Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05

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

Commons Gazette 2024-05

Edited by Bawolff (talk) and RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

SVG and thumbnails not updated

Your kind attention (and hopefully effective assistance) might be welcome here. Thanks in advance. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

People of / People in

Hi, While most categories are "People of ...", couples are Couples in .... Any reason? Yann (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

there's also Category:People by country of location.
origin vs location. RZuo (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Each can make sense. Certainly almost no category about a person could be a subcat of a "people in" category, because people move. Conversely, sometimes all we know is where someone was photographed, with no idea where they may have been from (or knowing full well they were from someowhere else). - Jmabel ! talk 14:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Privacy issue

I am sure that File:Venedig-352-Klingeln-2003-gje.jpg has multiple privacy issue, there are various family surnames. Is there any Commons rules broken? --93.47.37.244 09:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as the location of this residential building is not publicly identifiable, there are actually no rules broken. Regards --A.Savin 09:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
IMO, privacy concerns usually have no merits and deletion requests usually result to "kept". See COM:Non-copyright restrictions. However, if the uploader him/herself decides to nominate their image on their own, then admins may grant deletions (based on non-copyright concerns) as courtesy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 10:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The image was 16 years old when uploaded and is now 21 years old. That to me alleviates any privacy concerns. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Videogame thumbnail

I attempted to upload a game thumbnail picture, but it got quickly deleted. Is there any legit way to upload it? The game producer has told me that everything from this webpage "can be published on any website", as it is the game's official press kit, but currently, no success. Siberian Snake (talk) 14:01, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

@Siberian Snake: Hi, and welcome. Please have the game producer send permission via VRT with a carbon copy to you to keep you in the loop.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
A reminder that we don't just share in this place. We make available for other people for all purposes, including commercial use. Especially that last thing is not always what a producer might expect. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 15:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

PD-USGov-POTUS Flickr account uploading photos under a non-commercial license

How do we go on about this? flickr2commons won't work for obvious reasons--Trade (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

My longstanding requests for Flickr2Commons (and more recently, Flickypedia) to allow uploads by trusted users of PD images wrongly tagged on Flickr with non-free licences have, to date, fallen on stony ground :( Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:16, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

AI generated images of Shinto deities

I noticed that it seems the majority of Shinto deities have no images available here. Some of these deities are relatively important so I feel they should have images to give people some idea about them. Would it be acceptable to upload ai generated images for this purpose or would that violate rules of commons? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: I would expect that for any Shinto deities where there is a traditional visual representation, it should be easy to find images old enough to be in the public domain and use those. What is the difficulty in doing so? If there is no traditional representation, what would be the basis to consider these AI images culturally valid? - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel you make a very good point. I am unsure what the reason behind the lack of visual representations here is, but they are very hard to come across. Shinto is not traditionally ancionistic, but for many deities, even seemingly relatively prominent ones it seems the majority of visual representations are from Gacha games or Shin Megami Tensei. It is quite confusing. Maybe people just are not searching for and uploading enough paintings. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Immanuelle: do you have specific deities in mind as an example? --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda Ame no Hoakari is the one I was thinking of. He comes up a lot when talking about the Tenson Korin, but I cannot find any images at all. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Any images in the public domain, or in general? If the latter - what do you expect the AI-based image to be based on? AI isn't a crystal ball. Omphalographer (talk) 21:52, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
If you could provide a list of these deities (or point us to a place where we can find which ones you mean) we can help look for visual representations in the public domain and upload those directly. I'm personally really not a fan of using AI if alternatives exist, but I don't know how other editors feel. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites I will get back to you with a list. Thank you for your help! Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I cannot imagine AI-generated images being appropriate illustrations for these subjects. They fall into the same category as user-created artworks, which are generally considered out-of-scope except for edge cases (flags and heraldry) where a standardized and detailed starting description is available. That does not appear to be the case here. AI-generated images have additional concerns which have been discussed at length on Commons. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
It's probably a shot in the dark, but you might ask someone from Japan on here to take pictures of the statues of these people. I know they exist, but apparently are hard to find images of for some reason. Especially ones that are freely licensed. Maybe it could be turned into a Wiki Loves Monuments project or something though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Another tram question

Trying to identify the location of File:TramFromAbove(50352061186).jpg, i think it's the same tram model as here: File:Tram Ce 4-4 145 + Anh. C4 311 (22053976288).jpg , thus pointing to Berne / Switzerland, but i don't know if the same tram model was used in different swiss towns, too. There was a line 11 in Berne, between main station and Fischermätteli, but i wasn't able to match the street and the buildings to any location there. Is anyone able to recognize the street or the buildings? Fl.schmitt (talk) 19:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

@Fl.schmitt: many thanks for narrowing it down to Bern, that made it a lot easier. I am fairly sure we are looking over Hirschengraben, toward the northeast. Quite likely a tourist photographed this from a window or balcony of the Hotel National. Most of the buildings in the back (address numbers 1 to 11) are visible in File:ETH-BIB-Bern-LBS H1-026968.tif, except for the one at number 9 (probably built some time after the tram picture). File:ETH-BIB-Bern-LBS H1-012239.tif is a few years older and less sharp, but does seem to confirm all the façades we see in the tram picture. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:13, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda - great, thanks a lot! In fact, Hirschengraben fits the old photography perfectly. I've searched in vain at Schwarzentorstrasse (similar street layout, but completely different buildings). I agree also regarding the camera position. Wonderful - another unidentified location pinned :-)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Fl.schmitt (talk) 05:58, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Loves Earth 2024

COM:WLE2024 This page has a list of participating countries, and my country is not among them. Participating countries each have their own prize pools and judges. Are these separate from the event-wide judging process, and if so, can people from countries that aren't participating still take part in the contest and be eligible for the judging process? --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably better to ask at Commons talk:Wiki Loves Earth 2024. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll crosspost my question there, but people there don't seem to have much luck, considering one topic that's brought up has not been dealt with for years. The Village Pump sees a lot more activity and gets a lot more eyeballs. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:21, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
It's better to ask there because it concerns WLE. there aren't any old topics at the wle 2024 discussion page.
I guess your question could be answered by the international orga.
I'm a member of the German WLE organisastion team, I try to answer you as far as I understand :-)
When your country doesn't participate at WLE, you can't participate with pictures of your country at WLE. But you can participate at other WLE competitions from other countrys. You are from the Netherlands the German WLE competition waits for your pictures of German protected areas. Greetings Z thomas 16:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Steamboat Willie – Frame by frame

Hi!

As the film "Steamboat Willie" is in the public domain now, would it make sense to upload the frames as single frames here? The Internet Archive offers a lossless movie file (https://archive.org/download/steamboat-willie-16mm-film-scan-4k-lossless/) from where it would be possible to extract all single frames.

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

how many frames in total?
why not the movie directly? RZuo (talk) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The file is as an MOV file with a filesize of approx. 32 GiB. It should be ca. 10000 frames in total --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Some specific frames, yes. All the frames separately? I don't see the point. But the whole movie, yes. Yann (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I could try a high-quality conversion of the mov file to webm (it wouldn't be lossless, but probably without visible artifacts) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:56, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that would be useful. As the Quicktime version is 34.2GB, it can't be done with COM:V2C. Yann (talk) 07:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
You can do it with lossless AV1 in webm, and split the result in 5GiB chunks for upload to commons. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 23:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I did upload it with File:Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 01 von 03.webm, File:Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 02 von 03.webm, File:Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 03 von 03.webm, because I thought, lossless would result in too large total filesize --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
  • Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 01 von 03.webm
  • Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 02 von 03.webm
  • Steamboat Willie (16mm Film Scan) ProRes (3400x2550) 03 von 03.webm

Tram construction

It looks like France but which city? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you want to give us some clues, as to where you were, in September 2002? _Broichmore (talk) 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Tram? This looks like a 1435 mm railroad to me. Or even bigger? Konijnewolf (talk) 22:35, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Trams can go on standard gauge — see Category:1435 mm track gauge trams. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:06, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
You were standing at approximately [45.69445°N, 4.94101°E], looking west, down Boulevard Edouard Herriot in Saint-Priest. This particular stretch of rail would eventually become Category:Esplanade des Arts (Lyon Tram). --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:59, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
i'm amazed by your geotagging skills. Orz.
how do you always manage to pinpoint these places? they dont even look so similar on google maps streetviews. RZuo (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Aww, you are flattering me, but if you really want to know... First I had a detailed look around the photo, the architecture is typical of suburban residential mid/high-rises in France, and then there are a couple of signs in the distance in French, but the license plates were decisive in excluding other French-speaking countries. I then checked what other uploads Smiley.toerist photographed in September 2002; in relation to France I saw Le-Puy-en-Velay and Vienne, both relatively close to each other. Trams are usually found only in big cities and the nearest one is Lyon. According to en:Lyon tramway, after the 2001 opening, line T2 was extended in October 2003, meaning construction work as photographed would have taken place before that, which nicely fits the hints so far. From here I used Google Maps/StreetView/Earth (their historical aerial and street-level imagery is exceptionally useful) to see where on that extension one can find a tramway slightly bending to the left and passing a curved building. The apartment blocks are quite generic, but that curved building in the distance was a key hint in confirming the right location. Finally I try to place myself in the photographer's shoes to figure out the most likely position for taking the picture with this arrangement. Tl;dr: some background knowledge, looking up history, a lot of browsing through Google Maps/Earth/StreetView, and a great deal of luck ;) --HyperGaruda (talk) 15:53, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
excellent detective skills! Orzzzz. thx a lot for sharing!
i forgot about checking related uploads (from which approximate location might be inferred). i gave up when i saw that it's a pre-internet-boom photo so most shops would probably have changed. RZuo (talk) 18:08, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@HyperGaruda: You are really good at it. It's an incredible skill. Good for you. Good for us ;) MenkinAlRire (talk) 23:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks to all. I suspected something like this location as the image was just after Le-Puy-en-Velay, but I learned to never make any assumption, as often the next image on the film could be weeks later somewhere totaly different.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Files from Personal Creations Flickr stream

712 images in this Category. I think they all should be deleted. Every image (bar 1 that I edited) contains a link in the Description to commercial web site advertising personalised goods. Each Description consists of this plus a superfluous part of the Licence conditions and nothing more. So each would need the Description editing Many of the files are potentially Copyright Vios - the licence of the photos is correct on Flickr but they are Derivative Works of the items photographed. Its a lot of work to go through the whole lot editing.

In my opinion the whole photostream was created as an advertising promotion for website. Does the other Users agree? Is there is a simple way to delete all files in the Category? I am not very good with Mass Deletion nominations and if I were to follow the instructions in Help it would seem I would have to create a list of 712 files!! Suggestions?? --Headlock0225 (talk) 09:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Disagree. The descriptions containing the license conditions is no big deal. The titles describes the images sufficiently anyways Trade (talk) 09:49, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes you're right. The descriptions containing the license conditions is no big deal. What is big deal is that web link in every Description. One option is to do a mass edit to remove the web link in every description but I don't know how to do that. Or we accept my contention that the whole lot is one big advertising promotion and delete all 712 files . Headlock0225 (talk) 10:24, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
If those images are useful in Commons and in scope, the fact they are sourced and linked to a commercial website is no problem.
If those images aren't useful in Commons or not in scope, they should be deleted, but not because of the link.
The descriptions could be improved, with the conditions and the link moved to a more appropriate section. You can do it by hand for each image or learn how to do batch edits. However, I would say that is one of the least useful uses of a Commons editor's time, but YMMV and since we are all volunteers it's up to each one to choose their tasks and if you want to take this one it's perfectly fine.--Pere prlpz (talk) 11:23, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
@Headlock0225: I zapped that spam for you using VFC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:43, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you - that is just what I was hoping someone would do! Headlock0225 (talk) 16:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
We are gonna be real busy if we have to delete all photos that includes links to the author's website Trade (talk) 12:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I will help with the descriptions and categorization. GeorgHH • talk   12:47, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Many thanks Headlock0225 (talk) 16:35, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

CropTool

Seems to be down again. I keep getting the error message: "Upload failed! undefined ". --Rosiestep (talk) 13:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

I am also facing issues with the tool from yesterday.--Rocky Masum (talk) 13:06, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Hungarian category without upper categories

Category:MÁV machine repair plant This is a fairly confusing categorie with some images of rail vehicles and some derelict site.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I added Category:Economy of Budapest. Ymblanter (talk) 15:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Error in Upload Wizard

When I go to "upload file" in the navigation bar on the left, it says:

"Sorry, we could not find a tutorial in your language. The English one is shown instead."

However, my language is set to Canadian English. Is this a bug? It's been doing this all the time.

Thanks! Myrealnamm (💬talk · ✏️contribs) at 23:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

It's probably a bug that "en" does not normalize to being identical to "en-CA" in this case or a "bug" that no one has "translated" from en to en-CA. See also Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:48, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories vs articles

I made this category Category:Moto-Ise Shrines and connected it to the French wikipedia article but it was changed to the category. I feel this may be a significant issue with wikidata generally. How should it be resolved? Have efforts been made for it? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a persistent issue. Wikidata items that are "Category:x" should link to "Category:x" here. Items that are "X" (i.e. just an article) should link to "X" here (i.e. a gallery). We should not generally link cross-namespace items unless said namespace just doesn't exist on one project or another, but Main and Category exist on all projects. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:03, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I've had that happen a couple of times myself. It doesn't help that there's bots on their end constantly changing links to Commons. There's been a couple of times were I just said screw it and gave trying to have things linked the correct way because a bot kept reverting me. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
If there is no "Category:X" Wikidata item (and typically there isn't), and there is no gallery page on Commons, then (and only then) it is correct to give a non-category item in Wikidata an interwiki link directly to the Commons category. And, in any case, Commons category (P373) should be the Commons category. - Jmabel ! talk 02:23, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Jmabel is exactly correct here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Purge button

Can we please have the ability to purge the cache of pages, like we do on en-Wiki. I'm currently working on the second page of Category:Oasts in Kent and it is not updating on reload. It is not possible to do a manual purge either. Mjroots (talk) 05:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mjroots: There's a few gadgets listed at Help:Purge to choose from. I personally use Page Purge and have no complaints. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:34, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Pi.1415926535, found Page Purge in preferences and enabled it. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
you can always add "?action=purge" to the end of the URL. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Dating Geneva postcard

The black and white postcard was posted on 1963-7-21. However the last classic postcards in black and white, where in the 1950s and most publishers switched to colour from then on. The image looks old and I managed to find a coloured in version in https://www.jhpostcards.com/fr/products/geneve-geneva-ile-j-j-rousseau-et-le-mont-blanc-7001-switzerland-old-postcard-used. Coloured in postcards where the fashion before WW I. So I strongly suspect the original photograph was pre WW I.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Is that a lake steamer converted into a jetty at the Genève-Jardin-Anglais? Might be good for dating? Broichmore (talk) 14:35, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Acceptable photo ?

I found a 1950's era lined exercise notebook with the picture of en:Marilyn Bell on the cover. It was printed as a promotional item for Crown Brand corn syrup with a motivational text for school children using the swimmer as a role model. Before taking the time to import it here, I want to make sure this kind of 70 year old image may be imported and used on WP ? JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 13:51, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

@JeanPaulGRingault: Hi, and welcome. Was that corn syrup sold in Canada or the US? Was the notebook found in either country? If US, and there was no copyright notice, it would be {{PD-US-no notice}} (I am unsure of the formalities in Canada).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:30, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
It's from Canada...JeanPaulGRingault (talk) 15:12, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Name of age groups

So since Category:Young adults have been mvoed to Category:Young adults does that mean that Category:Middle-aged people should be moved to Category:Middle-aged adults as well? --Trade (talk) 15:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Your prior category should be Category:Young people? A typo I guess. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I think young adults and young people is something totally different. Young adults are young but adult people something like 18/20 to 25/30. But young people is about all young people including children so for example all between 0 and 25/30. "Middle-aged adults" does not make sense as middle-aged people is clear as the term "Middle-aged children" does not really exist. GPSLeo (talk) 19:01, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

StockCake – how to handle

The website StockCake offers public domain AI-generated images. How should the site be viewed in relation to the scope and educational use, including copyright?

