Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/08

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

FPCBot user message bug

If a user gets a notification about a promoted featured picture, and the nomination is not the first attempt, the link in the message will still lead to the page name of the first failed nomination. Other bots (Quality or Valued picture) might have the same issue, haven't checked. Look at my user page discussion section for an example. Anonimski (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anonimski: The best person to contact about that is KTC. 1989 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Has something changed in Commons search integration with Wikidata?

I have a strong memory that Commons search engine worked in a slightly different way a few months ago. When I typed something in Search Wikimedia Commons searchbox, let's say Amsterdam, one of suggestions in the drop down list was obviously related to Wikidata, it said something like "Files depicting Amsterdam (Q727)", and the search results displayed images that have "depicts: Q727" in their structured data.

Has this changed? Is there a way to force this type of search when I need it? I tried to find it today, and failed :) --Tupungato (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Tupungato: in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there is an option Wdsearch: When searching on Commons, also include search results from Wikidata which could be activated. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tupungato: . Earlier this year, we removed the "files depicting..." feature from the search box, since the new search experience uses depicts as a search input. You can read more details in this Village Pump announcement. CBogen (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Board Elections Postponed Until August 18th

Hello, all.

As you know, the Board election was due to open on August 4th. Due to some technical issues with SecurePoll, the election must be delayed by two weeks. This means we plan to launch the election on August 18th, which is the day after Wikimania concludes.

For information on the technical issues, you can see the Phabricator ticket here.

You can also read this announcement in other languages here.

We are truly sorry for this delay and hope that we will get back on schedule on August 18th. We are in touch with the Elections Committee and the candidates to coordinate next steps. We will update the Board election Talk page and this channel as we know more. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Invalid and illegal wiki maps

Hello, all.

if you look at these images uploaded to WikiCommens, you will see that all of them have been uploaded to WikiCommens without reference to any credible source. And in most of them, the regions, Armenians, Kurds, Persians, Arabs, as well as other ethnic groups have been introduced as Turkic and Turkic-speaking. ([1] In this map, you can see that the regions that have never been counted as Azerbaijan have been counted as South Azerbaijan, for example, the Kurdish regions of Makrian and Kurdistan province and the Persian regions of Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, etc.) – ([2] The map explicitly refers to Kurdish, Arab, Persian, Armenian, Georgian, and Talysh regions; The Kurdish and Arab provinces of Erbil, Kirkuk, Diyala, Salahuddin and Ninawa in Iraq, as well as the Persian provinces of Qom, Qazvin and Arak in Iran. In this invalid map, even the whole country of Armenia, which has a history of several thousand years in the region, is considered part of Azerbaijan! This map shows several provinces in Georgia as well as mixed areas in Turkey.) – ([3] In this map of Kurdish areas; Kermanshah, Sanandaj and Makrian, the Talysh regions of Gilan, as well as the Persian regions of Qom, Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, Karaj and even the capital of Iran «Tehran» are incorrectly except Azerbaijan!) – ([4] This map is also taken from [File:Idioma azerí.png|this map], but with the difference that a person whose account in Persian Wikipedia has been closed due to multiple accounts and violations of Wikipedia rules, has created it and to the Kurdish areas in the west and southwest, areas In the south and east, the Persians have invaded the Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as parts of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Georgia, and mentioned it with an Azeri majority!) – ([5] This map also has several errors in the Oghuz languages ​​regarding Turkish and Azeri. The Persian-speaking regions of Iran and the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, which I mentioned above, are among these two languages, for example, the city of Erbil in the Kurdistan region and the Kurdish city of Diyarbakir in Turkey, as well as the city of Tehran!) – ([6] The latest map also includes several mistakes in Eurasia!) Now I ask Wikinews administrators to remove incorrect files, such as the ones I mentioned, to prevent duplication between valid and invalid files. You may say that these areas may be among the disputed areas between Turks and other ethnic groups, but are Tehran, Yerevan and Erbil also among these areas? Thank you very much. Ahrir (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

I found this website about Louis Renault that contains a wealth of images related to him personally and the early years of the automotive company Renault. As I am already working on a lot of projects I can't adopt this one either, so anyone interested can import from this website, preferably categorise these files at "Category:Files from Louisrenault.com". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:25, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Is there a Flickr to Commons bot I could request upload from a set of URLs and add an OTRS pending template?

Hi all

Is anyone aware of a bot or other automated way I could request to upload around 300 images from Flickr the copyright holder wants to share on Commons but doesn't want to change the license on Flickr for? They want to share under CC BY-SA 4.0 which Flickr doesn't offer so I can't use Flickr2Commons.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @John Cummings: I take it that the current Flickr license is not an allowable one for Flickr2Commons? Because if they can come through Flickr2Commons, we can easily change the license with VFC once they are on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 05:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel yes its not an allowable one. Also the issue is that its just a list of URLs not a specific collection or their whole photo stream so using Flickr2Commons won't work very well. John Cummings (talk) 08:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If the Flickr user puts the files they want to donate in a Flickr album, this avoids the weirdness of listing URLs and the album can be uploaded as a block. I have a generic 'upload by album' script which can bypass everything else, and tweaking to change the license would be trivial. As 300 files is small, I'd rather not have to invest programming time in any significant customization beyond that. --Fæ (talk) 10:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Fæ (talk · contribs), thanks so much, so I just need to ask them to put it in an album and tell you the album? Would it be possible for your software to use my favourites list as an album so the Flickr guy at the organisation doesn't have to press 320 x 5 buttons? John Cummings (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
If they let others tag their photos, it would be easier to filter by a specific flickrtag, like "wikimediacommons", as detecting these is already in the code. You tagging their photos would be almost as easy, plus they can add more later using that system. --Fæ (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fæ :) Currently they don't allow this but I can ask, one other idea, can you use a gallery e.g this as a way to scoop them all up? This would mean I would only need to do 600 clicks which is pretty easy to churn through. John Cummings (talk) 15:35, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
p.s Fæ, Multichill has pointed out flickrripper.py, I'm not sure if this is what you already use or not. John Cummings (talk) 17:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I currently use flickrapi directly which is very stable for python and itself is something I've moved to during migrating stuff to python3. I tried flickrripper a few years ago and it created more problems than seemed worth working around or debugging.
If I do something new, like set up pulling from a gallery list, I may as well be pulling from somewhere else. What form is your list of 'urls' in? If it can be read as the list of flickr photoIDs then pulling it in may be the same amount of work. Again this is a small upload, so it's best that the way it happens is something I might reuse for something else. --Fæ (talk) 18:22, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fæ the urls are just plain links to Flickr images e.g [7]https://www.flickr.com/photos/wipo/50583189738/. I didn't realise it would be additional work if it was in gallery or a list, so I can just do it by hand. Thanks very much for the explanation. John Cummings (talk) 23:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Wrong display format of date of Template:Information

in cantonese the date should be yyyy年m月d號, but current display is d m月 yyyy. how to correct this?--RZuo (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

RZuo, the best place to discuss this is at Template talk:Date and perhaps Jarekt can help you with this problem. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
RZuo I added "yue" language to Data:DateI18n.tab where this information is kept. Below are various outputs for different cases. Are they correct?
  • {{Date |year=2021 |month=9 |day=8 |hour=11 |minute=27 |second=15 |lang=yue }} → 2021年9月8號, 11:27:15
  • {{Date |year=2021 |month=9 |day=8 |lang=yue }} → 2021年9月8號
  • {{Date |year=2021 |month=9 |lang=yue }} → 2021年9月
  • {{Date |year=2021 |lang=yue }} → 2021年
  • {{Date |month=9 |day=8 |lang=yue }} → 9月8號
  • {{Date |month=9 |lang=yue }} → 9月
--Jarekt (talk) 03:36, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
thank you! your edits to Data:DateI18n.tab are good. we indeed prefer 號 over 日 for dates. RZuo (talk) 06:42, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I feel it's my duty to add 18+ warnings to links to sites with significant adult content whenever I post on the Internet. I do not want to potentially harm children. Back then, I didn't realize CWCiki is an adults-only site due to how much NSFW content there is (there's supposed to be a warning, but it may not be reliably placed). PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 20:19, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand why you would want to add a "18+" warning to that particular page. The image has already deleted (and showed no adult content when it was here). -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:37, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Infrogmation: I meant the URL. (I also fixed your indention. Also, put {{reply to|(insert username of user you're replying to here)}} and a space in front of your message whenever you reply to someone so that you can notify them.) PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 21:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@PrincessPandaWiki: the link leads to a completely innocuous page. Are you saying we need a warning because of content elsewhere on the site? Would you make a warning every time we link to Flickr? Or to ourselves? Or am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 22:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I don't attach warnings to mainstream sites such as Flickr or Twitter because that would be silly. CWCiki is a more niche site, along the lines of Encyclopedia Dramatica. (In fact, CWCiki spun off Encyclopedia Dramatica's article on Christine Weston Chandler.) PrincessPandaWiki (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@PrincessPandaWiki: Given that it would be a remark on your own comment, I see no problem with you adding a warning. - Jmabel ! talk 23:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know any software to extract pages from a pdf as invidual svgs?

Hi all

I'm working with an organisation who have agreed to release a lot of graphs to Commons, however they only have them inside a 100+ page pdf. Does anyone know of a program that can easily (ie no command line stuff) allow someone to batch export pages from a pdf as individual svgs?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 15:38, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, I would consider command line usage the most easiest form to do this. For example, pdf2svg could be helpful. --AFBorchert (talk) 16:29, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks AFBorchert I tried this today but I just can't get it to run, I think I just don't understand enough command line stuff to be able to use the instructions, e.g 'Do the normal ./configure && make && make install', I have no idea what this means.... John Cummings (talk) 17:25, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Which platform are you using and what exactly went wrong? Any error messages? --AFBorchert (talk) 17:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
You should not try to compile it using "./configure" etc. Just install the binaries. I can help you here, provided you could identify your platform. --AFBorchert (talk) 17:31, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks AFBorchert, Windows 10, it looks like there is no stable version for Windows anyway. Do you know of anything else I could try that isn't command line? John Cummings (talk) 17:59, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
John Cummings, did you try pdf2svg-windows which is already precompiled? I'm afraid I am not of any help if you insist on leaving the command line. And I have absolutely no experience with Windows 10. I just know that a command line exists ;) Good luck! --AFBorchert (talk) 19:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, yes I'm aware of it but the instructions for installing are beyond me, especially 'To cross compile for Windows under Linux, simply install the relevant cross-compiler packages (for Fedora this is mingw32-cairo and mingw32-poppler and their dependencies) and then replace “./configure” in the compilation instructions above with “mingw32-configure” or “mingw64-configure”.' John Cummings (talk) 19:30, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
John Cummings, you do not need to recompile this package, just download the binaries and you are done. The instructions you quote are directed to those who are interested in reproducing these binaries. You have two options for downloading:
* Use "git clone https://github.com/jalios/pdf2svg-windows.git" on the command line (if you happen to have git).
* Or download https://github.com/jalios/pdf2svg-windows/archive/refs/heads/master.zip into some directory and unpack it using unzip.
Then you will find the subdirectories dist-32bits and dist-64bits for 32-bit and 64-bit Windows, respectively. Within these subdirectories are the shared libraries and the pdf2svg.exe executable which can be invoked from the command line as described. Good luck! --AFBorchert (talk) 19:52, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@AFBorchert: , thanks very much for your help. I managed to install Ubuntu on an old laptop and install pdf2svg, I have one last issue, I don't understand what command I need to do to get it to extract all pages as svgs not just the first page which I get by using 'pdf2svg input.pdf output.svg'. I can't work out what command I need to use to tell is to do all the pages as separate files, any suggestions? The instructions are written as pdf2svg <input.pdf> <output.svg> [<page no of pdf or "all">] but I simply can't find a version of this command that actually works. I'll improve the instructions on Commons so it can help others and remind me for next time. Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 11:35, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

John Cummings, I am glad that you managed to install Ubuntu. This makes everything much easier! You can solve your problem using following command line: “pdf2svg input.pdf output-%02d.svg all”. The selector “all” causes all pages to be converted and the pattern “%02d” will be replaced by the respective page numbers. Hence, you will get then output files named output-00.svg, output-01.svg etc. BTW, Ubuntu (and other Unix-like systems) have manual pages. Using “man pdf2svg” will deliver you a manpage with a description on how to use this utility. I hope this helps. Best wishes, AFBorchert (talk) 12:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks very much AFBorchert, it works great, I've added the command to the instructions here. John Cummings (talk) 13:34, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

License review

We seem to be building up a backlog at Category:Flickr review needed. Does anyone know whether some bot has stopped? - Jmabel ! talk 23:41, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I think it's mainly the result of recent mass uploading via Flickr2Commons. User:FlickreviewR 2 bot seems to be working okay, but it gets swamped just like a human. A more pressing backlog is at Category:Flickr images needing human review. --Animalparty (talk) 00:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

First photos available from WIPO on Commons

Hi all

I'm very pleased to say that WIPO (part of the UN) have agreed to release photos to Commons, the first 110 photos are now available of cultural and technology exhibitions and their buildings. If you could help encourage them to release more by adding them to Wikipedia articles I'd really appreciate it. Category:Photographs_created_by_WIPO

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking this category with [8] Wikidata item

I look for the ID of the category in Wikidata, but it tells me that it does not exist ... and I just created it! So I add the statement "Commons category" in Wikidata, but it doesn't connect either! Please can someone do it for me?
Category:Acapulco chair + Wikidata Item Q108040647
thank you, --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@El Mono Español: You have to add the category next to "commons" under "Multilingual Sites" in Wikidata. I did it. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. BMacZero! --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 11:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Tratactus Induciarum Cessationis omnis hostilitatis actus, ut Navigations ac Commercipariterque succurssus factus, initus conclusus Hagae Comitis die duodecimâ Iunij 1641.pdf

Any clues on how this should be categorised?? File:Tratactus Induciarum Cessationis omnis hostilitatis actus, ut Navigations ac Commercipariterque succurssus factus, initus conclusus Hagae Comitis die duodecimâ Iunij 1641.pdf. My Latin is not up to it!--Headlock0225 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be a 1641 peace treaty to enable commercial trade, or trade agreements, negotiated in the Hague. The filename needs fixing to be better Latin than a literal transcription. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It is apparently en:Treaty of The Hague (1641). I am not familiar with categorization of ancient treaties, but Category:Treaties with Portugal as a party and Category:Treaties with the Netherlands as a party (or some subcategories that probably do not exist yet) as well as Category:Events in The Hague (or some subcategory) could be good. A an appropriate subcategory of Category:Treaties by year for 1641 might be good as well. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ and Robert Flogaus-Faust. I am not going to attempt a correct Latin file name though! "Treaty of The Hague (1641)" will do just fine.--Headlock0225 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

PD-old-architecture

I've just created {{PD-old-architecture}}, meant for images of buildings from countries with no suitable freedom of panorama but are now in public domain. This relies on {{PD-old-auto}}, while the lower part is based on {{PD-US-architecture}} (as said by some users, for US compliance). Files tagged with this will be categorized under Category:PD old architecture, not to mention the already-existing categories used by PD-old-auto. This is what has transpired from both Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/03#PD-US-architecture for Icelandic buildings? and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/05#Proposal for a PD-architecture tag or similar. Because in reality I believe {{PD-US-architecture}} and the accompanying Category:PD US architecture must be confined only to images of pre-December 1990 US buildings themselves (like those of Empire State Building, Willis Tower, or U.S. Bank Tower); it may just cause some confusion because images of buildings from no FOP countries are tagged by a template that is supposed to be exclusive for US buildings only (as indicated at COM:FOP US).

If the template I created needs fixes and other refinements, feel free to do so. Besides I will not use this for a while until several users say so.

Ping the two participants from the March 2021 discussion, @Brainulator9 and Ymblanter: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, seems useful. There was indeed a lot of confusion about the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I made a correction to the documentation, as I actually used the whole {{PD-old-auto}} as the main body of the template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: That's good idea. One more suggestion. What about Template:PD-ineligible-architecture, which can be used in copyright-free buildings due to its simple structure? This too is for countries that do not have freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: that is highly impractical in my opinion. Threshold of originality varies country by country, even to countries with no freedom of panorama. In some no FOP jurisdictions like France, the courts have already set the TOO standards in their rulings. I don't see the need for a PD-ineligible tag for tangible architecture as of this moment. Unlike this PD template, which is both flexible (as I used the PD-old-auto as its main body) and compatible with the copyright durations as stated in the copyright laws of the countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. How about {{PD-old-sculpture}}? It's used for sculptures whose author died a long time ago. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: not possible to create PD-old-sculpture. For one thing it is highly impractical and wastes time of users and admins to tag such. And another thing, sculptures are copyrightable works in the United States. Perhaps you might be familiar with the infamous 2012 takedown notice by the camp of sculptor Oldenburg which led to mass deletions of nearly all images of his sculptures here during that year (as such we rarely see pre-2013 images of his works). Even works in countries with suitable FOP provisions (e.g. Germany, Israel, and Spain) were nuked too! The takedown notice is found here, which led to a discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. That discussion concluded with the creation of {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, which is supposedly for all images of all protected works of sculptures, murals, and other non-architectural works from countries with freedom of panorama. This means sculptures of "no-FOP countries" that are in public domain in their physical jurisdictions may not be allowed here as they may be unfree in the United States (and U.S. courts are known to apply the doctrine of w:lex loci protectionis by applying US law over international works of art). Further complicating matters is the so-called American copyright restorations through the Uruguay Round Agreements Act or URAA. As sculptures are not works of architecture (architectural works are not applicable for URAA), these are all at mercy of copyright extensions, which vary depending on what period these were created (a guide for the copyright extensions is found here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this. As an aside, it might be best to redo the template so both messages are part of the same template, much like {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Brainulator9: that seems to technical for me hehe. I don't know who are the template editors here and if they are active here in VP or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd probably be the one to try to pull that off. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

 Info I have replaced all instances of {{PD-old-auto}}+{{PD-US-architecture}} tagged in recently restored files of non-US buildings with {{PD-old-architecture}} (thereby the files are now categorized at Category:PD old architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Unduly motivated renaming request declining

Recently I requested file renaming for the three last entries of this list upon COM:FR-4 "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs"

  1. Ingenuity flight 4 real-time animation.gif
  2. Ingenuity flight 5 real-time animation.gif
  3. Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (39 seconds).gif
  4. Ingenuity flight 7 real-time animation (48 seconds).gif
  5. Ingenuity flight 8 real-time animation (75 seconds).gif
  6. Ingenuity flight 9 full real-time animation.gif
  7. Ingenuity flight 10 full real-time animation.gif
  8. File:PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 3 real-time animation.gif
  9. File:Black-and-White View of Ingenuity's Fourth Flight.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 4 animation (vertical).gif
  10. File:Ingenuity flight six navcam imagery showing last 29 seconds in flight along with navigation anomaly.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (29 seconds).gif

However, TommyG declined all these requests on the grounds that they allegedly "do not comply with renaming guidelines" — cf. diffs 1, 2 and 3.

