Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/06

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

New file versions fails to replace older one

Hi Commons community. I uploaded two newer versions of File:Carte de l'Empire romain en 118 après J.-C.jpg. My last version is displayed atop the file page, but the zommable picture is still the original version. It is the one that appears on the wikipedias, too. How can I actually replace it? --GrandEscogriffe (talk) 16:46, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

I see the new version now. Sometimes, image updates take a while to propagate through the system. All it takes is a little time. 🙂  Mysterymanblue  18:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Suggest map edits

(missing headline added by Discostu (talk))
Hello. In case there's any template to request map edits, please add it to File:Map of Vacation Days Around the World.png to ask someone to remake this map with a saner projection. The current projection is terrible. - 2804:14C:B4:8768:1504:3E08:DAD5:11DE 03:12, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't know about a template, but you could ask at Commons Map Workshop. -- Discostu (talk) 13:56, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The Mercator Projection is a pretty common way to do maps. It has its downsides, of course, but it is certainly not "terrible" or "insane". No problem with someone doing an additional map here with a different projection, but it should not overwrite this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Problems when uploading updated graph

I'm doing regular updates of some graphs on economics, for instance this one. So far, uploading was not a problem. (See file history, going back to 2009.) When trying to upload one showing inflation numbers since August 2020, I was asked for additional licencing information, or else it wouldn't upload. (As it didn't.) How should I fill in this form? Yes, it's basically the same graph, with the same name, just with added numbers. Data are from public sources, to wit, the European Central Bank website. Thanks in advance, kind regards, MartinD (talk) 12:41, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the upload worked now? -- Discostu (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes! Thanks a lot! MartinD (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Collective bots

Wikimedia Commons, in fact all Wikimedia websites, have an odd culture in the way that it is both hyper-individualistic compared to most popular websites, yet is collaborative in every level of its functioning. When you upload your own works to Wikimedia Commons they are your copyright © for as long as you choose them to be, yet any file may be edited by anyone (excluding significant overwrites of copyrighted works). In this environment bots edit almost everything by almost every user, files are given Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) metadata through bots, every registered user gets greeted by a bot, and bots even delete some files automatically with minimal human oversight. I would argue that these are all good things (excluding the deletion without review, but humans are at least given the opportunity to fix those). But each and all of these bots are individually operated and individually maintained.

So I would like to propose that we would allow "Collective bots", these would be bots operated by multiple (trusted) users and any of the current operators of a collective bot could adjust its code for new API's and / or new tasks. Also other (trusted) users could then be given access to a collective bot or become co-operators.

The limitations on which users should be allowed to operate should be in the hands of the "operating collective" ("operating community") and should preferably only be limited to people with experience running bots on Wikimedia Commons (or perhaps other Wikimedia websites).

Examples.

We could have a "DepictsBot", "SDC-bot", Etc. operated by multiple people, if one user decides to retire then another user wouldn't have to need to code such a bot from scratch and just take over the bot, if multiple people already operate a bot and one (1) decides to retire (or gets community banned, or dies, or has urgent real life affairs, gives up due to the WMF forcing changes in the software, Etc.) then another user can simply continue operating without much of a hassle. I am not immediately proposing this in the proposals village pump because I first want to hear the arguments for and against this and how to improve. Unless this is already allowed, but I haven't been able to find much on that. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:19, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: We already have some collective bots and operators of multiple bots, but information about them is scarce.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:39, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Then the nature of this discussion changed. Then I would like to see clear guidelines for how they work at "Commons:Bots#Collective bots" or something. Oftentimes things are allowed on Wikimedia websites, but they are "unwritten rules". Most of these websites function like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:57, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
See wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Abandoned tool policy and wikitech:Help:Toolforge/Developing successful tools. Bigger bots often need to span more than one Wikimedia project, so these sorts of policies make more sense to not be just Commons specific. BTW, a LOT of the policies and guidelines are effective recommendations because there is no global police force stopping people from being bold and trying to improve stuff with automated tasks, unless the local project has decided to become authoritarian about it (not Commons). --Fæ (talk) 10:55, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Feels to be you're trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist. We have plenty of bots that are operated by multiple people like for example User:CommonsDelinker, User:ErfgoedBot & User:KrinkleBot to name a few. Works just fine. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Apparently this was already allowed. Tagging for archiving. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:59, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Where does the description come from?

In File:Pokharaboats.jpg is the description "English: Boats at fewa lake, Pokhara" including a link as a pencil symbol. I was curious about that symbol. In the edit form I see only "|description=". Where does the desciption come from? Wouter (talk) 07:57, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

It may have something to do with the fact that the country code for Nepal (np) is not entered in {{Wiki Loves Earth 2020}}. GeorgHH • talk   09:55, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
@Wouterhagens: It's from the file's caption. I think {{Information}} defaults to using the caption(s) when there's no description. See Commons:File captions for more about captions. --bjh21 (talk) 10:45, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, the information template was changed to use effectively invisible structured data, because it's not in the wikitext. For a systems change with no clear consensus, it's an amazing extra level of complexity for bot writers, considering that the API changes to cater for this has yet to happen. For my own uploads I only check wikitext, if it stuff is not there, there it does not exist and should be considered unreliable, considering that disruptive caption vandalism is not properly detectable at the current time. Nobody has produced a coherent rationale as to why my own future upload projects should change their wikitext based approach. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Wouter and Fæ: It’s a nuisance, but it’s not the worst thing in the war Wikidata is waging on Commons. At least while it can be circumvented by filling the affected {{Information}} field one wants to keep blank with some dummy textual data, such as &nbsp;, unrendered wikitext such as '' '', or invisible HTML such as <!-- nothing here -->. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:55, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
If someone wants to kick off a bot task to fill in "blank" information templates by blindly copying where caption text exists that would be super. Unfortunately, the WMF changed the standard upload wizard without any consensus so that newbies are driven to fill in captions before anything else, without understanding that the priority should be to complete the description field.
This does massively increase the marketability of Wikimedia Commons for selling on for Machine Learning, free human faces with tagging/metadata is very commercial desired, but the net benefit to volunteers is purely negative mainly because the changes were never tested and as a result have a crappy workflow and usability problems. Sadly the WMF does not even cash in on the reselling that is already happening, as we see with Getty resellers. --Fæ (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

How do I programmatically request an image properties ?

Hope its the good place to ask...

Image pages contain a lot of information like that one:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Lady_with_an_Ermine_-_Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg

image size, licensing, wikidata link, etc.

Is it possible to programmatically get that information ? An http request returning a JSON is fine.

Laurent.Claessens (talk) 15:36, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@Laurent.Claessens: Please see here. This API can programmatically request a lot of info on Commons files.  Mysterymanblue  18:23, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Laurent.Claessens: I'd suggest exploring the Special:ApiSandbox. You probably want to start by setting action=query and putting the page title (including the "File:" prefix) in titles. Once you've got the sandbox producing the output you want, you can copy the URL for the query from the result page. --bjh21 (talk) 18:46, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: Looks what I need. Thanks.Laurent.Claessens (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bjh21: I don't see the titles place. I must be missing something.Laurent.Claessens (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

In the meantime (mixing the answers and other researches) I found this way to get a JSON containing the information about an image: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&format=json&titles=File:Leonardo,_Madonna_Benois.JPG Laurent.Claessens (talk) 05:26, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Am I allowed to edit the permission information of a file?

I would like to use this file in Wikipedia. It has been tagged as an own work of the uploader and been released into the Public domain. But I found that this pattern is a trademark of an Japanese theater, so it would be better to use Template:PD-shape and Template:Trademarked rather than the Template:PD-self. However, I have no knowledge of wikimedia, and unsure if I can edit the license directly since I am not the uploader. Any advice would be appreciated.--立日 (talk) 14:06, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks. But can/should I replace the Template:PD-self with Template:PD-shape? I mean this kind of pattern should have been ineligible for copyright, so the user should not have the right to "release this work into the public domain". Although both templates declare images into public domain.--立日 (talk) 19:12, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@立日 and 立日: I don't think it matters much. Creator is saying via {{PD-self}}, "I relinquish my rights in this." If there were no rights to relinquish, then we are in the same place. - Jmabel ! talk 00:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Search media

