Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/02

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

I was looking at this black communist pamflet of the 1930s

One has CC0 as it is made by The Smithsonian, other has PD-EU-no author disclosure

However, I am not sure neither are appropriate.

About PD-EU-no author

There is author disclosure on the first one https://www.marxists.org/history/international/comintern/negro-worker/files/1932-v2n4-apr.pdf

on the 3rd page, we see the editorial board. This is not anonymous, although they did not use (C) Copyright form

About the CC0 from Smithsonian - Smithsonian cannot just scan a thing and it doesn't become CC-0? Even when the original author might have copyright? That feels strange.

(Despite the whole thing being in English, it was published, at that time, from Hamburg) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Running (talk • contribs) 05:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

--Running (talk) 05:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Ping Goldsztajn and Jessamyn --Running (talk) 05:33, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I will nominate both for deletion I guess. --Running (talk) 07:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
The Smithsonian tag is clearly wrong, will retag. Hamburg was the headquarters of the ITUCNW, which published the Negro Worker. An editorial board is not synonymous with authorship, or in these cases, photographer or illustrator/graphic designer. In both cases, the creator(s) of the front covers remain(s) anonymous. --Goldsztajn (talk) 10:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
I see. I see that PD-EU-no author disclosure has to also have: _ Reasonable evidence must be presented that the author's name (e.g., the original photographer, portrait painter) was not published with a claim of copyright in conjunction with the image within 70 years of its original publication._ - I have no idea what does that mean? (PD-anon-70-EU doesn't have that, but... see discussion below. I don't get the difference.) --Running (talk) 13:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference between PD-EU-no author disclosure and PD-anon-70-EU?

I fail to see the difference between Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure and Template:PD-anon-70-EU, even when I re-read it multiple times.

Also, I fail to see why Template:PD-anon-70-EU also requires separate PD tag for USA (which has been used to actually delete files) and Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure doesn't. What am I missing?

--Running (talk) 13:19, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Imho these two are synonymous, but some arguments for separation were made in the second DR here. De728631 (talk) 13:56, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Oh. Does that mean then that Template:PD-EU-no author disclosure should *also* require PD for USA? ....and as I see the URA link, yeah, it should. I will try to make the edit to the template? :D --Running (talk)

Category usage in other wikis?

Is there a way to list a cat usage in other wikis, like for files with File usage on other wikis? I want to find out the references of cat:Parquet flooring, like {{Commonscat|Parquet flooring|Parkett}} in w:de:Parkett. I'm renaming/ merging the cat (disc). The What links here tab, like on the User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands#category moves page proposed, doesn't show interwiki links. :)Westbahnhof (talk) 08:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Typically cat usage are the categories that are listed in the Wikidata item connected, in this case Q28747168. In order to be abselutely sure, you could do an SQL query on quarry.wmflabs.org, whith the code below. The wikipedias use the code "langcode" + "wiki" (en.wikipedia becomes enwiki), while the sisterprojects use "langcode" + "projectname" (f.x. enwikibooks). Copy paste the code 10x at a time, whith a newline inbetween them, and go through all of the wikis.
select page_namespace, page_title from enwiki_p.page
join enwiki_p.langlinks on ll_from = page_id
where ll_title =  "Category:Parquet_flooring"
.--Snaevar (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Project Grants Proposal: Wiki Loves Butterfly Phase-V

Hi Wikimedians,

Greetings from Wiki Loves Butterfly team. As you might know, for the last 4 years, we have been documenting butterfly taxon endemic to eastern and north-eastern part of India through the Wiki Loves Butterfly project. Our aim is to increase the amount of free license materials along with enrichment of related content on different Wikimedia sites. Our project has been previously supported by 4 Rapid Grants. Since the beginning of the project in 2016, we have gained considerable amount of expertise, maturity and confidence to successfully plan and execute field-documentations and expanded our area of activity in remote deep forests of North East India. But the range of activities in all of our previous endeavors were much restricted due to budget constraints, which has now encouraged us to apply for the Project Grants Program for the coming phase, for vaster and more extensive qualitative documentation related to the topic. The WLB team is requesting all interested Wikimedians to visit our Project Grants proposal and provide valuable feedback and suggestions here. If you feel this project proposal is eligible to get the grant, then you can endorse the proposal here. Thank you--Atudu (talk) 06:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Confused categories

If someone takes the time, you can help to reclassify the content of categories which names confuse some colleagues.

  • Avenues is intended for tree lines (tree-lined ways), but some of country subcategories (Tunisia, Turkey, Argentina…) are filled with a content which should belong to Category:Avenues (streets). It is true that both meanings come from one and can sometimes overlap each other, but in the content of some categories it can be seen that the meaning was understood quite differently.
  • Avenues (landscape) by country and its category tree is a duplicate for Avenues by country – some countries have this category doubled for the same item. The two category trees should be merged.
  • Alleys is intended for narrow street lanes, but many nations understand this word as "avenues" (tree lines) and filled the categories with such a content. This content should by moved to Avenues categories. Shouldn't be the category tree renamed to be less confusing?

Any help in resolving this confusion is welcome. --ŠJů (talk) 06:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes I would suggest to rename to English label on Wikidata "alleyway". But maybe better open a COM:CFD for this. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
What about streets named "X Avenue" (or "X avenida" that aren't tree-lined streets? I think relying on words that aren't universally used as such is a bad idea. If you want tree-lined streets, use Category:Tree-lined streets. If the wikipedia article has to parenthetically disambiguate with "(landscape)", commons has even more reason to do so. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Avenida X, never X Avenida.
I get "alleyway" but isn't that very UK? I don't think I ever here it in the U.S. I take it the confusion is with the German Allee?
I could say more but COM:CFD is probably in order. Please link here if someone starts one. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Cultural heritage categories in Pakistan

Recently what appears to have begun as a reasonable disagreement about the use of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh turned into edit wars, block threats, accusations of vandalism, and even a block (reasonably rapidly reverted). I'd like to see if we can get consensus about how to use this category rather than fight one another and spread ill will. I wish I could leave names out of it, but I really have to ping the key people in the original dispute and the admin who blocked so that they can all be involved in building a consensus: User:A.Savin, User:Krok6kola, User:Steinsplitter.

The situation is well illustrated by Category:Jam Nizamuddin II's Tomb (one of the categories the admin in question singled out when he imposed a block). The tomb in question has its own {{Cultural Heritage Pakistan}} identifier (SD-94); Category:Jam Nizamuddin II's Tomb is in Category:Tombs at Makli Hill, which in turn is in Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta, which in turn is in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh. By far most of Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh consists of individual cultural monument categories, though it is possible that the majority of such cultural heritage monuments are not directly in that category, since some subcats may each contain a lot of monuments.

The question comes down to whether Category:Jam Nizamuddin II's Tomb—3 removes from Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh along this path—also belongs directly in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh. My suggestion, following a pattern we use elsewhere:

Is there anyone who would have a problem with that? & if it would be OK, would the three people I pinged please each say explicitly that it is OK with them? - Jmabel ! talk 23:25, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, additional categorization "by name" is an option to have a common category for all that CHM without double-categorizing to Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh and it's fine with me. Note however that there had been other attempts by Krok6kola to put redundant categories (such as this -- "Makli Hill" to where there is already "Tombs at Makli Hill"), so the "CHM by name" probably would not resolve everything. --A.Savin 23:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't imagine we will resolve everything easily, but let's try to take a step back, assume good faith, and work out each other's intent. No, Krok6kola's intent here wasn't immediately clear to me, either. I asked questions, got answers, and worked it out, and it was a perfectly reasonable intent, certainly not "vandalism." - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: @A.Savin: I realized, looking at List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh, that they what the call "SD-91 Overview of Makli Hill" redirects to Makli Necropolis. (I had suggest on their talk page before that they change the name to the UNESCO name but no response and they removed my "Commons category" link.) To me "Overview of Makli Hill" is meaningless if it actually means Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta on the Commons. (So I redirected "Overview of Makli Hill" to the Commons category.) SD-92 through SD-117 also redirect to "Makli Necropolis". So can any of the names be trusted, as only one has an article on Wikipedia: "SD-91 Overview of Makli Hill", and it is wrong from the Commons point of view? (Most have photos though, if not an article.) Krok6kola (talk) 03:20, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Also, everything appears to be at Malki (a town) near Thatta (a larger town). Krok6kola (talk) 03:51, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Is it possible that Thatta refers both to the town and the surrounding region? Common in a lot of countries, I don't know Pakistan well.
en-wiki is not authoritative, the government or UNESCO listing is. - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: @A.Savin: These are references on enwiki article that seem reliable: UNESCO Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta and BBC In Pakistan, imposing tombs that few have seen.
Also many on the Commons use Asian Historical Architecture; two links there (maybe more) pertain to our problem: one Thatta, Pakistan and two Makli Necropolis, Thatta, Pakistan Also Shah Jahan Mosque, Thatta, Pakistan in Thatta but not in the UNESCO site. Perhaps these will help answer the questions. Krok6kola (talk) 18:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Question: If it is not by name, what is the other categorization by? Location? Otherwise, I agree that the main category should have the template and the underlying subcategories and images do not need that. And yes, you often need to backtrack up other categories to see that someplace is already there but under layers. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ricky81682: If I understand your question correctly; take for example Category:Jam Nizamuddin II's Tomb -- it would be then in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh by name (indicates only that this tomb is a CHM and it is located somewhere in Sindh province, but could help to find this particular object amongst Sindh CHM's easier, w/o browsing through many sub-cats), but also in Category:Tombs at Makli Hill (indicates that it is a CHM within Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta -- UNESCO World Heritage Site, and its more precise location -- Makli Hill in Thatta), and additionally in Category:Jam Nizamuddin II (logical relation to the person buried in this tomb). --A.Savin 16:13, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: I don't know enough about this but I first think Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta could be deleted with everything upmerged to Category:Makli Hill since they isn't any non-historical stuff but that's for another day (I'll propose the merger/deletion later). I'd say tag the actual UNESCO monument which seems like the full site and yes, I'd support removing the tag from all the subparts. It's like people who tag the built in category on every image of a building when the building has a separate category. Yes, you lose out on recognizing per image that it's related to the monument at the individual level but I suspect more people are coming at this top down looking for the monument (or monuments) and then within that, types of images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    FWIW, for the U.S., besides putting {{NRHP}} on categories we usually also put it on those images that would make a particularly good illustration for the place in question. No strict guideline, and YMMV. - Jmabel ! talk 20:15, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Ricky81682: I think the current tree is appropriate:
    "Thatta" (this is a town in the Sindh province) -> "Makli Hill" (a hill in Thatta named Makli Hill) -> "Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta" (this is the official UNESCO's name of the site located on the hill; there is a separate Wikidata item and the Portuguese Wikipedia even has a separate article just on the UNESCO object) -> "Tombs at Makli Hill" (tombs at this site; the site contains mostly, but not exclusively tombs -- they are mosques too, for example) -> "Jam Nizamuddin II's Tomb" (an example of a separate tomb's category).
    I hope, the structure is clear? --A.Savin 21:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    I want to add that if there was no separate WD item and WP article(s) on "Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta", this would be better to merge "Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta" to "Makli Hill". --A.Savin 21:35, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
    @A.Savin: The separate {{Cultural Heritage Pakistan}} item numbers do exist on Wikipedia. Their cultural heritage numbers, along with their potential articles, are listed on List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh, but all of the individual articles listed there have not yet been created. As you probably know, the Pakistan Project on Wikipedia is woefully understaffed. There is no article on Wikipedia named Makli Hill. Rather, it is a redirect to Makli Necropolis which does not mention "Makli Hill". Krok6kola (talk) 14:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @A.Savin: @Ricky81682: As someone has already said, en-wiki is not authoritative, the government providing the information for the UNESCO listing is. In other words, enwiki is not an authority on the name of a World Heritage site in Pakistan; the government of Pakistan is authoritative. The government of Pakistan applied to UNESCO for site to be a "World Heritage Site" and provided the name, descriptions and documents backing up their application. See the application and supporting documentation at Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta As it says on the website "The Nomination files produced by the States Parties are published by the World Heritage Centre at its website ... The sole responsibility for the content of each Nomination file lies with the State Party concerned." (In this case, it isPakistan.) [1] Even Makli Necropolis says "Official name: Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta".
    So do we fall in line with an enwiki "start-class" article and call it "Makli Necropolis", do we make up our own name and call it some version of "Makli Hill", or do we go with the authoritative name? I guess the question is how accurate does the Commons want or care enough to be? Maybe not very. I tend to lean on the "accurate" side; others do not. Does it matter if the Commons is not authoritative? Maybe not. The structures are "massed at the edge of the 6.5 km-long plateau of Makli Hill", so do we want to get the geology correct? Maybe that does not matter either. Krok6kola (talk) 02:44, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Krok6kola: You know very well that if you continuing edits like this or this, I don't have any desire to discuss with you anything, please leave me alone and stop pinging me at every occasion. --A.Savin 22:48, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Neue Version einer Datei hochladen

Diese Datei sollte horizontal gespiegelt werden.

Hollo zusammen, ich versuchte gestern mehrmals eine neue Version einer Datei hochzuladen, erhalte aber immer wieder diese Fehlermeldung: "Die Dateierweiterung „.tif“ passt nicht zum MIME-Typ (image/jpeg)."

Ich habe die Original-Datei auf meinen Computer heruntergeladen, dort dann horizontal gespiegelt und im Format .jpg abgespeichert. Nun möchte ich diese neue Version über den Link unterhalb von "Dateiversionen" nach Commons hochladen. Es geht leider nicht.
Kann mir jemand sagen, was ich falsch mache? Oder kann jemand die Datei korrigieren und dann seitenverkehrt wieder hochladen?
Herlichen Dank und Gruss --Schofför (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Das Original auf Commons ist eine Tif-Datei. Vermutlich hast Du bereits eine Jpg-Version heruntergeladen (ein Thumb in 1:1-Verkleinerung=Originalgröße) oder Du hast die gespiegelte Version dann als jpg abgespeichert. Das kann nicht funktionieren. Stelle sicher, dass Du die Tif-Datei herunterlädst und dann nach dem Spiegeln auch wieder als Tif abspeicherst. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Genial – es hat funktioniert! Herzlichen Dank für diese Erklärungen! Gruss --Schofför (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done

GeoLocator no longer shows OSM

If this is not the correct place to ask this question, my apologies. When uploading pictures to Commons, I like to add geo coordinates. To obtain them I use GeoLocator, no doubt known here. But now GeoLocator only shows Google Maps, in satellite view, but no longer OSM. I find this less clear, so leading to possibly incorrect coordinates. Do other users also see this? Is there another tool I could use? Help would be welcome! MartinD (talk) 07:36, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@MartinD: you're talking about this, right? Indeed I only see Google maps (with a "For development purposes only" overlay). Footer says the place for reporting issues is en:User_talk:Teslaton/Tools/GeoLocator --El Grafo (talk) 12:31, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! MartinD (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Teslaton as developer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Pages being Declined

I wanted to improve my page but every time a different person declines the page with different comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pandribs (talk • contribs) 12:37, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Pandribs: whoops, wrong page: somehow you ended up at Wikimedia Commons. You're looking for either en:Wikipedia:Help desk or en:Wikipedia:Teahouse. Good luck with your problem, --El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
@Pandribs: Hi, and welcome. Please read en:User talk:Pandribs and every page it links to thoroughly, and heed their advice.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:27, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

