Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2024/10

Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking

Is Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking still necessary?

1. how many active users watch or use it occasionally?
2. any developers use it? (supposedly to check upload quality so they can tweak the software to reduce problematic files?)

i dont have stats, but i guess the proportion of uploads from mobile devices must be much higher than the page started before 2013. what's the percentage of commons users who mainly use mobile versions? 40% (my rough guess)? is this page still meaningful when a substantial number of users use mobile?

i propose the DR gadget stop listing new DR on this page. RoyZuo (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Support I don't see the point in a category like this one to begin with. Let alone when a large percentage of users use mobile devices. I think there's already a bunch of "images taken with" categories for photographs taken with mobile phones anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:13, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

   Oppose useful for GogologoBot tracking. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 18:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

@Alachuckthebuck: I don't see anything in the information for the bot saying it has anything to do with this. Can you clarify exactly how it helps the bot track things? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:38, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

It's used for analyzing bot edits after the fact, and also can help with RFCU and LTA detection. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 21:42, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Uploads from mobile devices will still be tagged in logs. Disabling the automatic edits to the mobile tracking page won't change that. And I still don't understand how this relates to that bot. Omphalographer (talk) 03:30, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I thought that would remove the log tag. All the Best -- Chuck ^Talk 03:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment: I've added a notice to the top of Commons:Deletion requests/mobile tracking pointing to this discussion, so that if anyone is using that page they have more chance of finding it. --bjh21 (talk) 09:18, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

distributed_by

Can we add "distributed_by" to structured_data? It currently gives the message: "The property distributed by should not be used on this type of entity, the only valid entity type is Wikibase item." We have over 1,000 news articles that were published_by newspapers, but they were distributed by the Associated Press or United Press International. We have even more images from both entities. RAN (talk) 18:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I removed the constraint Trade (talk) 00:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Please upload PD images from picturethepast.org.uk

File:Glossophall.jpg is from picturethepast.org.uk. Others such as Glossop Hall, Glossop, c 1910s are also useful. ..... 69.181.17.113 09:19, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Not with the watermarks they have on images now. Better scans probably can be found elsewhere. Carl Lindberg (talk) 13:03, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Better than not having them at all Trade (talk) 00:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Better copy at [1], for example. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:00, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Is this the right place to ask this?

If this is the right place to ask this, then please close my deletion nomination in File:Hakurei Shrine Reitaisai in Taiwan 3 (1).jpg. I withdrew it nearly 20 days ago. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 20:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrators regularly review deletion requests (DR's), so all you would probably have to do is wait. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:46, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't know something about anything I'd advise you to go to "Commons:Help desk" for general questions, "Commons:Village pump/Copyright" for copyright-related questions, and "Commons:Village pump/Technical" for technical-related questions. This village pump is usually for policy and / or guideline proposals. -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:49, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Ok, well hopefully my nomination gets closed soon. AuroraANovaUma ^-^ (talk) 21:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:39, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Private land

Because of these discussions: here and here, I created this template. My recollection is that we've never removed photographs simply because they were obtained by trespassing (we didn't in the 2000s and it appears like we don't now). But I do see no harm in providing a notice on those images, partially in courtesy to those on whom were trespassed and partially so that future viewers know to avoid "updating" those photos without contacting the property owners. I did have to copy another template, so there might be goobers and mistakes, and I have yet to provide documentation for the template. Any help or suggestions are very much welcome. Bastique ^{☎ let's talk!} 18:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see the need for this, but if we keep it, can we please tune it down a notch? 1) This does not need to go above all other content on top of the page. 2) Color scheme should follow that of other non-copyright restrictions like Template:Personality rights (which seems to be based on Template:Non-copyright restriction). Let's keep the high alert type colors for the really important things, otherwise they wear out even more. El Grafo (talk) 08:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Many photos here are from events where accessing a place is only possible if you are a guest of the event. We should not put a warning on all these photos. An exception where something similar could be useful would be an information at photos of for example protected areas where accessing the are is only allowed with permission from an authority. For WLE we have this often and currently it is written into the description but it could be nice to have it in a template. GPSLeo (talk) 08:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Landowners are the ones to put up "no trespassing" signs. It is not the duty of everybody else, including law enforcement. The landowner can give permission or not based on his own decision. I recommend something else when you are allowed on private property to take photos with the consent of the landowner. I give a notice on my photo: "The photographer thanks the landowner for the kind permission to access the property and take pictures." This is how you do it. Otherwise, when you are there by accident, came through an open gate, hiking through the woods or whatever, you just shut up and feign ignorance. You explain what you are doing and leave the property if you are told to.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't see any need for this at all. For example, we host tons of official photos of the president of the U.S. photographed in areas of the White House that are not open to the public. I see no need to tag them to that effect. Similarly, I've done plenty of photo shoots in buildings where I had to seek permission to go onto the property and/or into the building; most of the photos in Category:Lochkelden are examples of this. I see no reason these should be tagged. - Jmabel ! talk 13:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)