Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→Flickr2Commons down?: Modified own comment |
→Guitars, bass guitars, and COM:OVERCAT: LPfi points a good direction here |
||
| 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! --> |
|||
= June 1 = |
|||
= May 18 = |
|||
== Pictures from Facebook == |
|||
== Mandatory captions == |
|||
Maybe the question has already been asked, anyway: actually there are a lot of files uploaded with a filename structure like this one: ''199833 1972004938729 1201177527 32511014 5657964 n.jpg''. Those pictures come from Facebook, as image files uploaded on Facebook have the same filename structure. First of all, there's a copyright issue: the copyright owner of those picture is the author, or Facebook? In the second case, all those pictures could get speedy deleted for copyvio. Then, not all the pictures uploaded to Facebook are uploaded by the real author, and we can't say if the author wanted to release the image under a free license, and which free license. Moreover, we can't say if the person who uploaded the image on Commons is the same who uploaded it on Facebook, and we can't even verify the author (or at least the Facebook uploader) of those files, as many (most?) pictures on Facebook are not available to everyone. I would suggest to delete ANY file with the typical Facebook filename structure (a variable number of digits, for example 6+15+15+6+7, each series separated with a space from the others, followed by a letter, usually ''n'' or ''o''), as there are many issues about copyright status and the ownership of those images. What do you think? --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:43, 14 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? [[User:Strakhov|Strakhov]] ([[User talk:Strakhov|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:To my knowledge, there is no copyright issue; Facebook does not claim ownership of files uploaded to Facebook. They claim the right to store, transfer, etc., but that's it. As for Facebook images, there are some checks reject Facebook-style titles, but that has more to do with the fact that they're terrible titles for Commons (they should be more meaningful). I think your notion of a blanket policy of deleting such images isn't going to be helpful, as there are many such images uploaded in good faith. -- [[User:NeilK|NeilK]] ([[User talk:NeilK|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:09, 14 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: {{ping|Strakhov}} I believe that's a bug. See [[Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing]]. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. [[User:N509FZ|N509FZ]] <small>[[User talk:N509FZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/N509FZ|前置，有座！Front engine with seats!]]</small> 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::: If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use [[Special:Upload]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. [[User:N509FZ|N509FZ]] <small>[[User talk:N509FZ|Talk]] [[Special:Contributions/N509FZ|前置，有座！Front engine with seats!]]</small> 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::[[Special:Upload]] is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I went back to the old form as well. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]], Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::: BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. [[User:Sneeuwschaap|Sneeuwschaap]] ([[User talk:Sneeuwschaap|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. [[User:Animalparty|--Animalparty]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= May 23 = |
|||
::I reluctantly agree - however, it seems truly bizarre to me to upload one's own photo to Facebook (downscaling it in the process), then re-download it, and upload that photo to Commons. If they took the photo themselves you'd think they could upload the original. I think most of them are probably from the accounts of others and will require close examination. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:55, 14 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy == |
|||
:::Agree with Dcoetzee, a photographer will unlikely need to download his own work from facebook first. There is not only a growing problem with files with strange filenames taken from other facebook users profiles, there is also a growing problem with photographs taken from facebook and uploaded here using appropriate filenames: A filesize with 720px at the longer size is most likely not a size selection made by the uploader but comes from the facebook 720px maximum size downscaling. --[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:34, 14 June 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) |
|||
::::You haven't answered my question anyway: How do you know that those images are really uploaded by the author, as you can't verify the source? --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:03, 17 June 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) |
|||
:::::We always assume works are uploaded by the author if the uploader claims they are the author and there is no evidence to the contrary. If it turns out we're wrong, all their self-authored uploads are deleted as untrustworthy, and they may be blocked. Unfortunately there is no alternative - and erecting barriers like contracts or mailing in ID would only discourage contribution and could still be faked. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:22, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Links: |
|||
:*[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 |
|||
:*[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) |
|||
::::::Well yes, but it's more likely that a photo downloaded from Facebook and then re-uploaded on commons is not a work of the uploader, otherwise he could upload a high-resolution version of his image. --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:35, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::@[[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) |
|||
:::::::You'd think, but you can't rule out the cases where people have lost or discarded the original image file. This is becoming more likely with direct publishing of photos to Facebook from cellphones, etc. where the image file is never stored elsewhere. We can't demand they produce a file they don't have. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:53, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
::::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) |
|||
::::That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court. — 🇺🇦<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) |
|||
::::@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) |
|||
:::::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) |
|||
: |
::::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. — 🇺🇦<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) |
|||
::Photos first published elsewhere typically require an email to [[COM:OTRS]] from the site in question (I guess in this case from their facebook account). Or, they could edit the source page in some way to indicate the license, or some other indication that the account uploading here is the same person. It's entirely possible that people forgot how they made the original, or can't find it, or maybe just more convenient to use the Facebook image as a source for an upload here -- we can't really require a direct upload. Facebook does not own the copyright of uploaded images as far as I know, so the reason for deletion on those two images wasn't really correct, though they could have been marked as no proof of license. It's also possible we should add that filename pattern to the ones to be rejected as non-descriptive. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:23, 19 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: |
::<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> |
||
:::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) |
|||
:::And what about photos with that filename pattern (so uploaded from Facebook) with source "own work"? I don't think they can be accepted, they should at least have an indication of the source, even if it's not verifiable because most of the photos on FB are private. I also think that a policy, or a guideline about images from Facebook should be made. --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:42, 19 June 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) |
|||
= May 24 = |
|||
::::I agree with Túrelio. Photos with that filename pattern that claim own work without providing a link to the Facebook account are not verifiable. They should provide the source at Facebook. If Facebook allowed users to choose licenses for images much like Picasa this would be far easier. As it is I would mark those with no permission. Then when they come to OTRS I have the uploader at Facebook leave a comment in the description or underneath the image stating the license. Then the OTRS verification confirms the verification by a trusted user even if the image is made private or removed later on. Anything short of that will not get a confirmation from me. Note that [[Commons:Assume good faith]] is '''proposed'''. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:41, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== [[:Category:Steamboat Willie]] == |
|||
:::::Even if ''Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle on '''Wikipedia''''' :). Anyway, I completely agree with you, let's see if there are different opinions, too. --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:46, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I |
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) |
||
: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. |
|||
== License cc-by-sa plus additional restrictions == |
|||
: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. — 🇺🇦<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? — 🇺🇦<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. — 🇺🇦<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}}. — 🇺🇦<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) |
|||
Some people add additional license restrictions like [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Linz_Mari%C3%A4-Empf%C3%A4ngnis-Dom_Neuer_Dom_Ober%C3%B6sterreich_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_IMG_4960.jpg?uselang=de adding my name ... directly under the photo ... additionally using or re-using only with my original file name]. Who decides which additional restrictions are accepted at commons and whether and how re-users can be warned that this is actually no cc-by-sa license but something else (what exactly)? See [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Administrators%27_noticeboard#Once_again_License_problems_with_images_from_Wolfgang_Pehlemann the previous discussion(s) on the Adminstrator's noticeboard] for previous discussions. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
= May 25 = |
|||
:It seems that some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions. Unless we limit the use of such licenses, it is acceptable. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 06:13, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== File upload wizard == |
|||
::"some of the licenses accepted at Commons allow such restrictions". Which licenses allow restrictions, which licenses do not allow restrictions? --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:31, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::There was a previous discussion on this, but I'm not sure where it took place. You may want to try searching the archives of this page. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 07:57, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Nothing found. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::That is not the issue. ''The previous discussions had no conclusion or final result''. In other words: We have no consensus how to handle this cases. In fact most licenses allow modifications. ''But'' this usually leads to a new incompatible licenses and to incorrect license tags. |
|||
::::* ''Incompatible licenses:'' For example we have "CC-BY-SA" (A), "CC-BY-SA + X" (B) and "CC-BY-SA + Y" (C). The license itself declares that changes will create a new license. The compatibility part states that A, B and C are incompatible. That means that we cant combine A with B or B with C and in any other combination anymore. We loose the possibility to combine works, since the licenses are incompatible. |
|||
::::* ''Wrong Tagging:'' Since a modification to a license creates a new license, the images are tagged wrongly. They are for example categorized as "CC-BY-SA 3.0" (using the template + X). But they are not licensed under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. They use "CC-BY-SA + X". Automated services will trip over this issue very easily. They can't understand the additions and will accidentally create copyright violations. |
|||
::::In the end I'm very worried about such additional restrictions. We create a license jungle of incompatibilities and make correct (automated) re-usage harder or impossible. Keeping an eye on the main goals of the project I'm convinced that we should not allow such custom derivative licensing. Instead i would appreciate to limit the set of acceptable (minimum of required) licenses even further to enhance compatibility. --[[User:Niabot| <span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User talk:Niabot|<span lang="ja">苦情処理係</span>]] 08:39, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*cc-by-sa allows specific demands for attribution, but Commons limits then to common-sense (haha) also the demand can't be in the picture itself, as that would be an ND restriction (but we also allow German stamps you can't crop, this is a hypocrisy). These restrictions don't necessarily create incompatible licenses as long as the attribution demand is kept. -[[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> 09:03, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:cc-by-sa does not allow such restrictions: [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_insist_on_the_exact_placement_of_the_attribution_credit_for_my_work.3F Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work? No.]. So we do not have a cc-by-sa license but some other license with a misleading cc-by-sa tag. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:11, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Let me, for once, speak my mind : these claims are bogus and a abuse of the Creative Commons license − people « '''cannot''' insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for their work » (see their [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_insist_on_the_exact_placement_of_the_attribution_credit_for_my_work.3F FAQ]). |
|||
We do not do anything against these abuses because we have to be extra-nice to our Photographs™ in fear they might Leave The Project™. [[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:One very simple addition to CC-BY-SA 3.0 came to my mind when i explained the issues above. How about this additional restriction: |
|||
:::''"Since my additional claims constitute a new license you are not allowed to combine this image with CC-BY-SA or any other not CC-BY-SA compatible licensed image, until CC-BY-SA itself claims to be compatible with this new license terms. The preceding sentence is the condition. You are free to modify and to distribute the image under CC-BY-SA 3.0 while keeping this license terms intact."'' |
|||
:That sounds crazy. But it is what we have in this situation, even if it is not written that way. --[[User:Niabot| <span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User talk:Niabot|<span lang="ja">苦情処理係</span>]] 09:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hello everyone, |
|||
Requirements on the placement of attribution limit the range of transformations and adaptations that can be made. Therefore, works with such requirements are non-free works, which are not accepted at Commons. As an example, if the attribution ''must'' be ''directly below'' a photograph, it is impossible to use that photo on the cover of a book spanning the whole page. Attribution ''on'' the front page or on one of the first pages of the book are a reasonable, industry-standard means of implementing the attribution, but would not be compatible with such a requirement. Remember that works should be reusable in collages, motion pictures, in painted form, interpreted as a sculpture, and in any other conceivable form. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 10:20, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I agree with this. The history up to now is that I contacted the copyright holder and asked him to adjust his license. He refused to do it, so I made a [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Kristiansand_Gamle_Varoddbrua_1956_auf_der_Varodd-Br%C3%BCcke_L_618_m_Spannweite_337_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN1547.jpg deletion request.] That particular image was deleted and the decision was supported during the [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2011-05#:File:Kristiansand_Gamle_Varoddbrua_1956_auf_der_Varodd-Br.C3.BCcke_L_618_m_Spannweite_337_Foto_2010_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN1547.jpg undeletion request]. Then the same copyright holder made an upload of another image under the same restricted license, I made a [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayreuth_Eremitage_das_neue_Schloss_mit_dem_Eingang_-_Foto_2011_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN7042.jpg deletion request] for the new image with the result that the new image was kept. The reason for keeping was [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayreuth_Eremitage_das_neue_Schloss_mit_dem_Eingang_-_Foto_2011_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN7042.jpg&diff=55285652&oldid=55285484 Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss]. Let's hope that here is the right place to find some conclusion how to treat such licenses. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:53, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Clearly we should be consistent about this. I agree with LX's conclusion that such imposing restrictions on how attribution must be done restrict reuse in a way that is fundamentally incompatible with our policy and our mission. However, I also agree that, despite all the practical issues it creates, authors should be able to release works under any license they like, including a modified or extended version of a CC license, and that ''some'' of these ''are'' compatible with our licensing terms. The burden is on us to evaluate each new license as it appears. I believe the best way to do that is as follows: |
|||
::# Move the licensing terms into a template, if they are not in one already (possibly a user space template). |
|||
::# Nominate the template for deletion. |
|||
::# (clarifying edit) If the template is deleted as an invalid license, delete all images using the template. |
|||
::This is the way we have evaluated many custom licenses in the past, as in [[Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:CC-Dont-Remove_Watermark]]. We should not evaluate such custom license terms image-by-image, but rather license-by-license. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:14, 15 June 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. |
|||
:::Do I understand correctly: I should make a template with something like "adding my name ... directly under the photo", then delete that part from the cc-by-sa tag and add the restriction-template? Then we (possibly) delete the restriction-template and get a "pure" cc-by-sa license? Wouldn't this mean that I changed the license without permission of the copyright holder? --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: If the restrictions are incompatible with the license and these restrictions were stated at the time of the upload, the upload was invalid and the files should be deleted (if the upload doesnt rectify the situation). If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them. This was done at [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_23#edit_war_over_relicensing]], however that resulted in a DMCA takedown so maybe that isnt a good idea. --<span style="font-variant:small-caps">[[User:Jayvdb|John Vandenberg]] <sup>'''([[User talk:Jayvdb|chat]])'''</sup></span> 12:28, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::"If the incompatible restrictions were added after the upload, we could consider those revisions to be invalid and revert them." I agree with that part. Let's restrict our discussion to the case where the restrictions were stated at the time of the upload. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:35, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::@Dcoetzee: This is exactly the nightmare i was talking of. We invite our uploaders to create dozens of custom licenses which are in fact incompatible with each other. This also limits the re-usage, since combining images (collage, etc.) can't be done with incompatible licenses. That is a general problem with different licenses, even with the same goals in mind. But we would make it even more of a problem if we accept such licensing. I don't think that this is compatible with the goals of Commons. --[[User:Niabot| <span style="color:#000;white-space:nowrap">／人<span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span> ‿‿ <span style="color:#B0485F">◕</span>人＼</span>]] [[User talk:Niabot|<span lang="ja">苦情処理係</span>]] 12:48, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::I agree with Niabot. Custom attributions licenses -- well, I am not happy with that, it makes reusing much harder (often without any legitimate reason), but ok, it's tolerable if the license is not very strict. But custom ''copyleft'' licenses?! I don't see why we should allow this, such licenses limit reusers so seriously, that on practice they are free in the words only and are hardly compatible with our mission. IMO Commons should resist to the license hell, and not to encourage it. <small>(It's sad to see pictures licensed as something like GFDL + CC-BY-SA-NC, so uploaders see GFDL as a rough equivalent of a non-commercial license, but Commons still allows it, because, well... I don't really know why, likely only because it's an RMS-approved thing. It's sad to see that such nonsense as all these pseudo-free licenses is still allowed.)</small> [[User:Trycatch|Trycatch]] ([[User talk:Trycatch|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:09, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Regards. [[User:Riad Salih|Riad Salih]] ([[User talk:Riad Salih|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* obviously ignoring that the sa part places restrictions on who can use and how they use the media, in that only end users who themselves use the cc-by-sa license can use the images. [[User:Gnangarra|Gnan]][[User_talk:Gnangarra|garra]] 11:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{Pinging|Sannita (WMF)}}. — 🇺🇦<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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
