Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06

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

Translating objects on images

Is there some place on Commons where we can ask for translation of objects on images? I am often looking for the correct English term for an object, to find the wikidata link or the Commons category. Currently I try to find the translation of this type of tear in textile. In Dutch, it is called winkelhaak. Kind regards, Elly (talk) 08:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ellywa: wikt:winkelhaak, Dutch, Noun, Sense 2 says "rectangular tear or cut in a piece of clothing or other fabric, in the form of a try square" and refers to the obsolete English word "winkle-hawk".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't think of wikt. Through that I found the French term also, accroc. Elly (talk) 09:19, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Ellywa: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by:   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 09:55, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

My submissions were removed from their category

Hello! Years ago my contributed images were removed from their category. Can I put them back? They're photos of horse meat on sale. Thanks! - Nawulf (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I was blind. Now I see them in the right category. Sorry! - Nawulf (talk) 21:34, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --El Grafo (talk) 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

'Template:Superseded' - Usage Question

I have a question about Template:Superseded, the successor to 'Template:Obsolete' according to the page. When editing some logo files that all belonged to one company, one older logos the company stopped using was marked with 'Template:Obsolete' linking to the newest logo; and I'm trying to determine if that's the correct use of the template and it's successor, since reading the page, it more appears to be for improvements on file quality and type, and not something like a logo being replaced by a newer logo. I wondered if anyone here could clarify it's usage, and maybe suggest clarifying that on the page for the template.--The Navigators (talk) 21:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@The Navigators: old official versions of logos are not to be deleted. We keep them for historical reference. While {{Superseded}} doesn't have to result in deletion, it sometimes does and is indeed incorrect use of the template. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: - Okay, I'll remove the template from the file. I would suggest we make that clearer/overtly stated on the template page, since nothing there clearly stated this, at least that I noticed.--The Navigators (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --The Navigators (talk) 23:46, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

File to be replaced

Hi... This file, File:Verne - L'Agence Thompson and C°, Hetzel, 1907.djvu needs to be replaced with the new File:Verne - L'Agence Thompson and C°, Hetzel, 1907 (replacement).djvu as it was impossible to it directly, the new file being bigger than 100mb. Anyone with the access could do it please? I can only rename, not replace an existing file. Thanks a lot. This file is required in a monthly project on Wikisource this month. --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 20:51, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

PS: this file has a new OCR that has been fixed, as the previous OCR was impossible to work with on Wikisource.
@Begoon: This was actually not a good choice, because the file history is now not correct (your upload comment is quite good, though). @Ernest-Mtl: For a potential next time: Request this in COM:HISTMERGE (scroll to bottom). — Speravir – 19:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: Thanks... didn't know there was a place for such request... I had done it one time only before that here on the village pump... --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 19:36, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
You’re welcome, Ernest-Mtl. If you insist on being mentioned in the file history we could ask JuTa to revert deletion and conversion into redirect of Verne - L'Agence Thompson and C°, Hetzel, 1907 (replacement).djvu, and then you could ask for merging of file histories. — Speravir – 21:54, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Speravir: lol nah... I really don't mind at all! The moment the new file was available, that what's count for me! ;) --Ernest-Mtl (talk) 23:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
OK, in other words this section is resolved for you. — Speravir – 23:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 23:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

A proposal for WikiJournals to become a new sister project

Over the last few years, the WikiJournal User Group has been building and testing a set of peer reviewed academic journals on a mediawiki platform. The main types of articles are:

  • Existing Wikipedia articles submitted for external review and feedback (example)
  • From-scratch articles that, after review, are imported to Wikipedia (example)
  • Original research articles that are not imported to Wikipedia (example)

Proposal: WikiJournals as a new sister project

From a Wikipedian point of view, this is a complementary system to Featured article review, but bridging the gap with external experts, implementing established scholarly practices, and generating citable, doi-linked publications.

Please take a look and support/oppose/comment! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 04:25, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Also of particular relevance to commons, there have been a few experiments in peer reviewing images (or image sets), which could be similarly complementary to the featured image process.
T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 23:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

MOTD on the main page is not centered

Does anybody know why MOTD on the main page is not centered just like POTD? I think it started 2 days ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdx (talk • contribs) 8 June 2019‎ 08:01 (UTC)

@Jdx: Special:Diff/341841227/353422029. Ping @4nn1l2 and Tacsipacsi. — Speravir – 02:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jdx and Speravir: I carried out another edit request by User:Tacsipacsi (Special:Diff/353667250), and I think MOTD is centered now. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Yep, it seems to be OK now. --jdx Re: 06:23, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Seems OK here, as well. — Speravir – 18:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I was aware of the problem (after the first edit request was fulfilled), but I decided not to hotfix it, as I confirmed that my second edit request also fixed it. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 21:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Speravir 18:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Upload date in filename?

Me and a friend are developing a program to upload pictures to Commons, and we are thinking of including a date as part of the filename. Example:

Rubus ulmifolius flower - Lyon, France - 20190603.jpg

My friend suggest using the current date (when we upload the picture). I suggest using the date at which the picture was taken, taken from the EXIF.

Can you settle our argument? Thanks! Syced (talk) 11:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Date the picture was taken is more useful. It could be uploaded anytime, but that says nothing about the picture itself. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:23, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
I firmly agree with Alexis. Typically, no one but you cares when you uploaded it to this site. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
While I agree that the date that the actual photograph was taken is more important and should be preferable when used in the title, the date of publication can still be important. Some works (depending on the jurisdiction) enter the public domain based on the date that it was published rather than the date that it was produced. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:38, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you all for your feedback! No question that both dates are important to keep track of, but which one should we put in the filename? My personal opinion is that naming a picture I took 3 years ago "Obama 2019-06-04.jpg" is incredibly misleading, as people who read the wikicode or download the picture will inevitably believe that pic was taken in 2019. Or should we abandon the idea of appending a date, and just append meaningless numbers (2, 3, 4, etc) like the Upload Wizard currently does? I believe it is not ideal either, consider for instance "Historical house in München at address Katzenstraße 2" or "Aix airfield with landing Cessna 2", it is not clear whether "2" is part of the street name/plane model or just a meaningless identifier. Maybe the best solution could be a clearly meaningless identifier, for example "Aix airfield with landing Cessna (ID9852935)"? Cheers! Syced (talk) 02:27, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
I would agree if anything, include the date the image is taken. Publication information is only useful for clerical reasons, and is present in the automatically-generated upload data anyways, whereas the subject (including, if relevant, when taken), is general information that may be useful for anyone wanting to use it. While the point is made above about copyright and publication, assuming publication is still relevant for newly created works (there has been a near-universal move away from publication to an author-death-date system), anything published on the Commons must already be under an open license. So of the two, only the date of the photo would be potentially useful (or at least not cause for confusion).Morgan Riley (talk) 04:31, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the above, the date the photograph was taken should be in the file name (that's how I do it myself too), if you took a picture in 1991 of a restaurant which closed in 1992 and then upload it in 2019 it would be extremely misleading to add the upload date in the title, plus the date of publication is always used on the file page itself, so there is no need to include it twice, especially since the file name should be descriptive of what is photographed and not of when it was published (unless you're talking about books and the like because then the publication is more important but this doesn't apply to photographs). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:03, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

How can I upload more than 50 files at a time?

How can I upload more than 50 files at a time?MONUMENTA Talk 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Cheat. (or become a license reviewer) - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much Alexis Jazz, the second option requires much more than the first.MONUMENTA Talk 22:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@MONUMENTA: Use Pattypan. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:08, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much Andy Mabbett, with the first method I work, but I will save it in case one day.MONUMENTA Talk 19:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 18:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Anyone know how to read UK medals?

Septimus Julius Augustus Denison
Frederick Charles Denison

We seem to have the same image for two brothers.

Lieutenant Colonel Frederick Charles Denison (1846-1896) died at a lower rank, but it probably the more well-known brother. The general in charge of the expedition to rescue General Gordon, in Khartoum asked for him, by name, to command a unit of Canadian Voyageurs to navigate the expedition in small boats through the Nile's cataracts. Septimus was a general, but during World War One, when the army was full of Generals.

So, is there anything in the medals, and rank markings, that would confirm or refute which brother these images show? Geo Swan (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: the pointy medal looks like the Order of St Michael and St George, so he should be Frederick?--Roy17 (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry I made a mistake. They were both awarded the same order.--Roy17 (talk) 16:18, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
If 1907 is the correct year of this portrait, then the photo shows Frederick, because Septimus was promoted to Lt. Col. only three years later. See page 105. De728631 (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history are good for this. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:25, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Colonel Septimus Denison
This additional image of Colonel Septimus Denison, from 1914, looks much older than this individual, which I think confirms Roy17's first response.
Thanks everyone! Geo Swan (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: I really have the impression that the images labelled "Septimus Julius Augustus Denison" and "Frederick Charles Denison" are two instances of the same image, and show the same person (which, I would not dare to venture a guess). Rama (talk) 11:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
@Geo Swan: Yes, have a look at the collar. The rank insignia of a star and crown are still the same today in Canada and the UK. De728631 (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 06:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

CSD for sensitive private information?

I think files containing sensitive private information such as File:IMG-20170208-WA0016.jpg should generally be speedily deleted, because the info could be used illicitly and it's difficult to confirm the uploader is the actual bearer and willing to share and well-informed of the consequences, but I dont seem to find a clause in COM:CSD for this consideration.--Roy17 (talk) 00:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: I blurred most personal stuff. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 01:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
✓ Done Old version hidden. I think this is out of scope. Yann (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Why would an Indonesian identity card be out of scope? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't think that Indonesian identity card is out of scope.--Vulphere 12:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Vulphere 18:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Images to rescale

Hello,

Due to a misunderstanding with the museum where the photographs were taken, I would need all images in category Category:Wik-nic at MAHG, 19 August 2018 to be resized to a maximum resolution of 1200×1200. Is there a bot susceptible of doing that?

Sorry for cross-posting from Graphics, and thank you very much in advance. Rama (talk) 14:52, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Rama: That sounds like it'll involve a loss of quality. Were the images upscaled from that resolution at some point (in which case we should reupload the originals), or is this to honor some terms with the museum about the maximum resolution of images? – BMacZero (🗩) 17:21, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@BMacZero: not upscaled. I checked. @Rama: you are the photographer, so you have the rights to the photographs. The artworks are thousands of years old, they were never protected by copyright to begin with. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
Hello and thank you for the answers.
The idea would be to downscale the images to honour a request from the museum. This would indeed, and regrettably, cause a loss of quality.
The museum gave us exceptional permission to use a tripod, in exchange for a right to decide when and how the images would be published. We were recently authorised to publish, after almost a year, but a misunderstanding led me to believe that the maximum resolution was very permissive. Sadly, it not only was it not the case, but I became aware of the 1200×1200 maximum resolution only after uploading some 270 images. I understand that from a strictly legal point of view we could simply deny their request, but it would not help our relationship with the Museum. A regrettable occurrence, to be sure. Rama (talk) 18:35, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: such a shame..
I guess your safest bet is to request G7 at COM:AN for the unused images. (according to https://tools.wmflabs.org/glamtools/glamorous.php 34 images are in use) More than 7 days after upload this won't be possible anymore. Overwrite+revdel is probably more work than just reuploading anyways. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: maybe you can ask User:DatBot's, en:User:Theo's Little Bot's or zh:User:Wcam-bot's operators to help you resize using a bot.--Roy17 (talk) 01:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes :/ Hopefully the culture will evolve.
@Roy17: Thank you, I will ask there. I would like to avoid doing this by hand, especially for a task of such a nature. Thank you very much and good continuation! Rama (talk) 06:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: If you don't use G7 (and time is running out) you may not get community support for (revision) deletion. Also, I'm not sure admins can perform any mass revision deletion. Batch resizing on your computer and reuploading is probably easier. I could perhaps help with that, I'd have to take a look.
@Roy17: None of those can revdel. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:41, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for reminding me. I am a bit annoyed at the notion but I fear that is what it would take. Thank you again! Rama (talk) 16:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rama: may these 1200×1200 images be PNG or TIFF? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't see why not... :> Rama (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Do a mass DR asking for courtesy deletion. It's not that hard to use the API and mass overwrite, but it's not a good investment of tech knowhow. --Fæ (talk) 16:33, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
As they have now been deleted, I suggest we simply avoid hosting them. With a maximum of 1200 px on a side, this is below our conventions for reasonable quality photographs and appears to be a choice based on "web quality".
This may not apply to this case, but being offered low resolution images is often done as a means to use Commons to drive website traffic to the institution's website, often where "reproduction fees" then apply for access to "high resolution" images. Best not be seen to encourage the project to be used that way by making low resolution agreements, we should simply use our volunteer time on other projects where no dubious constraints apply and there are no potential misunderstandings about copyright. --Fæ (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
There are images that I had taken myself, in fact. Besides, we have full-resolution images that I took as a tourist, some of which are of comparable quality anyway. I am hearing your point and adding it to the fact that we do not really need these images, and that the whole affair has taken a bitter taste that makes me less enthusiastic in investing my time in it. Rama (talk) 18:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
From Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#deletion of about 270_images:

@Alexis Jazz: In fact the whole matter is all the more absurd that visitors are free to photograph without a tripod or a flash. I have already taken a number of high-resolution photographs of most of the items depicted (see the sub-categories in Category:Egyptian antiquities in the Musée d'Art et d'Histoire (Geneva)). The tripod gave a few photographs that were significantly better than what I had otherwise, but in most cases the difference is not vastly significant. We are doing lots of tedious work to vandalise images that we do not really need — they were marginally better and they were a symbol of an attempt at a partnership that is acquiring a bitter taste.

— Rama
I think even if you take a high-end phone, record 4k video and just hold still when aiming at every object, the images that can be extracted from that video may be better than your downscaled photos. Do you still see this partnership going anywhere? Did you sign anything? If not and you don't care about the partnership anymore, you can publish them. If you did sign something, I can say with confidence that I didn't. So if I publish those photos in full resolution, they can't sue me. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:24, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Yes, and simply by keeping taking images with a hand-held camea, some will turn out to have an acceptable quality, statistically.
Regarding re-uploading the images yourself, I understand that it would not be illegal and I appreciate your enthusiame, but I do not think it would be worth your while, we have equivalent images, or will have them sooner than later. And if the partnership rebound in the future, it will be easier to say that this batch had not worked out, than to say we had decided to ignore their requirements.
In the meantime, I will keep at guerrilla-photographing. Thank you again for your help and involvement. Cheers! Rama (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Personal photos

How is COM:CSD F10, "personal" photos, interpreted? Photos "of persons"? Or "private" photos? Let's say a user uploads a bunch of photos:

  1. Multiple selfies of supposedly the uploader.
  2. A selfie of the uploader and friends.
  3. A photo of friends.
  4. A photo inside someone's home but depicting no one. Medium to low quality.
  5. Some legible text in a notebook, but contents are lack of context or just gibberish.

Which of these can qualify speedy deletion?--Roy17 (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: All, if they have no lasting mainspace contribs anywhere.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Exactly what Jeff said. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:13, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Technical village pump still missing

When you you create a new section in the village pump you get the text:

"Are you sure this is the best place for your post? Please consider:

For some reason the technical village pump still isn't listed, can someone please add it to this text? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

✓ Done just recently edited by Roy17.--Vulphere 16:24, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks to the person who did it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

"illustrations of ghost stories" category

I am thinking of creating a category "Illustrations of ghost stories" because it seems like it would be interesting while not exactly overlapping with existing categories. There are some great ghost story illustrations out there that work hard to creat a spooky atmosphere without depicting a ghost (for instance I think The Lake at Yssbrooke.png is outstanding); thus not belonging in Category:Ghosts. The existing Category:Ghost stories is used for a variety of things but almost never for illustrations; so maybe it should have a subcategory "Illustrations of..." Do folks agree that this would be a non-redundant category, and if so, what should it be a sub- and super-category of? Levana Taylor (talk) 00:14, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Not sure if "of" is the best preposition to use here. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
Levana Taylor, I think it’s a great idea. It should go under Category:Illustrations by subject (where there’s several subcategories named using "of", HyperGaruda) and also under Category:Ghost stories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I created Category:Illustrations for ghost stories. It doesn't seem like it should go in Category:Illustrations by subject though. The description text on that category page says "Categories and illustrations located here and within any subcategories should be a general illustration such as that sports topic drawing illustrated at right" and indeed, in spite of containing "Illustrations to Shakespeare's works" and "Illustrations of ballads," the subcategories are 95% nonfiction topics rather than fiction genres. For the present, I put the ghost story category inside Category:Illustrations where "Illustrations of poetry" also is. Levana Taylor (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Isn't there a problem with the XXXX concerts by country cats and templates ?

