Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/02

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

WCQS beta 2 now live

The Search team is excited to announce that WCQS beta 2 is now live and available at https://commons-query.wikimedia.org/. Release notes available here. Thanks everyone for your patience and engagement! MPham (WMF) (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

2 videos nominated for speedy deletion, license laundering?

Hello everyone, I migrated the following two videos from YouTube to Commons:

File:Бойня при Алматы 360p.webmhd.webm

File:Так сейчас выглядит мэрия города Алматы.webmhd.webm

They were recently flagged for speedy deletion by User:A.Savin as suspected license laundering. While I assume these flags were done in good faith, I would expect that if these files are indeed license-laundered, then some evidence of the laundering should be presented before the files are deleted. I tried to see myself if they were laundered and could not find any evidence of it. I am bringing this to discuss here, but if there is a better forum for it please let me know and I can migrate that discussion. Thank you. Victorgrigas (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I marked both files per this request by Esetok and per this explanation, which both sounds plausible. Regards --A.Savin 18:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I changed the speedy to proper DRs to have a discussion. Yann (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, thank you User:A.Savin. Yes I see now, in my opinion both videos appear to be license laundering. They do appear to be from a YouTube account that is laundering licenses for other videos. Victorgrigas (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking for help with Hebrew

I was reviewing File:Prof. uri seligsohn.jpg and there is some Hebrew text in the description that I need assistance with. A quick Google Translate indicates that the source says something to the effect of "the photo album of the deceased's family." and the author is "seligson family". It appears to be a copyright violation, but the uploader does have a mix of OTRS validated licenses and speedy deletes for missing license. Can a Hebrew speaker take a look at it or communicate with the uploader? --William Graham (talk) 14:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, Idk if this is the correct place to ask, but I was wondering if somebody can help me fix the lighting on this file? I don't have the PS program. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

@SebïFïg: Can you pick a more balanced frame from that video to show the subject in a biographical article?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:41, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Sure SebïFïg (talk) 22:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Done SebïFïg (talk) 22:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@SebïFïg: Thanks! Pinging @Cornerstonepicker as OP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. @SebïFïg: My actual idea was to only lighten the part of the photo that was darker, keeping the original size 😅. is it possible? Cornerstonepicker (talk) 00:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Cornerstonepicker: No, sorry SebïFïg (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Harry S. Truman bust

Correct me if I'm wrong but an image of the bust of harry truman should be allowed on the vice president bust page as the sculptor died over 70 years ago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Journey896 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 February 2022‎ (UTC)

In USA it may be different. Ruslik (talk) 20:47, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Journey896 and Ruslik0: This sculpture is by American Charles Keck (1875 - 1951), who carved it in a New York City studio and then presented it to the Senate (which then started showing it) in 1947, but it has no indications of a copyright mark that complies with the formalities then in effect. Per COM:US and COM:HIRTLE, it qualifies for {{PD-US-no notice}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I understand the image is by that logic all the images should be and they are however I'm asking is the sculpture able to be shown the vice president bust page says over 70 years after the death of the creator however this image keeps getting removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7081:f00:ec0c:5053:74b9:56cb:e4ad (talk • contribs) 00:24, 3 February 2022‎ (UTC)
Can you please provide a link? It is hard to give you an answer if we have to guess which page you are talking about. From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Based on where the file is currently linked, I am assuming that you are talking about en:United States Senate Vice Presidential Bust Collection. Looking at the history there the previous bust for Truman was File:Harry_s_truman.jpg, which was deleted as a result of Commons:Deletion requests/Files of User:Ooga32. If you are saying that this new file at File:Harry truman bust.jpg is the same image, it sounds like it exists here as a breach of process. The correct procedure is to make a case at Commons:Undeletion requests rather than reupload the deleted file. Can an admin please check if this is the same file that was previously deleted? From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
See also Commons:Undeletion requests/Archive/2022-02#File:Harry_s_truman.jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 02:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That the bust has been showed in the Senate does not mean that the work was published at that time. The date of the publication is still is not clear to me. Ruslik (talk) 20:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ruslik0: I am not an expert on US copyright but, from my understanding, I believe a sculpture is considered published once a copy has been made. According to the US Senate,[1] at least three copies of the bust in bronze have been made and distributed. One of the bronze replicas is apparently in the rotunda of the Missouri State Capitol, which would suggest that it is accessible to the public. So both the original marble and at least one bronze copy are on public display. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
The sculpture was also replicated in photographic form and published in 1965. See Compilation of Works of Art and Other Objects in the United States Capitol, p. 179. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Updates on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines Review

Hello everyone,


The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the Universal Code of Conduct across the movement. Comments about the guidelines can be shared here or the Meta-wiki talk page.

There will be conversations on Zoom on 4 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC, 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC, and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Join the UCoC project team and drafting committee members to discuss the guidelines and voting process.

The timeline is available on Meta-wiki. The voting period is March 7 to 21. See the voting information page for more details.

You can read the full announcement here. Thank you to everyone who has participated so far.


Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:34, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

New venue to review DR closures needed

We have COM:Undeletion requests and COM:Deletion requests, but the former is about reviewing deletions, not kept files. The closest we have is either re-nominating the same file or COM:AN, yet I'm unsure whether they are adequate. A new venue is needed to review contentious closures. How about either "Deletion review" (similar to Wikipedia's) or something like that? I don't want to propose a venue that would broadly apply to other non-DR discussions. This is an idea; I've not yet developed this into a proposal. --George Ho (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with renominating the same file? The more processes we have, the more admins we need to monitor and operate those processes. As admins are already overstretched in the field of deletions, I don't think this will be a beneficial change. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We can always have a bot add a category for images that have been nominated previously and are being nominated again. It wouldn't require the creation of a new COM review process, and if someone wanted to just concentrate on looking at those deletions, they could click on the category. There is probably just one or two each month, mostly centered on nudity. --RAN (talk) 01:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Check location

This is certainly not in the urban area close to Essen hauptbahnhof.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

roughly here https://goo.gl/maps/NQFsw481iHwQ8zSt9 . RZuo (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It is close to Category:Bahnhof Essen-Altenessen, but there is no linked railway line category to the station on the 2650 line Cologne - Oberhausen - Hamm. In principle a picture outsite a train station should always have a railway line category.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload recent photos (by someone) of artworks out of copyright?

Can I upload recent photos (by someone) of artworks out of copyright? One example is the photo of Studio Sommariva (active until 1980), of a work of Domenico Induno, an artist who died more than 100 years ago (in fact 144) ( https://www.lombardiabeniculturali.it/fotografie/schede/IMM-2y040-0000614/ ), are these kind photos considered copyrighted because the photographer died less than 80 years ago (in fact only 42), or is considered only the painter, that is public domain?... Thanks in advance and for your timeǃ, Niketto sr. (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

  • @Niketto sr.: If they are faithful representations of two-dimensional works, then yes. However, for anything with a significant third dimension, the photography itself would involve enough creative work to gain a copyright for the photograph itself as a derivative work. - Jmabel ! talk 17:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    Thanksǃ, even if the photograph is old like black and withe (old photos), can be considered faithful representations of two-dimensional works? Niketto sr. (talk) 19:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Certainly. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I have recently been getting into film photography and shot a roll of 35mm film. I took the exposed roll to a shop for processing and I got back my original negatives and a CD which contains scans of the negatives. Since I was the one who pressed the shutter when taking the photos originally the copyright of the original images themselves rests with me. But do the scans I possess fall under copyright of the place that the photo shop sent the negatives off to for developing and scanning? I can't find anything on this scenario on Commons. Copyright rules in effect would be UK since that is where I'm from. Cheerio! Be sure to @ me when replying so I get notified. Slenderman7676 (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I should start by saying that I am not a lawyer or legal expert. From my understanding, the UK has a bit of a confusing time with the en:Sweat of the brow doctrine. "Sweat of the brow" is the idea that putting in effort to transform a copyrighted work into another form gives you a claim to part of the copyright. In some jurisdictions, it is clear that a scan of an image does not pass the threshold of originality but in the UK, this is less clear. However, COM:TOO UK does mention a UK official advice note from 2014 that supports the idea that the scan has not created a new copyright. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

@From Hill To Shore Don't forget that since the images were negative when scanned they also had to be colour inverted in order to generate the normal positive images which I recieved on the disc I got back too. So would scanning an image + colour invert transform my original work enough to generate a new copyright/derrivative work?

As the work and materials usually cost something like €0.20 per photo, I cannot imagine there is much originality or sweat of the brow involved. I assume it is a fully automated process (except entering the film into a machine). Thus there is no other copyright involved than yours. That may be different if you have old or damaged negatives, with thought put into what to do with damaged areas, but I suppose there was nothing like that involved in your case. –LPfi (talk) 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

For over a century, the work of any photographer who didn't do their own darkroom work went through the equivalent of this. I'm not aware of any precedent for a photo shop doing routine work being given any share in the copyright of a photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Just going to wait for consensus. Simply are the scans of my negatives OK or not OK to be uploaded? Slenderman7676 (talk) 10:54, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Slenderman7676 Yes, they are ok to be uploaded.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. They are OK to be uploaded. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Slenderman7676 Yes, almost certain to be OK.
Scanning negatives is an art (or science) on its own when you're trying to get optimal results at home. But if you just went to a regular shop that sent your film to a regular big centralized lab, it's pretty safe to assume that digitization was a 100% automated process with 0% creative work (which is why scan quality tends to be underwhelming). If there was an actual human involved, you'd know, because you would have sent your roll to an expensive specialist. There are also a few shops around that still run their own minilab with a 1-hour turn-around and do their own scans. Those you can just ask, of course – chances are they'll just run everything through something like a Pakon F-135 and have you pay extra for human involvement. And even if there was a human involved, their work would probably not be seen as anything creative.
And while we're at it: Development of color negative and reversal film is highly standardized as well. Same with prints from color film, that's kind of the point of the whole C-41 process after all. Black and white can be an entirely different beast, as both development and printing techniques are an integral part of the picture forming process. If you're doing it by hand in the dark room, that is. If you send your black-and-white film out to a big lab via your local shop, it's going to be just as industrialized as everything else.
TL;DR: If you payed extra for a specialist to do magical things, check their terms and conditions. Otherwise you should be fine. El Grafo (talk) 12:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

The usage of the Babel Extension categories like User de-N & User it-N for files

Hello everyone!

