGF, I wonder why JWilz12345 is trying so hard to get the uploads of what seems a fellow countryman deleted, but anyhow I don't think these files should be deleted. Eissink (talk) 10:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC).
I would say that they're within scope since they are directly related to the work that the person is doing on this project. When I have done something similar I did a slightly different thing, opting to use file's history to preserve the permission in the way that is visible to all (see File:Bryanskaya Gorozhanka by Bella Gorodetskaya.jpeg), but I have come across well intentioned uploads of permissions as separate files as well. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
+1 to in-scope. Any files that are used by the projects for their own functioning can be in-scope. This extends to useful information that supports Commons deletion discussions. --Fæ (talk) 17:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons Query Service is now available

As you may have read about on the Commons mailing list, the beta SPARQL end-point for Commons is now available. There is more basic information in my post on the Structured Data on Commons talk page and in the release notes for the launch. WCQS is essentially a clone of the Wikidata Query service, and functions in an identical manner. Please have a look, and if you are able to lend a hand documenting examples that would be very useful for others. Thank you for your time. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

What photographs are «historical»

User Fadesga and I have recently had a reasonable difference of opinions regarding categorisation of photographs by date as historical. You can see our short discussion here: User_talk:Gone_Postal#About_some_templates, but I will try to outline our opinions here.

Fadesga's opinion is that century and decade categories should fall under historical under all circumstances. If I have misstated their opinion, I hope to be corrected.

My opinion is that all past dates should be historical, but current ones are not. It is easiest to explain that by an example. Let's say we are talking about the country Elbonia and today is 7th of April 2021. In that case Category:Historical photographs of Elbonia would have: 19th century, 20th century, 2000s (decade), 2010s (decade), 2020 (year), January 2021, February 2021, March 2021.

I can see criticism of my approach, since if a photo taken a week ago can be inside a Historical category (if it was a different month), why can't a photo taken an hour ago. I have chosen for myself to draw a line at the break of a month, but my pedanticity disallows me to add 21st century photographs category as a whole as historical. However, I agree that this should be a community decision. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

My preference would be to retire "historical" and "old" entirely for category naming. Simply have the top-level category be "Photographs of Elbonia by century" (or decade, depending on how complete the subcategory tree is likely to be) and then populate with decade/year/month subcategories as necessary. That sidesteps the subjectivity of "historical", is always clear and accurate, and prevents confusion with "historic" (i.e, of great significance). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 03:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm actually quite OK with retiring that category from the cat tree all together. It does cause lots of confusion. We already have "by century", "by year", etc. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 03:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@All: You may be interested in Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/09/Category:Historical images. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

thx, left my comment there. --El Grafo (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
An option might be to rename the categories "Historical photographs/images of ..." to "History of ...", which is much more neutral. Eissink (talk) 09:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
FYI In categories as for example Category:History of Arnhem I have added the comment "History means more than about 40 years ago". Wouter (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Besides from being arbitrary (and therefore a claim that should not be made, imo), in that category are "Arnhem in the 1980s" and "Arnhem in the 1990s" (and Category:Arnhem in the 21st century would be there also, when it is created, which I just created, also). I see no problem in seeing yesterday as 'history'; there will never be consensus on where to draw a line otherwise. Eissink (talk) 10:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC).
I agree with Eissink. IMHO there's no need of an intermediate category ("Category:Historical images of") between "Category:History of Whatever" and "Category:Whatever by date". Strakhov (talk) 14:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think historical should be everything that is old (example postcards) and under an PD license due to age (70 years etc). Another distiction is the pre-digital age. Thereafter most subject get swamped by pictures. Certainly pictures wich cannot be retaken today. Demolished buildings and situations wich no longer exists.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:44, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

As I explained at the CfD, "cannot be taken today" is a poor criterion, because a 1940s photo of a building that hasn't changed much wouldn't be considered "historical" whereas a 2018 photo of a building demolished in 2019 would be under that definition, which contradicts people's intuitive understanding of the word. Classifying based on whether the image is free because it fell into the public domain or because the copyright holder agreed to release it under a free license is slightly better, but we don't need that: we can use various technical tools to intersect the main cat with the various licenses. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Ich finde es sehr kritisch, Fotos lebender Fotografen als "historisch" zu bezeichnen. Bin ich etwa selbst historisch, weil ich ein Foto von 1977 auf Commons habe? Man sollte mit dieser Bezeichnung also mindestens vor den letzten Weltkrieg zurückgehen, besser wäre aber "minus 100 Jahre". - google translate: I find it very critical to describe photos of living photographers as "historical". Am I historical myself because I have a 1977 photo on Commons? You should go back at least before the last world war with this name, but it would be better "minus 100 years". --Ralf Roletschek 14:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I generally find "historic" and "historical" useless terms in this context. & like Ralf, I'm old. I have at least one photo on Commons that I took in 1966.
Occasionally it's not too bad; e.g. we have Category:Tram tracks in Seattle (historic) which relates to a system that was torn out circa 1940, and Seattle did not get a new tram again for decades. But other than extreme cases like that, no. - 15:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
The way I see that example is: "Historic" is fine (often as a last resort) for describing the nature of a real-world object which has no other name. "Historic" should not be used for describing the nature of a reproduction of that object. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I think I agree with Pi.1415926535: "Historical" is just too vague a term to be really useful for categorisation, and maybe we could and should retire it. "By century" and finer categorisation fulfils the same purpose and is more precise. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Of course, there are also absurdities like Category:Historic Chinatown Gate (Seattle) where "Historic" has been part of the legal name of the structure since it was built in 2008. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Audobon images in hi-rez

