Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Browse history interactively
← Older edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎May 13: maybe I'll get an answer one day? sorry for the spam
 
Line 1: Line 1:
<!-- ASK YOUR QUESTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE -->
<!-- ASK YOUR QUESTION AT THE BOTTOM OF THIS PAGE -->
{{/Header}}
{{/Header}}
{{autoarchive resolved section|age=1|timeout=7|archive=((FULLPAGENAME))/Archive/((year))/((month:##))|show=no}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
<!-- APPEND {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} TO MARK RESOLVED SECTIONS FOR ARCHIVE -->
|archive = Commons:Village pump/Archive/%(year)d/%(month)02d
<!-- ONLY ARCHIVE AFTER THIS LINE! -->
|algo = old(7d)
|minthreadstoarchive = 1
}}
<!-- ONLY ARCHIVE BELOW THIS LINE! -->
= April 12 =


= May 23 =
== File:Royal Crown of Portugal.svg isn't showing up ==


== Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy ==
For some reason, [[:File:Royal Crown of Portugal.svg]] isn't showing up in any of the categories that I linked it to. What did I do wrong?--Glasshouse 02:09, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a [[COM:NCR|non-copyright restriction]]-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at [[w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute]] as well as in [https://communia-association.org/2023/03/01/the-vitruvian-man-a-puzzling-case-for-the-public-domain/ this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA], regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American ''lex loci protectionis'' defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are ''not'' subject to the laws of Italy. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:It did not show up since you have modified the derivativeFX output heavily and deleted the last nowiki tag.
:Which were the source images for this svg? You need to input all at the beginning of the upload process. Currently your description page is incomplete. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 03:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, [https://www.scottishlegal.com/articles/italy-rows-with-german-company-in-puzzling-da-vinci-case which ruled] that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
Originally, I used the Royal Crown of Italy with the Royal Monogram of King Peter V of Portugal.svg image and tried to reference both it and the source for the monogram itself, but now that I have the Crown of Portugal, I wanted to swap them out. I'm sorry for the confusion and the mess I've created. I have more monograms for which I'll be wanting to swap the crowns, but I want to make sure I do things correctly. Please advise, and thanks for your help. {{Unsigned|1=Glasshouse|2=2011-05-02T23:49:03|3=}}
:Links:
::hmm, I still do not know which files. which filename hast the "Crown of Portugal"?
:*[https://www.gallerieaccademia.it/sites/default/files/repository/file/2023-02/Ravensburger%20-%20MIC%20e%20Gallerie%20dell%27Accademia%20di%20Venezia%20%E2%80%93%20Tribunale%20di%20Venezia%2C%20R.G.%2053172022%2C%20ordinanza%2017.11.2022_0.pdf Venice], 2022, in Italian
::You can easilly fix it by yourself: open http://toolserver.org/~luxo/derivativeFX/deri1.php and name all files in the first step. One after one. Continue but do not finish the last step (this is were the full page of code is displayed). Mark this whole code and copy it. Then go to [[:File:Royal Crown of Portugal.svg]], edit, and paste the code. Then save. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 00:59, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:*[https://openjur.de/u/2486810.html Stuttgart], 2024, in German
:-- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)


:Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "[[Commons:When to use the PD-Art tag#The position of the WMF|represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain]]", we can feel free to ignore it. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
== Problem with template ==
::@[[User:King of Hearts|King of Hearts]] that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of ''lex loci protectonis'' principle. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


::The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
[[Template:MetaCat]] links to [[Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION]]. However, the header of [[Commons:Naming_categories]] states unequivocally:
:::For mitigation reason, the templates {{tl|Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{tl|PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to [[COM:General disclaimer]]. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, '''Getty Images''' might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read [https://petapixel.com/2024/02/01/italian-court-orders-getty-images-to-remove-photos-of-michelangelos-david/ here]. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
<blockquote>References or links to this page should not describe it as "policy".</blockquote>
::::If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
This is skipped because the link leads to a section. By its use in "official" template, it is implied that the non-policy ''is'' policy, and in a very sneaky way it must be said (skipping a non-policy warning by using a redirect-to-secion; the user will not normally see the warning). The result of this is major cleanup workload like [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2010/08#Awkward and poorly formed|this]], [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2010/02#Category:..._in_Spain_by_Autonomous_Community|this]], [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2009/10#Category:Paintings_by_Hieronymus_Bosch_by_location|this]] and [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2009/01#Category:Railways|this]]; see also the discussion [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/Archive/2009/12#Some_of_categories_.22by_alphabet.22|here]] and [[Commons_talk:Naming_categories|here]] and [[#Category Intersections|here]]. Please someone fix it. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
::::That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
: I am not sure what you would like to fix: [[Template:MetaCat]] never describes [[Commons:Naming_categories]] as "policy". In the mean time [[Commons:Naming_categories]] serves as [[:en:De facto|De facto]] policy: it is stable and mostly unchanging capturing best practices of naming categories, like many other would be policies nobody is in the hurry of pushing it to the next level of consensus building and approvals to make it into "proper" policy. We are much more disorganized as compared to other wikipedias in this department. If you are bothered by lack of official approval you can try to push [[Commons:Naming_categories]] further in the process. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:29, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
::'''Consider the discussions I have linked'''. It is not a feasible policy, as may be recognized by the fact that this ''proposal'' has been around for 4 years ''without'' being accepted. Do you have any knowledge of [[:en:set theory|set theory]]? If so, you would recognize it as impossible to implement (would it be "photos of humans by activity by country by name" or "by name by activity by country"?).
::It is precisely the "de facto policy" that is causing a lot of trouble, as can be seen by the numerous categories that have been created by this "de facto policy" only to be deleted for various reasons (redundancy, bad naming, [[:en:pigeonholing|pigeonholing]], disregarding of extant sorting schemes).
::As for "official policy", the fact that it ''is'' an official template (i.e. not itself marked as inofficial) constitutes a claim of officiality. Suppose the license templates would link to [[Commons:Exemption doctrine policy]] instead of [[COM:L]].
::I am not bothered by the proposal status, but by the fact that this proposal is claimed as policy and used to destabilize working and 100% policy category systems. I.e. some editors are pushing it ''without'' approval ''as if it were policy''. Some of them, however, seem simply to be misled. Some Commons subprojects use their own system ''within'' the scope of [[COM:CAT]] (COM:CAT is ''the only'' official categorization policy that may be linked by anyone or anything), which is not accomodated by and runs against the one proposed here, and this is being wrecked piecemeal. The categorization backlog is bad enough to start with, and as an editor who is mainly doing category cleanup I find this a major nuisance and pointless proliferation of categories (introducing an additional layer of complexity in direct violation of [[COM:CAT#Creating a new category]] #1).
::Again, ''read the CfD links I provided'' and perhaps read some introductory work into set theory. The proposal is pigeonholing through and through; the basic idea is alright but the implementation is a load of crap (Do we ''have'' people on Commons who have professional experience with set theory I wonder, or am I the only one?). [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:::As I stated already several times, the links are referring to some sort of prevailing definition of a meta category, not to a standard. I have changed many hundreds of would-be meta categories with that as a reference and rationale. As far as I know, this part of the [[Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION]] has never been contested. If you want absolutely avoid a mix up, you can move the meta cat definition to another page and change the related links. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:38, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::::"Never been contested"? Well you too need to read the CfD links I provided. The metacat project was abandoned for 2 years before some ignorami started to push it in force and to mess up the extant category system with it. That is the problem here. We are struggling hard to maintain categories, and this is absolutely unhelpful and disruptive; pushing such a pet project that has been shown times and again to have grave errors cannot be considered in good faith anymore.
::::It looks good in theory but it sucks in practice, because whoever set it up had insufficient hands-on experience with catsorting on Commons.
::::In a nutshell, [[COM:CAT]] is MANDATORY POLICY and [[Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION]] IS NOT POLICY, and ''you are not permitted to overthrow this'' simply because you like the proposal so much (it is bad faith editing!).
::::Because we have an extant category system that is working well, only certain metacategories are permitted under certain circumstances. Whereas the present state invites users to invent them whole cloth, sensible [[:Category:Lichens by location|or not]]. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


::::@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:Addendum: see [[Commons:Requested_moves#Metacategories]], [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/02/Category:Rivers by country by name]], [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2009/12/Some of categories "by alphabet"]], [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/10/Category:Flat categories]], [[Commons:Deletion requests/Category:Countries by category]], [[Category talk:Templates generating hCards]], [[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/10#Categorize_and_CatDiffuse]], [[Category talk:Categories of the United States by state]], [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2010/08/Category renames for quick review - Round 1: Meta categories]] and several points raised at [[Commons talk:Categories]].
:::::The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:How can anyone seriously claim that this is workable and uncontested? On the contrary! Even the editor who originally proposed it [[Commons_talk:Categories#Commons:Naming_categories|says]]:
<blockquote>I totally agree that we [have] been getting carried away with these metacats.</blockquote>
:I stand by my proposal to let metacategories evolve (create them ''whenever the parent category is >200 subcategories'' according to the criteria used by the subcategories), but not to permit their creation "just so". The sorting criteria have been established in ignorance of the category tree that is already in use. Maintaining the present metacategory scheme would in essence establish 2 conflicting categorization schemes for Commons.
:The biggest problem - the main pigeonholing issue - which will completely screw this up is this:
:As soon as there are too many metacats themselves, they need to be stacked. This works only according to the proposed guidelines if the stacking topics are themselves hierarchical (part of the same category subtree). E.g. "state" as a subdivision of "country", this will be "by country by state". But if stacking topics are part of different subtrees, it cannot work:
:Consider [[:Category:People by occupation by country]], [[:Category:Occupations by country]], [[:Category:People by occupation]], [[:Category:People categories by country]]. Why is the name "People by occupation by country"? There is no logical reason to prefer it over "People by country by occupation", because countries and occupations are not in a hierarchical relationship.
:This problem will increase in scope as more content is pigeonholed into metacats, and at some point it will be realized that the metacat system is completely unworkable as proposed (it creates ''more'' problems as it grows) and it will have to be abandoned. The workload will be beyond belief. To put it on hold and eliminate any formal reference to it until it has been sorted out seems to only feasible solution to prevent Commons from imploding on itself.


:In a nutshell, this conflict is between those who create metacategories, and those who actually ''categorize'' files and have to deal with the mess on a daily basis. In some cases it has become so tangled that you can't even use HotCat anymore. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::::The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::@[[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using ''lex loci protectionis'' principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the ''lex loci protectionis'' (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


:The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]] [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::{{tl|Metacat}} links to [[Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION]] in order to describe the term "meta category." It does not refer to it as a policy. It does not imply that it is a policy any more than {{tl|CatDiffuse}} implies that [[Commons:How to create new subcategories]] is a policy. On my screen, [[:Category:Commons proposed policies and guidelines]] and [[:Category:Commons help]] are clearly visible at the bottom to dispel any doubts.
::<small>I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
:::Certainly does refer to it as a policy! Not verbatim, but the template is ''not'' marked as "proposal" and it skips the introductory warning; it furthermore ''cannot'' refer to it verbatim because templates generally do not make such a reference; they are (or ought to be) ''based on'' policy and refer to it by linking to it (consider the "categorise" template for an example). [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]] [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig]] still, like [[w:en:Teleserye|a typical Filipino TV drama series]] stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:::<s>No</s>Yes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]] [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Rosenzweig|Rosenzweig]] I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]] [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::: "No" can mean "I agree that the answer is negative" and "Yes" can mean "I agree with you" in that context. So basically they can mean the same thing in that sentence in English.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:I like a comment in the page linked above: ''Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids.'' I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a [[:en:Streisand effect|Streisand effect]]. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)


While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::The term "meta category" is probably not self-explanatory to most people, so linking to an explanation is, in my opinion, useful. As long as we have meta categories and a {{tl|metacat}} template, not linking to the definition of "meta category" from {{tl|metacat}} would probably not avoid the cleanups you linked to.
::: My idea would be to add a brief section to [[COM:CAT]] and link it from the template. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. [[:it:Wikipedia:Copyright immagini#Opere d'arte italiane|it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files]]. -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
== Problem with Upload ==


There is a problem with [[Special:Upload]]. Once you have completed the form and submit for uploading, if there is a problem with the selected file name it chooses a new valid name and gives you a chance to proceed. It used to have buttons to change the name or use the selected name. But the problem is it looses all of the description, licencing & categories that has been entered, just offering a blank form with a basic description template. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
::<s>I have read the discussions you linked to. I have done a fair amount of categorisation work. It is still not clear to me what you would like to achieve. Are you suggesting that we do away with categories like [[:Category:People by country]], move over 200 subcategories directly into [[:Category:People]] and do away with the concept of meta categories and {{tl|metacat}} altogether?</s> ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 14:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
: {{ping|Keith D}} I'm not sure I follow that. Could you describe the old and new sequence, indicating where they differ? Or maybe someone can understand this as written and give you an answer. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
:It works for me, the form does not reset. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:: {{ping|Jmabel}} Sorry for late response, I have been away without internet connection. Using [[Special:Upload]] to upload a file from Geograph project using the "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" creates a completed upload file form. You can change this information and add appropriate categories before hitting the "Upload file" button. If the Destination filename contains a character that Commons does not allow, such as a colon, that is when the problem occurs when you try to submit the file upload. The old form would give you an error indicating that he file name was not acceptable and changed it to a valid file name. It then gave you 3 buttons, to accept the change, to modify it or exit the update. You could then proceed with the upload. Now the changed process gives you a button to refresh the screen to see if the upload has worked (this occurs for all uploads now). Once you hit button to see what it has done you get the message the file name is invalid and it revises it to a valid one. In this process it empties the Summary box detail and replaces it with a blank Information template (no fields completed) and the categories added are removed. Thus you have to refill in this information before you can resubmit the suggested modified file name. I think that extra refresh screen button stage that has been introduced is the problem. Hope this is clearer. [[User:Keith D|Keith D]] ([[User talk:Keith D|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|Sannita (WMF)}} is this your realm? If not, do you know whose it is? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] Not the focus of my team, but I can ask around. Can't promise anything. Maybe I can turn it into a Phab ticket and ping someone. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


= May 24 =
::::No, I am advocating to exercise far more restraint with metacategories:
::::* change the link in the template (so that novice users are not encouraged to "metacategory spamming"), e.g. make a short metacat guideline under [[COM:CAT#How to categorize: guidance by topic]]
::::* create them only when needed (as in the "People by..." example - "over 200", that would entirely warrant metacategories I think)
::::* explicitly prohibit metacategories for immediate daughter categories if the "over 200" rule does not apply. E.g. no "Green animals by taxon" as long as there are less than 200 subcategories in [[:Category:Green animals]]. (Rationale: this is in direct violation of the ''mandatory'' policy "Do a thorough search, to be sure there isn't an existing category that will serve the purpose")
::::* allow a working metacategorization scheme to ''evolve on an as-needed basis'' and ''then'' revise the propsal accordingly and make it official. It would certainly get ''my'' vote.
::::The idea is sound in theory but the implementation is flawed in practice ([[:Category:Ursus maritimus in Manitoba]] would eventually be in "Organisms by taxonomic kingdom by species by location" - or "by location by taxonomic kingdom by species"? Or perhaps "Organisms of Canada by..."?)
::::Because at present sweeping changes to Commons' categorization system are being implemented without any proper discussion or established guideline, and not based on accepted policy, and too often without further maintenance (once the metacats are created, their creators too often tend to treat them as their private property yet do no maintenance work). This is not acceptable; it violates all that Commons stands for.
::::In the meantime, we need to categorize. Clean up the horrendous backlog.
::::Because we cannot really tell what metacategories are "good" in the long run, except in a few cases (like "People"). I've been cleaning up "Nature of [country]" categories for the last half-year, and boy is the content mis- or undercategorized. And we cannot (meta)categorize what we cannot see.
::::And this is the biggest problem: people tend to create erroneous daughter categories, because they ''think'' they are warranted, instead of populating the main category first and ''then'' choosing what main category is warranted... this applies not just to metacategories, but to all categories: consider [[:Category:Ratingen]]; I refrained from creating "Animals of Ratingen" but it would certainly be more warranted than [[:Category:Automobile dealerships in Ratingen]]... [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


== [[:Category:Steamboat Willie]] ==
:::Actually, I hadn't read your last post when I wrote this. You certainly have a valid points about problems with multi-level meta categories. I don't think that what you say is contradicted by [[Commons:Naming categories#Categories by CRITERION]] or that the proposed policy suggests creating complex meta category structures willy-nilly. There are de facto common practices even for multi-level meta categories. Perhaps we should try to examine what they are and which ones make sense, and formalise them. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 15:16, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Agree, except for the willy-nilly bit. Because I have seen this in practice - daughter metacats being created to unite a handful of subcategories because "we have the parent metacat". E.g. "by country" metacategories in a category which contains only very few country daughter categories, like [[:Category:1174 by country]]. The user going to [[:Category:1174]] has to go to the metacategory, but there is no practical reason ''not'' to put [[:Category:1174 in Georgia]] directly into "Category:1174" until we have subcategories for ''many'' countries and topics there. The metacategory needlessly introduces another layer of complexity.
::::As for a working policy, perhaps "meta-categories should parallel the extant category subtree" perhaps. As it is now, it invites to create metacategories that are not in line with the extant categorization scheme, based on the fact that a similar metacat has been used elsewhere. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:49, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


:Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like [[:Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type]] are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
::::: (Edit Conflict) [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]], <s>I also read discussion above and checked your links but still have problems what you object to what is your proposed solution.</s> What I gather is that you are frustrated with current categorization approach. I agree with your frustration, see [[Commons:Village_pump#Category_Intersections]] discussion related to this subject. I do not think you need [[:en:set theory|set theory]] to see that current system does not scale well and can not be maintained forever. I do not like Categories_by_CRITERION with 2 "by"s and do not think 3 "by" should be ever used. But I like Categories_by_CRITERION so subcategories by different criterion are not mixed together. My ideal categorization approach would be similar to the one proposed by Multichill [[User:Multichill/Next generation categories|here]], possibly combined with software improvements for handling categories with more than 200 files. Metacategories you object to, are only specialized categories not intended for files. As with any tree structure some nodes serve as [[:en:Leaf node|leaf node]] and store files, some are [[:en:Tree (data structure)|internal nodes]] with subcategories and files, and some are intended to store only other categories - for lack of better name we called them "metacategories". They are identified by {{tl|metacat}} so it is easier to spot files incorrectly using them and move them to the proper categories (either parent or sub-category). By the way [[COM:CAT]] is not a policy: it does not claim to be and is not listed in [[Commons:Policies and guidelines]]. We actually do not have any policy related to categorization other than [[Commons:User-specific_galleries,_templates_and_categories_policy#Categories|this]]. Also your points might be taken more seriously if you refrain yourself from calling other users "ignorami" and "wondering" if you are "the only one" with "professional experience with set theory". --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::(Fixing Edit Conflict) Removing a sentence no longer valid since [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] explained source of his frustration, with which I mostly agree. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:::All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Right, this user edited via {{ip|2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A}}, and then other addresses within {{ip|2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64}}. It is a part of the problematic {{ip|2001:8003:C000::/35}}, as well as the problematic {{ip|2001:8000::/19}}. {{Pinging|Graham87|Albertoleoncio}}, who blocked them on other projects, for input. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::@[[User:Graham87|Graham87]]: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::{{replyto|Jeff G.}} That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the [[w:en:Wikipedia:Abuse response|Abuse response]] team, but it never went anywhere. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::What could Telstra even do? [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::@[[User:Trade|Trade]]: They could enforce their ToS. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is ''undesirable'' it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05#Category:RED_ƎYE|Category:RED_ƎYE]] [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::::{{Pinging|REDƎYE|WikiSyn}}. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::::::::Hi [[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]], thanks for pinging us {{Smiley}}
::::::::::::We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office <small>(based in Roanne, France)</small> is [[User:WikiSyn|WikiSyn]], as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.
::::::::::::We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.
::::::::::::For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).
::::::::::::Thanks for your understanding,
::::::::::::Kind regards,<br> [[User:REDƎYE|RED🔴ƎYE]] ([[User talk:REDƎYE|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05#Overcategorization_in_Category:Space_Jam|here]]. --[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::Created CfD's for the following:
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Space Jam|Space Jam]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Mickey Mouse|Mickey Mouse]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Steamboat Willie|Steamboat Willie]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:The Lego Movie|The Lego Movie]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Looney Tunes|Looney Tunes]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Warner Bros.|Warner Bros.]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles|Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Scooby-Doo and Scoob!|Scooby-Doo and Scoob!]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in various Disney & Warner Bros. categories|Various Disney & Warner Bros. categories]]
::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Films by character|Films by character]]
:: In total these cover over 500 categories.
::--[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.
::Empty [[:Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots]] (from May 13) duplicates [[:Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie]] (from March 26). [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


:Applied a anonymous only block to [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48]]. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users ([https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6177 rfc]). [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Fair enough, but it is frustrating to be threatened because one has "dared" to tag a redundant metacat for merge. And people who simply like to spam metacategories but do no actual category maintanance work ''are'' bad-faith editors, and I do not think notorious bad-faithers deserve kind treatment.
::::::I am not frustrated with present categorization, but by the fact that metacategories tend to overthrow it even if it worls fine as it is ([http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/never_change_a_running_system NCARS]).
::::::As to the main problem - e.g. [[:Category:Animals of Canada]] would not seem to need metacategories now, and possibly ever. Because its subcategories will be limited to "Animals of [Canadian province]", and "[Animal taxon] of Canada", and special-purpose categories (zoos, statues, hunting, books, husbandry etc, which are not amenable to be put into a single metacategory). We can pipe the province categories with "| " and the special-purpose ones with "*" and pipe the taxon categories with "|[taxon]", just as it has been done forever.
::::::The main problem with (multilevel) metacategories: ''file-sorting and file-browsing is actually made more complicated'' if one has to look into the metacategory to see whether an appropriate subcategory exists for the parent category where you move content down from.
::::::And yes, set theory is ''very'' helpful here. The "overlapping categories" problem is precisely that. Commons, in general, has a problem with a tendency to value quantity over quality. It fails where the English Wikipedia has been hugely successful: getting the respect of people with expert knowledge. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


= May 25 =
:I tweaked [[Commons:Naming_categories#Categories_by_CRITERION]] a bit to clarify that categories with too many BYs are not recommended. If there are other specific objections you have to this ''recommendation'' page, lets discuss it here how it should be fixed. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] you mentioned merging metacategories with each other or with parent category. The problem with that is that let say you have [[:Category:Paintings]] and it has 100's sub categories. Categories_by_CRITERION allow us to group them logically into sets based on some criteria so that [[:Category:Oil paintings]], [[:Category:Paintings in Russia]] and [[:Category:1061 paintings]] do not have all sit in [[:Category:Paintings]]. Categories_by_CRITERION are most likely unnecessary for categories with small number of subcategories or files. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:31, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::Again: I agree fully that metacategories should be implemented whenever the number of daughter categories is too large (200 - they ''need'' do be created. 100 - they can very well be).
::The problem is that some editors create metacategories with great enthusiasm, even if they will only contain a single subcategory, and often will block any attempt to merge them back and sometimes even become abusive because someone has dared to touch "their" creation. I can sort of understand the psychology behind that (nobody who has built a large part of Commons likes to see it taken down again), but it is still wrong. We're not doing all this for self-glorification; there is no medal going to the editor with the largest number of contributions. We're doing this so that the users can find their content with the least number of clicks and confusion, or at least this is how it should be.
::Thus, metacategories should be something that is used ''whenever there is need'' to diffuse a messy jumble of dozens and dozens of subcategories. But [[:Category:Categories_by_country_(flat_list)|as you can see]] this is clearly not the case; we have a veritable "metacategory spam" problem already that has resulted in a major usability issue. Trying to correct this is going to take a lot longer than it took to create them in the first place, so we are left with a losing battle if no action is taken to restrict the creation of metacategories to the cases where it is ''necessary''. The four proposals I outlined above will, I think, serve this purpose. If they (or something similar) are implemented, we will eventually arrive at a metacategorization scheme that is stable and can be adopted as policy (or de facto policy considering COM:TOL is not official <---- why isn't it? It's been around as long as I can remember). What is happening now is basically people trying to guess what content will be there in the future, but this is impossible.
::(And FWIW, the original problem still exists: the redirect in the template skips the header at the top of [[Commons:Naming_categories]]. And this is very bad style. The warning is there for a purpose, not to be deliberately hidden.) [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


== File upload wizard ==
:::Hello Dysmorodrepanis. Hi agree with most that you say above, but not with that 200 threshold, nor even with 100. It is much more practical to sort files in daughter categories if they are organized in subgroups. Have a look at [[:Category:Horses in heraldry]] which I organized yesterday or so, using two metacats. I agree that they were not that necessary right now, especially the country ones, but it eases categorization, especially when the number of daughtercats is expected to increase steadily, with horses by tincture, demi-horses, horses by theme, horses by emblazonment, etc. Possibly there will be no need to create more metcats for some time now, but the ones I created, especially "horses by attitude", I believe they are useful since they can be grouped with similar metacats in a parent metacat, as I have done with horses by attitude and lions by attitude, allowing for the comparison of different treatments of animal attitudes in heraldry according to the animal. As for the "by country" cat, an IP had the most unfortunate idea of creating 3 country cats which right now only serve to disperse content, and I thought that placing them on the same level as the "attitude" ones would refrain users to place files there randomly. In anycase, those "by country" cats are expected to increase in the future, if someone gets interested in classifying the horses that way (I must say that I greatly dislike it on first sight, due to the dispersion factor).