I'm seeking for the community opinion on the usage of mentionned categories about language level knowledge for the images. The user Michael Musto putted those to their photo, and the photo is appeared in those categories. Is it OK? After removing the categories from their single image in those categories, they were brought back to the image and the user asked me "Why are you removing existing categories?" I answered to the question here. Thanks for your attention, opinions and — would be great to recieve — links to policies or guidelines, if they exist on this matter. Pacha Tchernof (talk) 10:55, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I cannot understand why hundreds or thousands of users use the categories on Commons, but Pacha Tchernof is of the opinion that I on my picture should get rid of them. Best regards — ᴍɪᴄʜᴀᴇʟ ᴍ…❦ …✉ 11:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I also cannot understand some sort of things: how the person image could have any language knowledge? If that image already knows languages with some kind of programm in it, please let me know! I'm eager to know how to programm the .jpeg image to learn so much languages! I'm familiar that the person could know the langauges, but for image, I encounter this matter for the first time! :D — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 12:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm removing the categories now, found another solution. Have a nice life! — ᴍɪᴄʜᴀᴇʟ ᴍ…❦ …✉ 12:25, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

URAA gap in the public domain

We seem to have two contradictory statements on the URAA gap in the public domain. That is where the US recognized another countries putting images into the public domain up until 1996. If an image becomes public domain in the country of creation after the URAA year of 1996, we default back to the USA rule of 95 years after publication, since our servers are domiciled in the USA. That leaves a gap in the public domain. It looks like the WMF issued this: Not to delete images that fall into the URAA gap in the public domain unless we receive a takedown notice but we have the contradictory: {{Not-PD-US-URAA}} which reads. "Images whose copyright was restored in the U.S. by the URAA are no longer accepted at Wikimedia Commons." So which do we follow? --RAN (talk) 01:50, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Then when is the cutoff date for being uploaded to Commons? Neither guideline specifies a date at which URAA gap images will no longer be accepted at Commons. We need a firm date for a cutoff so the decision to keep or delete can be objective. --RAN (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Note that that article is from the WMF perspective, talking about actions the WMF would take. The WMF position is and always has been that they won't take down content for copyright reasons unless required to by law. That position is consistent with DMCA 512. However, the Commons community can decide to enforce whatever rules we'd like. We already don't require a takedown notice or actual knowledge of infringement to delete files for copyright reasons, rather, COM:PCP says we should delete when there is significant doubt about the freedom of a file. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That's a decade old issue. Please see Commons:URAA-restored copyrights and Commons:Massive restoration of deleted images by the URAA. Yann (talk) 05:56, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
It make sense to only pay special attention to URAA where the images have connections with the USA (content or author). For a file with an European content and European photografer, this issue is only theoretical. Only European law should apply.Smiley.toerist (talk) 14:51, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Files on Commons either need to be licensed by the copyright owner or otherwise be in the public domain in both the source country and the USA. US law takes primacy on Commons as the servers are based in the US. If the image is public domain in Europe and not public domain in the US, then we are obliged to delete it. URAA is one route for establishing images that are PD in other countries are also PD in the US. Wanting European laws to take primacy on servers based in the US will not change the fact that they don't. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not only theoretical. The Anna Frank copyright holders had the Diary taken down from Wikimedia, and the Arthur Conan Doyle estate has been notoriously litigious about Sherlock Holmes, despite ACD being out of copyright in the UK and most of his Sherlock Holmes works being out of copyright in the US. If we put Orwell's 1984 online, we're going to get a takedown notice, which isn't true for 95% of the works of that era that are in copyright in the US and Europe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Is the German Wikipedia domiciled on German Servers? It would probably make sense to have a German Commons since they are the largest source of our URAA gap images. We have hundreds of German sourced WWII images that do not come from the Bundesarchiv and are likely to be deleted. --RAN (talk) 01:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    "Is the German Wikipedia domiciled on German Servers" No.... —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Automatic moving of files from one category name to another

Is there an automatic way of moving of files from one category name to another?

I.e. if dozens of files have tags "[[Category:X]]," is there are way to change that to "[[Category:Y]]" in bulk? Dovi (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dovi: An alternative method is to use Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:31, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, From Hill To Shore. Dovi (talk) 07:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Leadership Development Task Force: Your feedback is appreciated

The Community Development team at the Wikimedia Foundation is supporting the creation of a global, community-driven Leadership Development Task Force. The purpose of the task force is to advise leadership development work.

The team is looking for feedback about the responsibilities of the Leadership Development Task Force. This Meta page shares the proposal for a Leadership Development Task Force and how you can help. Feedback on the proposal will be collected from 7 to 25 February 2022. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuz (WMF) (talk • contribs) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Renaming of File

Hi can anyone please rename this File:Faisalabad collage.jpg to File:Rawalpindi collage.jpg because i've seen many of the photos of this montage is composed of are of places belonging to city of w:Rawalpindi Pakistan, but their might have confusion from previous file mover who has mistakenly renamed it assuming the photos belonging to Faisalabad.Wallu2 (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

My User Page, deleted??

I hope I'm posting this grievance in the right place. Today, for the first time in very many years, I could not log into my User Page. "Joel Russ"

My lengthy involvement with Wikipedia used to be noted. I was an early contributor (article stubs, article additions, wording improvements, factual corrections, etc) — and had a page of bio material & user boxes, why don't I find my User Page anymore? I believe (may be slightly inaccurate) it must have disappeared in the last month or so. Was there some alteration of policy that I hadn't become aware of?

Could someone please locate the page in its most recent form and re-instate it? Thank you.Joel Russ (talk) 22:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This is the Commons, where you have no deleted contributions. Your en.wiki user page, w:User:Joel Russ, appears there as you describe and has indeed never been deleted. Эlcobbola talk 22:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
You can create a global user page at meta. --C.Suthorn (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by User:LiAdrianPerkasa

Deletion request of multiple files by a socking user, could someone investigate? --Regards, Jeromi Mikhael (marhata) 08:47, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Upload request

Hello,
can somebody please upload those two videos: 1 and 2? Unfortunately, my current technical equipment is overtaxed by this. Those two videoas are in the public domain. I'd do anything else with these two files like adding cats, Wikidata etc. Best regards, Mosbatho (talk) 13:07, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

ARTSTOR Images

Hi,

JSTOR has a section for images called ARTSTOR which has many images released under public domain. Some or all of these are not on Commons. Examples: [2], [3] Could someone do a batch download/upload of these images to Commons? That's beyond my skills but I think it would be great.

Best, Adam Harangozó (talk) 11:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Needs a close look, license differs and in addition image and metadata can have different licenses. NC-licensed media cannot be hosted on Commons. --Achim55 (talk) 08:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Bizarre! They released image 2 under three contradictory licenses. How do you untangle that? --RAN (talk) 06:46, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    I do not see contradictory licenses. Look at what the website says:
    LICENSES
    LicensesCreative Commons: Attribution
    LicensesCreative Commons: Free Reuse (CC0)
    LicensesCreative Commons: Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike
    RIGHTS NOTES
    The source metadata displayed in the Description field is released under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 license.; All other source metadata is released under [empty].; The image is released under a Creative Commons Zero.
    So the image is CC0, but the text on the webpage that describes the image (i.e., the text that the website wrote on its own) is CC-BY 4.0 or CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0.
    Glrx (talk) 18:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Boilerplate restrictions versus license non-restrictions

See File:Municipal Sanatorium, Otisville, N.Y Exterior view - Women's Unit.jpg where the metadata contradicts itself. The boilerplate legal information gives restrictions while the license has no restrictions. I assume that the license is the legal one, and the boilerplate is added to each image no matter what license was used. --RAN (talk) 06:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Community Wishlist Survey 2022 for Commons

Please consider supporting this proposal:

4nn1l2 (talk) 13:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Category:Retraction of my nomination for deletion of someone else's image

moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
I nominated an image for deletion. I have decided to keep despite low resolution since the image quality was improved prior to my nomination while I was not aware and since it is up on someone's Wikipedia page and should stay there until hopefully a better one comes along. Also, there were questions about the motivations of a group of brutish editors including a brutish admin who decided they they made up the consensus and put the image up, but I am willing to put that issue aside. Thank you.Daltonsatom (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Intellivision Amico Controller (extracted).png

I closed the deletion discussion as keep. De728631 (talk) 15:35, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion process

moved from Commons talk:Village pump - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Could someone guide me to understand why or by what process this creator template was deleted: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creator:John_Gerrard_Keulemans&action=edit&redlink=1 Thanks. Shyamal L. 13:53, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Restored. It was indeed in use. The creator page was "hijacked" minutes before its deletion. Apparently a mistake. Strakhov (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Strakhov: thanks Shyamal L. 14:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

What are our rules on faithful reproductions of traditional logos that have been published a long time ago? For example I came across this coat of arms today:

The uploader claimed CC-BY-SA, presumably for sweat of the brow reproduction effort, but the shield has been in use for 300+ years so it must be out of copyright. Should it be changed to {{PD-old-100}}+{{PD-US-expired}}? Deryck Chan (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

(Please ping on reply, thanks!) Deryck Chan (talk) 10:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan: Yes, please.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Deryck Chan:
The image should stay CC-BY-SA until that reproduction can be shown to be PD.
A coat of arms can be very old, but someone can draw a new version based on a blazon. The new version is not a "faithful reproduction" of something that is 300 years old. The new artist gets to choose how to draw birds and their talons.
Right now, we do not know how old this version of the CoA is. See https://www.heraldry-wiki.com/heraldrywiki/index.php?title=Magdalene_College_(Cambridge_University) which shows a JPEG version of the arms as in the SVG and an older version on a Will's cigarette card. The JPEG was uploaded after the SVG was uploaded.
At this point, Rama may have drawn a new version of the CoA in 2009 and therefore holds the copyright.
If Rama just faithfully vectorized a previous work, then we would need to know if that previous work is PD before claiming the SVG is public domain.
Glrx (talk) 18:39, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
This reminds me of non-free derivatives of Mona Lisa, doesn't it? George Ho (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Box for quickly deciphering a logid

i made a box to jump from a given logid: Help:Log. it's essentially the same thing as Special:Redirect, but hopefully this new help page would be more accessible. RZuo (talk) 20:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Closures by involved parties

I thought about proposing disallowing involved parties from closing a discussion (of any kind). Indeed, I can't think of any other proposal yet on closures by involved editors or admins. For example, someone who voted in a DR discussion or a UDR discussion closed a DR discussion, which may have divided opinions. What can be done about involved closures? George Ho (talk) 10:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Drop the stick, you are beating a dead horse. Yann (talk) 10:45, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Creator's name on image

I recall reading a Commons guideline that an image annotated with the creator's name is not allowed for some purposes. Would appreciate if someone can point me to the relevant guideline/policy. --Tagooty (talk) 11:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you mean Commons:Watermarks Regards --A.Savin 14:17, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@A.Savin:  Thank you. This is exactly what I am looking for. Tagooty (talk) 15:25, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

no subjects

I have featured picture is File:Highway interchange at night (35517755855) (cropped).jpg at the 16/4/2022. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 (talk) 01:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

And I reverted your edit on the file page. --Achim55 (talk) 11:15, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

How do I make my files Picture of the day?