I insist that at this point honorable TommyG misinterpreted the regulations of COM:FR-4. On the contrary, as clearly follows from the abovepresented list, the present names of last three files fall out from the general naming convention for this set of animated gifs ("Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] | optional duration | optional frame rotation").

I also insist that honorable TommyG incorrectly perceived the presence of a prefix 'PIA-00000' as an attribute of some general scheme, which is broken with my local naming convention.

I also must draw attention to the inner contradiction of his motive for declining my request, as he wrote in his comments. On the one hand he insists that

  • Making all files in a category have similar names isn't a goal on Commons

But on another hand he requires to keep the naming convention in another category thus calling for similarity of names in another category.

Fot that matter I propose to browse the category which has been suggested as a template to be followed and was used as the reasin for declining my file rename request:

Category:Ingenuity flight 3
  1. 1-PIA24624-MarsPerseveranceRoverViewsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdFlight-20210425.png
  2. Black and White Image From Ingenuity's Third Flight.jpg
  3. Ingenuity's Third Flight photo in color with Perseverance rover visible.png
  4. JPL-20210425 Perseverance Rover's Mastcam-Z Captures Ingenuity's Third Flight.webm
  5. Perseverance Rover's Mastcam-Z Captures Ingenuity's Third Flight.webm
  6. Perseverance's NavCams Views Ingenuity During its Third Flight.jpg
  7. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425.jpg
  8. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425a.jpg
  9. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425b.jpg
  10. PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-20210425.jpg
  11. PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
  12. Zoomed in, Perseverance rover from Ingenuity during it's third flight.png

Please note that prefix 'PIA-…' in this list just creates an appearance of consistency. Entries 7 through 9 and 10-11 are the duplicates of the same 'PIA-…'; thus actually we have 3 'PIA-named' files against twice more, six files named upon absolutely different pattern. Thereon I find the refusal to rename files not duly motivated.

At this point let me shed some light on certain details that are likely unknown to most of my colleagues here who did not have the chance to upload from NASA. Prefix PIA is the catalogue identificator used by NASA for a certain part of its public image archives, but by no means for every image displayed at the 'nasa.gov' domain. For this reason you may see that the swingeing majority of images uploaded upon PD-NASA terms do not have this prefix. As for the category where my files reside (being simultaneously defined also in another categories), prefix 'PIA' cannot appear there 'by definition', since all these files are animations. Thus it's a mistake to treat my desire as the only wish the similar names in one category. Here's a reverse causation.

  • Reason: no other files but animations may appear in Category:Ingenuity flight animations
  • Result: all file names in this category shall look similar being named under the same schema.

On the basis of the above I consider myself entitled to renew the request for renaming as being improperly declined, and to ask the honorable file movers to satisfy my application for renaming upon the same COM:FR-4 "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs".

  1. File:PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 3 real-time animation.gif
  2. File:Black-and-White View of Ingenuity's Fourth Flight.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 4 animation (vertical).gif
  3. File:Ingenuity flight six navcam imagery showing last 29 seconds in flight along with navigation anomaly.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (29 seconds).gif

I keepg the same respect to the honorable TommyG and perceive his refusal only as a misunderstanding caused by haste in making a decision and hope for continued fruitful cooperation here.

P.S. Shall I renew the renaming templates in these three files myself, or it would be enough for file movers to revert them in these diffs: 1, 2 and 3?
— Cherurbino (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

UPD: I renewed the renaming request under the same COM:FR-4 (name harmonization) with an improved clear reasoning: by template "Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] • [optional duration] • [optional frame rotation]" already used for naming 7 identical animated gifs. Cherurbino (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please have a look at COM:FNC#cite_note-4 which elaborates a bit further on what criterion 4 should and shouldn't be used for. My edit comments wasn't meant as mutually exclusive, but rather that both those are reasons not to rename the files. We don't rename files just to make the filenames look good in a category listing. If you want them to be in a certain order in the category, you can use defaultsort. As for the PIA prefix, my experience is that these sort of seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters, is actually some sort of identifier which helps map the images to their source. It's desired to retain this in the name, f.ex to make it easier to check for duplicates when doing bulk uploads of files. However, if some other filemovers feel I'm interpreting the rules too strictly, they are of course free to overrule my judgement and move the files. TommyG (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: We don't rename files just to make the filenames look good in a category listing - please do not assign me the motives I did not have in mind. It's you who speaks on my behalf that I allegedly wanted "the filenames look good" while my motives were based upon the reasons I explain above.
  • As for the PIA prefix… my experience is that these sort of seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters — your exerience with the NASA storages, if any, is wrong. It's not the "random sequence". Strange to hear that from a person, who works with German archives with their Bd/Bild identifiers. But, if not 'PIA', then what pattern made you think that the name I insist upon shall conflict with what you saw as the "naming tradition" in Category "flight 3"? Did you think that PIA is a sort of user-assigned index which I am obliged to follow? Alas, it's impossible. NASA shall be against faked PIA’s
  • Re: If you want them to be in a certain order in the category, you can use defaultsort — do not think on behalf of another users. I swear, I do not need to sort them, can you beleive? In en-wiki I have more serious principles. Those who have experience in compiling and rearranging image galleries and "'multiple image'" templates shall understand me - because en-wiki is a place which needs clear file naming principles and harmonization more than any other national wiki in the world. I kindly invite you to visit Ingenuity (helicopter) to understand what I mean.
I sincerely hope for your understanding my motives for file name harnonization - at least, considering these three files. - Sincerely, Cherurbino (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Your last point would probably be something which would have been a good idea to reference in your justification for moving the files, since this is in fact one of the specific reasons for moving files under criterion 4. However, you did not. At this stage it seems like you have a problem with me and how I perform the filemover task, so I think I'll step back and let some other filemover review whether there is cause for moving these files or not. TommyG (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind understanding. We shall wait for another opinions, and until they appear I dared to renew my application under an improved motivation formula: by template "Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] • [optional duration] • [optional frame rotation]" already used for naming 7 identical animated gifs
Best regards and looking forward to the continualion of our cooperation. — Cherurbino (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I was invited by Cherurbino to add my comment. I read the guideline and my understanding is that he refers to Which files should be renamed? #4 that proposes to harmonize the names of a set of images. The argument of ThommyG was #1 from the opposite list Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better. Since the change is much bigger than the example there this is not convincing to me.

But I doubt also that all files of a category should follow a certain naming template that even new uploads should follow. I would consider a set of images a very small number and tightly connected images e.g. uploaded at once.

The PIA prefix is just a leftover from the upload when the person did not choose a completely new file name. So I would prefer to have this removed.

To sum up, I support the suggestion with some doubts about future uploads.--Schrauber5 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coming, Shrauber, I know you as one of the most active "ameliorators" of articles about space missions with new data and especially with the new images from NASA. You know the job from the point of view of the article editor. You know what a headache is to logically rearrange the gallery from the files named in disorder. For us, editors, harmonizing file names at Commons is not an end in itself but a prerequisite of quality of the whole work under the improvement of articles.
As for 'PIA-…' prefixes, I would certainly support your doubts about their necessity in the file names. Selecting illustrations for the articles we focus only on visual content, and not at indexes. However, the present version of COM:FR-4 forces the usage of them — if I correctly understand the words "If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number", so in some cases I am forced to stick with this requirement. Cherurbino (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki & Commons search for medieval texts possible?

How to search for Johannes Hartlieb's das puch aller verpoten kunst, ungelaubens und der zaubrey, 1450s across Commons, en.wikisource, de- and all the other ones, at once? I have tried to do it manually, with disappointing results. I know it exists offwiki and could upload it (somew)here but I do not want to create a duplicate.

Recently I have had the same problem with a scan of a famous Belarussian/Polish/Russian letter from under the gallows.

Zezen (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Moiré effect in photographs of old printed photographs

Can anyone advise on how to limit or eliminate the moiré effect in images such as this one? That image is photographed from my copy of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. The glossy paper of the plates has warped a little in the last 110 years, and I imagine that the pattern is caused by that distortion, in combination with the original printing screen. Any advice welcome! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Have you tried an unsharp mask in a program like the GIMP or Photoshop?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Take it to Commons:Graphic Lab, who should be able to do something a little more subtle with the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:
PEI (Picture Elements, Inc.?) work for Smithsonian?
A discussion on Commons: Graphics village pump at section "Artefacts at certain resolutions of scanned images". That points to other sources.
Smoothing a Halftone Photo using FFT, Matz, 8 August 2015. Matlab processing. Do DFT, find halftone peaks in frequency domain, erase those peaks, and do IDFT.
Matz points to a PhotoShop FFT plugin, pluging by Alex Chirokov.
Using GIMP: GIMP/Remove Coherent Noise at Wikibooks.
Discussion of en:Aliasing and en:Spatial_anti-aliasing.
Glrx (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the advice, much of which went over my head. I tried unsharp mask in Photoshop (vintage version) with no success, probably because I don't know how to use it. But applying Blur more... four times in succession seemed to fix it – for me at least – so I've now uploaded that version. Any comment welcome, otherwise thanks all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep trying with the tutorials on "coherent noise". You need to install a couple of plugins, but then the process per image is easy. The Gimp tutorial is pretty clear.
The point with Moiré noise is that it has this regular-spaced appearance to it. This means that a tool that's sensitive to that repetition (i.e. something based on Fourier) will have a much better noise reduction effect, with less general blurring. It's worth learning this, as a trick for cleaning up old scans, especially if you're working with newspaper or halftone images. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll second Andy's comments.
Unsharp masking should not be used because it would increase the moiré pattern noise. The purpose of unsharp masking is to sharpen an image, and that sharpening would make the halftone dots stand out more.
Blurring the image will tend to merge the halftone dots and reduce the moiré pattern. However, it also blurs everything else in the image. It essentially defocuses the image.
Glrx (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs

I added information to Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/en and Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/fr
I need to get a cs translator for Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs. The best would be fr to cs.
I could not find the correct template to put on Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback!

Hello everyone! I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW).

SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge June results

Birds in Flight: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Abyssinian roller hunts a grasshopper at dusk whinchat in flight jump from bush to bush Geese and Common cranes fly
with Christian Moullec who
reared them. Airshow Bex 2007, Switzerland
Author Dotun55 Irvin calicut Roy Egloff
Score 22 21 20
Five: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Reporter bei der Arbeit Cinq loups arctiques Five fishing boats on quiet misty lake
Author Mensch01 Musicaline Foeniz
Score 27 21 20

Congratulations to Mensch01, Musicaline, Foeniz, Dotun55, Irvin calicut and Roy Egloff. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Delay of new version of the file

Can anyone tell me why after uploading a new version of an image (a map), the changes don't appear immediately but only after several days? It confuses new users and suggests that something has been done wrong. Is this a technical problem or something special has to be done, that I don’t know? --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 06:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure that the old file is shown to new users? Or may this be related to your browser cache? -- Discostu (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Obivan Kenobi: Hi, and welcome. Please see COM:PURGE.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you Discostu and Jeff G.! Clearing my browser cache really helped. --Obivan Kenobi (talk) 08:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Obivan Kenobi: You're welcome!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:43, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Why reduced in size?

File:PsychologicaBelgica.jpg has a size of 150 × 221 pixels. It has been obtained by reducing in size from 1.161 × 1.710 to the 150 × 221 by a bot. The present file is used in w:en:Psychologica Belgica but there the picture is worthless because you can hardly see anything on it. Is there a special reason for it (fair use?). Wouter (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • If it's a copyvio, I don't think shrinking it changes that, and it should go back to en-wiki where it can be used on a fair-use basis.
  • If it's not a copyvio, then we should have the larger version.
  • User:Magog the Ogre, since your bot was involved, anything to say about this? - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, it is very hard to see any scenario, either for Commons or en-wiki, where that license by an en-wiki user would be valid. User:SteveMajerus, on what basis were you in a position to grant a license to use this image? - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably as editor-in-chief of the publication, assuming that his issuance of the license attributing personally to himself the entire contents shown in the image is conform to the facts, to the policies of the publication and to the legal contracts with the publishing company, which is something that VRT member Krd apparently accepted as all satisfactorily proven. According to the log, the reduction in size was made by the original uploader himself minutes after his original upload. Maybe he wanted to license only the small version and forgot to request the deletion of the larger version, or maybe he thought that uploading a small file was necessary to display a small image in the Wikipedia article. It would be useful if he clarified what he was doing, if it's not already specified in the VRT communication. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is there any reason to reduce it in the first place? It's the cover of a publication with extrenely simple design: titles as text, and graphic design way below COM:TOO. Just what is even protectable here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the type of mistake the inexperienced user might have made. Apparently, he was unfamiliar with the infobox syntax (and with the "Show preview" button). Comparing the timestamps in the article history and in the file log, it can be seen that, after several attempts, he managed to display the image in the infobox of the article. And, a few minutes later, he uploaded the reduced versions, possibly thinking that would adjust the size of the display in the infobox. Since he claims a copyright, his evaluation of the the copyrightability of works in Belgian law would apparently differ from your evaluation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd missed the VRT ticket. Was this recently changed in appearance? I don't think the icon was the one I'm used to seeing for this purpose, but maybe I'm having a lapse of memory (or maybe multiple icons are attached to such templates and I didn't know this one). - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Aha! yes, it was changed about 3 months ago, and after many years of looking at the other, I hadn't yet noticed this as being an icon to look out for. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted it to the higher resolution image. Wouter (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

I made {{Currency-category warning}}.

Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies before Error: Invalid time..
Photographs of currencies used in 70 can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on the design has expired, because terms of use of 70 prohibits the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies without permission. The copyright term in 70 for currencies is + {{{3}}} years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/70#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.

ERROR: Standard of the duration of copyright protection is invalid. Check the first parameter to make sure that it is "death" or "design".
ERROR: Copyright term not specified. Specify the copyright term in this way: {{Currency-category warning|1=death: after the death of the designer, design: after the currencies were designed|2=Country|3=Copyright term since year of death or design}}.
ERROR: The copyright term is invalid. Check the third parameter to make sure that it is a number.

This template was made with reference to {{FOP-buildings-category warning}}.

This template is used for the currency category of countries marked  Not OK in COM:CUR.

(For example, Category:Banknotes of Canada, Category:Coins of Canada, Category:Banknotes of North Korea, Category:Coins of North Korea, etc.)

I made an English version only. I would appreciate it if we could add another language version.

You can also modify the template if possible. (In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ox1997cow: That seems very misleading in that it is (at best) accurate only for particular countries. See Commons:Currency. Just to name a few large countries where this is not the law: Brazil, United States, Russia.
  • Also, I have no idea what you mean by "In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that." - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I will change the word "law" to the word "terms of use". "Allowed only for a certain period", there are countries such as Iran, which accepts only currencies older than 30 years, and Australia, which only accepts currencies that are older than 1969. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: This means that currencies issued after the allowed period cannot be uploaded. For example, it is not allowed to upload currencies issued after 1970 in Australia and 30 years in Iran. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ox1997cow: I see. Still, this does not align with your template, does it? (I also now see that it is parameterized for country and period, which is not obvious by looking at this page, only becomes clear when you look at the wikitext here or go to the template page.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It seems we have another MediaWiki release, and the links to my watchlist, contributions, etc. are now hidden behind a "person" menu icon, requiring two clicks instead of one.

To reduce RSI, is there an option to restore the links to their previous configuration? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Userscript testing

I am working on a userscript, to improve Categories with features such as dynamic pagination.

Since it has a number of features, I am inviting folks to try it. Initial documentation is written here:

https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia#readme

Testing: I suggest testing categories "near-the-root" like Category:Selfies and Category:Paintings to make sense of pagination features.

As of now, I am working under the assumptions of default mw:Skin:Vector and English.

Please try it, and I welcome any users and other contributors to raise any questions or ideas.

Note: more recently, it has some support for loading Special:Contributions dynamically, which makes it useful on other Mediawiki wikis including Wikidata.

Aavindraa (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As this is a javascript (and can be put in user name space and when complete as a gadget on commmons), why is it hosted on an external website? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I am hosting on Git for two reasons: a) because it's easier for me (and presumably other developers) to use Git to manage multiple folders/files and b) there is limited or no support today in Mediawiki projects for ES modules (re: phab:T75714), which is why I am doing things in an unconventional way. That being said, its possible to transpile the code to ES5 and load it using traditional methods, but I see little benefit in doing it at this stage. Aavindraa (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not know, that the dra.vin domain is owned by github. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I (avindra) am the owner of dra.vin, which is an anagram of my first name. I am pointing the A record towards https://avindra.github.io/ , which is an instance of en:GitHub Pages. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot make out from the above what this does, and even the one phrase of description, "dynamic pagination" is very ambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably make a video. I have to set up some gear so I will do that soon. I did put some screenshots and indicators on the releases https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia/releases which may be helpful re: feature list. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much clearer. Given you examples, I wasn't sure if this was about subcats or what. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Subcategories are planned. I will add them as soon as I'm able. Aavindraa (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Are there any attempts for FOP introduction in UAE

As of my writing, there are hundreds of thousands of images from UAE that were deleted due to lack of suitable freedom of panorama there. And as of today this batch DR relating to images of Burj Khalifa has reached more than 20 threads (with hundreds of images within each). Just in case someone will refer me to an old discussion at COM:FOP talk page, I already read that and just only reaffirmed the lack of FOP status. To date the only provision there states that works are only allowed to be depicted through broadcasting media (which I think only encompasses television-related media). De minimis may be one thing, but it is not relevant to my questiom that follows.