= May 26 = |
|||
:You cannot make placement restrictions as part of a CC license. That is evident from a reading of the legal code, and is make explicit by their [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Frequently_Asked_Questions FAQ]: |
|||
::'''''Can I insist on the exact placement of the attribution credit for my work?''''' |
|||
::''No. CC licenses allow for flexibility in the way credit is provided depending on the means used by a licensee to re-distribute the work. There may be differences based on the format in which the content is re-used. For example, providing attribution to the author when re-distributing information via a blog post may be different than how credit is provided to an author in a video remix. All CC licenses provide that attribution is to be provided in a manner “reasonable to the medium or means” used by the licensee, and for credit to be provided in a “reasonable manner.” This flexibility facilitates compliance by licensees – minimizing the risk that overly onerous and inflexible attribution requirements are simply disregarded.'' |
|||
:The question on our side then, is the restriction legally not part of the license (since they said CC-BY-SA), meaning other editors here can simply remove or ignore the requirement, or is it part of the license actually given by the user (therefore not CC-BY-SA and therefore not free)? Restrictions added after an initial upload are more obvious; we can simply remove those, though that can obviously cause friction with the author -- something we'd all like to avoid. It should be made more clear these types of restrictions are not allowed by the CC licenses if possible, to head off these situations. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:45, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Upload Wizard, likely again... == |
|||
Do we all agree that this condition makes the license unfree? Martina said that [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayreuth_Eremitage_das_neue_Schloss_mit_dem_Eingang_-_Foto_2011_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN7042.jpg&diff=54732783&oldid=54687006 it's not less free than content under GFDL-only or FAL]. Martin H. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayreuth_Eremitage_das_neue_Schloss_mit_dem_Eingang_-_Foto_2011_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN7042.jpg&diff=55175472&oldid=55167949 said that] "The «''license addition "directly under the photo" is not acceptable''» is not mentioned in [[COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms]]" and that it could be "a homebrewn license template based on {{tl|copyrighted free use provided that}}". If there were other licenses accepting that restriction, we could ask the copyright holder to switch to such a license. On the other hand, if we consider that condition unfree, this should be made clear in [[COM:PS#Non-allowable licence terms]]. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:27, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on [[Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads]], but nothing happened. |
|||
*{{Comment}} As long as we accept GFDL licenses here, it doesn't seem to make sense to make all this fuss about Wolfgang license requirements. From what I understand, his requirements, though less free than the original CC-BY-SA license, would in many occasions be much less an annoyance than the limitations imposed by GFDL (reproduce the whole license every time we reuse the image). I also agree with Dcoetzee that the best way to handle this is to make a new license from or based in Wolfgang custom license and nominate it to DR, so it can be validated or discarded in a proper debate.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 06:38, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{comment}} AFAIK, this thread is meant to discuss license "amendments", i.e. mandatory-worded specifications of the credit location, '''in general''', as a few DRs for this rationale have ended with a keep as well as with a delete. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:55, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard? |
|||
** Demanding that the same filename be used may be impossible under some operating systems. Demanding that the author's name come under the picture makes it unusable on Wikipedia. That's much worse than the GFDL.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
*** Wolfgang has publicly stated that his additional license requirements don't apply to Wikipedia. Though this has been twisted as a "Wikipedia only license" (which I don't believe to apply here, since it only deals with an additional requirement), it basically makes the argument that the files can't be used in Wikipedia baseless. (I agree with Turelio that this debate should be more broad than Wolfgang license requirements, but it's a good case study to take as an example, nonetheless.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 07:24, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::IMHO we should restrict the discussion to the license text as stated on the image description page on Wikimedia commons. Of course the copyright holders can give special permissions on some other places but we should consider them only as relevant when these permissions are explictely stated on the image description page. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:07, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Besides it not being noted in the file, it means that a Wikipedia mirror will be in violation of his license. That makes it a Wikipedia-only license.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:42, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:{{ping|ITookSomePhotos|Jmabel|ZandDev|Strakhov|N509FZ|Bidgee|Ymblanter|Kenraiz|GPSLeo|Marsupium|Riad Salih|Sannita (WMF)}} pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
* I have just taken the liberty of following my own advice and moving Wolfgang's various custom licenses into a series of 9 license templates: |
|||
::Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License]]}} (by far the most common) |
|||
:::@[[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]], |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License2]]}} (used by 8 files) |
|||
:::* Why would you need other licenses for own works? |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License3]]}} (used on a series of 18 files) |
|||
:::Why wouldn't I? {{tl|multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable... |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License4]]}} (used on 6 files) |
|||
:::In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: [[Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?]]. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License5]]}} (used on 1 file) |
|||
::::Things like {{t|Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{t|own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License6]]}} (used on 7 files) |
|||
:::::* Things like {{tl|multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License7]]}} (used on 3 files) |
|||
:::::I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least. |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License8]]}} (used on 17 files) |
|||
:::::* The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. |
|||
** {{[[User:Wolfgang_Pehlemann/License9]]}} (used on 1 file) |
|||
:::::Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. [[User:RodRabelo7|RodRabelo7]] ([[User talk:RodRabelo7|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
: |
::::::You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:: |
:::::::The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
::::::::Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, they should not be speedied, they must be allowed the regular 7 day grace period so that the license could be changed, if the author is willing to do so.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 17:01, 17 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::: |
:::::::::The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:{{ping|RodRabelo7}} In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on [[Commons:Upload Wizard feedback]]. |
|||
:::::I interpret speedy as {{tl|speedy}}, the no license deletions are not exactly "speedy" in my understanding, but possibly it's common practice to use that word for them as well. In any case, I maintain that the fair and correct thing to do is to allow the 7 day grace period. The user is not forced to change the license during the DR, which may decide for its approval, after all. If the license is not approved, the images are void of license and should follow the regular path, which is tag them as no license and wait 7 days. I don't see any reason that could justify the hasty deletion of all of them simply for the fact that their license was suddenly void.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 00:33, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "''This is someone else's work and is free to share.''" and then select "''Enter a different license in wikitext format''", add the license template and the other fields just add {{tl|Own}} to step 2. and then [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::The previous deletion request (for the image itself) came to the conclusion [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Bayreuth_Eremitage_das_neue_Schloss_mit_dem_Eingang_-_Foto_2011_Wolfgang_Pehlemann_DSCN7042.jpg&diff=55285652&oldid=55285484 Concerning the question whether the additional condition "directly under the photo" can be used, a DR is a wrong place to discuss]. Discussion the license templates is a good idea from the technical point of view, but we still have the problem that "a DR is a wrong place to discuss". --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:05, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --[[User:Marsupium|Marsupium]] ([[User talk:Marsupium|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::It's not the wrong place to discuss. I've already cited precedent in which the acceptability of a license was established by the community in a template deletion request. I agree that a file DR is the wrong place to discuss, since the discussion should concern all files using the license; I disagree that the license should only be discussed in a wider context (all licenses with a requirement like this one), partly because some of those licenses might be okay and some might not, and partly because it's often a good idea to let general to let rules emerge from generalization from particular cases, rather than abstract discussion. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:34, 19 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Crumbs for @[[User:Sannita (WMF)]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
I have been really puzzled about attribution, and bylines, since I started uploading images to Wikipedia. Since there is an on-going discussion, I add a few questions. |
|||
== Add coordinates to images (bot task) == |
|||
The picture http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg?uselang=en |
|||
where it clearly says "you are free to distribute and modify the file as long as you attribute www.kremlin.ru". If I now use this picture in print (paper), which is correct:<br /> |
|||
put "photo: www.kremlin.ru" under the picture,<br /> |
|||
or put "source: http://commons.wikimedia.org" or<br /> |
|||
or put "source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg",<br /> |
|||
or are all these alternatives ok? |
|||
Regarding a recent [[Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Add_coordinates_to_images|bot request (add coordinates to images)]], i've started to write [https://public-paws.wmcloud.org/User:Fl.schmitt/HandleCommonsOnOSM.ipynb some pywikibot code] (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice": |
|||
If I use the picture on my (non-wiki) website, what is then correct: to place "photo: www.kremlin.ru" (as text, not a clickable link) directly under |
|||
* Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums? |
|||
the picture, or<br /> |
|||
* There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute: <code>Nodes</code>, <code>Ways</code> and <code>Relations</code>. If it's a <code>Node</code>, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But ''what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of a <code>Way</code> - for example a building, mapped as area'' (or even a <code>Relation</code>)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node? |
|||
state "image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org" (as a clickable link) or<br /> |
|||
* What about adding [[Template:On OSM|<nowiki>{{On OSM}}</nowiki>]] to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value. |
|||
state "image source: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Kremlin_birds_eye_view-1.jpg" (as a clickable link),<br /> |
|||
--[[User:Fl.schmitt|Fl.schmitt]] ([[User talk:Fl.schmitt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
or are all the alternatives ok? |
|||
:Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons. |
|||
Wikipedia, Wikimedia and the CC FAQ states that image creator should be credited "in a manner 'reasonable to the medium or means' used by the licensee... minimizing the risk that overly onerous... attribution requirements are simply disregarded". Keeping this is mind, I think it is a safe bet to assume that that uploader of the image would be satisfied if I put "picture from www.kremlin.ru" as a clickable link under (or near) the picture, or possibly even the same credit as text non-clickable. One can also say that it is reasonable to have the name (website) of the picture provider under the photo, as it can be seen to be that way in many websites all over the world. It is clearly not unreasonable. Now my question is, would this kind of attribution be likely to fulfill the picture creators requirements? |
|||
:Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog. |
|||
:For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Glad about your reply, @[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... [[User:Fl.schmitt|Fl.schmitt]] ([[User talk:Fl.schmitt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= May 27 = |
|||
Next question, would it be an acceptable way of crediting on my own website, or do I in addition need to state that the picture was found on Wikipedia, or commons.wikimedia? |
|||
== Strange PDF-Preview behaviour == |
|||
Next question, instead of quoting "www.kremlin.ru", would it be fully acceptable only to link the image on my website to point to the Commons file descrition page (that is, no mention of www.kremlin.ru under the picture, no text on my web page, only a clickable link so that if you click the picture you get to the commons description page). I was thinking that the commons file description page has the title, creator, and license conditions. |
|||
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. |
|||
When I read the license, another question pops up. It says something about quoting the title, and quoting a link to the license. Since I am free to change the title (or edit the picture), why should I quote the title? It says that I should reference the license as well. Would it be ok just to say "CC-BY-SA-3" as a non-clickable text? Or how should it be made? --[[User:Janwikifoto|Janwikifoto]] ([[User talk:Janwikifoto|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:38, 18 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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|--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]]. — 🇺🇦<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) |
|||
== Why does the popup for file renaming refer to [[:Commons:File naming]]? == |
|||
:The attribution in your example should be "www.kremlin.ru", just as it says. In this case, there is no indication that it needs to be a clickable link, even when reproduced in a form where this is possible. Unless required by the author, there is no need to mention Wikimedia Commons. Commercial stock photo agencies typically require attribution of both the author and the distributor, but Wikimedia Commons has no such requirement. A link to the original work on Commons would probably be appreciated by most readers, though. I would not recommend linking to the Wikimedia Commons file description page as a means of fulfilling the attribution requirements, as there is no guarantee that the page will always be available. Requirements to quote the title mainly refer to things like textual works or films, whereas photographs usually don't have a title. The filename is typically not considered to be a title for the purposes of this type of licensing requirement. If the author specifies that the photo has a title, you should quote that. You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license when using a Creative Commons-licensed work. Simply stating the name of the license is not sufficient. See [http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#How_do_I_properly_attribute_a_Creative_Commons_licensed_work.3F Creative Commons FAQ: How do I properly attribute a Creative Commons licensed work?] for more details and suggestions. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 09:39, 19 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to [[:Commons:File naming]] even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --[[User:Robert Flogaus-Faust|Robert Flogaus-Faust]] ([[User talk:Robert Flogaus-Faust|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:: Now the Title requirement makes more sense - for a book or a film. LX writes 'You must provide a copy of the license or the address of the license', but the CC-FAQ says only 'Cite the specific CC license... If you are publishing on the Internet, it is nice if the license ...links to the ... CC website'. My understanding of the wording on the CC-FAQ page is that it is enough to just mention someting like 'Creative Commons SA 3.0' or similar, though it is of course nice to give the full information. Further, the CC-FAQ says 'They may require you to associate/provide a certain URL (web address) for the work', however the legal text says something (I am not sure I am reading the correct part) '(iii) to the extent reasonably practicable, the URI, if any, that Licensor specifies to be associated with the Work, unless such URI does not refer to the copyright notice or licensing information for the Work;', and I understand this as I do <b>not</b> need to supply the requested URI <b>unless</b> it refers to a copyright notice or licensing information. So in the case of the Kremlin picture, I understand the FAQ as it would be nice and apprecieated if I supply the link www.kremlin.ru, but I also understand the legal text as I do not need to supply the www.kremlin.ru as that page does not contain copyright notice or licensing information. I am confused. Do others understand it the same way? Finally, for another practical example: http://comparexy.com/compare/Nashville+VS+Miami uses pictures from Commons. The webmaster has gone through the trouble of supplying both copyright and attribution info, right under the pictures, but per the above discussion I think it fails, by just providing the file desc page on Commons. There is no mention of the author, though it is clearly readable in the desc page. There is no mention of the license name, nor any link to CC. Is it correct to say that this attribution and copyright info does not meet the mark, even though it was probably well-meant? (If somebody just wanted to snatch the picture then it would be easy enough just to change the file name and not give any source, and in most cases nobody would find out). I look forward to opionions about the example I found on the net! --[[User:Janwikifoto|Janwikifoto]] ([[User talk:Janwikifoto|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:09, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::As for your example http://comparexy.com/compare/Nashville+VS+Miami, I think this way of attribution is - despite of the obvious good will of the user - formally not o.k., because the author is not mentioned anywhere on the site where the image is used. In addition, the problem of such external linking of the attribution is, when the original file is renamed/moved/deleted on/from Commons, all attribution and license information would be lost. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::The requirement to provide a copy of the license or the address of the license is my understanding of Section 4 (a) of the [http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/legalcode legal code] of CC-by 3.0: "You must include a copy of, or the Uniform Resource Identifier (URI) for, this License..." In my opinion, the FAQ doesn't accurately reflect that part of the license. The other requirement you mention – to link back to the original work where practicable – appears in Section 4 (b). The double negative makes it a little tricky to understand. Here's how I read it: if the author specifies an address to be associated with the work ''and'' that address leads to a page that has a copyright notice or licensing information related to the work, you must mention that address. In the example of [[:File:Kremlin birds eye view-1.jpg]], "www.kremlin.ru" is probably not a "URI associated with the work" in the sense of Section 4 (b), but rather an "attribution party" (the ''publishing entity,'' to be specific) as mentioned in the same section. I'm guessing the reason for the confusion is that the name of the attribution party in this particular case could also be read as a web address. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 23:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Would it seem correct to make the following statements about (example) the |
