Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/09.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Proposal: AI generated images must be clear they're AI in the file name 101 34 Prototyperspective 2024-09-25 14:21
2 Proposal: de-prioritise AI images in search 37 16 Adamant1 2024-09-24 12:23
3 Commons:Categorization requests 2 1 Prototyperspective 2024-09-23 09:27
4 I was not aware, that only Public Domain content is allowed on the main page. I thought, creative-commons-by-sa is fine. Did I miss a rule change? 22 13 Prosfilaes 2024-09-24 17:50
5 Monuments database in Russia 38 9 Svetlov Artem 2024-09-30 09:17
6 New guide - COM:Fandom files 3 3 Trade 2024-09-26 17:14
7 Photovoltaic categories inconsistency 11 3 P170 2024-09-25 15:50
8 Redirection or deletion? 3 3 Bjh21 2024-09-23 21:19
9 Bad tracks 6 4 Андрей Романенко 2024-09-28 13:52
10 Why categories "London by topic" and "Porto by topic" act differently 5 2 JotaCartas 2024-09-23 23:40
11 Hosting HDR images as JPEG with gain map 0 0
12 Are AI system capabilities of "Reading comprehension" higher than humans? 10 6 Nosferattus 2024-09-26 04:44
13 Natalie: girl's picture 18 10 Jeff G. 2024-09-29 04:55
14 Dating categories of old newspapers with news from many dates and places 6 2 Smiley.toerist 2024-09-29 11:44
15 How to make my file be selected as the media of the day on the main page? 2 2 Heitor Gois 2024-09-25 22:45
16 Files in Category:Bernard Boucheix 6 4 Rosenzweig 2024-09-25 11:07
17 cctv 3 3 Trade 2024-09-26 17:12
18 Upload a picture 2 2 Felix QW 2024-09-25 19:59
19 Remove redirect if possible 3 2 ReneeWrites 2024-09-25 16:35
20 User who creates useless categories 12 5 Bart Buchtfluß 2024-09-27 23:33
21 Panorama of Manhattan's West Side from Across the Hudson 2 2 Sitacuisses 2024-09-26 14:28
22 Usage of "PD textlogo" 2 2 Ruslik0 2024-09-26 20:16
23 How to change the text in a speedy deletion (GA1)? 2 2 Adamant1 2024-09-26 16:04
24 Publishers info in newspapers 8 6 Broichmore 2024-09-29 16:49
25 Category:People of the State of Palestine 2 2 Strakhov 2024-09-26 20:51
26 BC/AD vs. BCE/CE 2 2 ReneeWrites 2024-09-27 14:59
27 Upcoming Wiki Loves Folklore in Bangladesh 1 1 Icarus005 2024-09-27 13:07
28 Commons:Contests 1 1 Bastique 2024-09-27 17:36
29 Special:EditWatchlist timed out 10 4 RZuo 2024-09-28 18:50
30 What is correct English name for this? 6 5 Broichmore 2024-09-28 15:11
31 Links to sister projects 2 2 Koavf 2024-09-28 10:55
32 Help:Misinformation 3 3 Adamant1 2024-09-28 20:26
33 Template:No advertising 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-09-28 20:59
34 Why? 4 3 Jeff G. 2024-09-30 14:00
35 Image not displaying at correct resolution? 2 2 RZuo 2024-09-30 18:41
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.


June 15

Importing maps from Open Street Maps

Hi!

I'd like to import a map that depicts an avenue, in order to illustrate an article in the Portuguese WP about said avenue (as done previously in File:OSM-Lisboa-AvenidaLiberdade.jpg).

What's the best way to do this? I've been searching in both Commons and OSM and can't find a tutorial concerning this... Thanks in advance! JonJon86 (talk) 10:39, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 17

Is Commons' aim to store all free scientific articles?

Background: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Research of an Intelligent Sale System of Guilin Rice Noodles Based on SCM.pdf