Thanks and kind regards --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is some conversation, but no definitive local policy. Have you seen Commons:AI-generated media? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
There is no copyright concerns. Trade (talk) 12:13, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your annotations! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:02, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
AI are the sort of images we should not be uploading, they are counterfeit, consequently non-educational, have no validity or veracity. The project could and will be easily be swamped with this rubbish. Our reputation will be damaged and our admins drowned. They are a threat to the project. Broichmore (talk) 18:12, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@PantheraLeo1359531, Trade, and Broichmore: please review Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/02#Ban the output of generative AIs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
That discussion is a muddled mess. @The Squirrel Conspiracy: shut it down far too early; and what does he mean by the consensus (is) against adopting these changes? What changes? It's no exaggeration to say that AI threatens the very viability of the project. Computers can create fake images faster than we want to cope with. People just haven't thought out the implications here. Broichmore (talk) 15:26, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
There were over two weeks between the last comment in that discussion and when I closed it. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 15:56, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
What did you mean by the consensus (is) against adopting these changes? What changes were mooted? Can you please advise? Broichmore (talk) 00:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The proposal was "Ban the output of generative AIs". The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:36, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I just wanted to ask what the positions are here in case a user gets the idea of obtaining masses of images from these kind of sources. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:09, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Is this username appropriate?

User:Mark Nakoykher. Na koy kher / На кой хер in Russian means What the f*** (heck) in English. --Quick1984 (talk) 18:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't think it's an issue, especially for someone who hasn't edited in two years. Commons:Username policy does not prohibit profanity (although some other projects have username policies that do.) He edited for five years with 2500 uploads and doesn't appear to have had any significant issues with other editors, so the clause of Offensive usernames that make harmonious editing difficult or impossible doesn't apply. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:29, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Usernames are not allowed if offensive, profane, violent, threatening, sexually explicit, or disruptive, or that advocate or encourage any such behaviour (including criminal or illegal acts). w:WP:USERNAME that's the policy set by the Foundation.
That it's been overlooked to this point is irrelevant.
There is at least one person on the project who adopted an IP address as a user name; IMO, another, that should be added to the list. Broichmore (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
That is the enwiki username policy. It is set by the enwiki community, not the WMF, and has no bearing whatsoever on Commons. The Commons username policy, which I linked above, differs in several ways and does not prohibit profanity. I see no compelling reason to force a username change, especially since the user has been inactive for two years and is unlikely to respond to such a request. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:17, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
The user indeed took a lot of excellent photos, which are actively used on external resources. If you saw the comments that appear under serious articles on reputable news websites when readers discover a credit to the author of the photo, you might not be so sure of it. I believe that mentioning WM Commons next to such a dashing nickname does not brighten the reputation of the project. --Quick1984 (talk) 07:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Best way to collect images?

I have a roll of film to upload, shot in Prague during the Velvet Revolution of 1989, as it happens. And I would like to indicate that the individual images are from that same photoshoot.

The two technical features on offer, as I understand it, are categories and galleries. Categories apply to individual images and provide structured heirarchical metadata tags about their content and circumstances. Galleries provide a means of collecting sets of images together after the fact.

So neither feature seems to offer the functionality I seek?

Or should I bend the category system and create a relatively arbitrary category like: "robbies snaps from prague velvet revolution"? Any help would be very welcome. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:14, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: Please see if you like any of the cat names or structure at or below Cat:Jeff G.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:21, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: I think what you want here is a user category as described in COM:USERCAT. I'd use a more formal name, something like "Photographs of the Velvet Revolution in Prague by RobbieIanMorrison". The files should also be categorised under a topic category like Category:Velvet Revolution in Prague. --bjh21 (talk) 14:22, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: @Bjh21: Exactly what I need. Thanks both. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 14:51, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:36, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedCategories

A reminder that Special:UncategorizedCategories has been bloating once again, and could use someone to take a serious shot at it. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Providing historical context for photographs of Berlin, Dresden, and Prague as Communism fell in 1989

In 1989, I traveled as a tourist to East and West Berlin, Dresden, and Prague and photographed events in the two weeks spanning the Fall of Communism using 35mm Nikon gear. I have now had those negatives digitized and would like to upload them to Wikimedia under Creative Commons CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 licenses. The images are probably equivalent in terms of content and scope to any currently on Wikipedia — and usually of far better technical and aesthetic quality. And a couple of the photographs are quite likely historically unique.

Before making the circa 40 JPG scans public, I would like to better articulate their historical contexts. I am therefore looking for input from folk who can help explain these photographs. I think you would need a detailed knowledge of these events and/or know where to find such information. I can easily arrange Zoom video meetings if useful (my timezone is CEST). RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Do remember that much as with a Wikipedia article, it is easy to edit the text after upload. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
You might want to create a gallery page with the full set of your photos, either in unqualified gallery space (like Places of worship in Seattle) or under your own user page (like User:Jmabel/People). - Jmabel ! talk 16:16, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Normally I am quite relaxed about evolving text in public, wiki‑fashion. But in this case I would like to add reasonably accurate metadata to the scans before uploading them in public. Because at that point, I think the files will be downloaded and circulated and any opportunity to correct or extend that metadata will be lost. Finally, I assume that there are no private spaces on Wikimedia where I can work with selected others prior to going public. It may also be that some images should not be made public due to privacy and right to likeness issues and that publish‑then‑take‑down does not seem a very satisfactory way of dealing with those questions. Any thoughts? RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:05, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: Do you have a pro account on Flickr? That would quite possibly be a good way to do this (where you could give individuals access to the photos without really publishing them). Commons does not have content that is not public-facing, except for the deleted images that are visible only to admins.
I would guess that in most cases there are few privacy concerns after 34 years, but there might be some. - Jmabel ! talk 21:42, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Thanks for the information. Flickr Pro is reasonable suggestion for working in private. But I have decided to work within Wikimedia Commons instead — and will seek contextual information by adding requests to the relevant Wikipedia talk pages. Moreover, I will not add any depiction metadata to the JPG title and description fields on upload, but rather provide an embedded note that that depiction metadata is being developed and archived on Wikimedia Commons.
    On the privacy front, I did photograph demonstration organizers in Prague and elsewhere — clearly with an implied consent to photograph, although not an explicit consent to make public. I guess most individuals will have retired by now in any case — so I think I should carry on regardless. Also I think it was probably clear that this was (citizen) photojournalism and not simply my holiday snaps.
    Thanks for your suggestions. Much appreciated. I want to get this process right first and your comments have been very helpful. See also this German reference desk posting. Best wishes. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
@RobbieIanMorrison: If you don't mind me asking, exactly what level of metadata are you trying to attach to the photographs and how exactly do you plan to do that? Like through Wikidata items that are attached to categories containing the images, individual file descriptions, or what? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@Adamant1: On reflection, the term "metadata" was probably a poor choice and "context information" would have been a better phrase. So information about locations, dates (because the events were moving rapidly), translations of slogans and placards from Czech to English, and perhaps even the identification of protest leaders (people). So nothing as structured as linking back to Wikidata (at this stage). But I will pay particular attention to the categories with which to associate the images. (And I plan to start uploading JPEG files next week.) Thanks for your interest. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Template that captures taking conditions for analog images

Is there a template for recording the photographic conditions for scanned images from SLR analog cameras. For comparison, digital cameras embed a ton of metadata in their JPEG files. So I am thinking of things like:

  • camera make and model (Nikon Nikkormat FT2 body)
  • lens type and characteristics (Nikkor 105mm f/2.5 telephoto lens)
  • taking conditions (shutter speed and aperture, if known)
  • film stock and rating (Ilford 135-36 HP5 (coded 2357) black and white negative film, shot at ISO 400)
  • development history (developed by professional lab)
  • scanning history (negative scan at high-resolution by FotoMeyer Fotoservice, Berlin, Germany)
  • other (anything else of note)

Template:Camera is way too basic. I guess I might be able for force some of this information into the scanned image file (using say ExifTool) but I would prefer not too. Thanks in advance. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:33, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@RobbieIanMorrison: perhaps {{Photo Information}}? MKFI (talk) 08:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
@MKFI: Perfect! Thanks. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 20:13, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about file

Is there something wrong with my computer or is this image completely white? Adamant1 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the backside of File:Karayan Coffee Co. Float, Industrial Parade, King Wamba Carnival, Toledo, O., August 24-28, 1909 - DPLA - 9b9e1305a1ecbb0221cfe865819aabab (page 1).jpg? Not that it makes a white rectangle any more useful. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the source, page 1 has the image and page 2 is a blank sheet. It was uploaded here by a bot, so the redundancy was missed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
At this point the lack of copyright notice would be irrelevant, but it would once have mattered. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

NARA photos

I've tried to upload several photos from the NARA website: [1], [2] but receive a message that they've failed verification. What does that mean? Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mztourist Commons:List of errors#This file did not pass file verification? RZuo (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist: Upcoming changes to survey, and work on template selection requests

Hello everyone,

We have two updates about the Community Wishlist Survey:

Update one concerns upcoming changes to the survey. In the new survey, we are experimenting with grouping similar wishes into a problem space known as Focus Area and modifying the way the community votes to complement this approach. We also have mockups of the new wish intake form. Get the full details.

The other update announces the selection of 4 related wishes around template use for fulfillment (e.g. adding infoboxes and bookmarking templates).

Please make time to read the announcements in detail, and join the discussions.

On behalf of Community Tech –– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

How useful is Template:Types of goods?

How useful is this template when even after nine years the vast majority of the links is still red?

  1. Do we need it on Commons? Isn't it too theoretical, more something for Wikipedia? Commons is for organizing files.
  2. If we indeed need it on Commons, can categories be made for the red links and fill them with correct subcategories and files? Who is going to do that?
  3. If we do not need it on Commons, can this template be removed from the categories it is in now, and be deleted (or put on hold or something like that)? Do the blue categories all have proper parents?

Note: I tried to discuss this on the talk page, but there was only one reaction (in favour of deletion), while I think this kind of questions need more reactions. JopkeB (talk) 08:18, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm a highly literate native English speaker, and a fair number of these are terms I've never heard. E.g. Post-)Experience goods"? "Credence goods"? - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this style of navigation template can be perfectly useful on gallery pages, but are a problem on category pages. I have seen several of these over time which seem to be well-meaning efforts to port over templates from Wikipedias to Commons. This style was designed to be an aid at the bottom of an article page, and similar placement on a gallery should work fine. However, that usage does not push down the main contents of the page, which putting it on a category does. So for that reason, using this style of navigation page at the top of templates is a bad practice. The redlinks are also an issue. In my experience with nav template implementation, redlinks are not generally preferred by most users. Even much black text can get in the way of the mission of expediting navigation to parallel topics, so a compact nav that only lists real destinations is usually best. A parameter can be used to allow redlinks to still show up for special cases or temporarily while building categories, but should be suppressed normally. Josh (talk) 00:48, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Not useful at all. This is a "coatrack" template - it's a mixture of terms from economics (e.g. "club goods", "veblen goods", etc) and unrelated phrases which happen to include the word "goods" (e.g. "damaged goods", "confiscated goods"). Of the few links which do have an associated category, those categories are frequently misapplied and may themselves be ripe for discussion. For example, Category:Public goods is a fairly eclectic assortment of images and categories largely unrelated to the economic concept of a public good; the few supply/demand charts which actually illustrate the economic concept could probably be moved to Category:Supply and demand curves or subcategories. Omphalographer (talk) 03:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, @Jmabel, Joshbaumgartner, and Omphalographer: for your reactions. So:

  • The template contains unclear concepts and a mix of concepts from economic theory and daily use of the word "good". This alone is reason enough to define it as "not useful".
  • A template like this one is only fit for gallery pages, not for categories, and it should not be on top, but on the bottom of a page. My comment: I do not expect to have soon so many gallery pages of the (rather abstract) concepts mentioned in the template, that we should need this template to guide us through them.
  • Overall conclusions:
    • [New] An alternative is Category:Types of goods (already exists, but does not contain yet all the subcategories that should be in it and it should have a description).
    • We do not need this template on Commons.
    • This template can be removed from the categories it is in now, and then be deleted. Note: check whether these categories all have proper parents.

 Question Do you agree with these conclusions? Can this template be deleted? --JopkeB (talk) 09:02, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@JopkeB: If it were me I'd get rid of "goods" altogether and merge things into Category:Products by type since "products" is less ambiguous and more established. There's no reason to have two competing category schemes for whats essentially the same concept though and I assume doing that would involve deleting the template along with the categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
There is a difference between "products" and "goods". Goods are tangible, products can be goods and services as well. So I would like to keep both. Though I must admit that this definition has not always been consistently applied to all the concepts in goods (like in public goods). JopkeB (talk) 09:21, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
"Public goods" is almost a coincidence of words, with a different meaning of "goods" ("things that are beneficial" as against "objects that can be the subject of trade"). - Jmabel ! talk 18:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel, Joshbaumgartner, Omphalographer, and Adamant1: I have made a deletion request for this template, see Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Types of goods. Please add your comments there. --JopkeB (talk) 03:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 03:46, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

NARA photos

I've tried to upload several photos from the NARA website: [3], [4] but receive a message that they've failed verification. What does that mean? Mztourist (talk) 12:38, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

@Mztourist Commons:List of errors#This file did not pass file verification? RZuo (talk) 11:00, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Quad with tracks

How to categorize this?

Hi, There are several pictures of similar vehicles on Commons (but not so many), but with different categories, sometimes much too board. I am surprised that I can't find a specific category for this type of vehicles. Any idea? Yann (talk) 19:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Off-road quads is probably the closest we have. Ymblanter (talk) 20:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
None of the similar quads are in this category, so I am confused: [5], File:Can-am Outlander 2021.jpg, File:Can-Am Outlander 6x6 T3 Kokonaisturvallisuus 2015 01.JPG, File:Janske Lazne 2022 P87 Cerna hora Can-Am Outlander.jpg, etc. Yann (talk) 20:17, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Tracked quads B25es (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Community Wishlist: Upcoming changes to survey, and work on template selection requests

Hello everyone,

We have two updates about the Community Wishlist Survey:

Update one concerns upcoming changes to the survey. In the new survey, we are experimenting with grouping similar wishes into a problem space known as Focus Area and modifying the way the community votes to complement this approach. We also have mockups of the new wish intake form. Get the full details.

The other update announces the selection of 4 related wishes around template use for fulfillment (e.g. adding infoboxes and bookmarking templates).

Please make time to read the announcements in detail, and join the discussions.

On behalf of Community Tech –– STei (WMF) (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there an easier way to upload PD-textlogos?

Might just be me but using the Upload Wizard is honestly pretty tedious. --Trade (talk) 00:57, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

@Trade: As an experienced user, Special:Upload and a copy-paste-edit approach will probably serve you better. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: What's so different about uploading PD-textlogos? If it's about the license template, you could use VisualFileChange for batch changing the licenses. Killarnee (talk) 12:38, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
A lot of needless repetition in things such as description and captions Trade (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
Nevermind, just discovered the new "Copy" function Trade (talk) 15:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Group with stack of books on steps of U.S. Capitol LCCN2016871332.jpg

Am I correct in assuming that the person standing in the front left with the book "THE NINE OLD MEN" in his hand is Walt Disney? Refers to (Disney's Nine Old Men) GeorgHH • talk   19:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --GeorgHH • talk   15:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Query for media "linked from" xyz, result as PagePile

Hi all, is there a way to query for images that are linked from a certain page? For example, how to get a list of files linked from Commons:Files used on OpenStreetMap/2? Ok, i could try to process the markdown code, extracting the file names. But i wonder if there's a tool that would produce a PagePile?