The presentation of the images without their titles ist not very helpful, for searching optical informations e. g. for a building one has read mentioned without illustration.--Ulamm (talk) 10:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I completely agree, I switched back to the old search engine for now, but I believe that the mediasearch can improve if it simply takes all the old features and adds them to the new search engine. At least give us options within the search engine. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
+1 - The old layout was much much better - for instance I needed to know the uploader of a set of images and obviously this now isn't available unless I hover over or click on the image first which is ridiculous when there's 50-100 images!.
Donald Trung Thank you for this bit of helpful info - I don't suppose you could very kindly tell me how to disable it ?, Thanks :), –Davey2010Talk 13:26, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: , first click on "Preferences" and then ... [REDACTED] it, just click on this link 🔗. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:45, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Donald, Many thanks for that greatly appreciated :), Take care and stay safe. Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 17:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Background: reproductions of works of visual art in the PD that don't surpass the COM:TO aren't subject to copyright anymore, not even under related rights like the sweat of the brow. I'd like to know your opinion here: Commons talk:Copyright rules#Copyright law change in the European Union: do we need a new PD-EU-ToO tag?. Thank you, Chianti (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

upload of derivative image failed

I uploaded a derivative of File:Historic American Buildings Survey, E.O. Taylor, Photographer March 1, 1934 VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST (FRONT). - William Garrett Plantation House, Texas Route 21, San Augustine, San HABS TEX,203-SAUG.V,1-3.tif using this tool [1] . I have used it several times in the past and it had always worked, but not this time. The result should have been here File:Historic American Buildings Survey, E.O. Taylor, Photographer March 1, 1934 VIEW FROM SOUTHEAST (FRONT). - William Garrett Plantation House, Texas Route 21, San Augustine, San HABS TEX,203-SAUG.V,1-3 (edit).tif -- Jim Evans (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That looks interesting. The upload has not failed. However, the image is not visible via the link in my browser but when I click onto the empty space where the image should be or download the maximum resolution, the image is shown. All the automatically downsized smaller images seem to be broken (just black and white). --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 07:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
I was able to fix it by reuploading it as a changed file -- Jim Evans (talk) 15:49, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on redirects from EXIF data taking place at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard

Not sure if anyone cares about these links, but there is a discussion going on at en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Request to create redirect page at Matplotlib version3.3.3, https://matplotlib.org/ regarding the redirects created for links found in the EXIF metadata on Commons file pages. I requested an admin make a redirect that I could not because it had a url in the name, and I am being met with a surprising amount of opposition and even one call to delete all existing redirects from file metadata links (1277 total as of now). I am truly surprised at this and don't understand the reason why there is so much push-back for what I thought was an innocuous request to make a harmless and helpful redirect. If anyone has an opinion on these Wikipedia redirects for the EXIF metadata links found on Commons file pages, please weigh in on the discussion there. Thanks. --Yarnalgo (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why is this an English Wikipedia discussion? --Fæ (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't trust the English-language Wikipedia, they are obsessed about combatting "spam" and "salting" articles. For example, when you upload a photograph from an Elephone device it will link to "en:Elephone" which is a "salted" article because it's "spam" and "a non-notable company" despite being a Chinese company that sells its devices in dozens of countries around the world. The Czech-language Wikipedia does have an article about it, I have been able to find dozens of independent news companies covering this company for over years, but the page's history shows constant speedy deletions and then "Permasalting", I don't think that the Enwiki should dictate to other Wikipedia's what's notable and what's not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:51, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Every time I upload a picture 📷 using my main camera...
    Every time I upload a picture 📷 using my main camera...
  • It links to a "Permasalted" or "Indefsalted" page.
    It links to a "Permasalted" or "Indefsalted" page.
Every time I upload a photograph from my "main camera" it links to a "Permasalted" or "Indefsalted" page. The problem here is that many people at Enwiki are hostile towards "links that lead to nowhere" rather than "fixing" those links by actually writing content. Wikimedia Commons should not be removing any links from its EXIF data in any language for any sororal website. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: It's an en-wiki discussion because the request is for redirects on en-wiki.
It amazes me that anyone thinks 1200 redirects is a lot. It's not unusual to have half a dozen redirects on en-wiki for a single biographical article, so this is no more redirect burden than 200 or so biographical articles. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Good. There's nothing of import to discuss on this VP. --Fæ (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge April results

Fossils and Sediments: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 2
image
Title
Deutsch: Stenoperygius sp im
Fosilienmuseum des Werkforum Dotternhausen
 Fossil of a crocodile in the AMNH Who ate who? Echinodermata
fossils from Morocco
Author Wuselig Ermell RomanDeckert
Score 23 22 22
Angles and Squares: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Hochhausfassade in Tel Aviv triangular stairwell,
Genoa Italy		 Square origami boxes
Author Sadarama Ddgfoto Changku88
Score 25 17 17

Congratulations to Wuselig, Ermell, RomanDeckert, Sadarama, Ddgfoto and Changku88. -- Jarekt (talk) 15:46, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

British flag ratio proposal

Please see my proposal at File talk:Flag of the United Kingdom.svg#Ratio about a potential change of design to the (semi-)official specifications. It has sadly languished without comment for some time. GPinkerton (talk) 17:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there an easy to search for deleted files?

I wondered, is there an easy way to search for deleted files if you can't remember the file name or uploader, but do know what categories it had and where it came from? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:28, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Not for us mere mortals.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:24, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Then I will have to come up with a proposal to try and address this. Tagging it for archiving for now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:37, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

The impact of Suggested Edits on Commons: findings and discussion

Hi everyone. Last year I posted here (as a volunteer) with some concerns about the Suggested Edits feature of the Wikipedia Android app, which seemed to be producing a lot of low quality edits. That led to several conversations with WMF staff working on the app and an invitation to do a bit of focused contract work for the Foundation evaluating the feature's impact on Commons. I've posted the data, findings, and my recommendations here: User:Rhododendrites (WMF)/Suggested Edits.

Some key points:

  • While the overall quality of contributions in this sample was higher than I anticipated based on my initial exposure, there are still several issues related to accuracy and level of detail.
  • The quality was better for captions than depicts, perhaps because of the difficulties in searching for and selecting Wikidata items, which are not always labeled effectively and may not yet exist.
  • Several of the issues may be addressed with clearer instructions (which are minimal at the moment) and small changes to the user interface (such as displaying categories).
  • There is some confusion and miscommunication regarding structured data on Commons. This would be helpful to address by documentation on Commons and a conversation between stakeholders in the future.

Looking forward to your thoughts and questions on the talk page! --Rhododendrites (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

  • Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
  • 2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
  • Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
  • Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
  • Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)
A: No.
Further, the WMF account makes no direct connection to a volunteer account.
It's also bizarre to mark up this spam notice for translation. I fail to understand why that's desirable for anyone. --Fæ (talk) 20:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@SOyeyele (WMF): Welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Please don't use translation markup, like <translate></translate> and <tvar></tvar> in MassMessages. Adding translation markup requests that the entire page be marked for translation, which is highly undesirable for discussion pages. It is better to leave your message in one language and then link to a translatable page on Meta. You should also sign your messages using the instructions at m:MassMessage, as ~~~~ won't work as expected. Thanks, AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Serena Lederer

Category:Serena Lederer has only the painting of this lady by Klimt. I was tempted to rename it to "Portrait of Serena Pilitzer Lederer by Klimt". This category also has informations about the lady (birth, death etc.) which would be deleted. Klimt's major paintings deserve to have a category of their own. What's the right thing to do?

--Io Herodotus (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

I just noticed that a lot of files related to openSUSE may be uploaded under wrong license. Here are some example:

I am not sure how to deal with these files. Can I edit the license information directly?--立日 (talk) 16:39, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

@立日: Is it possible that the image assets were originally released as part of OpenSUSE, and thus would be covered by the GFDL, and that they were recently released under CC-BY-SA 3.0? In this case, both licenses would apply (since they are both irrevocable) and people could choose the one they want to use. See also Commons:Multi-licensing.  Mysterymanblue  23:46, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue: I am not sure if the logo of openSUSE had ever been released under GFDL. But currently openSUSE Leap as 'collective work' is released under GPL2, which is not compatible with GFDL 1.2 as far as I'm concerned. And 'This agreement does not limit your rights under, or grant you rights that supersede, the license terms of any particular component'. Therefore the logo of openSUSE is released under CC-BY-SA 3.0, which should have been distributed under the same license. As for BSD-3-Clause, it has the similar redistribution limitation.--立日 (talk) 05:49, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Promotional Content in File Description.