I think that we should commission a new logo, I get that the current one is nostalgic and all but I think that it just feels outdated and if we get a more modern one then more people would see Wikipedia as a more modern and useful website. If we commission a new logo then I think it should include vibrant colors so that peoples eyes will immediately be drawn to it. Anyways, what do you thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YoloboyYT (talk • contribs) 17:20, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion or interest in the logo, but did you mean to say Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons? - Themightyquill (talk) 17:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
@YoloboyYT: There are 10 thousand things that are more imporant than bikeshedding new logo. Just recently I have hit a 16 year old bug in MediaWiki - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T5311 . Fix bugs first, bikeshed logos later. --Running (talk) 05:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
bugs in MediaWiki can be resolved by software developers (most of whom are not professional graphic designers). a better logo can be created by graphic designers (most of whom are not professional software developers). Still, I don't think that a vibrant colored logo would be wished for by WM volonteers or actually be helpful in people seeing Wikipedia as a more useful website (more modern yes, but is that something the community wants?) --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Wrong place to discuss this, but the puzzleball has ben looking old for about 10 years now, imo. --El Grafo (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Meh, I think the current Wikipedia logo aged well, and is still aging well. Changing it to a new one would make it unrecognizable to me. pandakekok9 09:58, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
But not as well as the old Procter and Gamble "moon" logo, which they never should have changed. Which I went looking for as an example, and can't find on here, do we somehow not have it? Almost has to be pre-1925; en-wiki says they are using it on a "fair use" basis; sorry to change the topic, but does anyone have a clue why? @ShakespeareFan00: can you shed any light, you wrote the rationale there. - Jmabel ! talk 13:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
That logo has a generic fair use rationale , because the file description lacked sufficient information to show it was pre 1925, If you have other evidence to suggest it is, mention it on the relevant talk page.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, regarding "I get that the current one is nostalgic and all but I think that it just feels outdated and if we get a more modern one then more people would see Wikipedia as a more modern and useful website." well, I can imagine dozens of better looking logo's and I've seen beautiful logo-derivatives used in contests, for events, Etc. but I would oppose changing it in the current environment purely because of the global trend of mininalism on the intetnet, almost all graphic design art styles used by almost all websites is some form of minimalism. I'm not saying that minimalism is always bad it is helpful in some cases with readability and navigation for smaller screens. But the internet-style of the 1990's (ninety-nineties) and 2000's (twenty-nulties) was very much based on complex and very detailed art, while during the 2010's (twenty-teens) a wave of minimalism swept almost all forms of popular graphic art and almost all graphic artists I know personally evangelise it.
If Wikimedia websites will get a new art style it will (almost) certainly just be a simplification of the current style. this change from a few days ago bothered me because the colourful WMF logo looks much more inviting while the black logo looks rather generic. I think that of the most egregious minimalistic styles of modern software can be found in Microsoft's Windows 8 (eight) family of software, something they thankfully changed in Windows 10 (ten). In fact, most of these changes are made with the supposed idea that "it's better for mobile", but the 2008 (two-thousand-and-eight) Apple iPhone had very complicated logos and and a GUI not out of place of the rest of the software at the time. Wikipedia and other Wikimedia websites (like Wikimedia Commons) have almost always had a generically minimal design which can to some extend be altered by users, I don't think that we should change any of the current logos of Wikimedia websites to follow this trend of minimalism. Though I personally find general minimalism to be "less artistic", I think that the "puzzleglobe" shows quite well what Wikipedia is about, it is a puzzle you can add pieces to, the 3D-looking design aged quite well.
Just for reference, if there are people that say that we should change it to be "more mobile friendly" the aforementioned first iPhone is a great deal weaker than the current generation of smartphones and early BlackBerry OS, Microsoft Windows Mobile OS, and Symbian OS telephones all had very complicated art styles with much weaker CPU's than today's smartphones. Following a trend for the sake of following it isn't a good idea. How many people genuinely think today that the MediaWiki GUI looks "from a bygone era", sure it can be improved in many ways, but changing it for the sake of change isn't a good idea. Though I wouldn't be opposed to different optional skins for MediaWiki-based websites. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:06, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Good idea?

Optimized: 10 times smaller

User:Ratmanz optimizes images on commons (see the talk page of the user). The rationale is download bandwidth and that some images even look better with the smaller file size. I am not sure, if this is a good idea? --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The original has an embedded thumbnail, which can be handy on some systems, and the EXIF data, which is directly referenced on the image page description, has been lost, so not a good thing to do. It's also been sharpened, an unnecessary and not lossless change considering the sharpness of the original.
TBH, I ignore a lot of this going on with my uploads, life's too short, but any type of digital transformation needs to be for very good reasons if overwriting the original. --Fæ (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Users can use the current system to download a jpeg or PNG alternate size version which will probably be smaller if they really want, it certainly would not have the EXIF data and it would not have the embedded thumbnail if it exists in the file.
If files are very large (like a 100MB TIFF) then it's normal to have an alternate version of a more usable size, however again users can get around these issues by choosing a different resolution.
It's obvious the consensus is against creating small size versions of images for the reasons you have given so far, however if you wish to continue then at a minimum you have to comply with policy by creating alternates as separate files, rather than overwriting the original. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 18:03, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
The changes should be reverted en masse. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. --Mirer (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ratmanz: Rules aside, be aware that unless you actively chose to download the original size source file, the Wikimedia servers will always automatically serve you a downscaled and optimized thumbnail anyway. As far as I remember, even EXIF data is reduced to a minimum for those. There's no need to optimize twice. --El Grafo (talk) 12:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
  • On the sister projects, like Wikipedia, on the mobile website, pictures are not downloaded until the reader opens up the page section that the picture is in, by default (this is called lazy loading). There has also been an option to disable loading of all pictures (again, on mobile).--Snaevar (talk) 17:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Are All the QR Code in the public domain?

Example of complex QR code with extra redundancy used to embed graphics and 'pixel' rotation to embelish design. Additions to this extent may make the code potentially copyrightable.

I see that some QR codes are in the public domain, and some QR codes are CC by sa 3.0, so I came here to discuss it.--IN (talk) 12:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Simple QR codes are effectively random noise to the human eye and are not copyrightable per COM:TOO and {{PD-textlogo}} may be a suitable way of showing that. It may be respectful to include the CC-BY claim, but they are not copyrightable in the same way that individual phone numbers are not copyrightable. However QR codes that are designed to wrap around images or include designs within the code itself may be trademarked, and others with complex intrinsic human recognizable design elements by use of code redundancy (even massive redundancy) may well be copyrighted, these will be rare. --Fæ (talk) 14:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: Do you have an example of such a rare one?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:16, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Illus addendum --Fæ (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Another example would be german company MediaMarkt: QR codes in 1-to-1 customer communication use tiny black dots for the modules printed over a huge brillant red company logo. The human eye will mostly not see the QR at all, but the scanner ignores the red/white image and scans the black/white QR. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I'd also look at what the QR code is encoding, and whether that's copyrightable. Looking at en:QR code, the Version 4 (33×33) can only hold 50 bytes, and I suppose a short URL wouldn't be copyrightable, but a Version 40 (177×177) can hold quite a bit of data. --ghouston (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Are we allowed to have images on category pages to aid in identifying the correct person visually?

See for example: Category:Lindauer (surname) where a single headshot appear for two of the people. Sometimes I can only visually identify the person I am searching for, because I cannot remember their given name. A bot (ArndBot) is currently removing the images. --RAN (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you talking about the two headshots that are there because there is no subcategory for them? Otherwise what would be the "correct" person for a surname? It could be the most common person people think of I guess but that may be worth making as a proposal. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
For instance at the Flickr Library of Congress project we have images from the LOC with just a surname, the only way to identify the people is visually. If there was a single image in the surname category for each person, it would be possible to match the two people. See for example: File:Mardones LCCN2014715666.jpg and Category:Mardones (surname). In this example there are only two choices, imagine when there a dozen to try and match to. --RAN (talk) 19:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
You may have to set up a gallery privately maybe (subpage in your profile or the category talk page) and then refer to it afterwards. I don't know if it makes sense to have a full gallery for everyone since it sounds specific to this set of images. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
An option is to look in Wikipedia. If you know that the person comes from Germany look at the de.wiki. In the case of Mardones look at w:de:Mardones and w:en:Mardones. The age and activity of the person helps to select the right one. Wouter (talk) 20:43, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
  • In about half the entries at the LOC project there is no entry for the subject in Wikipedia, so this method would only work for about half of the entries. In those cases I create a Wikidata entry for the person and add a representative photo to the surname category. The same people keep cropping up in the image queue identified only by their surname. I am sure I am not the only person that requires a visual way to identify people. Anyway, while specific to this one project, the LOC has over 100,000 images as part of the project. What I am specifically asking: "Is there a rule that demands that we cannot have images in the surname category". If there is no rule, I can ask the bot operator to modify the bot to keep the images in the category. --RAN (talk) 23:34, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Archiving

We need know at the top of this page when archiving is going to happen, several talk pages already display (as an example): This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 21 days may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived. Broichmore (talk) 21:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The Header already says "Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives." Archival is typically by SpBot, daily around 03:07 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Oops, must have have been a long day. Only 7 days seems very short, there are some items here worthy of longer duration than that? Broichmore (talk) 12:53, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: When someone posts hear and draws no response at all (including that the original poster hasn't come back and said something like, "Hello? no one seems to be responding") how long do you think it should sit here? 7 days seems reasonable to me, but I'm not wedded to it.
If you think something should have drawn attention, but fell off of VP this way, you can always unarchive the section. I've done that at least a couple of times, but certainly not more than five times in 15 years. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

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

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1963

"This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1926 and 1963 … and the copyright not renewed". Does the 1963 date move forward each year until it reaches 1977 when copyrights were automatic? --RAN (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The Copyright Renewal Act of 1992 retroactively gave works that were copyrighted between 1964 and 1978 protection for the second renewal term of copyright (eventually giving them a full 95 years of protection). It did not provide for nonrenewed works published between 1963 and 1978 to gradually enter the public domain in the way you are describing. Read more about the Copyright Renewal Act of 1992.  Mysterymanblue  22:48, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! --RAN (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Does this look legitimate?

Could someone look into what happened here? - I am dis big (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Trolling? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
✓ Deleted. --Achim (talk) 23:21, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Inlandsbanan Björnidet

I created the Category:Inlandsbanan Björnidet. This is a highly unusual train stop to visit a bear hole. How can I classify bear hole (or nests)?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:54, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: I added two categories. Let me know if that is satisfactory. –Iketsi (talk) 18:24, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:NCELECT for categories

On English Wikipedia, elections are named like "2020 Colorado elections", or "2020 United States presidential election in Colorado" - as opposed to "Colorado elections, 2020" or "United States presidential election in Colorado, 2020". This doesn't seem to apply to categories here, for example Category:Colorado elections, 2020. I never noticed a consensus here against NCELECT, and I'd assume that this is a hold-over from before NCELECT existed on enwiki - but I'd like to gather thoughts and consensus before moving thousands of categories. Elliot321 (talk) 23:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Hm, solution is looking for a problem? Maybe I don't get it, where is the benefit of bulk renaming of thousands of categories? Consistency with naming scheme on en:wp doesn't count here on Commons. --Achim (talk) 17:38, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
@Achim55 and Tuvalkin: perhaps? I think the format of having the year first makes more sense in reading, though. There's a reason the convention was adopted at enwiki - which also required the moving of thousands of pages - and that's because it's a better format. Elliot321 (talk) 18:52, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Map of participants in World War II

Map of participants in World War II

I've made a proposal to alter the world Map of participants in World War II to change the colors used for France and its colonies. Your feedback would be appreciated at this discussion. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 21:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Unscheduled maintenance: Wikimedia Commons Query Service

There will be some unplanned downtime of the WCQS. From the developers:

"Our host wcqs-beta-01.eqiad.wmflabs is running low on disk space due to its blazegraph journal dataset size. In order to free up space we will need to take the service down, delete the journal and re-import from the latest dump. Service interruption will begin at Feb 4 18:30 UTC and continue until the data reload is complete, approximately 2.5 days."

Apologies for the unexpected inconvenience that this might cause. The service will resume as normal once the data reload finishes. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:49, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: WCQS maintenance is complete and the service (https://wcqs-beta.wmflabs.org/) is available again. Thanks for bearing with us. RKemper (WMF) (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File change request to a protected page

On a discussion from a few years ago, it was decided to maintain the azure sky blue color of the coat of arms here [2], and it appears that the Sky blue didn't make the cut for the presidential standard and I hope to revert it to the azure sky to match the coat of arms in my edit request that has been unnoticed for a long time now. [3] PyroFloe (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

COM:TOO Brazil:

OK Simple documentary, descriptive photographs in general, such as photographs documenting social reunions: In SC-AC 111630 SC 2002.011163-0 (2006): "mere photographic documentation, without artistic character, does not qualify for copyright ... making it possible to use a copy without mention of the photographer's name, since, according to Brazilian law, only artistic photography (by choice of the object and conditions of execution) is listed among protected works. ... [for example] with documentary photographs of social gatherings, where the author was performing duties for the defendant, a reference to the photographer's name is not required because it is not an artistic work..."[4]

Does this mean it is ok to upload a picture that fits this criteria? If so, which tag should I use? I coudn't find any that fits this description in Category:License tags of Brazil — Mr White 15:11, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mr White: It's not necessarily okay to upload a Brazilian picture under those criteria because Commons requires photos to be free in the United States as well as their home countries. Since the US does recognize copyright on simple photographs, it's only okay to upload such pictures if there is some other reason they're in the public domain in the US (one of the many reasons at COM:CRT/US). In particular, if the photo was published before 1989, {{PD-1996}} might apply. In that case, you could either create a license template based on that section, else use {{PD-because}} along with the US template. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge December results

Allée: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Viale cipressi Volzum, Lower Saxony/Germany
- one of my favorite
scenes by night.		 Avenue in Faizabad,
Badakhshan Province,
Afghanistan (2009)
Author Repuli PtrQs Jrheinlaender
Score 51 19 16
Demolition: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Demolition of St. Lambertus
church, Germany		 Demolition of cinema / garage
in North Walsham, Norfolk, UK		 Demolition of Basel Exhibition
Author Arne Müseler Whippetsgalore Ermell
Score 45 27 17

Congratulations to Repuli, PtrQs, Jrheinlaender, Arne Müseler, Whippetsgalore and Ermell. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:43, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Location image

The classification Category:2008 in Flevoland, probably comes from the local name 'URK' in the filename. But I suspect there was no cat show in Category:Urk.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

URK should translate Uudenmaan Rotukissayhdistys Kirkkonummella (Uusimaa Breed Cat Association at Kirkkonummi). --Raugeier (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Flags and Symbols of Greece

Hello, years ago, I worked on converting Greece's local flags and emblems to svg in order to upload them to wikipedia and enrich our community. Recently, a user decided that all my work is copyrighted and marked it without a second thought as files for speedy deletion. That resulted in deletion of most local Greek flags see [5]. I believe most designs are either too simple eg [6] or depict ancient coins thus there is no copyright issue eg [7], [8]. I am unable to remove the speedy deletion tags by myself and I need your advise on what to do. Can the files by un-deleted? (TakisA1 (talk) 14:07, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

I talked with the user. I need to tag my files better next time, but still this didn't explain why they needed speedy deletion as I didn't have the time to properly tag them.(TakisA1 (talk) 14:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC))
You don't say who speedied these but, yes, they were wrong to do so, especially if they made no effort to contact you first. - Jmabel ! talk 03:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

What am I doing wrong in this Template (Other versions) here?

Template:Other versions/World energy consumption is the template I want to fix. When you click "edit", it doesn't show the other files, but a blank page. It shouldn't be like this. So how I fix it? Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 16:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

First of all, this template is not supposed to have any gallery subpages like /World energy consumption. It is meant to be used in the |other versions= slot of {{Information}} and it serves to transclude one or more file names. So you can use it like [[:File:ABC.jpg]] but with multiple inputs. De728631 (talk) 17:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: I know that, but currently the problem is, if go to this file, for example and try to add a new version of the file, you can't. I want to fix that. I don't have that problem in other versions using the same "other versions" template. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 17:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Tetizeraz: Ok, your problem was that you added a file name to {{Edit other versions}} like {{Edit other versions|World energy consumption.svg}} whereas the parameter should just have been the subpage without ".svg". I have now fixed that and it seems to work as intended. De728631 (talk) 17:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Telegram group for Wikimedia Commons

Good news everyone,

We've been gifted the link for https://t.me/WikimediaCommons, which was previously carpetbagged. If you are on Telegram, or want to try it out, we can make this an easy alternative to IRC or other channels for general chat about Commons content and projects. The group is public, if there are spam problems later, the link can swap to being a reception group with 'real' accounts then invited to a private group associated with it. Thanks! --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Update: The link directs to a public 'Wikimedia Commons' group. Anyone can join using the link, for example to ask questions about the project. If the new joiners seem legitimate, or have an existing track record on this project, they can then be invited to the private group (for which there is no invite link). Click on the link if you want to try it out. --Fæ (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
While I think that community-building is good, I don't like the current IRC system because it isn't made publicly available on Wikimedia websites what's discussed there and for that reason I'm equally suspicious of what happens on Telegram (though I'd be lying if I'd say that my own negative experiences on the IRC), anyhow I'd rather see an IRCwiki (or "IRCarchivewiki") and Telegramwiki (or "Telegramarchivewiki") where all conversations are made public (after censoring doxxing and other privacy concerns) on a Wikimedia website so everything remains transparent. I'm not a fan of off-wiki places for "wiki discussions".
Unrelated to my concerns above, perhaps you should create a page called "Commons:Telegram" where how to register and the code of conduct is noted for the chat group. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Agree. There's m:Telegram, but no explanation of how to go about joining the Commons group. Will revisit after a day or two, in case the set up changes. --Fæ (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear all,

We want to share some updates with you regarding the India maps situation that came up last November to December. As some of you may recall, the issue was published in the Hindustan Times and the community ultimately changed the map on the Bhutan-India relations article while keeping the older map on Commons, which is where things stood circa mid December.

