User talk:Multichill

Always busy.

Bahasa Indonesia ∙ dansk ∙ italiano ∙ sicilianu ∙ Deutsch ∙ euskara ∙ magyar ∙ čeština ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ español ∙ português ∙ English ∙ français ∙ Nederlands ∙ polski ∙ galego ∙ Simple English ∙ slovenščina ∙ suomi ∙ svenska ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ Türkçe ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца)‎ ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ српски / srpski ∙ українська ∙ ქართული ∙ հայերեն ∙ বাংলা ∙ മലയാളം ∙ ไทย ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ 한국어 ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文（简体）‎ ∙ 中文（繁體）‎ ∙ العربية ∙ فارسی ∙ +/−

Welcome to my talk page. Use it; don't send me e-mail. I reply to messages left on my talk, on my talk page. If I left a message on your talk page, I will reply there (unless you specify otherwise).

Ancestors at ToolForge

Hello, can you migrate this tool so as to make it work again? Infovarius (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Infovarius: working again. Multichill (talk) 21:41, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Erishand.jpg

Yours sincerely, Veverve (talk) 23:16, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:F. Guardi - Capriccio - NK1613 - Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection.jpg

File:F. Guardi - Capriccio - NK1613 - Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Vincent Steenberg (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:16, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (51° N, -1°E) and similar

A bunch of redlinked categories like the above have appeared, see Special:WantedCategories for other examples, any idea where they came from? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From here, it looks like. bdijkstra (overleg) 12:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel and Bdijkstra: got distracted at hackathon and forgot to create the categories. Will do. Multichill (talk) 17:02, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great. And maybe those negative degrees east should be positive degrees west? bdijkstra (overleg) 17:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bdijkstra: Yes, and space was lost. See User:Multichill/Zandbak (permalink) for what it is now. Will take some time to populate. Multichill (talk) 21:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories like category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (52° N, 0° E) for 0 E - .999 E, but all 0 W - .999 W are at category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (52° N, 1° W). I think that should be category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (52° N, 0° W). HenkvD (talk) 15:47, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HenkvD: I use floor so it always rounds down. So floor(0.5) = 0 and floor (-0,5) = -1. I agree that some improvement is possible here. For now the main goal was to have some buckets to work on. I'll see if I can improve the logic. Multichill (talk) 20:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The coordinates for these are available, are you planning to copy them into SDC soon? Does this import work really need degree-level categories? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:51, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Peel: the coordinates are already in SDC or will be copied soon.

Category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation is about missing location of creation (P1071). Currently over 18 million files to work on. To add these I use the reverse geocoding at https://edwardbetts.com/geocode/map (the one used by User:GeographBot). For some places we cleaned up the data so we'll get good results, other places quality is still very bad. These subcategories are so the bots can work only on areas where the quality of results is good enough. See also Commons:Reverse geocoding. Multichill (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Bot only adds captured with (P4082) sometimes.

The captured with (P4082) property is added for some cameras (Canon EOS 750D (Q19008035) on File:Branta canadensis gosling on grass at Campbell Park 2.jpg, added here) and not for others even when they appear in the EXIF (Google Pixel XL (Q27302807) on File:PSTA bus 824 in Indian Rocks Beach.jpg, edited by the bot here).

Is this because the camera model name doesn't exactly match the entity name or something like that? Is the problem with the entity or with the bot? And is it possible to backfill missing properties once this is fixed? grendel|khan 08:26, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the bot use Exif model (P2009) and Exif make (P2010) to do the matching? I noticed that these values weren't set for some of the models which didn't get captured with (P4082) set. grendel|khan 08:23, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grendelkhan: I had to check my own source code. The lookup table is made at https://github.com/multichill/toollabs/blob/master/bot/commons/own_work_sdoc.py#L398 (link to query). It looks for Exif make (P2010) and Exif model (P2009) which are present on Google Pixel XL (Q27302807) and shows up in the query. I see that you added it and that fixed it. I'll have a bot run over Category:Taken with Google Pixel XL to add the missing camera. If you have more categories, just let me know. Multichill (talk) 11:24, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'd been looking for that! Yes, I was experimenting like it was a black box, and I came to the same conclusion. I've fixed a number of missing EXIF properties in Wikidata camera items (using d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/P2033#Item_P2009 and d:Wikidata:Database reports/Constraint violations/Mandatory constraints/Violations#Exif_model_(P2009):_Item_Exif_make_(P2010)), so hopefully that will help going forward. I have a few more notes I'll put under the other reply. grendel|khan 03:02, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grendelkhan: searching for files that have {{Taken with}}, but not captured with (P4082) currently returns 64,674 results. Bot picks up some, but looks like most of them can't be matched.