GoodDay, I came across this image File:Bollywood Choreographer.jpg, if you look at it's description, it appears to be of self promotional content / advertisement. On Wikipedia this would be WP:PROMO, but the rules here are different.
So is This OK ? Or does it need to be tagged accordingly? what tags would be suitable? -- Thank you In Advance. --STC1 (talk) 11:33, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks OK to have here; we don't care who uploads, as long as the rights are good. On the other hand, several issues to fix, at least/:
    • bad categorization
    • promotional description
Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems the uploader is the subject of the images, while the actual photographer is unknown. I have nominated them for deletion. MKFI (talk) 19:05, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Korean presidential images

Comoelto (talk · contribs) is uploading many images from the (South) Korean presidential website, such as File:Moon Jae-in Shavkat Mirziyoyev.jpg. The source page is the image itself making it difficult to identify which page on the website it has come from, but the home page has "© Office of the President. All rights reserved" at the bottom of the page, so is there any evidence "Korea Open Government License Type I: Attribution." even applies? FDW777 (talk) 17:52, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Interwiki linking disabled?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T284854

I'm trying to link from a Commons category to an entry in the Norwegian version of Wikipedia, but it seems impossible. When I try to select language, nothing happens, and I am not able to add the link. This has been the case since yesterday. Is this a known problem, or is there another explanation than it being a technical issue? Vinguru (talk) 05:31, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

d:Q97204149? Looks like you succeeded. --Magnus (talk) 06:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but I did that from Wikidata. While that works in many contexts, it is less than ideal in others. Creating the link while working on Commons also auto-generates a WD element, which is very useful. Vinguru (talk) 06:15, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I can confirm that doesn't work for me either. --Magnus (talk) 07:04, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

The "Add links" tool form is unusable, the autocomplete in the "select language" field doesn't work and the form cann't advance to the "title" field. --ŠJů (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

  • I'm not sure I understand what exactly you are trying to do. As here, you can make a visible link with "[[:no:Verjeskiftbrua]]" (which produces no:Verjeskiftbrua) or a link for the left nav with "[[no:Verjeskiftbrua]]", but that last is typically better done by linking to your Commons category page from the relevant Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 19:20, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: Yes, better and standard is to link the Commons category through a relevant Wikidata item, and just that is why we complain that the tool which should link pages through Wikidata item page doesn't work (today for the fourth day, and so far there is probably no one who would start solving the problem, and I'm not sure whether you even understood what we're all describing here). Old-style direct interwiki links can help as a temporary partial surrogate until the standard tool is operational – I assume that there are bots working here that transform old-style interwiki/interproject links into Wikidata linking. Of course, the old-style interproject link here at a Commons page only works in one direction, it does not provide linking from other projects to the Commons page. --ŠJů (talk) 09:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Me too, I cannot add a link to an Wikipedia article/category page since yesterday. --Elkost (talk) 15:10, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Still broken... Any news about any eventual fix?-- Darwin Ahoy! 11:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Also see Commons:Village_pump#Wikidata problem --M2k~dewiki (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the link, I encountered the very same issue. Hoping there'll be a fix. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:56, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Same issue, already a couple of days. Linking from wikidata itself is possible, but not from a commons category back to wikidata. Rudolphous (talk) 06:28, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

From Phabricator, it looks like fix has been deployed & should work later on today. -- Deadstar (msg) 08:49, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed. Section can be closed! -- Deadstar (msg) 20:21, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Wikidata problem

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T284854

Hello Fellows!
Are there any known ongoing issues that affect linking Commons categories to Wikidata items? In particular, I mean the "link with page" module. Regards, Mosbatho (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

I am using right now one device and no multiple internet web browsers. I haven't changed anything in the settings recently. --Mosbatho (talk) 18:38, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Is this the same problem that was reported on June 11th? Vinguru (talk) 18:41, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it is, thank you, @Vinguru! This is exactly what I am talking about. Are there any news? --Mosbatho (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mosbatho, Donald Trung, and Vinguru: , also see

--M2k~dewiki (talk) 20:48, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for reporting. I wasn't sure how to do it. Vinguru (talk) 20:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Mosbatho (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Mosbatho, Donald Trung, and Vinguru: the problem has been solved. For me it is working again now. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot for the help. Vinguru (talk) 13:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

@M2k~dewiki: , thank you! --Mosbatho (talk) 15:40, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Video2commons scrubbing metadata?

I just uploaded a video of mine using Video2commons and noticed that it lacked metadata. It's really not great if our in-house tool for video conversion is failing to preserve highly useful information about a video such as when and where it was taken, and this also makes it harder for us to detect copyright violations (as a lack of metadata can be a key indicator that a contribution is not someone's own work). Can we resolve this? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 02:06, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

The only metadata that is shown for videos on the file description page is audio and video encoder version info. Other metadata may be in the original file. You will need to download the file to check for the metadata. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: I checked and the video I uploaded contained various additional pieces of metadata before upload, so I'm pretty confident that Video2commons scrubbed them. It's sad that this isn't getting more engagement—it's important. I've tried creating a phab ticket at phab:T284970. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:11, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:GODL-India#What website did this license can be applicable?

Please look into it once...TTP1233 (talk) 15:35, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @TTP1233: I'm a native English-speaker (U.S.). Neither your title for this section here nor your remarks where you've linked make much sense to me.…
  • …so I tried to work out what languages you speak. Your Commons user page refers us to your Simple English user page, which refers us to your English-language user page, which refers us back to your Simple English user page. None of these contain Babel boxes (see also wikidata:Wikidata:Userboxes#Babel). Could you please clean that up a bit? It would be very helpful. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: CentralAuth says mostly English with some other languages spoken in or near India. My loose translation is "Which websites' content may be uploaded here using {{GODL-India}}?" and my answer is "Websites of the government of India".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Most websites of the Government of India are governed by a copyright policy. My opinion is that the user should cross check before uploading. The TTP1233 has already violated copyright most of the time which can be verified from their deleted contributions and talk-page notices. Run n Fly (talk) 15:08, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding composite images

With modern technology, it is now possible to take, say, fifty old photographs of a famous person, and use them as data points from which to generate a unique composite image of that person. Could such an image be released to the public domain by its author, given the minimal input remaining from the original images? If so, could such an image be used in Wikimedia projects, presuming that it is an accurate representation of the appearance of the subject? BD2412 T 19:37, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What do you mean by "composite image"? Ruslik (talk) 20:44, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I mean that you put in a bunch of photographs and an app or similar program produces an image of the person that doesn't exist anywhere else (one that can be adjusted for facial expressions, lighting, etc.). BD2412 T 21:20, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this is more a question for a copyright lawyer than for Commons. My gut is that it would be considered derivative work and would need to acknowledge (and license) all of its copyrighted sources, but I am not a lawyer, and courts have certainly at times surprised me either way in their decisions about derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 03:27, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
If the "old photographs" are significant in the creation of the new work, it would be derivative of the "old photographs". They should be credited if PD or free licensed, and if not the new work would be a derivative work of copyrighted original "old photographs", and not appropriate for Wikimedia Commons. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:38, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
There's a "can we" but also "should we" My 2 cents is: people should hew closely to COM:EDUSE and avoid propagating fantasy or misrepresentations of reality, even if copyright allows it. Just as I think AI generated portraits of completely fake people should be limited to a handful of uploads to demonstrate the technology (not to upload thousands of fictitious faces because copyright allows), composite images of real people doing something they never did, or presenting them in a way they never actually appeared, should be treated with extreme caution, although it may be warranted in some cases. The origin and synthetic nature of such images should be clearly stated, otherwise we invite a universe of deepfakes, and the educational purpose of Wikimedia goes out the window. --Animalparty (talk) 05:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to be clear: I understand that by composite image is meant Photomosaics. Wouter (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It's always a difficult case, because composite images based on copyrighted works might have neighbouring or leftover rights when used in composite images. I know that robots themselves can't be assigned copyrights or any other form of intellectual property rights, but while they generate images they didn't create the underlying works, hence they could be seen as derivative works. At least, copyright © laws tend to be very antiquated with most being written before artificial intelligence or monkeys with cameras existed. Of course, de minimis could apply to these images, so I would be in favour, but how to attribute the sources? How to tell if only a small part was used. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Blanking of user talk page

Is Orizan's act of blanking their talkpage, in particular removing archival system after getting notices of FOP and DW-related deletion requests acceptable here, or is it considered "rude"? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:46, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

  •  Comment, cần't say that I'm a fan of such a move, but going over their uploads most are quite valuable Flickr imports and for every FOP or DW violation they uploaded literally dozens of good files. I've always been an advocate for just importing the whole of Flickr and sorting the files out later, though I do think that the user should nominate DW's for deletion after uploading. Having worked with Flickr2Commons it is quite difficult to systematically de-select files if you run large imports and the software is handicapped in several ways, before it was easy to use with Flickr photostreams (or Flickrstreams) but not anymore, but that's off topic here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:30, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Destroyed buildings and sub-categories

There was no consensus, at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/02/Category:Destroyed buildings by function to rename the subcategories of the category as, for example, "Destroyed libraries" from "Demolished libraries" (if anything, the latter should be a subcategory of the former), but the change has been done as a fait accompli, and only then was the discussion closed. The renames should be reversed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:34, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

apparently there was consensus in Commons:Categories for discussion/2013/03/Category:Demolished buildings. the 2021 cfd is just for reaffirmation of the 2013 cfd.--RZuo (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
There was not; and it was not Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:21, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Unknow language

I am searching for what language is written in this image. The first two lines is latin. And the last lines, what language is? It seems greek, but I am not sure... I want to type it... --93.35.184.189 10:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

The image description says Tachelhit, which is apparently the en:Shilha language. The letters seem to be some kind of en:Tifinagh (self-made?) They do look rather Greek indeed though. --Rosenzweig τ 11:18, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

A clean start

Hey, At my discussion page, (User Talk:Scaledish), I have received a final warning due to uploading copyrighted files. Please note, I do not contest this warning, I find it to be just given my track record leading to that point. Since that warning, a year has passed. I have continued to edit Wikipedia and as a result have familiarized myself with copyright policy to a greater degree. Due to the warning, I placed a unoffical sanction on myself not to upload any more files, as a block would be horrible. Last night, I violated that sanction by uploading File:AnomChat.jpg to Wikipedia, later moved to the Commons. After that upload, I have realized that since my warning, I have grown as a editor significantly and would like to continue interacting with the commons. I mean no harm, and I made a huge mistake in uploading without fully understanding copyright.

