Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Happy Public Domain Day!

So, who's updating our templates to reflect the changes in copyright law?

I'll be looking at some upload collections that take advantage of the new dates. Suggestions of new or 'refreshed' large batch uploads that we can add to COM:IA books are welcome! --Fæ (talk) 10:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

How to Create Subcategories

How do I create Subcategories. I would like to add a Subcategory to this list [[1]] but can't figure out how. When I try to edit the page the list isn't there. -- Jim Evans (talk) 17:22, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jim Evans: Hi, and welcome. Please see step 2 at COM:C#Quick guide. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:11, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Copyright permissions

Hi

I'm a new editor and have been trying to upload a few pictures to illustrate pages that I have created. Unfortunately I've had a picture deleted, due to a potential breach of copyright. -I find the rules on picture-copyright incomprehensible to say the least.

The deleted picture (and those that I have not yet uploaded) would be copyright of the Artist's Estate. I am in contact with the artist's estate and I currently have verbal permission to use these pictures. I am currently awaiting written confirmation. So my question is: Once I receive written permission, how do I prove usage rights/where do I upload these rights?

Thanks Andrew — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanabstrakt (talk • contribs) 19:08, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

@Urbanabstrakt: please have a trustee or representative of the estate send permission according to the “Declaration of consent” instructions at COM:OTRS.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 19:47, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much Odysseus1479 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Urbanabstrakt (talk • contribs) 19:53, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Flag and emblem of China

Yesterday, the Chinese government released the official web standards of the Chinese flag and emblem for the first time. [2][3] [4][5]

The red and yellow used by the flag are #EE1C25 and #FFFF00.

Should File:Flag of the People's Republic of China.svg and File:National Emblem of the People's Republic of China.svg follow that standard?--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 05:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mike Rohsopht: There should be new filenames with "2021" in them per COM:OW. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:12, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Audio files and the Music Modernization Act

I noticed that there are a large number of sound recordings on Wikimedia Commons that are marked with US copyright expiration tags. If I understand correctly, under the Music Modernization Act that was passed in 2018, nearly every sound recording, whether made inside or outside the United States prior to 1972 and regardless of its registration/renewal/notice status, is protected under copyright law until at least January 1, 2022. Even after 1972, there are essentially no audio files that have entered the public domain due to "natural causes" because even the copyright term of a work fixed in 1972 by an author who died the same year would expire in 2043. This means that essentially every recording that has not been made freely usable by its copyright holder or is otherwise outside the subject matter of copyright is ineligible to be hosted on commons, as all files must be freely usable in the United States. I see that there have been conversations about this issue in the past but I am unsure what came out of it, and it is clear that there is still a great deal of discussion and work to be done on this point.

There is Category:PD US record which was made for the purpose of marking audio recordings that were fixed prior to 1972. It has only 400 pages, but I am sure that there must be more that belong there. Since the issue does not just apply to sound recordings made before 1972, though, I am wondering if it would be prudent to get a bot to categorize all audio files that do NOT have a freely usable license tag (CC, GDFL, own public domain dedication) nor a tag regarding their ineligibility for copyright in the United States (US government work, too simple, fixed by a non-human, no copyright treaty) into a hidden category that could be used to assess the state of the situation. If this category were made, perhaps it would also be a good idea to subcategorize it by year. I don't think that these files should necessarily be deleted en-masse by an automated process, but it would be good to at least figure out how many Commons sound recordings are potentially not freely usable.

As a side note, to prevent the future miscategorization of audio files, I would recommend adding a blurb on all documentation pages for "expiration-based" US public domain tags such as Template:PD-US-expired that say to NOT use these tags for audio files. It might even be a good idea to add "Note: This tag should not be used for sound recordings." directly to the tag as is done by Template:PD-1996. Mysterymanblue 09:36, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

For templates such as {{PD-US-expired}}, it might be useful for the template to have a note about the template not being suitable for use with sound recordings.

On the topic of pre-1972 sound recordings, there is a template, {{PD-traditional}}, which may be outdated as a result of the Music Modernization Act (MMA.) I proposed a modified version of that template on its talk page. In fact, there is the question as to whether some sound recordings on Commons should be deleted because they are copyrighted in the US. It may be that uploading pre-1972 sound recordings to Commons was somewhat tolerated prior to the MMA; see this talk page topic for the {{PD-US-record}} template.

On the topic of audio being copyrighted or not copyrighted in the US, the following possible issue comes to mind: Consider a motion picture (movie) that was published in the US prior to 1972. Assume that this movie had an audio track and a video track, and that the movie entered the public domain due to noncompliance with US copyright formalities. Would it be permissible for someone to take a copy of the movie and to extract a portion of the audio track into a digital audio file (i.e. Ogg Vorbis or MP3) and then to upload that file to Commons, using a template such as {{PD-US-not-renewed}} or {{PD-US-no-notice}} (depending on how the movie entered the public domain)? From what I understand, in US copyright, it may be that the audio track or soundtrack of a motion picture is treated as a part of the motion picture as copyright goes, and that the term "sound recording" refers to an audio recording by itself (such as a phonograph record.) In Circular 56 from the US Copyright Office, the section "Sound Recordings Distinguished from the Sounds Accompanying a Motion Picture" talks about this. (As a side note, the Circular does not mention the MMA though the Circular may have been revised in March 2019.) If, as mentioned previously, someone took an uncopyrighted pre-1972 movie and extracted a portion of the audio track into a digital file, would the digital file be uncopyrighted because of the movie being uncopyrighted or would the file be copyrighted on the basis that the file is a "sound recording" as opposed to a motion picture? This issue may be worth looking into in any case. --Gazebo (talk) 08:54, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It is strange that the circular does not really mention any of the policies promulgated by the new law. One thing I've noticed about these circulars, though, is that they tend to be designed to give a solid understanding of current copyright law rather than the way it has worked in the past; since sound recordings have been covered under regular copyright for nearly 50 years they may find it unwise to include a lot of fine details about when old recordings will enter the public domain. To your other point, I am not a lawyer, but based on the wording of the circular I would be inclined to categorize the original audio tracks of motion pictures as being protected by the copyright of the motion picture and not holding a separate copyright as a sound recording. As for the templates, I am in agreement with the recommendations you have made.

You point out something very important: there are going to be a lot of tough decisions to be made if Commons is going to deal with this. I would estimate that what, 1-2% of Commons files are audio, probably at least 1/4 of those are sound recordings that claim to have died of natural causes. We're talking about hundreds of thousands of files that are not freely usable in the United States. Since Commons policy requires that files be freely usable in both the US and the country of origin, these would have to be deleted. If you wanted to avoid the use of bots to delete pages (as I would, it would get too messy), it would probably take years to sift through all of those files.

I suppose it would be convenient if Commons got so bogged down in discussion over what to do that January 1, 2022 came and went and every audio file from 1860-1923 would unambiguously lie in the public domain. This would ultimately leave a five year gap between the public domain date for sound recordings and for other works and would still require careful use to prevent people from using PD tags related to failure to register/renew/notice their works (since these do not apply to pre-1972 sound recordings). There would still be issues with the remaining sound recordings, but I think it would be more manageable.

Another possible option would be to delete these files and then undelete them later? I am unsure of how feasible this would be. Alternatively, we could try to offload some of the recordings to the Public Domain Project (sidebar: the Public Domain Project is unfortunately the contributor of a large number of sound recordings protected under the MMA), which is based in Switzerland and would therefore be able to handle sound recordings that are protected in the US but not internationally. Then we could bring them back after a short vacation overseas when everything is kosher. But again, this would also probably take a lot of work. Mysteryman blue 10:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

About the License of Logos of DJ Science College

Please can anyone assist about the following logos of these logos as the uploader claims these as their own work and uploaded it under the wrong license:

but they may fall under the PD-Pakistan License as DJ Science College is one of the oldest colleges which was established before Independence of Pakistan on 17 January 1887 in Karachi and therefore, its now in public domain in Pakistan because it has passed more than 50 years. Please anyone assist if they can fall under these license. Thank You.Wallu2 (talk) 09:22, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this logo itself that old? Ruslik0 (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0 It may be just like File:ALMU-logo.jpg (Aligarh Muslim University Logo) as both are one of the oldest institution before Independence of Pakistan!Wallu2 (talk) 19:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Help of a native English speaker needed

Could someone look at this edit request and confirm that it is reasonable? IMO it should be left as is but I am far from being fluent in English. --jdx ^Re: 14:53, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jdx: This is a pretty minor point of grammar most people wouldn't notice, but I believe the requester is correct. I looked at several style guides and sources and they all agreed that compound modifiers with -ly adverbs should not be hyphenated. The logic is that the hyphen should generally only be used if it is needed to avoid creating two ambiguous interpretations, which never happens with -ly adverbs. You can find this and other cases at en:English_compound#Hyphenated_compound_modifiers. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, then without hyphen it is. --jdx ^Re: 17:27, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Not happy....

Typos in an edit summary are not good, [[6]] when you've manged to propogate them across 5000 images, through the use of VFC, you are clearly not competent. Can someone suggest how to clean up the mess? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:21, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I'm not 100% sure, but I am relatively sure that it is not possible to change edit summaries already committed without creating a bigger mess (something like revdelling all the edits and performing them again). The good news is that they are not in a very front-facing location, and I'm sure we'll all forget about them soon enough! – BMacZero (🗩) 03:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Signpost for Commons

The enwiki has the en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost for announcements, analyses, comments, invitations and some funny stories. The German speakers might know de:Wikipedia:Kurier and I think similar platforms exist in other Wikis too. I think something similar could be nice to have here for the topics on Commons. We could also think about making this multilingual here. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@GPSLeo: Some people tried that a couple of years ago: Commons:The Commoner. Didn't really take off, though … --El Grafo (talk) 09:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

@GPSLeo and El Grafo: But, despite that, a good idea, if you (or someone) would be ready to dedicate the probably 30+ hours an issue it would take to make it worthwhile. Thoughts:

Make it not so much "multilingual" in the obvious sense as "polyglot": accept articles in a number of major languages, no promises of translation of all content.
Probably easier to do a monthly rather than a weekly. Maybe even a bimonthly or quarterly.
Since Commons doesn't have a real equivalent of articles, this could also be a venue for someone with a related series of photos to do an article that ties them together. Some of these might make great "gallery pages".
Don't shy away from controversy.
- The ongoing disagreements about structured data would be a great topic. Ditto for disagreements over how much Commons is a respository for Wikipedia vs. an end in itself; what constitutes "good" photography here; what off-wiki communication among contributors is welcome vs. what almost amounts to conspiracy; a good discussion of miscellaneous gender-related issues, etc.
Similarly: our different approach to COI and NPOV than most of the Wikipedias; good "gallery" pages and ideas as to why we have so few (I suspect many of what would be our best are buried in "user space").
This could also make a good space for "photo essays," something that we lack.
Timely articles should get precedence, but not all stories have to have a current-events angle, e.g. why Commons is so strict about copyright, whereas other intellectual property rights (trademark, personality rights, etc.) are "just a tag"; what it's like for someone to come in here new and try to participate; do we really want "everyone" to edit, or are some people so bad at this that they become a detriment to the project, etc. This would let you build up a queue of these less time-specific articles to fill out an issue if you ever come up short.

I'd be glad to brainstorm ideas, or expand on any of the above, via Zoom or some such. I'm probably too busy to contribute articles to it unless something arises "organically". Jmabel ! talk 14:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I might be able to contribute a short article or two (on finding images for articles, or License reviewing images, or something), if others do the organizational heavy lifting. I can also translate from Russian or French to English. (Or from English to Russian if there is no better volunteer, and readers are really, really kind about grammar errors.) If this gets off the ground, but I've forgotten about this commitment, please ping me. --GRuban (talk) 15:01, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. That was what I hope that could be. I would make it more crowd generated like at the German de:Wikipedia:Kurier where everyone can write and directly publish and not with a monthly issue. As you said I think filling an issue takes much more time than just single articles and series directly published after they where written. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:07, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons delinking

What has happened with User:CommonsDelinker? Did it stop working in other projects? Since November 4 it has only made a few edits in Commons and no edits in other wikis. See Global contributions: https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=CommonsDelinker 90.227.175.244 09:59, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Magnus Manske, Steinsplitter as operators. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:13, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Looking for the right way to categorize

Regarding Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Gaza flotilla raid, is it the right thing to do to have a category within a category, so that a user must click through Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Gaza flotilla raid held in Northern Ireland to get to Category:Gaza flotilla clash demonstration in Belfast?

Or should it be categorized by city as some others are "by city", by passing Northern Ireland in this specific case? Thanks, Krok6kola (talk) 17:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: There isn't a hard rule about this. In this case I would lean towards leaving it as-is, even though the category has only one child, because it makes it consistent with its other siblings in Category:Demonstrations and protests against the Gaza flotilla raid. Though it does seem odd to distinguish "Northern" Ireland in particular when there is so little media; I think just "Ireland" would be appropriate and would allow that category to hook in nicely to Category:Demonstrations and protests in Ireland. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:45, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I misread you, you are right that some of the siblings are already cities. So perhaps your change does make sense. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:50, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@BMacZero: Thanks! (I am trying to accomplish this. Having problems with my internet connection.) Krok6kola (talk) 18:52, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with deleting the NI category here. It's not needed for consistent structure, and it just adds an extra layer with no benefit. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:36, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Media Search survey

Greetings,

There is still time to take the quick Media Search survey on which search experience you prefer using on Commons, Special:Search or Special:MediaSearch. The survey is only one question–which search do you prefer–and will just take a moment to fill out if you're interested. Thanks! Keegan (WMF) (talk) 18:58, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Silesian trams

User Elot360 correctly removed the 'Pesa Twist 2012N' category from some of my uploads. I tought is was the 'Moderus Beta MF 16 AC BD' category from the front look. However this tram type is an articulated tram, not a single car. I think these trams are a renovated older tram type. The other images are:

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

From User:Elot360 Sorry for making a bit of mess, still I'm quite new with all features of Wiki Commons so I did as much as I known it will be fine. I read already you understood my purpose for deleting Pesa category, but to be honest I still not sure how to add new/correct category (Despite the fact that I didn't know I should add something in exchange for deleted Pesa category).

To clarify everything, files in which I deleted Pesa category presents the Moderus Alfa HF 11 AC tram (One photo from Ruda Śląska Chebzie tram loop presents E1 series tram too, but there's correct category already). So, if there's existing category like that, it's the correct one.

I'm sorry again — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elot360 (talk • contribs) 05:02, 12 January 2021‎ (UTC)

Category: Gates with names / words / sentences ?

I'm looking for a category for gates that carry names and slogans etc. (see gallery), but I cannot find one. Is there any such category, and if not: what would be an appropriate name for the category? Eissink (talk) 16:09, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

There exists the Category:Gates by name. Wouter (talk) 16:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but that is not for gates that have their name or any name on it, it is to categorize gates by their names (regardless of whether the name is part of the gate). Eissink (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2021 (UTC).

You mean something as in this image. Wouter (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

No. Have you seen the pictures that I added here? The first has the words "ENTER" and "MORS", the second has the abbreviation "HAMC", and the third says "ARBEIT MACHT FREI". They are all examples of metal fence gates that have words in metal as a part. Instead of metal, I'm pretty sure there are similar gates from wood also. So I mean gates with words that are formed as part of the gate, in the material of the gate. But I realize now the Auschwitz one is actually more of an arch, at least it's not part of a moving gate like the other two. Eissink (talk) 20:34, 5 January 2021 (UTC).

I doubt the category exists; it would be reasonable to create. For the gate at Auschwitz: do we know how it looked during Nazizeit? I doubt it simply stood wide open. In any case, we consider Japaness torii to be "gates," so this would also be a "gate". For a far happier case than Auschwitz, see Category:Entrance gates of the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. - Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eissink: You have in mind a child category of both Category:Gates and Category:Signs? That seems reasonable. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Themightyquill, and more specifically also of Category:Writing by medium (compare Category:Roof tiles resembling letters). But so far I can't find a correct category name. Eissink (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

@Eissink: What about creating Category:Inscriptions on gates in Category:Inscriptions by surface? That's perhaps a little more broad than you had in mind, but it works. - Themightyquill (talk) 18:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Since all the example photos include whole gates, how about Category:Inscribed gates or Category:Gates with writing? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:58, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Gates with writing comes the closest, but I think it isn't exactly it yet. Will give it further thought, don't have much time now. Thanks so far, will come back here when I have a suggestion. Eissink (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC).

