Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 00:00, 3 June 2024

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓ ↓ Skip to discussions ↓ ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

Welcome to the Village pump

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

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead.
For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump.
To ask for image improvement, see:
- Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs.
- Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps.
- Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations.
To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop.
For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation.
For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests.

Search archives:

Start a new discussion

#	💭 Title	💬	👥	🙋 Last editor	🕒 (UTC)
1	Mandatory captions	14	8	Animalparty	2024-05-31 01:04
2	Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy	25	9	Prosfilaes	2024-05-31 16:59
3	Category:Steamboat Willie	21	8	Multichill	2024-06-02 20:05
4	File upload wizard	5	4	Sannita (WMF)	2024-06-01 15:50
5	Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature	9	4	Sannita (WMF)	2024-05-27 10:50
6	Scope question	5	4	Jmabel	2024-05-27 01:07
7	Upload Wizard, likely again...	13	6	Marsupium	2024-05-30 12:33
8	Privacy issues for faces and car license plates	9	7	Mr.choppers	2024-05-27 03:13
9	Add coordinates to images (bot task)	3	2	Fl.schmitt	2024-05-28 21:19
10	Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit	2	2	Asclepias	2024-05-26 21:41
11	Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia	2	1	Jmabel	2024-05-27 23:32
12	Strange PDF-Preview behaviour	3	3	Jeff G.	2024-06-01 14:57
13	Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?	3	2	Robert Flogaus-Faust	2024-05-30 19:33
14	Category:Film characters by actors	6	4	ReneeWrites	2024-05-30 19:29
15	Categories for photos by photographers	10	7	Zache	2024-05-29 18:21
16	Categorization issue	10	3	Enhancing999	2024-05-30 14:03
17	Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg	6	4	Matrix	2024-06-01 14:24
18	Enabling MP4	13	8	A.Savin	2024-06-01 21:11
19	Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia	1	1	Spinster	2024-05-31 13:41
20	Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed	5	4	Jarekt	2024-06-02 01:52
21	I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded.	0	0
22	Transparency in the Checkuser Process	17	7	Bawolff	2024-06-02 20:44
23	Problems with deceased Commons users	7	4	Jmabel	2024-06-02 18:53
24	Stuck in category redirects	3	2	Enhancing999	2024-06-01 14:03
25	Commons Gazette 2024-06	1	1	RZuo	2024-06-01 13:46
26	Help with cropping borders from images	3	3	Broichmore	2024-06-02 19:52
27	Aligning images with strong sources	4	3	Jmabel	2024-06-02 19:02

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Centralized discussion

See also: Village pump/Proposals ■ Archive
How do we organize categories by date (14 May 2024) Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023)
Template: View ■ Discuss ■ Edit ■ Watch

	SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved\|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23[edit]

Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy[edit]

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

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

Links:

Venice, 2022, in Italian
Stuttgart, 2024, in German

-- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"No" can mean "I agree that the answer is negative" and "Yes" can mean "I agree with you" in that context. So basically they can mean the same thing in that sentence in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

May 24[edit]

Category:Steamboat Willie[edit]

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

Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.

Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: They could enforce their ToS. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @REDƎYE, WikiSyn. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us

We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office (based in Roanne, France) is WikiSyn, as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.

We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.

For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).

Thanks for your understanding,

Kind regards,
RED🔴ƎYE (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Created CfD's for the following:

In total these cover over 500 categories.

--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.

Empty Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots (from May 13) duplicates Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie (from March 26). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Applied a anonymous only block to Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users (rfc). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25[edit]

File upload wizard[edit]

Hello everyone,

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

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

Pinging @Sannita (WMF). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ooligan AFAIK, it should be ready for next week. We did the testing in beta for sure, I'll ask on Monday more info about that. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature[edit]

Hello Everyone,

I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.

Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanahia123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanahia123: you might want to create a page parallel to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.

@Sannita (WMF): is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanahia123 and Jmabel: I suggest Commons talk:Mobile app as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for COM:APP. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, better than what I suggested. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.
--KEmel49 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel
here is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope question[edit]

A couple of months ago, I happened to be on the Plaça de Sant Jaume in Barcelona after a wedding at the Ajuntament (city hall) let out. I took a bunch of pictures of the people at the wedding, who were total strangers to me, and have uploaded the best of these to Flickr. As I understand it, there are no problems with these images under Spanish personality rights law other than the limitations that apply to all photos of people taken in that country (In Spain, pretty much exactly as in the U.S., without a model release you can't use them in advertising or imply an endorsement by the subject of the photo; you can't use them for slander; etc.): they were taken in a clearly public place, and there is nothing in them that would be detrimental to anyone's reputation. On that basis there would seem to be no problem having these on Commons.

My question is: are they within scope? It seems to me that they are a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, etc. However, I've also seen rather similar images deleted as "personal images."

Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question I have also seen images deleted as "Taken clearly without consent" Oxyman (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

These seem fairly high quality, non-promotional, and with possible illustrative uses (people laughing, hugging, etc.) and obviously you have plenty of legit contributions, so I'm not sure what the issue is? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At first sight, I would indeed nominate them for deletion because of "personal photos" and unknown/not notable people. But I am not an expert at all on portrait photography, street photography and art photography, if they fit the criteria for one of these genres, that might be reasons to keep them (but then the genre should be attached to the files as a category). And they might be a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, but then you'd better create a category for the six of them, in which these aspects are reflected in the category name and the parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The categories would presumably be more like things about fashion in a particular time and place, more or less what we do with equivalent century-old photos, which we always consider to be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --Marsupium (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues for faces and car license plates[edit]

Privacy issues concerning modern day faces of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently above here on this page, for faces of attendees at weddings.

I know that Mr.choppers, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.