There're several million scientific articles in free license. Is every such article in scope of Commons?--GZWDer (talk) 12:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brianjd (talk) 13:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the DR you referenced, this is a moot point, as the file is in use. I have mentioned this at the DR as well. Brianjd (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "A PDF or DjVu file of a published and peer-reviewed work would be in scope on Wikisource and is therefore also in scope on Commons." An entry on Wikidata does not constituted in-use on Wikisource. -Mys_721tx (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    However, in-use on Wikidata constitutes as in scope for Commons, as being used on another Wikimedia project. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The text you quoted does not say “in use on Wikisource”. It says “in scope on Wikisource”. Which the file subject to this nomination is, as far as I can tell (but I am unfamiliar with Wikisource). This is separate to it being in use on Wikidata. Brianjd (talk) 02:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the file is in-use. However, Hans Publishers is possibly predatory. The quality of the review is questionable. Articles in open access predatory journals have the guise of peer-review and a compatible license yet they have little education value. The policy needs to be updated to exclude those. -Mys_721tx (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is preadatoryjournals.com itself reputable? The best external source I could find is [1] (via enwiki), which recommends researchers check one of the sites listed there (including predatoryjournals.com).
    Perhaps we should look at predatoryjournals.com itself. It does not seem to give any details on why Hans Publishers is listed as predatory. The article in question is from a journal called “Dynamical Systems and Control”, which is not listed on predatoryjournals.com.
    I suppose we’ll need to clarify this if we’re going to update the policy. Brianjd (talk) 03:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I should point out that Hans Publishers is also on Beall’s List, again with no apparent explanation. Brianjd (talk) 03:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • preadatoryjournals.com states that they inherited the list from Beall. The journals on Beall's list are standalone such that those journals do not have a publisher. A journal published by a publisher would not be included in the standalone list. Perhaps DOAJ could be used as what journals is allowed. -Mys_721tx (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think these big text files should not be added, unless there is an Wikisource entry. Better to sourcelink the PDF by the Wikipedia articles, with the advantage of keeping up with updates. Wikisource can only have public domain entries. Because of that most Wikisource entries are historical text and literature.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Smiley.toerist: I can’t work out what you’re trying to say. If a paper is public domain, then put it on Wikisource and it’s fine. If a paper is copyrighted but freely licensed, then it’s not worth hosting. Did I get that right? We have plenty of externally-published files, and there is no precedent for this “sourcelink to save space and keep up with updates” thing, as far as I know. If it’s in scope, we should have a copy. (Otherwise, we might be scrambling to make a copy later.) Brianjd (talk) 10:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      @Brianjd Let me know your though on using DOAJ as a list of permitted open access journals. Also should thre be a new thread to discuss how to update COM:SCOPE? -Mys_721tx (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are millions of PD books are they all in scope - Yes. Is someone going to import them all - Unlikely. Same with photographs (useful for educational purposes) or with photographs of artworks. I do not see scientific papers any different. --Jarekt (talk) 21:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Out of interest, we are just populating United States Census Bureau publications with a few thousand large-ish to extremely large documents. These are, to my mind, dull as ditch-water to look at, apart from the odd map, but might be very exciting for someone to run some analysis of the data and create charts to support a Wikipedia article. The issue for Commons is that it's still not very nice to browse a PDF on our website, and the only way to link to a specific page (like a map) is to use a thumbnail as the normal image syntax still misses a "page" parameter. Without some basic improvements to the reader interface for articles and books, an import of a million articles is highly likely to remain virtually unused and impenetrable. --Fæ (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
 Comment What is the function of books and scientific papers being on scope in both Wikisource and Commons? Isn't that essentially the same as hosting articles on both Commons and Wikipedia, or pictures of lifeforms on both Commons and Wikispecies? --Pitke (talk) 11:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you even upload images to Wikispecies? We need scans of books on Wikisource in order to transcribe them. In some cases, they're used on multiple Wikisources for different languages; in others, they're the source work for various extracted images that might see use on Wikipedia, Wikispecies or Wiktionary as well as Wikisource. In others, they're files that are going to be used on one Wikisource; is there any reason that Wikisources should not upload their files to Commons just like all the other projects do?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A PDF of a digital document that provides nothing beyond a text file would be an example. -Mys_721tx (talk) 06:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An example of what? I ask again, is there any reason that Wikisources should not upload their files to Commons just like all the other projects do?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One type of disallowed PDF files given by COM:SCOPE is those whose "... content is essentially raw text; such files are not considered media files. Note that scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance are not excluded on this ground, even if they contain no images."-Mys_721tx (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mys 721tx: If that was intended as a rejoinder to Prosfilaes' question, it actually is rather the opposite: that indicates that "scans of existing books, reports, newspapers etc of historic or other external significance" are in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the contradiction. Book scan? Yes. Government paperwork? Probably. Literally a plain text file converted to a PDF? No. -Mys_721tx (talk) 02:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 19

The state of the help pages ..

.. leaves much to be improved.

I was trying to find out what information should generally be entered in the "caption" box versus the "description" field of an image (when I come across images which haven't been proberly labelled) and performed a search of the help pages using these terms:

  • description versus caption
  • description caption box
  • description caption field

There were no relevant results ...

Browsing the help pages for information on this topic I came across some ambiguities on Commons:First_steps/Quality_and_description which I mention on the talk page.

Doing this I noticed that the questions posed on this talk page have not received any answers since around 2010.

This obviously leads to the question of whether the foundation shouldn't perhaps focus on fixing some of the basics of the apparatus before initiating a comparatively insubstantial rebranding process.

The file and category cleanup that constantly needs to happen is already a strain for the community of volunteers and maybe some extra ressources would be required to sufficiently deal with the fundamental deficiencies of the help pages.

After all thousands of images are uploaded every day and most of the occasional users must be facing the same issues and must be confused when trying to find relevant information in the help pages.