Photo challenge November results

**Pottery: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Pottery job	Ceramicagrottagliese	Potter at work
Author	TAPAS KUMAR HALDER	Repuli	Whippetsgalore
Score	18	13	12

**Wharf: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Former pier at Eckwarderhörne, North Sea	Zwei Bootsstege am Starnberger See mit Zugspitze (Alpenpanorama)	Odeep One depuis le Quai de la République
Author	Hgrobe	Ilka Franz	Christian Ferrer
Score	35	16	16

Congratulations to Hgrobe, Ilka Franz, Christian Ferrer, TAPAS KUMAR HALDER, Repuli and Whippetsgalore. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:07, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Galleries keeping lists of paintings copied from WikiData

Pinging User:Mateus2019, who is copying bot created lists from WikiData to Commons. Example: d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Collection/Indianapolis Museum of Art → Indianapolis Museum of Art. I think this is problematic for several reasons: a) Should we in general keep lists in gallery NS on Commons? b) Redundancy: IMO it's not useful to copy pages xwiki this way by copy-and-paste. c) Consistency: Who shall update the lists if the bot on WD generates a new list? d) Broken links: The lists contain links like [[Q47487650]] that work fine on WikiData but are broken on Commons because of a missing leading d: d:Q47487650. That can be fixed by a bot only. e) Workarounds by creating redirects like Q41513 or Q812285 are a joke. f) Huge lists like on Cleveland Museum of Art having a size of 1.3 MB make the gallery page nearly unusable. In my opinion we should delete these lists and replace them by a xwiki See also. --Achim (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

This is blatant misuse of the Gallery namespace. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of Commons galleries, but I am big fan of ListeriaBot generated and maintained tables. However in this case I would rather see a see also link from category page. --Jarekt (talk) 02:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I still think, it is a really good idea to have that data integrated here. Or does anyone think, we should have two galleries parallel, one at WD and one at Commons? That kind of sortable tables and many information is not available at Commons yet (see the poor state of what we got here in arts, starting with bad catsort, bad and/or missing descriptions and unfriendly categorization [mostly no flat cat., e.g. for artwork by artist] in over 10 years of our existence). It is a great service for users. Nowadays, most people have a much faster internet connection than 20 year ago. So the loading of Cleveland Museum of Art takes 8 seconds with my connection. So WD lists imported to Commons are a blessing with more advantages than disadvantages. What does "NS" mean? --Mateus2019 (talk) 06:03, 7 January 2021 (UTC) @ Achim55: Ich hätte es richtiger gefunden, wenn man mich erst einmal auf der Benutzer-Disku anspricht. Schönen Tag!

@Mateus2019: NS means namespace in the context above. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:06, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mateus2019: @Jeff G.: and all reading this: coming across this comment of yours, just wanted to inform you that NS also means Nederlandse Spoorwegen to the people from the Netherlands (not always with a positive connotation if I may say so. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 08:10, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: We also have a rail-related abbreviation NS in the US, en:Norfolk Southern Railway, but that is also irrelevant to the above discussion. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts: Commons is first and foremost a media repository for others to find and reuse suitable media. Commons is not primarily a database, not an encyclopedia, not a genealogy site, not a museum catalog, etc. Thus, every structural change should be oriented around helping users find media, not simply showcasing data for the sake of data (that's what Wikidata is for). There is little to no practical use to the Commons user in displaying entries with no associated media, or that is still under copyright (although such "naked lists" might be helpful in less-conspicuous locations like talk page or subpages to help volunteers organize and identify missing works of Commons-compatible art). Wikidata-populated lists, if implemented on Commons, should never replace traditional galleries, which by nature involve selective curation, and which may incorporate context-dependent explanatory text that may differ from Wikidata captions, and/or that may not be compatible with Wikidata's CC-0 license. The gallery Indianapolis Museum of Art should feature representative high quality images of the museum, not just works in the museum, which might better be presented at a subgallery lke Collections of the Indianapolis Museum of Art‎. Additionally, and importantly, Wikidata lists of any length are more unwieldy and difficult to view on mobile devices. But I think the least intrusive option would be to simply implement a prominent link to lists already on Wikidata (perhaps a button added to {{Institution}} or {{Creator}} templates, rather than recreate the whole list on a Commons page, to reduce maintenance overhead, reduce implausible red-links to nowhere, and keep Commons focused on media, while Wikidata focuses on data. --Animalparty (talk) 22:08, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm rather confused by some of the above statements about what is not in Commons scope. We have an entire "Data" namespace with files like Data:Ncei.noaa.gov/weather/New_York_City.tab. Is that controversial? If so, I must have missed the discussion, can someone point me to it?

Is Indianapolis Museum of Art really less appropriate to Commons than that? Frankly, I've seen some pretty crappy gallery pages; this one actually looks useful because it highlights what images we might want, and it might even be more closely related to being a media repository than anything in "Data" namespace. - Jmabel ! talk 02:07, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who uses the data namespace on Commons, but nothing on Commons:Welcome nor Commons:Project scope mentions them at all. I don't know how much the average user interacts with them, but at least they are rather inconspicuous, and don't conflict with other ways of displaying media files. They seem to be a minor side project of WMF. Oh well. --Animalparty (talk) 04:51, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mateus2019: If you're going to do this, then it's better to use {{Wikidata list}} in gallery format, e.g. see User:Mike Peel/Benedito Calixto or others in Category:Uses of Wikidata list as gallery. {{Wikidata Gallery}} can help you set them up if you want. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:12, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Marriage announcements in the United States vs Wedding announcements in the United States

I am creating categories for various newspaper announcements. Are a Wedding announcement and a Marriage announcement the same. From what I am looking at Wedding announcements tend to be describing the party after the ceremony. Any ideas? Or just combine them into one category. --RAN (talk) 08:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

If you ran off to Vegas and got married on the fly, You would make a Marriage announcement. If your going to get married, then you make a wedding Wedding announcement. The party after the ceremony is a Reception which is not announced outside of a guest list, but can be reported by a paper as a third entity. So technically your looking at three categories. Many combine wedding and Reception in the same category as its normally on the same day. Broichmore (talk) 12:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I've never made a distinction between a wedding announcement and a marriage announcement, but what Broichmore states makes logical sense; one is before the fact, the other is after the fact. Still, for the sake of simplicity, I'm not sure there is much value in separating them out into their own subcategories. — Huntster (t @ c) 13:37, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I will treat them as synonyms, since we have only a few examples. They can be separate entities at Wikidata, since there is a technical difference. They can be marked as "said to be the same as". --RAN (talk) 17:03, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm dumping a large number of photos of the Storming of the Capitol in DC, and prior Trump rally. Could use help categorizing/tagging/etc

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TapTheForwardAssist

Thanks for any help in making these photos more accessible via whatever technical magic. TapTheForwardAssist (talk) 14:58, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Differing artists for same work (see ticket:2021010510003179)

Been brought to the attention of the Commons OTRS queue that File:Leon-Maxime Faivre - Prehistoric Hunt.jpg and File:Emmanuel Benner - Prehistoric Man Hunting Bears.jpg are the same piece, but attributed to two different artists.

The customer suggests that the attribution to is the correct one, but the other one is much older (uploaded 2008), and is in use.

Bringing this here, as someone who knows more might be able to give a definitive answer as to which is correct.

~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 14:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Comparing with other paintings of these artists, Leon-Maxime Faivre is much closer in style.Joostik (talk) 16:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe the work is Les hommes prehistoriques chassant l'ours by Emmanuel Benner, date 1892 and the owner is Musee d'Unterlinden, Colmar, France. The title in English is Prehistoric Man Hunting Bears Broichmore (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Tulsa, Oklahoma, in the 1920s

Hi, Any idea about the date of File:Greenwood Avenue south of Easton Street, Tulsa, OK.jpg? What are these cars? [7] gives it before the riot which took place in 1921. Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Upload form is outdated, please convert to dynamic dates

Special:UploadWizard still asks if "The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" because it was "First published in the United States before 1925" but the American public domain now starts in 1926. Can someone with access to the server please change this from a hard-coded date to something dyanmic with JavaScript that will just subtract 95 years? If no one reading this can do that, then I can open a ticket on phab:. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:35, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

pinging some ppl from Gerrit:571050 @Jdforrester (WMF), DannyS712, Multichill, and Raymond: .--Roy17 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I will submit a patch tomorrow. Raymond 20:46, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Koavf: Please submit a Phabricator task to update this. A dynamic (non-human-reviewed) value isn't appropriate for legal text, however. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:48, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jdforrester (WMF): phab:T271766. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:35, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I just gave a +2 to the patch, so it is merging now and should be live here next week (see phab:T267419 for the deployment progress) --DannyS712 (talk) 00:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Importing files from the source wiki te.wikipedia.org

I tried to put the images on w:te:గోవిందరాజస్వామి ఆలయం, తిరుపతి in Category:Govindaraja Temple, Tirupati but got the message "Unfortunately, importing files from the source wiki (te.wikipedia.org) is not yet possible because there is no configuration for the wiki in the configuration file list". Is there anyone who can make this possible? Wouter (talk) 15:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

This needs to be set at the Mediawiki site by someone who is in the know of the templates and categories of the Telugu Wikipedia. I think your chances would be better if you asked directly at mw:Extension talk:FileImporter. De728631 (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, I did. Wouter (talk) 09:27, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons in read-only on Tue 26th January

The current primary database master for Commonswiki needs to be replaced. This host is old and out of warranty, so needs to be decommissioned. This maintenance operation requires a 15 minutes read-only window for Commonswiki.

As a consequence, Commons will be in read-only on Tue 26th January, starting at 07:00AM UTC. No edits or uploads will be allowed. Reads will not be impacted.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before this operation starts. This maintenance operation will also be announced in Tech News.

Please help by sharing this information with your community!

More information: phab:T271427, phab:T271791

Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:40, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Asking for advice on the right way to categorize

Hello,

I don't want to COM:OVERCAT. I am categorizing Category:Buena Vista Park and I created the category Category:Views from Buena Vista Park. Some of the "Views" also show parts of Buena Vista Park. At what point should I put a file in both categories i.e. in "Views from Buena Vista Park" and "Buena Vista Park" or just in "Views"? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 18:54, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If the part of the park visible is substantial, you can place them in both categories. Ruslik0 (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Comes down to personal judgement at the end of the day Oxyman (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I used my judgement. Krok6kola (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

File formats?

Hi, what questions are likely to be asked by a new user or non-expert user? These seem essential.

What file formats are acceptable?
Among formats with a similar functionality, which are preferred for various requirements?

Astonishingly, the word "format" is not in the Help:Contents page. "Search help pages" in Help:Contents is not helpful. How can such obvious questions be ignored? Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:File types, there's a mention in the FAQ which itself is linked in the getting started part of Help. Also COM:Formats. --Fæ (talk) 22:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

That page is crucially valuable. Thanks. But indirection, a link to a link, hides it. Even the search failed to find it. Someone please put a direct link on Help:Contents. Thx, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 01:57, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Large number of acceptable files being needlessly DR-ed

I refer to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Yprpyqp and User:Gun Powder Ma.

Facts:

Majority of these files nominated are scans of old books whose copyrights have absolutely expired long ago.
The uploader often put down {{Own}} in the source parameter.
However, most images do have adequate sourcing info in their filenames or descriptions, or such info could be easily deciphered from the images themselves (e.g. the title of the book is in the image itself).

Now this user insists on DR-ing such files. S/he's done so in May 2020: Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2020/05/09. I have reported this problem to COM:AN twice: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Qiushufang's_files_in_DR Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_82#Nonsense_DR_still_open_five_months_later, yet most files were still deleted by User:P199. I protested the deletion, but it was useless: User_talk:P199/Archive_3#Wrongly_deleted_scans_of_old_books.

May I ask the community to arrive at a solution to this kind of files?

Solutions I can think of:

Feed such nonsensical demands and delete the files even though their copyrights have expired.
Keep the files as they are even though the uploader wrote the source parameter wrongly.

There are not many Chinese speaking users around. And it's quite time consuming to go through the files one by one. For the batch nominated in May 2020 and now deleted, I had categorised the acceptable ones (see Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_80#User:Qiushufang's_files_in_DR, I made convenient links to search the files when they were not yet deleted) and asked sysops to keep them but User:P199 deleted them anyway. Frankly I dont wanna waste my time anymore for this painstaking task just because one user is nitpicky and unhappy about the files.

I should emphasise, that when my effort would be appreciated, I am happy to skim through the files DR-ed and identify which ones are acceptable, but because of uncooperative sysops I am not doing it since my effort would most likely be trashed anyway.--Roy17 (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

For whatever it is worth, my opinion is that we should not use deletion of the file as a "teaching" tool for the user uploading the file. If somebody makes a mistake in the description that is obvious, the correct way to fix the problem is to fix the description. Deletion of the file should be the last resort measure, when no other approach can be taken. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 20:33, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
The best way to deal with this issue is to correct the info in the file descriptions. The DR's are nowadays open for months. That gives you ample time to fix the source, dates, and licenses (just categorizing them is not sufficient). If you still need more time, ask for an extension at the DR to let us know that you are working on it. But if we see no progress, we won't keep unsourced images with wrong licenses. Regards, --P 1 9 9 ✉ 22:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

What a joke. A nitpicky user blindly nominates 100+ files within seconds. Then volunteers have to spend hours to save them? And I did make an effort, spending some minutes to batch identify good ones, so that responsible sysops could deal with them easily on a whole. And without guarantee my effort would be honoured--my effort was indeed wasted because of sysops like P199--I of course would not go to the great lengths to feed such ridiculously stringent demands by one user who keeps wasting everybody's time.

Be aware, that the nominator only clicks one button to mass DR automatically, but to reverse it non-sysop volunteers have to not only "correct the info in the file descriptions" but also edit the DR pages, everything done manually.

Such deletion does not obey COM:D either. A user, at best clueless, at worst nitpicky, DR the files. Another user with the knowledge has pointed out which exact files have no problems and advised sysops to close. Then there's no reason to delete it.--Roy17 (talk) 22:28, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't feel like adding the correct information to File:Nude Mona Lisa - Primoli Version,Rome.jpg today. Should I just slap a DR on it, which would be much easier? Yes, it sometimes takes extra work to do things the right way, but just throwing DRs, especially mass DRs which are hard to handle, is not the appropriate approach.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:50, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Deleting these files is a very poor idea. Fixing the description is much less work than undeleting. Regards, Yann (talk) 11:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

SDC precision

A couple of days ago I uploaded a photo File:Bukhara Sarrafon Hammam ceiling ornament.jpg and now it has a warning message saying the camera location coordinates I indicated have 23m discrepancy with SDC coordinates. What is SDC, how does it know where my camera was when I took the picture, and what should I do about the template warning?--Ymblanter (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Multichill: s bot added the SDC data [8] so he can say where the data comes from. Based on diff i would say that it looks like it comes from wikitext and it could be a rounding error(?) --Zache (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

SD=stuctured data (I guess C may mean coordinates?). After you added to the file description page a reference to a Wikidata entity [9], approximate coordinates were entered by the bot BotMultichillT [10]. The stuctured data section of the file description page claims (apparently incorrectly) that coordinates are from Wikidata, where (different) coordinates were entered by the bot MatSuBot [11], who itself copied it from Wikipedia in German, where they were entered by the user Bjs [12] [13]. However, the coordinates added to Commons by BotMultichillT are different from those added to Wikidata by MatSuBot. The edit link provided by the stuctured data section of the Commons page does not lead to Wikidata, but to Wikimedia maps and it gives no clue as to the history of who entered coordinates there. Your life is ruled by bots now. Even if you know better. Reality is irrelevant. Is it not a wonderful world? -- Asclepias (talk) 14:15, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I always (well, in the last 8 years) add the coordinates myself, and these are not the coordinates of the object but the coordinates of the point I have taken the picture from (as it is clear from the template, I use {{Location}}, not {{Object location}}). In this case, I first misidentified the object and then identified it correctly, changing the Wikidata ID. Maarten's bot's edits came in the middle, and probably a template was upset by the difference between my coordinates for the location and the coordinates of the object. Still, the two objects are close to each other, and it is perfectly fi ne to take a picture from a distance of 23 m, so I do not quite understand the warning. Let us wait for Maarten.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You changed the coordinates in the template one day after uploading the file. So the coordinates copied by the bot in to the structured data are the original ones added during the upload. The the coordinates during the upload where wrong you have to change the structured data coordinate the the new corrected coordinates. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:06, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

This is exactly what I do not understand. The coordinates refer to the point where I took the picture, not to the object. How could the bot know where I have taken the picture?--Ymblanter (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You added the location on upload. The original page has the location template. --GPSLeo (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I obviously know this, because I added them myself. However, I amended coordinates in my pictures many times and never got such warnings. It must be that the bot stored the camera location coordinates somewhere, but I can not figure our where and how I can correct them.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You have to copy the coordinates from the template and then replace the old coordinates in the structured data tab with them. --GPSLeo (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter:

You upload the image with location template set to {{Location|39.772552|64.418664}} source of edit
The robot pick this up and puts it in latitude 39.772552 / longitude 64.418664 in structured data
You change the coordinates to {{Location|39.772471|64.418906}} so it no longer lines up with the structured data
I removed the structured data so the picture is back in Category:Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 missing SDC copyright license (which is monitored by my bot)
The bot will add the structured data again, but now with slightly different coordinates. When that's done you'll be able to see this diff in the structured data.