|||
:: O.k., thanks! The link seems to have been there since the very first version of the template from 2015. --[[User:Robert Flogaus-Faust|Robert Flogaus-Faust]] ([[User talk:Robert Flogaus-Faust|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Kremlin picture: |
|||
that if I use it on my/any web page, with only the clickable link www.kremlin.ru under the picture, then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, however, I would not have fullfilled the CC reference to the license as I did not mention it at all<br /> |
|||
that using a clickable link counts higher (seen from the copyright holder) than using a text-only link, as clickable links generate search-engine points<br /> |
|||
that the missing license reference is not something that I might get in trouble with CC over, but possibly the copyright holder might complain<br /> |
|||
that the missing license reference is not something that a third party could sue me for (unless acting on behalf of the copyright holder)<br /> |
|||
= May 28 = |
|||
that if I use it on my/any web page, with the clickable link www.kremlin.ru under the picture, and the text-only "CC-SA-BY-3", then I have fulfilled the wish of the copyright holder, I have been nice according to the CC-FAQ, and I have fullfilled the CC reference to the license by naming it, though I still would not be "nice" as I did not give the URI of the license conditions |
|||
== [[:Category:Film characters by actors]] == |
|||
If I now used the picture in paper print, then just putting www.kremlin.ru and CC-SA-BY-3 nder the picture would be an appropriate attribution and license information, as to what is common and practical in print, and probably that would make the creator happy, as well as the CC people. |
|||
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. |
|||
In all these cases, there is no need to mention the title, as the title does not seem to be very important. Nor is it necessary to mention Commons.Wikimedia as the file description might change, and that it is not necessary in any way according to the license to mention Wikimedia - though it would still be useful information that might be of interest to some users. |
|||
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) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== Categories for photos by photographers == |
|||
As suggested by [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] 00:31, 17 June 2011, I know made a deletion request for the license templates, see [[Commons:Deletion_requests/License_%22adding_my_name_directly_under_the_photo%22]]. --[[User:NeoUrfahraner|NeoUrfahraner]] ([[User talk:NeoUrfahraner|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:44, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories). |
|||
== New gadget : GoogleImages tab == |
|||
What's the current thinking of that? @[[User:Vysotsky|Vysotsky]], @[[User:Swiss National Library|Swiss National Library]]. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Hi all, |
|||
:If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
Per request on [[Commons:Bistro#images_google|the French-speaking VP]], I just created a gadget "GoogleImages tab", based on the TinEye one. it adds a tab to search for an images using [http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searchbyimage.html GoogleImages 'search by image' feature] (rolled out a few days ago). |
|||
::It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --[[User:Mosbatho|Msb]] ([[User talk:Mosbatho|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::: Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about [[:de:Bruno Wehrli|Bruno Wehrli]]) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) [[User:Vysotsky|Vysotsky]] ([[User talk:Vysotsky|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. [[User:Ymblanter|Ymblanter]] ([[User talk:Ymblanter|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::: I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under [[:Category:Works by Pablo Picasso]]. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Currently when we are uploading photographs from Finna we are [https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AContributions&target=FinnaUploadBot&namespace=14&tagfilter=&start=&end=&limit=50 creating] creator templates, wikidata items and photos by photographer categories for all authors. There is no distinction between if the person is notable photographer or not. --[[User:Zache|Zache]] ([[User talk:Zache|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::There is, you can find the policy on user categories at [[COM:USERCAT]]. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::At [[:Category:Photographs by photographer]] about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't. |
|||
::If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= May 30 = |
|||
It’s in [[Special:Preferences#preftab-8|your prefs]], Maintenance tools GoogleImages tab. |
|||
== Categorization issue == |
|||
[[User:Jean-Frédéric|Jean-Fred]] ([[User talk:Jean-Frédéric|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:27, 15 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[:File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg]] and [[:File:Pitura Freska 02.jpg]] are shooted with different of some moments each others, but Pitura Freska 01.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1992 and Pitura Freska 02.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1997. What is the exact year? --[[Special:Contributions/93.47.37.200|93.47.37.200]] 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Working like a champ, many thanks for such a useful gadget.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 09:46, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes, it's ''[http://fr.wiktionary.org/wiki/nickel_chrome nickel chrome]'', thank you. --[[User:Myrabella|Myrabella]] ([[User talk:Myrabella|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:58, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Very useful :) '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:Micki|<span style="background:#91A3B0;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">micki</span>]][[User talk:Micki|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">t</span>]]</font>''' 10:18, 16 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The tool it's really really useful, you can find evidence for violations of copyrights in a couple of seconds! :) --[[User:Broc|Broc]] ([[User talk:Broc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:53, 21 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: |
:[[:File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg]] has 1997 as well. Category is at [[:Category:Pitura Freska]]. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
||
:It's 1997. The original date of [[:File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg]] was 1997 but this was changed by an IP vandal. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [https://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pitura_Freska&diff=next&oldid=66365898]. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::This was done by the same IP vandal. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Clearly the IP knows stuff about the group and shares it. The pictures were uploaded two decades later. |
|||
:::::Unless the year can be confirmed in another way, I'd leave the question in the file descriptions, on the uploader's talk page and on the discussion page of [[:it:Pitura Freska]]. Maybe in another 10 years, someone answers. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Renaming of [[:File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg]] == |
|||
=June 16= |
|||
{{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." |
|||
== Template merge == |
|||
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) |
|||
{{tl|Should be substituted}} and {{tl|Must be substituted}} appear to serve the same purpose, since the former says "should always". Should they be merged? [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* {{Support}}. I [[Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Should be substituted|thought]] of it too. [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 01:33, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*<s> Agree</s>. Neutral. No (difference) in parameters as well. I see not much difference if we are using one or two templates--[[User:Bencmq|Ben.MQ]] ([[User talk:Bencmq|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Disagree, looking at the history they were very deliberately created to have different meanings. One marks templates that "must be" sustituted because they have a purpose and/or syntax that '''require''' them to be. The other is for templates that "should" be, but they will work even if you don't. If the distinction hasn't been observed by those applying them, then that is a matter of documentation and education. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:24, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Nope, it still can be merged with the help of a few parameters. [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 04:56, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Parameters increase complexity and you'd likely see one of the above turned into a silent call to a combined template with the parameter specified. As in, {{tl|must be substituted}} would have {{tlx|should be substituted|must{{=}}yes}} within it. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 14:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: {{oppose}} The words do have different meanings, and there is a completely different look. The same user created both, so there is an intended distinction. As noted above, it was already discussed briefly at [[Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Should be substituted]] and kept. They have already been translated into a bunch of different languages with their precise meanings; I see almost no benefit to changing things. It's just another template, which is no big deal, and trying to change it creates far more work than will be saved. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:26, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Support}} - While the original intent may have been to have two separate templates, the distinction between them is not so significant that we need to maintain two separate templates. The templates largely share the same look, other than the fact that one uses larger text. As Rehman suggests, have one template and use parameters. I actually think it increases complexity to have multiple templates that perform tasks that are only subtly different from one another, rather than having one template that accomplishes a related set of tasks. --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*<s>{{oppose}}</s> - '''subst''' technically required and '''subst''' recommended is a major difference. You can ignore a recommendation for good reasons if you know what you are doing, but things don't work as expected if you ignore a required '''subst'''. The effects of a missing required '''subst''' could be subtle and unpredictable, from "breaks if transcluded indirectly" to "kills the server if used by more than ten readers simultaneously". –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:14, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I don't think anyone diagrees that there is a difference. As far as I am concerned, that's not the issue. It's not clear to me how having two separate templates eliminates the risk of confusion between the two, however (if anything, it adds to it). --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Significant differences based only on parameter can be just as confusing, IMO. It looks like we would have a situation where based on the parameter, we choose one layout or the other -- there doesn't seem to be much overlap in terms of the template content. If that is the case, we may as well have two templates, and make the difference more apparent in the name. Lastly, there has already been lots of translation work here, and the list of languages in the two templates do not match up. You risk messing up a lot of that work, or at least forcing people to re-do translation work, where everything seems well enough if left alone. If the templates were just being created there *may* be an argument, but at this point... there's hardly a benefit that I can see. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::The fact that the lists of languages in the two templates do not match up is ''precisely'' a major reason why these templates ''should'' be merged. Because the two are currently edited independently, seemingly in disregard to the complementary role the two templates play in respect of one another, we now have a situation where, for example, one template is translated into Spanish and the other isn't. So, a Spanish-speaking Commons user only gets half the story. This presumably would not have been a problem with one template. With two templates, you are always at risk of inconsistent and incomplete edits that have no regard for the sister template or the distinction between the two templates. There is tremendous benefit in eliminating that problem, and I disagree that suggestion that the templates work well as is.<p>As for overlap, the templates both consist of a box with the same icon. We are not dealing with completely different layouts. We are only talking about a message changing with the parameter. You suggest that we might change the names, but if we were going to that degree of trouble, why would we not just merge them and do things properly? --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Just as an aside, I wonder how well the existing translations convey the distinction between "should" and "must". Unless one speaks 10+ languages, it's hard to monitor this. Where only one template has been translated, I suspect there is a good chance that the distinction is lost. Where both templates have been translated into the same language, but by different editors, I also suspect that is a lot of room for confusion. Again, there is less risk of this problem if we have one template that allows users to choose between "should" and "must" (and thus forces translators to distinguish between the two). --[[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:30, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::{{weak support}} (updated from '''oppose''') — if there's a required parameter for MUST vs. SHOULD as per [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] a merged template would in fact help with its i18n. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:05, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Support}} the technical merge of both templates. My experience with templates is that it's much easier to maintain one template with some parameters than a group of distinct templates performing similar things, given that the changes on the "mother template" are not very complex, as in this case. From the looks of it, it will be extremely simple to merge them and keep compatibility in the way Adrignola explained above. The separate translations are actually a good reason to merge them, and not the opposite, as has been told above, and I don't believe that merging them will be such a big deal as well.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 18:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{support}}. Just to reiterate what I wrote above, you could have {{tl|must be substituted}} still exist, just calling {{tlx|should be substituted|must{{=}}yes}} in the underlying code. No difference for end users but far easier for maintenance and new translations. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 21:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::An optional <code>required=no</code> (or ''false'' or '''0''') with a default <code>required=yes</code> (or ''true'' or '''1''') might be clearer. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:23, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sure. Just threw one possibility out there. It bothers me not as to what the parameter is eventually named, nor the value. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 21:45, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*'''Support'''. I was just throwing the possibility out there, but the discussion here suggests a merge would be helpful. It would improve clarity to explain the contrasting meanings of "should" and "must" in a single place, and would make internationalisation clearer and easier. A template redirect would ensure that no-one used to the status quo need do anything different. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Comment}} - The discussion appears to have wound down, with 6 in support, 1 neutral and 2 opposed. Do Tony or Carl have any further comments/objections? [[User:Skeezix1000|Skeezix1000]] ([[User talk:Skeezix1000|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:29, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*{{Comment}} I had proceeded on the assumption that both templates were widely used. But in fact "should" is used in only 12 templates [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special%3AWhatLinksHere&target=Template%3AShould+be+substituted&namespace=10] while "must" is used in well over 100 [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Must_be_substituted&namespace=10&limit=250]. "Must" has many more translations (I've borrowed he and nds from "should", which "should" had and "must" didn't). The distinction between "must" and "should always" is unclear in English anyway, and the languages I can understand make the distinction even less clear. So I've just redirected "should" to "must", and anyone who wants to adapt "must" to introduce a sort of "should" meaning with an optional parameter can do so. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:39, 29 June 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) |
|||
== Template:Mld == |
|||
:{{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. I. Ellsworth</span>]]''''', [[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]] [[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r there</sup>]] <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 == |
|||
Another user just added a [[Template:Mld]] to one of my [[:File:Ammoniak Reaktor BASF.jpg|uploads]] - and I am not sure what to think of that. For me as user it signifies that I see will only the description language I have selected as my user preference - for all others I have to look at the source code - or change my user prefs (if I don't want to fiddle with style sheets). What will happen if a description is not available in the selected language of a particular? |
|||
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) |
|||
Actually I'd rather prefer it the old way - being able to see all descriptions in every language alltogether, as it makes life for as an uploading user much easer, e.g. it facilates comparision between descriptions in different languages. Quite often I do add at least two descriptions, e.g. in English and German. I have read the [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/meta/wiki/Meta:Language_select Meta page about language select] - but that does not really answer my questions. Does it mean that I am (and other users are) expected to create own <Monobook|Vector|whatever> CSS pages in order get a non default behaviour, e.g. "show all"? Couldn't that not be turned into preference setting instead? |
|||
: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) |
|||
:@[[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) |
|||