Hello everyone,
:::In any case, using 200 as threshold is a number far too large. It makes categorization (pigeonholing, if you like) quite tiresome, having to pick something from dozens of subcats which are not logically grouped.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 20:34, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.
::::Yes, but categories are not created for ease of categorization (for us editors), but for ease of browsing (for the users). This is the main problem. Furthermore, in your example, if one wants to down-categorize an image in [[:Category:Horses in heraldry]], one first has to look up whether the appropriate daughter category exists. This is naturally more complicated if the daughter categories are "one metacategory apart", particularly if (as here) ''both'' sets of dauther categories may apply. So, my approach here would have been to use "|*" piping for "crest"/"supporters"/"by attitude", but use "| " piping for the country cats instead of a metacategory, until there are far more country cats.
::::In a nutshell, use piping until the group created thus gets too large, then take the group and put it in a metacat. I have seen "| ", "|*" and "|+" being used for piping; they will collect as a group at the start of the subcategory list. However, "|!" is generally used to denote "needs attention" (e.g. unidentifieds) and there are some others which have a sort of fixed usage (like "|†" for extinct organisms and "|×" for plant hybrids).
::::("Pigeonholing" is a term referring to categorization errors by overly rigid application of a category structure, which is precisely the problem the present approach invites.) [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:35, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::E.g. [[:File:HUN Balatonszentgyörgy COA.jpg]] has no country category yet, but this is not obvious from "Horses in heraldry"; it needs to be looked up and this takes time, which is annoying if one wants to categorize a large and diverse amount of content. Note [[:Category:Saint_George_in_heraldry]] - certainly it won't be a problem if ''you'' categorize all the content of St. George mounted, but if some other editor does this, s/he will have an increased workload. (Ultimately though, we may find the two metacats to be justified ''when'' all the "St. George mounted" content is in "Horses in heraldry". But we can only really tell when this is done.) [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::I use categories both for categorization and for looking up, especially for looking up, indeed, so I try to organize them in a manner that would be practical to find the content I want. Of course I do this according to my knowledge and needs, therefore it probably has some faults, which I try to correct over the time (occasionally eliminating metacats which are not justified, indeed). About the [[:File:HUN Balatonszentgyörgy COA.jpg]], yes, it has no country category, and thanks God it hasn't. The worst thing that can happen to those categories is to bury the items in some meaningless categories such as "Horses of heraldry of Hungary", making it a torment to properly classify them afterwards. In the case of that CoA the most important classifications are those that objectively describe the CoA (St George killing the dragon, with the appropriate tinctures, not yet there) and a category for the CoA actual function, which is already there (COA of municipalities of Hungary). Everything else is non essential categorization, and if inappropriately used (bury down the thing in "horses in heraldry of Hungary", for instance) can greatly hinder that work, and serves very little purpose.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 03:20, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
(reset indent) While I generally agree with the problem of complex "x by y by z" categories and the many unnecessary meta cats, I do not agree with principles that one has to wait till one has 200 categories before creating a meta category; sometimes, one knows what is going to come and sometimes it is better to maintain a symmetric, predictable structure. But some people seem indeed to enjoy to create new category structures, categorise 3 or 4 items in it and leave the rest for the others.


Regards. [[User:Riad Salih|Riad Salih]] ([[User talk:Riad Salih|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Some problems are related to categorisation which goes too deep (for example down to river per city), which forces then to add besides the "main" category, one or more "side" categories (Both concepts are missing badly on Commons). For example, [[:Category:Rivers of France]] is completely unmaintainable. I made already a crusade against unnecessary "x by name" categories, but never got support. Many of them are just not maintained, precisely because they are side categories (rivers, lakes, ... by name) and basically, nobody needs them. A recent example of such a unnecessary "side" category is [[:Category:Zoos in the United Kingdom by name]], while the main category is now mainly empty. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
Another example: [[:Category:Art by period]]: there are still many new permutations possible...


:{{Pinging|Sannita (WMF)}}. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
:"Zoos in the United Kingdom by name" is a good example of things that shouldn't happen. But it is quickly made and takes a long time to unmake. Thus the changes I proposed; otherwise the "bad" metacategories will eventually outnumber the "good" ones. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:14, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
:Hi @[[User:Riad Salih|Riad Salih]], this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]], has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- [[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] ([[User talk:Ooligan|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] AFAIK, it should be ready for next week. We did the testing in beta for sure, I'll ask on Monday more info about that. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::@[[User:Riad Salih|Riad Salih]] @[[User:Ooligan|Ooligan]] @[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]] This should be fixed now, can you please confirm? [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


= May 27 =
I think that many people want to have meta categories because they think that people will leave no images in it, so it will force better categorisation. Just like people think that when adding diffuse , crowded, overpopulated, ... templates in it, that people will do a better categorisation job. As if that will change something. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


== Strange PDF-Preview behaviour ==
:And all the time you get things like [[:Category:Animals of Scotland by location]] (which I have tagged for merge back). The editor who created it ''could'' have put all the horse and sheep categories into "Mammals" where they belong, but no; I had to do this now while s/he created a metacategory ''instead of cleaning up first''. This is precisely what I mean: instead of category cleanup, additional categories are spawned with no real reason. (I found this while looking for categories for [[:File:Apamea monoglypha larva from Beith, Ayrshire, Scotland.JPG]]; it is really annoying if one has to sift through layer after layer, to decide at which level one has to add the "Insects of..." or whatnot.
:To categorize content now is much harder, as one must go to the metacat to look up whether the geographic location already exists. If these locations were all on the main cat (sorted alphabetically), categorizing the content would be much faster and it would be more obvious that the content ''needs to and can'' be categorized even if neither mammal nor bird, because you would actually ''see'' them there. And that's the big problem - metacategories hide away subcategories. This is good when there are too many of them, but we have the metacat and 2+2 other subcategories, so the metacat content could easily be the "body" (alphabetical) content of the main cat. [[User:Dysmorodrepanis|Dysmorodrepanis]] ([[User talk:Dysmorodrepanis|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:31, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


According to the archived village pump post [[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer]] i have the same problem on [[c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf]] i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see [[s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf]]), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected.
== Public Domain in Spain requires attribution? ==
does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, [[User:Mfchris84|Mfchris84]] ([[User talk:Mfchris84|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
:I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{tl|Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance [[:File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf]] and [[:File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf]]. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. [[User:Animalparty|&#45;-Animalparty]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Animalparty|Animalparty]]: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see [[:mw:How to report a bug]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


= May 28 =
Hello, I was checking the Spanish copyright legislation, and got intrigued by [http://civil.udg.es/normacivil/estatal/reals/Lpi.html#Dominio%20p%C3%BAblico article 41], which says: "''Las obras de dominio público podrán ser utilizadas por cualquiera, siempre que se respete la autoría y la integridad de la obra, en los términos previstos en los apartados 3. y 4. del artículo 14.''" , "''Public domain works may be used by anyone, given that the authorship and integrity of the work is respected, in the terms stated in items 3 and 4 of article 14''" (Article 14 is about moral rights). Is this important enough that something such as "PD-old-Spain" should be created to require attribution and the additional provisions, or can it be neglected entirely, since the servers are in Florida? --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 12:29, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
: According to article 14 of the [http://www.boe.es/boe/dias/1996/04/22/pdfs/A14369-14396.pdf Royal Legislative Decree 1/1996] the recognition right is un-resignable, moreover, it's an imperative; so in case you know the author you must attribute it. According to article 133 and 134 the author, appart from the civil and criminal actions he's entitled to use, he can request the cease of the system used for the publication, the destruction of the files and so on. --[[User:Dferg|Dferg]] ([[User talk:Dferg|talk]]) 13:27, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


== [[:Category:Film characters by actors]] ==
:There are similar provisions in the copyright laws of most countries, particularly in Europe. According to Commons' policies, the source and author must always be provided whenever possible, regardless of local laws. It is generally understood that such attribution requirements do not prohibit use of anonymously published public domain works. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 13:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in [[:Category:Space Jam]], [[:Category:Mickey Mouse]] and a bunch of others.
::Yes, the US has no such requirement, but in many other nations (e.g. Spain, France) the right to attribution is inalienable and cannot be lost or surrendered by any means. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, these are called "moral rights" and are separate from the "economic rights" that our licenses deal with. Many (most even) countries have them. These rights don't explicitly exist in the U.S., at least in most cases (Congress dabbled with them for a narrowly-defined set of "works of visual arts"). In general, violating moral rights is not at all the same thing as violating the economic right; there are usually very different penalties and lots of ways to fix them. With the attribution clauses of the CC licenses etc., missing attribution is actually committing full-blown copyright infringement of the economic rights, as the works are basically being copied without permission. People should know the law in their own country and follow it, regardless if it says "PD" on Commons. This is also why it's a very good reason to document all authorship details etc. as much as possible, including on PD works. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:33, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
:The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
:I think this category structure ''is'' invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.
:The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:
:* [[:Category:Actors by role]] - the inverse relationship of "film characters by actors"
:* [[:Category:Films by actor]] - same concept, organized by films instead of characters
:* [[:Category:Films by shooting location]] - encoding minor facts about films into categories
:[[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
::Most of the categories in [[:Category:Actors by role]] were made by the same guy who filled [[:Category:Film characters by actors]] and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::CfD plz [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Trade}} Created a CfD for [[COM:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Film characters by actors|Film characters by actors]] and [[COM:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Actors by role|Actors by role]]. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Commons is not the place for this. ''Al Capone'' is not defined by ''Alec Baldwin'' and neither is ''Alec Baldwin'' defined by ''Al Capone''. All of these categories should be deleted. The only place this data should be presented is in Wikipedia. Wikidata, might hold the names of movies and their casts, however that again is held in Wikipedia. We are not a repository of ''facts''; we hold files, last time I looked. Only recently we had to go through this nonsense with ''film locations''. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


:{{ping|Broichmore}} Could you link me to the discussion about film locations? Was there a consensus? [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== Problem with image previews ==
::[[Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Film locations by film]] (and the discussion which led into that, [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog]]). [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you 🙂 [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


= May 30 =
There seems to be a problem with image previews on some images, like [[:File:Fresco chehel sotoun 27.jpg]] and [[:File:Fresco chehel sotoun 2.jpg]]. Full resolution is OK, but preview is barred with black lines. Anybody sees the same ? I'm currently viewing from mozilla. [[User:Fabienkhan|Fabienkhan]] ([[User talk:Fabienkhan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


== Renaming of [[:File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg]] ==
:I get a red X with Internet Explorer for thumbnail and full size. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 00:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
{{atop|Proceeding with rename. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 14:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)}}
Ok, this is getting a bit ridiculous, but this rename request has been at some sort of limbo state for 5 months so I'm bringing it here so it can gain more attention. Should we rename the file to [[:File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg]]? I quote Fry1989's reasoning:


"This flag is currently in use, so the year of introduction should not be included in the file name. This is as per Commons' long-standing practice of naming flag images "Flag of XXX.svg" without a year of introduction unless the flag has been retired from use. It also can be confused for implying this flag was only used in 2023, as per the naming styles for flags such as [[:File:Flag of Burundi (1966).svg]], [[:File:Flag of Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).svg]], and [[:File:Flag of Jamaica (1962).svg]], which were only used for 1 year or less and for that reason include both their year of introduction and year of retirement as a single year."
:: Its not a Browser problem, its Commons (Mediawiki). But I see too IE(8) cant render this JPEGs. Im also not a expert, but I see this JPGs have no ColorSpace (32bit instead of 16bit?) and a "CMYK" compression!? --&nbsp;[[User:Perhelion|Perhelion]] ([[User talk:Perhelion|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:05, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Pinging previously involved editors: {{ping|Fry1989|KylieTastic|Paine Ellsworth|billinghurst|p=}}. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:::Yes, it uses the CMYK system, which Commons cannot render properly. I can convert it to a usable format, but due to differences between systems, the colour palette changes dramatically, resulting in unnaturally bright and vibrant colours. If someone knows of a way to preserve colours between CMYK and RGB, please do so, and this image might be saved. It's a very nice piece. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 04:55, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


:{{s}} as proposer. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
::::I have uploaded a new version of [[:File:Fresco chehel sotoun 2.jpg]], the black lines are now gone. Opened in Gimp and saved with minimal metadata - no changes to color profile (unless Gimp automatically set one). To reduce generational loss I set Gimp jpeg settings to high quality, hence the larger file size. If this version is acceptable, I will also convert the second file. [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:{{s}} Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
:Leaning toward {{s|support}} pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has [[File talk:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg#Discussion about rename|changed since January]]? '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.&nbsp;I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
:{{s}} as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
{{abottom}}


== Enabling MP4 ==
:::::Yes MKFI, that's perfect, please do the same with the other image. I don't know why I wasn't able to get GIMP to do the same. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 04:08, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi, Ten years ago, there was [[Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video]]. I think it is time that we consider enabling MP4. At least some of the patents expired, according to the discussion. And [[Commons:video2commons|video2commons]] is broken for the last 2 weeks, and nobody seems to be able to fix it, or even working on it. In addition, it seems that WEBM format creates larger videos than MP4, which has for consequence that big videos can only be uploaded in a reduced quality. Any idea how to proceed? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
::::::I have uploaded a new version of [[:File:Fresco chehel sotoun 27.jpg]] stripped of Photoshop metadata. [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:46, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


:Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
== {{tl|Attribution}} ==
:@[[User:Yann|Yann]] MP4 can be H264 or H265. WEBM can be VP9 or AV1. AV1 is to VP9, what H265 is to H264. H264 and VP9 are old. AV1 and H265 are more efficient. If you transcode from H265 to VP9 the result is of course larger. If you transcode from H264 to AV1 the result is smaller. If you transcode from H265 to AV1 the result is more or less same size. The patent for H264 has expired. The patent for H265 has not expired. For some time now MW has full support of AV1. Most people are not aware about the H264 vs H265 isssue. If MP4 is allowed, people will start to complain that they cannot (must not) upload some MP4 files (and are unaware of the H254/H265 issue). All modern iOS and Android devices use H265 (in a MOV or MP4 container). However you can transcode your own uploads with AV1 transcoding and they will have small size and high quality. v2c can be altered to use AV1 instead of VP9. [[User:C.Suthorn|C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p)]] ([[User talk:C.Suthorn|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|C.Suthorn}} When does H265 patent expire? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
::::Per [[:en:High Efficiency Video Coding]], the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]] [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::its always going to be a UI problem that video (container) formats are more like zip files then a specific format. Mp4 can have all sorts of formats inside, and will probably have new formats in the future. For that matter VVC/H.266 is already the newest thing. That said just giving the user an error message doesn't sound that terrible. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:How about the middle ground where commons allows uploading of such files but automatically converts them to webm, discarding the mp4 version. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Yes. V2C allows for more too, but alas now it's broken. Result is, I have several videos pending that I would like to upload, but I can't. I could if either V2C would work, or if the size limit for basic upload form was higher AND mp4 was allowed (or automatically converted). Regards --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::+1 also support this. If the ability to convert files to webm was previously a gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the site from getting flooded with useless mundane videos and copyvios, other mechanisms should be added. I think there already is a problem with most video uploads being nothing useful and nearly no videos ever getting DRd. I don't know if video2commons has code to convert non-webm files to webm but if so, that could be used; either way converting video files on the server should be a relatively simple common sense thing to add. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


=== Video2Commons ===
This template isn't deprecated, is it? And if so, what should be done with images on other wikis with this license? I've been transferring files under this license from enwiki, and [[User:Nikbot]] has been tagging them as lacking license information. &mdash;[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] 01:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:Yes, several people reported this: [[phab:T365154]]. And it is in this state since May 15th. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)


= May 31 =
:Probably {{tlx|Copyrighted free use provided that|Attribution: }} and do not delete {{tl|Attribution}}. -- [[User:Rillke|<b><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#0C9;background-color:#FFF">RE</span></i></b>&nbsp;rillke]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rillke|questions?]] 07:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


== Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia ==
::Why not simply use {{tlx|attribution|text{{=}}image credit}}? &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 12:08, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Specific attributions were not explicitly specified on enwiki. It looks like simply {{tl|Attribution}} works: and it's what shows up with {{tl|Copyrighted free use provided that}}. &mdash;[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] 15:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


In direct response to the new [[meta:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025|Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2024-25]], a group of Wikimedians has co-authored a statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons, beyond Wikipedia. We would like to see WMF staff support for Wikimedia Commons in its own right (not just to illustrate Wikipedia), and proper resourcing for Wikimedia Commons. You can read the statement in two places and endorse it in any (or both) places if you agree.
::Categories are not included with redirects? {{tl|CopyrightedFreeUseProvided}} is a redirect to {{tl|Attribution}}. But the problem is that it does not categorize in "License tags attribution". Nikbot tags files dependent on the categories. -- [[User:Rillke|<b><i><span style="font-family:Arial;color:#0C9;background-color:#FFF">RE</span></i></b>&nbsp;rillke]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Rillke|questions?]] 16:37, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Nikbot just needs to add [[:Category:Copyrighted usable]] (and subcategories) to it's license category list. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:30, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


* [[Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia#Signatures|Essay on Wikimedia Commons]]
== {{tl|PD-Libya}} ==
* [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025#Resourcing_Wikimedia_Commons_beyond_Wikipedia|Feedback on WMF annual plan (talk page)]]


More context on the essay's [[Commons:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia#Why_this_page|page]] and [[Commons_talk:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia|talk page]].
Should I use this template for pictures published in the 30's in Libya (at that time [[:en:Italian Libya]])?--[[User:Kimdime|Kimdime]] ([[User talk:Kimdime|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


Best, [[User:Spinster|Spinster]] ([[User talk:Spinster|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
== Relicensing on Flickr ==


== Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed ==
A while ago I uploaded two photos from Flickr ([[:File:Brading Roman Villa interior.jpg|1]] and [[:File:Brading Roman Villa interior 2.jpg|2]]). However I have now noticed the original author of the work has relicensed it preventing it from being used commercially. I'm assuming it's still alright for these images to stay on Commons? If so should I add anything to the file page to let possible re-users know? Thanks, <font color="#FF7518">[[User:Editor5807|'''Editor5807''']]</font><font color="#FF7518"><sup>[[User talk:Editor5807|'''speak''']]</sup></font> 18:19, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:Your uploads are fine [[User:Flickr upload bot/upload]] certifies that the license was correct at the time of upload. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:25, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
::By the way shall we move template [[User:Flickr upload bot/upload]] to template namespace? This is not a correct place for a template. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:31, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:You can also add {{tl|Flickr-change-of-license}} to files if you would like something extra to assure reusers when this happens. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 18:42, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
::OK thanks for that, I thought they would probably be safe. I'll use the template if I notice it again. <font color="#FF7518">[[User:Editor5807|'''Editor5807''']]</font><font color="#FF7518"><sup>[[User talk:Editor5807|'''speak''']]</sup></font> 00:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


This was [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/12#Category:Men_of_the_France_by_name brought up here last year] for category "Men of the France by name". There are now over 53,000 links to it -- not entries in it, but links to the category. There are also over 50,000 links to "Men of the Germany by name". I see similar ones for other countries. (You can find them under [[Special:WantedPages]].) None of the categories actually exist. I gather that a module was changed to fix this problem, but the problem has apparently recurred. Can someone help? -- [[User:Auntof6|Auntof6]] ([[User talk:Auntof6|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
== Need to get files back ==