Everything said by Asclepias is incorrect. Multichill (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Is it correct that I can not edit the structured data myself without a script?--Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

No that's not correct, you actually just edited the structured data. All the editing of other statements is about the same as Wikidata (updating coordinates on Wikidata isn't that easy either). Multichill (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Multichill, thank you for looking into this. It was on my to investigate list as it relates to the Module:Coordinates code, which generates the alert. It seemed to have worked as designed. --Jarekt (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, but the coordinate tab shows to me as not editable, unless I am missing something (I can remove coordinates, but I can not add new ones).--Ymblanter (talk) 19:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

If you mean that the coordinate "add" button is greyed out, you probably have not entered new coordinates yet. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:45, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

I did. In fact, if in any of my files I go to the Structural data tab, I only see P180. I only see other information there if l look at the diff of the bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

{{PDMark-owner}} and Category:Media without a license

Hi, as apparently {{PDMark-owner}} made by User:King of Hearts is intended to be used. Is there not a way to modify tools such as Flickr2Commons for that the files be uploaded directly with that template because in addition to have a manual review to do there is also to add the template. The categories "Media without a license" such as Category:Media without a license as of 14 December 2020 are crowded. I did it for a few files such as this one. It makes too many editions to do on too many files, and if this template is indeed intended to be used, IMO something should be done. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 17:11, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

{{PD-author-FlickrPDM}} is more specific license for files from flickr using PDM there, while {{PDMark-owner}} should be used for files from other sources. --Jarekt (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes ok, but the issue stands. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 19:21, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right. Requests for changes to flickr2commons can be done at [14]. I did not test Special:UploadWizard but changes to it should be requested at Phabricator. --Jarekt (talk) 19:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Description in multiple languages.

Hi, when I view this page with Firefox, only the description in English is visible. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Oberon_genealogy.svg In edit mode three other languages are visible. Should the browser display the description in all the languages? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 12:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Hi, and welcome. You may want to uncheck the "Show labels, aliases and descriptions in all my languages on page load" checkbox at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-rendering and Save. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: The browser should only display the description in all the languages if that checkbox is unchecked. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:15, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

OK, I unchecked it. This feature was introduced recently. Prior to the introduction, a description was visible in all languages available. For me this new feature is a detriment rather than benefit. I wonder why the original behavior wasn't kept as default. I.e. require a specific setting to restrict languages to a particular subset of those available.

Most files are described in only one or two languages. Multiple languages don't incur a large overhead of communication. So I wonder about the need for this feature. In fact I'm concerned that it is another instance of feature creep as occurs in many aspects of computer use. Sorry to say, continued embellishment with bothersome and unnecessary features will cause me to consider reduction of donations. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

MediaSearch

Anybody heard of MediaSearch? Knows responsible techies? Knows where to get rid of feedback: mw:Help_talk:MediaSearch? --Herzi Pinki (talk) 16:27, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

The development and discussion page is here: Commons:Structured data/Media search. --GPSLeo (talk) 16:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

thx --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Help needed for Alexander Altmann

Hi, Help needed to fix the Authority control for two different persons : Category:Alexander Altman (1878-1932) and Category:Alexander Altmann (1885-1950). The first is sometimes spelt Altmann (with 2 n). Knowledge of Russian would be useful. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:10, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The Russian name is correct, if this is the question. Standard Romanization would be Altman, but he lived most of his life in France and presumably was spelled Altmann there.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:03, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ymblanter: Thanks for the answer. Lockal claims here that they are one and the same. I could understand that there are uncertainities about the birth date, but how to explain that one died in 1932 and the other in 1950? And that one is born in Odessa, and the other one in Kiev? [15] seems to support this claim, but we have a precise date and place of death in France: September 14th, 1932, Nemours (77). It should be easy to get the death certificate. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:50, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I see that both Russian and German Wikipedia (which refer to different Wikidata items) refer to the birthplace as Sobolivka. The death date is indeed unclear, but so far I do not see any sources for 1950 death.--Ymblanter (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aerial views of Menton

I have a question about how languages are used in categories. Category:Vue générale - Menton contains three files named "Aerial view of Menton" and one "Menton (aerial)". It also contains two files that should be in Category:Menton and one "Vue Mention" but not an "aerial". Is it ok to create a category for "Aerial views of Menton"? It seems to me the current cat name is confusing, considering its mixed contents. How should this be handled? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Aerial views of Menton would be entirely appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 19:56, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
Category:Photographs of Seattle and its subcats provide a fairly good model, other than the arbitrary mix of "Seattle" and "Seattle, Washington". - Jmabel ! talk 19:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

National Museum of Ireland images are CC by-sa

National Museum of Ireland's Publications Policy:

Copyright of all images rests with the National Museum of Ireland unless otherwise stated. All National Museum of Ireland images are made available under Creative Commons BY-SA licence.

per a recent update to https://www.museum.ie/en-IE/Terms-Conditions - Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm indebted to User:Smirkybec for bringing this to my attention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:User at project/core

The Finnish part is now |fi = [[{{{4}}}User:{{{1}}}|{{{5}}}]] projektissa [[{{{4}}}|{{{3}}} {{{2}}}]], which generates "Jnovikov projektissa suomi Wikipedia", and that's very bad Finnish, the right form is "suomenkielinen Wikipedia" but I think that the template cannot generate it so "Wikipedia kielellä suomi" which is easier to execute is okay also. Ergo can someone who is able to edit the page mentioned in title of this topic change it to form |fi = [[{{{4}}}User:{{{1}}}|{{{5}}}]] projektissa [[{{{4}}}|{{{2}}} kielellä {{{3}}}]]? Jnovikov (talk) 18:06, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jnovikov: Done; please check it's working as expected. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. It seem to be working well. Jnovikov (talk) 19:34, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump

Although I am not offended myself, I wonder if using {{Motd/2021-01-19 (en)}} and {{Motd/2021-01-20 (en)}} as Media of the Day would be a good idea, given the current political climate in the United States. Richard 11:40, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fine, mild parody and not focused on recent events. Were these specifically about current US terrorist threats, there would be reason to reconsider if this were the time to have them on the front page. --Fæ (talk) 11:54, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

The timing of both, being the last 2 days of his presidency, appears designed primarily to needle and provoke a reaction. They will likely be ammo to inflame and harden conservatives' distrust and disdain of Wikipedia and all Wikimedia projects. While certainly many people will be glad when Trump leaves office, I see no overall net positive to posting these, other than making a few liberals smirk. --Animalparty (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Its net result will only be making angry people angrier. Richard 19:24, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Oddly, Commons:Media of the day does not tell how the images are chosen. Seemingly files are nominated at the talk page, but I could find no entry for these files, uploaded by the same user who put them into the templates for the day. Just vandalism? –LPfi (talk) 21:11, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

It's not odd. It's not watched much so some people just take it upon themselves and when it's problematic, people come here, we question the lack of review and it continues on. POTD has a lot more interest. I think it should be moved to weekly personally which make get enough eyes on stuff. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I also found File:ASSHOLE, Bigot, Liar and Pussy grabber Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant. Dump Donald Trump in 2020.webm ({{Motd/2021-01-19}}) and file File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm ({{Motd/2021-01-20}}) not that funny and totally not appropriate for out Main_Page. On and around US presidential inauguration, I think we should run positive US politics related videos or generic celebration videos. How about

--Jarekt (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Should we forcibly rename the files? I do not think such names are appropriate.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok. The first one was already renamed, I renamed the other one. The file description was so offensive that I had to revision-delete it. I removed the autopatrol flag from the user, and warned them that one single instance of adding similar secriptions to files would result in a block. If there is any community process which results in featuring files with such descriptions at the main page, this process is badly broken.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This rename was unnecessary and does not meet COM:FR.

Trump is famous for using the words "pussy" and "asshole", these are extremely well established in global press headlines. Removing exactly these words from filenames about Trump is to put personal tastes over fact. It would have been better to leave the uploader's choices in place. --Fæ (talk) 12:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure WMF T&S would support me.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Wrong. WMF T&S would make no comment. If you think otherwise, you misunderstand their scope and legal responsibilities. Feel free to email them.

Your actions in this case fail to meet the requirements of COM:FR. Please consider reverting your changes and removing your unnecessary and controversial "warning" to the uploader. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

No. I am also not sure why do you call my warning "controversial" if you can not see the content which I revision-deleted.--Ymblanter (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

At least I can see that content was removed (but not revdeleted) by user:Animalparty from one of the files and that this removed content was the exact description of the file at vimeo, from where it was imported. With the rename and the removed content, it is no longer possible to see what the file is about and it looks like some unremarkable comic video, while in fact it is a document with a meaning no longer identifiable at commons. Should it be also changed or deleted at vimeo, no one can still know what it is about. --C.Suthorn (talk) 13:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As the blanking of information given by the original artists at the source, appears to contravene the intention of COM:Not censored, I have added it to the description diff.

If anyone wants to argue the case that the description text must be censored, I suggest creating a thread specifically for that, or maybe having an RFC to establish this file as a case to amend COM:Scope for files that appear to criticize or parody Donald Trump. --Fæ (talk) 17:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm, as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:04, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

File renames do not require sysop rights.

Opinions in this discussion (this is not a vote) relating to censorship of filenames do not carry more weight from those with sysop rights.

If you disagree, a link to the relevant policy would be helpful. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I did not vote. I did exactly my administrator's job namely as an administrator, I fully endorse the strict application of our policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view concerning the change name that have been done in File:Carnival Trump burning.webm. And yes, you're right this is not a vote, neither a democraty, try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

And yes again, that is fully my (our) administrator's job, to apply and enforce our policies, included the one about "Neutral point of view" Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 20:34, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a discussion.

Nobody asked you to do anything here in an administrator capacity.

You are making clear threats ("try to rename it with a similar name than it was, and you will see what I mean") where none is necessary or helpful, and appear to be imposing your will on everyone else using your sysop rights to do so. Many would call this bullying in order to by-pass civil discussion. Nobody has more weight in discussion because of the groups they are a member of.

Behave yourself. --Fæ (talk) 21:21, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't remember that I have to wait after you ask me something. You can discuss what you want, and in my first comment I just intended to discuss and to support the action of my colleague against your objection, that's all. But apparently that was not sufficient for you. Yes again, as user and as administrator I can say if I endorse an action (administrative or not) and yes I can say if I think that an action is in line or not within our policies, that is fully my right and my duty if I wish it. And yes it appears that this action is fully in line with our policy IMO. And, yes again, that is/will be my duty as administrator to enforce or to help to enforce this policy if I judge it necessary. I see not a single begining of abuse of administrative power or of threat in my attempt of discussion, while your answer had a tone much more questionable, because it does not go at all in the direction of an open discussion. Behave yourself you too. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 21:54, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

"Enforce", "I judge it", "my duty as administrator"

This is not a discussion, with these words you saying you are the law. Reading the discussion before your interventions, nobody has dared to suggest that they would do anything against policy, there is nothing to "enforce" here, and nowhere has there been any request for an administrator to take any action. To be a sysop is to offer to help with a mop, not a gun.

No doubt these powerful words of strength makes you feel good, so it's great for you to get all this out of your system.

If you have anything positive or constructive to add to the discussion, any helpful suggestions, maybe you could focus on that rather than tangential ideas about "duty" or laying down "judgements" that will just close down discussion unnecessarily? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 01:31, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I return to you the compliment "If you have" nothing "positive or constructive to add. (...) maybe you could focus on" other things. My point of view, my judgment about that topic if you prefer, were and stay the same: "As an administrator I fully support the change name that have been done File:Carnival Trump burning.webm, as it fit perfectly within our local policy Commons:Project scope/Neutral point of view.", this comment is not at all unconstructive. You are more interested by controversy than about the destiny and name of this file, that is a fact. Luckilly we took care of this file and now that I placed it in my watchlist I will manage to do my duty, I mean to verify that nobody move it to a controversial name, and if necessary (I hope no of course) I will use of my administrator tool's (my duty gain!) to enforce our policy regarding this file. Thanks you for helping me to clarify the things. I look forward to your response, if either ther is one. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 16:28, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Fæ: You're saying that the rename to File:Donald Trump Drinks Disinfectant.webm doesn't meet FR criterion 5, which explicitly includes gratuitous vulgarity? panda kekok 9 15:09, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Replying to ping, but my opinion has been expressed clearly enough already TBH; this would be the wrong reasoning. Trump is explicitly notable for "pussy", "shithole countries" and calling Mexican immigrants "rapists". Defending his most venerable reputation by avoiding these vulgar words is not the intent of FR5.

Reasoning that could and should be used to rename is that it matches the source title. Why folks seem to want to avoid that extremely obvious rationale and instead go on this crazy jag to foment an uprising, and in the process throw around threats of blocks, is beyond me. Keep it simple. --Fæ (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure why his usage of those vulgar words is a reason why the file shouldn't be renamed, but ok. The vulgar words on the filename is obviously directed towards Trump, not about his usage of those words. It seems nobody can change your mind here, so I'm not going to insist from now on. But I'm still of the opinion that the rename by ~~4nn1l2~~ Animalparty is perfectly within FR5, which includes gratuitous vulgarity, with "gratuitous" in this case meaning unnecessary. panda kekok 9 02:02, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

While none of the renames were done by me, I think both of them were in line with COM:FR#FR5. 4nn1l2 (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Ah, I thought you were the one who renamed that. Corrected it now. :) panda kekok 9 05:27, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

While I will not comment on the points if a renaming was needed or allowed, I think that the chosen names are not ok. These are not vids of Donald Trump drinking deinfectant or Trump burning, these are Videos of ridiculing Donald Trump for proposing to drink desinfectant. The new names are missleading and therefore wrong. A missleading name choosen by the author is acceptable, but changing a name given by the author to a missleading name is not. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose File:Racist Donald J Trump Burned - Donald Trump the liar lost 2020 US election.webm on Template:Motd/2021-01-20 (en). This is politicizing Commons. 4nn1l2 (talk) 03:56, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I strongly oppose User:Jarekt's proposal to deliberatly choose Videos that celebrate ("run positive US politics related videos") the US at the time of the inauguration of a new US president. Wikipedia and Commons was not made as an advert for a better world, but to showcase the World as it is. The anti-trump videos are about things that happened (albeit in a insulting way), but they are only a comment on the past. Painting Biden as a hero (comparing him with Kennedy or Obama) is actively taking sides. Wikipedia is for the whole world, it is for Chinese people (if the get the chance to take a view on wikipedia), it is for Russians and turkish or kurdish people. It is for people from islamic Sudan and christian South-Sudan. It is highly inadequate to showcase the US (that broke a number of treaties that are also of high significance to Wikipedia, open access, open software, human rights, ..) as a light tower of freedom on a day, that might turn out as a day of attempted coups by Trump supporters. (PS: the inaugurations of Kennedy and Obama are also an insult to Trump supporters, especially on a day four years after Trump was inaugureted, the president, who made America Great Again, who undid the things Obama and Kennedy did and who hosted the best inauguration ever) --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:57, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- When people's have strong opinions, especially on live events, Jarekt's proposal, as you name it, makes sense as it is a good thing if we try not to put fire in a way or in the opposite ways. Without censorship, of course, our "Media (or Pictures) of the day"s must not become a platform for activists whatever their bias. Christian Ferrer ^(talk) 18:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
I oppose unilaterally choosing controversial media as Media of the Day. If you think some controversial files should be featured, you should nominate them much before the day they are due, to give time for discussion, and explain why you think they are appropriate and good. I think also "positive" media are controversial, especially if they are chosen for that reason, and should likewise be discussed. It is too late to nominate controversial media for the 20th, but I really think Commons:Media of the day should explain the role of the feature, the expectations on it, and the procedure for nominating and choosing the files. –LPfi (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
- Videos nominated month of even a year before they should been featured have not been discussed (probably because of the very small number of people who look after MOTD), videos who have been nominated a month before the date have been removed after they appeared on the main page. While it would be a good thing to actually discuss the videos, there are simply no users who actually do. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Look at all the rancor these proposed videos have incurred here, among a small group of geeks with the shared interest of curating educational content. Now imagine when the Daily Mail or The Daily Caller sees the videos and magnifies outrage to their audience. The wisest choice is to just show an innocuous video of rice being harvested, or how planets rotate, or a skateboarding monkey. While MOTD says nothing about quality or educational utility, I think it should emulate Commons:Picture of the day in presenting high quality, high value media likely to inform, inspire, and be reused, not crude (and not very funny) animation from essentially unknown cartoonists (COM:PARTYPICS?), or politically charged burnings in effigy. If choice A invites the potential for needlessly pissing off millions, and choice B does not, go with choice B. Save political videos for occasions where they can do more good than harm, like documenting government abuses of power, or teaching lessons more valuable than "here are some people who hate Trump". --Animalparty (talk) 19:08, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Doing… I replaced video for Template:Motd/2021-01-19 with File:SanSebastian.Flag of La Concha, 2012.webm which was one of the winners of the April 2018 Photo challenge, and unless there are better suggestions will replace this evening (in 6 hours) Template:Motd/2021-01-20 video with File:Nagaoka Festival Fireworks 2017 Phoenix 20170803 (No audio version).webm. --Jarekt (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Done both files replaced with neutral non-political non-US videos. @Richard thank you for alerting us about this issue. --Jarekt (talk) 02:16, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. Thanks for replacing the videos. Richard 14:59, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Is there a way to search within a "collection" or category?