However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored fuzzed up replacement. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ Broichmore (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). Bidgee (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

JWilz12345 You're right, I should have referred to COM:CSCR. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. mr.choppers (talk)^-en- 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. Alexpl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"can force wikimedia to delete it." This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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, Ways and Relations. If it's a Node, 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 Way - for example a building, mapped as area (or even a Relation)? 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rear_deck_of_MV_John_H_(ferry)_0_(9360694885).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=879388942 : not sure what is going on here, is this a correct edit or should it be reverted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. And looking at other edits by the same IP, it looks like there's vandalism. The IP was already warned twice too, but it continues. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia[edit]

I'm adding a bunch of photos to Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a Category:Traditional music of Catalonia or Category:Folk music of Catalonia, which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any response, I'll create Category:Traditional music of Catalonia. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange PDF-Preview behaviour[edit]

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

I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Animalparty: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see mw:How to report a bug. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. RZuo (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

May 28[edit]

Category:Film characters by actors[edit]

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

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

The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category structure is invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.

The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:

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)[reply]

Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg has 1997 as well. Category is at Category:Pitura Freska. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [1]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? ReneeWrites (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning toward

support pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has changed since January? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Enabling MP4[edit]

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

Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things Trade (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann MP4 can be H264 or H265. WEBM can be VP9 or AV1. AV1 is to VP9, what H265 is to H264. H264 and VP9 are old. AV1 and H265 are more efficient. If you transcode from H265 to VP9 the result is of course larger. If you transcode from H264 to AV1 the result is smaller. If you transcode from H265 to AV1 the result is more or less same size. The patent for H264 has expired. The patent for H265 has not expired. For some time now MW has full support of AV1. Most people are not aware about the H264 vs H265 isssue. If MP4 is allowed, people will start to complain that they cannot (must not) upload some MP4 files (and are unaware of the H254/H265 issue). All modern iOS and Android devices use H265 (in a MOV or MP4 container). However you can transcode your own uploads with AV1 transcoding and they will have small size and high quality. v2c can be altered to use AV1 instead of VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per en:High Efficiency Video Coding, the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

its always going to be a UI problem that video (container) formats are more like zip files then a specific format. Mp4 can have all sorts of formats inside, and will probably have new formats in the future. For that matter VVC/H.266 is already the newest thing. That said just giving the user an error message doesn't sound that terrible. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about the middle ground where commons allows uploading of such files but automatically converts them to webm, discarding the mp4 version. Bawolff (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. V2C allows for more too, but alas now it's broken. Result is, I have several videos pending that I would like to upload, but I can't. I could if either V2C would work, or if the size limit for basic upload form was higher AND mp4 was allowed (or automatically converted). Regards --A.Savin 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1 also support this. If the ability to convert files to webm was previously a gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the site from getting flooded with useless mundane videos and copyvios, other mechanisms should be added. I think there already is a problem with most video uploads being nothing useful and nearly no videos ever getting DRd. I don't know if video2commons has code to convert non-webm files to webm but if so, that could be used; either way converting video files on the server should be a relatively simple common sense thing to add. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video2Commons[edit]

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

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

May 31[edit]

Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

It looks like the Special:WantedPages are cached and only updated twice a month. I assume the use of the category was due to a template error that has since been fixed. I would wait to do anything until the next update of wanted pages. I think I'm wrong with my previous comment. Please disregard. William Graham (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be an issue with {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I would ask on the template talk page and see if the maintainers have any idea what is going on. I know that from previous go arounds on this, the template/Lua script checks for instances of "the" country categories at some point in the execution. William Graham (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

William Graham You are correct {{Wikidata Infobox}} and Module:Wikidata_Infobox in lines 1283-1294 does exactly that. It checks for existence of category with and without "the", and the first check is for the options with "the". User:Mike Peel and User:LennardHofmann maintain that code. Mike and Lennard I suspect that some countries always use "the" and some don't so you should be able to create a lookup table of maybe all the countries that use "the" and at least have a good guess which one of 2 options to try first. If you want I can write a patch to fix this. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded.[edit]

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

@M F Gervais: It is there and it functional however due to how big and unwieldy it is as a pdf it takes a while to render, especially whern it has to develop the image cache first:

Now because PDFs are typically multipage document it can need extra formatting if you are trying to do it through standard wiki formatting. mw:help:images. PDFs should not be used if you want to display an image, please upload an image file per Com:File types — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2024‎ (UTC)[reply]

Transparency in the Checkuser Process[edit]

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

The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser]. Please inform yourself better at m:Checkuser policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works internally. I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other.

the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. RZuo (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward] — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".

i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100. RZuo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

actually 2. i cant trace User:Mardetanha's ban to anything.

i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. RZuo (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. RZuo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The User:Benoît Prieur case is public (fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite). GPSLeo (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]
"we dont even know who's behind that shared account." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. Bawolff (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. Wilfredor (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point to this. If an evil checkuser was not carrying out the actual checkuser, surely if this system was in place they would just run the check and not look at the results, carrying on in their evil ways. Bawolff (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with deceased Commons users[edit]

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

The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst and Jmabel: The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests, and User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --Jarekt (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jarekt: I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [@Jmabel: hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.

Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

@Jmabel: If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. @Enhancing999: I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 01[edit]

Stuck in category redirects[edit]

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

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

Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, there shouldn't be any category on that list. If one is there it means RussBot tried to move the files or subcategories, but couldn't. If the category is empty now, it means it has been fixed.

Maybe there is a way to adapt w:Template:Resolve category redirect so redirecting categories aren't picked up by templates. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Commons Gazette 2024-06[edit]

Volunteer staff changes[edit]

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

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 '.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

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

June 02[edit]

Help with cropping borders from images[edit]

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

23,317 images now 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why, I dont see any images in urgent need of cropping, please give some examples Broichmore (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Broichmore: it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For those who don’t know, Commons:CropTool is handy for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just did several with no issues. I have rarely had problems with that tool. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Maybe this helps: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg reproduces the original description with a caption/disclaimer. The actual wiki-description goes in a different field. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For starters, there is {{Fact disputed}}. If (as appears to be the case here) the matter is genuinely controversial, that's a good choice: you are not simply making a correction, you are noting that two presumably scholarly sources disagree.

File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg may not be the best example, because it just has a generic warning. File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg might be a better example. Note: "original description" distinct from (corrected) "title"; also, in the "description" field, note the horizontal bar separating what the original source said from Commons' own original content.