Not sure if you're planning on working on this, but https://w.wiki/AB7A returns a list of cameras that need attention. Multichill (talk) 16:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this includes Canon F-1 (Q63083), which is a film camera and this will never have EXIF tags. https://w.wiki/ABJG is a more restrictive (probably too restrictive) query. (Still trying to learn SPARQL.) Note also that I was using category membership, which runs into issues like this, where the EXIF doesn't match the category. But yes, I intend to fix as much of this as I can. Will the bot go back and add captured with (P4082) to the files where the EXIF make and model are now tied to a camera model? grendel|khan 04:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been noted on d:Property_talk:P2033#Analogue_cameras_should_be_excluded_from_the_exif_rule grendel|khan 08:56, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, would it be possible to generate a report of unmatched (make, model) tuples and sort by frequency? It might be nice to figure out the most effective places to start, but I don't think there's a good way to query EXIF data apart from iterating over a huge number of images, is there? (I note that some camera records have a make and model but lack variants, e.g., this situation, which showed up in none of the reports.)

To be clear, I'm looking in the "Taken with" categories for images with intact EXIF data, and copying the strings into Wikidata where appropriate. I don't think this can be automated, since there are instances where the EXIF is clearly for a different camera than the category is. grendel|khan 09:34, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Admin's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work Mr. Multichill TUIBAJAVE (talk) 19:07, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:BillClintonBoulevard.jpg

File:BillClintonBoulevard.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:09, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please add source link to User:BotMultichillT.

Please add "Source here." to the user page. It would have saved me a lot of time and effort. Thanks! grendel|khan 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Multichill (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Large category with no EXIF data

I noticed that Category:Photos taken with Kodak DCS 760 has a huge number of photos in it, about 138k, most of which don't have EXIF data. These are dumped en masse from NASA; all but 56 of them are in subcategories of Category:Earth photography from the International Space Station or Category:Earth photography from the Space Shuttle, both of which are under Category:Astronaut photography of Earth. None of them seem to have EXIF data or captured with (P4082) claims.

PetScan query, QS batch, which only does 10k at most. What's the right way to go about this, and is there a generic plan to at least detect photographs with no EXIF data and report them so we can go off category membership? grendel|khan 04:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notification about possible deletion

Some contents have been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether they should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at their entry.

If you created these pages, please note that the fact that they have been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with them, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Affected:

File:Verplaatsbare bedstede nr. I -22 fotonr. 40 - Haarzuilens - 20456748 - RCE.jpg

And also:

Yours sincerely, JopkeB (talk) 12:35, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Help fix GFDL with disclaimers on kawiki

Hi! I hope everything is fine by you! I just noticed that your bot have a botflag on kawiki. Per ka:ვიკიპედია:ფორუმი/მრავალენოვანი#Checking_files there are som issues related to files. One of them is that ka:Template:GFDL have disclaimers. So when they upload new files with a dual license the files will have a disclaimer. Could you help change the 460 files from GFDL to GFDL-with-disclaimers and an edit summery something like "The file is licensed with disclaimers. Disclaimers should be avoided per en:Wikipedia:GFDL standardization. If you are the copyright holder please remove the disclaimers."? --MGA73 (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Same on kuwiki: ku:Wîkîpediya:Dîwan_(teknîkî)#GFDL (142 files). As you can see on m:User:MGA73/GFDL_files there are still a lot of GFDL files wiki wide. But as a start I will try to get rid of disclaimers for new uploads. --MGA73 (talk) 13:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Always busy :-) But if you have 5 minutes it would help a lot :-) --MGA73 (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Creative_Commons_CC0_1.0_Universal_Public_Domain_Dedication_missing_SDC_copyright_license