:{{Strikethrough|It looks like the Special:WantedPages are cached and only updated twice a month. I assume the use of the category was due to a template error that has since been fixed. I would wait to do anything until the next update of wanted pages.}} I think I'm wrong with my previous comment. Please disregard. [[User:William Graham|William Graham]] ([[User talk:William Graham|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Can we get these files back:
::This may be an issue with {{template|Wikidata Infobox}}. I would ask on the template talk page and see if the maintainers have any idea what is going on. I know that from previous go arounds on this, the template/Lua script checks for instances of "the" country categories at some point in the execution. [[User:William Graham|William Graham]] ([[User talk:William Graham|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[:File:ALSEP Passive Seismic Experiment.jpg]]
::Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
* [[:File:ALSEP Lunar Surface Gravimeter.gif]]
:::[[User:William Graham|William Graham]] You are correct {{template|Wikidata Infobox}} and [[Module:Wikidata_Infobox]] in lines 1283-1294 does exactly that. It checks for existence of category with and without "the", and the first check is for the options with "the". [[User:Mike Peel]] and [[User:LennardHofmann]] maintain that code. Mike and Lennard I suspect that some countries always use "the" and some don't so you should be able to create a lookup table of maybe all the countries that use "the" and at least have a good guess which one of 2 options to try first. If you want I can write a patch to fix this. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
* [[:File:ALSEP Lunar Seismic Profiling Experiment Charge.gif]]
* [[:File:ALSEP Heat Flow Experiment.gif]]
* [[:File:ALSEP Solar Wind Spectrometer.gif]]
* [[:File:ALSEP SIDE CCIG.gif]]
* [[:File:ALSEP RTG Cask.jpg]]
* [[:File:ALSEP RTG ALSEP.jpg]]
They were deleted because no source was given, but the source for all of them is NASA, which makes them in the public domain. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
:{{not done}}. They were all transferred from en.wikipedia and had PD-USGov-NASA tags on them, but they had no actual source for the files to prove they were created by NASA (and not a third party photo that was shown on NASA's website). Wikipedia is not a source. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 00:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


== I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded. ==
:: I can get that information if I have the files back. I have CDs with those photos on them, so I can get the NASA photo number and link that to the photo on a NASA website. I can do that if I have those files back, but I can't do it without them because I don't know what the Passive Seismic Experiment (for example) looks like. I can fix the source if the files are back. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:16, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:: And, by the way, what "third party" was on the Moon to take the photos, other than NASA? (If they are photos and not drawings - I don't remember) [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:18, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi
::: Okay, restored. [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 02:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
I don't seem to be able to use the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Holy_Roman_Empire.pdf
It show up in Commons but in Wikipedia I'm not able to use it. Why? It happened for my last file and someone 'did' something... I don't know what was done but it worked. What should I do to fix it? {{#invoke:Autotranslate|autotranslate|base=Unsigned|1=M F Gervais|2=18:45, 31 May 2024|3=}}
:{{ping|M F Gervais}} It is there and it functional however due to how big and unwieldy it is as a pdf it takes a while to render, especially whern it has to develop the image cache first:
:[[File:M F Gervais Holy Roman Empire.pdf|500x120px]]
: Now because PDFs are typically multipage document it can need extra formatting if you are trying to do it through standard wiki formatting. [[mw:help:images]]. PDFs should not be used if you want to display an image, please upload an image file per [[Com:File types]] {{xs|07:59, 1 June 2024‎ Billinghurst}}


== Transparency in the Checkuser Process ==
:::: Thanks. So far I've found some very similar ones in the NASA images, but not those exact ones. I need more time to look. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:29, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


The checkuser process is not open to auditing. From a technical perspective, there is no page to confirm that the checkuser process was performed because it likely involves not only the internal technical aspect handled by the MediaWiki tool but also a human element in analyzing user behavior patterns. I believe there should be a task list available that can at least ensure the technical checkuser was conducted and found no connection. It is not clear to me that it was done just because the administrator said so. I think this step is necessary to prevent human errors. --[[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
:::::These are taken from an Apollo program manual...I recognise the font type and styling...but I don't know which one. Certainly NASA, in my opinion. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 05:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser]. Please inform yourself better at [[m:Checkuser policy]]. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Aha, at least some of these images, or re-labelled versions of them, come from [http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/a17/A17_MissionReport.pdf Apollo 17 Mission Report (JSC-07904)]. I'll add sources for those I can find. Note that other Apollo mission reports are at http://www.hq.nasa.gov/alsj/alsj-mrs.html. <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 06:39, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works internally. I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::: Thanks. I've been going through my Apollo Lunar Surface Journal discs looking for them. I found some very similar ones, but not those exact ones. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::: At least some of them seem to be from the appendix of the Apollo 17 Mission Report by NASA. [[User:Bubba73|Bubba73]] ([[User talk:Bubba73|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:17, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::: Yes I've added the source with pages, but only 3. The one image is very similar so the source of NASA is more than likely. In A16 I found no image. --&nbsp;[[User:Perhelion|Perhelion]] ([[User talk:Perhelion|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::: I think we can find all images at NASA. The images in the PDFs have also much higher resolution. I've exported 2 (with Inkscape) they have also lower size because they are real monospace images [[:File:Active_Seismic_Experiment_Thumper.png]]([[:File:Active_Seismic_Experiment_Thumper.gif|old]]) and [[:File:ALSEP RTG ALSEP.png]]([[:File:ALSEP RTG ALSEP.jpg|old]]) Can anyone replace them? --&nbsp;[[User:Perhelion|Perhelion]] ([[User talk:Perhelion|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


:checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other.
=May 7=
:the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|RZuo}} That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward] &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".
:::i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100]]. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::actually 2. i cant trace [[User:Mardetanha]]'s ban to anything.
::::i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::The [[User:Benoît Prieur]] case is public ([[:fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite]]). [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::* {{ping|TheDJ}} I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::*:"we dont even know who's behind that shared account." —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::::The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::::If we have an organization that throws crumbs of food to distract the dogs, I highly doubt it cares about what the "reliable lifelong members" are doing to perform their duties without any pay. The likelihood of these people being corrupted is immense. [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::::@[[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] Just FYI, we also get sued on court. Often. 🙄 [[User:DarwIn|<span style="font-family:Candara; color:#4153A0; font-size:110%;"> '''Darwin'''</span>]] [[User Talk:DarwIn|<span style="color:#4153A0; font-style:oblique;"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></span>]] 19:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|RZuo}} The statement on user accounts says that if you have queries about the ban, then email. So, if you have questions then email. The email will be somewhat generic. They are banned typically for breaking the rules, though you cannot expect staff to go into the specific details of how a person broke the terms of use, nor how they found out they broke the rules. Not only does privacy have to be maintained, once you start making statements about people, they also have the right of reply, was when banned is contrary.<p>The membership of WMF office is not secret, in fact it is listed at [[m:Meta:WMF Trust and Safety]] and [[FoundationSite:role/staff-contractors]]. No they are not elected, they are appointed as paid staff members/contractors as staff members/contractors are appointed around the world. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 09:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


:What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
== UploadWizard as default uploader is coming ==
::I don't see the point to this. If an evil checkuser was not carrying out the actual checkuser, surely if this system was in place they would just run the check and not look at the results, carrying on in their evil ways. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Wilfredor}} Trust! You can retain whatever suspicions you want, these people are trusted, and they are checked by each other. Checkuser should be a tool only used when needed, and if someone is bothering to say that they are using it, they are using it. I can think of way more important tools that we need than that. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::It is not enough to rely solely on users or WMFOffice. On Spanish Wikipedia, for instance, a politically aligned group of users controls various spaces, including CheckUser. When these users are involved, CheckUser actions are completed in minutes, while other cases can take months. This is just one example of what I want to avoid. Because this is a global tool, I have brought the issue here. [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


== Problems with deceased Commons users ==
Hi,


It seems like user pages of deceased users get fully protected for preservation and to avoid vandalism. I support this practice. However that protection prevents any file renames (for files displayed on the page) or user category renames. Any ideas on how regular users can perform non-controversial operations like file-renames or categorization on deceased Commons userspages? See for example [[User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood#Please_replace_File:Ralli.3.JPG]]. [[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
''(cross-posted to commons-l)''
:The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix? &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:: It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:::{{Ping|billinghurst|Jmabel}} The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at [[:Category:Commons protected edit requests]], and [[User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood]] is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::::{{ping|Jarekt}} I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [{{ping|Jmabel}} hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.
:::::Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
{{ping|billinghurst}} But, for example, there are cases like [[User:Fæ]]. He's presumably alive (hi, Fæ, if you are reading this), he never formally left the project, he is certainly not blocked, he simply has chosen not to contribute lately. He's at least a contender for the most prolific uploader in the history of Commons, so inevitably some issues will come up about some of his uploads. His user talk page is the logical place for a bot to notify about those issues, so I monitor it. I would hope someone will do the same for my talk page after my departure, whenever that may be and for whatever reason. I can't really think of a way around that, unless we were to either (1) give up on having a place to notify in those circumstances or (2) add a special case for every closed/abandoned/inactive account and have a way for ''all'' bots that do notifications that indicate issues with files, categories, etc. to be able to handle that special case. That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Jmabel}} If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. {{ping|Enhancing999}} I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|billinghurst}} so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I am proposing nothing. I am saying that I don't see the point of it. I think that it is setting ourselves up to fail under an unreasonable burden that will grow every year as a burden. We have a DR mechanism and that should flow, and requires an admin to act. We already condemn the Wikisources to such a problematic deletion situation where their used works are nominated for deletion and removed without a clear notification of use, nor a particular compunction to care. How is a dead user different? We hard protect pages to preserve them, then I hear that we should not hard protect them as that stops them from being updated, and then I hear that the talk pages are equally an issues as someone wants to watch them for a user who has died or left our service. What is wrong with this picture? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


= June 01 =
We’re planning to make a change on May 9, 2011 [1]: We’ll replace the link in the Wikimedia Commons sidebar that currently points to Commons:Upload with a link to Special:UploadWizard (in all languages). If all goes well, we'll also invite Wikimedia wikis to begin changing upload links that currently point to Commons:Upload or Special:Upload to Special:UploadWizard.


== Stuck in category redirects ==
If you haven't tried the UploadWizard yet, go to [[Special:UploadWizard]] to test it.


At [[Special:Permalink/880570764]] a list of category redirects with files (or subcategories) that aren't moved.
We’ve a made it easier to get back to the old form from
Special:UploadWizard, and added an invitation to help with
localization.


This is generally due to categories being added by templates. I identified some at [[User_talk:RussBot/category_redirect_log#Template_populating_category_redirects]] and fixed a few occurrences. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
'''NOTE: We still need lots of additional translations, so if you can help with that, please do so on translatewiki.net.'''
:Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
:Normally, there shouldn't be any category on that list. If one is there it means RussBot tried to move the files or subcategories, but couldn't. If the category is empty now, it means it has been fixed.
:Maybe there is a way to adapt [[w:Template:Resolve category redirect]] so redirecting categories aren't picked up by templates. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)


==Commons Gazette 2024-06==
Sign up for translatewiki:
* http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Special:FirstSteps


=== Volunteer staff changes ===
Translation group:
In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are [{{canonicalurl:Special:ListUsers/sysop|limit=500}} 184 sysops].
* http://translatewiki.net/w/i.php?title=Special:Translate&group=ext-uploadwizard
*[[User:Benoît Prieur]] was removed on 13 May [https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/rights?page=User:Beno%C3%AEt_Prieur@commonswiki due to global ban by the Wikimedia Foundation]. He had served as sysop [[Special:UserRights/Benoît Prieur|since 18 January 2018]].


===Other news===
Current status:
*[[Commons:Video2commons|Video2commons]] is out of service since 16 May.
* http://translatewiki.net/wiki/User:Multichill/stats
*[[User:SteinsplitterBot]] is back in service rotating files. [[special:permalink/879836317#Toolserver|User:Steinsplitter explained]] that it was out of service because ' ''the so called "Toolsforge" does not provide enough ressources (RAM, CPU, Storage and binarys) to run Rotatebot'' '.
----
Edited by [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]).
----
<small>''[[Commons:Commons Gazette|Commons Gazette]]'' is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also [[Commons talk:Commons Gazette|help with editing]]!</small>


--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
The quality, status and up-to-dateness of translations of the old
upload form is very mixed. By switching all languages immediately to
UploadWizard and working with translatewiki.net, we're hoping to
accelerate the process of getting solid localizations across the
board. We apologize for the short term inconvenience this may cause.
[2]


= June 02 =
The old upload process will remain indefinitely available. There’s no
reason to remove it. This is purely a change to the default process
we’re exposing to the world. We feel we’ve fixed all the obvious bugs
that we know about (there are some annoying bugs that we do know about
left, but they’re not showstoppers). The best way for us to find the
remaining bugs is to have people actually use it as their first upload
experience and to continue to receive and process feedback.


== Help with cropping borders from images ==
As a reminder, here’s what UploadWizard gets us:
* Up to 10 files can be uploaded in one batch. We are hoping to expand this feature set to allow for parallel uploading, multi-file selection, and more.
* Some metadata is automatically extracted and pre-filled.
* You can see thumbnails before you’re completing your upload.
* Error cases should be handled in a clear and understandable interface.
* Less clutter due to systematic learning design as opposed to mixing instructions and process.
* Much, much friendlier to new users as validated by our usability studies.


Hi. I was wondering if people could help me crop the borders from images in [[:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive with borders]]. It currently contains 23,469 images that need cropping which isn't great, but every little bit helps. Thanks. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Major remaining gotchas:


:23,317 images now 🙂 [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
* If your entire upload takes longer than 25 minutes, it fails. Very annoying, we know. Not entirely trivial to fix but we know how and we’ll get to it soon.
:Why, I dont see any images in urgent need of cropping, please give some examples [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::{{ping|Broichmore}} it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::They have catalog numbers, which say something about the DDR. Their discreet enough, not to worry about. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:For those who don’t know, [[Commons:CropTool]] is handy for this. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I just did several with no issues. I have rarely had problems with that tool. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Yesterday I overwrote an image, when I went to crop out details from the new image, croptool wanted to goto the original image to do the croppng. Had to resort to GIMP to do the job. It wasn't a cache problem. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::I started using CropTool yesterday to assist with this task, so far it's worked like a charm. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::Good. Doing some back-of-the-envelope math, someone can plausibly do three of these a minute, so with 23,000 images, that means 128 person-hours of work, which is a lot for one person, but reasonable for a small group. —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Just to say, the museum source has not cropped them, why would they not? There seems to be some kind of mania, here, in cropping out borders to satisfy OCD urges. Margins prove the extent of images, they confirm that images are indeed complete. Any source museum would consider this vanadalism. I have to say that certain museums employ prestigous decals on their images, claiming source, the ''Imperial War Museum'', The ''British Library'', the ''Bundesarchive'' in this case. Cropping out these details, deny them the opportunity of advertising, which is cheeky when you consider they curate these images for us for free. These ''Bundesarchiv'' decals that are being cropped out deny 'end users' easy attribution of where these images come from. Wikipedia in particular is bad for not only referencing the source museum, but also even the artist. Furthermore, in the new world of AI, these decals go some way to prove authenticity. At this point their discreet enough, not to worry about. This is not a good use of our resources, and is wrong. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|Broichmore}} I don't necessarily disagree. If I had my way I'd probably just remove the crop requests, but I didn't add them to begin with and I try to respect what other users want. It would at least be less work to just not crop the images to begin with though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::Indeed, the thing is that every so often editors discover the crop tool and see it as an easy pastime. When in fact it's a tool that should be rarely used, and with great caution. The average original uploader is more than capable of cropping their images prior to uploading, their wishes should be respected.
::Even in these images, the ''Bundesarchiv'' logo, tell us so much. Date, German origin, the importance put on collecting the image by the German government, and that they consider it being worthy of preservation, & etc. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:This misunderstands how Wikipedia/Commons attributes images. The sources and authors are listed on the image's descriptions pages, not in the text on Wikipedia itself (this also to discourage using Wikipedia as a tool for self-promotion). With regards to this collection specifically, the information listed in the image is also listed on the page (the bild ID (and a link to the ID on the archive), the year it was taken, the name of the photographer, if one is known, the archive itself). This is where that information is supposed to be; there is no need to have it be visible on the image too. This kind of visible watermarking is discouraged. Invisible watermarking on the other hand is ''encouraged'' because it doesn't interfere with the contents of the images themselves. Every single one of the images in this collection has invisible watermarking too (the EXIF data if you scroll to the bottom), which contains the same information that's visible in the margins, and is wholly unaffected by the crop tool. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


== Aligning images with strong sources ==
* Thumbnails for some file formats (video and audio, for instance) are not shown during the upload process. This should not affect the success of the actual upload.


We have several pictures from WWII concerning Croatian area that are described wrongly or incorrectly given that this is what the secondary sources who comment or talk about these pictures say. The source that took picture from a Yugoslav archive is United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is also a factual source, however, it has a description of the image that is not in accordance with modern sources, which mark such an interpretation(regardless from whom) and as propaganda.
* Right-to-left support is far from perfect and consistent. Suggestions for improvement are most welcome. If you speak an RTL language, please hammer the wizard and tell us is if it's a showstopper issue for you -- we don't think that's the case, but we need your input.


What to do in this case, and if nothing can be changed, can the same picture be posted but with an explanation ie description based on modern high-quality sources of historians?
* There are a number of other known cases where uploads will stall and the user has no option to fix the problem. It happens much less often than it does with the old upload form, and we believe the most important bugs (e.g. title blacklist related failures) will be squashed as part of this release. There is a link to provide feedback right in the subtitle of the page – if you do have a problem, please report as much detail as possible!


Images are: Corpses in the Sava river, Sisak 1945.[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Corpses_in_the_Sava_river,_Sisak_1945.jpg], Ustaše militia execute prisoners near the Jasenovac concentration camp[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Usta%C5%A1e_militia_execute_prisoners_near_the_Jasenovac_concentration_camp.jpg], Glina church massacre [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Glina_church_massacre.jpg] --[[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
How do we know the new process is much improved? Through qualitative
studies of the upload interface. See the report on the multimedia
usability project for details and videos:


:Maybe this helps: [[:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg]] reproduces the original description with a caption/disclaimer. The actual wiki-description goes in a different field. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Multimedia_usability_project_report
::I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
::: For starters, there is {{tl|fact disputed}}. If (as appears to be the case here) the matter is genuinely controversial, that's a good choice: you are not simply making a correction, you are noting that two presumably scholarly sources disagree.
::: [[:File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg]] may not be the best example, because it just has a generic warning. [[:File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg]] might be a better example. Note: "original description" distinct from (corrected) "title"; also, in the "description" field, note the horizontal bar separating what the original source said from Commons' own original content.
::: Also, when contradicting a presumably respectable scholarly source, it is a good idea to report the contradiction back to them. They are likely to incorporate it into their archives as well (which I see has now happened with that example I gave). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)


== Guitars, bass guitars, and [[COM:OVERCAT]] ==
We’re also continually user-testing the software through quick and
cheap user-tests using usertesting.com -- we’ll share our first batch
of test videos soon.


I'm currently in something of a dispute with [[User:186.172.16.70]] over guitars, bass guitars, and (implicitly) [[COM:OVERCAT]]. If this were a logged in user, I'd try to sort this out between just the two of us but, sorry, I'm not engaging over time with an account that might be a different person each time I interact.
Please continue to add your thoughts & comments to the feedback page,
and we’ll aim to respond in a speedy fashion.


If I understand correctly [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Helmut_Sinor&diff=prev&oldid=880932906 this edit] is because bass guitars are, in a sense, a form of guitar, so there is an implicit argument that [[:Category:Male guitarists from Austria]] is overcat for [[:Category:Male bass guitarists from Austria]]. However, bass guitar is, in practice, a distinct instrument from a regular guitar, and we don't have something like a [[:Category:No, really I meant a normal guitar]]. This particular person (unlike most bass guitarists) played/plays both a bass guitar and a regular guitar professionally, and in my opinion in that case someone should certainly be categorized under both, despite the theory of OVERCAT. Do others here, besides this one user, see it differently? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm very excited about this change and I hope you are, too. :-) We've
received an overwhelming amount of positive feedback regarding the
UploadWizard experience, and while there are still lots of ways in
which we can do better, we hope you'll agree that it's a huge step
forward.


:There is no such thing as "regular guitar". Unless there is such a thing as irregular guitar. Do you mean Spanish guitar? Classical guitar? Ritm guitar? Of course admins are always right, this is why I chose not to be one. [[Special:Contributions/186.172.16.70|186.172.16.70]] 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
All best,
::Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 [[Special:Contributions/186.172.16.70|186.172.16.70]] 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
[[User:Eloquence|Erik Moeller]] 03:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:::By the way, why is [[:Category:Bass guitarists]] a subcategory of [[:Category:Guitarists]]? [[Special:Contributions/186.172.16.70|186.172.16.70]] 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:By a "regular guitar" I mean one with six strings, tuned in the usual register.
: I'm not sure why [[:Category:Bass guitarists]] is a subcategory of [[:Category:Guitarists]], and (as a guitarist) I would not have made it so, any more than I would have made violists a subcategory of violinists. That is exactly the issue I am raising here. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


'''Again, would someone please weigh in besides the two of us who are already arguing? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)'''
; Notes
[1] We may choose to push the date forward a bit if we run into
deployment issues.