My only question is, are there any attempts by Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in that desert kingdom to have FOP introduced there, at the very least architecture-only FOP? (Similar to countries like U.S. and Russia.) So as to finally allow images of two famous icons of Dubai (Burj's Khalifa and al-Arab) here on Commons and restore thousands that were deleted from 2010 up to now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that the UAE, ranked the 145th most democratic country by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2020, would be responsive to a grassroots movement to change the nation's copyright law. Best of luck to those who push for this.  Mysterymanblue  09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
step1: befriend the emir. step2: convince him to change the law.--RZuo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: I just only asked a question, since I am particularly concerned about more deletions and more nominations (some batch nominations like the one I provided may impact accessibility on daily listings). Of course it is up to the Arab World Wikimedians or Wikimedians based in that country to push for introduction of FOP there (or perhaps other countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
That's a question for the public policy team, or their Publicpolicy@ mailing list. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:37, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

No idea how to identify whether a particular edit is vandalism or correction.

I have no idea how to identify whether this edit is vandalism or correction. I had based my statement that the car is owned by "Jack and Gail Burk" on what it said in the sign at the lower left of File:Louie Louie custom car 01.jpg. The recent edit removes "and Gail". If this were from a registered user, of course I'd ask what's going on. Coming from an IP, maybe it's random vandalism, maybe it's pointed vandalism, maybe the sign was wrong, maybe Jack and Gail are now divorced, or she died, or she no longer wants anything to do with the car. What the heck do you do with something like this? - Jmabel ! talk 04:56, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

undo and add "according to the sign shown in one of the photos, it was owned at xxxx.xx.xx by xxxx and xxxx" (Edit comment: "please provide a reference for changed ownership") --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: Good idea. - Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Help needed to correct pronunciation file

File:En-us-especial.ogg has incorrect pronunciation. The pronunciation in the file is something like "ess-peh-shee-AL", but the actual US English pronunciation is more like "es-PEH-shul". I don't know how to replace a pronunciation file; can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Could that be a regional difference? The author Neskaya claims to come from Southern California so maybe it is pronounced like that where she comes from? De728631 (talk) 17:45, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@De728631: This person is giving a slightly anglicized version of the Spanish word, rather than an English-language pronunciation of the English word. This probably should be renamed as "es-us..." and a new en-us one recorded. - Jmabel ! talk 19:41, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I was thinking that too. It does have a heavy Spanish accent. De728631 (talk) 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
This system is broken; we should not have magic names at Commons like this. As for the word, the actual US English pronunciation is as likely to be as a Spanish loan word instead of pronounced as a historically English word. And again, this is not and should not be a Commons issue; Wiktionary and Commons should be disentangled here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:47, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I have noticed that for many plant species, the gallery page is not in the category of the species, but of the genus.

Example: The page Renanthera monachica is in Category:Renanthera, but not in Category:Renanthera monachica.

Is this on purpose?

By the logic on described on Commons:Galleries, gallery pages should be in their corresponding category, which in the case of plant species would be the category of the plant species, correct?

The one species gallery given as an example on Commons:Galleries (Lama glama) is in the corresponding species category (Category:Lama glama). I'm not sure if that's because it's an animal rather than a plant.

I'm now wondering if there's a logic to this, or if many plant species categories should be moved.

Cheers–Jérôme (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Edit: As additional info, let me add how I came across this: I'm searching for the name of plant species on Commons a lot, which leads to the gallery page. Then, if I'd like to see more images of the species, I'm looking for a link to the species gallery, but there is no such link, although in the cases I've tested a category always existed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jérôme (talk • contribs) 14:03, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Species galleries are often considered sister pages to the species categories. Ruslik (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

What's this called? (desktop edition)

The thingie at left here. What's that called? I even own one but have no idea.

Do we have a category for the vertical desktop device that holds files, on the left side of File:Bill Rheubottom, Training Coordinator for Seattle City Light, 1974 (51325354425).jpg? - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That is a letter tray, but we don't seem to have a specific category for it. So, Category:Office equipment should be alright. De728631 (talk) 19:49, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
RZuo has just created Letter trays. I think I’ve also called them paper trays, stacking trays, and sorting trays at one time or another.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I've used them a lot, but very seldom for letters. Usually they are made so that they can be stacked, but not always (some are made to be hanged from a vertical pole so that they can be rotated, somebody found that very clever back in the 70s, I didn't like that). They are for sorting, and mostly used with papers (but not always). I'm surprised we just have one example in Commons. I'll try to improve that. B25es (talk) 07:49, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel, De728631, RZuo, Odysseus1479, and B25es: Staples still sells two of these monolithic beasts, but only painted black (the picture is probably of one with light-colored paint, ivory or white). They call each a "Side Loading Letter Tray, Black Steel" on-page or "Metal 5-Tier Letter Size Horizontal Organizer" in-URL and ""5-Compartment Steel File Organizer, Black" on-page or "5-compartment steel file organizer black" in-URL. I have had to deal with some (and their equivalents at the ends of collating copiers & printers), and they are very efficient at collecting dust. Staples also sell versions with more compartments. Modern versions are more modular, and the better ones can be stacked to save space in storage.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:59, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Are the ones where the separators are vertical instead of horizontal still "letter trays" or is there a different term? - Jmabel ! talk 19:21, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you have an example of vertical separators? De728631 (talk) 20:05, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
E.g. this would not be a tray. Staples calls it a "sorter" and I would agree that a tray is something on a horizontal level. De728631 (talk) 20:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I have one about 2-1/2 feet from me as I write that is sort of like the one in the picture I started this with, but turned on its side. A bit heavier-duty than De728631'a example. No time right now to take a picture, but I guess I should at some point since it looks like we could use one! Bottom of it is kind of tray-like, but I wouldn't think of it as a tray. "Sorter" seems reasonable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

free?

This file has CtC but is it really free? Because I faced a bad experience uploading a mislabeled file(archived). - Coagulans (talk) 17:10, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Request for comment notification

Here is a link to a RFC on Meta concerning all Wikimedia projects. Lionel Scheepmans ✉ Contact 22:51, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Operações Aéreas, Maranhão (48382005646).jpg

This image depicts several vejicles, organizations and two helicopters, Category:PR-HEB (aircraft) and Category:PR-HCT (aircraft), and so those categories were added two years ago.

Today, User:Davey2010 deleted said categories claiming that "the vehicles aren't the main subject here". Given that these vehicles are subject of this image, i readded this categories, but the same user kept deleting them, and wrote in my talkpage that i should "not contribute nonsense-edits" with a template about vandalism (????) and not happy he is now threatning to block me.

Could someone explain to this administrator that just because he was the powers of an administrator, that he cannot accuse others of vandalism when is clearly not and and he cannot threat other users with blocks just to shove his own opinion on what categories are appropriate in a image. Tm (talk) 19:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Addendum. I scratched the parts about Davey2010 being an administrator has he is not one and never was. No the less the part "administrator" should read "user". Tm (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The title does translate as "Air Operations, Maranhão" however imho the pick up and aircrafts don't need categorising as they're not the main subject. I'll stop reverting pending this discussion and if others disagree then I'll get consensus somewhere. –Davey2010Talk 19:25, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
These seem to me to be entirely reasonable categories to add. And FWIW, I am and administrator.
Categories do not describe only the main subject of a photo. For an obvious example, for any individual person we have a category for, we tend to put that on any photo in which they are present, however incidentally. - Jmabel ! talk 00:55, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
+1 perfectly reasonable to me. When there is a need to distinguish, we split it into separate categories, e.g. Category:Hoover Tower into Category:Hoover Tower - Exterior and Category:Remote views of Hoover Tower. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 02:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments Jmabel & User:King of Hearts, I politely don't agree that these should be categorised however consensus is consensus and it's the way of life here :), Anyway thanks again your help is very much appreciated, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Queen Elizabeth II Bridge

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#Queen Elizabeth II Bridge. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:13, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

replacements for deleted PotDs?

Some of the early PotDs (mostly from 2007 and earlier) were deleted due to copyright concerns. I know Commons is much better at detecting copyright violations nowadays, but having missing pictures of the day makes us look bad.

Would it be a crazy idea to retroactively nominate new PotDs to replace the deleted ones? Ixfd64 (talk) 22:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Ixfd64: Yes, it would be. Recently I had an argument on Wikipedia about whether it’s a good idea to hide revisions with serious vandalism but nothing legally unacceptable (no copyvio, no personal data etc.). I argued it’s not a good idea: vandalism belongs to Wikipedia’s history, don’t try to do as if it wasn’t vandalized regularly. Similarly, copyvio images belong to Commons’ history, don’t try to do as if no copyvios were selected as POTDs ever. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 01:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I was afraid there would be no consensus to replace deleted PotDs. It looks like we'll either have to ask for permission and hope for the best or be really patient and wait for the copyrights to expire. But some good news: there are least two images to my knowledge that may be eligible to be restored. I'll file a request at Commons:Undeletion requests and see what happens. Ixfd64 (talk) 01:25, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct - Enforcement draft guidelines review

The Universal Code of Conduct Phase 2 drafting committee would like comments about the enforcement draft guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC). This review period is planned for 17 August 2021 through 17 October 2021.

These guidelines are not final but you can help move the progress forward. The committee will revise the guidelines based upon community input.

Comments can be shared in any language on the draft review talk page and multiple other venues. Community members are encouraged to organize conversations in their communities.

There are planned live discussions about the UCoC enforcement draft guidelines:

Wikimania 2021 session (recorded 16 August)
Conversation hours - 24 August, 31 August, 7 September @ 03:00 UTC & 14:00 UTC
Roundtable calls - 18 September @ 03:00 UTC & 15:00 UTC

Summaries of discussions will be posted every two weeks here.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 23:44, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Alex Proimos images - Pixsy trolling

Moved from Commons:Help desk

I run a group that helps warn people about Pixsy trolls. For anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's basically when people put large numbers of Creative Commons images online and then hit unsuspecting users with license fee demands for hundreds of dollars through Pixsy (a copyright enforcement company) every time they make some minor error in an image attribution. Wikimedia Commons previously banned images by Marco Verch, who has been accused of doing this on an industrial scale. However, we get reports at our group of many other people doing this now on a smaller scale and I think it is important to notify Wikimedia Commons when we get a lot of reports about particular photographers who have a lot of images listed on here so you can take action.

I would like to suggest that Alex Proimos should be looked at on this basis. He has been mentioned to us on multiple occasions including some examples of him issuing Pixsy demands precisely because someone has linked to his image on Wikimedia Commons rather than his own Flickr account. The fact that hundreds of his images are listed on this site is a safety risk for ordinary users who might unsuspectingly use them and get Pixsy on their case as a result. If he complains about this, I would suggest giving him the chance to reupload them using a CC BY 4.0 license, which makes Pixsy trolling largely impossible as the updated terms specify that users have 30 days to correct image attribution errors before they can be hit with legal action. If he is an honest user and not, as our reports would suggest, a Pixsy troll then he would have no objection to this. However, allowing hundreds of his images to appear here under a CC BY 2.0 license is deeply problematic. Thomjobson (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Alex Proimos is a Flickr user. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Right, there is a disclaimer in the Info section of Proimos' Flickr page, but I was thinking of the article linked by Thomjobson. Anyhow, I would also prefer to see hard evidence of copyright trolling before we take any action over here. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
We should have a "{{Copyright troll}}" template, these are free educational images, while their licenses are free the re-users often make a small mistake and it's the author(s) that act in bad faith. The files remain free and if followed exactly won't result in a lawsuit. This is essentially "a non-copyright © restriction" and the files remain in scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly?? There is a photographer, who uploads them photos at flickr with a cc-license. These photos have been imported to commons by Magnus-Manske's bot and other commons users and the flickr-license has been translated by these commons users to cc-2.5. The photographer does not have a MW account, them might not know of the existence of commons, maybe them is not even aware of a website by the name of wikipedia, but them now gets called out for trolling at commons?? If them has actually done something wrong, that would be needed addressed at flickr? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: As I read it, the trolling does not appear directly at Commons but offline in the form of compensation claims when re-users of photographs by this person fail to follow all their complicated attribution details to the letter. On another note, CC 2.5 seems like nonsense to me because that is not an original option at Flickr. De728631 (talk) 17:20, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Not sure if this is an overkill, but perhaps the CC-BY-2.0 template should be amended with a warning that the attribution rules need to be followed carefully? BeŻet (talk) 16:12, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI copyright trolling is being discussed in a Wikimania session tomorrow @19:45 UTC see here. --Fæ (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

As I thought: user:Alex Pro... user:AlexPro... does not exist. If action has to be taken, it would need to be at Flickr side, or Commons needs to outrule Flickr (because Flickr allows "changing" of license, which enables "copyright trolling") imports, or cc-2.0 needs to be outruled on commons, or the cc-2.0 template needs to be amended, to describe the difficulty. But without a user Alex Proimos at commons it does not make sense to declare them a troll at commons. Them does not interact with commons. Them photos have been imported to commons by others. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I posted the original comment about this and just to clarify, I should mention I'm not particularly familiar with how Wikimedia Commons works. I reported this here because on two occasions people had said they'd been hit with a demand for over $600 by this photographer because they had linked to an image on Wikimedia Commons instead of his Flickr account. I don't expect Wikimedia Commons to be able to solve this problem entirely - that is indeed something Flickr should do (and they won't because they have a partnership with Pixsy and frankly don't seem to care about people abusing CC licenses, as evidenced by the fact they still allow Marco Verch to use their site). But given these cases were directly linked to the images appearing here on Wikimedia Commons and given that the vast majority of users of this site will be unaware of the potential risk there is in using these images, it is surely at a minimum worth notifying you about this. What you do with it is up to you - like I say, I don't have much understanding of this site or how your policies work, but when your users are at risk of being ripped off over a minor mistake (if it's even a mistake to give an attribution to Wikimedia Commons instead of Flickr) it seems like an obvious problem. Incidentally, we encourage people in our group to avoid CC BY 2.0 images completely for this reason. I personally run a website that runs thousands of articles each year and the idea of getting a $600 fine every time we make a typo is frightening. There are a long list of photographers who do this now but I specifically mentioned Proimos because of the link to Wikimedia Commons. Thomjobson (talk) 02:58, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

One possible solution is to edit the images in question to include a "forced attribution." See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 74#User:Nightshooter - block & deletion request for a similar case. Ixfd64 (talk) 23:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

2021 Voting Opens

Voting for the 2021 Board of Trustees election is now open. Candidates from the community were asked to submit their candidacy. After a three week long Call for Candidates, there are 19 candidates for the 2021 election.

The Wikimedia movement has the opportunity to vote for the selection of community-and-affiliate trustees. By voting, you will help to identify those people who have the qualities to best serve the needs of the movement for the next several years. The Board is expected to select the four most voted candidates to serve as trustees. Voting closes 31 August 2021.

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees oversees the Wikimedia Foundation's operations. The Board wants to improve their competences and diversity as a team. They have shared the areas of expertise that they are currently missing and hope to cover with new trustees.

Learn more about candidates. Learn about the Board of Trustees. Vote.

Read the full announcement.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Africa 2021 Winners announced

Wiki Loves Africa Winners were announced at Wikimania 2021
Wiki Loves Africa Winners were announced at Wikimania 2021

At Wikimania, on Saturday, the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2021/Winners were announced. We are very impressed by the range of experiences that were captured to visually represent this year's theme Health+Wellness. Almost every one of the 8,319 images and 56 video files that were contributed by 1,149 photographers share the full range of precious moments that together add to the incredible complexity and universal experience of living - from heart breaking pain to unfettered joy, from stoic determination to unrelenting hope, and from the necessity of sterile clinical procedures to the wonder of a newborn’s very first breath. As a collection it is an exhaustive expression of what it is to be human all against a myriad African backdrops. We would like to thank the International Jury of professional photographers and Wikimedia Commonists for their tireless work and User:Ciell and User:Slaporte for their assistance on Montage. Enjoy!! Islahaddow (talk) 11:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Braniff International posters

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#Braniff International posters. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Do Commons's administrators even care?

Hello,

My message is about this request : Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections/Archive 30#Bull-Doser. The first time it was posted, it was archived without an answer from an administrator. I restored it two times and no one even bother to take care of it. The problem is that the user who is the center of this request has a problematic behavior since at least 2015 (7 years). In all that time, the user only received warnings and nothing was done to prevent his bad behavior after multiple requests on the Administrator's noticeboards.

Is it common for the admins to ignore requests? Is it because they can't take care of cases more complex than simple vandalisms?

--Myloufa (talk) 01:04, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

That noticeboard is for simple blocks for obvious abuse only. Complex cases should be discussed at COM:AN/U. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

This came up in a side discussion at Wikimania today. So far as I am aware, we have no process for automatically nominating/ awarding the winning images from Wiki Loves... related competitons, as quality or featured images. Should we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Judges for most of the photo competitions aren't looking for the same things QIC/FPC are, necessarily. There are often some good candidates, but only a few ever succeed when nominated right away. Often they require some postprocessing adjustments in order to satisfy the technical expectations of the regulars in those spots. Like I was just looking through some of the winners of Wiki Loves Africa. this one is a contender, but people will inevitably say "too noisy" and "right crop". The former can be fixed, and that may be enough to make it succeed, but if it were automatically nominated, it would almost certainly fail on those grounds, for better or worse. Similarly File:Pupil.jpg has some heavy chromatic aberration. It's fixable, but requires someone to actually fix it.
The best thing is probably to post the news of the results and maybe a few stand-out examples to Commons talk:Featured picture candidates. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Taliban victory

I don't like starting this discussion, but it has to be held. The Islamic Republic of Afghanistan has fallen to the Taliban and on Wikimedia Commons we have multiple pages like "Template:Afghanistan by year" that use the flag of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan. As it is now a "historical country" and after two (2) decades the Taliban are back in power at what point will we replace the flags of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan with the flag of the Taliban? Perhaps it's when the IR Afghan flag emoji gets replaced with the Taliban flag, perhaps we should use international recognition as a standard but the old Islamic Republic of Afghanistan wasn't recognised either.