:I also found {{tl|Mld}} very annoying as I prefer to see all languages. I discovered strange behavior of [[Meta:Language_select]] when trying to debug why parts of file descriptions were not showing up in some [[:Category:Images from the German Federal Archive|Bundesarchiv]] files. Adding "ls_enable = false;" to my [[User:Jarekt/vector.js]] fixed the problem. In my humble opinion that should be the default behavior and users that want to see only pieces of description should change their preferences. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:05, 22 June 2011 (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 === |
|||
::Yes, annoying and unhelpful, I unconditionally prefer the old way, even with all the cluttering. The old way has a small problem, though. It displays something as "'''中文(简体)''': 北京前门大街东来顺". this is frankly stupid, if I have my preference as English, '''中文(简体)''' (whatever that is) should be in English too, what is the point of showing the name of the native language in its native language? Glad thing that Google translation have an automated language detect tool, but this only works for well known languages, if it's some obscure dialect everyone that doesn't know how the dialect is written in its native language is left at a complete loss.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 21:21, 22 June 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) |
|||
:::Annoying indeed. Thanks for the hint to add "ls_enable = false;" to "[[Special:MyPage/common.js]]". -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 21:27, 22 June 2011 (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) |
||
:::::Looking at the Meta page this feature is apparently five years old. But clearly not working as expected for me, it shows <code>en-gb</code> (from my browser preferences) and treats this as "show all" instead of "en".<tt><nowiki><shrug /></nowiki></tt> –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::As for showing language name in the native language, well, but then the language name must also be <s>i18n-ed</s> localised? [[User:Bencmq|Ben.MQ]] ([[User talk:Bencmq|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:06, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::I'm sorry, Bencmq, but "i18n-ed" is Chinese to me. :S --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 14:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) <small>Couldn't resist the pun, as I've found now that you are Chinese, and I suspect that 中文(简体) is something like Chinese Simplified ;) But I'm serious, I've no idea about what i18n-ed means.</small> |
|||
::::::::oh sorry. Basically I mean that we should translate the language name into different languages as well? <small> and yes that was Chinese Simplified :)</small> [[User:Bencmq|Ben.MQ]] ([[User talk:Bencmq|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::Yes, it would be of great help, at least to me. It makes more easier to identify the context of those pictures. My problems have been more with the Slavic languages than anything else, but when it comes to non Latin alphabets it's even worst to decode it. I don't k now if it is something technically easy to do, however.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 06:15, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
= May 31 = |
|||
::(double edit conflict) My words <small>(@Jarekt)</small>, excepted that I wouldn't say "humble" but "strong" opinion... I really doubt that this template will improve the usability of our media; at least, it is (for me, I guess also for other contributors) something that I'll remove from the descriptions of my uploaded files when it happens to be added to them. <small>Dunno if we could even get it deleted: "[[Commons:Deletion_policy|A page can be deleted if it is: [...]''Patent nonsense'', a test or vandalism.]]" (italic highlighting by me). ;-)</small> This template adds too much barriers in the important work of improving the file descriptions as polyglot persons cannot see errors and inaccuracies in descriptions without comparing the source codes. [[User:Grand-Duc|Grand-Duc]] ([[User talk:Grand-Duc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:34, 22 June 2011 (UTC)( |
|||
* I think we need to differentiate between us users that are maintaining pages and the general user who just want to use the image. The whole point of adding seperate translations identified with templates is exactly so that the right translation can easily be automatically selected. For most pages there are so few translations that {{tl|mld}} isn't really needed, but if you ever come across pages where there are 10 or more translations, and not just the description field, but source, author etc also have seperate translations, you will welcome getting rid of the clutter. I expect that eventually the {{tl|information}} template will default to only showing the appropriate translation. I find the "show all" facility entirely satisfactory, but it is nice to see that there are ways to turn it off altogether. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia == |
|||
::I have my reserves about {{tl|mld}} really helping end users. I suspect that trading less cluttering for less information is not a good approach when you have so many, many images that have a very complete description in one language (often English), while in the other languages the description is very scanty or plainly wrong. Even yesterday I came across an image of a Russian building which had 2 or 3 lines of description in English, while in Russian it said "Railway station". Sometimes it's even worst, and all that is there is some gibberish the uploader wrote in his language, such as "pretty building" or "Ulan Bator is a nice place to live". Hiding the best descriptions from the end users doesn't look like a good service to them.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 23:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::It's not working, and it's good news. I logged out and I still see ''all'' options. I changed my language to Corsu then to Gujarati and then (horror!) French, and it showed all options at all time. Censorship failed, perfect! pleased '''don't''' make it work. Do you realize the embarrassment of an expatriate in Ulan-Baatar when all the major news sites show news in Mongolian because they think it's what the Mongols deserve? Ah, some runaway Russians or Aussies or (horror!) Frenchmen, they can wait until their flight home. No, there's no "take me back to English", only Google does it. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:21, 23 June 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. |
|||
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, or maybe things work differently for me for some reason, but {{tl|mld}} works independently of what language I have set in my preferences (English or Swedish, depending on what mood I'm in). If I select the "show all" option in the dropdown list presented on a page with {{tl|mld}}, that selection remains active on other pages with {{tl|mld}} until I change it. If I have selected a specific language and that is not available, it falls back to "show all" without affecting the remembered selection. I'm using Monobook without any relevant custom stylesheets, scripts or special options, as far as I can tell. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 22:22, 22 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:On the one hand, we need something compact; if descriptions grow to cover all 270 supported languages, one will get too many pages before getting at the things you really want to see. On the other hand, descriptions in other languages are sometimes plain wrong. For items that need doc in many languages (cultural items with a large vocabulary or alternate names for example such as [[:Category:Mbira]] and [[:Category:Quadricycles]], I set up first the doc for English and local languages, the rest I put them in a collapsable structure to limit the page size to less than half a page, so I can compare the texts in some languages against the English and local language descriptions which tend to be the references. I never bother to convert to Mld as it does not satisfies the needs and takes often 10 to 20 minutes of fidling to get it it right. It is only since a couple of months that the multi-language switch has an impact on such collapsable structures which results indeed in some confusion. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:48, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Thanks LX for the hint about the "show all" option in the dropdown list - I admit that I simply did not notice the ''new'' field as my primary focus was on the summary section. Made me feel a bit dumb for a moment - but definitely points to a usability problem: users - regardless of being logged in or not - have first to find this language select option. In my opinion the placement below the preview makes it hard to find, especially for the more occasional users/visitors who are not aware of its existence. Nevertheless my question about making this a pref setting seems to be still valid. --[[User:Drahkrub|Burkhard]] ([[User talk:Drahkrub|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:10, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
May be we should add an option to the preferences which allows disabling this feature without messing with [[Special:MyPage/vector.js]]. Is it technically possible? --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:27, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:If you go to the Gadgets tab, under "language support", you'll find a gadget that says "Do not hide foreign languages on multilingual pages." Checking that box and clicking the save button at the bottom will do the same thing for you. (I just added this). – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 15:01, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you, Adrignola, I used this feature ASAP. :-) [[User:Grand-Duc|Grand-Duc]] ([[User talk:Grand-Duc|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia#Signatures|Essay on Wikimedia Commons]] |
|||
On some pages, it seems that simply using {{tl|en}}, {{tl|es}}, {{tl|fi}} etc does the same as {{tl|mld}}. These aren't nearly as complicated {{tl|mld}}. Couldn't we simply depreciate {{tl|mld}} in favor of these? -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 04:54, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025#Resourcing_Wikimedia_Commons_beyond_Wikipedia|Feedback on WMF annual plan (talk page)]] |
|||
:except that mld allows to synchronize all translation at a given level. Actually, If there are several levels of {{tl|de}} in a description and that one is missing, there will be no indication that one is missing locally. The basic behaviour in this case is to show all translations per mld block, to indicate a translation is missing. [[User:Esby|Esby]] ([[User talk:Esby|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:41, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Is this a problem with {{tl|de}} or also with the others I listed? What type of page is this relevant? -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 06:44, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::There are two differents things: the mld template, that is a logical construction that triggers {{tl|en}} {{tl|de}} etc. and encapsulate them in a single multilingual div, so each translation is corresponding to the same thing. |
|||
:::the java script that is used for displaying the information, [[MediaWiki:Multilingual_description.js]]. It triggers either when an mld block is present or when the number of languages is superior to a given value. the current value is 5 different languages presents to trigger the effect. |
|||
:::[[User:Esby|Esby]] ([[User talk:Esby|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:24, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
More context on the essay's [[Commons:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia#Why_this_page|page]] and [[Commons_talk:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia|talk page]]. |
|||
=June 23= |
|||
Best, [[User:Spinster|Spinster]] ([[User talk:Spinster|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC) |
|||
== Village Pump / Proposals == |
|||
== Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed == |
|||
I've created [[Commons:Village pump/Proposals]] to provide a place to give more attention to significant (community-wide impact) proposals which require more discussion over longer periods. Experience shows that the main Village Pump isn't doing such proposals justice, so this subforum should help. Proposals placed there should be advertised here, at least for a while. |
|||
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) |
|||
By way of further explanation, here's the page's key summary blurb: |
|||
<blockquote> |
|||
This Wikimedia Commons page is used for making proposals relating to the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons; it is distinguished from the main Commons:Village pump, which handles community-wide discussion of all kinds. Discussions here should be of wide interest; those which are more specific may be moved to the main Village Pump, with a note left here. The page may also be used to advertise significant discussions taking place elsewhere, such as on the tal page of a Commons policy. |
|||
</blockquote> |
|||
:{{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) |
|||
Now of course this subforum may not succeed, for whatever reason; but I can see no reason why it should not be tried. If in a few months it hasn't proved useful, it can be disposed of in some way. |
|||
::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) |
|||
[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::[[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) |
|||
== I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded. == |
|||
:Given the amount of threads on Village Pump, some wikis have multiple Village Pumps. |
|||
:This page (Commons:Village pump) still has a manageable size, thus I'm wondering if it's worth splitting off "operations, technical issues, and policies". There wont really be much left. We already have [[Commons:Help desk]] which covers should cover some of the points brought up here and is rarely used. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 03:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::(i) I hardly think it's fair to say that [[Commons:Help desk]] is "rarely used" - though maybe some of the threads here would be better off there. (ii) it's not really the ''number of threads'', it's how quickly threads reach a conclusion, and how prominent threads should be. Such threads here can too easily disappear into relative obscurity up the page. A separate page allows these more significant threads to be watchlisted separately, and just gives them more space to breathe, and more likely to receive attention particularly from editors who log in less regularly. Minor "operations/tech/policy issues" can still be discussed here, it's those which need more discussion that would benefit from being handled separately. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::It may or may not. BTW it should have read "isn't always used". -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 03:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I'd just like to forewarn you, Rd232, that Commons has a history of giving off a lot of backlash towards people who try (for better or for worse) to turn this project into an enwiki clone. Not that all your recent changes are bad (or just changes to Commons in general, I suppose), but it sort of seems like that's where this is going. I am of the opinion that one unified VP serves this project fine as of right now. Thanks for trying to make Commons more efficient, though, and all the work you've been doing here. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I appreciate your thanks (bouquets leavening the brickbats.. :) ) but I'm really not trying to clone anything. All I'm trying to do is take relevant bits of experience from elsewhere (and like a lot of people, the most relevant experience happens to be from en.wp), bearing in mind the differences between Commons and elsewhere. In this particular case, I've given arguments why a separate page may prove useful, and in the absence of any substantive counterarguments, I see no reason to not try it for a while and see. I could add further arguments about many people perhaps logging into Commons less often than Wikipedias, so again a separate page for certain kinds of discussions would be helpful, so that less frequent visitors can easily find these more (potentially) significant discussions. More broadly, issues of multilingualism on Commons suggest to me that a lot more could be done to try and be helpful and clear to editors who may not have full guidance available in their native tongue, and there are some tools on that front, like editnotices, which can be developed building on experience elsewhere. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I was hoping that it wouldn't seemed like a {{w|backhanded compliment}} of sorts... It was genuine. You're a smart contributor and Commons does need organizing. That having been said, I do see your point about logging in and wanting to view specific areas. [[User:Killiondude|Killiondude]] ([[User talk:Killiondude|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:21, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Thanks. I concluded a few years ago that if you don't fail occasionally, you're not taking enough risks. The trick is to weigh the downside from failing in any particular thing against the upside from succeeding and the cost of implementation/transition. (Also, the costs of inaction are easy to acknowledge in theory, but easily overlooked in practice.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:17, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hi |
|||
:BTW, you can't just move around threads. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 02:38, 25 June 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 |
|||
::"you can't just move around threads" - who told you that? It's a wiki, and you can, if you have good reason and make clear what's happened. That thread is 3 days old and had no input since the day it was started; it's ''exactly'' the sort of thread which should be on the new page. On the new page it could live another week (no rush) to see if anyone can sway the weak consensus in favour. Here, it'll probably get no further input and be auto-archived in a few days, leaving me to go ahead with the proposal and hope that there isn't suddenly a lot of opposition materialising then. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:06, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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 == |
|||
:I'm not sure about this proposals forum - but one thing we probably ''should'' do is create a Village pump section for copyright and licensing questions, then ask them there instead of burying them at [[Commons talk:Licensing]]. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:52, 26 June 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) |
|||
::I very much agree with Dcoetzee on this. There should be a proper VP forum for copyright questions and discussion, instead of the talk page of the policy itself.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 10:28, 26 June 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]].  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::We could direct users to [[Commons:Help desk]] instead of [[Commons talk:Licensing]]. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 10:30, 26 June 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) |
|||
:checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other. |
|||
::::In my humble understanding, [[Commons:Help desk]] should perhaps be directed to VP (I never quite understood the difference between the two forums, and similar issues are discussed in both). But the necessity of a forum dedicated to copyright discussion, in the same way we have one for graphic stuff, appears to me like a real one.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 10:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:::::[[Commons:Help desk]] is meant for basic questions (by new or experienced users) AFAIK. It's linked from [[Commons:Upload]], [[Special:UploadWizard]], [[MediaWiki:Welcomecreation]]/[[Template:welcome]] and [[MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork]]. |
|||
::{{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]  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:::::For copyright questions, [[MediaWiki:Welcomecreation]]/[[Template:welcome]] links [[Commons talk:Licensing]], while [[Special:UploadWizard]] and [[MediaWiki:Uploadtext/ownwork]] link [[Commons:Help desk]]. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 11:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason". |
|||
:::::::I've created [[Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Move_copyright_discussions_away_from_Commons_talk:Licensing]] to discuss this, since this thread isn't a good place for it. Users please feel free to copy comments across to there. I've also posted notes at [[Commons talk:Licensing]] and [[Commons talk:Help desk]]. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:03, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
{{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.  — [[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) |
|||