Creative Commons CC0 1.0 Universal Public Domain Dedication missing SDC copyright license has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Tasmania12345 (talk) 04:57, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starr 080530-4629 Cordia subcordata.jpg

File:Starr 080530-4629 Cordia subcordata.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rogermccart (talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starr 041014-0265 Cordia subcordata.jpg

File:Starr 041014-0265 Cordia subcordata.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rogermccart (talk) 03:35, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Starr 050505-1119 Cordia subcordata.jpg

File:Starr 050505-1119 Cordia subcordata.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Rogermccart (talk) 03:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

GeographBot adding SDC twice

Hi, looks like GeographBot is currently processing each image twice with SDC e.g. File:Towthorpe Cottages - geograph.org.uk - 6451165.jpg. Can you take a look at it? Thanks! --Nintendofan885^{T&Cs apply} 20:01, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Nintendofan885: thanks for your report. You assumption that it appears to each image seems to be incorrect because in that case we would see three edits for every file, which is not the case. I do see it happen more often. It only retries when the API doesn't return correctly so might be slightly more unstable? Anyway, these files end up in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland with broken templates and I just removed the cases with duplicate statements. See also Category talk:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland with broken templates.

I figured this is a general problem and expanded the bot to process the latest dump file. It's cleaning up quite a few files. Multichill (talk) 20:18, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PD or not PD

Hello Multichill,

I have created the new Category:Featured pictures in the public domain to replace some old outdated gallery page with the same scope because people seem to be interested specifically in FPs which are in the PD. When creating the new category, I tried to make it as useful as possible for the users interested in such stuff, and this means that the new category should contain only plain vanilla PD files – no controversial cases, no files with unclear or contradictory licenses, etc. I have also explained this at the top of the new category page. This is the reason why I have removed File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg again from the new category. I agree that according to the Wikimedia Foundation’s position this file should be PD, but the creator of the digital reproduction has claimed rights on the reproduction (releasing it under a CC BY SA license), and indeed German and Austrian law courts sometimes take the view that even creating a simple photograph of a PD artwork gives the photographer or institution a new “Urheberrecht” for the digital reproduction. Therefore I conclude that the legal situation of this file is at least unclear, and hence I think it does not belong to the new PD FP category.

Yes, the file is “in the PD” from an US point of view. Yes, the Wikimedia Foundation thinks that there should be no copyright on simple digital reproductions of artworks which are in the PD (and I agree with that). But the Austrians just claim that they hold some rights on this digital reproduction. Therefore an Austrian user who would use that image just like a PD image could run into serious difficulties, being taken to court. And the same could happen to a German user, because German law courts take similar positions. Therefore it would be dangerous to put this image into a category with PD files: we could encourage people to use the image in a way which would be illegal in their jurisdiction.

If you think that the CC BY-SA template on the image description page of File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg is nonsense, then please go forward and delete it. It’s your responsibility then. If the CC BY-SA template would be deleted, the file would be again a clear case for the Category:Featured pictures in the public domain category.

Best, – Aristeas (talk) 08:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas: you are misreading the template. It's just a fallback. This is why we always advice institutions to use CC0 to cover all cases (example 1 & 2). People generally don't bother to add the fallback license (example) so you are just giving a false sense of security because in countries that don't have PD-art, people would still be breaching copyright. If you want to be overly strict, you should remove all files that have a relation to another country than the USA from that category unless they have a CC0 fallback. I wouldn't do that and just include all PD-art files. Multichill (talk) 16:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Multichill (and CCing W.carter because she is the other maintainer of the FP galleries),

thank you very much for your detailed answer! Ah, when we read the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template as a kind of fallback, things look indeed differently. The whole PD-Art thing seems be a can of worms, and I really regret that I have created the new category – I just did this in order to help people, but it will be impossible to handle it in a way that everybody will be happy, just because PD and especially PD-Art is such an ambiguous and complex matter.