Shouldn't there be a more "institutionalised" way of establishing a coherent system of help pages which comprises a routine review of the relevant talk pages and the help desk and using this information to update and generally improve the catalogue of help pages of this central repository of the universe of Wiki... ?

(.. not to mention the state of the help pages of the German and probably many other Wikipedias ..)

best regards,

KaiKemmann (talk) 10:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • One solution is to use Google search. This gives commons:File_captions. Wouter (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you’re telling people to use an external search engine, instead of your own search engine, to find documentation on your own site, then you have a bigger problem.
    That page says that captions are under CC0. Wait, what? The system didn’t bother to point that out when I went to edit some captions. (Doesn’t bother me, since I put everything under CC0 anyway, but I really think this needs to be changed.) Brianjd (talk) 15:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe you will have a hard time here finding anyone enthusiastic about captions. They were more or less imposed on Commons by the Wikidata team. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Captions are pointless, a vandal magnet, and confuse newbies by forcing them to enter some vague text in that box before they even get to the real description box where they then realize they have to type in the same thing again. If everyone were not so tired trying to adapt to pandemic fallout and spending our nights worrying about the multiple existential threats, we might have run a RFC to get the upload wizard and image page layout changed back by now. Oh, yes, making them CC0 was never properly agreed with the Commons community when everything we have ever typed here is CC-BY-SA and cannot be "undone" to pretend it's now CC0 and can be cut and paste into a CC0 compliant free database for Google to harvest for a commercial AI service. --Fæ (talk) 05:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Actually, what I meant was that the software needs to be changed to make it clear to users that structured data is CC0 (I think it applies to all structured data, not just captions). About changing the policy to not use CC0 at all, it’s a nice idea but it’s too late for that now, isn’t it? Brianjd (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just chiming in to join the chorus that captions are bad. Between annotations, captions, categories, the description template, and structured data statements, we have a very confusing, very cumbersome, and very broken system to essentially have five different things doing roughly the same thing and they have different licenses and with a clunky interface that is outright hostile to users in my estimation. The roll out of structured data here is sincerely the biggest blunder I have seen in 17 years using WMF wikis. I'm not one for mindlessly whining about the WMF and I really don't see why others do so but man, this was 100% forced onto this project with no real forethought and it is a sorely broken system. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I’ve commented elsewhere how strongly opposed I am to structured data. It sounds like a nice idea, but they way it has been implemented, it is virtually impossible for ordinary people to use properly. Brianjd (talk) 08:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments.

I now understand the relation of "caption" and "description" to be a contentious point. And apparently what we see now maybe not to be the final stage of the development?

For the meantime maybe the fields "caption" and "description" could be renamed or annotated in order to make the difference and effects of each a little clearer. For example:

  • "caption - may contain up to 50 words - will appear as the title of the corresponding Wikidata entry - will appear prominently on the file description page"
  • "more detailed description - may contain up to 2000 words - will not appear in the Wikidata entry - will appear ..."

(I have no idea if any of this is correct .. just trying to figure out how the status quo could be improved for ignorant users such as myself ..)

thanks again,

KaiKemmann (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

3,000,000 Wikidata Infoboxes in Commons categories

Just to note that we now have over 3 million Commons categories using {{Wikidata Infobox}} - see Category:Uses of Wikidata Infobox! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 21

Do we have a guide on how to provide OTRS permission?

I found a series of photos related to a historical event made by an onlooker that I want to add to Wikipedia collection. I established communication with the son of that photographer (who is deceased by now) who is willing to PD these photographs. Can you please outline the steps for him to do so in a manner that would be recognized by Commons? Thank you. -- Wesha (talk) 13:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 23

File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg

We have just had a discussion about this file, which has just been archived at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/06#Potential huge mess, how to deal with it?. I would like to revive this discussion. It only went idle because @Cush was waiting for a response from @MissMJ. You might be waiting a while, because @MissMJ’s last contribution was in 2013. Pinging @Speravir, King of Hearts, AnonMoos.

I happened to come across this file at Commons:Help desk#Copyright violation on external site, and commented there about how confusing it was; then I remembered this discussion. Brianjd (talk) 10:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had this in mind all the time. Unfortunately I had not noticed that Cush hat added an answer below my long reaction … . — Speravir – 01:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For a split request see COM:SPLIT (actually a bit lower). — Speravir – 01:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop attacking me. Cush (talk) 08:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What? Actually I tried to respond to your latest answer in the now archived thread, so this new reaction is quite odd. I requested the split now for you. — Speravir – 22:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retroactively adding a category for a GLAM