Can someone more knowledgeable than me about our Audobon Society images take a look at this page: https://www.audubon.org/birds-of-america? If we don't have higher resolution images, then we should replicate those files here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

@Koavf: What resolution are the images there? (It won't let me download them without signing up for an account.) Kaldari (talk) 03:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Kaldari: No less than 1600×900. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Backside postcard

has the backside preloaded just before ([5]). Could this placed under another name? For example: 'Backside 108 Luchon Haute Garonne - Chemin de fer a crémaillère de Superbagnères.jpg' This wil allow to (post)date the postcard more precisely.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

  • There is a template {{split}}. However, I have used it on a file slightly more than a year ago, and no admin has gotten to it yet. I really do think that the amount of active admins that we have should be increased 20-40 times. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 10:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    Regarding the template, I think it needs a major update. It simply says the file should be split up, but one can't provide extra explanation, and there is no way to even suggest a name for the new file (other than the edit summary, which isn't ideal). I agree that we need more active admins, but I also think the complexity of the process can be one of the reasons why the split requests are usually left untouched for a rather long time. Ahmadtalk 11:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • @Smiley.toerist: Why is splitting into a separate file necessary for dating? You can click on the old version in the history if you want to see it at full resolution. --bjh21 (talk) 13:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Not stricly necessary ezcept for expert opinion. My interpretion of the stamps is 1912-9-2, but I could be wrong. Backsides are usefull to put in the Commons, for the stamps and postage stamps. Essentials,no, but usefull to have. The front is of course much more usefull for Wikipedia.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Low quality WEBP

File:Surgeon-general-adams.webp is a low quality dupe of File:Jerome Adams 2019.jpg. Is it appropriate to speedy it as a dupe?

Similarly, what if it's PNG or JPG or whatever format it is, one is worse than another in a different format. Is it good to delete and make a cross extension redirect? Or both have to be kept?--RZuo (talk) 20:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

They aren't duplicates. They are files of different resolution that have come from different sources. They have probably been produced from the same original source file but that doesn't change the fact that they are different. If they had both been the same file format, a better way to handle it would be for the higher resolution copy to be uploaded as a new version and not as a separate file. As they are different formats though, it is better for them to remain separate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@From Hill To Shore: if you look carefully, the source of the webp is https://www.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/surgeon-general-adams-180x225.jpg JPEG! the webp must be the result of the uploader's action. s/he uploaded a useless byproduct.
a more common scenario is when a user uploads a screenshot (in PNG) of a jpeg, or a rendered PNG preview of an SVG.
imo these useless dupes should be deleted. if a redirect is undesirable, then delete without redirecting.--RZuo (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Before I begin to reply to the core of your comment, I would ask you to take a look at Commons:AGF. If you find yourself speculating on the actions of other editors (they "must" have done this) and then describing the outputs of their work as useless, you are perhaps straying a little close to the territory of assuming bad faith editing.
Looking at the source page at https://www.hhs.gov/about/leadership/jerome-adams/index.html in Firefox and choosing to save the image on screen, gives you an option to "save as webp." That is likely what happened here in July 2019. Another user came along later and found a higher quality image at a different source, https://news.uns.purdue.edu/images/2019/adams-j19.jpg and saved it as a new file in November 2019.
You call the duplication "useless" but one key practical use is that keeping the original file preserves the edit history of other projects that were using the smaller version from July to November 2019. Another reason to avoid deletion is that both files are in use; it is not our role to dictate to other Wikimedia projects which files they use, and we always default to a keep decision if a file is in use and meets the licensing criteria.
Let me turn this around now; what is the benefit to the project of deleting the smaller version? From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I have deleted and redirected it as a duplicate. Deletion of duplicate files - even different resolutions and different file types - is part of Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion. Duplicates should only be kept if there is a compelling reason to have both. (The most common scenarios are having a JPG/PNG copy of a very large TIFF, or a PNG/PDF copy of an SVG due to rendering bugs.) In this case, the webp version had no separate value and should never have been uploaded.
Re your comments about edit history: file redirects still allow file display; thus, the old versions of that article will still properly display the redirected file. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Pi.1415926535: Thanks for clarifying. In regards to your point about, "the webp version had no separate value and should never have been uploaded," you appear to have misunderstood the sequence of events. We started off with no file, so the upload of the webp file was an improvement to the project; the upload of the higher quality jpeg several months later was then another improvement. I think it is a disservice to the original editor to say their upload should never have happened. If the editor had uploaded a lower quality version than what we had already, your point would have merit. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
You are correct - I misread the dates, and the webp version was indeed uploaded first - and I have struck my above claim. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Licence