Hi, I want to know how I make my files picture of the day. Can users do that, or does the site do that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PopperPeachesCoconut2022 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Yes 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 03:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@PopperPeachesCoconut2022: Please see Commons:Picture of the day. First of all your files need to be promoted to featured pictures which sets quite a high threshold of quality. Once you have a featured picture, you may add it to the upcoming list of pictured of the day. On another note, please sign your contributions to message boards and talk pages like this by typing four tilde characters ~~~~. This is required per our rules and it will automatically add your username and a timestamp for reference. De728631 (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

DELETEING A FILE: Mudchute pig 3.ogg

Okay ok sound is too low please upload Mudchute pig 3 low pitch.ogg. — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 2001:44C8:4720:2E11:69AA:1BD0:F6A8:E354 (talk) 11:35, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, File:Mudchute pig 2.ogg is even lower, so I think renaming those files would make no sense. De728631 (talk) 12:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Photo challenge December results

Fences: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Winter on Mt.Rigi in Central Switzerland Fenced-off land on Last Dollar Mountain, with a
view toward Lizard Head Wilderness, Colorado, USA		 Winter Impression from Bavaria near Miesbach
Author GabrielleMerk Semiautonomous Mölchlein
Score 20 16 12
Cities at dusk and dawn: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title View of Kirtipur and hills
and mountains at dawn		 Midtown Manhattan at dusk Blue hour in Yekaterinburg.
Author Shadow Ayush King of Hearts The Cosmonaut
Score 22 14 13

Congratulations to GabrielleMerk, Semiautonomous, Mölchlein, Shadow Ayush, King of Hearts and The Cosmonaut. -- Jarekt (talk) 18:01, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Added overflow:auto for newer Desktop look. --George Ho (talk) 19:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Transfer from Commons to a local Wikipedia

Hi! I’m familiar with importing images from a local Wikipedia to Commons, but I somehow cannot find how to do it the other way around. If an image has been mistakenly imported to Commons but does not have appropriate rights here (thinking of File:Logo Perpignan 2021.jpg right now), but would be acceptable on a local Wikipedia under fair use or similar (in that case fr:, which allows for logos of any complexity), how to transfer it there? Thanks! ~ nicolas (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

  • @Nclm: as understand it, there is no automated transfer in that direction. You are hardly the first to ask for it, but I'm afraid you have to download and re-upload). - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
    • If they have been upladed to the local project, transferred to Commons and deleted here, the deleted version is still on the local project and can be restored there. If information has been added at Commons, you might want to add that manually to the file description page after the undeletion. –LPfi (talk) 23:48, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

DELETEING A FILE: Nipple-blanching.jpg

This pictures from adult content.. I don't know Bomis-movies I don't know called X-rating? Please upload Nipple-blanching blurred.jpg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44c8:4409:30cf:4c7:20ce:628d:e493 (talk • contribs)

Nonsense. Commons is not censored. --Achim55 (talk) 08:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
WTF Commons is not censored? or censored. 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
It means we don't delete such images just because somebody might find them offensive. As long as they can be used for educational purposes, we keep even explicit images of nudity. De728631 (talk) 08:46, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
OK THIS FILE IS . 2001:44C8:4409:30CF:4C7:20CE:628D:E493 08:58, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Some images with wrong name/category

Hi

The following images are named and categorized to be in Farsta, Stockholm. However, it's wrong, they're from Täby, a suburb of Stockholm. Number 1 and 2 are from Grindtorp, Täby, and number 3 is from Näsbydal, Täby.

Also here:

213.50.243.196 13:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Restructure Template:PD-New Zealand?

I thought about adding information about copyright of typographical arrangements of NZ published editions. However, if I add another {{{#}}} into Template:PD-New Zealand/layout, that would leave other language versions with a blank {{{#}}} since I don't know how to translate the planned addition into other languages. Perhaps someone here will rewrite the source into something similar to that of Template:PD-Australia and its subpages? George Ho (talk) 07:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Personality Rights

The people in this picture quite obviously had no issues being photographed naked. That's all fine, I am not prudish. What makes me wonder is something else: Does being o.k. with being photographed mean being o.k. with having one's nude picture published on the worldwide internet?

The uploader seems to be a non-verified (has been asked to do that on the English WP since 2014) account of the nudist association they belong to, and no specific name of a photographer is given. This seems a bit of an unclear legal situation for more reasons than one: If the photographer is some third party, this might well also be copyvio.

Does the "personality rights warning" on the image balance out all those issues? To me, that feels more like a disclaimer: "Don't blame me, I told you that this is illegal." If that's the case, the illegal part, IMO, is uploading and keeping the image in the first place, not linking it to some WP article. --2003:C0:8F03:D300:5586:A29C:75EB:DBA8 23:09, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The personality rights warning does nothing but notifies reusers. The issue is whether the image was uploaded against what was believed was common understanding on how to handle it. It is very likely that there is an understanding among the FYN members about photography, probably even a written code, and the people posing trusted the photographer and anyone who got a copy to respect that code. I don't think we should second guess what that code involves (and whether this photo was a special case). They have similar images on their web site, so I don't think we need to worry. –LPfi (talk) 15:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
On the possibility of copyvio: I think we have no less reason to trust this uploader than any other of our users, and I understand if the members (including the photographers) don't want to have their names in public. If the account has been uploading images since 2014, they probably are authorised to do so. –LPfi (talk) 15:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Values for Wikimedia Deutschland

Wikimedia Deutschland is engaging in a dialogue of values and inviting the community to contribute its perspective

Where do you want to go?
Where do you want to go?

In the fall and winter of 2021 and in the spring of 2022, Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) will deal with the values of the chapter. In a process that will run until March 2022, a framework of values is to be developed that sets out the central guiding principles for WMDE as an organization.

In this Dialogue on organizational values by WMDE, a proposal has been developed over many discussions, on which the Commonists and the Wikimedia-Commons-community as a global group in some exchange with WMDE is asked for its perspective on the proposal talk page.

The texts describing the values should be generally valid and abstract. Different stakeholders such as members, communities, or the employees should be able to identify with them. At the same time, however, the values will only be binding for the work of Wikimedia Deutschland, i.e. the office and the board.

This value framework should reflect the identity of Wikimedia Deutschland. It should be a support for the board and the employees of WMDE in strategic decisions or difficult questions and help to communicate well what is important for WMDE.

In doing so, the proposal was not started from scratch, but built on many materials that are already there. In addition, important foundations have been laid in workshops and processes over the past few years. Now it is up to the community to decide whether the proposed values are a good fit for WMDE as an organization and how they could be implemented in practice. The WMDE Board will then decide on the final values framework in April 2022 and present it to the WMDE General Assembly in May.

The team is happy about every participation, also via mail, if you don't like to express your thoughts online.

Thank you for reading and best regards, Christoph Jackel (WMDE) (talk) 16:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

I just noticed this deletion without much discussion - Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Millon_stamp.jpg - interestingly there are hundreds of images of the same kind which are accepted on commons, including another copy of that same stamp that was deleted! Is this the normal way of operation, where the closing admin does not need to provide any summary and rationale for making a decision? Shyamal L. 10:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The file was nominated and you accepted the nomination with the phrase, "very well." If there is no disagreement over the file being deleted, there is no issue to summarise. If you had objected to the deletion, that would have required more thought and other editors may have jumped in to comment to give their views. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
So nobody thought of looking or citing at French / Algerian laws to actually examine "if that is the case"? I imagine that admins would need to point out why 100s of other similar images are not deleted in obvious negation of the claim made by the one who raised the request. I would imagine that this should be done even if nobody bothered to counter the claim - at least for other admins to see. Shyamal L. 16:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
We are all volunteers here, even the admins. The deletion case load for admins is huge, with your example from 8 months ago only now being closed. If a case has been open for 8 months, no one has contested the reason for deletion and the uploader (I am guessing you were the uploader based on your phrasing in the discussion) has supported deletion, why should the admin waste more time investigating the case? There is still 7 months more work for them to do.
If you now think the deletion was incorrect, you can make a case at the undeletion board. If you want a second opinion first, you can ask for advice at the Copyright board. If deletion was the correct answer, it may trigger the deletion of some or all of the other images you identified. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:14, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
I think there should be behavioural guidelines at a minimum. I do understand admin loads, being an admin on en.wiki, this one is simply unacceptable, to claim that it is (or should be) the norm is even more so. Shyamal L. 02:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Anyone reading it should have been able to see that the deletion was in obvious contradiction of the text of the PD-Algeria template. Ability to read and demonstrate due diligence in reading what is written should be a minimum requirement for admins. Shyamal L. 02:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
You have two routes to proceed here. Get a second opinion on the copyright situation or start an undeletion discussion. If you are going to start accusing the closing admin of a failure to read or show diligence in their activities, you should have pinged the admin so that they could respond. @Rubin16: In case you wish to comment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree with the argument that when other files do exist at the same time, this particular one should be kept. Commons is a big project: it is highly likely that volunteers haven't covered all possible copyright issues at any time. Anyone is free to nominate the whole category and to discuss it. In terms of the nomination itself: if you don't agree, you could have pinged me for more explanations or open a thread on COM:UDR. The basic idea for deletion was that French Algeria is different to Algeria and it was stated in the nomination that they are different and Algeria copyright template couldn't be applied. I have looked through COM:Algeria and especially COM:CUR Algeria with the similar case for banknotes: "This does not apply to the banknotes and coins issued by the Banque de l'Algérie, the banking authority during French rule (until 1958), because it was not an official body of the current Algerian state. Copyright status of this currency is currently undetermined.". For me, stamps are also a similar instrument of payment as money is, that's why I agreed with the nomination and closed it with deletion. rubin16 (talk) 07:29, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Admins (at least on the language wikis) need to point to policy at all times while taking closing decisions. I now see that you were clearly unsure of the rules but went ahead merely on the claims of the nominator who did not even provide date of death of the claimed artist even. You found that the status for currency is undetermined - in that case one would err on the side of caution by not deleting and closing as no consensus. As simple as that instead being so defensive. Shyamal L. 05:06, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The cautionary concept on Commons is different from what you assume - COM:PCP rubin16 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
This policy is overused. IMO we should use the most favourable law when two or more possbilities exist. Usually it is admitted that the new state is the successor of whatever law existed before independence, unless otherwise specified. At least that's the case for India. So unless there is a clear rule saying that French law should be applied here, we should use the most favourable between French and Algerian laws. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:24, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you call these things ribbon balls?

is this specific kind of balls also found in the west, or is it a chinese/asian thing only? and what do you call it? in chinese it's 花球/繡球. it's not only featured in ribbon-cutting ceremonies. another common usage is in some kind of traditional chinese weddings the bridegroom would wear it in front of the chest.--RZuo (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Please don't ask the same question at multiple venues. There is already a discussion at the Help desk. De728631 (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
my questions are fundamentally different. and not that many people check help desk like VP.--RZuo (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Alright. These things are made of multiple bow knots so I think the image should go into Category:Red bows (knot). See also Category:Yellow bows (knot) for examples. I'm not a native English speaker but I'm pretty sure they are not called "balls". De728631 (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Images from BIPM.org

Are pictures from BIPM.org uploadable to Wikimedia Commons? The copyright is https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/igo/. https://www.bipm.org/en/copyright — Preceding unsigned comment added by ScientistBuilder (talk • contribs) 17:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC) I want to upload some pictures of atomic clocks and don't want to infringe on copyrights.