Since then, we have been in conversation with the Indian Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY). We have primarily focused on explaining to them what processes Wikipedia has. They have acknowledged that they understand the Wikipedia editorial model and that issues can be handled by editors rather than expecting the Foundation to intervene, but have requested a more expedited process for community review of maps. They also still seem to want political borders to always match their official map. At the end of January (Jan 27th Pacific Time) they contacted us with a new order, identifying four URLs that they were concerned about this time.

These are

  1. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/57/India_Bhutan_Locator.png
  2. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:India_flood_zone_map.svg
  3. https://commons.wikimeDia.org/wiki/File:InDia_map_en.svg
  4. https://commons.wikimeDia.org/wiki/File:InDia_China_Locator.svg

Note that the first is the upload link for the original India Bhutan image and the latter two of these have an incorrect capital D that leads to a nonexistent page. While we assume for the latter two that they meant the images for links spelled “India” rather than “InDia” we wanted to reproduce the original here, since that is what MeitY sent us.

Our request is for the community to review them and ensure that they are in line with community guidelines and generally something that you all consider to be good quality. At this point, we do not believe that the Foundation has a legal obligation to remove or change any of these images. However, it is possible that this could become more public or lead to Wikipedia being blocked in India, so we want to ensure that we’re defending content that you all want to keep and that it’s in the form that you want it. -Jrogers (WMF) (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jrogers (WMF): Did you really mean "a new order"? That phrase has rather unfortunate connotations, if you understand 20th century world history. Commons is not Wikipedia as implied by your words "... Wikipedia being blocked in India". Commons is a repository for freely-licensed or out of copyright images for which the principal test is "realistically useful for an education purpose". The test is neither correctness nor notability, as it should be on Wikipedia. If "fake images" are used on Wikipedia, it's up to them to verify their correct use. But then, how can I trust en:WP when I can't even edit there to get things right? We here are under no obligation to verify images, because we have literally millions of them. That's a usage issue, not a Commons issue, as I said. My grandfather was a Lieutenant Colonel in the Indiam Army, and not noted for being either wishy-washy or misunderstanding the situation. That's why he was honoured by King George VI in 1948. Now if WMF Legal wants to do something constructive and useful, it should review my sanctions by WMF T&S, because as I see it, they lack any due process and are unlawful. Over to you. Please feel free to WMF block me; it will open up new avenues for me. If anyone wants to go through these images, fine. But as I understand it, it's a feature of Commons. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:32, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Have to admit, after reading the WMF Legal statement carefully, this feels like polite hand washing in response to political pressure.
There appears to be no specific action proposed nor expected, probably by anyone.
If a ministry SPAD wants to create an account and propose changes or request deletion, there's nothing stopping them putting the case and reliable sources up for unpaid volunteers to decide if it looks sensible. This can happen openly based on facts and publications, no lawyers needed. --Fæ (talk) 22:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Courtesy (working) links:
--bjh21 (talk) 23:24, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

As a spot check, File:India flood zone map.svg has extensive notes on the image page, explaining precisely where the disputed territories are and the different States that are agents in the disputes, which includes India. The map is in significant cross-wiki usage, clearly editors in those projects have chosen to use this map outside of the views of Wikimedia Commons volunteers. It looks fine as it is.

However the map was uploaded in 2006 and has not had any file revisions since then. As these maps are subject to disputes, it may be sensible to fix them, if not by file protection, then by a warning template and/or amending the title to include the year of publication. This way users who wish to dispute the map can create variations or updates but will be required to create them as separate files and provide reliable sources to justify that the map has sufficient realistic educational value. --Fæ (talk) 11:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Found a significant error in the Commons-Wikidata-Plugin

In the category Category:Nikon FA, there is the respective Wikidata item on the side: Nikon FA (Q1457619). Directly below the pic, which is automatically taken from the "image" section in the Wikidata item (first/top image there), appears the line motor drive MD-15. However, this is wrong, as this is the text of the 'media legend' of the second image (out of four) in Wikidata. A reader skilled in that field will immediately recognize that this is a nonsense text, because the depicted pic in the Wikidata plugin shows the plain camera body which does not have an (almost as large as the camera) motor drive. I have tested this in Commons categories with other Wikidata items having more than one pic and a 'media legend' field below the second image, and the error seems to be reproducable. Example: Nikon F3 (Q1470486) and its category Category:Nikon F3. Exactly same error pattern. Pittigrilli (talk) 00:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Mike Peel as point person for Wikidata on Commons.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 03:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps it's just taking the first caption it finds, even if it doesn't come from the first image. Multiple P18 statements on a Wikidata item isn't very useful in any case: I've made the first one preferred, and that seems to fix the problem. --ghouston (talk) 05:31, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to check whether a Category's subcategories have red category links? I would like to see if there are any red category links in the subcategories of Category:Mayors of the Netherlands by name, which would take days one by one manually. Eissink (talk) 06:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC).

You may be better off copying the list from say AWB and splitting the names with "(given name)" or "(surname)" back into categories in Excel before trying that although I admit that is hideous as well :-/. -- Ricky81682 (talk)

Uploads by User:Bazman2300 look suspicious to me. Can anyone take a look? Special:Contributions/Bazman2300. Thanks! Mateussf (talk) 17:10, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Mateussf: All of those files from the swpcayman dotcom appear to have been uploaded to support spammy en:Draft:Strategic Wealth Preservation (SWP), since deleted. I tagged them all as copyvios.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:46, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Awesome! Thank you very much! Mateussf (talk) 22:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mateussf: All deleted, thanks to Túrelio!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Wrong painting attribution

Please note the following paintings:

They are very similar and they both represent Francesco Maria II della Rovere (1549-1631) duke of Urbino, NOT Francesco I De Medici. Please check with similar portraits. The paintings are both from the workshop of Federico Barocci.

Can someone please rename the following files?

Thanks Accurimbono (talk) 18:23, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Flickr graylisting

Currently we have concepts of "Whitelists" and "Blacklists", but unfortunately life isn't as black and white that an entire library of content can simply be labeled as "a bad source" without it containing a lot of useful content in the public domain as well. There is a Flickr user named "Manhhai" currently blacklisted because this user has no idea how copyright © works.

I would say that currently Manhhai's Flickr account is probably the internet's biggest source of images related to any period of Vietnamese history. From what I can tell this user has basically created a comprehensive online museum related to Vietnamese history, they seem to be a monarchist and have access to a lot of French archives. Further I suspect that Manhhai might be a known Wikimedian sockmaster that has been globally banned (Stewartbanned or "Stewbanned", not Sanfranbanned) due to their similar disregard of copyright ©. But that's another discussion for another time. The main problem with Manhhai is that they tag literally every image they upload to Flickr with a free license regardless of the actual copyright status of the image.

The problem comes with thousands of public domain images related to Vietnamese history are found on his profile and only his profile.

I suggest that we might create "a Graylist" (or "Greylist") for image sources which are a bit more ambiguous. In this proposed graylist Flickr accounts can be "graylisted" which means that they can be imported to Wikimedia Commons, but will either be automatically nominated for deletion (not an automated speedy delete, but a full deletion request so human eyes can observe the files) or be tagged as needing a more appropriate license. This can be solved by simply adding "{{PD-Vietnam}}" to for example an image of Saigon, French Cochinchina from 1902 rather than fully block any uploads from this user purely because they also use the same license for images from, for example, the 1970's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:29, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

  • I think you're asking for trouble if you set up a system where things are automatically listed for deletion before being allowed here. You may have a better chance with getting someone to scrap a list of their files from Flickr onto a talk page of some sort and manually doing the work here rather than this. To me, a disregard for copyright is basically a blacklist as it still just means it can't be a credible source. Whether or not we can figure out some non-copyrighted material there does not mean that the Flickr user is actual credible on their own. It's no different than people who upload very old art with a GFDL tag which is technically wrong but still allowed here anyways. You are going to spend as much time figuring out a system to check and verify the images uploaded here afterwards as you would if you look at it beforehand, even something like pre-1902 images will need some checking manually to verify that each image is actually from that time. You could always create a 'template' in your userspace and subst it that adds whatever combination of copyright and deletion notices you want but this just seems to add a ton of work for many people rather than reducing it to a lot of work for one person. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem in this case is that a lot of the images are found only at "Mannhai", perhaps such a system can allow for the links to still be submitted but that the uploader should add the appropriate source abd license during the upload process. The number of useful public domain files from this user likely number in the thousands. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:43, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Finding files that belong, but are not as of now, in a particular category or its subcategories

Is it possible to find files with (for example) "Den Helder" in the title that are not in Category:Den Helder or any of its subcategories? As a way to find files that are missing from the Den Helder category tree. Without doing a "Den Helder" search and checking the categories per file manually. --Larshei (talk) 13:13, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, but I need a 'search not in cat' + 'search not in subcat'. --Larshei (talk) 20:17, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Inspirati④n

The current images for the Inspirati④n space mission seem likely to be deleted soon (rights encumberment). Can someone upload the (lower than threshold of originality) unencumbered text-only logo versions, [9] and [10] so that they can be used after the current mission patches get deleted? Thus different language wikipedias and wikidata will have a choice of logo (whether the latin-text version or just the simple symbol version) -- 65.93.183.33 13:23, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Internet Portal of the President of the Republic of Belarus

Hello. My question is: can files be distributed from the official Internet Portal of the President of the Republic of Belarus (https://president.gov.by/en)? At the bottom of the page, it says that "Materials from the Internet Portal can be used in mass media and distributed in the Internet without any restrictions regarding the volume and date of publication. Only a reference to the source is required. No prior consent to use the materials from the Internet Portal on behalf of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is needed". But whether this is their fault, or it should be so, but it does not indicate that media files can be used in books and "on any other media". Let's get this straight. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 15:28, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

It's quite typical post-USSR terms of use. Use itself is not defined. By default, copyrights law of Belarus (or other post-USSR counties) allow only quoting. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:34, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
"distributed in the Internet without any restrictions regarding the volume and date of publication" looks like they are going beyond the minimum the law allows. The second sentence looks like it might be a general release beyond the internet but does "No prior consent to use the materials from the Internet Portal on behalf of the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus is needed" only apply to use by the Press Service of the President of the Republic of Belarus? Its rather odd phrasing in English so is it a translation issue?Geni (talk) 15:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
My point was possibility of creating derivative works. On my opinion it's extended version of fair use in regard of size of quote. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
And if we are talking about images? According to https://president.gov.by/en/photos-for-press, "the photos are available for download and use without consent from the President’s Press Service". Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 16:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Media type doesn't matter. Use is still undefined term. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:43, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
So, no one can upload photos here from the site? Or are you talking about basic copyright? Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 17:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
No, because there is not explicitly expressed compliance with Commons:Licensing. By the word, please read w:en:Creative Commons license, just to see what definitions of use might be, and not all of these licenses are accepted by Commons. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 17:57, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Well, I took out the photos (including my uploaded ones by mistake) for deletion. Roman Kubanskiy (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2021 (UTC)


Can you please paste it in en:Wikipedia of Subrata Bakshi. Also in wikidata TTP1233 (talk) 15:41, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@TTP1233: No, per COM:HD#. Please stop forum shopping.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:55, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Erase two pictures

I made this two pictures: Anatomia de la font 01.svg Anatomia de la font 02.svg They should be erased, the T uppercase should be lowercase. Sorry.--Allman (talk) 16:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

You can reupload new versions of these files. Ruslik (talk) 21:08, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

What public domain tag to use?

[11] This new file I uploaded is marked as Creative Commons “Public Domain Mark 1.0” on this page, [12]. I used the “upload wizard” and pasted the link, which I thought would turn into a tag. Could this file be PD Zero? Can someone help me choose the right tag? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 01:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd guess it's {{PD-US-no notice}} as a publicity photo, but they haven't said that explicitly. --ghouston (talk) 03:04, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

A ley line of geotagged photos

While browsing a map for geotagged photos from Commons (using https://nakarte.me), I stumbled upon a straight line of points represented by a totally heterogeneous set of files, running from Russia, across Turkey, Africa and deteriorating in South Atlantic. All of them are misplaced, like a flower from Germany geotagged to Kazakhstan or a French palace on the middle of an ocean.

The answer to the riddle is that geotags in all of these photos have equal longitude and latitude, e. g. {{Location|49.20519148|49.20519148}}. Since there is no way to restore the correct values (except maybe a few), possibly it would be better to remove geotags from all of them, e. g. by a bot? The risk that a photo had totally equal longitude and latitude, say, up to a second or up to a 1/10000 of a degree, would be minimal. 188.123.231.144 23:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultation survey is now open

Hello everyone,

I would like to thank all of you who participated and still following and participating in the Universal Code of Conduct consultation on Commons. You can still join the discussion. To participate privately and anonymously, we now have a survey in place. It is not a long one and should not take more than 10 minutes to complete. You can participate in the survey here: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeK7gTSZ2PSNiekEKPcC2UvnkJaQt8iVPWRXZbk27U9E8fOIQ/viewform

We are perfectly aware not every opinion can be expressed publicly and nor that it should. Therefore, in addition to the survey, If you want to share your opinion privately, you can do so by emailing me as well. Please also send me an email if you want to have a one-to-one meeting. I would be happy to discuss things with you.

As a part of a is a very diverse, multilingual, and multicultural community like Commons, your opinion is very important and greatly appreciated. Therefore I urge you to participate and express your opinion.

Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Thank you! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I will not take part in this survey. WikiMedia is a project that is about open knowledge, free open software, ... The survey is at docs.google.com "Google" is a private company with closed private software - the idea to discuss (of all things) the code of conduct for free WikiMedia at a commercial place is absurd. Google is the largest single donor to Wikimedia and the employies of the Fondation are (ex-)Google managers, but if they can not keep this apart: it does not make sense to put only 10 minutes into 'that'. Dump this code of conduct, make a new one. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Mentioned off-wiki, but the points seem relevant to repeat.
Consequences of running this survey on Google include,
  1. you have to be an "adult" to agree the terms (this may be 16+ depending on where you live),
  2. information the WMF may access can be any related to your Google account and the WMF may do whatever internally and say it'll be deleted after 90 days but that does not include deductions or analysis,
  3. the WMF will reject any user request to see what information the WMF holds about them, WMF legal publicly rejected my own request,
  4. Google does not waive its right to cooperate with law enforcement or its own investigations of possible fraud or 'safety of Google', etc.
The legal analysis of the consequences of submitting data and understanding what the WMF terms and Google terms together mean in reality would take several days, it's not fair to vaguely waive at a "terms" link in a caveat emptor default approach.
It would be super if all Wikimedia project volunteers everywhere actively rejected all surveys not hosted using open source software, and not run exclusively by the WMF or Affiliate on their own servers, rather than handing personal data and marketable opinions to third parties with separate terms and conditions that literally nobody who designed the survey understands, or has even read, and where the volunteer asked to fill out the form even has no idea in which country or legal jurisdiction the data will be accessed by whomever.
Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:33, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Agree. Disastrous decision which shows a total lack of understanding of what Wikimedia is about. I don't blame @Wikitanvir (WMF): , he has no responsibility for any of this mess and will eventually be able to walk away into the sunset, and I wish him well. The rest of us are stuck with this Fred Karno's Circus that is WMF's persistent misunderstanding of their role. In short, "universality" across multiple projects separated by language, function and culture, is going to be so vague as to be unusable and open to local interpretation so is a busted flush. And that's if it's applied consistently and fairly. It isn't. Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:03, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikitanvir (WMF): Hi, using your WMF account you have left notices for another 10 accounts today, directing these volunteers to complete the Google doc questionnaire. The issues of privacy and anonymity are significant. Could you please desist mass notices until these are resolved, preferably by taking down the Google doc.

Also can you confirm

  1. where the opt-in list is for these mass notices, I believe this remains a requirement for WMF research of this type?
  2. how the recipients of the notice are being selected, that is to say what are the agreed criteria for selecting 'interviewees'?
  3. please advise the community who your WMF line manager is for this research?

Checking your lists on meta User:Wikitanvir (WMF)/MassMessage/Lists/Commons village pumps and m:User:Wikitanvir (WMF)/MassMessage/Lists/Commons functionaries, and the evidence of now two UCoC posts to all "functionaries" in your list (5 Feb and 12 Feb), this seems an inappropriate use of the mass message tool. A post on the VP would have been sufficient, rather than a systemic campaign to harvest feedback, using an unapproved Google document.