In these image that I just uploaded, which license would be the most appropriate?: {{PD-US}} or {{PD-USGov}} There are others for reference.--Xabier (talk) 13:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

  • Who wrote that? Is it Freud or Jung? If former, then he has diedin 1939, and I would apply {{PD-old-70}}, because that removes most questions. US Government probably does not apply, the fact that it's in the library of congress does not invalidate copyright. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:09, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. You're right. We change it then.--Xabier (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Why is image in Wikidata not visible in Category?

A few times I have the problem that an image that I have added to Wikidata does not show up in the category. For example in Category:CAREM I have added {{Wikidata Infobox}} and in Wikidata I have added an image. I most cases no problem, but in a few cases it does not work. What to do to solve it? Wouter (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Try purging the server cache of the category page (https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:FAQ/en#How_do_I_purge_a_cached_page?). --MB-one (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I did a zero edit, using another browser using another computer, but no difference. Do you see it? Wouter (talk) 12:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes,I can.--迴廊彼端 (talk) 12:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I found out that when I log out I see the image. When I log in again, I don’t see it. Wouter (talk) 13:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Forcing a purge indeed helps. Problem solved. Thanks Wouter (talk) 13:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - National Army Museum, London.jpg

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#National Army Museum, London.jpg. Thank you! NahidSultan (WMF) (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Google Streetview