We now have literally thousands of pictures from the Seattle Municipal Archives, but we never set up a category for them as a GLAM. I'd like to remedy that; if we set up such a category, is there an easy way to add the category to all images with https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives as part of their file-page wikitext? That will be at least the bulk of such images; it will certainly be less daunting to find the outliers by hand than to go through finding all of these. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I used the search "insource:https://www.flickr.com/photos/seattlemunicipalarchives" and User:BMacZero/gallery.js to generate User:BMacZero/Search results (1539 files). Looks like you can run VFC on that gallery to add the category, or let me know if you want me to tackle it. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, you can also run VFC directly on the search results page. – BMacZero (🗩) 23:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@BMacZero: Thanks! I can take it from there. - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, I guess I can't take it from here. Using regular expressions, I don't see how to reuse a matched string in the replacement, and it looks like there is no relevant example in Help:VisualFileChange.js/samples. Basically I want to match the following regex; this is PHP style, not sure how that compares to what VFC may need:
  • /[|]\s*[Ss]ources\s*=[^|}]*/
Then if we call the matching string %0 (but in fact I have no idea how to refer to it in VFC), I want to replace that by:
  • %0\n{{Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr}}
Other than the %0 and the \n (newline), that last is a literal string.
Because regexes can be a bit of a "write-only language", let me paraphrase my intent for the match:
  • A single pipe character (and, yes, you can also write that as '\|')…
  • any amount of whitespace…
  • "Sources", initial letter may or may not be capitalized…
  • any amount of whitespace…
  • a single equality character…
  • a string consisting of anything but a pipe character or closing curly bracket, which should bring us to the end of the source field; the next pipe character would be the beginning of the next field; allowing also for the template ending here (no next field).
Can anyone help me out? And can someone document how you use a regex here if you care to reuse the value the regex matches? - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: That's pretty close. If you want to grab part of the matched string for use in the result, you have to wrap it in parenthesis (). /([|]\s*[Ss]ource\s*=[^|}]*)/. And you reference the match with $1 in whatever flavor this is (yes, it's one-based for some reason, I don't know why). – BMacZero (🗩) 04:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, '$' instead of '%'. And probably 1 is first parenthesized expression, 0 is the whole string.
Is the $1 thing documented somewhere, or was this done by a PERLer who just thought that was common sense? - Jmabel ! talk 04:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not super well documented, but it's mentioned in the dropdown that enables it (Preserve nowikis, comments. Allow usage of substring and $1 (internal usage of placeholders (%v%f%c%\d+)).). The $ syntax comes from the ECMAScript RegExp standard, which was modeled after but is not exactly the same as the PCRE syntax. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 05:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We probably should add an example of this in the examples for using VFC. Does someone else want to do that, or should I? - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Having gotten no further response, I'll take that on. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 24

Blazonry

If you are into shields/blazons/coats-of-arms, and maybe know a code/language called blazonry, you might enjoy my new tool to generate them. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples. --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
this is cool! thx!--RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Books from Great Britain

Currently there is a series of categories Books from Great Britain by year spanning from 1425 to 1934. There is also Books from the United Kingdom by year spanning from 1733 to 2001. Is Category:Books from Great Britain by year supposed to be scoped to the Kingdom of Great Britain (in which case it should span from 1707 to 1801) or to the island of Great Britain (in which case it should span from the Middle Ages to today)? There seems to be no consistency in how the categories are used. British books from the 1800s are sometimes in one category and sometimes in the other and sometimes in both, making the categories somewhat useless for actually finding what you're looking for. Kaldari (talk) 19:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mirroring works from "Internet Archive"

There was a proposal to mirror certain resources from IA to Commons: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Mass_"Evacuation"_copy_of_Public_domain_resources_from_Internet_Archive_to_Commons.

It's starting to happen! - User talk:Fæ/CCE volumes#Forks.

What's needed from Commons contributors and admins

  • Checking items in the categories linked from User talk:Fæ/CCE volumes , to ensure they are correctly licensed.
  • Checking the meta-data swept from IA, against additional ndications in the scanned works themseleves.
  • Identification (and rapid removal) of material which is not license compatible with Commons, or which would still be in Copyright.
  • Conversion of the Userspace page, into a more formal WikiProject page in consultation with User:Fæ

amongst many other enumerable tasks.

One contributor cannot curate this content alone. It needs many.

Let's keep the 'Public domain' free, accessible and presented with an appropriate context!