As to many Afghan people the Taliban flag will be received as "the Nazi flag of Afghanistan" especially by non-Pashtun Afghans, but the government has changed, so when should we change the flags to reflect this in a neutral way? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:07, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I suggest we wait until they form a government. And then wait until that government is the de facto recognised government of Afghanistan. Until then, I propose no changes be made. Is there a {{Disputed}} that covers this? Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I  Support Rodhullandemu's suggestion.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. Assuming the regime change ‘sticks’, the state’s official name might be changed, or OTOH the Taliban may keep the existing national insignia to signal their feig^H^H^H^Hnew-found civic principles &c., so moving things around would seem very premature at this point.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 03:43, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, going over it, Wikipedia doesn't use a flag for Afghanistan at the moment, so it's safe to wait it out and then any changes won't be controversial as they would then be undeniable facts. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Movement charter drafting committee

Apologies if this has already been posted:

You can run to be on the Movement Charter drafting committee. If the language about the movement charter, movement strategy, and all of the other processes going on right now don't make your head hurt, you're probably a good person to consider participating! :) — Rhododendrites talk |  04:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

An ongoing problem with webp files

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T289240

Sometime ago I posted here about a problem with a webp file. However, there was no response. Now I have the same problem with another webp file. This file does not display correctly on my desktop (macOS 10.14.6 with a Chrome browser). Is this just a problem with my desktop, and something that, in future, I should just ignore? – Epipelagic (talk) 09:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have the same problem with Firefox on Windows. The actual thumbnail image is correct, but Commons thinks that the file has an image ratio of about 10:1 and therefore squeezes it when showing it on a page. -- Discostu (talk) 09:47, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
@Epipelagic and Discostu: I experience that same problem. When viewing the full, original resolution, the image looks fine, but when viewing the actual file description page, the image is "squeezed". The embedded image on this section looks squeezed too. BTW I use w:Samsung Galaxy A20 browser. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I have created a Phabricator task -- Discostu (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Batch/bot adding additional licence

A problem I have with my images is that they do have a variety of licences, not least because of the CC BY-SA update from 3.0 to 4.0. Is there an automatic or semi-automatic way to add CC BY-SA 4.0 to all my uploads as addition to the licence they already have, perhaps with a bot or a batch tool? Vivo (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at COM:VFC, it's a visual way of mass changing files and you can do something like this by having it work on a category or all your uploads and then filter by the wikitext for the license. If there are thousands of these you can ask at COM:BWR. --Fæ (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ! I'll have a look. Vivo (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

UK Newspapers: 1 Million become free-to-view (registration required)

The British Library have today announced:[1]

Today's the day - one million 19thC newspaper pages free to view (and download) on the British Newspaper Archive. And this is just the start. https://blogs.bl.uk/thenewsroom/2021/08/free-to-view-online-newspapers.html

and:[2]

...Essentially, you need to register to access the free content, but won't be charged anything

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Sounds useful! I haven't been able to log in; keep getting "Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request." Is it working okay for you? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like it was probably the fact that I was including non-alphanumeric characters in my password. Is working now. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we thus upload them here? This Poor Man's Guardian advertised there seems not to be in Commons yet. Zezen (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Update: It does not work for me. I used to have a Wikipedia (free account), I logged in after some years' break and now I see only
Get unlimited access to the British Newspaper Archive. There are hundreds of millions of incredible stories just waiting to be found. Get your subscription today to start exploring over 300 years of history.
after the first free page. Sigh. Zezen (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It says the same for me, but searches come up with lots of hits, and I've not yet found any article that's not accessible. Maybe the message about subscriptions is out of date. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the have 230 issues of The Poor Man's Guardian, from the first issue on 9 July 1831. It seems to be possible to download only one page at a time, unfortunately. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://twitter.com/BL_newsroom/status/1424719234815434754
  2. ↑ https://twitter.com/BL_newsroom/status/1424730642512809993

(Revising my viewpoint) Some works are marked as public domain, regardless of the website terms, this should override any other legal claims.

Okay, it should be possible to "hack" the website as tiles can be queried directly using links like https://tiles-api.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/API/dz?Q=BL/0000097/18310716/0007&p=m1c8f9qbrpt45686s6lam9itplb26s2sgbnmsengsj0ppa2v1gvrllo19re4r7kov0g53ea9vg6m83ff5q61mne4pitkooou5qohu2o%3D&t=_files/11/2_2.jpg.

The "t" parameter is the tile with <zoom level>/x_y at the end and I presume "p" is the session reference that tracks users. You can actually plug the tile reference into Dezoomify and it'll create a PNG for the newspaper page, no programming talent needed. However, you can automate the browser session and download the PDFs, which could be an approach to download thousands of pages in PDF, but with an annoying and unnecessary "public domain" watermark. Another presumption is that the "3 free downloads" does not count public domain files, though if it does, then directly "reading" the (jpeg) tiles would not be counted as downloading anyway, it's part of the display function and if someone writes a dezoomer to recreate the full jpeg originals, these would be easy to upload to Commons and have no watermark.

Bizarrely, the "official" downloadable PDFs just look like they are generated on the fly from the jpegs and don't even have the OCR text, which exists in the system for their searches to work and the text is displayed in their zoom viewer. That just looks lazy. Someone could probably hack the searchable text, considering that there's a text highlighting function in the viewer. However there MIGHT be a potential claim of copyright over the derived text, even if the creation of it is the product of some off-the-shelf OCR tool. I have no idea why the only downloadable format they offer is PDF, especially considering the originals sitting in the image database are jpegs, again that's lazy.

I'm not volunteering to do any of this at this time. --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The above URL is now returning "405 Not Allowed". Given that, and the fact that the BL's blogpost includes the statement "The fact that we consider newspapers made before 1881 to be in the public domain does not mean that we can make all pre-1881 digitised titles available for free—the BNA is dependent on subscriptions to maintain the considerable effort required to sustain it, and the one million pages per year arrangement [[SIC: read "limit"] is intended to protect that model", I suspect that laziness is not the motivation here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The "p" parameter will vary by user session, probably, which means it will timeout. This can still be mass uploaded with an automated browser session, or someone might work out how to get around it as the OpenResty instance looks pretty open to me, not that I'm intending to hack it myself. I don't agree that the Findmypast company needs us to pay them £8, or that the British Library's decision to hand over these public domain public records to a private company (DC Thompson Ltd) so their directors can get rich is a "good thing". --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
If things cost money to produce they need to be paid for. If you're not the product, and there's no advertising... Secretlondon (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice that going on the last time I was at the British Library.
DC Thompson Ltd is a commercial publisher, they exist to make a profit, not to provide public services. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
We should adopt the policy of not downloading newspaper archives wholesale, or even in major part I.E. whole daily issue. These collections cost an enormous sum to create, the software required to curate and search them is highly specialized and a lot more sophisticated than what we have to offer. Last but not least it takes a proprietorial organization with substantial funding and systematic patience to create these databases in the first place.
If we disrupt their funding / fiscal model by plundering them for free, they will not be incentivized to create or maintain them, or add to their collections. Past newspaper archives would be lost forever.
This is one of the reasons google stopped or limited access to their book project.
Commons should be aware that it cant do it all, plundering museum sites (funded by the public) and auction houses (who do not rely on exhibition of pictures for revenue), is one thing. Copying an entire catalogue of a newspaper collection is quite another and is destructive.
They already allow (sic) us to to publish individual photos from their collections, and we should be happy with that.
Considering the huge expense of these curations, they are remarkably cheap for the public to access.
This exception, to the policy on downloading PD images, needs to be written into our policy, urgently.
This is the proverbial sleeping dog that should never have been woken up. Broichmore (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@User:Broichmore. I quite agree with you on this! It is important to keep in mind that (our) commons is in the first place a repository for things we use, or might use in the future, on our Wikimedia-projects. It is not a repository of everything that is (more or less) freely available in the world. We don't want to be a group of Robin Hoods, that roam around and plunder what we find on our way. There is still something like an equilibrium of Quality and Quantity. Thanks for your intervention.
Apart from that it is very interesting to hear that The British Library has opened the Newspaper Archive for the 19th century. Thank you for that hint, @User:Pigsonthewing. That is exactly what we want and what we need, and that is something we surely can use to enhance the quality of our projects. I'm going to take a look now immediately. --Dick Bos (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Or we can choose to believe that Public Domain is Public Domain and organizations that post-hoc rubber stamp "non-commercial use only" over Public Domain media are copyfraudsters and should be called out for it.
I'll just get on with populating Commons with useful educational material like today's Newspapers in Italian while you think of new funny names to call me like "Robin Hood" to make me feel and look like a criminal.
Thanks for your interest. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Dick Bos that we should be something less than a universal PD host and that we probably should not swallow up all of this material simply because it is legally possible. However, I disagree that our purpose is limited to serving other WMF projects. There are many legitimate educational/academic uses that we support that have nothing to do with WMF. For example, thoroughly documenting the floats in a parade or the speakers at a conference is presumably not going to be useful to any other WMF project, but it might be very useful to an academic researcher with a specific scope and focus. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
"museum sites (funded by the public)" As are the British Library. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Definitions of "plunder" at Wiktionary include "To pillage, take or destroy all the goods of, by force (as in war)..." and "To take by force or wrongfully; to commit robbery or looting, to raid." Robin Hood famously "stole from the rich". The use of such terms in this context is an egregious failure to assume good faith. No-one is "plundering" or "stealing" PD content from the BNA. By definition, PD content cannot be stolen by downloading it, it already belongs to us all. debating what content is suitable for Commons is legitimate. Impugning the legitimate actions and motivations of others is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:16, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Broichmore, Dick Bos re plundering.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry for using the wrong words. Please don't take it to literally. Of course I don't want to suggest that certain things are not done or said in good faith. Perhaps my intention was clear? Don't put everything on commons, especially if it does not have enough metadata to make it useful. Quantity and quality. Better try to put less things on commons, but with good background data. I can give you many examples of having a lot of work to arrange all double or triple images etc. on commons, without good categories etc. I regularly find cases that someone puts a lot of things on commons, and leaves it to others to order it. I don't believe that's what we want. But perhaps I'm wrong. Apart from that I did not call anyone a Robin Hood, but I said that we don't want to be Robin Hoods. As far as I'm concerned, we can finish this conversation --Dick Bos (talk) 19:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I used the wrong word. What is the right word?
I think we all understood exactly what I meant.
Robin Hood was not a thief or even criminal, he returned to the pheasants what was wrongfully taken from them, by a corrupt regime acting falsely in the name of and against the wishes of its legal king. A regime so heinous it led to Magna Carta. Calling someone a Robin Hood is in fact a compliment.
Regarding some of the points mentioned here. The British Library brought D.C. Thompson into the project, because the biggest "useful" library in the world did not have the funding, resources, or expertise for this massive project. Had they not done it, or had there been no fiscal interest in creating such archives, they would not exist. The entire past newspaper history of the world would either be in landfill, or on a dusty shelf awaiting the same fate as the en:Library of Alexandria.
The BL decided that they were going to create a fully accessible, properly curated archive of PD or soon to be PD materiel. They succeeded. It took a fiscal model to do it.
The commons model could not have done it, it would tiny, never complete in any part, missing huge chunks, quality would be uneven, and difficult to search. Not even as good as some of the immense government collections, publicly funded at great expense, which are so big, with so few librarians, that they are impossible to index. commons helps there. Broichmore (talk) 13:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Speaking of the wrong word, "pheasants" => "peasants" ("faisans" vs. "paysans"). - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The newspaper upload launched after this thread was started is now at over 14,000 public domain by age newspapers, that's how I invest my time while joining Wikimania sessions on the side. BTW, Robin Hood was a murderer and a thief (reference), don't gaslight our volunteers in this entirely unnecessary way and then tell them off for not thanking you for the "compliment".
Are you still arguing that I should stop this volunteer effort to create Commons educational content, and deserve to be criticized for spending my unpaid volunteer time doing it, or not? --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I never put forward any argument against your downloading a mirror copy of a part of the Internet archive website.
From looking at a small part of it I can see that, google has no entry to it as it has not benefited from any OCR work. The Internet Archive probably got the files from tessmannDigital where there has been some OCR work done. Just looking at these websites is enough to be profoundly impressed with the British Library initiative. The Germans and Italians are catching up, but as you'd expect there is no easy access there for English only speakers and researchers.
Regarding Robin Hood. I never called you that in the first place. Your definitely nothing like Robin Hood. Thanks for letting me know what criminal biographers of the 18th century thought of him.
Am I still arguing that you should stop this volunteer effort to create Commons educational content, and deserve to be criticized for spending your unpaid volunteer time doing it, or not? No, I didn't propose that you should stop. As a matter of fact had it not been for your efforts there would be be virtually nothing here, but non educational crap. Did I criticize you; no I didn't.
Don't put words in my mouth, and while here, I never told anyone off for not thanking me for any "compliment", and I'm not looking for any now either
Giving out some advice or a contrary position to your views is not gaslighting. I have a valid view, and some agree with me.
When the newspaper archives who give Wikimedia free access to their websites withdraw it, because we are disturbing their fiscal model we can point to the internet archive being there first. Actually we're not disturbing their model at all. Their model is selling retrievable indexed access, our model is providing access to material that has to be used the old fashioned way 18th century way; by reading it. Broichmore (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

There's also an OCR dataset, according to [10]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:45, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

  • My understanding of this is that Wikimedia Commons is technically limited in way that well-financed websites aren't, to me the issue is with the somewhat isolationist nature of the website and the COIphobia, I am sure that if we created a Patreon-like model for technical volunteers who wish to add their time into developing technical features to help the Commons with better search and categorisation as well as import tools and help better maintain the tools we already had that everyone would win. Those of us that wish to donate our money could and those that don't want to won't. In fact this is theoretically already the case with the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) that have paid employees that work on the technical side of Wikidata and as a consequence as a website it is growing much faster and is better organised than Wikimedia Commons despite having a lot less volunteers. Despite almost existing for two (2) decades Wikimedia Commons doesn't attract newspaper archives to upload their archives here, we don't have easy tools that if people want to donate their digital content to this website that they could after giving VRT permission, and the website barely has any outreach programmes to GLAM organisations.
I don't get why Wikimedia Commons can't natively add text recognition software to help read words in media files here, such a change would benefit literally every Wikisource yet we're lacking the volunteers with the technical skills to do this. Personally I want to invite Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) over to use their army of technical users to improve the tools here but I think that they basically only care about Wikidata. The problem with Wikimedia Commons is that as a website it doesn't have a vision, there are no large groups of volunteers here that organise together and try to work with museums and other organisations to digitise, imagine if we had "a digitisation taskforce" that approaches archives. I know of a Brazilian user that spent countless hours digitising works to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons but lost his passion for the project because of the "bitey" community. Digitisation projects happen individually here with very little collaboration, Wikimedia Commons is essentially a "do-it-yourself archive".
Looking at this I don't think "We shouldn't take away their incentives by stealing their public domain content" I think "How can we convince such organisations to donate directly?", we should create a partnership programme and try to become a trusted name, The Internet Archive already has such a status but Wikimedia Commons' scope is different and as such should try to build its own reputation, it is quite baffling that despite Wikipedia being one of the world's top websites and most of its images coming from here most people probably have no idea what Wikimedia Commons even is, imagine if some strange website you have never even heard of "steals" your public domain content, Wikimedia Commons shouldn't be "a hidden gem 💎" forever and importing such archives can create more potential for Wikimedia Commons to prove that it could be "a better archive", if we had text recognition software and better integration with Wikidata, and better categorisation, Etc. But for all intents and purposes Wikimedia Commons currently is just "the website that couldn't".
Seriously, just think about all the massive archives Fæ imported over the years that have now disappeared from the internet, we shouldn't discourage users from importing any free educational work because who knows how long it will actually be accessible. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:02, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Why would Commons install text recognition technology? The WMF has installed text recognition technology for Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

100 graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change

Hi all

I'm very pleased to say the EU's European Investment Bank (the largest not for profit bank in the world) has released its first batch of content under an open license. To the best of my knowledge this is only the second EU body to make content available under an open license, after the Commission.

They're released around 100 amazing graphs from the largest survey of the public's attitude to what actions should be taken on climate change (+some photos of their buildings). Broadly it shows widespread support for significant action on climate change.

Please help to encourage them to release more by adding them to articles.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Content_produced_by_the_European_Investment_Bank

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 19:43, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Depictions of minors in "physique magazines"

Just to be safe, I wanted to double-check to verify that certain content would not go against our policy on sexualization of minors, namely "physique magazines" of the 1950s/1960s. Wikipedia's w:Physique magazine article gives some background on the genre. Basically, they were presented under the pretense of being about bodybuilding, but their real target audience was gay men. Models for these magazines often included adolescents. There are some examples (mostly covers) under Category:Beefcake magazines. This issue of Physique Pictorial is pretty representative of the genre. The ages given for models range from 16 (including the cover model), to 28. The magazines did not include exposed genitalia or sexual contact between models (or even any references to sexuality), but the sixth criterion at w:Dost test gives me some pause: Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

I would tend to think this would not be legally classified as child pornography given that these magazines are available at lots of research libraries (e.g. worldcat lists lots of university libraries with collections of Physique Pictorial) and images from them (including images of under-18 models) have been reprinted in books put out by reputable publishers (e.g. w:David K. Johnson's Buying Gay, published by Columbia University Press). Still I wanted to check here since I'm not familiar with how the community has drawn the line on this kind of material in the past. (There was a recent discussion about this material, but it focused only on the copyright aspects.) Colin M (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some statements of fact.
Commons is not censored.
Commons does not host child pornography.
The Dost test (United States v. Dost 1986) has only ever been used in one US court case as part of establishing criteria for assessing photographs of girls aged 10 to 14. It appears to have not been quoted in any court case in over a decade. It makes no sense to try to use it as a way to control what international volunteers are uploading to Commons.
Physique Pictorial is not child pornography.
Scantily clad or nude photographs are not turned into pornography just because a gay man might look at it, rather than some other observer. C.f. Florida v. Brabson, 2008.
--Fæ (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I brought up the Dost test only because it's specifically mentioned at Help:Sexual content#Prohibited content. Colin M (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
This reference has been removed, see Help_talk:Sexual_content#Dost_test. That help page is effectively a user essay and the original text was rejected as policy. --Fæ (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm just going to register here that I'm uncomfortable with that edit. I'm not a lawyer and it's not an area I have experience with, but even I've heard of the Dost test (perhaps not by that name, but that set of criteria). Moreover, you didn't just remove mention of the Dost test, but also the warning that "Images of minors – even if clothed – can be found to be in violation of child pornography laws". That seems like the sort of thing we should retain... If it were a policy page I'd certainly err on the side of reverting here, but will defer to others with more knowledge of precedent, I guess. — Rhododendrites talk |  04:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Less is more. There's no need to water down the statement Manufacturing, distributing, possessing, or intentionally accessing child pornography is a very serious charge in the United States, where Wikimedia's servers and main offices are located. By adding the "Dost test" you just confuse volunteers and create the risk of encouraging wikilawyers to argue about what that obscure and unused USA "test" actually means, for example, it has only ever been used in court for child pornography for very young girls, and Commons is not a host for any child pornography by policy which includes boys, selfies, faked images not of any living child, or even user-created artworks that promote child pornography, none of which is dealt with by vaguely waiving at the dost test.
Again keep in mind that this is not a policy document, in my opinion, the project would be improved by having this help page essay deleted and a meaningful and enforceable policy used and agreed with WMF Legal. Perhaps during UCOC enforcement discussions, this is something to revisit. --Fæ (talk) 14:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
Beyond just saying that we don't allow child pornography (duh), I do think it's important to give the relevant definition of child pornography that we're working with, since there will inevitably be some cases (like the one described above) where files that otherwise fall within COM:SCOPE are at least conceivably in the neighbourhood of some plausible definitions of CP. I've tried to improve on this by moving a link to the US statutory definition of child pornography from a footnote to the body to make it more visible. Colin M (talk) 17:49, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

retroReveal

Colleagues who are having difficulty reading old, hand-written documents might find retroReveal, hosted by the University of Utah, useful; for a given image it produces a large number of varieties with different saturation, contrast, and colour filtering, etc. With a few test images I've found the readability markedly improved. Samples can be viewed here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:54, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Mark photos difficult to be located

Hi! I was looking around Category:Geocoding_templates and I was not able to find a nice template to mark "photos difficult to be located". The purpose is for internal organization, and I was also trying to help in this feature request [11] in the Commons:Locator-tool to be able to exclude these photos if you want. What do you think? Thank you! --Valerio Bozzolan (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

  • We do have "unidentified location" categories. But there are also many items where location would not be particularly relevant (e.g. for a formal portrait of a person we rarely know exactly where it was taken, nor do we usually care). - Jmabel ! talk 15:40, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

"Lock your accounts, redact your Afghanistan pictures"

Food for thought:

I have an important message to everyone who has been over there, whether in a military or a civilian role — please lock down and/or redact your social media accounts.