:There may be an expectation by some that the guitar(ist) categories are meant to contain guitar-like instrument(alist)s as subcategories. That issue is easily solved by {{T|cat see also}}. We already have [[:Category:Guitar family instruments|Guitar family instruments]] as a common category. I assume bass guitarists mostly aren't also known as (or routinely professionally performing as) "normal" guitarists – if they are, then the issue is different. –[[User:LPfi|LPfi]] ([[User talk:LPfi|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
[2] There's a subheader in the UploadWizard which takes you back to
:: I would certainly be happier if, in general, bass guitars were subcatted from [[:Category:Guitar family instruments]] (which should probably be hyphenated: "guitar-family" as an adjective) rather than [[:Category:Guitars]]. Similarly for bass guitarists, though we don't yet have a category for players of guitar-family instruments. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
the old upload form. To ensure that at least the link to the old form
is translated into your language (if you're an administrator or can
find one), you can edit the following user interface message in your
language (add "/language code" to the URL, e.g. "/pl" for Polish):


:I agree with {{u|Jmabel}} here - in context, "guitarist" specifically means someone who plays a normal guitar, so I view this as analogous to the [[:Category:Politicians of Germany]] example in [[COM:OVERCAT]]. -- [[User:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red">King of ♥</b>]][[User talk:King of Hearts|<b style="color:red"> ♦</b>]][[Special:Contributions/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♣</b>]][[Special:EmailUser/King of Hearts|<b style="color:black"> ♠</b>]] 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-subhead-alt-upload


== Category inclusion bug ==
:Great to see the new upload wizard go live! [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 11:21, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::What about those who use the current upload form and the basic upload form (IE: Will both stay? Will it be linked on the [[Commons:Upload|Upload file]] ect)? [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


[[:Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Bavaria]] correctly shows [[:Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Germany]] as a parent cat, but the latter does not show the former as a child cat. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
: I would like to see the current bugs fixed first. Are they (e.g. browser's back button handling)? And please provide an easy(!) way (... maybe a link on top: "please use the old form as standard for me") for non-newbies to switch permanently (until revocation) back to the current standard form. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 01:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:Categories included due to templates frequently have issues with updating due to cache issues or the MediaWiki software updating its index (which I believe is done weekly). So while three days is a long time for it to not display, it’s not entirely unreasonable. Have you tried purging both cats and the template (I cannot on the machine I’m using presently)? —[[User:Koavf|Justin (<span style="color:grey">ko'''a'''vf</span>)]]<span style="color:red">❤[[User talk:Koavf|T]]☮[[Special:Contributions/Koavf|C]]☺[[Special:Emailuser/Koavf|M]]☯</span> 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
:: I had purged both cats. I didn't think to try purging the template; now I've done so, and it still didn't resolve this. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Null edit fixed the problem. [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


= June 03 =
Continued at section → [[#Switch_to_UploadWizard]]. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 02:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


== Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee ==
== Requesting help from specialists on astronomy ==


<section begin="announcement-content" />
[[File:Planetarium (4).jpg|thumb|left|What's that exactly?]]
:''[[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – results|You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.]] [https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Translate&group=page-{{urlencode:Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024/Announcement – results}}&language=&action=page&filter= {{int:please-translate}}]''
Hi everybody, I've found some nice Flickr pictures of one of the least well known of all really interesting science museums in the world, see [[:Category:Crypte aux étoiles]]. But being the amateur I am, i find it hard to categorize some items otherwise than very generally. Could somebody help out with a bit of specific knowledge? Thank you very much. --[[User:Edelseider|Edelseider]] ([[User talk:Edelseider|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:37, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


Hello,
:First step done: Added identification / info sources for [[:File:Planetarium_(1).jpg]]. To be extracted and categorized. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 02:42, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee/Election/2024|Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election]].
:Second step done: this http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planetarium_%2811%29.jpg is this: http://cortrie.de/uhren-und-schmuckauktion/index.php/lose/incategory/taschenuhren/4512 --[[User:AtelierMonpli|AtelierMonpli]] ([[User talk:AtelierMonpli|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:
:Third step: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planetarium_%282%29.jpg it's a flame photometer from 1937, a heliostat and a polarimeter, for more information enlarge the pic to 1600 x 1200 pixel and read the text. (cannot translate)--[[User:AtelierMonpli|AtelierMonpli]] ([[User talk:AtelierMonpli|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:33, 8 May 2011 (UTC)


* North America (USA and Canada)
:4.step:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Planetarium_%288%29.jpg this thing is called theodolite (Winkelmessgerät - Vermessungstechnik?)--[[User:AtelierMonpli|AtelierMonpli]] ([[User talk:AtelierMonpli|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
** –
* Northern and Western Europe
** [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Ghilt|Ghilt]]
* Latin America and Caribbean
** –
* Central and East Europe (CEE)
** —
* Sub-Saharan Africa
** –
* Middle East and North Africa
** [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Ibrahim.ID|Ibrahim.ID]]
* East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
** [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:0xDeadbeef|0xDeadbeef]]
* South Asia
** –


The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:
::{{Question}} Are those pictures under the correct license. Just because on FLICKR they are CC does not necessarily means that they are really CC. --[[User:Yikrazuul|Yikrazuul]] ([[User talk:Yikrazuul|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:41, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I see no issues here: @photo: the person seems to have visited Strassbourg (EP and museum using the same cam according to EXIF) and @works shown: they are probably quite old and/or nothing copyrighted. The map (first file) is from a person who died 1665. ;-) Did you mean anything in particular? Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 00:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)


* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]]
::::Thank you everybody so far. @[[User:AtelierMonpli|AtelierMonpli]] : about the third step, I got that right, of course. It's the other instruments I am was not sure of. Cheers, --[[User:Edelseider|Edelseider]] ([[User talk:Edelseider|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:55, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Superpes15|Superpes15]]
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Civvì|Civvì]]
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Luke081515|Luke081515]]
* –
* –
* –
* –


Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.
== The other ways images can enter the public domain... ==


Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on [[m:Special:MyLanguage/Universal Code of Conduct/Coordinating Committee|Meta-wiki]].
I just uploaded an [[:File:Victoria from cathedral tower, BC, 1897.jpg|image]] from flickr's small commons section.


On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" />
Flinfo applied a {{tl|Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} liscense tag.
That tag, when instantiated, lists four possible reasons why the tag applies, including:
''"The copyright was injected into the public domain for other reasons, such as failure to adhere to required formalities or conditions;"''


[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I have always suspected that there are images where we are too careful. For instance, when a grieving family member hands out family photos to random reporters, without taking their names, or imposing conditions, I have always wondered why those images shouldn't be considered to have been placed in the public domain. Other contributors here have insisted we would still require an OTRS ticket when an image is widely republished after they handout out copies to random photographers, without imposing conditions.
<!-- Message sent by User:RamzyM (WMF)@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Distribution_list/Global_message_delivery&oldid=26390244 -->
* I'm probably lacking some context here, but why the many (majority, actually) that are simply "–"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


== 27.png still exists ==
I agree when a private individual gives another private individual a copy of an image they made, they retain all the IP rights.

I've been told that when PR types prepare a package to give away during a press conference they typically try to impose conditions on how the information they released is used. In particular, I have been told by other contributors here, that images handed out at press conferences will have conditions stated about their re-use.

What if those PR types forget to state their conditions on how the images in the press release can be re-used?

I know IP rights can be lost when the rights holder is reckless or careless. To what extent can we take this into account when determining if do require an OTRS ticket?

Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

:As an OTRS volunteer I must still keep in mind [[Commons:Project scope/Precautionary principle]]. Regarding the grieving family member handing out photos, that's a case of thinking that "the copyright owner will not mind/should be pleased that we have disseminated his/her work."

:As for rights holders being reckless or careless, well that's what the OTRS volunteers are for. Sometimes people get annoyed and think we're just being bureaucratic when we ask for specifics. No, we're actually ''looking out for them''. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 14:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

: If I'm not mistaken, that clause applies to US failure pre-1989 to include a copyright notice, or failure pre-1989 to renew a work after 28 years. There is virtually no way a copyright holder can lose their copyright by being reckless or careless; in the EU, there are rights a copyright holder can't surrender by contract or any force short of an act of law.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:57, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

:As Prosfilaes stated, the "required formalities" referred to by {{tl|Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} are earlier U.S. requirements for copyright notices and renewal registration. Under current copyright laws, no formalities are required for copyright protection. Family photos and PR photos used by the press are typically handed out with the understanding that they will be used in a relevant context according to [[COM:FU|fair use]]; see [[Commons:Image casebook#Press photos]]. Distributing a work does not place it into the public domain. Requiring an explicit permission statement for such photos is not being "too careful." If no conditions are stipulated, the photograph is still fully protected by copyright. There are some so-called "intellectual property rights" (a misnomer, since it doesn't deal with property), such as trademark rights, that can be lost if they are not enforced. Copyright is not one of those rights. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 18:15, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

== Watchlist help ==

Is there any way to restore my watchlist to its state of 24hrs ago? I tried to edit it, but since it contained 30,000 items it just timed out and now I'm down below 10k. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 13:33, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:Quick, now you can edit all the british railway images without mattbuck noticing! --- sorry, I can't help... [[User:Amada44|<span style="font-family:Geneva;color:black;text-shadow:0px 0px 2px #00ff00;font-weight:bold">Amada44</span>]] &nbsp;[[User_talk:Amada44|<sup><span style="text-decoration:underline;font-size:smaller;color:gray">''talk to me''</span></sup>]] 17:31, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::{{smile}} did you try to edit '''raw watchlist'''?? it should load faster. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em grey">'''[[User:Mmxx|<span style='font-family:arial;color:#006;background-color:#E6E6FA'>&nbsp; ■ MMXX </span>]]'''<sup>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mmxx|''<span style='color: #006;'>talk</span>'']]&nbsp;</sup></span> 17:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:::That was what I did. I tried to re-add stuff, but when you click save it times out after a couple of thousand entries. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 18:59, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
::::How many items did you try to add? [[w:Help:Watching_pages#Size_limitation|see this]]. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em grey">'''[[User:Mmxx|<span style='font-family:arial;color:#006;background-color:#E6E6FA'>&nbsp; ■ MMXX </span>]]'''<sup>&nbsp;[[User talk:Mmxx|''<span style='color: #006;'>talk</span>'']]&nbsp;</sup></span> 19:10, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::<small>You had ''how many files'' on your watchlist? :o — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 17:16, 8 May 2011 (UTC)</small>

== [[Template:PD-UKGov]] ==

Currently this template categorizes files into [[:Category:UK Government images]], but it also designates that the tag can be applied to "artistics works" created via [[w:Crown copyright|Crown copyright]]. Do sound recordings fall under the classification of "artistic works" and, if so, should the category be renamed, possibly to something like [[:Category:UK Government artistic works]]? P.S. I'm also having a bit of trouble determining the copyright of a recent file I've uploaded, which is somewhat related to this issue, at [[:File:Winston Churchill - Be Ye Men of Valour.ogg]]. [[User:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="red">:| TelCo</font>]][[User talk:TeleComNasSprVen|<font color="green">NaSp</font>]][[Special:Contributions/TeleComNasSprVen|<font face="Showcard Gothic" color="blue">Ve :|</font>]] 23:56, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

:Yes, it applies to all kinds of works. I would use PD-UKGov for that one, I think, which would cover the underlying speech. The sound recording itself... yuck, as those are messy in the U.S., but it would not have been restored by the URAA, I don't think, as that recording was PD in the UK in 1996. I'm not sure if BBC stuff is crown copyright, or just a normal copyright, but it probably doesn't matter much for sound recordings are the terms are pretty much the same. They have changed the rules a couple of times, and is a bit tangled to follow, but it appears to be 50 years from first publication, or 50 years from first broadcast, provided that publication or broadcast happens in the 50 years after it's made. However I think recordings made before 1957 continue to have their term based solely on when it was made, and not published etc. (per [http://www.pagestore.net/mediarights.co.uk/ here]). I'm not sure we have a specific tag for UK (or EU) sound recordings, but the terms are different than the usual 70 pma stuff. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:59, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

:: But the URAA only applies to federal copyright; early sound recordings are all under state copyright. [http://www.courts.state.ny.us/reporter/3dseries/2005/2005_02570.htm Capital v. Naxos] is explicitly about this case, where sound recordings fell into the PD in the UK in 1990, but a New York court ruled they were still under copyright in NY.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Good point. Any idea what the situation is under Florida law? (I presume that's the only state that matters to us.) --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:53, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:::: I believe last time I checked, Florida had a blanket law with no time limits.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:10, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:::: [http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/540.11 Florida Statutes 540.11].--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:25, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:::::Thanks, that's good to know. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

:::One thing -- the URAA did claim to restore copyrights in pre-1972 sound recordings (17 USC 104a(h)(6)(c)(ii)). If they didn't, yes, due to the general messiness of US sound recordings, non-restored works may still have state copyright. We do take PD-UKGov to expire worldwide (URAA or not), but if it's a private copyright, then possibly. On the other hand, unless it has commercial value, not sure that state copyright would protect it. We truly do need to use common sense with those I think. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:22, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

::::I think the URAA only applies to certain pre-1972 sound recordings. In particular, the clause you cite does not apply to recordings whose copyright has expired in its source country, due to the preceding clause (17 USC 104a(h)(6)(b)). So it would still be under state copyright. Florida's Statute 540.11 says nothing specifically about commercial value, although it mostly prohibits commercial acts. I think this makes such recordings non-free (but IANAL). --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:52, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

=May 8=

== Convert to JPEG ==

We have many [[Special:PrefixIndex/Template:Convert_to|convert to x]] templates, but we don't have a {{convert to JPEG}}. I've haven't run across many images where it is needed, but maybe others have. Today I saw [[:File:D.tiff]] and thought that image would be better as a JPEG because it is a low-resolution image, provenance doesn't appear to be important for that image, and tiff is not as accessible. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 04:44, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
*It's already converted to JPEG by MediaWiki software -- Right Click on the thumbnail and you can use JPEG as you wish. On the same time manual conversion of lossless formats to lossy is hardly a good idea. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:12, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
** I agree that conversions from [[w:TIFF]] need care. Not all tiff files are lossless, as it is a container format that can contain [[w:TIFF#TIFF_Compression_Tag|either]] (including jpeg compression). In the case of [[:File:D.tiff]], it is losslessly compressed, however the conversion to JPG doesn't need to have any significant loss, and JPEG is good enough for photos of a person. Someone *could* do a poor quality conversion depending on what level of JPG compression they enabled.<br/>Consider [[:File:Blondel.tiff]]. It is uncompressed 928 × 666. Mediawiki gives a preview of 800px × 574px. People like you and I know we can obtain a lossy jpg version by going to a different URL [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Blondel.tiff/lossy-page1-928px-Blondel.tiff.jpg] (100.04 KB) but the average user doesnt know that. I would assume that [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Blondel.tiff/page1-928px-Blondel.tiff.jpg this URL] is not lossy, however it is also 100.04 KB. [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Blondel.tiff/page1-928px-Blondel.tiff.png this 'png'] is also the same lossy JPG. To obtain a lossless image, I need to ask for [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2a/Blondel.tiff/lossless-page1-928px-Blondel.tiff.png this] (526 KB) However, it is a (Maybe the "Download" gadget can help by recognising TIFF and giving a 'Full resolution lossy' and 'Full resolution lossless' option.) <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 13:39, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

== [[Special:Import]] ==

So, I have a silly question, probably been brought up a million times. Why don't we enable [[Special:Import]] on Commons, seeing as it's enabled on multiple other projects. This would make moving images from those projects a ''lot'' easier. [[User:Magog the Ogre|Magog the Ogre]] ([[User talk:Magog the Ogre|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:54, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:It's enabled, I did some tries ages ago. If I remember correctly it only imports the text so the steps I had to take:
:*Import file page
:*Transfer the file
:*Overwrite the description with a description suitable for Commons
:It wasn't really worth the effort. [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 10:43, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

:One major issue is mapping local templates to Commons templates. Our existing tools (like [http://toolserver.org/~magnus/commonshelper.php Commons Helper] typically do this (with mixed success) through hardcoded rules. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 15:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::See [[:File:Kenley Station.JPG]] for an example import. [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 20:00, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== old interface translations ==

Do we need all these old interface translation messages that are identical to the translated message
* [[MediaWiki:Mainpage/nl]]
* [[MediaWiki:Portal/nl]]
* [[MediaWiki:Printableversion/nl]]
* [[MediaWiki:Recentchangeslinked/nl]]
* ... many many more ...
<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 14:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:All Dutch or also other languages? If a message is the same as the default one than the message can be deleted. I think I have a simple script to do this (just loop over all MediaWiki messages, compare the content with Translatewiki, if it's exactly the same, delete the message). [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 15:29, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

::See also [[:betawiki:Thread:Support/Messages customization statistics]]. --[[User:Purodha|Purodha Blissenbach]] ([[User talk:Purodha|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:23, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I've deleted most of them.[https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=John+Vandenberg&offset=20110509015031&limit=374] I am unable to delete [[Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:watch|watch/*]] and [[Special:PrefixIndex/Mediawiki:unwatch|unwatch/*]]. Of those, only [[mediawiki:unwatch/el]] should ''not'' be deleted, as it is also customised on [[w:el:mediawiki:unwatch/el|el.wp]]. I've raised [[bugzilla:28889]] --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 02:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== exif descriptions ==

On [[bugzilla:28625]], it has been pointed out that our metadata section contains labels that are terms which the average user wont understand.
I think we should link these descriptions to Wikipedia articles or local help pages. e.g. [[MediaWiki:Exif-fnumber]], which can be seen at [[:File:Tapir anta 1.jpg]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 15:03, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:Good idea. Maybe create a page like [[Help:Exif]] with descriptions of all possible fields? [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 15:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

::Sounds good. Here is an overview: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?limit=5000&title=Special%3AAllMessages&prefix=Exif-&filter=all&lang=en Special:AllMessages&prefix=Exif-]. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029">&nbsp;Docu&nbsp;</span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 15:40, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

: For not so few of those fields and their possible values, there are normative or quasi normitve web pages describing them pretty good an detailed. Some are even available in several languages. See [[bugzilla:28625]] for links to samples, and to links to [[:mw:i18n#Message_documentation|message documentation]] linking to those pages. --[[User:Purodha|Purodha Blissenbach]] ([[User talk:Purodha|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:17, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

: Two comments. How do you plan to keen commons links up-to-date with en-wiki content? Looks stable today, may change tomorrow (I wouldn't even think of interwiki mess with yet-emerging wikis). Look at the links to camera models. Some articles never existed (and never will), others existed once and where then deleted or redirected to articles about their manufacturers [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sony_Cyber-shot_DSC-V3&action=historysubmit&diff=189925135&oldid=189474473 example]. Second. I doubt that wikipedia will ever have meaningful content on most arcane exif entries. What is "maximum land aperture"? Why did "flash did not fire" if the camera has no flash at all? Why is "Light source: Unknown"? Why does it say "Auto white balance" if the pic was processed from raw file, etc. This stuff will stay unanswered. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:52, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::Since it would be help about mediawiki software, and not necessarily an encyclopedia, I think it would make more sense to put it in the help namespace of [[mw:|mediawiki wiki]] (and only link when there is such a page). We could have a new message, like say mediawiki:exifhelp-whatever, which contains a url to mediawiki wiki, if such a help page exists, could have say a - to disable, and different languages would link to translated versions if available. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:24, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::: I like the idea of putting the documentation in the mediawiki help namespace, which is public domain. Those help pages could be included in the default install in future. I've created [[MediaWiki:Metadata-help]] with a link to [[Commons:EXIF]]. <span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 02:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== Date differentiation ==

I have modified the template {{tl|Author}} so that it could support the parameters ''original'' and ''photo'', enabling easy multilingual description of more authors (even more parameters would be useful – ''crop'', ''purification'' etc. – but I do not know how to add them without making the template too “heavy”, what regards the condition parser functions, well also now they are too many). See its use with a [[:File:Kostel_Nejsvětější_Trojice_(Fulnek)_–_frs-013.jpg#{{int:filedesc}}|simple parameter]] and with the [[:File:Kostel Nejsvětější Trojice (Fulnek) – frs-002.jpg#{{int:filedesc}}|{{tl{{!}}Creator}} template]].

Do you think using similar parameters in a template for date would be useful as well?

--[[User:Petrus Adamus|Petrus Adamus]] ([[User talk:Petrus Adamus|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:57, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:I'm getting increasingly concerned with all the complicated template constructs build in the last couple of months. It looks to me like we're trying to implement things for which MediaWiki is not build. [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 19:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

::The constructs are so complicated, because no variables can be used. I do not know how to describe files multilingually in another way, a simple indication like <code><nowiki>{{photo}}: Name</nowiki></code> or <code><nowiki>Name ({{photo}})</nowiki></code> are probably not usable for non-latin-alphabet or right-to-left written languages. There is also problem, as many template name, teoretically useful for translations, have already had other usage ({{tl|original}}, {{tl|crop}}) etc. Yes, maintaining a multilingual project isn't easy. --[[User:Petrus Adamus|Petrus Adamus]] ([[User talk:Petrus Adamus|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Multilingual support for #time is checked in and awaiting deployment, BTW. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== White House flickr photos public domain? What about the extra restrictions? ==

The white house flickr photos all have an extra set of restrictions attached to them: "This official White House photograph is being made available only for publication by news organizations and/or for personal use printing by the subject(s) of the photograph. The photograph may not be manipulated in any way and may not be used in commercial or political materials, advertisements, emails, products, promotions that in any way suggests approval or endorsement of the President, the First Family, or the White House." However, we're calling them public domain. How did that discrepancy get decided? [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User talk:Sanchom|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:04, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

:I wonder whether the extra restrictions were drafted by someone with an understanding of IP issues. Recently all kinds of military commands and diplomatic missions have started to make official photos available via flickr, facebook, etc. Several of the flickr-ids used by these USGov personnel have used liscenses that impose restrictions, or which claim all rights reserved. In some cases, a simple note to the flickr-id results in them changing their liscenses. In other cases those notes are ignored. And, in a few cases, the flickr-id solves the problem by deleting all the images.

:If they cant explain where the authorization for these restrictions came from, I think we can safely ignore them.