Please reply to these questions as without evidence of approved selection criteria for research, which is clearly not just the "functionaries", the campaign appears potentially biased based on your personal selection of interesting people. Despite using a mass message list, there has been no apparent consultation with the community in advance, you have failed to add any opt-out to your messages as recommended in the MassMessage guidelines, nor have you advised in the message that the link is to a Google forms page. --Fæ (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wikitanvir (WMF): I would like to echo all these concerns by Fæ, in particular the use of a third-party survey tool with significant privacy concerns. Continuing to post these messages while ignoring these criticisms puts the WMF and the UCoC proposal in a very bad light. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:37, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Well said and rather restrained. If this had been someone unrelated to WMF doing something equally unauthorized, we probably would have blocked them. As it is, the intent was presumably good but you know what they say about the road to hell. @Wikitanvir (WMF): , some of us are uncomfortable enough about things like Telegram and even IRC being used in preference to on-wiki communication. This was almost certainly a bridge too far, if not a very long causeway too far. - Jmabel ! talk 23:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wikitanvir (WMF): I was on this page for other another reason and I saw this. I agree with these other users above. The Wikimedia Foundation should create, manage and store all surveys and associated data within infrastructure that is owned and controlled exclusively by the Foundation under the oversight of the Board of Directors and subordinate committees. I had seen a banner today about this survey and I noticed that the link directed me outside of the Wikmedia Foundation. I did not take the survey for privacy concerns. I would have left the issue there, but I saw these comments above and these experienced people have made me more aware that my concerns were justified. Can you do a survey on Wikimedia websites? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 02:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Wikitanvir (WMF): Anyone in favor of a UCoC, and I am, should especially be listening to the concerns raised here by C.Suthorn, Fæ and others. The first bullet point of section 3.2 of the current UCoC version – a section that concerns abuse of power, privilege, or influence – reads (but the underlining is mine):
  • Abuse of office by functionaries, officials and staff: use of authority, knowledge, or resources at the disposal of designated functionaries, as well as officials and staff of the Wikimedia Foundation or Wikimedia affiliates, to intimidate or threaten others.
By directing Wikimedia users to Google to participate in a survey, you are basically saying "You better agree to Google terms or you don't have any say in this WMF survey". If you think you can convincingly launch a Universal Code of Conduct by intimidating users in such a way, you might want to think twice and start over. And while your overall contributions no doubt should be appreciated, a survey that appears to be more or less incomprehensible might not exactly serve WMF, Wikimedians or indeed any UCoC, so I suggest WMF relieves you of your task and have someone else doing a more decent job. Good luck, greeting, Eissink (talk) 08:46, 13 February 2021 (UTC).

Notice of proposal for use of off-wiki surveys and third-party tools

Please see Commons:Village pump/Proposals#Use of off-wiki surveys using third-party tools which may help avoid use of third party survey tools in the future. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Find the largest files in [de los Leones]

I'm trying to do it with petscan, but I can'tMONUMENTA Talk 03:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

This Petscan query gives File:Pavillon de la Cour des Lions - Alhambra LCCN2018646009.tif as the largest file at 167 MB. MKFI (talk) 08:03, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

I want to cancel the deletion request.

Commons:Deletion requests/File:EURion 오만원.jpg

When I requested for the deletion of this, this was a violation of the Terms of Use because there is no "보기" or "SPECIMEN" notation in the image. (According to COM:CUR#South Korea, South Korean banknotes must be marked with "보기" or "SPECIMEN".) However, for now, the "보기" notation has been added and therefore the terms of use have been complied with. So I want to cancel the deletion request.

--Ox1997cow (talk) 13:08, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

You should state that you want to withdraw the nomination on the deletion request page, as you have done. The {{Withdraw}} template is available for this, but its use is not required. This usually leads to the request being closed as keep, but it does not prevent others supporting deletion. Verbcatcher (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
@Verbcatcher: Thank you. Ox1997cow (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:Urkyear is not working correctly

The newly created Category:2021 in Urk does not appear in Category:Urk by year and Category:2021 in Flevoland. What is going wrong?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

PS: I will be moving the Urk images from (year in Noordoostpolder) to (year in Urk) categories.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:17, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Urk by year is still empty (should contain 2021 in Urk) and Category:2021 in Flevoland does not show 2021 in Urk, only 2021 in Noordoostpolder.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done. Probably some background process that didnt run correctly. I have added the desired category manualy outside the template. Then removed the manual added category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Conditions in templates

I would like to add a condition to the Template:Urkyear. Before 1986 the commune belonged to the province Overijssel insead of the province Lelyland wich was created in 1986. Could something like: If year < 1986 then (Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in Overijssel|Urk) else (Category:{{{1}}}{{{2}}} in Flevoland|Urk). If not posible I could create a seperate template Urkyearbefore1986. An example where it can be used is in Category:1985 in Urk. Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Done here. Is this right? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:53, 18 February 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Fixing a typo in a category

Hi, I just noticed that Category:Struwelpeterbrunnen has a typo, should be spelled with -ww-: Struwwelpeterbrunnen. (See w:Struwwelpeter or this tourist info page.) Not sure how to fix this, though. --Jonas kork (talk) 11:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 11:51, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Discrepancy in ID of two paintings

See these paintings:

File:MarriageCath.jpg
File:Pierre Subleyras - The Mystic Marriage of St. Catherine of Ricci.jpg

They are the same painting, but the first says it's Saint Catherine of Siena, and the second says it's Caterina de' Ricci. Does anyone have an idea of how to tell which it is? I know that Catherine of Siena is one of the best-known people who are portrayed in mystic marriage paintings, but could it be Caterina de' Ricci anyway? --Auntof6 (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: I think it's pretty likely to be Saint Catherine of Siena. The source of the second image is a dead link, but you can see part of the post at this archive link (scroll down a bit). The post is about St. Catherine de Ricci, but they have the image linked to http://www.lib-art.com/artgallery/17125-the-marriage-of-st-catherine-pierre-subleyras.html, which titles it merely "The Marriage of St Catherine". Probably the second identification is just a matter of forgetting about the other Saint Catherines. Vahurzpu (talk) 19:53, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: Maybe, but en:Catherine of Ricci says that Catherine of Ricci "was mystically married and united with adult Jesus," and these paintings show Jesus as an adult. The mystic marriage paintings of Catherine of Siena that I've seen show Jesus as a baby. --Auntof6 (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6: I did some more digging, and I can't find a good answer to the question. A bunch of places just say "The Marriage of St Catherine". If you're really committed: Subleyras's Grove Art Online page has three citations that might plausibly have the full name:
  • ‘Vita di Pietro Subleyras’, Memorie per le Belle Arti, 2 (Feb 1786), pp. 25–36
  • P. Pasqualoni: ‘Vita del pittore Pietro Subleyras’, Giornale delle Belle Arti, 3 (May-June 1786), pp. 156–7, 162–4, 170–72 [written in 1764] (see this link 1786 n. 20-22 for an online copy)
  • Subleyras, 1699–1749 (exh. cat. by O. Michel and P. Rosenberg, Paris, Mus. Luxembourg; It. trans., rev., Rome, Acad. France; 1987)
I skimmed through the second source, and didn't see any explicit references to the painting (though I might have just missed it). The final one has your best shot at having an authoritative answer, but it might be difficult to track down a copy. I might come back to this if I come up with any other ideas about how to figure out the answer, but no guarantees.. Vahurzpu (talk) 01:50, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
@Vahurzpu: Thanks. I don't think I'll pursue it further now, but I appreciate your responses. --Auntof6 (talk) 04:40, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to improve the illustration of the template {{Focus stacked image}}

▶ Quick vote here. Thanks -- Basile Morin (talk) 04:42, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Where can I find a PD license tag for a work made by a machine?

I can't find it here Category:PD license tags. Any help is appreciated! Victorgrigas (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@Victorgrigas: It's covered by {{Pd-ineligible}}. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:44, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Community board seats - office hours with board members on Saturday

In January, the Wikimedia Foundation Board decided to change its structure. Thus, 6(!) of the now 16 seats on the board will be newly selected by the community this year. The Board is looking for a selection process ensuring more diversity and expertise within the board. The Board would like to gather extensive feedback from the community on this. To this end, there is a Call for Feedback, which is running from 1 February until 14 March. Here you can find detailed information.

In the course of this, many online conversations are held to discuss ideas and opinions on selection processes. A facilitation team collects the feedback, finally delivering a report for the board. Here you can find an overview of previous conversations and talks.

This Saturday, office hours will take place in the presence of board members, at 6 am, 10 am, 4 pm, and 9 pm (UTC). This shall enable everyone to take part and to address questions to board members. Here you can find all the information about it. I would like to invite you to these conversations and would be happy to meet you there. DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

File:United States (orthographic projection).svg

Well, apparently the file is just badly named, on the English-language Wikipedia it is listed as "the 50 States and Washington D.C.", the name misleadingly makes it seem like it's supposed to be the entire United States of America, but its usage in context makes sense.

I never really noticed it before, but Puerto Rico isn't depicted here as a part of the United States of America 🇺🇸. Now I know that it ain't a state as it's an unincorporated territory of the USA, but that still makes it a part of the country. This opposed to let's say countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, and New Zealand which are all Kingdoms with territories in a personal union with them (such as Greenland, Curaçao, and Niue). According to this map Puerto Rico is a separate country, now I am not sure if an unincorporated territory of the United States is legally considered to be a separate country.

I wanted to open a discussion about this as it's a highly visible file and all information I can find about the territories of the United States is that they are essentially just a part of the country but with less rights and privileges than the states (similar to the territories of Australia and Canada) rather than separate sovereign states. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:34, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Ditto for Guam, the Marianas, American Samoa, U.S. Virgin Islands, etc. If someone decides to address this, it's not just Puerto Rico.
  • FWIW, though I'm all for statehood or independence for Puerto Rico, it's not as simple as "less rights and privileges." Certainly different rights and privileges, but (for example) some real advantages for businesses in terms of federal taxes. No, I wouldn't give up my right to vote for the presidency or have representation in Congress, but it is actually kind of complicated, there are reasons why statehood referenda have failed in the past. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Regardless if the full US constitution applies or not, from what I could find about unincorporated territories of the United States they are still legally part of the USA in every aspect other than some laws applying to them and others don't. While the term "unincorporated territory" was created to essentially register annexed Spanish India (Puerto Rico, the Philippines, Guam, Etc.) differently from territories annexed from places with the same culture as America (France and Mexico) which were "incorporated territories", they are only legally different based on internal US laws and for the sake of sovereign states are as much part of the US as New Jersey or Boston. Also, the map doesn't exclusively list US states as Washington (the District of Columbia) isn't excluded from the map. This isn't about statehood but the sovereign territory of the United States government. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Some examples for reference:

  • This map of France includes French Guyana, which yes, is an overseas department without a special status.
    This map of France includes French Guyana, which yes, is an overseas department without a special status.
  • The English-language Wikipedia article puts this map in its article about the Netherlands (the "Land" of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands), unlike France, the Dutch treat the BES islands in the same way as the USA treat its insular territories with them being legally distinct, but they are not excluded from the map.
    The English-language Wikipedia article puts this map in its article about the Netherlands (the "Land" of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, not the Kingdom of the Netherlands), unlike France, the Dutch treat the BES islands in the same way as the USA treat its insular territories with them being legally distinct, but they are not excluded from the map.

In the end it's not about Puerto Rico being a state or not, it's about it actually being a part of the United States of America while still being excluded from the map 🗺 that is used on almost every article or page related to the country. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:52, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this assessment. Commons should not be picking at this particular nit. If Wikis want a more complete map they can make/use a different file.  Mysterymanblue  04:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The point is that the orthographic map used on almost every Wikimedia wiki that discusses the United States of America uses this orthographic map which clearly includes the island of Puerto Rico but leaves it gray. This is simply an inaccurate map, I'm not asking to include Guam or any other territories in other hemispheres to that map. As the file is hosted on Wikimedia Commons I fail to see why a discussion about it shouldn't happen here, furthermore, I am not asking for a new file to be created, only for the current one to be updated. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:24, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, just noticed that the name is misleading but its usage isn't on the English-language Wikipedia. I found the file on a different language Wikipedia, but on the English-language Wikipedia it is actually used quite well in the article with it being an explanation that it's only the 50 (fifty) states and Washington D.C. The problem likely comes from either the file name being somewhat misleading or other language Wikipedia's just copying from the English-language Wikipedia without looking at context (like when the time "middle ages" gets used in languages that don't really have such a concept). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:32, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:05, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Calling for translations

Calling translators!!! Wiki Loves Africa is days away ... We really need your help to translate the Wiki Loves Africa contest pages on Commons. We are especially hoping that the page will be translated into French, Arabic and Portuguese, but would also Wiki LOVE it if anyone wanted to concentrate on Africa's languages too. Thank you in anticipation. Islahaddow (talk) 07:12, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

Dear Tuválkin, thank you for your concerns. Part of the reason we have Wiki Loves Africa is because there are not enough images representing Africa on Commons. The images used on the Commons page are not 'stock images' they are taken from the Commons repository; the images are also not meant to be from Africa, they are meant to show examples of the kinds of images and themes we are looking for in the contest and were chosen for their reflection of the theme (regardless of where their origin was). They are merely meant as suggestions. Your point has been made; perhaps you could suggest replacements instead of just criticising what is existing. (this response was also posted on the talk page) Islahaddow (talk) 08:57, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Islahaddow: I’m well aware these images come all from Commons (they couldn’t be displayed here if they weren’t). I agree that there is not enough images representing Africa on Commons, both in absolute terms and relative to how other parts of the world are represented. However, there are surely enough images representing Africa on Commons to be able to put up a more topical 20-photo gallery to promote this campaign. And, no — I don’t think I’ll be suggesting any replacements. You do you work, I’ll do mine. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry...

I was fixing a sentence with the wrong grammar, but I didn't see any additional comments due to an edit conflict. Sorry.

Commons:Undeletion requests/Current requests#Category:South Korean FOP cases/deleted

The part where the problem occurred is as above.

Ox1997cow (talk) 04:09, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I've looked at the page history and there were no edits between your creation of that section and your finishing editing that section. So whatever you did, it did not remove other editor's comments. In other words: no harm done. The request was closed because it looks like those image which could be undeleted had already been undeleted before. --rimshottalk 07:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Vandal hidden Vandal

This image File:Lord Stanley and daughter.jpg has been vandalised. Cats for Astra Zeneca and Detroit have been added, which have nothing to do with it. The actions have been hidden. Why cant I see the change and how to unhide it? Broichmore (talk) 16:56, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

The change was in the page history. Maybe there was a page refresh issue? --Fæ (talk) 18:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: Both of those categories were added in this edit by Multichill's BotMultichill 10:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC) "using data from CommonSense", although the one for Detroit was changed later from Category:People from Detroit, Michigan to Category:People of Detroit.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:04, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
There are additions and subtractions (Spanish Civil War?) I just don't see. I've checked this with Chrome and Edge. Is it possible that I have unwittingly got some filter on? Things are very odd from 20 Nov 2019 up to and including 20 March 2020 in particular. There are still oddities there. Government of England, Companies listed on the London Stock Exchange? For a photo of people waiting for a tube train? Broichmore (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: What I see in that time period is that Gbarta removed 6 cats in these 6 edits over the course of 4 minutes on 20 March 2020.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
The bot BotMultichill changes in 2008 make sense to it all now. I must admit that the topicality of the Astra Zeneca cat, threw me as well. I never dreamt I had to go further back than last year. Thanks... Broichmore (talk) 19:25, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:12, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing redirects ?

Regardless the file renaming rationale applied (wrong too, IMO): Are these moves deleting redirects [13], [14] [15] properly justified with Commons:File_renaming#Leaving_redirects. This was the answer given by the filemover. Regardless these ones are apparently not files "with an obvious error in the file name", is "a-file-uploaded-more-than-two-years-ago" a recently uploaded file?

