Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/05

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

Fair Use Photo of Comedian Emily Levine

Hi! I am attempting to upload or find an image of Emily Levine, however I have yet to figure it out. If anyone is able to help, I would be extremely grateful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karlshoej (talk • contribs) 19:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

'Fair use' is not allowed on Commons, you will need to find a free one, or else get permission for a non free foto and have the rights owner send the permission to OTRS. --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:46, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Messed up templates

I noticed that User:Ö/filemoves (meant to be transcluded in userpages as a “userbox”) is showing its images in their nominal size, not forced to 50px high as coded at it's souce (stable for nine years). What’s going on? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:31, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Upload fail

Hello.

When I want to upload a video, the server crashes. I've this error :

Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes. See the error message at the bottom of this page for more information.

--ComputerHotline (talk) 05:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Invitation for Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021

Hello there,

We are inviting you to participate in Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2021, a global contest scheduled to run from July through August 2021.

Participants will choose among Wikipedia pages without photo images, then add a suitable file from among the many thousands of photos in the Wikimedia Commons, especially those uploaded from thematic contests (Wiki Loves Africa, Wiki Loves Earth, Wiki Loves Folklore, etc.) over the years.

In its first year (2020), 36 Wikimedia communities in 27 countries joined the campaign. Events relating to the campaign included training organized by at least 18 Wikimedia communities in 14 countries.

The campaign resulted in the addition of media files (photos, audios and videos) to more than 90,000 Wikipedia articles in 272 languages.

Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) offers an ideal task for recruiting and guiding new editors through the steps of adding content to existing pages. Besides individual participation, the WPWP campaign can be used by user groups and chapters to organize editing workshops and edit-a-thons.

The organizing team is looking for a contact person to coordinate WPWP participation at the Wikimedia user group or chapter level (geographically or thematically) or for a language WP. We’d be glad for you to reply to this message, or sign up directly at WPWP Participating Communities.

Please feel free to contact Organizing Team if you have any query.

Kind regards,
Tulsi Bhagat
Communication Manager
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos Campaign
Message delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Painting help needed: inconsistent info on two files for the same painting

I came across the following files that appear to be for the same painting of Catherine of Alexandria in the Musée des Beaux-Arts de Lyon.

The Wikidata item indicates both Claude Guinet and "anonymous" as the creator.

How to resolve? If there's an art-specific help desk, I'd love to know about it. Please ping with any response, and thanks in advance for any help. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@Auntof6: attributions get changed all the time and people get mixed up. According to http://collections.mba-lyon.fr/fr/search-notice/detail/b-564-b-martyre-63128 it's Claude Guinet and fr:Claude Guinet actually talks about this painting. On fr:Jean_Perréal it is mentioned that the painting was previously attributed to Jean Perréal. The inclusion in Category:Master of Santa Clara de Palencia looks like a categorization mistake by user:Rama. Multichill (talk) 12:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: OK, thanks. I will make changes accordingly. --Auntof6 (talk) 12:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Auntof6: Wikidata is not Wikipedia. On Wikidata we generally don't remove statements. We qualify and/or deprecated them. And the source clearly lists it as attribution so not sure why you removed that part. Multichill (talk) 12:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
@Multichill: OK, I apologize. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Auntof6 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 2 May 2021‎ (UTC)
@Auntof6: No need. It's a bit confusing especially with a Wikipedia background. We all made that mistake at least once. Fortunately it's a wiki so easy to fix.
A lot more possible matches (probably easier) at User:Multichill/Same image without Wikidata/Wikidata creator, institution and inventory number match and d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Image suggestions/Creator, institution and inventory number match. Multichill (talk) 12:56, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Telecom street cabinets

Hi,

It's not obvious to find a category by country for an Optical fiber distribution cabinet or a copper distribution cabinet.

This one have the following categories:

There is also :

I'am looking for a structured categories like Fire hydrants by country.

What do you suggest ?
How to reorganise existing Telecom / Utility cabinets ?

--Pyrog (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Hursh.jpg

File:Hursh.jpg and 8 more... --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:11, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: So keep adding to Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Hurshch and warning the user. Why report here?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:20, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I said months ago, I will no longer make DRs for hursh. It is not my thing, I take fotos and publish - thats it. (and I do rely on others who are into housekeeping things) --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:01, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Then maybe stay out of it? Coming here and asking someone else to do the work doesn't seem particularly appropriate or friendly. - Jmabel ! talk 21:54, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Uploading a mp4 video...

Hi Can someone ipuload this for me: Robert Henke & Christopher Bauder / Atom (from Flickr). It is cc-by-sa. Thank you --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 13:31, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @El Mono Español: Is there a reason you want someone else do do this rather than do it yourself? - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi! Yes, because it tells me that I can't upload it, and I don't understand why – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 15:53, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
El Mono, Go to Commons:Video2commons or failing that convert it to WEBM online. For reasons I don't know or care to know MP4 files aren't accepted here. Cheers, –Davey2010Talk 19:11, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you. ! – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 18:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@El Mono Español: ✓ Done, please see File:Robert Henke & Christopher Bauder - Atom.webm.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:41, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Please see Commons:Mp4.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh wow thanks for the link User:Jeff G. - I knew codecs existed but had no idea of the copyright behind them I'm genuinely surprised, I just assumed it was rejected because of MediaWiki software or for other minor reasons but had no idea of the extensive story behind the rejection. Reading that it's certainly understandable as to why MP4 isn't allowed here. Anyway thanks again for the link Jeff, Take care and stay safe, Warm Regards, –Davey2010Talk 12:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 06:33, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Getting more 360-degree photospheres on Commons

I noticed recently that Category:360° panoramic photographs has only a few hundred entries. Compared to roughly 170,000 videos and 72 million total files, that's basically nothing. Trying to be forward-thinking, I think there's a very plausible case that VR photography is going to be very important in the future once we're all walking around with VR headsets, and that not having a VR photo of a place will be as noticeable as not having a color photo is to us today. It'd be nice to stay ahead of the curve, and while some of that involves support we need from the WMF, I'm sure there are things we could be doing ourselves. Does anyone have ideas about how we can encourage more of these to be uploaded? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Right now we don't even have support for non-photosphere panoramas. {{Pano360}} used to have support for files like File:Charles W Morgan and Thames River 360 panorama from City Pier, New London.jpg that are 360 degrees horizontally but not a full photosphere, but that functionality no longer works. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:04, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Many of the 360° photo's don't have the template {{Pano360}} and/or it does not work properly. What I like of using 360° photography is the possibility of creating virtual tours in for example museums where you can go from one room to another and zoom in on paintings. Wouter (talk) 20:21, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
When the day comes that we're all walking around with VR headsets on, people will probably be too focused on navigating their jetpacks between all the flying cars to bother with 360° photographs available on Commons. Besides which 360° photographs are not stereoscopic. Having said that, as someone with a penchant for panoramas I'd love to see 360° scrolling made available (360° x 180° photospheres, not so much). nagualdesign 01:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
If anyone's interested, I use a Canon 50mm f/1.4 lens on an APS-C (1.6 crop factor) camera, which yields about 200 pixels per degree, so a full 360° photograph is around 72,000 px wide. The more pressing problem is simply being able to download such enormous files, hence I don't even bother making them let alone uploading them to Commons. The common or garden variety 360° photograph is stitched from just 2 fisheye images and doesn't have a particularly good resolution when viewing a small section at a time, so it's a bit of a toy/gimmick. Even Google Street View uses multiple times that resolution but, like Google Maps, the browser only has to download a few sections at a time and stitches them on-the-fly. It will be some years before the technology is commonplace (or 'Commons-place') since there isn't much demand. nagualdesign 02:13, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Nagualdesign: Street View in an outdoor sculpture garden could be cool.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 02:35, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Definitely. Check out Google Arts & Culture for some interesting views. Unfortunately, it will be quite a while before Commons can rival Google. Staying ahead of the curve, as the OP suggested, is something of a pipe dream. nagualdesign 02:48, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

OT: Why does the wikidata contest use a person with VR googles as logo, WM does not support it? I have provided a number of stereoscopic images, but WM has no native way to display these in VR - and I do think like user:Sdkb that VR (or AR more likely) will be a thing for WM and it is a good idea to stay ahead (only with stereoscopic content. Creating 360 degree images while respecting personality rights is difficult). --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:21, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Read only time on 05-May-2021 at 06:00 AM UTC

Hi,

Some services will be in read-only for a short time on 2021-05-05 at 06:00 AM UTC.

During the restart time (expected to be around 60 seconds or so) all the components and extensions that use the x1 database will be read-only.

Things that might experience some issues when creating new writes:

  • New short urls cannot be created
  • Email bounces from lists might not get recorded
  • There might be issues with new translations
  • New items on the notification list might fail, some notifications may not be delivered
  • Reading lists might not record new items added to "bookmark" or "read it later" feature

Details: T281212 & T281375

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this read-only time.

-- Kaartic [talk] 18:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Horse bits from Louvre on Wikidata

Hi, can anyone help with this and this category? After a rename I put AO 16313 on Wikidata, but it still conflicts with AO 16613. I don't do a lot things like this on Commons and Wikidata, last time was easy, now it's not correct. Links to files: File:Bit-AO 16313-IMG 0900-white.jpg and File:Bit-AO 16613-IMG 0900-black.jpg. Wikidata: Q106710047 and Q29053872 - Regards, - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:29, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I resolved it, the right information is being showed now. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 19:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

SVG validation / derasterization etc.

I was just fixing various high-use SVG files and had just cleaned up File:Wikisource-logo-as-3.svg when I discovered that it was protected. If an administrator can briefly unprotect it or reduce the protection level, please do let me know. Shyamal L. (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Shyamal: If an Admin does not notice this timely, please consider reposting on COM:AN.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:03, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Copying to AN now. Shyamal L. (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Copyright status of one of the most important events in Vietnamese history (1945)

I have spent a considerable amount of time researching if the above images from 30 August 1945 are out of copyright ©, but I can't find either where they were first published or who published them, I highly doubt that they are orphan works but many were "published" by museums after the last copyright extension came into force. As these files are from a French protectorate and not a French colony French copyright © laws likely don't apply.

It is entirely possible that these photographs were published in offline works in Vietnam in 1945 but because so little of old Vietnamese documents are digitised and made available online (due to various reasons, most having to do with a government that only promotes its own glory rather than the full story) I cannot verify this, hence I haven't uploaded them per the precautionary policy.

I am posting these links here in the hopes that someone might know more about the copyright status of these files as it is a highly important event. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:56, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Well done for doing the research. If nobody else sheds more light, uploading under a PD-old-70-expired rationale would not be unreasonable, considering that only a good faith attempt at "reasonable research" to find any potential copyright claim is required by the courts. --Fæ (talk) 21:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. Uploaded (it) to Wikimedia Commons, anyone can nominate it for deletion if they see fit. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:32, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:33, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Descriptions in Middle English

I’m an editor in Middle English Wikipedia and I should like to add descriptions to images in Middle English. I have found the image File:APictureOfAnIsraeliFloor.jpg and I have translated the description to Hebrew but when I translate it to Middle English it says that enm is an unrecognized value. Can you help? Btw, the translation to Middle English is An Israeli flore. Thanks in advance. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Btw, for convenience, can you please ping me in your reply.😅 Thanks in advance, -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: you can create Template:enm analogous to Template:en. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: thank you very much! Can you please check that I have done it properly because to be honest I don’t understand what the stuff I have written means or how it knows that enm is Middle English. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 18:34, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: It knows because it knows the language codes, and pulls from its own title. No need for {{Heavily used template}} on this one. I removed that; we can restore it if you really get around to doing a few thousand ME descriptions of images. Should be fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 19:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I tried to enter this description but it still gives the same error. Also when I try to search for languages it doesn’t show Middle English in the list. -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 10:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gifnk dlm 2020: Not sure what tool you are using that won't let you enter this, but it should be perfectly possible to hand-edit the file page and add this content. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I tried what you suggested and I can edit the summary but not the captions. Is that because Middle English Wikipedia is still in the incubator and doesn’t have its own subdomain yet? -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gifnk dlm 2020: By captions, to you mean the structured data (in wikibase, not in wikitext)? For that, you'd have to talk to the strucutured data team about them recognizing an additional language. One more reason I don't love structured data. - Jmabel ! talk 14:54, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I see. I think I will do only wikitext. Thank you very much! -Gifnk dlm 2020 (talk) 15:08, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Problem with the rendering of a SVG

Where are the F♯ keys?

Hello,

I know the SVG rendering has some troubles and I can handle them usually but there is one for which I can't find a workaround: in the picture File:Reconnaitre quintes justes.svg, two black keys are missing in the PNG conversion.

Any guess?

Cdang (talk) 17:58, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

The problem was solved by @Chatsam: thanx to her. In "cloned a clone".
Cdang (talk) 06:28, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Rename misleading file title?

File:Live radio broadcasting from the scene of the Hindenburg disaster.ogg

en:Herbert Morrison (journalist) recorded an en:acetate disc on May 6, 1937, in Lakehurst, New Jersey, went back to en:WLS (AM) in Chicago and the en:acetate disc was broadcast on May 7, 1937.
.... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 19:55, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@0mtwb9gd5wx: You can suggest a better name using the "Move" option in the "More" menu (top-right of the screen in the normal case), or by adding the {{Rename}} template to the file description. See Commons:File renaming for more information. I think this would fall under criterion 3. --bjh21 (talk) 23:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Sock puppetry

Hello, do we have any sock puppet like policy here on commons as well? A user on English Wikipedia help desk asked for some help in deleting their files from commons. I doubt that that user is perhaps a sock because the files they gave the links to have been uploaded by an other username who says that they are from England while the user at English Wikipedia help desk says that they are from Brazil. The doubt maybe wrong. But, see if this is any problem. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@Lightbluerain: , per "Commons:Blocking policy" it reads:
"Abusing multiple accounts to mislead, deceive, disrupt, distort consensus or to evade blocks or other sanctions. Secondary accounts are typically blocked indefinitely. The primary account may or may not be subject to new or extended blocks depending on the circumstances."
Though for it to be considered sockpuppetry it should satisfy one of these, if the user simply uses another account and requests deletion without attempting to do the above then it is simply using multiple accounts rather than misusing them. It might be more likely they the user is lying and isn't the original uploader, also courtesy deletions must come from the original uploader and they must be able to verify it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Lightbluerain: Any idea why they are pursuing a prospective Commons deletion on en-wiki rather than nominating the file for deletion here on Commons? - Jmabel ! talk 03:58, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
There are Commons admins who will block accounts for a suspicion of non-damaging multiple accounts, bulk delete all their uploads (even the good stuff) and then squat on the user page to remove any unblock requests afterwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Blocking accounts on sus, not evidence, should be firmly condemned. Someone with sysop rights who persistently abuses them this way should be desysoped, they are being a "bad cop". --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, obviously. And just as obviously, Welcome to Wikipedia! There is no sanction on admins, you know this.
User talk:SandyShores03 / Deleted content (No DR filed, they were just deleted)
User talk:HefePine23 / Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by HefePine23
I raised this at User talk:Elcobbola#Titanic amount of deletions re: SandyShores03 and they didn't edit for a week, conveniently giving the DR long enough to run that it might be closable. Of course I didn't receive a reply anywhere.
Their response to a Request for Unblock was to revert, reverted and the page locked.
@Elcobbola: , as is usually expected. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#Problems with Elcobbola Andy Dingley (talk) 09:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: , perhaps my response is not needed here but because the question was raised in my section only, I am responding: I didn't totally understand your case. I just went through some of the links you gave. If you think they made a mistake, we are all humans and are supposed to do so. Now, if there is anything you can do to amend it, then go on. If you can not, leave it. Not everything always goes per our wish. All-time complaining develops mental stress in ourselves and the second person. Lightbluerain (talk) 18:33, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
An illustrative example is the person that happily uploaded photographs in Hong Kong. To protect their anonymity they used a different account every time they did some uploads, literally hundreds of accounts.
Considering later political events in Hong Kong, the use of sock accounts in this way is completely legitimate and their anonymity should be respected, not circumvented because someone is arbitrarily obsessed with outing sock accounts when there is no evidence of abuse. --Fæ (talk) 11:06, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: and @Andy Dingley: , thanks for the info. @Fæ: , I agree with this. @Jmabel: , I have no idea. Here is the link to the question. Maybe the user didn't know about where to ask on commons. Lightbluerain (talk) 12:09, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't imagine that we will find ourselves deleting a properly licensed geometric image because someone considers it sacred, or because it resembles something someone considers sacred. Neither one is a particularly unusual geometric image. - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: , I agree but I understand the user's perspective. I know a sect near me who use similar curvy triangular figures and call it the Eternal Place. Pretty wierd, but they do so. So, if the user has any issue, I think it is better to get the images deleted rather than getting them into trouble. Lightbluerain (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, what am I supposed to do now? Should I ping the user here? Tag their images with appropriate template? Or, talk to them on their English Wikipedia talk page? The question on the help desk got archived now. Lightbluerain (talk) 15:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Censoring "sacred" images?