There is a Dutch legal author who says that since the process of producing Google Streetviews is a purely mechanical process (camera on rooftop of the car, shooting every few seconds), there is not any creativity involved. And because there is no creativity involved, he states, no copyrights can be claimed. Obviously, I like the idea, because I'd like to use these images. However, its also obvious that there are arguments to protect Google's works also as, even if it is not creative, it does require time and money to be produced. I'd like to learn: What is the exact policy of Wikimedia Commons with regard to the copyrights of Google Streetview images? If it can be used somehow, what modifications are required, and which license then is applicable? --Chescargot (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chescargot: Where can we find that opinion of that Dutch legal author?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That would be this article. Pinging also @Ellywa: , who kindly alerted me on this article. --Chescargot (talk) 08:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chescargot: Thanks, I read a translation via this URL, but I'm not convinced; do you have any case law?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Unfortunately, I have not, as I am not usually involved in this kind of things. I may try contacting that author though, and see if he has a case law to show for. --Chescargot (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
He was so kind to respond swiftly, but as it turns out, he is not aware of any case law for Google Streetview in particular. However, reading through the comments of said article, they speak of at least three more generally applying case laws, one of them on European level. I am no lawyer, so didnt delve into these, but stuck to the discussion ensuing from their mentions. I understand that the conclusion of that discussion is that no author's rights nor database rights apply for Google Streetview in the Netherlands, and possibly in Europe in general. --Chescargot (talk) 08:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
"Camera on rooftop of a car" <- FoP does (in some jurisdictions) not apply. Most fotos will show works of architects and artists who have not passed 70 years or longer ago. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Please clarify, I am not sure what FoP stand for?--Chescargot (talk) 15:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
An other point is the question: who is the author? As in situations with a traffic enforcement camera or a camera trap. Wouter (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chescargot: "FoP" => Freedom of panorama, from the German Panoramafreiheit. "FoP does not apply" => in jurisdictions such as France where buildings themselves are extended copyright protection that includes protection from unauthorized photographs, even if there is no creativity in the photo, there was in the design of the building, so a photo of that building would be a derivative work of a copyrighted work (the building) and we still couldn't use that photo. (I'm not weighing in either way on the Dutch legal opinion.) - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: C.Suthorn is referring to specifics of FoP in countries such as Germany, where there is freedom of panorama for copyrighted buildings etc., but only if the photo was taken from a point of view that is possible without technical means such as ladders - or mounting the camera on the rooftop of a car, I suppose. So, what C.Suthorn is trying to say: If you take a picture of a modern building from the street in Germany, holding the camera in your hand or using a tripod on street level, FoP applies and you are fine. But if you mount the camera on the rooftop of your car (as Google does), FoP doesn't apply and the resulting images are not free; the copyright owner of the building could assert their rights. Gestumblindi (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
In the EU, there are also database rights for Google's database(s) that hold such images / motion pictures before transferral to the US.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
Are you sure @Jeff G.: ? In the comments section of the mentioned article is said that database rights for Google doesnt apply here (in Europe) because Google has their HQ in the US. --Chescargot (talk) 08:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
@Chescargot: I am sure that I, too, "would not be brave enough to upload stuff from there myself" (per Gone Postal in this section, 08:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)) on Commons. I could, however, make Fair Use of it elsewhere. Do you really think that the data connections from Google Streetview cars in the EU to HQ in the US are so robust that there is not some local storage in the EU in between? That would strike me as faulty design, given all the problems I saw with video over similar connections on en:Live PD.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not sure if I understood your question @Jeff G.: , or whether it was a rhetorical one, but when I wrote of HQ in the US, I merely meant to say that having Google's company registered in the US, their copyright claims do (mind you, to my understanding) not apply in Europe. This is not to say they have no physical infrastructure elsewhere, which I am sure they do, for the reason you mention. Having physical infrastructure elsewhere does not mean (again, to my understanding) that their copy right claims are likewisely expanded.--Chescargot (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
The opinion (and comments) date from 2010, and seems like a reasonable argument. Google claims copyright and offers limited grounds for reuse, but I'm not sure that it has taken any legal action over reuse of Streetview images. All I can find is a lot of people suing Google because they don't like particular Streetview images, etc. --ghouston (talk) 03:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Some countries have a lower threshold of originality than others, so the copyright status may vary. --ghouston (talk) 03:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
How does this varying treshold reflect in Commons policy? Is that by means of defining different licenses? If so, what is the license used for the Dutch Wikipedia? Sorry for asking, I am a total nitwit on this subject and Commons. Just want to be able to use once in a while those Streetview fragments.--Chescargot (talk) 08:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Commons requires that the work is free in the USA and the source country. Perhaps the source country can always be taken to be the USA, if that's where Google publishes from, or perhaps it would also need to be free in the country where the photo was taken. --ghouston (talk) 09:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I am not a lawyer, but it is most likely correct... except that copyright is a strict liability offence. This means that even if you do not intend to violate somebody's copyright, you maybe found guilty of that. Here's how that is relevant. Say Google has added something to the image, a small thing like a 10x10 pixel art. You are very likely to miss that when looking at the image, but if you copy that art with the Google Street View image, you will be liable for copyright infringement. And you can say in court that you only intended to copy public domain element, but in all likelihood you'll lose. So although I would agree that a camera on a car, which does not chose camera angle based on what is best for the photo, but just what is best for driving through that street, is a public domain work; I would not be brave enough to upload stuff from there myself. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 08:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I get your point @Gone Postal: , thanks for that :) --Chescargot (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

From what I understand from @Ghouston: , there is some ambiguity in Commons policy then? Back then to my original question, (1) Are we or are we not allowed to upload Google Streetview images, if it is for the Dutch language Wikipedia? (2) What is the appropriate license code that needs to be tagged in that case? I was directed to the Village Pump for this question, but now the issue gets clearer in my mind, perhaps I should go to the Commons Helpdesk for a clearcut answer?--Chescargot (talk) 15:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Chescargot: Let me make it simple for you. Our policy is that we follow copyright law as it stands. Under the Berne Convention, a photograph attracts copyright as soon as it is taken, whether or not it is stamped as such. The Netherlands ratified the Berne Convention 1 November 1912. In addition, every electronic device in the EU which transfers a packet of data relating to these photos MUST (by the definition of Internet Protocol and more advanced protocols) store the packet in a database (even if it is in RAM) long enough to verify the integrity of the packet, making that packet (and the associated photo or photos) subject to EU database copyright, unless an EU court or legislature deems otherwise. Therefore, you can't legally upload it here.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
I tend to agree on copyright law. I'm not even sure that the Netherlands is the country of publication for these works; most likely they are simultaneously published in the US and Canada and various other states. It's quite arguable the database as a whole is copyrighted, as an intellectual creation.
However, applying the database right to anything processed by IP seems well outside any intent of the law. That EU directive says, under Object of Protection
1. Member States shall provide for a right for the maker of a database which shows that there has been qualitatively and/or quantitatively a substantial investment in either the obtaining, verification or presentation of the contents to prevent extraction and/or re-utilization of the whole or of a substantial part, evaluated qualitatively and/or quantitatively, of the contents of that database.
That does not apply to stuff merely passed by IP, or any other "database" created casually.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
Even if Google Streetview constitutes a "database" of public domain works, and even if we are following EU copyright regulations, I don't think that anyone is proposing copying the entire database, just some selected items from it. --ghouston (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I find somehow simplistic the idea that "Google Streetviews is a purely mechanical process (camera on rooftop of the car, shooting every few seconds), there is not any creativity involved. And because there is no creativity involved [...]" Well, it is surely heavily automated but not purely mechanical. There is a decision on how high they put the camera (so a decision on the angle) and then, the operators decide on the time of day they shoot (light), route, and even if they stop or speed up somewhere in order to get rid of a truck going the same way that would block the view for miles. I find enough creativity in the process. -Geraki TLG 10:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Well said. Elsewhere I compared it to a blindfolded passenger in a city bus, shooting random photographs: that photographer still owns the copyright, I'd say. And to stretch it: one could also (but I wouldn't) question the originality in the work of a photographer who takes a picture through that one porthole, in a guided tour that already had millions of tourists: where is the real creativity there? Just thoughts. Eissink (talk) 11:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC).