:If the White House press secretary really wanted to impose these restrictions I think they would have to contract out all their photograpy. If J Bloggs photography has the contract to take all official photos, so the actual photographers were employees of J Bloggs, not actually Federal employees, then they could impose those restrictions. However, I doubt they would do that because of the security hole it would open. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
::So, nobody has checked what the actual case is? I was told this was sorted out among Commons contributors, but I can't find the discussion. [[User:Sanchom|Sancho]] ([[User talk:Sanchom|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Thats [[Commons:Non-copyright restrictions]], we had this in the past. As per [[Template:PD-USGov]] or [[Template:PD-USGov-POTUS]] its not a copyright restriction. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Yes, this has been discussed many times before. The White House photos are public domain and the additional restrictions are bogus. Just ignore them. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:45, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

=May 9=

== Procedures voor renaming: Category Old Paris Tramways ==

This category has two proposals to rename it. These proposals date from 15 february. Moderators probably leave it wel alone and nothing is going to happen. What is the procedures for this kind of rename issue? How can one make a choice? A voting system? The old name is unsatisfactory, but the proposed names are is 100 % either and there maybe a better choice. How do we go from here? [[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:29, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

:I guess you are talking about [[:Category:Old Paris Tramways]]. It has now been deleted and moved to [[:Category:Historical trams in Paris]]. I'm not sure where any discussion took place; nothing links to either page, and neither of them has a talk page. The standard procedure for proposing a category move is to use {{tl|move}}, which places the category in [[:Category:Requested moves (all)]], or to bring it up on [[Commons:Categories for discussion]]. Both are heavily backlogged. Weighing options is best done by following existing naming patterns where available, examining the arguments for the different alternatives, and if all else fails: being bold. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 15:40, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::There were two different {{tlx|Move}} requests outstanding (restored by now), none was discussed. Sorry, but I moved first to the most plausible destination compliant with other categories worldwide. It is easier to discuss/decide moving from an acceptable name to a better one than having to decide about two un-discussed moves. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:28, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::Note that the second move request was a request to split the content in two parts. I responded in a bold way because last weeks, with the help of several contributors, we reduced the [:Category:Requested moves (all)]] backlog with nearly 500 items. Problem is that when the backlog decreases, people tend to issue more move requests. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:37, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

:::Nice work! I don't think {{tl|move}} should be used for making proposals to split content. That's just the sort of thing that builds up the requested moves backlog. Splitting proposals should either be made at [[COM:CFD]] with some actual arguments – or just done boldly if the change does not require discussion. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 16:52, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

== Switch to UploadWizard ==

The WMF switched the default upload mechanism (for English users) from [[Commons:Upload]] to [[Special:UploadWizard]] today. Please report issues at [[Commons:Prototype upload wizard feedback]]. More info [http://blog.wikimedia.org/2011/03/22/uploadwizard-nearing-1-0/ here]. If this roll-out goes well, other languages will be switched over as interface translations are completed. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:FYI: If for some reason the sidebar link needs to be changed back, an admin can revert [[MediaWiki:Upload-url/en]] to the previous version. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:58, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:Note that many users arrive here through links on local projects. I've just updated the link on [[:en:Wikipedia:Upload]] to point to [[Special:UploadWizard]] instead of [[Commons:Upload]]. Please help me update similar links on other projects. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
::Sigh, where's the gadget or preference to make the old form my default like so many other crappy changes you've implemented over the years? -[[User:Nard the Bard|Nard]] <font color="red">([[User talk:Nard the Bard|Hablemonos]])</font><font color="mediumslateblue">([[User talk:Nard the Bard|Let's talk]])</font> 22:30, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::@Nard: Use [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dcoetzee/common.js&oldid=54187709 this Javascript] in [[User:Nard the Bard/common.js]] to make the old upload form the default one linked from the "Upload file" link in the sidebar. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::English Wikibooks will not be able to switch to the Upload Wizard without filing a bug report, which will then have someone request to show consensus for the change, followed by several months before it's handled. So it's not going to happen for that project. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 23:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Any admin can change the upload form for Wikibooks. Technically, it's not difficult. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:20, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::::We only allow fair use files through the local Special:Upload. The upload link in the sidebar is manipulated through $wgUploadNavigationUrl in the wiki's settings, which an admin cannot change, and which currently points to Commons:Upload. &ndash;&nbsp;[[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 18:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::Ah, I see. I'm sure once all the kinks are worked out from UploadWizard either $wgUploadNavigationUrl will be changed for all wikis or Commons:Upload will be changed into a redirect. I don't think there's any hurry to change everyone over right now though. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:The link to the real upload form could be bigger and brighter. In fact it could be the only thing there. Well, [[:en:New Coke|it could be worse]]. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 03:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::+1. For now you should go through several tedious steps before you will understand that the new upload form is unusable, because it simply doesn't have a license you need. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::No bull? How did you get there? I'm stuck at "upload" button - I mean, the button is stuck, there seems to be no code attached to it. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:53, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:There is even no link to Creative Commons licenses in the deed, so a novice would have no idea about what kind of license (s)he will sign:
::{{quote|I, ____, the copyright holder of this work, hereby irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work for any purpose, as long as they credit me and share derivative work under the same terms.<br/>

<small>This means you release your work under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license.</small>}}
:a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license? What does it mean? CC-BY-SA 1.0+2.0+2.5+3.0? And the text above ''doesn't'' mean that "you release your work under a Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike license"! It's a very misguiding statement at least. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::I have to agree with Trycatch here, the statement they sign should explicitly say that they release the work under whatever license, including a link to the CC page. We can ''then'' tack on our short laymen's explanation. Otherwise it may not amount to a legal release statement. If enabling the wizard helps catch easily-fixed issues like these then that's a good thing. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:13, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Have you guys visited the rest of the internet lately? Like Flickr or Picassa or anywhere? Flickr doesn't even give you an explanation, much less any links. And we honor their licensing just as much as our own. Picassa gives you a brief description, but doesn't even tell you what license you're applying. You don't have to give people pages of legalese just to allow them to relinquish their rights. It's not like we're not twisting people's arms. Regardless, I don't think it would hurt to link to the license. I'll add that. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:37, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:::: Agreed that a link makes sense, opening the license in a pop-up or a new tab. I find the release statement in the wizard actually much clearer than anything in the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=ownwork old form], which is a huge wall of text (ignored by most users), while the actual license selection is a mysterious dropdown (without links), which is only explained by another huge wall of text if you open the "help" menu. The explicit consent is a much more obvious signal to the user that they are making a choice with consequences.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:::: Neither Flickr nor Picasa is a free media archive, neither Flickr nor Picasa has anything to do with free culture/content movement. They can don't care about enforceability of their CC-licenses, it's simply not their problem (to honor Flickr & Picasa their license change menu is actually not so bad comparing to the new one in Upload Wizard). But for Commons free content and copyright are the Alpha and Omega, we routinely deal with things like attempts to revoke a free license, and Commons doesn't have such a luxury as usage of vague copyright deeds with dubious real-life enforceability. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:43, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::In that case we should stop automatically honoring Flickr licenses. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::: It's not so clearcut, but ''there are'' problems with Flickr pictures. E.g. if a flickr-user uses a free license for his pictures and ''at the same'' writes in his profile something like "To guys from Wikipedia -- STOP STEALING MY PICTURES!!!" -- there is something wrong somewhere.
:::::: Maybe there is some misunderstanding. The only thing I propose to swap the first and the second paragraphs as Dcoetzee said -- "statement they sign should explicitly say that they release the work under whatever license, including a link to the CC page. We can then tack on our short laymen's explanation. " [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::::I have to disagree. It is more important to us that the user is aware of the meaning of the license and agrees to the general concepts than it is that they "sign" version 3.0 of a legal document that they won't read or understand. We want users to donate their images consciously, not by accident. Making sure that people are actually aware of what they are agreeing to - unrestricted reuse which only requires attribution and retention of the same terms - is more important than how strongly we can "enforce" the CC license against people who didn't want to donate their images in the first place. We're supposed to be promoting the free sharing of knowledge, not hording media against people's will. Most of the world has no idea what "Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike" means, which is one of the main problems with the old form that we are trying to address with the UploadWizard. Put yourself in the place of someone who has never heard of Creative Commons before. Which wording would be more useful for them? [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::And if we slap a CC-BY-SA tag on an image when the user never actually agreed to release the work under the CC-BY-SA but just some super-vague laymen's version of it, we are fraudulently affirming that they signed a contract that they never signed. The details of the license will matter in the event of a legal dispute. Both are important but we can't just add the license name as an afterthought, and we certainly shouldn't claim that our terse laymen's description is an accurate representation of the license in its entirety, which is what the present wording suggests. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
::::::::If a person doesn't read the text of a deed they sign, it's solely their problem (and IRL it will be solely their problem if they don't read software EULA or insurance contract as well). But if there would be a bad license deed it would be not their problem -- it would be problem of Commons, community of Commons, our reusers and downstream. Minor or non-existing benefits of the current vague deed (it would not be harder at all to read a more explicit version of the very same text) are incomparable with drawbacks of flooding of Commons with hundreds of thousands dubious pictures. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

How can one change the link to the old form for i18n purposes ? It is not among the messages on TranslateWiki (rightly so) and I was unable to locate it in the MediaWiki namespace. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
: See [[MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-subhead-alt-upload]].--[[User:Trixt|Trixt]] ([[User talk:Trixt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:32, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::I know about this message. My question was precisely about the variable that is inserted inside this message. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:27, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::There is currently no way to localize the link itself. I'll file a bug on this. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::::Ok, thanks Ryan. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
{{outdent}} I tried copying and pasting the script mentioned above into "[[User:Jacklee/commons.js]]" but it doesn't seem to work for me (and, yes, I did try bypassing the cache a few times). Did I do something wrong? Or is this a problem relating to the sluggish nature of the server that I am currently experiencing? — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 11:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:common.js not commons.js :) [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] ([[User talk:Jarry1250|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

'''Question'''. I finally got to "upload form" (thanks to RL advisers - it turned out that "donations" actually mean "next step, stupid!"), uploaded eight files, then stumbled at "description" page. Apparently this thing does not recognize {{tl|CC-BY-SA-3.0}}, or {{tl|own}}, or {{tl|information}}, or all of them so I had to abort. ''After'' uploading files, after providing ''two'' sets of dates and authors for each file, etc. What happened to these files? What happened to pages of text inserted in the forms? They did not show up in [[Special:NewFiles]], but can we be positively sure that they were indeed discarded, and are not preserved in some digital limbo? in the latter case, there's a chance that a file may show up somewhere without proper attributes. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:If the upload process was abandoned, the files are left in stash and will be cleaned out by normal file system maintenance. There's no chance they will show up on Commons. They're probably already deleted by now. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Due to unknown site problems, I've had to revert the roll-out of UploadWizard for now. For some reason the Javascript is taking forever to load today. We're working on troubleshooting it currently. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:25, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:It looks like there are some networking issues that are causing slowness between the caching servers and the web servers. The ops team is working on it. This is probably affecting more than just UploadWizard. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:41, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::And toolserver lags by more than five hours. IMO ''this'' is a priority. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:51, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::The WMF doesn't operate the toolserver so it's not in competition for prioritization. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:22, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

:I had requested an easy and permanent way to get back to the old form already above at [[#UploadWizard_as_default_uploader_is_coming]]. Nothing seems to have been done for this. People need to manually insert some code snippet in the skin.js. The current situation is like this for me: Click the upload link, wait 15 seconds until the big image and stuff has loaded and then I can click on the link to take me back. But there is no setting to save this permanently in my settings.
:As always: just push forward and do not even respond to questions, huh?
:Oh, by the way, it is still switched on for de users: [[MediaWiki:Upload-url/de]]; without being mentioned here. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 01:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:[[User:Eloquence]] reverted it. Unless there is a option for the user to easily go back to the old form I suggest to modify theupload form in such a way [[User:Saibo/Sandbox4]] ''if'' the wizard needs to go live ''now''. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 02:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello,


So I've been making a spreadsheet of all the numerical PNG files on here from 01.png to 99.png. While browsing I found that 27.png is somehow still an existing file? Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:27.png
a quick summary of where things are:


I don't know what it is so I can't move it to a better file name. Hopefully someone knows what this is.
1) UW is currently disabled to resolve an issue which arose today which causes UploadWizard to not load at all. I've removed changes to the sidebar made by WMF, as well as the sidebar changes by community members in other languages on Commons, and the change on the English Wikipedia. We'll resolve the issue ASAP and then return to the previous state.
[[User:0x16w|0x16w]] ([[User talk:0x16w|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


:29.png also still exists apparently. [[User:0x16w|0x16w]] ([[User talk:0x16w|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
2) If you used UW yesterday on Internet Explorer and failed at the "describe" step because UploadWizard wouldn't allow any of your titles to go through, this issue should be fixed with the next deployment. It was caused by a malfunctioning title blacklist detection.
::Checked all the other numbers up to 99.png, these are the only two remaining ones. [[User:0x16w|0x16w]] ([[User talk:0x16w|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


== Limited to the edits ==
3) If you'd like to use one of the old forms after UW is re-enabled, the easiest thing to do is to bookmark whichever form you prefer (and there are many) -- no need for any custom JS.


IP address: 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912
Thanks for your patience; today was not a lot of fun due to general site issues, which also delayed resolving the new UW issues surfaced today. We think this first version of UW will already be a huge improvement on the default upload experience (which most new users are completely befuddled by), and there's lots of stuff we hope to be able to do to make it even better, including highly wishlisted items like multi-file selection.--[[User:Eloquence|Eloquence]] ([[User talk:Eloquence|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:31, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
This limited to 128 edits on IP address to expiry 1 week [[Special:Contributions/2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912|2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912]] 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


:See [[Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Yusaya 94038917]], this seems to be an IP and user trying to hit some kind of autoconfirmed edit count, probably a misunderstood one. [[User:Belbury|Belbury]] ([[User talk:Belbury|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:ad 3: Suggest people to bookmark (then) hidden URLs should be the solution... Come on. First finish development, then switch it live for all. Why the rush?
:By the way: The link "Back to the old form" does not seem to be localized (at least in the German interface). It links to the English Upload form. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 02:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


== EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 ==
=May 10=


I was seated close to a window and have taken some pictures: The camera time is the time in Amsterdam, not the local time. The route is trough Pakistan and China. There where no delays.
== I need Help against upload wizard ==
<gallery>
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 1.jpg
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 2.jpg
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 3.jpg
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 4.jpg
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 5.jpg
EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 6.jpg
</gallery>
Identifying the location would be usefull. [[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
: I've done this sort of thing a lot. I strongly recommend plunging into Google Maps looking for similar landforms. (BTW, for the future: much easier if you take a lot of pictures, even if you don't plan to use them all.) - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::Also useful is if you are listening in-flight to the pilots talk to Air Traffic Controllers, making a note of which Air Traffic Controllers' areas the pilots are told to switch to (the next area on the flight plan); for flights arriving here, that is typically "New York Approach". The frequencies are not necessary for this purpose. It will help if you can listen in English, as that appears to be the standard language of air traffic control worldwide. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::De official times are Dubai departure 02:40 am local time and arrival at Tokyo 17:35 pm local Japanese times. Camera time Amsterdam GMT + 1 (+ 1 summertime); Dubai GMT + 4; Japan GMT + 9. 7 hour difference between Japan and Amsterdam. China is GMT + 8). From what I remenber the plane avoided India went trough Pakistan and then took a more or less straight line trough China and South Korea passing trough large Chinese dessert areas. So the Himalayas would be at de western end by the Pakistan / Chinese border, but could also be inside China.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


:{{Reply|Smiley.toerist}} At least the city on last three images should be relatively easy to identify e.g. with Google Maps satellite mode; provided you know at least approximately what area and/or what country had been overflown at that timepoint, as otherwise this would be a search for the "needle in a haystack".
The menu ''upload file'' opens now only the ''upload wizard'', and does this very slowly. Fotr the basic upload form, I have to return to the old form. This is a very time-consuming path. Can someone help me how to come fast to the basic upload form? --[[User:Havang(nl)|Havang(nl)]] ([[User talk:Havang(nl)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:38, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:In general, it's quite tricky and common landforms are difficult to identify afterwards, likewise in flight because from my experience, GPS on your phone seldom works well in flight. --[[User:A.Savin|A.Savin]] 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:click here: [[Special:Upload]]. [[User:TheDJ|TheDJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::Perfect, Thanks! The link is on my home page and on my favorites now. --[[User:Havang(nl)|Havang(nl)]] ([[User talk:Havang(nl)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:56, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::The solution to have and keep a GPS connection in fast moving vehicles with a smartphone is to activate a constant tracking before you start moving. For these photos case it might be the best solution to look at the Flightradar24 data for the flight and then matching the capture time. But that requires a paid account there. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
:::or you could use the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dcoetzee/common.js&oldid=54187709 JavaScript] pointed out by [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] above (''Switch to UploadWizard'' section) and pasted it in [[User:Havang(nl)/common.js]]. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:15, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::::But Java-script shouldn't be needed for normal wiki use. --[[User:Havang(nl)|Havang(nl)]] ([[User talk:Havang(nl)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:11, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::::It's not. If you turn off your Javascript, you'll be sent straight to the old form. [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:45, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


:::The last picture must be in Japan, about 15 minutes before landing. With the long shadow of a western sun, this must be an east coast. [[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
== Why was [[:file:Olav_h_hauge.jpg]] deleted? ==
::::Bingo! The Kaimon Bridge by Kaimoncho.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
::::(EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 4) is close to JR station Izumi and (EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 5) is close to Otsu port (found on GE). I have problems finding the correct location categories. Narita airport was approached from the north along the coast.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


The file was a picture of a sketch by [[:nn:Brukar:Andreasv]] for use on wikipedia and was given the <nowiki>{{ cc-by-sa }} </nowiki> license. I tried to look for your reasoning by searching for the file name and by looking in the [[Special:WhatLinksHere/Olav_h_hauge.jpg]], but found nothing. The file is now restored at [[:nn:Fil:Olav_H_Hauge2.jpg]]. -- [[User:Hogne|Hogne]] ([[User talk:Hogne|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:24, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::I have worked the 3 Japanese pictures. For one [[:File:EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 4.jpg]], I set the location coordinates of the estmated viewpoint up in the air, but it maybe better to have the coordinates of the center of the image. In this case the river entry point in the ocean.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:The reson is given in the deletion log and the deletion discussion linked there. The drawing is [[COM:DW|derivative]] of someone else creative work, a photo. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:40, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::OK, could you give a link to the ''deletion log''? Why isn't it possible to find the log by searching for the file? [[User:Hogne|Hogne]] ([[User talk:Hogne|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::On the image page it states "Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted... * (show/hide) 13:53, 26 June 2010 Jameslwoodward (talk | contribs | block) deleted "File:Olav h hauge.jpg" ‎ (Per [[Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Olav_h_hauge.jpg]]) (view/restore) (global usage; delinker log)". Click the deletion request link. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 12:09, 10 May 2011 (UTC)


: Use ADSB data...
== {{tl|PD-Libya}} ==
:# Go to https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE318
:# Select flight from past flights (right now only goes back to 21 May, but free basic member can go back 3 months)
:# click track log to show time &rarr; latitude longitude
: [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


::I managed to find the location of the desert village in Xinjiang
Should I use this template for pictures published in the 30's in Libya (at that time [[:en:Italian Libya]])?--[[User:Kimdime|Kimdime]] ([[User talk:Kimdime|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
{{Location|38|39|53.74|N|87|21|19.60|E}}
::, by doing some time and distance calculations and finding out that the village must be about 3.258 km from Dubai. The scharp dark green fields contrast with the more dessert like image from Google Earth. The most dificult to lokalise images must be the two mountain images where I wil probably be using ADSB data.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Calculating that the mountain views 71 minutes before the dessert village, places the mountains within Pakistan. (13,03 km by minute)[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


:The ADSB data of past fligths indicate that the plane usualy crosses Chinese border halfway between the Afganistan border and the Indian border (line of control). Close to the line, a bit to the East is the K2 mountain. However it is complicated to find the rigth mountain.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== Licence at files from WikiSkripta.eu ==


:: ADSB for flight that took off Sunday 02:45:00 AM UTC+04
Since [http://www.WikiSkripta.eu WikiSkripta] installed the extension InstantCommons and enabled so direct usage of files from Commons, many of their local files have been moved to Commons, so that also other wikiprojects could use them – e.g. [[:File:Pneumothorax_001_cs.jpg|Pneumothorax_001_cs.jpg]], during that the licence was preserved, assumably. Afterwards, the original file at WikiSkripta was removed, so that there won't be any duplicates (when the Commons files are linked directly). Consequently, the licence cannot be confirmed in any way (similarly like at the files from Flickr). Also OTRS confirmations wouldn't be usable well, as some pictures have been uploaded to WikiSkripta by users, that had not indicated any contact to them. Do you have any ideas? --[[User:Petrus Adamus|Petrus Adamus]] ([[User talk:Petrus Adamus|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:33, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
::* https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE318/history/20240511/2250Z/OMDB/RJAA/tracklog
:: I have to use camera time as UTC+2. Otherwise, the last picture is taken after the plane lands.
:: Pictures
{| class="wikitable"
|+ ADSB Location
|-
! Picture !! EXIF Time<br>11 May 2024<br>UTC+2 !! UTC<br>11 May 2024 !! EDT<br>UTC-4 !! Location !! Heading
|-
| 1 || 03:39 || 0139Z || 21:39 || {{Object location|36.1115|75.2706|bare=1|secondary=1}}<br>FlightAware estimated (10 mins since last fix) || → 70°
|-
| 2 || 03:40 || 0140Z || 21:40 || {{Object location|36.1115|75.2706|bare=1|secondary=1}}<br>FlightAware estimated (10 mins since last fix) || → 70°
|-
| 3 || 04:51 || 0251Z || 22:51 || {{Object location|38.7597|86.2357|bare=1|secondary=1}}<br>FlightAware estimated (80 mins since last fix) || → 76°
|-
| || || || 22:58:36<br>+7.5 min || {{Object location|38.9609|87.3390|bare=1|secondary=1}}<br>FlightAware estimated (90 mins since last fix) || → 77°
|-
| 4 || 10:12 || 0812Z || 04:12 || {{Object location|36.2483|140.6344|bare=1|secondary=1}} || ↘ 133°
|-
| 5 || 10:12 || 0812Z || 04:12 || {{Object location|36.2483|140.6344|bare=1|secondary=1}} || ↘ 133°
|-
| 6 || 10:17 || 0817Z || 04:17 || {{Object location|35.9433|140.7605|bare=1|secondary=1}} || ← 289°
|}
:: [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Thank you all! &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 23:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)


::Thanks for the info. The positions are estimations and imprecise. I was on a seat on the left side. By the landing (4, 5, 6) the plane was clearly flying over land and not over the sea. The details of picture 3 match with the GE satelite picture. As the plane was flying around 10 km heigth and the village has a low altitude of 1017 meter above sealevel the plane must have been someway south of that position.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
== [[:en:Template:KeepLocal]] ==
:::For pictures 1 and 2 the sun was a morning sun from the east. Pic 2 is the same mountain taken a minute later.[[User:Smiley.toerist|Smiley.toerist]] ([[User talk:Smiley.toerist|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