Are we now COM:CENSORED? See:

@Pescarts: , @Podzemnik: Andy Dingley (talk) 09:45, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

It looks like a courtesy deletion. Even when not required to do so for legal or other policy reasons, Commons may at times choose to delete images, for example as a goodwill gesture to a photographer who has made a mistake. --Zache (talk) 10:12, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
A deletion based on some evidence that a tribal copyright claim exists for specific designs would be a good rationale.
This may not exist for these cases, but if the files were unused and this request was from the uploader, it's a reasonable courtesy to delete for almost any reason (user creation not going to be used, uploaded in error, etc.). The uploader may have been better advised to use a speedy if they changed their minds within a day or two of upload, thereby avoiding having to wait weeks for the DR to close and risking a Streisand effect by having a DR in the first place.
Not really a censorship case. --Fæ (talk) 10:19, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: Accusing someone of censorship is a very unfortunate way how to start a discussion. It was a Courtesy deletion following COM:IAR and my own beliefs. I believe that we, the community of the biggest free media repository in the world, should be role models in setting up good examples of respectfull approach to indigenous peoples and their heritage. According to United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, "Indigenous peoples have the [...] right to the use and control of their ceremonial objects". I don't know if these particular images are really sacred to local indigenous communities or not, but as I said in my reasoning, I believe the uploader that they are and that's why I decided to delete them. Have a read eg. here, continue here and take it from there. Regards, --Podzemnik (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
If these are courtesy deletions, on behalf of their author, then that's fine. But we have an increasing number of DRs claiming that "precedent" is reason to delete something (it shouldn't be - our policy doesn't change based on past deletions). Also we do have religious edit-warring to remove content that one group finds offensive for some reason. Falun Gong is the obvious one, but we've also seen this between Hindu and Muslim nationalism from the Indian subcontinent. I would definitely not want to see, as was my concern here, a basis for deletions on the grounds that one group doesn't like it. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:02, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Not sure anyone is disagreeing with this being a perennial issue, it's just not the case with these. --Fæ (talk) 16:23, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
We should treat this case like as the authors of the pattern holds the the power to use it and to licence it and has not done so. So the publication has no permit and the uploader has stated his mistake when he uploaded it. And while some governments and laws might allow the use, the laws of that tribe might say otherwise or they might require a special procedure to get the licence to use the pattern on your personal skin. These are things that might be not enforceable by international law, but the Wikimedia foundation has somewhere in its foundation, that it respects people of different religions or cultures and would not allow material that has an unclear legal status.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 19:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Upload more than 4 photos from Flickr?

Is there a setting to be able to upload more than 4 photos from Flickr or other websites? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 21:07, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the mass-upload flag, which is in the autopatrollers (and patroller/image-reviewer/sysop) user group, which you can request at COM:RFR, additionally you can use a tool like COM:Flickr2Commons. Dylsss (talk) 22:26, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

move User:JoKalliauer/Optimization to Help:Optimization

A short introduction can be found at Help:SVG#Tidying_up, however optimizating/validating svg-files is controversial and often breaks svg-files (at least from being easyly editable), and generally (if no rendering-issues occur) should imho not be done to files where you are not the author (except you know what you are doing). Some Wikimedians think valid svg-files would be desired, that's not fully correct. If a file is xml-invalid (not only svg-invalid), that would actually be bad, but such files imho cannot be uploaded (any more), because of the xml-parser of MediaWiki checks that and blocks such images (e.g. phab:T279240). If a file contains invalid attributes and/or elements that is often desired, some examples can be found at User:JoKalliauer/Optimization#Invalid_elements_that_should_be_kept (grides,guides,labels,layer,...), they are often necessary for editing the file, and only a few of them influence rendering (such as e.g. SVG2.0-features such as vector-effect), and also should imho not be removed because they are ignored anyway if not understood.

And validity is non-objective, it depends on the validator, and all validators will report e.g. line-height="1.25" (common for non-inkscape-files) as error, however the validators do not recognize the identical command style="line-height:1.25 (inkscape uses style="..."), therefore validity should imho not get much attention, as it often seems.

DTD are imho irrelevant and controversial and they are not required nor recommended (but not depreciated as in the upcomming SVG-Version 2.0). Since SVG 1.1 is the current standard there is no correct answer, that is explained at User:JoKalliauer/Optimization#DTD_or_no_DTD.

Some people minimize svg-file-diskspace-size, generally that's a good intention (if it does not make the file unreadable like removing linebreaks and comments), but generally pure source-code-edits (without any visual effect) do not justify a reupload (with imho some exceptions). Optimizers (scour,svgcleaner,svgo) are buggy and according to Help:SVG#Tidying_up hardly developed any more, to avoid data-loss&rounding-errors there are some recomendations for optimzers, to minimize risks. For users without much knowlege I personally recommend to use https://svgworkaroundbot.toolforge.org/ (front-end of cleanupSVG), since it makes workarounds for the librsvg-version used by Wikimedia and uses quite safe options.

There is a short section about lossless PNG-compression and lossless&lossy JPEG-compression, which can also reduce SVG-file-sizes with embedded images.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

 Support but @JoKalliauer: I fixed the name.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:12, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, spelling is not my strong side (because of dyslexia)  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 14:37, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
@JoKalliauer: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:17, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 Support but the new name should include "SVG" and the topic is broader is just optimizing SVG files. Perhaps move to Help:SVG guidelines Glrx (talk) 16:41, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your replies, I moved it to Help:SVG guidelines, however optimizing JPEG/PNG/PDF should imho be removed.

I will also request moving User:JoKalliauer/SVG_test_suites into the help-namespace in another topic.

 — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by:  — Johannes Kalliauer - Talk | Contributions 17:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Do new versions take time to update?

I have uploaded a new version of this file but it doesn't seem to have been updated

Hello again, I'm sorry I'm a bore but I have many doubts. I have uploaded a new version of the following file. All right. However the image still looks the same. Why? Do new versions take time to update? – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 14:41, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Update: I have tried to load the new version again and it tells me that it cannot, because it is exactly the same as the current version. (but obviously it isn't) Heeeeeeelp 🥲 – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 14:44, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
=> Help:Purge Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 Thank you.! --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 12:26, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Sería útil que vincule al mapa original. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:HuangFei 2018.jpg

抱歉，我英文不好，我被告知一定要來這裡討論。 我也很不習慣這裡的討論方式， 最後我被逼著一定要來這裡回。

我這不就來了嘛。

就算錯也得有個開始。 我用中文回，哪裡有錯就再修改吧！ 謝謝。

我的帳號是吹笛牧童，我的真名是黃瑞昌。

謝謝。

剛才發現這裡的編輯環境會把換行符號吃掉，所以我還得補上標點符號。 給 Kai3952，你覺得我都不理你？ 你也不理我啊！你看，我回你信了，你有回我嗎？

https://imgur.com/uU9eUKL

當你自顧自的一直寄信來我信箱時，你有沒有想過我完全無法回應你？然後你自己就可以寫一兩個 pagedown，猜測一大堆。 在單向沒有溝通的狀況下，你可以一再寄信，而我心中滿滿的話全部找不到方法回應。 看著我也很急。

我覺得 wiki 首先應該把這個回信機制給做出來，不然我們很難有開始。 對於母語不是英文的人（雖然我是工程師，寫了二十年程式，但我習慣看的文件和這種型式不一樣；而且我承認因為我英文不好，所以看錯了很多文件，相當程度的影響了我閱讀文件的能力） 對於操作 wiki 不熟練的人，這都是門檻。

一開始我甚至不知道這個 edit 鍵按下去就可以參與討論，因為這不是 document，文件嗎？ 我們對於 wiki 的文件就是尊重，一堆英文看到就是忽略，最大限度的不去影響已經運作的東西，只修改自己維護的頁面。

拖了十幾二十天，我終於按下 edit 鍵了，謝天謝地。 你們千萬別因為這篇不合格式什麼的就刪了，不然我可沒法子開始了！ （這種討論真是見鬼了，所以我也可以任意修改別人的發言？雖然你們可以去查 log 知道誰做的並還原，但這不是很辛苦嗎？ 這裡是不是只有理組，沒有文組的人？不知道怎麼越過溝通的最後一哩路嗎？） —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.216.231.12 (talk) 21:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

2021/05/05 —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 49.216.231.12 (talk) 21:00, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

^^^ The above was added belatedly to this section, at the top, by an un-signed-in IP. I don't read Chinese, and have no idea whether it is on-topic. Would someone please either translate it, or if it is off-topic delete it along with this remark? - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, my English is not good, I was told that I must come here to discuss.

I am also very unaccustomed to the way of discussion here, In the end I was forced to come here back.

I am here.

Even if it is wrong, there must be a beginning. I will reply in Chinese, and modify it if there is a mistake! Thank you.

My account is Piper Shepherd Boy, and my real name is Huang Ruichang.

Thank you.

I just found out that the editing environment here will eat newline characters, so I have to add punctuation marks. To Kai3952, do you think I ignore you? You ignore me! You see, I replied your letter, did you reply to me?

https://imgur.com/uU9eUKL

When you keep sending letters to my mailbox, have you ever thought that I can't respond to you at all? Then you can write one or two pagedowns yourself and guess a lot. When there is no one-way communication, you can send letters over and over again, but I can’t find a way to respond to all the words that are full of my heart. Looking at me is also very anxious.

I think the wiki should first make this reply mechanism, otherwise it will be difficult for us to get started. For people whose native language is not English (Although I am an engineer and have written programs for 20 years, the documents I am accustomed to reading are not the same as this type; and I admit that because my English is not good, I read a lot of documents wrong, to a considerable extent Affects my ability to read files) For those who are unskilled in operating a wiki, this is a threshold.

At first, I didn't even know that you could participate in the discussion by pressing the edit button, because this is not a document, is it a file? We respect the wiki files. When we see a bunch of English, we just ignore them. We don't affect what is already in operation to the greatest extent and only modify the pages we maintain.

After more than ten or twenty days, I finally pressed the edit button, thank goodness. Don’t delete this because it’s out of format, otherwise I won’t be able to start! (This kind of discussion is really hell, so I can also modify other people's speeches at will? Although you can check the log to know who did it and restore it, isn't it very hard? Are there only people in the rationale group and no literary group? Don't know how to cross the last mile of communication? )

2021/05/05
translator: Google Translate via   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:15, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Please take a look at my previous edit and you'll see that I nominated this image for deletion. Because the source given is "Facebook," and the image author (黃瑞昌) stated in the Facebook site is not the same name as the uploader (吹笛牧童), which suggests it might not be the uploader's own work and therefore potentially a copyright violation. It's my regular way of checking whether pictures are copyvio or not.

The uploader refused to talk to me and instead lodged a complaint with Reke against me. Here you can see that they are discussing me on the PTT site. I believe the uploader does not understand our policy with regard to OTRS. But Reke doesn't think so. Instead, he believes that my Asperger's syndrome caused the problem. I feel like Reke was overdoing it a little bit rather than really focusing on discussing to the image itself. Any case should be focusing on how to make the user do his consideration of the issue in a less hostile fashion, not personal attack. So, I go to his talk page to discuss it with him.

From his reply (1, 2) I feel he understand the licensing and OTRS policies very well. Because he told me that, from his experience, in this case it is not necessary to request the permission, only you (Kai) would do it via OTRS, and that's why the problem is occurring. But what I see is that the author is 黃瑞昌 and not 吹笛牧童. The uploader does not provide evidence of permission, then how do we know if he got the rights on this image?

Look at [1]. The uploader is upset with what I did. I can see from his tone and attitude that he seems to be angry. Because the correspondence between himself and Reke indicates that my intention was fight somebody. I'm trying to keep myself out of controversy, but...Reke banned me for disruptive editingwith respect to the images without permissions, and strongly upheld policies what he said. Until now I still can't nominated any images for delete.

I would be greateful if one of you that know a bit more the licensing and OTRS policies than I could have look and see if what I do is correct.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