I come here to ask for my options, as I could not find them presented at any page on the wiki. The first thing that comes to mind is a Clean Start as done on Wikipedia, but it appears there is no policy page here - leading me to believe that is not a option. The other thing that comes to mind is talk page blanking, but the ethicality of that is lacking and I fear it could land me in even more hot water than I am already in should another deletion come about. I would like to ask the opinions of others more experienced about how I should continue. Thanks, Scaledish (talk) 12:24, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @Scaledish: Welcome back. I wouldn't worry too much about the past history, just do good work going forward. You could start by helping to clear up the situation at Commons:Deletion requests/File:OSU lazer song selection.jpg. You might want to make a note on your user talk page similar to the first paragraph above. - Jmabel ! talk 15:20, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Thank you @Jmabel: for the advice, I will review the deletion process to learn how I can clean it up (I did look at that message repeatedly but was unsure of what to write instead of annoying +1s - I ought to understand the process so I can make meaningful contributions to the discussion). I will also post a section on my talk page describing the situation, Thank you for your advice, means a lot. Also a thanks to @Jim.henderson: for making me feel a bit less alone, good to know I am not the only newb who did this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scaledish (talk • contribs) 16:03, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @Scaledish: Many of us started by being stubborn in our stupidity. I did several bad things in English Wikipedia, and repeated them. Then I began to understand, stopped repeating past mistakes, started making new ones, and gradually improved. A break of months, followed by mostly good actions (even old-timers make dumb mistakes) won't erase the bad past, but will make them unimportant. Jim.henderson (talk) 15:30, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Scaledish: It is OK to archive user talk pages. You could move the current content of your talk page to User Talk:Scaledish/Archive, adding a link to the top of the page. Leave the welcome message if you find it useful (or add a link to Template:Welcome to your user page). I notice the warning was given by a user who doesn't even have a user page. I don't think you need to be worried about the warning itself. Helping to clean up after your mistakes is of course good advice. –LPfi (talk) 11:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Continuation of out of rules speedy deletion by some administrators

After an administrator speedy deleted several of his uploads, be it his own works or photos by other people with the escuse of "Self-delete. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope‎", without opening any deletion request, it seems that the same thread continues, now with another administrator that deletes his own images, with source in Flickr but uploaded by other users under free licenses, not once but at least twice with the excuse "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons", again without opening a proper deletion request, when that image was never before deleted. Why do some administrators not follow the rules that they enforce on other users? Why do they not follow the proper protocol, as all other less users have to? The case in point File:48 Dona Luisa (36884843406).jpg and administrator User:Jcornelius. Why do some administrators circunvent the rules without any consequence? Tm (talk) 21:18, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It seems now that this same administrator has changed the license of this images, after the two uploads and his deletion. Tm (talk) 21:25, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
I say this not only bad style at Commons but ineffective as well since you cannot waive a Creative Commons licence once it has been granted. De728631 (talk) 21:28, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
And he has made 73 deletions under the same invalid "own photo that I don't want to see on Commons". And yet no one notices it or pretends not to notice. Tm (talk) 21:29, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jcornelius: These images need to be undeleted at once. If you didn't upload them at Commons, you cannot speedy them as your own works. As the original photographer you may want to keep them out of Commons but you should have considered that before posting them at Flickr under a free and irrevocable licence. De728631 (talk) 21:40, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Cornelius, being an admin here and an historically very respected contributor does not give you the right to delete images that you previously free-licensed just because you now regret that. I doubt we would have granted courtesy deletions on all of these to an uninvolved third party or an ordinary Commons user in similar circumstances. It would be one thing if there were a single image where you went "oops, I hadn't meant to free-license that," but dozens? - Jmabel ! talk 03:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: : I kept posting photos, even my most personal ones, on Flickr, without noticing that all were CC licensed. So yes, indeed, as explained below, Jpbowen uploaded plenty of photos of me, my friends, and my family, that I don't want to see on Commons; yes. --Jcornelius (talk) 13:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
"Why do some administrators circumvent the rules without any consequence?": Is there a process on Commons to administer "consequences" to administrators who violate the rules?  Mysterymanblue  22:00, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
This seems highly inappropriate. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 03:31, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Given the specific case we have before us? Perhaps. However, people who can’t follow the rules shouldn’t be admins. Mistakes are one thing; having such a fundamentally flawed understanding of one’s role on Commons is another. I’m sure the individual in question didn’t think it was a big deal and didn’t carry any negative intentions in deleting these files, but adminship isn’t a right, it’s a tool we give to experienced, knowledgeable users who know how the project is run and can help run it. Why is it “highly inappropriate” to suggest that we should reconsider giving that tool to its violators?  Mysterymanblue  07:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Indeed, I regret the free licensing of the photo, I actually had forgotten that my Flickr photos were CC licensed. Last week, Jpbowen transferred all my photos from Flickr to Wikimedia Commons without asking, even the most personal photos ones, and a lot of duplicates (I know, you don't have to ask, but well, I'm a community member for more than 16 years here, it is something about politeness and courtesy, I think). You imagine that I was incredibily annoyed by this fact, because I like my photos on Commons to be well described, well categorized, and so on. Jpbowen decided not to do anything about that, but leaving them just there. Since then, I'm trying to clean up everything, sort, and make those photos usuable for the Wikimedia projects. In this process, I've deleted the above mentioned photo, because indeed it was not my intention to share a person of a Mozambican woman on Wikimedia Commons with a CC license. However, you are absolutely right, that I should have followed the process as described. I am sorry, ask for your excuse, I beg your pardon for this fail. Best regards, --Jcornelius (talk) 13:12, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Well I don't see a difference between Flickr and Commons. The thing about CC licences is that you don't need to ask the the rights holder in the first place, so Jpbowen's uploads here were all correct. Not to mention, that they were most likely not aware about you being the same person here and there. So asking for courtesy or politeness of the uploader in this case is totally unwarranted. I for one appreciate your apology though. De728631 (talk) 20:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Just my inputs: perhaps I suggest the undeletions of those files and if removal is warranted then a normal deletion request should be submitted, with a valid and reasonable rationale for deletion. On mass Flickr uploads, however, I'm afraid there is nothing to do about these images other than deletion requests (e.g. images that violate no FOP or no commercial FOP, containing derivative works, or out of scope personal images). Obvious duplicates can be speedied though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:10, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
For info, I was using a Flickr to Commons transfer tool that I assumed would follow all needed guidelines. It seems that it did but that some images were not licenced as the photographer intended. For the record, I am happy for images to be deleted if that is what the originator wishes in the circumstances, even if the CC licence was not as the photographer wished accidentally. —Jpbowen (talk) 22:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
For "very personal photos" a DR might draw uncomfortable attention. For those I suggest contacting an admin by a confidential means. I understand it felt easier to just delete them, but as there may be a conflict of interest handing over the judgement of project scope vs personal integrity would have been prudent. For not that personal images, a normal DR would be the way to go. –LPfi (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

I was working on Category:Cape Mentelle Vineyards and adding relevant files to it, and noticed that User:CMVineyard has uploaded a few files. One of them is File:CAPE-MENTELLE.jpg, which is tagged with {{Copyrighted free use}} — I'm just wondering if that's the correct way to do it, for a company logo like this? Shouldn't there be an OTRS ticket logged as well? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 10:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Text only logos can't be copyrighted unless they use a unique copyrighted font. Logos are protected by trademark law that prevent unlawful use. --RAN (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Okay, thanks. I'll remove the copyright parts of that file's description. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • they probably meant to use the trademark symbol: ® or ™ instead of © symbol. People get confused all the time between the two. --RAN (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposal to let users know when they have been checked by Checkusers (Feedback request)

I would like to request feedback for the following proposal before I plan on actually proposing it:

"Currently when Checkusers (CU's) investigate sockpuppetry this can either be done through a Request for Checkuser (RCU) or Checkusers can decide to look for sockpuppets themselves by "scanning" users. IP addresses contain sensitive data and only the most trusted members of the community are allowed access to the Checkuser tools.

The Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) will soon mask IP addresses, this is done because of the privacy sensitivity of IP addresses of users. Personally, I think that this is an understandable and ultimately desirable measure taken to protect people's privacy when contributing to Wikimedia websites. However, new users probably aren't aware that their IP addresses can still be found out about and by whom, people that exclusively concern themselves with content and happen to edit in ways similar to other users deemed "undesirables" can become the subject of Checkuser investigation.

I propose that every time a Checkuser investigates a user, that the accounts investigated (not necessarily any accounts "found") be notified of the fact that they have been checked by a Checkuser. This can be done through the Wikimedia notification centre (Echo) for Wikimedia SUL-accounts every time that a Checkuser manually chooses to investigate that user. The message should read something like this:

"Hello [USERNAME], you have been investigated by [CU-USERNAME] on [DATE AND TIME] because they suspected you of abusing multiple accounts."