Boston Public Library recently announced they were uploading 11,000+ images to Wikimedia commons. This is great! The collection is here. Is there a way I can search within this collection for specific items? I'm thinking of looking for words like "portrait," or other keyowrds. Things I tried....

using Google to search WC with the phrase "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" and the individual word "portrait"
same thing with the WC site search
using the advanced search to search for "portrait" within the category "Media contributed by Boston Public Library" (example. this WILL work if I re-set the "Search in:" parameter to ALL but will not work if that setting is set to "default" and I am not sure why.)

So, I've found a hacky way to do this but I am wondering... is there an easier way? Thanks for any help or advice. Jessamyn (talk) 23:07, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jessamyn: Your last example seems like the way to do it, to me. The only reason it doesn't get any results as-is is because the File namespace is not included, and that's the one all the files are in. Corrected query: [16]. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:11, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, this will be helpful. Jessamyn (talk) 17:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

When was this painting done by Rudolf Alfred Höger?

This file btw. If there any other places to ask, let me know! Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 18:44, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

According to this was August 1916. Wouter (talk) 20:51, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Wouterhagens can I add a reference to the file like I did? Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:03, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

That link may change within a year. Why not the articles in Wikipedia (see the long list at the bottom of the page of the image) such as the English WP. Wouter (talk) 21:20, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

On the page of the image is also the date given with a link to "7/8 The Long Shadow: The Legacies of the Great War in the Twentieth Century, by David Reynolds". Wouter (talk) 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion Wouterhagens, I added the reference to wiki-en instead of the Commons page. Cheers Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I also added it to Close combat on the Doberdo (Q104878729) --Jarekt (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Can I add the property "country of origin" in Structured commons data on files?

Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 20:37, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that you could get a more likely answer from more specific talk pages Commons_talk:Structured_data or Commons:Structured_data/Modeling/Location. In any case i would say that if you ask and then nobody answers then likely answer is yes, you can try it out as there is no correct answer for the question. --Zache (talk) 10:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can someone fix this odd upload error?

Only the old versions of File:Savannah Portland NewYork City Blocks.svg are updated, and it's probably been long enough to not be a delay since it's failed to update for longer than it took for me to notice the good version showing up in the old versions. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 02:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: It looks good to me. Please see COM:FAQ#PURGE. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:50, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm still seeing the bad 2014 version after pressing the purge button I got from appending the URL with something. Only the thumbnails of versions from earlier tonight are good. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: I'm seeing 6 blocks of Manhattan NYC (264' center-to-center spacing in the North-South dimension, 1/20th of a mile) in all offered thumbnails on multiple browsers on multiple devices on (virtually) multiple coasts. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Which is really weird as I purged by button and now rebooted the phone and still see 3 blocks except in the previous version and the one before that. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 03:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way and Jeff G.: PURGE clears any cached data on the Commons server (typically, this is the text content of the page and not any of the images, I believe), but your web browser also has a cache of images it has downloaded that might need to be cleared if the server's image changes. You can clear that cache with a force refresh (Ctrl+F5 or Shift+F5 in most browsers). It will eventually expire on its own, but might take days or weeks depending on how things are configured. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sagittarian Milky Way: You may also have some sort of miserly system between your phone and the real Internet that has it's own cache to provide a faster user experience without downloading too much. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird, incognito mode works for me but not refreshing or pasting the URL into normal mode and then going there. But I'm now convinced that only people who've accessed this image in the last few weeks might possibly be affected. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:18, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

File not displaying correctly

Hello - I've just uploaded the file File:Thomas Phillips - Belfast (1685).png, and it doesn't seem to be displaying correctly. Zacwill (talk) 14:16, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see the image and when I try a lower resolution I get the message "Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem.". Wouter (talk) 19:23, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Zacwill: Doesn't work for me either, and even full-res looks broken. Could you try bringing your file into GIMP, Photoshop, or whatever and save and upload again? - Jmabel ! talk 20:12, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Opening it with identify gives identify: IDAT: CRC error `Thomas_Phillips_-_Belfast_(1685).png' @ error/png.c/MagickPNGErrorHandler/1715.. This means that there is corruption somewhere in the image data. If the original image opens fine on your computer, try re-uploading it. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 20:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Wouterhagens, Jmabel, and AntiCompositeNumber: I've reuploaded the image and it seems to be alright now. Thanks for your help. Zacwill (talk) 23:15, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultation has started!

Dear Commoners,

Thank you for your hard work to create the sum of all knowledge that is freely sharable to every single human being across the world. As our diverse community grows, we need a guideline that will help all of our work collectively and constructively where everyone feels safe, welcomed, and part of a team. That is why the Wikimedia movement is working on establishing a global behavior guideline called the Universal Code of Conduct, often referred to as UCoC.

After the months-long policy consultation, we have prepared a draft policy (available in many languages). We are currently in the second phase of the consultation. During this round of consultation, we want to discuss the implementation of this policy. We want to hear from the community on how this policy can be enforced on the Wikimedia Commons community and what might be needed to do so.

The discussion is taking place here: Commons:Universal Code of Conduct consultation. We encourage you to express your opinion publicly. However, if you want to share your opinion privately, you can do so by emailing me as well.

Please let us know how you feel about the current UCoC draft. Share your thoughts, ideas, and experiences that relate to UCoC, even if you are a newcomer. Tell us, what is important for you to make your stay more pleasant and safe. If you are an experienced user, let us know what needs to be improved so we can build a more friendly and cooperative space to increase editor engagement and retention of new users. Wikimedia projects are governed by all of you, regardless of where you come from, your involvement, or how new or experienced you are. So, it is you who needs to step up to ensure a safe, comfortable, and pleasant working environment.

Thank you!

Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 16:59, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Licencing of WWII images

Mainly I'm asking for Category:Organisationsbuch der NSDAP (1936).
All images in there are licenced under {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. In my opinion this is the wrong licence because who would have released it under this licence? Adolf Hitler himself? I would say {{PD-old-70}} would be better. Or is there any template I'm not aware of that fits better for this situation?
I'm not only asking for this category but also for some images I found on the web on some russian page. Old images of Vienna shortly after the Red Army has captured it. The authors are unknown and I would say they are PD-old and would use the same template. Any other ideas on that?
Ping @Wolfmann: so that he is part of this discussion.
--D-Kuru (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Confusion between 2 artists

On the Wikimedia Commons page for William Oliver Williams (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:William_Oliver_Williams) there is a miscategorised landscape painting by William Oliver (1804-1853). On the page for this painting (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:William_Oliver_(1804-53)_-_A_View_of_Remagen_-_RCIN_403657_-_Royal_Collection.jpg) the Summary gives details for William Oliver (1823-1901). I edited the Licensing section but could not edit the Summary. Could someone help to sort out the error? The source of the confusion between the 2 artists is indicated in the article William Oliver (artist) BFP1 (talk) 13:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)BFP1 (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Done @BFP1: For some artworks, the data is on Wikidata and can be accessed from the

next to the title, or the pencil icon next to the data. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:57, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks BMacZero#top|🗩] BFP1 (talk) 19:26, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

On further consideration, although the details of the landscape by William Oliver (1804-1853) are now correct, the painting should be deleted from an entry about the artist William Oliver Williams/William Oliver (1823-1901). To not to do so will perpetuate the confusion between the 2 artists BFP1 (talk) 07:08, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Dead lock

Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Nofacebook - decided 3 month ago
Commons:Deletion requests/NoFacebook templates - open

Neither has template NoFacebook been undeleted, nor has DR/nofbtemplates been decided. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Complaint about the legitimacy of some images

I want to complain about some images that I have uploaded and that have been deleted. I have not even been listened to when I stated my reasons. I still defend my position and I think that deleting them is an unfair act, but nobody listened to me and you directly deleted my work. Is this the way we work here? I know there are laws that regulate copyright, but why do they apply them only to me? For example, this image was not deleted, why? Also this one. Why so arbitrary.--El Mono Español (talk) 11:50, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't speak for every deletion or its rationale, etc. but your argument here is flawed: just because we can't practically know who the author is of a piece, it doesn't follow that the piece is in the public domain. Would you argue that since Primary Colors was anonymous that it would be okay to host this entire novel here? Of course not: someone (or some organization in the case of corporate ownership of works) still created this and if it meets a sufficient threshold of originality, then it is subject to copyright and license restrictions. In the case of File:Acid ist fertig, Tanith, Rok.jpg, this may not be sufficiently original: I could see an argument for that. If you disagree, then you would have a valid claim for a deletion discussion. In the case of File:Flyers UA.jpg, the uploader claims to have the copyright and is releasing it under a free license. Again, this is definitely a debatable position (and the work clearly has many original elements to it), so you could also start a deletion discussion for that if you believe that the uploader's claim is fraudulent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 12:15, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing campaigns in regards to runningmatees

@Prosfilaes: keeps removing Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920 from parent category Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920. He believes it does not belong in either that, nor would it belong in Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Roosevelt was James M. Cox's vice presidential runningmate in 1920. The category featuring images of this campaign would not be findable from Roosevelt's category with Prosfilaes changes being made.

I makes sense to include the category for the campaign in "Category:Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1920", as this was something Roosvelt was a part of/did in the year 1920.

It is commons convention that we include vice presidential runningmates (or sub-categories that separate media related to them to the respective year they were on the ticket) as parent categories for presidential campaigns. It makes sense as the campaigns the categories contain media of are strongly related to the individuals who were the runningmate.

However, this is a convention that Prosfilaes believes is overturned because of a village pump discussion in which two or so editors said it did not make sense to them to include "Category:James M. Cox presidential campaign, 1920" in the parent category "Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1920" (BEFORE it was mentioned to any of them that Roosevelt was the runningmate, so it is possible that they simply did not know this context when they declared it did not make sense to them). On these weak grounds of comments by users lacking the full context (as Prosfilaes had neglected to provide them with the context that Roosevelt was Cox's runningmate), Prosfilaes took the initiative of declaring themselves there was a "consensus".

This is a widespread convention impacting possibly hundreds of categories, and it should not be overturned by weak so-called "consensus" from a discussion that did not properly even mention that the dynamic of the parent cat being the runningmate on the presidential ticket actually existed.

Another example of this convention being used is that Category:Joe Biden presidential campaign, 2020 is sorted under the parent category Category:Kamala Harris in 2020, as Harris was Biden’s running mate.

This convention is pretty much universally applied to the categories for campaigns of presidential nominees.

This convention has also been used for gubernatorial campaigns in which the lieutenant governor ran as a runningmate on the same ticket. For example, Category:J.B. Pritzker gubernatorial campaign, 2018 has been included in the parent category Juliana Stratton, as Stratton was Pritzker's runningmate.

Do editors believe that it makes sense to retain or overturn the convention of sorting categories for campaigns under the category for their runningmate?

SecretName101 (talk) 21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The last comment on that section said "that requires discussing things with people here rather than ignoring everyone with a drive-by comment and revert to get your way." So instead of continuing the last discussion, SecretName101 waited a month before reverting the category again. Note also they falsely accuse me of things I never did; I did not start the last discussion, nor even joined it, merely enforced what seemed to be a fairly clear consensus.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Has anyone considered compromising on {{Seealsocat}}? - Jmabel ! talk 08:41, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I apologize if you were not the one who started that conversation. @Jmabel: had been. However, THEY knowingly left out a key dynamic of WHY the category was categorized that way. A consensus cannot be founded upon such incomplete information. And uniformed position is often the wrong position. SecretName101 (talk) 15:22, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Jmabel properly. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:27, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

The question is clear. Do we want to forbid this widespread convention, thereby making campaign categories UNFINDABLE from the categories belonging to runningmates or not? WHY we would forbid a convention that makes sense, and makes things easier to find, is beyond me. SecretName101 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: I don't think we should forbid this convention. Runningmates are important, as well as campaigns, and cats should link them. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@SecretName101: How exactly would my suggestion of using {{Seealsocat}} make runningmates unfindable? Alternatively, I'd have nothing against a subcat specifically for the vice-presidential candidacy and campaign which could be under both the person and year category and the category for the presidential campaign.
@Jeff G. and SecretName101: The problem with SecretName101's approach is that typically only a small fraction of the pictures in the presidential campaign are pictures of the runningmate, so when those are no longer directly in the category for that person and year, you end up with it becoming quite hard to find those few images when you start from that person and year. - Jmabel ! talk 03:48, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Subcats specifically for the vice-presidential candidacy usually pose a problem because there is so much overlap, since they are part of the same campaign. That's why we tend to avoid creating such categories. I've only seen it done once or twice, and it was not really ideal to do it in that manner. It added little real advantage. And I don't see how your suggestion about seealsocat is preferable to the existing convention. Why change it to something less useful just because someone appears to disagree with it? I do not think that we don't compromise just for the sake of compromising. We seek to find the best solutions. SecretName101 (talk) 05:51, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, to the argument that "few" pictures from a campaign are pictures of the runningmate, same often is the case of the presidential candidate themselves. Most images from Obama's 2008 campaign and Hillary's 2008 campaign appear to be of surrogates, supporters, and volunteers, not the presidential candidate themselves. SecretName101 (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Any problems issues with United States 2021 Capitol Storming uploads?

Is there any public conversation about problems related to uploading images from this recent event?

I am not interested in private or sensitive conversation, if any exists. I am curious if Commons identified any issues. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:43, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Can you be specific at all? The Commons category Category:2021 storming of the United States Capitol links to the category via d:Q104720996. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:53, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

User:Bluerasberry I would love to find more photographs we could upload with valid licenses, but it seems like someone already uploaded all flickr had to offer. Is this the kind of trouble you had in mind? --Jarekt (talk) 02:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Troubles that I had in mind include the following:

informal takedown requests
using the photos for harassment
police / government investigation messages
harassment of wiki editors for uploading them
conversation around photos depicting an alleged crime
discussion about violence
discussion about censorship

@Jarekt: thanks for being 100% Commons minded and assuming that I meant copyright problems or access to upload technology, this is why Commons works so well

@Ricky81682: Thanks for sharing the main Commons page. There is not much conversation there right now, but yes, Category talk:2021 storming of the United States Capitol is a place where discussion could have happened.

I think that Commons as usual is just doing media archiving, and in Commons this is an event to document as any other. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:44, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Duplicated cat subtree

We have these two:

and all their respective offspring, which seem to be a duplication. I’m happy with neither names schemes, as both include words that should be pluralized: e.g. Category:Letter AB on road signs (should be "letters"), and Category:AB (on road sign) (should be "signs"). Any ideas on how to proceeded? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:58, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I'd say redirect the least popular (or most recently created) categories to the other, also it's best to add plural names. Redirects are probably the best solution, as category names sometimes differ (think of the "of Canada" Vs. "in Canada", despite meaning completely different things). In general Wikimedia Commons under-utilises redirects as they could exactly prevent such confusion from occurring again. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:13, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

You’re 100% right about redirects, Donald Trung. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

I’ll try to revamp the whole thing making use of {{Letterson}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:17, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Missing file

Can someone shed light on what happened to File:Antigovernment protest in Slovenia (2020-06-12).jpg? I uploaded it myself (own work) and it used to be there, but then user Gpkp moved it, and now the file is no longer attached to the description page. — Yerpo ^Eh? 12:16, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks like a race condition. The script for moving files and cleaning up after moving isn't so good at handling concurrent changes. TommyG (talk) 13:00, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Eternal categorisation loop

I was about to recategorise File:Non-official language speakers density ZA.svg from Category:Unidentified maps to Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa, when I realised it was already in there. It is just a hidden category. Now the problem: removing [Category:Unidentified maps] will trigger a bot to tag it as uncategorised, because there are no non-hidden categories. If we then add the only correct but hidden category, we're back where we started. How to fix this? --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

@FogueraC: Why did you hide Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa in this edit? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:02, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

I imagine that I did it because Category:Superseded and Category:Superseded maps are also hidden. But thinking this better, I would say that files in Category:Superseded linguistic maps of South Africa are not exactly superseded, but old. They use the data from the 2001 census, instead of the 2011 census. Maybe the solution could be to change the name of the category to Category:Linguistic maps of South Africa to 2001 (like Category:Linguistic maps of Switzerland to 2011), and it should not be hidden. We could also delete Category:Superseded linguistic maps, because the unique file that would still be there is not superseded, it just has a vector version available.--FogueraC (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Eng equal for an Arabic term

I need English equal of an Arabic word for categorizing, It's Kishwaniyah or in Persian Kafshadri, an office in mosques or shrines which keeps the shoes of the pilgrims and worshippers. Like File:Samarra, first decade of Safar month, Nov 2016 06.jpg--Ruwaym (talk) 21:51, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Not unlike Category:Cloakrooms, in terms of parent categorization, I’d say- -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:03, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: I found Category:Shoe racks, Same thing. but turned to "office" in islamic shrines or big huge mosques. --Ruwaym (talk) 02:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Well spotted. It ocurred to me that places like public bowling alleys or skating rinks also have this kind of facility, and therefore should share some parent categorization. Likewise, for this new category, some parent categorization should be also shared by existing categories such as Category:Minarets. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 08:05, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

two categories about the same object (Ennedi mountains)

There is "Category:Ennedi Mountains" and "Category:Ennedi Plateau". In the end these are two names for the same mountain range in Chad. I think they should be merged. What do you think? thanks --Grullab (talk) 16:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I took a quick look at English Wikipedia and the interwiki data. It seems perfectly reasonable to move all the files to Category:Ennedi Plateau and redirect the Category:Ennedi Mountains. William Graham (talk) 17:14, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Grullab: Went ahead and did it. William Graham (talk) 00:22, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! --Grullab (talk) 00:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Can a screenshot of a tweet be in the public domain (CC0)?