My first attempt was PetScan, but its "Linked from" filter currently seems to ignore images that are embedded inside galleries, or that are embedded in the page directly (using [[File:xyz.jpg]]). PetScan's "Linked from" would recognize text links (e.g. [[:File:xyz.jpg]]), but no embedded images.

Then i stumbled upon Quarry, since i suppose the content from the sections "File usage on Commons" / "File usage on other Wikis" may be part of some database table, but i'm not familiar with the db structure.

Did i miss something? What's the best approach to get a PagePile of File links? --Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Found it myself - did a Quarry query to get the list of image links: #82918 (limit 10 for test reasons) which can be uses as source for a PagePile: #58370. The page pile now can be used in a PetScan query #28323802 (in my case: query files which are used on OpenStreetMap but don't have coordinates on Commons). Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
I started writing this before I noticed this was solved already, but I'll leave this comment here anyways: One solution would be if User:Bjh21 (operator of the bot that maintains those OpenStreetMap [OSM] lists) could add [[:File:xyz.jpg]] text wikilinks to those OSM lists somewhere (In the embedded images' descriptions? Or maybe inside {{Hidden}}?) so you could use PetScan. By the way, here's a compatible plain list (from this search) of all those OSM lists for PetScan's "Linked from" field, if either PetScan gets fixed or the bot's operator adds those text wikilinks. 2001:14BA:9C40:0:12C:E20D:95CC:ED2 16:09, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
At Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Add_coordinates_to_images, I did an estimate of the missing coordinates. A bit surprising, given that OSM users should be knowledgeable about it. Maybe the upload process for them needs to be improved. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:23, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wairau Creek, Auckland

Hi, I found that there are two distinct creeks called "Wairau Creek" in Auckland, one to the north of Waitemata Harbour (meeting Hauraki Gulf at Milford Reserve), and the other flows between Glendene and Kelston in the southwest of the harbour. What would be the best way to name the categories for these two distinct creeks as at the moment, we have Category:Wairau Creek (4 images), Category:Wairau Creek, Auckland (empty) and they're not specific enough, but I'm unfamiliar with local views/naming/best practice. Thanks. -- Deadstar (msg) 10:54, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

@Deadstar, You might want to try opening a discussion on New Zealand Wikipedians' notice board.
The descriptions for the Wikidata items for the creeks might also provide some inspiration:
Lovelano (talk) 02:41, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @Lovelano, I will move my question there! -- Deadstar (msg) 12:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Resolved

Is there a way to exclude the text in templates from a custom search without having to just exclude the actual text? Like say by putting "-template X" in the search field or something? Adamant1 (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

The search index only knows about the contents of a page before transclusions (raw wikitext, which you can search with the insource: prefix), and the contents after a full parse (what you see on the screen). It can exclude pages that use a specific template, or not use a specific template. For documentation, see https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Help:CirrusSearch —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:40, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a way to find buildings or places in Japan that need photos?

I am going to Japan using a Japan Rail Pass soon and want to be able to take necessary photos there. Transportation will be effectively free for me at the time, so I can grab a bunch of photos of different places, and I intend on going to a wide variety of locations. I already have a list of shrines but these are just ones that I personally want to go to and I feel could have more photos. Is there anywhere else any of you recommend? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:04, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

You can look at en:Category:Wikipedia_requested_photographs_in_Japan. Ruslik (talk) 19:37, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Wikishootme should help. Also, this map (you need to ask it to show Wikimedia Commons) shows all geolocated photographs on Commons (there are probably others like this, but this is the one I use). Ymblanter (talk) 20:13, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Unidentified pictures

Hi, while desperately looking for pictures of cultural assets in Interlaken, I found a category with falsly identified pictures: ''Category:Unidentified locations in Interlaken''. What I can say for sure: all the pictures were made on Lake Lucerne (Vierwaldstädtersee) in Switzerland, or on its shores, and not in Interlaken (some, probably not all pictures were made in Canton Uri). The pictures were scanned some time ago (old wikiproject). I was able to identify one of the pictures (exactly): the tells chapel. To be able to determine the exact location of the other pictures, someone from this region should have a look. Is it possible to rename the pictures from "Interlacken" into something like "Vierwaldstädtersee - Lake Lucerne" and move them into another category? Thanks Rectilinium (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

But I see below that first step has already been done. Please, in the future, if you are discussing the same topic, stay in the same section. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Its not the same topic. One category is about pictures named "Interlacken" that actually show pictures from Lake Lucerne. In this case both the files and the category should be renamed. Rectilinium (talk) 21:53, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Changed the category of these pictures as you suggested. And - first time ever - created a hidden category. Thanks. Rectilinium (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rectilinium (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Renaming of several pictures within the same category

I alreay added a request concerning a category of unidentified pictures. At the same time I found a category with several pictures with useless names (all from the same photographer): ''Category:Files of Interlaken with bad names''. First of all, I added all necessary informations about the exact location and asked that the photos be renamed. As soon as this is made, I will edit the categories (remove all pictures form "Files of Interlaken with bad name" and add correct categories. Can someone help to rename the files? Rectilinium (talk) 21:23, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

You can either use the usual method of asking for a rename of each individual file, or you can keep them in that category if there is a pattern to the renames you want (e.g. substituting one string for another, or for a regular expression) explain what you need here. There are tools for doing a mass rename but limits on who may use them. - Jmabel ! talk 21:40, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I allready used the usual method of asking for a rename of each idividual file, and already suggested new names. But I intentionally didnt change the category yet. Makes no sense before they are renamed. I thought I should mention this. Rectilinium (talk) 21:48, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I would be careful here the remaining files in Category:Files of Interlaken with bad names the filenames there, example File:20100313- DSC4411 (4871663137).jpg shows the date in reverse, (a common sort strategy) and they are suffixed with the sequence (dsc) of photographs taken of a day. So they are not entirely meaningless. Your suggested renames, wipe that information out. Broichmore (talk) 10:38, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Broichmore. I agree, dates are important too. But lets say you search for a picture of a specific building: do you search for dates or do you use the name of the region/town/building/street name? With a date you find nothing at all, when a picture has no geodata. And the date is not weaped out, even if you rename the picture. I mean: these pictures have been transfered into a category named: Files of Interlaken with bad names! In 2015. And it was not my idea. I thought, that it might be helpful for others, if I make an effort, to finally identify the places, so that the pictures can be better categorized. Rectilinium (talk) 11:10, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Broichmore: not sure what you mean by "date in reverse". "2010-03-13" would be ISO standard, this is like that without the dashes. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Take image File:20100313- DSC4411 (4871663137).jpg it was taken on 13 March 2010, at 15:53. The file name contains that date in reverse as 20100313, or 2010 March 13. This is a standard way of naming files on a computer if you want to file them in date order, and see them as such in PC folders. _Presumably the photographer set their camera to name individual shots that way, as well as retaining other ISO unique refs. Broichmore (talk) 15:29, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Dates (and timestamps) are already in the description, so moving the files would not destroy that information. Still, those are great to see at first glance. I think the date can be added to the file move requests, like "Modern sculpture in the gardens of Grand Hotel Beau-Rivage in Interlaken, Switzerland - 2010-03-13" (edit: or to keep in line with some other files by the same photographer, "20100313 - Modern sculpture in...". By the way, that file should preferably be categorized as Category:Switzerland photographs taken on 2010-03-13, with other files respectively.
On the camera-sequence: Keeping that has in my opinion no benefit: I might upload 40 good pictures from a 200 picture camera spree. The serial-number of the images would allow someone to determine that I skipped 50 frames, then didn't skip a series of 15 good frames before skipping another few bad ones. I can't see how this information is valuable enough to have it in the title, when there are better options (even geographic coordinates or relative angle to the sun are more valuable info). And if someone wishes to bring into a sequence my uploaded images, to reverse-stalk my route in taking them, they can still just order them by date and time. And if I'm not completely mistaken, the exif metadata also keeps the sequence, so it's not even "lost forever". --Enyavar (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
There's a discussion elsewhere about over catting by date, which you should read. On this very page.
The camera sequence, may show the route walked by the photographer. I have such a sequence tracking a walk round a disused airfield. The sequence enables context between one photo and another, where there may be few landmarks.
We have art photos from museums, where the names are uffixed with collecion numbers. There are plenty of files here, that contain numbers criticised by some people, who do not appreciate their significance.
If they can still just be ordered (I assume searched) by date and time, why then over cat with dates. Just my arguement in a nutshell. -Broichmore (talk) 15:41, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
On Catting by Date: In a quick read, I couldn't see anyone there who argues against catting by date. Their opinions diverge on which administrative level to do it. Why do you think that categorizing photographs by the date they were created, constitutes overcat?
On sequences: Sure, there may be examples where the sequence number is intended by the uploader to order the category. I created strict sequential categories myself, for example to enable standardized book illustration names, e.g. here. (Although now, after the wikisource book has finished its review, I wouldn't object if someone systematically renames/replaces all images by what is shown in them: that would make them more accessible in their other categories.)
Now, the naming scheme of the guy who toured through Interlaken in 2010, can be brought into a sequence through the photo serial numbers. But for what purpose would that even be helpful? As far as we know, he wasn't GLAMming all exhibits of a museum. The proposed renaming scheme brings lots of value by actually naming the locations and landmarks depicted, so that nobody else has to do the same detective work that Rectilinium thankfully did here. --Enyavar (talk) 17:34, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
All arguments that, in my opinion, speak for a renaming have already been addressed. Naming photos by date makes sense when you sort your own pictures on your PC. And the photographer probably saved the pictures somewhere in chronological order. But storing the images on Wikimedia in this way is like using it as a personal cloud for backups. Enyavar gave some examples where there may be exceptions, and where it makes sense to name by date on wikimedia aswell.
I don't take photos that often, but when I do, I name them by date - like this photographer did (year/month/day), but I also add information about the contents. But: if I want to upload the images to Wikimedia, then I make a copy. Eventually I think about what search terms a third party would most likely use to find the file in question and rename this copy accordingly, before I upload. Admittedly, because I don't upload images as often as others (e.g. Broichmore - great work btw), I still make mistakes from time to time (but I'm trying to improve).
And yes, why not placing this photo series in "Category:Switzerland photographs taken on 2010-03-13". What else I could offer: I could provide geographic location information to each picture by adding the "location" template, so everyone could then track the photographer's steps.Rectilinium (talk) 22:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Rectilinium (talk) 06:34, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback period about WMF Annual Plan for 2024-25 is open!

Hello everyone! The work of the Wikimedia Foundation is guided by its Annual Plan. We’ve now published the full draft Annual Plan on Meta. Please share your feedback and ideas!

This is really one of the best chances to influence how the Wikimedia Foundation works and what it chooses to focus on and prioritise, as the Annual Plan is the main guiding document for planning what to do. This is a high-level document, as it aims to find the key points for the entire organisation – this is to find the main direction, which will help the teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to find more tangible objectives.

These are the main goals:

You can read more about what this means in practice on Meta, where you can find both summaries of what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to achieve and links to more detailed pages.

You’re very welcome to share your thoughts on Meta or here, in your own language, and we’ll make sure they are passed on to the relevant parts of the Wikimedia Foundation and that your questions are answered. We can also set up meetings in your own language to further discuss the implication of the Annual Plan, if needed.

Thank you very much for your participation! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

How is Commons in there? In terms of people, infrastructure cost, enterprise services cost/income, development expenses?
I noticed it mentions improvements of UploadWizard as 2023 achievement. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how the Upload Wizard was improved if we can't even upload a new version of an image that is larger than 100Mb. Also a complex process where we cannot enter the details of the files but have to wait for them to be uploaded (even if this means waiting hours until midnight) to then enter the details of title, description, etc. In Internet archive you can upload large amounts of files without problems, why do we have an upload wizard that does not accept large files? Wilfredor (talk) 12:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 while it's not explicit in the text, some support for Wikimedia Commons is planned as part of Objective & Key Result WE2.3. The implication of this are still being defined by the people who will be in charge of this objective, so I can't go into detail, but there will be some support and development work going around Commons also for next fiscal year (i.e. from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025).
@Wilfredor Thanks for pointing this out. I'll take note of these two tickets, and see if I can get some answers about them. I do share your feeling that these problems should be fixed, I'll try to give you a response ASAP. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: you might want to look at Commons:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements and its talk page. And, FWIW, while Sannita and I have had our disagreements about specifics, he is much more responsive and available than his predecessors, and you really should feel free to engage him, probably on the talk page there, which I think is the main place discussion has been taking place. - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
According to your recommendation I have created a section here although I think this will be more hidden: [6] Wilfredor (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
@Wilfredor You should try the big files again btw. Some major bugs were found and fixed by various ppl in the last weeks. See also the gazette note here one day ago. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
No, it not was fixed Wilfredor (talk) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
The upload wizard limitation being discussed here appears to be an intentional choice not a bug afaik. I imagine you are already aware of this, but User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js is basically the best currently existing choice for uploading new versions of an existing large file. Bawolff (talk) 07:29, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
A section in the plan about Commons would be helpful, even if it says not much is planned. I guess the persons handling DMCA requests mostly work for Commons, so this could be in there.
"Enterprise services" cost/income would be good to plan too. Possibly cost is higher than actual income. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
@Enhancing999 You're not the only one suggesting this, and I will report that there is cross-wiki substantial consensus to get more info about this kind of data. It is true, nonetheless, that the Annual Plan is a more general document that describes the strategy, while the objectives are defined in the other page I suggested you (and are, in fact, being defined in these very days). Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I did read WE2.3. It might not impact existing contributors/contributions that much though.
We could brainstorm on points that should be covered from a Commons perspective and then add to the plan, specifying for each if anything is allocated to it or not.
I guess it's also in your interest, not that you end up being the only person working on Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Enhancing999 - Thank you for your comments. In the first half of the new financial/annual plan year, we are going to continue improvement work on UploadWizard to help decrease bad media uploads, with a focus on copyright. We also plan to include further user interface improvements to the “release rights” step, and an initial version of logo detection integration in the upload flow - which represents the second largest reason for deletions. An initial discussion about the logo detection model happened on the village pump. We will continue to keep an eye on ongoing discussions on the Commons village pump about issues that need attention for further planning. Runa Bhattacharjee (WMF) (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Can you ensure this is detailed in the plan as well and can be readily found from a Commons section of the plan? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:00, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Next 12 months at Commons

Let's list a few points and try to align them with the main ones (infrastructure, equity, safety & integrity, effectiveness)

  • ensure system keeps running (infrastructure)
  • identify core missing Mediawiki features (infrastructure)
  • develop or fix missing Mediawiki features (infrastructure)
  • determine staff active for Commons (infrastructure)
  • be transparent on cost for Wikipedias, storage, enterprise users (infrastructure)
  • provide a safe environment for volunteer and professional contributors (safety)
  • assess cost/income from Commons images as an enterprise service (effectiveness)
  • streamline mass uploads (effectiveness, infrastructure)