:::::::There is an interesting suggestion Rd232 made [[Commons:Village pump/Proposals|elsewhere]]: <small>"Per some initial discussion [[COM:VP#Village_Pump_.2F_Proposals|at VP]], I propose moving copyright discussions away from [[Commons talk:Licensing]] (currently listed in {{tl|Discussion menu}} as the venue for "copyright questions"). I understand that discussions about copyright will very often closely refer to [[Commons:Licensing]], but the talk page of the policy really should be reserved for discussion about the policy. The most obvious thing would be to create a new Village Pump ([[Commons:Village pump/Copyright]]). An alternative would be redirecting these issues to the [[Commons:Help desk]]. The argument against that is that Help Desk should be reserved for more general help, especially for newcomers. In terms of volume, however, using the Help Desk for copyright issues would probably work fairly well."</small> -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 12:05, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::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.  — [[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 == |
||
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) |
|||
This one [[:File:Prisches.jpg]] contains two pictures, shouldn't it be two files? --[[User:Havang(nl)|Havang(nl)]] ([[User talk:Havang(nl)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 16:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: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?  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:Generally, [[Commons:Avoid_overwriting_existing_files|yes]], but it could be that the first version was an accidental upload. The new version was uploaded only two minutes later. So I wouldn't [[Template:split|split]] it. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 17:00, 24 June 2011 (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.  — [[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.  — [[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)_/¯  — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 10:24, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
= June 01 = |
|||
::But in this case where both pictures seem to be valuable (though the one showing is the best), may it be separated, or is there any problem with the licensing? --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 22:02, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Stuck in category redirects == |
|||
:::I would assume they'd both be considered as uploaded under the same license. <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> 04:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
At [[Special:Permalink/880570764]] a list of category redirects with files (or subcategories) that aren't moved. |
|||
::::With such a quick re-upload, I'd suggest asking the user. He's still active as of two weeks ago. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:13, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
:::Yes, both are valuable - but it could be, as I said, that it was an accident and that he did not intend to license the first picture and the license is possibly indeed not valid therefore. Ask him please. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 17:37, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
::::Asked, permission granted, new file now at [[:File:Prisches 2.jpg]]. :) --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 23:38, 28 June 2011 (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== |
|||
== DMCA takedown == |
|||
=== Volunteer staff changes === |
|||
Pursuant to a directive by the Wikimedia Foundation's general counsel, I have executed a [[w:DMCA|DMCA takedown]] on a number of files, described [[wmf:File:DMCA_-_Colbert.pdf|here]]. Please do not readd the files. Best wishes, [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:06, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are [{{canonicalurl:Special:ListUsers/sysop|limit=500}} 184 sysops]. |
|||
*[[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]]. |
|||
:Thanks for the information. Out of interest, does anyone know what these were photos of? Also, Flying Elephants Inc? Nice name. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 18:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Photos in [[:en:Ashes and Snow]] were deleted, for example [http://ookaboo.com/o/pictures/picture/11907014/Photo_by_Gregory_Colbert this photo]. [[:Category:Gregory Colbert]] should be checked. I remember another photographer who said that his administrative assistant gave unauthorized permissions, [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Witch's Rock, Costa Rica.jpg]]. It is difficult to do business with such people. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:37, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Files were in category [[:Category:Gregory Colbert]], many were uploaded by [[:en:User:Briennewalsh|Briennewalsh]] and moved from en wiki in 2008, they had low resolution and show "The Nomadic Museum which is the permanent traveling home of Ashes and Snow, created by photographer and filmmaker Gregory Colbert". One came from [http://www.flickr.com/photos/paolomazzoleni/248929077/ flicker] others were very similar to other photos on flickr. One was a photo by Gregory Colbert with GFDL license but no OTRS. At least one did not seen to show any artwork but a night photo of Mexico City. Most of those photos would not survive DR. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Most uploaded by Briennawalsh on en.wp, lot of other photos still exist from [[:en:Special:Contributions/Patiofurniture]]- some of that users uploads are even duplicates of those deleted files.--[[User:Martin H.|Martin H.]] ([[User talk:Martin H.|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:28, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I think the most interesting aspect of this is that several files were OTRS approved. I have seen many emails where images were discussed with a member of an organization. In this case it was with an administrative assistant. Should we request an audience with every organization's legal department before slapping on the OTRS permission label? – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 19:22, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The title of Administrative Assistant is frequently held by people with little or no tertiary education or prior work experience – and very little actual authority. Under [[:en:law of agency|agency law]], a more senior title (director, officer, or agent) is generally required for [[:en:apparent authority|apparent authority]] to come into play. A person without actual or apparent authority cannot bind the company to an agreement (such as a license). However, as part of the standard OTRS consent declaration, the submitting party makes an explicit warranty of authority. If a third party relies on such a warranty, the submitter is personally liable to that third party for breach of warranty, which should recover costs incurred as a result of the license being declared void. Thus, an OTRS consent declaration with a warranty of authority is still of some value. At least that's my layman's interpretation of the situation. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 22:58, 24 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::LX is correct that under ''agency law'' the administrative assistant did not qualify. I assure you, we did this one carefully, and our general counsel spoke with the counsel of record. If we had any doubt about their claim, we would have fought harder - but in this case, it was fairly clean cut. The administrative assistant was not authorized to claim authority over those works. [[User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Philippe (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 04:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::There's no doubt about that - our real concern is how to prevent this from happening in the future. If someone had reused that work before it was taken down, one of our content reusers could have suffered serious economic damage. It's clear that OTRS needs to be more methodical about assessing whether a given person is able to act on behalf of their company, and this needs to be communicated somehow to the OTRS team. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:51, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::I agree it's a potentially perilous situation, but there's only so much we can do. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:11, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::And it should be noted that we do a heck of a lot more than, say, Flickr. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 20:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=June 25= |
|||
== [[Commons:Database reports/User preferences|User preferences]] == |
|||
There is a new report at [[Commons:Database reports/User preferences]]. |
|||
*It shows that HotCat, Cat-a-lot and Gallerypreview are the most popular gadgets. |
|||
*"CategoryAboveAll" (393 users) is used more frequently than "CategoryAboveBelowImage" (298). |
|||
Probably it doesn't distinguish between active and inactive users. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 06:37, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:As HotCat (4573 users) exists for a fairly long time and is a tool one probably needs for efficient editing, maybe http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#editdistribution |
|||
:can be used as a point of comparison. |
|||
:One could attempt to compare |
|||
:*4573 |
|||
:*with the 5502 users with more than 1000 edits |
|||
:*or 13071 users with more than 316 edits. |
|||
:The conclusion might be the only one third of the users who could (should) use HotCat actually use it. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 08:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:The 15 users of the (long dead) Amethyst skin suggest that the statistics isn't limited to active users. –[[User:Be..anyone|Be..anyone]] ([[User talk:Be..anyone|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Yes and [http://stats.wikimedia.org/wikispecial/EN/TablesWikipediaCOMMONS.htm#editdistribution editdistribution] neither. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 08:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
It is funny to see that some admin only gadgets such as ''DelReqHandler'' have far more users than there are admins. --[[User:Leyo|Leyo]] 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Free FBI audio files == |
|||
The following is a link to some audio files given by the FBI to ''The Oregonian''. In these tapes, Swami Krishna Deva, the mayor of [[w:Rajneeshpuram|Rajneespuram, Oregon]], talks with John Mathis, a mediator with the federal Community Relations Service. He prods Mathis for details about a secret federal investigation. Since these tapes were recorded by the FBi, i assume that they are in the public domain. As such, would someone please upload these five files in ogg format? I just thought these would be an interesting addition to articles related to the [[w:Rajneesh movement|Rajneesh movement]]. Thanks. |
|||
* http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/documents.html |
|||
[[User:Joyson Noel |<big><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT></big>]][[User talk:Joyson Noel |<small><sup><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me</FONT></sup></small>]] 15:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Done, see [[:File:Rajneesh-Part1.ogg]] - [[:File:Rajneesh-Part5.ogg]]. [[User:Avicennasis|sısɐuuǝɔıʌ∀]] ([[User talk:Avicennasis|<span class="signature-talk">diskuto</span>]]) 01:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Great job, {{user|Avicennasis}}!!! I have added them into a category, [[:Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation audio files on Rajneesh movement]]. -- '''[[User:Cirt|Cirt]]''' ([[User talk:Cirt|talk]]) 01:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: Thanks [[user:Avicennasis|Avicennasis]]! :-) [[User:Joyson Noel |<big><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT></big>]][[User talk:Joyson Noel |<small><sup><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me</FONT></sup></small>]] 04:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Hmm... the FBI created the recording. But don't the two people talking have some kind of copyright to their conversation? It's probably not important in this case, as it was published in 1984, most likely without a copyright notice. But it might be interesting for similar files. --[[User:Kam Solusar|Kam Solusar]] ([[User talk:Kam Solusar|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::In short, no, unless they wrote a script for their conversation beforehand. Only ''fixed'' (or ''tangible'') works (recordings, documents, photos) attract copyright, rather than speeches per se. It is a rather complicated issue, discussed fully at [http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:Physchim62/Copyright_in_speeches]. Note that although at first that article seems to imply copyright, it is mainly asserting that the recorder would have a copyright, which would be the FBI; and that unfixed speeches are unlikely to attract copyright themselves. That's my take on it, anyway, but IANAL. [[User:Jarry1250|Jarry1250]] ([[User talk:Jarry1250|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:08, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: Is it possible to upload the scans of FBI and federal government documents on Commons? If so, then i request someone to upload whichever documents (in the link) falls under the public domain. Thanks. [[User:Joyson Noel |<big><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000">Joyson Noel</FONT></big>]][[User talk:Joyson Noel |<small><sup><FONT FACE="Haettenschweiler" COLOR="#ff0000"> Holla at me</FONT></sup></small>]] 11:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== MediaWiki:Gadget-DropdownToTabbar == |
|||
After discovering an [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DropdownToTabbar.js|old, failed attempt]] to create a gadget to move the drop-down menus to tabs, I propose a working version that has been tested and running on enwiki ([[:en:MediaWiki:Gadget-MenuToTabs]] / [[:en:MediaWiki:Gadget-MenuToTabs.js]]). <span style="font-family:'Trebuchet MS',sans-serif"> — [[User:Edokter|<span style="color:#008"><i>E</i>dokter</span>]] ([[User_talk:Edokter|<span style="color:#080">talk</span>]]) — </span> 23:33, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Replied at [[MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DropdownToTabbar.js]] –''[[User:Krinkle|Krinkle]]''<sup>[[User talk:Krinkle|talk]]</sup> 00:57, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== <nowiki>"{{category:...}}"</nowiki> == |
|||
Any ideas on how I can search for images that have <nowiki>"{{category:...}}"</nowiki> instead of <nowiki>"[[category:...]]"</nowiki>? As an interesting aside, when I searched for "{{category:" it found files with the string "ategory", eg <nowiki>[[ategory:...]]</nowiki> which was useful, but not what I wanted :-) --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:48, 25 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:I happen to have a [http://dumps.wikimedia.org/commonswiki/20110612/ dump] handy and did a quick grep (well, as quick as a grep over 350 million lines of text can be) and found 560 instances. Seems more like [[Commons:Bots/Work requests|bot work]] than human work to fix if you ask me. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 00:53, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Could you throw me a list of those 560 instances? --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::See also [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Category|hideredirs=1&hidelinks=1}} WhatLinksHere]. It's not super useful due to [[bugzilla:7304|bug 7304]] but its something (the pages listed there transclude a page that uses {{tl|category}}). –''[[User:Krinkle|Krinkle]]''<sup>[[User talk:Krinkle|talk]]</sup> 01:00, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Ok, that's for <nowiki>{{</nowiki>category'''|'''...<nowiki>}}</nowiki> rather than <nowiki>{{</nowiki>category''':'''...<nowiki>}}</nowiki>, yes a bot that cleaned up both would be good. --[[User:Tony Wills|Tony Wills]] ([[User talk:Tony Wills|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 05:31, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=June 26= |
|||
== A vote where "All users are invited to participate" Really? == |
|||
Since a few days, the site-notice banner says: "''A proposal for adopting Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion as official policy has been initiated. All users are invited to [[Commons_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Moving_to_making_this_an_official_policy|participate]].''" But now the vote was closed! Proposer declares that his proposal was adopted... This procedure is absurd and completely irregular. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:You don't have to spam all pages just to get the message out. You didn't even respond to my reply there (where I offered re-opening the thread). [[User:Rehman|<span style="font-variant:small-caps; font-weight:bold; color:darkblue">Reh</span>]][[User talk:Rehman|<span style="color:green">man</span>]] 09:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I missed that. But the procedure is a complete mess anyway. /[[User:Pieter Kuiper|Pieter Kuiper]] ([[User talk:Pieter Kuiper|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Thanks for the notice here, Pieter. I did not notice this until now. Cheers --[[User:Saibo|Saibo]] ([[User talk:Saibo|<small>Δ</small>]]) 17:56, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== British Rail templates == |
|||
I've come across some unused templates - should they be deleted or is there some use for these? |
|||
* {{tl|Cbyl}} |
|||
* {{tl|Cbyline}} |
|||
* {{tl|Cbyo}} |
|||
* {{tl|Csbyl}} |
|||
* {{tl|Csbyline}} |
|||
* {{tl|Csbyo}} |
|||
[[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:30, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Question raised at [[w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways]]. [[User:Nthep|Nthep]] ([[User talk:Nthep|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 15:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Oh, sorry. They ''are'' used, just as a subst. Ditto for tbyl, tbyline, tbyo, toc, tocl, ukt, ukcs and whatever other rail templates I created and have forgotten. They're for creating train categories. Just a thought, but in future you may want to alert the template's creator (in this case me) when you come across this sort of thing. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 16:40, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Sorry, forgot to check whether the creator was still active (usually not, in my current cleanup efforts). So, can you create a suitable category for these templates, and perhaps some documentation (it could be a single /doc shared across all of them)? Thanks. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:06, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Also {{tl|tll}}, {{tl|tint}}, {{tl|Ukc}}, {{tl|tocint}} and {{tl|trainline}}. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:32, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Unused uncategorized templates tend to get nuked (by me). So if you want to keep them you should properly categorize these templates. [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 18:36, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Yes, I've done I quite a bit in [[:Category:Uncategorized templates]], dealing with the more obvious cases (like uncategorised /xx language pages). Increasingly, though, the templates remaining don't have obvious (to me...) categories to be put in, so some need creating, or someone else to figure out what to do with them. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:14, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::Think I got them all: [[:Category:British railway templates]] -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 21:15, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::Cool. Could that category be added to [[:Category:Category navigational templates for the United Kingdom]]? (The category structure for these sort of specialised topic templates seems a bit unclear.) [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:47, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::::I have no idea about template categorisation, please, do whatever you wish with it. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 23:46, 26 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=June 27= |
|||
== How to delete my own picture? == |
|||
Picture is not in use, and it is a poor quality picture. --[[Special:Contributions/87.95.8.23|87.95.8.23]] 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Can you please identify the picture? — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 10:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::You can tag the image for speedy deletion: <nowiki>{{speedydelete|reason for deletion}}</nowiki> '''<font face="times new roman">[[User:Micki|<span style="background:#91A3B0;color:#fff;padding:0 4px">micki</span>]][[User talk:Micki|<span style="background:#666;padding:0 4px;color:#fff;">t</span>]]</font>''' 14:38, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Tineye Gadget == |
|||