I noticed something weird with Category:2019 concerts. I wanted to move some cats like Category:2019 concerts in Iran to Category:2019 concerts by country... but such a cat already shows Category:2019 concerts by country without appearing in it and doesn't show Category:2019 concerts while it's there !!! Does anyone understand ? And who could deal with that problem ? --TwoWings * to talk or not to talk... 17:54, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@TwoWings: I think it just takes the server a little bit to update category contents after these kinds of changes. It'll probably sort itself out in, I don't know, a day? (For others: the category was removed from transcluded template Template:Iranconcertyear). – BMacZero (🗩) 18:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)
I gave this and similar categories a null-edit to fix them. I assume it's due to template caching or something and Category:2019 concerts by country was only recently created (well, over two weeks ago and it doesn't seem to be fixing itself). --ghouston (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Assert\ParameterTypeException"

[(some letters)] 2019-06-06 12:01:59: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Assert\ParameterTypeException"

Why does this happen? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:05, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

While trying to purge https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:London_November_4_2013_Back_of_Union_chapel_Grade_II*_Listed_Building.jpg , I got '[XPkASwpAADkAAF-l9I4AAAAW] 2019-06-06 12:00:11: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Assert\ParameterTypeException"'.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:31, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I got it randomly. Make the same request 10 seconds later and no problem. Also happened when just trying to view a diff or open an edit window. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz and Jeff G.: There was a broken deployment, sorry about that. Should be all fixed now (see wikitech:Incident documentation/20190606-wikibase if you want the technical details) – or are you still experiencing these errors? --Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE) (talk) 13:03, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Lucas Werkmeister (WMDE): Thanks for letting us know. It only happened to me once. I recorded the problem, retried successfully, assumed a transient error, and waited until I saw Alexis's report before posting above. I am more proactive with systems I control.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
I saw it about 5 times I think, more than 10% of my requests I think. But I haven't seen it again since it was fixed. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Iverson Granderson

I'm completely confused. I would like to upload a genealogy book about my great-grandfather "Iverson Granderson - First Class 'Colored' Boy, Union Navy (1863-1865) by Jeanette Braxton Secret Thank you, Jeanette Braxton Secret — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jbraxtonsecret (talk • contribs) 4 June 2019 03:11 (UTC) (UTC)

  • @Jbraxtonsecret: I hate to say it but: yes, you are confused. Commons is a media repository, mainly photos and other images, also sound files and videos. It is not a place to upload a book.
  • Possibly this content might be welcome at WikiBooks (https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Main_Page); I honestly don't know that project well enough to know, but you might try there. You might ask at https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Wikibooks:Community_Portal. If not there, my guess is that you will have to do this somewhere outside of the Wikimedia Foundation projects. - Jmabel ! talk 15:56, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • We are also the source material for things like Wikibooks and Wikisource, so it might well be welcomed here. People always forget the secondary uses of Commons. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: What's this then? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, maybe this is within scope. Still, in general, we don't usually welcome contemporary self-published books or books by vanity presses and, to the best of my knowledge (please correct me if I'm wrong) Heritage Books is a vanity press (from their site: "The usual conditions are… that the author guarantees to purchase a predetermined number of copies of the work on a non-royalty basis.")
      • If it is within scope, we'd need a release under an appropriate license. @Jbraxtonsecret: are you planning to release this under {{Cc-by-sa}}, or some other license? Whatever free license is used, we'd need you either to go through the process described at COM:OTRS or to post on a web site or page obviously under your control that you grant the license. This is because we have no other way to verify that the Jbraxtonsecret account here is really you, rather than someone else using your name. - Jmabel ! talk 20:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jbraxtonsecret: Regrettably, Jmabel has given a very bad answer. Ic an see that your book was published in paper form in 2012; see [1]. Providing it can be released uncer a suitable licence, a PDF (or DjVu, or suchlike) copy would be very welcome on this project. The text could also be uploaded, again under a suitable licence, to Wikisource. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:20, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Attributing a photo

Can someone explain to me why "cite this page" does not give any information about how to attribute the photo? For example, from my recently uploaded File:Seattle - The Canterbury 01.jpg, if you click "Cite this page" you get https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:CiteThisPage&page=File%3ASeattle_-_The_Canterbury_01.jpg&id=353345353, which does not anywhere mention me as the photographer, even though the attribution requirements for the photo are quite clear. This seems to absolutely invite that the photo be attributed to "Wikimedia Commons contributors".

I understand for the need for what is there (I wouldn't necessarily be the only contributor to the text on the page, though in this case I am) but why on earth don't we provide any information about the far more likely case that someone wants to cite the photo, not the Commons page? - Jmabel ! talk 23:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jmabel: that link comes from mw:Extension:CiteThisPage, which is useful for article-based Wikipedias, but not so useful for media-based ones like Commons. There's a "Use this file" link that should be prominently displayed next to the image, which contains the proper attribution info and is placed there by Help:Gadget-Stockphoto (enabled by default, even for logged-out users). Removing the cite link or modifying its behavior is something the devs would have to do, I think. clpo13(talk) 23:56, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Clpo13: That "Use this file" is so much less prominent than "Cite this page"! I wonder if there would be some way to get another copy of that gadget within "Cite this page"? I would think that in the case of Commons, that is a much more common user case. - Jmabel ! talk 00:07, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
For logged-out users
Note that the “use this file” appearence differs whether you are logged-in (smaller) or logged-out (bigger). Do you find it not prominent enough in its logged-out form too? Jean-Fred (talk) 08:29, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah, much better: I'd probably never seen the logged-out form! (I still think it would be a good addition to "cite this page", though.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/

Hi,

https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/ isn't working. It is the only tool to upload flickr images with automatic review of license. Thanx, --Juan Villalobos (talk) 11:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

@Juan Villalobos: it's working for me. Could you please elaborate what the problem was, or provide a link to what you want to transfer?--Roy17 (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Juan Villalobos: It is working for me.--Vulphere 13:04, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
@Juan Villalobos: , what device are you using? Have you tried clearing cookies and/or using a different browser? If the issue persists then you should probably make a couple of screenshots and report it to the Phabricator. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi,
  1. I open https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/#/
  2. I copy&paste https://www.flickr.com/photos/eduardoandres/231985402/in/photolist-muZbj-QdCKZS-QgTpUn-Q3YXHY in the parameter "Flickr URL"
  3. I click "Iniciar" (or "Start" prob.)
Then the page https://tools.wmflabs.org/flickr2commons/#/photo/231985402 appears in my browser.
Nothing happens any more.
Tested in Chrome and Mozilla Firefox.
--Juan Villalobos (talk) 06:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Have you authorized the tool with OAuth, as per the directions at the top? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:46, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Make sure that you are already authorised with OAuth.--Vulphere 08:41, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Juan Villalobos: That's why you should always include in a "bug report" the important details, in this case the photo you are working on! It's CC-BY-ND. {{CC-BY-ND}}!
Case dismissed.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Should Constantinople redirect to Istanbul?

Currently Constantinople redirects to a category Category:Constantinople on historic Istanbul (I believe the Turks began using "Istanbul" as the name for the city from the 1400s but in the West this changed in 1930). One thing I've found is when redirecting other languages is that some still use "Constantinople" (such as the Greeks) for the modern name of the city.

I'm wondering if Constantinople and Byzantium and all names of Istanbul should redirect to the same gallery. Do you think it should be retargeted? What about Byzantium?

@Gryffindor: WhisperToMe (talk) 13:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the very fact that we have a well-populated Category:Constantinople means that it is the appropriate target for Constantinople's redirect. If we are going to redirect a gallery-page name to a category, and we have an identically named category, that would seem to me to be "case closed". - Jmabel ! talk 16:08, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Since "Constantinople" is already a broad subject, somebody could just make a new gallery page anyway about Constantinople in the past, right? I think that might be a good idea. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

It's a little more complex. It's more like New York being called The Big Apple, or Edinburgh being called Auld Reekie. The nickname displaced the original name, so it's a continuum. Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:28, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Art UK

Does anyone have a tool (or project) for batch uploading OOC artworks from ArtUK? For example, this page has 51 works by George Harcourt (died 1947). User:Fæ? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

1956 pamphlet from the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission and copyright

Hello,

I found this late 1950s pamphlet in [article] by the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission and I would like to know if this picture could legally be downloaded on Commons or at least in some other Wikimedia projects. --Jean Po (talk) 19:48, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

@Jean Po: without further information about the pamphlet that image originally appeared in, it's difficult to show that it's public domain (see COM:HIRTLE) and therefore okay on Commons. It would only be public domain if the pamphlet was distributed without a proper copyright notice ({{PD-US-no notice}}) or if there was a notice but the copyright was not renewed ({{PD-US-not renewed}}).
It might be fine, however. According to the linked page, the Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission was established in 1956. If this image dates from then, it needed to have its copyright renewed in 1983 or 1984. However, the Sovereignty Commission ceased to function in 1973 and was officially dissolved in 1977, making it unlikely that anyone filed for copyright renewal. A search of the US Copyright Office online database doesn't show any results for the organization's name, though it's possible that it was renewed under a different name or title. You might be able to find more info about it at Sovereignty Commission Online at MDAH. clpo13(talk) 20:02, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
Mississippi is not listed at en:Copyright status of works by subnational governments of the United States (there used to be a convenient table on that page, including all states; not sure why it was deleted). AnonMoos (talk) 22:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

1961 document from the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission

Hello,

I found this document published on 1961 by the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission and I would like to know if I could download it there.--Jean Po (talk) 21:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Probably {{PD-US-no notice}} (the date of 1920 given at the site is incorrect, as the Louisiana State Sovereignty Commission came into existence in the 1960s). clpo13(talk) 23:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 Multimedia Knowledge Space program

The call for for submissions for the 2019:Multimedia knowledge space at Wikimania 2019 has ended. You can help the program committee by reviewing the submissions and stating your interest in attending any of the sessions. All submissions to the Multimedia Knowledge Space can be found at: Category:2019:Multimedia submissions.

It is a goal to make as many sessions as possible available to people who can't travel to Stockholm. So if you wish to attend remotely to any session, please let us know, so we can try to accommodate.

For the Multimedia Knowledge Space team.

--MB-one (talk) 15:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

General maintainers

This is an idea I've been mulling over for a while. Input is welcome.

Some Commons users do a lot of maintenance and other work here, but they may not be interested in becoming an administrator or not deemed suitable by the community.

When it comes to administrators, there are two reasons we can't promote everyone to be an administrator: the community doesn't trust everyone with the mop and for the WMF administrators (to be precise: anyone who can view deleted content) are a legal liability. Being an administrator on a Wikimedia project also carries some legal risk for the administrators themselves because of that.

A general maintainer wouldn't quite be an administrator, but would be given access to various tools. They need to be users who can be trusted not to abuse their tools (similar to, for example, rollbackers), but don't need overly extensive copyright knowledge (like a license reviewer) and the community doesn't need to trust them with sanctioning other users.

A general maintainer could:

  • Move files
  • Delete their own files and revisions (very handy for mass-uploaders who spot a bad file after uploading and map makers who need to delete inaccurate old revisions of maps)
  • Speedy delete abusive uploads (not including copyright violations)
  • Hide abusive page revisions (vandalism)
  • Handle G7 requests that fully meet the G7 criteria. (original author or uploader requests deletion of recently created (<7 days) unused content)
  • More easily close-keep DRs as they have DelReqHandler, but by default they should only close DRs that any user would be allowed to close: "Non-admins may close a deletion request as keep if they have a good understanding of the process, and provided the closure is not controversial." (but read more below)
  • Mark others' edits as patrolled (patrol)
  • Not be affected by rate limits (noratelimit)
  • Not create redirects from source pages when moving pages (suppressredirect)
  • Enable 2FA
  • Edit protected templates (templateeditor)
  • Override the title or username blacklist (tboverride)

Unlike an administrator, a general maintainer couldn't:

  • Do license reviews (unless they also apply to be a license reviewer)
  • Block users
  • Restore files (undelete)
  • Deal with DRs and copyvios (but read more below)
  • Perform history merging and splitting (this requires undelete)
  • Configure Upload Wizard campaigns (upwizcampaigns)
  • Work on abuse filters

To be determined:

  • Edit pages protected as "Allow only administrators" (editprotected) and fulfill edit requests
  • Change protection levels and edit cascade-protected pages (protect)
  • Rollback. Obviously they would be trusted with it, but as rollback can't be disabled afaik, some users may actively not want it?

General maintainer status could simply be requested at Commons:Requests for rights and could be granted by any administrator without discussion, similar to requests for filemover or autopatrol. Obviously, only properly experienced users should be made general maintainers.

If a general maintainer also wants to engage in dealing with DRs (including close-deleting them), copyvios, etc (which technically they can), they need a community mandate very much like an RFA. For the community, the bar to support such a request will be lower than the bar to support adminship.

To prevent an endless accumulation of GM accounts as people often naturally move on as years pass by, to retain GM status the user should make at least 1 edit per year.

Any more thoughts about which rights should (not) be included? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:33, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

If this has protect & editprotected, the bar needs to be higher than granted-whenever-a-certain-admin-likes-it. The deletions... someone needs to implement them so that they cannot delete arbitrarily. It would be very bad for a rogue GM to go and delete the main page. --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 00:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
This could theoretically easily be fixed by creating "Commons:General maintainers/requests" where people can vote on who becomes a GM with a lower bar for accepting them, maybe at 60% (sixty percent) or better at 75% (seventy-five percent), I'm afraid that the hat will be given too quick to Deletionists, but if this new category of users will be subject to the same level of scrutiny as administrators are but with a lower bar for entering, then this could become somewhat of "a sysop internship" and/or "sysop-assistant" and GM's will be able to tackle a lot of admin backlog without being admins themselves. This proposed system has many benefits but we should add a lot of scrutiny and options to appeal their decisions in right from the start. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:56, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: Very good point. Is the main page the primary concern? Maybe the main page should be restricted to interface admins. (not possible in MediaWiki I think, but probably possible with AF?) If this can't be overcome, protect and editprotected should be left to admins. I moved those two to a new list. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
A rogue GM going on a deletion spree is also a concern. That INC incident took ages to revert --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 01:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
@Zhuyifei1999: what if their deletion was rate limited? Say, 10 deletions per minute or so. Maybe even just 5. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:36, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
An even better option would be only allowing GM's to delete "File:" And "File talk:" Pages and maybe categories. Or maybe just pages created by themselves. A better solution would be creating some sort of tool that requires them to link to a deletion request while deleting a page, this way they could help with deletion requests but not with speedy deletions and any deletion done by them will always be backed up by consensus (theoretically). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:52, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
Client-side 'tools' are not to be trusted to enforce a certain requirement. If granting of permission was based on consensus rather than an admin's discretion then it would be fine, but right now, any enforcement has to be server-side, so someone has to implement it --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 02:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Promote more sysops. Problem solved.--Roy17 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I tried. :(   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:07, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
I actually would vote for you to become a GM, in fact I think that you and the other user with over five (5) failed RfA's, Fæ, would make great GM's and I probably think that if both of you (and many other users) would become GM's first that you would convince more users to be trusted with admin tools. In fact, I remember seeing a discussion on the English-language Wikipedia where there was a discussion of "splitting up admin/sysop powers "to democratise Wikipedia" and fight backlog". I hope that one day sysops will become like Bureaucrats and only become a flag needed for the most trusted users and have plenty of users who can help with most backlogs. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: in some cases, general maintainer could be a step towards future adminship. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Can I request removal of metadata on some images

I selected to remove GPS location when I uploaded some images. However, it didn’t get removed for some reason. Is there a way to request an admin to remove it without deleting the files. If this is not possible, can I re-upload it and request the old version to be deleted? --Atomicdragon136 (talk) 03:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

@Atomicdragon136: I'm not sure, if the removal is possible. But the second option is certainly possible. You can upload a new version without metadata and ask for the removal of the old version at COM:AN (you can ping me there). --MB-one (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atomicdragon136: as MB-one said you can take the second option by uploaded the new version of the image and request for the removal at COM:AN.--Vulphere 11:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Atomicdragon136: “I selected to remove GPS location when I uploaded some images.” − was that option part of the upload tool? If so, may I ask which upload tool were you using? I’m trying to flesh out use cases and existing functionality for phab:T218057. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jean-Frédéric: the Upload Wizard will prefill the {{Location}} template with GPS coordinates from Exif metadata, so Atomicdragon136 might have cleared those fields thinking the location data would be wiped from the file itself. Unfortunately, that is not the case, and the GPS coordinates can still be easily retrieved: [2]. At present, the only solution is to upload a new version, as MB-one suggested. clpo13(talk) 16:48, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for scans?