See File:Tweet sobre o artigo da crise - 2020-02-21.jpg. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:14, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarwIn: , the uploader. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:15, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: é {{Textlogo}} (PD), não CC0.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 19:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry DarwIn for any trouble you might have had. I didn't want to make any fuss, just wanted to be sure. Cheers Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 19:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Assessments/doc!

File:IAN 0134 Bellin 1797 Ionian Sea.jpg

This is a featured picture on Wikimedia Commons (Featured pictures) and is considered one of the finest images. See its nomination here.

It doesn't show. --Io Herodotus (talk) 03:58, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done Special:Diff/528260356. This is because the file was renamed after promotion. {{Assessments}} derives name of the nomination page automatically from the file name so in this case it refers to a nonexistent page unless nomination page name is explicitly specified. --jdx ^Re: 05:35, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Unexpected 180 degree rotation

The photo

flips upside down when clicked on where is it used in articles w:Plane (tool) and w:Router plane. This only happens when displayed by the w:Wikipedia:Media Viewer.

Comfr (talk) 02:27, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Comfr: Please try it now, keeping in mind COM:CACHE. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 02:41, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Jeff G. now it's upside down all the time … --El Grafo (talk) 06:24, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

@Comfr: I did it again 6 minutes ago, please check. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The image has and had an exif orientation field which stated the image should be rotated 180 degrees, which MediaViewer listened to. That field should be changed to normal.--Snaevar (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks fine for me now, both in MediaViewer and elswhere, although the EXIF orientation is still set to 180°. I'll try to remove that,just out of curiosity … --El Grafo (talk) 14:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

… then it's upside down again, so I won't upload that. Problem solved, or is there any advantage in removing the EXIF rotation and afterwards actually rotating the whole thing? --El Grafo (talk) 15:04, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The image was correctly rotated at the start, so no, there is no advantage in rotating it aswell.--Snaevar (talk) 18:18, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

DEFAULTSORT| or DEFAULTSORT:

There is a bunch of files, categories and galleries with DEFAULTSORT followed by the "|". For me it seemed to be wrong because i only know the ":" variant. However, the | has an affect on the sorting. Does anyone know why? --Arnd (talk) 11:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:DEFAULTSORT.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thanks RZuo, so the template overrides the build-in function, right? --Arnd (talk) 13:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

All the template does is insert the magic word, so it shouldn't behave differently. Where are you seeing a difference? – BMacZero (🗩) 16:35, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Was just out of interest. --Arnd (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Arnd (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

How can I get info who made a Mapillary image?

I want to add https://images.mapillary.com/2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF/thumb-2048.jpg to Wikimedia Commons. I found it at https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8328936051 but sadly I am unable to figure out how to get info who made this photo (required due to its license).

It is possible, see for example https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:A2_Niedersachsen_Landesgrenze_2015.jpg

I looked at

Template:Mapillary-source
Category:Images from Mapillary
Commons:Mapillary
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=Mapillary&prefix=Commons%3AVillage+pump%2F&ns4=1&fulltext=%E2%9C%94&fulltext=Search&searchToken=az7am9j3lvxspu7i03f6bqant
I found https://mapillary-commons.toolforge.org/mapillary2commons/ but it does nothing on attempt to use it (404 error according to browser logs)

Any help would be welcomed in transferring this image to commons!

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:04, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: : The metadata can be found at http://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF, which gives the author as km2bp. You can use {{Mapillary-source|key=2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF}} to denote this in the source. Vahurzpu (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mateusz Konieczny: I uploaded File:Cmentarna, Przyborów - Mapillary (2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF).jpg for you by following these steps:

Use URL https://www.openstreetmap.org/node/8328936051
Copy the URL from the mapillary tag, https://www.mapillary.com/map/im/2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF (to be later known as "image key").
Use that URL to cobble together a "Location", in this case I guessed poorly at "Cmentarna, Przyborów". This will be the beginning of the filename and the entire initial description, so choose carefully.
Use URL https://mapillary-commons.toolforge.org/mapillary2commons/
Paste in the "image key" from above and click "Look up".
Enter the "Location" and continue.
When stuck with a "308 Permanent Redirect" at https://tools.wmflabs.org/url2commons/index.html?run=1&urls=https://d1cuyjsrcm0gby.cloudfront.net/2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF/thumb-2048.jpg%20Cmentarna,%20Przybor%C3%B3w%20-%20Mapillary%20(2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF).jpg%7C%7B%7Bsubst%3AMapillary%7Clocation%3DCmentarna%2C%20Przybor%C3%B3w%7Ckey%3D2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF%7Cdate%3D2020-12-24%2015%3A58%3A50.374Z%7Cusername%3Dkm2bp%7Clat%3D51.7985222%7Clon%3D15.7688306%7Cca%3D359%7D%7D&desc=$DESCRIPTOR$ replace "tools.wmflabs.org/url2commons" with "url2commons.toolforge.org" to form https://url2commons.toolforge.org/index.html?run=1&urls=https://d1cuyjsrcm0gby.cloudfront.net/2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF/thumb-2048.jpg%20Cmentarna,%20Przybor%C3%B3w%20-%20Mapillary%20(2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF).jpg%7C%7B%7Bsubst%3AMapillary%7Clocation%3DCmentarna%2C%20Przybor%C3%B3w%7Ckey%3D2iRIyY84OuBhCgqOhpoigF%7Cdate%3D2020-12-24%2015%3A58%3A50.374Z%7Cusername%3Dkm2bp%7Clat%3D51.7985222%7Clon%3D15.7688306%7Cca%3D359%7D%7D&desc=$DESCRIPTOR$
If necessary, authorize with OAuth and try again.

Better name requested. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 18:55, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Does anyone know the plant behind this housecat?

[17] I added my cat to Commons and want to add more metadata to the file, but I don't know the name of this plant. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 14:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I added it to Category:Unidentified pot plants for now. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Some sort of Category:Cat grass? Have you noticed your cat nibbling from it? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:59, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Impossible to tell from a picture like this (both in terms of picture quality and growth stage of the depicted plant). Looks like some sort of Poaceae (i.e. "grass"), but anything beyond that would be mere speculation. --El Grafo (talk) 11:08, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

It's probably cat grass. Thanks for all the answers here. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 11:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Agree with catgrass. I've found that Reddit is better suited to "what species is this" kinds of questions than Commons. /r/whatsthisplant, /r/animalid, /r/whatsthisbird, /r/whatsthisbug, and /r/whatisthisthing. — Rhododendrites ^talk | 16:23, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Images

How do I move several images (File:Havana Plan Piloto. Palacio de las palmas. Havana, Cuba. 1959.jpg, File:Havana Plan Piloto Urban layout of residential areas for the new neighborhoods of Havana, Sert Master Plan.jpg, File:Havana Plan Piloto. New road system in the metropolitan area of Havana. Havana, Cuba. publication date1959.jpg...etc. (...and several more images) to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Havana_Plan_Piloto# ? Osvaldo valdes 165443 (talk) 18:31, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Have a look at Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot and Help:Gadget-HotCat. TommyG (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Or if these are currently in one category or search result, or were recently uploaded by the same person you can use VisualFileChange to append "[[Category:Havana_Plan_Piloto]]" to each of the file descriptions. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

[reminder] Commons in read-only on Tue 26th January

The current primary database master for Commonswiki needs to be replaced. This host is old and out of warranty, so needs to be decommissioned. This maintenance operation requires a 15 minutes read-only window for Commonswiki.

As a consequence, Commons will be in read-only on Tue 26th January, starting at 07:00AM UTC. No edits or uploads will be allowed. Reads will not be impacted.

A banner will be displayed 30 minutes before this operation starts. This maintenance operation has been announced in Tech News so as in the WatchlistNotice.

Please help by sharing this information with your community!

More information: phab:T271427, phab:T271791

Best, Trizek (WMF) (talk) 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Joshua Wood / Count of Reutern hoax?

I think there may be some hoaxing going on with these subjects. Is this a real coat of arms? Its uploader "The Hon Joshua Wood", User:JinxAndTonic is blocked. Other uploads are questionable. There's also a lot of text on Category:Counts of Reutern which may be a hoax. There's a related Facebook page at https://facebook.com/countvonreutern/ which may be a hoax. There's a category Category:Josh Wood which may be full of photoshopped images, uploaded by User:Redxonard. The IMDB biography at https://www.imdb.com/name/nm3954183/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm may also be a hoax. Or is there anything real here? --ghouston (talk) 05:30, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Compare with File:Memorial to Charles Wood, 2nd Earl of Halifax in York Minster.jpg.

@Andrewrabbott: for possible comment on validity. --Fæ (talk) 14:29, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the pictures are altered. The question is whether he came to the more famous people as a fan and young TV intern aspiring to be a producer as the IMDB bio may suggest or as their colleague. Dubious claims to nobility are not uncommon on Wikimedia projects; there are modern orders ran as businesses whose members reference each other's heritage, one can buy a medal or a title from those who claim to be heirs to whichever throne etc. and use that to write an article about themselves or their peers to give it more legitimacy. Per the bio he is a great-great-great-grandson of someone notable and a great-great-great nephew of someone else, I am not sure how special that is, anyone can probably find some nobility if they go far and wide enough. It shouldn't be difficult to gauge those claims for someone who knows more about genealogy.--TFerenczy (talk) 17:48, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

I initially believed it was just another semi-obscure film producer, and your explanation for the photos may be right, in the absence of any "original" versions that would show they were altered. But I started to wonder, when I found the "Count of Reutern" stuff. I can't find anything about that title except on user-generated sites. We also have a coat arms for that one at File:Counts of Reutern COA.png, which User:Solvik~svwiki nominated for deletion, unsuccessfully. This user also made a large edit to Category:Reutern family, which was reverted by User:JinxAndTonic. --ghouston (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

One of his production credits on IMDB is "Wife of the General" (2011), apparently a Russian miniseries. Maybe a strange thing for a supposedly British producer to be working on, but let's not forget the British/German/Russian noble connections. At [18] Josh Wood is the 3rd listed producer. But when we look at the "official Facebook [Russia]" page, at [19], most of the posts after 2011 are about Josh Wood. --ghouston (talk) 21:43, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

IMDB fails RS. Also "producers" aren't notable, especially not on IMDB. Of course, some producers are highly notable - but it's also a title where minor productions tend to accumulate some trivially unimportant friends, flatmates and kickstarter sponsors. To be notable as a producer, we have to have some robust indication that their role was significant. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Burn the lot and maybe SALT anything related to this "Josh Wood". It's persistent self-promotion and fakery, and doesn't belong here. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the photos, if they are genuine, is that they have notable people in them and are presumably in scope. The best way to "salt" it may be to keep the Josh Wood category, but give it a description explaining the situation, and perhaps a link to this discussion. Hopefully the Wikidata item can be deleted. --ghouston (talk) 22:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

File:COA Counts of Reutern-Barons of Nolcken.jpg seems to be genuine, at least. --ghouston (talk) 06:47, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Images containing wrong category

The following images have wrong category (SVG Localized Wikipedia globe logos, v2), since the images are png and not svg. Is there someone that could gently remove the wrong category? Thanks in advance!!!

The images are:

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ses.png
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ti.png
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-vi.png

--2001:B07:6442:8903:501B:137F:40A4:5787 09:44, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Done by PrimeHunter - thanks to both of you! --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Collection of 2 million illustrations of plants, fungi and animals released for free download

Does Wikimedia Commons know about this? If I didn't help, I also hope I didn't get in the way. Mário NET (talk) 05:42, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this link. The article links to the Flickr page of the Biodiversity Heritage library. It is unclear whether this is the same set of files that are available at biodiversitylibrary.org. We have a page on the library at Commons:Biodiversity Heritage Library, so some Commons contributors must be aware of it. Verbcatcher (talk) 06:04, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There are 304,068 items in Category:Files from the Biodiversity Heritage Library, so someone has been busy! Verbcatcher (talk) 06:08, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

It is a precious indication, I could not say if it is useful because I would have to follow what other people do here. I am usually busy with articles in my native language. Mário NET (talk) 06:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Effectively these are now a subset of COM:IA books. There has been a harmonization process for past Flickr uploads, see the project page.

For those unaware, all of the PD BHL book scans should be on the Internet Archive. --Fæ (talk) 22:30, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Images containing wrong category

The following images have wrong category (SVG Localized Wikipedia globe logos, v2), since the images are png and not svg. Is there someone that could gently remove the wrong category? Thanks in advance!!!

The images are:

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ses.png
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-ti.png
File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-vi.png

--2001:B07:6442:8903:7DA4:E940:35D8:1126 08:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Done by PrimeHunter - thanks to both of you! --El Grafo (talk) 10:06, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

WMF bylaws amendments and upcoming call for feedback

The Board has discussed and approved some governance improvements in two recent meetings, on December 9 and January 8. As the governing body for the Wikimedia Foundation, we want to improve our capacity, performance, and representation of the movement’s diversity. We have amended the Bylaws in support of that goal.

Please check the details in the announcement published on Meta-Wiki. If you have any questions relating this, please feel free to ask, I'll be here to answer. Thank you very much and all the best, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 09:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi again!

As reported before, the WMF starts a Call for Feedback about community-and-affiliated seat selection processes, resulting from the recent approval of bylaws amendments. This call for feedback is going to start on Monday Feb 1 and will run until March 14.

Full information will be published on Monday at this page. You can already watch the page for changes (it contains some more information already) or wait for my extensive post on Monday. If you are a user of Telegram, you can receive updates in this Telegram group or join the discussion in this Telegram group. Furthermore we are organizing an office hour three times (for different time zones) on Tuesday, Feb 2. There we will introduce the call for feedback and will be available for any questions and comments. We are welcoming the organization of conversations in any language and in any channel. If you want us to organize a conversation or a meeting for your wiki project or your affiliate, please contact us. Best regards, DBarthel (WMF) (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/08/Category:Public domain by country

This cfd concerns one of the most basic category structures. May I ask for more input from everyone so that a decision could be reached and clean-up work be started soon? Thank you!--RZuo (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

also, this needs the attention of sysops because it will involve lots of moving of cats to targets that already exist.

sysops, please help.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: when you say, "moving of cats to targets that already exist," can you please clarify with an example? - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:PD-China and Category:PD-Egypt. sorry i made a wrong assumption. so far i could only find these two.--RZuo (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Talk page riddled with some "choice words"

The user has been indefinitely blocked by Achim but what do we do with his/her talk page that is riddled with the n-word? Talking about this one. Howhontanozaz (talk) 06:41, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

en:WP:Don't feed the troll.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Record high of active accounts

Good news everyone, based on the long running user report Userlist, today's reported number of active accounts hit a record 2,020. Active is defined by the wiki database as having been active on Wikimedia Commons in the last 30 days.

This is a good uptick in contributors, which may be related to our necessary stay-at-home behaviour during the pandemic. The statistics show Januarys are the year's high point, and in comparison here are some approximate January highs: (2020, ~1800), (2019, ~1720), (2018, ~1540) --Fæ (talk) 11:44, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I suspect the January highs have to do with Public Domain Day? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 17:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Media of the Day (feature request)

The section for compressed videos from large "mb to small kb" has been removed. The icon to click on is usually located under "play media" to the right Please bring it back to enable those it has been profiting to continue enjoying the feature. Thank you and Happy New Year — Preceding unsigned comment was added by 105.112.106.193 (talk) 11:17, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Copied from "Commons:Help desk". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:46, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Moving Wikimania 2021 to a Virtual Event

Hello. Apologies if you are not reading this message in your native language. Please help translate to your language. Thank you!

Wikimania will be a virtual event this year, and hosted by a wide group of community members. Whenever the next in-person large gathering is possible again, the ESEAP Core Organizing Team will be in charge of it. Stay tuned for more information about how you can get involved in the planning process and other aspects of the event. Please read the longer version of this announcement on wikimedia-l.

ESEAP Core Organizing Team, Wikimania Steering Committee, Wikimedia Foundation Events Team, 15:15, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual Check

Hello. I did the uploud of this and this and both images are public domain from Queensland State Archives. It's possible for someone take the notifications about manual check? Thanks. Bruno Ishiai 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishiai (talk • contribs) 19:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. TommyG (talk) 19:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct consultation: A few basic questions posted

Dear Commoners,

As you might already know that Universal Code of Conduct consultation is going on and some of you have already expressed your opinion. Thank you for that! Today, I've posted a few questions for our fellow community members to increase the engagement. These questions are very basic enforcement situations that we need to consider. Please participate and let us know your opinion. Thanks! Wikitanvir (WMF) (talk) 22:34, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

New category tree "Newspaper clippings by newspaper"

i plan to create a new tree so that i could put clippings from the same paper into a single cat.