  • The claim there is that OTRS is in progress. Either we will get adequate permission and it will be kept, or we won't and it won't. Nothing worthy of discussing at VP. - Jmabel ! talk 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    • Hmm…I'm not sure what you mean, can you explain what I did wrong?--Kai3952 (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
      @Kai3952: We got adequate permission two years ago, and it is filed in Ticket:2019080410000399. You were right to suspect a photo prima facie sourced to Facebook.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
    Now the problem is not that we got adequate permission two years ago, however, the uploader and Reke both indicated that there is a serious problem with my way of checking copyvio and use of {{Delete}} in pictures. If I am right why did Reke say on my talk page: "in this case it is not necessary to request the permission"? I am starting to feel confused about our policies. You see: 1 and 2, I did the same thing as yours, but the result I got is like the example you saw earlier (in which the uploader lodged a complaint with Reke against me). I don't know what I did wrong at all. Because Reke is a volunteer who doesn't just work for Wikimedia Taiwan, he do care for a needy user (except me). As you know now, I followed his suggestion, or I should say, I did buckle under his pressure. In my case if this is not resolved then I can not nominated any pictures for deletion. I sighed...it's not the case when we think we are doing it right. You would think we did really great, but I am sure there are things we need to resolved.--Kai3952 (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    @Kai3952: For the first of those links, your first step should have been the "No permission" link or {{subst:npd}}. The second link seems fine.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
    If so, then take a look at this. Jmabel told me that, "If the answer to both of those is "yes," then fine, no need to use OTRS. Otherwise, OTRS or delete." As far as I could judge from what I saw from the source of the image: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10214278941640776&set=oa.2070567889928378&type=3&theater, it might not be the uploader's own work and therefore potentially a copyright violation. But Reke doesn't think so. Instead, he believes that the normal average person can judge the image was uploaded by the author and does not need to be confirmed via the OTRS process. See: Reke's reply on my talk page. If your ability to discern the copyvio images is the same as mine, then I don't understand why he corrected me. I have been wondering if there is any way to prove that our policies are fully justify (for example, images previously published in Facebook need OTRS-permission)?--Kai3952 (talk) 19:18, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I don't think you did anything wrong. Legitimate challenge, OTRS requested (uploader seems to have resented being asked to give confirmation to claim; that happens sometimes). Seems resolved. Cheers, -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
        • Seems resolved? Why? Did you not see that I also mentioned what Reke said?--Kai3952 (talk) 09:26, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
          • @Infrogmation: . Actually, to ask OTRS can't solve the question in this case. If we believe the Facebook User 黃瑞昌 is "User:吹笛牧童", we can believe it at the beginning. An OTRS permission can't prove that 黃瑞昌 (on FB) is User:吹笛牧童. If the photo is from a organize, we can check the domain name of the mail is belong the organize or not. But if the photo is from a person, OTRS means you don't believe his statement, and ask some information that still can't confirm anything. That's why some uploaders resented.--Reke (talk) 11:33, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
            • @Reke: Once the OTRS team establish communication, someone on the team can (for example) request a PM on Facebook verifying the identity of the Commons account. - Jmabel ! talk 14:35, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
              • Okay, but the other problem is e can't prove that the photo is belong the Facebook account right ? As the opinion from 吹笛牧童, he felt that is not a useful way but annoyed. I also heard some new volunteers thinking as him. Can we just ask OTRS for those photos which have stronger reason for us to doubt? --Reke (talk) 05:39, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
                • @Reke: Today I realized that you have too many misunderstandings about our policies, because you have had strong views about this from the beginning. You assumed that 吹笛牧童 was 黃瑞昌, and asked me to believe him, which is unreasonable. To some extent, you seem to encouraging us to "ignore" the licensing and OTRS policies. OTRS can not only obtain permission from the author, but also prove whether the facebook account user is the author or not. If you want to keep the photo, then you should convince the uploader to provide proof otherwise of owning copyright instead of resisting the policies. Unfortunately, you choose to believe your views and then you accusing me of doing something wrong. Up until now, I still haven't seen your apology nor your admission of your mistakes. Honestly, uploader's resentment comes from themselves. Because they can neither try to understand nor accept the OTRS policy. I am aware of 吹笛牧童's views on the issue, if he does not want to obtain permission via OTRS, the best way is to upload the original file directly to Commons.--Kai3952 (talk) 23:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
                  • I would say that all policies are for a better Wikimedia movement. A contributor need do more things just because he/she doesn't publish his/her own work on Commons first, that is so unfriendly to many photographers. They often share their work on social networking sites as soon as they finish shooting. If we only think on the basis of the Wikimedia, we will lose a lot of new users and good photos. Even if I know this regulation, I hope it can be amended; or at least be more flexible in its implementation. --Reke (talk) 17:37, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
                    @Reke: Each of the photographers who "share their work on social networking sites as soon as they finish shooting" may post Commons:Licensing compliant permission for such work (or identify the name of their Commons account) on their website or social media presence (anywhere their work appears online before uploading here) and refer to such on each file description page or their user page, or they may send the photo(s) and such permission or account identification via OTRS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
                    • Or post higher-res and full EXIF here, or indicate on their social media account that they have this particular Commons account, or deal with OTRS one time around to verify that the social media account in question is run by the same person as the Commons account … - Jmabel ! talk 15:00, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
                      • @Jeff G. and Jmabel: Sorry to ping you again, but I must report to fulfill my reporting obligations. When I tried to help him (the uploader) with my experience from many years in the Commons, he went to PTT to lodge a complaint against me. I do not know the cause for this, but I suspect that one reason may be that he chose to learn how to work with others in an "incorrect" way because all his photos are uploaded with his account that was logged into it on Commons. This shows that he can put feelings aside to learn how to work with others. However, he twisted my words so that it seemed like I was accusing him of resisting the policies. Look at all responses from PTT, everyone were criticizing me and showing they disrespect me (or, say, they are very unacceptable to how Commons works) because Albito said: "我只能說是那個人有問題，沒人有義務幫忙幫到底," and also say: "只會要求別人配合他，本來就不是來談事情而是來找架吵的." Andrew43 too had added fuel to the fire and said: "把問題提出來討論。根本和小學生一樣." None of them really gets at why Commons need to get an OTRS-permission from 黃瑞昌. Judging from their criticism there are some who seem to believe that our discussions are like elementary school students. I don't know what that means. Our all are mentally immature kids? No matter what it means to us, they have proven that they are ignorant of Commons's policies and how Commons works. That's why I said that the uploader's learning was a "incorrect" way. If he really needs our help, he knows to go back to Commons and to ask users from Taiwan (like Reke) for help. On Commons, there's a genuine plethora of people from Chinese speaking environments to edit files, in which some of them are often active on Commons and on other Wikipedias. Personally I think they can provide any help to 吹笛牧童 but I don't know what he is thinking about nor know why he acted the way he did (which means he went to PTT and to ask for help). His action is inconsistent with his need/expectation so I get confused with his illogicality. However, I feel he seems to imply that we are not cooperating him in the way he want or to imply that we are not as good as those who helped on PTT. Actually I have helped him, and I specifically told him in my email that, if you cannot accept the policy OTRS then I won't force you. I am neither interested in his photos nor hostility against him. The majority of my discussion is based on improving Commons or learn how improve my own actions. Given that he will twist your words as much as he want, I recommend any user that is interested in 吹笛牧童's photos to take this into account, not just to request OTRS. Furthermore, the same problem occurred with another photo File:Anne2289-fixed.jpg. The summary shows that the author is 小胖 and not 吹笛牧童. When I saw his complaint, my time tells me that I should do something more beneficial for Commons. So...I decided to stop wasting my time on helping him. If the problem still occurs, please don't ping me or say "Kai3952". From now on I don't give in to ignorant people. In order to continue doing this work sustainably, I must rethink how to not to be misled by their claims about their supporting evidence that I have Asperger's syndrome (which means they believe that my ability affect to get along with others such as I report to COM:DR that suspicious photos with no evidence of permission). I very appreciate to Jeff G and Jmabel. I got self confidence and courage from our talks. You not only provides me with the best assistance but also proves that I am a normal and healthy person.--Kai3952 (talk) 18:16, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: @Jeff G.: , thanks a lot. That is a better way to those contributor. However, how could they know this way in the first time they uploaded? The "Interactive Release Generator" will give a template mail for these kind users?--Reke (talk) 11:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • When other Taiwanese users (like PsychokillerFa) abide by the OTRS policy, why only 吹笛牧童 has a "strong reaction" to our requests for permission? I think OTRS itself is not a problem as it's not to damage anything to get those desired results or cause any trouble to uploaders. It just annoys me when he play the victim role on PTT. Honestly he did not take responsibility for himself. We should be aware that a uploader must abide by the licensing and OTRS policies so we still insist on requesting it this way under no permission. Unless someone want to prove that he/she is an uncooperative user himself/herself.--Kai3952 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

LOUD TEMPLATES (red, bold, big, warning symbols)

warning symbols
unimportant ~ red
important ~ yellow

The amount of attention a template draws to itself, should correspond to its importance.

  • The templates deserving the most attention are probably {{Delete}} and {{Speedy}}, and they are styled with the appropriate loudness.
  • Less important ones are styled more modestly, e.g. {{Disputed}} (a first step towards deletion) uses a warning symbol and a red border.
  • {{LargeImage}} warns that the user's browser could freeze, and thus uses a bit of red.
  • {{Uncategorized}} and {{Check categories}} are important maintenance templates, and their style is rather modest.

This is how important templates look like. So less important templates should use styles, that draw less attention.

But some templates are styled as warnings, although they just contain hints that might be interesting to some users:

My main suggestion is, that the use of red in templates should be restricted to cases, that require the immediate attention of the user. Greetings, Watchduck (quack) 00:51, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this proposal. There is no need to draw attention to something that is not that much of an deal.--Snævar (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
What about {{Tracks are for trains}} – is it appropriate, IYO? — Draceane talkcontrib. 12:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
It's a general piece of wisdom, that requires no action by the uploader, and does not affect, how the image can be used. It is less important than {{Personality rights}}, and should be smaller. In my opinion it should be one expandable line. --Watchduck (quack) 19:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there no style guide, that is to say guidelines explaining current norms but not enforced as policy? Maybe there should be. --Fæ (talk) 16:27, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
IMHO it should be differed:
  • warning informations to each viewer, as e.g. {{LargeImage}};
  • general information that maintenance is needed, as e.g. {{Uncategorized}};
  • warnings to the uploader (but later to others just a maintenance information), as e.g. {{Created with}}.
It seems difficult to expand the upload feature that the uploader will be warned loudly but every viewer should get later another more modest appearance.
I agree that Fictional, Fake sports logo, Communist symbol should be less alarming; I am not so sure with SVG with raster elements. -- sarang♥사랑 07:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with SVGs containing raster elements. E.g. they are essential for Human body diagrams, to keep them editable and translatable. If anything, files like this should contain a hint, that they should be SVGs with raster elements. But anyway: It is just a hint, and no call to action specific to the image.
It is slightly different for {{FakeSVG}}. I am inclined to say, that there is an implicit call to change the wrong file extension, which would justify formatting on the level of {{Rename}}. I have just done that for this file. (There should be a better procedure for this mix of overwrite and renaming. See here.) --Watchduck (quack) 11:57, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Argh! Don't strike out stuff in other peoples messages! Answering within another message is usually a bad idea - especially without proper indentation. --Watchduck (quack) 22:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
It should necessarily be differed also between
  • using templates to flag a file which has something noteable
  • using templates in a wrong or deprecated way
While it may be less or more essential to tell specifications about a file, wrong usages should not occur; but it seems very difficult to change habits when people are used to misuse some templates, and copy it further and further from one file to the next upload. -- sarang♥사랑 08:50, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Flickr2Commons down?

https://flickr2commons.toolforge.org

Today I just get a seemingly infinite "Loading..." - Jmabel ! talk 18:31, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I have the same issue. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • More recently this has been working for me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
The geograph2commons tool is doing the same thing, and has been for at least the last 5 weeks. Broichmore (talk) 18:33, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

PD US 1923

When and why did the license tags realated to PD US 1923 change to 1926? Seven Pandas (talk) 14:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)

Because the law in the US is published before 1923 or more than 95 years ago. Therefore, in 2019, works from 1923 left copyright, and once more for each year that's gone by since then.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
e/c
The passage of time and US Copyright law's changing rules.
2021 - 95 years = 1926. In 2022, it will be 1927. In 2023, it will be 1928.
Material published before 1978 has a 95-year copyright term.
Before 1978, the maximum copyright term was 28 years plus a 28-year renewal for a total of 56 years. If you copyrighted something in 1923 and renewed, the copyright would last to 1923+56=1979. But the law changed so that material copyrighted in 1923 or later (and still in copyright) would have a 95-year term. For a long time, the 1923 year seemed to be fixed because the time difference between 95 and 56 years had to tick away, but that finally happened a few years ago.
See https://copyright.cornell.edu/publicdomain
Glrx (talk) 16:14, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh. I understand. Thanks! Seven Pandas (talk)
And as far as I know the template will increase the value every years automatically to the current value.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

The growth rates in the number of photos on Commons

I would like to know if the growth rates in the number of photos on Commons has been affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. If possible, I also would like to know more details, such as the growth rates of each month in each country, and which countries have grown the most in the past 16 months (calculated from December 8, 2019).--Kai3952 (talk) 02:42, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

That would be difficult. user:Fæ has uploaded a million PDFs during Covid, a user from the Filipines, who uploaded more than a million files in the last years, stopped uploading after a conflict about FoP, and started to upload thousends of files with a new account, Lingua Libre contributers have started to mass upload lingua libre files, user:Askeuhd mass uploads views of earth. Nothing of this has to do with Covid, but it has massive affect on the growth rate. --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
Here are the statistics [2], in March 2020 we had a new record but topped in November 2020 and March 2021. In April and May 2020 we had a non bot edit record. In February 2020 we had a non WLE/WLM new user record.(Maybe there was an other new contest?) And we had a all time page visit record in March and April 2020 with more then 1 billion page visits and did not hit this value since then. --GPSLeo (talk) 06:19, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • There are also a massive number of archive files uploaded by DPLA, starting 25 April 2021. Krok6kola (talk) 23:52, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @E4024 and Krok6kola: I have never heard of a bot getting sick, not to mention contracting the COVID-19 virus (unless you mean we all are "bot").--Kai3952 (talk) 03:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Caption challenge...

This weeks image - Commons:Silly_things#Week_Ending_(Monday_17th_May_2021) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:09, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Please advise me on 38 of 76 files

Please let me know if you agree with me. I went and uploaded 38 .png files to this category that I created - Category:Some feudal coats of arms (Book) but then when I saw they were so huge, I recreated the files as .jpg I want to mark the png files for deletion and keep the .jpg files because the quality is the same. Is that okay? If you agree I should mark them for deletion, what deletion reason should I use? Regards! --The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 15:13, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done

Media Search released as default to logged-in users this week

Greetings,

After releasing Special:MediaSearch to anonymous editors and users not logged in last month, the Structured Data team is ready to release Media Search to logged-in users on Wednesday. Once Media Search is set to be the default landing page, users can restore Special:Search as their default preferred page if they chose, or users can access Special:Search any time through a link in Media Search.

Thanks for your time, feedback is always welcome on the Media Search talk page. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:11, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Global user contributions doesn't work

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T282557

The function "Global user contributions" doesn't work today. --ŠJů (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

@ŠJů: Sadly, https://guc.toolforge.org/?by=date&user=%C5%A0J%C5%AF shows you have no global contributions. However, https://xtools.wmflabs.org/ec-latestglobal/commons.wikimedia/%C5%A0J%C5%AF shows 1,037,403 (in pages of 50 at a time).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Possibly hundreds of high quality free music tracts from Runescape

Per This tweet (Archives exist) from the official Runescape Twitter, the music tracts Runescape plays are "not copyright protected." I first attempted an upload a specific tract, but then saw the edit filter blocked and figured I'd post here. I initially posted on the Help Desk for technical assistance but then I realized that perhaps verifying this permission and proceeding may require careful actions, such as verification of this statement (From their Official Twitter). Sometimes companies don't know precisely what they intend by stating no copyright, meaning that anyone can use it for any purpose, including commercially. Runescape is a long time 3d online multiplayer RPG with lots of individual, high quality music tracts. If we can verify this permission, we should take advantage of the fact that they are copyright free, in line with Wikimedia Commons Project Scope. If village pump is not where this goes, forgive me. Alert me and I'll strike/delete it from here and move it to the proper section. Tutelary (talk) 21:57, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it would be very cool if we added Runescape Soundtracks to this media repository! The most appropriate license tag would be Template:Copyrighted free use. However, I am unsure if RuneScape's tweet constitutes a sufficient free license. "Not copyright protected" and "free to use" could mean a variety of things in common parlance, for example that their CDs do not have DRM copy protection or that they are free to use for personal use. Indeed, the products on their Laced page all seem to have copyright notices "under exclusive license to Laced Music Ltd." If their licensing agreement with Laced Music is truly exclusive, it would probably not be legal for them to, say, give an irrevocable license to everyone in the world to use and adapt their music, even for commercial purposes (as is required for files to be hosted on Wikimedia Commons). I only cast doubt on this situation because we should probably be more careful about getting explicit permission from large companies (or their subsidiaries) who may get litigious should their "free" music be used for the "wrong reasons". If the tracks truly are copyright free, I think it would be most prudent to get OTRS permission spelling out the exact details of the music's use.  Mysterymanblue  22:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tutelary: Please see here; much of Runescape's music is licensed under CC BY-NC 3.0. This is probably what they meant by "free to use." However, this license is too restrictive to be used on Commons due to the noncommercial provision, so the music can't be hosted here.  Mysterymanblue  22:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I think this is indeed a bit of a tricky situation. There definitely is a distinction between "not copyright protected." and CC BY-NC 3.0, since "not copyright protected." may have a connotation of public domain. I think someone should email them, pointing out the facts that you stated and finally asking them to elaborate on precisely what they mean by the use of these terms. EDIT: Reading more into their Twitter they state for non-commercial use, which is consistent with the license they chose. So I believe that settles it in favor of not uploading due to the incorrect CC license needed..Tutelary (talk) 00:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

UploadStash

How do I empty the UploadStash, when the UploadStash is so big, that I cannot open Special:UploadStash (timeout)? The deletion is started by a POST-Form, that is only available from Special:UploadStash. --C.Suthorn (talk) 10:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

UploadStash gets cleaned automatically as items that are 6 hours old get removed (mw:Manual:$wgUploadStashMaxAge). If it does not happen, then that is a bug. UploadStash is probably too advanced for anyone here to know about, you probably get better luck asking an developer.--Snævar (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
6 hours may possibly not apply, when files are uploaded and assemmbled, but the publishing is hanging. in either case, I haven't uploaded for 24 hours and can still not display the stash. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Taiwanese users don't seem to adapt to our policies especially they don't allow us to delete their images

I often come to Commons and devote to editing about images uploaded from Taiwanese users, so I can easily patrol suspicious images that might violate copyrights. However, I often encounter people who have very little practical work experience, especially to users who are not familiar with Commons's policies and how it works. I think this is not a problem caused by the English language because I used their native language (Chinese) to explain to them, but most of their thinking is very different from what I expected. When I teach them, I will explain why, their reaction is usually "worse than worst" on the whole. Some people think it's my problem, some people think I'm causing trouble, some people think I am unfriendly, some people think I don't welcome them, some people think I am aggressive, some people think I like to stick to Commons's rules and stay away from what their expected...etc. This is clear from the reaction they gave to my words that none of them really get at why we need to abide by the policies. Those who snicker about me or talk behind my back (especially lines such as "Asperger's syndrome"), that has indeed caused me to feel wronged and heartbroken at the same time. I know that many Taiwanese users hate our policies, especially OTRS and DR will delete images with no evidence of permission which led to strong hostility towards us. They are unacceptable not only because our deletion pose a "threat" to their images, but also because their own thoughts mingle with every other person's thoughts and they have each sunk into their own worlds (living in a world without rules). I've spent a lot of time around on fire seriously committed them, but usually the result is not good. They may not adapt to Commons's social norms and behavioral expectations. It pains me to admit it, but there's nothing I can do to change the situation. In order to implement our policies and practices, I need someone who can assist me to resolve the issue above.--Kai3952 (talk) 15:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

  • No one has imposed upon you the requirement that you do this particular work. You are not even an admin: it is not specifically your job to make sure everyone else behaves well, unless you choose to take that on. Yes, if you tell people they are wrong, sometimes they will get angry at you; sometimes they will insult you; sometimes they will say things that you take to be insults, whether they are or not; etc. - Jmabel ! talk 00:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • It may be the case that a low number of chinese language admins has imposed the requirement to do this particular work on a single user?
    • It may be the case that there is a systematic problem with contributions from a specific identifiable group of users and it has nothing to do with the possible failings of a user addressing the issue? --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: It's nothing to do with the admin itself, because everyone has the "right" to nominate suspicious images that might violate copyrights or add the {{No permission since}} template on them.--Kai3952 (talk) 10:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    • BTW, their real intention is to stop me from nominating their images and also to stop me from adding the {{No permission since}} template on them, so it shows that they don't allow us to delete images with no evidence of permission.--Kai3952 (talk) 11:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Image Uploading

It's just a minor detail, but half the time when I'm uploading an image I get a silly message saying "There was an error in your submission. You are already uploading the file... etc etc." It happens that there is no error and I'm already aware of what image I'm uploading. Would someone please get rid of this silly message? Sardaka (talk) 08:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Using UploadWizard and uploading more than a dozen files? I also have a few files that fail to upload but all it states is "error". Time consuming and annoying, doesn't matter what browser, internet connection ect I use, it still occurs. Bidgee (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
=> In German. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Wolverhampton.jpg

In this file's history there are three differently photos. It is permitted and possible to split it? Matlin (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • You can request a split, but the first two don't really look worth having. - Jmabel ! talk 17:28, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

New image recommendation features -- Request for feedback!