We have photography barnstars, copyright watcher barnstars, etc. How about a barnstar to award users who scan books/illustrations from books?--Roy17 (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Call it Archivist's Barnstar or Librarian's Barnstar?--Roy17 (talk) 02:06, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
I  Support the creation of such a barnstar, I've often run across people who have donated and/or uploaded many high quality scans, maybe a separate barnstar for people who upload books and people who upload other scans. The Librarian's Barnstar could feature books in its design while the Archivist's Barnstar could feature a scanning machine or a document with a red stripe in the middle signifying that it's being scanned. Just some suggestions... --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:54, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 Support as what Donald Trung said, separate awards.--Vulphere 06:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 Support Sounds nice, but what image should go with it? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not designer material, so I wrote here hoping artists would pick up my idea. XD --Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Graphics by User:MIT Harvard Observatory

Over at the en:wp I was astonished to learn that "Inflatable Pleasure Craft" are the backbone of the economy of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, amounting to 55% of the nation's exports, so I had a look at some of the other uploads by the creator of that graphic, (many of which are used by several wikipedia editions), and was not less astonished to read that "Snowmobiles and golf carts" make up 11% of the exports of Spain, to say nothing of the surprisingly robust Telephone industry in Antarctica. Someone may want to look into this... --Janneman (talk) 14:58, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

  • The thirteenth strike of the clock that throws all others in doubt.
  • Is someone willing to go through all of looking for little anomalies, or are we going to throw them all out? That seems to be the choice. I don't have the patience to do the former, so unless someone else does, I'm inclined toward the latter.
  • For the short term: would anyone mind if I tag these all with {{Fact disputed}} and point back to the present discussion? That is, I won't have a specific fact to dispute on each one, just that they come from a tainted source.

- Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Brian,

Trade data can sometimes be surprising, bu these seem legit. I had a group of students upload these files in 2012 as part of a class project. Antártica is a legit customs zone, and I think the case of st Vincent is about a recreational inflatable vehicle.
Thanks

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BMacZero (talk • contribs) 01:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

  • @Jmabel: If overwrites are what's needed, that's something I can do. As far as whether we actually trust the source, I think it's beyond me to decide that, though I will try to get them to explain further. Feel free to apply {{Fact disputed}} in the meantime. – BMacZero (🗩) 03:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • I will add the template; feel free to take it from there. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
    • These should now all be marked as {{Fact disputed}}. It's possible I missed something: VFC was being a bit temperamental.
    • My own guess is that these are at least mostly accurate, but that people took some real liberties with the wordings and they should all be checked. I strongly suspect that the account in question was actually used by several people, not just one, which makes accountability very tricky. Also, things like this would be much more natural as SVGs instead of JPGs, so it would be possible to drill down into the smaller areas. - Jmabel ! talk 03:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
My guess is that you/we've all been had. And you're still being had, what with the professor's answer: I think the case of st Vincent is about a recreational inflatable vehicle. Erm yes, what is that supposed to mean...? Exactly. --Janneman (talk) 19:26, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Category talk pages, can we make them more useful?

Currently category talk pages are almost always redlinks, in fact it's quite rare to find one that’s actually being used. This is not to say that they’re useless, in fact no talk page or internet comment section truly is, but on Wikimedia Commons we just haven't utilised them to their full potential yet. Therefore I would like to see if my proposal would be a good idea and if there might be consensus for it.

If you add a category to your watchlist it rarely changes, in fact I’ve come across many categories not edited for over a decade, even if you’re interested in its sub-categories and the files within it, you would have to watch each and every one of them Individually. Deletion requests could affect files in these categories but unless you watch the file in question, you won’t know that it has been nominated for deletion. I propose that a bot would automatically list all relevant deletion requests on the talk page of a category, that way if you watch a category you will be informed of any ongoing deletion requests and a log will be kept of all files listed in a given category nominated for deletion. Speedy deletions could potentially also be listed if the need for them exists and it would also be desirable to have the bot who adds these deletion requests also add an archive template to automatically archive threads older than 365 (three-hundred-and-sixty-five) days, this way category talk pages won't become cluttered but the links to the deletion requests won’t get lost.

Additionally if undeletion requests could each get their own dedicated sub-pages maybe a bot with sysop rights could list them or simply recognise them from the same file name. Currently there is already a bot that leaves messages on other Wikimedia websites for deletion requests filed on Wikimedia Commons affecting them but a lion’s share of files on Wikimedia Commons aren’t used on other Wikimedia websites and by increasing the amount of people who see (un)deletion requests better arguments for and against (un)deletion could be made. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trung -- Currently the problem with category talk pages is exactly the same as the problem with the "Categories for Discussion" process (as has been discussed here several times before): You can have many images in a category on your watchlist, but unless you have the category page itself on your watchlist, you won't even know that a discussion about the category is taking place.
You seem to be trying to solve a completely different problem (though I'm not entirely sure what it is...) AnonMoos (talk) 03:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template to describe colors used in an image

This section was archived on a request by: --—⁠andrybak (talk) 18:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I seem to remember that there was a template, which generated something like the following:

Colors
 
  1. FF0000
 
  1. 0000FF

and it was intended to be included on the pages of files which have a small number of main colors, like simple icons and logos. And now I can't find this template. Is there such a template, or am I remembering it incorrectly? —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:49, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:Tbc, maybe? --El Grafo (talk) 08:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, El Grafo! That's the one. —⁠andrybak (talk) 13:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Photo challenge April Results

Beginning and end: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Beginning and end of a cheesecake Lots of beginning and ends but no full circle Staircase of the abandoned Central Hotel in Annan, Scotland (DSCF8956)
Author Sally V Kmtextor Trougnouf
Score 12 11 9
Prisons: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image
Title Kresty-Gefängnis in St. Petersburg am Ufer der Neva. Russland. Fort Boyard (fortification), Île-d'Aix, in Charente-Maritime (Fr) Bayreuth Correctional Facility
Author Kora27 Pierre André Leclercq Ermell
Score 19 17 14

Congratulations to Sally V, Kmtextor, Trougnouf, Kora27, Pierre André Leclercq and Ermell. --Jarekt (talk) 02:04, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

These are indeed great pictures. But, as happened recently, we again have a horizontal scroll bar on the whole of VP, at perfectly ordinary screen resolutions. Why can the images not be displayed one above the other?Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:33, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Secretly photographed women – personality rights?

Hi there, Commons community. I'm a bit concerned about the personality rights of some people in pictures I stumbled upon. It's about the photos by this uploader, which are all about Taiwanese "school girls" or other young women. It seems clear to me that the majority of the pictured females were not aware that they were photographed right at that moment, and they don't seem to attend a public event or the like. That doesn't mean that the photographer didn't ask them afterwards whether it's okay to publish their picture – but what does Wikimedia do, to make sure he did? If I got this right, finally it's all about trusting the uploader. And I really ask myself, whether simple trust is enough in this case, where it seems that except from two pictures these were all secretly shot. Am I making a too big fuss about it or is there something I understood wrong? --King Rk (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi, I don't read Chinese, so I don't know what are the descriptions, but if these are not used pictures of non notable people, they are out of scope, and can be deleted for that reason. Just create a deletion request. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:03, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, that might be a solution for some of the pictures, but not for all. For example it would make sense if an article about a school or university would feature a picture of a student in their particular uniform. --King Rk (talk) 18:24, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Those do seem to me a bit creepy.
What is the rule in Taiwan about photographing people in public places? In France, I know this is a no-no; in the U.S., being in public is implicitly consent to be photographed; I don't know about Taiwan. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
For an (I think) non-creepy example from the U.S.: File:Seattle - Cap Hill street basketball 01.jpg. I did not have explicit consent from the people in this photo. I relied entirely on the fact that if you are out in the street in the U.S., that is implicit consent to be photographed. - Jmabel ! talk 21:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
It would not be appropriate to use any of these pictures on an article about a school or university. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Though our entry about consent requirements in Taiwan seems a bit vague, I've filed several of these images for deletion:
--Túrelio (talk) 22:14, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Túrelio, let's see what happens. --King Rk (talk) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

OgreBot 2

OgreBot 2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This bot wipes source, date and author fields, resulting in files getting tagged for deletion:

In response, Magog the Ogre said "I've already explained this to you several times. Please stop contacting me about it." Actually not sure it's been more than once, Magog the Ogre has been contacted about the issue many times by many people. I had to search a bit and found the actual defense: it's in the FAQ for the bot.

Q: Why did the bot remove the date and author and/or source field from a file?
A: The license on the image page seems to indicate that a) the file was uploaded from a local wikiproject, and b) the uploader from there is not the author (despite what the bot transfer code says). This means that information about the original upload isn't relevant: so the bot has removed it. For example, some common such licenses are {{PD-USGov-NASA}} or {{PD-art}}. This is a pretty common edit; if you think it's made a mistake, let me know.

I don't see the wiping of these fields as helpful. We could add some sort of maintenance category to {{Transferred from}}, {{Original upload date}} and {{Original uploader}} or something or the bot could insert {{Unknown}} in some cases maybe, or simply add a "to be checked" category. Wiping fields just pushes files into categories that result in them getting tagged for deletion. Any ordinary user that would go around making edits like these would likely be blocked, I think. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 11:36, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

I don't agree. What OgreBot 2 does is technically correct.
The files moved via commonshelper already have a maintenance template {{BotMoveToCommons}}.
The problem is on the users who do not bother helping check the files, but keep tagging files for nsd, npd, etc. Look at File:Lyell 1840.jpg, All source information is still present. It requires review. Additionally, there may be errors in any or all of the information fields; information on this file should not be considered reliable and the file should not be used until it has been reviewed and any needed corrections have been made. Once the review has been completed, this template should be removed. For details about this file, see below. Check now! And that's true. en:File:Lyell 1840.jpg is not deleted yet.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Just to be clear, the bot has been performing this action for 7 years, and was community sanctioned to do so. In my opinion, Alexis Jazz' real contention is with a) the policy of deleting unsourced files and b) Jcb's practice of mass tagging any of these lazily transferred files (which is quite a few of them). I am quite sympathetic to both of these contentions, as I don't believe we should be deleting obviously public domain files, nor mass tagging files that obviously have a source but in the wrong field. But blaming the bot is just shooting the messenger here. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 01:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Changing Jcb is not possible. That's been tried and all I got out of it was more spurious stalking allegations. Jcb is like a force of nature. While I will occasionally curse the wind, rain or blinding sun it doesn't mean I expect change because of my cursing. That's also why I didn't ping Jcb here. (also, I don't know for sure if he is the only admin doing this) Accepting forces of nature as a fact of life, the community (including your bot) will have to change to suit the way Jcb does things around here. Refusing to do so will ultimately damage the project. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: again, I share your concerns. You are asking me to change the bot's behavior to leave intact incorrect information simply so that it doesn't run afoul of an administrator with a quick trigger finger. Surely some other solution can be found. Maybe someone should follow Jcb's edits? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:50, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Got the T-shirt. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
And per this discussion, I stopped watching Jcb's talk page. So I surely can't go watching Jcb's edits. And based on my experience, I can't really recommend anyone to volunteer for that job. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: Maybe you should?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 19:09, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: , anyone else.. any takers? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:52, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jcb: I believe it is reasonable for users to make a good faith effort to correct issues for pseudo-speedy deletion tags which you place on a page. You still have the option to go through the formal DR process if you object to a removal. Alexis Jazz feels strongly about this so he is the best candidate, but this means he would be following your contributions. Can you agree to this on the provision that he doesn't compile lists about you in his userspace? Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no way that I could agree with any way of being followed by this particular user, I think that should be clear. Jcb (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)
@Magog the Ogre: okay, now what? Btw, I doubt I would single-handedly even be capable of correcting everything. The sheer edit volume of unchecked VFC edits can't be matched by manual investigation. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 12:31, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Misuse of VFC is indeed worrisome. As far as I can remember, User:Jcb deleted a file which I had left messages on its talk page waiting for others' opinions, and a file in DR that had had some discussions (towards keeping).--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to think about this one for a while before I responded.
@Jcb: as far as I am concerned, you are not acting in good faith. I tried to resolve this with your input, but you are unwilling. Therefore, in my role as a fellow administrator, I am providing a warning: if you impede Alexis Jazz from adding legitimate sources to a page, then you are a) acting against policy (removing a source) and b) directly acting against the spirit and goals of this project (attempting to get legitimate media deleted) and c) directly acting against the community's stated wishes that you cease and desist with such behavior. Therefore, if I see that you take any such action, I reserve the right to block your account. Please consider this a warning. You may consider that this is an unfair warning, since I own the bot referenced in this thread. But I do not consider this an issue with the bot: I consider this an issue with your behavior. Feel free to appeal my warning to the community.
@Alexis Jazz: Please feel free to follow Jcb's contributions and correct any source errors on the pages he edits. Please take care that you do not add spurious sources (e.g., "internet", "a book", "US government", "loc.gov", etc.) and that you act in good faith and don't do anything stupid. If you act in good faith, and Jcb tries to stop you, I will deal with him as stated above. Magog the Ogre (talk) (contribs) 16:38, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I don't interpret or accept this as an official warning that could e.g. be 'appealed'. This is a malicious attempt to threaten a colleague, with suggestive nonsense arguments. Please refrain from any next step in this harmful behaviour. Jcb (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
 Comment Jcb even took this to AN: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Threathening / disruptive behaviour by admin. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 17:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Israel in 1375, or 1590?

Israel came into existence in 1948, is it ok to have https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1375_maps_of_Israel, or https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:1590_maps_of_Israel ?

We don't have a category of, say https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_the_United_States_by_period "History of the United States in 1375"; quite rightly so, as United States did not exist then. Then why do we have it for Israel?

I suggest we move all the early https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_Israel_by_year for the Ottoman Period into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_Ottoman_Empire_by_year the later ones (1920–1948) should be sorted into https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Maps_of_the_British_Mandate_of_Palestine