@ScientistBuilder: Yes, CC-BY-3.0 is an acceptable license for Commons. Just be sure that the page with the image itself doesn't identify any additional restrictions. – BMacZero (🗩) 20:07, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you ScientistBuilder (talk) 21:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
The CC license text summary says "No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits." (Section 8e of the actual license text) --Palosirkka (talk) 17:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

No license vs. possibly incorrect license redux

If editors see an image tagged for speedy deletion with no license when the nominator is actually challenging the existing license, or thinks there is a more suitable license, can the speedy tag be removed since no license is a false statement? Or must it go through the standard speedy challenge process? I was told previously that defective speedy nominations do not have to go through the speedy challenge process, but I want to confirm it. --RAN (talk) 04:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The question to ask is: is there an actual issue with the file? If there's obviously no issue at all, it may be OK to just remove the tag (I guess). If there's a different issue than the tag suggests, do what needs to be done to (start the appropriate procedures to) resolve the issue. If there's a "possibly incorrect license", the appropriate procedure is a regular DR. --El Grafo (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Personally, I would move it to a regular DR, even if I start it with "X posted this as no license but there is a license here and I disagree with them claiming there is a license issue but clearly a speedy nomination seems incorrect." Leave it out of the speedy nomination section, lets everyone have a better chance to review it, lets the person who misidentified the problem have a chance to explain in more detail and if there was actually no license, an admin could speedy it again. Then again I'm a nut for process and the backlogs here are terrible enough but at the minimum, if I just removed the tag I would add a ping in the edit summary so the person who tagged the wrong issue does the DR if they want. Is there a file you are seeing this with? Is there a category of images with a possible license issue that could use further discussion? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
The problem with speedy deletion is that when not challenged, most speedy deletions get deleted by default. You can see this just by scrolling through the deletion log. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Please explain what is principal difference between bogus own work claim/licenses applied to historical images and no license. Research about authorship and relevant copyrights law(s) must be done and necessary fixes in description must be made regardless of process. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
I think everyone can agree no_license ≠ yes_license, it is just basic logic. If a license is absent that means no_license, its like trying to convince me that 2+2=5. --RAN (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The issue is that sometimes uploaders are genuinely very old and have personally taken film photos decades ago that they are scanning/uploading just now. Or someone is uploading a logo of a company they work for. As long as an attempt is made to put a license on an image, we shouldn't be making any assumptions. We can challenge the claim with a DR or ask them to provide evidence via {{subst:npd}}. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    I think the problem is that every noob (not meant as derogatory) uploader chooses the default settings because our instructions are nebulous and we leave room only for one date and one license in the upload form. The form is optimized for a contemporary photo where the date is grabbed from the metdata. --RAN (talk) 01:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
    {{No license since}} doing exactly same thing as {{No source since}}, {{No permission since}} and deletion request. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 16:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, the rules are the same (eligible for deletion after a week), but the text is different. We want to use the most relevant template so that if the upload is legitimate, the uploader is given the most information to work with in order to rectify the issue. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:09, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
    Having a wrong license is not the same as having no license at all. At least we can assume good faith for an old image in the first case. Yann (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    We also can't assume that a PD image doesn't require a new license (the one being rejected as no license) when a new derivative copy is made. The concept that an exact copy doesnt require a new license isn't applicable in all jurisdictions. The Bridgeman ruling declaring that PD images don't get a new license is only enforceable in the USA. It is a court ruling, not part of the Berne or URAA copyright agreements. Switzerland agreed with the court ruling, while the UK didn't. We really should show the license for the original work, and one for the new derivative copy, even if it doesn't restart the copyright clock. USA copyright law still requires proper attribution, I also see many works nominated for deletion for saying that the derivative copy is not "own work", because we are expecting to see the source of the original work. --RAN (talk) 01:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Copyscare?

We have the word "copyfraud" where someone makes a copyright claim on a public domain image. Do we have a term for something like: "Reproduction of any photographs, images or text without the express written approval of the Historical Society of Princeton is prohibited." where an institution claims you need their permission to use a public domain image in their archive. Not the same as a copyright claim, just a scare, or white lie that you need their permission. I guess it is better than a destructive watermark in the middle of the image. --RAN (talk) 23:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Project scope

Is this included? Special:ListFiles/Lylly-Ioanna --Palosirkka (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

What's the reason behind the naming schemes

of these two cat trees Category:Animals (not Fauna) and Category:Flora (not Plants)? and the cat tree flora is not consistent. there're many cats with names "plants in/of xyz". RZuo (talk) 13:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Humans are inefficient machines, and category renaming discussions can last for several years. --Animalparty (talk) 18:23, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
i plan to create new categories using the name "Plants" if no objection is raised.--RZuo (talk) 11:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Category:Plants does exist with numerous subcategories. De728631 (talk) 12:00, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
Category:Plants by country redirected to flora and now to plantae. there's no explanation as to how flora, plants, plantae... should be used.--RZuo (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
That is indeed messy. On the other hand, we have Category:Animals by country but no Category:Animalia by country, as well as Category:Fungi by country. In Commons:Categories#Category names it says that category names should generally be in English but biological taxa for example are exempt from this rule. So "plantae" as the top category for taxonomical groups seems to make sense, but the overall term in English is flora which covers "all the plant life present in a particular region or time". De728631 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The old version of a cropped file

This is a cropped version of the old version. It would be usefull to find out wich Dutch train station this is.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the original uploader nl:Gebruiker:Koffiekopje~nlwiki has been inactive for several years, so we may need to figure this out without their help. De728631 (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
According to nl:Plan_U, we are looking at a modernised version, which was only in use in 2002-2003 between Zwolle and Groningen and between Weert and Eindhoven. There are only two stations on those routes with such roof support and that many side tracks: Meppel and Weert. The train's shadow is quite short, so it is likely close to noon, meaning the sunlight originates from the south approximately and tracks thus likely run east-west-ish. Add to that the open roof overhang (Meppel's roof overhang is closed) and I can only conclude that this is platform 3 at Category:Station Weert. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The AIVD just called and asked if they can hire you. That's some great detective work there. De728631 (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I've added Category:Station Weert :-) MPF (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Advice on uploaded image that doesn't match source

File:Rear Admiral Tennant and Staff. 29 May 1944, Allied Combined Naval Expeditionery Force Hq. A23718.jpg was uploaded in 2013 from the Imperial War Museum, probably as part of the bulk upload. However, while the file name, description and other details match the source, the image is completely different; IWM 23718. The source and file details are a group of officers posing for a photograph. The uploaded image is of a group of ships at sea. What is the best way to handle this situation? Do we overwrite the uploaded image with the source image (to allow the description and image to match)? Or do we retain the existing image, rename it and remove the incorrect information? From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:16, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That was what I was asking. Should we convert the existing file to match the source and then potentially reupload the original image if we can identify the correct source? Or should we upload the correct image as a new file, blank the source details on the original page and then potentially delete the original page if the source can't be located? Your advice is to go with the second option. I'll take a look at it once I get to a PC later, thanks. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • At least it is only one, we had several instances in the past where the bot got out of sync and was taking the text from the previous image. --RAN (talk) 23:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I have blanked the details from the original image and uploaded the replacement image. That has now left the original image showing an unidentified scene at an unidentified date by an unidentified author. As IWM contains a mixture of images from both official military photographers and civillians, we are unable to set the appropriate licence without identifying the source. I have tried a reverse image search on Tineye but have been unable to trace the image to IWM's collection. The correct image has reference IWM A 23718 and I have searched for several images in the sequence above and below that and also made a manual search through a few hundred images in the archive of the photographer of the correct picture. None of them are close to a match of the original scene. Does anyone have any ideas on how to trace the image on the IWM website or should I just take the original image to deletion? There is a possibility that this is an image from outside of IWM that got mixed in with the uploader's batch edit (the uploader is no longer active and can't advise on the original process). From Hill To Shore (talk) 01:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This image was obviously taken by a military, not a civilian, so {{PD-UKGov}} should apply. Here is a fitting description. Yann (talk) 11:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for finding that. However, it is not "obviously" a military photograph. It could just as easily be a photograph taken from a merchant navy vessel, which was staffed by civilian personnel. It is also an assumption that it was a UK photographer. If the website you found is correct and it is D-Day related, it could just as easily be an American, Canadian, Free French (among others) photographer. Many of those will also have their military works in PD by now, so it probably is PD, but it would be best if we could make a correct identification. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
It appears that the Associated Press are claiming to be the creators of the image, rather than a military organisation. I have therefore started a deletion discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rear Admiral Tennant and Staff. 29 May 1944, Allied Combined Naval Expeditionery Force Hq. A23718.jpg. Hopefully someone will identify a justification for retention but I can't think of a reason at the moment. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Unable to display structured data

I'm having trouble viewing the structured data on this photo page. Structured data is displayed normally when accessed on mobile but it is not displayed when accessed with a PC. Therefore the data itself has not disappeared. Until recently, I remember that it was displayed normally even on a PC. Is this a bug?--SetoMonamer (talk) 21:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

It displayed correctly for me on a PC. I noticed that there were a vast number of depicts (P180) statements, some of which were obviously wrong. I've removed the obviously wrong ones which might help. --bjh21 (talk) 21:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes the structured data disappears from a file for a period of time. I've seen it and a few others have reported it too. The data is still stored on the page but just doesn't display. I am not sure what the cause is or how to fix it; it may be a caching issue or something with the connection to Wikidata. After several hours, the structured data reappears, seemingly at random.
It doesn't appear to be related to the number of statements. I've seen it happen on a page with 2 statements and on a page with over 10 statements. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank u! It was displayed. I apologize to you for a fuss over.--SetoMonamer (talk) 21:39, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Just wish it could be edited from within the normal Edit frame. It is really tiresome having to add missing info or correct errors TWICE, once in the Edit frame, then a second time in the 'Structured Data' frame. Even better, get rid of the lot of it. - MPF (talk) 15:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Deletion discussion not linked

Please check Commons:Deletion requests/File:प्रसपा लोहिया ध्वज.jpg. Appears to have not been linked properly. --Venkat TL (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Pexels

Do we have someone who has automated uploads from Pexels, or who is willing to do so?