Enhancing999 (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

  • I think that's all reasonable. I have a very specific thing I'd like to suggest additionally, and I haven't read the document in question well enough to categorize it, but we could really use a paid program manager to help coordinate the volunteers who develop and maintain tools. (Just for Commons this may not add up to full time, but we could share the resource with other wikis.) No one is going to volunteer to be a program manager, and it is pretty evident that we need one. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
    There is just a risk that a headcount for this would reduce resources actually available at WMF for improving Commons directly or providing support for tools written by volunteers. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
    • @Enhancing999: I personally think that at this point that even if we sacrificed even 1 FTE developer for 1 FTE program manager coordinating our tech volunteers, we'd be ahead on the deal. - Jmabel ! talk 16:01, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand what the costing stuff has to do with commons. Bawolff (talk) 07:35, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bawolff: If they have only so much budget for Commons-specific work, a program manager would come at the expense of some resource currently devoted to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
I doubt budget is broken down that way. Operational costs are shared with other sites, enterprise is an independent organization (for tax purposes i guess). For most of these things, if money is saved on them it goes to something else in the same department. It probably wouldn't go to something commons related in a totally different department [i dont work for wmf dont really know how the budgeting works]. Bawolff (talk) 18:16, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Maybe some intro for such a section would be helpful. "Commons provides photos and other files for all Wikimedia projects. These are described using standard wikipages with templates, categories, exif and structured data." In the more detailed section we could mention what for these could be improved (even if ultimately it wont over the next 12 months). For wikipages we can mostly rely on what is done for Wikipedia. We could improve category redirects and should make sure hot-cat and cat-a-lot keep working. Structured data has still some basic problems with the interface. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

We really need someone to maintain the CropTool. It seems like the thing is breaking every other week. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
The real solution would be to make cropping of files part of the thumbnail generation. Then we do not need any cropped variants. The users just define the crop they need when adding the file to an article. GPSLeo (talk) 19:40, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: Have you considered using {{CSS image crop}}, available on some 76 projects?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 21:46, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
But that is not a crop that works in the regular thumbnail boxes in articles and also not in the MediaViewer. And of course such a tool needs a UI to define the crop. GPSLeo (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo: CropTool can help you ballpark the numbers, with the caveat that they are relative to the bSize/originalwidth ratio.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem creating files in the Data namespace

Hi there, I'm trying to create a map file in the Data namespace. This used to work until at least a few weeks ago, but now if I try to create a file, either by clicking on a red link or going to the URL I get a message I cannot create the file. Has something changed? If there's a better procedure to create these files happy to hear about it. Also, is there a dedicated discussion space for Data or mappers? Milliped (talk) 16:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Note that an upload using the upload wizard fails as well, the file isn't accepted eitherwith the map or txt extension. Milliped (talk) 16:44, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I think the page title needs to end in .map. e.g. a url like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Data:Netherlands/Amsterdam/VluchtrouteDG423.map?action=edit Bawolff (talk) 20:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
.tab for tabular data and .map for map data indeed. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I get it :-D. Thanks! Milliped (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Hard to read PDF

File:The New Orleans Bee 1828 May 0068.pdf is hard to read, there are multiple black stains/spots. Is eligible for Commons? 93.47.36.4 09:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Short answer, yes; parts are legible..
If you can find a better copy I would upload it as a new file, using the same filename, but with a suitable suffix. It's likely the newer copy will have random stains too. Hopefully the two can be compared for a full transcript.
The copy we have was likely scanned from originals on microfiche, modern scans would be more accurate, if we can find them. Broichmore (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Images requiring rotation by bot

Hi. The bot for Images requiring rotation doesn't work since a lot of time... 8000 files wait for rotation... DenghiùComm (talk) 11:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@DenghiùComm: Sorry about that, blame Steinsplitter.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Never mind. You're welcome ! Thank you very much ! DenghiùComm (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Category diffusion, again

When was it decided to diffuse categories such as Category:United Kingdom photographs taken on 2024-03-15 to Category:England photographs taken on 2024-03-15 etc?

What purpose is served by doing so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

And others have brought this clear down to London on particular dates. I'm completely against this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:28, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
See also Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections#Sahaib, battleground mentality, and edit warring and User talk:Sahaib#May 2024. The user really believes that there is clear consensus for splitting the cats. This is the zillionth time it happens (every time with a different user). I believe all these categories must be deleted, and the files must be categorized back. Ymblanter (talk) 19:25, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Because several nations have enormous first-level subdivisions, that are larger than many nations, with the US, India and China coming to mind. The UK's subdivisions aren't huge, with Northern Ireland (the smallest by size and population) being about the size of Montenegro and about the population of Latvia, but given that the UK is the 21st largest nation by population, a division to first-level subdivisions doesn't seem unreasonable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:37, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
Actually, OK for me to have "by date cats" for first-level subdivisions, provided we definitely STOP there. Cities should only have these cats if they are themselves a first-level subdivision (like Berlin), otherwise there is effectively no limitation on notability, given the fact that many cities have only a couple of thousands' population and then one might be arguing that "by date cats" for localities within cities were okay because certain localities have more inhabitants in comparison with some cities... and so on. But of course: should there be an RfC with a consensus to STOP at country level, I'm perfectly fine with this too. Regards --A.Savin 03:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with others about this. It seems fine to have "by date cats" for first-level subdivisions. As long as it doesn't get further subdivided into cities, towns, consensus designated places, random streets in the middle of nowhere, Etc. Etc. There's barely enough files by date to justify it at the country level as things currently are. Let alone anything beyond maybe states (or whatever they are called outside of the United States), and even that's a reach. you take countries with the population of say San Marino or Monaco though "by date cats" are essentially pointless. -Adamant1 (talk) 03:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
But these categories are hidden and are intended to be used in templates. For real categories potentially in use by humans we have "Month in Foo", which can be diffused down to villages sometimes, depending on the number of photos. May be there are also categories "Day in FOO", but I have personally never encountered those. Ymblanter (talk) 06:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
take a look at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/07#Category:2020 photographs of Hannover. RZuo (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Inkscape svg drawing no line-hatch shown with Firefox on Wikipedia Commons

I made a drawing and surprisingly the hatches are not always shown. It concerns the line hatches shown on Wikipedia Commons with the browser Firefox. Strangely on other browser(s?) this problem is not shown.

File:Screw_vs_Bolt.svg

Even stranger is that when the image is just open by the browser alone, it is shown without any problems.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Screw_vs_Bolt.svg — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public-Publicity (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Is it from a problem how the drawing was made? Is it a problem how wikipedia commons handles the image? Is it a combination of factors that make this problem occur sporadically?

Any tips how this could be avoided in the future from a drawing making perspective (and maybe some improvements on the website might be helpful also if it is involved in creating the problem)?

Thanks in advanced ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Public-Publicity (talk • contribs) 09:02, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

@Public-Publicity: can you be specific what you are seeing different? I don't see the difference, so you may just have a caching issue or such. You say "the line hatches" but you don't say where in the drawing there is a discrepancy. - Jmabel ! talk 16:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
https://paste.pics/39dd784c502950a100401be901883c50
See the link
The issue is that this is also not show within the article where it is used.
For the normal view you can just see the direct link to the file itself:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/52/Screw_vs_Bolt.svg Public-Publicity (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
normal view:
https://paste.pics/b119cf11045eeae29f663047b77ea1c8 Public-Publicity (talk) 16:38, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
How it is seen on the article side by me on Wikipedia and with Firefox:
https://paste.pics/c27c7d94bfdec4deac9b4d2f8e8ba134 Public-Publicity (talk) 16:45, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

weirdly, also on Firefox, I see the first difference but seem not to see the second. - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

WMF does not display the SVG directly. Rather, it uses librsvg to convert the SVG to a PNG and displays the PNG.
It looks like the left-hand cross hatch disappears when the the image is displayed at a width of 293 (i.e., width used on the File: page). A larger PNG will display the cross-hatch:
The display of a PNG should be the same on all browsers.
Clicking through on the File page will render the SVG directly. I suspect the browser rendering has more fidelity, so the hatching is visible at the native 612 width.
Glrx (talk) 20:55, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
The SVG file is also complicated. Some patterns use a stroke of 1 pixel, but the x dimension scaled by about 0.02 or 0.03. When used, patterns have cascaded transforms. Glrx (talk) 21:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
@Glrx Don't know what you mean.
If there is a pattern of 1 pixel with a very small scale you would not see any pattern because of it small size. It would be seen as all the same, as solid fill. When it is too small why is it only seen with certain methods and not on Commons?
What do you mean with 'cascaded transform'?
(The concerining patterns are just simple patterns made with Inkscape. If there is some lost floating pattern, not seen, with a very small size as 1 pixel and a very small scale than this is not correct indeed but it does not concern the occurring problem?) Public-Publicity (talk) 11:59, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It often helps to use simple expressions to represent something. Complicated expressions may get misinterpreted. Software often has bugs, and the more complicated expressions may trigger those bugs.
IIRC, the file's cross hatching is overly complex. Instead of having a simple pattern and scaling it by 0.4, it creates a 1/50 size pattern and scales it by 20. That should work in a perfect world, but the world is imperfect.
Inkscape produces complicated SVG that is verbose and full of pointless attributes. There is no guarantee that simple patterns made with Inkscape produce simple SVG. Inkscape also may also use SVG 1.2 or 2.0 features, but those are not supported by WMF's SVG 1.1 renderer.
Glrx (talk) 19:13, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Deleting images

Hey all. I've uploaded two recent images from the AFC Bournemouth YouTube channel, which releases match footage under the CC license. It's come to my attention through searching that these images are actually not as free as I had thought, given they're just reuploaded Premier League footage and past decisions have led me to believe they should not be up there. The two images are this and this. I figured I would make it known here as I do not know how to delete images and was wondering is there any way to speedy delete them or delete without going through deletion requests? Apologies for any inconvenience. — Ser! (talk) 14:39, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Just for posterity, I'm also uploading a few images from AFC Bournemouth's channel, but from videos that have actually been released on a CC license and are generated by the club's social media team, so not a violation as the Prem footage was. Ser! (talk) 14:48, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ser!: You can use {{Copyvio}} with appropriate parameters on the relevant file pages. - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
Many thanks, have now done. Ser! (talk) 12:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Science and technology

Although the Category:Technology category is currently categorized under Category:Applied sciences, I have doubts on whether the parent category is correct. According to Wikipedia, science is "a rigorous, systematic endeavor that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world", while technology is "the application of conceptual knowledge for achieving practical goals, especially in a reproducible way." That is, science is the cause and technology is the result, and the two are separate academinc disciplines. If proposing a new category scheme falls under COM:CFD, then I would nominate Category:Technology for CFD. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:47, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

See also Category talk:Science and technology (archive of a CFD), where the nominator Ghouston showed a distinction between science and technology, similar to Wikipedia. I found no mention of "technology" in the Wikipedia article on applied science, except a citation and a portal link. Similarly, I found no mention of "applied science" in the Wikipedia article of technology. So technology is not a subclass of applied science and instead of Category:Applied sciences, the correct parent for Category:Technology should be Category:Academic disciplines. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:04, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
It is correctly categorized. One can't separate science and technology, the emphasis/subject of each is different but they're inseparable – think of technology as the artificial products and methods that are the fruits of science (a subset of science). For the development of technology, science as you described it is needed and part of it. For further clarity see Engineering. Prototyperspective (talk) 14:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but technology is not an applied science or a branch of science. It is a product of science. So it should not be categorized under Category:Applied sciences. It may be directly categorized under Category:Science, similar to Category:Research. Or the interdisciplinary category Category:Science and technology may be revived to cover science and technology together. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:36, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Once there is a technology, it is an applied science. But since it's less clear for technologies that aren't applied much outside a given research endeavor and because that cat is currently tucked away underneath only cat:"Scientific disciplines" it would make sense moving it. I think the best solution would be to have it in the applied science cat and the top-level cat somehow but your explanations make sense so I misunderstood what you intended to do. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sub-catting is not necessarily an "is-a" relationship. For example, Eduard Carbonell isn't a surname or a museum. - Jmabel ! talk 17:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Image showing as 0 by 0 pixels in Wikipedia but entirely there in Commons

As someone here in Wikihelp told me : < @M F Gervais, ask for help on Commons at their Village Pump. It is very strange. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Monarchs_of_Spain.pdf says it has 0x0 pixels but links to https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/M_F_Gervais_Monarchs_of_Spain.pdf which is all there. StarryGrandma (talk) 20:05, 14 May 2024 (UTC)>Italic text

So here I am, And I don't understand what is hapening. Can someone help? Was I cannot use this picture, as the others, in wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M F Gervais (talk • contribs) 20:20, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by purging the page. Bawolff (talk) 22:11, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Sign up for the language community meeting on May 31st, 16:00 UTC

Hello all,

The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks - May 31st at 16:00 UTC. If you're interested, you can sign up on this wiki page.

This is a participant-driven meeting, where we share language-specific updates related to various projects, collectively discuss technical issues related to language wikis, and work together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, the topics included the machine translation service (MinT) and the languages and models it currently supports, localization efforts from the Kiwix team, and technical challenges with numerical sorting in files used on Bengali Wikisource.

Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates related to your project? Any problems that you would like to bring for discussion during the meeting? Do you need interpretation support from English to another language? Please reach out to me at ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org and add agenda items to the document here.

We look forward to your participation!


MediaWiki message delivery 21:21, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Service categories in the various WikiLoves+ projects

Hello everyone, once again I bother you with problems I encounter in my dirty, very dirty, work here on Commons, and having had good feedback on a categorisation problem by place and date above I try again with the same hope. This time it's about the service categories created, evidently for control purposes, for example during national WLMs, such as the one that has been taking place in Italy for years but which leaves a 10-year old trail, i.e. categories that still remain, which IMO were useful during the counting of images for the purpose of an award ceremony but which IMO have outlived their usefulness, for exemple Category:Images from Wiki Loves Monuments 2014 in Italy needing check (13 518!!!). My latest worry is instead Wiki Loves Africa, a laudable project but where often, if not very often, you find images of little use, without a really interesting subject. Thousands and thousands of people who represent a nation, but at least who are categorized, for example, by ethnicity (but no), hundreds of cars or even more characteristic vehicles (see tuk-tuks), It's as if photographers don't know exactly what to photograph and point their camera or cellphone at random. I'm afraid that these projects don't exactly know how to instruct users on the purposes who, although I am aware that they are all volunteers and that for this reason we cannot demand rigor, then in the end they fill with categories of service images often without the indication of subject, place of shooting, date of shooting, with Exif data that seem incongruous with the image (uploaded in 2023 in broad daylight but which from the data seems to have been taken in 2010 and in full night...). I also find categories of service that do not respond to their function as in the case of Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2020 without categories and that instead at least one category (non-service) has been added over time. I wonder if it is possible to do something or if I have to resign myself to doing everything by hand once again, passing image by image investing a lot of time that I could perhaps invest in more nobler causes. See you later (alligators) ;-) Threecharlie (talk) 19:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

So, in short, you are saying that there are some maintenance categories (not even topical categories) that probably aren't much use. If they aren't much use to you, I'd recommend just ignoring them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but if I am here writing about it and asking for advice, it is not by ignoring the problem that it is solved, I would continue to have it every day that I do my dirty work, finding service categories that should help my work and instead complicate it. IMO ignoring is not a solution. Threecharlie (talk) 07:03, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
You could probably argue a lot of these types of categories are totally pointless. Especially long-term, but it seems like Wiki Loves Monuments has their own way of doing things that we seem to ultimately have zero control over. At the end of the day they can just dump images wherever, use as vague file descriptions as they feel like, create whatever pointless categories, and then just ignore people who complain about it. So your better off just ignoring them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but that's an answer out of context, I don't need it and it's also exaggeratedly POV: WLM is without a shadow of a doubt an opportunity, if you don't see it as such it's not here that you should talk about it, open a discussion and if you bring home a win fine otherwise it's sterile polemics. Threecharlie (talk) 07:10, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
For WLE in Germany we use these categories for things like monitoring the file usage and to generate statics for example on how the fraction of disqualified und insufficient described photos developed. Of course we do not click through the category page but we need the category for the glamtools or petscan. GPSLeo (talk) 08:15, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure. I don't disagree. It can both be an opportunity and have it's own ways of doing things that are sometimes at odds with the wider project's goals and probably won't change. They aren't mutually exclusive. your free to ignore that, but at least IMO your better off just not worrying about it. Or maybe talk to the people who created the categories in the first place about it. I don't think you'll get a better answer here though. It's ultimately on the individual projects to change how they do things. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:19, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Render unto Caesar... Here we are on Commons and there are no projects on Commons, and God or whoever knows how much I feel we need them... Threecharlie (talk) 09:49, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
Commons:WikiProject Postcards is pretty active. Although admittedly with only three serious contributors and that's the only one I can think of. I do agree we could use more then that though. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
i have noticed these cats before and probably written some ideas of mine. i cant find them but i'll redo it.
all these cats ("... to check" or something similar) are obviously only intended for short term use, right before they were even created.
so i suggest, any such new cats should be tagged with a template to indicate when they will become useless. otherwise, they are assumed to be useless 2 years after the event is over. for example, Category:Images from Wiki Loves Africa 2024 to check should be deletable after 2026-12-31. RZuo (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Help with Flickr2Commons import

Hey is there anyone willing to do an import from this album on Flickr for me? I'd do it but I'm busy with other stuff and don't know how to use Flickr2Commons anyway. Everything, or most everything in the album, should be PD. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 02:16, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Done! About 70 images were eligible for importing. About 40 of these were imported, the remaining 30 were already on Commons. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites: Thanks! --Adamant1 (talk) 05:52, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Freeing the Freedom of Panorama for Mongolia and other changes

Hello community,

I've recently discovered that Mongolia's changes to copyright legislation, enacted in 2021, have granted Freedom of Panorama for architectural works, statues, and sculptures per Article 46 of the revised Law on Copyright and Related Rights (as amended May 6, 2021). The Mongolian original is available here and the English translation of the law is available here. I've updated the following pages with information and the relevant sources:

The new copyright reform also has the following changes:

  • Currency is now under works not protected by copyright.
  • Article 42 has a variety of provisions regarding "Partial exploitation of works stored in archive, museum and library resources without the authorization of author or without compensation" (this seems to have been the result of an effort by Mongolian Libraries Consortium (see: https://www.eifl.net/resources/copyright-law-fit-modern-mongolia) - I've added this to the "FoP-Mongolia" templates as they seemed vaguely relevant but I'm open to suggestions.