Also, when contradicting a presumably respectable scholarly source, it is a good idea to report the contradiction back to them. They are likely to incorporate it into their archives as well (which I see has now happened with that example I gave). - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guitars, bass guitars, and COM:OVERCAT[edit]

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

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

There is no such thing as "regular guitar". Unless there is such a thing as irregular guitar. Do you mean Spanish guitar? Classical guitar? Ritm guitar? Of course admins are always right, this is why I chose not to be one. 186.172.16.70 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, why is Category:Bass guitarists a subcategory of Category:Guitarists? 186.172.16.70 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category inclusion bug[edit]

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

Categories included due to templates frequently have issues with updating due to cache issues or the MediaWiki software updating its index (which I believe is done weekly). So while three days is a long time for it to not display, it’s not entirely unreasonable. Have you tried purging both cats and the template (I cannot on the machine I’m using presently)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

June 03[edit]

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 <!-- ONLY ARCHIVE AFTER THIS LINE! -->
-= April 22 =
+= May 18 =
-== Crop tool ==
+== Mandatory captions ==
-[[Commons_talk:CropTool#Not_working]] --[[User:Lewisiscrazy|Lewisiscrazy]] ([[User talk:Lewisiscrazy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
-* Still not working. :( --[[User:Rosiestep|Rosiestep]] ([[User talk:Rosiestep|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
-:For a replacement, see [[Commons:Village_pump/Technical#New_tool_for_cropping_and_rotating_images_(proposal)]]. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (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)
+: {{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)
-::Now working. --[[User:Lewisiscrazy|Lewisiscrazy]] ([[User talk:Lewisiscrazy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+::This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. [[User:N509FZ|N509FZ]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:N509FZ|Talk]]&nbsp;[[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]]&nbsp;<small>[[User talk:N509FZ|Talk]]&nbsp;[[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|&#45;-Animalparty]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
-= April 24 =
+= May 23 =
+== Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy ==
-== create a new category ==
+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)
-Hi, I'm trying to create a new category called "Archeofuturism" for the picture I uploaded, "A_Martian_colony_with_a_medieval_village.jpg," but I haven't been successful. Can someone assist me with this?--[[User:Raresvent|Raresvent]] ([[User talk:Raresvent|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-: Convenience link: [[:File:A Martian colony with a medieval village.jpg]].
-: {{ping|Raresvent}} before getting into your specific question, why is that image within [[COM:SCOPE|scope]]? In particular, how is it educational? It seems like a hypothetical imagining of something that certainly does not now exist, and is very unlikely ever to exist. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Hi, sorry, it's probably a mistake. Where do you see that the image is within scope?--[[User:Raresvent|Raresvent]] ([[User talk:Raresvent|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:Raresvent|Raresvent]]: Please read [[COM:SCOPE]]. AI images are essentially personal artworks - they generally lack educational or historical value and most should not be uploaded to Commons. (Because generative AI is simply mimicking elements and patterns from other images without understanding their meaning, it is not equivalent to "artist's renditions" where all details of the image are intentional decisions by the artist, and should generally not be used for illustrations in Wikipedia articles.) I have nominated this image for deletion as out of scope. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::''Archeofuturism'', what does it mean? As far as I know this is a made up word, peddled by a few recent books and articles. I don't think it has a reasonably defined definition yet, never mind the exposure and acceptance, sufficient to make it into a dictionary. Existing SF categories already cover it. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (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)
-== Very large batch upload should get some consensus beforehand ==
+: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)
-i think, users who might not be familiar with commons maintenance, should not do batch upload without first getting more opinions or even approval. occasionally i see files getting dumped into major topic categories or left uncategorised.
+::@[[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)
-is this recommendation valid? i guess it's just an extension or application of [[Commons:Bots#Permission to run a bot]]? [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:38, 24 April 2024 (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)
-:Hi, How large are you talking about here? Bots need a permission anyway. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-::i think anything more than 500 is too much and should seek a consensus. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:58, 24 April 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. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::Why 500? [[User:Mosbatho|Msb]] ([[User talk:Mosbatho|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Any upload where a human is not individually checking every file name, description, author, date, and categories at the time of upload should be considered a bot edit and treated accordingly. That means community approval - either of the specific upload, or of the user in a discussion akin to a bot request for a approval - to ensure that a plan is in place for properly curating the files.
-::::Commons has a longstanding issue of uncurated and poorly-curated mass uploads that are equal in scale to bot uploads but lack the same community oversight. This results in large numbers of files with major issues – useless filenames/descriptions/categories, incorrect author/date information, scope and copyvio problems, and/or being placed in overly-broad categories – that the uploaders refuse to fix. There has been general agreement that the problem needs fixing, but no specific policy has been advanced.
-::::I would prefer a more tailored policy, but as an initial effort, setting an arbitrary limit like "over 500 files needs community discussion first" may be useful. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::How does a policy like that get enforced, though? Without any sort of automated enforcement, it's only going to effect users who are aware of the policy, and whose batch uploads are less likely to be a problem. If it is enforced (e.g. by an edit filter), that's going to add a lot of administrative toil in approving batches - and users who hit the limit will still have uploaded a few hundred potentially bad images before they get stopped.
-:::::Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of treating batch uploads with a little more weight than we do now. (I've still got [[User:Omphalographer/Sony 19th|a batch of ~2k bad images from earlier this year]] that I need to bring back to DR a chunk at a time.) I'm just not sure how we could effectively make it happen. [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::::@[[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]]: The single most effective restriction would be on flickr uploads. They have inherent curation issues (because upload tools will copy the filename and description, neither of which tend to be particularly useful, from flickr), and the vast majority of uncurated flickr uploads are from a very small number of users. Put a reasonable rate limit on flickr uploads (say a few hundred over a few hours), and that will vastly decrease the problem edits without affecting those who do properly curate files they transfer.