A UK charity added an image library with positive shots of ageing. There are 1000 images here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

A large number of photos of un-named people - I'd question whether they are worth uploading? Are any of them notable people within the context of Commons scope? - MPF (talk) 15:05, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
We need stock imagery. Stock imagery is more useful if it does not depict well-known people. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Many of them show people doing activities, which is very much in scope. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:34, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
This really does look like a perfect fit for Commons: Good quality - check. Useful for an educational purpose - check. Freely licenced - check. Great find. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 18:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, I very much agree that we need to have more stock images here, when reading articles by science journalists I get bombarded with stock images that are unfree, the price of magazines like "Quest" and similar ones go up because they have to pay for generic images of people. Now if those same educationally valuable images would get uploaded here there is always an army of people ready to nominate it for deletion (or even worse, tag it as a "speedy deletion") for being "an unused personal image". Recently I saw a number of photographs of a news interview being nominated for deletion as "personal images, this is not Facebook", the Wikimedia Commons would be taken way more serious as a website if we actually had the types of photographs most likely to be reproduced in news articles and educational articles which more likely than not would be stock images of people doing "random activities". I'm always baffled with how few stock images of the most common things we have here, the only reason I'm not photographing people doing their jobs in the street is because most people would find that suspicious, if there's a website that hosts these images then it would be great if we could import them. To bad that user "Fæ" no longer contributes as they were really good at these mass imports.
As for the people not being notable, imagine if we had a ridiculous standard that "you can only upload an image of a construction worker at work if he's Leonardo DiCaprio", or some "notable individual from the industry", this is already the standard we apply to sexual acts needing to be performed by established pornography actors to prevent amateur porn from being uploaded. Wikimedia Commons' lack of general notability standards are a strength and not a weakness, having the ability to upload a random rubbish collector doing their work and then having this be used as a stock image might even be superior to having photographs of attractive actors in the role of a rubbish collector (what most stock models actually are). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing, Gone Postal, and Donald Trung: Fair enough! But not many of them do show people 'at work'; most are posed portraits, sort of "Category:People smiling at cameras", rather than the sort of pics you're describing as being needed. But seems it's all a moot point if the pics are invalid as CC-NC as mentioned below. - MPF (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I asked User:Fae to create a YouTube video showing how he did the mass uploads, but he retired without answering. Maybe someone else could make the video. --RAN (talk) 20:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Good quality photos! The possible problem of suddenly a bunch of photos is: who gives them the right categories so that they can be found easily. Before they are "lost" in "Category:Media needing categories". In May 2021 these categories have about 20.000 images per day. For example a photo like this what would be the best categories? Wouter (talk) 20:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
On a closer look we may have a problem with Pexel's current licence. The section "What is not allowed" prohibits the unaltered commercial reuse of images from Pexels. So if I wanted to print an original photo on a t-shirt or a coffee mug and sell those, it wouldn't work. This not a free licence according to the definition by Wikimedia Commons. Older material that was uploaded to Pexels until 5 July 2018 is still licensed under CC-0 though (see {{Pexels-Cc-zero}}), so we would have to filter the uploads from this particular gallery. De728631 (talk) 22:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Quick way to move all

I have Category:Augusta Zetterling and all but three need to be moved to Category:Photographs by Augusta Zetterling, can it be automated? What if I turn "Category:Augusta Zetterling" into a redirect to "Category:Photographs by Augusta Zetterling", will a bot move them all, then I can just remove the redirect to recreate the category and then move the three that actually are of her? --RAN (talk) 20:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend Help:Cat-a-lot. It is a quick way to move large numbers of files between categories. There are faster ways if you have more than 200 files to move but as there are only 52 in the category, it should be fine. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
That is strange, as I have never seen that behaviour. When selecting the images, did you click the area around the image or did you click on the link? Clicking on the open space selects the files without activitating the links. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I clicked on the file name holding control down the control key like the video said to do. I will try the other way next time! Chrome uses a lot of memory for each window, and I had to restart my computer just to get rid of them. But the tool was amazing, thanks for the advice. There are a lot of photographer categories that need to have this done, Google gets confused and when you do an image search, it can't tell who is the sitter and who is the photographer, because they use Commons categories to tell who is in each image. I am sure when we finish adding in "depicts" to each image in structured data, the false hits will disappear. --RAN (talk) 02:06, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Lingualibre.org 150 audio datasets now downloadable

See https://lingualibre.org/datasets/

🎉 Happy news for LinguaLibre !

💬 Wikimedia's Lingualibre.org downloadable datasets are now back online.

  • Web page: https://lingualibre.org/datasets/
  • Languages: ~150 zips are available to download, on a per-language basis.
  • How to use: simply click on your language's file, and it downloads all your audios.

💻 For developers & apps
Lingualibre's audios are by default uploaded to Commons in order to reuse in Wiktionaries.
Furthermore, those zips might be raw material for developers willing to create derivative applications.
If required, our documentation pages [Help:Renaming] and [Help:Converting_audios] quick start you to mass rename and mass convert those files to your specific needs.

🌏 For minorities & revitalization
Such avenue is especially important to serve linguistic minorities, such as Atikamekw, Occitan Gascon, Surui, Taiwanese indigenous and others, who repeatedly requested e-learning applications to revitalize their linguistic communities.
Their motivation to use Lingualibre is proportional to our ability to provide such added-value and services.
We now can contact those communities with a more positive vision on the reusability of their work : they can download their work.

👩‍🎤 Call for voices
If you speak non-dominant languages, please consider contributing using the Special:RecordWizard. It helps to record an impressive 800 words per hour! We especially would like more linguistic diversity, namely smaller languages, more female/elder/youngster voices as well as regional variations.

Wishing you a good day, Yug (talk) 01:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Gage Skidmore

Does anyone needed who depicts a person taken by Gage Skidmore with {{Personality rights}} template? --GreenPollock (talk) 01:54, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

PD-EU-no author disclosure

Please join the debate at Template talk:PD-EU-no author disclosure. At some point "Please use this template only if you have proof that the author never claimed authorship or their authorship never became public in any other way." was added to the template concerning Germany, but there is debate as to whether this is a polite suggestion or a legal demand. The wording does not appear in the law in German or when translated into English and of course you can't really offer proof of absence of a claim of author disclosure occurring at any point in time in the past. However, German law allows a clawback from the public domain should the name of the author be discovered at which time we switch to 70 years pma. I am looking for the phrase to be reworded to better match how the law is actually written, or how we handle anonymous images. --RAN (talk) 07:09, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

WCQS beta 1 decommissioned March 1

This is a reminder that Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS) beta 1 will be decommissioned on March 1, 2022, with all service being redirected to the new WCQS beta 2 afterwards. MPham (WMF) (talk) 00:59, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March

Please help translate to your language

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Wiki Loves Folklore an international photographic contest on Wikimedia Commons has been extended till the 15th of March 2022. The scope of the contest is focused on folk culture of different regions on categories, such as, but not limited to, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, etc.

We would like to have your immense participation in the photographic contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team
Wiki Loves Folklore

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Can an admin rename these files?

I tried to rename over a redirect, and sometimes it's possible, but not this time. The user tried to rename two files (they should have the name of the other file, so that conflicted). So I renamed one file to Filename (1) and then I wanted to rename over the redirect, but that didn't work. Normally I try to avoid this, but now the same problems still do exist. See: File:Нарин-Кунта_пряслице_(1).png and File:Уту-Елга пряслице.png. I hope it's not too much work. Thanks in advance! - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 23:09, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Are these really public domain?

Images from Failbook, Category:Aneta Šacherová. --Palosirkka (talk) 09:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

✓ Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

New tool: one click to search for free media on flickr and youtube

i adapted other scripts to produce two handy buttons that will search flickr/youtube with the page titles. feel free to copy paste lines 81-95 of https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=631792385 and try.

i like to do such searches particularly with category pages. i think it should be made a gadget if it's well liked.--RZuo (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Is a thin metal plate a 3D object?