Hello! I am Sannita, and I am the contact person for the Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW) project.

We are looking for feedback that can help us design and build some new image recommendation features, to provide more and better suggestions for image matches to unillustrated articles.

Our work will be based on the Image Suggestion API, but we plan to experiment with some new approaches and ideas. In particular, we are looking for relatively experienced Wikimedia users, in particular users who have experience in uploading media to Commons and/or in writing and expanding articles.

More information about this project can be found on Mediawiki at mw:Structured data across Wikimedia/Image Recommendations. Feedback is welcome on the dedicated discussion page, where we also defined a series of questions we would like to ask you.

Hope to hear from you soon! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 16:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - After Koshu Kajikazawa

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#After Koshu Kajikazawa. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:09, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Wrong categories

Hi, I have a probleme with some categories about churches. In France, in Aveyron department, in commune of Manhac are 2 Saint Peter churches — first in Manhac (seat of the commune; Category:Église de Manhac) and other in the village named Naves. But the second church has the category in commons under the name Category:Église Saint-Pierre de Manhac, which is misleading. I wanted to transfer it under the name "Église Saint-Pierre de Naves", but this is a redirect for Category:Église Saint-Pierre (Naves), other church which has the same church and town, but it is located in Corrèze department.

So could someone rename the categories as below? :

  • Category:Église de Manhac → Category:Église Saint-Pierre de Manhac or Category:Saint Peter church in Manhac
  • Category:Église Saint-Pierre de Manhac → Category:Église Saint-Pierre de Naves (Aveyron) or Category:Saint Peter church in Naves (Aveyron)
  • Category:Église Saint-Pierre (Naves) → Category:Église Saint-Pierre de Naves (Corrèze) or Category:Saint Peter church in Naves (Corrèze)

In each of these categories, we could write a note about other churches of the same name. For example for the Saint Peter church in Manhac: "not to be confused with the other church is this commune Saint Peter church in Naves (Aveyron)".

Unfortunately for me it is technically too complicated. Thank you in advance for your help :) Tournasol7 (talk) 07:24, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

BBC iPlayer screen capture needed

The above image of an historic PD-anon handbill from 1867 is a crop from a screen-capture of the BBC Television programme Antiques Roadshow, from the iPlayer streaming platform, approx 44m15s into the episode. Could someone with access to that platform, and a high-resolution setup, do better than my small-screen laptop? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I have uploaded a new version that is slightly more in focus albeit slightly smaller. Verbcatcher (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. With help from a friend I've had another go, also as a TIFF; please (everyone) see what you think is the best. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Depicts

I continue to be bewildered by how "depicts" is being used. Do we have no other structured properties related to the content of the picture? Does my photo File:Edo-Tokyo Museum - document of Tokugawa Ieyasu (1584) 01 (15585505539).jpg really depict Japan or the Edo-Tokyo Museum? I certainly don't think so myself. I think it depicts a certain document from 1584 by Tokugawa Ieyasu. But apparently User:MathXplore thinks otherwise, and I see that the main thing he or she does here is to add "depicts" statements so this may be just ignorance on my part, so I don't feel comfortable reverting. Still, as an admin, I would like to have clarity on how this feature should and shouldn't be used. Is there somewhere the intent of "depicts" is clearly documented, which would help to clarify the intent? - Jmabel ! talk 06:10, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Hello. Since I couldn't read the text clearly, I decided to use simpler words to describe the picture. In my opinion, finding names of a certain document at Wikidata/WP is not always easy, and I feel it gets harder when the document is non-English. I'm sorry if my edits have caused confusion or inconvenience. MathXplore (talk) 10:33, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
If language becomes an issue int the language independend SDC-depicts somethings gets very wrong and someone from the SDC team should be alerted. OTOH: the descripiton in the info template is short and not very precise. If MW would use tesseract to transcibe the text in images that might have been easier. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:22, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I have removed the depicted claim as there is nothing in the image that specifically depicts the museum. I would probably have retained the depicts statement if you could see some of the museum architecture like a gallery or atrium but here we just see a random surface that could be anywhere in the world (I can't even tell if it is on a wall or resting on a table/horizontal surface). Instead, I have set a claim of location as being the museum. That provides a claim with the same useful information but doesn't confuse things with saying something is depicted that can't be seen in the image. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel and MathXplore: In the structured data section of the files there is a button to "add statement." I am not an expert on how Wikidata has been implemented on Commons but I believe that most, if not all, properties from Wikidata can be called from Commons. From experience on Wikidata, if I was to link an item to a particular location, I would use the location (P276) property. In this case I clicked "Add statement" searched for "location" as a property and then set the museum as the location. I don't know if there are any guides on useful properties for Commons files, as I am just relying on my own editing experience. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the notice. I was usually editing from the Android app and didn't know about that feature. I'll try to use that in my future edits. MathXplore (talk) 07:05, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jmabel: I had a problem with wikidata saying a Cultural heritage monument in Pakistan was an a romance film in India. I tried to change it myself and removed the Indian film reference, but the wikidata item insisted. I went to "Help" on wikidata and very quickly someone addressed my concerns. But before it was fixable I had to remove an image of the monument from an enwiki article on the Indian film. Apparently that is how wikidata decides "what" something is. Krok6kola (talk) 21:13, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

DRAFTspace?

As page creation is restricted 

You have to log in to create new pages. Please log in or sign up if you would like to create this page. If you can not or do not want to sign up, you can ask at the Village pump (community), the Help desk or the Administrators' noticeboard for help.

is there something like DRAFT space for Wikimedia Commons to draft up galleries before asking for the pages to be approved? -- 67.70.27.105 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. No, we don't have that, please log in or sign up.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Once you have an account, you can do drafts in your user space. E.g. I could create a User:Jmabel/Draft:Whatever. - Jmabel ! talk 15:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Upload request process?

English Wikipedia (and a few other languages wikidata:Q5644849) has a w:en:WP:Files for Upload request process to ask to have a file uploaded. Is there a complementary process here on Wikimedia Commons? That would be useful, as English Wikipedia's process rejects requests to upload for other languages or other WMF projects -- 67.70.27.105 12:07, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. No, we don't have that, please log in or sign up to upload.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

New category: Goose games and-or Water games

Goose game on the Hofvijver pond in The Hague in the 16th century

In the middle ages up into the 17th century, watergames where well known in Europe. One of the games was the goose game, where people on boats used long sticks to push the competition off their boats. Ofcourse there is a Category:Game of the Goose, which is about the board game. I do not know if the two games are related, but I do not think files of paintings depicting goose games should be in the same category as the board game. Since there where other water games than just the goose game, I'd suggest creating a category water games, with subcategory goose games. Since I am not native English speaking, I'm asking help to find the right category names. - oSeveno (User talk) 16:34, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I did find this: Category:Sea jousting. - oSeveno (User talk) 16:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

PNG previews of SVGs

What's happened to the PNG preview links that used to appear under SVG files? Until recently you could use them to generate previews of various different widths (200px, 500px, 1000px, or 2000px). Why were they removed? Zacwill (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

@Zacwill: I still see the links. Is there a specific image that has this problem or all SVGs? MKFI (talk) 08:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Try this in URL: 640px => 1234px Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 09:11, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zacwill and Nightflyer: All such links on File:Gemeinde Sommerkahl.svg work for me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI, Nightflyer, and Jeff G.: These are the links I'm referring to. I had to look up an SVG file on the Wayback Machine because any file I look at now no longer has them. The "other resolutions" links work, but they're not so useful because they don't go up to 2000px. Zacwill (talk) 18:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@Zacwill: Change the URL to your resolution: 5345px. Gruss --Nightflyer (talk) 18:43, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Template system for Public Domain art is hard to understand.

Hi. I enjoy editing the templates for files that have been uploaded to move them to be more in line with Wikimedia Commons' preferred system. But to be honest, I'm stumped if I know what that is. As far as I understand it, I have to make three decisions - why the art is public domain in the US, why the art is public domain outside the US, and why the file has no copyright of its own.

Let's say that I see an image of a painting whose creator died more than 100 years ago. It contains no 2-D elements. Should I use PD-Art or PD-Scan? PD-Scan seems to give the user more options and I can't tell that it is not a scan so does it qualify for "so similar to such a scan or photocopy that no copyright protection can be expected to arise"? Or do I have to be able to prove that it is a scan? The guidance on both templates both shows pictures of similar images and they barely say anything about when I should use the other. PD-Scan's guidance says something about if it is unaltered then I can choose not to give either template. What counts as unaltered?

I can use PD-old-auto or PD-old-100. Which do I choose? Naturally, I would gravitate towards PD-old-100 as it gives me fewer forms to fill in. But maybe there is some reason I should use PD-old-auto. I'm not an expert in international copyright law, that's why I don't create the templates. PD-old says that should preferably use PD-old-auto but Multi-license copyright tags says both are "best".

I can use PD-US-expired or PD-1996. Both apply. Again I would choose PD-US-expired as it is shorter but maybe other people know something I don't.

Thank-you for reading, El komodos drago (talk) 14:24, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Use PD-old-100 over PD-old-auto, and when you don't know better, just use PD-Art. PD-US-expired and PD-1996 is a little controversial, but I'm strongly on the side of PD-US-expired, since dotting all the i's and crossing all the t's on PD-1996 is extremely challenging.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Multi-factor authentication help page

Hi, We don't have a help page for Multi-factor authentication. And Special:Manage_Two-factor_authentication leads to the Wikipedia article instead of en:Help:Two-factor authentication or m:Help:Two-factor authentication. Not good. Regards, Yann (talk) 19:18, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

That is the default text, but we can override it at MediaWiki:Oathauth-ui-general-help. However, it doesn't look like enwiki or meta have overridden it, so it might be better to change the link in MediaWiki. The Meta page is probably the best target. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:56, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Adding Telegram as a Commons discussion channel

Commons has a popular and active Telegram group, in fact, it's the most active off-wiki social discussion method at the moment, with people sharing tips for tools, outages and getting very quick support. In {{Discussion menu}} at the top of this page we show IRC and the mailing list, any thoughts on adding the telegram link? Depending on feedback here, I'll add it in a day or two.

Because we have to avoid letting in spambots or random vandals, the link we use is https://t.me/wikimediacommons which takes you to a public "reception group" where valid accounts are then added or invited to the private "Wikimedia Commons Community" group. Today's member total is an impressive 167. All contributors are welcome to try it out, you can find some privacy tips for the app here, because nobody wants to share mobile phone numbers by accident!. --Fæ (talk) 08:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As a member of the group I agree that it should be more visible, I only found out about it by chance. -- Discostu (talk) 08:56, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Is there a way to participate in this from a PC, or is it smartphone only? - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
There are desktop versions and tablet-friendly Android versions. You just have to 'enable' it using the QR code method similar to WhatsApp. I have it running on my mobile, tablet and desktop at the same time on the same account, which is why working out how to switch off notifications for the day is very handy. See https://desktop.telegram.org
I have not tried this myself, but so long as you have a phone that can take a text message, you can set up a desktop version without installing it to a smartphone. The phone number is to "prove" you are a real person rather than a bot setting up a million spam accounts. So oddly enough, the Telegram group is a "safer space" than discussions on-wiki, because it's a bit harder for disposable sock accounts to join. --Fæ (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
In short, you at least need a phone that can receive text. Using a QR code, though, seems to require a smart phone, no? Never heard of using one on a PC. For that matter, where would I get the relevant QR code? - Jmabel ! talk 02:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
PCs do come with webcams, there is plenty of free software to read and create QR codes on a PC or in a WebBrowser, QR codes can be read from a cam or from a file. The QR code encodes a number of code points (often an URL). The convertion between the text (data), the QR code, or a representation as svg, png or even jpg is trivial with free software. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I was making this complex because I was confusing myself about how I use WhatsApp on the desktop. For Telegram the steps are:

  1. Install Telegram for your laptop/PC from the official https://desktop.telegram.org/ site.
  2. Fill out the options and provide a mobile number that will be used to approve your account. You do not have to install anything on a mobile phone, or share your mobile contacts, nor even use a real name!
  3. Telegram sends you a text message with a one time code, use this to authorize the version on your laptop/PC.
  4. Check your profile and options to increase privacy as much as you need, in particular, you can set the options to never have to share the mobile number you used with anyone nor even say anything about where in the world you are located.
  5. Tips: By default accounts get deleted, along with all personal information, if unused for a year but you can set "self destruct" to be faster than that if you want. You can delete your account at any time using this page, though if you want to abandon the old account and use the same number to start a new one, there has to be a gap of "several days". You can export your chat history if you need to keep a record of who said what. Take care to understand the difference between public groups and private groups, as public groups are as public and searchable as making posts to an open website forum, while private groups can only be seen by accounts that are let in by administrators of that group.

No QR code needed! --Fæ (talk) 11:45, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Thanks, Fæ. If someone creates a help page on this, that post should be there pretty much verbatim. - Jmabel ! talk 13:51, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Help page created and link added to the menu navigation (see top of VP). --Fæ (talk) 09:51, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

The page should be translatable (don't know how to create that) -- Discostu (talk) 10:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Fæ. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Just a general statement: I think that any discussion with any consequence on actual activity on Commons should happen here, on Commons, on the appropriate talk pages, where everyone can read them and participate, and strongly oppose using any external channels. People should be discouraged from using such intransparent means of communication. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

No disagreement. The Telegram group is not used to get a consensus on anything, that happens on-wiki. A benefit of using the Telegram group is there are a lot of simple questions that get quick answers, the sort of things that probably are not of any special value on the VP or help desk and might not get quick answers on the noticeboards. --Fæ (talk) 18:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification (I have no idea of the kind of discussions happening there, as I don't use it), that sounds fine :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Photo challenge March results

Electricity: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Im Industriemuseum Nürnberg Overhead power line at sunset Windräder mit einem
Kohlekraftwerk im Hintergrund
Author Mensch01 Ermell Lowcarb23
Score 18 16 15
Needlework: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Oma strickt Strümpfe Cross stitch image of
a street flower market		 Knitted tent
Author Sadarama Garth Weals Spielvogel
Score 53 13 13

Congratulations to Sadarama, Garth Weals, Spielvogel, Mensch01, Ermell and Lowcarb23. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Several of these needlework entries have inadequate copyright information. The contestants took the photos, but did they get the appropriate rights? I have no problem with File:Oma_strickt_Strümpfe.jpg or File:Lavorando ai ferri.jpg, but the underlying image of File:Flower_market_cross_stitch,_v1.jpg is the central focus and needs copyright information. Another example is File:NeedleworkKeralaSaree.jpg; is the underlying elephant a free image? File:Tapisserie de la Reine Mathilde Bayeux.jpg shows a portion of the public domain 11th-century en:Bayeux Tapestry, but File:Grandma's embroidered baby bed sheet for granddaughter.jpg is probably a more recent work that needs a release. Glrx (talk) 16:50, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Generally, clothing is not subject to copyrights (see Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing). But I agree that photographs of embroidered scenes are more like drawings or paintings than clothing. But who would be the copyright holder? I guess artist who designed the pattern. --Jarekt (talk) 14:07, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jarekt: I'm not pointing to clothing or functional objects. Showing a saree or a bedsheet is not a problem, but focusing in on a design is. Even the short text Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Clothing that you cited states, "In any case, care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface." Glrx (talk) 16:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Own work vs Derived

I downloaded and modified 4 files from commons and have uploaded 2 of them - one as own work and the other as non-own work. I have asked this question in the Help desk on the correct approach to follow. Once I get a response, I will upload the remaining 2 files accordingly. Can someone reply there, in case responses at the Help desk are generally slow? Jay (talk) 11:05, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Jay: Please keep the conversation at Commons:Help_desk#Is_copied_and_modified_Own_Work?. No reason to cross-post. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I waited about 4 hours at the help desk before taking a chance and posting here. I did not know how long to wait really and which page gets a faster response. I now see that not many people man the helpdesk, and you are one of them. Thanks! Jay (talk) 22:11, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Creating templates for welcoming an organisation

Welcome!