-::::::In general, I think it's possible to use edit filters pretty effectively, especially with an edit notice that explains the reasoning. Edit filters can rate-limit as well as outright restrict edits; the actual number of good-faith users who are likely to upload at a high volume for long enough to upload a large number of files is, again, pretty low. For users that prove they can mass upload responsibly (either by curating before upload, or by uploading into cleanup categories that they then curate from), it shouldn't require much administrative work to have them approved.
-::::::Even if some unknowing users do upload a few hundred files before they hit a limit, that's still an amount that they can reasonably go back and curate if asked. It's the handful of users that upload thousands of uncurated files at a time - and know very well the issues they're causing - that the community has repeatedly expressed concerns about. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::::The problem description shows that we are only talking about imports not about the regular upload of original content. The import of content from Flickr was and is still restricted to users with autopatrol rights, but only with built in tools of MediaWiki. External tools are currently not limited to approved users. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Presumably because, one can see 500 thumbnails on one page, enabling an overview for initial assesment. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::because
-::::#category pages can show 200 per page. 500 is actually already 3 pages.
-::::#i vaguely remember that uploadwizard or something can allow up to 500 uploads in one go. anything more than that is most likely done thru a script or by a bot.
-::::[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:The generic upload tool is the upload wizard. This allows batches of 500 uploads and even for new users uploads of 150 files. And the upload wizard can upload any number of batches in succession with the same settings. If it reaches a rate limit, it slows down but continues the uploads. This was not always the case. It is therefore a deliberate decision to make it easy to upload a large number of files as quickly as possible. I also don't see the problem on the side of poorly done uploads: Commons is for finding images and then using them. Images without categories or with bad file names will not be found. However, this does not impair the findability and usability of well-categorised files. On the other hand, a user who is thrown a spanner in the works when uploading will often not start to categorise them files afterwards, but will stay away altogether or upload them to Flickr, leaving it to the idealists at Commons to first import these images and then process them. Scaring off uploads in this way will not make Wikipedia more popular with the public.
-:In my opinion, the better approach is not to restrict uploads, but to provide better tools for editing files that have already been uploaded. For example, an easy way to find suitable categories without having to know what the first letters of the category name are in an arkane and alien language called "English". Luckyly thousends of new categories in chinese language have been created in the last month (Chinese is a language understood by a large part of the earth population). [[User:C.Suthorn|C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p)]] ([[User talk:C.Suthorn|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-::The important thing is finding a middle ground between not allowing for batch uploads of junk that will be categorized or used for whatever reason while also not discouraging people from uploading images here to begin with. That's allowing people with certain rights to batch uploads is a good idea IMO. Its not like we don't do that for other things anyway. Otherwise what's so special about allowing for 500 images to be uploaded at once and who says that can't be reduced to a more managable number on the uploaders end without them just using another website? Say 100 or 200 files at a time is still a lot while allowing for better review and curation on top of it. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:C.Suthorn|C.Suthorn]]: This is not an issue that generally affects newbies - it is very rare for a new user to engage in mass uploads. (The few that I've seen doing so were, unsurprisingly, sockpuppets of blocked users.) Most newbies have a relatively small number of files to upload; while I fully agree that making it easier for newbies to properly describe and categorize their uploads is important, that's separate from the issue being discussed here. Uncurated mass uploads are a problem caused almost entirely by experienced users who refuse to care whether they are actually improving Commons.
-::Files with poor filenames, descriptions, and categorization are not neutral - they are actively harmful to the purpose of Commons. If a user browsing categories or looking at search results sees a bunch of files that don't have any useful indication of their contents, they will be unable to pick out the useful files they actually need. Flickr descriptions in particular often contain lengthy pieces of text with little/no relation to the file (very often, the entire copy-pasted text of a Wikipedia article), advertising for other projects by the photographer, and personal commentary. All of those cause the files to show up in search results that they absolutely don't belong in.
-::Poorly curated mass uploads also take up volunteer time: they force responsible users in that subject area to either clean up the mess, or to accept that their previous time curating files has been rendered a waste by the influx of uncurated files. These mass uploads have a lot of out-of-scope and copyvio images that must be nominated for deletion, and duplicate files that would have been noticed immediately had the uploader properly named/described/categorized them. All of this wastes the time of volunteers, who have more important things they want to do, just to get back to the same standard of quality that existed before the mass upload. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::I'm not sure if everyone involved in this discussion is aware of the following: MediaWiki is free software. That means that anyone in the world can write software that does bulk uploads and write that software to appear as the Upload Wizard. Especially if sockpuppets of experienced users act maliciously and make mass uploads, the consequence of upload restrictions will be that such users with multiple accounts and a software that pretends to be the Upload Wizard may upload many more files. This could be effectively prevented by making MW non-free and requiring an app key and an api key for the upload, both of which are only issued after effective checks. Or by limiting the number of uploads with the Upload Wizard (or, strictly speaking, each upload), e.g. to 50 uploads per day.
-:::However, I think it would be better to provide people who want to upload files with tools that make it easier for them to make good uploads. For example, a tool could carry out automated checks when importing Flickr files (is the location and date of a photo named in the data imported from Flickr, is the description very short or very long, does it contain URLs) and then give the uploader hints during the upload as to what can be improved.
-:::WMF is currently working on improvements to the UploadWizard, so it's a good time to make suggestions to the team working on it. [[User:C.Suthorn|C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p)]] ([[User talk:C.Suthorn|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::There should be two upload wizards, we need one for ''artwork'' and/or museum derived images. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Uncurated mass uploads don't come from maliciousness - they come from irresponsibility. It's very easy to push a button and see the file number go up; it gives the satisfaction of accomplishing something without having actually done the work. I don't find it likely that someone who's unwilling to spend 30 seconds per file curating them will take the significant effort to develop software just to allow them to do so. This isn't like serial sockpuppeteers who have a specific fixation that motivates them - even the most prolific mass-upload sockpuppeteer got bored after half a dozen blocked socks. Cut off the low-effort low-quality edit opportunity; some will find something low-effort but more useful like tagging spam, some will decide it's worth the effort to properly curate their uploads, and those unwilling to contribute productively will go elsewhere. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-:Agree with the general idea. I don't think it matters what tool is used. We could use 999+1 as limit. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:20, 2 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)