If you’ve been posting a lot about the people who are in danger, please know that anyone can see a public post. The Taliban has a lot on its mind right now, but they can absolutely use social media, they are using it, and we must all err on the side of caution.

https://nataliaantonova.substack.com/p/lock-your-accounts-redact-your-afghanistan

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Reminder that as well as IRC and email, COM:Telegram is a private group where joiners are vetted, and we have over 200 Commons volunteers as members. It's a good alternative to a public noticeboard to check if some images are a problem or not without having your account associated with these topics. Plus, of course, it makes it a lot easier to exchange private direct messages about media that may be harmful to you or others and so should not be discussed in public "on the record" and perhaps you would prefer not, say, to pass unencrypted through a WMF server or a volunteer-run IRC server. --Fæ (talk) 15:39, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Role account

Per decision of the Wikimedia Foundation as an Office Action, this is a role account and should be granted sysop and bureaucrat access locally. Community consensus is overridden. --Stewar101086 (talk) 11:54, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Who are you trying to troll? --Fæ (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Have you been on the Wacky backy again ?.... –Davey2010Talk 12:19, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 Not done, globally locked instead thanks to Tegel!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Where can I get other Wikimedians' opinions on my photos?

I already used to take picture with my older phone, but now I have a new phone that can really take good pictures. However I'm still a newbie in photography. How can I make better pictures? Where can I get other Wikimedians' opinions and suggestions? Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 11:56, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

There isn't really any informal feedback system like this. You could nominate an image for Quality image but the standards are high, and although mobile phone photos aren't usually made QIs, that isn't a bar. But any defect in composition, exposure or processing is very likely to be spotted. Another way is to nomate for Valued image, but those nominated have be capable of being the best of a given topic, known as the scope. I'd suggest you take a look at Quality image candidates and Valued image candidates to see what is likely to be acceptable. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:10, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
You might also ask others at Commons:Photography critiques. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:02, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Misleading data and maybe more: "male erotic emancipation"

URLs: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_age_of_male_erotic_emancipatio_(thumb-readable).png and https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:European_age_of_male_erotic_emancipatio.jpg

The map and its versions are used cross-wiki, I think I found it first in dewikivoyage.


See the decade-old comments there, the title, caption and descriptions "male erotic emancipation", "lawful pederastic [!] relationships", the map data itself, and the uploader's Toolforge record.

I have not commented there (yet) on purpose, as some Meta is involved, so experienced admins may advise us here first.

Zezen (talk) 19:58, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Zezen dropped me a line about this because I took a "related admin action" years ago, which I gather is the indefinite blocking of the uploader, Haiduc, on the English Wikipedia. That block arose from an off-wiki discussion by the English Wikipedia Arbitration Committee, and so I can't discuss it. At a glance, I would say that the map's a problem because i. it's inaccurate (per the discussion on its talk page), and ii. rather than simply setting out the age of consent in various jurisdictions, it is labelled, for no discernible reason, as being about at what age boys are "emancipated" to engage in sexual relationships with men (which then creates further inaccuracies, as also noted on its talk page). Beyond that, I don't think I have anything to contribute here. Steve Smith (talk) 20:38, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Deep bows @Steve Smith. I thus also have nothing to add at this stage. Zezen (talk) 20:41, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that the labelling also creates a POV problem, I think, since it implicitly endorses the notion that children want to have sex with adults, and that it's only the government's meddling that prevents this. That is, of course, an endorsement calculated to normalize pederasty and pedophilia. Steve Smith (talk) 20:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Related:

--Fæ (talk) 10:15, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Ta. Now that I can see, it had also been flagged also here User talk:Haiduc~commonswiki#Pederasty in 2011: "Why is the word pederasty here? This isn't Ancient Greece". Asking in Commons back then did not help, it is good that Steve gave a go-ahead this time.
Zezen (talk) 10:57, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
The often misunderstood component of these types of image is that Commons policies try to avoid getting involved in value judgements or censorship. The best strategy is to first examine whether a file has any possible copyright issue, then carefully examine whether a good out of scope rationale might apply. The latter only works if the file is not in any 'content' use on sister wikis. All of this means that highly contentious or in truth, anti-educational and damaging content may survive deletion requests. Obviously, if the media is itself "unlawful" under US law, then there's always the WMF office action route which may be highly preferable to attracting public attention of any sort.
At the current time, there are no good answers to this sort of polemical media which in the cold light of day is actually pointless and damages the "sum of human knowledge" because it literally ain't knowledge.
BTW the history of the Haiduc~commonswiki (talk · contribs) account is irrelevant as there was no global lock, and the account never was blocked on Wikimedia Commons. Plus, it's a tangent considering that they stopped meaningful contributions 11 years ago, so let's avoid old rabbit holes. --Fæ (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Rename failed

A rename request was not filled in like it should be. First I tried to rename it with the request that was not filled in fully, after that I filled in the parameters and still I received an error. Can anyone take a look at this? File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Wilmd) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.JPG?

The error: Error while moving the page. Een gedetailleerde beschrijving van de fout wordt hieronder getoond: API request failed (titleblacklist-forbidden-edit): The title "File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Halsee) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.jpg" has been banned from creation. It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*(mattia|vlad|morleo)[^\/]*(mattia|vlad|morleo).*" <i>at Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:23:46 GMT</i> <u>served by mw2397</u>

It looks like the new title is blacklisted, but I think it's probably something 'small'. Thanks in advance. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

I could rename the file without any problems, File:Gedenktafel Nestorstr 22 (Halsee) Vladimir Vladimirowitsch Nabokov.jpg, perhaps a small hickup. Elly (talk) 22:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Ellywa: - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:00, 24 August 2021 (UTC) PS sometimes a few hours later it can be renamed, but now I doubted a little.

Can you edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr and add Template:NoFoP-South Korea/es?

I added content related to South Korean de minimis to Template:NoFoP-South Korea/ko and Template:NoFoP-South Korea/en.

However, I can't edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr because I don't know French.

Can you edit Template:NoFoP-South Korea/fr?

And, please add Template:NoFoP-South Korea/es. I don't know Spanish.

Ox1997cow (talk) 06:25, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ghost date cat

This photo is tagged with Category:Photographs taken on 1985-08-20, yet I cannot find where this information is being stored — it’s neither in the file pages’s wikitext nor (apparently) in the SDC. Help, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: the cat appears to show the current calendar date but in the year 1985. It first showed up with the addition of {{Taken on}}; this template wants a complete date, not just a year. I believe changing that to {{Taken in}} will fix it.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Narrow locations for "taken on"

Hadn't we agreed that "taken on" location should never be more specific than country? I now see the narrow Category:Berlin photographs taken on 2018-04-25 resulting from a narrower use of that template, and even the narrower Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) photographs taken on 2018-04-25. I think this is a wrong direction and needs to stop. In the latter case it looks like something outside the template resulted in this narrow categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Categories are to hide our files. What better way to do that than to keep intersecting things until it's so specific that the category only contains one photo? You don't want people to actually find useful photo's, don't you?
(to be clear, that was sarcasm)
I wrote User:Multichill/Next generation categories quit some time ago and intersections just suck. Structured data might offer a solution for this in the future, but that still seems very far away. Multichill (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
What I'm looking for here is: am I correct that there was basically consensus that "taken on" location should never be more specific than country? And is there anywhere that consensus is documented? - Jmabel ! talk 23:11, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
That sounds like a reasonable idea. Ideally, the WMF should put in a faster Help:FastCCI backend so we can get rid of intersection categories entirely: just classify it as Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) and Category:Photographs taken on 2018-04-25, and the software will automatically know that it's supposed to be part of Category:2018 photographs of Germany (and as a reader, you can look up ridiculous intersections like Category:Mitte (district of Berlin) photographs taken on 2018-04-25 if you wish). We would need some mechanism to mark a subcat relation as non-diffusing, though. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
I think to get rid of intersection categories, Structured Data is the answer. For example, files in Mitte in April 2017 would be: 
SELECT * WHERE { ?file wdt:P180 wd:Q163966 . ?file wdt:P571 ?inception . FILTER (?inception > "2017-04-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime) FILTER (?inception < "2017-05-01T00:00:00Z"^^xsd:dateTime) }
Try it! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
For a "SQL like" statement that's bizarrely difficult and effectively encrypted against being a usable system. If that's how volunteers who currently using plain English category names are expected to make use of structured data, it's not getting off the ground as real volunteers, including 90% of technically minded ones, are not going to learn lists of P and Q numbers before being able to do anything. --Fæ (talk) 13:18, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Query and search are related but not the same read for example [12]. I would like to have better search which should include faceted search. So you can search for a keyword and facets like time (probably a slider) or location (probably a map) are offered. Multichill (talk) 16:28, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd love for categories to be metadata-generated, allowing you to go as specific or general as possible. As for diffusing/non-diffusing, I'd like to see something MediaWiki-driven that allows you to put such a flag in as a parameter much like what you can do with files. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:12, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Replacing licenses of files uploaded by other uploaders

In the course of uploading NASA's image I encountered that a certain file is already uploaded by another user with the PD-own template instead of PD-USGov-NASA. Strictly adhering to the Wikipedian behavioral guideline of the good faith presumption (WP:GF), I interpret this fault as a result of his inattention. Therefore I am more inclined to help a colleague than to file a complaint about this case. Can I fix his error myself by editing his file description changing PD-own to PD-USGov-NASA and 'own work' to 'NASA'?

If not, should this file (File:Mars Perseverance ZLF 0031 0669690707 527FDR N0030828ZCAM05000 0480LUJ.png) be nominated for deletion (thus allowing me to upload it again on behalf of myself and under another file name - I need this image for one article)? Cherurbino (talk) 22:05, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine for any image that is inherently PD. I do that all the time with {{PD-textlogo}} where there's no evidence of permission from the company but the logo is obviously below COM:TOO. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Autopatrol for filemovers

I noticed that the filemover usergroup doesn't include autopatrol in the privileges granted. Shouldn't we include it like we do for patrollers, since our criteria for filemovers are stricter than autopatrol? I see one user who is granted filemover but not autopatrol. There may be others, but I haven't looked. pandakekok9 02:50, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Maps and the United States Threshold of Originality

I found the above flag on this page (another Musée Annam sockproject) and it's locally uploaded to a Wikipedia. The flag belongs to an American political organisation the only copyrightable part of the flag would be a simple map of Việt Nam. However, it is simply a map based on the borders of the country, is such a simple concept even copyrightable under US law? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:40, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:52, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Same picture, different person

File:Dijana_Stevin_2_20160417.jpg File:Ivana_Lovrić_(2016).jpg These to files represent the same person, but it is in two different categories, first for Serbian and second for Croatian handball player. How is it possible to find out which person this really is? Also there is this uncropped photo which is a clue that it is Ivana instead of Dijana. File:Ivana_Lovric_et_Sanela_Knezovic_20160417.jpg. SimplyFreddie (talk) 08:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

My bad, SimplyFreddie is right. It's Ivana Lovrić and not Dijana Stevin ! @Laddo and Jmabel: --Wenflou (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@Wenflou: I requested name change of the picture and changed category. — SimplyFreddie (talk) 20:17, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Declined picture for renaming maybe copyrighted

Hi, yesterday I declined this image for renaming. Now the uploader asks if I can make an exception, but the file is copyrighted on en.wikipedia. According to the guidelines it should be renamed there, but I think this copy looks a lot like the original on en.wikipedia. I didn't see it at first, but saw it a few minutes later. See my talk page, here - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 10:53, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Considering it was just uploaded, and the person requesting the rename is the uploader, he could've made the request with Criterion 1 as justification and it would have been fine to move. Personally, I usually just change the criterion to criterion 1 whenever it's the uploader requesting a rename, but the rename isn't quite justified under whatever criterion they've submitted the rename request. TommyG (talk) 11:25, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The filename is the same as on en.wiki and it's copyrighted there. The file has the same extension (png) and is maybe a bit bigger with lower pixels. So it's not the wrong choice (I change the reason often, from crit. 2 to 1, etc.) but the same filename on wiki and here. I cannot determine whether this version of the file is sufficiently different from the original. Thanks for the reaction. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 12:28, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
The filename is the same, but the image is different. this is the image on en:WP, it shows a slice of lime, while the file on commons doesn't show that. It is taken from another website, probably not an officieal Cocacola design. I see no problem in renaming, but I did not check our guideline for this. Elly (talk) 12:56, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Elly, I didn't see it. My sight is not so good today (and it wasn't yesterday in the evening), it depends.. Thanks! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:10, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Page translation step knowledge

Can anyone please tell me what steps or permissions do I need to translate the main page and some important pages of Commons into Manipuri language (aka. Meitei language), which has its own mni wikipedia and mni wiktionary? And if someone started a translation but isn't complete, can I help the user by translating the remaining untranslated portion? Haoreima (talk) 11:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Artist's impressions

(This discussion does not consider copyright.)

Should "artist's impressions" be allowed on commons? I ask this question because I saw File:Mathieu da costa.jpg. The subject was long dead before photography was invented. The file was probably the uploader's own creation. I pondered this and could think of a few scenarios:

  1. impressions created by notable artists/agencies -- accepted unconditionally, because their creators are reputable. Examples: FBI's sketches of criminals, NASA artists' rendition of exoplanets, CGI of new buildings by developers/govt, CGI of dinosaurs/ancient humans based on fossils...
  2. impressions of something that exists/existed in real world, created by wiki users. Example: someone draws a person/a building.
  3. impressions of something that doesn't exist in real world, created by users. Example: someone draws some imaginary buildings, imaginary machines...

I feel that there should be tight restrictions for #2 and #3. For instance, if #2 is allowed, then users would be allowed to upload lots of drawings of Eiffel Tower, which are not desired. Users could upload their own drawings of File:Mathieu da costa.jpg for someone that doesn't have any attested portrait. That seems to contradict with what an encyclopedia is--a book that's attest from reliable sources rather than user-generated fiction. -- RZuo (talk) 15:08, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

  • I have mixed feelings here but: Commons is not an encyclopedia. It is a media repository. We do host many images that would not likely belong in an encyclopedia. - Jmabel ! talk 17:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
    I am for keeping them, if they comply with the policy: Commons:PS.
    See e.g. the related discussion here: Commons:Deletion requests/Edward Knapczyk files from 2013 and 2017
    Zezen (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We do host Fan art, including related deletion requests, to mention one more category. The question is whether those artist's impressions have potential for being educationally useful. Usually third party "artist's impressions" are, "Commons user's impressions" are not automatically, especially if there are photographs or notable artist's impressions. For portraits of historic people I'd think at least thorough research would be needed for the "impression" to be worthwhile. But some of our uploaders might be notable artists, some might have done thorough research, and for some motives we don't have much to choose from. –LPfi (talk) 18:34, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
    There are also the difference about the motive being relevant and us wanting an illustration on it, versus that the genre itself is relevant, and we want a sample. If there would be a big hoard of amateurs making their own Abraham Lincoln portraits, we'd like to have a sample regardless of the fact that we'd like a proper portrait by a notable artist for showing the person himself. –LPfi (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
there could also be a concern about copyright.
the example i quoted above struck me as it looked like a photo but the person lived in 17th century. only upon checking the file page did i realise it's a wiki user's artist impression.
there are many tools nowadays that can convert photos to drawing of a certain style, oil on canvas, black and white, pencil... you name it. i find these issues very problematic.--RZuo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Downing Street Twitter?

re https://twitter.com/10DowningStreet/status/1430434273740443653

Does anyone know the licensing for the Downing Street twitter? (I can't see it). Can we use this? Are we already importing it somewhere? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

I looked at this a year, or two, ago and wrote to the official email address. No reply. Nothing on Downing Street-related policies explains what the copyright might be. If photographs are not on a .gov website, taking them from Twitter is unknown copyright, even though "in theory" it is an official 10 Downing Street publication. --Fæ (talk) 11:41, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Template:Ministry of Defence Serbia

In October 2020, I asked for clarification about the text "Reproduction is allowed in the whole and parts with specifying content source" on the bottom of all the http://www.mod.gov.rs/eng pages and received no response. It's been nearly a year, and the files I asked about have remained un-License reviewed. Meanwhile, I've looked around the templates in Category:Custom Attribution license tags: a number of these are considered to be "Attribution" with very similar usage notes. For example:

  • Template:Attribution-AgenciaSenadoBr is based on the usage statement "A reprodução de matérias e fotografias é livre, desde que não haja descaracterização de conteúdo e mediante a citação da Agência Senado e do autor. Fonte: Agência Senado" (Google Translate: The reproduction of articles and photographs is free, as long as there is no mischaracterization of the content and by citing the Senate Agency and the author. Source: Senate Agency). This one also survived a deletion attempt, Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Attribution-AgenciaSenadoBr saying that didn't specify commercial use or derivative works.
  • Template:Eurovision-Spain is based on the usage statement "Todo el contenido incluido en esta web, del que eurovision-spain sea propietaria, puede ser utilizado libremente, en base a su denominación de "copyleft", sin solicitar autorización previa siempre y cuando se indique "eurovision-spain.com" como fuente la misma." (Google Translate: All content included in this website, owned by eurovision-spain, can be used freely, based on its "copyleft" name, without requesting prior authorization as long as "eurovision-spain.com" is indicated as the source. herself. ) This also survived Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Eurovision-Spain (though it is less clear why).