Hello, and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Thank you for your contributions. However, it has come to my attention that you (or y'all) are editing from an account with a name that suggests that it might belong to an organisation.

While Wikimedia Commons isn't Wikipedia and organisational accounts are permitted, these do have to be confirmed to be legitimate. This is done to prevent fraudulent impersonations of organisations. You can confirm the legitimacy of this account through the OTRS by sending an e-mail to "permissions-commons@wikimedia.org". Editing without doing so may result in a precautionary cessation of editing privileges and the deletion of uploaded works as we cannot be sure if this account truly represents Village pump and these measures are done to protect Village pump from possible imposters.

As you may be eager to "donate your works to Wikipedia" you must be able to confirm that you have the valid permissions and that your organisation possesses the copyright to the works you wish to upload to Wikimedia Commons.

  • Commissioned works may not automatically be copyrighted by your organisation if they were made by an independent contractor and the copyright terms haven't been discussed, but these rules differ per country and territory.

Notice: Works uploaded to Wikimedia Commons may be used by anyone for any reason however they want (subject to certain restrictions). So if you have any commercial interests in your works be aware that once uploaded to this website you irrevocably allow anyone else to use your copyrighted works for-profit. You can set up your own terms for re-users, for example they must link to your website, your webshop, name your organisation, Etc. but re-users can do whatever they want with these works as long as they follow these licensing terms.

Also feel free to ask a question on my Talk page. I will answer your questions as far as I can! You are also free to ask a question at the help desk or village pump, you could otherwise add {{Helpme}} on your talk page to ask for help here, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (~~~~).

I've created the above concept for "Template:Welcomeorganisation" (perhaps with a redirect at "Template:Welcomeorganization" for Canadians, Americans, Etc.) as I've often seen media contributed by accounts named "User:Museum of X" or some other name that suggests that they might be operated by an organisation rather than an individual. These accounts aren't automatically banned here (though in the past I've seen some admins here citing Wikipedia policy and indeffing them, but I haven't saved any diff's so can't back up this claim now), but the "problem" with these accounts (as far as I've noticed) are primarily two (2) things, one (1) they can be imposters using the names of organisations to license launder copyrighted works, or (2) they are legitimate companies but do not fundamentally understand how Wikimedia Commons works and are then surprised to see other companies use their donated works in a commercial for-profit setting.

A high profile case happened with the start-up company Videoplasty (see: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Videoplasty) where the company eagerly donated their high quality works to Wikimedia Commons only to request deletion later in literally every venue they could and the deletion requests became a battleground.

As we want more GLAM organisations to contribute to Wikimedia Commons (at least I hope other volunteers also do) it might be wise to not make the welcome message too bitey, as I suspect that harsh language may be discouraging and after almost two decades of Wikimedia Commons and we've had some large organisations such as the Swiss National Library donating a huge number of files, but organisations donating their files are unfortunately still a minority. So perhaps instead of telling organisations what they can't do we should tell them what they can do. But also warn them about the fact that their educational works can also be used in commercial settings by others.

Otherwise it might be better to create separate "{{Welcomecompany}}" and "{{WelcomeGLAM}}" where the GLAM-centric template is less "bitey" than the one for commercial organisations. The "Company template" can include more texts about "COM:SCOPE" while the "GLAM template" can include more information about copyright © and licensing, but also something about how they can use attribution to "put their name out there" (as it's likely the marketing departments of GLAM institutions that currently want to discourage these organisations from donating their works to Wikimedia Commons). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:47, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that there is a verification process in German-language Wikipedia (which also permits accounts for organisations) which some of these contributing to Commons have already followed, for example libraries such as de:Benutzer:Swiss National Library or de:Benutzer:ETH-Bibliothek (a very prolific and important contributor to Commons), see templates at the bottom of the user pages there. So in any case, if any such welcoming templates were adopted, I would only use them for new, future accounts, not to confuse already established ones, especially those who have used German Wikipedias user verification process. Gestumblindi (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Two suggestions:
  1. Wondering about the possibility of a more "positive" wording.
  2. I believe that each Commons account is supposed to be operated by one individual, so we might want to suggest that rather than User:Organization they should set up one or more accounts User:Foo (Organization), User:Bar (Organization), etc. - Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Jmabel ! talk 01:37, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, currently there is not really any policy in place for this, some organsiations get welcomed while others get immediately blocked. In this user's block log their username and "spam" (from what I can tell a logo) are noted as a reason for their block. Most companies that register to Wikimedia websites, including Wikimedia Commons, will receive this kind of welcome. Personally I think that this behaviour is likely why Wikimedia Commons isn't taken as serious for donations by companies while other websites like Twitter are. Why are individual accounts better? If someone acts for a company in an official standing then there is no need to have an individual account.
A worst case scenario would be a normal Wikimedia Commons contributor convinces his/her company to donate some of their educational content to Wikimedia Commons, initially this goes well, but after a while the company demands of him/her to upload things that include company logo's or large watermarks and the user gets blocked both as their own "private" account and as their "company" account over something they had little control over. Company accounts make sense, if a single employee starts disrupting because of higher-up's then it is not unlikely that the other individuals will also replicate that. But those discussions are outside of the scope of this template, but you could make a draft where you can advise companies to register identifiable accounts for individual employees. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:17, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I know that in one case a few years back we had a husband and wife sharing an account and they were informed that one or the other of them had to declare themself as the operator of the account, even though it was fine for them to take joint credit for the uploaded work. I believe the reason for this is that in case of bad behavior by the account they can't just say, "Oh, that was XXX, it wasn't me." We do have a rule against sharing your password.
A company account as yhou describe it could just as easily be hijacked by the bad actor (who could change the password) as defended by the "good guy with a gun" who could change the password.
I personally am not against shared role accounts like this, but I don't think there has been any consensus to allow them. I believe the consensus has been that a single individual must operate the account. The company can use OTRS to extend or revoke permission for any given account to have authority to upload materials owned by the company. - Jmabel ! talk 14:16, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The Commons:Username policy explicitly says that accounts for organizations are allowed on Commons if they're verified by OTRS. This is different from the policy on English Wikipedia, which says that an account must be used by a single individual. --bjh21 (talk) 15:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I really like that message. It does a good job of setting out the important considerations without being excessively wordy, legalistic, or unfriendly. --bjh21 (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

GSOC 2021: Show differently pictures that you have already uploaded

The Commons Android application is the official Android application for Wikimedia Commons. The app allows authenticated users to upload and browse the images in the repository. The app has multiple features like uploading an image, editing categories of an image, nominating an image for deletion, nearby upload, leaderboard based on number and quality of uploads, and much more.

Problem: We have certainly faced a scenario where we do not remember which images we have already uploaded and end up trying to upload the same image more than once. This project solves this problem at the picture selection level.

Currently, the image selection for the app is the default Android selector which lets you pick multiple images from the gallery or upload one using the camera. There is no way of knowing whether the selected image is already uploaded to the Commons.

This project under GSOC 2021 aims at implementing a custom picture selector for commons upload. This picture selector will have the ability to show differently the images which have already been uploaded. The feature will indicate an already uploaded image with a Commons icon overlay, thus saving time and improving the user experience.

The feature will use the commons API to check the presence or not of a file that works by sending the SHA1 checksum to the URL https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allimages&format=xml&aisha1=<put SHA1 here>

The custom selector will be flexible to any other further modifications required in the future.

Phabricator ticket: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T279266

AdityaSrivastav20 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Delay in the reverse direction

I created a new Category:2021 in tram transport in Amsterdam and a Template:Tramtransportyear-Amsterdam. I moved the File:Tramlijn 17 bij Lelylaan station 2021 1.jpg to the new category. It works, but when I look at the upper categories: '2021 in tram transport in the Netherlands', '2021 in Amsterdam' and 'Tram transport in Amsterdam by year', there is no sign of the lower category. In other words it does not work in the reverse order. I suspect some background maintenance proces had to started. In the past it usualy takes a few days to work in both directions.

I want to be certain the template works correctly, before I creste new year categories and start moving files.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:32, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

The newest Category:2020 in tram transport in Amsterdam works quite wel, but 2021 remains a problem.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:35, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Solved.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Soft-redirection of errant filenames

Hello fellow Commons people. Recently I've renamed some files with long-standing errant filenames. It seems wrong to me to keep hard redirects pointing to these files, as many people might not realize that the name is wrong and could be mislead. Therefore, I've created the template {{Soft file redirect}}, with the potential to be used on the former filenames of these files, to give people information about why the file has been moved. Thoughts? Before doing this on a large scale I'd like some input (an example page with this is File:Clover Mites.png). Elli (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Elli: Mightn't it be better to have a hard redirect with a category to distinguish the reason? The way you've done this, I believe transclusion of the old name won't give you the image. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: that is the goal. All transclusions are updated before, but we want people to know for the future that the name is not accurate. Elli (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't think it's a good idea. It's best just to simply rename incorrect file names and keep long-standing redirects, rather than risk disrupting incoming links (other sites besides Wikipedia/Wikimedia use and link to Commons files). At any given point in time, all users of Commons should be aware of the Commons:General disclaimer, and use random uploads at their own peril. Creating soft redirects for files seems akin to creating disambiguation pages for file names, which is a solution in need of a problem. Just rename, let others adapt. Commons is primarily a repository (a warehouse), not an encyclopedia, textbook, or other didactic resource: it should strive to be accurate, but not bend over backwards to accommodate every hypothetical situation in which a user might be confused. --Animalparty (talk) 02:51, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
  • If the information really is erroneous, continuing to serve the image under the former name may not at all be serving the reuser. Think e.g. about a photo of a golden eagle described to be a white-tailed eagle. If it is used by reusers for showing a white-tailed eagle, we do want to break the link, as otherwise the reuser (a wikipedia or an outside user) will never notice the error and its correction. By providing the soft redirect, those wondering what happened will find the image and its history, without studying the logs. In some cases, of course, the image is used just for showing "an eagle" and breaking the link is not warranted. Whether such collateral damage can be supposed to out-weight the benefit has to be judged case by case. –LPfi (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Join the new Regional Committees for Grants

Dear all,

We hope this email finds you well and safe. The COVID 19 situation continues to affect many of us across the globe and our thoughts are with everyone affected. We are also aware that there are several processes currently in progress that demand volunteer time and we do not want to add more work to anyone's plate.

We do want to draw your attention to our new Regional Committees for Grants though as they are an opportunity for you to have an active say in the future of our Movement!

📣 So today, we invite you to join our new Regional Committees for Grants! 📣

We encourage Wikimedians and Free Knowledge advocates to be part of the new Regional Committees that the WMF Community Resources team is setting up as part of the grants strategy relaunch [3]. You will be a key strategic thought partner to help understand the complexities of any region, provide knowledge and expertise to applicants, to support successful movement activities, and make funding decisions for grant applications in the region.

👉Find out more on meta [4].

Regional Committees will be established for the following regions:

  • Middle East and Africa
  • SAARC [5] region (Includes Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, the Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka)
  • East, Southeast Asia, and Pacific (ESEAP) region
  • Latin America (LATAM) and The Caribbean
  • United States and Canada
  • Northern and Western Europe
  • Central and Eastern Europe (CEE)

👉All details about the Committees and how to apply can be found on meta [6]. Applications have to be submitted by June 4, 2021!

If you have any questions or comments, please use the meta discussion page [7].

Please do share this announcement widely with your Network.

Best wishes,

JBrungs (WMF) (talk) 06:24, 21 May 2021 (UTC) on behalf of the Community Resources Team

how to replace file name

I need to crrect file name. how? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eitan f (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 May 2021‎ (UTC)

@Eitan f: You may add {{rename|NEW FILE NAME HERE|REASON}} to the top of the file page, where REASON is a number 1-6 from this list, then wait for a file mover to move the file. – BMacZero (🗩) 17:41, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eitan f (talk • contribs) 05:33, 23 May 2021‎ (UTC)

Images from gov.pl

For a few years Polish government institutions have been hosted in a platform https://ww.gov.pl (there is also platform https://samorzad.gov.pl/ for municipalities in Poland). What are copyright rules in this platform? Can photos from this site be published in Commons? 185.172.241.184 07:36, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Hi, and welcome. Both sites read "Wszystkie treści publikowane w serwisie są udostępniane na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie Autorstwa 3.0 Polska, o ile nie jest to stwierdzone inaczej." at the bottom, which means "All content published on the website is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Poland license, unless stated otherwise." per Google Translate. So yes, photos from there without otherwise stated licensing or restrictions may be uploaded here with {{Cc-by-3.0-pl}}.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 08:42, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

File:Flag of Montenegro.svg

Hello!

To avoid an edit war I would like to ask for a second opinion here. See also User talk:Kamran.nef.Jonteemil (talk) 20:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Kamran.nef and Jonteemil: Is there any reason not to have the two different versions under different filenames? - Jmabel ! talk 16:22, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jonteemil: The usual rule in COM:OVERWRITE is that if someone objects to the overwriting of a file, it should be reverted and the new version, if still needed, should be uploaded under a different name. In this case it seems that you and Paintspot prefer the original darker version, so Kamran.nef should upload their version under a different name. This kind of thing does get a bit awkward when using distinctive filenames like this one, but the principle of "upload them both and argue about it somewhere else" still applies.
On the substantive point, the specification referenced only seems to give process (CMYK) colours for the various elements of the flag. That may be useful if you're printing it, but I don't think it's appropriate to assume that these colours are right for screen use even if you can be certain how to translate them to sRGB. I suspect that the choice of C=0 Y=100 M=100 K=0 for the background is as much to avoid halftoning as to get a precisely correct colour. And the naïve conversion to #ff0000 is only appropriate if we know that the CMY primaries intended by the specification are the precise complements of the sRGB ones. I can't remember much colour theory at the moment, but I think that may be an optimistic assumption. --bjh21 (talk) 17:14, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I don't think so, as I said in User talk:Kamran.nef.Jonteemil (talk) 19:01, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the old version too because the new one does not look right. But the given CMYK values are the only source aside from the provided image. Kamran.nef (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kamran.nef and Jonteemil: I've uploaded Kamran.nef's version as File:Flag of Montenegro (CMYK).svg, so now it's possible for you to usefully discuss the matter on sites where the files are used. --bjh21 (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Kamran.nef (talk) 15:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Notice of office action on File:Cheque BanBajío.jpg

Hello Commons folks - this is a note to let you all know that we have removed the file File:Cheque BanBajío.jpg from Wikimedia Commons for security reasons. Office actions like these are rare and typically limited on Commons to DMCA takedowns, however in this case we had credible outreach that this image presented a fraud risk. We note that we were contacted specifically regarding this image being used for fraud, the Foundation legal team does not believe that redacted images of checks create a fraud risk in normal circumstances if no personal information is visible. As with all office actions, we ask that this action not be undone. If you have further questions, please address them to T&S (ca@wikimedia.org). Thank you! -- Wikimedia Foundation office (talk) 18:49, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

The itself action seems understandable and obvious, however, it's weird that nobody thought to quickly talk to any volunteers in COM:Oversight, who do this sort of thing all the time and would avoid the WMF providing evidence that may at some point in the future be presented in court that the WMF provides active editorial oversite of content. I fail to understand how that's in the interests of the WMF or in the interests of the volunteer community. --Fæ (talk) 19:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
WMF has asked the Oversighters if it would be possible to oversight the file. But I declined oversigthing because none of the four cases were given: Neither "Removal of non-public personal information", "Removal of potentially libelous information", "Removal of copyright violations" nor "Hiding of blatant attack names on automated lists and logs ...". Raymond 19:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
In which case, it's pleasing to see that the WMF is paying employees to do new types of content oversight rather than relying on unpaid volunteers.
It would be super if the WMF published the budget spent on doing that, so we can assess if all oversighters should ethically receive the same remuneration for their time.
My rate is an extremely reasonable 1 cent per image upload, the WMF already has my bank details. --Fæ (talk) 19:36, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