Indeed the good old {{PD-Art}} template (and its variants) does not guarantee more security to users than the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template; and your reading of the latter as a fallback is intriguing. But then the wording of that template is really unfortunate. Right now the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template presents first the special license for the digital reproduction and then mentions (in fine print) that “[i]n many jurisdictions, faithful reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art are not copyrightable”. This gives the impression that the use of files with this template is much more restricted/dangerous than the use of files with the {{PD-Art}} template. In the light of your fallback reading this is totally wrong. This means that the {{Licensed-PD-Art}} template should be rephrased to make clear that it is not more restrictive than {{PD-Art}} etc., but just gives more detailed information. Is this the correct interpretation?

Personally I would never handle a file like File:Egon Schiele - Eduard Kosmack - 4702 - Österreichische Galerie Belvedere.jpg as a PD image, regardless of all legal questions. There is a CC BY-SA template, so I would always use it just like any other CC BY-SA image, i.e. with full credits, link to the license, etc.; not because of legal considerations, but because of moral ones – the author(s) of the digital reproduction want(s) credit, OK, so they should get credit. This means for me this is not a PD file, but effectively just a CC BY-SA file, and to me it seems totally odd to put it into a PD category. But I understand that people may see this differently, and, above all, you are right that if we exclude this kind of files from our PD category, we would have at least to check every single {{PD-Art}} image thoroughly and remove many of them, too. That’s too much work.

@W.carter: This means that we need a new, different and very clear explanation in the header of the Category:Featured pictures in the public domain page – explaining, similar to the text in the {{PD-Art}} template, that there is no plain vanilla PD when it comes to reproductions of artworks, that simple reproductions of two-dimensional public domain works of art can be used like PD images in many jurisdictions, but that people should check both the description page of an image and the legal situation in their jurisdiction carefully before they use an image like a PD image. What do you think, Cart?

Thank you (both) and all the best, – Aristeas (talk) 14:11, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas Thanks for the 'ping'. I'll need to look at all this more carefully so I understand the finer interpretations of the different licenses. At first glance, it looks like the way that causes least mess and is clearest, is to create one/two subcategories for images of art and other images with those "fallback licenses". Tacking on an explanation for this at the top of the general category is risky. People don't read things when texts become too long. Better to keep such files in their own box(es) with their own heading. --Cart (talk) 14:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cart, I would be happy if we could clarify the legal situation of the images by several distinct subcategories. Right now I am not sure whether this is feasible, given the endless variants of PD-related license templates and all the ways to use and misuse them. But as this anything but urgent, I propose you and me continue with important things now and check (over the next weeks) a random sample of FPs which could be considered to be in the PD. When we find a clear arrangement which allows to do without long explanations, all the better. And if we nevertheless need the warning, you are certainly right that it must be short and clear. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 15:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas and W.carter: it's complicated indeed. Some things to take into account:

The original work has to be in the public domain. The two main thresholds (but of course more extensive):
- Data of publication longer than 95 years
- Creator died more than 70 years ago
The reproduction should really be covered by PD-art. You enter a grey area when frame or more context is included (CC0 is also an excellent way to cover this grey area)
Copyright and licensing template
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} + CC0 is the best because it covers all: PD for countries that have PD-art, fallback to CC0 for others (or when PD-art is not sure) which is PD in practice.
- {{Licensed-PD-Art}} + free license is better than nothing. Some might call it copyfraud, I'm just happy the intent to share is there.
- {{PD-Art}} and possibly copyrighted at the source. That's good old content liberation.

The logic described at d:Wikidata:WikiProject sum of all paintings/Automated image uploads is about the same. Plenty of examples at Special:ListFiles/BotMultichillT. Multichill (talk) 16:19, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aristeas and Multichill, I don't see why we need to make this so overly complicated at this stage with many PD-categories for each special license. I would simply suggest two new categories: 'Category:Featured pictures in public domain with some restrictions' and 'Category:Featured photographs in public domain with some restrictions'. Add a shorter version of the explanations/warnings that have been mentioned here, to explain what might be problematic with the files in those new categories. We just need to get the complicated cases out of the general PD categories. Later it might be up to some other people to sort these further, but I don't think it's necessary now.