[[MediaWiki:Gadget-Tineye.js]] is very useful, but tineye's database is relatively small. Now that Google Images allows you to search images by drag-drop, I wish there could be a way to update the gadget to automate searching images, so we can easily detect copyvios. [[User:Huji|Huji]] ([[User talk:Huji|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:There is already a new gadged for that: GoogleImages tab. [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Yep, mentioned at [[#New gadget : GoogleImages tab]] on this page. [[User:Clindberg|Carl Lindberg]] ([[User talk:Clindberg|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:36, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Also there are extensions from Google for [http://www.google.com/insidesearch/searchbyimage.html Chrome and Firefox], the Firefox extension is not compatible with Firefox 5 though. <span style="text-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.1em grey">'''[[User:Mmxx|<span style='font-family:arial;color:#006;background-color:#E6E6FA'> ■ MMXX </span>]]'''<sup> [[User talk:Mmxx|''<span style='color: #006;'>talk</span>'']] </sup></span> 20:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Training area == |
|||
I'm hoping to run some training sessions soon, teaching people to edit Wikipedia and upload to Commons. On Wikipedia, the trainees can use a sandbox to practise editing. Is there any facility on Commons, for them to upload images to a test area or category, from where, after a day or two, they can be deleted? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) |
|||
[[File:Test upload screenshot.png|thumb|350px|Image showing how to mark an upload as a test upload in the Upload Wizard.]] |
|||
:I have taken the liberty of creating {{tl|test upload}}. During upload, uploaders should click "More options" on the "describe" panel of the Upload Wizard, and enter "<nowiki>{{test upload}}</nowiki>" in the "Other information" box. These will be deleted after at least 24 hours. Note that trainees should never upload copyright violations, even temporarily - instead they should either use an existing image on Wikimedia Commons, or a photo or artwork created by themselves. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::That's brilliant, thank you. can we get such images excluded from warnings such as "this is a duplicate"? [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:There is a category with test images: [[:Category:Test images]]. Most images there should be okay to mess around with. [[User:Amada44|<span style="font-family:Geneva;color:black;text-shadow:0px 0px 2px #00ff00;font-weight:bold">Amada44</span>]] [[User_talk:Amada44|<sup><span style="text-decoration:underline;font-size:smaller;color:gray">''talk to me''</span></sup>]] 10:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: There are images, such as [[:File:Measurement.of.scattered.and.reflected.light.png|this one]], in that category that are used in wikipedia articles. However, [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Test_images&diff=next&oldid=39968127 this edit] added the text "''These are test images. Images can also be used for testing actions like moving, deleting etc. License may but must not apply. Images in this category may be deleted, moved or other images loaded on top of them.''" Is this truly intended? If so we should remove all "useful" images away from that category. If not we should delete that text. -[[User:84user|84user]] ([[User talk:84user|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC) Hmmm, that one may have been the only image that was not a test, so I removed it from the category. -[[User:84user|84user]] ([[User talk:84user|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=June 28= |
|||
== Golan v. Holder amicus filed by EFF, WMF, et al == |
|||
From [[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-06-27/News and notes]]: '''WMF moves to defend public domain''': As announced earlier ([[:en:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2011-04-11/News and notes#Foundation releases monthly report and yearly tax form, signs amicus brief|''Signpost'' coverage]]), the Foundation has joined forces with several educational institutions to support an [[:en:Electronic Frontier Foundation|Electronic Frontier Foundation]] Amicus brief regarding the [[:en:Golan v. Holder|Golan v. Holder]] case. The case stems from US acceptance of the [[:en:Berne Convention|Berne Convention]] in 1994, an act which granted copyright protection to several foreign works that were previously in the [[:en:public domain|public domain]] according to the [[:en:Copyright Act|Copyright Act]].<br/>Last week, Geoff Brigham, the General Counsel of WMF, [http://www.gossamer-threads.com/lists/engine?do=post_view_flat;post=239102;page=1;mh=-1;list=wiki;sb=post_latest_reply;so=ASC announced] that the amicus brief had been filed, and explained the relevance of the case to Wikimedia "in light of the tremendously important role that the public domain plays in our mission": "To put it bluntly, Congress cannot be permitted the power to remove such works from the public domain whenever it finds it suitable to do so. It is not right – legally or morally." More information, including the Amicus brief, is available on the [https://www.eff.org/cases/golan-v-holder EFF page]. |
|||
:I'm overjoyed to hear that the WMF is getting involved with this. I actually raised this point in a discussion here earlier ([[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2010/11#Should Metropolis be on Commons?]]), where ''Metropolis'' is one of the films listed in the Wikipedia article as affected by URAA. I feel like the WMF is arguing a case before the Supreme Court on my behalf, and it's most welcome. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Commons Mission Statement ? == |
|||
What is the Mission Statement of Wikimedia Commons? I have looked on the first page, and I do not find anything that describes what Wikimedia Commons is supposed to do, what commons is supposed to beneficial for, or in what way. Is there such a statement? If so, where? I would think that Wikimedia Commons is supposed to be a repository for media, to be used in various language wikipedia projects. Kind of an educational helper (excuse my bad english there) --[[User:Janwikifoto|Janwikifoto]] ([[User talk:Janwikifoto|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:20, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[Commons:Project scope]]. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::On the Main Page it says "Welcome to Wikimedia Commons". "Welcome" links to [[Commons:Welcome]]; maybe "Wikimedia Commons" should link to [[Commons:About]]. I know About redirects to Welcome, but for those in Janwikifoto's situation, it's a lot more obvious to click on "Wikimedia Commons" ("what is this? aha") than on "welcome" ("what am I being welcomed to? tell me that first!"). So I'd link both, i.e. "[[Commons:Welcome|Welcome]] to [[Commons:About|Wikimedia Commons]]". Or possibly "[[Commons:Welcome|Welcome]] to [[Commons:Welcome|Wikimedia Commons]]" or even "[[Commons:Welcome|Welcome to Wikimedia Commons]]". [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Missing files == |
|||
Earlier today (at around 09:30 UTC) there was some temporary global tech issue and many new uploads seems to be [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:NewFiles&from=20110628092953 missing]. I have not encounter such situation before, so just want to ask if it is going to be fixed automatically? --[[User:Bencmq|Ben.MQ]] ([[User talk:Bencmq|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Go to the file description page of any missing image and click "purge this page cache". They are there, just not showing up without a purge due to a technical issue. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== .RM and .MOV == |
|||
Hi! I learned that Commons does not accept files with .RM and .MOV |
|||
But there are some video files from the NTSB website that are in those formats. |
|||
Do I need to convert them, or can there be an exception made? |
|||
Thanks |
|||
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:07, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:No exceptions is the short answer. Have you seen [[Help:Converting video]] yet?--[[User:P.g.champion|P.g.champion]] ([[User talk:P.g.champion|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I have not seen it yet. I will check it out, and convert the videos. Thank you so much! [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:39, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Request help, upload several files from pdf == |
|||
Hi. Can someone help coordinate and get a whole bunch of sign images up that will make our collection better? Would involve extracting them from a pdf and making them individual images (think this is best.) |
|||
I corresponded with the USG and got an e-mail assurance that all of their DOT symbols are off copyright. Also, he pointed me to this file, when wanting a high res image (sorry, I realize it is not.) [http://phmsa.dot.gov/staticfiles/PHMSA/DownloadableFiles/Files/Hazmat/Training/Chart%2014.pdf]. I can OTRS, although this would really ideally cover a whole set of images, not a specific file right now. So advise me on how to adress the OTRS! |
|||
[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
P.s. I actually have what I need in terms of helping out a specific article (Fluorine on Wiki), so I personally have no need of all these images. Just thought that Commons would be a GREAT place to host them. Surprisingly we have very few of them in commons. See here: [http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:US_DOT_hazmat_symbols]. The signes are helpful for element articles or other chemicals articles. Even our chemical and hazard symbols articles themselves on Wiki are pretty pathetic. |
|||
[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:If this is of any help, I use [http://www.nitroreader.com/ Nitro PDF reader] to extract images from PDF files.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 22:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Will you do the work? I am really sort of an image idiot. I kind of tromp around and upload stuff at times, but am not a wiki veteran. ;-) [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:03, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::I can't compromise with that, sorry. I'm already in the middle of a thousand projects here, many of them already severely delayed. :\ --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 23:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::Ha! I'm downloading it now. I really don't think I'm good at this sort of thing though. Is there a way to batch upload all the images and not do the one by one thing? And I only know how to use the old upload form, btw.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Yes, you can use [[Commons:Tools/Commonist|Commonist]] for that and upload all them at once. The new Upload Wizard allows for 10 uploads at a time, but Commonist is much better IMO.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 23:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Cutting and pasting and putting into Paint was how I did it before. I actually still need to learn how to use the Nitro, the new upload, and now this program. :( [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:42, 28 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::They are both very easy to use, especially the Nitro. You only have to click a button, actually. :) --[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 00:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I played with the Nitro a little. Tried the extract images. However more than half the signs are not images somehow. So I still have to do the select individually and transfer to MS Paint, no? (which I can do in Adobe anyhow, no?_ And then some stuff was not really images. You know what...I will try. I just feel like this is so hard. And then...all the instructions for the communist program. I'm an article person. :-( Do you really want me to learn how to do this?[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:OK...I'm doing the cut and pastes and saves through MS Paint. Is png better or jpeg? [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:50, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Please don't take screenshots to extract images from PDFs if you can avoid it. If you must, zoom in on the image as far as you can before screenshotting, and save as PNG. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 01:05, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Well I'm just using that select button (that kind of gives you a square and then it takes it to the clipboard). then I take that to MS Paint and then save as PNG. Just hitting extract all images, really didn't work since a lot did not come over and I got things I didn't want (not signs) also. Am I doing it right? |
|||
===Other news=== |
|||
*[[Commons:Video2commons|Video2commons]] is out of service since 16 May. |
|||
*[[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> |
|||
=June 29= |
|||
== Voting on policies and guidelines == |
|||
Setting aside questions about procedure, are anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines counted?[http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk%3ACriteria_for_speedy_deletion&action=historysubmit&diff=55839121&oldid=55839065] We don't count anonymous votes on [[COM:RFA]] and [[COM:FPC]]. I don't think anonymous votes on the adoption of policies and guidelines should be counted, but I couldn't find guidance to that effect. --[[User:Wsiegmund|Walter Siegmund]] [[User_talk:Wsiegmund|(talk)]] 17:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:en:Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion|Policies and guidelines should not be decided by counting votes]] – anonymous or otherwise. Anonymous contributors are certainly welcome to discuss existing and proposed policies and guidelines. ''—[[User:LX|LX]] ([[User_talk:LX|talk]], [[Special:Contributions/LX|contribs]])'' 18:11, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== FOP of aircraft factory in France for EN:WP Featured Article in Candidacy == |
|||
''Moved to [[Commons talk:Freedom of panorama]]'' |
|||
== File not found in listed categories == |
|||
A user recently added three categories to [[:File:Siitolanranta talvella.JPG]], but the file is not found in any of them: [[:Category:Winter in Finland]], [[:Category:Trees in winter]] or [[:Category:December 2010 in Finland]]. Only the [[:Category:Imatra]] where the file was already previously shows this image. Does anyone know if this is caching problem, or what? Bypassing browswer cache did not help me (even tried with a different browser). [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) 19:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
*Looks like a database hiccup. A null edit fixed the problem. -[[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> 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Hypercategorizing ! == |
|||
(fr) Bonjour, (be) une fois ! |
|||
Some Users, here, are moving Coats of arms Files to – they say – ''better'' categories, e. g. [http://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File%3AObec_Klenov_erb_98px.png&action=historysubmit&diff=53890387&oldid=50532087 here], creating subcategories for each village, « Category:Coats of arms of ''placename'' ». |
|||
As a village – even a city – has one and only one Crest, there is no need to such hypercategorization ! (This prefix, « hyper- », means that an action ''seems'' to be better, but is in fact wrong ; e. g. « hyperurbanism », when Late Romans spoke a bad Latin – Urbs ! – they thought correct because of its sophistication…) If a town has in its story more than one CoA, we may therefore create such categories ; but [[:Category:Coats of arms of Klenov|this one]] ?… [[: Category :Coats of arms of Rakovčík|here]] ?… Etc. |
|||
[[User:Budelberger|Budelberger]] ([[User talk:Budelberger|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:53, 29 June 2011 (UTC). |
|||
:(Moved here from talk.) —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] 18:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Well, it could be for having multiple images of the same thing. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:"has one and only one Crest" - why so? Sure, ''today'' it has one official blazon and (presume) one official graphics, but there could be historical versions; there could be COAs per se and photographs of COA in sculpture, murals etc. Even Klenov already has ''three'' files, then what about [[:Category:Coats of arms of the City of London Corporation]] ? [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Both approaches, the one complaining about hypercategorization, and the ones explaining the need for subcategories, are pertinent. There has to be some good sense on this, however. I've seen such categories being created with only one item inside. In my opinion this is unnecessary and counter productive. Those items can perfectly be in the village category and in "CoA of municipalities of ...", no need to create a proper category there. However, in the cases where multiple representations of that coat of arms (or historical versions of it) exist here in Commons it is indeed helpful to create a subcategory, or even a number of them, to place them.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 20:39, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I often try to sort out stuff from [[:Category:Media needing categories]] and use hot cat. If I find a file called coat of arms of x, then I try to add it to the [[:Category:coat of arms of x]]. If this fails to come up in HotCat then I might have a fiddle looking for alternate spellings of x, and then when this fails I just add the file to [[:Category:coat of arms of country y]]. My geographic skills are not good enough to be able to work out which subdivision of country y to add the file to. The choice is to put up with files getting into the higher categories and having to be moved down, or having categories at the lowest level. I would expect there are very few subjects where you would expect only one file, so creating the category now with the correct name and position in the hierarchy for single files will reap future benefits. [[User:Railwayfan2005|Railwayfan2005]] ([[User talk:Railwayfan2005|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:31, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::No, frankly I don't think that way. There are hundreds of thousands of CoA of villages and other locations. Creating categories for single items in that case is really unhelpful, and hinders categorization, since you have to fiddle with the whole category instead of a single file, which is much more difficult and can't be done by tools like cat-a-lot. It's really counter-productive. In the case you mention, IMO the CoA should be placed primarily in the village category, which is where it will be searched for. Then you may place it as well somewhere in the CoA tree, even if it is at the top category it is useful, but creating a category for those single items in that case is indeed bad practice, IMO.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 22:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