I'm not sure if we have a process to Free the Freedom of Panorama for countries, and was wondering if old images deleted due to FoP rules can be reinstated? Is there anything else I need to do as well (besides updating the map images)?

Regards Chinneeb (talk) 10:05, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

The relevant deletion requests should be in Category:Mongolian FOP cases/deleted. If everything checks out, undeletions shouldn't be a problem (like for Kosovo justa few days ago). --Rosenzweig τ 10:27, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I've opened a mass undeletion request for currency-related files. I'm holding off on asking for undeletions of FoP cases for now - Please note that a discussion has been opened at Commons:Village_pump/Copyright#Updated_FoP_in_Mongolia to discuss any potential issues with the new FoP rules. --Chinneeb (talk) 11:47, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Name for this kind of images

Hi!

What do you call videos where objects on a turntable rotate once around their own axis? Which category fits? (example: File:S3 Graphics Chrome 430 - 460 Nr. 2.webm)

Thanks! --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Seamless animations? _ Broichmore (talk) 11:26, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thank you :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 13:21, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Javascript users needed

there are a couple of code changes waiting for review for a long time. can you please take a look:

  1. MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js multiple changes
  2. MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js#Could a warning popup appear when adding a DAB cat while using HotCat?.

RZuo (talk) 11:54, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

What issues remain before we could switch the default interface skin to Vector 2022?

The current default interface skin is Vector 2010, which is now legacy. I've been trying the new Vector 2022 skin here for a while now, and it seems to be working well. You can try it by changing the interface at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering. The fixed width issue has been a sticking point on other wikis, but since that is motivated by the length of a line of text that is easily readable, and we have a very different use case here since we're dealing with media browsing, I think we have a good case for disabling that part by default. Is there anything else that could be an issue? Do we want to have a vote here about changing the default, or should we just submit a request to make the change? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

This is what it looks like to me: https://i.imgur.com/GQvAaZK.png (Win 10, Chrome 123.0.6312.107)
The only thing I have a strong opinion about is the ability to continue using the Vector 2010 skin even if it's no longer the default one. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:20, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I am on the same boat of opinion as ReneeWrites. Just like the current implementation at enwiki, older Vector skin still exists as an option in the user preferences even if the default skin is Vector 2022. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:44, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
@ReneeWrites @JWilz12345 Thanks for your comments! It will be possible to use the old Vector skin, after that Vector22 becomes default. You will have to update now your GlobalPreferences to choose Vector10, or change to legacy version once the new default is set on Commons, since the default will change. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem with Vector22 seems to be the lack of easily accessible interwikis.
2022 is already a while ago, so we might as well wait for the next Vector version. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
 Oppose I have tried the Vector 2022 but I think for Commons it is not an improvement. Because so much space on the right is taken by standard stuff that is useful on sister projects (even when you do not want that stuff, it still takes a lot of empty space), that less space is left for the things Commons is about: images. In the old version there are eight images on a row in a category (on my desk top), in the new version seven (that is four more rows to scroll through when there are 200 files in a category). Same for gallery pages; when the "widths" is set on a larger number than the standard, there are only three or four images left, while in the old version there were five or six. For instance Gallery page Art, with standard width: five images on a row in the new version, eight in the old one. That is why I decided not to use the new version. I would like to grant users who are not familiar with vectors the same experience as I have with the old version. So my plea is to keep the old version as the default interface. JopkeB (talk) 07:23, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Support I originally disliked V22 due to how much space was wasted, either by whitespace or by things I wished would just be out of the way, but figured I'd give it a chance when enwiki switched to it. So I found the settings for fixed the annoying things. Like enabling full-width rather than limited-width (in the preferences pane). Like sending the TOC and tools menus to become collapsed pulldowns rather than being sidebars (the 'hide' buttons), which includes the interwiki links. I just compared Category:Benzene on my small/medium-sized desktop browser: V22 gives the same or even more images per row (depending on exact window width). DMacks (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
    It's possible that interwikis aren't of much use if one uses mainly English Wikipedia and Commons and relies on being logged-in. The Commons default layout is already a problem in mobile view. Let's not make it worse for the other 50% of users. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose I hate Vector 2022, I'll never get the time it took me to switch to Vector 2010 back on English Wikipedia, and I'd like to not have to waste time switching back to Vector 2010 if 2022 becomes the default. Commons layout works fine as is. Abzeronow (talk) 00:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Oppose Per others. I don't think the minimal improvements that come with adopting it (assuming there even is any) are worth forcing established users to relearn the interface. Especially since the only improvement from what I can is more white space, which is of questionable benefit on here. Although I think it's good for Wikipedia, but there should really be a new vector style that works with our unique case. Instead of us just adopting one that was clearly created purely for better viewing of Wikipedia articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:43, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
the two sidebar design is horrible. it's in no way an improvement. who came up with that?!
hiding all interwiki links in a button-activated menu that requires you to type the langcode is also very dumb. wastes so many more clicks and typing to get to something that just exists on the sidebar in vector2010. RZuo (talk) 11:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
No objection, it’s just another paintjob —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 09:46, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
I also think that Vector 2022 is not yet ready to become the default for Commons. The new design is nice for reading articles but not for handling hundreds of files in categories and galleries with many different tools. The sticky sidebars are nice but not if you need to scroll inside the sidebar and I do not want a drop down menu to access my talk or contributions and files pages. GPSLeo (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
  •  Generally support. I've tried it and agree with above that the small body width is detrimental to Commons where media is consumed rather than text; ideally the Tools sidebar would be minimized by default and the left sidebar would be smaller. In general though I support moving to a modern interface - Commons is beginning to appear outdated compared to most other Wikipedias and the internet in general. Is there a way to gather more feedback from current Commons users before release, and will it be possible to gather feedback and make further adjustments afterwards? Consigned (talk) 18:44, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
    I think mobile view illustrates that no adjustment are made once it's released and users are plagued with the same problems for years. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Art about Holodomor

Hi, can someone help me with finding better source of this painting? I mean I need more info about this art but I can't find it anywhere except for some facebook fanpage. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kazachstanski nygus: Can you explain how this would relate to Commons? Stylistically, the image is almost certainly from the last 50 years, so it is almost certainly copyrighted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't speak fro Kazachstanski, but here it is on Commons, claimed to be from 1939, yet sourced from Facebook. So the veracity of the dating may be questioned. If we could find the original, we'd be able to verify the origin of our own image, and keep or delete it. I guess Kazachstanski asks for private purposes of their own, given how the village pump is pointed out to be the central place to ask all kind of questions. Best regards, --Enyavar (talk) 21:31, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I can't say that date is impossible, but my gut says it's improbable. Have a look at Category:1939 posters and its subcats for propaganda art of that period, and you'll see what I mean. Then compare (for example) File:MosBeauty89.jpg (from 1989) which looks much more likely to be of a period with this work. - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Ymblanter (talk) 05:32, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Imo this poster definitely looks like something from interwar period or ww2 but whatever, our impressions don't matter here, I just want to find some legit source of info about that art. Kazachstanski nygus (talk) 16:45, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Nordisk Film

I noticed that the film studio Nordisk Film have started to release all their recent YouTube videos (read: film trailers and clips) under the CC license. Is it "safe" to host them on Commons? --Trade (talk) 22:29, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

There were huge discussion about similar cases the last months. They tended to keep them. (File talk:Hogwarts Legacy – Official 4K Reveal Trailer.webm). CC-licensed contents by huger companies on YouTube is not that rare as some people may think --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:58, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
As these kind of videos are usually also protected by trademark protection, there are still restrictions on how to use them, but it is not further relevant to this project --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 08:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I think these videos can be uploaded if Nordisk Film really owns the content, i.e. if there is no derivative works from other sources in the videos. Yann (talk) 10:41, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Question is whether or not purchasing the right to distribute a movie in a specific jurisdiction also gives them the right to license clips and trailers of it under a different license. --Trade (talk) 20:47, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Of course. If they are only a licensee of the films, they can't release them under another license. Yann (talk) 20:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Cat-a-lot disabled for search results?

Does any one else see this? Is this just me? Seems to me this worked fine as of earlier this month (my last successful use was at 2024-05-01 11:34 UTC) and I've been using Google Chrome on Microsoft Windows 11 for about a year now, but using Cat-a-lot from search results using Microsoft Edge seems to suffer from the same problem. -- DanielPenfield (talk) 11:36, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I have experienced the same problem, for the first time today. My workaround: click in the Cat-a-log gadget on Preferences, and then check the box "Allow categorising pages (including categories) that are not files" (which after months, still not works for subcategories with subcategories, see Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Cat-a-lot_does_not_work_for_categories) and then you can select whatever files you want. I'll add this problem there also. JopkeB (talk) 14:46, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
omg out of the millions of javascript programmers in the world can we not have 1 person to review and approve the code changes? RZuo (talk) 16:17, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
Worked for me at [7]. I think it does attempt to categorize the same image twice though. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:31, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
The code change just got released, I think. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Minnesota

Maybe that wasn't the wisest move. File:Flag of Minnesota.svg is now the new, current flag of Minnesota. But until it was moved yesterday by User:Mateus2019, the file that is now File:Flag of Minnesota (1983–2024).svg was using that file name. The result is that Wikipedia pages or page sections in various language versions that explicitly deal with Minnesota's old flag suddenly wrongly show the new flag, because it's using the same file name. For example, I had to update de:Siegel Minnesotas which basically said "the seal of Minnesota is shown on the state flag" accompanied by the new state flag which doesn't show the seal at all. Of course this was a good opportunity to also update the text to say that it's shown on the old state flag, but I don't know how many similar cases there may be in the many projects that use File:Flag of Minnesota.svg. Gestumblindi (talk) 22:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree. Existing filenames should not be repurposed for new different files UNLESS they carry the {{Current}} template. This causes chaos for any wikis that uses InstantCommons (which includes a lot more than just Wikipedia). User:Abzeronow, FYI. Nosferattus (talk) 21:40, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
@Fry1989: The redirect was moved to the new file after Mateus had moved the file to a different name (that same user also filed a DR Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Minnesota.svg so the redirect could be deleted.) I believe most wikis were using it to show what the flag of Minnesota is and I had believed at the time, there was enough consensus to do the move. I probably could have waited a day or two for the various wikis to change text to prepare for the change in the flags, but I do believe the move was less disruptive than the alternative. However, in the future, I'll wait to verify there is consensus to move the file if a similar case happens. Abzeronow (talk) 21:56, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
When flags have changed in the past, the move of the old flag to include the bracketed years of use and the new flag taking over the current namespace was performed in relatively short order. I find this rather silly. Projects are editable, any "disruption" can be easily corrected. Fry1989 eh? 16:59, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that Commons shouldn't force projects using Commons files to edit their pages. As the articles on the flag of Minnesota need all updating of the text anyway, too, I think that in the meantime an outdated article that correctly describes and shows the old flag of Minnesota is still better than a "mix-up" article that talks about the old flag and shows the new flag alongside (because it's automatically embedded from Commons...) - Projects shouldn't have to deal with Commons files suddenly changing their content completely. Gestumblindi (talk) 19:11, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Wrongly uploaded file.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kafe_20220718_092905.jpg

Please delete this... 01x07x2022000 (talk) 10:36, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@01x07x2022000: you uploaded this years ago. I see you have also started a normal DR, which at this point is probably the only process by which it can be deleted. - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Page in PDF and page in the physical book

Hello. I am looking at some images scanned from a physical book, like this one: File:1938 CoA of interwar Zalau.jpg. As it is sometimes the case with digitized books, the page numbers in the resulted PDF do not match with the page numbers in the actual book. For example, while the provided image is found in the source PDF at page 1001, if we take a look at the scan we realize it was page 697 in the physical copy.

Is there a structured way to indicate both page numbers in {{Information}} – like some sort of a template? If not, how would you suggest to improve the text for the Source parameter in order to clearly explain the difference between PDF page and physical page? (At the moment it only displays the PDF page.) Thanks. Gikü (talk) 21:15, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gikü: I'm unaware of anything standard, but I've been known to write, for example, "p. 4 (p. 9 of PDF)". - Jmabel ! talk 22:16, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Editing a file's metadata

Is there a way to do it aside from downloading an image and editing it on a computer? Adamant1 (talk) 05:28, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

AFAIK, no. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 15:03, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
A way was requested here. A drawback would be that it probably increases faulty metadata that is hard to correct. Prototyperspective (talk) 15:06, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Expain to me, please, what I have done wrong

Hello, could you please answer the last question I asked the admin on my user-talk page? They did not answer. For context: I requested deletion of several NSFW images for being outside of the scope of Commons for not being educational. Almost all of them were closed after a few hours and I was warned for vandalism. I now recognize that all (except one) of the requests were erroneous, because I didn't know that anything used on another Wikimedia project is unconditionally considered educational and that some of the images were parts of important "collections" or "projects" unknown to me. But the admin seemed to argue that no files should be ever deleted as uneducational (they said: "Creating deletion requests without a valid rationale disrupts the project"). Could you clear my misunderstanding, please? Ltalc (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Your only edits on Wikimedia Commons are requesting deletion of these images. We often have accounts created only for such a purpose, and we do not welcome them. Images showing nudity or sexual acts can have an educational value. And we do keep any file with a proper license used on another project. Thanks, Yann (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, I understand now.
I would like kindly to ask you, for the sake of future newbies, to consider limiting the usage of the templated vandalism warning. When I saw it on my user-talk page, it at first provoked anger in me. I was accused of something I didn't do, vandalism – deliberate bad-faith destruction. I fully understand your motivation – Commons is surely flooded with vandalism every day, just like all wikis. But I have a feeling that overuse of that standardized warning has a quite adverse effect.
It would be nice if you elaborated to humble beginners like me what makes deletion reasons invalid. In my case, it took quite a long for me to understand that that rationale (of images not being educational) was not invalid per se, but it was invalid for each of the images for varying reasons, such as that I didn't know the policy or that I missed some context.
Take my advice with a grain of salt, I know almost nothing about Commons. Have a nice day. Ltalc (talk) 09:47, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this user and think people who start out with deletion requests or initially largely make a few DRs are dealt with way too harshly and without proper justification. Also I don't think the rationales were invalid, they are just not established recognized rationales but at least they're rationale and reasonable valid ones in addition. Repelling such users is problematic for several (incl those) reasons and doesn't really reduce workload. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
However, checking the contribs of the user, it doesn't seem like the text above is a roughly accurate description of what happened: the user removed a quite large number of files from Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, female model photos so the action seems probably appropriate. Prototyperspective (talk) 11:16, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Somewhat contradictory: "I know almost nothing about Commons." and "I requested deletion of several [..] images for being outside of the scope of Commons [..]". Enhancing999 (talk) 12:21, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Strange behaviour of PDF previewer

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --ZandDev (talk) 19:01, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I was surfing Piedmontese language category and I found inside the subcategory Bibia piemontèisa with some files, as e.g. Esechiel (test complèt).pdf. The thumb image is the (fallback?) PDF icon and it is written that the file dimensions are 0×0. Chrome file viewer display the files correctly (it has 127 pages, A5, PDF-1.5). --ZandDev (talk) 21:56, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@ZandDev: I purged the problematic files and they show up correctly for me now. MKFI (talk) 06:46, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@MKFI Perfect, better this way. -- ZandDev (talk) 11:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@MKFI: Oh wrong ping. -- ZandDev (talk) 18:59, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Top right icon for POTY finalists and winners This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year

Hi! I have already posted this here and here but I've been just told to post it here so here is my post here.