I mean, I thought suppressing redirects was meant for very specific cases, and the rule was to keep them. If these file moves are not correct, it may have occurred a lot of incorrect moves, since the user acknowledges "I'm one of the most active filemovers". (c.c. User:Richardkiwi). Strakhov (talk) 18:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

A while ago I asked a moderator about complaints of users that I did leave a redirect. I said 'two years or something like that' sounds good to me and the administrator agreed. Also I don't rename files with crit. 4 a lot. I see a lot filemovers do what they think is best. Do they get a message too? I wonder ... - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 18:18, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Strakhov and Richardkiwi: See also Commons talk:File renaming#What is appropriate suppression of redirects?.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:10, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff G. - A lot of file movers don't follow the rules (not 100%). I see people don't leaving redirect with files 10-15 years old. I will stop taking 2018 as 'recently' and follow the strict rules. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:31, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
User:Richardkiwi: The policy does not only say "recently uploaded files" but "with an obvious error in the file name where that error would not be a reasonable redirect" too. Titling a photograph of some city with the name of the city and a numerical identifier from Flickr is not an obvious error. In fact, the default filename when uploading a file from Flickr may be, indeed, a reasonable redirect. Take that into account, please, when attending file name requests. Strakhov (talk) 19:36, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Richardkiwi: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:09, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Those deletions are clearly not in line with the policy. People who don't agree with the policy should try to get it changed, but until they have to stick to it. File movers should be made aware (warned) if they break this policy. If they persist after that, their file mover right should be removed. Multichill (talk) 19:24, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
"Recently uploaded" to me implies something uploaded in the last day or two, where it's unlikely that somebody, somewhere, will have made a link to the old name. Two years ago is not "recently uploaded". What is the harm in leaving a redirect anyway? --ghouston (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
+1 to Multichill, Ghouston. Don't remove these. - Jmabel ! talk 02:17, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Uploading Videos

Hello! Could someone help me upload a video? I have downloaded it as a mp4, but the Upload Wizard doesn't accept mp4s. DestinationFearFan (talk) 18:21, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Please, see Help:Converting_video. Ruslik (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! DestinationFearFan (talk) 19:01, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion requests completed, but the file has not been deleted.

In November 2020, I requested the deletion of two files. The Missvain closed the topic, but one of the files was not deleted.

I question why the file was not deleted: would it be a mistake by the editor (which is understandable) or was there another reason? I noticed that the editor is two weeks without editing, so I open the topic so that a third party can solve the case. Greetings! Conde Edmond Dantès (talk) 05:27, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki vandalism on Wikimedia Commons through Wikidata

While browsing I came across this situation:

  • A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
    A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
  • A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
    A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
  • A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.
    A vandal on Wikidata affecting Wikimedia Commons.

Now, for me this wasn't as much an issue. While Wikidata is nearly unworkable while using the Microsoft Windows 10 Mobile operating system recent improvements to the "Mobile view" GUI allowed me to undo this vandalism. Unfortunately, not everyone will be able to do this.

My problem with vandalism on another Wikimedia website affecting Wikimedia Commons is the possibility of a user that is indefinitely blocked on Wikidata seeing vandalism in a Wikidata infobox and then not being able to do something about it. How are they going to report such vandalism? On Wikimedia Commons it can't be changed, perhaps we should tweak the Wikidata infobox to give priority to local information, for example if a vandal on Wikidata changes the title into non-sense a person on Wikimedia Commons that is banned from Wikidata can then tweak the infobox to "{{Wikidata Infobox|title=Category:CORRECT TITLE}}" so Wikimedia Commons won't be affected by Wikidata vandalism. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:16, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Changes on Wikidata can have global cross-wiki impact, none of which will be transparent to local vandal monitoring. It is dangerous, and it is well known.
We tend to avoid talking about it much, firstly because there are a huge number of people in 'functionary' positions who don't want to talk down the use of Wikidata, and secondly because it may encourage long term abusers to have significant public impact, such as through porn-outing of celebrities.
With regard to the specific question, nobody should ever be punished or worried about locally removing templates or the references to wikidata Q codes within a template, if the information is vandalism, harmful or deliberately misleading. Commons volunteers should not be "required" to go fix the problem on Wikidata when it can be switched off here as a first step.
--Fæ (talk) 11:24, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
This is not just Wikidata, this goes all sides. Let's say an English-language Wikipedia user or English-language Wikisource user sees an obvious copyright © violation being used on “their” project, but they are forever banned from editing Wikimedia Commons. Now all they can do is locally remove them, but any user on that website that doesn't really understand Wikimedia Commons can reinstate the image with a rationale that if the image shouldn't be on Wikimedia Commons that “Wikimedia Commons should decide it”. I’m sure that a user like Alexis Jazz sees Wikimedia Commons copyright © violations on the Enwiki they can't tag the files locally. Perhaps some system should be in place for users that are otherwise in good standing to have access to certain tools or as partial blocks are a thing maybe we can unblock eternally blocked users that have never abused the “Commons:Deletion requests/” and “File:” systems. My problem with cross-wiki issues spilling over is that users excluded from one Wikimedia project are then less capable of addressing them on “their own project”. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Ehhh, proof of concept, apparently. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:00, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

DEUTSCH / German : quelle:dna? low-res enough?

Hi! I posted and would love to keep in fair-use photo of unfortunatly dead singer (of my favorite song) and found one in German website that is marked with QUELLE:DPA licence...not sure what that is but I cropped it lower res to hopefully be less problematic. Would this do? https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Diane-charlemagne-ist-tot-_(cropped).jpg --Zblace (talk) 09:49, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Fair-use material is not allowed on Commons. You need to check whether the Wikipedia, where you want to use such an image, has an exception policy, such as :en.
DPA (not dna) is a large commercial news agency of Germany, de:Deutsche Presse-Agentur. --Túrelio (talk) 09:59, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for input. Will do that! Zblace (talk) 15:37, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Time to reinstate the Image: namespace?

A long time ago, there were two namespaces for content, or at least synonyms for them: both File: and Image:. These were merged, years back, on the grounds that it was a tautology: everything here was an image, everything was a file. We now have a single namespace, File: (if Image: still works as a synonym, any distinction is pretty well-hidden).

However in recent times, we have acquired a vast number of scanned book PDFs. To the point where these are dominating many aspects. In particular, searching for text content on image description pages is now impossible: the results are swamped by the books (as having more text, they tend to monopolise the searches). We have largely lost our text search over images, and that's an important feature.

Should the way to recover this be to reinstate the old distinction, at the namespace level? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:51, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T269929
As the uploader of these recently, agree that there needs a better way to search without being buried under a bookcase of documents each time, unless that's what you want.
Open minded on solutions, one was suggested on the Technical VP, see link to the right, but nothing decided to date. --Fæ (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
as a short term fix a gadget could be made, that adds "-mimetype:pdf" to searches, when switched on. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
(Looks like "-filemime:pdf" is probably what you meant.) Perryprog (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Check out Special:MediaSearch, it searches images by default. There are two searches on commons, the old one and the new one, MediaSearch. MediaWiki documention mentions that the image namespace existed prior to the file namespace and moved over to it, the image namespace is an redirect nowadays.--Snaevar (talk) 18:06, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
A quick and simple solution, albeit crude, is to add "-pdf" to the query, e.g. "George Washington" -pdf. This seems to exclude .pdf files from results, but may hide image files with "pdf" in the descriptive text. Search refinements are definitely in order, without the assumption that media seekers are as skilled in coding or querying as the demigods who design the user interface. --Animalparty (talk) 23:17, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
I admit I don't know what I am talking about, but can I still ask a question? If so, I wonder why pdf documents are loaded to Commons in the first place. Why not to Wikisource? Ottawahitech (talk) 23:28, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
That is because the documents are free enough for commons to keep them. The main purpose of wikisource is not to keep the documents, it is to convert them into an computer readable text. See also Commons:Project scope#PDF and DjVu formats.--Snaevar (talk) 07:51, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Andy Dingley: When I saw this heading, my immediate reaction was to say no, period, and be done with that. Since you and other serious users seem to be considering this seriously, though, I have to ask: What about audio files? (Yes, I know that TimedText and Data are separate namespaces, but there’s reasons for that.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:59, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Is COM:VPP still necessary?

...considering that the village pump and COM:RFC (which is so underused) already exist? It seems to me that the proposals subpage is just being (ab)used to make users vote on everything, which is not healthy for a wiki that operates on consensus-driven system. Instead of creating a proper request for comments page where users can thoroughly discuss something, users are tempted to skip that, use COM:VPP and immediately start polling. Surely, this is not what the community had in mind when the proposals subpage was created, no?

I'm thinking of two possible options I prefer for the future of COM:VPP. The first one is to just discontinue it and archive all its discussions. All proposals must either go to the talk page of the subject (with a notification of COM:VP if necessary), go to COM:VP if it affects sitewide, but not too major (could be useful to solicit some quick comments before starting a formal RfC), or to a formal RfC if it also affects sitewide and the changes are very major, like in a fundamental level.

We can also keep the proposals subpage, but I'd prefer not to continue the status quo. Instead it could be used as a "testing the waters" place for new ideas and proposals. Polling can be used, but they shouldn't be binding, and instead be seen as a quick way to see the opinions of users. Even then, polling should not be used when not necessary, as it divides users into camps rather than unite them under consensus.

Other suggestions are welcome. In fact, I encourage you to do look for other ways to improve COM:VPP. This is the beauty of not polling and instead using the tried and tested process of consensus seeking. :) pandakekok9 09:26, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Introducing a form of double jeopardy for every change would be counter productive, i.e. building a bureaucracy that requires the community to have a specific big discussion, then having a vote. Most volunteers are not terribly interested in any votes, not wanting to get involved in any "controversy". It's also not possible to seriously improve the project if every step needs a super majority consensus and to get there takes an unpaid volunteer huge amount of work, rather than running a simple proposal up the flag pole and seeing how many folx fancy it. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think using a consensus-driven system rather than polling is building a bureaucracy. Quite the opposite, I believe. It's all about common sense. If the community feels that all questions have been answered and a poll is needed, then they can start the poll themselves. There's no need for a supermajority consensus either, that's just unrealistic in most cases.

Polling is a quick and convenient way on getting the opinions from other people. But that's just that. It doesn't always document consensus. If the issue is simple and only has a few options to pursue (like two), then I guess you could start polling right away. If the issue is a bit complex, then discussion before polling will always be necessary, if you want the best solution. pandakekok9 13:44, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Plenty of discussions in the VPP aren't reduced to simple voting/polling and discussions almost always take place and people can change their stance (and "votes") if they are convinced by good arguments. The only time I've seen people vote without much discussion if it's a common sense proposal which only needs "the formality of consensus". I don't think that centralising everything to the regular village pump or decentralizing things only to relevant talk pages would work in either way. If policy is only discussed on the talk pages of affected places then it's likely that many people with good insights will not ever see those discussions if they don't watch those pages. Centralisation would only add more "clutter" to the current Village Pump. Could you give some examples of some changes that were "voted on" that shouldn't have been "referrenda" and had negative consequences for Wikimedia Commons?
I have the opposite perspective, Wikimedia Commons need more specific community pages, not less. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
Could you give some examples of some changes that were "voted on" that shouldn't have been "referrenda" and had negative consequences for Wikimedia Commons? Sure, here you go:
pandakekok9 09:11, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
With regard to the Phabricator remark, it has no easy system for voting, and the vast majority of Wikimedia Commons contributors have and probably would never log in to that system even if asked. It may be highly useful to assess the community concern or support for a change, even if the change itself will require further Phabricator discussion to assess implementation or even whether it's realistic.
A task of Phabricator is no evidence of a consensus for Wikimedia Commons, and the communities are very different, with different community policies. --Fæ (talk) 10:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
i like a centralised page for discussions. even if discussions were held on separate pages, a central page to catalog them is still needed, innit?--RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Query about "Category:PD-URAA tag needs updating"

I have included in licence details on some photos I have uploaded: {{PD-URAA |pdsource=yes}}. I have subsequently found that a category: "PD-URAA tag needs updating" has been applied. The Commons page: "Category:PD-URAA tag needs updating" gives no information about what upadting is needed or how the original application of PD-URAA was defective. Can anyone put me out of my ignorance? Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 12:54, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

See Template:PD-URAA ond deprecation information there. More precise info about reason for PD URAA status is needed. Ankry (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Updating Videos

Hi! I would like to update few videos I produced and already published on commons with better resolution and choice of compression-container...however files are bigger than allowed so I am curious how to do it? I tried using VideoCut tool but also got warnings and it failed :-( This is a major bottleneck I never expected to come to. Zblace (talk) 11:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Maximum file size is 2^32 Bytes (4GiB). MediaWiki stores the filesize in 3 database tables as 32-bit unsigned integer. Therefore larger files would break the website. In princible you could use the AV1-codec in webm containers, but the transcoding of a 4GiB video may take a year, and the wm media handler will not be able to transcode the uploaded file to its maximum resolution download versions as this would be VP9 and therefore larger than 4GiB. You can either split the video in multiple files or reduce the bandwidth until the video fits in 4GiB. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:28, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
@Zblace: For overwriting filesizes between 100MiB and 4GiB, I recommend you use User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (doc at User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 18:47, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both for tips and insights. Is it possible to upload different video container file if I want to switch between original Ogg-Theora to WebM? I failed to do that via 'update' interface.Zblace (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
UPDATE it seems it is not an option (at least for me)...and will re-upload via https://Video2Commons.toolforge.org/ -- Zblace (talk) 09:58, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Just FYI, the db field size isn't the primary reason for the 4gb limit. Its more around capacity planning and our video storage architecture. The db field int size is a superficial issue easily fixed compared to the primary issues preventing uploads of large video files. Bawolff (talk) 07:50, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Systematic disregard by administrators of rule violations (is Wikimedia not a multilingual project anymore?)

Dear colleagues, I would like to ask you about an appropriate way to solve the problem I'm facing here. Recently User:Ymblanter called one of Belarusian word a «slur» and removed this word from filename and file description. This administrator has no knowledge of Belarusian, but he believes that Russian speakers can decide which Belarusian word to use or not in Belarusian filenames and file descriptions. You can see my arguments here against this totally sick opinion (that looks like an open manifestation of en:Chauvinism), as well as repeated insults from the mentioned user of Belarusian language, Belarusian linguists and especially Belarusian (Taraškievica) Wikipedia. As an administrator of this local community I cannot ignore such statements, and also cannot ignore attempts to restrict usage of normal (presented in dictionaries, books, articles) Belarusian words here just because some Russians believe that Belarusians shouldn't use these words (that is actually part of en:Russification). Unfortunately, this situation has formally ignored by other administrators instead of immediate reverting edits by User:Ymblanter that were obviously against Commons:File naming and Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. I've already had the experience of disregarding by administrators of the mentioned rule violations when my requests on Commons:Administrators' noticeboard were just archived without any response. That's why I need to think forward about other possible ways of making things normal here. As I see now, these ways are as follows:

  1. Starting Commons:RFC (but it is usually concerns changing the policies and guidelines and I'm totally OK with the current ones, all I need is to get others follow them)
  2. Starting Commons:Administrators/De-adminship for User:Ymblanter (but because of systematic disregard by administrators of rule violations I'm not sure about mentioned there "consensus for removal" and even if reach the goal, it won't prevent me from facing the similar challenges in the future)
  3. Applying for Commons:Administrators/Requests (it allows me to continue normal work in the project without fighting for what should be an actual default state, but an applicant should have administrative technical edits)