'''Part of the problem'''. I have brought this up in the past as an article writer, Commons USER. What we need is some "botton" that you click and then all the subordinate categories are displayed. It's insane that when I'm looking for some type of animal and there are 10 pics at the higher level, but in 5 categories, to have to click, click, click, each separate one. give me a button that allows auto decategorizing and much of the pain is taken away.[[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:24, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:It depends on the case. A while ago I organized [[:Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar]], which was a complete mess, with only the Lingaraj temple as subcat (with a lot of erroneous pictures inside) and the rest floating in the main cat, the majority of the pictures attributed to the wrong temple and erroneously used in wiki-en. Upon finding a reliable database of photos from those temples, I endeavoured the sorting of that mess, and managed to find the rich variety of temples you can now find there. I can say it was a very rewarding and amusing experience, almost a game. You will note that some of the temples only have one picture inside. I've done this on purpose, since they are less known temples, and it's identification was more difficult. Of course you lost there the "big picture" about the assortment of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar, but I believe that's not the use of categories, but galleries. I'm not interested in galleries and I doubt I ever will be, but people who find them useful may create them picking the images from the sorted categories in order to give the "big picture" about some item, let it be an animal or the variety of Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 20:51, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:You'll have a button if you place {{tl|category tree}} in the content for the category itself. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 03:40, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::{{tl|Category tree}} is now redundant because the software now automatically displays all the subcategories of a particular category on one page. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 06:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I suspect TOC may be asking for something that also allows to see all the images in the subcategories. That would be a great improvement for me, too.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 05:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Cat Scan allows you to see all the images subcategories, an example of the images in [[:Category:Hindu temples in Bhubaneswar]] and subcategories: [http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/CategoryIntersect.php?wikifam=commons.wikimedia.org&basecat=Hindu_temples_in_Bhubaneswar&basedeep=3&mode=iul&go=Scan&format=html&userlang=en]. [[User:MKFI|MKFI]] ([[User talk:MKFI|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::(you're not getting me.) I know that I can see the subcats. What I want is a reversible mechanism to view the larger population of images. Am trying to save myself clicks. Imagine having a category of "painted turtle" with 2 images in the category and then 4 subcategories for subspecies (each containing subspecies). If I just want a general picture of a painted turtle I have to click all the subcategories. I would like a button to just be able to expand the view all at once, to see all the images in subcats and the parent cat. I'm not saying to permanently scrap the micro-cats. They can have use. However, I really do USE COMMONS. And it is a better resource for me...for article WRITERS, with some better features around search and layout. Don't get me wrong, this is a great place. Still...be very aware that this place is mostly a service resource for other people...and the easier for USERS, not just uploaders, the better. :-) [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:03, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::MKFI just showed above how you can do it. Follow his link, and you'll get the idea.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 18:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::::Didn't mean to shake my rattle. I do appreciate the assist and may use that tool in the future. That said, I really think something simpler, where you can just click on the page and it expands the views down a branch lower (or all the way) is desired. that's a pretty daunting looking window. Realize that the most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers. :-) [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::::::''[...] most usage of Commons is writers looking for photos to illustrate Wiki articles, not computer programmers.'' |
|||
:::::::TCO, have you tried to use the [[w:Wikipedia:Enable_the_Add_Media_Wizard#Add_Media_Wizard|Add Media Wizard]] for that? Take a look on [[mw:File:Add media wizard screen shot orange oct 2009.jpg|this screenshot]] ;-) [[b:pt:User:Helder.wiki|Helder]] 21:50, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Why should I open license my pictures? == |
|||
No, not me! However, I'm sure we've all come across that response, when suggesting that someone might donate images to Commons (and the related "if someone wants to use my images commercially, they should pay me!"). And we all, I hope, know good answers. But has anyone compiled them, as a FAQ or blog post (here or elsewhere) to which we can point people? I can't see anything on [[Commons:Welcome]] or [[Commons:FAQ]]. [[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:15, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:We do, at [[Commons:Licensing/Justifications]]. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:49, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Just upload an ugly picture of them to Commons and tell them if they want a nice one they have to open license it. That argument usually works. -[[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> 21:10, 29 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I do think a good essay could be written on this. I don't have it all figured out, but have learned some things, the hard way. For one thing, just using the Wiki "standard request" generally leads to problems with the OTRS not satisfied that the releaser understands the donations is to Creative Commons (very "free"). I try to spell it out ahead of time and actually get them to give me a repeat back that satisfies the rights po-lice. I also usually say something complementary about their image or work in general. Maybe a phrase or sentence on how the thing is going to be used (the article, but have to be clear that it's not a one time donation). [[User:TCO|TCO]] ([[User talk:TCO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
=June 30= |
|||
== 3-d files/formats == |
|||
--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
hello; |
|||
= June 02 = |
|||
possibly a stupid/obvious question (& likely one that has been asked previously), but do we have ANY provisions @ commons for 3d media files? |
|||
== Help with cropping borders from images == |
|||
like CAD, or etc... |
|||
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) |
|||
such files are useful "onscreen" already, BUT in the "now-to-future" ''3d-printable "images"'' are going to become increasingly important. |
|||
[[User: |
:23,317 images now 🙂 [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC) |
||
: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 == |
|||
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. |
|||
:Previous discussion at [[Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/05#Other_types_of_media:_three_dimensional_objects_and_videos.3F]] -- [[User:AnonMoos|AnonMoos]] ([[User talk:AnonMoos|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:21, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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? |
|||
== 2 fat people picture == |
|||
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) |
|||
I saw two of the same image: |
|||
{|align=center |
|||
|[[File:Italienischer Maler des 17. Jahrhunderts 001.jpg|thumb|center]]|||[[File:Charles Mellin (attributed) - Portrait of a Gentleman - Google Art Project.jpg|thumb|center]] |
|||
|} |
|||
{{clear}} |
|||
because both these images were the same topic, there's no point to be maintained one of them. If I select the image that is left to be deleted because it looks stain brush / dust. --[[User:Erik Evrest|Erik Evrest]] ([[User talk:Erik Evrest|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:52, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
:I think it is best to keep both images in such instances. The left image is indeed enhanced from a scan with too low a contrast; nonetheless, it might have useful information. Also keep in mind that the Commons PD-Art licensing decision is one which may be prone to legal oppression - I would feel more comfortable keeping duplicate images so that in case one of them eventually falls to a "sweat of the brow" argument, the other might be spared. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:57, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::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]] == |
|||
::agree with the above opinion; they are not EXACT duplicates. also; the one file is 56 kb & the other is 14.17 megs! commons is meant as a ''media repository'', we don't just collect "one of everything", & it's useful to have at least ''some variety'' in file sizes... |
|||
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. |
|||
::i do appreciate the good-faith efforts of the user in raising the queation, however |
|||
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) |
|||
::[[User:Lx 121|Lx 121]] ([[User talk:Lx 121|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:04, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::What everyone here failed to notice is the unfortunate fact that the original Yorck Project image was replaced by [[User:Shakko]] with a much lower-resolution and lower-quality image in 2009, with no update to the source metadata. I've reverted to the Yorck image, and warned Shakko. (So there are actually 3 versions here.) This is nothing in comparison to the number of versions of ''The Birth of Venus'' or ''The Mona Lisa'' we have (see [[:Category:The Birth of Venus]], [[:Category:Mona Lisa]]). [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: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) |
|||
== A new, open, Flickr Alternative? == |
|||
::Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 [[Special:Contributions/186.172.16.70|186.172.16.70]] 23:38, 2 June 2024 (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)''' |
|||
This seems like it'll be worth watching out for: http://www.petapixel.com/2011/06/29/yahoo-engineer-leaves-to-build-an-open-flickr-alternative/ |
|||
: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) |
|||
[[User:Pigsonthewing|Andy Mabbett]] ([[User talk:Pigsonthewing|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:25, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:: 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) |
|||
== Category inclusion bug == |
|||
:MediaGoblin looks promising as well. [http://mediagoblin.org/index.html http://mediagoblin.org/index.html] --[[User:P.g.champion|P.g.champion]] ([[User talk:P.g.champion|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 11:15, 30 June 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) |
|||
== PPT Files == |
|||
: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 = |
|||
Hi! .PPT files are not accepted by the Commons |
|||
Well, the NTSB website has some PD PPT presentations: http://web.archive.org/web/20090228182953/http://ntsb.gov/Events/2000/Aka261/presentations/presentations.htm |
|||
What format should PPT files be converted into? |
|||
[[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 19:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:[[:Category:PDF|PDF]]. PowerPoint has a Save as PDF feature that can accomplish this reasonably well. [[User:Dcoetzee|Dcoetzee]] ([[User talk:Dcoetzee|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you so much! I just created the PDF files! [[User:WhisperToMe|WhisperToMe]] ([[User talk:WhisperToMe|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 02:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee == |
|||
== Call for image filter referendum == |
|||
<section begin="announcement-content" /> |
|||
The Wikimedia Foundation, at the direction of the Board of Trustees, will be holding a vote to determine whether members of the community support the creation and usage of an opt-in personal image filter, which would allow readers to voluntarily screen particular types of images strictly for their own account. |
|||
:''[[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}}]'' |
|||
Hello, |
|||
Further details and educational materials will be available shortly. The referendum is scheduled for 12-27 August, 2011, and will be conducted on servers hosted by a neutral third party. Referendum details, officials, voting requirements, and supporting materials will be posted at [[m:Image filter referendum]] shortly. |
|||
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]]. |
|||
For the coordinating committee,<br /> |
|||
[[w:User:Philippe (WMF)|Philippe]]<br /> |
|||
[[w:User:Cbrown1023|Cbrown1023]]<br/> |
|||
[[w:User:Risker|Risker]]</br> |
|||
[[w:User:Mardetanha|Mardetanha]]<br/> |
|||
[[w:User:PeterSymonds|PeterSymonds]]<br/> |
|||
[[w:User:Robertmharris|Robert Harris]] |
|||
We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term: |
|||
<small>Cross posted by -- [[User:DeltaQuad|<font color="green">DQ]][[User_Talk:DeltaQuad|<font color="red"> (t) ]] <font color="blue">[[Special:EmailUser/DeltaQuad| (e)]]</font></font></font> 21:46, 30 June 2011 (UTC)</small> |
|||
* North America (USA and Canada) |
|||
:I've commented on this before, but will repeat: I think it would be more generally beneficial to allow users a setting to override page settings about the size of thumbnails, so that, for example, you could decide for all thumbnails to be shown at 30-pixel resolution (and perhaps all images to be shown as thumbnails) regardless of the Wiki code. This would help low-bandwidth users as well as those with specific objections. My hope is that at some low resolution - 20 pixels if need be - there is simply no picture that will be viewed as intensely objectionable. I wish your referendum would investigate in this direction rather than pressing for people to "neutrally" place ideological ratings on specific images. [[User:Wnt|Wnt]] ([[User talk:Wnt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 23:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC) |
|||
** – |
|||
::As you're probably aware, there is already a per-user preference for logged-in users (see "Thumbnail size" under Special:Preferences/Appearance/Files), for cases where "thumb" is specified for an image but no image size is given. The list of values is limited [http://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Manual:$wgThumbLimits by MediaWiki]. We could probably file a bug to ask for the ability for the user setting to override cases where image size is given, but I suspect there's good reason it's done that way, and anyway it would probably take ages for anything to happen. Plus, per {{Bugzilla|1340}}, gallery thumb sizes are still handled separately ({{bugzilla|3276}} made the width of the ''gallery'' adapt to the user's screen). Finally, I doubt reducing ''all'' images to "can't tell what it is" size is much of a solution for most people who want some control over hiding certain types of image. [[User:Rd232|Rd232]] ([[User talk:Rd232|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 08:05, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* Northern and Western Europe |
|||
:I assume filters would rely on proper tagging of those "particular types of images". I wonder whose job that will be. Also does anybody know what "particular types of images" are we talking about? I assume nudity, but what else? [[:Category:Corpses|Grisly corpses]], [[:Category:Executions|executions]], [[:Category:Depictions of Muhammad|Depictions of Muhammad]], [[:Category:LGBT|LGBT]], [[:Category:Adult diapers|Adult diapers]], [[:Category:Kittens|Kittens]]? It seems to me there is a lot of "particular types" of images that can be offensive. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
** [[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: |
|||
::Must not forget about alcohol, hate/discrimination, mutilation/torture, weapons, [[:de:Jugendmedienschutz-Staatsvertrag|German youth protection]], health/medical, drugs, gambling, lingerie/bikini, religious, sexuality, and tobacco related images. – [[User:Adrignola|Adrignola]] <small>[[User talk:Adrignola|talk]]</small> 14:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Barkeep49|Barkeep49]] |
|||
:::A warning for you all, do not simply add "Category:Sex" to it, because you will censor every picture of anything which is identifiably male, female or other, and 10,000,000 old paintings. -''[[User:Mattbuck|mattbuck]]'' <small>([[User talk:Mattbuck|Talk]])</small> 16:15, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Superpes15|Superpes15]] |
|||
::::The upload bots might add the words sex, porno, paedophilia, ... in a random combination and languages to all uploaded files. Then they will need real intelligence to filter. --[[User:Foroa|Foroa]] ([[User talk:Foroa|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 21:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Civvì|Civvì]] |
|||
:::::Bots are the least evil; I'm more concerned about a new generation of POV-warring slapping porn tags on opponents' images. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 06:36, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* [[m:Special:MyLanguage/User:Luke081515|Luke081515]] |
|||
::::::At least categories would be put to some use. I think we should make that to work on Commons too. -- [[User talk:Docu|<span style="font-size:80%;border:#000 solid 1px;padding:0"><span style="margin:0;color:#CE2029"> Docu </span></span>]] <span style="font-size:75%">at</span> 06:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
* – |
|||
* – |
|||
* – |
|||
* – |
|||
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. |
|||
=July 1= |
|||
== Deleted Joplin tornado map (posted by US Army Corps of Engineers) == |
|||
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 had a map of the 2011 Joplin tornado which the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers had posted to its flickr account deleted at 9:06 today. Unfortunately the corps flickr account photo says "All Rights Reserved" http://www.flickr.com/photos/55127822@N07/5887813113 But it is definitely a U.S. government creation (which is also mentioned in its caption) and thus cannot be copyrighted. Flickr is the source for official government photos from the corps released at http://www.nwk.usace.army.mil/Flood/index.cfm (much as the White House releases its photos via Flickr). Therefore I am asking that it be restored. Thank you.[[User:Americasroof|Americasroof]] ([[User talk:Americasroof|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:21, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
On behalf of the UCoC project team,<section end="announcement-content" /> |
|||
:This apparently refers to [[:File:Joplin-tornado-map.jpg]], which was later determined to be public domain by Túrelio and Lymantria and thus restored. Good response. <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> 21:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[m:User:RamzyM (WMF)|RamzyM (WMF)]] 08:14, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
::Thank you so much for the quick turnaround. It's confusing since the Corps has placed the wrong license it. I will discuss it with them.[[User:Americasroof|Americasroof]] ([[User talk:Americasroof|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 00:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<!-- 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 == |
||
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 haven't been able to make uploads using it yesterday PM & this AM (July 1). Have others noticed problems? TIA, [[User:Tillman|Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 14:25, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:When I've entered a second file after uploading one I've needed to submit the link and name twice, which wasn't the case previously, but that's all. Just used it to upload [[:File:Passer montanus -Queenstown, Singapore.jpg]]. —[[User:Innotata|''innotata'']] 14:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::The F2Com button hasn't shown up on flickr images for me for 4 to 6 months. [[User:Geo Swan|Geo Swan]] ([[User talk:Geo Swan|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 20:51, 1 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
I don't know what it is so I can't move it to a better file name. Hopefully someone knows what this is. |
|||
*It's apparently an oddball file, as Bryan's Flickr bot wouldn't upload it either. I'll just have to do it manually. I've since uploaded a couple other files with Flickr2Commons, so that isn't the problem. The file in question is http://www.flickr.com/photos/24662369@N07/5884821475, if anyone's curious. Thanks, [[User:Tillman|Tillman]] ([[User talk:Tillman|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 17:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
[[User:0x16w|0x16w]] ([[User talk:0x16w|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC) |
|||
:It has been uploaded as "[[:File:Central peak complex of crater Tycho on the Moon - 20110610.jpg]]" by [[User:Pline|Pline]]. I don't know if this is the problem, but sometimes if there is HTML in the EXIF, Commons will regard the file as defective and refuse to allow it to be uploaded. The solution is to download the file from the source and remove the offending HTML using a program like GeoSetter before uploading it to the Commons. — Cheers, [[User:Jacklee|<span style="color:#CE2029">Jack</span><span style="color:#800000">'''Lee'''</span>]] <sup>–[[User talk:Jacklee|talk]]–</sup> 18:43, 3 July 2011 (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) |
|||
=July 2= |
|||
::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 == |
||
IP address: 2400:2412:2820:3F00:98C9:C7C6:438:4912 |
|||
# What is a talk page? is it the same as a discussion page? |
|||
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) |
|||
# What is a user page? |
|||
# How and where do I install my Babel sign? {{Unsigned|1=Mumbo-jumbophobe|2=21:55, 1 July 2011|3=}} |
|||
: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) |
|||
:#Yes, "talk page" is just another term for "discussion page"; for example, your own talk page at [[User talk:Mumbo-jumbophobe]]. See [[Commons:Talk page guidelines]] for some more information on them. |
|||
:#A user page is where you can include brief information about yourself, links to tools you use often, etc. See my user page at [[User:Huntster]] for an example. You can create your own user page by clicking [[User:Mumbo-jumbophobe|here]]. |
|||
:#Again, look at my user page for a working example...it's on the right hand side. In the code, it's the line that starts with <nowiki>{{babel|</nowiki>. You can find additional information at [[Commons:Babel]]. |
|||
:#For future reference, please remember to sign your posts with four tildes (<nowiki>~~~~</nowiki>), which will automatically expand into a full signature. <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> 03:34, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== |
== EK 318 flight Dubai Tokyo 11 may 2024 == |