-= April 25 =
+:::::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)
-== Can someone help me out with a task using AWB? ==
+:::::@[[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using ''lex loci protectionis'' principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the ''lex loci protectionis'' (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. <span style="font-family:Footlight MT">[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] <span style="background-color:#68FCF1">(''[[User talk:JWilz12345|Talk]]''|''[[Special:Contributions/JWilz12345|Contrib's.]]'')</span></span> 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
+:The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
-I want to edit these files to add the categories specified in the list. I think AWB can help but it is tedious otherwise. Can someone help [[User:Immanuelle/Toki Pona categorization]] [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Immanuelle}} any reason not to use [[Help:Gadget-Cat-a-lot|Cat-a-lot]]? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:44, 26 April 2024 (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:Jmabel|Jmabel]] the structure of the list makes cat-a-lot not useful. There are 107 files and 107 categories, each file needs to be added to exactly one category with no overlap. I might be misunderstanding what AWB does, but I thought you could write queries with it that could categorize all of these in a few seconds. [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 03:19, 26 April 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)
-::: And they can't be found with a search, nor were they uploaded in more or less the same time frame by a single user? Because Cat-a-lot works fine with search results and user upload pages, too.
+:::<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)
-::: I don't work with AWB, so I can't say whether it might be better for this. Looking at [[Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/"Building block" tool to select files]], I don't see much in particular that AWB can do and Cat-a-lot can't. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:02, 26 April 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)
-= April 26 =
+: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 =
-== My 2024 Wikimedia Summit report ==
+== [[:Category:Steamboat Willie]] ==
-[[:meta:Cascadia Wikimedians/2024 Wikimedia Summit report]]. Written for [[:meta:Cascadia Wikimedians|Cascadia Wikimedians]], but presumably much of interest here to people on Commons. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-: I just did a major expansion of [[:meta:Cascadia Wikimedians/2024 Wikimedia Summit report#Representation and access]], which may be of particular interest to people on Commons. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
+I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
-== Pictures OK to use? ==
+: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.
-*[https://townsville.spydus.com/cgi-bin/spydus.exe/ENQ/WPAC/BIBENQ?SETLVL=&BRN=337747 This picture of Eddie Charlton] has "Restrictions on use: Permission granted for public access and copying." specified.
+: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)
-*[https://search.sl.nsw.gov.au/permalink/f/1cvjue2/ADLIB110642077 This picture of Eddie Charlton] has "Copyright status: In copyright - Life of creator plus 70 years. Copyright holder: State Library of New South Wales. Rights and Restrictions Information: May be copied for reference and publication. Please acknowledge: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales."
+::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)
-*[https://northernbeaches.recollect.net.au/nodes/view/48918 This picture of Horace Lindrum] has "This item may be used freely for research and study purposes, for all other uses contact Northern Beaches Council Library Local Studies. Please acknowledge that the item is courtesy of Northern Beaches Council Library Local Studies."
+:::All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::Right, this user edited via {{ip|2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A}}, and then other addresses within {{ip|2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64}}. It is a part of the problematic {{ip|2001:8003:C000::/35}}, as well as the problematic {{ip|2001:8000::/19}}. {{Pinging|Graham87|Albertoleoncio}}, who blocked them on other projects, for input. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::@[[User:Graham87|Graham87]]: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this? &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::{{replyto|Jeff G.}} That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the [[w:en:Wikipedia:Abuse response|Abuse response]] team, but it never went anywhere. [[User:Graham87|Graham87]] ([[User talk:Graham87|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::What could Telstra even do? [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::@[[User:Trade|Trade]]: They could enforce their ToS. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is ''undesirable'' it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05#Category:RED_ƎYE|Category:RED_ƎYE]] [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::::::{{Pinging|REDƎYE|WikiSyn}}. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::::::Hi [[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]], thanks for pinging us {{Smiley}}
+::::::::::::We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office <small>(based in Roanne, France)</small> is [[User:WikiSyn|WikiSyn]], as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.
+::::::::::::We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.
+::::::::::::For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).
+::::::::::::Thanks for your understanding,
+::::::::::::Kind regards,<br> [[User:REDƎYE|RED🔴ƎYE]] ([[User talk:REDƎYE|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD  [[Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2024/05#Overcategorization_in_Category:Space_Jam|here]]. --[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+::Created CfD's for the following:
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Space Jam|Space Jam]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Mickey Mouse|Mickey Mouse]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Steamboat Willie|Steamboat Willie]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:The Lego Movie|The Lego Movie]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Looney Tunes|Looney Tunes]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Warner Bros.|Warner Bros.]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles|Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in Category:Scooby-Doo and Scoob!|Scooby-Doo and Scoob!]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Overcategorization in various Disney & Warner Bros. categories|Various Disney & Warner Bros. categories]]
+::* [[Commons:Categories for discussion/2024/05/Category:Films by character|Films by character]]
+:: In total these cover over 500 categories.
+::--[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+::One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.
+::Empty [[:Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots]] (from May 13) duplicates [[:Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie]] (from March 26). [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:Applied a anonymous only block to [[Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48]]. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users ([https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc6177 rfc]). [[User:Multichill|Multichill]] ([[User talk:Multichill|talk]]) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