@WMFOffice: I'm quite confused by what was supposed to be the issue here. There was literally less information here than someone would have by possessing any check issued by the bank, since the image omitted even the bank routing number. Your remarks above seem to acknowledge as much. I presume not just anyone can say of any image "I think this image could be used for fraud" and get an office action to occur. What exactly is the plausible claim of fraud risk here? - Jmabel ! talk

@WMFOffice: same with @Jmabel: , am I missing something or is this really a risk somewhere? and the other way round, we have hundreds of similar files (in Category:Cheques but not only). Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 11:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Will File:500-Euro.svg also be taken down if I print it out and try to buy a car with it? -- Discostu (talk) 11:12, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

You could also print out some of the 18th century painting scans we have, and sell them on eBay.
Strangely enough, there was a case of a medieval manuscript being sold in France for several thousand Euros, which was actually a print reproduction and the auctioneers were just really, really, bad at their job. --Fæ (talk) 11:16, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

ETHZ Rechenzentrum, Clausiusstrasse 55 or 59, Zürich

Hi, I'm interested to add a photo of the Rechenzentrum to the Oberon book. An old black & white photo is at https://www.tg.ethz.ch/en/contact/contact/. If someone can add a color photo in Category:ETH_Zurich that will be a great help.
Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

The photo is likely protected by copyright and can not be uploaded here. Ruslik (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I had imagined someone in Zurich might snap a photo and donate to Commons. Now partly resolved in the Oberon book. Regards, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi and Leyo: Kennt ihr jemanden, der für Commons ein Bild des ehemaligen ETH-RZ machen kann? Das scheint es wirklich noch nicht zu geben, auch wenn man es in dem unübersichtlichen Wust von ETH Zurich leicht übersehen kann. — Speravir – 19:43, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Danke Speravir. Ja, ein Foto vom Rechenzentrum würde helfen. In der Oberon-Mailingliste wurde der Standort des Niklaus Wirth-Instituts für Computersysteme bestätigt. Wenn jemand ein Foto machen kann, werde ich es tun füge es dem Oberon-Buch hinzu. Vielen Dank! ... PeterEasthope (talk) 13:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Vielleicht kann uns da Nicole Graf vom Bildarchiv der ETH-Bibliothek weiterhelfen, sie ist also hiermit mal angepingt :-) Gestumblindi (talk) 13:28, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
Oh, das wäre ja der Idealfall. — Speravir – 18:16, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
@PeterEasthope, Gestumblindi, and Speravir: Ich habe soeben zwei Bilder hochgeladen, ein altes File:ETH-BIB-Zürich, ETH Rechenzentrum-Com L20-0196-0008.tif und ein aktuelleres File:ETH-BIB-Zürich, ETH Zürich, Clausiusstrasse 59-Ans 15279.tif. ^FH ETH-Bibliothek (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
morgen Vormittag folgt noch ein weiteres BIld (HK_01-00595), ist leider noch nicht auf http://ba.e-pics.ethz.ch online. ^FH ETH-Bibliothek (talk) 10:54, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@ETH-Bibliothek: yes=b — Speravir – 23:17, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Vielen Dank an alle für die Unterstützung. Das Foto wird jetzt im Oberon-Wikibuch verwendet. Grüße, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 14:07, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Disgraceful MOTD

the current motd, File:130秒动画展示中国天问“落火”全过程.webm, is a disgrace, as explained in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdptwD6-WT4 . (notifying nominator User:Eatcha.)--RZuo (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

RZuo, Some context might help given not everyone here is Chinese. –Davey2010Talk 00:52, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I see nothing obviously disgraceful about it after a few random samplings. What exactly is the problem? - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The best I can figure is that they consider the similar composition of the Chinese video to the NASA video to be disgraceful. That is, frankly, a non-issue. There is no direct copying of anything actually copyrightable between the two. My concern is that I see nothing on the Chinese video's YouTube page to indicate that it is actually released under a CC-by-3.0 license. Am I missing something? I hate taking a bot's word for it.` — Huntster (t @ c) 05:09, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The bot archives the webpages before any review. See web.archive.org/web/20210515161256/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8CXlZ05s oc. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:35, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010, Jmabel, and Huntster: so do yall think an animation that plagiarised another animation is a good motd?--RZuo (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
RZuo, Admittedly I didn't open the Youtube link as I was expecting it to be Chinese (IE wasn't expecting it to be a side-by-side video). To answer your question Yes personally I would say one video was copied from another however plagerisism isn't something I know too well so will leave that to more knowledgeable editors than myself. –Davey2010Talk 14:06, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
The EDL is about 7-10 minutes, what else do you expect? Should CNSA pause the landing midway to prove that they didn't copied NASA? The video is representation of what they actually did to land on Mars. There's no way landing on Mars can be copyrightable by NASA, similar to landing on Earth of the space capsules from ISS. -- Eatcha (talk) 14:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
If there's a lesson here, it's that we should avoid prominently featuring recent news on the main page maybe. — Rhododendrites talk |  05:32, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Alas, NASA Websites often host photos and other media owned by someone else, such as universities that own and operate the camera on a space probe, and contractors that made the hardware. Jim.henderson (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
since it's an animation, artists could employ as much discretion as possible, but the shameless chinese media would not even alter the sequence/angle/perspective/duration/panning... any aspect of the animation, but literally copied the whole idea.
funny to see more ppl defending a work of blatant plagiarism and whataboutists on a website, which supposedly emphasises integrity and authenticity of contents, than the youtube comments. made my day.--RZuo (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It's frustrating to see, on a website that emphasizes neutrality, to see you throwing around phrases like "disgrace" or "shameless chinese media" instead of make a clear specific claim like "this work plagiarizes this other work". Perhaps you should show some integrity here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
They did make a new animation, not copying any of the graphic work, but they did clearly copy the "plot" or whatever the storyboarding is called in animations like that, for sure. There could well be a selection-and-arrangement type of copyright on things like that. On the other hand, U.S. federal government works are public domain (no copyright), so that material is fair game to copy. A small credit might have been nice (not that I would be able to tell if one was there or not). If there was no credit, perhaps it does violate the moral rights (or "right of authorship") in the Chinese copyright law. I'm not sure if that right can be waived though -- if it can, it's possible the PD status could be construed as waiving that right (though part of U.S. copyright law is a clause that authorship in government works, when creating derivatives, should be noted.) Carl Lindberg (talk) 14:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Applicability of the Philippines at Commons:Country specific consent requirements

Hello. Perhaps the Philippines is now applicable at Commons:Country specific consent requirements. There are two relevant laws that I just read today:

  • R.A 9995 or "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009": according to one answer at this Quora question: "No is the answer. Under Republic Act 9995. This an Act defining and penalizing the crime of photo and video voyeurism, prescribing penalties therefore and for other purposes. The country values the dignity and privacy of every human person and guarantees full respect for human rights. Once photo taken, this could be captured and broadcast by a person and used it to the disadvantage of the person photographed or videod."
  • R.A. 11313 (Safe Spaces Act): in this Esquire Philippines article: "according to the law, public spaces can also refer to online environments. It also prohibits making unwanted sexual remarks and comments online, including uploading or sharing someone’s photos or videos without consent. These photos or videos do not have to be explicit or sexual in nature." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @P199, Aymatth2, Clindberg, Jameslwoodward, Pandakekok9, Howhontanozaz, and Jeff G.: for some inputs here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:15, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • The text of both of those laws seem to be generally about photos taken privately. The first is limited to photos taken in places a person would be comfortable getting undressed, and the law is targeted against voyeur photos, or revenge photos, from the sounds of it. The second is more about online harassment, and photos used in such actions. I don't see the applicability; the first law especially deals with photos which are gross privacy rights violations already (just increasing the penalties). Carl Lindberg (talk) 09:29, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
    • This is a grey area. I do not see that we can do much about it, apart from taking down photos when a problem is pointed out. Wikimedia is a public notice board. We cannot control what is posted on it, but become responsible if we ignore warnings. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:09, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Freenode IRC

Seems like the new freenode management didn't like our move to libera. They literally redirected #wikimedia-commons to ##wikimedia-commons, removing any evidence of migration.

Logs showing this abuse of power: https://dpaste.com/2Y26TTQMD pandakekok9 03:03, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Why would it be disallowed? — Rhododendrites talk |  03:16, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm moderately technical, but I have found migrating my account hard work. Cloaks are not necessarily added that day, even if you do things correctly. m:IRC/Migrating to Libera Chat is helpful and recently updated. --Fæ (talk) 20:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm against migrating to any external chat website, this happened because the Wikimedia chatrooms were dependent on a third (3rd) party, and while Libera is owned by trustworthy people now it can and based on this experience will change in the future, someone proposed on the Phabricator to create a Wikimedia IRC domain and this sounds like a much better idea than depending on another party. This is especially important for Checkuser, OTRS, and other sensitive channels that shouldn't fall into the hands of a potentially hazardous third party. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:37, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Reminder that COM:Telegram is a good alternative, and today I can see 67 people on IRC #Wikimedia-commons but 175 people on Telegram Wikimedia Commons Community. --Fæ (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting icons

Currently, most voting templates use Norro style 1 icons, but {{Comment}}, {{Info}}, {{Request}}, {{Question}} and {{Withdraw}} use Norro style 2 icons. I think we should stick to one set. --YavBav09 (talk) 14:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Voting

Norro style 1

Norro style 2

 Neutral or  Abstain

Comments

  • While I think that overal Norro Style 2 (two) looks a lot better (graphically), I don't like the fact that the colours a lot softer. In the current version the colours are very strong and bright which makes them stand out better, but the designs of the alternative are superior in almost every other way. So I am currently refraining from voting until I've seen better arguments for or against. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:13, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
  • 1 - The first style stands out much better and personally I think it looks a lot better too however that being said #2 looks fresher and less-outdated I guess but personally I still prefer #1. I've compiled a vd/vk list at User:Davey2010/vd showing what the template looks like if !voting at DR. –Davey2010Talk 15:27, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Then why don't you vote for #1, or you still aren't sure(, like @Donald Trung)? --YavBav09 (talk) 15:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
I just did ? If I wasn't sure I would put "Comment" instead of "1" ..... –Davey2010Talk 19:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Oh, I meant to vote using {{Support}} in the table above. --YavBav09 (talk) 21:11, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, !voting is never done in a table - it's always done as the way I've done it above (for instance look at COM:DR), Not be awkward but it's just what everyone's used to doing, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:54, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Ok, I fixed it. --YavBav09 (talk) 07:04, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I like it either way, but most files of both categories need better cetegorization than just these two icon sets (example).

The problem of whether Traditional Chinese characters in File:Chineselanguage.svg, File:Han-ji.svg, File:Hanzi.svg, File:Chinese_characters_logo.svg should use "inherited glyphs form" or "standardized glyphs form"

The latest version of the above image, contributed by Cangjie6, It has already impact on multiple language versions of Wikipedia. In the image, some character use short "丨"(竖/S/Vertical）form on the radicals like 宀 and 亠 ，this form is call "Jiu zixing"(Simplified chinese:旧字形; Traditional Chinese:舊字形; pinyin: jiù zìxíng; lit. Old character form) or "inherited glyphs form"(Simplified chinese:传承字形;Traditional Chinese:傳承字形; pinyin: chuánchéng zìxíng), which can be found in the Chinese dictionaries before the standardized form of Chinese characters like "Kangxi Dictionary" and the "Zhonghua Da Zidian", but in the existing standardized form of Chinese characters(listed at the end of) all use "丶"(点/D/Dot).

Note: In File:Hanzi.svg, the simplified chinese part is still written with "丶", so this discussion is basically for traditional Chinese characters only. (but still provide the standardized of Simplified Chinese)


I have asked Cangjie6 in zhwiki, and his explanation can be summarized as "inherited glyphs form are more commonly used".


Personally, I propose the following solutions.

  1. the most direct, is to go back to the previous version
  2. contrary to 1, explore whether the "inherited glyphs form" are more commonly used, or give other reasons for their retention, with reliable sources.
  3. A compromise would be to subdivide "traditional Chinese characters" into "nherited glyphs form" and "standardized glyphs form" and show the three variants in the needed image. The premise is that there are reliable sources that prove that both "traditional Chinese characters" have similar weight in most areas where traditional Chinese characters are used.


Have informed Cangjie6.


Reference documents of standardized:

  • Republic of China(Chinese Taipei)：〈Standard Form of National Characters/國字標準字體(aka. A Table/甲表)〉
Macau's document are temporarily missing. The "Hong Kong Primary School Learning Word List website" does not have a permanent link(GET link), please search the site yourself.

source:Commons:Village_pump/zh#File:Chineselanguage.svg、File:Han-ji.svg、File:Hanzi.svg、File:Chinese_characters_logo.svg中的繁體字應使用傳承字形還是規範字形的問題

這是機器翻譯，來自Deepl翻譯器（譯文略有修改）; This is a machine translation, from Deepl translator (the translation has been slightly modified)--越過長城，我們可以到達世界的每一個角落 17:41, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Why is this an overwrite rather than a new file name? - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I don't understand
  • If you are asking why we need to discuss rather than just change the file. The above files are all used in Wikipedia in several languages version to symbolize Chinese characters, so it is necessary to select representative glyphs form, and representative does not mean standardized.
  • I am asking why an image clearly distinct from the one it overwrote has been uploaded to the same filename instead of being treated as a distinct new file. Why should we presume that no one wants or needs access to the old image? - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have a clear answer to this question either.Further inquiries may be required for Cangjie6
His exact words were: "It was chosen since I made the Cangjie Input Method character example chart and changed it from png pattern to svg pattern when I referred to some glyphs and feedback from input method forums, communication groups, etc. Traditional glyphs have a longer history and are common in modern times, and are more often used in printing, typesetting, cartography, screen display, etc. does not depend only on the Taiwanese and Hong Kong educational glyphs (meaning standardized glyphs), and the Taiwanese and Hong Kong educational glyphs are not specified for uses other than teaching writing."(In fact, Chinese Taipei also requires the use of standardized glyph forms for Government Official Documents)
  • Original: "选用它是自从我制作仓颉输入法字例图，从png图案改成svg图案时，参考了一些字形和输入法论坛、通讯群组等的反馈意见。传统字形历史较悠久而现代也常见，而且比较多在印刷、排版、制图、屏显等方面的应用，并不只看台港教育字形，台港教育字形也没有规定教学写字以外的用途。"
  • These images are used in Wikipedia to illustrate the appearance of Chinese characters as a script and as a logo for the Chinese characters theme/template (File:Chinese characters logo.svg). Cangjie6 probably thought that the "inherited glyph form" would better meet these needs, and chose to overwrite it directly instead of uploading it as a new file name.
Cangjie6 said in the user discussion page that he is not available right now and needs to deal with the Hjh474 editorial dispute, so he may not be able to respond to questions related to this topic at this time, and he has no new contributions after making this message.translation by Deepl translator--越過長城，我們可以到達世界的每一個角落 16:35, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Comments.
I agree with Jmabel.
I do not know Chinese. Is the short form versus long form distinction just a font style choice? Some fonts draw a feature one way while other fonts draw it another? For example, a Latin font may or may not have serifs; if the font has serifs, then are the serifs going to be old style, transitional, modern, or slab? The choice is more personal preference and not some semi-official requirement that characters must be drawn a certain way. It is not like English users stopped using the long s: we write "Congress" instead of "Congreſs". I see this issue as a personal preference for particular fonts.
  • File:Chineselanguage.svg I would revert this file to the 2018 version. Cangjie6 changed the font to his preference, converted the font to curves, and added colorization. The first two are unnecessary; the colorization is useful to show the character association and could be reapplied.
  • File:Han-ji.svg This file was created by Cangjie6. Its appearance is entirely Cangjie6 choice.
  • File:Hanzi.svg I would revert this file to the 2016 version. Cangjie6 changed the appearance of 字 by drawing it in two different fonts. The purpose of this file appears to be that traditional and simplified Chinese draw some characters differently (漢/汉) but draw other characters the same (字/字). Changing the appearance of the similar character only confuses the issue. The original upload for this file points to the 2006 File:Hanzilead.png which used the same appearance for the similar character.
  • File:Chinese_characters_logo.svg I'd leave this file as is. The image is primarily art. I do not think it needed to be changed, but the red-outlined characters have been improved: they have a cleaner (less jerky) vectorization.
These are problems that should be on the file pages rather than here. Even if the short/long form distinction is more significant than a font preference, I do not see Commons imposing a requirement that all files must use one of those forms.
Glrx (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

It is not only the font that is the problem, although it is more prominent in specific fonts style(楷/Regular and 隸/Clerica, two fonts style that mimic traditional Chinese calligraphy, the one in the image is 楷/Regular) .This involves some basic knowledge of Chinese characters.