I forgot about Mapillary, the crowd-sourced free licensed alternative to Google Streetview, where similarly the user positions his smartphone on his car and the app is shooting every few seconds (photo from one of my routes). The user does all the things I describe above. We have a lot of images transferred (Category:Images from Mapillary) licensed as cc-by-sa-4.0 (so, there is a copyright - it belongs to the photographer). --Geraki TLG 05:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Who is this?

Unfortunately I cant read Chinese. I have looked similar figures but have not found them.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It's the statue of Wang Yangming in Yangmingshan National Park. Eissink (talk) 09:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
What is he holding in his hand? It is not a walking stick.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps some sort of rod, like a papal ferula or a crosier? A ceremonial staff, a staff of office? Eissink (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC).
i think it's still a walking stick, just a bit fancy. search '拐杖 國畫' to see some examples in chinese paintings.--RZuo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
It's a crosier. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
@Andy Mabbett: how can you be so certain, when a crosier is a christian attribute? Wang Yangming was not a christian. Eissink (talk) 12:37, 29 July 2020 (UTC).
I was looking at the second image. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 16:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Batch uploading rate limits

I have been trying to figure out COM:BATCH and Commons:Guide to batch uploading as part of a ~1,750 file upload I am working on. I am using Commons:ComeOn! to make the uploads, but after every ~370 files it starts coming up with error messages and saying I have exceeded my rate limit. Then it says I have to wait "some time" which seems to be about an hour. Would it help if I applied for a bot account, and if so can anyone explain why? I have uploaded files here over many years, but this is the first time I have tried a big batch. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile: Yes, bots have a flag called 'noratelimit'. This is probably because bot accounts are more trusted since they have to go through a review process, and they are also expected to edit quickly by nature. If you wanted to create a bot account for this you would have to go through the bot approval process, but I think there is a user group that we can temporarily assign to you to remove the rate limit. It looks like it might be Account Creator - though I don't know for sure what the policies are around that. If nobody else knows here I would try asking for that at COM:BN. See user groups and rights here: Special:ListGroupRights. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:52, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think there is a problem with the tool. When uploading files you should never hit the API rate limits. Maybe unless you are uploading very small files over a Gigabit connection. --GPSLeo (talk) 08:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I thought that normal established users, especially those with several thousand edits, would not be affected by a rate limit. 370 files per hour would be a very low limit for normal users acting in good faith. Where is exactly how rate limits affect contributors spelt out? --Fæ (talk) 09:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Fæ: very good question - I was looking around for the same but couldn't find anything. It would be well worth having a section on this in the Commons:Guide to batch uploading if we can figure out the answers. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Most other rights are sensibly discussed at m:User groups. The generic "noratelimit" is there, but not the specific way that Commons currently seems to limit user accounts for uploads. If this is missing, there should be a Phab ticket to track getting it written up. Plainly, how this currently works and what policies it is following appears undocumented. --Fæ (talk) 16:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
The rate limit for uploads for normal users on commons is 380 uploads per 72 minutes. If you are granted image-reviewer, patroller, or autopatrolled, the ratelimit is 999 uploads per 1 second, which should be enough. Hope this helps --DannyS712 (talk) 10:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@DannyS712: Thanks, where is that documented?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I was looking at the site config - https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/operations/mediawiki-config/+/268ac76decb429ba5fb9c565e144208b8467514c/wmf-config/InitialiseSettings.php#9711 --DannyS712 (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Onceinawhile: You are welcome to apply for autopatrol here at COM:RFR.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you all. I have documented this at Commons:Guide_to_batch_uploading#Rate_limits. Onceinawhile (talk) 16:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Ooh. I've just done the same thing because it keeps coming up: User:Bjh21/Rate limit. --bjh21 (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Why is Commons:ComeOn! throwing you an error when it hits the rate limit ? It should just handle the error and apply exponential backoff on the time between requests... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Yikes.. Noticed that we didn't even have that documented in the etiquette for API usage.. Fixed that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:45, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