So, it seems there is precedent that this very similar notice qualifies for a Custom Attribution license tag. So I'm making it, and intend to apply it to all relevant files, including the ones I asked about first, the files in User:EatchaBot/Files-requiring-license-review-gallery-uploaded-by/130309p. If anyone has any objections you may speak now (or forever hold your peace... you may kiss the bride. No, that's something else.)--GRuban (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, the template in question should be allowed. "parts," to me, seems to mean derivatives, and "reproduction is allowed" makes no exception for commercial use. The next template, I'm not so sure about; the "reproduction" is free, but do derivates really count as reproducing something? The next template seems to be fine; "used freely" implies that one can make derivatives, because that is a part of using it freely. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Can someone reopen a closed discussion?

1½ year ago FredWalsh started a discussion to delete Category:Jenna Ambien Halvorson, a category with only one item with no expectations of more items for this category in the near future. The majority of the contributers agreed with deletion, only Tm did not, but he did not have a convincing argument. After 6 months of no discussion, I closed this discussion yesterday and asked for a deletion of the category (via Speedy delete because I thought this discussion was closed). But today Tm apparently did not agree with this procedure and he has undone all changes, he even initiated a new Category:Jenna Ambien Halvorson.
My question: Is this OK? JopkeB (talk) 17:02, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Is it ok to remove an image from an category and them nominate that category to speedy deletion and them close that discussion? Categories do not have a minimum of images needed to be created and yet this is category was speedy deleted and the image removed from it Tm (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
And category discussions are the way to delete categories, but deletion requests. Tm (talk) 17:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
Jopke, a majority of +1 (you) is not a consensus. There is no rule against categories with a single item, closing the discussion was not up to you, and asking for a speedy delete was definitely wrong. You can and should return the discussion status to still open though. I know it's a pain to see discussions stay open for such a long time, but that's where we are. Learn and maybe later you can help reduce the backlog. Guido den Broeder (talk) 17:54, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A warning template on DR again

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Dont remove warnings.--RZuo (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Google PhotoScan

I've just discovered Google's "PhotoScan" app (Android and iPhone), and am very impressed on first use. It takes multiple pictures and uses them to create a rectified, glare-free copy of a 2D original. Examples are in Category:Acquired with Google PhotoScan, but there are surprisingly few.

Has anyone written (or can anyone offer) tips for using it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Ha and ta for the tip, @Pigsonthewing: installing it now. It may be just what I needed some years ago to take pics of weird, controversial toys and memorabilia through shop windows, see e.g. Jew with a Coin.
Will test it and may return with results in some days' time. Zezen (talk) 12:39, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
I have tested it and it is fine enough for anything trapezoid when in a hurry. Great Google ad too from 2017 - do check it.
For uploads to Commons, a regular scanner is much more accurate.
Zezen (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Script error for regional "photographs taken on" navboxes

An error occurred on Template:Country photographs taken on and its related templates, displaying "The time allocated for running scripts has expired." What exactly went wrong?--N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 02:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Just found that this bug has been fixed.--N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 13:40, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Read-only time on September 6, 2021

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T289660

Hello

You will be able to read but not edit Commons for a few minutes on September 6, 2021. This will happen around 05:00 UTC. This is for database maintenance.

A CentralNotice banner will be displayed 30 minutes before this event. A Watchlist message will also be displayed.

Please share this announcement where needed.

Thank you, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Trizek (WMF): You might want to correct the post above and futurely avoid including tvar tags within posts containing sensitive information. Some of us do speak geek — but then again, obscuring content with needless technoballe is pretty much not your job. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:47, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 08:24, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

Policy on facial recognition tools

This thread is a concept discussion for a potential future RFC. Sources, evidence and existing policies as suggestions to include would be really helpful.

Having seen a recent tool developed that targeted photographs of faces on Wikimedia Commons to match up photos or video like group shots with particular names and suggest wikidata entries, I'm thinking that Wikimedia needs an AI facial recognition policy around privacy and restricting the reuse of photographs of people in unexpected ways. Even free face recognition tools have the potential to, say match faces in a large group photo of Wikimedians at a long past Wikimania to all other photographs, which gives the potential to unexpectedly out Wikimedians or Wikimedians against their professional careers and profiles, including in countries which this could result in real-life harms, like Hong Kong.

I suggest that "good practice" would be that data should at a minimum be anonymized and no tool use has the capacity to out Wikimedians. Whether this could be done in a way that still allowed matching up well-known public figures with their photographs I have no idea, but would probably be difficult and may require an opt-out or opt-in process.

I'm thinking that this may need a Meta RFC as the implications span at least Commons and Wikidata, and potentially all other projects that allow the upload of photographs, like the Wikimania sites and the Wikimedia Foundation's own site.

Example
Commons:Structured data/Computer-aided tagging, prototype created by User:PDrouin_(WMF) (it appears), hosted here but the domain has a hidden registration. There are no policies that constrain using this tool on faces.

Associated ref https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-47555216, "don't be creepy" is a useful benchmark.

--Fæ (talk) 20:08, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I would also like to voice support for a policy on "facial recognition". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Bot run for category files

I have gone into semi-retirement due to a number of factors, some on-wiki, some off-wiki.

It was my sincere hope that someone would pick up my bot's activities from the source code, but the learning curve has been too steep.

I have received numerous requests for a restoration of the daily galleries for categorized files. As such, now that I have some free time, I will be restoring the bot for this purpose only. It will catch several months of missed galleries but will be taking a slow approach in order to allow people to tweak the configuration parameters.

I will leave this discussion up for 48 hours before I take action in case there are any objections.

Courtesy ping @Derbrauni, Rsteen, Krok6kola, Sk, Emha, EugeneZelenko

Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 15:26, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi Magog the Ogre. This is such good news. Thank you, you have just made my day. Cheers --Rsteen (talk) 15:31, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for adjust bot code to API changes and all your work at past! I think will be good idea to recruit backup bot operators and move bot to shared account. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:32, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for everything you have done, so much more than the bots (I do not want to minimize that!) but so much else. Plus for being a wonderful, kindly presence on the Commons. All good wishes, Krok6kola (talk) 15:36, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
thx for your service.
where are the source codes? (sorry if this question is silly.)
i'm interested and happy to help even though i'm optimistically speaking probably at least two years of learning away from being able to handle these codes. so often valuable tools are discontinued when developers retire. another tool that i've always wanted to save is v2c... RZuo (talk) 16:07, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Commons sock / alt policy?

Can anyone please point me at a link on this. Yes, I looked, but I can't find it. Obvious starting points point to en:WP instead.

Now AFAIR, Commons policy here is not identical to en:WP. But I can't find the local one.

Thanks Andy Dingley (talk) 15:44, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

The only reference I can find is in the Commons:Blocking policy ("Evasion of blocks/Abusing multiple accounts"). De728631 (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
My impression was that Commons policy was that undeclared socks were allowed and treated as legit alt accounts, unless they acted in a distruptive fashion. However I've just seen a non-Commons checkuser used to justify an indef of two accounts without any disruption claimed on Commons. If that's the case, then there are a number of Commons accounts with indefs elsewhere on the same basis. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Yep, my impression is the same, but I do not remember where I have seen such suggestion. Anyway, the real life proves that using multiple accounts usually means bad faith. --jdx Re: 04:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Sir, this question is a very interesting to me. I was threatened here by admin AFBorchert saying "We will not tolerate sockpuppets here who disrupt administrative boards". All I was doing was participating in a discussion on a public noticeboard. Please look at the discussion and see for yourself if I did anything wrong. Pack My Box (talk) 16:41, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
My point was about sockpuppets that are not disruptive. I see no evidence to indicate that you are a sockpuppet. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:53, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I am not a sockpuppet nor am I disruptive. Pack My Box (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Commons "multiple accounts" practices are based on past cases we can see. If someone has multiple accounts which appear harmless, they should be left alone.
  1. There's a user that has used a new account every time they upload a set of photographs, they have done it for years. Presumably, they don't want to be outed or have a notable account history. We have no idea if they have multiple accounts running in parallel. This is allowed because there is no evidence that this has been done to disrupt Commons or cause any other harm.
  2. It's fine to run an experimental bot or project accounts on Commons, without seeking permission to do so, though you would do well to the related bot policies. Some users ask for views or go through the process to get a bot flag, but there is no requirement to do so unless a very large number of edits are going to be made, in fact the bot process suggests you to create an account and do some test runs before making a formal request for a bot flag because very often people give up and use some other way of doing what they want. Some volunteers and employees of Wikimedia Affiliates have made role accounts, they are free to do so, so long as it is not confusing. There are plenty of cases where narrow and obvious project accounts are run anonymously, that fact is not a reason on its own to block those accounts or any need to try to "out" those users where there's no rationale for running a SPI case. Over recent years we've seen far more disruption from people using mass editing tools badly, than from anyone using a bot account in good faith.
  3. As with other Wikimedia projects, it's normal to run alternate accounts for demonstrations (i.e. you need a 'vanilla' account), such as editathon training or setting up accounts for others. Unlike some other accounts you don't need special permission to do it, but you can check if you want and think it's good practice or it's a legitimate account that is going to be used in some official way or for large numbers of users.
For many years my understanding is that Commons sysops have no authority, or community consensus, to block accounts without reasonable evidence of breaking basic policies like evading blocks, harassment, misleading or gaming the system. If there is evidence of a blocked account socking, it should go to an SPI case unless there is good evidence that the administrator can produce if asked. --Fæ (talk) 17:36, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'd also note that Commons doesn't have an SPI process, just checkuser. And checkuser (as always) won't do a thing if one of the accounts is an IP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:27, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
What about such cases – oh my, an admin has blocked three "innocent" accounts without CU/SPI. Regarding point #1 mentioned above – IMO presumably they are simply an idiot. IMO using multiple accounts is not normal (except bots and WMF employees) and by default should be considered as harmful. Also, as far as I noticed, those few god faith editors who for some reason use multiple accounts reveal it. --jdx Re: 04:19, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm not looking for opinions here as to what we should do, but rather trying to find if there's already a policy for what we must do.
Multiple accounts is a bit like IP editing. There are good arguments either way for whether we should or should not permit it. But as the rules stand at the moment, we can't hold people to rules that don't exist (although some admins regularly do). But just what is the Commons effect of a CU block elsewhere for socking? What if those same socks are active on Commons? Can you use an IP to circumvent a TBAN on Commons, just because there's no mechanism to stop you? Andy Dingley (talk) 11:36, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Isn't 3rd and 4th sentence of COM:BP enough? Especially …blocking is designed to be a preventative measure…. CUs are more trusted and more experienced users than ordinary admins and I do not see a problem with blocking of some connected accounts here based solely on information that a CU on other project blocked these accounts there. Isn't it obvious? Preventative measure. The life proves it is the right action. Just like blocking of sleeper accounts. --jdx Re: 12:54, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • Of course it's very far from clear! What does "preventative" mean? That's typically interpreted across WMF to mean only if there is evidence of past harm, and only if this removes a likely chance of future harm. CU (CU alone) doesn't show either of those. To block there on a "preventative" basis you'd have to infer that merely socking is indicative of imminent harm (some would certainly support that), but that doesn't sit well with any start point that socking only becomes an issue if harmful (which is strongly implied by any allowance for legitimate multiple accounts, without requiring their explicit acknowledgment). Andy Dingley (talk) 15:28, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
The fact that CUs do not show evidence does not mean that there is no evidence. I am sure they do not check and block accounts for fun. AGF. And yes, merely socking is indicative of imminent harm because A) experience proves it (I am sure many users can confirm this), B) it is hard to find a sensible reason to use multiple accounts in a good faith (except these two mentioned earlier). --jdx Re: 19:43, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jdx: Not sure what you mean by "these two," but I can think of quite a few valid reasons to have multiple accounts:
  • Wanting to keep sexually-related posts separate from the rest of your work.
  • Wanting to keep posts about politics separate from the rest of your work.
  • Wanting to keep posts related to some notoriously litigious individual separate from the rest of your work.
  • Wanting to keep posts where some museum is fraudulently claiming copyright on their high-res files of public-domain material separate from the rest of your work.
  • Wanting to keep posts your employer—or government—might not like separate from the rest of your work.
And for all of these, there is the possibility that they need that separation on one of the other wikis and that it carries over to us. - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
All socks are bad, because they lie by their nature. Declared secondary accounts are a different matter, as per e.g. the enwiki rules. To wit:
  • Wanting to keep sexually-related posts separate from the rest of your work. Do not post "sexual stuff" (whatever that means: naked selfies with ID to match? Jimbo limited these years ago himself) that you would like to keep separate. Sapienti sat what its consequences are, even years later.
  • Wanting to keep posts about politics separate from the rest of your work. Do not post political stuff that you would like to keep separate - I am writing this as an author of a couple of controversial wiki essays, one of which almost earned me a ban from an admin who had not fully read the relevant local wiki policy about user pages.
  • Wanting to keep posts related to some notoriously litigious individual separate from the rest of your work. Too cryptic. (Yes, I know what LTAs are and what they can do, and one of these draft essays concerns "notoriously litigious individuals": most of them SanFranBanned.)
  • Wanting to keep posts where some museum is fraudulently claiming copyright on their high-res files of public-domain material separate from the rest of your work. I know the story, but still cannot suss out how it would affect the main account. Do tell us, with URLs to e.g. SignPost or press reports.
  • Wanting to keep posts your employer—or government—might not like separate from the rest of your work. Do not post info about yourself that your employer—or government—or any doxxer would use to match your account with RL. On Commons (and other WM), nobody should know that I am a dog. (In fact, a declared lolcat, try checking it via my Global.)
  • And for all of these, there is the possibility that they need that separation on one of the other wikis and that it carries over to us. Tell us more, as I may be missing some use cases. (NB. I am talking about regular users, let us leave some ARBCOM-level accounts sub rosa here.)
Zezen (talk) 22:17, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

My personal experience here has been that disruptive socks are blocked, but like yourself I haven't been able to locate any more specific guidance or rules. Even much more restrictive projects like en.wp do allow for "privacy alt" accounts, which I think is fine. Some people want to be so anonymous that they don't even reveal what continent they are on, and they should have that right and still be able to contribute here. Beyond that, I think Commons probably should have a more descriptive policy so users know what is and is not allowed in actual practice. That's how good policies get made, by simply and coherently explaining what is already in practice. However, this very thread suggests there is a distinct lack of a coherent practice so that may be anon-starter. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