Pinging: @Fæ, Nemo bis, MGA73, Koavf, and Brianjd:

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very happy to help. If you want to make a list of all uploads and break them into tranches of 100 or something, you can assign me a batch to look over. Let me know. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think User:Fæ has a list, The page linked above has a section for the Forks of the original script User_talk:Fæ/CCE_volumes#Forks which has links to the categories which contain what's been uploaded so far. The categories can be group into batches of 200 IIRC. An alternative is to use the Upload log. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=20200624173809&limit=100&type=upload&user=F%C3%A6&page=&wpdate=&tagfilter=&subtype= the earliest entry I can find relating to the additional forks is on https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&dir=prev&offset=20200610115153&limit=100&type=upload&user=F%C3%A6&page=&wpdate=2020-06-04&tagfilter=&subtype=

(Dated 14:59, 12 June 2020). Most of the earlier items uploaded in this effort are in distinct "collections" and thus potentially fairly easy to review at rapid pace. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ and ShakespeareFan00: If one of you (naturally, it should be Fae) are willing to take ownership over this list, divide it into manageable sections, and assign me some, I will check them and mark them off the list. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paging @AntiCompositeNumber: , Is some way of generating a 'batched' list of the uploads for review, from the log feasible (perhaps using the API backend)? Given the volumes involved splitting it by hand would be too cumbersome I feel. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The easiest way of doing it would be to create a backlog 'to review' category, targeting the collections for which there might be some doubt but avoiding the obvious (like anything dating before 1870).
Then batching could be done using a search either by year ranges or by taking alphabetic chunks of internet archive identity numbers (which are the default sort for the categories) and volunteers removing the backlog category as they go along, which is super quick.
It would help for folks to raise exemplar deletion requests where there is significant doubt in a particular scenario (like documents dated 1920 published in Mexico).
Completed are the seed catalogues and census bureau, though both collections are probably all uncontroversial. I'll add some 'done' marks tomorrow to make it clearer what's done. --Fæ (talk) 21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Fæ, Koavf, and Billinghurst:  : Some of my recent edits Special:Contributions/ShakespeareFan00 have been to add links to Creator: for works, or to suggest renamings. I can continue if this is thought to be worthwhile, However, I'm not an expert when it comes to tracking down author details from more obscure bibliographic sources, Hence why I've pinged a respected contributor I know has more expertise in this area. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 25

License burried deep inside archived page's source code

I need some help here: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Zoey Deutch at Golden Globes Red Carpet 2020.png. Gikü (talk) 07:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Gay anal sex.jpg

Closed by me (non-admin). Re-opened by E4024 (non-admin). Closed by Mdaniels5757 (non-admin), then self-reverted. This is getting ridiculous. Could someone take a look at it?

This also exposes a more general problem with re-opening DRs (basically, no one knows how to do it correctly):

  • Neither user restored the DR tag on the file description or removed {{Kept}} on the talk page (I fixed both of these issues).
  • By the time E4024 re-opened the DR, Krdbot had already removed it from the daily DR list, making it difficult to find. I have not restored it. Instead, I asked E4024 to comment on it, but they failed to do so. Later, I mentioned it on User talk:Mdaniels5757, but they also failed to respond. Is there any standard way of dealing with this? (By “this” I mean the daily DR list issue; I do not want this to escalate into a dispute about other users.)

Brianjd (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I was actually just about to respond to you on my talk (just opened my computer for the day :) ); I have now done so. I think the best way to fix the daily DR list issue is probably to re-transclude on the daily log and un-transclude on the archive page. I've done so for this discussion. I'd have to remember to do so in the future, but that's a separate issue... --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

media-list API

The media-list API returns all images found in a page. For instance https://de.wikipedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/media-list/Wikipedia%3AHauptseite%2FSchon_gewusst%2FZeittafel returns all images on that Wikipedia page.

How to get all images on a user page? Strangely https://commons.wikimedia.org/api/rest_v1/page/media-list/User%3ASyced does not work.

Is my syntax wrong? Or maybe Commons does not have the media-list API? Thanks! Syced (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books from the Library of Congress

I notice that this category has many thousands of PDF files, apparently whole books. Do they belong in Commons, or is Wikisource a better place for them? Jim.henderson (talk) 18:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Project scope#Allowable reasons for PDF and DjVu formats. --Fæ (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 26

Taiwan railways

This is not Hsinchu station but a HSL station to the south of Miaoli. I got confused because I later took a train at Hsinchu station, but took no pictures. Does anyone know wich station?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is the THSR Chiayi Station.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Solved, rename started.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have an edit in my edit history I do not remember making

Hello, today I have received a notification about an edit of mine being reverted, and I do not remembeer making this edit. The edit in question is this, I can see that theoretically it could be a copy-paste error, but I am a bit weirded out by that. I am going to change the password right now, but is there a way to easily get edits immediately before and immediately after this one? ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 13:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A full set from 1891 to 1978. I think these are the source for checking a pre 1978 work for copyright status in the US? 88.97.96.89 23:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 27

x year paintings in country y

Hi. I have just spotted that File:Stuart, Gilbert - Henrietta Elizabeth Frederica Vane - 1783.jpg has the category Category:1783 paintings in the United States. Does this category mean that it is a "painting made in the USA in 1783" or that it is a "painting made somewhere in 1783 that currently resides in the USA"? I notice that we have some other categories that use "from" to determine the origin. The reason I would like to clarify the situation in this case is that the artist, en:Gilbert Stuart wasn't in the USA between 1775 and 1793. If it is meant to indicate country of origin, I will remove the category. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Typically, a category like that would mean "currently resides in the USA". But, in general, while it would be a massive project, we would do well to also have "country of origin by year" categories for artworks. - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 28

Making Hot Cat easier to use

I made this request at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-HotCat.js a couple of weeks ago, but it seems no-one is looking in there.