There already are icons on the top right of each file considered Featured picture , Valued image , Quality Image , Wiki Loves Earth winner and Wiki Loves Monuments winner . Could we also add a top right icon for Picture of the Year winners and finalists ?

There is two ways to do it.

One would be to copy paste the following code on each individual file page :

For 1st place files: This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year 

{{Top icon|imagename=POTY barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=001}}

For 2nd place files: This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 2nd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=002}}

For 3rd place files: This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY 3rd barnstar.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=003}}

For finalist files: This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year

{{Top icon|imagename=PODY ribbon.svg|wikilink=Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2021/Results/All|description=This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year 2021|imagesize=64px|sortkey=004}}

I have tested it and it works perfectly.

Another way is to edit this template and to edit the top code of the page to something that looks like this:

Code
{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |1| {{Top icon
| imagename    = POTY barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded first place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 001
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |2| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY 2nd barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded second place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 002
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |3| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY 3rd barnstar.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was awarded third place in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 003
}}}}<!--
-->{{#ifeq: {{{POTY}}} |f| {{Top icon
| imagename    = PODY ribbon.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/{{{POTYyear}}}/Results/All
| description  = This file was a finalist in Picture of the Year {{{POTYyear}}}
| sortkey  = 004
}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{quality|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = Quality images logo.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Quality images
| description  = {{Top icon hover i18n|Quality image}}
}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{featured|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = {{#switch:{{{featured|}}}|1|3=Cscr-featured.svg|2|4=Cscr-former.svg}}
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Featured pictures
| description  = {{#switch:{{{featured|}}}|1|3={{Top icon hover i18n|Featured picture}}|2|4={{Top icon hover i18n|Featured picture|former=y}} }} }}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{valued|}}}|{{Top icon
| imagename    = Valued image seal.svg
| imagesize    = 64px
| wikilink     = Commons:Valued images
| description   = {{Top icon hover i18n|Valued image}}
}}}}<!-- end of topicons
 
start of the banner
-->

For the template code I’m not 100% sure because I can’t test it. I'm also not sure if {{{POTYyear}}} is the right way to display the year it won.

I hope this can get implemented and I wish you all a nice day.

-- Giles Laurent (talk) 19:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

Transcriptions of uploads at Commons

I was just told that "Commons is not the place for transcription; go to Wikisource with this". But we have over 100,000 djvu files with embedded transcriptions, the same for older pdf files with embedded transcriptions. Should we delete all the embedded transcription text or are transcriptions allowed? While Wikisource is a place to store text, we have tens of thousands of books and news articles that do not appear in Wikisource, and we have no control over what meets Wikisource notability. My file did not have the text embedded in the pdf, but as text on the file page. I can embed the text inside the pdf, but then OCR errors will not be fixed and links to people/places/things cannot be formed. I can embed the text by combining the image with the text in a djvu file. If this is about server space, the text takes up the same amount of room if embedded or if appearing as text on the file page. And of course, each of the words in the text act as a keyword, if someone is searching for the document via a search engine. The title of the document-image gives minimal context. So, what are our rules? RAN (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't see a problem transcribing File:Albert Einstein Anzeige 1902.jpg, but your question seems to be about lengthy pdfs. Enhancing999 (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
  • This is a 4 page letter. I can't find a rule that excludes text, since pdf and djvu files contain embedded text. One of the differences between Wikisource and Commons is annotations. Wikisource is for the original text, errors and misspellings remain in place. Commons allows annotations and references and notes. Wikisource also was removing links to Wikipedia and Wikidata until recently, and may go back to removing them. --RAN (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't see an issue with transcribing something like a paragraph per say and putting the transcription in the file description. Anything over that just seems like turning Commons into Wikisource or Wikipedia though. Especially if said transcription involves creating a whole new section outside of the file summary as was done with File:William Francis Norton (1857-1939) memoir.pdf, which is odd RAN didn't mention BTW since that seems to be what this whole thing is about. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there a page or list of wikipedia entries that are considered examples to follow?

I'm looking for a resource that lists wikipedia pages that are widely recognized as models to follow. The category of entries closest to what I'm looking for might be described as a practice or service. For example adoption may be a good one. In the talk it is labeled as "This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment." Is there a way to find a list of articles that were part of Wiki Education Foundation, and could be consistered a 'gold standard' of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nylnoj (talk • contribs) 17:08, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

You need to ask at Wikipedia: try w:Wikipedia:Help_desk. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:12, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nylnoj: Hi, and welcome. See also this special page.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Verify the existence of paintings

There have been a bunch of uploads with belgian artist´s Category:Léon Houyoux (1856 – 1940) works recently. I was unable to verify the existence of those paintings, even the titles don´t seem to match up with artnet. Do we have any proceedings for finding out if they are real/legit? Alexpl (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Alexpl: Why didn't you ask the uploader? Yann (talk) 09:21, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
The uploader already wrote "private collection". So that doesn´t really help - unless they are listed somewhere else. I did hope for somebody to come up with another good source for such things. Alexpl (talk) 09:50, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
at least one has source https://archive.org/details/catalogueillust1907soci/page/42/mode/2up?view=theater--Oursana (talk) 10:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
This comes directly from our family (descendants), these paintings have already been shown in retrospective exhibitions and appear in catalogs and books dedicated to Léon Houyoux. Yours sincerely, Nicolas Houyoux Halhyx (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
If the paintings have been documented in catalogs a.o. and you have the details for those publications, you should put them in the "Description" text for each file. Alexpl (talk) 15:43, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Новый интерфейс загрузки

Кто-то с недавних пор поменял интерфейс загрузки файлов. При копировании названий файлов автоматическая нумерация не работает. Если загружаешь семь файлов, то все они будут иметь число семь в своём названии после копирования, а не порядковый номер по загрузке. Зачем и почему? Теперь ещё и приходится заполнять подпись к файлу, что стало обязательным пунктом при загрузке. Она копируется в последующие загрузки, но дело в том, что размер подписи ограничен. Зачем нужна обязательная подпись, если есть обязательное описание? Мало того, описание теперь не копируется в последующие загрузки, хотя такая галочка копирования у меня всегда нажата, в результате чего приходится копировать вручную. Зачем нужно было предпринимать такие нововведения, которые затрудняют мне работу в Викискладе? Кто-нибудь советовался в теми, кто активно и помногу загружает изображения на Викисклад? --Engelberthumperdink (talk) 12:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Вы написали на русскоязычном форуме, я там ответил и дал ссылки. Ymblanter (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I'll copy this to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback as well. - Jmabel ! talk 17:04, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Identity theft

someone is downloading all kinds of files that ain't true to my accounts..this last one that I share with Evan Remillard...not true I'm never joined no family I don't have no online buissnesses or events someone is using my identity..I want info how to close this account please they are changing stuff from 2022 2023.mot only here Facebook Twitter 2603:7081:7C00:2292:E14C:852D:D0AC:4C4E 17:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Since you don't say what account this is about there is nothing we can do. - Jmabel ! talk 01:36, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

I didn't find a map with the purpose I wanted

Hello. Have a good week. I did not find any map on Wikimedia Commons that captures the tropical and subtropical oceans of planet Earth. I'm writing about creatures that live in tropical and subtropical oceans and seas, but I don't have a map for it. Mário NET (talk) 00:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Do you mean something like the files in Category:Alisov's classification? --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:42, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm talking about a map that has colored much like the killer whale distribution, but a map that marked what are considered oceanic tropical and subtropical regions together and as a whole. I am writing about a genus of mollusk that sails in tropical and subtropical waters (the Argonaut) and I would like to point out where this genus sails. Mário NET (talk) 15:01, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
You could ask for a map to be designed to your specification at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop? - Broichmore (talk) 19:58, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Bugs in Upload Wizard

Hi, can I report bugs in the Upload Wizard here? If not, would anyone be kind enough to copy and paste these to the appropriate place? (I do not have an account for any bug-reporting system, and do not want one.)

1. I tried to type ''...'' (pairs of single quotes) around a word in the "Title" field, wanting italics but forgetting that it was the filename, and got the incorrect message "Please write a more informative title". No matter how "informative" I made the title, the message persisted until I removed the quote characters.

2. Uploading multiple files, "Copy title (with automatic numbering)" did not create automatic numbering. Instead, it put the same numeric suffix on all files, which I then had to change manually.

3. Uploading multiple files, "Copy description" no longer seems to work. I'm guessing that this may be because the "Same as caption" setting is not turned off for the subsequent files, which I suppose it needs to be for the description to be picked up.

Thanks, ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:58, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@ITookSomePhotos: For the second point there is an answer above (see section #Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering). --ZandDev (talk) 21:46, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@ITookSomePhotos: In general, try Commons:Upload Wizard feedback. - Jmabel ! talk 01:38, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
thanks, will do ITookSomePhotos (talk) 21:42, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Photo challenge March results

Grays: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Sieben graue Köpfe Reflections - Shyok River Nina-Replica
Author Mensch01 Prof Ranga Sai Wingerham52
Score 20 18 11
Courthouses: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Palazzo di Guistizia
with Courte di Cassazione
at river Tiber, Rome, Italy		 North facade of Palais de justice de Paris. Supreme Court of Finland at night
Author Mozzihh FreCha GPSLeo
Score 19 15 12

Congratulations to Mozzihh, FreCha, GPSLeo, Mensch01, Prof Ranga Sai and Wingerham52. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:32, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback invited on Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear community members,

The Community Affairs Committee (CAC) of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees invites you to give feedback on a draft Procedure for Sibling Project Lifecycle. This draft Procedure outlines proposed steps and requirements for opening and closing Wikimedia Sibling Projects, and aims to ensure any newly approved projects are set up for success. This is separate from the procedures for opening or closing language versions of projects, which is handled by the Language Committee or closing projects policy.

You can find the details on this page, as well as the ways to give your feedback from today until the end of the day on June 23, 2024, anywhere on Earth.

You can also share information about this with the interested project communities you work with or support, and you can also help us translate the procedure into more languages, so people can join the discussions in their own language.

On behalf of the CAC,

RamzyM (WMF) 02:24, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

British English = Tsonga?

I have my language preference for this project set to "British English", as English is my mother tongue (do people have any idea just how offensive it is for English to be termed as 'British English" while American English is described as 'English', I wonder?). In the last week or so, parts of any page I access are displayed in a language that Google Translate seems to think is at least partly Tsonga; example: "Yi efo/eka'e gwa ebo wo le nyangagi wuncin ye kamina wunga tinya nan". Does anyone know what's going on, and if anyone's working to fix it? Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 08:30, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: That text shows here.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, we have both "British English" (en-UK) and "American English" (en-US). Unqualified "English" (en) can be either, or any of a number of other national variants (e.g. en-CA or en-IN), and is on something of a "first come, first serve" basis. No comment on the Tsonga thing, though. - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
We also choose not to fight the American Revolution again.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:08, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Philippines and COM:CSCR

See also COM:CSCR#Unknown or no data.

The CSCR status of the Philippines was last-discussed at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/05#Applicability of the Philippines at Commons:Country specific consent requirements, with no definite conclusion.

However, there is now a source (which is from last year) that directly discusses the legality of photos of someone taken in public spaces, and I have modified the PH section in the guideline page accordingly.

Respicio & Co. cites the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (text), which is also being cited by one Filipino Wikipedian on Facebook (see this) as the reason for "no-FoP in the Philippines" (erroneously connecting no-FoP rule with Data Privacy Act). Of course, the Wikipedian's claims are irrelevant and baseless as no-FoP is only about the absence of legal right allowing commercial sharing and distributions of images of public art especially on the Internet and I.T. media, while Data Privacy is about the responsibility of the photographers in taking photos of the persons in public or sharing/using the said photos.

Here are the questions:

  1. Is the Data Privacy Act of 2012 having bearing for the Philippines status at COM:CSCR?
  2. Should the Philippines section be mature enough to be included in the main list, or should it remain at "unknown or no data"?
  3. Relating to Number 2, if to be included, what colors will be used for the Philippines in the CSCR table on the top of the guideline page?