Comments? Huldra (talk) 22:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

  •  Oppose, in favor of renaming and recategorization of the categories under Category:Eretz Israel.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Comment, there is not an en.wp article about "Eretz Israel", (it is a redir to en:Land of Israel). Also, for those unknown with the name "Eretz Israel": I have virtually never seen it in academic literature, but it is often used by (right wing, or religious) Israelis, Huldra (talk) 23:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
      “Eretz Israel” is Hebrew (in English transcription) for the “Land of Israel”, as explained in the article you linked. And it has been used in both academic and non-academic literature, by right-wing, left-wing and whatever-wing, by religious and secular Jews as a geographical description of the region (before 1948 often as a synonyme to “Palestine”).--Shlomo (talk) 23:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
If some of them are maps of the Biblical holy land (with territories of the twelve tribes and such), then they are not maps of the Ottoman Empire... AnonMoos (talk) 01:53, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with AnonMoos. Before the Ottoman Empire, we've got the Category:Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), the Category:Kingdom of Jerusalem, several Islamic caliphates, the Byzantine Empire, the (Eastern) Roman Empire, Judea, Canaan (sorry, I got bored trying to link all related categories). The X-year map categories contain more anachronisms than just Israel though. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
@Huldra: We don't have a category […] History of the United States in 1375… True, but we do have categories like Category:1590 maps of Iraq, Category:1540 maps of Pakistan, Category:1588 maps of Germany, Category:1588 maps of Italy, even Category:1843 maps of Washington (state) and MANY others like these. Do you suggest to reorganize them too?--Shlomo (talk) 23:30, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
It is very simple to understand. Commons:Project scope: "Wikimedia Commons is a media file repository making available public domain and freely-licensed educational media content to all. It acts as a common repository for all Wikimedia projects, but the content can be used by anyone, anywhere, for any purpose." All countries have a history therefore history by year is the correct way to make media available to all. Commons does not comply with the Neutral point of view and No original research requirements imposed by many of the Wikipedia sites. It serves wikipedia in all languages including Hebrew Wikipedia and Arabic Wikipedia. Removing the category 1375 maps of Israel and moving page Category:1375 maps of Israel to Category:1375 maps of Palestine It's even worse. -- Geagea (talk) 02:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Germany and Italy existed in 1588, just not as countries. I'd prefer to see Category:1375 maps of Mamluk Sultanate, but I think retrospective names are too useful to be deleted. In the one entry of 1375 maps of Israel, File:Abraham and Jehuda Cresques Catalan Atlas. Eastern Europe view from the south.F.jpg, it should be part of Category:1375 maps of Israel and Category:1375 maps of Palestine, as both exist in the modern world. Given the scale of the map, Mamluk Sultanate would be more accurate, but if you're going to include smaller modern regions, the smaller modern regions can use modern names.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:40, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
… existed, just not as countries. You can say the same about Israel. As for the rest, I don't opose keeping and using these categories, especially where they seem to be useful for the users. I just don't agree with efforts to delete all “anachronistic” categories containing the world “Israel” while keeping the other ones.--Shlomo (talk) 12:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Can you please maybe try to resolve this problem in one go? Then summarise the consensus into a guide and publish it somewhere like cat talk:Israel. I have no interest or knowledge in this problem, but I'd like to point out it's been brought up by Huldra just two months ago: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#"Category:Israel_by_year".--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Quite, then people seem happy to move things to Ottoman Empire or British mandate. Actually, [[Category:Eretz Israel]] is better than [[Category:Israel]]; at least with the first we don't connect it directly with a specific country existing today. Huldra (talk) 22:48, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
And why shouldn't we connect it with a specific country existing today? And why, if we shouldn't use those convenient associations, should we start with the most politically charged example? Why not move the Iraqi and Saudi Arabian categories first?--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
As I answered below: en:Palestine (region) Palestine for the region has been used all the time, and is still used by scholars, Huldra (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete all <year> maps of <anywhere> categories. They make the maps impossible to browse, by breaking them all up into tiny individual categories. Far better to only have "Old maps of <place>" categories -- subdivided geographically, to gather like with like, then with the category view ordered chronologically, to present maps of a similar age together. Jheald (talk) 22:54, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
    • It may also be worth exploring how leading external sources categorise such maps. Here are the catalogue entries for a couple of such maps (1720, 1597) from the British Library: [9] [10]. They are each subject-categorised as Palestine -- Maps -- Early works to 1800 and Israel -- Maps -- Early works to 1800, these being the standard Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH) strings for such items.
    On the word "Palestine", the Palestine Exploration Fund (founded 1865 and still very active) offers the following [11]: "The term 'Palestine' is a widely-attested Western and Near Eastern conventional name for the region that includes contemporary Israel, the Israeli-occupied territories, part of Jordan, and some of both Lebanon and Syria. Its traditional area runs from Sidon on the coast, to Damascus inland, southwards to the Gulf of Aqaba, and then north-west to Raphia... The term 'Palestine' has over many centuries retained its relevance as an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region. It has no political associations when used by the Palestine Exploration Fund." Jheald (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
It was very political around 135 A.D., when the Roman emperor Hadrian specifically renamed the province of "Judaea" with the semi-obscure word "Palaestina" (i.e. Philistia, previously mainly referring to the south coastal plain area) for the intentional and malicious purpose of spiting the Jews... AnonMoos (talk) 13:51, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Palestine has been used about the region virtually all the time, see this GA on en:Palestine (region). "Israel", however, is associated with states; some 2000–3000 years ago, and one since 1948. The name "Israel", alone, was never used about the region, it was associated with a people, (ie Jews), Huldra (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the last state named "Israel" before modern times disappeared in 722 or 721 B.C., but a map of the Biblical holy land with territories of the 12 tribes and such could still be called a "map of Israel" regardless of which year it was made in. And "Palestine" also has some problems -- such as being completely anachronistic before about 135 A.D., and being used much more often by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area for several centuries before about 1900 A.D. (during that time it was basically an Exonym... AnonMoos (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Israel is frequently used about the region, and likewise, Palestine is associated with a nation and people in the modern world. And again, it seems problematic that Category:1375 maps of Saudi Arabia and Category:1375 maps of Libya are not an issue, but Category:1375 maps of Israel is. "Saudi Arabia" is a nation name first used for a nation created in 1935 referring to a particular ruling house established in 1744. Any rules here should be far more general than just Israel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - qualifiers for depicts statements coming this week

The Structured Data on Commons team plans to release the first version of qualifiers for depicts statements this week. The team has been testing the feature with the community for a month, and are ready to turn it on for Commons on Thursday, 20 June, between 11:00-12:00 UTC. Adding qualifiers allows users to further develop depicts statements. For example, depicts: house cat can be extended into depicts: house cat[color:black]. You will be able to find qualifiers in the "Structured data" tab on the file page, or in the "Add data" tab in the UploadWizard. This version has a drop-down menu to select qualifiers; an update in the near future will replace the drop-down with an auto-suggest box.

I'll keep the community posted when qualifiers go live on Thursday, after the team makes sure everything is configured and working as expected. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideas for assessing copyright for mass upload of German Colonial Society archives 1860s−1930s

NearEMPTiness highlighted the scanning of around 50,000 photographs which has been put online by Frankfurt University for the public benefit at http://www.ub.bildarchiv-dkg.uni-frankfurt.de, this essay has a useful academic summary. I am considering getting on with a mass upload, which will preserve the catalogue data for future categorization, but effectively kicking this off as a speedy mass upload with minimal filtering or automatic categorization cleverness.

However, though these are old (and interesting) photographs, the scans have been done as a means to preserve the endangered original prints and negatives, not because they are automatically public domain by age. Does anyone have an idea for an easy acid test(s) I can apply pre-upload to skip photographs which are definitely not public domain. My gut feeling after an initial review is to put aside copyright and mark these as no copyright known, however there may be good reasons to filter on specific date and named photographer constraints. If there needs to be a longer review, I can happily park this as a batch upload project for a couple of months, or just move on to other things. --Fæ (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

how to report hacks or bad user not sure but here is one

JoshGilbert123 posted some pictures that are wrong nobody noticed.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/JoshGilbert123 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.47.220 (talk • contribs) 21 June 2019, 18:59 (UTC)

Reported to COM:ANV. Thanks for the heads up. GMGtalk 19:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Deleting unmaintained galleries?

I keep coming across galleries that haven't had any new media files added to them for years, and only have one or two photos in them. For example, [12], which I've now redirected to Category:Ralph Albert Blakelock, last had an image added to it in 2008, and only contained 2 photos of the ~80 we currently have in the category + subcategories.

They cause a problem as they tend to have priority in links from Wikipedias, so they can be what readers first see of Commons contents about a topic (and they also get priority in links from Wikidata, often necessitating the creation of a new item for the topic, but that's more of a technical issue).

I'm thinking about putting forward a proposal to bulk-delete these if an image hasn't been added to them for X years (and possibly if they contain less than Y media files), and would appreciate some input into what X and Y should be before I do so. Perhaps over 3 years and less than 5 files? Any comments? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I support anything that tamps down on this frankly outdated thing. Personally I'd love to see all galleries go away. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Against it. Flagging them for review rather than deletion would be a better step, at least then a human brain has to make a decision. --Fæ (talk) 21:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
@Fæ: Is there a way to flag them for review? If no-one's added anything to them for years, would anyone be interested in reviewing them? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
I can think of at least 3 technically different ways to create a backlog for reviews, and don't feel it useful to recommend a specific solution, it's not like designing a NI border where solutions are fantastical. If there is interest in experimenting with a "gallery delete or update" backlog, it makes sense to create an initial 100 matches for discussion. --Fæ (talk) 04:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Something like Commons:Deletion requests/Toyokuni? (3 images out of hundreds, unchanged since 2007.) Or are you thinking about a category or separate process? I'll see if I can code up something to generate a sample set, but I'm not sure when I'll be able to do that. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 07:47, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I think galleries have enormous potential and have been horribly under-utilized. I put a ton of work into some gallery pages, such as Romanian Orthodox churches in Bucharest or Places of worship in Seattle. Those two in particular are extremely useful for identifying poorly identified images that come in. We need more of this, not less. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons is not a news website, and galleries do not have to be up to date. (Disclaimer: I personally find galleries annoying and never use them, however I do see their potential) Galleries generally contain the best or most illustrative images from a category and are more easy to navigate than categories for finding high quality images. I don't think that we should delete galleries if they are simply not being updated, if a gallery exists of a monument building that has burned down then it is realistic that no new images of it will be uploaded and its gallery could go unedited for years, also if in general no new images will be uploaded of a subject then it wouldn't make sense to change the associated gallery. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I think the best solution is to change the Wikipedia and Wikidata link to the Category instead of the Gallery if the gallery is not fully implemented. I like to see portraits arranged chronologically and be separated from documents in the galleries. I agree it is annoying to see only a few images in the gallery when more are available. RAN (talk) 23:44, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): That solution is ad-hoc and can only be accomplished on Wikipedia. Anyone attempting it should leave a good Edit Summary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:51, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, it is Wikidata where it must occur. Several of us Commoners who are also involved there have tried (and failed) to get them to more systematically favor Categories over Galleries where both exist. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Agree, this seems to be trying to solve an issue that is one for Wikidata to agree on rather than Commons. If a gallery is a outdated or not very good, it still is not actually a problem for Wikimedia Commons readers and contributors per se. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Sample sets

@Fæ: asked for a sample set of 100 galleries, so I've written some code that looks through 100 random galleries. I've only coded up counting the number of files in each gallery at the moment, it's going to be more complex to look at when the last file was added. The first sample set is at [13] - I've created separate lists for galleries containing 0, 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 images (nominally marked as 'bad'), with galleries with more than 5 images under 'good'. (Older versions of the page were while I was testing the code). Comments on this sample set would be welcome - particularly if there are good files listed as 'bad' and vice versa! Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I've expanded the code to also look through the history to see when the last time a file was added/removed to a gallery. The revised list is at [14] - galleries that last had a file added/removed in 2015 or earlier are in bold. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Looking at the example of George Edward Grey, it hasn't been touched for years, but I still don't see why anyone would want to delete it. All of these are a subjective curation, some may be claimed to be unhelpfully out of date, but many others will still be okay untouched as a snapshot of curated images even in another 20 years. Whatever is being solved here, does not seem to necessarily require a mass deletion campaign. --Fæ (talk) 20:31, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
It's funny you should choose that one - because it wasn't in Category:George Grey, no one had noticed that George Grey also existed. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Cannot upload a picture

Hi everyone. I tried many times to upload a large picture. It loads and then I get processing, it hangs and eventually, I get Error $1 without any other explanation. Yesterday, I uploaded a picture without problems. I wonder what is going on. The picture got edited with GIMP. Could it be an issue ? The file name is 92650028.jpg. Thanks. Malosse (talk) 03:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I find this quite often. Uploading could be fast and fine, so no problem there, then it hangs around for queued/processing for a very long time, and then gives an (unknown $1) failed upload error, which is erroneous as the file has already uploaded. This appears not to be a fault of the person uploading, but of a real failing in the Commons processing system, something I've never found on other and more popular and well-known repositories with much higher rate of file uploads, such as Flickr. You can check how uploads are generally progressing by clicking and refreshing on 'Latest uploads' in the left side panel... you will probably find that there is a slow uptake of files where typically it should be swift processing for very many files (at the moment of writing this, it's an inadequate 8 files per minute).
I understand your frustration, and this common fail of Wikimedia Commons certainly doesn't enhance the project, which, it has to be said, is a Cinderella of repositories... you don't believe this?... watch people's eyes glaze over when you tell them where your particular picture might be accessed. I suggest you retry your upload after a few hours. You could try uploading your files to 'Flickr' (free up to 1000), '500px', etc., with the same creative commons licence, and a Commons bot (or even manually by you), could eventually bring them over to Commons. The advantage of this is that after transfer to Commons your files will be higher up the Google image rankings... those only on Commons are pretty low ranked and invisible unless taken up by other web sites. Acabashi (talk) 13:21, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. It uploaded today. It would be nice to have a clearer error message. Malosse (talk) 02:57, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Timouts

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226048

Is it just me, or these last few days there have been much more pageloading timeouts than usual? Every 2nd or 3rd page I open needs to be refreshed repeatedly to display in full and properly, often things like Cat-a-lot or Hotcat do not show, some times it's the notifications, too, some times even the CSS. Very annoying. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 22:03, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm getting the same. Hohum (talk) 23:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I have this too, as well as increased time taking to upload a file using the MediaWiki Upload Wizard, some pages randomly crash (mobile-only), and sometimes I've been experiencing display issues. This has all mostly been the last couple of weeks and the issues seem to come and go. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:46, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, me too.--Vulphere 09:45, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
See phab:T226048 No "me too" comments there please. :) See mw:Phabricator/Help how to get involved; see mw:How to report a bug how to report technical issues. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 10:38, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Qualifiers for depicts are now available

Qualifiers in depicts statements is now available on file pages and in the UploadWizard. The option to add, edit, and remove qualifiers appears when editing structured data.

With this feature, depicts statements can be fully described. A statement that may have been previously limited, such as depicts: house cat, can now be stated as depicts: house cat [color:black]</black>.

There are a few known issues found in testing that are being worked on that were not significant enough to block release. Fixes should be in place soon.

The qualifiers chosen for this first release are qualifiers for depicts on Wikidata (as set by the property constraints) plus a couple of others being tested. Hard constraints prohibiting other qualifiers from being entered are not in place, as they are not in place on Wikidata. This first version of qualifiers does not show a warning if the qualifier is outside the constraints as it does on Wikidata, and a warning on Commons is something the team is willing to look into if the community would like.

Additionally, the dropdown menu suggestions when entering a qualifier are limited in the first “depicts only” release. In the near future, as we release support for all statements, qualifiers will use auto-suggest boxes and the list of returned suggestions will have much wider coverage and range.

Lastly, this first version of the feature does not display qualifier text as links to their associated Wikidata properties, but links will be present in a later release.

The development team looks forward to seeing the use of qualifiers in statements, and welcomes any comments or questions about the feature at Commons talk:Structured data. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 14:06, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

We should probably add to Commons:Depicts to list the qualifiers at d:Property:P180#P2302 and describe how they should be used / what they mean (eg the difference between applies to part (P518) and depicted part (P5961)
Also, per EugeneZelenko here, it may be worth starting to list what qualifiers may particularly valuable to consider for different sorts of subjects.
The results from the following query may be useful, tinyurl.com/y6nu3q98. It identifies the most common qualifiers currently used on depicts (P180) statements on Wikidata, with the top 10 classes of items that each one is used on, with a sample item for each use. Jheald (talk) 16:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Category names that use a hyphen

This Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Citybus Route 10 - Buses drew my attention to categories created by a supposedly Hong Kong user. It is almost impossible to reach him/her because s/he creates new accounts to upload files and create categories from time to time, but it is easy to identify him/her. S/he always names files in a mix of English and Chinese, over-categorises them and creates some categories in the format of XYZ - generic terms, e.g. Citybus Route 10 - Buses, Category:Kings Wing Plaza - Restaurants. See Limsd Parrk Yuewai (talk · contributions · Move log · block log · uploads · Abuse filter log)  for a recent example.

Such naming does not obey our rules, so they should be changed to for example Buses of Citybus Route 10.

However, some of these categories seem to be over-categorisation to me. For Category:Citybus Route 10, do we need separate categories for a few photos of the signs, the buses themselves, etc.? Another example, Category:Baishizhou station - Signs, Signs of Baishizhou station if renamed. Do we need a standalone category for signs of a particular metro station? I think we should just put the photo in the cat of the station and the cat of Signs in that city/district.

I did some searches to see how many such categories exist. category: intitle:/- Signs/ has 295 results.

This led me to try searching category: intitle:/(- ).*/. The result is 3656 hits! They are created by different users, but many have the same problem. They should be renamed by using prepositions instead of hyphens, e.g. <generic terms> of/in/from <subjects> instead of <subjects> - <generic terms>.--Roy17 (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

@Roy17: The manuscript categories in e.g. Category:British Library Additional Manuscripts typically use a hyphen before giving the identifying BL accession number for the manuscript. I presume there is no objection to this? Jheald (talk) 17:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

WMF partial bans and Wikimedia Commons

In light of a recent partial ban on the English language Wikipedia in the form of w:en:User:Fram (Fram) being banned by the WMF for a year and 2 (two) days and the enormous backlash it received, it might be wise to adopt a local policy regarding "WMF bans". WMF partial bans have been applied to both the German and English language Wikipedia's and I see no reason why it wouldn't be applied to Wikimedia Commons anytime soon.

Though I can see the need for WMF partial bans as users being bullied by prominent members of the community can receive a boomerang to the face if they try to report these people to the community and admins with long-term civility issues are basically immune from scrutiny, the WMF has chosen to not handle their banning strategy in a transparent way, and unlike bans placed by members of the community which in theory would be able to be appealed, WMF bans cannot be appealed, ever.

Although I don't think that we can stop the WMF from issuing partial bans (and this could be a good thing as it will prevent them from globally banning people who are productive elsewhere), we could regulate these. First of all I suggest creating a list of WMF partially banned users somewhere, including a local one here at "Commons:List of WMF banned Commons users" and create a log of which users were previously banned with their expiration dates.

It might also be wise to force them to be more transparent and warn users on-wiki or force the WMF Office account to create a mail template to leave on users’ talk pages.