This would inform people that they have been investigated rather than let a handful of users have the unchecked ability to fetch this data whenever they want without notifying the users that they have checked."

Note that this isn't the proposal itself, I just wanted to ask here if it would be a good idea to propose something like this and if it would be beneficial to users or not? Mostly in light of the whole IP masking debate and all. Also, the last time I proposed something this year it had low engagement because while I originally planned on writing a long justification and request for feedback for the village pump and a more condensed version with only important notes for the proposals village pump I ended up getting impatient, skipping the feedback discussion, and receiving low engagement because it was too much of a long read, so I would like to work things out if it is a good idea or not and what arguments to use to support it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

For confirmed accounts, I agree that notification should be the minimum ethical requirement. By policy, checkuser tools must not be used speculatively, and those that do should have the right removed, but if any misuse is easy to keep secret then the policy is meaningless. Frankly I believed this was already true, but perhaps that's taking good faith too far. --Fæ (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2021 (UTC)

Google's site for 3D images is shutting down

Google's w:Poly (website) is shutting down on June 30. It has lot of freely licensed 3D object images.[2] Can someone interested import or archive them? Thanks —Vis M (talk) 12:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Is there anything there worth having? Within COM:SCOPE? In a format that we can technically handle? Of sufficient quality to make it of interest? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
  • It is definitely worth importing all the free images from that website, 3D images are becoming more popular because of the popularisation of augmented reality and some schools are even using 3D images to train surgeons and other high precision jobs so it would be a crime against education to not host them. Even if we don't have a media-player for them now it might be wise to import them before they're lost from the public forever. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Last I heard, Commons could support one format of 3D images, STL (see Commons:Project scope/Allowable file types). How useful will a conversion be? Could we host more types? Certainly it's a medium which can be very educational (e.g. w:Gömböc), and tactile displays are coming eventually. It's also useful for making images; we have a lot of files created with Blender, especially medical images, and if they are flat images, modifying them is much harder. Given the time constraint, grab it and toss out anything really useless afterwards?

Separately, if it's shutting down, could the community, if any, come here? That'd improve our 3D capabilities no end. HLHJ (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

But at the same time, there are plenty of other 3D resources (and ones based around STL). The problem with Poly is that there was never anything useful on it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:23, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
  • A few years ago, the WMF rescued another sinking Google project and gave it regal treatment among its own projects. Is there room in the nest for another viper? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Images of "unnotable" people

I believe it is categorically unfair that we delete images of "unnotable" people en masse but keep random photographs that Wikimedians take of themselves or others at Wiki events. My view is that we should allow all free content on Commons, including images of "unnotable people". However, since it seems unlikely that such a radical change would be made to policy, I'll just say that every rule should be applied fairly. We should not allow ourselves an exception. Besides, every person who uploads a photograph to Commons is a contributor; we shouldn't delete new contributors' "useless" photos because they haven't earned their keep yet.  Mysterymanblue  07:21, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

  • There is an administrator (forgot which one) that has an image of a random Sikh man on his page because that was once "the picture of the day" ("frontpage image") of Wikimedia Commons, can't remember where I saw it. While I agree with you in principle, those images should depict the people doing something that could be used to illustrate something in an educational setting. For example a photograph of a random farmer milking his/her cows should not be deleted if no alternative image exists. I think that this mentality to want to delete these images exists because businesspeople (businessmen and businesswomen) use it for blatant self-promotion and members of (still) unknown garage bands. As long as the image is educational it should stand. Especially since Wikimedia Commons doesn't have any notability standards, but does have a specific scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:42, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Per COM:HOST, speedy deletions under the F10 rationale should not be done only because the subject is not notable. Undeletion requests may be accepted for those cases where the sysop has deleted mistakenly.
Any contributor should expect to be able to upload a reasonable number of images of themselves or related events, in fact, a few years ago there was a promotional programme to get new contributors to fill out a profile with a photo as their first test edits. However, if a new account has only a couple of edits, and a selfie they uploaded was never used on their user page, then it's not unreasonable to delete it as out of scope.
Commons literally has no COM:Notability policy, the link here is a redirect to project scope, which is a much wider interpretation of educational value, which can be interpreted to include historic, cultural and illustrative value. For example, Commons lacks portrait photographs of people with different medical issues, especially non-white people; for such content "notability" is completely irrelevant, in fact most such photographs can be expected to be of anonymous subjects. --Fæ (talk) 08:50, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Agreeing 100% with the above — F10 is being systematically misused. Future generations of Commons admins will have a lot to work on concerning undeletions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:14, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Sad but true. I had my try a few weeks back, about a women who published at least three books (Commons:Deletion requests/File:Diane Nilan.jpg - which would make here automatically notable in "de"). No matter if and when she gets an Wiki-page, a picture of here could be still of educational use for 3rd party users. But admins arguing there with "en", while the closing admins uses wikidata to prove non-notability. Ridiculous - as if we don't create new wikidata-objects every single day. Commons is a mess and Data not complete ... --Mirer (talk) 12:06, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
  • Remember to create a Wikidata entry and add the image to Wikidata. Wikidata is only concerned that entries on people are not fake, so they need a reliable source. There are bots that create fake Wikidata/Instagram/Facebook deep-fake image combos to give them the appearance of someone in real life, that can be used for nefarious purposes, like fake reviews for Amazon products. --RAN (talk) 03:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem to forget about Commons:What Commons is not while all these wannabe "MCs", "DJs", (c)"rappers", "young businessmen/entrepreneurs", "multitalented authors", etc. apparently think that Commons is yet another social media site and they should have a "profile" here. You should look not only at a photo but also at the attached description. --jdx Re: 14:13, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
You mean something as this young businessman. Wouter (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. --jdx Re: 06:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

"My bad upload"

@Jeff G.: (and feel free to ping others who often help new users). Since it is so common for relatively new users to need their upload deleted, and since {{speedy|G7}} is rather obscure, I have introduced template {{My bad upload}}. If anyone wants to make friendly tweaks to that template, or to internationalize it, please feel free. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thanks, I tweaked it.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:22, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
Adding more templates may make the system harder to navigate. I suspect this alternate will be rarely used.
The CSD codes are optional, you can advise a newbie to use {{speedy|whatever reason}} or even just {{speedy}} for obvious mistakes, especially same day uploader requests. --Fæ (talk) 11:26, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Fæ: as long as they follow the instructions and "subst" it, it's basically just a shortcut way to make the request, which will shorten my more-than-daily explanation I end up giving at the help desk. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
"subst" itself is complicated enough to scare away newbies.--RZuo (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Please add documentation with {{Documentation}} insted of directly putting it in the main template page. Both ways work, but the {{Documentation}} method is much simpler and cleaner and is the recommended one. --YavBav09 (talk) 20:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Please provide input here or on Meta and during upcoming Global Conversation on 26-27 June 2021 about the Movement Charter drafting committee

Hello, I'm one of the Movement Strategy and Governance facilitators working on community engagement for the Movement Charter initiative.

We're inviting input widely from users of many projects about the upcoming formation of the Movement Charter drafting committee. You can provide feedback here, at the central discussion on Meta, at other ongoing local conversations, and during a Global Conversation upcoming on 26 and 27 June 2021.

“ The Movement Charter drafting committee is expected to work as a diverse and skilled team of about 15 members for several months. They should receive regular support from experts, regular community reviews, and opportunities for training and an allowance to offset costs. When the draft is completed, the committee will oversee a wide community ratification process. ”

—Creating the drafting committee

Further details and context about these questions is on Meta along with a recently-updated overview of the Movement Charter initiative. Feel free to ask questions, and add additional sub-sections as needed for other areas of interest about this topic.

If contributors are interested in participating in a call about these topics ahead of the Global Conversation on 26 and 27 June, please let me know. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

The three questions are:

  1. What composition should the committee have in terms of movement roles, gender, regions, affiliations and other diversity factors?
  2. What is the best process to select the committee members to form a competent and diverse team?
  3. How much dedication is it reasonable to expect from committee members, in terms of hours per week and months of work?

Choice of sort key

it's common to sort "XX by YY" with a key starting with a whitespace so that it appears before everything else.

which sort key should i actually use, " by YY" or " YY"?--RZuo (talk) 18:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd go straight to YY, unless you need to put all the "by"s in front of, perhaps, the "of"s. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Accidentally created duplicate template, how to resolve?