Ping two other participants of the 2021 discussion: @Clindberg and Aymatth2: . JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

The Data Privacy Act does not seem to be relevant. The text does not mention photographs or pictures anywhere. By "data" it seems to be concerned with the type of information that may be collected by an app or server about a person's activities, which could include financial transactions, web site visits, text messages etc.. I suppose a lawyer could stretch this to say a photograph is a record that a person was in a given place on a given date and time with other identifiable people, but I think that is a stretch. Is there a law or court judgement in the Philippines that explicitly says that photographs of people in public places can or cannot be published without their consent? That is what we need. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aymatth2 there appears to be no court case in our country regarding incrimination of photographers or users of their images of identifiable people. However, the w:en:National Privacy Commission in 2022 issued an advisory opinion to a local division of the Department of Health within Metro Manila, regarding the legality of taking photos of certain medical facilities as part of their health monitoring activity. Their response: "the image of an identifiable individual captured in a photograph or video is personal information about the individual and, thus, covered by the Data Privacy Act of 2012 (DPA)." In essence, the NPC considers photographs as "data" that warrant proper use under Data Privacy Act of 2012, pre-empting any court ruling on the matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:14, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
That seems clear enough. I would say that it should be cited in the Philippines entry in COM:CSCR, which should be moved to the main list. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Aymatth2 however, what would be the color statuses of the Philippines in the table? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:51, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Permission required to take a picture: No. To publish: Yes (with exceptions). To use commercially: Yes. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done adding: revision_id 879686946 of CSCR. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 18:46, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Editor trying to rename hundreds of images to include the location

Jugermai (talk · contribs) has submitted hundreds of file rename requests (see their contribs) to add locations to images (at the beginning of the filename, too, rather than at the end), even when disambiguation is not needed. Has there been a discussion somewhere that suggested this would be a good thing? Isn't that what categories are for: to indicate the location of the subject of an image? It seems to me this is needlessly complicating the filenames, as well as moving the most important information (what the image actually contains) to the end of the filename. I don't want to approve any more until it's determined this is a good thing to do. Thanks for any input. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 23:25, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Anyone have any thoughts on this? I don't have a strong preference either way, but I'd like some input before I approve any more like this. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:48, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
As described, this sounds as a very bad idea. The policy is described in Commons:File_renaming#Which_files_should_be_renamed?, and it doesn't include that any file can be renamed just because of the naming preferences of some user different from the uploader. Even if the requesting user could argue that his version looks a bit better (which I think it doesn't in this case), the policy clearly states that "Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better."
If somebody wants to make clear that Toronto is in Ontario, Canada, file names aren't the right place to do it, but categories and structured data.
In summary, I think Jugermai's requests should be reverted.--Pere prlpz (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Pere prlpz: That's kind of the way I'm leaning, too. I'll wait a bit to see if anyone else has any thoughts. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe: Looking only at the last 20 or so requests, almost all of them are blatantly bad and should be denied. In particular they're claimed under criterion 4 and that criterion is very narrow. As explained by the footnote at COM:FR#cite_note-4, it's only for use in two cases: files that are parts of a larger work and files whose precise names are depended on by external systems (such as Wikisource and complex templates). Neither of those applies here.
There are a few cases (e.g. File:Old Mill ruins (I0015208).jpg) where renaming might be justified under criterion 2. Specifically the "Generic category rather than specific item" sub-criterion. Most of them have adequate specifications of the location in the name already, though. --bjh21 (talk) 12:41, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Thanks for your comments. That confirms what I was thinking. It might take more than just me to clean them up, though. @Jugermai: It might be good for you to go in and remove the rename requests for most or all of these. I'll see what I can do to help, but it would be best for you to clean up the requests. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 17:58, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Nihonjoe Thank you for the corrections and guidance! I will start undoing the change requests. Is it alright to leave the file names that have already been approved, or is it better to revert them as well? Jugermai (talk) 18:28, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jugermai: I would suggest reverting them as well. ···日本穣 Talk to Nihonjoe 18:37, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jugermai: I can probably bulk-remove the rename requests from the ones that haven't been renamed using COM:VFC, so you might not need to do those ones. Give me an hour or so... --bjh21 (talk) 19:04, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jugermai: With the help of the magical COM:VFC, I have removed the remaining {{Rename}} templates that you added citing criterion 4. I expect there are some cases where renaming under criterion 2 instead would be appropriate; feel free to request it again in those cases. I've done the one I mentioned above. --bjh21 (talk) 19:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Bjh21 YAY! Thank you so much for your help, I'm so glad there was a quick fix!
I'll go through and undo the already approved ones, and possibly re-request the ones with vague names. I will also try to look more into the date issue (getting the correct data) and using the appropriate template. Again, I really appreciate your help and patience. Thank you! Jugermai (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi, my apologies for causing trouble, I realize now I should have done more research before proceeding with all the name change requests! I am an intern working for Archives of Ontario (the uploader of the files), attempting to do data cleanup. Aside from editing the titles, I've also been editing the dates to be [ca. 1948-1972], as there was an error in the upload and most of the dates incorrectly read 1952. I understand the reasoning behind reverting the file name edits, but I just want to know if the date changes will/can be retained? Jugermai (talk) 14:29, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jugermai: Yes, those date changes will likely be kept. I would suggest not marking those as minor changes, though, since you're changing the meaning of the page. It would be even better to use one of the date templates like {{Other date}} or {{Complex date}}. For instance {{other date|~|1948|1972}} will give "between circa 1948 and circa 1972
date QS:P,+1950-00-00T00:00:00Z/7,P1319,+1948-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1326,+1972-00-00T00:00:00Z/9,P1480,Q5727902
" with proper translation into other languages.
Changing the names of files is special because those names are part of how files are referred to, both within MediaWiki and on external sites that use Commons' files. This is why we have quite restrictive file renaming guidelines and why renaming requests need to be approved by trusted users. --bjh21 (talk) 15:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jugermai: If you are certain that a date in the title of a file is wrong, that can be a valid reason to rename the file, but then that's per criterion 3, to correct an error. In the date field, if "ca. 1948-1972" is really the best that can be done, then "Category:Ontario in the 1950s" should also be removed. It may be replaced or not with "Category:Ontario in the 20th century". Isn't it at least possible to be sure that the date range is "1948-1972", without having to make it even more uncertain by adding "ca."? While editing, please also remove the empty "Category:" in many pages. -- Asclepias (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
In some of those "1948-1972" cases, it's possible to easily narrow the date range, on the basis of the pictured people, objects, buildings, events. For example, a photo of Lt. Gov. MacKay (not McKay) must be 1957-1963, and by consequence the other photos of the same event. (With research, it may even be possible to find the precise date of the event, but I understand that must not be part of the internship job.) -- Asclepias (talk) 16:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
While editing, a few other things could be usefully edited at the same time. Sometimes, the year category is not consistent with the date field, e.g. this photo has 1964 in the date field and 1960 in the category. A useful suggestion was made by a user on the talk page of the uploader VNDS: Commons indicates when images are in the public domain. For many images, their copyright is expired in Canada, they are also in the public domain in the United States, and thus they can, and probably should, use the proper public domain templates on Commons, as the case may be, such as PD-Canada and PD-1996, to adequately inform the viewers about their status. An offer, additionally, of an open license OGL-ON may be applicable for users in some countries in the rest of the world where a copyright might still subsist, but Commons gives particular attention to indicate the actual status in the United States and in Canada (country of origin). -- Asclepias (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Rename a file

How do I rename an image here? File:Pinconning.jpg is clashing with a Pinconning.jpg on Wikipedia proper, and I would like to rename the former. TenPoundHammer (talk) 18:02, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

You could just use the export to wikimedia commons button inside (top of) the wikipedia page, during the export process you will have the opportunity of renaming the file to (example) Pinconning, cows in a field.jpg. Otherwise, you could apply for file mover rights to rename your own file, which is unnecessary. Broichmore (talk) 19:31, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
@Broichmore: the "export" approach presumes User:TenPoundHammer wants to move the file to Commons from [an unspecified] Wikipedia. I think what they are complaining about is that the Wikipedia file is "masking" access to the Commons file on that Wikipedia. Seems like a valid reason to move/rename the Commons file.
@TenPoundHammer: I can't see the particular form of the UI that you get, but there should typically be a "move" button in a navigation strip just above the image. If you don't have filemover privileges, that will just let you request a move for someone else to carry out. Alternatively, you can edit the wikitext and use {{Rename}}, which will have the same effect. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
The file was uploaded to enwiki under a free license. I see no reason to not have a file like that on Commons instead, so now it is. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:42, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@TenPoundHammer: COM:FRNOT item 3 says that in such cases the file on Wikipedia should be renamed. Inertia6084, who renamed the Commons file, might want to review our guidelines. --bjh21 (talk) 12:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
This was uploaders request (Criterion 1), although Crit. 6 was given. So "... who renamed the ... want to review our guidelines", doesn't make sense. How should I have known this? The history says "(Uploaded own work with UploadWizard)", not "uploaded from en.wiki" - So the uploader uploaded this themselves, not via Wikipedia. Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC) PS if someone likes to get it renamed to another name, please give me a ping. Thnx. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 12:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Inertia6084: Oh, yes, it's me who should have reviewed the history of the file! I'm very sorry! I shall now go and rename some files to compensate for my mistake. --bjh21 (talk) 12:50, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Emilio Segrè Visual Archives

Someone left a message here stating The Emilio Segrè Visual Archives copyright policy: Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Harold_Urey,_c._1932.jpg. Is there anyway we can automate aggregating all the images that originate with them into Category:Emilio Segrè Visual Archives? --RAN (talk) 18:06, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): am I correct that the the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives is a subset of the Niels Bohr Library and Archives? If so, is there anything in the source URL that will tell us that a particular file is part of the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives? - Jmabel ! talk 18:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
  • I am not sure what belongs to what part of the archive, but when I search for Emilio Segrè Visual Archives I get those results, can you see them from the link, if not just type "Emilio Segrè Visual Archives" in search. It appears that images from the Emilio Segrè Visual Archives have their own copyright statement apart from the Niels Bohr Library and Archives. It appears that Niels Bohr Library and Archives may house the physical prints. --RAN (talk) 19:31, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): I would suggest that rather than a fully automated solution, you could use Cat-a-lot or VFC on that search result to add the category. Probably there are other tools as well, but those are the two I would consider. - Jmabel ! talk 17:30, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Upload

There is a problem with Special:Upload. Once you have completed the form and submit for uploading, if there is a problem with the selected file name it chooses a new valid name and gives you a chance to proceed. It used to have buttons to change the name or use the selected name. But the problem is it looses all of the description, licencing & categories that has been entered, just offering a blank form with a basic description template. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keith D: I'm not sure I follow that. Could you describe the old and new sequence, indicating where they differ? Or maybe someone can understand this as written and give you an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

dates in structured data

In structured data when you add a date for inception or publication_date, you have the option of making it "Mark as prominent", is there an instance where you want to mark a date that way? Or do we not need "Mark as prominent" when dates are added? --RAN (talk) 05:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

If a field only contains one entry it's automatically treated as the prominent one. This is the default, so you don't need to worry about all the entries on Commons or Wikidata that don't have them marked as such. The prompt to mark something as prominent only appears if there are two (or more) conflicting entries in one field, in which case Wikidata doesn't quite know what to do with it and asks you to pick one. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:19, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Photographers

Some categories for photographers display the Creator template and some do not. Which is the preferred? RAN (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

When a photographer does not have Creator-template it likely hasn't been created yet or it hasn't been added to Wikidata (where it should be marked). Also Commons is slow to update the view for recently added entries under categories. Ipr1 (talk) 21:00, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

At Category:Bain copyright notice Bettman Archive appears as a subcategory, but should not. Can someone see what is causing the inclusion? --RAN (talk) 18:31, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Someone forgot the colon there. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:44, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering

So far, when loading many files, the number ending the names was increased by 1 in subsequent files. Now you have to renumber the names of all files manually. Why? Kenraiz (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a known problem and will be fixed with the next MediaWiki update. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Do you have a phab ticket at hand by chance? Thx in advance! —Marsupium (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kenraiz @Marsupium it's fixed now.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
RZuo (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

How is this possible ?

How is this possible ? The File:Silvermynt - Skoklosters slott - 109422.tif was rotated in 2019 but still appears upside down ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It shows the correct alignment, the problem seems to be on your side. Alexpl (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Another Person Image

I see an article in en-wiki about an youtuber,but this article has no image of this YouTuber.i personally know him. And I can get his image from his YouTube or Instagram with his permission.how can I do that formally.
--KEmel49 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@KEmel49: Hi, and welcome. Please follow the advice at VRT, or have him do it with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Or, possibly more simply, in a public-facing post on either YouTube or Instagram (Instagram is probably easier, because you want a static image), he can indicate a free license he is offering for a particular image, and then you can cite that as a source when uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Scope question

A couple of months ago, I happened to be on the Plaça de Sant Jaume in Barcelona after a wedding at the Ajuntament (city hall) let out. I took a bunch of pictures of the people at the wedding, who were total strangers to me, and have uploaded the best of these to Flickr. As I understand it, there are no problems with these images under Spanish personality rights law other than the limitations that apply to all photos of people taken in that country (In Spain, pretty much exactly as in the U.S., without a model release you can't use them in advertising or imply an endorsement by the subject of the photo; you can't use them for slander; etc.): they were taken in a clearly public place, and there is nothing in them that would be detrimental to anyone's reputation. On that basis there would seem to be no problem having these on Commons.

My question is: are they within scope? It seems to me that they are a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, etc. However, I've also seen rather similar images deleted as "personal images."

Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Interesting question I have also seen images deleted as "Taken clearly without consent" Oxyman (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
These seem fairly high quality, non-promotional, and with possible illustrative uses (people laughing, hugging, etc.) and obviously you have plenty of legit contributions, so I'm not sure what the issue is? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
At first sight, I would indeed nominate them for deletion because of "personal photos" and unknown/not notable people. But I am not an expert at all on portrait photography, street photography and art photography, if they fit the criteria for one of these genres, that might be reasons to keep them (but then the genre should be attached to the files as a category). And they might be a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, but then you'd better create a category for the six of them, in which these aspects are reflected in the category name and the parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The categories would presumably be more like things about fashion in a particular time and place, more or less what we do with equivalent century-old photos, which we always consider to be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rear_deck_of_MV_John_H_(ferry)_0_(9360694885).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=879388942 : not sure what is going on here, is this a correct edit or should it be reverted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Revert. And looking at other edits by the same IP, it looks like there's vandalism. The IP was already warned twice too, but it continues. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature

Hello Everyone,

I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.

Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanahia123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

@Kanahia123: you might want to create a page parallel to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
@Sannita (WMF): is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Kanahia123 and Jmabel: I suggest Commons talk:Mobile app as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for COM:APP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Good idea, better than what I suggested. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.
--KEmel49 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel
here is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Privacy issues for faces and car license plates

Privacy issues concerning modern day faces of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently above here on this page, for faces of attendees at weddings.

I know that Mr.choppers, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.

However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored fuzzed up replacement. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ Broichmore (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). Bidgee (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
JWilz12345 You're right, I should have referred to COM:CSCR. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. Alexpl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
"can force wikimedia to delete it." This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia

I'm adding a bunch of photos to Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a Category:Traditional music of Catalonia or Category:Folk music of Catalonia, which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Lacking any response, I'll create Category:Traditional music of Catalonia. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Add coordinates to images (bot task)

Regarding a recent bot request (add coordinates to images), i've started to write some pywikibot code (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice":

  • Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums?
  • There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute: Nodes, Ways and Relations. If it's a Node, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of a Way - for example a building, mapped as area (or even a Relation)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node?
  • What about adding {{On OSM}} to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value.

--Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons.
Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog.
For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Glad about your reply, @Enhancing999 - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Categories for photos by photographers

It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).

What's the current thinking of that? @Vysotsky, @Swiss National Library. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Currently when we are uploading photographs from Finna we are creating creator templates, wikidata items and photos by photographer categories for all authors. There is no distinction between if the person is notable photographer or not. --Zache (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
At Category:Photographs by photographer about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't.
If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Mandatory captions

Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

@Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Upload Wizard, likely again...

While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, but nothing happened.

Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?

Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)

@ITookSomePhotos, Jmabel, ZandDev, Strakhov, N509FZ, Bidgee, Ymblanter, Kenraiz, GPSLeo, Marsupium, Riad Salih, and Sannita (WMF): pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@GPSLeo,
  • Why would you need other licenses for own works?
Why wouldn't I? {{Multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable...
In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least.
  • The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). Bidgee (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
@RodRabelo7: In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "This is someone else's work and is free to share." and then select "Enter a different license in wikitext format", add the license template and the other fields just add {{Own}} to step 2. and then Bidgee to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --Marsupium (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?

Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to Commons:File naming even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. RZuo (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
O.k., thanks! The link seems to have been there since the very first version of the template from 2015. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Categorization issue

File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg and File:Pitura Freska 02.jpg are shooted with different of some moments each others, but Pitura Freska 01.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1992 and Pitura Freska 02.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1997. What is the exact year? --93.47.37.200 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg has 1997 as well. Category is at Category:Pitura Freska. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
It's 1997. The original date of File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg was 1997 but this was changed by an IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [8]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? ReneeWrites (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Clearly the IP knows stuff about the group and shares it. The pictures were uploaded two decades later.
Unless the year can be confirmed in another way, I'd leave the question in the file descriptions, on the uploader's talk page and on the discussion page of it:Pitura Freska. Maybe in another 10 years, someone answers. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy

Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a non-copyright restriction-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute as well as in this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA, regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American lex loci protectionis defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are not subject to the laws of Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, which ruled that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Links:
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
@King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
@Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
"No" can mean "I agree that the answer is negative" and "Yes" can mean "I agree with you" in that context. So basically they can mean the same thing in that sentence in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia

In direct response to the new Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2024-25, a group of Wikimedians has co-authored a statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons, beyond Wikipedia. We would like to see WMF staff support for Wikimedia Commons in its own right (not just to illustrate Wikipedia), and proper resourcing for Wikimedia Commons. You can read the statement in two places and endorse it in any (or both) places if you agree.