Category:Newspaper clippings

Newspaper clippings by newspaper

Newspaper clippings by newspaper by country

Newspaper clippings from Japan by newspaper

Newspaper clippings from the United Kingdom by newspaper

Newspaper clippings of Daily Mail

Newspaper clippings of The Times

...

Newspaper clippings by newspaper (flatlist)

Newspaper clippings of Daily Mail

Newspaper clippings of The Times

...

what do you think?--RZuo (talk) 00:23, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@RZuo: I say — go ahead! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Why? When we have access to several newspaper archives on the net?

Newspaper archive databases are specifically designed to make their content searchable and provide proper curation of clippings. Our software doesn't do that, or even get close. The text is mot searchable on commons. We have no OCR capability or means to follow through on an enormous task like this. It will be bypassed by anyone that wishes to use it for research.

Take a look at File:Illustrated London News - page 4 - first edition.jpg, how would you go about properly cataloging that file?

We already file these images by newspaper by year.

Note: Most of this paper is available to us at here, though not this particular volume. Broichmore (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

sorry i dont know what you mean. i just find it untidy when for example Category:Newspaper clippings from the United Kingdom is filled with clippings from all newspapers. i think it's reasonable to separate them into each individual paper.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I am pretty sure we already have a structure. See Category:The New York Times, 1906. When we do not have enough to be broken into years, or editors like me are just too lazy to do the work, we just have: Category:Jersey Journal articles. Other big papers already follow this by-year structure as does Wikisource. Here is an example of a Wikidata entry for a "clipped" article and how it integrates with Commons and Wikisource Wounded Second Time --RAN (talk) 00:16, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

clippings need not be articles but could be posters, cartoons, etc.--RZuo (talk) 13:19, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes true. Like I said: We already file these images by newspaper by year. As in my example Category:The Illustrated London News 1842. Broichmore (talk) 13:15, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Position of the license

I have just been criticized for creating and moving a licence from the permission section to an int:license-header section. On the basis that moving a licence to the permission section helps to prevent categorisers from accidentally deleting the licence. Is this good practise? Broichmore (talk) 21:57, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I neuer heard this, but I must admit that I sometimes happen to delete a license by accident, so it is a strong argument--Oursana (talk) 22:39, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I don't have a citation for this, but my recollection is that the position of the license was a contentious topic that doesn't have consensus one way or the other, and standard practice is to leave it like you find it. – BMacZero (🗩) 00:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

There is no consensus to have any standard sub-sections on image pages. There's not even a consensus to use standard license templates, despite there being a bot that automatically schedules those without such templates getting speedy deleted. Odd isn't it? --Fæ (talk) 11:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, exactly so. In the absence of such a lack of guidance, I follow the way the Upload Wizard does it Despite it not entertaining the artwork template (I don't understand why not?).

In this particular case the uploader reverted my edit back to the permission section, I'll allow him that, this time.

However the advice he gave is spurious, I have never experienced accidental deletion of a license by the int:license-header section, far from it.

In this particular case he uploaded the artwork in question just over a year ago , without using the Artwork template, giving no credit to artist, author, not catting it to the newspaper it appeared in, and then capped it of with an insufficient licence. In other words uploading with less than the bare minimum of what was ideally required, then pontificating to me his reversion is a tidy up!!

When such major work is required by way of a fix, I'll put the license where I want to. Broichmore (talk) 17:20, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Content origin stats

Does anyone have current stats on what proportion of Commons content is user-generated (by Wikipedians and Commoners) and what has come from external sites or organisations. Are there any breakdowns by licence/PD? -- Colin (talk) 15:48, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Colin: I don't have any firm statistics, but there are about 30 million transclusions of {{Own}} across 68 million files, so that suggests that 45% (very approximately) of our content is own-work of various sorts. Individual license pages have details on them -- for instance, Category:CC-BY-SA-4.0 notes that about 1/4 of files on Commons use it. Vahurzpu (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Vahurzpu, thanks for that. Files people transfer from their own Flickr accounts may not be tagged with that template, and some people may choose not to use it, but that provides a decent ballpark figure. Perhaps around half our content is user-generated. -- Colin (talk) 10:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Project Grant Open Call

This is the announcement for the Project Grants program open call that started on January 11, with the submission deadline of February 10, 2021.
This first open call will be focussed on Community Organizing proposals. A second open call focused on research and software proposals is scheduled from February 15 with a submission deadline of March 16, 2021.

For the Round 1 open call, we invite you to propose grant applications that fall under community development and organizing (offline and online) categories. Project Grant funds are available to support individuals, groups, and organizations to implement new experiments and proven ideas, from organizing a better process on your wiki, coordinating a campaign or editathon series to providing other support for community building. We offer the following resources to help you plan your project and complete a grant proposal:

Weekly proposals clinics via Zoom during the Open Call. Join us for #Upcoming_Proposal_Clinics|real-time discussions with Program Officers and select thematic experts and get live feedback about your Project Grants proposal. We’ll answer questions and help you make your proposal better. We also offer these support pages to help you build your proposal:
Video tutorials for writing a strong application
General planning page for Project Grants
Program guidelines and criteria

Program officers are also available to offer individualized proposal support upon request. Contact us if you would like feedback or more information.

We are excited to see your grant ideas that will support our community and make an impact on the future of Wikimedia projects. Put your idea into motion, and submit your proposal by February 10, 2021!

Please feel free to get in touch with questions about getting started with your grant application, or about serving on the Project Grants Committee. Contact us at projectgrantswikimedia.org. Please help us translate this message to your local language. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

PSA: This mass delivered message was delivered and then removed from the german language COM:Forum for wrong language. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiMiniAtlas is back

Hey everyone. After a prolonged absence I've returned to work on the interactive map gadget WikiMiniAtlas. The map labels and thumbnails were gone due to a massive database change on WMF cloud. I've rewritten the coordinate extraction code completely and now labels with Wikipedia articles from over 80 language Wikipedias and thumbnails from Commons are back. I'll still have to figure out how to deal with the rate limiting from the thumbnail servers appropriately, so if you browse the map a lot thumbnails may stop loading. Cheers. --Dschwen (talk) 15:41, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Changed it so that a common thumbnail size (120, 150, 180, 200, 220, 250, 300, 400) is used instead. Those are more likely to be pregenerated, will load faster, and won't spam the thumbnail cache with sizes that are likely not to get used anywhere else. --Dschwen (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Dschwen, Glad to hear from you again. A lot has changed in last few years. It is possible that coordinate extraction can be more easily done with SPARQL queries now, as the data is stored in database-like structured data. Could you remind us how to run WikiMiniAtlas? If others think it is a good idea we could also add links to it to {{Location}} template ( maintained by me and used mostly in file namespace) and to {{Wikidata Infobox}} (maintained by User:Mike Peel and used mostly in category namespace). --Jarekt (talk) 20:05, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

If you want a link adding to the infobox, please ask for it with an example category/link at Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:09, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

WMA is a gadget that adds a blue globe button to every coordinate to pop up the map on the page. I'm already working on switching over to structured data for commons. I'm not sure SPARQL will cut it, as I have to extract ~16 million coordinates on commons. With SQL this takes about 5h. --Dschwen (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Personality Rights Question

Hi, and a Good New Year to everyone.

I have a question about this Commons photo I just came across. To the best of my knowledge, the Amish will tolerate but do not exactly love having their pictures taken. So, while I do not question the copyright status of this file (the photographer seems to be identical with the original uploader), I do feel uncomfortable about the personality rights of the people in the picture. Would they have agreed to having their picture uploaded here and having it published in a world wide medium? Or are we doing this only because we can feel safe that they don't use this medium and will never find out? --91.34.47.16 13:38, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:Photographs of identifiable people. O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:05, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

I think as the user has 60k edits on enwiki, we could trust that it was okay to take the photo. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what the identity of the user or the number of their edits has to do with it. Anyone can make mistakes, and a seasoned user with thousands of edits is not immune.

Commons:Photographs of identifiable people seems to be the relevant site for this question, though it is, as far as I can tell, by no means clear on this. In the U.S., it seems to be o.k. to take and publish pictures of identifiable people in public places -- unless there are reasons like defamation or moral concerns etc. to prevent it. This may, strictly speaking, not be the case here, and legally the picture is probably not a problem.

I personally would prefer to err on the side of respect for the personality rights and the moral values of the people in the picture. But I guess there can be different opinions on this. --91.34.38.171 10:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

P.S. As to the possibility of a seasoned user making mistakes: The most recent upload by this very user was this one which they uploaded as "own work". Seriously? To my eye at least this looks very much like a page scan from a book. --91.34.38.171 10:38, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Since the photographer likely did not speak to the people before the photo was taken without their permission, I'd like to know how the photographer confirmed that the people pictured are Amish and not Old Older Mennonites. - Themightyquill (talk) 09:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't know why you think the photographer "likely" did not ask beforehand, and why it seems not to cross your mind that they could have asked afterwards instead. To me it seems the family is undisturbed by the camera; perhaps the photographer is a friend. –LPfi (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

That's why smart people invented such a thing as a model release. Without some sort of written consent, all speculation about them having been asked beforehand or afterwards or not at all is mere guesswork and totally useless. A CC license will enable almost any kind of use, to the best of my knowledge, even commercial. I do see personality rights infringed here if they didn't give their consent.

And yes, of course the family looks "undisturbed by the camera". They probably weren't even aware of the fact that they were being photographed. The picture was taken at Niagara Falls, probably among crowds of people who were all taking pictures. How are you supposed to notice if someone in the crowd is taking a picture of you instead of the falls?

Why don't we ask the uploader themselves? @Gilabrand, could you enlighten us as to the circumstances this picture was taken in, and if you have some sort of consent for publication, written or at least oral, from the people in the picture? --217.239.10.219 14:44, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

This deserves a personality rights tag to remind people that you can't, for example, use this in an advertisement, but (IANAL!) assuming it was on the U.S. side of the border, general publication of a photo like this should present no problems in terms of privacy law. In the U.S., there is no assumption of privacy in a public space. (I'm not sure about Canada.) Obviously, on just an ethical basis we should try to be reasonably respectful. I don't see any reason it is legally different from File:Bride & groom - West Queen Anne Walls - Seattle 02A.jpg, which I took. - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

The act of being in public puts anyone at risk of being photographed or catching a virus. If you don't want one, take precautions. However when it comes to being posted for the world to see, I believe that explicit permission should be given. - OneTruePathfinder

@OneTruePathfinder: When you say "I believe that explicit permission should be given," do you mean you believe this to be Commons policy? If so, I'd appreciate being directed to that, as it would imply the need to delete about 10,000 photos I have uploaded here. If you are simply saying you would like to see Commons policy changed to that, feel free to bring it to an RFC, but do recognize that (for example) you are suggesting that we should delete virtually all images of parades, sports matches, political demonstrations, caucus gatherings, performers onstage, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I should have been more specific adding the condition if the photographer has any question in his mind. I also did not state that my opinion was limited to this case of the Amish/Menanites vs WikiPhotographer. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. The moral question should always lie with the photographer. After all, if there is a lawsuit brought on my any unhappy subjects of photography, wouldn't the photographer/poster be liable? I'm also assuming that Wikipedia has a disclaimer in place to address this very issue. - OneTruePathfinder

While on this topic. What about this image File:Chevrolet Damas Deluxe in Bukhara, front right.jpg from Mr.choppers. Should the drivers face have been smudged out? Should the license plate be smudged too? I don't think I would have done either. Number plate design does have value, the smudging of the drivers face is a distraction.

Should this photo have been uploaded without smudging, and then overlayed with the edited copy? Broichmore (talk) 13:02, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

It's already extracted from another file, so the driver's face is available there. I consider it common courtesy to smudge faces when they are not the subject of the photo, whether it is legal or not. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 18:39, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Superhigh resolution scans of PD artwork

A digitally composed 93,205 x 108,565 pixel image of File:Meisje met de parel.jpg (Girl with a Pearl Earring) is now available. The question though that as this was done in Europe is this a freely available image, given that there is clearly more work than a simple mechanic scan of the 2D artwork involved. --Masem (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

No matter the amount of work that went into the scanning, as the goal was to faithfully reproduce the original, the work does not generate new copyright. It is the Wikimedia Foundation's official position that "faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are public domain". --Wcam (talk) 18:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

If there are any doubts, then it would be better for someone outside of the EU to upload it. When the photograph is carefully taking extreme high resolution, and carefully lit, images of deep cracks in the paintwork, and those cracks are the focus of the individual shot not the "painting", this can be argued to no longer be a faithful 2D representation but a 3D representation of the object. It is the uploading person that is at legal risk, not the WMF. --Fæ (talk) 18:54, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I think there is a technical issue. I do not think it is possible to get these image below 4GiB without strong lossy compression or downscaling. --GPSLeo (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

We could upload the various full-size portions of the image piece-by-piece as well as a combined, smaller image. The parts with cracks shouldn't affect anything - they're going to be there regardless of what you do. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:08, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

While I'm not planning to upload this, what I'm reading is that a closeup section (not one of the ones with 3D added to it) should qualify as PD still, which could be useful as illustrating Vermeer's style, for example. --Masem (talk) 21:22, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm willing to upload the left and the right eye but Dezoomify doesn't work. Hanooz 19:56, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Images of plants looking for categorization

Hi, Category:Media needing categories as of 21 October 2018 contains several hundreds images of plants with botanical names. Your help is welcome. GeorgHH • talk 10:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on it for a while. It is mainly the approximately 159,000 images of Hawaii plants, taken by Kim and Forrest Starr. A big problem is that loading all thumbnails of a category with many items, especially Starr's, sometimes requires more than 10 (very time consuming) reloads before all thumbnails are visible. That problem has been discussed in the Village pump, but cannot be solved. But every categorized image is one that can be easily found. Wouter (talk) 11:58, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

A lot of these are duplicates. There have been multiple bulk uploads of the Starr files. This uncategorized file from 2018 is a duplicate of the one uploaded in 2009. Deleting duplicates will make it easier to get this huge pile categorized. Ruff tuff cream puff (talk) 05:15, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Multiple rename request

Hi! I would like to request multiple renames per aim #4 of COM:FNC, to harmonize the names of a set of images, namely User:Alexcocopro uploads. Most of the uploads include "por el Fotógrafo Venezolano AlexCocoPro Alex Cabello Leiva" as part of the title, which appears to be the name of the user, while being long and unnecessary, and as such should be removed. The user has been globally blocked, and along with the deletion nominations in his talk page it appears to show that it was a self-promotion attempt. --NoonIcarus (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Oppose, yes, it's a self promotion attempt, in fact the metadata of "File:Panteón Nacional de Caracas por el Fotógrafo Venezolano AlexCocoPro Alex Cabello Leiva.jpg" shows a text that is:

"Copyright holder - @alexcocopro (twitter and instagram) alexcocopro@gmail.com Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/alexcocopro/ LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/alexcocopro/ Youtube: http://www.youtube.com/c/alexcocoprochannel Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/alexcocopro Twitter: https://twitter.com/alexcocopro Tumblr: https://alexcocopro.tumblr.com/ Behance.net: https://www.behance.net/alexcocopro Uriji: https://www.urijijami.com/users/5b2a8e02eec92a57d3466d4f Pinterest: https://www.pinterest.es/alexcocopro/ Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/alexcocopro - Author - Alex Coco Pro (Alex Cabello Leiva) @alexcocopro." (THIS IS ALL IN THE METADATA)

which is somewhat ridiculous and also blatant self-promotion, but Creative Commons licensing does allow for people to want to be attributed in such a manner and the images tend to be high quality photographs. Furthermore, the name of the uploader in the title shouldn't be an issue, while I think that it's quite vain, users shouldn't be disallowed to use their names in titles as they are the authors and we wouldn't do the same with saying that any painting by Vermeer needs to have "Vermeer" removed from the title, as the author is relevant to the work. Yes, this user is a spammer, but this specific type of self-promotion shouldn't necessarily be discouraged as it's not harmful and the author is relevant to the file itself. Regarding the metadata I wouldn't even be against it, per se, as I've seen it on several Flickr files before... Though not this egregious. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:44, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Crops

Does anyone know how to tell whether a crop is slight enough not to necessitate uploading a new file? It seems pointless to me to have two versions of the same image when all that was cropped was some minor background portion. Here is a prime example, SenatorA1CD1978290505(4wik).JPG has been reversed and re-reversed I don't know how many times. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 04:18, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

One might argue that in the given example, it should be fine to overwrite the existing file since it's mostly just removing irrelevant extraneous information, but when another editor obviously feels strongly about the issue and has even created a separate version of the image, it seems rather obnoxious to keep pressing it. TommyG (talk) 07:00, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: Simply put the image has been aggressively cropped, beyond the meaning of marginal. As your aware the background to a subject can have aesthetic and or historical value, and my subjective opinion is, that this image does. The background by accident or design is compatible with the era of the car.