Chinese characters have eight different Basic strokes, which are arranged and combined to form 37 Compound strokes, and 37 Compound strokes are then arranged and combined to form all Chinese characters. You can find a detailed explanation in this Wikipedia article.

The standardization of Chinese characters suggests, all Chinese characters should use a specific combination of strokes, although some combinations of strokes may look similar, but the standardization suggests that they be treated as different characters. In the "standard reference documents" I gave above for different regions(You can check the specific Chinese characters according to the number. Hong Kong's standards are not numbered and can only be found slowly on specific pages. I have already given the number and page number of "文" and "字" ), it is suggested that the top of "文" and "字" should be "丶 "(点/D/Dot), but in the image, The tops of "文" and "字" are "丨"(竖/S/Vertical, it is shorter than in normal writing, so that the difference is not immediately noticeable). This was indeed the customary usage until 1965, when the printed form of Chinese characters was first standardized, as can be seen in the Kangxi Dictionary (published in 1716). Cangjie6 claims that this usage is still common today, so the change was made.

Because the English name for "Traditional Chinese" says it is "traditional"(In Chinese we say it "cumbersome" or "complex"), you may be confused by the difference. Traditional Chinese is not really traditional, it is just closer to traditional than Simplified Chinese.

I prefer to follow standardization rather than customary usage, because customary usage is hard to verify, while standardization has authoritative reference documents. But Cangjie6 and others may have a different opinion.translation by Deepl translator--越過長城，我們可以到達世界的每一個角落 00:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • I did not notice that the CJK Strokes have formal English names before, my input method allows direct output of individual CJK Strokes, so I did it this way, this may not be good. I now add the Chinese name, English name and Unicode name notes.--越過長城，我們可以到達世界的每一個角落 03:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Removing personal information from file history table

Can I remove my name and replace it with my username (for privacy reasons) in the file history table or request this to be done?

Example

See example on the right – under File history – comment instead of "by ..." it should read "by User:Soph556" (me).

(Note: I renamed from Tq to Soph556) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soph556 (talk • contribs) 08:05, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Soph556: I don't think there is any way for anyone other than a developer to change an edit summary after the fact, and I have no idea whether they would do so. I think the only reasonable way to do this would be to re-upload the identical file under the same filename with an appropriate summary, then delete the old version. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I tried the latter, but was unable to complete the upload due to the identical nature.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:28, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G. and Jmabel: I've cheated the system by uploading a new version with an extra byte appended to it. I think that will mean that the file works just like the old one, but it's different enough that MediaWiki would let me do it. If this was the wrong thing to do, feel free to delete my new version. --bjh21 (talk) 19:46, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Bjh21: Thank you for your attempt, but the table still shows the old version including the comment. — (Tq // Talk) 19:57, 29 May 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soph556 (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Soph556: Yes, the point is that now an administrator (such as Jmabel) can delete the older version. I'm not an administrator, so I can't do that bit. Incidentally, you may want to update your signature (in Special:Preferences), since you signed the above message with your old username. --bjh21 (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Soph556: I have hidden the edit summary. Only users with admin permissions can view this now. -Green Giant (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thanks, I was out for the day. - Jmabel ! talk 04:10, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Green Giant: Thank you, can you please do me a favor and do this for my other images as well? Special:ListFiles/Soph556. — Soph556 (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
@Green Giant, Jmabel, and Bjh21: Thanks for your help!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Request to help save valuable images of identity documents

I am quite busy with a lot of things and therefore don't have the time to invest in this, but at "User talk:Huddyhuddy#Source of derivative work is not properly indicated: File:0passport 1951.jpg" there is a large list of old identity documents being tagged for automated deletion because of improper sourcing and licensing. Most of these files are quite clearly in the public domain, for example at "Commons:Deletion requests/File:1914 Turkish Ottoman passport issued at Jaffa.jpg" I noted that the file already had a description that looked like this:

Description
English: 1914 Turkish Ottoman passport issued at Jaffa.
Date
Source Huddyhuddy's passport collection
Author Government of the Ottoman Empire
Permission
(Reusing this file)		 {{PD-Ottoman}}

(DON'T ADD COPYRIGHT © AND SOURCE TAGS LIKE THIS, THIS IS DEEMED INSUFFICIENT.)

But this is seemed insufficient by Commonswiki sysops, so these files need more editing. Furthermore, some of the files tagged for deletion are a French passport from 1800 and a United States passport from 1815. These files simply need to have their copyright © tags replaced and sources listed, at least I thought so until I saw the Ottoman passport listed for deletion, so I have no idea how to fix them. Because of my lack of time I would like for other volunteers to invest their time to save these files which have very high educational, cultural, and historical value.

Also, please just nominate each individual file for deletion to let enough volunteers judge them individually. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Ấn example of how to fix these could be found at "File:Sugihara visa.jpg". Apparently the Creative Commons licenses have to be completely removed, simply adding license tags that the underlying image is in the public domain will still get them deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:53, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
    • @Donald Trung: I'm confused, why would legitimate, applicable PD tags not suffice? Are you saying that the addition of an illegitimate license, besides the legitimate one, would result in deletion? Why? For example in Category:Seattle Municipal Archives via Flickr I often leave intact their dubious CC licenses on what should be PD images.
    • In the case of File:0passport 1951.jpg the photo of the man would presumably be, at worst, {{PD-US-no-notice}} and of the document {{PD-US-Gov}}. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: @Donald Trung: I agree with editor Jmabel. I am willing to help "correct" these files to save them as they are an interesting and valuable addition to the Commons. However, guidance is needed, so that they are not re-nominated for deletion again in the future. I noticed that some were kept after Deletion Requests in 2015, but are again in jeopardy of elimination from the project. --Ooligan (talk) 16:53, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible bug with Wikidata:Suggestededit-add?

Wikidata:Suggestededit-add 1.0

In the light of the SuggestedTags bug phab:T283431, which results in pseudo random tags being added as the first in a list of matches is added rather than the one the user clicked on, is there a way that the contributions from Hasimfeyyaz can be emulated using Suggestededit that might explain that their attempts to add Turkish Wikidata descriptions could have all been done in good faith?

Asking because I flagged these edits at ANU and the user's account has been indef blocked based solely on this evidence, but as I have never used Suggestededit myself, this is not something that I considered possible. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Commenting as the author of the ticket mentioned above and as a regular user of Suggested Edits:
1. I have never encountered any bugs when using Suggested Edits.
2. There is no reason to believe that the bug would happen for a certain user and for every of their edits but not for other users.
-- Discostu (talk) 10:37, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Font size

{{phab|T283199}}
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T283206

Hi, For some bizarre reason everything on Commons (watchlist, talkpages, upload page) are now in a reduced font size - my page zoom is 100% and Chrome font size is set to "medium (reccommended)" so there doesn't appear to be anything wrong my end? - Wasn't sure if this was WMFs error or Chromes ?, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 13:42, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

+1. -- Geagea (talk) 14:04, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Same here (Chrome, only at Commons, Wikipedias look pretty fine.) — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
With Firefox, the font in the “Categories” box at the end of pages looks oddly large. --Mlang.Finn (talk) 16:13, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Mlang.Finn: That's a different bug, see phab:T283281 AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: Have you tried unchecking "Use non-JavaScript interface" on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Good to know I wasn't the only one! :), Weirdly this issue only affects here as everything looks fine at EN,
Hey Jeff G., Just unchecked that box and unfortunately it's still the same :(, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 17:02, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
geagea, Draceane, Mlang.Finn and Jeff G. Apologies for the pings - I've filed a ticket at Phabricator, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 19:59, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Hit save above and it's now fixed..... –Davey2010Talk 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
It's ok now. thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 20:24, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010 and Geagea: I'm glad it's working for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:16, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Font still small for me. I've turned off non-JavaScript interface, without success. O Still Small Voice of Clam 18:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
O Still Small same here, Someone at Phab can't reproduce my problem so therefore (and excuse the language) but it must all be in my bloody head!. The evidence is damn right there but nope the Phab's been marked as resolved .... I've given hope at this point. I plan to buy binoculars tomorrow in the actual hope I can navigate the website!. –Davey2010Talk 19:07, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I kind of highjacked your Phabricator task because I thought this was the same problem as the large font on the categories. Now the ticket has been merged with another one that doesn't have to do with the watch list 😕 -- Discostu (talk) 21:20, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Discostu, No worries, I'm glad you hijacked it as in reality it meant more eyes on it and also meant that there WAS a problem somewhere. I'll be honest I'm pissed at how poorly that ticket was handled, I get the tech people have a lot of things to do but Aklapper's response to my ticket was absolutely appalling and made me feel like I wasn't being believed if that makes sense .... he even renamed the damn ticket without acknowledging my original complaint. Last time I ever waste my time there again.
Anyway for those following > Ticket's been merged to https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T283206, Thanks. –Davey2010Talk 23:04, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Any progress on this? The phabricator page is incomprensible to a non-techie like me, and the small font is making this site very difficult to use. O Still Small Voice of Clam 16:21, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
I was absent for a week and a half. The problem is back. -- Geagea (talk) 07:47, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Davey2010: are you still having problems or is it just me? The phabricator report has been marked as resolved, but I've still seen no improvement. I've blanked all my css and js pages in case they affected anything, without success. O Still Small Voice of Clam 15:17, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Geagea & O Still Small, At the moment all is fine for me,
  1. Go to https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets
  2. search for "typo"
  3. Tick the box next to "Typographyrefresh (Opt-out)"
  4. hard refresh Villiage Pump,
  5. If that doesn't work then go back to preferences and uncheck the Typoraphy box
  1. copy everything at User:Davey2010/vector.css
  2. paste it into your vector.css page (User:geagea/vector.css and User:Voice of Clam/vector.css) and then hard refresh again
  3. if that does nothing then I'm afraid I have no other solutions,
Having had my phab task originally retitled and then completely ignored I no longer bother wasting my time there but you both are more than welcome to "unresolve" it and make your complaints heard although don't expect to be listened too. Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 15:29, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I already had Typographyrefresh ticked, so I unticked it, and font is back to normal! Thanks for the suggestion. O Still Small Voice of Clam 17:20, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
I unticked as well and was successful. Thanks. -- Geagea (talk) 19:54, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

How to search for categories?

It used to be quite simple.

  • type word in search .. click on the category search link, click on the category

Now it seems impossible:

  • search ends in media search
  • the tab for pages and categories shows galleries
  • the complicated namespace selectors doesn't even allow selecting categories

I guess somehow I missed a step to not get there with two words and three simple clicks. Which is it? Search was "Guam village". --- Jura1 (talk) 12:47, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Enter "Category:Guam village" into the search box or select the "old" Special:Search in your user preferences. -- Discostu (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Why would it only show categories in the category tab when typing "Category:"?
Maybe there should be a separate "Category" tab that doesn't rely on special user input.
User preferences isn't really an option as it requires to be logged in. --- Jura1 (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
What I meant is that you can best search for categories by typing "Category:Guam village" into the search box on any page. It will directly lead you to the "categories and pages" section and give appropriate search results (Screenshot . If the entered category exists, it will be shown directly in search suggestions and will also be opened directly when pressing enter. -- Discostu (talk) 13:14, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
I still think that the new search engine should have "All pages" as the default and then media files as a second choice. Categories are also very important for finding certain types of images and / or other media. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
It depends on your priorities. The new search has finding media as the highest priority. And I understand the reasoning behind that because this is probably the most important thing for users (not contributors) of Commons. And it works great, especially with the structured data that even allows searching in languages that are not used in image description (new search vs old search). -- Discostu (talk) 08:23, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It just seems odd to click on "pages and categories" and not have anything displayed (BTW sometimes it switches over to "old search" from there .. odd). Is there any disadvantage to offer a simple way to find the categories? --- Jura1 (talk) 17:18, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of dozens of images kept in previous dr, endeletion requests by an administrator

Now some uber-users can do what they want and dont follow the rules? One paradigmatic case is the speedy deletion of dozens (if not hundreds or even thousands) of images as being "Self-delete. Unused personal photo. Out of project scope‎", by the administrator User:Moheen when their scope was pretty much estabished in Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream, Commons:Village_pump/Copyright and an undeletion request and they are not images taken by this administrator.

So, some proper administrator, please undelete this images:

Even an administrator cannot unilaterally delete his files. Tm (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

 Comment The problem is that of the 41 images, all, but 15, had that link to Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Files from Lies Thru a Lens Flickr stream (those that do not the link are Roseanne (7447657066).jpg, Mollie (15339796331).jpg, Hannah (15417045423).jpg, Jo-Louise (15616582350).jpg, Jo-Louise (20564162645).jpg, A Warmth I Cannot Describe (16362777956).jpg, Suggestive Light (16425863682).jpg, Thoughts (15831405433).jpg, Karolina (16081815804).jpg, Hannah (16327865836).jpg, Jo-Louise (20036382350).jpg, Jo-Louise (20436378735).jpg, Karolina (16446016158).jpg, Looking Over My Shoulder.jpg and My Afghan Girl (15675213355).jpg), so more or less 60% had said link. Tm (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Moheen: What does "Self-delete." even mean? Is is a recognized deletion rationale at all? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 03:53, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Those are uploaded by myself earlier. After Deletion requests I looked Lies Thru a Lens is not the sole owner of all the content uploaded on his flickr account, which currently unavailable. If my self deletion arias confusion I can restore myself again. I want to lie down those files from my namespace. ~Moheen (keep talking) 13:04, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
Normally, unless the upload is very recent, the fact that you were the uploader is not a basis to unilaterally delete, especially against an apparent consensus. - Jmabel ! talk 15:43, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Moheen: Undelete all and submit a proper DR, or speedy delete again using this time a recognized speedy deletion rationale. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:59, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
I have an overall concern about repeated mass deletions as creating precedent for future actions here on the Commons. Is there any tracking or monitoring of mass deletions at all? Is there a category for files (kept) that have been the target of repeated deletion requests? If not, where do I propose this category creation or can I just do it myself? There could be sub-categories on the number of DR attempts, for instance. Categories would help me and other editors understand more about these actions, which can used to create possible improvement to process or policy. --Ooligan (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
  • @Moheen: The question of authorship of this images being by "Lies Thru a Lens" was definitely and unquestionably established, so you cant argue now that. Funny that you claim the question of copyright, but then why did you delete dozens more files with the same "rationale"? Undelete yourself all of this files, as other users said, that yourself deleted with false and against the rules rationales, that you as an administrator should respect even more than users that do not yield the powers that you have. Tm (talk) 03:53, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Addicional list of images deleted under the same invalid "rationale"

  • Also you should add again any image that was in use in any wikimedia project and that was affected by this grapeshot deletion. Tm (talk) 04:03, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


@Moheen: No, you did not delete undeleted (correction, it is not "delete", it is undeleted) all of them. There is still:

Tm (talk) 13:30, 3 June 2021 (UTC) Added a correction that here i wrotet "delete", i meant "undeleted". Tm (talk) 18:28, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

What is the English word for "meterkast" (Dutch)?

Meterkast - what is it in English?

In the Netherlands every house and building has a "meterkast", a small closet in which gas, electric and water flow into the building; for each of these here are flow meters. From there gas, electric and water flow through pipes into the house/building. Here are also the main taps, in case of an emergency or reparations to shut down gas or water for the whole building. I assume that other countries have similar closets, but I cannot find a proper category, nor a proper English word. My questions:

  1. Is there already a category for these meterkasten?
  2. If not, what is the English word? Wikidata does not give a translation. Google Translate gives 'fuse box', but that is only a part of a meterkast.

JopkeB (talk) 07:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

JopkeB We have Category:Gas meters and Category:Water meters for example but not a category for the box/closet/room they are in. --MGA73 (talk) 09:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I like the question: this could off course be a completely Dutch efficiency thing. :)
Interglot gives "meter cupboard", but there no English article by that name. German translation on Interglot gives no hits, but they for sure use a closet for their collection of in-house meters as well. Ciell (talk) 10:48, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Note also that UK practice doesn't run water through here. Water meters in the UK are still in the minority, except for new-build estates. Our water supply enters separately, finds its own route through the house (often a mystery to householder and plumbers alike) and not having a meter, has no great urge to share an accessible meter box. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you all for your answers.