I've always assumed that what in Dutch is called a "bladgoud" (like a piece of gold that is as thin as a piece of paper) is a 3D object even though paper itself is considered to be 2D, of course I thought this because of the precautionary principle, but am I correct in assuming this? I recently received an e-mail of one of my subscriptions that includes a scan of a very thin piece of "gold paper" much thinner than any coin, but I always treated it as such. But before I archive the e-mail I want to be absolutely certain that the image cannot be uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons... --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:08, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: The core principle to consider is not necessarily whether the work is 3-dimensional, but whether the photograph merely reproduces the object or adds creatively to it. The language in the relevant ruling asks if the photo is "no more than a copy of a work...as exact as science and technology permits" (Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs). So it would depend on the qualities of the image itself, but I would think it would certainly be possible to create such a scan of a flat sheet of worked metal. Of course this all assumes that the illustration on the work itself is public domain or freely licensed and the photograph of the work is not. – BMacZero (🗩) 22:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
(Also, Commons:Reuse_of_PD-Art_photographs has a specific section for the Netherlands that seems even broader and may be relevant depending on the origin of this scan). – BMacZero (🗩) 22:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
In fact, for any object capable of lying flat in a stable configuration (e.g. a coin), a scan of the object (as opposed to a photograph) is ineligible for copyright protection. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Regarding most points raised above, "Commons:Currency" states "A picture of a 3D-object creates in most jurisdictions a new copyright on the picture, something that is not the case when photographing pure 2D-objects. See When to use the PD-Art tag for more information." Which clearly states that scans of 3D objects are deemed creative enough, even if they're merely mechanical reproductions of existing works of art. Although the linked page specifically notes "photographs of coins" and not "scans of coins".
Now I'm confused, I thought that both "File:USA 1 cent 1944.JPG" and "File:Straits Settlements 1 Cent 1904 - obverse.jpg" were in the same category as both are of 3D objects, but if I'm reading the above correct does the first (1st) image, a scan not qualify as "creative enough" to generate new copyright? Because I've literally been collecting VRTS permissions for years and have not uploaded literally tens of thousands of images of scans of coins because I quite clearly interpreted the "Commons:Currency" statement to specifically exclude scans of coins as being PD-scans while scans of banknotes are. If this is so the case this could be a major revolution for the Wikimedia Commons and most certainly needs a new template. But I don't think that this is the case, as scans of coins are of 3D objects and a reproduction of a 3D object always entails new copyright, right?
As for the scan, it's French (as far as I'm aware of) and is of a French Cochinchinese sycee made from leaf gold (or at least it being a 24K gold plate with just some French and Chinese on it). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
According to the 3DPrint.com's article "3D Scans Can’t be Copyrighted – Shapeways Publishes New Whitepaper on 3D Scanning and Copyright Laws - June 6, 2016by Scott J Grunewald3D Scanning3D SoftwareBusiness": "In contrast, the very nature of 3D scanning is an attempt to capture an exact reproduction of an object, which eliminates the criteria that mark a photograph as original. A 3D scan would be closer in legal terms to a photocopy than a photograph." Which notes that a photocopy is different from a photograph. It further elaborates: "Obviously you can’t hold a copyright on a photocopy, or by extension a 3D scan; however, that doesn’t mean that you don’t have certain legal options available to you that can control how a 3D scan that you produce is used.". I am not sure what to think of these now as "Commons:Currency" hasn't made any explicit references to scans of coins so per the precautionary principle I just assumed copyright. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:07, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The above is to say, is this scan of a 3D object creative enough to constitute new copyright? "Commons:Currency" clearly states that photographs of coins are not allowed, but as this is a photocopy and not a photograph, does it constitute new copyright if it were scanned in the United States of America? Because if so we'd need a "{{PD-Coin scan}}" template for them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:24, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Probably important to remember that this is an edge case that existing law and precedent likely doesn't clearly speak to, so there isn't going to be a definitive answer - just us extrapolating from the laws and principles that do exist and deciding whether there's enough actual doubt to invoke COM:PCP. Photographs of 3D works are unavoidably "not mechanical" because of choices such as the perspective and focus and such, which is why we have such policies about "3D objects". It seems to me that a flat scan of a reasonably flat object might not contain these creative elements. As a bit of a tangent, coins are perhaps "more 3D" than a paper-thin sheet of metal, and if they are photographed rather than scanned there may be elements like reflections and lighting that are more likely to be creative. Also, I don't necessarily disagree with COM:Currency, but it doesn't identify itself as policy nor link to the discussions that led to the text, so I'm not sure what its actual status is. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
It would seem to me that the coin scan you just linked is a faithful mechanical representation that largely excludes any creative choices, and therefore PD. I would feel less sure about something like File:Moeda de 1 cruzeiro de 1975 - reverso.jpg because of the reflections, lighting, and other more 3D elements. But I'll acknowledge that that's just my opinion and I don't have any explicit case law to rest on. – BMacZero (🗩) 19:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@BMacZero: , "File:Moeda de 1 cruzeiro de 1975 - reverso.jpg" is a photograph not a photocopy, I'd be surprised if it didn't generate new copyright, but if I were to talk about the legality of having "a community sanctioned" version of the "PD-Coin scan" template should I do it here, or would it be wiser to create the template and then nominate it for deletion to get enough perspectives on it. Because I am talking about purely mechanical scans by machines here, not photographs by people holding a camera 📷 very close to a coin (see the auction item linked above from Dutch Sumatra). Because I have at least 300.000 images that could be uploaded with that template if it's reasonable. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Seems like COM:VPP would be the best place to collect consensus about that template. – BMacZero (🗩) 21:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
✓ Proposal started. Hopefully we'll get more clarification there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

"Process duplicates" tag

The instructions for doing this are far from clear - several times when I've clicked on the "Process duplicates", it has merged into the file with less detail (less info, fewer categories, etc.), resulting in the loss of the information in the merged destination. It needs to be made much clearer which file is being merged into which, and how to chose which of the two duplicates one should chose to click on the 'merge' template. - MPF (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I've never seen this "tag" - where do you see it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: it is generated automatically when there are two identical duplicates of an image with different names; it is pretty infrequent that it occurs as uploading duplicates usually generates a warning that you are doing so. I can't show you any examples as I always merge them when I come across them, and doing so makes the tag disappear ;-) I'd guess you could try uploading the same pic twice as an experiment (tick 'ignore warnings' the second time!) and it should appear. - MPF (talk) 01:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: - found an example pair: File:Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis), Parc de Woluwé, Brussels (19847854714).jpg (older) and File:Little Grebe (Tachybaptus ruficollis) with chicks, Parc de Woluwé, Brussels (19847854714).jpg (more recent) are duplicates; scroll down to the 'File usage on Commons' header to see the '[Process Duplicates]' tag. There are NO clear instructions on how to merge the newer into the older, rather than vice-versa, nor how to avoid losing data (categories, etc.) that might be present in one of the files but not the other. - MPF (talk) 09:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I can see both image pages, but no such tag. Is it perhaps an admin function? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: - thanks for looking! I guess it could be an admin perk, though I don't know. Here's a screenshot of what I get - MPF (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Your edit was saved

Suddenly a “chiclet” stating this pointless report started to appear on my upper right after each edit. It’s similarly annoying, though not exactly identical, to a feature in pt.wp I never managed to get rid of. Is this new in commons?, and, more importantly, how does it go away? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:27, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I've been seeing such notices for years - I don;t recall the date but from memory, roughly round the time the Visual Editor was introduced. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:05, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and Pigsonthewing: This is popup "Your edit has been saved." You may hide it by using MediaWiki:Gadget-HidePostEdit.css by checking checkbox "HidePostEdit" in section "Interface: Editing and uploads" of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets. Thanks for the gadget, Kwj2772!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, @Jeff G.: I do have the HidePostEdit gadget ticked on in my Commons preferences, and have had for years — that’s why, unlike Pigsonthewing, I have been spared this annoyance in Commons. But not in pt.wp, as said, where, however, unlike I said above, its looks (text style and position on screen) are now changed to match what’s in Commons. I presume that this annoyance was recently revamped at global level and is now annoying all users in all projects in a IU consistent manner; that change might have caused @Kwj2772: ’s gadget to stop working, sadly. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Numerical sort keys

User:Oursana and I are in dispute, after I reverted their use of the sort key "006" on this image (i.e. they used [[Category:Saint Peter's Basilica in views of Rome|006]]).

Their justification is "I used a sortkey to place it at the beginning of Saint Peter's Basilica in views of Rome. This is not so difficult to see. Without sortkey files are sorted by their name, which are not created with view to later sorting. I sorted the whole cat grouping views and sorting in general from remote to close" and, after I asked them to desist, "006 is a very clear sortkey meaning Position 006 from remote to close, numeric, I did improve the gallery, at least not disturb because there is no other sorting and my sorting is better than sorting by files name... let's say more than 99% other users do not complain".

They also say they have used this method in other categories ("my sorting of Hamburg photographs is appreciated. Sometimes with paintings I mention the sortkey on the Category page.").

I contend that this is not the intended purpose of sort keys; that sorting on some arbitrary characteristic ("from remote to close") is not conducive to understanding by other users; or to the categorisation of other images in the affected category.

What does the community think? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that sort keys should always sort by a criterion that is immediately and intuitively visible. For files this is the file name. If you want to group files by a criterion, say "views with surrounding buildings", "full views", "detail views", we have a mechanism for that: categories. Categories can be given names and descriptions to make it immediately clear what they are about. If you want to group files and sort them within the groups, create a gallery. For example, we have Circles, disc and annulus which sorts circles by the color wheel, something that couldn't be done very well with sort keys.
As for other users not complaining: if you don't look at the file names, files within a category will usually seem to be sorted randomly. Sorting them by some special criterion does not really change this. I think that few people complain, because few people notice or care. --rimshottalk 16:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing and Rimshot: I've seen them used in numerous files in a lot of botanical categories to sort by month (with |01 for January, |02 for February, etc.); I can see it has some value but don't find it an especially helpful sorting. I've used it myself in many species categories with very large numbers of files to make a distribution map file easily findable (by adding | map; the space puts it to the top of the category; see e.g. Category:Phylloscopus trochilus for an example of its use), and more rarely, to push down low quality files which have a character in the filename that sorts them to the top (e.g. for a file File:"My grotty pic".jpg, I'll add |My to push it down from the top to its expected alphabetic position). - MPF (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Mis-categorized images in Category:Highlights

Images unrelated to each other were mixed up in this category: Category:Highlights. I just couldn't invest my energy on fixing this mixup. --George Ho (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

If this is a recurring issue (which is very likely given the very common term in photography), then turning the category into a disambiguation may be in order, e.g. directing users to Category:Highlights (band), Category:Highlighting, Category:Hair highlighting, etc. and distinguishing them from the mainainence Category:Highlighted content. --Animalparty (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

On moving file request declination

Hey, I have a question about person's names' capitalizations in the files' names. Is it fair if a filemover declined the request on renaming the file because of "does not comply with renaming guidelines, files shouldn’t be renamed just because it’s not correctly capitalized" and "~, incorrect capitalization isn’t the same as misspelling"? I'm not trying to please English langauge above Russian, written in Latin script, but imho if the person's name and/or surname in the file's name written without capitalization, it's a typo that should be fixed.

For example, if the file would be named like this: File:Francois holland et emmanuel macron meeting in UNESCO.jpg, and then requested its renaming into this: File:Francois Holland et Emmanuel Macron meeting in UNESCO.jpg, aren't these the typos, but not incorrect request for the capitalizaion?

Original file I was requesting the rename was File:Anatoli malkin.ogg, where the surname "Malkin" with respect to the person should be written from the "M".