So I ask experienced (in the local community questions) users to help me find an appropriate solutions to the problem. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Let me repeat in response to this forum shopping that if this accident happened at the English Wikipedia, where I am reasonably active, Kazimier Lachnovič would likely have been indefititely blocked by now. More of my considerations are found at the venue of the original complaint.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
The English Wikipedia is not a multilingual project, and Belarusian (both official and classical standards) is not allowed there, so the provided comparison is inappropriate and obviously absurd. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • @Kazimier Lachnovič: Why are you opening this discussion on the Village pump while Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Ymblanter is still open? You don't seem even to have mentioned there that you are expanding the discussion to a separate page, let alone gotten any trace of consensus to do so.
  • Everyone else: unless and until Kazimier Lachnovič gives a reasonable answer to that question, I suggest that this conversation continue where it started, not here.
  • Also, Kazimier, if you believe w:en:Moskal is incorrect in describing маскал as slur in Belorusian, you might take that up at w:en:Talk:Moskal, preferably with citations. No, en-wiki is not a multilingual project in terms of writing, but it is in terms of citations. I realize it may be difficult to find and cite someone saying explicitly that it is not a slur, but at least you should be able to find examples of clearly non-polemical contexts in which it is used by, for example, a news reporter or an academic. - Jmabel ! talk 11:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • p.s. No idea what you mean by "archived without any response." That appears to be an open discussion at this time. - Jmabel ! talk 11:47, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, "archived without any response" means what it means (and here as well). How can I be sure that it will not happen this time? --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 12:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I've fixed the misleading statement in w:en:Moskal: the source was provided only for Russian "moskal" (not Belarusian "maskal"). For the record, I still believe that the internal language issues should be resolved within the respective local Wikipedia communities, but I really don't know how to make things right here. Moreover, for the matters of curiosity I've also checked Russian w:ru:Москаль, and the most interesting thing is that even in the Russian Wikipedia (which I could say is "usurped by a clique of ultra-nationalists" just like my opponent said about the Belarusian Wikipedia) there is no evidence that Belarusian "maskal" (by itself) is a "slur". So it looks like the situation becomes more and more absurd and I have no idea why I have to fight here with obvious absurd. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:10, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view: commons does not censor. the original filename should be restored, unless credible Belarusian or third-party (i.e. not from russia/belarus/poland/ukraine) sources confirming that the word маскаліза́цыя (not the word маскаль) is a slur are presented here. my 2 cents.--RZuo (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
That's right, from a linguistic point of view, "маскаль" and "маскалізацыя" are not the same word and can be used in completely different contexts. But I'm no longer sure that any reasonable clarification will somehow be accepted by local administrators. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
What about my example given in the original thread "Nigger (African American)"? Or, for example, "Faggot (gay)" - should we consider this not to be offensive unless a straight person confirms this is a slur?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:25, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This dictionary says (no. 176): the word Russian can be translated to Belarusian as маскаль if one uses slur.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
This is a draft of Źmicier Saŭka author's dictionary (Belarusian: Гэта чарнавік аўтарскага слоўніку Зьмітра Саўкі). And Źmicier Saŭka never published this dictionary officially because he passed away in 2016. So this draft dictionary cannot be considered a reliable source. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 16:45, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Do not be ridiculous.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:49, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I just say that it's not even w:en:Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published sources. It's just a draft that was never finished (and properly published) by its creator including any kind of reviewing with checking obvious errors. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
So he did not really know whether maskal is a slur or not, and was planning to check this before publication? And if it were published, maskal would become a slur, but now it is not? Seriously?--Ymblanter (talk) 17:07, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I suggest you to check if this source (unfinished draft of the author's dictionary) could be considered as reliable for Belarusian linguistics questions in the English Wikipedia. Then we will see who is ridiculous. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 17:13, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
i could give other analogies from what i know.
a translation of China is 支那, which used to be neutral, but has been considered offensive by chinese since around ww2. Indochina has a translation 印度支那, which has never been considered offensive, although PRC people have usually adopted another translation (中南半島) to avoid that word, in a similar way as the words "coloured/black" are phased out in english for political correctness.
a derogatory Cantonese word for whites is 紅毛鬼 (red-haired ghost), but cement is called 紅毛泥 (red-haired mud, because europeans first introduced it) and not considered offensive at all.
Kazimier Lachnovič's analogy using the jews' names in russian and in polish is convincing to me and not disputed by Ymblanter either.
so please, simply convince us the non-Belarusian speakers with credible sources that confirm the word маскаліза́цыя is offensive in Belarusian. or get native Belarusian wiki users confirm this. otherwise i give the benefit of the doubt to the uploader.--RZuo (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
in any case, i dont think it should be censored. for this image, the word is used to describe the architectural change of the church. it seems to me the image itself carries nationalist sentiment. sentiment against chauvinist states like russia and china is commonly found in the suppressed minorities' nationalist agenda. commons should generally not censor them, because they exist in the real world and the images/texts here are just documentation.--RZuo (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not know. If I enter маскаль into google and make sure only Belarusian output is counted, the first page of the output only gives me offensive examples of the usage (I think I had a couple of historical usage examples which are not offensive but this is not what we are discussing). This is actually how I found the dictionary which I cited.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:35, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
And again, your reasoning suggests it is ok to use nigger and faggot in file names. I hope the community does not share this sentiment.--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  1. still it's not been proven that the Belarusian word is on par with "nigger and faggot". argument from analogy is really pointless. i have given counter analogies above.
  2. help yourself to special:search/intitle:nigger special:search/intitle:faggot. plenty of trigger materials in Category:Anti-LGBT logos for example.--RZuo (talk) 12:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd like to notice that the opponent's statement "the first page of the output only gives me offensive examples of the usage" is pure lie. Everyone can check it for themselves. I would also like to notice that both Belarusian Wikipedia (w:be:Маскаль, w:be-tarask:Маскаль) (two first examples from the Google output) have no statements that Belarusian "maskal" is an ethic slur. Here is some Belarusian dictionaries and publications including "maskal" or derivatives "maskalizacyja/abmaskaleńnie" (Russification), "maskalizm" (Russianism), "maskoŭski" (with meaning related to Russians, not to the city of Moscow) without anyhow related to "slur" connotation for Belarusian:
  1. Publicatoon of Dr. Prof. Nina Barščeŭskaja (w:en:University of Warsaw) (2009, w:en:Polskie Radio) (text with maskalizacyja)
  2. Publicatoon of Dr. Prof. Lidzija Savik (w:en:Belarusian State University of Culture and Arts) (w:en:Narodnaja Volya (newspaper) Nr. 17—18, 3.02.2009. P. 6) (pdf with maskalizacyja)
  3. Introduction to the self-published in 2008 dictionary by linguist Juraś Paciupa (w:be-tarask:Юрась Пацюпа) (Accepted abbreviations: c.-mask. – calque-maskalizm; mask. – maskalizm).
  4. Etymological dictionary of Belarusian (Volume 6, 1993, p. 245—246) by the w:en:National Academy of Sciences of Belarus
  5. Belarusian-Russian dictionary of Dr. w:en:Jan Stankievič (NY, 1989) provided by the w:en:Library of Congress [16] (scan)
  6. English-Belarusian dictionary from textbook Fundamental Belarusian by w:be-tarask:Валянтына Пашкевіч (Toronto, 1978), published with assistance of the Canadian Federal Government (scan)
  7. Belarusian-Russian dictionary by w:be-tarask:Сьцяпан Некрашэвіч (Minsk, 1925), the founder of the National Academy of Sciences of Belarus (236. maskalizm, 237. maskal, 238. maskalka)
  8. Russian-Belarusian dictionary (scientific terminology of literary work) by w:en:Yanka Kupala, the greatest Belarusian-language writer of the 20th century (5. maskalizm)
  9. Russian-Belarusian dictionary by lexicographer w:en:Maksim Haretski (Vilnia, 1920)
I am sorry but I am not going to take accusations of lie lightly. Now I am convinced that you have on purpose chosen an offensive name for the file and now trying to fool the community pretending this is not the case. Obviously saying that everybody says the same first Google output page as me is bullshit purely intended to mask this deception.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It is also not difficult to see that your No. 6 for example which you are trying to sell us as a non-offensive meaning of "maskal" does not mention "maskal". Which actually makes the credibility of the whole rant exactly zero.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:08, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
A remark for reasonable users: Belarusian "maskoŭski" (example 6) as a translation of English "Russian" (not the adjective related to the city of Moscow, as I mention in the intro) is a related form to Belarusian "maskal" for Russians: noun "maskal"/"maskoviec" — adjective "maskalski"/"maskoŭski" as more common in Belarusian noun "rasiejec" — "rasiejski"/"rasijski". Such linguistic connections are hardly to understand for the people who don't know Belarusian and that is another prove for the simple true that internal language issues should be resolved in the related local communities. And if someone believes that some community is «usurped by a clique of ultra-nationalists" it should be proven for Wikimedia Foundation first and only then implemented here. And yes, even 8 reliable sources, understandable for even other language speakers, are quite enough for proving that the opponent has no rights to state that Belarusian "maskalizacyja" is a definite "slur" and should be censored in Commons. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 11:27, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not know Belarusian but in Polish "Moskal" it is a very mild ethnic slur for Russians. Before WWII it was used as a regular term for Russians, but now it has pejorative meaning. Fun fact: the word shows up in Polish anthem, although that stanza is no longer part of the "official" version. It also function as a last name in Poland. It is quite possible that the word has much more negative meaning in Russian than in other neighboring languages, but either way, if used not in historical context it is a slur (slang term with negative meaning). I do not think it is justified to remove it from filenames, but I do not have strong opinions about such removals. Use in mass media is not a proof that the term does not have negative meaning. --Jarekt (talk) 18:34, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Apparently different languages can have different meaning for similar words: e.g. in contrast to Polish w:pl:Żyd Russian w:ru:Жид is an absolutely unacceptable ethnic slur. That's why Commons shouldn't be a censor by itself, such issues are for local Wikipedia communities. And both Belarusian Wikipedia (w:be:Маскаль, w:be-tarask:Маскаль) say nothing about ethic slur. All the provided use in mass media is far from slang term with negative meaning. I can give a translation for any of examples, that isn't translated automatically. Moreover, I've provided the dictionaries (as well as usage in mass media) where derivatives of "maskal" are scientific terminology, as well as the explanatory dictionaries without any mention about negative meaning of "maskal" in Belarusian. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I would also like to point out that this discussion is not about calling someone a "maskal". It is about scientific term for quite negative part of the Belarusian past and present — w:en:Russification. --Kazimier Lachnovič (talk) 19:25, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

How do I request Whitelisting for Flickr

this album by a globally locked sock-master troll and blacklisted Flickr user (there known as Mạnh-Hải) is from a photographer that died during the 1970's and falls under both "{{PD-France}}" and "{{PD-Vietnam}}". But I don't know where to request whitelisting as the list I thought that I could use turned out to be for whitelisting "spamsites". Where can I request for this album to be whitelisted so I can import it using Flickr2Commons? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:36, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems the photographer actually died in 1937 so PD-France does apply. -- Herby (Vienna) (talk) 20:11, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
 Info Works of French authors died in 1937, published before 1948 were copyrighted in France till 29 April 1996 (due to wartime extensions) and so they are protected in US per URAA. Evidence of pre-1926 publication is needed to determine their US PD status (or an evidence that they remained unpublished till at least 1948). Ankry (talk) 21:16, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Oxford Reference lists him as being active in Hanoi, Tonkin from 1888 as the owner of a photography shop and postcard producer, everything else is behind a registration wall. But even if I can find that the works were published before 1926, how could I import them using Flickr2Commons to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Apparently he is already listed as a creator on Wikimedia Commons for several files and this article states that he was active until 1913. So I highly doubt that any of these works are copyrighted. I haven't investigated if any of the files currently on Wikimedia Commons are the work of this globally banned (Stewbanned, not (YET) Sanfranbanned) sock-troller as they have a history of not understanding how copyright works, but even if they uploaded it here I still think that all works from this author made in French Indo-China are in the public domain. Addendum, this guide says nothing about Whitelisting. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:38, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Can this photo be uploaded?

This article is published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License. It includes a photo in Figure 2 of the German theoretical biologist Adolf Meyer‐Abich accompanied by a comment stating the photo was "Reproduced with permission of the Meyer‐Abich family collection". Since the family were presumably the copyright holders, does this permission to publish the photo in an article under an appropriate CC licence mean that the photo can now be uploaded to Creative Commons? – Epipelagic (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

No. The family presumably gave permission for the use of the photo in one particular article. That doesn't mean that the authors of the article have the right to sublicense the photo to anyone else under CC.  Mysterymanblue  02:59, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I have a concern that you might have just offered a mere personal opinion, something that you made up and cannot refer back to a reliable source. Can you please point me to a reliable source for your statement. — Epipelagic (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I am afraid the only way to know for sure is to write to the editor and ask whether the photo is covered by CC-BY-SA license. (Which is of course also my personal opinion).--Ymblanter (talk) 06:33, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Hollywood Circle jerk

Hello dear friends, I was browsing around some movie and actor related categories in these commons. And I'm coming across more and more of these circle jerks. Where an actor has a sub category of a movie he stars in but when I enter that subcategory I often don't find much more than another subcategory of the actor playing in that movie which brings me back to where I started. Sometimes with some extra subcategories in between. I'm really wondering if this is intentional? What is the point of making categories for movies if you have nothing to put in them? 2A02:A443:E08B:1:DAE:297C:235E:FF32 13:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

I may be wrong (I usually am) but we have categories for movies because their posters and lobby cards are sometimes upladed here when they are out of copyright. Not a fan of recursive categories, nor pre-emptive ones, but tthat's a possible reason. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:41, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm talking more about files like File:Riwa video på Heimdal, Trondheim (07).jpg. in the Category for the Movie Larry Crowne. I'm not saying the store never rented out or sold it. It just does not seem to be enough reason to put it in that Category. 2A02:A443:E08B:1:DAE:297C:235E:FF32 14:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikitext parser on Commons

Hi all, in quite a few user scripts people manipulate the wikitext on string level by using some more or less advanced find and replace mechanisms. When the wikitext has some specialities, like comments, unusual line breaks, multiple paramters etc. this can either lead to errors or failing replacements. To do such manipulations on a safer way a wikiparser would be helpful. I already found Alternative parsers on mediawiki.org but did not see any that is already hosted on Commons side, so that everyone can use it. But maybe there is another way, that i don't know, to do things like parser.getTemplate("Artwork").addParameter("wikidata", "Q27964733"). Can anyone give me a hint? Thanks, --Arnd (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

seems there is nothing available... --Arnd (talk) 21:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Botanical names

Botanists agree that plant names must follow the Code of nomenclature. I recently put an illustration of Aublet about Jacquemontia guianensis

Jacquemontia guianensis

. I created the categories Category:Jacquemontia guianensis and Category:Jacquemontia guianensis - botanical illustrations.

Somebody changed the categories into Jacquemontia guyanensis. It occurs that Aublet published the basionym as Convolvulus guianensis. According to the Code, his choice has to be respected. Most databases are wrong, except TAXREF / INPN.

Can an administrator revert the change ? Michel Chauvet (talk) 14:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC).

@TED: Why did you do that?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:28, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:  : as already explained to @Michel Chauvet: on my talk page on fr.wikipedia, all other databases (see : d:Q15486923 and fr:Jacquemontia guyanensis#Références biologiques : IPNI, POWO, WCVP, WCSP, Tropicos, The Plant List, GBIF, Catalogue of Life, NCBI) write « Jacquemontia guyanensis », as well as Meisner when he renamed the species. TED 14:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Note, added some scans of this book to the book category, some of which were uploaded several months ago. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Certain diffused categories

there're a lot of cfd on Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/03 that essentially discuss the same problem. i would like to ask for input here and try to resolve them en masse.

sometimes, files of a celebrity are diffused by year. that leads to a problem. for certain years there might be only one file available at the moment. should these cats that contain only one file be created, or deleted? example: Category:Celeste Star by year.--RZuo (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

my opinion is that such cats can be created, because it's systematic, even though i dont like such diffusion if the total number of files is less than 200.--RZuo (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
The problem is too many people think that just because they can create a category, it means they should. Categories are to help users find content. Frivolous sub-categories hinder this. --Animalparty (talk) 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
It's not just celebrities - almost any subject can be broken down into incredibly granular subcategories by year, month or even date. We don't have a clear rule on it, because it can be useful in some cases and annoying in others, making any rule somewhat subjective. The best rule I can propose is that "by century" or "by decade" categories be created prior to the creation of "by year" categories, which I can only hope would make people realize that "by year" is hard to justify many cases. But even that won't solve the problem if someone is determined. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
i adapted MediaWiki:Gadget-Searchnotincat.js to add two links to any cat pages for a deepcat search. try the code yourself: special:diff/535459192. the links appear as tabs in the dropdown menu beside search bar (under "Move") for vector skin.
ideally there can be two improvements. first they should appear as buttons like the fastCCI buttons. second if the category name is "XX by YY" then the search keyword should be (XX deepcat:"XX by YY"), i.e. the part "by YY" should be removed. i dont know how to do the regex replace for now.
problems: deepcat search fails for cats that contain loops, such as Category:Ewan McGregor. one solution is to break the loops. the other is somehow limiting depth of deepcat, which i dont know how.--RZuo (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Unstrip size limit exceeded in Quality images

Is it possible to reorganize those files into multi-pages? --Steven Sun (talk) 05:37, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

While Judgefloro's very long defenses on DR's I start may be considered as "incoherent and nonsense" (such as what elcobbola said at Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2020-10#File:MRT-2 Betty Go-Belmonte Station Exterior 1.jpg (2nd UNDEL attempt)), in his recent sermons he seems to implicitly threaten IPOPHL people. I don't know if this is a point of concern here in Commons. To quote: "v) The Integrated Bar of the Philippines has jurisdiction to discipline the IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if lawyers based even on Anonymous Complaint more frequently under R.A. 6713 which is broader than Sunlights in the Philippines, or R.A. 3019; the IBP has concurrent jurisdiction with the SC Disbarment Office to suspend or dismiss lawyers including IPO Director and Bureau of Copyright heads if they issue comedy of errors or simply put, refusal to reply to my 2 Letters within a fast time required thereat;".