At the moment when one clicks on hot cat for a category, it opens a drop-down box with five choices, and a scroll bar to make other choices accessible. Given that many categories have 100 or more subcategories to chose from, this makes finding others by scrolling very difficult: a tiny touch of the scroll button and suddenly you're 20 subcategories lower or higher, and missed the others inbetween.

Suggestion: please make Hot Cat tall enough to show 50 choices at a go from the drop-down, not just 5.

Could this see some action, please? Thanks! - MPF (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would not support this as a default option. I have enough problems with that select box getting in the way as it is. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 01:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am against a change, too, especially for such a huge dropdown list. I answered this on the gadget talk page, but let me phrase it here, as well: Use the dedicated user setting, either JSconfig.keys['HotCatListSize'] or window.hotcat_list_size in your common.js or systemwide in your global.js, cf. Help:Gadget-HotCat. Additionally, you could even remove the arrow button, because if you enter a letter the dropdown is opened anyway; this is JSconfig.keys['HotCatUseCategoryLinks'] or window.hotcat_use_category_links set to false. (I myself use the window variants and can tell you that they work). — Speravir – 03:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
i think this is a good idea, but maybe limit it to 10 instead of 50.--RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! I didn't know there was any option to set the number; perhaps this option needs to be more prominently advertised in the Hot Cat info? While I'd prefer to be able to set to 50 lines, the 30 maximum currently allowed certainly helps a lot. - MPF (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZDF German subs need checking, content needs promoting

Hi there, as mentioned previously I have been adding German subtitles to the 58 high quality ZDF documentary clips. About two thirds now have subtitles, the remainder I am unlikely to subtitle. A few points:

  1. My subtitles are auto transcribed and roughly checked by me. There are errors!
  2. They need a native / high functioning German speaker to check them through! Some have been check but all should be rechecked
    1. Find the subtitled files at category:Videos by Terra X with German subtitle file
  3. The time stamps are mine alone, they should be mostly fine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JimKillock (talk • contribs) 09:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Checking isn't a difficult job, so please do if you have the ability
  5. German subs are the first step to further usage, beyond German speakers. Once subs are available, other langauge users can
    1. Translate the subs relatively easily, without the pain of doing the timestamps
    2. Consider redubbing the content, adapting any translation as they like

As this is really good content I think multilingual subs and / or redubbing is well worthwhile. I am not well connected within the Wikipedia community though so someone else will need to think about how to do the promotion. If anyone wants to do this or has advice about how to do this please let me know. JimKillock (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JimKillock: Thanks a lot for that! I've checked all remaining German subtitles. All done now. --Jcornelius (talk) 19:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jcornelius: Thank you! That's great – next I will work on some English subtitle files, much as the German this will need checking, but it will be a while before these are ready. JimKillock (talk) 19:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki:Licenses

Please could someone with the necessary rights attend to the changes discussed in MediaWiki talk:Licenses? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expectation of EXIF