I also think we should skip the "the" in the category titels. While it is correct to say that something is in "the public domain" when writing about such files, a more compact language is normally used for category descriptions. The two original categories could be moved. Sorry that I didn't spot this earlier, but it's been a busy week for me IRL. --Cart (talk) 16:45, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The US is hardly the only country that does not recognize a new copyright in a faithful copy of a 2D work. In my rough estimation, most countries don't recognize the potential of copyright in such faithful reproductions, and this group now definitively includes all EU countries (see below). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Aristeas The 2019 EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market definitively placed all faithful reproductions of public domain 2D art in the public domain in EU countries, including Germany and Austria. "Member States shall provide that, when the term of protection of a work of visual art has expired, any material resulting

from an act of reproduction of that work is not subject to copyright or related rights, unless the material resulting from

that act of reproduction is original in the sense that it is the author's own intellectual creation." D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your input, Multichill and D. Benjamin Miller. In this light I understand even less why museums, but also some Commons users again and again claim a copyright on simple photographs of two-dimensional artworks with are in the PD – but that’s not what we have to discuss here. IMHO this means that we can go the simple way suggested by Cart: create two variants of the categories, put the ones with additional copyright claims into the “with some restrictions” one and most other ones into the category without that. Best, – Aristeas (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to get too deeply into it, but the reason why museums have claimed copyrights in such photos is not that confusing; they would like to own a copyright in the reproductions, so they can charge people to use digital copies of public domain paintings in their collection. And even if this is almost never justified by the law, people/organizations make claims of exclusive rights that go far beyond what the law provides all the time; after all, they don't need everyone to pay the bogus licensing fees for the plan to work — just to scare someone into doing it.

The reason why users on Wikimedia do it tends to be as a response to this overreach by museums; usually, it's to explicitly disclaim this right "just in case," just to make it as clear as possible. There are also probably some users who, for whatever reason, would like to make their own personal claims (although on Wikimedia, the access is free, of course). D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As for the "with some restrictions"/no restrictions category separation... I don't think this is too wise. For one, I think that the scope and validity of the potential recognition of new copyright in reproductions around the world is wildly overestimated.

But even if you think this is a real concern, you still can't actually make the split that @W.carter suggests, because there is no reliable way in which a machine can between the definitely free and the potentially "encumbered" files as you have put them, seeing as PD-Art and PD-scan and the like are, in essence, optional, and for good reason. Relatedly, I'd like to refer to a point I made in VPC about the potential of (supposed) new copyright in digitizations and when and how they're worth acknowledging — and how this sort of calls into question the entire idea of a digital public domain, which I don't think we should do a categorization system. Additionally, bifurcating these categories would make the categorization system less useful, especially in light of the limited actual restrictiveness of PD-Art.

If you were going to do something like this, though, I think it makes much more sense to go based on the presence of {{Copyright claims}} rather than putting all {{PD-Art}} in the "encumbered" category. D. Benjamin Miller (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@D. Benjamin Miller, Aristeas, and W.carter: I'm sure you can appreciate this :-) Multichill (talk) 18:43, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Over het categoriseren van door GeographBot ge-uploade foto's

Ongetwijfeld allemaal goed bedoeld en nuttig voor Commons om zoveel mooie foto's uit UK en Ierland te hebben, maar wie gaat ze beter categoriseren? Want meer dan 900 files in bijvoorbeeld Category:Sandford, Devon is echt teveel van het goede. Is daar een plan voor? JopkeB (talk) 08:03, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Relevante data staat in de gestructureerd data, de locatie categorie is puur omdat vele gebruikers erg ongelukkig worden als er helemaal geen categorie op zit. Dus dit is het. Iemand kan nog tijd steken in de categoriestructuur, maar ik vind dat verspilde moeite. Multichill (talk) 17:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dan constateer ik dat we op dit punt van mening verschillen en ik niet de indruk heb dat we elkaar van mening kunnen doen veranderen, kortom: verder discussiëren heeft geen zin. JopkeB (talk) 09:26, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Artworks without Wikidata item - shall we try to reach consensus on data modeling?