:::: First, a jetliner cruises at about 1000 kmph or 16 km per minute. An error of 5 minutes is 80 km.
I just noticed [[:en:Template:KeepLocal]] used at English and Belorussian Wikipedias requesting for local files not to be deleted after moving them to Commons. See for example [[:File:RalphStover.jpg]] and [[:en:File:RalphStover.jpg]]. I assume this reluctance is due to inability to watch you uploads in the wikipedia watchlist. May be we should push for Global cross-wiki watchlists as discussed in [https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3525 Bug 3525 - Cross-wiki watchlists] and [http://strategy.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposal:Global_watchlists Proposal:Global_watchlists]. In the mean time it meant that more images from commons will be masked by local copies. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: I did not interpolate the position from the ADSB data; instead I just chose a close time. Interpolation would be better if we know the times are accurate.
:This template is also used in cases where the copyright status in the source country is unclear, and thus there is a chance that the file will get deleted from Commons at some point. (Since Commons requires a file to be public domain in both the U.S. and the source country, while some wikis only care about the U.S. copyright status). [[User:Kaldari|Kaldari]] ([[User talk:Kaldari|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: The error for the village is large. To match the longitude, I had to advance the time by 7.5 minutes, but the ADSB plane position was still well north of where it should be. The issue is partly resolved by the position being estimated because there is no actual ADSB data during that part of the flight.
=May 11=
:::: The ADSB data that is not estimated should be accurate. The numbers I used do put the plane over water when it should be over land. However, you can look at track as it approaches the airport and see that portions of that track do align with the pictures.
:::: That error may just be a time offset. You might see how accurate your camera clock is right now. Alternatively, you could try to figure it out from a reasonable track position for a particular image. That's what I was trying to do with the 7.5-minute village offset until I realized the track didn't fit and noticed the ADSB data for that time was only an estimate.
:::: The EXIF data also has a quantization error of 1 minute.
:::: I expect the ADSB times to be derived from the GPS satellites.
:::: [[User:Glrx|Glrx]] ([[User talk:Glrx|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


== [[:Category:The rule of law]] ==
== Flickr & file credit ==


Is it actually useful for structured data to mark [[:File:2022 Fremont Solstice Parade - 140 (52161796738).jpg|my own file]] that I copied from my own Flickr account as authored by Flickr user Joe Mabel, as against Commons user Jmabel (both me)? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
The above category is just a very bad taste joke or is there a reason behind it that escapes me? I'm sorry not to be able to suggest a better place for its subcategories. [[User:Vapmachado|Vapmachado]] ([[User talk:Vapmachado|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:16, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
* Dig deeper! Polish readers: please review the papers in [[:Category:Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia]]. Are they in scope, at all? Some are court statements others seem like private medical records. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
::Those records are all private legal correspondence and psychiatric evaluations going back to 1992 related to legal fights someone has related to his medical pension due to schizophrenia (first noticed in 1977) which was revoked due to patient not continuing with his medical treatment. This decision was appealed (and thrown out) all the way to European Court of Human Rights. The files were uploaded by the user who also had few very hard to follow posts [[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/09#Social_engineering-ignorance.2C_instead_of_reliable_answers.3F|here]] and on [[Commons:Bar]]. As far as I can tell all his images in [[:Category:Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia]] should be out of scope, unless there is some educational use for them I can not figure out. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:01, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
*It's a [[:w:Rule of law|valid concept]] but it seems like we should have a category without the definite article.--[[User:Chaser|Chaser]] ([[User talk:Chaser|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


:I would say so. Most Commons users upload their files here directly, not via Flickr. And most of the time when people upload files from Flickr with the Flickr2Commons plugin they are not the original author of those images, so it makes sense (and is imo useful) if that credit line is automatically attributed to the Flickr profile the images are from. For your own images you could always edit the credit line to your Commons profile if you prefer to be credited that way. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:I've done the following:
:: {{ping|ReneeWrites}} I ''did'' rewrite the credit in the wikitext. And then the bot goes through and writes the SDC as if I had not done so. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:*I've made "[[:Category:Sluggishly progressing schizophrenia]]" a subcategory of "[[:Category:Schizophrenia]]". As suggested above, please review the contents of the category to ensure they are within the project scope.
:::Disregard my previous comment, I misunderstood the problem. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:*I've made "[[:Category:The rule of law]]" a subcategory of "[[:Category:Law]]", and will request that it be renamed to "[[:Category:Rule of law]]".
Here is a much more egregious example: [[:File:Ford Model "T" car no. 2, winner of the 1909 trans-continental race from New York to Seattle.jpg]]. At all times, the Wikitext has accurately indicated that this is a photo by {{w|Frank H. Nowell}}, official photographer of the {{w|Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition}}. Originally that was in the description rather than the author field, but [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ford_Model_%22T%22_car_no._2,_winner_of_the_1909_trans-continental_race_from_New_York_to_Seattle.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=42393843 I fixed that in 2010] and [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Ford_Model_%22T%22_car_no._2,_winner_of_the_1909_trans-continental_race_from_New_York_to_Seattle.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=219793304 added] a {{tl|Creator}} template in 2016. [[User:FlickypediaBackfillrBot|FlickypediaBackfillrBot]] marked it today in SDC as being created by University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections because that is the immediate source. That strikes me as absolutely wrong.
:*I've converted "[[:Category:Autonomy]]" into a redirect to "[[:Category:Liberty]]". It definitely shouldn't be a subcategory of "[[:Category:The rule of law]]".
:— Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 08:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


{{ping|Alexwlchan}} do you consider this correct behavior by your bot, and if so why? Otherwise, is there some hope of addressing this? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
== Image previews ==


= June 04 =
Is there any way to preview an image's metadata before saving it? I've been using the basic upload form, but all I can preview is the text ''I'' write, not the metadata text. Any suggestions? --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 14:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
== List of living people & privacy ==
Hi,<br>
I was wondering if there were any privacy issues with a list of people's names, like [[:File:Profession de foi Liste des élèves du College Stanislas Paris - 1977.jpg|this one]]?<br>
Thanks. --[[User:Kontributor 2K|Kontributor 2K]] ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:Similar images available at [[:Category:Name lists]] and [[:Category:Lists of people]] (side note: should these be merged?) [[User:Dogfennydd|Dogfennydd]] ([[User talk:Dogfennydd|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::I mean that this a list of living people (1977), where you can see their religion and early school's name, hence my question
::--[[User:Kontributor 2K|Kontributor 2K]] ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
* Every school yearbook in the United States is online, either here, or Classmates or Ancestry. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:25, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::This would be unbelievable to have in Germany :D --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
::: Unfortunately Ancestry would guillotine the books to ease scanning then discard the originals. I used to buy them at book sales and see if it was on their list of needed copies, but stopped when I learned their policy. Having them online is absolutely awesome. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
:::in germany you can find a list of full names and a group photo of students doing abitur in a certain year on the newspaper and its website. XD
:::that's unbelievable in many other countries. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
* In France, it's illegal too to distribute private data without the prior consent of the concerned people. --[[User:Kontributor 2K|Kontributor 2K]] ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
** This is probably just my lack of understanding of French law but, {{ping|Kontributor 2K}} given that this appears to have been a published document, how is this "private data"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:46, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
***I don't think it's been published (like a book); it's just been printed.<br>In general, this type of document is given to families at the end of the school year, or after the ceremony.<br>It's not a public document. --[[User:Kontributor 2K|Kontributor 2K]] ([[User talk:Kontributor 2K|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:58, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
* Under international copyright law that does constitute being "made public", also lists of names are not copyrightable. To be eligible for a copyright a work must have unique creative elements. If you asked a dozen people to compile the list of names, each person would create an identical list. If you asked a dozen people to compile a list of the best music of all time, each list would be different and copyrightable, that is why the Time 100 list each year is copyrighted, or the Fortune 500 list. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


== [[:Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia]]: The future of Wikimedia Commons ==
:The file's properties (Windows or Linux) or info (Mac) should show the metadata. For information on editing metadata tags, see [[Commons:EXIF]]. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


Hi!
::Thanks, that should work. It would be nice if there was a way to preview it when uploading, though. I'm filling in the <code>date=</code> parameter in {{tl|Information}} on the photos I'm uploading and matching that information with the information in the metadata (the photos were taken over the course of two days, but are mixed together), which is why the preview would be useful. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 15:15, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


A recent essay about the future scope and extent has been published. Maybe you want to add your support :) --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
:::Oh, well. Not really necessary. Might be a good idea for a gadget one day, though, if one of our gadget-makers finds themselves with too much time on their hands. --''[[User:Philosopher|Philosopher]]''&nbsp;<sup>[[User talk:Philosopher|Let us reason together.]]</sup> 15:48, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


== Notice: Proposal for POTY finalist topicons ==
::::I have heard the [[#Switch_to_UploadWizard|Upload Wizard]] reads the date from the EXIF metadata. But it is switched off currently due to tech problems. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 02:48, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


Just a heads up for this board that there is an ongoing [[Commons_talk:Picture_of_the_Year#Proposal_to_have_icons_on_the_top_right_of_files_that_became_POTY_finalists_and_winners_20px%7CThis_file_was_awarded_first_place_in_Picture_of_the_Year%7Clink%3D_20px%7CThis_file_was_awarded_second_place_in_Picture_of_the_Year%7Clink%3D_20px%7CThis_file_was_awarded_third_place_in_Picture_of_the_Year%7Clink%3D_20px%7CThis_file_was_a_finalist_in_Picture_of_the_Year%7Clink%3D|proposal to add top icons to POTY finalists over on the POTY talk page]]. Please discuss there if interested. &mdash; <span style="font-family: monospace, monospace;">[[User:Rhododendrites|<span style="font-size:90%;letter-spacing:1px;text-shadow:0px -1px 0px Indigo;">Rhododendrites</span>]] <sup>[[User_talk:Rhododendrites|talk]]</sup></span> &#124;&nbsp; 22:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
== Embedly support for Wikipedia and Wikimedia Commons thumbnails ==


= June 05 =
At my request, [http://embed.ly/ Embedly] now returns thumbnails for images on Wikipedia:


== [[Special:UncategorizedCategories]] ==
http://api.embed.ly/embed?url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BirdNotes-22-3.jpg


[[Special:UncategorizedCategories]] is back over 1000 categories. If you can add appropriate parent categories to any of the many that have otherwise reasonable content, that would be very helpful. If you're not a admin, don't worry about the empty ones, one or another admin will eventually find those and delete them. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 06:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
and Wikimedia Commons:


== Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2024 ==
http://api.embed.ly/embed?url=http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:John-Madin.jpg


Dear community members,
Cheers, [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


We are inviting you to participate in the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024 campaign, a global contest scheduled to run from July through August 2024:
:Is there some way to remind Embedly users to comply with the acknowledgment requirements of CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licences? — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 20:20, 11 May 2011 (UTC)


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


In its first year (2020), 36 Wikimedia communities in 27 countries joined the campaign. Events relating to the campaign included training organized by at least 18 Wikimedia communities in 14 countries.
According to [[COM:FOP#United_States]], FoP is only applicable to buildings in the U.S. There's currently a [[:de:Wikipedia:Urheberrechtsfragen#Bild_nach_Commons|discussion in the German Wikipedia]] (in German, of course) regarding the question whether a particular U.S. photo could be transferred from English WP to Commons. The photo in question is [[:en:File:GantryPlazaStatePark.jpg]]. The buildings in the background should not be a problem, neither the gantry cranes, which are not artworks. But I wonder: maybe the (very simple) fountain/pond design in the foreground counts as a work of sculptural art? What do you think? [[User:Gestumblindi|Gestumblindi]] ([[User talk:Gestumblindi|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:In my opinion, no, that particular fountain does <font color="#008800">not</font> meet the threshold of copyrightability. It's just a circle of water. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:33, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
::''"that particular fountain does meet the threshold of copyrightability"'' - it seems you mean "does '''not''' meet"? ;-) [[User:Gestumblindi|Gestumblindi]] ([[User talk:Gestumblindi|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Er yes :-) Fixed. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:34, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


The campaign resulted in the addition of media files (photos, audios and videos) to more than 90,000 Wikipedia articles in 272 languages.
=May 12=


Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos (WPWP) offers an ideal task for recruiting and guiding new editors through the steps of adding content to existing pages. Besides individual participation, the WPWP campaign can be used by user groups and chapters to organize editing workshops and edit-a-thons.
== When US Federal agencies don't know how to liscense their PD images on social networking sites, like flickr... ==


The organizing team is looking for a contact person to coordinate WPWP participation your language Wikipedia. We’d be glad for you to sign up directly at [[:meta:Wikipedia_Pages_Wanting_Photos_2024/Participating_Communities|WPWP Participating Communities page]] on Meta-Wiki.
In the last year or two many groups within US Federal agencies have started to republish their PD images on social networking sites, like flickr. Ideally flickr would let those officials place a PD liscense on those images. Flickr does allow a small number of institutions to use a PD liscense -- but they are all, or almost all museums.


Thank you,
Some of those officials use the most generous CC liscenses that flickr supports for non-museums. Others state "all rights reserved", and others try to place "no derivatives" conditions, or "no commercial use".


[[:w:en:User:Reading Beans|Reading Beans]] / readthebeans{{@}}gmail.com)<br/>
Recently I noticed another contributor had uploaded some images from flickr, where the US Federal employee(s) tried to apply a nonfree liscenses. I had considered uploading images from that flickr-id, and had chosen not to, due to the liscense complication. But this other contributor is basing their PD liscense on the EXIF data, not on the flickr liscense. I hadn't noticed this.
Project manager and coordinator<br/>
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024
<!-- Message sent by User:Ammarpad@metawiki using the list at https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_Pages_Wanting_Photos/Distribution_list&oldid=26836490 -->


:There is a map at https://bldrwnsch.toolforge.org of geocoded locations (for German language Wikipedia, sometimes articles needing additional images). [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Is this a good idea?


== Personal creations presented as tribal flags ==
Nothing stops someone else from noticing this, and placing a {{tl|flickrreview}} tag on those images.


Hello,<br>
{{tl|Flickrreview}} can handle most good flickr images. But about five percent of the time it requires a human to do the review. Would it make sense to have another similar tag that always requests a trusted human to verify that the EXIF data confirms that a flickr image is PD, even if the Federal employee who uploaded it used a non-free liscense?
I have noted {{u|Al-Hilali Z}} uploads what is designated as flags of Arab tribes. None of the files has an indication of a source on which the file design has been based. When queried about this though the [[User talk:Al-Hilali Z|talk page]], it is confirmed the great majority are the user's personal design. Is this not an issue, especially when these flag images end up being displayed in Wikipedia articles and presented as recognized flags when this is not accurate? [[User:Moumou82|Moumou82]] ([[User talk:Moumou82|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
*I found this too for made up coats-of-arms for obscure royal families, and then websites using them. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:50, 5 June 2024 (UTC)


:Hello,
Cheers! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:14, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:Arabs Tribes flags are very different of other flag, they dont respect vexilollogy codes, everyone is free to create Tribal flags, there are no Official flags, except in rare cases, but they are inconsistent and free to create your own design. [[User:Al-Hilali Z|Al-Hilali Z]] ([[User talk:Al-Hilali Z|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:Al-Hilali Z|Al-Hilali Z]]: Then they are [[oos]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::No, they are completely legitimate, the majority of the flags that I make are made with the approval of members of the tribe and are adopted by them, there is no connection with the [[oos]]. [[User:Al-Hilali Z|Al-Hilali Z]] ([[User talk:Al-Hilali Z|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:@[[User:Moumou82|Moumou82]]: Are the blazons also made up? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 13:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::I have not seen any source suggesting anything but a personal creation, which I agree is OOS. [[User:Moumou82|Moumou82]] ([[User talk:Moumou82|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


= June 06 =
:What is the file? Link to the Flickr account? If it is a work of the federal government, then the license they apply to Flickr is useless...it will be public domain. Is there something about the image that makes you think it ''isn't'' public domain? <span style="white-space:nowrap; text-shadow:gray 5px 3px 1px;">— [[User:Huntster|Huntster]] <small>([[User talk:Huntster|t]] [[Special:Emailuser/Huntster|@]] [[Special:Contributions/Huntster|c]])</small></span> 17:32, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


== Cat-a-lot does still not work for categories ==
:Flickr does have a special "US Government Work" license as well, which is what should be used ideally, but it's not something available by default. Some of the US Gov flickr accounts have that set up, but I'm sure not all have bothered. Anyways, if they are works made by US Government employees in the course of their duties, they are public domain and (at least in the United States) they cannot claim those licenses. A human reviewer should see the validity of the PD license and ignore the Flickr one. And if the source page is under a free license, it doesn't hurt for Flickrreviewr to document that. The USGov license can be added any time. There is a mostly theoretical question on whether the USGov tag is fully applicable in other countries, so evidence of a fully free license could be of use if those theoretical issues ever started to become reality. I don't think anything needs to change. I guess the only issue is if there is a non-free license on Flickr and an admin deletes without realizing that PD-USGov applies as well. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:06, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


::That is good to know. I have uploaded thousands of flickr images, but I have never seen one of these liscenses. Is there any chance you had handy a url to an image with one on it? Thanks! [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:41, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Though the [[:Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2024/02#Cat-a-lot_does_not_work_for_categories|former discussion]] about Cat-a-lot was archived yesterday because the problem would supposedly have been resolved, for me the problem is still the same: it still does not work for subcategories with at least one subcategory. So can this discussion be restarted and can the problem really be solved? [[User:JopkeB|JopkeB]] ([[User talk:JopkeB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:{{ping|JopkeB}} you should always feel free to "necromance" a recently archived VP section back from the archive and continue the discussion. Just be sure that your edit summaries make it clear that is what you are doing. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 05:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::There are plenty: the White House's photostream (as with [http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5680724572/ the situation room photo]), for example. The FlickrreviewR bot can recognise at least some specific Commons PD-USGov tags, like that for the State Department. &mdash;[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] 22:26, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::{{Ping|Jmabel}} How do you do that? To me it looks like a next level action. Just moving/copy-paste it and mention it in the edit summary? [[User:JopkeB|JopkeB]] ([[User talk:JopkeB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
::: {{ping|JopkeB}} yes, though in this case cut-and-paste is more appropriate. Mention it in the edit summary both on the archive page and where you restore it. If you have something to add, this is perfectly appropriate. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 04:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
:indeed, i tried on [[:Category:Energy by type of energy]], selecting kinetic energy and thermal energy and using catalot to "add to [[:cat:energy by topic]]". it gets stuck at "Editing page 1 of 2". [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:It would also be nice if it worked on the conventional search rather than only special search. Yesterday I noticed it displays 1000 when only 500 items have been selected. I think this should be discussed and pointed out at the Cat-a-lot talk page. And how to solve it would be the same as for most technical issues: 1) more WMF priority/spending in that area and, more importantly, 2) things to get more volunteer onboard and have them implement/solve the most important issues such as those of tools widely used like cat-a-lot, video2commons (currently dysfunctional), or the Upload Wizard which still makes people add categories that are redirects. Banners for volunteer devs on software-related Wikipedia articles as well as a campaign with things like leaderboards, badges, gamification, internal attention, possibly external reporting, prizes (maybe also anonymous bounties), and prioritized weighted issues would be a straightforward way to implement that. One can only speculate why the WMF isn't doing things like that, could be incompetence, related to techcompany donor funds, a general lack of a sense of community wishes, and/or something else. I don't think just merely asking about any particular major technical issue on VillagePump does anything. I don't think this particular problem is large though: just refresh and move the remaining subcategories using HotCat. [[User:Prototyperspective|Prototyperspective]] ([[User talk:Prototyperspective|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::The communities of course also can run banners themselves… —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)


== [[:File:Idioma Balinés.png]] ==
:@Geo Swan: how about some examples? [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
Help me Changing the old map of the distribution of the Balinese language in English Wikipedia to this one more details to me
[[File:Idioma Balinés.png|thumb|100px|Areas where Balinese language is spoken]] {{unsigned|Joese van|07:53, 6 June 2024}}
:[[User_talk:Enyavar#Sumbawa+Balinese_language|This]] could probably use some attention from the sockpuppetry police. --[[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] ([[User talk:HyperGaruda|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
{{clear}}


== Any procedures for seeking and archiving explicit consent when subject is identifiable? ==
:Just because some U.S. governmental agency like the U.S. Army publishes a photo on Flickr doesn't mean yet that the photo was created by an employee of the U.S. government in the course of his duties. For instance, [http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/5246760069 this photo] is actually a contractor's image (copyright held by Remington). But also [http://www.flickr.com/photos/peosoldier/5246760561 this photo] (at the Commons as [[:File:XM2010 November 2010.jpg]]) is in all likelihood not a U.S. Army picture but most probably also "all rights reserved" by Remington, as I argued just a few minutes ago in a [[User talk:Flominator/Flinfo#Flickr upload tool|slightly different context]]. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 22:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
::It's a very interesting find. There was a DR about this photo: [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:XM2010 November 2010.jpg]], the picture had been kept basing on response of a Public Affairs/Strategic Communications of PEO Soldier. I can't download this catalog, their Windows-based server is down, but maybe the DR should be reopened basing on this new information. [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Hm, I have no problems accessing the remingtonmilitary.com web page. However, downloading the catalog works only if you have JavaScript enabled. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 06:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


[[File:Michael Winter skeleton costume Bundeskanzleramt protest 4 June 2024.jpg|thumb|Michael Winter in skeleton suit lying outside the German chancellor's residence to protest the lack of action on climate policy]]
== Categories starting with the word "Famous -" ==


[[File:Climate activist Tessel Hofstede XR Netherlands speaks Letzte Generation Berlin 2023.jpg|thumb|Climate activist Tessel Hofstede from XR Netherlands speaks to Letzte Generation in Berlin in 2023]]
I propose renaming these categories with the suffix "Notable -".[[Special:Contributions/205.206.8.197|205.206.8.197]] 05:42, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


I took the photograph shown and have had a clear and unequivocal discussion with Michael Winter, the subject, that I can upload that and similar images to Wikimedia under CC‑BY‑4.0. Michael also provided me with his email address on my request and I&nbsp;was intending to follow up with a&nbsp;proper "release form".
:Please, no - don't infect the category names with unnecessary Wikipedia jargon. It would be better to just get rid of the prefix altogether. --[[User:Avenue|Avenue]] ([[User talk:Avenue|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:11, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


That event occurred in Berlin, Germany of course and German and European privacy law would prevail.
:Why have such peacock descriptive at all, its a reasonable presumption that just having a photo uploaded to commons confers that basic premiss. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 12:55, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


I have had a reasonable look around this site and could not find mention of any formalized processes like this. The notion of "asserted consent" is traversed. So I&nbsp;take it that Wikimedia does not wish to provide support for written agreements of this nature? I&nbsp;guess that position is understandable? Particularly given the large number of legal jurisdictions involved and also changing statutes and evolving case&nbsp;law.
::I agree. Arbitrary modifiers like "famous" or "notable" have no place in Commons category names. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:16, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:::[[:Category:Famous people]] is very filled with subcategories like [[:Category:Houses of famous people by country]] and should be kept, I think. But I agree, that f.i. [[:Category:Famous trees]] could be as well [[:Category:Remarquable trees]]. --[[User:Havang(nl)|Havang(nl)]] ([[User talk:Havang(nl)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:54, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:::: "Remarkable"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