I created a template here which is a duplicate of an earlier template here. Mine should be deleted. I removed the places where I was planning to use it and used the older one instead. Am not sure how or where to request this and didn't just want to blank it. Pointers appreciated. Thank you! Jessamyn (talk) 03:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: You can add {{SD|G7}} to the page to request that an admin delete it - I did it for you. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:55, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Deleted. -- CptViraj (talk) 04:13, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. Jessamyn (talk) 15:40, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Urgent request : Wiki Loves Africa First Review

Hello ... we asked people previously to volunteer for the First Round of the Wiki Loves Africa 2021 review ... but 7 of these have let us down. Despite prompting several times they have not reviewed any images. WE NEED AT LEAST 10 VOLUNTEERS to finish the review THIS WEEK. It will only take 1-2 hours for a yes/no round on Montage as a first clean up round. If you are keen, please reply below with your Username and an email or contact me via my talk page. Thank you. Islahaddow (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Cheryl Strayed

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Cheryl Strayed. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Hot days categories

relaxing waiting passengers

If there any category for people relaxing (lounging about) in hot weather?Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

There is also no upper weather category for Category:Warm weather uniformsSmiley.toerist (talk) 11:40, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps looking for Category:People in sunshine? GeorgHH • talk   11:47, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
maybe create a new cat and put it somewhere under Category:Heat (meteorology).--RZuo (talk) 18:14, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Its more the people sitting or lying om hard surfaces not normaly used for lounging or relaxing. Example: File:Roosendaal reiziger 1.jpg. People on sunny beaches or posing in the sunshine is not what I am looking for. Unusual behavior during a hot day.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Category for an archive?

I'd appreciate some advice, please, on creating a category (or something else?) for an archive of photographs that have been released under a CC 4.0 licence. The photographs are from the Tribune newspaper, which was published by the Communist Party of Australia. The photographs are available via the State Library of New South Wales. There's potentially hundreds of images that would be appropriate to upload which cover an almost 40 year period. I've loaded up a number of images from the archive already (including some of Australia's most iconic political and artistic figures; such as Faith Bandler, Noel Counihan, Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

You can create a subcategory in Category:Images_from_newspapers_of_Australia. Ruslik (talk) 20:49, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Goldsztajn: you may wish include the images also in Category:Images from the State Library of NSW, and check that they have not already been uploaded. MKFI (talk) 06:08, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI and Ruslik0: many thanks for these helpful suggestions. I ended up creating two subcategories within these categories: Category:Images from The Tribune (Australia) and Category:Images courtesy of the SEARCH Foundation (the last is named according to a request from where the photos are located). Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Image deletion

I would like to delete the image

William_Robb
William_Robb

as I seem to have ticked the wrong box for copyright. It is my photo and I thought I had given copyright. I keep getting messages about it but can't delete it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bblqk37 (talk • contribs) 10:50, 24 June 2021‎ (UTC)

@Bblqk37: Please let Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Robb.jpg play out.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:37, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
@Bblqk37: Are you saying that you are the photographer or not? If you are, you should definitely weigh in at Commons:Deletion requests/File:William Robb.jpg. If not, then as Jeff said, just let it play out and the image will be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Lieon?!

What is this "[[Category:Lieon (given name)]]"?! What is "Lieon"?! Why is there not a single "Lieon" in that category?! William C. Minor (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

@William C. Minor: Hi. It appears to be a transliteration of Russian or Belarusian "Леон", and a homonym of "Leon" and "Léon". See also d:Q42373828. Pinging @JuTa as category creator.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, that was "renamed" on wikidata by another user in 2020 - see here. I noew "rennamed" it back - see here. All commons cats will get resorted fom Category:Lieon (given name) to Category:Léon (given name) automaticly within a few days or needs a nulledit. regards --JuTa 06:44, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests and withdrawing a nomination

Current guidance at COM:DR indicates that a request may only be withdrawn by a nominator if no one else has contributed. This is pretty clearly not common practice and it's fairly routine to allow a nominator to withdraw a request after a torrent of  Keep. We may want to consider updating this wording to indicate that either the withdrawal is uncontroversial, or that no one has !voted to delete the files. GMGtalk 12:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, if later copyright © issues are found people can always re-nominate them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:18, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Hmm. Well I was going to boldly adjust the wording, but I forget that the page is full protected. So I suppose it seems prudent to allow community input before taking an action that is a use of administrator access. GMGtalk 12:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
For reference, the discussion that led to the current version of this guideline is at Commons talk:Deletion requests/Archive 4#Nominator closure of deletions. --bjh21 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
In terms of policy, this makes more sense to me as no DR is ever literally "withdrawn"; because we don't delete them, they are actually a permanent DR record regardless.
Ignoring the word used, what is really happening is that the nominator is changing their mind about the nomination and requesting an early close without action. It's the person closing the DR that is choosing to keep the file based on whatever rationale put forward, they are just choosing to do that without waiting for the norm of 7 days.
The word "withdrawn" is just an easy way to describe this type of close, it's not a different or new procedure and there are many other circumstances when DRs are closed early. We also don't need a rule to say that it takes a nominator withdrawal to close early, that's not going to be true for all scenarios, including those where almost the exact opposite is happening.
To address the first paragraph, I agree, the guidance may not reflect what happens. It might be better to say less rather than more. --Fæ (talk) 18:36, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
You may have to forgive me. I'm not the sharpest crayon in the shed. Are we agreeing? GMGtalk 21:11, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I can't remember, there are too many words to keep track of. It might be clearer to propose the actual change being considered. --Fæ (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Change the template language sorting

Hello. I would like to change the sort order of this image. Currently it is sorted by script for each language, but I would like to sort it by language code with custom CSS or Javascript. How can I do that? Thank you. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

  • @TKsdik8900: Where exactly is it? Someone is only going to be able to answer that by looking at underlying code script (it's going to depend on what you have to do to get the language codes). But resorting with Javascript (and maybe jQuery) should be easy once you work out how to select those codes. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: I'm sorry, but I couldn't try it because I couldn't understand that. Could you please teach me about it more? --TKsdik8900 (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
    • @TKsdik8900: "Where exactly is it?" => what URL are you talking about?
    • Once you are at that URL, your browsers should offer "developer tools" or some such (probably via a menu or a right-click), which include the ability to look at the page source.
    • When you say "I would like to change the sort order of this image…" I presumed you meant you wanted to write script to do so, but I take it from your remarks that I probably misunderstood and you are asking for someone else to write script to do this. Someone might choose to, but there is a long list of pending tech requests, and I doubt this would be seen as a high priority. But I could be wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 01:57, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@TKsdik8900: What is the source of that image? I mean the page you screenshot.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:35, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Template:Speedydelete#Localization (Template:Speedydelete/lang) is. You will probably see this on other template pages as well. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 13:01, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@TKsdik8900: Thanks. Language sort order on Template:Speedydelete/lang may be discussed at Template talk:Speedydelete/lang. The larger issue of language sort order on all such templates may be discussed at Template talk:Autotranslate.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. I'll try it. --TKsdik8900 (talk) 13:53, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
@TKsdik8900: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:24, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
So I looked at the source.
  • The parent of this all is a paragraph that unfortunately has no element ID; it would be good for someone to add one so that any client-side changescould easily be confined to that area.
  • Similarly, there is no span around the entry for each individual language; it would be good if there were, for similar reasons.
  • As it stands, any script has to somehow find the right paragraph and ignore things like &#160;<b>∙</b>&#32; between languages, then stitch back together with a similar separator as a final step.
  • A typical entry is <a class="external text" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Template:Speedydelete/en"><bdi class="language lang-en" lang="en">English</bdi></a>
  • So... once you find those, you can use Javascript to parse them apart, find the lang="FOO" part, and put them back in the desired order. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

File disambigs

Hi, I recently sumbled over some file disambigs like this one. I allready reverted it back once to a normal redirect but they now got switched back. Is this anyhow senefull or not? In my eyes it cannot do what ever is intended to. --JuTa 15:20, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