Hey @Multichill - drawing your attention to this talk page message. It would be so great if we can come to a solution for this! Thanks, Spinster (talk) 07:58, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Improving link to author in Commons structured data

Hi, thanks for your work on recently uploaded files on Commons. I noticed that you add 'unknown' value to creator (P170) to files on Commons. Is there a simple way to change this to a proper QID of the uploader? And is this even desirable? I searched for a dedicated tool, but there seems to be none suited to this purpose. Any tips would be really appreciated :). Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 15:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Vojtěch Dostál: the problem is that people are creating vanity items for non-notable Wikimedians.

I want to discourage that behavior so that's why I use "some value" for the creator. Multichill (talk) 12:42, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I understand that and there's no easy solution to that. On the other hand, connecting the files to already existing items would be nice. A tool is too easy to abuse, then, but maybe a bot could read from a preapproved list of username-QID pairs. People would be able to nominate new lines to that list. I would volunteer to go through each suggested username-QID pair and consider if the uploader is notable and deserves an item. Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 14:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting category

Your User:BotMultichillThas been deleted the categories of File:OOjs UI icon Wikidata Echo lightcolors.svg and File:OOjs UI icon Wikidata Echo lightcolors en.svg, files that I recently uploaded. I have already re-categorized these files. You should check your bot. Thank you very much. Jmarchn (talk) 19:38, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmarchn: the bot doesn't delete categories so it doesn't need any checking. According to the history, you didn't add any categories at upload.

If you really think the bot removed it, can you please provide a link to the diff where the bot removes the category? Multichill (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Fruit-bar-pic-Web - Flickr - USDAgov.jpg

File:Fruit-bar-pic-Web - Flickr - USDAgov.jpg has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues.

Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Afrikaans ∙ العربية ∙ беларуская ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ български ∙ ပအိုဝ်ႏဘာႏသာႏ ∙ বাংলা ∙ bosanski ∙ català ∙ čeština ∙ dansk ∙ Deutsch ∙ Deutsch (Sie-Form) ∙ Zazaki ∙ ދިވެހިބަސް ∙ Ελληνικά ∙ English ∙ Esperanto ∙ español ∙ eesti ∙ فارسی ∙ suomi ∙ français ∙ galego ∙ עברית ∙ hrvatski ∙ magyar ∙ հայերեն ∙ Bahasa Indonesia ∙ íslenska ∙ italiano ∙ 日本語 ∙ 한국어 ∙ 조선말 ∙ македонски ∙ മലയാളം ∙ Bahasa Melayu ∙ မြန်မာဘာသာ ∙ norsk bokmål ∙ Plattdüütsch ∙ Nederlands ∙ norsk nynorsk ∙ norsk ∙ occitan ∙ polski ∙ پښتو ∙ português ∙ português do Brasil ∙ română ∙ русский ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenčina ∙ slovenščina ∙ shqip ∙ српски / srpski ∙ svenska ∙ ไทย ∙ Türkçe ∙ українська ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ 中文 ∙ 中文（简体） ∙ 中文（繁體） ∙ +/−

Missvain (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting my historical edits

Delete the 81.248.177.61 00:56, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I would like you to delete my historical edits

Because they contain threatening and unfair words in some histories of vikidia and wikipedia merxi 81.248.177.61 00:57, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue what you're talking about and can't help you with this. Multichill (talk) 12:36, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yifeibot

Hi Multichill! It looks like yifeibot (which you are listed as a maintainer on) seems to be needing frequent Toolforge admin restarts (2 this month, per SAL and an IRC message today). If you would like any assistance, I'd be happy to be added as a co-maintainer and troubleshoot (or just restart) as needed. Best, —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 20:05, 25 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Coordinates tool

Hi Multichill, Akoopal, and TheDJ, I'm a big fan of the coordinates tool that the three of you maintain. I'm thinking of privately forking it to make some changes to suit my personal preferences (size of the map, available templates, etc). Would you object to this? It would be only for my personal use, but if I made any modifications that I think would be useful for other users, I would be happy to contribute them. If you'd be okay with me doing this, I have a few questions:

Is the code available (github etc)? If not, would you have any recommendations for making a local copy?
I see that several additional tile sets, including Google satellite imagery which I greatly miss from now-defunct GeoLocator, are commented out in the code. Would these be possible for me to enable in my private version, or are there additional complications?