Is there a page documenting the *expectation* of EXIF data in images? I know people often have their uploads questioned if they are without EXIF data, but can't find clear documentation of that requirement. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 11:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Asaf, there's no strict requirement, only Commons:Image_guidelines#Guidelines. It's more of a preference, but does get mentioned at FPC, see special:search/exif prefix:Commons:Featured_picture_candidates.--BevinKacon (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! While I know it's not strictly required, I find it mentioned not only at FPC, but also at deletion discussions. I understand sometimes the lack of EXIF means the image is indeed not the uploader's own, but there are also cases where one would legitimately want to wipe the EXIF data, e.g. if one took a photo of a household object in one's home, to illustrate an article, but isn't interested in forever exposing the coordinates of that home. So there is no actual policy about this? The guidelines you link to only refer to EXIF in the context of the color space technical information, not as indicator of the provenance of the image. Asaf (WMF) (talk) 12:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We will change or remove any privacy related exif data at the request of the uploader to avoid file deletion. I removed serial number from File:Drone shot of bra.jpg. Not aware of any policy or guideline, only instructional pages.--BevinKacon (talk) 12:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) Just 0.02 but to say that EXIF is only an indicator of things. Not only can it be wiped it can be falsified... For me it is one of many aspects to be looked at. Equally a hard one to make policy on (not least of which people "use" policy in whatever way they wish --Herby talk thyme 12:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have also experienced that certain programs eliminate the EXIF data. For example when image stitching to a panorama. Wouter (talk) 12:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As with others, this is a balance of probability issue, per "significant doubt" in COM:PRP.
Were you to upload a photo with EXIF (apparently) cut off, the file would be well above "significant doubt" in a way that a newbie account might have problems with.
EXIF tampering is a real problem, we have seen vandals deliberately cloning EXIF data on to files lifted from photography websites, or Facebook. As this has been to fake copyright releases, this is taken as serious block-able disruption.
We have had plenty of cases where users want their personal names or GPS data removed from the EXIF already uploaded, and it's not too hard to arrange for a bot to selectively remove specific EXIF tags as needed. This does not mean that all the rest of the EXIF needs to go, and as a norm, we can probably recommend that where privacy issues occur we want folks to not blank the whole EXIF, but retain as much as they feel is relevant to the file without revealing unnecessary detail about the photographer. In particular it should not be a requirement for an uploader to release original EXIF data if they are not comfortable with doing that.
This is a question that comes up regularly, and it would be handy if one of the project guidelines had a summary to point newbies and disputes towards.
Corollary It would be of benefit if the project had a principle that highly technical research on mass EXIF data should be avoided on the public wiki unless there are no potential privacy issues that might cause harm to the photographer. There can be accidental tracking data left in a succession of photographs that could show that someone was, say, at a political protest, or in countries that the police in their home intelligence services would find problematic if the pattern of data is laid out explicitly. I have in mind one contributor living in China using multiple harmless sock accounts, and their anonymity should not be compromised via EXIF GPS tags and lens codes, just because someone likes tracking sock accounts and fancies experimenting with EXIF mapping. --Fæ (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Yes, as you say, "This is a question that comes up regularly, and it would be handy if one of the project guidelines had a summary to point newbies and disputes towards." This is precisely what I was looking for (in order to refer people to it). I don't feel I am sufficiently active in Commons as a volunteer to propose guideline changes, but it would be great if some of you reading this who are could propose, discuss, and (if there are no strong objections) enact such a change, so that there is something to point to henceforth. Cheers! Asaf (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editing exif to upload stolen images can go undetected for years, see Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Marianne Casamance, which involved a user photoshopping files and applying fake camera data to 10,000+ files under multiple accounts.--BevinKacon (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be great if the Upload Wizard offered a choice to remove specific EXIF data like location, serial numbers, and makernotes. (I've tried some free tools that claimed to remove location but didn't, so am sympathetic to those who would want to wipe the whole lot to be sure.) I imagine this may have been proposed or requested before? Pelagic (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having only delved into EXIF editing modules briefly, the issue with creating a tool is the variety of interpretations that exist for different camera manufacturers, and more recently, mobile phone camera apps. Though there are standards for EXIF data, there are also unspecified extra tags used by photoshop and mobile apps that hold all sorts of edit-time tags, or even extra tracking info like unique serial numbers of software.
Basic tag stripping could be added as a gadget, but if that only handles stuff that would be displayed on image pages, that would be limited to standard EXIF tags, ignore non-standard ones, and probably have to ignore other header data like IPTC. It could be more pragmatic and useful to warn users to review their data themselves before upload, perhaps by providing a link to a WMF hosted header examination tool similar to Jeffrey's excellent version http://exif.regex.info/exif.cgi, and pointing to a guideline pages with example free header data editing tools. --Fæ (talk) 10:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 29

Marah oreganus/oregana

Category:Marah oregana currently gives a message: 

Error in Wikidata: wikidata cat item 'Category:Marah oreganus' (Q55299916) property 'Commons category' (P373) should be 'Marah oregana' (not Marah oreganus).
Error in Wikidata: wikidata gallery item 'Marah oreganus' (Q3845272) property 'Commons category' (P373) should be 'Marah oregana' (not Marah oreganus).

I have no real idea whether the error is in Commons' naming or Wikidata's; I do know that en-wiki calls this Marah oreganus, and the only other two wikipedias with articles on this (Italian and Vietnamese) agree with en-wiki, but they are likely to have derived from en-wiki.

I'm not nearly strong enough in botany or taxonomy to have an independent opinion here, but clearly either Commons or Wikidata is wrong. Also: why do we write our error message in a way that presumes Wikidata is wrong and Commons is right? - Jmabel ! talk 07:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marah oregana es el taxón aceptado por: Catalogue of Life,IPNI, Kewscience, Tropicos. Todas estas referencias las puede consultar en Wikispecies. Esperando haberlo aclarado, le saluda.--MILEPRI (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: The actual error message was because in the Wikidata item at one place there was still Category:Marah oreganus to be found, . For reasons I will never really understand there are two possible places for adding a Commons category. On moving apparently only one is adjusted. For the scientific name the question is, whether Marah is grammatically masculine (→ oreganus) or feminine (→ oregana). — Speravir – 18:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the category is not updated … — Speravir – 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
… because I updated only one of the items causing the error. — Speravir – 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mass adding categories