||
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 can't find any info on how to do this. Sounds like a frequently asked question to me, should be in help. [[User:Palosirkka|Palosirkka]] ([[User talk:Palosirkka|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:58, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
<gallery> |
|||
:You mean [[Commons:Rename a category]]? It's linked from [[Commons:Categories]]. [[User:LtPowers|Powers]] ([[User talk:LtPowers|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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. — 🇺🇦<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". |
|||
== Deconsecrated churches categories or similar? == |
|||
: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) |
|||
::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
Hi to all: I'm working on church categories in Italy, for a better and multi-subcategorized categories (for diocese and patron saint), and I find a lot of deconsecrated churches (but not only in Italy) I think be worth in this different category. However many now laical buildings are categorized in [[:Category:Secularized churches]]. Is only a problem of linguistic shades from italian? What the better word in english?--[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 12:45, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: |
::::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) |
|||
:::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) |
|||
:Hmm.. There ''is'' a difference between deconsecrated churches and secularized churches. The later implies that they were reused in some secular function (like a disco, or a shop, or whatever), and should be a subcat of deconsecrated churches.--[[User:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0" face="Century Gothic" size="2">- '''Darwin'''</font>]] [[User talk:Darwinius|<font color="#4153A0"><sup>Ahoy!</sup></font>]] 06:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::I can see the distinction between "abandoned" and "reused", however, they often come together ("abandoned and later reused" or "reused and then abandoned"). Which one should prevail? And then, all too often, there's no <easily available> records. We know that it stood abandoned for the last hundred years, but how did it happen, precisely? So the editors are left to decide on their own, and similar cases will end up here or there based on each editor's own judgement. There already is a multiple-choice riddle about ruins ([[:Category:Ruins|Ruins]], [[:Category:Abandoned buildings|Abandoned]], [[:Category:Derelict buildings|Derelict]]) already, no need to reproduce more ambiguities. [[User:NVO|NVO]] ([[User talk:NVO|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 07:54, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::: I would presume 'abandoned' should be a subcat of 'former', and would specifically mean that it is not currently in use. But, yes, I can see that it would be a problem for categorizing a church (rather than a photo) over time. I would tend to use 'abandoned' more on individual photos. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
: Use ADSB data... |
|||
== [[Commons talk:Tools/Commonist]] == |
|||
:# Go to https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAE318 |
|||
We need to host Commonist on Toolserv. Can anybody make this happen? --[[User:Piotrus|Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus]] <sup>[[User_talk:Piotrus|Talk]]</sup> 21:10, 2 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:# Select flight from past flights (right now only goes back to 21 May, but free basic member can go back 3 months) |
|||
=July 3= |
|||
:# click track log to show time → 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 |
|||
== Replaced images doesn't refresh - Purge doesn't help == |
|||
{{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) |
|||
== Flickr & file credit == |
|||
..this problem seems ubiquitous. I really wonder if the admins are aware of these problems and if someone is working on it. --[[User:Alexrk2|Alexrk2]] ([[User talk:Alexrk2|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Yes, I have noticed that too. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 09:44, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:Of course Commons' admins are well aware of this problem. But we have no means to do anything about it, beyond soothing angry uploaders/users and filing Bug reports. --[[User:Túrelio|Túrelio]] ([[User talk:Túrelio|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::Please all complain, add notes and vote at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=28613 . [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 10:45, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
:::Tnx, voted.. seems like this could take some time to resolve. Maybe it would be nice to place a hint on Commons so users don't get frustrated. --[[User:Alexrk2|Alexrk2]] ([[User talk:Alexrk2|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 10:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
::::So nice to find out that I'm not the only idiot in the neighbourhood... Just wasted half an hour to try to understand what I did wrong... Ha ha ! It was not my fault. But the problem remains. Indeed, placing a hint somewhere (if possible, somewhere one could notice it) ''might'' be a good idea... In the meantime, I'll try voting, in case it would help anyhow... [[User:Oblomov2|Oblomov2]] ([[User talk:Oblomov2|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC) (Oh no, I have to create a Bugzilla account or whatever and this will probably make me lose some more hours, I give up). [[User:Oblomov2|Oblomov2]] ([[User talk:Oblomov2|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 13:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
== Bug: EoMagicalConversion == |
|||
= June 04 = |
|||
I've deactivated this Gadget because it converts some word (which I do not typing), after I saving a page. Example Linux get Linŭ. Can someone reproduce this (FF, Chrome12 tested)? --[[user talk:perhelion|<span style="white-space:nowrap;font:bold .8em serif;text-shadow:#400 0 0 2px,gold 1px 1px 2px;color:#fee"> <s>«( P E R H E L I O N )»<sub>*</sub></s> </span>]] 15:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
== List of living people & privacy == |
|||
:I can't believe this is a feature, all letters before x get converted?! -- [[user talk:perhelion|<span style="white-space:nowrap;font:bold .8em serif;text-shadow:#400 0 0 2px,gold 1px 1px 2px;color:#fee"> <s>«( P E R H E L I O N )»<sub>*</sub></s> </span>]] 16:23, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
Hi,<br> |
|||
::That is the magical conversion, see [[:en:Esperanto orthography#X-system]]. It can be useful when writing Esperanto, but not for other languages./[[User:Ö|Ö]] 16:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) |
|||
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) |
|||
Latest revision as of 14:46, 4 June 2024
|
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:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
May 18[edit]
Mandatory captions[edit]
Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
- Links:
- -- Asclepias (talk) 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 "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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (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. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (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. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (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. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- @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)
- I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 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.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 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 Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 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? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
May 24[edit]
I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (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.
- 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)
- Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 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. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: They could enforce their ToS. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 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. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 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: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @REDƎYE, WikiSyn. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us
- Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 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. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: They could enforce their ToS. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 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 here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Created CfD's for the following:
- In total these cover over 500 categories.
- --ReneeWrites (talk) 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). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 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 (rfc). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Pinging @Sannita (WMF). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
May 26[edit]
Upload Wizard, likely again...[edit]
While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, but nothing happened.
Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?
Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ITookSomePhotos, Jmabel, ZandDev, Strakhov, N509FZ, Bidgee, Ymblanter, Kenraiz, GPSLeo, Marsupium, Riad Salih, and Sannita (WMF): pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo,
- Why would you need other licenses for own works?
- Why wouldn't I? {{Multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable...
- In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers.
- I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least.
- The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
- Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). Bidgee (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo,
- Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
- When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "This is someone else's work and is free to share." and then select "Enter a different license in wikitext format", add the license template and the other fields just add {{Own}} to step 2. and then Bidgee to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --Marsupium (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Add coordinates to images (bot task)[edit]
Regarding a recent bot request (add coordinates to images), i've started to write some pywikibot code (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice":
- Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums?
- There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute:
Nodes,WaysandRelations. If it's aNode, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of aWay- for example a building, mapped as area (or even aRelation)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node? - What about adding {{On OSM}} to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value.
--Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons.
- Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog.
- For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Glad about your reply, @Enhancing999 - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
- @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)
Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?[edit]
Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to Commons:File naming even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. RZuo (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- O.k., thanks! The link seems to have been there since the very first version of the template from 2015. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
May 28[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)
- 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)
- 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
- Omphalographer (talk) 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. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 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. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 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. Broichmore (talk) 12:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Categories for photos by photographers[edit]
It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).
What's the current thinking of that? @Vysotsky, @Swiss National Library. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Currently when we are uploading photographs from Finna we are creating creator templates, wikidata items and photos by photographer categories for all authors. There is no distinction between if the person is notable photographer or not. --Zache (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- At Category:Photographs by photographer about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't.
- If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
May 30[edit]
Categorization issue[edit]
File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg and File:Pitura Freska 02.jpg are shooted with different of some moments each others, but Pitura Freska 01.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1992 and Pitura Freska 02.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1997. What is the exact year? --93.47.37.200 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg has 1997 as well. Category is at Category:Pitura Freska. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's 1997. The original date of File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg was 1997 but this was changed by an IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [1]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? ReneeWrites (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly the IP knows stuff about the group and shares it. The pictures were uploaded two decades later.
- Unless the year can be confirmed in another way, I'd leave the question in the file descriptions, on the uploader's talk page and on the discussion page of it:Pitura Freska. Maybe in another 10 years, someone answers. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg[edit]
Proceeding with rename. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things Trade (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- @C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 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. --Rosenzweig τ 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. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 1 June 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. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 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 --A.Savin 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 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. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 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. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- Yes, several people reported this: phab:T365154. And it is in this state since May 15th. Yann (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)- 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)
- Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
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)
- @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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @TheDJ: I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- "we dont even know who's behind that shared account." —TheDJ (talk • 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. —TheDJ (talk • 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. Bawolff (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- @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)
@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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
@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)
- @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)
- @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)
- 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)
- @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)
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)
- Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 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. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Commons Gazette 2024-06[edit]
Volunteer staff changes[edit]
In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.
- User:Benoît Prieur was removed on 13 May due to global ban by the Wikimedia Foundation. He had served as sysop since 18 January 2018.
Other news[edit]
- Video2commons is out of service since 16 May.
- User:SteinsplitterBot is back in service rotating files. 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 '.
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)
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)
- 23,317 images now 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why, I dont see any images in urgent need of cropping, please give some examples Broichmore (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - 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. Broichmore (talk) 10:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- For those who don’t know, Commons:CropTool is handy for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 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. Broichmore (talk) 08:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.[2], Ustaše militia execute prisoners near the Jasenovac concentration camp[3], Glina church massacre [4] --Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, why is Category:Bass guitarists a subcategory of Category:Guitarists? 186.172.16.70 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 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. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Again, would someone please weigh in besides the two of us who are already arguing? - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Null edit fixed the problem. MKFI (talk) 06:10, 3 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. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
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:
- Barkeep49
- Superpes15
- Civvì
- 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.
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)
- I'm probably lacking some context here, but why the many (majority, actually) that are simply "–"? - Jmabel ! talk 14:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 29.png also still exists apparently. 0x16w (talk) 10:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Checked all the other numbers up to 99.png, these are the only two remaining ones. 0x16w (talk) 10:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
- 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)
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.
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg#Discussion_about_rename){kind=link}
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Corpses_in_the_Sava_river,_Sisak_1945.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Usta%C5%A1e_militia_execute_prisoners_near_the_Jasenovac_concentration_camp.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Glina_church_massacre.jpg){kind=link}
Identifying the location would be usefull. Smiley.toerist (talk) 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.) - 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. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 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.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:52, 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. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:09, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- @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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Bingo! The Kaimon Bridge by Kaimoncho.Smiley.toerist (talk) 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.Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:56, 3 June 2024 (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. Smiley.toerist (talk) 17:02, 3 June 2024 (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.Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- Use ADSB data...
- 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 → latitude longitude
- Glrx (talk) 17:37, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I managed to find the location of the desert village in Xinjiang
| Camera location |  | View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMap |  |
|---|
- , 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)
- 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)
- , 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)
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)
.jpg){kind=link}
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)
- 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)
- 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)