I must say that I disagree with "Beyond that, I think Commons probably should have a more descriptive policy so users know what is and is not allowed in actual practice. That's how good policies get made, by simply and coherently explaining what is already in practice.", "community practice" more often than not subverts actual policies and many users ignore actual written policies in order to have their own unwritten practices, for example it isn't written anywhere that the user pages of indefinitely blocked / banned users should be blanked but on most Wikimedia websites (including Wikimedia Commons) everyone just routinely does it, a photographer uploaded thousands of photographs and includes instructions on how to attribute them on their user page and has links to their proudest high quality uploads on their user page? Just blank it all and place a message of "This user is bad and should be shamed for it" and "they are nothing but their bad actions", well, 15 (fifteen) years of good edits with a user page that just lists their on-wiki achievements, DYK's, featured articles, Etc. and they just had one bad week and got into an argument with another editor? Blank everything and make sure that every discussion they've ever participated in links to this "wall of shame". The same goes for global locks being de facto global bans, official policy states that global locks aren't global bans but in practice stewards can globally ban whomever they wish on a whim and administrators on Wikimedia Commons have proven themselves to enforce these de facto global bans even if no local disruptions or sactions have ever been recorded prior. With the socking policy this isn't too different, while I personally believe that Wikimedia websites should first and foremost be about providing free educational content, in reality "sock-hunting" often trumps this. Wikimedia Commons doesn't have a "G5" policy like the English-language Wikipedia, but a number of admins do delete educational files as "sock uploads". Other admins may be against this, so who is to decide which admins are allowed to make this policy through practice? Why would the practices of some admins be more important than any policy? My experiences with Wikimedia websites tell me that ultimately the side of "Exclusionism" always triumphs with or without policies to back up their practices, having policies against their practices won't actually stop them either (see the above).
My issue with many sanctions is that they make something that would be considered "normal" by most users "Disruptive editing" if done by a sanctioned user purely because of the fact that an unblocking admin decided to ban a user from doing normal things on a whim. Furthermore, if a user gets bullied and hounded on-wiki registering a new account could let them get away from the bullies and if their old bullies ever come across them be treated like a normal person (as bullies can have an unexplainable slight against their victims that only exists in their head), of course at the English-language Wikipedia "Avoiding scrutiny" is an anti-socking policy that specifically states that one may not register a new account to avoid any scrutiny and in the strictest possible reading this could mean that if you have ever been warned for anything you now have a de facto life-long one-account restriction placed upon them. People forget how petty people can be and I don't see why policies like "WP:OUTING" and not to commit vandalism like blanking user pages have to take a backseat to the anti-socking policy.
If a 12 (twelve) years old user uploaded copyright © violations from the Facebook ten (10) years ago and was indefinitely blocked after a handful of edits for being a repeated copyright © violators, they learn everything about Wikimedia conduct and policy and copyright and then because they know that registering a new account here would be "Disruptive" the now adult person would have to justify that they've changed and request an unblock, in practice most unblocks are always denied because it is impossible for the user to showcase that they've changed if they've not given a chance that they've changed and an admin can always say "I don't see any good edits, Wikimedia Commons does not need you back" or "I don't see any non-copyright violations so I don't trust this promise". We should let most indefinite blocks de facto expire after a few years and allow for "a clean start". Users shouldn't be blocked for actual disruptions, not because the educational content they added was placed by someone from "an undesirable caste". "Commons:Editing restrictions" lists "They may not use any alternate accounts. They may upload a maximum of three images per week. All images they upload must be their own work. They must give a link to all online sites where they have previously published images they have uploaded. They will not reupload any previously deleted images." for two (2) users that was imposed upon them in 2013, these users are still banned from doing so and appeared to have given up on Wikimedia Commons entirely. Perhaps they did register new accounts and have become productive users that upload dozens of educational content a day, but if we ever find out should they be punished? Most Exclusionists would say "yes" and that is because ultimately exclusion of people trumps the mission of Wikimedia websites, "Ignore all rules", and the readers and re-users that rely on these websites. If we were to adopt a socking policy I would say get rid of the precedent and make it so we can maximise productivity.
Most sockpuppeteers I see usually sock so they can continue adding educational content, vandals are blocked for vandalism on sight, it really doesn't matter if they were blocked before or not as the reason for their continued blocks is their continued vandalism. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:50, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
Another issue I have with writing a sock policy now is that the Exclusionists have "already taken over", you won't get policies where ever having had a vandalism-only account won't exclude you from ever participating like the Dutch-language Wikipedia which recognises that if you were "a bad child, but a good adult" such actions shouldn't forever be punished, note that if your only account is a vandalism-only account and you have now reformed and wish to contribute the chances of actually getting unblocked are slim to null. Wikidata is actually a really good example of a Wikimedia website that quite recently adopted a multiple accounts policy that factually makes any usage of undeclared multiple accounts against the rules and being blocked for socking on any other project can almost instantly get you banned on Wikidata. This policy wasn't designed to actually prevent misuse of multiple accounts or project Wikidata, it was purely done so to punish users. If the blocking policies of Wikimedia websites were actually outright stated to be punitive I wouldn't have had an issue with any of the above, but every Wikimedia website claims to have a blocking policy based to be "to prevent disruption" but are hypocritically used to be as punitive as possible. The trends are also moving towards more exclusion rather than inclusion as on the English-language Wikipedia users are now "community banned" for socking, prior community bans occurred after long discussions and any community banned user that ever wishes to return will have to go through a similar discussion, now the discussion to get someone a trial is gone yet any discussion to have a Sockmaster unblocked must go through this process that is essentially only ever participated in by the most Exclusionist of Exclusionists that forgive nothing and forget all good edits the moment they see a block notice. Would such a system really benefit the educational mission of Wikimedia Commons? I am yet to be convinced. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:09, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
0. Yours is a WP:WALLOFTEXT, Donald, which I saw while typing (and repasting, to avoid edit conflict) this much shorter below:
I am a Commons newbie (check my meagre contributions here or the Uploads count: the latter close to zero), but I have already seen (or helped admis with):
1. A one-off WP:ATTACK case via an uploaded photo Commons:Deletion requests/File:PawelBonkGwiazda.jpg
2. I am participating right now as we type in the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Choojvdoopie case, where a user whose name means "Penis in your ass" also votes and comments therein as a self-declared sockpuppet. No admin block of the socks yet.
3. I remember a recent 2021 case of multilevel WP:ATTACK with sockfarm and reporter A vs sockfarm and reporter B, which had been spilling over to RL, with the competing press articles and more, and then back to WM, resulting in mutual indefs (and more), some traces thereof left in the Commons, now that I can see.
Socking, with or without personal attacks, is bad; especially when using Commons, the visual element of the WM suite of projects. If anything, it scares off of newbies, like these non-socking railway fans in Point 2. More formally: see the UCoC rules, which we may vote in at any moment in Commons, from what I learned during WikiMania 2021.
If you reply to me, do provide specific counterarguments to cases 2 and 3, that such socking may be (or may have been) good there.
Bows, Zezen (talk) 08:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
WP:WALLOFTEXT is a Wikipedia policy and a bad one, if you want say "too long, didn't read" because you can't hold your attention long enough then do so, the length of a text isn't enough reason to ignore it, otherwise nobody would ever read books. But then again "a criticism" without substance doesn't need to be criticised with substance. Just because some users sock in bad faith doesn't mean that all block evasion is bad for the Wikimedia Commons and a user blocked ten (10) years ago for uploading copyright © violations that is now exclusively uploading free educational images shouldn't be punished because of the fact that their "disruptive editing" only consists of evading a block, you simply cannot prove in an unblock requests that you understand what you did right if the judging admin just says "You've tested the patience of the community enough" and doesn't want to give any second chances. The policies should exist to benefit the Wikimedia Commons and its mission not the other way around. I think that newbies are probably more likely to stop contributing if after a week after registration they suddenly get a message that they are being suspected of being a sockpuppet because they just happen to share the same interests as someone else that did something bad a long time ago and will be hounded by sock-hunters and more often than not as "guilty until proven innocent". I agree that personal attacks and harassment should be combatted, just a few days ago a sockmaster active since 2011 kept hurling insults at me, but I don't think that we should punish ever indefinitely blocked user ever with ever-growing harsher policies because people like him exist. The English-language Wikipedia went wrong somewhere some years ago and I really hope that we won't emulate them for the sake of punishing literally the exact type of (ab)user that isn't actually affected by things like blocks, bans, and global locks and global bans but continue their harassment anyhow, while those that just wish to contribute after maybe some abuse many years ago will have no way of return and won't ever be anything more than second-class citizens. We should have a more lax "Commons:Clean start" policy to rehabilitate users, not use all indefinitely blocked users that evade their blocks indiscriminately. Vandals will be vandals, but we shouldn't punish users that haven't been actually disruptive in years simply because of block evasion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:02, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Replying here to User:Zezen's response to me above. I would have thought I was clear, but since you have lightly dismissed every single thing I said, here is some detail & examples:

  • Not everything sexually related (or adjacent to that) is out of scope, or even questionable. Covering a range of how sexually related more or less from presumably most innocuous to least: LGBT-related celebrations such as Pride parades (which I certainly have in my uploads); photographs of burlesque or drag performers (which I certainly have in my uploads, including performance photos); photos of naked people in an event like a naked bike ride (not "sexual" in my view, but some people see it that way, and which I certainly have in my uploads); uploads of older, public domain work that is at least borderline pornographic (ranging from Renaissance paintings with erotic themes to any number of sexualized images of Saint Teresa including Bernini's, and onward into plenty of other images that remain in scope. Offhand, I don't think I've uploaded any such, but I'm glad we have things like Courbet's L'Origine du monde, to take a clear example of something someone might not want associated with their main account, depending where they lived or who they worked for).
  • You say "Do not post political stuff that you would like to keep separate": well, I personally have no problem with posting politically related content of whatever sort, but I can see why someone posting fascist regalia in a museum (which I have posted) might not want that on their main account; ditto for photographs of a political demonstration, especially in a country where there is a reasonable fear of retaliation. I photographed and uploaded an anti-masking demo (idiots, in my view, but newsworthy). I can imagine not wanting my name associated with those images, though I consistently do use one account.
  • You say that most "notoriously litigious individuals" are "SanFranBanned". By that, I assume you mean banned from participation here by the WMF. That would not protect me, or anyone, from a lawsuit. And, really, "litigious" is the least of it: some people are downright dangerous. For obvious reasons I won't name names here, but I've been threatened with violence if I ever again photograph a certain musician, even entirely legally in a public place. I've chosen to abide by that (and think of him as a total a--hole for threatening me rather than making a polite request, which would have produced the same result) but if I hadn't chosen to, I'd still be serving Commons' purposes by doing so, and would certainly not want such a photo on my account, which is closely tied to my real identity.
  • Museums, copyfraud & all that: another case of possible litigation. If your account is closely tied to your real identity, you wouldn't want to expose yourself to possible lawsuit. They'd have a lot harder time trying to sue Syzygy47.
  • My particular employer (I don't actually have one!) or government (U.S.) isn't going to come after me for anything legit I post but what if I lived in Myanmar and had been posting before the recent coup under an account closely tied to my identity? I certainly would use a sock if I were to upload images of almost anything happening there now.
  • Example of how needing separation on one of the other wikis would bleed over to Commons: I translated en:Paragraph 175 from the original German. I happen to live in a country where that is no problem but if (for example) I lived in Russia, or worse yet Uganda, I probably would not have wanted work on that topic associated with my real identity. If I needed to upload an image for that, I'd have used the account I used to edit the article.

I hope that clarifies. - Jmabel ! talk 16:20, 2 September 2021 (UTC)

Dear @Jmabel,
Sorry for having used mental shortcuts, some URLs and WM sociolect: in my posts I prefer to avoid walls of texts. I will thus reply to your pertinent points only:
Not everything sexually related (or adjacent to that) is out of scope, or even questionable
I did not say that. Reread please.
... I'm glad we have things like Courbet's L'Origine du monde
So am I. I love that most of them are here and I had used e.g. smb's boylesque upload in one off-Commons wiki article myself.
... why someone posting fascist regalia in a museum (which I have posted) might not want that on their main account
Why? One of the few things I had posted, and that years ago, was File:Battle of Cable Street as reported in BUF Blackshirt.jpg, File:Paltreu1.jpg, and File:Wall painting of Saint Philoumenos of Jacob's Well Church in Palestine.jpg (the latter two is used in many wikis since now that I can see) - you cannot get more "political" than this, unless you take and upload a selfie while assassinating a president [testing CIA's keyword recognition and sentiment analysis AI here ;)].
I can imagine not wanting my name associated with those images, though I consistently do use one account.
That can I imagine too, granted. That is I had removed the EXIFs and such back then - call me paranoid or a cautious Commoner or both, half-expecting to be invaded by Talibans and their ilk already a decade ago. Why cannot everybody do so? The uploads and contributions are only associated with our nyms, unless we go full Monty. It is a genuine question and not a lead-on - do teach me. I assume I am being naive.
That would not protect me, or anyone, from a lawsuit.
It would - that why we have WMF and other units here for: to cover our asses, see again the "nym only, no ID in sight" rule above. How can you go wrong with that? You seem to concur: If your account is closely tied to your real identity, you wouldn't want to expose yourself ... a lot harder time trying to sue Syzygy47.
And, really, "litigious" is the least of it: some people are downright dangerous.
I realize that, see e.g. Wiki Controversies including the German, French and the famous (ex, alas) ad pectoram Egyptian Wikipedian cases and more, sapienti sat & "not fit to quote" as per the Commons rules. Myself I have a cross-wiki LTA (click) or two on my back: sometimes I say "hello again also here" to them.
I certainly would use a sock [in Myanmar] if I were to upload images of almost anything happening there now.
Again: instead of socking (unless OKed by T&S and such: but then we are talking of courtesy vanish, emergencies, etc., not socks) why not be careful with your online persona (nym) in the first place, as per my "I am a lolcat" rule? See also good ol' Snowden's Internet hygiene advice, for starters.
I happen to live in a country where that is no problem but if (for example) I lived in Russia, or worse yet Uganda...
I am living in such country where these LG+ laws have changed significantly for the worse. Because of the "I am a lolcat WM nym and I do not upload my ID or GPS coordinates" that I have been using since 2000 when I created the WM account (I do not remember if it had been before the SUL) - I do not care.
Your thoughts? Do teach me what I am missing. Zezen (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
What you're missing is that not everyone wants to or can do it that way. I can't go back and anonymize this account, I don't want to give my credit on my photos, and I can't unproblematically anonymize my father's photos. Even if I did, with my uploads you can pretty much tell when and where I've moved; if you suspect who I am, you can make the case pretty solidly. I'd have to think much more closely about what I posted, and possibly withhold valuable photos, to remain anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
I get your point @Prosfilaes (and maybe to Jmabel's, as the below is lacking the SIG).
Scientific studies were done about the pros and cons (Privacy, Anonymity, and Perceived Risk in Open Collaboration: A Study of Tor Users and Wikipedians: We found that risks perceived by contributors to open collaboration projects include threats of surveillance, violence, harassment, opportunity loss, reputation loss, and fear for loved ones. We explain participants' operational and technical strategies for mitigating these risks....) and as yous wrote (and uploaded), you live in a WEIRD safe country, so our mileages (and motivations, here is mine) vary, which is healthy.
As it is veering into meta and touches the upcoming UCoC which I have mentioned above, I will stop this discussion, unless you want to take it to Meta itself.
Bows, Zezen (talk) 09:48, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Similarly. I could not (and would not want to) somehow anomymize my account, and as a sometime representative of a user group it would be difficult if not impossible, anyway. Rather similar to Prosfilaes, especially on having uploaded some of my late father's photos but also on the fact that I'm a semi-pro photographer, and I've won awards for my photography, and I certainly want my work here credited to my real name. And, yes, back when I had a listed landline (I don't now) it meant the occasional threatening or cajoling phone call, and it still occasionally means the email equivalent. I consider it completely appropriate that someone, especially someone working in more controversial areas than I, might want a separate account or a series of throwaway accounts to upload images that might raise this sort of issues. [Belatedly adding sig, this preceded Zezen's remark immediately above, Jmabel ! talk]
  • I am not opposed to a specific page but the current blocking policy already lists all the possible abuses done by a user using multiple accounts. I would take issue with the creation of a specific Sockpuppet Investigations infrastructure separate from the current Checkuser requests. The Checkuser requests already work as required and, unlike Wikipedia, I have rarely seen anything but good conduct on the RCU pages here. The problem with SPI's is that they specifically create the infrastructure and bureaucracy needed to have a whole class of users that essentially only edit to exclude others, I have seen a number of bad SPI's on Wikipedia over the years including an Iranian man that edited LGBT-related articles with one account and had another account with his real name and was openly connected, while he wasn't blocked he was ordered to only use one (1) account after he was found out for using a similar writing style (not for any actual abuses) because some people already see "one account per person" as holy. Meanwhile I remember seeing a user that was active for over half a decade get blocked for block evasion who had written a large number of DYK's and FA's and was only found out because five or so years ago he had some overlap with his blocked account and a sockhunter managed to spend his free time, not improving the encyclopedia or researching content to improve, but to find very old edits of a productive user that hadn't been disruptive in years and get them blocked, everyone in the SPI was like "Wow, you found him based on this super old information, I am impressed" and the conversation evolved into which one of his high quality articles to delete. It is the fact that I hadn't bookmarked any of these but I sometimes talk to Wikipedia critics that link such SPI's to me and they aren't rare. SPI's create a cultural environment where you have users that in many cases essentially only go over the contributions of users to find an excuse to get otherwise productive users blocked for block evasion, in many of these cases these users were once productive Wikipedians themselves and overtime many retired from content editing and their only hobby often is sock-hunting, I don't think that there is any better example of "WP:NOTHERE" than users like that.
Does the Wikimedia Commons really need such an infrastructure that will create such a culture? I think not, it will quickly devolve into "this user used this camera in 2013 and was in this village of France there, then this other user used the same camera in France then". We already have had this with the exposure of an anonymous Hong Kong-based photographer that has used a lot of accounts over the years, at the English-language Wikipedia they would already have been blocked because they would say they used "socks" to "avoid scrutiny" while many other reasons may exist. If disruption continues and the disruption indicates that it's the same as a previous disruptor then they should be blocked, unfortunately the act of block evasion itself is already considered "disruptive" no matter if no other disruptions or bad edits are performed. I think that after a certain amount of time (perhaps three (3) years or something) indefinite blocks should be considered to have expired unless imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) or it was a major scandal like the physical threatening of users, doxxing, legal ⚖ actions, Etc. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:19, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I assume that the term "TBAN" here means "topic ban", well, the thing about these types of bans is that they're almost always indefinite and if they're confined to one area with a user who is known for having only good conduct in any other area (most users who get topic banned) then they're also essentially impossible to appeal. This is because of the fact that good conduct in any other topic field cannot prove changed behaviour in the topic field they've been sanctioned at. The thing about essentially any sanction is that they make it "disruptive" for one user to do something that wouldn't be considered to be "disruptive" if done by any other user. If they used an IP to leave a productive comment or edit productively in an area they were banned from and actually help the Wikimedia Commons then the only thing their ban is preventing is good edits (as blocks and bans are supposed to be preventative). Of course, I am not familiar with the situation you are describing and continued disruption just deserves the same actions as disruption usually would with perhaps some extra "punishment" for socking but if a user is proven to be capable of being productive and wants to help then I don't think that we should be handling out eternal damnation.
  • Regarding SPI's, I strongly suspect that their infrastructure creates some sort of "Sock-hunting industrial complex" as with large systems I would usually say "follow the money" and then ask "Who benefits from it?" but the fact that 99.99% of all Wikimedians are unpaid volunteers proves that people aren't exclusively incentivised by money and I think that a lot of people receive their daily dose of dopamine, oxytocin, serotonin, and endorphins (sometimes referred to as D.O.S.E.), so their "daily dose of D.O.S.E.", from "the thrill" of hunting socks and likely also deletion. I have seen users brag about deleting articles from the main pages of Wikipedia's and other "highly visible pages" just like how some people enjoy making educational content others enjoy deleting content (note that I am not talking about the deletion of all content, most people just want to delete things that should be deleted but there are some that take it a bit further). What is a daily occurrence for me is a sequence of events like this, I see an edit on my watchlist, I am curious to the mentioned category, I see a really charming image of a woman with missing teeth and a cute smile and want to check out the photographer, I find out that he's banned from the English-language Wikipedia, and then find that while banned in 2013 he's still banned and actively hunted today. The SPI contains instances of people suspecting numerous new users that later turn out to be innocent accused of being sockpuppets, at this point I am somewhat certain that the SPI process does more harm to new users than good, simply sharing the same interests is often enough to inspire suspicion.
  • I think that we should weigh blocks and bans with their benefit, if the only "disruption" a user has conducted in the past few years is evading a block and/or community ban and if their edits would have been by any non-sanctioned user then the block defeats the purpose of "preventing disruption" and should probably no longer be enforced. I would say that this situation is one of the few times where I would say that the right thing was eventually done after the evading of an 8 (eight) year old block.
  • Also note that "communities" are seen as "collectives" and "a collective" can only be represented by those people perceive to be their leaders, while I am sure that most Wikipedians and other Wikimedians only care about content and don't frequent "Commons:" and "Wikipedia:" spaces a minority does, once you create the SPI infrastructure these people will often start speaking for "the community" and talk about "community health" as most people they interact with are each other they will find more support for deletion and exclusion and ask for more tools that delete pages and exclude people as most of their hobby on Wikimedia is deleting pages and excluding people, the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) almost exclusively talks to admins as "community leaders" and since one is more likely to need admin tools for deletion and exclusion while most forms of content creation are available to (almost) anyone and most user rights don't really assist with content creation the WMF will basically only receive feedback that we need to delete more and exclude more hence more and better tools get developed for mass-deletion and mass-exclusion while tools for content creation get both neglected and not developed. I rarely see new software being developed that aids content creation but "fighting spam", "fighting vandalism", and "fighting deception" are always prioritised. This is why in 2020 the English-language Wikipedia had a lot less editors than the year prior despite having a significant growth in pageviews (I should look up these statistics later, I believe that I e-mailed them once to someone I was talking to). I also suspect that the reason why the Simple English-language Wikipedia isn't as big while the Wikimedia Commons are is because of the former having "the one (1) strike rule" and actively "trying to handle the enwiki banned" (as a Stewart put it in a discussion about the closure of that wiki). At some point I think that we should decide to stop enforcing infinite punishments for finite crimes that in many cases have long stopped.
  • TL;DR version, indefinite sanctions should probably expire and we should invest our free time and resources in stopping active disruptions that harm educational content rather than enforcing sanctions for the sake of enforcing santions. I believe that the SPI infrastructure will just create a class of people that will create a vicious cycle where enforcement of sanctions will only get worse (like the recent enwiki adoption of community bans for all sockmasters) and that most blocks and bans shouldn't be indefinitely enforced except for the very worst offenders. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:06, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment, as this policy page will eventually be created here is something to consider. I don't want to write here too much but think that the following might adequately get my point across. The year is 2010 (two-thousand-and-ten) and two (2) twelve year olds have the same idea to vandalise the Wikimedia Commons, they are both avid fans of the Wikimedia Commons but their brains are going through "a rebellious phase" or perhaps they had a classroom discussion on vandalism on Wikimedia websites and they both decide to do the same thing but differently, the first twelve year old, let's call her Felicity decides to register an account to vandalise because as far as she knows websites require registration to edit, the other one whom we shall call Serenity finds out that unregistered users can edit and they both vandalise different but similar enough pages in the same way, Felicity gets indefinitely banned as a "Vandalism-only account" (VOA) while Serenity gets a three (3) week long block or perhaps only a single week. Neither of them have thought about the Wikimedia Commons but if both Felicity and Serenity decide to register an account and contribute free educational content to the Wikimedia Commons then Serenity is allowed to do this but Felicity would be "disrupting the project" by evading her ban. I remember seeing a somewhat similar case on the English-language Wikipedia where a cheerleader said how she was previously blocked for socking for when she was a teenager and had to appeal using her almost a decade old original account, I can't remember her user name but remember her putting the "Reformed vandal" userbox on her user page and didn't edit much as during her unblock request people still told her that she was walking on thin ice and that the unblock was some sort of "final warning". I don't see how this policy actively helps either the Wikimedia Commons or its mission, I don't see how this is compatible with the spirit of "Ignore All Rules" (IAR), it just seems like excessively punitive for the sake of punishment. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:24, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment Everything that Donald said. I'd like to add that sometimes indefinite blocks and bans are imposed in error, especially when you edit so-called 'controversial topics'. In such a case, it is never possible to show improvement, because you didn't do anything wrong to begin with. That doesn't leave many ways for a good editor to resume contributing. Guido den Broeder (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Having a tip jar on user pages