I also suggest that unless the reason for a ban would require an Oversighter (or “Oversighter equivalent”) revision deleting statements that the WMF should notify the community about the allegations and openly allow input from the entire community by posting it either to the village pump or a dedicated page (such a "Commons:WMF partial bans/Discussion"). This is not to say that we can veto any WMF, but that if WMF office bans are a last resort, then we, as the community, should be able to address these issues internally and that the WMF office should only take action if this cannot be resolved by the community. Also if an editing restriction is more desirable than this should be able to be discussed.

Note that I am not starting this discussion here to import any drama from any other Wikimedia website, I am simply seeking to open a preventative discussion to make sure that if “a high profile user” would ever be WMF banned from Wikimedia Commons that we would have a system in place to make sure that no drama will arise from this issue. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely fine to have a category, although a permanent listing there might be considered unwise for those that have "served their time". The exact nature of such a category could be discussed. Fine to ask them to leave a template on the user talk page, although we cannot force them to do anything. Absolutely not fine to require the WMF to post allegations publicly. "Requiring" them to do so would be like requiring a fish to breathe air. It simply isn't workable and they won't do it. It is their standard operating procedures to not disclose such information and to treat all of it as private. That is their prerogative.

The WMF is allowed to do what they wish to enforce the Terms of Use as they see fit. They are the ones that created them and they are the ones that the global community has entrusted to enforce them. Bans placed by the WMF have multiple levels of sign off and are not used unless absolutely necessary. They aren't banning people just for the hell of it. The farce that has become the Fram situation was because of a step of apparent mercy by the WMF. Mercy in the fact that they were partially banned and not globally locked with the key thrown into the nearest volcano like what has been done in the past. Unless we want to mandate our own community to start enforcing the Terms of Use I personally think we should allow the WMF to continue to do what they deem necessary to uphold the terms everyone of us agrees to every time we hit "Publish changes". --Majora (talk) 21:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I think I disagree, if I understand the proposal correctly (adding users banned elsewhere to a Commons category). I can't see why a project-specific ban (by the community or by the WMF) that isn't applicable to Commons should lead to the creation of a category here. Such matters don't concern Wikimedia Commons as a project. If the WMF (globally or partially on Commons) issues a ban that affects Commons, it's a different story. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Oh, it was my reading of that sentence that the category would apply to WMF bans that apply specifically to Commons. Commons users banned elsewhere are definitely irrelevant. We have quite a few good standing members of this community that have been indef blocked/banned on other projects. --Majora (talk) 22:14, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: the right place would be meta, but I doubt meta will be safe for that, so a local copy wouldn't hurt. According to User talk:Fram#Seeing as you're not banned here the ultimate reason for the ban was [15]. Welp. If that's reason for the WMF to ban someone for a year, I'm done for. And Jcb blocked a WMF employee, it's a miracle he's still around considering what Fram was (according to Fram) banned for.
If the accused agrees to have the reason for the ban made public (which Fram has no problem with), the WMF should release all they can to clarify their reasons. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 00:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I would personally take Fram's word with a grain of salt. The WMF said that they reviewed many instances of issues and I believe them. Again, such office actions are signed off on by multiple people so they would need to convince multiple people that office action is a) warranted and b) necessary. I can't imagine incivility like what you linked to, while a problem for the long term health of the community, would rise to the level of having multiple people agree that a ban is necessary by itself if there was not plenty of other reasons to cause alarm.

As for the accused being ok with the complaint being made public, that is rather irrelevant and pretty predicable behavior in my mind. Of course they would be ok with it. In true cases of harassment the accused would want the accuser to be forced to make a public statement. Especially if the accused is a long standing member of the community with lots of backers that would immediately come to their defense regardless of the circumstance. This is very very common and the whole idea behind the enwiki essay, en:WP:UNBLOCKABLES. By forcing a public statement the accuser is opening themselves up to further abuse so, naturally, they would not take the chance or bother to even start such an inquiry. Simple human psychology to not want to put yourself in situations that would cause further distress. The accused being open to such public notice is not what any organization hoping to stop such abuse should care about. In true cases of harassment, it is the accuser that matters and if the accuser doesn't care then they wouldn't be contacting the WMF to begin with. While I can't say for sure why the WMF has certain SOPs, I can speculate that this is why their SOP is to keep such information private. Since by disclosing it the accuser would simply be subject to further problems that the original contact was supposed to stop. --Majora (talk) 06:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm quite certain that they have looked into more than one complaint. A little more trust in the WMF's procedures is warranted. Guido den Broeder (talk) 10:45, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
@Majora: It's quite possible Fram would present the case a bit more rosy than it actually is. However, I think it's not in their best interest to outright lie about anything. If they are caught, community support would instantly vanish. If the diffs that Fram linked are really all there is, WMF could indeed not really say anything due to privacy concerns. But, if that's true, the ban itself is completely abhorrent and should be lifted. If there is more, WMF could simply state there was a substantial amount of other evidence that led to their decision. That would clear the air somewhat. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 18:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Fram has been caught lying often enough, and the community not merely let it pass but cheered him on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
There is no special need to pre-empt the discussion at the English Wikipedia. Those that are prepared to research the case can give views on the Arbcom request that is still open, including views about how better to work with WMF T&S, not just with regard to partial bans.
A key difference between Commons and the English Wikipedia is that we have no equivalent to Arbcom. This means there is no obvious equivalent to the points of contact that currently have regular reviews and alerts about T&S cases that impact this project. A useful later proposal, once this specific case has reached a resolution, might be for this community to ask whether Bureaucrats, Oversighters, or (not specifically Commons) Stewards, should have a better relationship or insight for T&S cases where the case itself of claimed targeted harassment, privacy, criminal content etc., has significant evidence based on Wikimedia Commons. My intuition is that the elected Commons Oversighters should have an open invite to join T&S briefings or updates on proposed an recent necessary actions, in a similar way to how Arbcom may be respected by T&S as volunteer colleagues and representative stakeholders; in effect this may already happen on an irregular or less formal basis.
So, let's revisit in a month or two when more concrete local proposals might be sensible to discuss. --Fæ (talk) 13:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
As far as I'm aware, Fæ, stewards are not only aware of all WMF bans but are told why the ban is in place. They are already the unofficial point(s) of contact between the WMF and the global community at large. Obviously they cannot discuss the rationale behind such things without the WMF's go ahead (which they will not give) but from what I've been told by various stewards they are aware of the precise reasoning already. As you said though, whether or not we want to ask the WMF to extend that courtesy to certain Commons functionaries on matters relevant to Commons is a topic for later. --Majora (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I am aware of past private statements from Stewards, but the future improvement for Commons I'm painting is to define official POCs, who may then provide reassurance in public that the case evidence makes sense to them or that they have made objections on behalf of the community, such as asking for further review or escalation. At the current time I have no sense that 'Stewards' who may or may not be given access to case information, are acting as our representatives, it has the more disturbing feeling of being an informal super-friends network, more interested in protecting the status quo than a mechanism for credible governance. --Fæ (talk) 04:16, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
Agree with Majora and Fae. The storm over on en:wp consists users "talking out of their ass", as the Americans would say, on a remarkable scale. They know very little and might possibly continue to know very little and eventually have to just "deal with it". Wikipedia:You don't own Wikipedia is worth reading. I don't support the creation of a manually edited list of currently locally banned users or "a log of which users were previously banned with their expiration dates". Sounds to me like a defamation/vandalism magnet. We already have status indicating if a user is blocked and a block log that is automatically maintained. -- Colin (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure there's much point in any of this taking place anywhere. Office actions are not subject to community oversight. The most we could realistically do is politely ask them to comply with customs we adopt locally, which as far as I understand, they've already indicated they do not intend to do. Other than that, we can bluster a lot amongst ourselves in a way that might be personally therapeutic, but isn't actually going to accomplish much of anything (if anything at all). Last I checked, that sums up most of the discussion taking place on the English Wikipedia thus far. GMGtalk 18:14, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, though community consensus on a policy or 'position' may have no technical or legal authority, the WMF has normally taken these in to account, especially as the elected trustees on the WMF board certainly will when they hold the CEO to account. If there is sufficient concern to set up a RFC, this can be used as the basis of something like a future board resolution or to support a specific change in the WMF high level strategy. As an example, it was not that long ago that a non-binding not-legal community RFC with 90% support, resulted in a WMF board member resigning from their seat... a very real and effective outcome. --Fæ (talk) 10:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Size of Commons?

I'd like to get a rough idea how many bytes are in Commons. There are about 54 million uploaded files. Would 2MB be a reasonable estimate average size for each? That would be 108 terabytes. -- GreenC (talk) 13:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Abuse of Wiki Loves Pride

Wiki Loves Pride 2019 attracted a lot of people who contributed nice pride photos, but also a few trolls who upload spam/vandalism/homophobic content. I nominated some of the spam for speedy deletion. I'd suggest someone who has the needed user rights to delete files (and who is willing to do so) to periodically patrol Category:Wiki Loves Pride 2019 images to check for new abusive or otherwise inappropriate content. --Hmxhmx 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

  • "Spam" is a bit of a vague term, some people would consider photographs of ("non-notable") people kissing as "spam" or "personal pictures". Let's just use "COM:SCOPE" and only delete actual non-educational images rather than use a vague term such as "spam" for speedy deletions. It might be better to use regular deletion requests because many users upload content in good faith which they are not aware of others will consider to be "promotional content" even if the person in question has no relation with the subject they allegedly promote. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
I am more referring to bad-faith uploads, which do also spam the project (e.g. explicit homophobia). I'd give you examples, but the ones I already nominated for speedy deletion are now deleted. --Hmxhmx 09:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

A general tip for anyone who sees what they think are anti-LGBT+ abusive or invasive images on Commons is to post a message about it on the Telegram group or on the Commons IRC channel. Both of these groups are very responsive, especially during these upload campaigns, and if the image is highly offensive or contains identifying information, ask to talk about it in a private discussion before sharing details. More generally, if you see image or text which is personally targeted and harassing others, including named Commons contributors, then you can use the Oversight email at Commons:Oversight, they are also normally fairly quick to respond.

Though Speedy deletions and deletions requests are how we handle most issues with incorrectly uploaded images, including some spam and inappropriate out of scope sexual photographs, if the image has the potential to cause harm, then it is better to avoid drawing unnecessary attention to it on-wiki.

Lastly, keep in mind that Commons does host sexual images, including nudity, sex education images like HIV education posters and LGBT+ related photographs that may appear controversial, such as those with potentially identifiable children and teenagers. Questions or challenges to how we should interpret the project scope can be validly discussed here on the Village Pump, and often are. --Fæ (talk) 09:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Homophobia is not a reason for censoring images. I had a chance to check User:Hmxhmx's nominated files. They could be deleted for being copyvio, no-source derivative works, etc., though. If anyone thinks a file contains homophobic but not gay pride contents, the file can be removed from Wiki Loves Pride and recategorised under Category:Homophobia. For example, a photo of a person protesting against homosexuality should not be considered for CSD G3.--Roy17 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you two (users Donald Trung and Roy17) understood what I was suggesting. The files I nominated were, in fact, eligible for deletion either per CSD G3 or copyright violation. None of the nominated files were files that just depicted counterprotests or other materials used by people opposing LGBT right (e.g. none of them were content similar to this - this file is not eligible for (speedy) deletion and should be kept since it depicts a counterprotest and isn't explicitly a bad-faith upload). Basically, I am suggesting that content that is intended to be an explicit attack (i.e. uploaded in bad faith) should be deleted. I am not suggesting that any content depicting anti-gay materials should be deleted. --Hmxhmx 11:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
I do not think there was any doubt about what you meant. There is clear blue water between using the WLP project or related competitions to upload anti-LGBT+ media, using images to harass or attack individuals, or misusing categories in apparent attempts to shock readers, and in good faith uploading and categorizing images which are in-scope and illustrate anti-LGBT+ protests. --Fæ (talk) 11:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hmxhmx: you said "homophobic content", but homophobia is not necessarily CSD G3. You nominated everything for CSD G3, but one of them was exactly a news photo of a guy protesting. That's not CSD G3. I remember it was attributed to Agence France-Presse though. You actually nominated several news photos, including one of the Brazilian kid killed by his lesbian parents. They might be borderline vandalism cases, if using blatant copyvios to convey a political stance is considered vandalism. I didn't want to comment at first, but reading the conversation before I commented, I felt the need to point out homophobia is not a ground for censorship. Even if someone uploads anti-gay stuff through this photo drive, recat, but don't censor.--Roy17 (talk) 11:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: yeah, I wasn't sure which criteria to use for copyright violation. I thought that only the general (G#) criteria could be used with the template {{SD}} so I used the second-closest criteria under which the files could be speedily deleted - G3 (vandalism, attacks, etc.). I do now understand that I can also use other criteria, too - e.g. F1 for copyright violation. --Hmxhmx 12:02, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Hmxhmx: there is a gadget Quick Delete that provides buttons on the left sidebar for nominating files for speedy deletion and/or notifing users on their talk pages. COM:VFC is a handy tool for batch tasks.--Roy17 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: thanks! I wasn't aware of that gadget. --Hmxhmx 12:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
 Comment I tagged and deleted a few files from Facebook or Instagram. See also Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Wiki Loves Pride 2019 images to check‎. Files to be checked in down to 121. Regards, Yann (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Tris T7's categories

I would like to seek community's opinions on Tris T7 (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) . (Link to all cats created by Tris T7)

He created 54 categories containing "supported". Members of the Austrian community expressed their disapproval of these cats. What do you think? Keep or delete?

The whole batch of Taken with Nikon D850 for XX under Category:Taken with Nikon D850 is over-categorisation IMHO.

There are more problems of capitalisation, grammar, etc. Please look through the list.

Pinging involved editors and experts @Robert Weemeyer, Jean-Frédéric, Raimund Liebert (WMAT), and Themightyquill: .--Roy17 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I believe that categories intersecting a particular camera with subject matter are a sheer liability. Beyond that, even if these were to be allowed, they are poorly named. I would support completely undoing this work and, if necessary, creating an overt rule against this. - Jmabel ! talk 05:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

MOTD thumbtime

Do you have an idea why, on today's media of the day, the thumbtime parameter set at template:Motd/2019-06-22 thumbtime is not affecting the main page, though it is working at Commons:Media of the day and template:Motd/2019-06-22 (en)? — Racconish 💬 06:00, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Invalidity of the adidas EU trademark

Hi,

Not sure if it's really relevant for Commons (which don't care that much about trademark) but here is the press release of Court of the European Union about "invalidity of the adidas EU trade mark".

Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 10:23, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker has stalled on category moves

The category move request currently at the top of the command queue requires administrative permissions to complete, which seems to have lead to the bot getting "stuck" on it for the past two days. It has not processed any other category moves since that time, though it has processed other types of commands during that timeframe. If someone could fix that, it'd be greatly appreciated. - Jadebenn (talk) 18:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Marking of images that are embedded in a Wikidata object

Moin Moin together, I wanted to ask if there is a tool or script that shows whether an image is associated with a Wikidata object. I would like to see in the category (Category:Media needing categories), preferably by color highlighting whether this is so. Is there such a thing or such a thing? King Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Replacing file by a more complete version ("Don't Stone Her until You Hear Her Side" )

Hello,

days ago, I downloaded File:Propagande de la Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission.jpg and I have found yesterday this book with the complete version of the picture, along with its title ("Don't Stone Her until You Hear Her Side"). How can I replace the file?

--Jean Po (talk) 23:47, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

I think you should upload the full version as a separate file. This way people can choose whether to use the cartoon only or the entire page with text. De728631 (talk) 23:54, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Pinching the Eiffel tower, supporting the leaning tower of Pisa

Also this.

https://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-of-people-holding-the-eiffel-tower-2014-3?international=true&r=US&IR=T

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-2713347/Pinching-tip-Eiffel-Tower-holding-Pisa-yoga-selfies-The-cheesy-tourist-snaps-never-holiday.html

What is this optical illusion called? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:59, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Forced perspective -- AnonMoos (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:19, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Incomplete uploads - issue apparently resolved, dealing with backlog

Per phab:T190988, the issue causing broken cross-wiki uploads of files larger than 5MB seems to be resolved. There are still more than 6500 files in Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption), though. Many of these are usable and would be fine after some cropping, as only smaller, non-essential parts of the images are affected, for example in File:1308MANMariupol.jpg or File:CampusFørde.jpg (in the latter, a larger part is affected, but it's still usable and even in use in Norwegian Wikipedia in this defective form). Others are unsalvageable, such as File:Casinoneuchatelrotonde.jpg or File:AWO Ortsverein und Begegnungsstätte Dallmin alte Schule.jpg. Occasionally, the images seem to be out of scope anyway. Would you agree on dealing with the entries in the category in a step-by-step approach, as follows:

  • Review the images individually.
    • If in scope and useful without the missing portion, crop, remove maintenance category.
    • If apparently not in scope or not useful withouth the missing portion, file a regular deletion request - thus giving the uploader a chance to re-upload and/or explain why it is in scope.