So I suppose the best thing to do in this particular case is to undertake some email traffic with Michael and leave that exchange on my hard‑drive as a&nbsp;kind of insurance policy? Any assistance welcome. [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] ([[User talk:RobbieIanMorrison|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Thanks for bringing it here! I think that, along with "Topics", "Sources" and "Licenses" dimensions, Commons category schemes also need a "Get Real!" scale. Chemical formulae on "Colder than Iceberg" extreme, mating elephants in the middle, and this - "famous people" - on the other end. Give it a chance, it's a great comic relief. Who are these "famous people", after all? Will my mother-in-law qualify? Trust me, she would. '''Keep'''. Famous. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:19, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


:Yes, the process is described at [[COM:VRT]]. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Get rid of "peacock" descriptions where the criteria are necessarily completely subjective. Winners of particular awards? Sure. Buildings with landmark designations? Sure. But "famous"? "Notable"? No. Nothing to prevent someone from creating a ''page'' with the most prominent examples in a category and its subcategories, but it's not useful categorization. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:58, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
:: [[COM:VRT]] talks mainly about licensing by copyright-holders, but the same process could presumably be used to ticket for issues related to other rights. You might want to ask a question at [[Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard]] to find out how they'd prefer to to handle this particular case. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:What's notable or famous in the Welsh area might be completely different from what's notable in the Basque country or in Tibet. The fact that they are somewhere are on Commons makes them notable. I don't think that we need additional subjective filtering. A CFD should help to clear that out (for good I hope). --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:34, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::Thanks {{u|GPSLeo}} and {{u|Jmabel}}. I{{nbsp}}did once use that process for another image in relation to consent. In that case, my associated email traffic was somehow stored out of public view and linked backed to the particular image. I{{nbsp}}also presume that my earlier assumption that the concept of release forms is not supported by Wikimedia due to the legal complexities present. Thanks both for your quick responses. [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] ([[User talk:RobbieIanMorrison|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::According to [[Commons:Photographs of identifiable people]] you could add {{tl|Personality rights}} and {{tl|Consent}} if you haven’t already. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:::::Maybe we could add a param to consent, so that people can reference a document id, link or VRT/OTRS id. That might be worthwhile! —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 19:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::::::For what it is worth, the accompanying image of the woman in yellow uses the following field "<nowiki>permission={{VRT info|1=2024050810008791}}</nowiki>" as part of the 'Information' template. [[User:RobbieIanMorrison|RobbieIanMorrison]] ([[User talk:RobbieIanMorrison|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


== Template in EXIF ==
== This is vandalised!! ==


[[:File:LG Headshot.jpg]], this should not happen. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
This catagory [[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Dhruv_Rathee]] has been vandalised with false information at infobox. what should to be done.<br>--[[User:KEmel49|KEmel49]] ([[User talk:KEmel49|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
:Ouch (for those how do not want to see themselves: a CC license template in EXIF data is expanded). The EXIF data does not seem to be sanitized / preserved from any interpretation enough by our software. --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]]&nbsp;([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 00:01, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
: {{ping|KEmel49}} the Infobox contents are driven by {{Q|96376333}}. Any corrections would have to be made there. You can do this; not knowing anything about the topic at hand, I would not edit on this. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
::See [http://regex.info/exif.cgi?b=3&referer=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fde%2FLG_Headshot.jpg&url=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fd%2Fde%2FLG_Headshot.jpg Jeffrey's EXIF viewer]. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
:::So how should we prevent this from happening? Something we can do or do we write bug report? --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:48, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


= June 07 =
::::Interesting image. "Mike Fedele took and owns this picture"... I don't believe it for a second. [[User:Lupo|Lupo]] 06:52, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


== [[:File:Idioma Balinés.png]] ==
=May 13=
== {{tl|PD-Libya}} ==


Help, Please add to Balinese Wikipedia English. [[Special:Contributions/140.213.150.119|140.213.150.119]] 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Should I use this template for pictures published in the 30's in Libya (at that time [[:en:Italian Libya]])?--[[User:Kimdime|Kimdime]] ([[User talk:Kimdime|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:10, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 22:01, 7 June 2024

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy 25 9 Prosfilaes 2024-05-31 16:59
2 Problem with Upload 6 4 Sannita (WMF) 2024-06-05 11:40
3 Category:Steamboat Willie 21 8 Multichill 2024-06-02 20:05
4 File upload wizard 6 4 Sannita (WMF) 2024-06-07 15:58
5 Strange PDF-Preview behaviour 3 3 Jeff G. 2024-06-01 14:57
6 Category:Film characters by actors 10 5 ReneeWrites 2024-06-04 22:05
7 Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg 6 4 Matrix 2024-06-01 14:24
8 Enabling MP4 13 8 A.Savin 2024-06-01 21:11
9 Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia 1 1 Spinster 2024-05-31 13:41
10 Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed 5 4 Jarekt 2024-06-02 01:52
11 I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded. 0 0
12 Transparency in the Checkuser Process 21 8 DarwIn 2024-06-07 19:23
13 Problems with deceased Commons users 10 4 Billinghurst 2024-06-03 10:24
14 Stuck in category redirects 3 2 Enhancing999 2024-06-01 14:03
15 Commons Gazette 2024-06 1 1 RZuo 2024-06-01 13:46
16 Help with cropping borders from images 15 5 ReneeWrites 2024-06-04 13:31
17 Aligning images with strong sources 4 3 Jmabel 2024-06-02 19:02
18 Guitars, bass guitars, and COM:OVERCAT 9 4 King of Hearts 2024-06-04 16:32
19 Category inclusion bug 4 3 MKFI 2024-06-03 06:10
20 Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee 2 2 Jmabel 2024-06-03 14:56
21 27.png still exists 3 1 0x16w 2024-06-03 10:17
22 Limited to the edits 2 2 Belbury 2024-06-03 11:14
23 EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 19 6 Glrx 2024-06-05 21:02
24 Flickr & file credit 5 2 Jmabel 2024-06-05 17:44
25 List of living people & privacy 11 6 RZuo 2024-06-06 05:41
26 Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia: The future of Wikimedia Commons 1 1 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-06-04 18:31
27 Notice: Proposal for POTY finalist topicons 1 1 Rhododendrites 2024-06-04 22:03
28 Special:UncategorizedCategories 1 1 Jmabel 2024-06-05 06:05
29 Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2024 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-06-05 18:15
30 Personal creations presented as tribal flags 7 4 Al-Hilali Z 2024-06-07 10:48
31 Cat-a-lot does still not work for categories 7 5 Jmabel 2024-06-07 04:43
32 File:Idioma Balinés.png 0 0
33 Any procedures for seeking and archiving explicit consent when subject is identifiable? 7 5 RobbieIanMorrison 2024-06-07 21:21
34 This is vandalised!! 2 2 Jmabel 2024-06-06 18:09
35 File:Idioma Balinés.png 1 1 140.213.150.119 2024-06-07 06:21
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 23

[edit]

Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy

[edit]

Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a non-copyright restriction-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute as well as in this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA, regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American lex loci protectionis defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are not subject to the laws of Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, which ruled that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links:
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"No" can mean "I agree that the answer is negative" and "Yes" can mean "I agree with you" in that context. So basically they can mean the same thing in that sentence in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problem with Upload

[edit]

There is a problem with Special:Upload. Once you have completed the form and submit for uploading, if there is a problem with the selected file name it chooses a new valid name and gives you a chance to proceed. It used to have buttons to change the name or use the selected name. But the problem is it looses all of the description, licencing & categories that has been entered, just offering a blank form with a basic description template. Keith D (talk) 21:44, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Keith D: I'm not sure I follow that. Could you describe the old and new sequence, indicating where they differ? Or maybe someone can understand this as written and give you an answer. - Jmabel ! talk 17:32, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It works for me, the form does not reset. Ymblanter (talk) 18:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Sorry for late response, I have been away without internet connection. Using Special:Upload to upload a file from Geograph project using the "directly upload this image to Wikimedia Commons" creates a completed upload file form. You can change this information and add appropriate categories before hitting the "Upload file" button. If the Destination filename contains a character that Commons does not allow, such as a colon, that is when the problem occurs when you try to submit the file upload. The old form would give you an error indicating that he file name was not acceptable and changed it to a valid file name. It then gave you 3 buttons, to accept the change, to modify it or exit the update. You could then proceed with the upload. Now the changed process gives you a button to refresh the screen to see if the upload has worked (this occurs for all uploads now). Once you hit button to see what it has done you get the message the file name is invalid and it revises it to a valid one. In this process it empties the Summary box detail and replaces it with a blank Information template (no fields completed) and the categories added are removed. Thus you have to refill in this information before you can resubmit the suggested modified file name. I think that extra refresh screen button stage that has been introduced is the problem. Hope this is clearer. Keith D (talk) 19:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): is this your realm? If not, do you know whose it is? - Jmabel ! talk 05:14, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel Not the focus of my team, but I can ask around. Can't promise anything. Maybe I can turn it into a Phab ticket and ping someone. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24

[edit]

Category:Steamboat Willie

[edit]

I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: They could enforce their ToS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging @REDƎYE, WikiSyn.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us
We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office (based in Roanne, France) is WikiSyn, as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.
We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.
For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).
Thanks for your understanding,
Kind regards,
RED🔴ƎYE (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created CfD's for the following:
In total these cover over 500 categories.
--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.
Empty Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots (from May 13) duplicates Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie (from March 26). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Applied a anonymous only block to Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users (rfc). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25

[edit]

File upload wizard

[edit]

Hello everyone,

I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sannita (WMF).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ooligan AFAIK, it should be ready for next week. We did the testing in beta for sure, I'll ask on Monday more info about that. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Riad Salih @Ooligan @Jeff G. This should be fixed now, can you please confirm? Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27

[edit]

Strange PDF-Preview behaviour

[edit]

According to the archived village pump post Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer i have the same problem on c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected. does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, Mfchris84 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Animalparty: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see mw:How to report a bug.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28

[edit]

Category:Film characters by actors

[edit]

Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in Category:Space Jam, Category:Mickey Mouse and a bunch of others.

I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category structure is invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.
The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:
Omphalographer (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons is not the place for this. Al Capone is not defined by Alec Baldwin and neither is Alec Baldwin defined by Al Capone. All of these categories should be deleted. The only place this data should be presented is in Wikipedia. Wikidata, might hold the names of movies and their casts, however that again is held in Wikipedia. We are not a repository of facts; we hold files, last time I looked. Only recently we had to go through this nonsense with film locations. Broichmore (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: Could you link me to the discussion about film locations? Was there a consensus? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/03/Category:Film locations by film (and the discussion which led into that, Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Film locations of Sonic the Hedgehog). Omphalographer (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 22:05, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 30

[edit]

Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg

[edit]

Proceeding with rename. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ok, this is getting a bit ridiculous, but this rename request has been at some sort of limbo state for 5 months so I'm bringing it here so it can gain more attention. Should we rename the file to File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg? I quote Fry1989's reasoning:

"This flag is currently in use, so the year of introduction should not be included in the file name. This is as per Commons' long-standing practice of naming flag images "Flag of XXX.svg" without a year of introduction unless the flag has been retired from use. It also can be confused for implying this flag was only used in 2023, as per the naming styles for flags such as File:Flag of Burundi (1966).svg, File:Flag of Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).svg, and File:Flag of Jamaica (1962).svg, which were only used for 1 year or less and for that reason include both their year of introduction and year of retirement as a single year."

Pinging previously involved editors: @Fry1989, KylieTastic, Paine Ellsworth, and Billinghurst. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward  support pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has changed since January? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Enabling MP4

[edit]

Hi, Ten years ago, there was Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. I think it is time that we consider enabling MP4. At least some of the patents expired, according to the discussion. And video2commons is broken for the last 2 weeks, and nobody seems to be able to fix it, or even working on it. In addition, it seems that WEBM format creates larger videos than MP4, which has for consequence that big videos can only be uploaded in a reduced quality. Any idea how to proceed? Yann (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things Trade (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Yann MP4 can be H264 or H265. WEBM can be VP9 or AV1. AV1 is to VP9, what H265 is to H264. H264 and VP9 are old. AV1 and H265 are more efficient. If you transcode from H265 to VP9 the result is of course larger. If you transcode from H264 to AV1 the result is smaller. If you transcode from H265 to AV1 the result is more or less same size. The patent for H264 has expired. The patent for H265 has not expired. For some time now MW has full support of AV1. Most people are not aware about the H264 vs H265 isssue. If MP4 is allowed, people will start to complain that they cannot (must not) upload some MP4 files (and are unaware of the H254/H265 issue). All modern iOS and Android devices use H265 (in a MOV or MP4 container). However you can transcode your own uploads with AV1 transcoding and they will have small size and high quality. v2c can be altered to use AV1 instead of VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per en:High Efficiency Video Coding, the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
its always going to be a UI problem that video (container) formats are more like zip files then a specific format. Mp4 can have all sorts of formats inside, and will probably have new formats in the future. For that matter VVC/H.266 is already the newest thing. That said just giving the user an error message doesn't sound that terrible. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about the middle ground where commons allows uploading of such files but automatically converts them to webm, discarding the mp4 version. Bawolff (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. V2C allows for more too, but alas now it's broken. Result is, I have several videos pending that I would like to upload, but I can't. I could if either V2C would work, or if the size limit for basic upload form was higher AND mp4 was allowed (or automatically converted). Regards --A.Savin 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 also support this. If the ability to convert files to webm was previously a gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the site from getting flooded with useless mundane videos and copyvios, other mechanisms should be added. I think there already is a problem with most video uploads being nothing useful and nearly no videos ever getting DRd. I don't know if video2commons has code to convert non-webm files to webm but if so, that could be used; either way converting video files on the server should be a relatively simple common sense thing to add. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video2Commons

[edit]

Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several people reported this: phab:T365154. And it is in this state since May 15th. Yann (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 31

[edit]

Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia

[edit]

In direct response to the new Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2024-25, a group of Wikimedians has co-authored a statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons, beyond Wikipedia. We would like to see WMF staff support for Wikimedia Commons in its own right (not just to illustrate Wikipedia), and proper resourcing for Wikimedia Commons. You can read the statement in two places and endorse it in any (or both) places if you agree.

More context on the essay's page and talk page.

Best, Spinster (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed

[edit]

This was brought up here last year for category "Men of the France by name". There are now over 53,000 links to it -- not entries in it, but links to the category. There are also over 50,000 links to "Men of the Germany by name". I see similar ones for other countries. (You can find them under Special:WantedPages.) None of the categories actually exist. I gather that a module was changed to fix this problem, but the problem has apparently recurred. Can someone help? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the Special:WantedPages are cached and only updated twice a month. I assume the use of the category was due to a template error that has since been fixed. I would wait to do anything until the next update of wanted pages. I think I'm wrong with my previous comment. Please disregard. William Graham (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This may be an issue with {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I would ask on the template talk page and see if the maintainers have any idea what is going on. I know that from previous go arounds on this, the template/Lua script checks for instances of "the" country categories at some point in the execution. William Graham (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
William Graham You are correct {{Wikidata Infobox}} and Module:Wikidata_Infobox in lines 1283-1294 does exactly that. It checks for existence of category with and without "the", and the first check is for the options with "the". User:Mike Peel and User:LennardHofmann maintain that code. Mike and Lennard I suspect that some countries always use "the" and some don't so you should be able to create a lookup table of maybe all the countries that use "the" and at least have a good guess which one of 2 options to try first. If you want I can write a patch to fix this. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded.

[edit]

Hi I don't seem to be able to use the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Holy_Roman_Empire.pdf It show up in Commons but in Wikipedia I'm not able to use it. Why? It happened for my last file and someone 'did' something... I don't know what was done but it worked. What should I do to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M F Gervais (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@M F Gervais: It is there and it functional however due to how big and unwieldy it is as a pdf it takes a while to render, especially whern it has to develop the image cache first:
Now because PDFs are typically multipage document it can need extra formatting if you are trying to do it through standard wiki formatting. mw:help:images. PDFs should not be used if you want to display an image, please upload an image file per Com:File types — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Transparency in the Checkuser Process

[edit]

The checkuser process is not open to auditing. From a technical perspective, there is no page to confirm that the checkuser process was performed because it likely involves not only the internal technical aspect handled by the MediaWiki tool but also a human element in analyzing user behavior patterns. I believe there should be a task list available that can at least ensure the technical checkuser was conducted and found no connection. It is not clear to me that it was done just because the administrator said so. I think this step is necessary to prevent human errors. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser]. Please inform yourself better at m:Checkuser policy.  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works internally. I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other.
the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. RZuo (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward]  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".
i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100. RZuo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
actually 2. i cant trace User:Mardetanha's ban to anything.
i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. RZuo (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. RZuo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The User:Benoît Prieur case is public (fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite). GPSLeo (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. Bawolff (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we have an organization that throws crumbs of food to distract the dogs, I highly doubt it cares about what the "reliable lifelong members" are doing to perform their duties without any pay. The likelihood of these people being corrupted is immense. Wilfredor (talk) 02:40, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TheDJ Just FYI, we also get sued on court. Often. 🙄 Darwin Ahoy! 19:23, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: The statement on user accounts says that if you have queries about the ban, then email. So, if you have questions then email. The email will be somewhat generic. They are banned typically for breaking the rules, though you cannot expect staff to go into the specific details of how a person broke the terms of use, nor how they found out they broke the rules. Not only does privacy have to be maintained, once you start making statements about people, they also have the right of reply, was when banned is contrary.

The membership of WMF office is not secret, in fact it is listed at m:Meta:WMF Trust and Safety and FoundationSite:role/staff-contractors. No they are not elected, they are appointed as paid staff members/contractors as staff members/contractors are appointed around the world.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. Wilfredor (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the point to this. If an evil checkuser was not carrying out the actual checkuser, surely if this system was in place they would just run the check and not look at the results, carrying on in their evil ways. Bawolff (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Wilfredor: Trust! You can retain whatever suspicions you want, these people are trusted, and they are checked by each other. Checkuser should be a tool only used when needed, and if someone is bothering to say that they are using it, they are using it. I can think of way more important tools that we need than that.  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is not enough to rely solely on users or WMFOffice. On Spanish Wikipedia, for instance, a politically aligned group of users controls various spaces, including CheckUser. When these users are involved, CheckUser actions are completed in minutes, while other cases can take months. This is just one example of what I want to avoid. Because this is a global tool, I have brought the issue here. Wilfredor (talk) 11:39, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with deceased Commons users

[edit]

It seems like user pages of deceased users get fully protected for preservation and to avoid vandalism. I support this practice. However that protection prevents any file renames (for files displayed on the page) or user category renames. Any ideas on how regular users can perform non-controversial operations like file-renames or categorization on deceased Commons userspages? See for example User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood#Please_replace_File:Ralli.3.JPG. Jarekt (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix?  — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst and Jmabel: The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests, and User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --Jarekt (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jarekt: I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [@Jmabel: hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable.  — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.
Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: But, for example, there are cases like User:Fæ. He's presumably alive (hi, Fæ, if you are reading this), he never formally left the project, he is certainly not blocked, he simply has chosen not to contribute lately. He's at least a contender for the most prolific uploader in the history of Commons, so inevitably some issues will come up about some of his uploads. His user talk page is the logical place for a bot to notify about those issues, so I monitor it. I would hope someone will do the same for my talk page after my departure, whenever that may be and for whatever reason. I can't really think of a way around that, unless we were to either (1) give up on having a place to notify in those circumstances or (2) add a special case for every closed/abandoned/inactive account and have a way for all bots that do notifications that indicate issues with files, categories, etc. to be able to handle that special case. That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. @Enhancing999: I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection.  — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am proposing nothing. I am saying that I don't see the point of it. I think that it is setting ourselves up to fail under an unreasonable burden that will grow every year as a burden. We have a DR mechanism and that should flow, and requires an admin to act. We already condemn the Wikisources to such a problematic deletion situation where their used works are nominated for deletion and removed without a clear notification of use, nor a particular compunction to care. How is a dead user different? We hard protect pages to preserve them, then I hear that we should not hard protect them as that stops them from being updated, and then I hear that the talk pages are equally an issues as someone wants to watch them for a user who has died or left our service. What is wrong with this picture? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  — billinghurst sDrewth 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 01

[edit]

Stuck in category redirects

[edit]

At Special:Permalink/880570764 a list of category redirects with files (or subcategories) that aren't moved.

This is generally due to categories being added by templates. I identified some at User_talk:RussBot/category_redirect_log#Template_populating_category_redirects and fixed a few occurrences. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Normally, there shouldn't be any category on that list. If one is there it means RussBot tried to move the files or subcategories, but couldn't. If the category is empty now, it means it has been fixed.
Maybe there is a way to adapt w:Template:Resolve category redirect so redirecting categories aren't picked up by templates. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Gazette 2024-06

[edit]

Volunteer staff changes

[edit]

In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.

Other news

[edit]

Edited by RZuo (talk).