PS: Pinging User:Cmuelle8 who created the disambigs. --JuTa 15:21, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The image is part of a template scheme for drawing railway line diagrams (and roads, canals and other things). The filenames are generated by rule and this disambiguation page prompts the user to make the correct choice between having blue in front of red or vice versa. Take a look at BSicon for the full story. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 22:05, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
Exactly, according to the rule set there are two possibilities that satisfy the name uexmABZl+l.
BSicon graphics are read from top to bottom. Left is defined to be left of a through line from the icon's top center to its bottom center. Capital letters of the graphic usually form a so called root element - letters prepended form a prefix, those appended a suffix.
In that suffix, if a + appears, letters prepended to + form a to-group, those appended to + a from-group. As an example:
BSicon STR.svg
BSicon STRl.svg
BSicon ABZgl.svg
BSicon uABZg+l.svg
In uABZg+l, consider a train running from icon's top to bottom. Notice how it cannot turn to left. But in another scenario a train could run from left (to bottom).
For the purpose of naming BSicon graphics, left and right always relate to a through line running from icon's top to bottom. This holds, even when the through line is absent or rotated 90° and referred to as an across line.
This may have historical reasons and if it were subject to change, a lot of icons would have to be renamed and a lot of people creating or using these graphics would have to rethink. Consider that at the start of 2021 some 260,000 BSicons existed on commons.
BSicon mABZgl.svg
BSicon umABZgl.svg
Prefixing m to the root element adds the notion of mixing heavy rail icons (no prefix letter) with light rail (denoted by using u prefix). Within the scope of 2way junctions this means exactly two graphic elements are mixed.
Mixing introduces layering, one line can overlap the other (z-layering in graphic software). By convention, if a through or across line is present, then prefix m names classify icons using it as a heavy rail (red) one, overlapping other. Contrarily, prefix um uses it as a light rail (blue) one, overlapping other. (There are exemptions to this, if the through line represents out-of-service state, denoted by an x in prefix.) For these two cases compare the two icons depicted above.
Notice that there are two more variations by just reordering z-layer:
BSicon ABZmgl.svg
BSicon uABZmgl.svg
For these variations the naming scheme allows m in suffix of the root element, rather than in prefix. Historically, this appeared at a later point in time. In suffix, m can appear multiple times, but not as many times as there are graphic elements (or z-layers). This is maximum one m for 2way junctions, maximum two m for 3way junctions.
Given an unmixed version, mono-colored xyz, as a reference (no m in name), then any suffix letter corresponding to a graphic element (e. g. l,r,g,q) that is prepended by m implicates
  • that element is mixed compared to the reference version (this means it is not colored xyz) and
  • that it underlaps any elements identical to the reference (drawn below those colored xyz)
If the root element's suffix is l+l there are "lines" from top to left and from left to bottom (top, left, bottom as defined).
  • Unmixed scenario: both z-layer variants yield the same visual result, thus l+l does not need a supplement to differentiate a reversed layering
  • Mixed: there are four cases, but mABZl+l and umABZl+l only distinguish between two. The method above, m in suffix of root element, is used to distinguish all four.
BSicon ABZl+ml.svg
BSicon uABZl+ml.svg
BSicon ABZml+l.svg
BSicon uABZml+l.svg
(Re)directing mABZl+l and umABZl+l would be biased, there are simply no arguments why a specific of the two choices each should be prefered. In those cases it is long-term stable to have a disambiguation page rather than a biased redirect - that will probably toggle at will over time.
You may find that some of the explanations are not general enough to explain the naming of more complex cases, but it should suffice to understand most simple ones, and as to why some names seem counter-intuitive, if just a single icon out of set is picked. In addition, be aware that some things are in flux and possibly redefined in attempts to fit names for new icons, which is why in time some of the statements may --JuTa 22:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC) falsify. --Cmuelle8 (talk) 08:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Thats nice but not working. If someone used the filenames on wikipedia or anywhere else, they will just get the file of the redirect and will never see the disambig. If you remove the redirect, the usage will just not work, but the disambig will not be shown. The file namespace ist simply not designed for disambigs. --JuTa 15:38, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Yes, exactly as intended. These file names must not be used in wikipedia or anywhere else. They are solely filled with a disambiguation page to clearly make anyone aware that this file name should not be uploaded to. If you think, the disambiguation banner is wrong in File namespace, you could replace it with simple text. But in any case, please stick with the usage of Template:Other2 to make BSicon creators and users aware that an actual graphic with these filename(s) does not make sense according to the rule set they are working with. It absolutely helps others not to run into a trap of redoing things
I do think that the banner is handy though, because it explicitly requests, quote, "if an internal link referred you here, you might want to go back and fix it to point directly to the intended page". This is exactly what should happen: fix all links to point directly to the dis-ambiguous titles. --91.55.167.136 16:42, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
The redirects now got removed again from those files. If you now use those filenames you just get a redlink and if you click on it to will directed to the upload page. Your nice disambig explanation will nobody be able to see. See here: File:BSicon uexmABZl+l.svg, File:BSicon uexmABZl+l.svg (with colon) --JuTa 22:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Is that really the most helpful position to leave these filenames in? Railwayfan2005 (talk) 19:55, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I now decided to start a regular deletion request for them - see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Disambiguation/File. Please continue the discussion there. --JuTa 07:39, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Pont de Fusta station

@Smiley.toerist: @Frnevado: @Falk2: @Pacopac: @CFA1877: @Joanbanjo: I'm creating Wikidata Q for some listed buildings in València with low protection level (BIE). And it happens that the old building of Pont de Fusta station is included.
The category we have includes (i) pictures of present day tram station (ii) pictures of the old FEVE station at work (if anybody has pre-FEVE stuff, it would be cool you uploaded them) (iii) pictures of the listed building, some old but mostly recent (it's now used as a police station), (iv) other stuff.
I've created two new categories, one for the building (that's what I'm really dealing with now) another for pre-Metrovalencia stuff. This last category is far from perfect as Pont de Fusta worked for several years (1988 to about 1995, I think) for Metrovalencia but giving service to old FEVE lines, until those were transformed. So pictures from that period would be in an odd situation. As for now, I think we don't have any, but with luck and time... Well, if there's a better idea about how to deal with it, I'd be more than grateful.

Versió valenciana: Estic amb els monumentets de València i a l'Estació del Pont de Fusta li ha tocat: és BIE. Aleshores, li farè el seu Q com cal. Però a la categoria Pont de Fusta station hi ha una barreja de coses. En tenim de l'estació de tramvia, fotos de les platges de vies de FEVE amb material de FEVE, i fotos de l'edifici protegit (que actualment és la caserna central de la Policia Autonòmica... em mossegue les neurones, que anava a fer un acudit). Qüestió, que he ficat les fotos de l'edifici per un costat i per un altre les d'abans de Matrovalencia. Sembla una solució senzilla, però el dia que aparega una foto de -per exemple- 1993 resultarà que correspon a la distribució de vies i tal vella però amb l'ús nou. Tot això és per si voleu fer un ordre diferent -l'única cosa que realment té que quedar separada és l'edifici. Si el problema fos que en tenim mogolló de fotos de tots els temps i de tot el material, escolteu, que jo a això m'apunte.

B25es (talk) 17:24, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Server switch

The Wikimedia Foundation tests the switch between its first and secondary data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster. To make sure everything is working, the Wikimedia Technology department needs to do a planned test. This test will show if they can reliably switch from one data centre to the other. It requires many teams to prepare for the test and to be available to fix any unexpected problems.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

  • You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Tuesday, 29 June 2021. The test will start at 14:00 UTC (07:00 PDT, 10:00 EDT, 15:00 WEST/BST, 16:00 CEST, 19:30 IST, 23:00 JST, and in New Zealand at 02:00 NZST on Wednesday 30 June).
  • If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

  • Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
  • There will be code freezes for the week of June 28. Non-essential code deployments will not happen.
This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule. There will be more notifications about this. A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. Please share this information with your community.

SGrabarczuk (WMF) 01:19, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

For how many users do the styles fail? I see Commons almost without styles since yesterday. --Watchduck (quack) 09:48, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Mural image at the Signpost

Upon reading w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-06-27/In the media, the first thing that caught my attention is File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg, image of a mural in Edinburgh, Scotland made by muralist Ross Blair, who is apparently still alive. This artwork is located in UK, where freedom of panorama does not extend to most 2D graphic works, most especially murals. Since it is heavily used and nominating it by myself may cause some furor, I'm seeking for second opinion here. Also pinging the uploader @Melissa Highton: , if she ever obtained tangible authorization from the artist for the release of her image of his artwork under CC licensing. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:54, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of the uploader's other photos seem fine, I see two others that might need further scrutiny.
As the VP is not the way to layout a record of discussion about copyright about this work, I'll be bold and raise a DR for it. Ref Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ross Blair – Frederick Douglass.jpg. --Fæ (talk) 08:20, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Barbara Christie

Dr. Barbara Christie is a Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) educator who has worked to improve the pipeline of minorities and women studying STEM at college level and going onto STEM careers since 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Drbchristie (talk • contribs) 16:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry, but why is this relevant here? --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 20:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Drbchristie: Please put the description (and appropriate categories) on the file page for your photo, not on the Village Pump, which is intended as a place to discuss issues of broad interest. - Jmabel ! talk 23:39, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Exif printouts at the file information page now link to en.wikipedia for the Camera model, manufactorer and software used fields, regardless wether articles in the en.wikipedia do exist or even should exist.

meta data of video files are still not shown on file descrption pages and most meta data of videos and images are striped from thumbs i.e. the webstatement field that links to the license text.

--C.Suthorn (talk) 20:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - England rugby (ALAMY, PA Images)

Emmeline Pankhurst, 1908. The other photograph included in this DMCA copyright claim.