Any thoughts on whether as a community we would allow adding a 'tip jar' to a user page?

Though I've had some support and the odd donation over the years towards hardware, the vast majority of my projects have had nil funding and ongoing costs of bandwidth, some software, and wear and tear (on memory and drives) have never been factored in. It would not count as spam, so I think this would be allowable under the WMF terms of use (happy to be corrected) and I could declare any donations via this route if folx wanted transparency and if there were any to declare! Maybe if we do allow it, we might want to define in what circumstances/projects/types of users where it would be valid. --Fæ (talk) 17:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Fæ: I'm simultaneously super-sympathetic to you on this, especially considering the amazing amount you do, and very worried that this could open a can of worms. Yes, we'd really need to be clear on where this would be OK and where not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
    I'm thinking that there have been some projects where some direct but small crowdfunding was used outside of any WMF Affliate, anyone know of an example? But I may have misunderstood how they worked. "Tips" would uncontroversially be to help expenses for projects, not to buy me nicer shoes, so it could be arranged as linking to an external site for maintaining specific long-running projects like COM:IA books or the COM:UK legislation project, rather than funding the uploader. Anyone is free to run a Wikimedia project crowdfunding page, just as Affiliates can take donations even though they are (mostly) not allowed to do fundraising campaigns, but the question is just whether a Wikimedia Commons user can or ought to add them to their user page based on our local consensus around what is or is not spam.
    By the way, I'd also check with the WMF before doing anything on-wiki, just in case. --Fæ (talk) 20:16, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
It may be heavy-handed, but we could always have a norm that any 'tip jar' type links on a user page need to go through a standard Commons proposal. If we don't ban them, then we need to avoid making it more of a burden than putting in a grant request for ten times or a hundred times whatever someone might actually get from a handful of 'tips'. If we do ban them, then that's probably something worth a mention on our user page guidelines.
Context For those unaware about the costs of running the WMF or a WMF Affiliate, small expenses or micro-grants are highly inefficient. If someone needs, say, $100 to buy some minor hardware, like a hard drive or a RaspberryPi to use as a headless home server for an open knowledge project, then the end to end costs of reviewing, authorizing and transferring money or purchasing kit for the beneficiary, may well be significantly more than the value of the grant. This alone is a very good reason to allow self-run crowdfunding, or simply direct giving, rather than passing through intermediary 'agents', regardless of how well-intentioned they are.
BTW, try asking the WMF or an Affiliate about their efficiency, you get interesting answers. --Fæ (talk) 10:45, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
I think it would be okay if users link a supporting method on their page. Maybe we should create and template for this with a standard disclaimer like "These donations go to the user directly. The WMF is not involved. The user is responsible for all legal requirements." --GPSLeo (talk) 11:55, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
Strong no. A can in a can in a can of worms, no time to look for a Matryoshka doll illustration here in Commons. Zezen (talk) 12:26, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Why? Direct giving is well established and there are several secure ways of doing it. It's hardly a 'can of worms', even WMF trustees have approved of volunteers looking for direct funds.
Someone may well want to give $1 towards a Commons project rather than donate $100 to the WMF hoping that $1 of that might end up going to otherwise unpaid volunteers who might happen to also satisfy the WMF grants programme, rather than WMF or Affiliate operational costs.
BTW I see you have a special interest in LGBTQ-related topics. As a general reminder m:LGBT+ exists and can help support any LGBTQ contributors wanting to talk off-wiki in a safe space environment. --Fæ (talk) 10:42, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
Why the personal attack, disgustingly sexualizing me by using an "OnlyFans" allegation? You are deliberately creating a hostile environment, it is unwanted.
You have for years been helping to whip up off-wiki trolls to make attacks and false claims about me, openly in public under your Wikimedia account name. These are the actions of a bully with authority, someone that should never have access to Oversight. You know full well that some of the people you are prompting off-wiki are potentially dangerous and you know that I have had years of being targeted with abuse and death threats.
You frighten me. --Fæ (talk) 11:52, 28 August 2021 (UTC)
@Beeblebrox: Your comment doesn't help, and is of unacceptable behaviour. Please retract your comment and apologize to Fæ. pandakekok9 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
i never agree that "links to donations/crowdfunding" could be in violation of wikimedia websites or the "wiki spirit". sometimes i see sysops banning people or deleting user pages because they have such links. i find that extravagant.
  1. as far as i am aware, no wiki policies forbids users collecting donations.
  2. why should wiki sites be different from any kind of ugc sites such that people cannot put the common "give me a coffee/beer" kind of thing, for readers to voluntarily give some appreciation?
  3. most people who visit wiki websites dont even know how to figure out who's behind the text and photos. they assume content pop up just like other big media corporations. having a link on the user page is by no means excessive promotion.
  4. WMF itself runs those big ass donation banners and ask for so much, but is not so transparent with its finances, yet users arent allowed to put a simple link on user pages?
  5. there are contributors whose work i am very grateful for, for example the Category:Photographs by Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 who's been around longer than most people and continuously uploading. a way to give material appreciation to users i like would be nice.
...
i never saw the need for a discussion on this either. such links for donations should be allowed, plain and simple.--RZuo (talk) 23:12, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
to sum it up: such links are passively, not even actively, seeking donations; donations are made on completely voluntary basis; and the knowledge threshold to be able to find the link on user pages is already too high for most visitors of wiki websites.--RZuo (talk) 23:20, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with this. We had photographers who made requests for donations of better cameras on their user page, and we didn't have a problem with that. I think a bit of financial help to our volunteers (especially bot operators, photographers, and other technical users like independent MediaWiki devs) wouldn't be against our mission. pandakekok9 08:37, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support, this is a brilliant idea. I am sure that many people see one of the millions of contributions Fæ has made to Wikimedia Commons over the years and would want to help. While personally I would like such a system to be transparent it will be dependent on third (3rd) party services so I can't really ask for that. Here is something nobody thought of, GLAM institutions likely will be more receptive to Wikimedia Commons if they had a "Donate to the XXX Museum" "button" on their user pages or perhaps on all their uploads like "This image was brought to you by the museum of funny hats - You can donate here" or something, we should find more ways to incentivise GLAM institutions to donate their collections and many of them refuse to donate because they think that donating to Wikimedia Commons is financially disadvantageous to them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Note that "In my original vision" for such a system it would be like "a wishlist" where users can place equipment or monthly costs of services, Etc. they would want and then disclose when they've made the purchases, or users can be contacted by potential donors to send the equipment directly to them (depending on what the person wants) in a way that is accountable. But such a transparent system wouldn't be easy to enforce and everyone has their own preferred third (3rd) party options and I don't expect anyone to just donate to random users so the chance of scammers using Wikimedia Commons in this way would be minimal. And regarding the whole "fear of paid editors", on other Wikimedia websites undisclosed paid editing would be bad because they can manipulate works to skew perceptions in their favour, on Wikimedia Commons all they can do is upload educational content to be made free, in fact Wikimedia Commons should be encouraging paid contributors to come, I highly doubt that anyone paid to "remove an unflattering image" would actually be successful and say "My client wants this image removed", but that's a different discussion. I genuinely think that having options for donations might be a way to make Wikimedia Commons "more competitive" for GLAM institutions, doesn't Flickr actually pay GLAM institutions or something? No wonder we have so few GLAM donors. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:23, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Doing so would of course not be prohibited by COM:PAID. Depending on how it was implemented, it could run afoul of Commons:Project_scope/Pages,_galleries_and_categories#NOKUSER. A request for donations on a userpage would not be entirely without precedent, see for example Special:Permalink/106664930#Kickstarter (courtesy ping @Evan-Amos: ). I concur with others that doing so could open several cans of worms, both legally and with the community. I agree that anyone interested in requesting donations should ask the community first. Personally I feel that the use of such donations should be restricted to actions that benefit the project, but there is no reasonable way for the community to enforce that. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 18:37, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I can see why Fae raises this, as their indefinite block on the English Wikipedia (which is now well on its way to be a community ban) essentially rules them out of many forms of Movement funding. I know their requests for equipment from the WMF have not met with success (possibly related to that block?) and their local chapter is probably unlikely to issue any further funds beyond a MacMini purchased in 2014. I do wonder if contributors potentially financially supporting other contributors opens a can of worms about how those contributors then behave in on-wiki discussions? Would some form of COI disclosure be required in these cases, e.g. "I'm supporting this user as an admin but for disclosure purposes I also received $200 from them in tips in the last months?" The Land (talk) 21:47, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
I can see why you make that point. Probably not being evil, just cynical perhaps. A healthy cynicism might be OK. Kicking a man when he's down, meh, I don't like. But you're right, a bit of a can of worms for those with some sort of axe to grind. Rodhullandemu (talk) 21:57, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
If the WMF ignores requests simply because they are by sanctioned users this is a problem, it means that ideas aren't evaluated based on their merits but simply based on their status as "an undesirable" or "an untouchable" then this system can easily be abused by admins (as blocks and sanctions are rarely questioned) and would be an easy way to get rid of "grant enemies". Of course I have no illusions that Wikimedia websites are a meritocracy but the fact that the WMF has such biases shows that these issues exist "beyond the community". Fæ is probably the most valuable contributor Wikimedia Commons has and if the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) chooses to ignore them based on other Wikimedia websites' decisions then it would be nothing but reasonable to have a way for their "fans" on Wikimedia Commons to be able to support them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:11, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Support by principle, though sharing the same worries already stated by Jmabel. However, I believe if the system is transparent it will not be problematic. I recall when Poco a Poco had his camera robbed in... Argentina? and started a donation/crowdfunding campaign so that he could buy a new camera and do the photographs for Commons. It's something some commoners have already been doing over the years, and I really don't see anything wrong with it, quite the opposite. Even Poor Clares accept donations. Are we Poorer than the Poor Clares? .-- Darwin Ahoy! 13:28, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
  •  Comment As crowdfunding is mentioned above, see also meta:Crowdfunding − probably not up to date, but still relevant. Jean-Fred (talk) 17:19, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Beeblebrox

Not to revive the off-topic discussion but regarding the "OnlyFæ" remark, well OnlyFans isn't an exclusive pornographic website and many artists use OnlyFans without sexualising themselves, while I find the original mark immature (for different reasons) I don't think that we should try to read something more offensive between the lines. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:11, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Identical audiovisual files uploaded with different coding formats, which one to keep?

for example, File:Hot twerk choreo.webm (VP8) vs File:Hot twerk choreo (no audio).webm (VP9).

there're lots of formats: List_of_codecs. when something is uploaded in different formats, should only one, or several, or all of them be kept? RZuo (talk) 13:26, 24 August 2021 (UTC)--RZuo (talk) 20:48, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

off-topic
It has been suggested off-wiki that the best answer to this question is neither. I would agree, unless every model/dancer has forwarded a release. SashiRolls (talk) 18:08, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Cf. COM:PEOPLE. Searching for "model release" I found that @Rhododendrites: has placed the {{personality}} rights template on a picture of an -- admittedly -- much more recognizable fellow. SashiRolls (talk) 18:29, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Ha. Indeed. For context, though, I uploaded a bunch of files from the Coney Island Mermaid Parade 2018 and added personality rights to all of them at the time of upload by default (most of them aren't wearing masks). So I wouldn't read too much into that (and I have no objection if someone wants to remove it). Is that file linked from COM:PEOPLE in a way I'm not seeing? I may be missing something in this thread, though. The beginning is about files of different codecs and the end is about releases? — Rhododendrites talk |  18:39, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi. :) My question is, are the videos the question is about "in scope" without model releases? SashiRolls (talk) 18:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
That particular example has bigger problems than that with it.. killing two birds with one stone ;P 109.146.83.213 10:26, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
NB: The following comment has been moved out of sequence. Check the time-stamps below to confirm that it was a response to OP. SashiRolls (talk) 15:15, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
I saw that you voted in an RFA on en.wp in relation to this and other pornish files being nominated for deletion. Why are you hiding Rhodo's lovely photo? Geez! :) SashiRolls (talk) 20:04, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
 Delete The original file has now been deleted as "out of scope". The supposedly off-topic section suddenly seems very much on-topic. SashiRolls (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
my question is, if any audiovisual file is uploaded in different formats, should only one, or several, or all of them be kept? and how to decide?--RZuo (talk) 19:14, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
RZuo Sir, I do not understand your choice of example videos. Both uploads are "webm" format. The difference is one says it has no audio. I did not play them because frankly I would not like my coworkers to see scantily clad young women shaking their bottoms on my screen, but if that upload has the audio it must be deleted as a copyright violation. The video maker can release the video under a CC license but they do not own the rights to the music. Pack My Box (talk) 20:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
neither of them has audio, but one is VP8 and the other is VP9, so they're identical except codecs.--RZuo (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: to me this is similar to having two identical TIFF images with two different compression schemes; in general I would prefer to keep the highest quality version, regardless of codec, which would be in line with the usual practice for other media. From a purely technical standpoint VP9 should offer improved compression effiency over VP8, i.e. if the two files are created from the same high quality source, with similar enconding settings and similar bitrates VP9 should be the superior file. However numerous factors can impact this. For instance, if the VP9 file was created using the VP8 as source material, VP9 would only, in the best case scenario, offer a reduced file size with no quality improvement. If the VP8 encoding was done with perfectly fine tuned settings and the VP9 encoding was done with a fast-as-possible setting, the VP8 file might be superior in quality. --Askeuhd (talk) 21:49, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
thx! sorry i'm a noob in this area. may i ask how quality could be assessed? is there a quantified approach? the two example videos have the same resolution, but bitrates and file sizes are slightly different.--RZuo (talk) 22:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
A tool like MediaInfo or ffprobe can provide more details on each file; if they are technically similar (framerate, color, encoding metadata that may reveal the source material) the next step for me would be to sample a number of frames from each video side by side, and examine any visual differences, for instance compression artifacts. Based on watching approx. 2 seconds from each video they appear pretty similar in quality to me, so I would go with the VP9 version, as I am unaware of the source material, which is probably a H.264 encoded video. --Askeuhd (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
many thanks for your sharing of the technical know-how! they're very helpful! i'll see where i can write down these infos so users could apply the knowledge.
i suppose the short conclusion is there is no easy, straightforward and universal way to make the judgement when such cases arise. good luck to other users that run into these things then...--RZuo (talk) 08:54, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/08&oldid=680566400"