The license review gadget is not working

If I click the + or - button the page loads but nothing else happens, please help me. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 14:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Does anyone have any idea what could be going on? -Killarnee (C•T•U) 16:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee: Works fine for me. What’s the file you are trying to review? Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 17:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
The problem is with all pictures. E.g. at File: Cabine de la navette Bourane.jpg, if I press the license + or license - button there the page loads but nothing else happens. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 17:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Pinging 4nn1l2 who wrote the script. De728631 (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Killarnee: Works for me on that file as well. --Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 06:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The gadget won't work if you change your tab after you click any of the buttons above {{LicenseReview}}. --Minoraxtalk (formerly 大诺史) 06:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
I made a video. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 08:17, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Okay, I found the bug. I activated the visual editor in the beta settings, and it also changes the view of the source editor, which is why the gadget then no longer works. I have now deactivated the visual editor. Thanks for your help, even if it was a little hesitant. -Killarnee (C•T•U) 18:53, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
The primary cause here, is that the gadget is written to directly modify the old form, instead of using the jquery.textSelection plugin, which allows compatibility with WE2017, wikEd, syntaxhighlighting functionality etc.. It really should be updated. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 10:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Empty category just to display relationships

Is it ever worthwhile to create an empty category just to display the familytree for large families? See Category:Carmine Coppola --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, it's creating a picture, really. Very nice feature, btw. If you screenshot the familytree and upload it as an image, the category is no longer empty, but it doesn't really make a difference, imo, so I have no problem with it. It might get tagged by some bot, though, for being 'empty', which might give editors unnecessary work, I don't know about that. Eissink (talk) 20:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC).
The bot deletion is what I was worried about also, so I will add him in the census, or some similar document. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 20:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
NO. Commons is not a genealogy project, it's a media repository. If there is no relevant media, there is no reason to make categories. Policy guidance is Commons:Deletion_policy#Categories. Keep it at Wikidata, or Wikitree or Find a Grave or anywhere else. Remember, Commons is not a genealogy project. --Animalparty (talk) 21:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
It is displaying a media image, just a dynamic one generated on the fly, rather than a static, uploaded one. The question is posed to determine consensus as to whether a dynamic image constitutes a populated category. The content is irrelevant, so long as it is educational. You wrote: "Commons is not a genealogy project", but it is whatever people find useful and educational, we even have a category for these images of family trees. See: Category:Family trees by country. You can tell me the names of Carmine Coppola's children and grandchildren in prose, but the image of the tree is easier to digest. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
Carmine Coppola is no longer an empty category, so discussion of it here is somewhat moot. Per policy (and a guideline): Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository. Machine generated diagrams, while useful, are not files. If someone wanted to reproduce a dynamic diagram, they would (or should) do so directly from Wikidata. Even if one were to screenshot and upload the diagrams as .jpgs, they still may be out of scope as excluded educational content, as "Files that contain nothing educational other than raw text" and that could be better displayed or hosted elsewhere. Wikidata family tree diagrams, if they must be displayed, could be done so on existing Categories or Gallery pages (if we must show Carmine Coppola on a diagram, and he were lacking a category, maybe simply tweak the diagram on his son's Category?). If one is wanting to create a more detailed or elaborate diagram, then maybe the Wikidata template needs tweaking, or the reader more clearly directed to Wikidata or some other tool that allows extensive tree navigation. Creating loads of content-empty categories just to regurgitate more Wikidata output seems to me as borderline abuse of the spirit of Commons, even if not violating any 'policy'. I would expect opposition similar to if I were to create loads of frivolous, self-indulgent categories like Pictures of noses of United States Presidents who owned slaves, by year because I think it's useful. Commons is not Find a Grave, and not an encyclopedia (although the now-ubiquitous Wikidata Infoboxes might give the impression otherwise). It's not whatever anyone wants it to be. It is first and foremost a media file repository, even if one day every category has more banners, boxes and windows than CNN on a Sunday. --Animalparty (talk) 00:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for giving your opinion twice, and thanks, this time, for making it even longer and using the phrase "frivolous, [and] self-indulgent" in it, but I made the inquiry hoping to hear from a wider range of editors. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Right now this category is not empty, but let's say that it was, to discuss theoretical usefullness. I do think that something like this should exist on the internet, but just not on Commons. Wikidata, or even Rodovid or Geni are better sites for something like this. The provide more functionality for genealogical research and maintenance. I believe that empty categories are often ok: When they are for maintenance, When it's only a matter of time until there will be files in that category (for example categories in the form "2021 in Antarctica" created on the 1st of January of that year.). I do recognize, that genealogy is not something that I have ever touched on this project, and maybe my opinion is not as well informed as it should be. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 06:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
i think as long as a category can reasonably be expected to be populated it can exist even if there is currently no file. in this case he's a prolific musician, surely 70 years after his death his musical works can be hosted on commons. photos/videos of him would also be in scope. we'll just have to wait for expiry of their copyright, or someone to donate such photos.
when such a cat is created, it is rather counterproductive to delete it.--RZuo (talk) 09:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
Yes, that seems to be the perfect solution, I can always create a higher category with all the family members and add in the tree. See: Category:Gould family as an example. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be a lot of extra work, and the chart is always changing as more family members are connected at Wikidata. It will take years of work to merge all duplicates from The Peerage and link them to existing families, and there are more databases of people in the queue waiting to be uploaded and processed. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 17:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Categorisation of File:RuEn-мой дик (my dick).ogg