More context on the essay's page and talk page.

Best, Spinster (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Strange PDF-Preview behaviour

According to the archived village pump post Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer i have the same problem on c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected. does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, Mfchris84 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
@Animalparty: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see mw:How to report a bug.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Steamboat Willie

I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: They could enforce their ToS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @REDƎYE, WikiSyn.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us
We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office (based in Roanne, France) is WikiSyn, as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.
We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.
For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).
Thanks for your understanding,
Kind regards,
RED🔴ƎYE (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Created CfD's for the following:
In total these cover over 500 categories.
--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.
Empty Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots (from May 13) duplicates Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie (from March 26). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Applied a anonymous only block to Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users (rfc). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Problems with deceased Commons users

It seems like user pages of deceased users get fully protected for preservation and to avoid vandalism. I support this practice. However that protection prevents any file renames (for files displayed on the page) or user category renames. Any ideas on how regular users can perform non-controversial operations like file-renames or categorization on deceased Commons userspages? See for example User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood#Please_replace_File:Ralli.3.JPG. Jarekt (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix?  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst and Jmabel: The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests, and User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --Jarekt (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [@Jmabel: hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.
Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: But, for example, there are cases like User:Fæ. He's presumably alive (hi, Fæ, if you are reading this), he never formally left the project, he is certainly not blocked, he simply has chosen not to contribute lately. He's at least a contender for the most prolific uploader in the history of Commons, so inevitably some issues will come up about some of his uploads. His user talk page is the logical place for a bot to notify about those issues, so I monitor it. I would hope someone will do the same for my talk page after my departure, whenever that may be and for whatever reason. I can't really think of a way around that, unless we were to either (1) give up on having a place to notify in those circumstances or (2) add a special case for every closed/abandoned/inactive account and have a way for all bots that do notifications that indicate issues with files, categories, etc. to be able to handle that special case. That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. @Enhancing999: I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I am proposing nothing. I am saying that I don't see the point of it. I think that it is setting ourselves up to fail under an unreasonable burden that will grow every year as a burden. We have a DR mechanism and that should flow, and requires an admin to act. We already condemn the Wikisources to such a problematic deletion situation where their used works are nominated for deletion and removed without a clear notification of use, nor a particular compunction to care. How is a dead user different? We hard protect pages to preserve them, then I hear that we should not hard protect them as that stops them from being updated, and then I hear that the talk pages are equally an issues as someone wants to watch them for a user who has died or left our service. What is wrong with this picture? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

File upload wizard

Hello everyone,

I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Sannita (WMF).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Ooligan AFAIK, it should be ready for next week. We did the testing in beta for sure, I'll ask on Monday more info about that. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Riad Salih @Ooligan @Jeff G. This should be fixed now, can you please confirm? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

Transparency in the Checkuser Process

The checkuser process is not open to auditing. From a technical perspective, there is no page to confirm that the checkuser process was performed because it likely involves not only the internal technical aspect handled by the MediaWiki tool but also a human element in analyzing user behavior patterns. I believe there should be a task list available that can at least ensure the technical checkuser was conducted and found no connection. It is not clear to me that it was done just because the administrator said so. I think this step is necessary to prevent human errors. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser]. Please inform yourself better at m:Checkuser policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works internally. I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other.
the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. RZuo (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo: That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward]  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".
i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100. RZuo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
actually 2. i cant trace User:Mardetanha's ban to anything.
i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. RZuo (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. RZuo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The User:Benoît Prieur case is public (fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite). GPSLeo (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. Bawolff (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
If we have an organization that throws crumbs of food to distract the dogs, I highly doubt it cares about what the "reliable lifelong members" are doing to perform their duties without any pay. The likelihood of these people being corrupted is immense. Wilfredor (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@TheDJ Just FYI, we also get sued on court. Often. 🙄 Darwin Ahoy! 19:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: The statement on user accounts says that if you have queries about the ban, then email. So, if you have questions then email. The email will be somewhat generic. They are banned typically for breaking the rules, though you cannot expect staff to go into the specific details of how a person broke the terms of use, nor how they found out they broke the rules. Not only does privacy have to be maintained, once you start making statements about people, they also have the right of reply, was when banned is contrary.

The membership of WMF office is not secret, in fact it is listed at m:Meta:WMF Trust and Safety and FoundationSite:role/staff-contractors. No they are not elected, they are appointed as paid staff members/contractors as staff members/contractors are appointed around the world.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. Wilfredor (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see the point to this. If an evil checkuser was not carrying out the actual checkuser, surely if this system was in place they would just run the check and not look at the results, carrying on in their evil ways. Bawolff (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
@Wilfredor: Trust! You can retain whatever suspicions you want, these people are trusted, and they are checked by each other. Checkuser should be a tool only used when needed, and if someone is bothering to say that they are using it, they are using it. I can think of way more important tools that we need than that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
It is not enough to rely solely on users or WMFOffice. On Spanish Wikipedia, for instance, a politically aligned group of users controls various spaces, including CheckUser. When these users are involved, CheckUser actions are completed in minutes, while other cases can take months. This is just one example of what I want to avoid. Because this is a global tool, I have brought the issue here. Wilfredor (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Enabling MP4

Hi, Ten years ago, there was Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. I think it is time that we consider enabling MP4. At least some of the patents expired, according to the discussion. And video2commons is broken for the last 2 weeks, and nobody seems to be able to fix it, or even working on it. In addition, it seems that WEBM format creates larger videos than MP4, which has for consequence that big videos can only be uploaded in a reduced quality. Any idea how to proceed? Yann (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things Trade (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@Yann MP4 can be H264 or H265. WEBM can be VP9 or AV1. AV1 is to VP9, what H265 is to H264. H264 and VP9 are old. AV1 and H265 are more efficient. If you transcode from H265 to VP9 the result is of course larger. If you transcode from H264 to AV1 the result is smaller. If you transcode from H265 to AV1 the result is more or less same size. The patent for H264 has expired. The patent for H265 has not expired. For some time now MW has full support of AV1. Most people are not aware about the H264 vs H265 isssue. If MP4 is allowed, people will start to complain that they cannot (must not) upload some MP4 files (and are unaware of the H254/H265 issue). All modern iOS and Android devices use H265 (in a MOV or MP4 container). However you can transcode your own uploads with AV1 transcoding and they will have small size and high quality. v2c can be altered to use AV1 instead of VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
@C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Per en:High Efficiency Video Coding, the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
its always going to be a UI problem that video (container) formats are more like zip files then a specific format. Mp4 can have all sorts of formats inside, and will probably have new formats in the future. For that matter VVC/H.266 is already the newest thing. That said just giving the user an error message doesn't sound that terrible. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
How about the middle ground where commons allows uploading of such files but automatically converts them to webm, discarding the mp4 version. Bawolff (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes. V2C allows for more too, but alas now it's broken. Result is, I have several videos pending that I would like to upload, but I can't. I could if either V2C would work, or if the size limit for basic upload form was higher AND mp4 was allowed (or automatically converted). Regards --A.Savin 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+1 also support this. If the ability to convert files to webm was previously a gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the site from getting flooded with useless mundane videos and copyvios, other mechanisms should be added. I think there already is a problem with most video uploads being nothing useful and nearly no videos ever getting DRd. I don't know if video2commons has code to convert non-webm files to webm but if so, that could be used; either way converting video files on the server should be a relatively simple common sense thing to add. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Video2Commons

Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, several people reported this: phab:T365154. And it is in this state since May 15th. Yann (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Welp, at least the page works again. Still doesn't upload anything Trade (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Problem with Upload

There is a problem with Special:Upload. Once you have completed the form and submit for uploading, if there is a problem with the selected file name it chooses a new valid name and gives you a chance to proceed. It used to have buttons to change the name or use the selected name. But the problem is it looses all of the description, licencing & categories that has been entered, just offering a blank form with a basic description template. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Keith D: I'm not sure I follow that. Could you describe the old and new sequence, indicating where they differ? Or maybe someone can understand this as written and give you an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It works for me, the form does not reset. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Sorry for late response, I have been away without internet connection. Using Special:Upload to upload a file from Geograph project using the "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" creates a completed upload file form. You can change this information and add appropriate categories before hitting the "Upload file" button. If the Destination filename contains a character that Commons does not allow, such as a colon, that is when the problem occurs when you try to submit the file upload. The old form would give you an error indicating that he file name was not acceptable and changed it to a valid file name. It then gave you 3 buttons, to accept the change, to modify it or exit the update. You could then proceed with the upload. Now the changed process gives you a button to refresh the screen to see if the upload has worked (this occurs for all uploads now). Once you hit button to see what it has done you get the message the file name is invalid and it revises it to a valid one. In this process it empties the Summary box detail and replaces it with a blank Information template (no fields completed) and the categories added are removed. Thus you have to refill in this information before you can resubmit the suggested modified file name. I think that extra refresh screen button stage that has been introduced is the problem. Hope this is clearer. Keith D (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
@Sannita (WMF): is this your realm? If not, do you know whose it is? - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jmabel Not the focus of my team, but I can ask around. Can't promise anything. Maybe I can turn it into a Phab ticket and ping someone. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@Keith D I opened phab:T367046 for your problem. I couldn't find anyone who is working on Special:Upload for the moment, but I'll keep trying. Please subscribe to the task on Phabricator to see if there are news. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed

This was brought up here last year for category "Men of the France by name". There are now over 53,000 links to it -- not entries in it, but links to the category. There are also over 50,000 links to "Men of the Germany by name". I see similar ones for other countries. (You can find them under Special:WantedPages.) None of the categories actually exist. I gather that a module was changed to fix this problem, but the problem has apparently recurred. Can someone help? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the Special:WantedPages are cached and only updated twice a month. I assume the use of the category was due to a template error that has since been fixed. I would wait to do anything until the next update of wanted pages. I think I'm wrong with my previous comment. Please disregard. William Graham (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
This may be an issue with {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I would ask on the template talk page and see if the maintainers have any idea what is going on. I know that from previous go arounds on this, the template/Lua script checks for instances of "the" country categories at some point in the execution. William Graham (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
William Graham You are correct {{Wikidata Infobox}} and Module:Wikidata_Infobox in lines 1283-1294 does exactly that. It checks for existence of category with and without "the", and the first check is for the options with "the". User:Mike Peel and User:LennardHofmann maintain that code. Mike and Lennard I suspect that some countries always use "the" and some don't so you should be able to create a lookup table of maybe all the countries that use "the" and at least have a good guess which one of 2 options to try first. If you want I can write a patch to fix this. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
✓ Done @Auntof6, William Graham, Enhancing999, and Jarekt: Ahh, it's this 17-year-old MediaWiki bug again – you love to see it. I replaced all "#ifexists" checks with a lookup table, see Special:Diff/882129679. --LennardHofmann (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
LennardHofmann, thank you for fixing this. --Jarekt (talk) 13:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Category:Film characters by actors

Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in Category:Space Jam, Category:Mickey Mouse and a bunch of others.

I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like that suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
I think this category structure is invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.
The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:
Omphalographer (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons is not the place for this. Al Capone is not defined by Alec Baldwin and neither is Alec Baldwin defined by Al Capone. All of these categories should be deleted. The only place this data should be presented is in Wikipedia. Wikidata, might hold the names of movies and their casts, however that again is held in Wikipedia. We are not a repository of facts; we hold files, last time I looked. Only recently we had to go through this nonsense with film locations. Broichmore (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Could you link me to the discussion about film locations? Was there a consensus? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Film locations by film (and the discussion which led into that, Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog). Omphalographer (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Why is the category blue if consensus were to delete? Trade (talk) 02:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @Pi.1415926535 as closing Admin.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:54, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Because categories have to be tagged for deletion (and preferably emptied before you do). Having a consensus doesn't inherently lead to action being taken. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:43, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
@Trade: This is about a current discussion, not one that his been concluded. - Jmabel ! talk 15:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree about the general problem, as mentioned above, the problem with Category:Films by actor from the United States (or Category:Films by actor) in general is similar.
The main question to solve is: where to place a picture of actor x playing the character y in the film z? In the three categories for each of these. Enhancing999 (talk) 17:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Under the actor, the character (if we have such a category), and (if that character is not a subcat of the film) the film. If we have more than a handful of such images for the same actor in the same film, then we can make a subcat bringing the three together. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Laughingly Liam Neeson apparently played Hitler in a mini series. If we had a picture of him dressed up as Hitler, I certainly don’t want to see him filed under Hitler. Yes, under category Liam Neeson, and if we had one, for the TV series The latter should only have pix of the actual production, and in 121 years time, stills from the show, and the film itself. Broichmore (talk) 17:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
I think something specifically about actors playing Hitler, used only for images in that role, would be a lot better than the current Category:Adolf Hitler interpreters which consists entirely of categories about people, by name. - Jmabel ! talk 23:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Every single "[Character] interpreters" category is like that. You can find them all compiled in Category:Actors by role and a CfD I opened for it last month at Discussion: Category:Actors by role where I made a similar argument about how to subcategorize actors playing specific characters. I also argued for all the "[Character] interpreters" categories to be deleted. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:03, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Still another approach at Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/06/Category:Madras (film), where the category for an actor is a subcategory of the film, but we don't have any media related to the film itself. Possibly the same problem applies to any film category that only has subcategories. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
This is not that different from actors being subcategorized with characters they've played in films (see Category:Actors by role). It's actually the same problem. Broichmore put it really well in a comment he made earlier. To borrow his Al Capone example, Al Capone's not an appropriate subcategory of Alec Baldwin, nor is Alec Baldwin an appropriate subcategory of Al Capone. But once we have media on Commons of Alec Baldwin as Al Capone it can be added to both those categories. If we have enough media to justify creating a category for it on its own it can be named something like "Category:Alec Baldwin as Al Capone" and be made a subcategory for both of them. ReneeWrites (talk) 18:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's anything to do with Al Capone as such, your promoting clutter here. Al Capone in this context is a fictional character. This sort of thing is as pointless, as linking New York as a film location to 1000s of movies. When at core it's a member of only a very few cats, which define it. AC and AB do not define each other and never will. I suppose if, those against cats like this were to lose, then we would have to create a buffer cat to protect the principal cat, something like Portrayals of Al Capone in media. - Broichmore (talk) 14:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, we need to elaborate further in the rule book on what cats define a person. If we were to ask Al Capone on how he would define himself, he would volunteer the core set of cats we currently employ, Alec Baldwin would be a complete unknown to him. -Broichmore (talk) 11:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Totally agree. I ran into a similar situation with artwork recently where images of windows are being put in categories for artists that just did minor restoration on the window. Which at least IMO clearly isn't correct. I'd say the same here. Images and categories for artists (which I'd consider actors as) shouldn't be associated with categories or images of works/people that they either had minimal to do with or aren't mainly known for. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:15, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The hypothetical I put forward is of images being uploaded of Alec Baldwin playing Al Capone, assuming for a moment those images are alright to keep here. And if there's a lot of those images it's fine to make a subcat of that that can be both a subcat of Baldwin and Al Capone. I'm not talking about the movies as a whole, but specifically media that portray specific people. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It's all related though. This whole thing is one big Markov chain lmao. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
An appropriate home for this kind of thing may be Wikidata, and or Wikipedia, if their willing to let you. I really don’t understand why you would want to make commons do something it’s not designed to do. This kind of data is of interest to general interest outlets, this is a databank, it’s not a forum or a social media platform. Even our gallery pages, I feel, are a complete waste of space. Broichmore (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05&oldid=893472149"