Thanks a lot for your opinions in advance, — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 07:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The guideline says "Files should NOT be renamed [...] because the filename is not correctly capitalized." Lowercase and odd capitalisation is quite common for filenames, and Commons has the oddity of capitalising the first character (if a letter), so this is an ordinary lowercase filename with the Commons modification. Names should of course be correctly capitalised in descriptions etc., but changing the filename causes some interruption, which should be avoided. The file was uploaded seven years ago. –LPfi (talk) 13:36, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for detailed explanation! So it seems a bug... It's sad, because all other files from that project have the same name pattern Name_Surname_voice.. I read the guidelines, but I was thinking that the typo in the personal name has more priority beyond the rule of not doing re-capitalization. Ok, I'll deal with that. Thanks! — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 15:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pacha Tchernof: Since each file can be sorted in the category however people want, it does not actually make a significant difference how the file is named. Although the files in Category:Echo of Moscow voice samples are organized alphabetically by file name, that is actually their first name and someone could (although I would not find it that helpful) go to each file and have it resorted by last name or even by date. That is why the file name isn't terribly important enough for minor renamings. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
Given that "all other files from that project have the same name pattern Name_Surname_voice." I'd say it's a pretty clear case for valid renaming under Criterion 4 'To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs'; rename to File:Anatoli Malkin voice.oga - MPF (talk) 15:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with MPF. This file can easily be renamed "to harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs". De728631 (talk) 15:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@De728631 and Pacha Tchernof: I'll do so shortly; one quick query before I do, should it be to File:Anatoli Malkin voice.oga (spelling per his commons category) or File:Anatoly Malkin voice.oga (spelling per his wikidata item)? - MPF (talk) 16:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Ack, transliterations... Well, as we are at Commons, I would say we should match the spelling of the Commons category. De728631 (talk) 16:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@De728631 and Pacha Tchernof: - done :-) MPF (talk) 17:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@MPF and De728631: Oh, thank you so much both! :-) — Pacha Tchernof (talk) 17:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@De728631 and Pacha Tchernof: I agree with Bjh21 below that renaming might be warranted here, but I strongly oppose the notion that spelling in the category name should be used by default. Category names on Commons use the name most commonly used in English, while file names may be in any language. File moving is explicitly disallowed for changing a name into English. –LPfi (talk) 10:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The original file name File:Anatoli malkin.ogg was already in English or in Latin script for that matter, so I fail to get your point here. 11:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Renaming criterion 4 has a very important footnote that people seem to overlook. It's at COM:FR#cite note-4 and says: Just because images share a category does not mean that they are part of a set. There are two scenarios that this criterion is designed for. First, certain complex templates (such as those that use BSicons or that display football kits) assume that the images used in them will follow a specific naming convention. Wikisource also uses a specific naming convention for the source files they transcribe. Second, files that form parts of a whole (such as scans from the same book or large images that are divided into smaller portions due to Commons’ upload size restriction) should follow the same naming convention so that they appear together, in order, in categories and lists. None of those seems to apply here, though to be honest I'd be inclined to ignore all rules in this case. I'm just mentioning it so people don't think criterion 4 is broader than it is. --bjh21 (talk) 18:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pacha Tchernof and Pacha Tchernof: Commons:File renaming says: Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution.
Archaic formats of file names existed in the past, and they are not a bug. An example is that for years the limitation was the 8.3 filename system used by MS-DOS. Non descriptive file names were commonplace. All thats changed now with a few exceptions. I prefer (for artwork) the original published title, however some titles include colons for example, so we have to substitute it with a comma which is acceptable. Changing filenames requires re-directs and on foreign sites causes link rot. That's why its resisted.
Getting the description right is more important, especially for artwork.
Spelling mistakes and case changes are in themselves insufficient reasons for a name change. However if the file is unused elsewhere (or you take responsibility for fixing the link rot) then there's not usually a problem with renaming. It's at the discretion of the file mover.
As for resorting the sequence of images, there are ways of forcing that within a category, and if all else fails you can create a gallery page. You can also upload new (better defined image) files of the old image, correctly named, and get rid of the old by superseding them. Broichmore (talk) 15:27, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Backup Commons files?

Is there some existing script for making backup of Commons files?

I would like to make backup of

Storage is quite cheap and that would reduce losses just because something went Wrong with Wikimedia Commons Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

You might want to check out https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mirroring_Wikimedia_project_XML_dumps#Media C933103 (talk) 18:59, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Monuments database/Images without id

The workflow behind everything explained

Hello! I'm a crat from SqWiki. Every so often I see in the recent changes ErfgoedBot do some edits in our project. Apparently we have forgotten to flag it as a bot and I intend to do so soon but before I do that, can someone explain to me in simple words what its job is? I've already read the documentation pages associated with it but... I also have the impression the number of images it's the same for us for many months, if not years now. Can you explain by a concrete example how can I help? - Klein Muçi (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jean-Frédéric: . - Jmabel ! talk 02:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Klein Muçi: I assume you found Commons:Monuments database? Did you have a look at the infographic? Commons:Monuments database/Images without id lists for example Wikipedia:WikiProjekti Vende Historike/Kosovë/Foto pa nr. unik. These photos are in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kosovo, but don't have {{Cultural Heritage Kosovo}} with an identifier. You can look if you can find the right identifier at sq:Lista e Monumenteve në Kosovë and add it. Some photos (like for example File:Nusja nga Malesia e Prizrenit.jpg) probably don't belong in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Kosovo and should be removed.
The page sq:Wikipedia:WikiProjekti Vende Historike/Kosovë/Foto të papërdorura lists suggestions of photos to add to sq:Lista e Monumenteve në Kosovë. If the suggestion is correct, you can add it to make the list more complete. Multichill (talk) 13:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
@Multichill, I understood what to do with photos which are currently unused but I don't understand what I should do with photos lacking their id number. Can you give me a bit more details on that? I must disclose I'm rather new to the whole Wiki Loves Monuments thing so... - Klein Muçi (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Flagging digitally upscaled images

I'm surprised that I've not been able to find a file template or COM:POLICY link regarding the use of digitally upscaled images on Commons. Is there a template to add to such files to warn the viewer that what they're looking at isn't an original photograph (explaining that it may have introduced elements not present in the original, etc), or is it enough to just say in the description or filename that an image has been "upscaled" and trust that they'll know what that means? --Lord Belbury (talk) 17:42, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Since writing that I've found {{RetouchedPicture}}: would that be sufficient warning to the viewer, or does it merit a more specific template? --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • We probably need to create a more accurate way to mark the images, we also have the various AI coloring programs and the AI retouching programs from websites like MyHeritage. I added them as categories, because they have a watermark. We need more general ones for those with no specific software mentioned. --RAN (talk) 02:24, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Is File:Pizza Hut Veneto Layer Pastry.jpg actually a food of Venetian origin?

The name of the food suggest so, but I cannot find any relevant information online. Any body know more about this food? C933103 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

In the absence of any information to support this, no. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Import file from en.wiki to commons

I'm trying to export this file (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:FrankRijkaard2.jpg) to commons but i always shows: 

Import failed
Can't import file because at least one of its revisions is missing an image file.

anyone know what the problem is? FMSky (talk) 06:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

From the file history, it appears that the original had a watermark in 2006 and someone cropped or replaced the original image with a non-watwrmark version in 2008. At some point, an admin deleted the original version. To use the automated transfer, check with an enwiki admin if they are able and willing to undelete the original revision in the history. I am not an admin, so I can't see if there is anything in the original file to prevent it. If the image is fixed, you can then try using the automated transfer tool again. If an admin can't or won't restore the history, you will have to use the manual process described at en:Wikipedia:Moving files to Commons. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@FMSky and From Hill To Shore: The original as of 17:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC) is lost - https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/4/4a/20080312163712%21FrankRijkaard2.jpg reports "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-en-local-public.4a/archive/4/4a/20080312163712%21FrankRijkaard2.jpg". You may ask an enwiki Admin to delete it or file a task via phab:.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Category for Free food pantries?

Is there a category for free food pantries besides just putting it under Category:Pantries? --Mjrmtg (talk) 16:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Coming soon

Several improvements around templates

Hello, from March 9, several improvements around templates will become available on your wiki:

All these changes are part of the “Templates” project by WMDE Technical Wishes. We hope they will help you in your work, and we would love to hear your feedback on the talk pages of these projects.

- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

How to download a single shape from OpenStreetMap to upload to Commons?

Hi all

I'm working on using Kartographer to create a maps for Wikipedia articles for species. I'm getting stuck trying to download shape files for countries and other areas individually from OSM to upload to Commons, does anyone have experience in downloading from OSM who knows how to do it? I've read https://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Shapefiles but it doesn't explain how to download a single shape file. Any ideas? I'm really hoping there's a simple way to do it...

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are you posting the same question in multiple venues? Answered at wikidata:Wikidata:Project chat. Multichill (talk) 21:18, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

English synonyms can now be used in MediaSearch

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T301559

Hi all! I have a new announcement to make, this time regarding MediaSearch: research with the new engine will now be easier, since now also English synonyms can be used to find results.

MediaSearch already leverages Wikidata items to find images that depict entities that match the search criteria. Now, MediaSearch will make another step forward, by including also those items that match English labels or aliases on Wikidata for the original search term. We expect this to be helpful in discovering media for subjects known under multiple names (for example, scientific and common names), as well as in other languages where we often don’t even have descriptions.

Just to make an example: when a user searches for “bat”, MediaSearch will also show media where searchable text includes the word “Chiroptera” (their scientific name, and also an alias on Chiroptera (Q28425)) - and this even if the text doesn’t include “bat”. Another example would be a Somali user searching for “fiidmeer” (the Somali word for “bat”) that will get media, through Chiroptera (Q28425), that include either “bat” or “Chiroptera” - again, even if the text doesn’t include “fiidmeer”.