Backstory: I've been sorting Category:Russian pronunciation, but rather than just changing a sort key of a file and moving on, I wanted to make files easier to find, thus I was adding additional categories to uncategorised files. I have placed the file in question into Category:Penis since from the audio and the name of the file it is clear what it is meant to be (please note I have no interest in discussing penises here, but rather concentrate on this file). This category was removed by A.Savin, stating that such a word does not exist. I have contacted the removing party, you can read the whole exchange at User_talk:A.Savin#Please_consider_reading_before_reverting, but in summary my position is that 1) Russian language is evolving and it is a common enough term in current Russian language, although it is true that it is a borrowed term, 2) The uploader has actually marked the file as "RuEn-" pidgin rather than simply as "Ru-", clearly symbolising the combined nature of a phrase. I was, however, unable to convince an administrator to consider my position. I am quite stressed right now, and if I will get too involved in this situation, I am honestly afraid that I will say something that'll get me banned. So I am bringing it to attention of community. Am I being too lenient with categorisation? Should a different category be applied to make this file more useful? Is there a policy against neologisms, combined language audio files, etc? Thanks in advance. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not Russian Forum, or, even better, Wiktionary's community board? Just curious, --A.Savin 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll ping Russian forum now, as to why not Wiktionary... because it's not Wiktionary. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 15:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm agree with A.Savin that there is no such word in Russian language. And of course it is not anything close to "a common enough term" (please, provide any prooves if it is so). --Stolbovsky (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
In Wikimedia projects there is always may be someone who's not agree with you. It is the way community works here IMHO. So if it makes you feel so stressed may be it's not the best place for your work. I don't see any signs that you can be banned just for what you say in this situation, what a nonsense. If honestly, I cannot understand your "victim" position in this case, sorry. Nothing special happened, mate! --Stolbovsky (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
So basically it is an English term for penis, right? Just like the file name says. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
And as for your suggestions that I leave, accusing me of being a "victim" etc. You can keep that crap to yourself. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 17:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep things cool, please. Eissink (talk) 17:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC).
IMHO, this file is incorrect and may be deleted. Maybe, "dick" word should be translated in Russian for pronounced. But this wasn't done. The result is mistaken. Transliteration of this word is not used in Russian, in no conceivable context. --Kaganer (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Category:Membrane structures gives a link to en:Membrane structure, however that page gives as link to Commons Category:Beijing National Aquatics Centre. The same applies for de:Membranbau. The Wikidata page about Membrane structure gives the right link to Commons. How can this be explained? Wouter (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens: I don't have an explanation, but purging de:Membranbau caused it to go from showing the wrong link to showing the right one for me. --bjh21 (talk) 09:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
✓ Done. I fixed the issue on Wikidata, where that topic was inappropriately linked to the Aquatics Center. (That's what you were seeing, Bjh21, I just hadn't had time to reply here.) — Huntster (t @ c) 09:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I didn't notice that edit when I checked the history. So the problem was that membrane structure (Q1500907) had a Commons category (P373) of "Beijing National Aquatics Centre", which appears to have been added in 2013. --bjh21 (talk) 10:22, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
This addition in 2013 has been done by a [vandal] who probably has done similar things on other pages. Is it possible (by a bot?) to check whether Commons category (P373) is the same as mentioned at "Other sites"? What is the advantage to have this Commons category (P373) in addition of mentioning the category under "Other sites"? Wouter (talk) 07:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
It was a bot, that was blocked. Looking at the (many, many thousands) of it's edits, it looks like the most are just okay. I randomly checked edits, from the edit summary, and I found no attrocities there. When you look at the 500 surrounding that particular edit (see here), it also seems regular, so it must have been an unlucky flaw. There might of course be more problems, but I don't think it is alarming in any sense and it doesn't look like the bot operator had vandalistic intent as such. If you want more information, it might be better to inquire at the Wikidata Administrators noticeboard, where they might be able to address the bot's problematic behaviour in more detail. Eissink (talk) 11:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC).
@Wouterhagens: There is a constraint violation report at d:Wikidata:Database_reports/Complex_constraint_violations/P373#Commons_category_sitelink_does_not_match_P373 - currently limited to the first 1,000 items. Any help resolving those would be great! These ideally need manual checking, pi bot will resolve cases like P373 values pointing to a redirect to the sitelink. (I'm hoping we can get rid of P373 at some point, see d:Wikidata:Properties_for_deletion#Property:P373, and fix the sidebar issue via phab:T232927). Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much for the explanation. I started with that list of 1000 items, but it appears very difficult with my limited knowledge of using Wikidata. Wouter (talk) 19:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Swimming docks

Maybe I'm just missing something, but we don't seem to have a category or categories for the sort of swimming docks (floating or not, and with or without a lifesaving station) shown in these three pictures. - Jmabel ! talk 15:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed it seems we do not have a category for that yet. --El Grafo (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
I suggest to create a category. Other images that may be relevant File:Swimming at Tent Ten with Mini Tower, Camp Highlands for Boys, circa 1915.png and File:Schwimmsteg Breese.jpg. See also Category:Floating docks. Wouter (talk) 20:13, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
File:Schwimmsteg Breese.jpg looks to me like it's probably a pier. These others don't connect to land. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
File:Swimming at Tent Ten with Mini Tower, Camp Highlands for Boys, circa 1915.png: hard to say whether it connects to land or not, the foreground might be part of a somewhat disheveled pier leading to it. - Jmabel ! talk 23:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Trace of Soul 2020

Hello. I am happy to inform you that Trace of Soul 2020 - a public photography competition, will be held this year too. We are asking your help to do update of Campaign:tos-rs (just update 2019 to 2020). Thanks,--Bosko23 (talk) 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

✓ Done --Base (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Rename A Couple of Categories

My fault, I've been a bit inconsistent when creting two categories in a category (I followed e.g. "Birds of Uganda" and created "Birds of United Kingdom" where when I look at the equivalent United Stated category there is a proceeding "the" as in "Birds of the United States" i.e. I messed out the "the". There are 2 categories I've doe this on Category:Videos of birds of United Kingdom (should be "... the United Kingdom to be consistent wit "... the United States") and Category:Videos of reptiles of United Kingdom. Probably not the end of the world but a minor inconsistency. They were only created in the last couple of days so very unlikely there are external (or internal) links to the "inconsistent" categories so maybe don't need a redirect is a straight name change can be done (but beyond my knowledge or authorisation). Sorry and thanks. PsamatheM (talk) 12:50, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

@PsamatheM: I renamed the categories, after which I manually recategorized the files. When you rename (button at the right of the page history button), the old category automatically becomes a redirect (but files in it do stay in it, so you have to fix that). Because the category is new, there's no need to keep it, so I tagged them 'bad name', so they will be deleted. Eissink (talk) 13:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC).
Many thanks. Some of the animal categories get complex (they have to) and for video as not a lot of fauna videos, categories need adding. Thanks for sorting. PsamatheM (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
@PsamatheM and Eissink: Uncontroversial category renames can be requested at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, and all the file moves, interwiki links, etc. will then be correctly taken care of. - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
If you can't remember whether something is "The New York Times" or "New York Times" like I do all the time, then make a redirect. The person above works in their categories all the time, yet still cannot remember which it is, just like I do in my example, a redirect is the correct thing to do. We also have/had a bot that moves redirected categories automatically. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
If you use {{Move cat}} in User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands, it will leave a soft redirect from the old category name. If you don't want the redirect, it can then be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
The usage of the word "the" in English is quite often left out when referring to these countries, while I personally dislike it when people say "Traffic in United Kingdom" rather than "Traffic in the United Kingdom", it's quite common for (especially) non-native speakers to make this mistake. The fact that redirects show up in HotCat suggestions isn't bad because it will automatically add the file into the correct category. In fact Wikimedia Commons has a severely underpopulated catalogue of (category) redirects. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/07&oldid=437918598"