What do you think? Gestumblindi (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

There was ocnsensus: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/04#A_new_procedure_for_incomplete_uploads. Since the bug is fixed sooner than expected, the bureaucratic steps in that proposal can be dropped.
I don't think DR is necessary. CSD F7 should be less work, but admins should give a slightly longer grace period, say 7 days, to these files. The uploader must be notified by a message on his/her user talk page. The message should contain instruction on how to overwrite a file.
It seems that lossless cropping is not possible for these corrupt files: https://github.com/danmichaelo/croptool/issues/134 , so they could only be cropped with the precise mode in CropTool. I hope someone with the technical knowledge can confirm it's not possible.--Roy17 (talk) 22:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, I supported that proposal as well, but it seems now partly obsolete. I would prefer using an existing standard procedure that ensures a workflow as much as possible. Many of these uploaders are not very active on Commons or have not been active here after the upload at all (random example: User:Mquekel, only contributions two damaged uploads in February 2018). Roy17, what do you think - in cases where cropping seems to be sufficient (for example, in File:Aalscholver langs het water.jpg the bird is still completely in the picture), would you notify the users anyway or just do the cropping? Gestumblindi (talk) 22:35, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Ah right I forgot. They should be notified even if the photos can be cropped and kept. That's what we should do to respect the creators, but, if the community finds it too cumbersome, simply crop and keep without notifying is fine, since as you observed, most are new users and didnt even notice that files were broken.--Roy17 (talk) 22:44, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi and Roy17: I created two templates: {{Incomplete upload}} and {{Incomplete upload notification}}. It is easy to tag all the 6514 files at Category:Incomplete JPG files (5 MB interruption) with the first template and notify the uploaders with the second one by VisualFileChange.
After a month, volunteers can deal with the files (crop or delete).
See File:Wikipedia survey-Access Denied.png and User talk:4nn1l2test for test cases. 4nn1l2 (talk) 06:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
On second thought, I think some photos can be cropped and kept without notifying the uploaders. They are the ones with only tiny corrupt portions that do not affect the subjects at all. For example, File:African Star Apple.jpg, File:Agfa Mortsel.jpg, File:Acquapole® Elastic Pole.jpg. Overwriting with an original and cropping do not make much difference.
@4nn1l2: thank you for creating the templates! If no one has objection, I think we can start notifying people.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: I don't think it's worth the volunteer's time and energy to check the files of this category at least two times, one time to see if the user should be notified and the other time to deal with the pictures. Checking files is not that easy. See, for example, File:A Holy Site in Saping.jpg which seems to be complete at the first look, but seems to be corrupt if you try to see it at full resolution. There might be a 10% margin of error in notifying users, but that should not be a big deal, so I think we should go ahead and notify the users automatically, and then deal with the pictures. I am going to do that in the next couple of days. I hope no one has objetions. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: no, helpers would only check it once. You could see from the cat which ones' corruption is minimal, and act upon them immediately. My suggestion does not rule out a massive notification either. It was just an appeal to have some images treated asap and save the trouble of waiting any longer. Anyway, this thread seems to show that not many people are interested in helping. I think notification can be started now.--Roy17 (talk) 10:39, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17 and Gestumblindi: All files were tagged and all uploaders were notified. We can start our project one month later on 21 July 2019. 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: Thank you, that looks good! Gestumblindi (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There's a problem. Some users cropped the image but uploaded it as a new file. What should we do with these? History merging? Just delete the broken one? Or keep both, but remove the maintenance cat and insert a message telling users to use the cropped one?
Example: File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道.jpg vs File:黄兴广场 解放西路 人行道 (cropped).jpg
(This is not a very good example, because the original was transferred using commonshelper so there isnt a need to preserve the original uploader's contributions. There's also something strange: 15% of the original was cropped but the size went up to 5.09Mb.)--Roy17 (talk) 17:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Categorizing bodies of water

Could someone confirm something for me: do we categorize bodies of water as landforms now? That doesn't seem logical. --Auntof6 (talk) 07:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

@Auntof6: We shouldn't. I agree with your assessment. What bodies of water have been so categorized?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:30, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
Well, at the List of landforms in en-Wikipedia does include rivers and lakes as such. De728631 (talk) 15:39, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I first noticed it when looking at geography of African countries. An example is Category:Bodies of water in Tanzania, which is in Category:Landforms of Tanzania. Looking up the category tree, I found that Category:Bodies of water is now under Category:Landforms. It looks like User:Hmains added at least some of these about a year ago. --Auntof6 (talk) 18:38, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Just noting: The category structure in en-Wikipedia as well as here in Commons has water bodies as a subset of landforms. This reflects not only the List of landforms but also Landforms and Category:Landforms. Hmains (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

I think a usage is to consider landform the solid surface. So the ocean floor is a landform, but not the water in the ocean.[16] --ghouston (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Commons workshops in Mons (september-november 2019)

Hi everyone !

A serie of Commons workshops about medals will take place in Mons at the Maison Losseau in the French speaking part of Belgium from september to november of this year. Our aim is to improve the coverage of the huge medals collection of this museum on Commons and that newbies discover Wikimedia Commons.

I co-organize these workshops and I'm looking for volunteer(s) to help me lead the group, at least for the three workshops focused on taking photos and makes retouches. I do photography with my own camera, but I am not experienced enough to supervise other people with their own material :)

There will be 5 workshops over three months:

  1. (14th september) Presentation of the collections, introduction to numismatic
  2. (28th september) Theory about "neutral" or "museal" photography and retouches [need 1 volunteer]
  3. (5th september) Photography of several sets of medals [need at least 1 experienced volunteer]
  4. (12 october) Retouches [need at least 1 experienced volunteer]
  5. (9th november) Upload on Commons

Each workshop is from 2pm to 5 pm. More details (in French) here : https://be.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ateliers_photographiques_%C3%A0_la_maison_Losseau_en_2019

The chapter Wikimedia Belgium can reimburse you the transport costs if you are from Belgium or Northern France and entrance fees will be free for you. Please email me! Thanks! AnneJea (talk) 09:10, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

TimedText dependent on deleted files

For example: TimedText:Œuvre_orpheline_cherche_héritiers.webm.en.srt, TimedText:Œuvre_orpheline_cherche_héritiers.webm.fr.srt and TimedText:Œuvre_orpheline_cherche_héritiers.webm.nl.srt. I can think of some solutions:

  1. Let a bot check recently deleted audio and videos and tag these for deletion.
  2. Design a template or warning to tell admins a file has dependents in timedtext ns.
  3. A mediawiki Specialpage that lists all lonely timedtext files.--Roy17 (talk) 18:29, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There is Special:OrphanedTimedText, but it's one of the maintenance reports that is disabled for performance reasons. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:48, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Broken Image after moving/rename

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226473

After moving/rename are many images are broken. For example. File:Croisiére LE LYRIAL en quai.jpg File:Navire CHOPIN au port.jpg File:Navire STAR DELTA en mer.jpg File:Navire SAKARIA à quai.jpg and so on •2003:DE:742:D849:E4FB:EB5:2CE3:9F68 18:40, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that too. It gets back to normal after some time, but it is still an annoying bug. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:43, 24 June 2019 (UTC)
There are much more files. The best is: stop the rename an fix the bug. After fixing the bug we can rename the files. •2003:DE:742:D849:99EF:409:2AAF:A710 22:54, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

XCF files

[cb8711152624cd056d59901b] Exception caught: No specifications provided to ArchivedFile constructor. when I tried to upload in XCF. What does it mean? Ezarateesteban 23:52, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem.

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226375

When I try to go to Category:Rotifera I get the message Error Our servers are currently under maintenance or experiencing a technical problem. Please try again in a few minutes If you report this error to the Wikimedia System Administrators, please include the details below. Request from <redacted> via cp1075 cp1075, Varnish XID 642908742 Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Fri, 28 Jun 2019 13:11:00 GMT
After a few hours I have still this problem, whereas I don't have the problem with other Commons pages. Surprising is that I have the problem on Mac with OS 10.11.6 with Safari 11.1.2 and not with Firefox 64.0.3. Wouter (talk) 13:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

This is phabricator:T226375, I believe. Nemo 16:37, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
The problem does not exist anymore. Wouter (talk) 07:03, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. De728631 (talk) 21:29, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

File rename/move link missing?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226672
RESOLVED

I'm pretty sure I'm still a file mover (yup) and yet I don't seem to see a rename/move link at the top of File:Andrew Shulz at MTV Movie Awards 2012.jpg (which apparently should be Schulz). Is this just me, or is the feature also turned off for others? Any advice? --GRuban (talk) 21:43, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm having the same problem here too.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:18, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Famartin: looks like this is the same problem you are having. - Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes thank you @Jmabel: ! Famartin (talk) 22:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
See COM:AN#Moving files. Moving has been a little buggy lately. Please be patient while the devs work whatever happened out. Thanks! --Majora (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
I opened a task on phabricator about it, maybe should be merged with the one that already exists.-- Darwin Ahoy! 22:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Good to know; I thought I had unwittingly broken some sort of rule. Cheers, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@GRuban: @DarwIn, Famartin, Jmabel, Majora, and Mr.choppers: Hi all. I've just done an emergency deploy of the Wikidata team's fix for this. Sorry for the disruption! Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

It works! Thank you! --GRuban (talk) 20:49, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jdforrester (WMF): Seems to be working now, thanks a lot for the quick fix. -- Darwin Ahoy! 23:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 00:54, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Name of the category

The question to native English speakers. Check the name of this Category:Photos of localities of settlements with blast furnaces in the background. Is it correct in terms of the English language? Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 07:53, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Blast furnace chip worker: It is gramatically correct but why "of localities of settlements"? That excludes some places. If the important factor re blast furnaces is they they are in the background, I would just go for Category:Distant views of blast furnaces, for which we have several precedents. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker and Rodhullandemu: That works for me, or Category:Blast furnaces (background).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:58, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
I think we have more often used "Remote views" than "Distant views". - Jmabel ! talk 15:10, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu, Jeff G., and Jmabel: Thank you very much everybody. If it is gramatically correct then let it remain so. I think terms "Distant views" or "Remote views" are better fit for this kind of photos File:Cornigliano altoforno dismesso.jpg but for my category it is very important that both photos are made not just from distance or from an area of steel mill but them must be made from an area of settlement and blast furnaces on photos of this category must be surrounded by city features. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 18:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
That seems unduly restrictive to me. Why would anyone search for images within such a narrow scope? Rodhullandemu (talk) 19:28, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: I think the key word there is "my".   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 00:17, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker: Personal categories are useful on a temporary basis for sorting things out, or one's own uploads. However, trying to fit personal preferences into the existing structure tends towards trying to establish ownership, which is sort of contrary to the general usability principle of Commons.If they are going to be temporary, fine, but please don't impose personal structures on to Commons categories for all time, because I doubt that everyone will share perpetually your enthusiasm for such a limited scope. Rodhullandemu (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker: What use do you plan for such a category? How might it be relevant for others?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:59, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu and Jeff G.: The word "my" category does not mean personal category. I told "my" only because I created it. Well, it is a one of the examples of industrial landscapes. Where are also another reasons. Blast furnace chip worker (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Blast furnace chip worker: Ok, thanks, it's clearer to me now. However, "Localities of settlements" seems a bit long. If the intention is to categorise settlements having blast furnaces in the background, why not just say Category:Settlements with blast furnaces in the background (since it seems to be implicit that they will be photographs)? Rodhullandemu (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

MetaBrainz sued, lawsuit dismissed with prejudice, but waiting for Wikimedia Commons to act

New blog post titled: "We were sued by a copyright troll and we prevailed!"

Some quotes:

On August 9th, 2018 we were served with a United States federal copyright infringement lawsuit over a handful of images displayed on our musicbrainz.org artist pages. These images were made available by Larry Philpot, a photographer, on Wikimedia Commons and we "deep linked" to the images (that note the license details and attribute the images to their creator) from our artist pages, in accord with the license terms.

On February 28, 2019 the lawsuit was dismissed with prejudice!

While we wait for Wikimedia Commons and Creative Commons to take action on this, we will not reinstate artist images or include any images that link to Wikimedia Commons.

We talked with both the Wikimedia Foundation and Creative Commons to discuss what had happened. We learned that both Wikimedia and Creative Commons had started their own processes to examine and address the issues that led to the lawsuit being filed against the MetaBrainz Foundation.

Anyone know anything about that "examination"? Or the expected "action"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:49, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Something I haven't been clear on is what they mean by "deep linking". Did MusicBrainz link to file pages on Commons or directly to files. The former is what I would've thought to be the case (especially given the context in the first quote above), but the latter is more in line with my understanding of "deep linking". If they're linking directly to files (not file pages), that indeed wouldn't satisfy the terms of the license, right? If the former, the lawsuit was indeed bogus. I'm disturbed by this line: the plaintiff, who has a history of taking legal action against Creative Commons users, linking to this article which says the plaintiff (the Commons user) has been launching many suits against people who use his photos from Commons. I've not seen any evidence that any of these have been successful, but given the particulars of the cases covered in these posts, I'm wondering to what extent this should be considered a misuse of Commons. — Rhododendrites talk |  21:06, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
Using Commons as a honey pot for copyright lawsuits (especially against free culture organizations like MetaBrainz) is definitely an abuse of the platform, in my opinion. I would support issuing a warning to Nightshooter that they desist from copyright trolling immediately. It's one thing to sue someone who is inappropriately making income from your work (like using a Commons image in an advertisement without attribution) and another thing to sue everyone indiscriminately who doesn't have the attribution correct. Such copyright trolling has a serious detrimental effect on the reuse of Commons images, and is one of the reasons why commercial websites and media generally prefer to pay for stock photography rather than use free license images and run a legal risk (however small). Kaldari (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
And since Nightshooter hasn't edited here in over 5 years, I think there's a good chance we won't get any response. Perhaps we could give them a month to respond and if we don't hear anything back, just delete their 21 images from Commons. We have no obligation to facilitate their copyright trolling, especially when it is actively harming the project. Kaldari (talk) 22:29, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I've raised this at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Nightshooter - block & deletion request --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

  • Weird all around. On the one hand:
    • Philpot's attorney asserts that there was no attribution given. That, if true, would clearly not have been even in the spirit of the free license.
  • On the other hand:
    • He asserts that the images were used "with the photographs' metadata and copyright management information stripped." How could metadata be stripped by any deep link? Maybe he means that the omitted what was on the file page (as against EXIF)? Terribly unclear accusation.
    • The fact that Philpot & his attorney wouldn't let them correct the attribution & consider it settled, and insisted on money -- a LOT of money -- puts him squarely in the realm of copyright trolls. Especially given that this appears to be his first effort at contacting them.
Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
How could metadata be stripped by any deep link? - according to the ericgoldman.org post, there was actually an example of a company that used the images after removing the metadata. It claimed it was to save space. — Rhododendrites talk |  00:30, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Right, but that's a different case, and that isn't a "deep link", it's a copy. I'm talking about the linked brief about the MetaBrainz case.. - Jmabel ! talk 01:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: the Wikimedia thumbnailer removes most metadata like camera information, but leaves the copyright field intact. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Looks like the caption linked to the file page, which is the same thing that Wikipedia does (and is generally considered fine for attribution purposes). Kaldari (talk) 03:14, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "Image from Wikimedia Commons" is clearly NOT a valid attribition per CC terms. And in fact, the way most Wikipedias handle attribution has been criticized by photographers since many years, as it gives a bad example for re-users. At least :no allows a more appropriate attribution. --Túrelio (talk) 06:54, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • The caption linked to the file page, where attribution and license info can be found, yes. That's perfectly fine according to CC: "You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information." --Reosarevok (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE / MusicBrainz)
That's the code for CC 4.0. The pictures concerned here are under CC 3.0. --Túrelio (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Fair enough! :) The 3.0 code also speaks of "reasonable manner" though, it's just less clear about what that actually means (which I assume is why this was made more clear in 4.0). To be fair, having "See license info at Wikimedia Commons" rather than just "Image from Wikimedia Commons" would have been better already, to make things more clear, while still avoiding printing an arbitrarily long attribution string on a sidebar. So I'm not saying our implementation was ideal - it was just compliant. --Reosarevok (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE / MusicBrainz)
The thing is that you are not allowed to make attribution demands that are unreasonable or, in the case of CC4, explicitly covered (such as a hyperlink). So the credit line (which I use) is just a way of saying how you would prefer it, or to teach folk how a CC licence should be attributed. While I think that it is poor form to provide attribution in just a link, Wikipedia sets the bad example that others follow. The danger of linking to the file description page on Commons is we have no obligation to retain it. You see comments at the deletion discussion that deletion would harm other's because they are relying on our page to give attribution. I do think we need a way on Commons to delete an image but retain the application page with a placeholder image, saying the file has been deleted but this page is retained. Perhaps an admin could upload a blank or placeholder image and delete the old revision? I would support deleting these images and blocking the user, if we can find a way to ensure others are not placed in peril at the loss of an attribution link page. Re-users should be strongly discouraged from linking to a user-edited website in order to satisfy their legal requirements. Kaldari, commercial companies are indeed wise to use stock agencies since the price is peanuts and they get legal protection. Anyone in business using Commons images when they could use a stock photo is IMO a legal liability who should be sacked for gross incompetence. -- Colin (talk) 09:26, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • In our case, the link and the image were loaded together, so if there is no longer a link (and as such no longer an image), we wouldn't show anything anyway. Of course, that does not apply to reusers who upload the file to their own server, so the problem still remains in that case (and I feel at the very least there should indeed be a suggestion that if you don't have a way to ensure the link still works when serving the image you should not depend on that link for the license). --Reosarevok (talk) 09:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE/MusicBrainz)
  • Reosarevok, yes you are right that your deep link meant the image would vanish if deleted here. But actually I am surprised Commons allows deep linking. Surely that is using Commons resources (server bandwidth, disc storage) to illustrate a non-WMF site. I agree, the "use this image" help we offer to reusers is very poor and should highlight better the risks and that if you host the image then you need to host the attribution. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
    That’s hotlinking, and per COM:HOTLINK is allowed. I seem to recall a very old discussion where it was calculated that the resources needed to block hotlinking would be more costly than leaving it, but can’t find it back (and that may not still be true anymore). phab:T152091 is a more recent technical discussion. Jean-Fred (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

It would set dangerous precedent to delete all of their images and block the uploader indefinitely. I know that the infamous copyright troll Marco Verch was banned for offwiki copyright trolling, and a couple of years ago Guanaco indefinitely blocked a user who hasn’t edited for 5 (five) or 8 (eight) years or something because they uploaded hundreds of copyright violations, but blocks are meant to be preventative and not punitive and Marco Verch’s block actually was preventative because he kept uploading free works he would abuse to sue poor Germans out of court. But we have to cautious here, because works uploaded under the Creative Commons license are still copyrighted and are still protected by all copyright laws, they may only be used freely if properly attributed.

We must first establish a few things, (1) the person sending legal threats is in fact Nightshooter or someone directly representing Nightshooter, (2) the files were properly attributed according to their Creative Commons license, and (3) if both "(1)" and "(2)" are correct then it should be established that there is a realistic chance that --- will engage in this behaviour again thus making their inclusion to Wikimedia Commons both a legal and reputational liability.

Also blocking someone over legal threats made offwiki before they have had the opportunity to defend themselves seems also like a huge red light, they haven't edited in 5 (five) years, imagine that they have died years ago and that the person making the legal threats isn't even them, now they are banned post-mortem, or imagine if you would want to make a case defending yourself but now you’re not allowed. The moral implications of this ban aside it is already established that while Marco Verch's images are all de jure free that because he sues anyone who doesn't appropriately attribute them that they are de facto not. This also means that there is an embargo on any uploads from this person, even if they are made by someone else, I remember seeing a user being really confused because some Marco Verch images they uploaded were nominated for deletion and these unwritten rules demotivated them from further uploads because as far as they could tell the uploads were freely licensed and educational. Which brings me to the actual largest issue this brings, are we going to extend “no legal threats” to actual offwiki cases where the user making the legal threat was legally in their right to do so? Because this would essentially mean that all works on Wikimedia Commons while largely being de jure licensed using a Creative Commons copyright license are de facto in the public domain because if you ever dare to exercise the copyrights you have, you will forever and permanently be banned and all of your freely licensed educational works will be deleted.

Now while I would never sue anyone for copyright infringement over any of my photographs even if they didn't attribute me at all, which means that while my files are de jure protected by Creative Commons copyrights they are, for all intents and purposes de facto in the public domain as I would never take any legal actions against the misuse of "my" files in any way. However as someone who has often gotten OTRS confirmed free licenses I can tell that the preservation of copyrights is an important argument to bring up to business owners whose images you would want to upload to Wikimedia Commons. While businessmen like Scott Semans who is anti-government (maybe even an Anarchist(?)) and doesn't believe in copyrights and sees it as immoral, in fact he only releases his works under the Creative Commons 3.0 license because he thinks that simple attribution to him and his website is just "common courtesy" while some educators like Dr. Luke Roberts (University of California at Santa Barbara) and John Ferguson both just want their images to help educate people and don't care about copyright, in fact the only reason attribution is needed for their images is because I specifically advised them to do it, but both would have gladly releases their works into the Public Domain if I had simply asked them to. But for most business owners the retention of their copyrights is a very important aspect of the license, proper attribution is both legally mandated and needed for re-sharing.

I think that for “Marco Verch cases” like Nightshooter where the legal system is being abused we should create the template "{{Copyright troll}}" to place on all of their uploads, from what I can see at the image "File:Norah Jones performs at Farm Aid.jpg" the attribution reads " Attribution should be: Photo credit: Larry Philpot, www.soundstagephotography.com .". If this attribution was fully taken over by the MetaBrainz Foundation then I don't see any reason why they would fear this going to court as the judge would never rule in favour of Nightshooter. Our current rules, project scope, and policies permit for educational files with a free license to be hosted here, I wholly oppose an unwritten extra reason for deletion which might be an obstruction of justice. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:23, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Too long, Donald. And much of what you say is not true. It really doesn't help to start making all sorts of exaggerated claims. This is a wiki. We do things because we choose to do them, not because we worry about precedents and slippery slope arguments. Requesting and even enforcing one's rights in law are not the same as copyright trolling. Blocking users for copyright trolling via Commons seems perfectly reasonable to me. -- Colin (talk) 11:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
  • "If this attribution was fully taken over by the MetaBrainz Foundation then I don't see any reason why they would fear this going to court as the judge would never rule in favour of Nightshooter". We knew perfectly we were in the right. Having a court case in the US is absurdly expensive even if you're on the winning side, though (which is why a lot of people getting sued by a copyright troll will just pay whatever is asked as long as they think it's not higher than what their legal fees will be).--Reosarevok (talk) 13:44, 26 June 2019 (UTC) (WMEE/MusicBrainz)

Dale Hodges Park, Calgary, Alberta stormwater panel

I have just uploaded a photograph I took of a pedagogical panel in a newly-opened urban public park for an article I just created. The article is Dale Hodges Park and the image is here: File:Dale Hodges Park, Calgary, Alberta stormwater panel.jpg I am assuming that because this panel is in a public park that there is no copyright limitations. Am I correct? Thank you.

I have already asked at the Commons and received this response:

"I do not know in this case but {{Fair use}} is not accepted in Commons. Better ask Commons:Village pump."

What would my next step be? Thank you.Oceanflynn (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

@Oceanflynn: you ask, I am assuming that because this panel is in a public park that there is no copyright limitations. Am I correct? No, you are not correct. Being in a public park has no bearing on copyright.
In some countries it might raise exceptions based on Freedom of panorama that would allow photographs despite the copyright of the underlying work. Canada makes such exceptions for architecture and for sculpture/artwork in public places. It's not clear to me whether this would be considered artwork. Freedom of Panorama is the only at all likely basis on which this might be OK for Commons. You might bring that question to Commons:Village pump/Copyright, where you are more likely to get an informed opinion than here. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jmabel I will try the Commons:Village pump/Copyright.Oceanflynn (talk) 23:05, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
I would imagine the copyright of this map belongs to the Alberta park system. Taking a photo of the map isn't enough to make it an original work. Does Alberta have a free use policy for things like this? mr.choppers (talk)-en- 01:23, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

More eyes requested for claims about alleged microstate

I would appreciate some geographer's eyes on Commons:Deletion requests/File:Flag of Paraduin.png. The assertion is basically than someone's house and a bit of land is a "microstate" with it's own flag, however I have find no independent sources and there is no Wikipedia article. As far as I can work out, based on the absence of non-self published websites, the flag is a bit of fan-fiction and fails to meet Scope. If someone can provide meaningful sources otherwise, that would be great.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:25, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

You are now forumshopping for what already is a frivolous request. Just accept that you can't always have things your way and move on. Guido den Broeder (talk) 14:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Micronations are almost always just self-proclaimed "countries" and none are ever recognised, even the most widely known micronations are unrecognised States so I fail to see how Paraduin is different because it has no Wikipedia article. Just because something doesn't have a Wikipedia article doesn't mean that it should be disqualified from being on Wikimedia Commons. In fact even Wikipedia says as much about micronations see "Micronations, sometimes also referred to as model countries and new country projects, are small, self-proclaimed entities that claim to be independent sovereign states but which are not acknowledged as such by any recognised sovereign state, or by any supranational organization. They should not be confused with microstates, which are recognised independent states of a small size, nor should they be confused with unrecognised states, which may have legitimate claim to sovereign state status.[1]:5" (source). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:17, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
I'd say all these files related to self proclaimed ideas should be put under cat:user page images. The creators are merely using wikimedias and Commons for self promotion just like NorthFace does, so I think Fæ has a valid point and is not forumshopping.--Roy17 (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2019 (UTC)
Preferably not, that would make them hard to find. However, a user box could be created for 'this user is a citizen of ...' showing flag and name of the micronation'. The purpose of a national flag is identification, not promotion. Guido den Broeder (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
So the P..n thingy is not famous at all! Otherwise why would it be hard to find? And YOU do everything you can do keep YOUR stuff live on Commons, because Commons and Wikipedia are perfect and free-of-charge channels for self promotion, letting YOU kind of users jack up YOUR stuff on Google search results.--Roy17 (talk) 22:15, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17, Fæ, and Donald Trung: sounds like a great holiday destination.

Paraduin is de naam van onze planeet in een parallel universum. Technologisch is Paraduin niet zo ver ontwikkeld, maar in tegenstelling tot Aarde is Paraduin een magische wereld. Tussen Paraduin en Aarde is een poort geopend. Omdat het niet goed gaat met de beschaving op Aarde, zijn bewoners van Paraduin hier een nieuw land begonnen. De naam van dit land is ook Paraduin.

Translation:

Paraduin is the name of our planet in a parallel universe. Paraduin is technologically not very advanced, but unlike Earth Paraduin is a magical world. Between Earth and Paraduin, a gate has been opened. Because the civilization on Earth is not doing well, inhabitants of Paraduin have started a new country here. The name of this country is also Paraduin.

That page also states the aliens had claimed w:Liberland on 1 April 2015. But.. https://web.archive.org/web/20150419015705/http://www.paraduin.nl/?p=173 contradicts this and says it was claimed on 5 March 2015 instead. But this is probably due to time zone differences between extraterrestrial Paraduin and Earth. Seemingly no actual proof the aliens ever claimed anything before the Czech with Liberland did. This rubble has nowadays been downgraded to "Folklore" on the website.. I doubt this actually meets the definition of folklore.
Also, Guido is an alien. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Not only is hosting this garbage encouraging spam via the back door, but it blatantly fails COM:HOST. --Fæ (talk) 06:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Guys, please do not mention it anymore. AFAIK, VP and archives are not noindexed. More mentions = better Google search results = exactly his wishes.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
Donald Trump, Game of Thrones, Star Wars, bitcoin - there, I've spoiled it now. --Fæ (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
This isn't even the wackiest (pardon my Walloon) origin story for a micronation, declaring a small territory to be sovereign after 1945 requires one to be... There's no way to put it nicely so I won't say it, anyhow, some examples here, here, and here, many of these have Wikipedia articles so even if Paraduin has some odd folklore it doesn't exactly make it stand out negatively among its peers. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:33, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Design of Lang-VP

{{Lang-VP}} is the header template of VP that links to other language versions. Recently, User:Verdy p introduced some new design, but disagreement between Verdy p and User:4nn1l2 over the new elements led to Verdy p being banned for a month. IMHO more users should probably join the discussions on how Lang-VP can be revamped, so hopefully the quarrel could be set aside and the real issues be resolved.

I will take the liberty of summarising Verdy p's new design. It switches the template according to a user's UI language, providing VP in the user's chosen language and some other closely related languages. For example, a Ukrainian user will see links to Ukrainian VP as well as Russian VP. All versions have a globe icon that links to the full list though. See Verdy p's latest version of code for reference.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Verdy p's design may not be the best. The conditional logic of the new design attempts to predict a user's needs, but users of Commons, a global project, may have very different needs. Trying to build a complex conditional logic may not be better than showing a full list. In comparison, wikidata's chat has a longer full list, which I find pretty neat too.
On the other hand, I have just made a proposal to close inactive non-English VP. (I had noticed the issue half a year ago, but was too lazy to bring it up.) A VP is useful only if there is sufficient participation, especially experienced users' response to newbies' queries. If this proposal results in closing of many VP, much of the conditional logic could be simplified.
That said, I prefer a simple, full list rather than the conditional logic. The full list would only show one or two more lines, and save time spent on engineering the template. However, I have another idea. How about a clickable world map, perhaps using technology like en:Template:Location map+? It would be more illustrative. It can be hidden it in a dropdown menu, which saves users from opening a new webpage to find the full list like the current globe icon does.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A full list is a good idea provided that small inactive VPs get closed. Currently, there are 51 language editions of VP. I think they can be safely reduced to 37 VPs (for a list of eligible ones, see my comment at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#The_ones_to_keep) or even less (~33).
  • A possible conditional list should give the priority to the page langauge ({{PAGELANGUAGE}}) rather than the interface language ({{int:lang}}), but that's a discussion for the template talk page. Some objective criteria should also be defined to avoid arbitrary designations.
  • A map list is not a good idea. Looking for the region associated with, say, Galician language or Marathi language is harder for most users than just finding their name in an ordered list. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Roy17: I think some conditional logic to highlight the VPs one may be interested in, based on UI language, would be helpful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure whether to blame or praise Verdy p for this, but I seriously dislike the current {{Lang-VP}}: It’s only showing English for me, plus that unintuitive blue dot. I want to be able to see the whole list all the time. Who ever feels bewildered or offended by language diversity has no place in Commons (or needs to learn a lot, i.a., in Commons!), and to cater to those, at the expense of the ones who relish language diversity, is repugnant. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

A customary licence for The Stand News

I would like to seek a broader community concensus on this customary licensing statement by The Stand News. They say 各機構及個人，可隨便使用《立場新聞》 facebook 專頁的直播片段，不用聯絡我們尋求授權，使用後亦不需要通知，唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪 (my translation: Every organisation and invidicual, may use live streams from The Stand News' facebook page at will, without contacting us and seeking authorisation, or notifying us after usage. We only hope that editing that distorts the facts can be avoided.) If the community agrees this can be accepted, then files such as File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png can be licence-reviewed.--Roy17 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Use at will" sounds to me like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}}. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#A customary licence for The Stand News — De728631 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 photo walk

Stockholm's old town – a potential destination for the photo walk…

This year's Wikimania will be taking place in Stockholm August 14–18. On that occasion, the Commons Photographers User Group will be holding a photo walk. If you're interested in attending, please add your name at Wikimania 2019 photo walk. I'm looking forward to meeting you again / getting to know you! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Spoken articles template

I encountered today {{Description article audio}} which duplicates {{Spoken article}}. Former seems to be used for French articles. I think will be good idea to use one template and use bot for migration. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I replaced all uses of {{Description article audio}} with {{Spoken article}}. We should do something similar to other --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Files from 500px needing review

This category was created by Elisfkc on 28 April and Elisfkc also started filling it with files that day (if I may add, in an improper way, inserting {{Licensereview}} in the wrong place), until Rodrigo.Argenton told them to stop.

Now the category has 1208 files in it. But before I effectively undo those 1208 edits by Elisfkc (removing the {{Licensereview}} and category), I'm asking here if it's okay. If we would decide those files need a review, all 108K+ of them need a review. (and would need to be tagged properly) I think our license reviewers can be dropped off at the looney bin if we ask them that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cue They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you think license review was added in the wrong spot. Also, I feel like a bot could be made fairly easily to run through these images. However, since I suck at code, I asked for help. --Elisfkc (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: you just stuck it somewhere in between the categories. In some cases a bot grouped categories at the bottom after your batch edit. LR should be after the license, on a new line. If this were highly controversial, I suppose someone would have said something by now, even though it's only been a few hours. So in a few hours, I'll reverse your edits. All you've done is waste the time of license reviewers with this as some of these actually did get reviewed. This should be done by a bot, or not at all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Most of them didn't have categories at the time, and the license review templates were supposed to be on their own line.--Elisfkc (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: you can't count on that. In that case (short of whether this was a good idea to begin with) you should have filtered out files that already had categories. Or better yet, do a smarter replace. And yes, {{Licensereview}} should have been on a new line. Anyway, the category is empty now. Leoboudv had reviewed 59 files, Christian Ferrer had reviewed 23 files and Discasto 2. Pretty much all in vain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if the photos did need reviews, Elisfkc's insertion was bad because the {{Licencereview}} template overlaps with the category, which was created by Elisfkc without concensus. I wanted to undo Elisfkc's insertion but I did not want to jack up my edit counts for pointless stuff, so I did special:diff/351373783.
It may not be entirely Elisfkc's fault though. I could not find a summary page that tells me how reliable the import tool is in terms of copyright, or how to find the licence from the source code of 500px either. I reviewed one and avoided others from 500px.
Today I learned that Rodrigo.Argenton had reported the problem back on 28 April, but wrongfully dismissed by User:Jcb, that Elisfkc is a LR himself/herself!, and that s/he has reviewed only one from 500px!
Screw you for wasting our time.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Roy17,
"I could not find a summary page"
Commons:500px licensing data
Yes, the rote to the page is not clear as crystal, however is not a dark rote.
If we took any file as this
We have this "[..] imported from 500px with import-500px"
That have this "Read more about the application of the tool at Wikimedia Commons here."
That explain how the copyright verification works... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: No, it doesnt tell me how reliable the import tool is. I dont rely on a second intermediate (500px -> wayback -> import-500px) of which reliability is unknown. I also tried the steps suggested on an archived 500px page. It didnt go well and took me a long time to find the licence. This says saving CC-licensed images, which might include ND/NC.--Roy17 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"took me a long time to find the licence"
That's why we create a page at tools to this:
[18]
It's quite reliable, as it only scan the page, and show us the license that the user include at the 500px, than creates a page to guarantee the manual verification. Than I manually select files, of course, some I will not have knowledge about the copyright, as freedom of panorama in some countries, but most of then, I can see copyright violations and out of scope files. And yes, we need to check one by one to upload here, is not flicker2commons.
"which might include ND/NC"
Yes, and one strange license also (PDM), but we did a work of selecting only cc-by, cc-by sa and cc0.
you can see in the archive.org, that they have a away more files saved, as they took the nc and nm files.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Marking of images that are embedded in a Wikidata object (Part 2)

Moin Moin together, I wanted to ask if there is a tool or script that shows whether an image is associated with a Wikidata object. I would like to see in the category (Category:Media needing categories), preferably by color highlighting whether this is so. Is there such a thing or such a thing? King Regards --Crazy1880 (Diskussion) 18:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody have any idea? --Crazy1880 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Crazy1880, contact Ederporto to this.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton and Crazy1880: Unfortunately, I don't know any of this. I suppose it would involve some .js witchcraft. Ederporto (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Crazy1880: let's see if I got this right. You want to know all files in Category:Media needing categories that are in use on a Wikidata item? That is possible with a database query. You have to combine the categorylinks table with the globalusage table. You can use https://quarry.wmflabs.org/ for that. I used this query to create this list of 39909 uncategorized files used on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill: , if I try it in quary, I become
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MariaDB server version for the right syntax to use near 'CONNECT commonswiki_p commonswiki.labsdb; SELECT CONCAT("* [[:File:", page_title' at line 2
Is there no possibility of highlighting in the category? Thanks --Crazy1880 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I already put the result online for you so no point trying to redo that in Quarry at the moment. You can just paste that list somewhere and start working on the list. Once you got that done, it might be interesting to do it yourself in Quarry. Multichill (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Multichill: , I saved the list local and work on it. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Roy17 (talk) 21:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Template for files potentially moving out of scope?

Is there a template to mark files, which are only used on Wikipedia pages, nominated for deletion, and it are likely to become out of scope as soon as the page is deleted? —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I doubt that such a template would be useful. Most cases of a file being prefered to another to illustrate a Wikipedia article (or some such use in other project) are mere improvements and the hitherto prefered file would remain in scope; the only clear cut situation would be some (though not all) instances of vanity articles or trolling misillustration of established articles etc., but even in those cases a DR would be always a better way to deal with the matter. Some processual speed gained by the use of such template would be overwhelmed by the predictable abuse of it made by the deletionists on duty. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you give some examples? Deletion from all Wikipedia pages still leaves an entry at Wikidata, where an image is displayed. Commons serves all Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia. And deletion from English Wikipedia does not mean that another language Wiki may start an entry on the topic or that person. RAN (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    @RAN: Any good-faith editor on any non-English Wikipedia may create a policy-compliant article on any subject, whether or not an article on English Wikipedia was deleted. What makes you think otherwise?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that what I just wrote? Somehow you seem to think I wrote the opposite of what I wrote. RAN 21:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "deletion from English Wikipedia does not mean that another language Wiki may start an entry". You seem to have meant the opposite, but he read what you wrote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Base Leonore

Bonjour, les images de la base Leonore sont soumise à autorisation préalable Toute diffusion, gratuite ou payante, est soumise à l'autorisation préalable des Archives nationales. Y a t'il une convention avec WP permettant de les utiliser, ou les images en venant doivent-elles être supprimées (ou validées au cas par cas)? Doubleclavier (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Base Leonore Hello, the images of the Leonore base are subject to prior authorisation Any distribution, free or paid, is subject to the prior authorisation of the National Archives. Is there a convention with WP allowing them use, or the images coming from it must be deleted (or validated on a case by case basis)?
translator: Google Translate by Vulphere 04:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Can you please ask about a category or specific file names? De728631 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doubleclavier: Il faut évaluer au cas par cas. Avez-vous un exemple ? Par ailleurs, les discussions en français sont ici. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: for exemple this picture [19] along with 12 companions updated roughly at the same time by the same contributor. Doubleclavier (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Merci pour le lien! je le garde précieusement! Doubleclavier (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alphagto and Doubleclavier: Pas de souci pour ces pages. Il n'y a pas de contenu suffisamment original pour avoir un droit d'auteur, et c'est ancien de toute façon. Mais la licence est fausse, et doit être corrigée. Il faut utiliser {{PD-ineligible}} et/ou {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}} dans ce cas. Il faudrait aussi renommer les fichiers avec un titre qui a un sens. Voir {{Rename}} pour cela. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Yann has summed it up. These documents are too old to be copyrighted or were exempt from copyright from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself

Good afternoon,

I was advised by the helpdesk to write this request out here. I don't know how to use any of the code/jargon, so it's just going to be in written form. I am a complete neophyte to Wikimedia Commons, image licensing, and the like. I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. I have been posting images to my Flickr account (https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg2600) for many years. I never assigned a license to them. Again I truly had no concept of what the rights signified or cared, it was just a way for me to backup my photos. I happened to like Flickr's interface and phone app. From time to time, I would be asked by people (Flickr message) if they could use a photo on Wikipedia. I would allow it but implore that they upload a pre-cropped image without me in the photo. This was usually done as I requested. I'd also have people ask me to change the license to such and such, but I never understood any of that, and was concerned about doing so.

I stopped paying for Flickr Pro awhile ago, then they announced the changes to limit you to 1000 photos. However, if they were CC licensed, it wouldn't count on the limit. So I changed the license, but again, really didn't fully understand what it meant. Over the course of about the last 8-9 months I think, several users began mass uploading of my photos to Wikimedia Commons, without cropping me out of them. In some cases, users DID crop them, so they could be used on Wikipedia. However, even in those cases, the original image remained on Commons. Many are frankly terrible photos, out of focus, and cropping them still would look horrendous.

I had no idea any of this was going on until recently, when a couple friends informed me that I "was on Wikipedia." Sure enough, I spotted several pages of celebrities where the Info Box Photo was of myself and that person. Frankly, this makes no sense. What informational reason would Wikipedia or otherwise have to use a photo of a celebrity with a stranger? I then searched "greg2600" on Commons, and found over 1000 hits where I was listed as the Author on the image. To say I was shocked was an understatement.

So I've been told that CC licenses are not revocable, which also was a shock to me. Again, I'm not a media person, I don't work in the press, this is totally foreign to me. I told someone this kind of feels like someone hacked my phone. What am I seeking here? Well, frankly, I wish any representation of myself could be erased from Commons. I'm not a celebrity, nor do I work, manage, promote, or do anything like that with any of them. My face does not belong here. I use Wikipedia all the time, and if I get a nice recent photo of a celebrity, I'm more than happy to have their pages updated with it. However, I myself, do not want to be IN that photo! I don't even want attribution. I would prefer if the original image doesn't get kept either. I'd more than willing to contribute, but I truly feel like I have been grossly taken advantage of here.

For reference these are all the photos attributed to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=greg2600&advancedSearch-current={}&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&ns0=1

At the end of the day, I don't wish to see MYSELF if I were to do a search like that. I would prefer if the original uploaded files were deleted. I'd assume that would be the easiest approach. It's not my problem that so many photos of mine were uploaded in bulk and then not edited. Most of these photos were uploaded months ago, and never edited.

1. Can any up-cropped photo attributed to me be deleted immediately?

2. If images have to be cropped, or have already been cropped, can the full/original images be deleted? Here's an example where the image was saved as cropped, but the original remains. Why is the original still there?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_Monaghan_(42734734175)_(cropped).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greg_and_Michelle_Monaghan_(42734734175).jpg

I already made a few requests on images that were taken from my friend's Flickr profile, where they were cropped but the original remains. My requests were denied, although I didn't outright say the photos were of ME. Again, I'm new to this.

3. Can linkage (attribution) to my Flickr site on each photo be removed? Please consider that while my photos are on there, I can still control whether I wish to simply delete them all. I have no control over photos on Wikimedia now. This could potentially jeopardize future relations or employment for myself. Essentially through a misjudgment on my part, my privacy has been greatly affected.

I appreciate the assistance, and please understand that this has caused a great deal of stress for me. I do not see how the community gains at all from my emotional distress over this matter.

Thank you, Greg2600 — Preceding unsigned comment added by PaunchStevenson (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

I support courtesy deletion. IMHO, there's one way to both delete photos containing the user, remove attribution and keep cropped photos. User:PaunchStevenson could send an email via COM:OTRS, declaring all Commons photos transferred from his flickr stream before a cut-off date (like today) are released under {{Cc-zero}}. Then, we would apply OTRS verified tags to the photos and remove the attribution, and delete the uncropped photos.--Roy17 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Administrator note: The village pump is not the correct venue to request deletion of photographs. Support or not nothing can really be done from here. There are over 1,000 photos in question here, many of while have already been cropped so a blanket deletion is unwarranted. If someone wants to go through them and file a DR that would be the best course of action. Photos that just require a deletion of one of more versions should be noted. The removal of attribution can be done post DR with VFC. --Majora (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Flickr user Greg2600 had already requested deletion of some images individually, but not spelled out the issues so throughly. I have linked to this discussion from some of the individual deletion requests. I think this is useful to village pump regarding some issues with bulk uploads from Commons to Flickr - an example where "technically correct" per Commons guidelines may not be the best kind of correct, since it is not in the interest of Commons to alienate the photographers who create the photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I'm aware of what is "in the interest of Commons" and I support the courtesy deletions per our guideline. I am usually sympathetic to such requests and have processed them in the past. To continue to post "support" comments here is rather moot though. As the image cannot be deleted from here. I'm simply stating that fact. If we want to have a greater discussion on the use of bulk uploads from any site (Flickr, YouTube, etc.) that should be split off into something at COM:VPP. I've been exasperated by people scrapping free sites for everything they can find regardless of what is actually pictured for quite some time. This type of thread just isn't the best vehicle for such a discussion in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wondering who that guy was ;) When I came across one, I hadn't replaced the image, as I thought it was actually the best one available. Still, I'm not sure what to write to convince him to change his mind. Maybe one could try to work out a way to improve the overall quality of the selection and credit some pseudonym. Jura1 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I posted the first comment because IMHO this involves too many photos and the request to remove attribution is tricky. Attribution is necessary and it protects reusers from legal troubles. I think the only way to omit attribution safely and keep photos is cc-zero aka PD, and the OTRS tag would hide the photographer in the publicly inaccessible OTRS system. If the community agrees to a general strategy, then the whole batch can be dealt with swiftly.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah. I uploaded a number of these images, and was arguing against deletion of the uncropped versions, but that was because I misunderstood that they were pictures of you; the request was written in the third person, and "Greg" and "Paunch" don't immediately lend themselves to assumption of equivalence. I'm fine with removing them. Oh, and thanks for the many fine images of notable people. --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @PaunchStevenson: (Greg2600): we have an automated system to verify that the images we import from Flickr have not been tampered with and have the correct license on Flickr: User:FlickreviewR 2. If we upload pre-cropped images, FlickreviewR 2 gets confused and calls for a human. We have a lack of humans, so we'd rather that didn't happen. As such, we usually upload the image as we find it on Flickr. When we crop the image, by default the crop becomes a new file. So the original remains. The original is also needed because FlickreviewR 2 doesn't review those crops, they depend on the original. Considering some crops were done poorly, I'm not particularly in favor of a blanket deletion. I'd rather overwrite everything with fairly wide lossless crops. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
Cropping the pictures and uploading them as new versions of the original uploads may be the best way to handle this, in my opinion. --Hmxhmx 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Non-OTRS & -administrators' noticeboards, would there be consensus for it?

A while back Roy17 proposed using the page "Commons talk:License review" as a noticeboard for license reviewers and noted that the OTRS team has their own noticeboard.

To which I responded with:

"I actually proposed something like that here (for smaller screens), quoting it here for convenience.

Wouldn't it be wise to create noticeboards for every user group (except for "Autopatrolled") such as "Commons:Template editors' noticeboard" to request edits to be made to certain templates? Well, maybe not a separate noticeboard for every group, but maybe a page named "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard" with a special section like "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard#Template editors"? This way new people or users without advanced rights can bring light issues to their attention and help fight backlog. And copyright issues related to certain templates or perhaps proposals for mass-implementing templates could also be discussed here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)" "

Now I actually am pretty curious if having separate noticeboards for license reviewers, template editors, file movers, and other "Commonswiki Maintainers" would be a good idea and if I should later create a draft concept for it to post to the Proposals Village Pump. Now I understand that we already have an Administrators' noticeboard and that sysops already have the ability to review license, and while every sysop has the ability to review not all are interested in doing so and I imagine that many license reviewers check maintenance categories more than the would the AN for such issues. Plus such issues are often brought up here, the Copyright Village Pump, and the help desk and having a centralised place which all license reviewers can add to their watchlist would be a more clearcut solution.

Are people in favour of creating pages like "Commons:License reviewers' noticeboard" and /or "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard"? And if not/so, what arguments would you make as to why we should or shouldn't have them? I am looking forward to your feedback. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think a license reviewers' noticeboard would be useful. A file movers' noticeboard to discuss possibly controversial moves or ask questions about requested moves may also have some potential. Template editors would maybe prefer template talk pages combined with COM:VPT, but that's just a guess. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:38, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: good feedback, I think that if I were to propose this over at the proposals village pump that I would divide the sections in "Should there be a general maintenance noticeboard?" (so a non-OTRS, non-Sysop noticeboard), "Should there be a license reviewers' noticeboard?", and ""Should there be a template editors' noticeboard?" And then advise people to make an argument why there should be one or more pages, or maybe this would be best done to create a page "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard" with the subpages "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard/License reviewers" & "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard/File movers". There are many ways this could go, in case of the latter proposition other advanced rights would use the general maintenance noticeboard while license reviewers and file movers get their own dedicated noticeboards. I tend to want to discuss such things first before proposing anything, as my vision constantly changes and I like consulting those who would be patrolling these joticeboards daily. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:33, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Umm... I mean, the role of the "non-administrator noticeboard" is kindof automatically assigned to "the generic forum": m:Wikimedia Forum on meta, project chat on data, Village pump pretty much everywhere else. Obviously, this is further divided on the multi-lingual projects into individual language generic forums, which further reduces the traffic on any one page. I'm not sure I see that the generic forums here on Commons are so highly trafficked that they need further subdivision. Currently the highest traffic unarchived day on this page is five threads, and multiple days saw no threads at all. I'm not even sure we really need all of the forum sub-divisions that we currently have. We could probably drop/merge Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections or Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism entirely, and it wouldn't really make any noticeable difference. GMGtalk 13:12, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I think "License review" as a de facto noticeboard works fine. From what I've seen of where users post their question, we've already proliferated enough different places to post different issues that many users are unaware of the different places to post different things. - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/06&oldid=358282182"