Best, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Pi.1415926535, you mean https://locator.toolforge.org/coordinates.php ? I don't believe there is actually a repository, however i could make one if desired. Things like Google are commented out, as linking to external sources such as Google is not allowed from Wikimedia services as they might compromise the privacy of the users. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 22:00, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TheDJ: Thanks for the reply. Yes, the tool that you linked to. If it would be a quick job to make a repository that would be wonderful, but certainly don't waste tons of time on it. If I'm running it locally (ie without the privacy protections of Wikimedia sites), will the additional tile sets need any work besides uncommenting them? Thanks, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:18, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Pi.1415926535: as DJ mentioned, we disabled external sources a couple years ago due to privacy concerns.

If you have a Toolforge account, you can see the source in /data/project/locator/public_html . Multichill (talk) 12:35, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User request

Hello Multichill, Greetings!
I've a request. Please ‘extended-confirmed’ protect my userpage and talkpage.
--Gpkp (talk) 17:24, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gpkp: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections is a better place to ask for these kind of things. I see it has already been done. Multichill (talk) 12:20, 1 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Towns_and_villages_in_County_Wicklow

Towns and villages in County Wicklow has been listed at Commons:Categories for discussion so that the community can discuss ways in which it should be changed. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry.

If you created this category, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for discussion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it. If the category is up for deletion because it has been superseded, consider the notion that although the category may be deleted, your hard work (which we all greatly appreciate) lives on in the new category.

In all cases, please do not take the category discussion personally. It is never intended as such. Thank you!

čeština ∙ Deutsch ∙ English ∙ español ∙ français ∙ italiano ∙ magyar ∙ Nederlands ∙ português ∙ polski ∙ sicilianu ∙ slovenščina ∙ Tiếng Việt ∙ беларуская (тарашкевіца) ∙ македонски ∙ русский ∙ українська ∙ ತುಳು ∙ ಕನ್ನಡ ∙ ไทย ∙ עברית ∙ 日本語 ∙ 中文 ∙ +/−

Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:01, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Multichill

Contents

Ancestors at ToolForge

Notification about possible deletion

File:F. Guardi - Capriccio - NK1613 - Cultural Heritage Agency of the Netherlands Art Collection.jpg

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

Category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (51° N, -1°E) and similar

Bot only adds captured with (P4082) sometimes.

A barnstar for you!

File:BillClintonBoulevard.jpg

Please add source link to User:BotMultichillT.

Large category with no EXIF data

Notification about possible deletion

Help fix GFDL with disclaimers on kawiki

Category:Creative_Commons_CC0_1.0_Universal_Public_Domain_Dedication_missing_SDC_copyright_license

File:Starr 080530-4629 Cordia subcordata.jpg

File:Starr 041014-0265 Cordia subcordata.jpg

File:Starr 050505-1119 Cordia subcordata.jpg

GeographBot adding SDC twice

PD or not PD

Over het categoriseren van door GeographBot ge-uploade foto's

Artworks without Wikidata item - shall we try to reach consensus on data modeling?

Improving link to author in Commons structured data

Deleting category

File:Fruit-bar-pic-Web - Flickr - USDAgov.jpg

Deleting my historical edits

Actually I would like you to delete my historical edits

yifeibot

Coordinates tool

User request

Category:Towns_and_villages_in_County_Wicklow

Navigation menu

User talk:Multichill

Ancestors at ToolForge

Notification about possible deletion

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

Category:Files with coordinates missing SDC location of creation (51° N, -1°E) and similar

Bot only adds captured with (P4082) sometimes.

A barnstar for you!

Please add source link to User:BotMultichillT.

Large category with no EXIF data

Notification about possible deletion

Help fix GFDL with disclaimers on kawiki

GeographBot adding SDC twice

PD or not PD

Over het categoriseren van door GeographBot ge-uploade foto's

Artworks without Wikidata item - shall we try to reach consensus on data modeling?

Improving link to author in Commons structured data

Deleting category

Deleting my historical edits

Actually I would like you to delete my historical edits

yifeibot

Coordinates tool

User request

Navigation menu

Search