Suppose I have a list of file names, such as that at the foot of File:Biologia Centrali-Americana (8271463253).jpg. What tool will let me add all of the listed files to a specified category? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: I don't know of one for a general list, but for that particular list you could use Cat-a-lot on Special:Search/linksto:"File:Biologia Centrali-Americana (8271463253).jpg". --bjh21 (talk) 15:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A bit roundabout, but you could also copy the list into a gallery on a sandbox page and run VFC on that page. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both clever solutions; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

also COM:AWB.--RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I could have a preview of a category when my cursor hovers over it

i am diffusing some categories of persons, but i cant really remember who's who. right now i am clicking into each to see. if commons could have something similar to "Page previews" on wikipedia, such that i can hover over a cat and see the image set to image (P18) or a random one if P18 is not set, it would save so much work!--RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

en:Wikipedia:Tools/Navigation popups - avilable on this project, as a gadget - does that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a tool to expand a specific category tree?

something similar to this, so that i can see the entire cat tree.--RZuo (talk) 19:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June 30

Looking for a practical titleblacklist fix for perfectly good batch upload projects

My many batch upload projects have been running on Commons for many years. There's one very specific and very bad thorn in my side that wastes huge amounts of volunteer time, and for which there is no technical fix apart from playing around for every unique upload project trying to juggle official archive supplied titles into something that might pass the ever changing and ever increasing burden of the titleblacklist.

In practice, I simply don't bother, and many thousands of public domain images are missing from Commons, regardless of individual educational value. The balance between endless debugging and spending valuable volunteer time on the next project instead, just works out that way.

Here's an example from a few minutes ago: 

APIError: titleblacklist-forbidden:
The title "File:Joannis Marianae Hispani, e Societate Jesu, De rege et regis institutione libri III - ad Philippum III Hispaniae regem catholicum. Eiusdem De ponderibus & mensuris liber (IA joannismarianaeh00mari).pdf" has been banned from creation.
It matches the following blacklist entry: " .*(richero|marian).*(maria|richero).*"

Ref: https://archive.org/details/joannismarianaeh00mari

Clearly when the Internet archive unique ID matches a proper name in the official title of a 17th Century public domain book is a reason to effectively permanently ban uploads of the work, there is something seriously wrong with the way titles are blacklisted, and something seriously wrong with the fact that batch uploaders like myself cannot get an exemption flag.

Thoughts about what should change, or do I walk on again, accepting that due to local design flaws, Commons will never have these works and Commons can never magically expect to have enough programming resources to keep fixing work-arounds because nobody can be allowed to have a positive exemption for the "titleblacklist"? Thanks --Fæ (talk) 14:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum same goes for the spamblacklist, which is also stopping the upload of the various randomly used short-urls that curators frequently use in their archive descriptions, see recent problems. --Fæ (talk) 15:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For starters, I'll make a strong guess that should be two distinct lacklist entries: " .*richero.*maria.*" and " .*marian.*richero).*". (I'd also guess that the leading blank is an error.) But, yes, there really ought to be an exemption flag. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support granting Commons:Template editor to users who regularly need to override the blacklist, even if they do not actually edit templates. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That would grant tboverride but is there a group that does the spam exemptions on contents? Seems that one could request the specific flags, or bundle them in a specific new group. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think tboverride is sufficient to cover everything, as I don't see any other right in Special:ListGroupRights that serves to allow overriding a blacklist. On the English Wikipedia, there is precedent for granting unnecessary permissions to people unlikely to abuse them when actual technical implementation of the correct permission set is months or years away. For example, TonyBallioni was granted intadmin to view deleted JS/CSS pages (as part of his anti-sockpuppetry work) even though the right exists primarily for people who edit such pages, because a bug currently prevents regular admins from doing so. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This does look like a pragmatic thing to try. Thanks for the suggestion. Added at Commons:Requests for rights. --Fæ (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those discussion pages are about list contents, not user groups. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can the short youtube link just be replaced with the full version before upload?--BevinKacon (talk) 16:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's lots that can be done, and I have done such fixes in the past by parsing out urls and sniffing the redirects. However I'm not a spammer, and if the official metadata written by curators elsewhere being used to create the texts use these shorturls, all the extra processing and volunteer programming time spend working out how to get around an ever evolving spamblacklist just seems, wasteful, when it could be spend on sorting out more content. Keep in mind this isn't just "tu.be" it's also all other other trapped forms of shorturl and whatever other unexplained regexes get added. --Fæ (talk) 16:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that you can include blocked URLs as long as you put them in ‎<includeonly>...‎</includeonly> tags: Special:Diff/429954071. So you might be able to work around the spam blacklist by putting the URL in a template. The template might have to be created after you transclude it on the file information page.
Sorry for spamming the blacklist log a bit while testing stuff. --Stefan2 (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category needs cleanup template

Do you think we need a "Category needs cleanup" template? SpinnerLaserz (talk) 19:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=429968795"