  1. I conclude that the correct name would be Category:Meter cupboards for indoor "Meterkasten" and Category:Meter boxes for boxes outside. Is it correct that a parent category for Category:Meter cupboards would be Category:Cupboards? (For me it would be more logical to have Category:Rooms or Category:Closets to be the parent category because it is about a room with a door; a cupboard is often thought of as a movable thing.)
  2. And I conclude that my assumption that other countries have similar closets, is not true: there may be other solutions.
  3. @Ciell: It might not only be an efficiency thing but also be obliged by law.

JopkeB (talk) 07:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB: From my experience, Category:Meter cupboards for indoor "Meterkasten" and Category:Meter boxes for boxes outside is fine (although Category:Meter cupboards is somewhat unamerican, perhaps the more direct translation Category:Meter closets), but larger ones could also be called Category:Meter rooms or Category:Utility rooms (convenient places I have seen contain water heaters, alarm systems, HVAC systems, water sprinkler systems, and demarcation points for phone & cable, as well as the occasional extra freezer).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:39, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
A significant difference - UK at least - is that "meter boxes" are publicly accessible. Or at least, accessible to meter readers, who don't need the occupant's permission (or presence) to let them access the box and read the meter. So this box is also limited as to what's in it - there's no easy way to shut off the supply, or to abstract electricity from someone else's account (It can be and is done, but it's theft and leaves traces). So a meter box will still often have a meter cupboard indoors too, with no meter, but the fusebox. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:16, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: there might be a reason why the Dutch don't like to mix electricity and water though :p. Every house has a separate boiler room, except for very old buildings maybe, where these are just below the sink/in the attic/etc.
@JopkeB: Yes, indeed we have regulations to have these at the front door! Must be for safety, right?
@Andy Dingley: recently most of us received 'smart meters' that just automatically sign through your numbers, but "back in the day" they would just charge you for an estimated amount if you did not fill out in the form they would send you every year, or let the meter-men in. My previous flat did have a central water meter, but that is an exception over here. This is where we can also find the fuses for our personal apartment, and this is where internet/tv/telephone/fiber enters your apartment as well. Ciell (talk) 21:48, 2 June 2021 (UTC)
The German equivalent word would be "Zählerkasten" (counter box). This word already exists and is used only for the electric part, but the word can be used in a broader sense as well and would fit. The words for the instruments are "Stromzähler", "Gaszähler", "Wasserzähler", "Wärmezähler". This invention looks like a specific invention of the Netherlands and it is part of the building code. In Germany people think that you should not have combinations of water and power or gas and power near each other. Just in case something leaks, or you need to replace one of the meters there is always a bit of water or gas spilling and if it hits the electric part it is of no benefit. So you can not find something similar in German houses. Gas, water and power would enter the house at different locations. Power and telephone cables comes from poles and enters over the roof in older buildings or in rural areas. But whenever there are newer buildings power and telephone lines are also underground now.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Tones and I

I've asked for help at Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I on 30 April 2021 but have received no reply. At the Category:Tones and I page there is an infobox, it contains contentious information, specifically: year of birth, date of birth and middle name. This information is not supported by reliable sources and may violate WP:BLPPRIVACY. How can this be removed from that infobox? According to policy it should be removed immediately.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 04:45, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

  • @Shaidar cuebiyar: For the future: it might have been better to ask at Category talk:Tones and I than Commons talk:Categories#Category:Tones and I.
  • All of that info comes from the wikidata item Tones and I (Q62887629). Date of birth is referenced there. Anyway, if you have references to the contrary, Wikidata would be the place to take it up. I don't think privacy can possibly apply to information cited from NRJ. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the heads up. The NRJ article does not give her birth date. The closest it comes is repeating the claim, seen in Australian media, that she was 19 at the time of a performance (not precisely dated nor verified by the artist or management). There is no indication of a middle name here. The NRJ cites from an unnamed article in The Sydney Morning Herald.
    • Nick Bond of news.com.au is cited at wikidata for her birth date. However that article presents this as a claim by other media outlets and also discusses another date put forward. Note: the English WP article has had both dates at different times but neither (nor other contenders) has been supported by the artist/managers. There is no indication of her middle name.
    • I believe wikidate has it wrong and will try there, next.Shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Good if you know your ways around there or otherwise can do what has to be done. Usually what has to be done on Wikidata is to give dubious facts a lower "rank".
      Over here, we can choose what data is selected for display in the infobox. On Swedish Wiukipedia there has been much discussion on the issue, and one thing that has been done is to exclude data without source (or just citing Wikipedia) and data with lower rank. The infoboxes also allow for overruling wikidata with explicit parameters. I don't know how the template over here works.
      –LPfi (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

When is a photo out of scope because of being a "holiday snap"?

I nominated several photos of Kasteel Hoensbroek for deletion because a tourist was posing on them, while there were similar photos whithout the tourist. But none of the deletion requests was honored.
One of the examples on the Commons page about the project scope explicitly states that "holiday snaps" "are not realistically useful for an educational purpose" and therefor out of scope, see Commons:Project scope#Examples. For me these photos clearly are holiday snaps, but apparently other people think differently. Can someone explain to me why these photos are not holiday snaps? (perhaps @Missvain: who kept these photos?) And what is the definition of a holiday snap? When/in which cases are photos indeed holiday snaps and when not?
See:

JopkeB (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am inclined to see a small number of such images on Wikimedia Commons, it would be odd to have a lot of pictures of tourist destinations but never any tourists. On Wikimedia Commons we have a culture that wants pictures without any humans in them as much as possible, but I would argue that how tourists interact with "a tourist magnet" has educational value. Honestly, I would want to know how tourists from the 1930's interacted with colonial tourist spots, but unfortunately very few of such images have been made available online. The term "holiday snaps" is deliberately vague. In fact those are the type of photographs we do want to have, as people tend to go to interesting places, it would be better than people only staying in their local village and only uploading photographs from there. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:15, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Donald. I've sometimes taken similar images of tourists I don't even know for this sort of reason.
  • What about places where people routinely go for the purpose of photo shoots?
    What about places where people routinely go for the purpose of photo shoots?
  • Related to the prior image, just showing what the photographer was shooting.
    Related to the prior image, just showing what the photographer was shooting.

The problem is with images that are mainly a picture of the non-notable person, and where the background is more or less incidental to the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

I think the idea behind the holiday snap rule is to avoid posed photographs where the people in the picture are not even acting naturally, rather posing for the photograph with the purpose of showing it to family and friends, Therefore making it only of interest to the people involved. Oxyman (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
I interpret the "holiday snaps" line to refer not to photos of a posing non-notable individual, but to photos that don't usefully depict anything other than such an individual. Even with photos of the second type, I don't bother bogging down the DR process with them: if there are enough useful photos of the subject without people in them I just dump the people ones in a subcategory such as Category:People in Bryce Canyon National Park. That keeps them out of the way of people who aren't looking for them specifically, which is really the only reason we would delete them, IMO. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:36, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
For the Taj Mahal there is a category Visitors of the Taj Mahal with images such as this one and that one. I agree with Donald Trung that how tourists interact with "a tourist magnet" can have educational value. Wouter (talk) 19:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • It isn't. Ever. It's out of scope because it doesn't meet COM:SCOPE, i.e. there is a lack of reasons why it could potentially be within scope. But being something else as well, such as a "holiday snap", "personal photo", "selfie" or whatever doesn't remove it from scope. Many things are both holiday snaps and valued images within scope - particularly if they're older and of a location where there would be few holiday snaps otherwise.
On the other hand, a holiday snap of Ibiza, Cancun or the Pyramids of Giza might find it hard to pass SCOPE, as there are already a surfeit of images from that place and time. But it's not ruled out. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • The only time I really object is when the same person is in hundreds of images, grinning into the camera. It feels like that person is engaging in self promotion. Krok6kola (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for all your reactions; this is beyond my expectations. So now this discussion is about multiple questions:
  1. Would it be good to have some photos of tourists at tourist destinations, about how humans interact with tourist magnets?
  2. If yes: what kind of photos should that be? Should they be only taken of non posing people, only of people who are acting naturally? For instance: people waiting in a line, having fun, taking pictures, looking at objects in a museum, and so on.
  3. Are photos with posing non-notable people OK? Or only if there are no similar photos of the subject without people? Or certainly not when the same person is in many images, grinning into the camera?
  4. Should the Project scope be adjusted, or only the example with the "holiday snaps"? Should "holiday snaps" be defined here?
  5. Was it right that the photos of Kasteel Hoensbroek which had a deletion request were kept?
My personal answers:
  1. Yes, I agree. Otherwise there would be a gap in an important way people spend their holidays. It would be odd to have only photos of beaches, Disneyland, the Eiffel Tour, museums and so on without people. These images should be in a category like Category: People at visitor attractions and it's subcategories.
  2. Yes: those photos should only be taken of non posing people, only of people who are acting naturally, like the second photo of Oxyman, from Sibiu. I have no problems with these kind of photos at all.
  3. No, photos with posing non-notable people are not OK. Certainly not when the same person is in many images, grinning into the camera. For me "many" is already three, not hundred. I think self promotion is certainly not within the scope of this project. Perhaps an exception can be made if there are no similar photos of the subject without people or if they wear typical clothes, characteristic for a certain period or area of which are few or none other images in Commons.
  4. "Holiday snaps" should be defined on the Project scope page.
  5. No, I don't think so, otherwise I would not have nominated them for deletion. The same person was posing on the first six of the photos while there were similar photos without a posing person. Another person was posing on the three others, taking pictures of himself in the mirror.

JopkeB (talk) 10:21, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

@JopkeB:
    • I see a photo above that I took in Sibiu. I see nothing that Oxyman took there.
    • Are you saying that, unlike all other human activity, posing for tourist photos is completely out of Commons scope and, in particular, my other photo (the one at Narada Falls) is out of scope?
    • If so: what about places, in particular, where people routinely go for the purpose of photo shoots (third and fourth images added to the gallery above)?
    • I agree that we don't want Commons overrun with routine tourist shots. This is right in the same category with unremarkable cats and unremarkable human penises, but it shouldn't mean in any of these cases that the subject matter is entirely out of scope.
Jmabel ! talk 15:32, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
      • @Jmabel: I apologise for the mistake, I did not look well who was the sender and maker of the Sibiu photo.
      • The question about posing for tourist photos is: Are those photographs "realistically useful for an educational purpose"? I think they rarely are, especially not when there are similar photos without posing tourists. And I think that the example of "holiday snaps" at Examples of files that are not realistically useful for an educational purpose refer to this kind of photos. I agree with this policy.
      • The third photo seems OK to me: that is not a photo of a tourist posing for the photographer, but a photo of a photographer taking a photograph of a person in an odd position. And these two photographs are not about a tourist attraction with a posing tourist next to it, what spoils the photos. So you are right: it is not as black and white as I initially thought.
JopkeB (talk) 14:27, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
        • @JopkeB: But the last two are photos of a tourist attraction: the ruins of the former Northern State Hospital, probably the single main reason outsiders visit the city of Sedro-Wooley. And one of the main things they do there is pose for photos. It seems to me that is part of what we need to depict. Similarly for any other tourist attraction. We don't need a hundred almost interchangeable tourist snaps (see remarks above about penises, or pet cats) but we do need some. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your contributions. But we still do not have a definition of and criteria for "holiday snaps". To continue this discussion and hopefully bring it to a good end, I have some questions and proposals:

  1. Does anyone know where I can find the discussion about this policy, how did this policy come about? Perhaps we can learn what exactly is this rule about.
  2. I searched for other discussions about the holday snaps policy on Commons, but I could not find one. Does anyone know of such a discussion?
  3. I searched with Google and found a website about holiday snaps. It is about "holiday memories". I see photos of people, probably of vacation companions of the photographer. These people most of the time are posing. I see family group portraits, photos showing were people are (for instance at a tourist attraction) or proud to be on top of a mountain. Elsewhere I found that you send such photos to your (close) friends and family.
    1. Can we derive a definition from these observations? I propose:
      1. "Holiday snaps" are photographs meant as personal memories of someone's vacation. They show one or more holiday companions posing for the camera/photographer at a holiday location or at a tourist attraction. Determining factors are:
      2. people who are holiday companions of the photographer, not locals or other people who are accidently on the photo
      3. posing for the camera
      4. at a holiday location or tourist attraction.
    2. Does anyone has a better idea? Do you have amendments? Do you agree?
  4. After we have agreed on a definition, we should determine wether there are exceptions to the policy rule that holiday snaps are not allowed on Commons. I propose:
    1. The photo is used in another Wikimedia project.
    2. There is no other, similar photo of the tourist attraction without posing tourists. I think this exception leaves in Commons plenty of examples of tourists posing at tourist attractions.
    3. The people on the photo, other tourists, are not posing on the photo, but acting naturally, just being tourists.
    4. The person(s) posing on the photo is/are not (a) non-notable person(s) but famous/well known or there is a Wikipedia page or Commons category (with many other photos of them not posing at a tourist attraction) about them.

Note: If we cannot or do not want to enforce this rule and delete photos which meet these criteria, the rule might be useless and better be removed. Then we can indeed move all those photos of posing tourists to categories like Category: People at visitor attractions. But I think Commons would gain in quality if we would enforce this rule. JopkeB (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I strongly oppose the existence and enforcement of this rule (as someone who has never uploaded a vacation picture to Commons). The advancement of free media should include all free media, not just what we, in all of our ignorance of the world's many possibilities, consider "useful". On a less ideological note, I feel as if "holiday snap" is a case within COM:SCOPE sufficiently covered by other policies within COM:SCOPE.  Mysterymanblue  06:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think we need a guideline about holiday snaps as we don't want to become a family album host. But I think we need an assortment of such photos. I'd be glad to include some complete family albums, perhaps a few hundreds, but not millions, and tens of photos of tourists posing at the Eiffel tower, not thousands.
I think both a person posing for a photo and the photo itself are valuable and in scope. The actual holiday snaps are authentic. We want to document the culture of taking holiday snaps. Enough is still enough.
–LPfi (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The course of thought of this discussion seems to go towards keeping photos of tourists posing at visitor attractions within Commons, whether they are considered to be holiday snaps or not.
My conclusions so far:
(1) We do not have a definition of, nor criteria for "holiday snaps" as mentioned in the Commons Project Scope
(2) There might be doubt about the desirability of "holiday snaps" as an example of photos being out of scope in the Commons Project Scope.
My comments:
(1) Untill this matter is settled or more clear, I'll use categories like Category:People at visitor attractions to store these kind of images. I will no longer nominate them for deletion.
(2) This is outside my area of interest; I do agree with the current policy. So I recommend that you raise this matter with the competent Commons authority because now there seems to be a gap (or at least a lack of clarity) between policy and implementation of one of the aspects of the Commons Scope.
JopkeB (talk) 08:01, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Categorizing uncategorized images

I have been spending a lot of time recently categorizing uncategorized images uploaded by DPLA bot, but am I wasting my time? Is there a bot that will categorize these images? I note that when I upload a photo usually a bunch of (often superfluous) categories get added to it. Mztourist (talk) 10:06, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

I think it depends on the kind of images and on the kind of categories you are adding. But my general experience with uploads by DLPA bots is that they are just dumped into Commons and then left here without useful categories. So what you are doing is valuable work (but an uphill battle). -- Discostu (talk) 10:40, 31 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Discostu good to know its not a waste of time, but feels Sisyphusian! Mztourist (talk) 11:01, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Someone pointed out this thread to me. DPLA uploads are currently only categorized by source institution on upload. There are no real topical categories we can add programmatically based on the data, especially when working at the scale of millions of files, since manually inspecting each upload would create a bottleneck. That is how it was ever since the bot was approved, but I think the {{Uncategorized}} only recently started being added to these. (It's being added by another bot, and I don't necessarily mind either way if the community wants to consider these "Uncategorized", depending on what you your needs are.) The goal here is not to dump these on the Commons community or create work for others, though. We are currently actively planning further development of the bot to improve synchronization, so we can iterate on the data over time and add SDC statements. If you have any suggestion on how we can improve the format of the automated uploads, I'm certainly open to making improvements. Dominic (talk) 18:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I'd be delighted if it simply clumped large numbers of images of the same object, identifiable in museum uploads by the fact they have the same accession number, into a single category. This would mean that you could tag the category as a "desk", as "mechanical furniture", as "18th-century furniture", and as "marquetry", rather than each image, and it would make it a lot easier to find multiple views of a thing, especially if museum visitors have also uploaded images. We might also have a automatically-suggested-tags feature; I understand the Growth Team of the WMF is working on similar already. HLHJ (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2021/05&oldid=569676596"