If this were an art or historical piece, then it wouldn't even be a subject for debate, and I have to say that, any photograph, over time will become historical. The bottom line is the picture we retain is the image as meant to be seen by the author, and any alteration to that is a version, and a separate file.

Any file cropped from an original should have (cropped) as a suffix in its title name, as does the crop tool for a reason, and I make a habit of that even if I use Gimp, and in that case I also put in an extraction statement in the other versions box. Broichmore (talk) 13:07, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@TommyG: @Broichmore: I hadn't realized that a version had already been uploaded, that makes a difference. I guess the point of Commons is to provide useful pictures, removing uninformative and uninteresting background makes for a better illustration for an article. This picture was used on ten projects or so, so to me the benefit of just uploading a new version is that it allows all projects using an image to benefit from improvements.

Is there a gimp tool that speeds up uploading derivatives? As it stands, it is very easy to overwrite an image, but uploading an extracted/cropped variant takes me forever. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: dFX can help with that, but is out of date. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mr.choppers: The alternative version is supposed to have a shortcut on the image page as said earlier.,

Your right what you say, is the purpose of commons, but aside from alternatives, it also holds the original as well as high quality reference copies (tif and png for example) of the same file.

Bear in mind that if someone wrote an article in Wikipedia about an office block in the 60s and illustrated the article by linking it to this image, then after you cropped it, their story would link to the new picture with no office to be seen.

Not sure what you mean exactly. This particular image was cropped using the standard commons "crop tool". Which you need to activate to use, then it's an ever present option on the page. Dead easy.

If you want to use GIMP for some reason (on an existing file) then I would use the old style commons uploader taking (using) the text from the existing image file and modifying it to suit. Its optional to use a different file name, but you should still suffix the name with (cropped) and note it by linking it within the original file, and vice versa.

If it's just a straight forward crop, always use the crop tool as it's probably as good or better than GIMP at the job. Broichmore (talk) 18:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I just use photo editing software as there is almost always something else that could use some attention. I am simply looking for a fast way to upload a new version. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

I would have reverted it to the original file too, since someone e. g. could do a different crop with it (horizontally even almost 3:4 instead of the "natural" landscape crop). After overwriting the file this couldn't be (easily) done by other users.

If a crop takes chances away for editing a file (here cropping horizontally or presenting it with the background), it should be uploaded as a new one. --Mirer (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Nicholas Alahverdian

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

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Nicholas Alahverdian. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Are these notices investigated for legitimacy? Not trying to be a dick, but I think it is worth asking given the past discussions on two of these images. Praxidicae (talk) 19:57, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

File:Vice President Mike Pence and Nicholas Alahverdian.jpg was kept in Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vice President Mike Pence and Nicholas Alahverdian.jpg after discussions started 2020-12-18, 2019-09-10, and 2019-07-01. Sorry, {{Kept}} wasn't working here in discussion. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:43, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

As orphaned talk pages have a tendency to get deleted I copied this page (Mobile 📱) here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:30, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: , You're using mobile, aren't you? I can't see it in mobile, but it does work in "desktop" mode. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Here follows the exact syntax used on that page, with no bullets:

This project page was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2020 but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.

This project page was nominated for deletion on 10 September 2019 but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.

This project page was nominated for deletion on 1 July 2019 but was kept.
If you are thinking about re-nominating it for deletion, please read that discussion first.

Lesson for the day: don't use bullets before {{Kept}}. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rodhullandemu: Thanks for your help with troubleshooting. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 15:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

File:St. Peter und Paul Baierbrunn 1.jpg

Datenschutz bei Kircheninnenräumen: Vielen Dank für die Antwort, daß man nur Fotos von modernen Kircheninnenräumen hochladen sollte, deren Architekt schon 70 Jahre verstorben ist. Demnach hätte ich dieses Foto vom Innenraum der Kirche in Baierbrunn vielleicht nicht hochladen sollen, und die anderen Wikipedianer ihre Fotos auf Liste der Sakralbauten im Landkreis München auch nicht. Da das aber niemanden zu stören scheint, könnte ich ja weitere moderne Kircheninnenräume auf diese Liste hochladen, oder bekommt man damit dann doch mal ein Problem? Edelmauswaldgeist (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Edelmauswaldgeist: Leider, es wird ein Problem sein. Wir brauchen eine Erlaubnis, vermutlich vom Architekten und von allen Schöpfern zeitgenössischer Kunstwerke, die nicht de minimis im Bild sind. Wenn Sie mehr Details dazu benötigen, kann Ihnen wahrscheinlich jemand auf Commons:Forum besser auf Deutsch helfen. - Jmabel ! talk 13:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Movie locations and other trivia

This category of Category:Film locations in London by production is trivial, and is something that is the provenance of Wikipedia, not here. Can something be done about it? Should something be done? Broichmore (talk) 13:54, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mostly harmless? Could be improved by adding inclusion criteria, such as locations "significant" to a TV series, rather than randomly appearing.

@Judithcomm: as creator. --Fæ (talk) 15:00, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I've taken the trouble to collect these London locations. Please keep them. I can think of many other categories that seem trivial in my eyes, like Category:Fur in art by artist, but that doesn't mean I want them taken down.--Judithcomm (talk) 15:08, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

That a production was shot in a certain location is not a defining characteristic of that place, but merely trivia about it. (I recommend reading en:Wikipedia:Defining for a good explanation.) A famous location may be used in dozens or even hundreds of productions; it would be ridiculous and counterproductive to list them all, as it would inhibit use of the category system on those categories for defining characteristics. Only the few locations where substantial changes made for filming are visible (like Category:Onk Jmel) or where a defining feature of the location in the cultural consciousness is its use in certain media (like Category:Rocky Steps and Category:Exorcist steps) should be categorized under that media. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Agatha Christie's Marple is a TV series with 23 episodes: I suppose it will have a lot of filming locations. This would be better done in Wikidata, use the P915 property on items like d:Q3729261, or perhaps in Wikipedia, and unlike with categories, you can add references. --ghouston (talk) 21:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with this category, I know what it is for and why, the media that is in it, is there. I'm more confused about Category:Film locations in London which seemingly lists random locations, presumably these locations have been filmed at some time in history but then again so has much of central London Oxyman (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Film locations in London is filled with locations that have been used for at least two different productions. --Judithcomm (talk) 00:44, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

There’s nothing wrong with this kind of categorization. And obviously if this is the province of other projects, like the mentioned English Wikipedia and Wikidata, then it is also a valid subject of categorization. @Judithcomm: Thanks for creating these. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Judithcomm: @Tuvalkin: There is everything wrong with this kind of categorisation. Every street in Los Angeles and downtown San Francisco could have (will have) 100s of additional cats. The parking lot of Shepperton would have 1000s. It would make them impossible to administer.

What about Category:Tokenhouse Yard, London, has Miss Marple been featured standing front of all the buildings in all of the images in the Yard. Is the street famous and defined because of its connection with the detective. obviously not.

When is the Statue of Liberty, the Grand Canyon, the Twin Towers going to have additional catalogs of movies they have appeared in, added to them. Don't forget the Coliseum and the Parthenon.

Now Pandora's box is open, are we going to have a category of Locations that Queen Victoria has set foot?

The only place suitable for this kind of thing is Wikipedia. Which already does it occasionally, in it's articles about movies. I notice that Miss Marple is short of it. Scope for a separate article there then.

@Ghouston: Wikidata is an unsuitable place to. The Shard has 30+ Statements already. When it has 1000s no one will be able to maintain it, or want to. To add an item will involve endless scrolling through a page.

Presumably Category:Self portraits wearing fur has been created, come the revolution, in order to stigmatize people from history. Useful when we've moved on from slavers. Broichmore (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: The property that I suggested goes on the item for the film or TV series (ideally perhaps, an item for a TV episode), not the location. --ghouston (talk) 21:43, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Could these be turned into gallery pages? It would be just as useful, if not more-so, and less intrusive. - Themightyquill (talk) 13:54, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I started hunting for film locations of the Agatha Christie tv series because of the many monumental en often beautiful places that were being used. It tought me a lot about the locations themselves, about architectural styles and also about the 'magic' that is filmmaking: Miss Marple at the door of a building in a village in Buckinghamshire and entering into a hallway that turns out to be located in cental London. Some of the locations have been used for so many different productions, that I recognize them immediately. Lincoln's Inn is one example. These are not mere street corners in some large city, but beautiful national heritage monuments, that are still very much alive. And there are people out there who like to know where these places are. In normal (non-covid) times there are guided Agantha Christie tours in London and other places, like there are Inspector Morse tours in Oxfordshire. So I think these categories are not trivial at all. To answer your question, @Themightyquill: there are gallery pages for many of the Miss Marple and Poirot episodes (see Category:Agatha Christie's television series), because giving each episode a separate cat would in my opinion be too much.--Judithcomm (talk) 13:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Those look great, Judithcomm. Why not just use that gallery system for everything? You could also link to the category for the location. e.g. 4:50 from Paddington (1987 film) could include a link to Category:Interior of St Augustine's Kilburn instead of just saying "Catholic chapel".

I see that Category:Tower Bridge is included in Category:Film locations of Columbo in London and Category:Film locations of Peter Rabbit (2018) in London, but according to imbd, there are at least 251 films & series that were shot there. I would hate to see Category:Tower Bridge with an 10 or 20 (let alone 249) additional parent categories for films shot there.- Themightyquill (talk) 15:05, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The "Catholic chapel" refers to the location as it appears in the episode. The real name of the church is never used there. I use the fictional names for the locations on all my gallery pages; hence the word 'impression'. The gallery pages system is not enough to tackle all locations, though, because some episodes are mostly filmed in private places, with no free media available. That could result in galleries with as little as one image only and I'm sure there will be complaints about that too. My focus is on films and tv episodes with a high production value, not on the locations. So I'll not be the one creating loads of links to the Tower Bridge ;-) --Judithcomm (talk) 15:41, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

the problem is, cat trees are created systematically. it's impossible to deny another similarly constructed cat when one exists. when you create these cats, so can other people create cats for all the movies and tv series in the world. it's not difficult to see this will immediately lead to the overcat problem described by Themightyquill and others.

as i've advocated in Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog,

Delete the entire tree Category:Film locations by film.--RZuo (talk) 17:56, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

I don't think deleting the whole cat tree is the way to go either, what tends to happen when such top down actions are taken is that Users who are unaware of the previous action start recreating similar cats, perhaps using slightly different language. This of course ends up just duplicating work and often results in a less consistent cat structure, because at the end of the day there is some kind of demand for these to exist. I think efforts a better directed at persuading users do it in the right way, perhaps using galleries more. Oxyman (talk) 13:32, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the right way is Wikipedia. We need to recognize that there are limits to what commons is designed to do.

@Judithcomm: Clearly this is a labour of love on your part, and as such, presumably you would want to share it with a large audience. Wikipedia is much better suited to this task than commons will ever be. Wikidata has been mentioned, and would do the job elegantly, though I doubt from a User's view it would be an improvement on Google. An additional problem here, is that of references. Any entry, anywhere, has to be referenced, and for this task Wikipedia is easily the easiest to manage and commons the worst. Just creating a category is insufficient proof of a reference. There is no (auditable) visible proof even, (nearly) all pictures of actors showing location are copyright and can't be used. Then you said, because giving each episode a separate cat would in my opinion be too much, I think the opposite. When I watch a specific programme, see a place, I want to know where it is. Answer: goto Google, or Wikipedia. Broichmore (talk) 14:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Film locations by film is created in 2008. All this time users have contributed to it, so these people clearly regarded it as having value. And in 12 years time there is no sign that things have gotten 'out of hand' in any way. So lets keep it the way it is. And about references on Commons: I referenced most of the film location categories I created on their discussion pages, just because I thought it would be useful. Commons generally doesn't have references and doesn't require them either. How could it: If someone uploads a picture of a small church in Sussex, a shrine in Kathmandu, a bird in Indonesia or even the Eiffel Tower, do you really expect them to add a reference to it, proving that the image indeed represents what they say it does? I'm sure it would discourage an overwhelming majority of photographers from submitting any contributions. It would be the death of Commons --Judithcomm (talk) 14:03, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Judithcomm: I still fail to see why categories are beneficial over gallery pages, when there are clear downsides. - Themightyquill (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Judithcomm: Commons generally doesn't require references because the items are supported by the source they were taken from, or are self referencing, self evidential, or supported by other like images in the same cat (891 for the Eifel tower), co-ordinates, and similar. An incorrectly filed image stands out as a non sequitur.

I don't see that File:Place Vendôme - Panorama.jpg is a film location, it's also a place hot dogs are sold; but there's no cat for that.

Category:Escalators of Southgate tube station is in something to do with Miss Marple, but nothing supports that in these pictures.

Same for Category:Interior of the Royal Albert Hall being associated with Thirteen at dinner; which of the 80 images there has anything to do with the film?

I failed to find any references anywhere for film locations in any category discussion pages. Broichmore (talk) 16:05, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

File:1938 Packard Super Eight engine identification.jpeg

I could not get this file name accepted (or any of many variations) until I used the (use with care) manual override option. Please tell me how I may learn the reason(s) for rejection so I need not re-offend. Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 11:46, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Will I create a problem if I continue to use this format for file names? Thanks, Eddaido (talk) 21:59, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

@Eddaido: I son't see any actual problem with your file name. I don't know what kind of checks are being done by the software, but if I had to guess I'd say it probably gets upset about your file name starting with a number (maybe because that may hint at you using the default file name your camera signed to the file rather than coming up with something more decriptive?). --El Grafo (talk) 13:01, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

U.S. cars of that period were very carefully styled to show each year a difference from the previous year. So to simplify indexing starting with the model year makes sense. If doing that causes no problems further down the line I'll keep doing it. Many thanks for responding, Eddaido (talk) 20:42, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

So? The file name shouldn't matter as you can sort within the category Category:Packard Super Eight. In Category:1938 Packard automobiles the name is the reverse of usable. It is helpful to have it in the description but not necessarily the title. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

The file name start with the year is vital, what's your objection to leading off with the year of manufacture? Eddaido (talk) 23:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Starting the names of cars with the model year is standard practice and always has been. That said, I have zero clue why some software didn't like this name. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 16:10, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

IP blocked Chinese user

Not sure if I should ask it here or fill in a "Request for Rights", but "User:Baomi" is currently unable to edit Wikimedia Commons because, and I quote, "I can't open the commons site, because of the GFW" (GFW = Great Fire Wall). As I assume that "Zh.m.Wikipedia.org" is also blocked there this user is likely using a VPN and can't edit here because their IP is blocked. I am not an expert in how this works, but it is possible for them to edit here if they get IP-block exempt? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:55, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, if they get a global or a local IP block exemption (depending on the nature of the block - local or global), they will be able to edit. Ruslik (talk) 21:04, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik0: , I've checked "Commons:Requests for rights" and I don't see where I can request this for them, they also can't edit the English-language Wikipedia. Is this a Bureaucrat thing or can any admin grant them this right? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:13, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

See Commons:IP block exemption. Ruslik (talk) 12:56, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Ruslik: Would you consider "Global IP block exemptions" group membership, given that the user also can't edit most Wikipedias and all Wikisources, etc.? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:MobileDiff/529331134&type=revision Requested it. I saw the other things later, if they want to request a global one they can probably do it on the Meta-Wiki themselves or find someone on zh.m.wikipedia.org to do it for them. Hopefully they can edit Wikimedia Commons soon. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:42, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Talus (geology)

In the literature, you find two different connotations of "talus" re. geology: 1) The material forming a scree / talus slope. 2) A synonym to "scree". In my opinion, the first should be preferred so as to clarify the difference between landform and material. What is your opinion about that?Hornstrandir1 (talk) 09:24, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Is this question related to the categorization? Ruslik (talk) 12:59, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hornstrandir1: It would appear to me that the categorization already matches your expectation, with Category:Screes representing slopes and Category:Talus (geology) representing rocks (albeit not being populated). – BMacZero (🗩) 17:15, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, it is related to the categorization. I just wanted to know, if it is ok for you others to use it here as I did. Hornstrandir1 (talk) 18:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Question about when COM:OVERCAT might be justified

Hello,

There is disagreement over whether a group of images with specific SD (Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh) identifications and are in Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta should also be in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh.

Not all the categories and images in Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta have specific SD (Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh) numbers. For example Category:Brick mosque and enclosure near Nawab Shurfa Khan's tomb (supposed to be the tomb of Sayed Amir Khan) and Category:Maqam Qadar Shah have SD identifications; Category:Tomb of Isa Khan Tarkhan II does not.