On top of that he continues to insist that the Philippine architects and sculptors have no right in claiming copyrights on any recent buildings and sculptures, even saying that COM:EVIDENCE should apply to the architects / sculptors and not to the uploaders (he says "the burden of evidence lies to the uploader" is an "absurdity"). To quote his claim: "SECOND: it is legally absurd to claim that the Burden of Evidence is upon the herein Uploader Editor; in any country including Germany and USA, inter alia, the Burden of Proof vis-à-vis Burden of Evidence are clearly defined by Federal Rules and here the 1989 Rules on Evidence as amended by C.J. Peralta's Watch New Rules of Court - Burden of Proof is fixed: it stays with the a in Criminal cases particularly Penal Provisions of Copyright Law, the Complainant, here, the creators, architect or sculptors and owners of trademarks and their heirs, assigns or successors-in-interest, must must must, alleged in the Criminal Information to be filed by the Private Prosecutor under the control of the Fiscal, the ultimate facts, their rights to Copyright or Trademark".

This despite the existing parameters of the copyright law (R.A. 8293) which are now included at COM:CRT/Philippines, and the statement from IPOPHL-Bureau of Copyrights and Related Rights from the February 10, 2021 dialogue that the current situation in our country is that "freedom of panorama is not provided in the copyright law" until the pending House Bill that will amend our copyright law is passed, as copyright laws are statutory rights and that a provision like freedom of panorama must be indicated and defined and cannot be established by mere legal studies and court interpretations alone (and regular rules apply, which means the uploaders must obtain permission and licensing first from the architects/sculptors/their heirs before taking and publishing their photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:59, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

If it's a pending bill then it would be easy to delete the images, add the DR's a the category that will undelete them once the law has passed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: the DRs have been organized under relevant subcategories at Category:Philippine FOP cases. Pending ones fall under /pending, and deleted ones fall under /deleted. Also, another user created the "/undeleted" subcategory last year. Hopefully this categorization suffices for organized restoration soon. For the bill; however, the Congress and the Senate are busy on bills which relate to the recovery of the Philippines from COVID-19 effects (health, economic, and social sectors), and I don't know if the amendment to the copyright law has been considered as urgent. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:54, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Massive page moves needed maybe

for Template:Indefblocked-global, specifically for all the pages related to Template:Indefblocked-global/il8n. it should be i18n. to find all problematic pages, see [17].--RZuo (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

DMCA 2012 / Claes Oldenburg

Commons:Office_actions/DMCA_notices/2012#Notification_of_DMCA_takedown_demand_-_Claes_Oldenburg

As one can see in Category:Claes Oldenburg a lot of the works that had been asked as DMCA in 2012 are back (claiming FoP in the country they are on display). Shall those be deleted? --Anneyh (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

    • Thanks, understood.
This section was archived on a request by: Anneyh ! talk 16:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Difficulty uploading

Persverance rover location map

I've been trying to upload a large jpg file (12,500 px × 12,500 px) without much success. Starting yesterday, I tried several times to upload the image using the basic upload form but it kept timing out after about 3 minutes. I thought it may have been the 80 MB file size so I reduced it to 24.1 MB and tried again. Still no joy. I left a post at the Help desk but received no response.

Tonight I tried a couple more times but it still didn't work, so I tried using the UploadWizard and it finally worked. This is a high-resolution map of Mars where a few days ago NASA's Perseverance rover landed. My plan was to update the map periodically to show the current and previous locations. I also thought it would be useful to upload the plain map first, without showing the landing site, then overwrite that with an image showing the landing site. The problem now is that I cannot update the image at all. After around 3 minutes the upload times out and I get the error message, "Request from - via cp3060.esams.wmnet, ATS/8.0.8 Error: 502, Server Hangup at 2021-02-24 03:16:30 GMT".

Could somebody please help me? (And please ping me in your reply). nagualdesign 04:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Have you tried "chunked upload" (link right to the upload link on the description page). Chunked upload gives you a realtime update on the upload process and you can see at what stage it stalls. You can also experiment with the chunk size, possibly one or few chunks will do better or else a larger number of small chunks may do the trick. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:44, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Bingo! Thank you for the suggestion, C.Suthorn. It worked like a charm. And thank you, Rillke. I take my hat off to you. nagualdesign 05:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Reviving an ancient talk page?

On many sites, it's unacceptable to comment on a thread that has been dead for many years. I want to comment on this thread, but I'm not sure whether I should because most of the discussion occurred in 2009-2010, with an attempted revival in 2017. Is it acceptable to do this on talk pages? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WriterArtistCoder (talk • contribs) 04:39, 24 February 2021‎ (UTC)

Flickr2Commons problem (anew?)

There seems to be a technical problem about Flickr2Commons, in which I became stuck at "running" while attempting to upload files from Flickr. For more details, see meta:Talk:Flickr2Commons#Stuck at "running". Please leave your comments there. Thank you. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Flag of Cuautitlán

Cuautitlán and Cuautitlán Izcalli have not a flag. Obviously, File:Cuautitlan.png is wrong named. What name would you give this "inverted French flag"? Although being PNG, not used and with a defect in the red strip (which comes off a bit)... --Metrónomo's truth of the day: "That was also done by the president" not an excuse. 19:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Metrónomo: Based on the uploader's other files and edits I am fairly certain it's a flag (or rather an icon used in place of a flag) showing club colours, likely of a defunct football club Real Cuautitlán, so a better name would be Real Cuatitlán colours or something similar. I have moved it to a more fitting category to avoid confusion, you can edit the Spanish description so it better explains what it is a flag of.--TFerenczy (talk) 22:54, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something?

I found this image of an American (United States) celebrity on the English-language Wikipedia, the "Licensing" field states, and I quote, "This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License.". Now that sounds like this image should be on Wikimedia Commons per "Commons:Licensing", but it's a local file on Enwiki, does this have to do with personality rights or something? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:53, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's create a database of free websites on Wikimedia Commons

I have been waiting to propose such a thing for years, so here it goes. As a volunteer that often researches images to import, sometimes specifically for a Wikipedia article, sometimes for other reasons, I often come across websites with a lot of free educational images, unfortunately I don't have infinite time so I can't import every useful educational images from every website I want. As far as I am aware Wikimedia Commons doesn't have "a central list where users can share sources of free media", such a list can help other volunteers find free websites to import from. Such a list could be subdivided into various categories so users with an interest in 17th (seventeenth) century paintings can look for sources to import from, while someone more interested in Medieval European legal documents can find another list.

For example I recently found a website with a lot of old documents and photographs related to a certain topic, it hosts tens of thousands of images but I simply don't have the time to import from there. As we're all volunteers here that invest our free time in importing perhaps another volunteers can choose to actively look through such a list to import.

Now my idea of how such a list of websites should look is that every entry should list the scope of the images, which images are free to import (free licenses and / or in the public domain) and then designate "a maintenance category" like "Media from WebsiteX.whatevs", this way volunteers know which files have been imported and still need to be imported. There should also be clear guides on what to avoid importing and what is free.

I know that there are many museums with online image databases that release them with a free license, but we simply don't have a list that puts them all together. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

See Free image resources at Meta-Wiki for starters. --Animalparty (talk) 20:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Why is that on another Wiki? Can't Wikimedia Commons have such a list? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:06, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
Never mind, but the fact that you had to link to another Wiki and not even knew about this list kind of says how unpopular it is. Which means that it needs more exposure. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:09, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Please look at Deletion request Commons:Deletion requests/File:Overvalsimulatie.jpg (no follow-up since 20-8-2020)

On August 20 2020 I started a deletion request, see Commons:Deletion requests/File:Overvalsimulatie.jpg, but there never has been a follow-up. Could please someone look at it? It is about copyright violation. JopkeB (talk) 03:37, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Same for: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zonsondergang .png, from September 9 2020. JopkeB (talk) 03:45, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I deleted the Zonsondergang-image, and tagged the images mentioned in the first mentioned DR (you forgot to tag them with the DR. If there is no response, images will be deleted in (about) seven days. For the moment, one of the 7 images is in use. Ciell (talk) 10:22, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

"Freely licensed" works that are in the public domain

In some cases, people may upload works to Wikimedia Commons that have been freely licensed by their copyright holders. The ability to license a work, however, requires that copyright exists in that work. So occasionally, "freely licensed" works on Commons may lie in the public domain.

Take for example File:TI-89 løser dl.png. It is an image of a simple command and would therefore be public domain under Template:PD-text. However, the current license is CC-BY-SA 4.0.

Another example would be many of the images on the Stroke Order Project. It is up for debate whether the images with arrows and the animated GIFs meet the threshold of originality, but certainly the raster images of single characters shaded red would be in the public domain.

I would like to accurately mark these and similar works as being in the public domain. However, I still think it would be a good idea to preserve the licenses that their creators have placed on them in case they do not lie in the public domain outside of the United States, or if copyright law changes due to court rulings and/or legislative action. My question is: is there a procedure or template to deal with situations like these? For example, something that says "It is believed that this work is in the public domain for these reasons... additionally, the copyright holder of this work has freely licensed it under these licenses..."?  Mysterymanblue  06:28, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we have such a template yet, probably because "it's PD not CC-BY" isn't that big of a deal (in particular, we like to have author/source information for PD works as well) Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I would advice you not to go on a license changing spree immediately without further discussion. Technically I suppose Commons:Multi-licensing could be used, for example {{PD-ineligible}} supports a fall-back license template and {{Self}} allows multiple licences.
The example file File:中-red.png is actually old enough that it has gone through the 2009 GFDL license migration. MKFI (talk) 10:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
No, we don't need another template. If it's public domain, then we add a public domain template. The original release is useful to keep in the permissions field, or as an alternative license if reusers want to use it instead. A person requesting moral rights on what this project assesses as public domain happens a lot, but it's not a "legal" issue, it just means that the assertion of moral rights is not enforceable and can be safely ignored; it should not be expunged from history. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Contre-jour images

How do we treat contre-jour images in the Structured Data in the Commons? example:

Is there photografy method property? I tried to use the general 'instance of', but I get an warning message.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata property proposal re: alt-text for Commons media.

Any interested editors, please see the proposal at Wikidata:Wikidata:Property proposal/alt text which appears to pertain to Commons as much as if not more than Wikidata. Cheers. --Animalparty (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Palestine, Palestinian territories‎, or State of Palestine for categories?

All three forms are currently used more or less interchangeably in category names. Which one is preferable for new categories? —Iketsi (talk) 15:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this depends on the topic of the new category. Is it about geography or administration? --GPSLeo (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Contests

I saw there are wiki love monuments, wiki loves Earth, wiki science. Which other contests exist? Where can i find the list of all photo contests? — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 5.90.110.172 (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@5.90.110.172: the list of most photo contests is here: Commons:Wiki Loves contests. This category, meanwhile, lists all contests under the name "Wiki Loves". JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: I think that is uncompleted list because for instance Wiki science competition is not in that list.--5.90.110.77 22:53, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@5.90.110.77: I think this one is more complete: Category:Wiki Loves. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

sex positions club

shortly ago an account by the name sex postions club uploaded a large nuber of graphics of sex postions. The account was blocked, all files deleted. after that two accounts (EricRoses and MikaMori) uploaded derivative works of this graphics. MikaMori identifies on them user page as founder of sex positions club and author of the files and releases them to the public for use in wikipdedia articles on sexuality. I do not know, if this files need to be deleted too, or if the original files need to be undeleted, but something should be done. --C.Suthorn (talk) 18:25, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, if the images were all meant to be used on Wikipedia then they have an educational value and if possible probably be undeleted. But as you stated "MikaMori identifies on them user page as founder of sex positions club and author of the files and releases them to the public for use in wikipdedia articles on sexuality." I hope that the company understands that Wikimedia Commons allows any file to be used by anyone for any purpose and not "just for Wikipedia" as some companies think when they donate their media. Illustrations of sex positions are educational so I don't think that they should stay deleted if the company understands what they are doing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:04, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
For reference:
It seems likely that the latter two are either sockpuppets or meatpuppets of the first account, which is globally banned for spam (after indef blocks on Commons, enwiki, and ruwiki). Given that the highly stylized illustrations add very little to our existing collection of sex position illustrations, and that all three accounts heavily promote the website, I am inclined to block and delete. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:59, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn, Donald Trung, and Pi.1415926535: Now locked per m:srg#Global lock for socks of locked Sex Positions Club.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 04:35, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
From what I could find most of their inages are [https://img-hw.xvideos.com/videos/profiles/galleries/6c/6e/dc/laxmanpatil/gal715209/pic_27_big.jpg like this] (BLOCKED BY SPAMFILTER). I know that Wikipedians and Wikimedia Commons users have differing definitions for "heavily promote the website," as I am sure any random Flickr upload would be seen as "Linkspam" by Wikipedian standards and a reference to the ahthor fot attribution would seem fine. Anyhow, if all they did is replace (better) images of sex positions with their illustrations then there is no reason to undelete the image, but if they actually added images to articles which previously had none then they should be undeleted.
I am skeptical of Wikipedian and Meta-Wikian actions because this image on Wikimedia Commons got the uploader banned from the English-language Wikipedia for "spamming", the article now uses a drawn illustration, despite other languages actually using the illustratively better autophotograph. If all they did was replace then don't undelete, but if they added new content then leaving it deleted actively harms the scope of both Wikimedia Commons and Wikipedia. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:39, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The question is why do files with a very low value only become deleted if they are in the field of sexuality, but not if they are photos of sights with more the thousand photos like these files of the Eiffel Tower: File:11-40-31-s-a9e7ebcf94f303f8d159a8d3f1c534e082d8abb8.webp; File:Eiffel - panoramio (115).jpg; File:Eiffel Tower (62469345).jpeg. Of course personality rights are more important in this field, but if there are not any doubts they should not be treated in a different way.(If there are doubts on personality rights they have to become deleted and oversighted immediately.) --GPSLeo (talk) 08:28, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The majority of the nuked filed were watermarked "sex postion club", but in a way, that a smartphone stock graphics program could be used to edit the watermark out in 5 seconds. Also they were outline only schematic drawings without PR concerns, but included artsy colored shades, that served no informational cause. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: I actually think it's fine that we have a higher bar for sexually related images. As I see it, there are three factors involved in deciding whether to keep low-quality images.
  • Does the presence of the image make Commons look lower-quality overall?
    1. If the image is something otherwise hard to get—that is, if there is no better substitute—then clearly no problem. No one is going to fault us for having the only picture of some WWI Russian general even if it isn't a good picture. But that doesn't apply for either the Eiffel Tower or sexual imagery: no shortage of those, unless the image is quite unusual
    2. I think there is at least slightly more harm to Commons' image from having a bunch of low-quality sex-related material than a bunch of low-quality vacation snapshots. GPSLeo, do you think otherwise?
  • Does the presence of the image make it harder to find good images of similar subject matter?
    1. Always at least a bit of a problem. I would hope that for the Eiffel Tower, someone is doing a fair job of maintaining the Tour Eiffel gallery page (but maybe not: it has had only two edits in the last two years; gallery pages may be the most neglected aspect of Commons. It still has a lot of good content in one place). I don't think anyone has put comparable effort into most aspects of sexuality, though I'll admit I'm not that interested in looking, GPSLeo have you looked?
  • Is this someone we want to encourage to contribute more work? What other contributions is it likely to encourage?
    1. I think this one is the heart of the matter. It's always a bit discouraging to have your work deleted as "low quality". In general, we rarely delete low-quality images by people who also contribute a lot of high-quality images unless they actively consent, because we don't want them to feel knocked around and judged at every turn; also, there is an obvious convenience in being able to keep all your documentary photo work (etc.) on one site (ours), even if some of it is lower quality.
    2. In my view, the person contributing the useless 3047th snapshot of the Eiffel Tower is also likely to take a bunch of more interesting snapshots. No, in the near future they won't suddenly be super high-quality, but if they are wandering Paris we might get some pictures of a gravestone at Père Lachaise no one else thought to photograph, or they might go out to some banlieue that almost no one has uploaded pictures of, or whatever. However, the person taking the useless 3047th snapshot of his own penis is not likely to do anything of the sort. Again, GPSLeo, your thoughts are very welcome; you didn't really flesh out much of a rationale for why you'd go the other way, probably because no explicit arguments were given for why we currently do what we do. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Why do you make a difference on the topic of the image that has nothing to do with relevant(What on Wikipedias is a reason for deletion)? Why should a person uploading a nude selfie not start making more valuable content?(OK, maybe there are statistics?) To not have all these deletion discussions I would support to change the scope of Commons to keep every file with clear rights and is not intended harm or spam. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:43, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
Not enough pictures of non-notable bands, of spammers' friends sitting around their living room, of random penises? Believe it or not, that last link is not NSFW, feel free to click.- Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
The images by sex positions club actually did not show human genitalia (outline drawings of human bodies), they were educative and informative. I assume they were deleted because of the watermark (that could be removed in seconds. and did not exist in the last uploads). I do not know about the copyright of the files, but it did not seem to play a role in the nuking. Images that are used in place of the deleted outline graphics include explicit fotos of autofellatio. There may have been abstract depictions of sex positions, that are not available at commons, or else are only available as explicit fotos. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:34, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
And then: sensitive content would be much less of a problem, if all files were tagged by SDC or categories correctly, which could possibly be achieved (for new uploads) if the upload wizard would ask if an image depicts persons, interior, art, events, place; then offers to add the personality rights template, use the artwork template instead of info template, add a nudity warning, fop-by-place template etc --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:22, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Category