For the time being, the feature will include only English labels and aliases, because of the possible clash in meanings between words across languages, increasing the odds of false positives. For the same reason, the current implementation will be very conservative in its searches, when using aliases.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@Sannita (WMF): How does one turn this off? (Yes, terrible idea, but hey, the myth of eternal improvement needs to be fed…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): - yes, this definitely needs an option to switch off. In the example above, if you were looking for "bat" (as in the item used to play cricket or baseball with), you definitely don't want the search results cluttered up with hundreds / thousands of Chiroptera files... - MPF (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): crickets were mentioned above, but there’s no need to be so litteral. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin and MPF: thanks for your messages, and I'm really sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately, the feature cannot be turned off individually, nor at the moment is it possible for single users to tweak this feature individually (as in disabling individually the option for synonym search). I will rely your request to the dev team, but I cannot promise you a positive answer. Will do my best though.
Anyway, data from the tests conducted showed no particular negative effect on searches - and definitely none of the ones that were cited in the previous replies. Scores for synonym matches are very conservative, meaning that they will not usually overtake direct matches, and that will usually just appear near the end of the results.
I hope it was a sufficiently clear answer, but please ping me if needed for any need! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Deprecation of unused files, "Category:Superfluous images"

I have an ongoing discussion with one user about Category:Superfluous images and moving images into it only because they are not used anywhere for the time being. When for example searching for a broken link in a chain, I can no longer find Broken link.png because it is no longer in the Category:Icons of broken chains where it should be. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems to be some personal project. We have {{Superseded}} for this. Taking perfectly valid images outside of the category tree is not acceptable. Just revert the bot and tag the category for deletion. Multichill (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Taylor 49: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Superfluous images. Multichill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
It's unclear why a bot account, Sarangbot, was used for these edits, and Commons:Bots/Requests/Sarangbot sheds no light. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 Comment We regularly delete unused JPEG and PNG logos, even if there is no SVG available. These files fall in the same category: unused poor quality non-SVG images, and should be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Format of 3D models

Currently, the only accepted form of 3D model on Wikimedia Commons is .stl. However, there are a number of 3D models uploaded in other non-model formats, for example in GIF rotating animation, or in static image with either side by side or color-differentiated stereoscopic form. Is there anyway to request and ask the creator of these models or someone else to recreate them in STL format, much like how static graphs are now being asked to be converted into SVG format with a dedicated template? C933103 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The template {{Convert to SVG}} does not ask specifically authors, it asks any person who has the necessary skills. Probably such a template should created for the stl format as well. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Like {{Convert to STL}} which I just created? C933103 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

cc-by < 4.0 not ok any more

w:Cory Doctorow was targetted by a copyleft troll. as a consequence, doctorow, former european director of creative commons, discourages the use of CC-BY licenses prior to 4.0 in his post A Bug in Early Creative Commons Licenses Has Enabled a New Breed of Superpredator. should pre-4.0 be discouraged on wikimedia commons as well? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

There was a discussion here a few weeks ago which unfortunately didn't result in any actions: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01#Cory Doctorow post on "copyleft trolls" mentions Commons. I think it's worth discouraging pre-4.0 at Commons, and taking some form of action in the 3 areas Doctorow recommends: to prompt users to upgrade to 3.0+ upon upload, prompt existing users to upgrade their existing content (ideally with a tool), and warn re-users on the importance of complying exactly with pre-4.0 terms. -M.nelson (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
sorry for my spelling error, pre-4.0 it should have been and not pre-3.0. 4.0 and onwards have the "heal" clause and easier reference. i changed it in my text, and yours M.nelson if it is ok for you? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Then we would no longer allow uploads from Flickr, which still only allows licensing media under 2.0 licenses. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I feel that would be a major pushback for Commons since Flickr is one of our major sources for useful uploads of third-party works by non-Commons users. Instead of disallowing the earlier CC versions, we should better adjust the licence tags with a warning as M.nelson suggested. Also, on a general note, Flickr has Public Domain Mark and PD images too which are not subject to this issue. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
My feeling (and I've not yet organised this feeling as far as a proposal) is that our templates could do a much better job of making it easy to reuse CC content. The licence templates have a single "attribution" field, where the licences specify explicit lists of information (varying by licence version) that are required for attribution. --bjh21 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

"discourage" should be not the same as "not permit". i love @Glrx: s proposal to include the metadata within the image files, which then permits viewers then display additional info without wasting screen space, is fool proof, as many people just copy paste images. there is even a phabricator ticket for it. i created another phabricator ticket to remove cc-by 3.0 from the default upload form. could be cool to get other ideas and create tickets for them, or edit, just like M.nelson suggested. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Regarding bjh21's thoughts about the licence template, I fear that we might have a general licensing problem that has been ignored so far: CC licenses require you to indicate if changes from the original work were made if you create a derivative work. So e.g. still pics and audio tracks that were extracted from YouTube videos or cropped image uploads where the original is larger might need a special hint in the licence template like "This file was extracted from the original work". It may seem obvious to a reuser that a single JPG file is not the whole original video, but the licensing terms do ask for such a disclaimer. See e.g. the "Attribution " section for CC BY 3.0. An automated note in the template should make such files less prone to attacks by copyleft trolls. So what may be needed is a |derivative= parameter for the CC templates where "yes" triggers a message like this. De728631 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
like User:Geni said in the last discussion, i dont think enforcing the licences (by demanding money) is 100% wrong. on the other hand, this business model of issuing legal threats can be used quite broadly, not just in the area of copyright. they could send out millions of emails alleging "you have been caught red-handed in buying counterfeit products online! pay us or we will sue you!" and definitely some people will pay.
so i'd say there's nothing so wrong about the licences, and their tactics will still work with 4.0 or whatever versions. alamy does the exact same thing with PD photos https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1060341513#Criticism .--RZuo (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that if for 15 seconds I published photo without attribution and fixed problem immediately after spotting it means my license is actually terminated! It is not just a lie that I have a legal problem! (I am not a lawyer, maybe I misunderstood the article) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I support strong discouragement (make impossible to select it for own work in upload wizard, notify all people who uploaded work licensed <4.0 CC, on upload of <4.0 CC work send message asking to relicense). That is a nasty trap and I was unaware about it (feel free to notify me about my own images that I uploaded under this license) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


I tested upload wizard, it still allows to select cc-by-sa-3.0 and cc-by-3.0 for own work. Is there any good idea for allowing this nowadays? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be banned outright, there are a lot of reasons people may specifically choose CC-BY-SA 3.0 instead of 4.0. For instance, what if they disagree with 4.0's notion of "moral rights"? What if they originally created the work for a CC-BY-SA 3.0 project? You can port 3.0 to 4.0 but you can't do the opposite, so if you want to contribute to something that's 3.0 you need your source material to also be 3.0.
As mentioned above, sure, you can discourage it, but forbidding it in the UI is just going to annoy a lot of people with legitimate reasons to use 3.0, or who have already released it as 3.0 and simply want to upload the works on Commons with the correct metadata. aismallard (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Best practice for indicating when an image is part of a set?

In {{Information}} I've used the |other_versions= parameter for derivative works like when there's also a cropped, color balanced, or whatever version. But sometimes an image is part of a set of related images. What's currently the best way to indicate "hey, this photo is just one of several in a closely related set"? The documentation for |other_versions= says "very similar content" so I suppose that counts but it seems unsatisfactory. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

@Jason Quinn: They might fall within the concept of Commons:Image sets, in which case it seems that the usual thing is to have a category for the set, tagged with {{Set}}. Looking through Category:Image sets I haven't spotted any other way that files in a set are linked together. --bjh21 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
@Jason Quinn: Alternatively, if the set is small you can do what I've done here: File:Parkour 01-1.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for you replies. Both ideas are interesting. This is an important issue and one where we should have a more or less standard way of doing it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

The absurd redundancy of categories and structured data

Can I rant for a minute about how unfortunate it is that we have two separate, largely overlapping systems for describing our content? This comes from a place of occasionally trying to encourage friends to share some of their photos to Commons, and the thing they invariably say after checking it out is that the upload process is too long and complicated. They're used to services like Google Maps, which makes it extremely easy to upload photos since they want you to do it: just click on a place and upload your photo of it. Some things unavoidably make our process more complicated, such as the fact that we actually care about licensing, but asking people to add categories and then also structured data on top of that is just a self-inflicted wound. I'm not familiar with the history of how structured data got introduced (links welcome), but I wish it was done in a way that was integrated, e.g. adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188) because of the value of category's main topic (P301) at Category:Empire State Building (Q8412843). The structured data would be so much more comprehensive if we'd done that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

  •  Neutral I am not sure if our systems are sophisticated enough to achieve this. There are cases where categories are added that are unrelated to what is depicted, such as date, location, creator and collection categories. Can system logic be written to correctly filter those many categories out of the depicts statement? If not, this suggestion will just be migrating our messy category structure into the structured data. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
My issue has always been that we can't synchronise the data, nor mark things as "prominent" and "not prominent", for example a photograph of New York City where the Empire State Building is in the background could have a Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) tag of "Empire State Building" marked as "not prominent", but the complete lack of having a comprehensive system that takes the best of what came before it makes using Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) less useful than it could be. I think that as a system it has a lot of potential, but it's currently underutilised because of the fact that the legacy MediaWiki category system doesn't synchronise with the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) system. An automated system could mark all assigned categories as "prominent" structured data and then users could manually add "less prominent" tags such as minor things included in a photograph and other things where the inclusion wouldn't "overfill the category system". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: Whats wrong with just adding a cat such as Remote views of the Empire State Building or Empire State Building from Rockefeller Center? Broichmore (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
"adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188)" should never be assumed. Suppose the subject is, for example, an audio file which someone discusses the ESB. Or is a photograph of the view from the ESB. Or is a picture of a model of the ESB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I think it is extremely fraught with danger to automatically give "depicts" structured data based on category. There is a huge amount of poorly categorized or miscategorized content already (almost no files in the top level of Category:United States depict the United States for instance, but rather miscategorized people who live there, or towns in the country). Also, many categories contain related files that do not depict the subject named by the category, for instance PDFs of works by an author, or pictures of the subject's, spouse, children, house, commemorative plaque, etc. that don't warrant devoted subcategories of their own. It would be helpful if some model uses categories as starting points for suggestions in various human-operated structured data games (e.g. asking a thinking human: "this file is in Category:X: does it depict X?"). Automation is only as good as the input, and when bots (or humans) add incorrect or impractically vague structured data it becomes twice as hard to remove/correct it (see the countless thousands of 100-year-old photographs with "inception" date being the date some dunce uploaded it to Commons, and some bot mindlessly copied to SDC). --Animalparty (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
May I point out this discussion? We seem to have surrendered the right of any user to edit commons successfully. Category:Gartenlaube (Magazine) for example has been made particularly tedious. As for structured data within commons, the majority of it seems to be detail on scanners, and cameras used in making the image; detail of no use whatsoever to the substance or significance of the image. I have seen no evidence those enhancemets or wikidata's take over of the project has in any way enhanced or improved search. Having said that I do find it useful for displaying profile data of an artist. As I alluded to, in my earlier query herein, we need to keep the project simple and accessible. Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've found it actually throws up more false positives in search, since it searches for aliases of items it has identified with the search term in addition to the string itself, and one of the purposes of aliases is to correct mistaken names for things. Arlo James Barnes 12:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I agree that simply tying Wikidata to categories is not going to be helpful. I think what is really needed is simplifying the default upload wizard for new users, and providing hints for power users who are getting used to Commons and want to start doing more advanced things with it. aismallard (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/02&oldid=639408819"