-Are any of these OK to upload to Commons? Regards, [[User:BennyOnTheLoose|BennyOnTheLoose]] ([[User talk:BennyOnTheLoose|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-:This is very slow to load for me, so I can't see the sources, but ''reference and publication'' and ''research and study purposes'' are usually not sufficient for Commons. ''Public access and copying'' is vague. Are modifications and commercial uses allowed? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
+= May 25 =
-:None of these are ok to upload to Commons IMO, because they are not free to be used ''by anyone, anytime, for any purpose'' ([[COM:Licensing]]). --[[User:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#0000CD">Rosenzweig</span>]]  [[User talk:Rosenzweig|<span style="color:#8D38C9">'''''τ'''''</span>]] 17:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-:@[[User:BennyOnTheLoose|BennyOnTheLoose]] I second in motion to {{re|Rosenzweig}}'s input. No permission granted for commercial reuse of the images, something that free culture licenses like {{tl|cc-by-sa-4.0}} mandate. <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> 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Thanks all. I guessed as much, but thought it was worth a try. Regards, [[User:BennyOnTheLoose|BennyOnTheLoose]] ([[User talk:BennyOnTheLoose|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-== Not sure what to do about this ==
+== File upload wizard ==
+Hello everyone,
-{{user5|Ltalc}} spends a lot of time nominating pictures of naked people for deletion. Not sure what to think. [[User:Evrik|Evrik]] ([[User talk:Evrik|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-:{{d}} User warned, most DRs closed. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:09, 26 April 2024 (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.
-== "Trentino" and "South Tyrol" or "province of Trento/Bolzano"? ==
+Regards. [[User:Riad Salih|Riad Salih]] ([[User talk:Riad Salih|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
-Hi all! As per title: the categories for the two provinces of Trentino-South Tyrol (Italy) are not uniform. For example we have [[:Category:Churches in the province of Trento]] but [[:Category:Cemeteries in Trentino]], [[:Category:Churches in South Tyrol]] but [[:Category:Maps of municipalities of the province of Bolzano]] (and also [[:Category:Municipalities in the province of South Tyrol]], a third option that occurs only for South Tyrol). The [[Template:Provinces of Trentino-South Tyrol]] works with "Trentino" and "South Tyrol", meaning it doesn't display anything in several categories (like [[:Category:Interiors of churches in the province of South Tyrol]] and [[:Category:Interiors of churches in the province of Trento]]). Approximately, it's most often "South Tyrol" for South Tyrol, and "province of Trento" for Trentino, which is uneven in itself. Shouldn't this be fixed somehow? I'd go for "South Tyrol" and "Trentino", which however is not the standard for Italy (cfr [[:Category:Churches in Italy by province]]). <small>I'll link this thread in the Italian village pump; is there a German village pump or something too?</small> -- '''[[User:Syrio|<span style="color:orange;">Syrio</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Syrio|<small><span style="color:orangered;">posso aiutare?</span></small>]]'' 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-: For German there is [[Commons:Forum]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
-::This story of the "Province of Trento / Trentino" and the "Province of Bolzano / South Tyrol" recurs periodically. The problem lies in the fact that the South Tyroleans do not accept being part of Italy, feeling invaded and conquered by Italy after the First World War, and therefore they would be part of Tyrol and Austria. But here we must not discuss whether that annexation was right or not; the issue here is that they are today an integral part of the territory and population of Italy. And in the Commons we need to consider this. The problem in Commons is that the German-speaking part does not accept the words "Alto Adige" and "Province of Bolzano"; and then were added those from Trento who do not want to hear about the "Province of Trento" but about "Trentino". However, this creates a lack of uniformity of the categories with the rest of the provinces of Italy. There were very heated and even lacerating discussions in the Commons in 2007 and 2009 and again in 2012 which led to the very laborious solution agreed between the various parties and different needs to use "Province of Trento" and "Province of South Tyrol" and for the region the name "Trentino-South Tyrol". Now, however, in recent years someone has silently and arbitrarily changed the names of several categories from "Province of Trento" to "Trentino" (and all "Province of South Tyrol" to "South Tyrol"), leading to the current inconsistent situation. So all these names should be changed in the way that was decided 15 years ago, and so the uniformity created then should be restored. Or a new discussion will open, that will turn out to be a new world war over these names. Who is willing to do it? I remember that a very heated discussion had taken place few years before in the English context (I think in Wikipedia), before the discussions in Commons was started. If you want to know about the discussions we had in Commons, here are the links.
-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:South_Tyrol 2007-2009]
-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Trentino-South_Tyrol 2008-2009]
-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2009/03#.22South_Tyrol.22_.3F 2009]
-[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Trentino-Alto_Adige/S%C3%BCdtirol 2011]
-[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category_talk:Province_of_South_Tyrol 2012]. Enjoy the reading !
---[[User:DenghiùComm|DenghiùComm]] ([[User talk:DenghiùComm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::Jeez, I had the feeling there were some politics behind this, but I didn't think it was that much. Well. "Province of South Tyrol" doesn't exist, it's not used in Italian and, as far as I know (but correct me if I'm wrong), neither is in German. Regardless of all that, there has to be uniformity, one way or the other. It has either to be "Trentino" and "South Tyrol", or "province of Trento" and "province of Bolzano". As i said I wouldn't mind the former, but I'm ok with both, as long as it solves the issue. -- '''[[User:Syrio|<span style="color:orange;">Syrio</span>]]''' ''[[User talk:Syrio|<small><span style="color:orangered;">posso aiutare?</span></small>]]'' 12:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Here in Commons I am against the use of "Trentino" instead of "Province of Trento", because then we could call Sannio the Province of Benevento, Irpinia the Province of Avellino, Polesine the Province of Rovigo, etc. In spoken language that's fine, but here in Commons we have a system that needs to be consistent. If for all the Italian provinces we use "Province of Xyz" this must also be applied to all the categories of Trentino which must be renamed correctly and consistently in "... in / of the province of Trento". For Alto Adige = Province of Bolzano = South Tyrol we will still be able to discuss and decide. But all of us together, not just you and me. [[User:DenghiùComm|DenghiùComm]] ([[User talk:DenghiùComm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:{{Pinging|Sannita (WMF)}}. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::Let me leave a note, [[:en:Polesine]] and [[:en:province of Rovigo]] are not overlapping, the former identifies a historical territory, the latter a political one. I imagine that going through history books one finds more than one different territorial subdivision so, as of course we already do in the different wikpedias separated by language, we keep the last one institutionally correct. Returning to the therad issue I well remember the discussions and stubbornness of a single user who, in defiance of the concept of collaboration, de facto imposed his own POV. Agreed that a South Tyrolean knows the deonomy of his territory in German (but also in Ladin eh), but for the rest of the Italians who read (or used to read) a map will find Bressanone and not Brixen, as well as a native French-speaking would put us in check by imposing the place name Aoste instead of Aosta. Mixing political opinions and bibliographic needs-we are still cataloguing as if we were in a library-is not a good idea. :-) --[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::::"Province of South Tyrol" doesn't exist, no wonder that a consensus on such a denomination didn't last. It's either "South Tyrol" or "Province of Bolzano", I've no preference on that, but please let's not come up with made-up denominations only to reach a sloppy compromise between users. BTW "Trentino" and "South Tyrol" are the only italian geographical regions which are defined by the administrative borders of the provinces. The other aforementioned regions such Irpinia or Polesine are a totally different story, so please let's keep them out of the discussion. [[User:Friniate|Friniate]] ([[User talk:Friniate|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:48, 29 April 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)
+== Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature ==
-Opinions of some admins ? [[User:DenghiùComm|DenghiùComm]] ([[User talk:DenghiùComm|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-: I think Friniate is correct that it would either need to be called "South Tyrol" or "Province of Bolzano".  I also don't have a preference for either. [[User:Abzeronow|Abzeronow]] ([[User talk:Abzeronow|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+Hello Everyone,
-: {{ping|Syrio|DenghiùComm|Friniate|Threecharlie}} While I agree that the official, authoritative names should be used, are you aware of category redirects? See template {{t|Category redirect}} itself or one of its shortcuts (actually redirects). So, the unofficial, but commonly used names could be redirected to the official one. Both Cat-a-lot and Hotcat are respecting this. Only issue here: In theory, a bot should do frequently cleaning, but [[:Category:Non-empty category redirects]] shows a quite large backlog. —<span style="white-space:nowrap"> [[User:Speravir|Speravir]] – 23:28, 2 May 2024 (UTC)</span>
+I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.
-::{{ping|Speravir}} Obviously, if a minority knows the subject under a different name, there are redirects, as in any other Wikimedia project, which redirect the reader to the item or other element, and I don't see what problem there is in using a bot to fix the incoming links to the categories, which even if all the work had to be done by hand, I don't see it as such an insurmountable impediment rather than doing nothing about it, and if we are here to discuss it is because, here, it's worth it.--[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:05, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.
-= April 27 =
+Thank you! {{unsigned2|14:48, 25 May 2024|Kanahia123}}
-== Is Commons is no longer of any value as a repository of documentary protest images? ==
+: {{ping|Kanahia123}} you might want to create a page parallel to [[Commons:Upload Wizard feedback]].
+: {{ping|User:Sannita (WMF)}} is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::@[[User:Kanahia123|Kanahia123]] and [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]: I suggest [[Commons talk:Mobile app]] as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for [[COM:APP]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:: Good idea, better than what I suggested. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+::: {{ping|Sannita (WMF)}} I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+::::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+:The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.<br>--[[User:KEmel49|KEmel49]] ([[User talk:KEmel49|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:: {{ping|KEmel49}} what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]<br>[[:File:Android Commons app- Achievements screen.jpg|here]] is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.<br>--[[User:KEmel49|KEmel49]] ([[User talk:KEmel49|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
+== Scope question ==
-I've been contributing images to Commons for the past decade or so, and am at the verge of quitting and deleting my profile.
-* Mostly I take wildlife images of Australia - but also cultural festivals and occasional protests that I might see. I'm not a professional, and definitely not a great photographer ... but I do get lucky with some quality pictures, Featured pictures, and #20 spot in the picture of the year a while ago. Capturing images of my community, such as protests, festivals, annual commemorations and international visits such as the G20 conference here in Brisbane and its associated cultural events means that there's a pool of images for future historians and which occasionally also get picked up by academic journals.
-* I tried to avoid the underbelly of Wikipedia and Wiki Commons politics as much as possible. I've seen some journals describe the toxicity and why some good people prefer simply not to deal with it. I think most people are well-meaning, but I've seen others who appear revel in those politics and in-fighting ... but I honestly have better things to do. Sadly, I seem to have been reluctantly caught up in it this week.
-* My concern that's pushing me to stop contributing is that we currently have a small group of self-appointed guardians who've been deleting images of protests about the war in Ukraine (including two of my images [[:File:Brisbane Ukrainian Solidarity Protest 2023-06-17 - AndrewMercer - DSC07595.jpg|here]] and [[:File:Brisbane Ukrainian Solidarity Protest 2023-06-17 - AndrewMercer - DSC07607.jpg|here]]).
-* In other cases, they're deleting valid protest images of [[:File:President Sisi - Go Killer. (22811218425).jpg|Abdel Fatah el-Sisi]] or [[:File:"Until our last breath" Woman, Life, Freedom - 52741975299.jpg|Women's rights campaigners in Iran]]. There were also recent Gaza and Iraeli protests where the uploaders have been forced to pixelate signs and photographs of hostages - which really makes the Commons version unusable from a documentary perspective.
-* In all cases, the images are of an EVENT. There is a placard visible - giving context to what the protest is about, but the graphic they're complaining about might be less that 5% of the total image area! In no case is it attempting to circumvent copyright. FOP and Derivative works policies appear to being misused - the fact that someone is holding a protest sign doesn't necessarily mean that our photographic images are derivative works ... we're simply documenting a protest event, and people will generally be holding placards.
-* Admittedly, one of my images has an image placard taking about 15%. I purposefully made faces in the crowd out of focus as it contained children who I was uncomfortable including ... although the protesters and their Australian plus Ukrainian flags are still visible. The resulting photograph contains an image based on a work by an NZ cartoonist from 2008. After some research, I contacted the Alexander Turnbull library who holds the work of that cartoonist (now retired) - and they have no issue with it. The image is copyrighted but even they see that I was photographing an event.
-* Based on the examples that I've seen, and if it continues, I can see that Wiki Commons is set to lose a lot of documentary photographs where there are events at which people are carrying placards with images ... such as these from the January 6 insurrection: [[:File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09170 (50826699171).jpg|ex1]] [[:File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol 2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09293-2 (50820737423).jpg|ex2]] [[:File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol 2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09308-2 (50821378682).jpg|ex3]] [[:File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC09151 (50826973921).jpg|ex4]] [[:File:2021 storming of the United States Capitol DSC08970 (50827352796).jpg|ex5]]