Category:The Parthenon in 1853 has the special category (on the bottom of the page) Category:The Acropolis in 1853, but when I click on it, it says "There are no pages or files in this category". --Io Herodotus (talk) 09:27, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@Io Herodotus: I null edited the former, fixing the latter. A back end process should have gotten to it eventually.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:47, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thank you. Why does it happen ? How do you fix it ? It happens again to Category:The Acropolis in 1916 Category:The Acropolis in 1923 and probably much more. Perhaps I should wait for the back end process, how long does it take for that ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 15:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Io Herodotus: You used Template:ParthenonYear in Category:The Parthenon in 1853 in this edit 10:33, 14 February 2020 (UTC). You created Category:The Acropolis in 1853 in this edit 09:19, 26 February 2021‎ (UTC). You started this section 8 minutes later. Making sure that pages are currently categorized by templates, and that the corresponding categories show them, appear to be background processes with low priorities that sit in job queues until the required resources are available. Once the changes happen at the master database for a project, they then have to be propagated to all the slaves, and then the cached results have to expire. All that takes time. You can increase the speed dramatically by null or content editing the source page once you have created the target page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:44, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Starting with 1000 artworks, the NGI have started publishing downloadable versions of their collections under CC-BY-SA 4.0 (though, there is probably quite a number of the images that are most likely PD due to age). I don't know if there is a systematic way of grabbing the images? Smirkybec (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@Smirkybec: Please see COM:BATCH.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:33, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: is that active? Otherwise, I'm happy to add it there. Smirkybec (talk) 13:39, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Smirkybec: Yes, 5 scripters are listed there as active.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:47, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Smirkybec and Jeff G.: Already had a look at it and it's not an easy website to mass download. Stupid confirms and file delivery as zipped files.
I don't believe COM:BATCH is active that's why I marked it as inactive because it just gives the false expectation that anyone will actually pick something up. Multichill (talk) 17:14, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: I suspected that the interface would be an issue, and that was one of the reasons I asked here. It is a pity! I might see if I can contact them about it to enquire about a direct mass upload, seeing as this is an ongoing project. Thanks for that! Smirkybec (talk) 20:32, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Hordle Hercules.jpg

Can anyone read the artist name inscribed in cursive on the lower left? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 13:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is background info on the picture and two others of the same dog. Broichmore (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

What is the Wikimedia Commons position on storing AI enhanced historic images

I am sure this has come up before. Now that several AI programs are free online that can upscale, enhance, and colorize, are we allowed to house them here, so long as the tool used is identified. I do not see any claim that the AI now holds the copyright, even though public domain movies enhanced this way were awarded new copyrights. My Heritage has a decent one for free: https://www.myheritage.com/photo-enhancer. Peter Jackson has been using this type of software for whole films. I don't see it as any different from using the "auto contrast" feature in many photo software packages, so long as you mention what tool was used to enhance and link to the original scan of the image at Commons like we do for crops. --RAN (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

I would be very hesitant about allowing such images on Commons. It's one thing to upscale a fictional movie, where the goal is for the movie to look good; it is another thing entirely to upscale an image that presents itself as an accurate depiction of something real. AI upscaling can accidentally add detail that doesn't exist in the original (such as inventing false text on signs in a street scene); "auto contrast" is merely a transformation of the existing image data and will not add anything new. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Besides the intellectual property/copyright claims issue (I would imagine {{PD-algorithm}} would apply to most purely AI retouched images), this may touch upon more of a philosophical issue of what Commons is (or what people think it should be). In my view, Commons should strive to provide high quality, educationally useful material, but it is not designed to be a complete and unvarnished historic archive (although it may draw from such archives, ideally with sufficient source links and metadata), nor an arbiter of what 'truth' should be. I think images can and should be modified if it helps to make a more relevant, informative, and representative image, even if such an image never "existed" previously. As an example: I just adapted a historic image here to remove irrelevant and distracting background elements to create an image that more cleanly and professionally illustrates the subject, even though it never existed in print or the photographer's film roll. Did I alter the historic record by removing the subject's father's shoulders, Yes. Is that bad? Depends on the context. Would it be more bad if I intentially omitted political figures from historic photographs to infer they never existed? Probably yes, but again, simple cropping may editorially warranted, and historically altered photographs have legitimate usage in appropriate contexts (e.g. an article about Soviet propaganda). Absolutely nobody should accept what they see on any Wikimedia platform as legitimate and error-free on face value, per the General disclaimer.
However, as almost all things Wiki become the forefront of the Internet sooner or later, I think there is an inherent responsibility in Commons uploaders/curators to avoid intentionally or carelessly misrepresenting reality (whether the reality is an old blurry daguerreotype of some grandmother or a racist propaganda cartoon from a horrific regime). Wholesale inventions and deliberate falsehoods are subject to deletion as out of scope, but good-faith adaptations and derivatives of freely-licensed content are explicitly permitted and may be editorially necessary. We currently have templates like {{Retouched picture}}, {{Derived from}}, etc. AI-enhanced images have the potential to enhance and illuminate the original imagery, but also to suppress, obfuscate, and misrepresent it (by becoming top in Google searches, widely replicated across the internet, etc.) if the ultimate source of the original unmodified image is not clearly identified, and the machine (or human)-made alterations aren't clearly indicated. The best course of action is always to upload the original and the enhanced derivative (if permitted), and like every high school teacher says, show your work. That way, responsible re-users can evaluate which version may be most appropriate to their needs. Modified images that are deemed to go beyond the scope of enhancing and veer into misinformation (e.g. a machine-learning algorithm adds eyeglasses to a person who never wore them) may be subject to deletion. I'll conclude my late night TED-talk by saying that intellectually honest and accurate image sourcing should be championed as paramount to Commons' mission (and images sourced only vaguely to middle-man, user-generated websites like, Alchetron, Find-a-Grave, other Commons files be granted the same social stigma as smoking in a maternity ward), and similarly, that a good electronic paper trail should be created for any significant changes, enhancements, and alterations to media, regardless of whether the changes occurred on Commons or off Commons. --Animalparty (talk) 08:13, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The article you link to about movies colorized this way doesn't say anything of the sort. AI in the 1980s could not colorize a whole movie by itself; this era of colorized movies was computer-aided manual colorization, not computer AI colorizing a movie.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:09, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
example: scratches on the left image and dirt in the sky on both images in different positions

As an example: This stereo image could be AI-enhanced by detecting and removing the scratches and the dirt. --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Here is an example:

To me, that first one looks like a reasonable retouched image. The second one (with colorization) looks like a work of fiction, to the point where I would have hoped 'colorized image' would be in the filename. I think it is a bit misleading to consider that a photograph. - Jmabel ! talk 15:29, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That was using an earlier AI for background removal, not a MyHeritage version. It might have saved it as a jpg, and I converted to a png, causing the lossy compression. I am sure there are better online free background removers now. --RAN (talk) 06:39, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing red linked categories

I notice some people routinely remove red linked categories, is that a rule? I am often pleasantly surprised when I create a category for a person's name or a location, and find that it is already populated with another image. That image may only have the person's name or the location as a red linked category, and would not be found if I was searching for it any other way. --RAN (talk) 13:25, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It's not a rule. As a norm, red-link categories tend to be seen as temporary, for example a large collection may have categories added for sorting or housekeeping to aide volunteers which may never be created. Both mass removal or mass addition of uncreated categories may be controversial. --Fæ (talk) 13:31, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
In my opinion, adding too many red-link categories is sloppy, but removing them is lazy and counterproductive. As a rule of thumb, create what you can, leave them red if you must, but never remove correct categories just because they are red. Erythrophobic deletionism leads to asymmetrical categorization between related categories ("by country"/"by color"). Also, finding missing categories and adding those that have been removed is much more work than leaving them red or creating them right away. —Iketsi (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
@Iketsi: I see a lot of categories added that are absolutely never going to exist: common nouns in Italian, things missing spaces, singulars that should be plural, things related to what the uploader perceives to be the mood of the photo, etc.
That said, people's names are generally OK. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
It is laziness when I have just one photo of a person, and do not formally make the category, just add the red link. I always assume that adding the image to Wikidata is sufficient. But as above, I am surprised when I find a second image months later, and rediscover the first image when I create the category properly. I work on the Library of Congress project. --RAN (talk) 06:35, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Maps of the departments of the Sédhiou Region​ in Senegal

Hello, about a month ago I noticed a rather awkward inconsistency in certain maps on Commons depicting the three departments of the Sédhiou Region of Senegal (Bounkiling, Goudoump, and Sédhiou) and where they actually are on those maps.

In these maps, Bounkiling is at the top, Sédhiou in the middle, and Goudoump at the bottom:

However, in these maps, Sédhiou is at the top, Goudoump is in the middle, and Bounkiling at the bottom:

I don't know anything about Senegal since I live in the UK, so I have no idea which set of these maps are actually correct. Whichever ones are wrong, they ought to be corrected obviously. I do not have the tools to edit svg files, so I cannot do this myself.

I originally consulted en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Senegal on the English Wikipedia about these maps when I discovered this issue last month, but I've gotten no response at all since then. Even tried WikiProject Africa as well, but I still heard nothing! (It's been so long now that I almost forgot about these maps myself...) I wasn't sure where else to turn, or for that matter which user to contact, so here I am this time? Monster Iestyn (talk) 11:57, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Tbh I didn't think of using that actually, though either way I thought it best to double check with others just in case. Anyway, it's clear the bottom three maps should be corrected asap, they've been showing the mixedup place labels for nearly 4 years now. Monster Iestyn (talk) 16:31, 27 February 2021 (UTC)
In the meantime, I've just added {{Inaccurate-map-disputed}} to the three images. Monster Iestyn (talk) 14:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I consulted Alphabet's Google Maps and "File:Senegal Sed Sed.svg" is definitely wrong, Sédiou is a name of a human settlement south of this area, for whatever strange reason Google Maps doesn't show any administrative divisions, but it does show inhabited places so I can only deduce that this map is definitely wrong. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:32, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Inflation calculator

Do we have the template for the inflation calculator here? For images of old news articles, I want to make a note what the inflation adjusted value would be for the money mentioned. --RAN (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Deleted images that got permission by the author

About 35 images that i uploaded, have been deleted due to not getting mailed permission by the author (in this case was the Museum of Prilep). After getting the notice of possible deletion, i have contacted with the representative of the Museum and the he sent a mail declaring the permission of handing over the images to public domain at permissions-commons@wikimedia.org. Can someone explain me whether the statement of the representative of the Museum was rejected of any kind of nature, or it was not reviewed in time, or it was because of something else? Dandarmkd (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Original research and supposition

I've come across a number of (art) files that contain attribution statements that are a mix of original research, suppositions and assumptions. These are recent changes to old files by the original uploader, clearly its a vanity project, a memorial perhaps to some ancestor. I recommended suitable wording, by way of finding a compromise, to no avail. On Wikipedia this would start an edit war, or a citation needed. The statements may be true, but there is no verification of it. Any advice? Broichmore (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I sent the last writer, the specifics. Still, on this topic do we have a way of flagging that the information inserted has to be tested. On Wikipedia they use citation needed in order to minimize offence. Do we have an equivalent? Broichmore (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
@Broichmore: I'm nto sure I understand, but would adding {{Factual accuracy}} or {{Fact disputed}}, at a minimum, help to notify users that there is some doubt? - Themightyquill (talk) 08:02, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

Moving toward Special:MediaSearch as the default search landing page

A copy of this post will be sent to the Commons mailing list as well.

Background

Special:MediaSearch–in addition to using Commons categories and wikitext from templates–uses structured data on Commons and information from Wikidata to find the most relevant and extensive results. This is a new back-end approach to search for Commons, combined with a new interface that makes the media results larger and the prominent focus of the page, accessing some file information like licensing and description information directly on the page as well as various ways to filter results. Special:MediaSearch also natively supports all languages supported by MediaWiki, and will utilize Wikidata’s concept-linking abilities and multilingual labels to find relevant results regardless of the language of the search term.

Special:Search, as a tool designed and built for the text-heavy side of the projects, has always struggled to properly find and display media from Commons without some of the more advanced features like Category search. Special:Search also functions at its best in English, and is not necessarily friendly to other languages.

One of the last remaining goals of the Structured Data on Commons project is building and deploying a new search on Commons, a search created specifically for Commons (ref: Structured Data on Commons grant application, page 6, "Make searching for media files much more effective"). Special:MediaSearch has been in development for the past year to complete this goal, keeping Special:Search available for users for cases when its purposeful wikitext-based search may be more appropriate to use.

Release timeline and feedback along the way

After completing bug fixes, updates, new features, and design changes based on community feedback over the past year, the Structured Data team is ready to begin the process of making Special:MediaSearch the default landing page for the search bar. This also means that the “files depicting…” feature will be removed, since MediaSearch uses depicts as a search input. A/B testing and user experience testing has demonstrated a superior search experience for all users of Commons, and survey feedback indicated a need by some users to keep Special:Search available for their preference.. The development team will honor the desire from the community to still be able to get to Special:Search–there will be a link to access the page through Special:MediaSearch, and there will be a preference to make Special:Search the default landing page if someone would like to keep using it as their primary source.

The team will release the default setting in stages, starting with anonymous/not-logged-in users first at the end of March and then moving to logged-in users at the end of April. The time between each release phase will be approximately four weeks, and during this time I'll post about the release and provide an opportunity for the community to leave feedback or notice of crucial bugs or breaks in the feature that may need to be addressed before the deployment continues. The team is still receptive to community input, to make sure any small pain points in MediaSearch are addressed before the default setting is released to all users. It is important to the team that the release goes as smoothly as possible for the community, and they're here to listen and respond in case of problems.

Thanks for your time, I'll be sure to post updates as needed as we get closer to the default setting change. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't link to the project page itself anywhere above for reference, so here's the link (and the talk page, of course). Thanks again. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Votes

  •  Oppose Does not work with batch tasks (VFC) or cat-a-lot, which function extremely well when handling housekeeping, anti-vandalism or categorization using the standard search. If basic interoperability is well below the standard of the current search tool, then this is not ready, and it's not been tested and it's lazy to claim to be making changes to benefit the community when there hasn't been a proposal. How about engaging with the community rather than posting notices telling the community what decisions have been made by the WMF? Commons should not be a free beta test site to run experiments on.
The "proposal" is on the Foundation website, volunteers cannot even comment on it, let alone make changes. That's plain insulting when an on-wiki proposal could have been published about Commons on Commons. Even this post is not "consultation" as very clearly it's been phrased to NOT welcome comments or opinions. --Fæ (talk) 09:43, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing up VFC and cat-a-lot. We will make sure those continue to function. Please let us know in phab:T275656 if there are any other tools we should double check that we may not be thinking of. CBogen (WMF) (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
@CBogen (WMF): We have a list at COM:Tools.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support Easier to find an image, thanks to the grid view and to the more semantic search. If the old search is still available at another URL it should not bother VFC/cat-a-lot/etc users too much (though it would be wonderful if they worked with MediaSearch too). "It would be cheaper to just redirect the page to Google" is not a valid argument, for privacy reasons. Syced (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support A tool for non power users should be the default. The power users can change to their own tools. If you know how to activate and use VFC and cat-a-lot you also now how the go to the old search and how to make this the default for your settings. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for the info. I'll post some comments about "Image size" on the the talk page -- Colin (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

  • Hmm does well enough on traction engine (both it and special:search run into the issue of people describing stationary engines as traction engines). Doesn't do too well on "tank" with images 2,3,4,5 not being tanks while special:search throws up a random mix of weaponry and water tanks. Its habit of cropping images makes it really hard to judge how good they are without clicking which is a problem. Could probably do with more weighting towards images used in wikipedia articles.Geni (talk) 13:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
The only thing changing here is the search frontend. Gadgets typically use the API, which has no documented change along with this move. If this was a move similar to the change from Lucene to Elasticsearch (which happened in 2014), then sure, that would break the gadgets, but it is unlikely in this case. Also, there was an vote in notified in December last year and January this year for this feature.--Snaevar (talk) 10:47, 6 March 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/02&oldid=718060717"