Should the ones that do be placed in both categories i.e. also Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh? There is no way to tell which are Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh otherwise; this is why I think the ones that qualify should be in both, but is this COM:OVERCAT? Thank you, Krok6kola (talk) 18:57, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: Sounds to me like this problem might lead back to the fact one category is being used to contain two distinct sets of things here - officially designated heritage monuments in Sindh, and sites of general historical and culture significance in Sindh. Perhaps those two concepts should be represented by two distinct categories, for example:

Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh

Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta

Category:Designated cultural heritage sites in Sindh (or a more appropriate name for this designation, Wikipedia uses "culture heritage sites")

– BMacZero (🗩) 02:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. Here in Washington State, we have a crazy situation where the federal government, the state, each county, and most cities each maintain at least one register and some maintain several (e.g. National Register of Historic Places vs. National Landmarks), not to mention a few relating to Japanese culture that have similar status from the Japanese government. Some of these categories are supersets of others, but some merely overlap. And sometimes a district has a status like that, but may contain both contributing and non-contributing properties, plus the city and federal governments might have different boundaries for the district, and boundaries may change over time. I don't think Commons has sorted it through right yet, it's quite tricky, and it's not like we have a bunch of people to pore over each addition to the City of Bothell Register of Historic Places. - Jmabel ! talk 04:39, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@BMacZero: Well, some are in both according to List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh. They have distinct SD identifications e.g should be in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh (the category used on the Commons for officially designated heritage monuments in Sindh) and they are located in Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta.

Complicating this is Category:Tombs at Makli Hill (most of which have distinct SD identifications) and is in Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta per List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh. To me that is a questionable category as whc.unesco.org Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta describes the site as "Massed at the edge of the 6.5 km-long plateau of Makli Hill, the necropolis of Makli – which was associated with the nearby city of Thatta..." so I don't understand the intent of Category:Tombs at Makli Hill. To me, it seems only a part of the plateau of Makil Hill is the site of Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta, not the whole plateau of Makli Hill. What do you think? Krok6kola (talk) 04:36, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@BMacZero: @Jmabel: If the sites are in both but only listed under one or the other e.g. only under Category:Historical Monuments at Makli, Thatta, then there would be no way to find one on the Commons if the user/editor knew only that it had a distinct SD identification. The List of cultural heritage sites in Sindh uses a different name for the UNESCO site: Makli Necropolis. Krok6kola (talk) 05:22, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

That should be handled in a category description (and an alias for the corresponding Wikidata item), not by overcatting. An example of a category description with multiple names is Category:700 First Avenue, Seattle. These then are all searchable. - Jmabel ! talk 05:29, 30 January 2021 (UTC)
A good example of where overcatting is justified is File:Cherry St from 3rd Ave, looking west, Seattle, Washington, ca 1890 (BOYD+BRAAS 1).jpg. There are categories for several buildings that have the parent category Category:Cherry Street, Seattle, but this is so much a picture of the street that clearly it would be weird not to have Category:Cherry Street, Seattle itself. - Jmabel ! talk 05:33, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: How in the category description would I distinguish the those that are also in Category:Cultural heritage monuments in Sindh from those that are not? Would I take them out of whatever subcategory and put them in a new one with a description? Krok6kola (talk) 15:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Krok6kola: This is getting too specific and detailed for the VP. I'll email you. - Jmabel ! talk 15:22, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

For privacy reasons, is it possible to remove the Location and the edit of the bot adding the location in this photo?

File:Cat - Moomin.jpg. Rookie's mistake, I forgot to remove the EXIF data from the picture I took. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 16:07, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but @DarwIn: I'm pinging you. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 16:08, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Upload a new file version without exif, undo the bot edit, after that ask for version deletion of the bot edit and of the original upload. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

C.Suthorn will do that, thanks. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 16:28, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

You can also add Category:Location not applicable to any image you don't want processed by the (DschwenBot) bot. --Dschwen (talk) 17:12, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz: I believe it's resolved already, but pinging you to confirm, just to be sure.-- Darwin ^Ahoy! 21:47, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@DarwIn: It has been solved. Thanks for pinging. Tetizeraz. Send me a ✉️ ! 21:48, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

@Tetizeraz, Dschwen, and DarwIn: {{Location withheld}} should also avert from adding (or extracting) coordinates by users and bots. However, if the coordinates are included in the exif, this template will be counterproductive because it will attract attention to them. Unfortunately, there are no bots that could be simply requested to remove coordinates from the exif. It must be done manually. I think it would be nice if some bots could edit the exif. For example, many images have incorrect date or coordinates in the exif. --ŠJů (talk) 06:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Not Safe for Work (NSFW) media Classifier for Wikimedia Commons

What do folks make of this "Outreachy" internship task:

 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T264045

Background:

  https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-November/095918.html

I was particularity struck by the ambition behind:

Upon successful completion of this internship, the intern would have designed, implemented and tested a machine learning model that would be able to classify image and video media as SFW or NSFW with a high accuracy.

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah... ambitious. I'm already looking forward to dissecting the racial bias in such a ML model. --Dschwen (talk) 16:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

It's like someone ran a workshop trying to find an obvious controversial project most likely to have really bad outcomes. This should have been shot down when first raised in Phab and encouraged Outreachy to focus on stuff that was requested five years ago and has been waiting to be sorted out. --Fæ (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm ignorant here, but besides the serious difficulty of AI actually determining the content of a photo (Google with all of their resources is still not very good at this) you are then stuck with the seemingly insurmountable task of determining a single cultural standard to use or what is and is not socially appropriate with no regard for who is viewing the image, and in what part of the world. For example, (warning: any of these images may be unsafe for work in some cultures):

File:2018 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 037.jpg was taken at the Fremont Solstice Parade in Seattle, an event attended by tens of thousands of people, probably a third of them children. If you look closely you can see at least two female breasts and a man's ass, all covered only in body paint. Considered almost completely innocuous in Seattle, could be a violation of what is considered NSFW even in a different city of the same U.S. state.
File:2018 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 078 (42618782814).jpg from the same parade shows two men wearing nothing but paint from the waist down, but by the way I shot it, no genitalia are visible. So we have a picture showing two naked men, but which would be "SFW" in all but the most prudish contexts.
File:2018 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 135.jpg: a generally similar image but, if you look closely, male genitalia are visible, covered in purple body paint.
File:2018 Fremont Solstice Parade - cyclists 132.jpg: similar to the previous, but in this case you don't have to look closely to sopt the genitalia on the man in blue paint.
File:Gustave Courbet - The Origin of the World - WGA05503.jpg: Shows female genitalia in almost gynecological detail. Has hung at various times in the Brooklyn Museum, New York's Metropolitan Museum of Art and the Musée d'Orsay.
File:Bergen Belsen Liberation 03.jpg: nothing sexual here. Just a pile of dead human bodies which I would consider more NSFW in most places I've worked in the last 25 years than any of the above.

It would be hard for human editors to reach consensus on a SFW/NSFW determination on these, and someone is proposing that an intern can achieve it with a bot. - Jmabel ! talk 11:29, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The idea of such a flag (in different forms) has been discussed ad nauseam (as you know, but some might not). In addition to the obvious problems cited above, there are others, such as a filter using the flag to enforce viewing only SFW (or "safe for children") images. The flag, if introduced, cannot be made a voluntary feature.

There is a pressure on WMF to introduce such features, but the WMF should be very aware of much of the community strongly opposing them. Again taking steps to introduce them without first showing that the fundamental problems can be solved – which I think they cannot – is showing alarming disrespect for the community.

–LPfi (talk) 12:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Is there any way to ping intern Harshinee Sriram or mentors Daniyal Abbasi and Chaitanya Mittal, who are assigned this seemingly impossible task? https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikimedia-l/2020-November/095918.html does not indicate account names for them. - Jmabel ! talk 11:32, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Rather than hunting folx down, go to phab:T264045, login via OAuth and meta, and give the task a thumbs down token or repeat comments there.

I have added a comment pointing to this VP discussion and representing how potentially bad the outcomes of this project would be. --Fæ (talk) 12:50, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Reading phab:T214201 this seems to be intended for flagging edits that add possible NSFW images to Wikipedia articles. That might be a legitimate use, and does not depend on any great accuracy (perhaps given that false negatives can be flagged for the future). I am still worried, that once implemented, it would be used also to stop such edits and to filter content. A very worrying aspect is that what was suggested was a flag, not a point based scale, where the threshold could be configured in abuse filters.

What do patrollers on en-wp say: how big a problem is such vandalism? Could it be handled just by flagging any file addition or file change by a new user?

–LPfi (talk) 13:10, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The views of patrollers on en.wp are not relevant here. This is the Wikimedia Commons village pump and the intern project is about Wikimedia Commons' content.

More generally for those of us familiar with image vandalism, including myself as a producer of reports that have tracked mass vandalism, a "NSFW" auto tag would be a magnet for anti-nudity, anti-sexuality and anti-LGBT+ warriors. There is no doubt at all that this would be disruptive, divisive and it's not needed.

Far more useful would be an automated task that reports (not tags) likely copyvios, including video frame grabs, variations of past deletions, and manipulated EXIF data. Anything like that which works would be productive and useful for the community. --Fæ (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

OK, the other task was unrelated in its scope, sorry for mixing them up. Is there any discussion on why this task is on the list? The "background" link was just about welcoming the interns. I suppose I could wade through the announcements and selection discussions, but a direct link to a discussion on why this task was nominated or chosen would be appreciated. –LPfi (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I think your initial assumptions are mostly correct, LPfi. This indeed is mostly about patrollers on other projects. It is up to those communities how to make use of the image scores. There will be no "tag" indicating imagery is NSFW, rather it's just a number stored in a database. How you make use of those numbers, if at all, is up to each community. Through AbuseFilter we should be able to get a better idea if a high-scoring image is contextually appropriate for a given article, and the logic can decide whether or not to disallow or flag for later review. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Part of the confusion on Phabricator may be the distinction that the task this thread is about is T264045. This is specifically "for Wikimedia Commons", not images uploaded on Wikipedias locally, such as under Fair Use provisions, neither is there any mention of restricting it for images in use on Wikipedias or other sister projects of Commons. --Fæ (talk) 18:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

We do already have MediaWiki:Gadget-NSFW.js which apparently uses SDC depicts statements to make the determination. I worked on Template:NSFW a long time ago (just on the technical side, without a specific agenda). And of course the cultural variation of what constitutes "safe" for "work" were passionately discussed. Everybody has an opinion here and a lot of people tend to get rather vocal about their opinions. I think it definitely is a topic worth discussing, but I don't know how to keep such a discussion cool enough. --Dschwen (talk) 17:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Another nonsensical WMF's project (the first one, my "favourite": meta:IP Editing: Privacy Enhancement and Abuse Mitigation). Wikimedia Commons does not support stealing intellectual property (we delete copyvios virtually immediately) and IMO Commons should not support stealing third party (i.e. employers) time by encouraging people to browse Commons while at work. --jdx ^Re: 17:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Re: "should not support stealing third party (i.e. employers) time by encouraging people to browse Commons while at work," not everyone is paid by the hour, and even many who are work on a "billable hours" basis: they may be expected to keep track of when they are working and when not, but it doesn't necessarily correlate to whether they are in an office or whatever. NSFW mostly means "you might not want to look at this in a place where others might object to having the image imposed on them." - Jmabel ! talk 05:57, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@Jdx and Jmabel: Why do you think people are "stealing employers' time" by browsing Commons while billing their employer? Commons is a valuable resource in many fields of works, journalists the obvious ones, but teachers, researchers, illustrators and many others should be able to make good use of Commons. There are many NSFW themes relevant for work, especially if we put the threshold at a level where browsing Commons would actually be "SFW". –LPfi (talk) 11:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

@LPfi: I don't think that. I was responding to the case he raised. Are you just trying to pick a fight with me?

Obviously if you work in an atypical workplace where "NSFW themes" are appropriate for your work, then you won't take "NSFW" as a warning not to look at it on work time. Sheesh! For example, if you work in art history you might have perfectly good reason to want that Courbet I alluded to. But I actually wouldn't want it to pop up in front of a co-worker at a typical company, would you? - Jmabel ! talk 12:51, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not trying to raise any fight, I pinged you because I replied to your message (sorry if I thought wrong on that point), mentioning also other reasons for the "stealing" not to apply. I thought it was important to mention, as the reasoning by Jdx could in extension lead to very harmful measures, here or by the employers. I wouldn't want it to pop up at a typical workplace (whatever that is), but what I tried to say is that the range of work places were you want to get at those includes many "normal" workplaces. A teacher would probably not want that Courbet to take her by surprise in class, but might still need some very NSFW (or NSFwhatever) images. –LPfi (talk) 17:39, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Still struggling with the idea that this comment was not a joke, and is from an account with sysop access rather than a SPA troll.

Nobody with a job that relies on them never opening images of nudity, sex or violence should be randomly searching the internet.

Having worked in military secure and financially secure environments, you never, ever, just searched the internet or used an 'open' site like Commons, Facebook or Twitter on work time, as in those locations every transaction was logged by either GCHQ or the FBI, and folks did lose their jobs for opening dodgy images or sending sexy emails to partners.

You'll be advocating for a campaign to write to volunteers employers next, by outing their LinkedIn profiles.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hello everyone! Please first off don't be misled by the title of phab:T264045. No one is proposing changing any visual aspect of anything on Commons whatsoever. In fact, this has little to do with Commons at all, except for the fact that's where most media used in other projects lives. Myself and other Wikipedia patrollers have been using a different NSFW model for years with great success, however our patrolling is purely reactionary rather than preventive, because the scores are computed as images are added to articles. If they are computed when they are first uploaded, other projects can for instance use those scores in AbuseFilter to prevent image vandalism from happening in the first place. Various heuristics can be used to permit addition of such imagery where it contextually makes sense. To give an example of why this is needed: In 2018-2019 we saw a huge, ongoing wave of image vandalism that resulted in repeated press coverage (example). None of this would have happened if we had a NSFW image classifier in production. Again, let me abundantly clear – the Outreachy project is only to do with storing the scores (and possibly also the AbuseFilter integration), not about auto-hiding images that the model believes are NSFW, or any noticeable user-facing change for that matter. As for the accuracy of the model, the data I've seen so far seems very promising and an improvement over the older NSFW model which we have been using for years. Also, "NSFW" is a bad name and probably not what this product will be called in the end. We are very aware of that what constitutes "not safe for work" is culturally dependent. Further down the road, the model might be trained to work for individual communities to better suit their individual needs. I think for now the idea is to just use a single model for all Commons media, that you could consider tantamount to any other "offensive imagery" filtering like you see done by Google, Flickr, Twitter, etc. (except this model is specifically trained on media hosted here). To clarify my role, I am offering advise to developers and organizers of this project solely because of my expertise and experience in fighting image vandalism. The aforementioned information merely reflects my understanding. I hope this clears up the intention and hopefully alleviates some concerns. All I can tell you is if the NSFW model I've been using for so long now were in production, it would be a very, very good thing for (most) Wikipedias, and the model they're developing thus far has had even better results. — MusikAnimal ^talk 23:23, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

My main concern is that the score would be misused and might, as Fæ puts it, "be a magnet for anti-[*] warriors". The second concern is of course the non-feasibility. I would very much want a discussion on what the scores are trying to measure. You say it isn't really NSFW, and note even that is culturally dependent), so what is it? You cannot talk about accuracy before defining what you are measuring. Is it the chocking factor for you as patroller? The probability the image will be used in vandalism, perhaps related to the probability it will see other use? I am pretty sure that once the filters are in place, any seasoned vandal will change their pattern, using equally shocking images that just avoid being classified in that way. It suffices that there is one class of chocking images on Commons that cannot be flagged as inappropriate. –LPfi (talk) 11:29, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

There is no user-facing indicator that the model considers an image to be "NSFW" (for lack of a better term), so I'm not sure how it could be a magnet for anything. What we're trying to score is more or less the same as any offensive imagery filter you see used on other popular websites, which broadly includes imagery of sexual nature, gory photos, or anything of shock value. This by itself has no meaning whatsoever on Commons. It is only relevant in the context of where the media is used, such as a Wikipedia article. You can use the score along with a combination of heuristics in AbuseFilter to ensure what you're targeting is in fact (or very likely) vandalism. Getting the filter just right will take time, as will training the model, but we can't get anywhere unless we have a image classifier in production. Yes, seasoned vandals can and will find other ways to vandalize, but with a well-trained model, I'm confident we'll be able to prevent insertion of most media of any shock value when contextually inappropriate. It is no different than the ORES project, for instance; The model of course doesn't always get it right, and the score by itself should never be enough to determine something as vandalism. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

My main problem is that there is money used for the development a tool does not have anything to do with scopes and missions of the Wikimedia projects. The example that AI does not work was already created with the Commons:Structured data/Computer-aided tagging. And what is this tool supposed to do that can not be done by a simple filter for Category:Human sexuality? --GPSLeo (talk) 12:14, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The objective is to have a media classifier that can be used for counter-vandalism, which is certainly in scope of our mission. My comment above gives one high-profile example of where this "NSFW" filter would have been of use. I can't speak for other projects, but as someone who patrols image changes on English Wikipedia, I can say with assurance this is an ongoing problem and there is a real need for machine learning and automation. Categorization and structured data only works for existing media and where it was correctly categorized/tagged. Much of the vandalism we see (at least LTAs) involves a new user uploading media here then immediately using it to vandalize Wikipedia. Many examples can be found in my deleted contributions (particularly 2019 and earlier), which I can try to dig up if need be. — MusikAnimal ^talk 21:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC)