Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/08
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Request to delete two files I uploaded because of license
Hi,
could someone please delete the files File:Reljefna karta Hrvatskog zagorja.png and File:Administrativna karta Hrvatskog zagorja.png? I uploaded these files as they were licensed under free CC licenses, but I later learned that Commons doesn't accept CC BY-NC licenses.
Sorry for the trouble! --Ashune (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Ashune: Will do, but for the future please see Template:My bad upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'll use that template in the future.
- P.S. I'll make my own maps and upload them under the same names in the near future. (Just a heads up so someone seeing this doesn't also delete those. Ashune (talk) 20:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 17:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Meet with the Structured Content team at Wikimania!
Hi all! CParle (WMF) and I will be attending Wikimania 2024 in Katowice, Poland. Despite not having any presentation in the program, we wanted to let you know that, if you're attending Wikimania too, you can come meet us at all time during the conference and discuss with us about UploadWizard improvements or about the logo detection tool or just Commons issues. We'll be around during the whole conference, so from August 7 to 10, don't be shy and come to say hi! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Commons Gazette 2024-08
Currently, there are 184 sysops.
Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!
--RZuo (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Santo Domingo de Guzmán
Category:Santo Domingo de Guzmán, Dominican Republic might need renaming. wikipedias say "Santo Domingo, originalmente como Santo Domingo de Guzmán..." RZuo (talk) 15:17, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is this a VP-level issue, rather than just a reason for a CfD? - Jmabel ! talk 19:48, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow the cfd tool doesn't seem to work. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Tool worked fine for me. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Somehow the cfd tool doesn't seem to work. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Talk pages of deletion requests – again
Can we now have a final consensus on the problematic issue of using the said talk pages as discussion areas of deletion requests instead of deletion requests pages themselves? Another case, by @Estrellato: (this one), which I have now moved to the main discussion page where it should be.
Other cases I recently passed by:
- Commons talk:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Sarajevo railway station (moved)
- Commons talk:Deletion requests/File:Rashid-bin-Said.jpg (moved)
Context: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2023/11#Disabling talk pages of deletion requests (no consensus or conclusion). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support this change. There are, so far, over seven thousand deletion requests with talk pages (alphabetical list); at a glance, most of them were created by inexperienced or logged-out users in an attempt to respond to a deletion request, and many of them were never acknowledged by other editors. Blocking the creation of these pages, at least by non-autoconfirmed users, will do a lot to help these users get back on the right track. Omphalographer (talk) 05:17, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer how about non-autopatrolled users instead, so to be more prudent in the proper use of the said talk pages? The Sarajevo railway station DR talk page was actually created by an autoconfirmed user (My-wiki-photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally, yes! Any level of restriction we can add to creating these pages is a step in the right direction; my point was that even a very slight restriction (like requiring autoconfirmed) would help. Omphalographer (talk) 00:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd probably back any proposal to tighten this. Auto-confirmed at the very least. - Jmabel ! talk 22:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer how about non-autopatrolled users instead, so to be more prudent in the proper use of the said talk pages? The Sarajevo railway station DR talk page was actually created by an autoconfirmed user (My-wiki-photos). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support --Adamant1 (talk) 23:43, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done see Special:AbuseFilter/307 —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 06:15, 7 August 2024 (UTC)- Thanks @Matrix for the upgraded filter. Thanks also to all Wikimedia Commons users who participated in the old and current discussions. If there are no opposing users, this thread may now be requested for immediate archival. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Think we could export this to Commons as a simple logo?--Trade (talk) 04:34, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- No. I think this just meetsCOM:TOO-US via American Airlines. Glrx (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely above the ToO in France. Abzeronow (talk) 21:04, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Acceptability of file names containing emoji
For instance File:Spring has arrived^^^^^ 🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼🌼 - Flickr - rossomoto.jpg. I was thinking about renaming to something without them but I don't want to waste my time on it if they aren't an issue. It seems like a super weird way to name files though. So Yes, no, or does it depend on the circumstances when it comes to file names with emoji? --Adamant1 (talk) 02:04, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- If you know specifically what the plant in the photo is, a rename to a more specific name would be in order (under criterion 2 - "meaningless or ambiguous name"). But renaming just to remove the emoji is harder to justify, especially when the filename is still meaningless without them. Omphalographer (talk) 04:02, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: Hhmmm. The Emoji seem to show up as different flowers depending on the platform. So I'm not even sure how I'd figure that out to begin with. Maybe they could just be replaced with "flowers" though since it doesn't seem to be a specific plant. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I mean the budding flowers seen in the photo, not the ones represented by emoji in the filename. As you've astutely observed, the exact appearance of emoji is font-dependent. Omphalographer (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- The emoji is the same on every platform, but the rendering can change depending on which device/browser/etc. you view it with. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:09, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: Hhmmm. The Emoji seem to show up as different flowers depending on the platform. So I'm not even sure how I'd figure that out to begin with. Maybe they could just be replaced with "flowers" though since it doesn't seem to be a specific plant. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: I don't think emoji are themselves objectionable in file names. Indeed in this case they're the only part of the filename that actually describes what's in the picture. They might be difficult to type, but I think we accept that people might have to copy and paste filenames that are in unfamiliar scripts. So unless there's actually some problem that they're causing, I think they can stay. --bjh21 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Commons:File naming advises "Avoid abusing Unicode...symbols such as "♥" are often more natural when spelled out ("heart"), also increasing visibility in search. Furthermore some characters do not render correctly at all in certain operating systems and browsers. It is a good idea to stick to letters, numbers, underscore (space), ASCII hyphen/minus/dash, plus, and period (dot), as these do not have any MediaWiki restrictions." DMacks (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't want to see emojis completely banned from file names -- in the most obvious case, they'd be appropriate in a file showing how a particular font renders that emoji -- but this seems like an inappropriate file name. - Jmabel ! talk 19:44, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- How is "Commons:File naming" relevant here? Enhancing999 (talk) 01:29, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999 because it's about naming files? I don't understand the thrust of your question. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The question was if the filename is acceptable. Enhancing999 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue of emojis is at all addressed there; perhaps it should be. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe need a new guideline that answers basic questions, such as Special:Permalink/830407356. Enhancing999 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Though certainly that was too tight: discouraged use of any non-Latin alphabet. - Jmabel ! talk 21:11, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe need a new guideline that answers basic questions, such as Special:Permalink/830407356. Enhancing999 (talk) 04:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think the issue of emojis is at all addressed there; perhaps it should be. - Jmabel ! talk 04:14, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The question was if the filename is acceptable. Enhancing999 (talk) 03:36, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999 because it's about naming files? I don't understand the thrust of your question. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Can someone improve the crop on File:Leo K Thorsness.jpg? When using dark mode it looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/kS6tgE5.png Thanks, Polygnotus (talk) 14:44, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: Done, but it took me a couple of tries with CropTool, which doesn't respect dark mode. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:41, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Jeff G. Thank you that looks a lot better! Polygnotus (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Polygnotus: You're welcome! — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 00:36, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @User:Jeff G. Thank you that looks a lot better! Polygnotus (talk) 17:26, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Reminder! Vote closing soon to fill vacancies of the first U4C
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Dear all,
The voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is closing soon. It is open through 10 August 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility. If you are eligible to vote and have not voted in this special election, it is important that you vote now.
Why should you vote? The U4C is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community input into the committee membership is critical to the success of the UCoC.
Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.
In cooperation with the U4C,
-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Nominating for both speedy and community revue deletion has a problem
It appears that the nominator used speedy within the regular deletion process and when you hit the button to remove the speedy, it corrupts the initial nomination. See: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Dunga_Rodrigues,_escritora_e_pianista._Cuiab%C3%A1.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=907116342 Can anything be done to fix this, other than the nominator not using both speedy and the regular deletion process at the same time? --RAN (talk) 01:20, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Nearcoord and SDC
mw:Help:CirrusSearch#Geo_Search
it seems nearcoord doesnt work if a file only has coords in com:sdc.
either nearcoord or sdc has to be tweaked so that they work, or a bot needs to duplicate the sdc to {{Location}} on file pages. RZuo (talk) 14:33, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo: If you have an example search and an example file that should be in the results but is not, please make a task for that in Phabricator. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:38, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo: I would expect that including an empty {{Location}} template in the file's description would be enough. The template will automatically use the co-ordinates from structured data if it doesn't have any parameters, so there's no need to copy the co-ordinates. Have you tries that? --bjh21 (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- good tip! it works. i forgot about that.
- so a bot needs to add that template to those files. RZuo (talk) 15:16, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo: you can request at Commons:Bots/Work requests. - Jmabel ! talk 19:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Image file seems broken
File:Northern England.svg is an image of a map but it looks like it's broken. The image fails to appear on the Wikipedia articles it's on for at least a week. Someone please check and correct the issue here. Plarety2 (talk) 22:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks like a namespace problem:
error on line 5 at column 33: xmlns:i: '&ns_ai;' is not a valid URI
- That looks like Adobe Illustrator using entities and then another application rewriting the file without expanding the entities.
- Glrx (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Plarety2: should be fixed now. Glrx (talk) 04:06, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- There was a complaint earlier about svg files created with certain software no longer rendering. --RAN (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
New type of tram in Częstochowa
Examples in Category:Trams in Częstochowa by type. It is clearly not a Pesa Twist 2010N. In de description one talks of Twist II. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:58, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Can someone please revert the rotation of File:EB1911 Palaeontology - ichthyosaur with young - restoration.jpg
Hi, the user SteinsplitterBot rotated "File:EB1911 Palaeontology - ichthyosaur with young - restoration.jpg" for some unknown reason.This affects the layout on the associated Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/633. Can the rotation be reverted, thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The rotation was requested by FunkMonk. -- Asclepias (talk) 20:43, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- @DivermanAU: I've reverted the file, since your objection makes the overwriting controversial under COM:OVERWRITE. I think the rotated version looks better, though, so I've uploaded it separately as File:EB1911 Palaeontology - ichthyosaur with young - restoration (facing downwards).jpg. --bjh21 (talk) 22:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Now the file matches the printed page again. DivermanAU (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploading photos from City of Melbourne website
Hi. I called City of Melbourne and asked if I can use their collection's photos on https://citycollection.melbourne.vic.gov.au/collections/?col=Public%20art%20and%20memorials on Wikimedia Commons and they said if I refer photos to City of Melbourne Art and Heritage Collection with no commercial use, it is possible. Also, I want to refer to https://www.melbourne.vic.gov.au/copyright.
Can I actually upload photos of these public art and memorials?
Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, {{Noncommercial}} isn’t an acceptable license in Wikimedia Commons. --Geohakkeri (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: may I strongly suggest that you take at least a few hours to seriously familiarize yourself with what permissions are needed to get images onto Commons before going out and seeking permissions on Commons behalf? When you ask the "wrong" question in seeking permissions, it sort of "poisons the well" for anyone (including yourself) who then goes to ask the same party the right question(s). - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- How so Trade (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: was that addressed to me? - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah i was wondering how the well is poisoned Trade (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: Consider it from the point of view of the person who is asked. Wikimedian: "Hey, can we have permission to use your images on Wikipedia?" Person who answers email (PWAE): "Sounds good. Let me check with my boss." … later … "My boss says that would be fine, as long as it isn't used commercially." Wikimedian then checks what is needed, has to get back to them: "Actually, we can't do that. We need a specific license (like CC-BY 4.0) that allows commercial use and derivative works." PWAE: "Huh, let me see if my boss would agree to that." … later … "My boss says he guesses that's OK. Sure, you can upload them with CC-BY 4.0." Wikimedian then checks what is needed, has to get back to them: "Well, actually, just emailing that to me doesn't count as permission. What we need you to do is either to put that license on your site, or your public-facing social media, or you can go through this VRT thing…" So PWAE has to go to their boss a third time, and the boss is a lot more likely to say "F--k it" than if they had been asked the right questions in the first place. And even worse if the original Wikimedian drops it at some point in this process, and someone else goes through something like this with them again. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- It might be better to rework the VRT guide instead of blaming other editors for asking the "wrong" way Trade (talk) 20:16, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade we already have the list of FAQs on top of the Village pump, and this question by @Shkuru Afshar has been answered by the number 1 question: "If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: 'Only free content is allowed.' This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:49, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Shkuru Afshar (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: Consider it from the point of view of the person who is asked. Wikimedian: "Hey, can we have permission to use your images on Wikipedia?" Person who answers email (PWAE): "Sounds good. Let me check with my boss." … later … "My boss says that would be fine, as long as it isn't used commercially." Wikimedian then checks what is needed, has to get back to them: "Actually, we can't do that. We need a specific license (like CC-BY 4.0) that allows commercial use and derivative works." PWAE: "Huh, let me see if my boss would agree to that." … later … "My boss says he guesses that's OK. Sure, you can upload them with CC-BY 4.0." Wikimedian then checks what is needed, has to get back to them: "Well, actually, just emailing that to me doesn't count as permission. What we need you to do is either to put that license on your site, or your public-facing social media, or you can go through this VRT thing…" So PWAE has to go to their boss a third time, and the boss is a lot more likely to say "F--k it" than if they had been asked the right questions in the first place. And even worse if the original Wikimedian drops it at some point in this process, and someone else goes through something like this with them again. - Jmabel ! talk 19:29, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah i was wondering how the well is poisoned Trade (talk) 18:28, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: was that addressed to me? - Jmabel ! talk 18:26, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- How so Trade (talk) 16:46, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: may I strongly suggest that you take at least a few hours to seriously familiarize yourself with what permissions are needed to get images onto Commons before going out and seeking permissions on Commons behalf? When you ask the "wrong" question in seeking permissions, it sort of "poisons the well" for anyone (including yourself) who then goes to ask the same party the right question(s). - Jmabel ! talk 15:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
UI of Special:UncategorizedCategories has just changed, and in my opinion not for the better. Typeface is larger so less information on screen at once; hovering no longer tells you anything about whether the category has members (just repeats the obvious link, in a popup). I might have been willing to trade off the prior hover behavior for getting red links for categories that are already deleted, but we don't get that, worst of both worlds. [This seems to have been a temporary glitch. Weird. - Jmabel ! talk 20:51, 9 August 2024 (UTC)]
Also, the report is now 34 days old, which is an awfully long time between reports on something where certainly hundreds of the 1500 or so categories listed have already been dealt with. Makes it hard to spot which ones still have work to be done.
Does anyone know what is going on here, and whether there was a reason for these changes, or the now infrequent running of the report? - Jmabel ! talk 19:39, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Phab:T369024 it was changed to once a month. However i think part of the change was missing so it might have accidentally been changed to never (its been a long time since i have looked at the system, so i might be mistaken about that and maybe the cron job is just no longer needed or something) Bawolff (talk) 22:23, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- If this is used regularly to take care of these categories, I think it should run daily or at least every other day.
- Maybe @Marostegui can explain why he had it deactivated how he plans to replace it.
- I don't think there was a community consultation as we had at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Request:_delete_"Pages_where_lack_of_wikilinks_indicates_a_problem" for pointless special pages (at Commons). Enhancing999 (talk) 09:56, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Performance concerns are not something the community generally gets a say in. Keeping the site running in a healthy matter trumps individual Special pages. The special pages get more costly to run the larger the site gets. Enwiki already has a bunch of these on a delayed schedule, commons just got big enough that it has now become neccesary to switch some of them to once a month. Price of being big. Bawolff (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think it was live before either. There is a big difference between something running daily and monthly.
- Well, it's a substantial change to the site. One would expect that this is communicated, properly assessed and then a decision is made.
- A query running for 6 minutes seems rather trivial and cheap, at least on a WMF site beyond the early days. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:43, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was updated every 6 or 7 days before, which isn't that long between updates but running it four times a month instead of once really couldn't have been that costly. Once a month is kind of worthless regardless though. There should really be a middle ground between not running something like this to much while also not making the time between updates so long that it's unhelpful to doing the task. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was every 3 days previously. I'm not sure where Enhancing999 got 6 minutes from, the query is a lot longer than that according to the phab task. Potentially devs might be open to some compromise (e.g. twice a month) if this is really causing problems, i don't know how they would feel about it but it never hurts to ask. In regards to Jmabel's concern about it being hard to see what has already been done, it would probably be pretty easy to strike out entries that dont fit the criteria the same way some other special pages do. Bawolff (talk) 11:57, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- It was three days previously. I use it extensively. I've probably fixed several thousand of these in the last 12 months. When the data is over a month out of date, it makes the task much more difficult. Early this year we had this down to 100 or so files. It has now swelled back to over 1500. - Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it was updated every 6 or 7 days before, which isn't that long between updates but running it four times a month instead of once really couldn't have been that costly. Once a month is kind of worthless regardless though. There should really be a middle ground between not running something like this to much while also not making the time between updates so long that it's unhelpful to doing the task. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:49, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Performance concerns are not something the community generally gets a say in. Keeping the site running in a healthy matter trumps individual Special pages. The special pages get more costly to run the larger the site gets. Enwiki already has a bunch of these on a delayed schedule, commons just got big enough that it has now become neccesary to switch some of them to once a month. Price of being big. Bawolff (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Dating Monaco postcard
This is certainly not own work, but a scanned old postcard. The railway line was electrified in 1969, but there are other clues. The uploader mentions that this is the 'first' church implying that there is a later church. Unfortunatly there is no French article on the 'Couvent des Carmes' in Monaco.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:09, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found out that the second building was openend in 2002, so this gives no dating clue (fr:Église Sainte-Thérèse de Monaco).Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- 20th century for the photography? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Per the same article, construction of the original church (which is the one we see here I guess) was finished in 1913. --Rosenzweig τ 11:25, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I were to guess the postcard was probably published in the twenties or thirties. Publishers didn't really publish sepia postcards of that quality before then and they were pretty much phased out by the 40s in favor of black and white RPPCs. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- When has the green space build over? Space is very precious in Monaco. The entire railway was put underground to gain some space.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Should COM:CSD#G4 include files that has been tagged with {{No permission since}}, deleted after 7 days, and then reuploaded without any permission? Or how to handle such files, such as File:Lawrence Alegwu Ega.jpg? To give it further 7 days feels weird. Jonteemil (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jonteemil: Admins regularly patrol Category:Media missing permission and children, deleting when necessary (presumably under F5). What makes you think pages tagged for speedy deletion under F5 get "further 7 days"? That file already had 7 days. I warned the uploader to stop uploading it. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:41, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, let me rephrase. Are files that have been deleted in lack of permission eligible for speedy deletion once they are reuploaded? And if so, under what CSD parameter? Or, alternatively, should they just be retagged with {{No permission since}}? Jonteemil (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, there is no need to tag them with "No permission". Please tag them as G4, and they will be speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then COM:CSD#G4 needs to be rephrased. As it is phrased atm it seems it only encompasses files that have been deleted after a DR, not after a PROD (no permission/license/source since), or maybe it's just me who interprets it like so. Jonteemil (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Your interpretation is correct, IMO. As noted by Jeff G., the deletion can be with F5. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- G4 doesn't apply by its terms, IMO. If we think these should be deleted, I think COM:CSD#F5 is a better way to do it than G4. (Indeed, looking again at F5, it might actually not need any changes: "may be given a grace period" does not mean "must", and it was already given one...) —Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then I'll use F5 for these files in the future. Thanks. Jonteemil (talk) 19:06, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, then COM:CSD#G4 needs to be rephrased. As it is phrased atm it seems it only encompasses files that have been deleted after a DR, not after a PROD (no permission/license/source since), or maybe it's just me who interprets it like so. Jonteemil (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- No, there is no need to tag them with "No permission". Please tag them as G4, and they will be speedy deleted. Yann (talk) 16:52, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Okay, let me rephrase. Are files that have been deleted in lack of permission eligible for speedy deletion once they are reuploaded? And if so, under what CSD parameter? Or, alternatively, should they just be retagged with {{No permission since}}? Jonteemil (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Any idea what should be in there? It looks like almost everything "needs updating". Shouldn't that be the exception? Enhancing999 (talk) 15:18, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- You put files in there that track statistical trends and are meant to be used in general Wikipedia articles (vs. articles covering a specific moment in time). A cursory glance tells me lots of files in that category don't belong there, though, like maps tracking hurricane paths that took place years ago. ReneeWrites (talk) 17:28, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think a substantial part of the problem is the {{Hurricane season auto track map}} template, which automatically adds {{current}} to the file page by default. Omphalographer (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- I updated the template to limit it to the current year, but that may just be a small part.
- Another 101,591 are Australian timeseries with User:99of9/ABS-graph or similar (which seem reasonable). [2] Enhancing999 (talk) 13:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- I made a subcategory for the Australian stuff and cleared out some of the hurricane maps. Updating still takes some time, but the content seems much more reasonable now. Thanks for your input. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- The bulk of the Australian ones are now in a subcategory. To look at files after the remaining ones, use filefrom=ABS1.
- [[:Category:Files that need updating (drugs)|Drugstats] seems to be another group (ca. 1000 files). Then COVID-19 (maybe this could be removed entirely).
- I fixed a few random ones and listed File:2016 DNC Primary Map.png for deletion. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:38, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be useful to create a new subcategory for "files which should be kept updated as the facts change" (provisional name)? An example would be File:Metrication by year map.svg - it's possible that one of the three remaining countries will go metric, requiring an update to the map, but the map doesn't "need updating" other than that. There's a lot of other files, particularly maps, which are in a similar position. Omphalographer (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Omphalographer: how is this different from using {{Current}}? Or do you want an particular value there for "interval" to have a side effect? - Jmabel ! talk 23:12, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe by using {{current|interval=on change}} after creating Category:Files_that_need_updating on change, even if "on change" isn't an actual interval? Enhancing999 (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Would it be useful to create a new subcategory for "files which should be kept updated as the facts change" (provisional name)? An example would be File:Metrication by year map.svg - it's possible that one of the three remaining countries will go metric, requiring an update to the map, but the map doesn't "need updating" other than that. There's a lot of other files, particularly maps, which are in a similar position. Omphalographer (talk) 20:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think a substantial part of the problem is the {{Hurricane season auto track map}} template, which automatically adds {{current}} to the file page by default. Omphalographer (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Documentation of Template:Current
I notice that the parameters that are defined in Template:Current/doc fail to show up in the resulting documentation and that parameter "subset" is undocumented. Normally I'd try to fix the latter, but the former tells me things are broken here and this should be taken on by someone more experienced with wiki templating than I am. Jmabel ! talk 23:22, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noticed that too. I had tried, but couldn't figure it out so I added the list of parameters and two samples (interval and subset). Easiest might be to edit templatedata. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Bangladesh files in West Bengal
While categorizing the files related to Category:Bangladesh and Category:West Bengal, I found that Beauty of my second home.jpg was categorized under WB. Upon closer inspection, I found that the college ("second home") is in Rajshahi, Bangladesh. I had also seen some Bangladesh files in WB categories before, and I had moved them to appropriate Bangladesh categories. So why do Bangladesh files get categorized under WB categories? Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:33, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Why are you asking this here instead of on the user talk page of the person who added the category? Enhancing999 (talk) 12:38, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you. I'm asking the user instead. I have posted it here since this is a recurring phenomenon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's hard to give a general answer with just a single file. Possibly it's something similar that happens at Germany: anything in German might end up there. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oh, thank you. I'm asking the user instead. I have posted it here since this is a recurring phenomenon. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's worth to note that Bangladesh was known as East Bengal from 1947 until 1955, when it was renamed East Pakistan, and then in 1971 (year of independence) to Bangladesh. Perhaps this may have some connection to it. MGeog2022 (talk) 11:23, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, the British-era province of Bengal was split into West Bengal and East Bengal in 1947. According to my analysis, the main reason of such miscategorization is probably the fact that the Bengali language is used in both Bangladesh and West Bengal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:45, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
E.R.C. acronym
At File:Walter Lindsey Avery (1892-1978) biography in History of Ohio State University.png from 1918 I have been able to expand all the acronyms except "E.R.C.", can anyone work out what it meant in 1918? Most of the acronyms were military jargon from WWI. --RAN (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- I know nothing about military history but could it make sense for the acronym to refer to Enlisted Reserve Corps (which I guess is a term of art of some sort)? --Geohakkeri (talk) 21:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! I think you got it, it makes sense. I'll add it and if someone finds something more fitting, we can change it. --RAN (talk) 00:02, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Good news: Cat-a-lot works again like a charm!
For who likes to work with Cat-a-lot: since the beginning of this year there were problems. But now it works well again, also for moving/copying subcategories that have subcategories themselves. (See MediaWiki_talk:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js#Problems_categorizing_category_pages for more information.) I now can start to clean up my list with postpones jobs because of this problem. JopkeB (talk) 03:37, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is extremely useful for category maintainers like me. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs • uploads) 12:29, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's nice to see something on here get fixed for once lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
- It does. Awesome. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Template documentation
Parameters are not being correctly displayed on template pages using the {{Documentation}} template (in turn using the {{TemplateBox}} template). This means all templates are showing just "The template takes no parameters." under the Usage section, instead of the table showing the parameters (see {{TemplateBox}} itself for this, as this template has several parameters). I have had multiple users ask about how to use templates I've worked on, due to this missing information. Does anyone know what is going on with this? Josh (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: Special:Diff/907688459 --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:21, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Geohakkeri and Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for reporting and diagnosing this. I reverted my edit. I do not like Module:Languages's autolang function as it is using different language fallback rules than most of the other pages on Commons, but I do not have time at the moment to debug it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt Thanks for tackling this. Hopefully we can still fix the language issue downstream. Josh (talk) 18:41, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Geohakkeri and Joshbaumgartner: Thank you for reporting and diagnosing this. I reverted my edit. I do not like Module:Languages's autolang function as it is using different language fallback rules than most of the other pages on Commons, but I do not have time at the moment to debug it. --Jarekt (talk) 15:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Resolving Potential Copyright, Educational Value, and Scope Problems with Media for a Wikibooks Project
Hi there,
I've been building a project for a month on Wikibooks that introduces high school leveled physics explained through a video game. To explain, I have been uploading media from the multiplayer physics browser game Bonk.io to explain real world physical concepts. On Bonk.io, users can publicly create user-generated content, called "maps." This allows for other players to play and modify each other's works freely within the game via a database structure, called the "level select."
Wikibooks Project Link: https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Physics_Explained_Through_a_Video_Game
Copyright Concerns
As recently brought to my attention by @Adamant1 (on my talk page), Bonk.io does not currently have a copyright policy for maps. As such, regardless of the fact that the physics engine of the game, BOX2D is freely licensed via a MIT License, many of my uploads for the project potentially violate Wikimedia's copyright policy. With this understanding, I have immediately contacted the developer of the game to see if user-generated content can explicitly be released under the public domain.
With much of the media that I have uploaded for this project, they are partially derived from user-generated content on Bonk.io that was created by another user. Because of the lack of a formal licensing policy for maps, I have notified the other users of whom I had used maps for their permission for others to modify and use their work freely. At this time, I have had confirmation on Discord (messaging website) from several users, comprising the majority of the uploaded content, that they are okay with their work being in the public domain (specifically Creative Commons 0).
However, I am unsure of whether if another individual claims that their work is in the public domain, provided that the database lacks a formal copyright policy, that this is acceptable under Wikimedia's copyright policy as freely licensed content. Secondly, I am unsure of how these individuals can be independently verified by others on Wikimedia such that it is clear that the original publisher of the map on the Bonk.io database has claimed that their work is in the public domain. As such, this alternative method may be problematic.
To note, my goal is to reach a resolution with the existing copyright concerns that exist with my uploads. Ideally, I want to resolve this problem such that my project on Wikibooks remains functional and can grow, even if such a resolution will be time-extensive on my part.
Educational Value Concerns
In addition, I was informed that my existing project may fail to meet the educational value requirement for uploaded media on articles. This is because of concerns on how well the a video game engine can model real world physics and whether it can be realistically used as an educational resource.
To note, I strongly feel that my uploaded media does adequately function as an educational resource for explaining topics in elementary mechanical physics. However, I acknowledge there are limitations of the Bonk.io game and the BOX2D physics engine, including that:
- The content is displayed in a two-dimensional environment.
- Shapes in user-created maps are only solidly colored.
- Automatic lightning and shading is unavailable.
- A limited number of physical concepts are presentable. For example, fluids cannot exist in the game.
As such, this may make the uploaded media as a lower quality resource for general usage on Wikimedia, especially compared to media that exists from more powerful physics simulators, such as Unity or Algodoo. However, it does not impair the ability to use this resource for explaining elementary mechanical physics, in my opinion. This is particularly the case if high quality maps that are specifically designed to model real world situations are used.
Scope Concerns
Finally, I understand that there presently is not a clear policy on Wikibooks on whether video game content can be used to discuss real-world concepts. To note, content that wholly concerns video games, specifically strategy guides, were approved by a consensus on Wikibooks back in 2021.
To my understanding, there has not yet been a discussion on whether video game content can be used to talk about real-world concepts on Wikibooks. Also, I am unaware about any other projects on Wikibooks that have or had existed specifically in this topic area. If needed, I would be more than willing to encourage community discussion on Wikibooks to decide if my project, in regards to its topic, is appropriate on the site.
Questions
- Would the approval of the developer of Bonk.io that uploaded content is under the public domain resolve copyright concerns for using any uploaded media on the database?
- Would approval from individual players that their maps are under the public domain alternatively resolve these concerns?
- If "yes" to Question 2, how can this be done to assure the authenticity of each of these players such that others on Wikimedia Commons can independently verify this?
- Does the current state of some or all of my uploads for the above-mentioned project fall under "Low-quality content that does not add value beyond our existing coverage of the same topic" on Wikimedia Commons, thereby not being realistically useful for an educational purpose?
- Should there be a community discussion on Wikibooks concerning whether my project's topic is appropriate for Wikibooks?
TheMonkeyEatsBananas (talk) 18:09, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- @TheMonkeyEatsBananas: where you say users have released their content to the public domain on Discord (which I don't use): is that public-facing, and if so can their comments be referenced via a URL? If so, you can cite that in the permission section of the {{Information}} template or other similar template. - Jmabel ! talk 02:39, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would be kind of pointless if content from Bonk.io can't be used in this way to begin with. That would probably be the best way to deal with it if or when the developer ever gets backs to the TheMonkeyEatsBananas and says content from the game is PD or whatever though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have already acknowledged to you that it was a misunderstanding of mine that Bonk.io is inherently public domain content. I had made this assumption because its physics engine is under an MIT license. Also, because I have been building this project with others in the Bonk.io community, I uploaded the files in the public domain because I was in regular communication and discussion with each of these users about the project and my intention concerning it.
- Beforehand, I was merely asking for their approval to use their work and/or modify it. I now understand that this is not enough for declaring another person's work under a CC0 - Public Domain license. As such, after you mentioned your concerns to me yesterday, I have contacted all of these users individually to confirm that they are okay with having their work specifically be under a CC0 license.
- With @Jmabel's recommendation, I will provide a citation in the permission section of each file. This will provide a public link such that members of Wikimedia can access and independently verify that each of these players have released their work under a CC0 license. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your response. The messages on Discord are public facing and linkable. However, this would require for users to have a Discord account to be able to independently verify. I can include the Information template that you've mentioned and include it on each of the files. TheMonkeyEatsBananas (talk) 03:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a common issue but that's not really how it works with derivatives. The game itself needs to be PD for us to host images or video of content from it. Either that or we need explicit permission to do so from the developer. Its not enough to simply get permission from whomever posted the original images on Discord. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- To note, I don't experience with copyright law. As such, I do want to know more about whether the game necessarily needs to be in the Public Domain for any user-generated work to be freely licensed. Could you elaborate on how a person may lose their intellectual property rights if the service they created their user-generated content on lacked any written or implied claim for their work? If they do keep their intellectual property rights, does this instead violate Wikimedia's policy for file uploading?
- To clarify, these are not the people who have posted images of other people's work on Discord. They are the people who have created the user-generated content themselves. Then, these people are confirming that they are publishing this content under a CC0 license (proposed process provided below).
- Proposed independent confirmation process:
- Every user whose work is in the project confirms on a public Discord server (https://discord.gg/QKrdE45y6h), accessible for anyone with the link and a free Discord account.
- Their confirmation includes:
- A list of their Bonk.io accounts.
- The statement (directly adapted from the CC0 Commons Deed): "I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the following license: This media is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication. The person who associated a work with this deed has dedicated the work to the public domain by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law. You can copy, modify, distribute and perform the work, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission."
- Videos of the player visibly logged in on each account that they own. All videos include them creating a custom game room and manually scrolling through all of their personally published material on Bonk.io.
- TheMonkeyEatsBananas (talk) 06:29, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Videos of the player visibly logged in on each account that they own. See, that's the issue right there. Just because they log into the game as a player doesn't mean they can post images of it here on Commons, let alone that you can, even if those images are released by them or you under a free license. Please read Commons:Screenshots. I'll cite the relevant part of it for you in the next paragraph.
- It's a common issue but that's not really how it works with derivatives. The game itself needs to be PD for us to host images or video of content from it. Either that or we need explicit permission to do so from the developer. Its not enough to simply get permission from whomever posted the original images on Discord. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- It would be kind of pointless if content from Bonk.io can't be used in this way to begin with. That would probably be the best way to deal with it if or when the developer ever gets backs to the TheMonkeyEatsBananas and says content from the game is PD or whatever though. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "if you do not own the copyright to a piece of software, you may publish a screenshot under a free license only if all the content shown itself has a free license. If a screenshot contains icons or content that is non-free, it is normally also not free...If all content shown is in the public domain, then the screenshot is also, because there is no creative contribution added when creating a screenshot. This may not be true in all jurisdictions, but holds at least in the U.S.....If the copyright holder(s) (usually the programmers, software company, producer, or broadcaster) do not agree to publish the program under a free license, then screenshots are normally only free if they explicitly license the screenshot (or all screenshots) under a free license."
- Another relevant guideline you could read through is Commons:Derivative works. Although I think Commons:Screenshots and what I quoted from it is the most important thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I understand your concerns with my uploaded contributions. As I've stated when we began discussing a few days ago, you and anyone else have my support with requesting a mass deletion discussion if you feel that it is needed.
- However, I still want to be able to continue my project either on a Wikimedia project or on another community. What options would I have if a consensus is meant where some or all of the media for my project does not follow a freely licensed policy? TheMonkeyEatsBananas (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could look for actually freely licensed media that illustrates the same concepts as are in the files that get deleted if any do. That's really your only option. I haven't looked into it but it shouldn't be that hard if your just trying to illustrate basic ideas. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another relevant guideline you could read through is Commons:Derivative works. Although I think Commons:Screenshots and what I quoted from it is the most important thing here. --Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Should galleries use the translate extension?
I think it would be useful for galleries to use the translate extension, as otherwise translators would have to manually edit all the mld tags first. It would also allow for translation of the page title. Thoughts? —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 10:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Message in AutoWikiBrowser - "doesn’t have enough privileges"
I have been using AutoWikiBrowser for years in Portuguese wikipedia an Commons, but today I was not enable to use it. Message said "This user doesn’t have enough privileges to make automatic edits on this wiki" . What's wrong?
- Sorry, I updated AWB and now everything is working fine — Preceding unsigned comment added by JotaCartas (talk • contribs) 22:37, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Trying to read a signature
File:Helix, v.4, no.10, Oct. 10, 1968 - DPLA - c0c34376a3f9eab625c173e036b6238c (page 20).jpg, signature at lower right. First initial is clearly "M", but that's about all I can be really confident about. - Jmabel ! talk — Preceding undated comment was added at 23:02, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Lenon or Zenon? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 01:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- M. Torson?
- Glrx (talk) 02:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, Glrx, I'm sure you are correct. - Jmabel ! talk 04:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Flickrreviewer bot
FlickreviewR 2 (talk · contribs) seems "sleepy" today? It only reviewed imports yesterday; now, Category:Flickr review needed is experiencing some backlog (1K+ imports pending for review). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I believe it stalled and was eventually restarted. - Jmabel ! talk
- @Jmabel: good thing it's now kicking up again. Thanks for your response. Now tagging this section for archival. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
One‑off Creative Commons license on East Side Gallery photograph
The East Side Gallery is located in Berlin. And I am currently contributing to a project that includes one of the graffiti artworks and will be talking to the artist in due course. I recently took a photograph of their artwork and am happy to license it CC‑BY‑4.0 or similar and/or assign copyright to another party. But my photograph is merely a record of that artwork, albeit with the perspective tweaked, barrel distortion removed, and other similar edits. The underlying artwork would remain copyright of the artist. So here is my question.
Should I approach the artist, offer to transfer my copyright in the photograph to them, and then get them to issue that one photograph under CC‑BY‑SA‑4.0 for just that one photograph. That is why I headed my inquiry "one‑off Creative Commons license".
Is this suggestion legally feasible? Or would this one‑time license just leak to all subsequent photographs by all others? (And the East Side Gallery is widely photographed by tourists.) The German copyright act would apply I guess? The artist in question is resident in New Zealand, but I doubt if that is material?
Would be nice to have more visual reference material on Wikipedia. TIA, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:13, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- Isn't the East Side Gallery a public space, outdoors, in Germany? If so, I'm pretty sure German laws on Freedom of Panorama would mean you don't even need the artist's permission.
- Questions about copyright are usually better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 02:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Many thanks as always! I know a couple of copyright lawyers in Germany and may take this question up with them. Regarding the subcategory for copyright, I did not realize the little hints on the tab at the top of this page were actually hyperlinks. Sorry. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Academic publication Shtefan (2024) looks current and useful: doi.org/10.2924/EJLS.2024.012. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noting also Wikimedia policy: Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- And some dedicated case law: Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 apparently protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- More here at footnote 79. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- And to point out that the East Side Gallery is under heritage protection (or Denkmalschutz) for some time. The reason I mention this is that the 2017 judgement seems to be related to an absence of permanence (but I am looking into this question further). RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Here is an example ("Mauerspringer") that claims a permitted use under article §59 of the German copyright law. I would not bet on that being a correct assessment. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I will have an opportunity to talk to Gabriel Heimler (see thumbnail image) in the coming weeks. So I need an answer to my original question and will therefore migrate to the copyright track to seek help there. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- And to point out that the East Side Gallery is under heritage protection (or Denkmalschutz) for some time. The reason I mention this is that the 2017 judgement seems to be related to an absence of permanence (but I am looking into this question further). RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 15:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- More here at footnote 79. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:18, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- And some dedicated case law: Bundesgerichtshof 19 January 2017, case I ZR 242/15 East Side Gallery, (2017) 119 GRUR 390 apparently protected work of art on a remaining section of the Berlin Wall. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 07:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Noting also Wikimedia policy: Commons:Freedom of panorama/Europe. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:26, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Academic publication Shtefan (2024) looks current and useful: doi.org/10.2924/EJLS.2024.012. Best, RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 06:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: Many thanks as always! I know a couple of copyright lawyers in Germany and may take this question up with them. Regarding the subcategory for copyright, I did not realize the little hints on the tab at the top of this page were actually hyperlinks. Sorry. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Fatal errors when editing
I keep getting a "fatal exception of type Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBUnexpectedError" error every time I do an edit. Anyone else having the same problem or know what's causing it? Adamant1 (talk) 08:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Test edit (and had some recent edits, too). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:52, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I was unable to access my Watchlist just now and it gave the same error (copy-pasted below), but now it works again. Seems to be something that happens occasionally with any action you take on Commons? Something's definitely up though.
- Internal error
- [716936fc-0c27-4546-840e-29aa0d19f0f9] 2024-08-12 08:52:09: Fatal exception of type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBUnexpectedError" ReneeWrites (talk) 08:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- I keep getting errors today too. It took me forever to load this message. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Problem renaming file
Hello, I am trying to rename this file (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dhhshd2bidb3.jpg) to: Photograph of Gurdwara Fatehgarh Sahib, by Dhanna Singh Chahal 'Patialvi', ca.1920's–30's
But it says that title is blacklisted and invalid? I checked and it should not be (no unsupported characters) so I tried just "Photograph of Gurdwara Fatehgarh Sahib, by Dhanna Singh Chahal 'Patialvi' " and it said that name is blacklisted too. I do not know why it is not letting me rename this file. Any fix? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaplesyrupSushi (talk • contribs) 00:53, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MaplesyrupSushi: Hi, and welcome. I was able to rename it for you to File:Photograph of Gurdwara Fatehgarh Sahib, by Dhanna Singh Chahal 'Patialvi', ca.1920's–30's.jpg. Please sign your posts. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:22, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G. Thank you! MaplesyrupSushi (talk) MaplesyrupSushi (talk) 03:05, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Cat-a-lot failure
There is some problem with Cat-a-lot. It was working normally until a few hours ago. However, the control interface stopped appearing on the pages and the tool is thus unusable. --ŠJů (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @ŠJů: It is showing up for me. Did you change something today? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:51, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Now it is showing for me as well. The outage lasted at least half an hour. --ŠJů (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Had that problem too for a while. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Seems there was some issue that needed an emergency patch: [3]. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: Now it is showing for me as well. The outage lasted at least half an hour. --ŠJů (talk) 23:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
People taking pictures
Are there categories for people just taking pictures? Photografers categories only seem to have only professional photografers.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Category:People photographing or Category:People with cameras. --Geohakkeri (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's Category:People photographing whose description is inclusive of amateurs and professionals alike. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:45, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also Category:People holding cameras and similar categories. It's not really clear to me what the difference between that and Category:People photographing or Category:People with cameras is though. Let alone which category would be better in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "People with cameras" sounds like they are only holding a camera or one around the neck. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. What is the difference between that and Category:People holding cameras? --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Category:People holding cameras sounds like a subcat of Category:People with cameras to me --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:People with cameras can also mean people with cameras on tripod etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good call. I made Category:People holding cameras a subcat of Category:People with cameras. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:43, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe Category:People with cameras can also mean people with cameras on tripod etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:13, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Category:People holding cameras sounds like a subcat of Category:People with cameras to me --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- With mobile phones it is often not clear what people are doing, but in this case it clearly photographing. There are other functions than camera. Thanks anyway, I have recategorised to Men taking photographs in Japan.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:12, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed. What is the difference between that and Category:People holding cameras? --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:57, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- "People with cameras" sounds like they are only holding a camera or one around the neck. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's also Category:People holding cameras and similar categories. It's not really clear to me what the difference between that and Category:People photographing or Category:People with cameras is though. Let alone which category would be better in this case. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:47, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
And what about photos with shadows which clearly depict the photographer holding the device they're using to take the photo? Since category creep is such an unhinged free-for-all around here, why not? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:41, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Category:Shadow of the photographer. One’s «unhinged free-for-all» is another’s accurate and useful curation. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:13, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Hebrew language help needed
Pls check and correct this autotranslated cleanup warning: Template:DistortedAspectRatio/he. Besides the bad grammar, there are two words that should be bold, but I didn’t know exactly which. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe these two categories deal with the same game. fr:Jeu de l'assiette quotes a source from the 17th century, putting it in a similar timeframe to Belltafel = de:Pielkentafel. In England the game was called shovel board (related to but different from shuffleboard). Can the two categories be merged? Should they be kept separate, but both be put into (new) category:shovelboard that collects the cultural/regional variants? --Jonas kork (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'd keep both categories, but would categorize them under Category:Table shuffleboard. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds good, done! Thanks for the suggestion! --Jonas kork (talk) 07:39, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Username renaming
Current Username: BeastyJaguarCupcake40
Requested New Username: TheCoolPinata22
Reason for Change: I would like to change my username to TheCoolPinata22 for personal preference reasons. The new username aligns better with my online identity and interests.
Please let me know if any additional information is required.
- You have to make a request at m:Steward requests/Username changes. GPSLeo (talk) 16:04, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Simple global rename requests belong to m:Special:GlobalRenameRequest. "personal preference reasons" are OK. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, SRUC is also a valid venue. If your rename request is simple, you have two options… --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:29, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Origin of locations in infoboxes
Does anyone know where the infoboxes get their information for the location of a place from? As an example, Category:Ranský rybník has an infobox that says it's located in "Czechia." Although looking at everything related to it the country seems to be called "the Czech Republic." Even on Wikidata's end. So it's not clear to me where exactly "Czechia" is coming from in the infobox. Any ideas? Adamant1 (talk) 10:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: From Wikidata, via Template:Wikidata Infobox. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the question is why it says "Czechia" when the wikidata item has "Czech Republic" set. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Mike Peel. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- The Czech Republic has requested a name change and it's new name is Czechia à la Peking -> Beijing. It looks like only Commons is respecting the request while Wikidata is still stuck in the past. https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/why-the-czech-republic-will-change-its-name-to-czechia/C6QAGLXEEVATVD2MGPWJPFIOVA/ Nakonana (talk) 21:07, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think the question is why it says "Czechia" when the wikidata item has "Czech Republic" set. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:30, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- My guess is that it uses Module:WikidataIB for printing location string which uses short name (P1813) if it is defined for the language. --Zache (talk) 11:15, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Indeed short name (P1813) on Czech Republic (Q213) seems to be the big villain. Also maybe involved located in the administrative territorial entity (P131). Taylor 49 (talk) 20:24, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Semi-protection on the Village Pump?
I see that the Village Pump is now semi-protected, which strikes me as quite inappropriate. Yes, vandalism is a pain, but this is the Village Pump, where users, including new users and IPs, should be able to come to start or participate in a discussion.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: I think you are right about this. @A.Savin: Please reconsider. Per this log entry 13:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC), you changed protection to "Edit=Allow only autoconfirmed users" for six months. If vandalism here is such a problem, then we just need more Admins to patrol it. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:33, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I recall that I had the bad idea to revert vandalism here myself .. rather than wait for an admin to do so and apply semi-protection. Agree that it could have been done for a shorter period, but most newbie questions are better on Help Desk. Maybe we should just add a notice for that. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Some header tweaking may do the job. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even call it "vandalism" here. This is not an article, but a talk page: there is nothing to vandalize. Inappropriate comments that are out of place should be removed, but they are written in his/her own name by the person who writes them: there is no visible wrong information. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diff. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly, sorry: I wrote too quickly. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps new or unregistered users could be restricted to adding comments and editing their own comments, if that's possible. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it possible to add page protection so only logged-in users can edit, even if the account is new? This seems like the most reasonable course of action to me as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- That sounds reasonable :) MedivalNerd (talk) 20:45, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Is it possible to add page protection so only logged-in users can edit, even if the account is new? This seems like the most reasonable course of action to me as well. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Perhaps new or unregistered users could be restricted to adding comments and editing their own comments, if that's possible. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:27, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Certainly, sorry: I wrote too quickly. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Diff. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wouldn't even call it "vandalism" here. This is not an article, but a talk page: there is nothing to vandalize. Inappropriate comments that are out of place should be removed, but they are written in his/her own name by the person who writes them: there is no visible wrong information. MGeog2022 (talk) 14:07, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Some header tweaking may do the job. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:54, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I recall that I had the bad idea to revert vandalism here myself .. rather than wait for an admin to do so and apply semi-protection. Agree that it could have been done for a shorter period, but most newbie questions are better on Help Desk. Maybe we should just add a notice for that. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- This is the new normal, instead of doing their job they'll just ban everybody from editing, like they did with overwriting files. Yilku1 (talk) 18:51, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
- Can we have it back? Non admins are now revert warring with Ips Enhancing999 (talk) 07:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Done I semi-protected it again, as per [4]. Yann (talk) 07:55, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Discussion about Template:Keep local on enwiki
Hello, just a notice that I have started a discussion to prevent use of "Keep local" template for files which are not fully or partly own work. You are welcome to join in. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 06:36, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploads stopped working
I've tried repeatedly to upload a pic, it sits doing nothing for ages, then throws up this error message:
Request from 82.41.2.30 via cp3069 cp3069, Varnish XID 90145027 Error: 503, Backend fetch failed at Tue, 13 Aug 2024 21:11:42 GMT
Uploads were working fine earlier this evening, it is just in the last half hour or so. Thanks for any insight! - MPF (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Working now! - MPF (talk) 22:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Apparently there was some kind of hamster strike at the WMF servers. I also got messages that because of high database load I couldn't see the edits of the last 720 seconds or so on my watch list. --Rosenzweig τ 22:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Hope the hamsters are being offered better pay now! - MPF (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @MPF: The hamster beatings will continue until morale improves. :) Seriously, though, I got a similar error message and reported it via phab:T372473. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks! Hope the hamsters are being offered better pay now! - MPF (talk) 00:10, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Upload failed repeatedly for me just now; the image is only ~500Kb. Page deletion on Wikispecies also failing. Both worked eventually, after several attempts. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:06, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- The hamster strike apparently continues. It just took me over 20 minutes to add some categories to a page. --Rosenzweig τ 14:29, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I ran into this yesterday and then again today. Whenever it's down for long enough, it means the upload jobs I'm running (which can take up to an hour) give up after several retries and I have to restart the process from scratch. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any idea why there were these problems last week? Enhancing999 (talk) 09:59, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, I ran into this yesterday and then again today. Whenever it's down for long enough, it means the upload jobs I'm running (which can take up to an hour) give up after several retries and I have to restart the process from scratch. hinnk (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
Lists of GFDL
Hello!
I have made some lists at m:User:MGA73/GFDL files/Categories of the number of files licensed GFDL on all the wikis I could locate (updated since this). The lists look like this example for Wikinews:
I would like to find out how many files that can't be moved to Commons because Commons do not accept files licensed GFDL only after 15 October 2018.
There are many wikis and many languages I do not understand. So if you speak "Foo language" you are very welcome to check "Foo wikis". If the files are licensed correctly etc. you can Export them to Commons. If you need help setting up FileImporter just let me know.
If the files are not okay or does not look usable then you can nominate them for deletion locally. --MGA73 (talk) 13:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- MGA73, I looked through n:pl:Category:GFDL and those files would be likely deleted on Commons due to {{No permission}} --Jarekt (talk) 13:53, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Jarekt! Yeah there can be other reasons than just the date. Some photos also have FOP issues. --MGA73 (talk) 17:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- The four files of pl.wikinews would probably not be deleted for that reason, or at least it's not obvious.
- "Plik:1-7326 g.jpg" was licensed with GFDL at its source. The related pl.wikinews story gives it as an example of a montage on an external website that reused a GFDL-licensed Commons image. The external reuse initially did not comply with the GFDL requirements for reuses, but that was corrected after Wikimedians contacted the website. There are archived copies of the external website where the GFDL is seen.
- "Plik:SG hack1.png" is a screen capture of a webpage of pl.wikipedia from April Fool's day in 2008, claiming to be created by hackers. it contains 2 photographs
- "Plik:Konferencja zachlebem03.jpg" says that the permission was given by the photographer. It could probably be kept per "Grandfathered old files".
- "Plik:Kupony Lotto wykorzystane przez tvn24.png" may be a more complex case. It is an example of a modified version on an external website that did not comply with the reuse requirements of a CC BY-SA 2.5 licensed Commons image. The pl.wikinews article says that the image was removed from the external website. The pl.wikinews file description page says that the external website accepted to publish the modified version under the GFDL, which is strange. There does not seem to be an archived copy of that, so that could be difficult to verify 14 years later. However, the change in the modified version looks rather non creative and it could be uncopyrightable. An argument could be made that it could be used with the CC license of the original Commons image.
- -- Asclepias (talk) 22:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Asclepias,
- n:pl:Plik:SG hack1.png my main concern was copyrights of files in the photo, but I found them to be File:Paterm as metal star.jpg and File:Mickiewicz's spider.jpg, so I transfered the file to File:Polish Wikipedia screenshot - Strona główna - 2008-04-01.png
- n:pl:Plik:Kupony Lotto wykorzystane przez tvn24.png seem to be scaled down version of File:Kupony Lotto.jpg used and screenshot on external website. I agree that "the change in the modified version looks rather non creative and it could be uncopyrightable" and I transfered it to File:Kupony Lotto wykorzystane przez tvn24.png
- n:pl:Plik:1-7326 g.jpg claims to be licensed in 2007 with GFDL at its source, but there is no VRTS ticket related to it, no link to Wayback Machine page, and no {{LicenseReview}} template
- n:pl:Plik:Konferencja zachlebem03.jpg says that the permission was given in 2005 by the photographer, now we would need VRTS ticket.
- Those last 2 files likely comply with standards at a time of the upload, but I do not think are suitable for transfer to Commons as they do not comply with current standards. --Jarekt (talk) 02:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asclepias@Jarekt@MGA73 one image at English Wikinews licensed as such may need to stay there. It is their local copy of File:14-02-04-Parlement-européen-Strasbourg-RalfR-046.jpg, one of the infamous buildings of France that does not allow commercial FoP and is one of ADAGP's prized architectural possessions vs. inclusion in Wikipedias. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:35, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Asclepias,
- The four files of pl.wikinews would probably not be deleted for that reason, or at least it's not obvious.
- "Plik:1-7326 g.jpg": We cannot require that a file have a Commons LicenseReview template when the file is on another Wikimedia website and not on Commons. The report on pl.wikinews was done by a user who was a pl.wikipedia administrator and that is very much a good license review, and even better because it is more detailed. Also, an archived copy of the source shows the mention that the image is under the GFDL. The web.archive copy apparently did not capture the image itself, but the text leaves no doubt that it is the image in question. The explicit review on pl.wikinews is already sufficient IMHO, and the archived webpage adds more confirmation. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asclepias I guess the issue is that the process of "file transfer" is download from one site and new upload to Commons with my name as uploader. Since it is a new upload, I apply today's standards to files uploaded 15 years ago. I do not know if {{Grandfathered old file}} applies to new (re)uploads. Plenty of files I uploaded or transferred over the years got deleted and I hate wasting time on cleaning up wikicode, categorizing and sometimes adding files to other projects that eventually get deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good to know there is a template for this.
- It's a bit odd to get lectured about uploaders using systems before they existed (or were used differently): Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2024-08#File:SloopPartnership.gif_File:SloopProjectLogo.gif_(2). But then I guess the admins hadn't been around back then either. Enhancing999 (talk) 15:24, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Sometimes it's hard to tell that the pictures were imported from other wikis. There doesn't seem to be a general categorization by that.
- So the question if it may have been uploaded as "own work" gets even more complicated. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:38, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Asclepias I guess the issue is that the process of "file transfer" is download from one site and new upload to Commons with my name as uploader. Since it is a new upload, I apply today's standards to files uploaded 15 years ago. I do not know if {{Grandfathered old file}} applies to new (re)uploads. Plenty of files I uploaded or transferred over the years got deleted and I hate wasting time on cleaning up wikicode, categorizing and sometimes adding files to other projects that eventually get deleted. --Jarekt (talk) 15:13, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- "Plik:1-7326 g.jpg": We cannot require that a file have a Commons LicenseReview template when the file is on another Wikimedia website and not on Commons. The report on pl.wikinews was done by a user who was a pl.wikipedia administrator and that is very much a good license review, and even better because it is more detailed. Also, an archived copy of the source shows the mention that the image is under the GFDL. The web.archive copy apparently did not capture the image itself, but the text leaves no doubt that it is the image in question. The explicit review on pl.wikinews is already sufficient IMHO, and the archived webpage adds more confirmation. -- Asclepias (talk) 14:06, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Jarekt and Asclepias thnk you for checking. We have {{Grandfathered old file}} that should be fine for a file/permission from 2005. So unless the uploader is known to upload copyvios etc. then I do not think we should require a VRT now. If you would like to help check more files there are other pl.wikis listed at m:User:MGA73/GFDL files/Categories.
JWilz12345 also thank you for checking! And yes sadly FOP is a problem :-( --MGA73 (talk) 10:30, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploaded public transport photos - how to let people know they can use them in articles
Hello, just finished uploading of public transport photos from around the Europeː cs:Wikipedista:Penguin9/Moje fotogalerie MHD
Where I can let other Wikipedia users know they can use photos on Wikipedia articles if they find it good idea? Of course I can use photos in articles myself too.
Also, is there any quality check? If some photos will not be sufficient for Wikipedia, will I be asked to remove them to not flood Wiki with trash content?
Thank you very much on advanceǃ
--Penguin9 (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You might want to look for a WikiProject that deals with transport and engage on the talk page. For example enwiki has en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Transport and cswiki appears to have cs:Wikipedie:WikiProjekt Doprava. Local to Commons there is Commons:WikiProject Transport, but it largely seems concerned with categorization. William Graham (talk) 02:14, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- To add to the above, I think one method is to categorize them well. Then the challenge would be to make these well-findable to editors via adequate WMC search engine sorting/functioning and increased awareness and use of article's corresponding WMC cat links which even editors relatively rarely visit. Editors may for example read an article and then think of an image that may be useful illustrating it and/or think it has too few images and subsequently go to WMC to check if there is a suitable image. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I’m surprised you say that «article's corresponding WMC cat links »« even editors relatively rarely visit». In pt.wp all train station articles (and most of the others) link to the caregory here by means of pt:Template:Commonscat and I know I use it a lot to improve articles (because of course) but I also have proof that other editeors do it too, even editors with scarce or null past history of editing transport-related articles. Not saying is cannot be improved, but it’s no so bad. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not specific to public transport categories but most WMC categories have very few pageviews which was mostly what I was referring to. For example the major and important category Category:Sustainable transport, including many potentially useful illustrative or informative media, got a mere 7 pageviews the last 30 days which is so low it's hard to believe. There are probably many causes for this including:
- bad indexing by search engines like DuckDuckGo and Google (they rarely show WMC cats and do not show videos on WMC in their Videos tab or most images in their Images tab)
- no facilitation of users to explore the corresponding categories for example by enabling showing more related media for an article in the Wikipedia app or having a tile in its Explore feed for media related to current news items' articles
- the currently common practice of burying the link to the corresponding WMC category into the External links section put below, an often large, section of references that barely anyone clicks even if they scroll below the References section at all
- Prototyperspective (talk) 11:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- If an image is categorized, you could always visit the corresponding WP articles and check if it's worth adding suitable ones from the category in these articles.
- if the language uses an infobox and that one doesn't have an image, I'd try to add a suitable one.
- if the article is already illustrated, I wouldn't touch it unless the images are clearly not particularly useful and better ones are available. Sometimes an article's images reflect what was available when the article was written 15 years ago and Commons has much more to offer since.
- bear in mind that different Wikipedia versions have different standards on how to illustrate articles (and views of contributors differ as well).
- obviously: avoid adding "your" image to every to conceivable article
- it can be worth mentioning a suitable image on an article's talk page, especially if you don't know the language or aren't confortable with it.
- specifically for vehicles, some languages have lists of those: check if these can be completed.
- Maybe you want to add a copy of your user gallery at Commons as well. It's more likely to be found than at a Wikipedia. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:39, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- If an image is categorized, you could always visit the corresponding WP articles and check if it's worth adding suitable ones from the category in these articles.
- It's not specific to public transport categories but most WMC categories have very few pageviews which was mostly what I was referring to. For example the major and important category Category:Sustainable transport, including many potentially useful illustrative or informative media, got a mere 7 pageviews the last 30 days which is so low it's hard to believe. There are probably many causes for this including:
- I’m surprised you say that «article's corresponding WMC cat links »« even editors relatively rarely visit». In pt.wp all train station articles (and most of the others) link to the caregory here by means of pt:Template:Commonscat and I know I use it a lot to improve articles (because of course) but I also have proof that other editeors do it too, even editors with scarce or null past history of editing transport-related articles. Not saying is cannot be improved, but it’s no so bad. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:08, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Penguin9: I wouldn't worry about the quality issue; your pictures are very good. That said, it would be nice to have them at higher resolution. Can you do that? You can make your images more findable by adding English descriptions (some have them, but others, such as File:Ostrava, Solaris Trollino II 12 AC č. 3728 a Škoda 36Tr TEMSA č. 3744.jpg do not. Consider adding categories by date and for the camera used; as well as more descriptive categories such as "Blue trolleybuses" and "Buses at night" (Ive categorised the above image, by way of an example). You could create and apply Category:Images by Penguin9 (or use your real name if you prefer, like I do). You might also nominate some of your pics for good picture status. And, while it is correct to say you should not "add 'your' image to every to conceivable article", you can look for relevant articles with no image and add them there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:35, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Most of photos have about 4000px on bigger size, you just have to open the picture.
- About using real name - I would like to, but photos have already nick there and I do not want to edit it for every photo separately. Penguin9 (talk) 17:22, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are automated tools to make the mass edit easy if you wish to do so. See Help:VFC, for example. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- For Wikipedia, it can be more important that a picture includes one or the other feature than the general photographic qualities of the picture. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:29, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are automated tools to make the mass edit easy if you wish to do so. See Help:VFC, for example. --Geohakkeri (talk) 17:47, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Mention of overwriting cases at COM:FLICKR
COM:FLICKR currently does not have a section discussing the possibility of Flickr uploaders changing or overwriting their images on Flickr (which is permitted on the site). For example, File:Butanding Whale Shark (Donsol, Sorsogon) (794278440).jpg vs. this (which the file description points to as the source). While the CC licensing is widely-considered "irrevokable", it is better worth-mentiong the overwriting case in the policy page regarding Flickr imports. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:31, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- Even trivial edits to files there can lead to duplicate imports here. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:41, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Intentional footprints
is there a better category than Category:Shoeprints in art for these "intentionally created real or fake footprints intended to guide people"? RZuo (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- There's some similar images in Category:Signs on floors. What about creating Category:Shoeprint signs on floors? --Adamant1 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support that idea. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I like that idea too! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- I support that idea. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Showing wrong text for {{Diffusion by condition}} and {{CatDiffuse}}
At least in Dutch the wrong text is shown when {{Diffusion by condition}} and {{CatDiffuse}} is used, see for instance Category:Aba (clothing) for the first and an earlier version for the second. This category should not have no files at all, it is just that over 500 is too many. This text looks to be meant for main or "by" categories. I have no idea where I can find the text or how to solve this problem. Perhaps someone whith knowledge of templates?--JopkeB (talk) 10:10, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @JopkeB: I think you're looking for this: Template:CatDiffuse/nl ReneeWrites (talk) 14:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks ReneeWrites, that is indeed the text. And it has not been changed for 15 years and the English text is the same. So either I had other expectations of the text or something else is going on. JopkeB (talk) 15:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Cactus expert needed
At [5] (on Wikispecies), the identity of the cactus depicted in File:Oreocereus fossulatus rubrispinus 3.jpg (and by extension et seq) is disputed by User:MrtnLowr.
The category Category:Oreocereus fossulatus is linked to 'Category:Oreocereus fossulatus' (Q55275655), but the infobox on the category displays "Oreocereus pseudofossulatus".
There is also discussion at Talk:Valued image set: Oreocereus pseudofossulatus
Please can someone review all this? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Notifying Stan Shebs. -- Asclepias (talk) 12:17, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
How to delete metadata of a picture?
Hi. I can't find the procedure to delete/remove metadata of a picture.
Or should I nominate the photo for deletion and reupload it?
Cheers Shkuru Afshar (talk) 07:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: What picture? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:24, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Any
- The pictures that I took but I forgot to delete the metadata before uploading. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:02, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: You may overwrite instead. Which metadata is it important that you remove, and why? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your guidance. Because it is personal data. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :@Shkuru Afshar: You can upload a new version without metadata and then request suppression of the original upload. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Shkuru Afshar (talk) 20:20, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where should I submit this suppression request? Shkuru Afshar (talk) 20:21, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could post it here, or COM:AN, but if you want to keep it confidential and it's not more than 10 or so files, feel free to email me the list and I will take care of it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Metadata editing tool. I think it would be good to enable people to easily quickly remove metadata (at upload and afterwards). This way the problem of false metadata from making it easily possible to change metadata would not arise. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen at least a few files where the person inserted their descriptions into the metadata for some bizarre reason. We should at least be able to edit the metadata in cases like that. Otherwise it would be to easy for someone to insert add copy or other pointless garbage into into it that we can't edit later. At least IMO we should be able to edit and change everything that's uploaded here regardless though. So the idea of us not being able to edit metadata just seems antithetical to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Metadata (like that) is an integral part of the file. No matter the online tools provided, it essentially would still boil down to "download file, modify file, re upload file", just with a bit more of automation surrounding it (and a whole lot of expensive engineering required). I don't see it as a priority whatsoever. Nice to have definitely, but not critical. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:32, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I've seen at least a few files where the person inserted their descriptions into the metadata for some bizarre reason. We should at least be able to edit the metadata in cases like that. Otherwise it would be to easy for someone to insert add copy or other pointless garbage into into it that we can't edit later. At least IMO we should be able to edit and change everything that's uploaded here regardless though. So the idea of us not being able to edit metadata just seems antithetical to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- See also Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/Metadata editing tool. I think it would be good to enable people to easily quickly remove metadata (at upload and afterwards). This way the problem of false metadata from making it easily possible to change metadata would not arise. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:21, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- You could post it here, or COM:AN, but if you want to keep it confidential and it's not more than 10 or so files, feel free to email me the list and I will take care of it. - Jmabel ! talk 22:15, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- :@Shkuru Afshar: You can upload a new version without metadata and then request suppression of the original upload. - Jmabel ! talk 18:01, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you for your guidance. Because it is personal data. Shkuru Afshar (talk) 10:43, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Shkuru Afshar: You may overwrite instead. Which metadata is it important that you remove, and why? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:34, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Which Stena line ship?
Unfortunatly I did not keep the boarding tickets and I cant remember the ships name. Frederikshavn to Goteburg. I can look up the ships name when you book, but is there a website to look up the ships sailing on 12 july?Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:48, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: I don't suppose you could ask the travel agent / booking agent / ship operating company? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found the reservation with the departure time of 12:15 on my mobile phone but no mention of the ships name. The travel agent / booking agent / ship operating company has information about the the future sailings with ships names, but not the historic sailings in the past. Try to get the past shedule for July 12th on https://www.stenalinetravel.com/routes/frederikshavn-gothenburg. I suspect the Stena Danica, but no certainty as Stena Lines has many ships. https://www.stenalinetravel.com/ferries. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: Per https://www.stenalinetravel.com/routes/frederikshavn-gothenburg , Stena Lina has only three ferrys on the Frederikshavn-Gothenburg route: Stena Danica, Stena Jutlandica, and Stena Vinga. Luckily, for identification purposes, the three are very different ships, so you should be able to identify your ship by comparing to other photos of the stern area. Did you travel by foot / did the ship accept foot passengers? If yes, then it can't be the Stena Vinga, as per the Stena information page, it is "only for passengers traveling by vehicle". So you would be left with either the Stena Danica or Stena Jutlandica. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I extrapolate this to 12 July 12:15 I get Stena Danica Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- (note that the schedule currently goes back to Jul 21) Ymblanter (talk) 09:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- If I extrapolate this to 12 July 12:15 I get Stena Danica Ymblanter (talk) 09:01, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- After some inspection, I think you're right that it must be the Stena Danica. This is the stern of the Stena Jutlandica - completely different. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- It could not be Stena Jutlandica as I took this picture of this ship going in the other direction. Theoreticaly it could be stil another ship before jul 21, but it is unlikely they would change the ships used for the ferry line. (they only use two ships).Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:52, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: Per https://www.stenalinetravel.com/routes/frederikshavn-gothenburg , Stena Lina has only three ferrys on the Frederikshavn-Gothenburg route: Stena Danica, Stena Jutlandica, and Stena Vinga. Luckily, for identification purposes, the three are very different ships, so you should be able to identify your ship by comparing to other photos of the stern area. Did you travel by foot / did the ship accept foot passengers? If yes, then it can't be the Stena Vinga, as per the Stena information page, it is "only for passengers traveling by vehicle". So you would be left with either the Stena Danica or Stena Jutlandica. Gestumblindi (talk) 08:51, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- I found the reservation with the departure time of 12:15 on my mobile phone but no mention of the ships name. The travel agent / booking agent / ship operating company has information about the the future sailings with ships names, but not the historic sailings in the past. Try to get the past shedule for July 12th on https://www.stenalinetravel.com/routes/frederikshavn-gothenburg. I suspect the Stena Danica, but no certainty as Stena Lines has many ships. https://www.stenalinetravel.com/ferries. Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:22, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Improvements to "Use this file" facility
A change I requested a year ago has just been deployed. Now, when a user viewing a file description page selects "Use this image", the markup is pre-populated to use the image's caption, rather than the filename, as the displayed text.
For example, for the image File:Aris’s Birmingham Gazette - 1771-11-11 - p1.jpg - the markup previously returned for "use this file on a wiki" was:
[[File:Aris’s Birmingham Gazette - 1771-11-11 - p1.jpg|thumb|Aris’s Birmingham Gazette - 1771-11-11 - p1]]
but now it is:
[[File:Aris’s Birmingham Gazette - 1771-11-11 - p1.jpg|thumb|front page masthead of Aris’s Birmingham Gazette, 11 November 1771 edition]]
This change also applies to other code snippets generated by the tool, such as for embedding an image on an external site.
The text returned is in the user's preferred language, where available.
Please report any issues at MediaWiki talk:Gadget-Stockphoto.js.
Yet another reason to add captions to your uploads, and translate them on others'! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a useful change. Two issues:
- I think when there is no caption it should use the file description in some way (e.g. only in most cases when the description is not very long and/or only the first paragraph)
- Instead of spending lots of time translating captions of any of the 100 million files into 300 languages (100 M × 300 and the number of files in use is also not small), I think that should be done using machine translation which works very well at this point for many languages for short phrases like those in captions (which if necessary could still be adjusted and get automatically updated if and once the source caption gets changed).
- Prototyperspective (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Almost a year has gone by and no one has addressed a question I asked at Category talk:Military units and formations of the British Army. The text on this category page does not make sense to me, can someone else please have a look and see if you can understand it? - Jmabel ! talk 03:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
No error message for same file names in Upload Wizard
The Upload Wizard is not displaying any useful warning message for same file names, instead throws an error message and not letting the user publish files.
"There is one error with the forms above. Correct the error, and try submitting again."
Phabricator: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T372860 Saiphani02 (talk) 09:00, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Different Types of Flagmaps
Most flag maps on Wikimedia Commons follow the naming format 'Flag_map_of_Country.' These maps have been created by various contributors, each using different base maps with varying levels of accuracy. Typically, they feature thicker border strokes in the colors of the respective flags. However, I found the inconsistencies across these maps unsatisfactory, so I created my own set of flag maps using OpenStreetMap as the base. My maps are highly accurate and consistent, with all borders depicted using black, slightly thinner strokes. So far, I have completed maps for European and Asian countries and plan to expand to other continents. My flag maps follow the naming format 'Country-Flagmap.' I'm writing this to prevent renaming conflicts and to foster consensus among users. Thank you. Kamran.nef (talk) 13:24, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
- (As someone who loves both flags and maps, I’d like to see this kind of hybrid monstrosity relegated to the trashbin of bad ideas. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 18:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC))
- Not in topic but, i wanted to thank you for making these types of Flag maps, as a notable Flag maps lover, i used more times your basemaps (mostly Russia and Greenland), though i never understood how you manage to do these with Openstreetmap, they are still usefull, so, thanks again ;) OttavianoUrsu (talk) 07:35, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment One file had recently got renamed from File:Brittany-Flagmap.svg to File:Flag map of Brittany.svg in accordance with Category:Flag maps of regions of France and Category:Flag maps of Europe. There are gazillions of such files around. Files by "Kamran.nef", highly accurate and consistent, with all borders depicted using black slightly thinner strokes. How many of such files do we need? Taylor 49 (talk) 15:44, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment OK, I agree with the idea that highly consistent flagmaps by User:Kamran.nef can be named xxxx-Flagmap.svg. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you, I hope to add more flagmaps soon. Kamran.nef (talk) 16:34, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment I really do wonder how exactly "flagmaps" are educational and/or don't qualify as OOS personal artwork. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:21, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree but do not want to start aggressive deletionism. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, me neither. I'm not advocating for that. I do think the images are OOS personal artwork though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:26, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree but do not want to start aggressive deletionism. Taylor 49 (talk) 21:28, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
People by location
Which category to add or create to connect for example Category:LeBron James by location and other people by location? Eurohunter (talk) 21:57, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Eurohunter: There's Category:Sportspeople by location. It's a little obtuse but you might create Category:Sportspeople by name by location or something like that. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:27, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Yes, something like that, just I wasn't sure about the name for it. Eurohunter (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please nooo, burn this category tree down to the ground. Category:LeBron James by location (no files) -> Category:LeBron James in the United Kingdom (no files) -> Category:LeBron James in England (no files) -> Category:LeBron James in London (1 file).
- That whole category tree only hides the files, instead of making them findable, although I still suspect that some people think that is the goal of categories. Multichill (talk) 16:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please don't do this. This is typical overcategorization. This is not how categories should be used, and part of the reason the category system is going to eventually fail for Commons. We have way too many categories already. Categories should not be used as a short description of the file. It’s not supposed to be a query language. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:14, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
- Please stop using the reserved term "overcategorization" for anything that is not defined in COM:OVERCAT. And «more categories per file than I’m somehow comfortable with» is not there, nor «categories more detailed than I think they should be», nor even «categories I don’t like». -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Yes, something like that, just I wasn't sure about the name for it. Eurohunter (talk) 08:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is bunch at Category:People_in_Washington,_D.C._by_name, Category:People in Australia by name. Any suggestions for a threshold in terms of number of images for individual's subcategories? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:47, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DJ and Multichill that this category tree structure should not be used. "How many files do we allow before we diffuse the category?" None, the category should not exist. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of diffusing, but of intersecting. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Intersecting is one of the ways we diffuse.
- If the intersection has near-null content, then it is usually not useful to add the intersection to the category tree, just use both categories on the file in question. All the more so if intersecting means a long chain of near-empty categories. - Jmabel ! talk 16:55, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- Well, intersection as a way of building it bottom up rather than (as done in the samples mentioned above, top down). If one creates a category "Joe Biden in the White House" below "Joe Biden", there is no need to start that with a category tree "Joe Biden in the Milky Way". Enhancing999 (talk) 09:32, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: not sure I see your point. You seem to be stating the obvious about not doing something ridiculous; is someone doing something you consider analogous to that? - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
- Anyways, I looked into this after my initial comment and I mostly agree with other people here that these categories shouldn't be created unless there's enough images to justify it. For instance ones like Category:LeBron James in Texas are probably totally pointless. Categories names aren't meant to be stores of mundane, meaningless facts and that's all a category like that seems to represent. It would be totally ridiculous to similar categories for every sports person out there based on the country, state, city, or other location where they have played a random game. It's tangential, but the same goes for the accompanying Wikidata entry. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I started a CfD for Category:LeBron James in Texas in case anyone wants to give their opinion about it and/or similar categories. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of diffusing, but of intersecting. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- I agree with DJ and Multichill that this category tree structure should not be used. "How many files do we allow before we diffuse the category?" None, the category should not exist. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Keep which
2,400 × 1,600 pixels, file size: 1.74 MB Software used Adobe Photoshop CS3 Windows
5,616 × 3,744 pixels, file size: 670 KB Software used Adobe Photoshop CS5 Windows
it seems User:Baitaal exported the photo twice differently. judging from the resolution, i guess we should keep the 5,616 × 3,744 pixels one? RZuo (talk) 07:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Yeah, it's higher resolution and it's in use. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:50, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- NO please keep the 2'400 × 1'600 pixels version loading faster and having more detail. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I see no sense in which the lower-res image has more detail, and at any given resolution that the lower-res one can provide, they should download at the same speed. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- NO please keep the 2'400 × 1'600 pixels version loading faster and having more detail. Taylor 49 (talk) 16:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The seemingly bigger image (higher x, higher y, higher pixel area) has substantially less data. When loading the 5'616 × 3'744 pixels image, your computer has to hog memory (ca 60 MiO) for the huge pixelmap, decompress the data generating mostly noise (JPG is lossy), and subsequently zooom down the huge pixel area (assuming that your screen does not provide a height over 5'616 pixels). The seemingly bigger image has absurdly many pixels that however do NOT hold any image information. You could zooom up the 5'616 × 3'744 image by factor 10 getting a 56'160 × 37'440 image, would it be even better? Try it! Taylor 49 (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Unless you specifically click through to the full-res image, you don't download the full resolution to your computer. The bulk of the downscaling is done server-side, making a thumbnail of one or another size. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- The seemingly bigger image (higher x, higher y, higher pixel area) has substantially less data. When loading the 5'616 × 3'744 pixels image, your computer has to hog memory (ca 60 MiO) for the huge pixelmap, decompress the data generating mostly noise (JPG is lossy), and subsequently zooom down the huge pixel area (assuming that your screen does not provide a height over 5'616 pixels). The seemingly bigger image has absurdly many pixels that however do NOT hold any image information. You could zooom up the 5'616 × 3'744 image by factor 10 getting a 56'160 × 37'440 image, would it be even better? Try it! Taylor 49 (talk) 21:53, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Help needed cleaning up Category:Media from Telegram
Hello. I added all files with a source from Telegram to this category. A bunch of images are copyright violations and I can't review them all. If somebody wants to help cleaning up, you're more than welcome to! Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Cryptic-waveform: so shouldn't we also have a Category:Media from Telegram to be checked, which people can remove after validating PD or a free license? Otherwise, this is just asking tons of people to look over-and-over at the same files. - Jmabel ! talk 03:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Good point. Done. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 11:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Photo challenge June results
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|
image | |||
Title | Poisonous mushrooms against a forest in autumn, Wrzosów, Poland |
Mycena interrupta NZ | |
Author | Ivonna Nowicka | Famberhorst | Haydenrjones |
Score | 15 | 13 | 9 |
Rank | 1 | 2 | 3 |
---|---|---|---|
image | |||
Title | Carpenter working on a concrete formwork |
Workers attaching a chain to the Main bridge in Ebing |
Demolition site of the so-called Kaufhof store "Tortenschachtel" (cake box) on Berliner Platz |
Author | Ermell | Ermell | F. Riedelio |
Score | 17 | 14 | 11 |
Congratulations to Ivonna Nowicka, Famberhorst, Haydenrjones, Ermell and F. Riedelio. -- Jarekt (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Is this a breach of copyright?
The file [6] has a description that is a copy of the museum's website description at [7]. ThoughtIdRetired (talk) 16:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Simple enough that it is probably not copyrightable except maybe the last sentence. - Jmabel ! talk 17:50, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Boots
- Over the knee boots (8 C, 215 F)
- Thigh-high boots (1 C, 16 F)
anyone knows the difference between the two? File:Fuel Girl breathing fire at International Brussels Tattoo Convention 2023.jpg is which boot? RZuo (talk) 17:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thigh-high boots are a subcategory of over-the-knee boots. Both cover roughly the same area (physically) but thigh-highs are a more modern type fashion boot that's usually worn by women and commonly associated with fashion and fetishism, whereas over-the-knee boots (a much older term, originating in the 15th century to describe riding boots worn by men) cover all kinds of boots including e.g. working boots worn by farmers.
- The image you linked is of a woman wearing thigh-high boots. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Stealth change of {{See also cat}} ?
{{See also cat}} used to be a very adoptable template, allowing the right end of itself to be overlapped by {{Geogroup}}. With this elasticity it enables a flexible layout of pages. But I've found recently that it became too rigid not to allow other templates overlaying it. Who did this change, and why? I'm now being forced to do this kind of tedious edits. Or is it because of recent edits of {{Geogroup}} ? --トトト (talk) 06:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- see Commons:Village_pump/Technical#Layout_Template:cat_see_also. Enhancing999 (talk) 07:39, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does nobody know why this happened or have the ability to find out? It's not just the Geogroup and See also cat templates, for example it also affects Category:Music in 2019 which has neither of these cats. This needs quick fixing as lots of category pages are broken now with lots of whitespace and files+subcats being pushed far down. Maybe a phabricator issue should be created as no template change or alike on WMC causing this has been identified so far. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: I haven't checked the others, but for Category:Music in 2019, the reason why the "Subcategories" heading appears below the infobox is because {{Musiccat}} ends with {{Clear}}, which requests that the next item on the page be below any floating elements (like the infobox). That use of {{Clear}} was inherited from {{Fashioncat}}, to which it was added in Special:Diff/32122628. I think it was related to a floating element in {{Fashioncat}} itself, which was removed from {{Musiccat}} when it was switched to use {{Decade years navbox}} in Special:Diff/521899625. So the use of {{Clear}} in {{Musiccat}} appears to be obsolete and could be removed, which would stop the heading being pushed below the infobox. --bjh21 (talk) 21:58, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: And because I was interested, I've tracked down what happened to {{Cat see also}} (alias {{See also cat}}) as well. This one genuinely is recent. In Special:Diff/911758887, Matrix converted {{Cat see also}} to use TemplateStyles. In the process, they removed
clear:none;
from the styles on that template, which meant that the defaultclear:both;
implied by thecatlinks
class took effect, pushing the template below any floating elements. I'm not sure if this was deliberate, but maybe Matrix can tell us. --bjh21 (talk) 22:15, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- Thanks for fixing the first problem and looking into it! Didn't check if there was a {{Clear}} in the Musiccat template because there was no problem earlier iirc and the problem appeared the same time this problem started to occur. Removing it solved the problem.
- However, for the second problem that doesn't seem to be the cause: I found it strange that it's Template:Cat see also/i18n and not Template:Cat see also which is what I checked and indeed the i18n page seems to be only about the manual translations; readding this part there and purging some example category does not solve the problem. Does one need to wait until this part is also restored in translations? If so, why doesn't this change show up in the Template:Cat see also revision history? Prototyperspective (talk) 23:28, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: As I understand it, Template:Cat see also invokes Module:Cat see also, which at the bottom invokes Template:Cat see also/i18n/en or the equivalent for the user's language, and that's where the
<div>
with thecatlinks
class that causes the problem is. All the previous edits to Template:Cat see also/i18n/en are by FuzzyBot, apparently in response to edits to Template:Cat see also/i18n, but I don't really understand this area and in particular I don't know what causes FuzzyBot to update the translation pages. Incidentally, according to my browser,clear:both;
is the only style oncatlinks
that's not being overridden bysee-also
, so maybe just removing thecatlinks
class would be more appropriate. --bjh21 (talk) 23:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)- It seem that TheDJ has come to the same conclusion in @Enhancing999's earlier thread on COM:VPT. --bjh21 (talk) 08:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prototyperspective: As I understand it, Template:Cat see also invokes Module:Cat see also, which at the bottom invokes Template:Cat see also/i18n/en or the equivalent for the user's language, and that's where the
- This was error on my part. I assumed {{See also}} and {{Cat see also}} had identical styles, and simply missed the clear:none part at the bottom, in the process breaking the template. Lesson learnt to check testcases a bit more carefully before updating such a commonly used template. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? -
uselesscontributions} 14:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
- Does nobody know why this happened or have the ability to find out? It's not just the Geogroup and See also cat templates, for example it also affects Category:Music in 2019 which has neither of these cats. This needs quick fixing as lots of category pages are broken now with lots of whitespace and files+subcats being pushed far down. Maybe a phabricator issue should be created as no template change or alike on WMC causing this has been identified so far. Prototyperspective (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Thanks a lot for fixing this problem TheDJ and also for investigating this! The catlinks class was removed and Template:See also/styles.css edited. --Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Prototyperspective (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Pulling cords
Is there a category for these signal cords? In many old trams it used to be the norm and buttons where not used.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:06, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: Category:Emergency stop pull cords? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm kind of surprised Category:Stop pull cords doesn't exist. I'd probably create it if we're me though since these cords aren't technically used for emergencies. @Smiley.toerist: BTW, your documentation of the more minor things related to public transportation like these cords is really interesting. I'd probably work on a similar project if I traveled more and wasn't worried about being doxed. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, File:Lisboa_071DSC_0275_(49068453986).jpg is in Category:Bus bells. I guess it’s the closest to Category:Stop pull cords we’ve got. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Geohakkeri: Yes, bus bells makes more sense for those photos, but the purpose of the bells on buses (stopping the bus at the next stop) should be in the topic, right? I've seen similar cords for declaring an emergency (necessitating a stop) on trains, and similarly-purposed touch-sensitive yellow tape and red stop buttons on more modern buses (the latter at rear exits). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- For example, File:Lisboa_071DSC_0275_(49068453986).jpg is in Category:Bus bells. I guess it’s the closest to Category:Stop pull cords we’ve got. --Geohakkeri (talk) 10:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm kind of surprised Category:Stop pull cords doesn't exist. I'd probably create it if we're me though since these cords aren't technically used for emergencies. @Smiley.toerist: BTW, your documentation of the more minor things related to public transportation like these cords is really interesting. I'd probably work on a similar project if I traveled more and wasn't worried about being doxed. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Not always a stop signal: On the Belgian vicinal railways the conductor pulled on the cord twice (ding ding) to signal that the tram is ready to leave. By the way: on small boats there is a safety cord to the outboard motor, so if the person with the cord falls in the water, the outboard motor automaticaly switches off.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I created: Category:Stop pull cords. There must be other examples.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I filled in the categories. There where some misplaced Tram stop pull cords in Category:Bus bellsSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: If pulling the cord rings the bell and both are pictured, shouldn't the file be in both categories? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I have a little problem with bus bells in trams, but if it is a general term for bells in buses and trams, I have no problem.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:37, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Smiley.toerist: If pulling the cord rings the bell and both are pictured, shouldn't the file be in both categories? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:06, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- I filled in the categories. There where some misplaced Tram stop pull cords in Category:Bus bellsSmiley.toerist (talk) 12:02, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking for page about having an account
I recently suggested to an anon ip editor that they log in and get an account. I was going to link to a page about that, but looking around I failed to find such. I see Commons:First_steps/Account which is for someone who has already decided to start an account and takes them through setting one up step by step. I see Commons:Welcome which says "Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration." The issue is we have many editors who have never gotten as far as registering. I was looking for something with basic explanation of what an account is, and why one might wish to start one, similar to en:w:Wikipedia:Why create an account?. Do we have anything like that here? If we do, it needs to be more easily found. If not, I rather think we should; is there any counter-argument that we shouldn't? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- I think it would be fine to have our own rework of en:w:Wikipedia:Why create an account?, or just to refer people there and say that the situation is basically the same. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's a bit more obvious here than at Wikipedia .. uploads require one. Not sure if there is much to do without one. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:48, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Most things other than uploading new files can be done here without an account. A large number of edits are done by ips, some of which seem fairly regular and active editors. Do you advocate for or against something, or is this just a random comment? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- In Wikipedia, (dynamic) ips generally just edit articles, each with its talk page where matter can easily be discussed. At Commons, it's hard to discuss anything with IPs as it stretches dozens of files. So IPs just end up on AN/B. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Enhancing999: Most things other than uploading new files can be done here without an account. A large number of edits are done by ips, some of which seem fairly regular and active editors. Do you advocate for or against something, or is this just a random comment? -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 20:00, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Uploading larger files
I'm trying to crop File:1968 LINCOLN PARK DEMONSTRATIONS DURING DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION 111-lc-53312.webm, a 518 MB file. Is there a user right that allows me to upload larger files? The crop is now 494 MB, but still much larger than the limit of 100 MB. SWinxy (talk) 22:35, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- See Help:Chunked upload. --Geohakkeri (talk) 22:39, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, thank you. SWinxy (talk) 23:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Depicts
I am continually dealing with dubious "depicts" added to files I've uploaded. I've repeatedly remarked on them at Commons talk:Depicts, but really no one has engaged my remarks there, so I'm here pointing to that page.
When one of these dubious edits has an edit summary that says, "#suggestededit-add-tag 1.0", does that mean there is a bot out there somewhere actively suggesting these bad edits? Does anyone know what bot? - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: This is one of the Growth/Personalized first day/Newcomer tasks aimed at fostering the growth of newcomers. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:19, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know where to find the interface the users get for this specific task? On Commons the extension is not enabled and on dewiki where I tested it a bit I do not get these image tagging task. GPSLeo (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Am I correct in understanding that no one systematically reviews the results of these "growth tasks" to see whether they have been done productively, and that it is entirely appropriate for me to revert things like this, or replace them with better choices? - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Do you know where to find the interface the users get for this specific task? On Commons the extension is not enabled and on dewiki where I tested it a bit I do not get these image tagging task. GPSLeo (talk) 05:55, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Sign up for the language community meeting on August 30th, 15:00 UTC
Hi all,
The next language community meeting is scheduled in a few weeks—on August 30th at 15:00 UTC. If you're interested in joining, you can sign up on this wiki page.
This participant-driven meeting will focus on sharing language-specific updates related to various projects, discussing technical issues related to language wikis, and working together to find possible solutions. For example, in the last meeting, topics included the Language Converter, the state of language research, updates on the Incubator conversations, and technical challenges around external links not working with special characters on Bengali sites.
Do you have any ideas for topics to share technical updates or discuss challenges? Please add agenda items to the document here and reach out to ssethi(__AT__)wikimedia.org. We look forward to your participation!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Should we convert all TIFFs to JPEGs?
Following this discussion - Commons:Bots/Work requests#Convert Category:Photographs by Carol M. Highsmith to JPEG (bot request), I'm trying to assess what sort of consensus we have regarding the conversion of TIFFs to JPEGs in general. Also, see past discussion in the archive. -- DaxServer (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Reasons to prefer JPEG over TIFF for our purposes:
- Easier to view, download & use for people with slower internet connection
- JPEG is generally much easier to use for average people without specialized programs/knowledge about file types
- Often significantly smaller file size while preserving the image quality (often over 1000% smaller (sometimes over 10000% (TIF|JPG))
- TIF has issues with displaying correctly as thumbnail
- raw .tif files cannot be displayed in browsers (URL ending .tif (TIF example, JPG example) - this means properly zooming is not possible without downloading a large file to your PC (or even better your phone)
- TIF is not indexed by Google and presumably other image search engines (as the format is unsuitable for web purposes, see above)
- Proposed solution is to convert the TIF file to JPG and upload as such, copy all information, and make both files cross reference each other. This has been done already with ~250,000 NARA/LOC files (see e.g. here)
- TheImaCow (talk) 17:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- All these problems are solved by the jpeg thumbnails they are available. GPSLeo (talk) 18:14, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- TIFF is the world's most featureful image format, so not all TIFFs are good candidates for conversion to JPEG. Multipage TIFFs might be converted to PDF, and non-photographic TIFFs would be better off as PNGs.--Prosfilaes (talk) 17:38, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Prosfilaes: Any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so you may want to upload svg or jpg versions, too. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:41, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- We don't need to align 100%. Anything that goes "we do this here, so we should do it everywhere" is flawed. We shouldn't waste resources on this. Targeted approaches might make sense sometimes, but most of this material isn't even in use, nor will it ever be. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 17:40, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose. Let sleeping dogs lie. (BTW, I have some old LoC code that will read TIFF but not JPEG.) Glrx (talk) 18:26, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose convert master images (ie. the file what Wikimedia Commons uses as source when scaling jpg) from lossless format to lossy ones. It just means lower image quality. If user needs smaller files user can already download the jpeg versions of the files from Wikimedia Commons instead of original file. --Zache (talk) 19:23, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment Nothing prevents you from converting a tif into a jpg and uploading it alongside the original tif. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Time does.
- It is finite, and either it is spend
- - downloading the TIF
- - converting the TIF to something else
- - uploading the tif
- - copy & adjust file info
- - adjust file info of the tif
- -- repeat x1000
- or
- -doing anyting else that cannot be easily automated. TheImaCow (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's already available for each tif, so no need to duplicate it. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:06, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Support Yes, for most Wikimedia projects, JPEG is better. Yann (talk) 19:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment: I have been thru this issue here in the case of an archived TIFF and subsequent JPEG with suitable cross‑linking. So please consider this use case given an original high‑quality TIFF scan and a downstream usable JPEG image. And please add some nuance to the algorithm that goes thru converting everything "in general" and explicitly identify and exclude this corner case. TIA RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 22:06, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- Of course, converting of all images from lossless to lossy format is unacceptable. This can be discussed only for some particular cases. In the general case TIFFs can be converted to PNGs, they will become smaller (but not as small as JPGs). Sneeuwschaap (talk) 23:27, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Sneeuwschaap: Any png image will look fuzzy when scaled down (due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744), so please use 100% quality jpg images to preserve quality and allow easy display on WMF projects. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I can see the benefit of this, but then it would also create needless duplicates that just screw with search results and take extra curation. I'd probably support it if there was a way to hide or suppress TIFF images though, but it's hard enough dealing with multiple images formats as it is. Some TIFF files probably aren't worth converting to JPEG in the first place either. One thing I'd like to see fixed is how TIFF images display in thumb nails though. I think that would solve a large part of the problem with them. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment How many edits were already done on the 250,000 existing duplicates? How much time was wasted in duplicated curation somebody uploaded two formats of the same photo? Enhancing999 (talk) 05:12, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose I think tiff files are higher-quality aren't they? So if they are converted then to something that is lossless and I don't know if there is such a filetype. More useful would be converting gifs that are not animated to another filetype. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:18, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose as ambiguous: What whould be done with the TIFFs? If kept, support. If deleted, oppose. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The proposal incudes "make both files cross reference each other.", so clearly the intention is to keep them.Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:03, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- @Pigsonthewing: No, it doesn't. DaxServer, COM:VPP is the more appropriate venue. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- My mistake; apologies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I wanted to post it here as a general discussion, but it took a different turn. -- DaxServer (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: No, it doesn't. DaxServer, COM:VPP is the more appropriate venue. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:23, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- if a bot has the ability to automatically convert tiff to jpeg (upload as new file), i think obviously the sensible option is
- make a template that users can use to tag files for automatic conversion. something similar to rotation requests.
- because as users have explained, most tiff files are not actively in use. there's no urgency to convert them. maybe when they do become needed in future, web technology has developed to being able to display tiff properly.
- so for now, if any tiff is to be used somewhere, and the user thinks it's beneficial to have a jpeg version instead, only then convert that specific tiff. otherwise most files dont need a duplicate jpeg. RZuo (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose, original-quality and file type of the TIFF files must be maintained, especially if these were directly imported from GLAMs that various Wikimedians partnered with. If there is a need for JPEG, then upload under a new file name. We can't be sure if forced conversion of TIFFs to JPEGs may lead to discouragement of some GLAMs to continue partnering with Wikimedian volunteers. And by the way, TIFF is a lossless file type, whereas JPEG is a lossy file type. I've read somewhere above that this proposal may be of benefit for Wikipedia articles (this is solved by uploading a JPEG version under a new file name), but as per some of our voices at Commons talk:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia, Wikimedia Commons does not only aim to be a central media repository for all Wikimedia projects like enwiki; it aims to be a reliable partner of external institutions like GLAMs and non-profit orgs for their freely-licensed media content to be hosted and reused globally. To be a reliable partner, IMO, we should not alter the original, raw TIFF files that the GLAMs donate to us; instead, it is best to convert to JPEG and upload as a new file. I can recall a template for LoC files that states raw files directly donated by LoC should not be altered in any way so that those represent the exact-quality files from LoC, and any modification/s must be uploaded as a/as new file/s. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:55, 4 August 2024 (UTC)- @JWilz12345: You seem to be opposing some proposal other than the one being made. To quote from the original post, "Proposed solution is to convert the TIF file to JPG and upload as such, copy all information, and make both files cross reference each other." Your objection seems to presume that the TIFF would be delete, but nothing of the sort is being proposed. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: ah, then that's better. I have striked my comment and vote. As long as the original raw TIFF files that GLAMs and other NGOs donated to us are kept intact and not deleted (whether JPEG versions as separate files are mandated), then any proposal is fine for me. The raw TIFF files should be kept in perpetuity as we are supposed to be reliable partners of various GLAMs that Wikimedians partnered for many years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- As long the original files are not being deleted, I am not against it but. But the question is if it is necessary in every case, and some already have JPEG copies :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- The next question is that we currently have automatic conversion from tiff to jpg for every tiffs. What benefit would manual duplication do? (cost for manual duplication is that there would be huge number of duplicate files which metadata would be needed to updated, keep in sync etc. It also multiplies the edits done to the files which user are seeing etc. --Zache (talk) 07:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- As long the original files are not being deleted, I am not against it but. But the question is if it is necessary in every case, and some already have JPEG copies :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 07:04, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: ah, then that's better. I have striked my comment and vote. As long as the original raw TIFF files that GLAMs and other NGOs donated to us are kept intact and not deleted (whether JPEG versions as separate files are mandated), then any proposal is fine for me. The raw TIFF files should be kept in perpetuity as we are supposed to be reliable partners of various GLAMs that Wikimedians partnered for many years. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:40, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: You seem to be opposing some proposal other than the one being made. To quote from the original post, "Proposed solution is to convert the TIF file to JPG and upload as such, copy all information, and make both files cross reference each other." Your objection seems to presume that the TIFF would be delete, but nothing of the sort is being proposed. - Jmabel ! talk 03:16, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose automated. Likely to cause confusion, because how would we link the JPEG version? We could end up either massively overemphasising the JPEG. For instance, File:Negro drinking at "Colored" water cooler in streetcar terminal, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma by Russell Lee - Original.tiff links a restored version as a JPEG, but lacks an exact copy as JPEG. I suspect bots would be tempted to use a gallery, as in File:"... American Army Engineer task force in Liberia find themselves in a land from which their ancestors came. Wash day an - NARA - 531144.tif - but that gives a lot more emphasis to a copy with literal film edges over the featured picture. Gallery links are kind of terrible, as they often resolve to something like TIFF: 5040x3300 JPEG 5040x3300 JPEG 5025x3295 PNG 5025x3295 - that doesn't give anything like a useful navigation.
- The only way I'd support it is if it was a de-emphasised templated link. Nothing as prominent as {{Extracted image}}, more on the lines of:
- It really needs to be minimally disruptive. Adam Cuerden (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Another comment: I spend a lot of time, as a human in the loop, adding sensible metadata to image files. Any bot'ed activity can only do this badly and vary probably contribute to at least some misleading information. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 11:25, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose TIFF is the better, lossless format, and usually, the automated JPEG thumbnail generation from TIFF works. You can download any TIFF file in various sizes as JPEG from Commons. There are some issues with the thumbnail generator, but these mean that the thumbnail generator should be fixed. I don't see a need to flood Commons with JPEG duplicates of TIFF files. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:32, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose, including per Gestumblindi. -- Ooligan (talk) 19:10, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Comment One thing that is unclear to me is why the current thumbnail links are not enough? Is there some technical aspect that needs to be fixed, or are the current links too hard to find or understand what they do? From a technical perspective, it should be a server-side task to generate jpeg versions or download links to jpegs automatically instead of duplicating photos manually. Mediawiki already does that, so I am asking what you think is currently failing and what should be done to fix it. --Zache (talk) 16:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
- Agree. If mass-conversion is thought to generate better quality jpeg, it's a sign that there is a problem with the current sever configuration. (That one should have uploaded jpegs to start with is another issue.) Enhancing999 (talk) 11:20, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
- And also if the problem is that people wont find a way to download image as good quality jpeg, we could just add a button "Download as full-resolution JPEG" which would link to jpeg version. --Zache (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Comment There are different cases:
- single-page TIFF files already using JPG compression internally: Support lossless conversion to JPG outer container, unless there are special reasons against
- single-page 8-bpp uncompressed TIFF files: Support lossless conversion to 8-bpp PNG, unless there are special reasons against
- single-page 16-bpp uncompressed TIFF files: Support lossless conversion to 16-bpp PNG, unless there are special reasons against
- multi-page TIFF files: Oppose any conversion since no viable alternative exists
- So I Oppose lossy conversion of whatever types of TIFF into JPG.
- TIFF is NOT the great lossless format. The cool lossless format is PNG (except for animations and multi-page images). Taylor 49 (talk) 14:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- What we desperately need is straightforward guidance on what formats to use for uploaded files, I’m yet to see it.
- If I have, for example, the opportunity to upload a historical, and or “art” image in jpg, png, or webp, which should I use? _Broichmore (talk) 17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the image come from?
- preferably keep it in the format it already is (no conversion is better than conversion, unless you are sure that the opposite applies in the given case)
- if the image is a diagram, use always PNG
- if the image is small (say up to 2 Mpixel), use PNG
- Taylor 49 (talk) 21:40, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some more nuanced guidance is also needed. In some corner cases, uncompressed TIFF plus suitably converted JPG, duly linked across the two uploads, is the optimal answer. But to my knowledge, you will not find that advice provided. Keep it simple stupid (KISS), as a communications philosophy, has its limitations too. (Sorry, but I am not offering to write documentation — my list of images to process and upload is already too long.) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just to continue, there may be occasions when uploading the RAW file from the camera in parallel would also be indicated. Not often though, but should still be covered in the documentation as an option. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:06, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Some more nuanced guidance is also needed. In some corner cases, uncompressed TIFF plus suitably converted JPG, duly linked across the two uploads, is the optimal answer. But to my knowledge, you will not find that advice provided. Keep it simple stupid (KISS), as a communications philosophy, has its limitations too. (Sorry, but I am not offering to write documentation — my list of images to process and upload is already too long.) RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:14, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Where does the image come from?
POTY new rules
Dear users,
As you all know some featured pictures eventually end up being a Picture of the Year finalist. POTY scripts have been completely rewritten and I think a vote should be held to know it the rule stays "top 30 overall + top 2 of each category becomes finalist" or if, as proposed on POTY talk page by Ingenuity, it becomes "top 30 overall + top 5% of each category becomes finalist". Please vote on this page only.
Thank you for your time and I wish you all a beautiful day -- Giles Laurent (talk) 12:40, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
- Fascinating, but the whole thing is a mystery to me. I guess for everybody else it's clear what the categories are and how many entries they have each. BTW I don't plan to vote there. Enhancing999 (talk) 06:52, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- To answer my own question: Commons:Picture of the Year/2023/Gallery. Also includes the 5%. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Who painted this?
On this webpage there is a painting, rendered in black-and-white, attributed to Jan van der Straet. But is it really by him and painted in his time (16th century)? The style looks different, more modern. His 16th century paintings are typically filled with detail without much perspective, but here only the lower half of the painting contains people and detail, and the upper half is sky, trees and distant landscape. So who painted this? Can we find the painting (in colour)? --LA2 (talk) 13:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
- This etching, looks like a later copy of an original work, or even a detail from one. Perhaps Bert Dewilde's book gives attribution. Failing that, you could contact the Kortrijk Museum at texture at kortrijk.be. It's highly possible that Dewilde saw this in the Rijksmuseum, but it's not been put online by them. What would be useful, is the "original title and or caption of the piece. Broichmore (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Promotional material in image description?
File:BikersForTrump1.RollingThunder.WDC.29May2016 (27672036472).jpg includes promotional links to the organization's facebook page with a request to follow the page. Also links to other websites. Is this allowed? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
As far as I know, it is okay --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)Seems like it isn't --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:17, 24 August 2024 (UTC)- Not OK, regardless of the subject, removed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Should be removed, and has been removed. That text was imported from the Flickr description, and neither its formatting nor its content were appropriate for Commons. Omphalographer (talk) 16:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Fix for mobile description table
Please update: MediaWiki:Filepage.css with a specificity fix like this: diff fix Module Information styles.css. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 08:06, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging some people that did some updates in the past; sorry if you're busy 😊 @Ebrahim, @Lucas Werkmeister. Nux (talk··dyskusja) 08:09, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just synced it with your version, thanks −Ebrahimtalk 09:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Nux: Please use {{Edit request}} next time, it’s usually faster than pinging a subset of admins :) Lucas Werkmeister (talk) 11:49, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Just synced it with your version, thanks −Ebrahimtalk 09:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Marking with NowCommons
I would like to do a little test so I'm looking for a smaller wiki where someone would like to know if there are files with a duplicate on Commons. It would be best if there is known to be at least 1 file that is on Commons so I know that it works. --MGA73 (talk) 17:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
- Try on lmo.wiki! Sciking (talk) 10:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Sciking. It is a perfect wiki to test on. Sadly the test did not go as well as I planned. I made this list lmo:Utent:MGA73/Sandbox but it involves a few manual steps. But perhaps it is faster just to do the manual step than to spend lots of time to try to get around :-D --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea even with the manual steps being involved. If you don't mind me asking, what's the ultimate goal here though? Not to say there has to be one, but I'm kind of interested in how the tool can be used as part of someone's workflow or whatever once you get the kinks ironed out. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- The goal is just to make it easy to make a list of files that is also on Commons. Sometimes the local file can just be deleted. Sometimes the local file is the source and the file on Commons needs to be fixed to attribute the original author. And sometimes the local file shows that the file on Commons is actually a copyvio. --MGA73 (talk) 14:15, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- It's an interesting idea even with the manual steps being involved. If you don't mind me asking, what's the ultimate goal here though? Not to say there has to be one, but I'm kind of interested in how the tool can be used as part of someone's workflow or whatever once you get the kinks ironed out. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:54, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thank you Sciking. It is a perfect wiki to test on. Sadly the test did not go as well as I planned. I made this list lmo:Utent:MGA73/Sandbox but it involves a few manual steps. But perhaps it is faster just to do the manual step than to spend lots of time to try to get around :-D --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If anyone would like to test a bigger wiki thats okay too now. But I prefer wikis with less than ~50k files. --MGA73 (talk) 13:25, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Uncategorized categories again
As of 11:11, 22 August 2024 we have a new report at Special:UncategorizedCategories (for the first time in 6 weeks). Again there are about 1500 categories here. I'll do my best to delete the ones that have neither parents nor content (files, subcats); most other work needed here is not admin work, just basic categorization work, and any competent help would be welcome. If someone reads Chinese or Japanese, there are a fair number of at the end of the list. Also, throughout the list, quite a number of categories for people from Hungary, which would be easiest for someone who can read Hungarian. But there is plenty there for those who know English or any of the Western European languages. - Jmabel ! talk 04:20, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Delete YES please delete nonsense. Taylor 49 (talk) 05:38, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- The list does not seem to be very accurate or up to date (eg. Category:April 2023 Kaliningrad Oblast photographs, or Category:Anni-Albers-Straße) --D-Kuru (talk) 06:07, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm unsure what the deal is with the former, but the latter didn't have categories at the time the list was updated. Those were added about an hour later. ReneeWrites (talk) 07:37, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- Category:April 2023 Kaliningrad Oblast photographs Seems to be because the category was added via a template, and i guess there never was a linksupdate (If you went to any of the categories the page was allegedly in, you would have found that it was present in them [until just now when i null edited it]. In any case, cases like that can usually be fixed with a null edit. Bawolff (talk) 09:23, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
- There are always a few false positives, usually because of template-added categories where something didn't propagate correctly, but not enough to make the task significantly more difficult. - Jmabel ! talk 18:49, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I believe Túrelio and I have now deleted all of the several hundred parentless, memberless categories except for a few that look likely to be useful soon, where I've asked their respective creators to either use the category or request deletion. There are also, as remarked above, a dozen or two false positives.
So: the remaining work here is mostly the usual categorization work, on somewhere around 1000 to 1200 categories, and help from anyone who is decent at categorization would be greatly appreciated. - Jmabel ! talk 19:01, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Could we have the list regenerated, now people have been working on it for a couple of days? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- Commons:Report Special:UncategorizedCategories. Maybe the update can be automatized (bot request) Enhancing999 (talk) 22:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: very unlikely. Last time they left us hanging six weeks between reports, even after I repeatedly asked once it had passed the 1 month that is supposedly how often they run it. They used to run it every three days, but apparently it involves some monster JOIN that they consider to heavily burden the servers. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pity. I fixed a few, when you first posted, but now it's hard to find any that still need doing, so I'm disincentivised to continue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: Start from somewhere other than the start of the alphabet, there should be plenty. Especially people by name. - Jmabel ! talk 18:38, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- That's a pity. I fixed a few, when you first posted, but now it's hard to find any that still need doing, so I'm disincentivised to continue. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:41, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: very unlikely. Last time they left us hanging six weeks between reports, even after I repeatedly asked once it had passed the 1 month that is supposedly how often they run it. They used to run it every three days, but apparently it involves some monster JOIN that they consider to heavily burden the servers. - Jmabel ! talk 04:55, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Category subtree Category:Floor plans of churches by country
The country-specific subcategories of Category:Floor plans of churches by country are partly named after the scheme Plans of churches in...., partly after Floor plans of churches.... This is annoying, especially using a tool like HotCat which lists Subcategories alphabetical. Additionally, there's a danger of creating unneccessary categories (see Plans of churches in Spain vs. the newly created Floor plans of churches in Spain). Is it ok to standardize the subcategories to "Floor plans of..."? Fl.schmitt (talk) 09:46, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- It seems to be the opposite with your example of Spain for some weird reason but wouldn't "floor plans" inherently be a sub-category of "plans"? I guess I'm not seeing what needs to be standardized here beyond that though. Its not like they are mutually exclusive. You can have both a plan and a floor plan for some things. It's not really that clear what makes something the former versus the later in a lot of cases either. If anything I'd say "floor plans" is probably pointless, but there no reason not to both as long as the "floor plans" is a child of "plans", instead of the other way around. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:30, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Since English isn't my native language, I'm not sure regarding the details. But according to https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/plan, a plan is "a drawing of a building, town, area, vehicle, machine, etc. that only shows its shape from above, its size, and the position of important details", while a floor plan is "a drawing that shows the shape, size, and arrangement of rooms in a building as viewed from above" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/floor-plan?q=Floor+plan; my emphasis; see also Plan view (redirect) and Floor plan, while Architectural plan redirects to Floor plan). Since almost all image files even in the "Plans of churches..." categories are in fact floor plans, the naming of those categories is IMO misleading. If there are really "plans" and not "floor plans", they would belong to Category:Architectural drawings of churches or a to-be-created category Category:Plans of churches - ooops, it exists already, but seems to contain mostly floor plans (also its subcategories). I think there's some more work to do for a consistent category structure here. Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Admittedly I didn't look through every single category or image related to this but there are "plans" for churches and other buildings that include the courtyards, parking lots, and other elements that aren't specifically part of the buildings floor. If you want some examples check out this link. I guess you could maybe call them "architectural drawings" but it's not just about the architecture in those cases and most (if not) architectural drawings are more technical anyway. Usually they include exact measurements, angles, and similar elements. whereas floor plans tend to be pretty basic. So I'd say more general plans should go in categories for plans. Floor plans that don't other elements should be in categories specifically for floor plans, and more complicated building plans that involve measurements, angles and the like should go in something akin to a category for architectural plans. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 - sounds good, I agree: we distinguish between plans, floor plans and architectural plans. But now we have reached the starting point again: the category subtree of Category:Floor plans of churches by country contains categories named "Plans..." where floor plans are collected (other types of plans are available only in very rare cases - almost all "plans" in that subtree are floor plans). If we distinguish, the category names should reflect the distinction - so: is it OK to standardize the naming of the subcategories to "Floor plans of..."? Fl.schmitt (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- FWIW, I worked in architectural CAD for some years, and anything horizontal is likely to be called a "plan". "View from above" in this context does not mean only what could be seen from the air: a "floor plan" is, indeed, the floor as it would be seen from above if the rest of the building weren't in the way. Another common drawing type besides those mentioned above is an "inverted ceiling plan" ("inverted" because of course you never see the ceiling from above, so it is inverted from how you could ever see it). - Jmabel ! talk 18:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1 - sounds good, I agree: we distinguish between plans, floor plans and architectural plans. But now we have reached the starting point again: the category subtree of Category:Floor plans of churches by country contains categories named "Plans..." where floor plans are collected (other types of plans are available only in very rare cases - almost all "plans" in that subtree are floor plans). If we distinguish, the category names should reflect the distinction - so: is it OK to standardize the naming of the subcategories to "Floor plans of..."? Fl.schmitt (talk) 16:35, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- Admittedly I didn't look through every single category or image related to this but there are "plans" for churches and other buildings that include the courtyards, parking lots, and other elements that aren't specifically part of the buildings floor. If you want some examples check out this link. I guess you could maybe call them "architectural drawings" but it's not just about the architecture in those cases and most (if not) architectural drawings are more technical anyway. Usually they include exact measurements, angles, and similar elements. whereas floor plans tend to be pretty basic. So I'd say more general plans should go in categories for plans. Floor plans that don't other elements should be in categories specifically for floor plans, and more complicated building plans that involve measurements, angles and the like should go in something akin to a category for architectural plans. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:45, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Adamant1: Since English isn't my native language, I'm not sure regarding the details. But according to https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/plan, a plan is "a drawing of a building, town, area, vehicle, machine, etc. that only shows its shape from above, its size, and the position of important details", while a floor plan is "a drawing that shows the shape, size, and arrangement of rooms in a building as viewed from above" (https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/floor-plan?q=Floor+plan; my emphasis; see also Plan view (redirect) and Floor plan, while Architectural plan redirects to Floor plan). Since almost all image files even in the "Plans of churches..." categories are in fact floor plans, the naming of those categories is IMO misleading. If there are really "plans" and not "floor plans", they would belong to Category:Architectural drawings of churches or a to-be-created category Category:Plans of churches - ooops, it exists already, but seems to contain mostly floor plans (also its subcategories). I think there's some more work to do for a consistent category structure here. Fl.schmitt (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
How to deal with an svg image that has rendering problems
I recently uploaded the image File:Great Mandala (大曼荼羅) of Nichiren Buddhism.svg and it really has trouble rendering here. How can it be fixed to render properly as the screencap I posted from inkscape demonstrates it rendering as? Also anyone who knows this better feel free to edit the svg to get rid of cruft. There is a decent amount in the file. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:11, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- There is Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop for specific requests. Maybe there is a category to park all SVGs with rendering issues.
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 18:45, 30 August 2024 (UTC)- @Enhancing999: okay posted thereImmanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 19:10, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
- This section was archived on a request by: --
∞∞ Enhancing999 (talk) 10:14, 31 August 2024 (UTC)