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) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 02

[edit]

Help with cropping borders from images

[edit]

Hi. I was wondering if people could help me crop the borders from images in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive with borders. It currently contains 23,469 images that need cropping which isn't great, but every little bit helps. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

23,317 images now 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why, I dont see any images in urgent need of cropping, please give some examples Broichmore (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Broichmore: it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They have catalog numbers, which say something about the DDR. Their discreet enough, not to worry about. Broichmore (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For those who don’t know, Commons:CropTool is handy for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just did several with no issues. I have rarely had problems with that tool. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yesterday I overwrote an image, when I went to crop out details from the new image, croptool wanted to goto the original image to do the croppng. Had to resort to GIMP to do the job. It wasn't a cache problem. Broichmore (talk) 10:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I started using CropTool yesterday to assist with this task, so far it's worked like a charm. ReneeWrites (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Doing some back-of-the-envelope math, someone can plausibly do three of these a minute, so with 23,000 images, that means 128 person-hours of work, which is a lot for one person, but reasonable for a small group. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say, the museum source has not cropped them, why would they not? There seems to be some kind of mania, here, in cropping out borders to satisfy OCD urges. Margins prove the extent of images, they confirm that images are indeed complete. Any source museum would consider this vanadalism. I have to say that certain museums employ prestigous decals on their images, claiming source, the Imperial War Museum, The British Library, the Bundesarchive in this case. Cropping out these details, deny them the opportunity of advertising, which is cheeky when you consider they curate these images for us for free. These Bundesarchiv decals that are being cropped out deny 'end users' easy attribution of where these images come from. Wikipedia in particular is bad for not only referencing the source museum, but also even the artist. Furthermore, in the new world of AI, these decals go some way to prove authenticity. At this point their discreet enough, not to worry about. This is not a good use of our resources, and is wrong. Broichmore (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: I don't necessarily disagree. If I had my way I'd probably just remove the crop requests, but I didn't add them to begin with and I try to respect what other users want. It would at least be less work to just not crop the images to begin with though. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, the thing is that every so often editors discover the crop tool and see it as an easy pastime. When in fact it's a tool that should be rarely used, and with great caution. The average original uploader is more than capable of cropping their images prior to uploading, their wishes should be respected.
Even in these images, the Bundesarchiv logo, tell us so much. Date, German origin, the importance put on collecting the image by the German government, and that they consider it being worthy of preservation, & etc. Broichmore (talk) 09:53, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This misunderstands how Wikipedia/Commons attributes images. The sources and authors are listed on the image's descriptions pages, not in the text on Wikipedia itself (this also to discourage using Wikipedia as a tool for self-promotion). With regards to this collection specifically, the information listed in the image is also listed on the page (the bild ID (and a link to the ID on the archive), the year it was taken, the name of the photographer, if one is known, the archive itself). This is where that information is supposed to be; there is no need to have it be visible on the image too. This kind of visible watermarking is discouraged. Invisible watermarking on the other hand is encouraged because it doesn't interfere with the contents of the images themselves. Every single one of the images in this collection has invisible watermarking too (the EXIF data if you scroll to the bottom), which contains the same information that's visible in the margins, and is wholly unaffected by the crop tool. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Aligning images with strong sources

[edit]

We have several pictures from WWII concerning Croatian area that are described wrongly or incorrectly given that this is what the secondary sources who comment or talk about these pictures say. The source that took picture from a Yugoslav archive is United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is also a factual source, however, it has a description of the image that is not in accordance with modern sources, which mark such an interpretation(regardless from whom) and as propaganda.

What to do in this case, and if nothing can be changed, can the same picture be posted but with an explanation ie description based on modern high-quality sources of historians?

Images are: Corpses in the Sava river, Sisak 1945.[1], Ustaše militia execute prisoners near the Jasenovac concentration camp[2], Glina church massacre [3] --Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this helps: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg reproduces the original description with a caption/disclaimer. The actual wiki-description goes in a different field. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For starters, there is {{Fact disputed}}. If (as appears to be the case here) the matter is genuinely controversial, that's a good choice: you are not simply making a correction, you are noting that two presumably scholarly sources disagree.
File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg may not be the best example, because it just has a generic warning. File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg might be a better example. Note: "original description" distinct from (corrected) "title"; also, in the "description" field, note the horizontal bar separating what the original source said from Commons' own original content.
Also, when contradicting a presumably respectable scholarly source, it is a good idea to report the contradiction back to them. They are likely to incorporate it into their archives as well (which I see has now happened with that example I gave). - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars, bass guitars, and COM:OVERCAT

[edit]

I'm currently in something of a dispute with User:186.172.16.70 over guitars, bass guitars, and (implicitly) COM:OVERCAT. If this were a logged in user, I'd try to sort this out between just the two of us but, sorry, I'm not engaging over time with an account that might be a different person each time I interact.

If I understand correctly this edit is because bass guitars are, in a sense, a form of guitar, so there is an implicit argument that Category:Male guitarists from Austria is overcat for Category:Male bass guitarists from Austria. However, bass guitar is, in practice, a distinct instrument from a regular guitar, and we don't have something like a Category:No, really I meant a normal guitar. This particular person (unlike most bass guitarists) played/plays both a bass guitar and a regular guitar professionally, and in my opinion in that case someone should certainly be categorized under both, despite the theory of OVERCAT. Do others here, besides this one user, see it differently? - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such thing as "regular guitar". Unless there is such a thing as irregular guitar. Do you mean Spanish guitar? Classical guitar? Ritm guitar? Of course admins are always right, this is why I chose not to be one. 186.172.16.70 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, why is Category:Bass guitarists a subcategory of Category:Guitarists? 186.172.16.70 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By a "regular guitar" I mean one with six strings, tuned in the usual register.
I'm not sure why Category:Bass guitarists is a subcategory of Category:Guitarists, and (as a guitarist) I would not have made it so, any more than I would have made violists a subcategory of violinists. That is exactly the issue I am raising here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again, would someone please weigh in besides the two of us who are already arguing? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There may be an expectation by some that the guitar(ist) categories are meant to contain guitar-like instrument(alist)s as subcategories. That issue is easily solved by {{Cat see also}}. We already have Guitar family instruments as a common category. I assume bass guitarists mostly aren't also known as (or routinely professionally performing as) "normal" guitarists – if they are, then the issue is different. –LPfi (talk) 09:06, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would certainly be happier if, in general, bass guitars were subcatted from Category:Guitar family instruments (which should probably be hyphenated: "guitar-family" as an adjective) rather than Category:Guitars. Similarly for bass guitarists, though we don't yet have a category for players of guitar-family instruments. - Jmabel ! talk 14:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Jmabel here - in context, "guitarist" specifically means someone who plays a normal guitar, so I view this as analogous to the Category:Politicians of Germany example in COM:OVERCAT. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category inclusion bug

[edit]

Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Bavaria correctly shows Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Germany as a parent cat, but the latter does not show the former as a child cat. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories included due to templates frequently have issues with updating due to cache issues or the MediaWiki software updating its index (which I believe is done weekly). So while three days is a long time for it to not display, it’s not entirely unreasonable. Have you tried purging both cats and the template (I cannot on the machine I’m using presently)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had purged both cats. I didn't think to try purging the template; now I've done so, and it still didn't resolve this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Null edit fixed the problem. MKFI (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 03

[edit]

Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee

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

Hello,

The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.

We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:

  • North America (USA and Canada)
    • –
  • Northern and Western Europe
  • Latin America and Caribbean
    • –
  • Central and East Europe (CEE)
    • —
  • Sub-Saharan Africa
    • –
  • Middle East and North Africa
  • East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
  • South Asia
    • –

The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:

Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.

Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

27.png still exists

[edit]

So I've been making a spreadsheet of all the numerical PNG files on here from 01.png to 99.png. While browsing I found that 27.png is somehow still an existing file? Here's the link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:27.png

I don't know what it is so I can't move it to a better file name. Hopefully someone knows what this is. 0x16w (talk) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

29.png also still exists apparently. 0x16w (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Checked all the other numbers up to 99.png, these are the only two remaining ones. 0x16w (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Limited to the edits

[edit]

IP address: 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912 This limited to 128 edits on IP address to expiry 1 week 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912 11:08, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Vandalism#Yusaya 94038917, this seems to be an IP and user trying to hit some kind of autoconfirmed edit count, probably a misunderstood one. Belbury (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024

[edit]

I was seated close to a window and have taken some pictures: The camera time is the time in Amsterdam, not the local time. The route is trough Pakistan and China. There where no delays.

Identifying the location would be usefull. Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've done this sort of thing a lot. I strongly recommend plunging into Google Maps looking for similar landforms. (BTW, for the future: much easier if you take a lot of pictures, even if you don't plan to use them all.) - Jmabel ! talk 14:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also useful is if you are listening in-flight to the pilots talk to Air Traffic Controllers, making a note of which Air Traffic Controllers' areas the pilots are told to switch to (the next area on the flight plan); for flights arriving here, that is typically "New York Approach". The frequencies are not necessary for this purpose. It will help if you can listen in English, as that appears to be the standard language of air traffic control worldwide.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
De official times are Dubai departure 02:40 am local time and arrival at Tokyo 17:35 pm local Japanese times. Camera time Amsterdam GMT + 1 (+ 1 summertime); Dubai GMT + 4; Japan GMT + 9. 7 hour difference between Japan and Amsterdam. China is GMT + 8). From what I remenber the plane avoided India went trough Pakistan and then took a more or less straight line trough China and South Korea passing trough large Chinese dessert areas. So the Himalayas would be at de western end by the Pakistan / Chinese border, but could also be inside China.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: At least the city on last three images should be relatively easy to identify e.g. with Google Maps satellite mode; provided you know at least approximately what area and/or what country had been overflown at that timepoint, as otherwise this would be a search for the "needle in a haystack".
In general, it's quite tricky and common landforms are difficult to identify afterwards, likewise in flight because from my experience, GPS on your phone seldom works well in flight. --A.Savin 16:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution to have and keep a GPS connection in fast moving vehicles with a smartphone is to activate a constant tracking before you start moving. For these photos case it might be the best solution to look at the Flightradar24 data for the flight and then matching the capture time. But that requires a paid account there. GPSLeo (talk) 16:43, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The last picture must be in Japan, about 15 minutes before landing. With the long shadow of a western sun, this must be an east coast. Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bingo! The Kaimon Bridge by Kaimoncho.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:11, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 4) is close to JR station Izumi and (EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 5) is close to Otsu port (found on GE). I have problems finding the correct location categories. Narita airport was approached from the north along the coast.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have worked the 3 Japanese pictures. For one File:EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 4.jpg, I set the location coordinates of the estmated viewpoint up in the air, but it maybe better to have the coordinates of the center of the image. In this case the river entry point in the ocean.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Use ADSB data...
  1. Go to https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE318
  2. Select flight from past flights (right now only goes back to 21 May, but free basic member can go back 3 months)
  3. click track log to show time → latitude longitude
Glrx (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I managed to find the location of the desert village in Xinjiang
Camera location38° 39′ 53.74″ N, 87° 21′ 19.6″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
, by doing some time and distance calculations and finding out that the village must be about 3.258 km from Dubai. The scharp dark green fields contrast with the more dessert like image from Google Earth. The most dificult to lokalise images must be the two mountain images where I wil probably be using ADSB data.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:21, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calculating that the mountain views 71 minutes before the dessert village, places the mountains within Pakistan. (13,03 km by minute)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:36, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ADSB data of past fligths indicate that the plane usualy crosses Chinese border halfway between the Afganistan border and the Indian border (line of control). Close to the line, a bit to the East is the K2 mountain. However it is complicated to find the rigth mountain.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:59, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ADSB for flight that took off Sunday 02:45:00 AM UTC+04
I have to use camera time as UTC+2. Otherwise, the last picture is taken after the plane lands.
Pictures
ADSB Location
Picture EXIF Time
11 May 2024
UTC+2		 UTC
11 May 2024		 EDT
UTC-4		 Location Heading
1 03:39 0139Z 21:39
36° 06′ 41.4″ N, 75° 16′ 14.16″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

FlightAware estimated (10 mins since last fix)		 → 70°
2 03:40 0140Z 21:40
36° 06′ 41.4″ N, 75° 16′ 14.16″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

FlightAware estimated (10 mins since last fix)		 → 70°
3 04:51 0251Z 22:51
38° 45′ 34.92″ N, 86° 14′ 08.52″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

FlightAware estimated (80 mins since last fix)		 → 76°
22:58:36
+7.5 min
38° 57′ 39.24″ N, 87° 20′ 20.4″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

FlightAware estimated (90 mins since last fix)		 → 77°
4 10:12 0812Z 04:12
36° 14′ 53.88″ N, 140° 38′ 03.84″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
 ↘ 133°
5 10:12 0812Z 04:12
36° 14′ 53.88″ N, 140° 38′ 03.84″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
 ↘ 133°
6 10:17 0817Z 04:17
35° 56′ 35.88″ N, 140° 45′ 37.8″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo
 ← 289°
Glrx (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all!   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info. The positions are estimations and imprecise. I was on a seat on the left side. By the landing (4, 5, 6) the plane was clearly flying over land and not over the sea. The details of picture 3 match with the GE satelite picture. As the plane was flying around 10 km heigth and the village has a low altitude of 1017 meter above sealevel the plane must have been someway south of that position.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For pictures 1 and 2 the sun was a morning sun from the east. Pic 2 is the same mountain taken a minute later.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
First, a jetliner cruises at about 1000 kmph or 16 km per minute. An error of 5 minutes is 80 km.
I did not interpolate the position from the ADSB data; instead I just chose a close time. Interpolation would be better if we know the times are accurate.
The error for the village is large. To match the longitude, I had to advance the time by 7.5 minutes, but the ADSB plane position was still well north of where it should be. The issue is partly resolved by the position being estimated because there is no actual ADSB data during that part of the flight.
The ADSB data that is not estimated should be accurate. The numbers I used do put the plane over water when it should be over land. However, you can look at track as it approaches the airport and see that portions of that track do align with the pictures.
That error may just be a time offset. You might see how accurate your camera clock is right now. Alternatively, you could try to figure it out from a reasonable track position for a particular image. That's what I was trying to do with the 7.5-minute village offset until I realized the track didn't fit and noticed the ADSB data for that time was only an estimate.
The EXIF data also has a quantization error of 1 minute.
I expect the ADSB times to be derived from the GPS satellites.
Glrx (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr & file credit

[edit]

Is it actually useful for structured data to mark my own file that I copied from my own Flickr account as authored by Flickr user Joe Mabel, as against Commons user Jmabel (both me)? - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say so. Most Commons users upload their files here directly, not via Flickr. And most of the time when people upload files from Flickr with the Flickr2Commons plugin they are not the original author of those images, so it makes sense (and is imo useful) if that credit line is automatically attributed to the Flickr profile the images are from. For your own images you could always edit the credit line to your Commons profile if you prefer to be credited that way. ReneeWrites (talk) 20:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@ReneeWrites: I did rewrite the credit in the wikitext. And then the bot goes through and writes the SDC as if I had not done so. - Jmabel ! talk 05:18, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disregard my previous comment, I misunderstood the problem. ReneeWrites (talk) 11:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a much more egregious example: File:Ford Model "T" car no. 2, winner of the 1909 trans-continental race from New York to Seattle.jpg. At all times, the Wikitext has accurately indicated that this is a photo by Frank H. Nowell, official photographer of the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. Originally that was in the description rather than the author field, but I fixed that in 2010 and added a {{Creator}} template in 2016. FlickypediaBackfillrBot marked it today in SDC as being created by University of Washington Libraries Digital Collections because that is the immediate source. That strikes me as absolutely wrong.

@Alexwlchan: do you consider this correct behavior by your bot, and if so why? Otherwise, is there some hope of addressing this? - Jmabel ! talk 17:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 04

[edit]

List of living people & privacy

[edit]

Hi,
I was wondering if there were any privacy issues with a list of people's names, like this one?
Thanks. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar images available at Category:Name lists and Category:Lists of people (side note: should these be merged?) Dogfennydd (talk) 12:18, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that this a list of living people (1977), where you can see their religion and early school's name, hence my question
--Kontributor 2K (talk) 12:44, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This would be unbelievable to have in Germany :D --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:32, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately Ancestry would guillotine the books to ease scanning then discard the originals. I used to buy them at book sales and see if it was on their list of needed copies, but stopped when I learned their policy. Having them online is absolutely awesome. --RAN (talk) 21:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
in germany you can find a list of full names and a group photo of students doing abitur in a certain year on the newspaper and its website. XD
that's unbelievable in many other countries. RZuo (talk) 05:41, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • In France, it's illegal too to distribute private data without the prior consent of the concerned people. --Kontributor 2K (talk) 07:30, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under international copyright law that does constitute being "made public", also lists of names are not copyrightable. To be eligible for a copyright a work must have unique creative elements. If you asked a dozen people to compile the list of names, each person would create an identical list. If you asked a dozen people to compile a list of the best music of all time, each list would be different and copyrightable, that is why the Time 100 list each year is copyrighted, or the Fortune 500 list. --RAN (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia: The future of Wikimedia Commons

[edit]

Hi!

A recent essay about the future scope and extent has been published. Maybe you want to add your support :) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 18:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: Proposal for POTY finalist topicons

[edit]

Just a heads up for this board that there is an ongoing proposal to add top icons to POTY finalists over on the POTY talk page. Please discuss there if interested. — Rhododendrites talk |  22:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 05

[edit]

Special:UncategorizedCategories

[edit]

Special:UncategorizedCategories is back over 1000 categories. If you can add appropriate parent categories to any of the many that have otherwise reasonable content, that would be very helpful. If you're not a admin, don't worry about the empty ones, one or another admin will eventually find those and delete them. - Jmabel ! talk 06:05, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in the #WPWPCampaign 2024

[edit]

Dear community members,

We are inviting you to participate in the Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024 campaign, a global contest scheduled to run from July through August 2024:

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

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

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

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

The organizing team is looking for a contact person to coordinate WPWP participation your language Wikipedia. We’d be glad for you to sign up directly at WPWP Participating Communities page on Meta-Wiki.

Thank you,

Reading Beans / readthebeans@gmail.com)
Project manager and coordinator
Wikipedia Pages Wanting Photos 2024

There is a map at https://bldrwnsch.toolforge.org of geocoded locations (for German language Wikipedia, sometimes articles needing additional images). Enhancing999 (talk) 18:15, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personal creations presented as tribal flags

[edit]

Hello,
I have noted Al-Hilali Z uploads what is designated as flags of Arab tribes. None of the files has an indication of a source on which the file design has been based. When queried about this though the talk page, it is confirmed the great majority are the user's personal design. Is this not an issue, especially when these flag images end up being displayed in Wikipedia articles and presented as recognized flags when this is not accurate? Moumou82 (talk) 20:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,
Arabs Tribes flags are very different of other flag, they dont respect vexilollogy codes, everyone is free to create Tribal flags, there are no Official flags, except in rare cases, but they are inconsistent and free to create your own design. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 08:11, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Al-Hilali Z: Then they are oos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are completely legitimate, the majority of the flags that I make are made with the approval of members of the tribe and are adopted by them, there is no connection with the oos. Al-Hilali Z (talk) 10:48, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Moumou82: Are the blazons also made up?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have not seen any source suggesting anything but a personal creation, which I agree is OOS. Moumou82 (talk) 20:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 06

[edit]

Cat-a-lot does still not work for categories

[edit]

Though the former discussion about Cat-a-lot was archived yesterday because the problem would supposedly have been resolved, for me the problem is still the same: it still does not work for subcategories with at least one subcategory. So can this discussion be restarted and can the problem really be solved? JopkeB (talk) 03:56, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JopkeB: you should always feel free to "necromance" a recently archived VP section back from the archive and continue the discussion. Just be sure that your edit summaries make it clear that is what you are doing. - Jmabel ! talk 05:35, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: How do you do that? To me it looks like a next level action. Just moving/copy-paste it and mention it in the edit summary? JopkeB (talk) 04:14, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JopkeB: yes, though in this case cut-and-paste is more appropriate. Mention it in the edit summary both on the archive page and where you restore it. If you have something to add, this is perfectly appropriate. - Jmabel ! talk 04:43, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
indeed, i tried on Category:Energy by type of energy, selecting kinetic energy and thermal energy and using catalot to "add to cat:energy by topic". it gets stuck at "Editing page 1 of 2". RZuo (talk) 05:38, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would also be nice if it worked on the conventional search rather than only special search. Yesterday I noticed it displays 1000 when only 500 items have been selected. I think this should be discussed and pointed out at the Cat-a-lot talk page. And how to solve it would be the same as for most technical issues: 1) more WMF priority/spending in that area and, more importantly, 2) things to get more volunteer onboard and have them implement/solve the most important issues such as those of tools widely used like cat-a-lot, video2commons (currently dysfunctional), or the Upload Wizard which still makes people add categories that are redirects. Banners for volunteer devs on software-related Wikipedia articles as well as a campaign with things like leaderboards, badges, gamification, internal attention, possibly external reporting, prizes (maybe also anonymous bounties), and prioritized weighted issues would be a straightforward way to implement that. One can only speculate why the WMF isn't doing things like that, could be incompetence, related to techcompany donor funds, a general lack of a sense of community wishes, and/or something else. I don't think just merely asking about any particular major technical issue on VillagePump does anything. I don't think this particular problem is large though: just refresh and move the remaining subcategories using HotCat. Prototyperspective (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The communities of course also can run banners themselves… —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:49, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Idioma Balinés.png

[edit]

Help me Changing the old map of the distribution of the Balinese language in English Wikipedia to this one more details to me

Areas where Balinese language is spoken

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Joese van (talk • contribs) 07:53, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This could probably use some attention from the sockpuppetry police. --HyperGaruda (talk) 22:00, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]
Michael Winter in skeleton suit lying outside the German chancellor's residence to protest the lack of action on climate policy
Climate activist Tessel Hofstede from XR Netherlands speaks to Letzte Generation in Berlin in 2023

I took the photograph shown and have had a clear and unequivocal discussion with Michael Winter, the subject, that I can upload that and similar images to Wikimedia under CC‑BY‑4.0. Michael also provided me with his email address on my request and I was intending to follow up with a proper "release form".

That event occurred in Berlin, Germany of course and German and European privacy law would prevail.

I have had a reasonable look around this site and could not find mention of any formalized processes like this. The notion of "asserted consent" is traversed. So I take it that Wikimedia does not wish to provide support for written agreements of this nature? I guess that position is understandable? Particularly given the large number of legal jurisdictions involved and also changing statutes and evolving case law.

So I suppose the best thing to do in this particular case is to undertake some email traffic with Michael and leave that exchange on my hard‑drive as a kind of insurance policy? Any assistance welcome. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 17:54, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the process is described at COM:VRT. GPSLeo (talk) 17:59, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
COM:VRT talks mainly about licensing by copyright-holders, but the same process could presumably be used to ticket for issues related to other rights. You might want to ask a question at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard to find out how they'd prefer to to handle this particular case. - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GPSLeo and Jmabel. I did once use that process for another image in relation to consent. In that case, my associated email traffic was somehow stored out of public view and linked backed to the particular image. I also presume that my earlier assumption that the concept of release forms is not supported by Wikimedia due to the legal complexities present. Thanks both for your quick responses. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to Commons:Photographs of identifiable people you could add {{Personality rights}} and {{Consent}} if you haven’t already. Bidgee (talk) 19:39, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we could add a param to consent, so that people can reference a document id, link or VRT/OTRS id. That might be worthwhile! —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:51, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it is worth, the accompanying image of the woman in yellow uses the following field "permission={{VRT info|1=2024050810008791}}" as part of the 'Information' template. RobbieIanMorrison (talk) 21:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalised!!

[edit]

This catagory [[4]] has been vandalised with false information at infobox. what should to be done.
--KEmel49 (talk) 18:02, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49: the Infobox contents are driven by Dhruv Rathee (Q96376333). Any corrections would have to be made there. You can do this; not knowing anything about the topic at hand, I would not edit on this. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 07

[edit]

File:Idioma Balinés.png

[edit]

Help, Please add to Balinese Wikipedia English. 140.213.150.119 06:21, 7 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=881985291"