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#England rugby. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of adding "ALAMY" to this subtitle. ALAMY are notorious for profiting massively from copyfraud, including in this DMCA takedown where they have claimed that Emmeline Pankhurst and other suffragette leaders 1908.jpg is the copyright of PA Images. Outrageously ALAMY would charge £4,570 for someone to host the Pankhurst photograph on a website when they conveniently forget to mention it is actually public domain.
For this reason, this DMCA notice must be treated with a high level of scepticism because any copyright claim from ALAMY must be considered "unreliable". --Fæ (talk) 07:45, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

User:DIALLO 25 (aparece que sea hispanohablante) dice que es su misma obra. DIALLO, ¿hay algo de decir? - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Did the WMF-Legal ever reply to Fæ's comments above? I am curious why they would believe the claimants (ALAMY) for the rugby picture but not for the Billingpank picture of women. That aside, how did ALAMY even establish that they own the copyrights over the photograph? How did they acquire these rights? According to this article ALAMY is known to issue legal threats to people for photographs that they don't own the copyrights to. I do not see anywhere how they claimed to have acquired these (legal) rights and why the WMF would delete one (1) but not the other. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:56, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

File:Groenland map 1937 Gallica.jpg is today's featured image. Is nobody looking at the licensing before making these featured? It's got {{PD-BNF}}, which is irrelevant for a Danish image, and it's got {{Self}} which makes some sense if the uploader made some possibly copyrightable changes, but does nothing for the underlying work. There's no license on this work that is relevant to the copyright status of a 1937 Danish map. Off the top of my head, I have no idea what the general status of 80 year old maps is in Denmark; it's hardly old enough to be obvious.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

According to Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Denmark the maps appear to be under the perpetual copyright protection in Denmark. Ruslik (talk) 20:45, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
I agree and have created a deletion request. -- Discostu (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My own design for oxyfuel combustion

Hi I am John Jackson , inventor designer and environmental thinker, I would like to ask the wikipedia community if I or someone can do an entry for my design for the oxyfuel section of the wikipedia . Basically i think i have designed a much more efficient power station , and it will be really useful for the high temperature combustion of wastes , and it has a number of modalities including being able to convert CO2 into CH4 via the Sabatier process , acquiring Hydrogen from water electrolysis, and making a fuel that enables ,zero carbon energy systems. It can also produce clean water for irrigation. I can supply an article for editing , but i assume i cannot edit a page myself and need to ask someone in the community to do this.?? many thanks John Jackson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oxyfuel2021 (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Wrong order. First you build it, test it, etc. — make sure that it actually exists and other people recognize that (e.g. by writing about it). Then is the time to get it into Wikipedia. If you just want to share a design, Wikipedia is not the right place for you. In that case: write it up, submit it to a suitable scientific journal, have it peer reviewed and get it published there (you will probably need to find someone experienced in this who's willing to support you there). If it gathers traction in the scientific community, it may make its way into Wikipedia through this route. That's of course assuming that it's all thought through already. If you just want a place to informally discuss your ideas, maybe try engineering.stackexchange.com or r/engineering/. — El Grafo (talk) 13:05, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Letter by Albert Einstein

I recently came across this:

Is this letter by Albert Einstein copyrighted? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:20, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

My guess is the letter is an unpublished work, so its copyright term is 70 years after Einstein's death in 1955.
https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain
Glrx (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

Border removal conflict

Many (but far from all) images in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive with borders have {{Remove border}}. However, I noticed at least one revert of a crop on one of these, but {{Remove border}} was not removed. That is obviously not ideal; they should either be cropped or they should be marked {{Border is intentional}}{{Extract image}} instead. The borders contain textual information, all of which is reflected in the file description. Should these borders be removed from these images? – BMacZero (🗩) 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bahnmoeller, A1B2C3D4, and Duesentrieb: – BMacZero (🗩) 17:04, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
@BMacZero: We should also have a version with borders removed, but it should be under a distinct filename. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Do not change the original image with the integrated description. You may create a cropped version. --Bahnmoeller (talk) 12:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all, I retagged the images appropriately. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:27, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Flat list of flags?

is there a flat list category of flags? if not, is it a good idea to have one?--RZuo (talk) 18:49, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: No there, is not. It is probably not a good idea because such a category would contain many thousands of flags: past, present, fictional, low quality, high quality, local, national, international, corporate, etc. It might make sense if there were a category that were like "Current, high quality, SVG flags of recognized countries", though.  Mysterymanblue  07:50, 30 June 2021
i was looking for a flag, so i wondered if there would be a cat "flags by name". i'd find such a cat interesting and useful.--RZuo (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: So like a category that is like “Flags by name” and containing “Flags of countries starting with the letter A”, “Flags of Countries starting with the letter B”, etc.? I don’t know of any Commons category that does that, and the reason is that categories should be about separating media by idea rather than by the way one language represents them. If you know the name of a flag, you can just use the search bar. Or maybe I am not understanding your suggestion properly?  Mysterymanblue  06:14, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
well there is Category:Locomotive nameplates by name Oxyman (talk) 06:39, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Touché. I guess the distinction I'd draw in my head between these two things is that a nameplate is literally a short run of text on a piece of metal, so subcategorizing by the properties of that text perhaps makes sense. Flags, however, are the representations of places, groups, ideologies, etc., and the names for the things they represent can vary wildly from language to language (or even within one language), so maybe organizing by name isn't the best idea. Maybe I'm just rationalizing what I want to believe, though. At the end of the day, the presence of a name-based category for flags probably isn't going to hurt anyone.  Mysterymanblue  07:09, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

PD-ineligible logo can't be imported to Wikimedia Commons

This logo:

Is ineligible for copyright as it's too simple to be copyrighted, however, the "Export to Wikimedia Commons" button doesn't seem to work. How do I import this work to Wikimedia Commons? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:18, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

The error message I get is "Can't import file because at least one of its file revisions is hidden." Some revisions are hidden because, for whatever reason, this file is marked as a non-free logo on enwiki, and it is standard to hide old revisions of these files because keeping them around would not be fair use. The most obvious solution would be to just download the file and upload it to Commons, but this obviously comes with its disadvantages. Someone more experienced than me might know the right way to go about this (if it exists).  Mysterymanblue  12:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
I suppose the "clean" solution would be: Remove the fair use template and replace it with with whatever enwiki uses for PD-ineligible, then get an admin to un-hide the previous revisions. Then revert to the original high-quality version and import to Commons (or the other way round). -- El Grafo (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
But we don't really need the history on a PD image. Just download to your machine, re-upload here under the same name, and put en:Template:Nowcommons on the en-wiki page. - Jmabel ! talk 15:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
The Commons Helper Tool can be used in cases like this. I believe a suitable free license template needs to be in place first, and I always swap the "Non-free use rationale" template with the generic "Information" before transfer. --Animalparty (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
If the original or a better version is hidden, then an admin is needed in any case. We might not need the history, unless there were copyrightable changes, but we want the original if possible, and we don't want a lower quality version. There are also situations where PD status is (or may be) disputed, and in those cases the file should be left at en-wp even if uploaded here. –LPfi (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Add metadata step of Upload is broken?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T285579

No matter what photo I upload, this step says

Items portrayed in this file fishermen

Is this some kind of AI being deployed and wrongly thinking the photos depicting fishing (which they didn't). But I could not see how to override this, nor was there a way to add the "depicts" in the usual way. The only thing I could do was Skip This Step. Does anyone know what is happening? Kerry Raymond (talk)

I am also having this issue. When I get to this step, it always just shows some blank space instead of the search box I am used to seeing. (I have been uploading only audio files recently.)  Mysterymanblue  02:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
@Kerry Raymond and Mysterymanblue: That sounds like T285579. --Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify: this is Special:UploadWizard. Special:Upload is fine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the "fishermen": someone vandalized (or made a lot of mistaken edits to) the Wikidata property for depicts, changing it to "fisherman", "red harbor light", etc. in several languages. The changes have been reverted, but it may take a while for all displays to return to normal. --Animalparty (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
What can we do to mitigate the effects of such vandalism on our project and uploaders?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Stop allowing so much free reign by not logged in randoms. IMO overdue. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 02:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
OK, the Add Meta-Step is working again, sort of. It does not ask about which features are prominent any more. Intentional or still a lurking bug? Kerry Raymond (talk) 05:13, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

Photos relatives à la page Charles GARNIER statuaire qui a été supprimée le 21 juin 2021

Bonjour La page concernant Charles GARNIER statuaire a été supprimée le 21 juin 2021 J'ai demandé une suppression des photos que j'avais téléchargées dans Commons, à ce jour rien n'a été fait, Elles n'ont plus aucune utilité puisqu'elles ne correspondent à aucune page de Wikipédia Merci de faire le nécessaire Cordialement--Heliambre (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)--2A01:CB05:839B:E700:AD43:6836:41C6:1BAC 08:37, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

  • While being used in Wikipedia is sufficient to place an image in Commons' scope, it is not necessary. There is plenty that belongs in Commons without having a corresponding page in Wikipedia. What images exactly are you talking about, and on what basis should they be deleted? Are they copyright violations? Out of Commons scope? - Jmabel ! talk 15:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Seems like they are asking for a courtesy deletion through the following deletion requests:
--HyperGaruda (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Not being used in a Wikipedia article is not basis for deletion. In addition, I have used File:Fiche d'inscription à la Société des Artistes.jpg to reference in Q107361076 the date and place of birth of Mr Garnier and also that he was a sculptor. Unfortunatelly the exact date of death is not mentioned, just month and year. B25es (talk) 17:23, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

I cannot see the page fr:Charles Garnier (statuaire), but it seems to have been deleted because of the article being weak, not because of the sculptor being non-notable: I could find no deletion discussion, rather it seems it was a speedy deleted by an individual admin. Looking at the works, it seems the sculptor probably should be regarded as notable. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/06&oldid=574852953"