-My feeling is that some of these Commons' policies triggering deletions are reducing the viability and usefulness of Commons as a repository of documentary photographs - or maybe that well-intended policies are being misapplied. These deletions are being pushed by a small number of individuals - so it's hard to tell if it's just them or if this truly was the Wiki Commons community viewpoint. The deleted images are fine on every other platform. My own photographs in Wiki Commons (at least prior to this deletion) have been used in magazines, academic journals and websites, our Australian national broadcaster, and even an Australian documentary feature film. It's just Wiki Commons admins that started making drama lately and saying that they can no longer be hosted because of some hypothetical that no-one else whatsoever has an issue with.
-Thoughts??
-Is there any point of Wiki Commons containing documentary images if they're just going to get deleted??
-[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] ([[User talk:Bald white guy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+A couple of months ago, I happened to be on the Plaça de Sant Jaume in Barcelona after a wedding at the Ajuntament (city hall) let out. I took a bunch of pictures of the people at the wedding, who were total strangers to me, and have [https://www.flickr.com/photos/jmabel/albums/72177720317304966/ uploaded the best of these to Flickr]. As I understand it, there are no problems with these images under Spanish personality rights law other than the limitations that apply to all photos of people taken in that country (In Spain, pretty much exactly as in the U.S., without a model release you can't use them in advertising or imply an endorsement by the subject of the photo; you can't use them for slander; etc.): they were taken in a clearly public place, and there is nothing in them that would be detrimental to anyone's reputation. On that basis there would seem to be no problem having these on Commons.
-:@[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]]: Please have the Alexander Turnbull library send permission via [[VRT]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:What would you suggest as a solution? The problem is that the protestors violate the copyright of the original artist and documenting that copyright violation is therefore a copyright violation too. When we are talking about paintings made by the protestors themself I would agree that we should write down the guideline that holding a self made painting into a camera at a protest is considered as consent for publishing the photo of the artwork. Especially as getting a written down permission is not possible in such cases. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]]Thanks ... I understand that there's a challenge. But imagine if the George Floyd incident had occurred in front of a movie theatre and there just happened to be a movie poster on display in the background. Essentially there's an event that needs to be reported but it cannot (or at least not on Wiki Commons). No respected publication or image repository other than Wiki Commons would actually have a problem with it. In the Australian and New Zealand legal jurisdictions,  any copyright claim would be moot as they would come under "fair use" which isn't acceptable on this site for some reason. I think there needs to be an acceptable threshold. I think it's dodgy saying that something that occupies maybe 5% of the total image space (and was incidental, and outside the photographer's control) should trigger deletion. It just seems like overkill and, again, it makes Wiki Commons unfeasible for images of protest or other similar events. I'm seriously just losing my love for Wiki Commons over policies or interpretations that don't seem to make sense. [[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] ([[User talk:Bald white guy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::But background or only 5% has nothing to do with the examples you linked above. At these two examples the main subject of the photo is the poster that is presumable shown without permission by the original author. [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::{{tq|Essentially there's an event that needs to be reported but it cannot (or at least not on Wiki Commons).}} No offense, but Commons isn't a news site. Nor is it meant to be a general media repository that hosts whatever people want to upload here. It's not even good for that purpose either. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::: Commons is the media storage site for Wikinews.--[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] ([[User talk:Prosfilaes|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::And? That still doesn't make it a news site. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::::{{Ping|Prosfilaes}} As acknowledged by the English Wikinews image use policy ([[:en:wikinews:WN:IUP]]) Commons is only to store freely licensed or copyright free works. Images with copyright restrictions can be stored locally with a fair use claim. If you are involved with another language version of Wikinews that doesn't accept fair use, then you may want to build consensus there to adopt a local fair use policy. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-:I agree with you @[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]]. Be me, a user who has only being 6 months and has being harshly “bitten” and insulted quite a lot by seasoned users even though there’s an explicit guideline against it (literally). So this clique of seasoned Wiki users bend the rules to their convenience. What I do is just ride it out. But that’s me as a new or outsider, in your case it must feel different of course. We at the end of the day, it is a community. [[User:Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas|Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas]] ([[User talk:Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-Commons is, in general, a perfectly good repository of many types of protest images. However, because of our particularly strict adherence to copyright law, it is not a good repository in which to document materials that violate copyright, and protest banners and placards often disregard copyright, so those particular images can't be here without a long chain of licenses that is almost never achievable. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+My question is: are they within [[COM:SCOPE|scope]]? It seems to me that they are a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, etc. However, I've also seen rather similar images deleted as "personal images."
-:@[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] I agree with J. Mabel here. Personally, I would want Commons to be able to host images of protesters with protest paraphernalia, but unfortunately, almost all paraphernalia are essentially artistic works, like creative placards and effigies. Even [[Commons:Deletion requests/File:Protests against RH Bill at EDSA 20120804 (01) - Flickr.jpg|one image]] that I imported from Flickr got deleted recently (I imported it when I still had little familiarity on ''derivative works''). There is of no use of applying [[Freedom of Panorama]] in many images that intentionally include such protesters' artworks, since FoP rules in 70+ countries do not typically cover non-permanent artworks in public places ([[COM:FOP Australia|Australian FoP]] itself does not cover flat arts like posters and tarpaulins). I'd like to take note also that Commons [[COM:FAIR USE|does not accept fair use content]]. Only content [[COM:Licensing#Acceptable licenses|that are licensed for commercial re-uses]] is allowed, and this is a major reason why images containing unfree artworks cannot be hosted here. Perhaps we are meant to host such protest images to document events, but the commercial Creative Commons licensing means there is 100% certainty of an Australian postcard maker or a web developer misusing those images, to the detriment of the artists who created those artistic paraphernalia. <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> 16:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]] @[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]]: You and others make good points. However, I find the copyright arguments misguided. The images aren't seeking to surreptitiously capture those works for commercial gain - they're recording an event. The record of that event may be useful for others at some future point and used to highlight an issue I'd never considered (such as a couple of images that I captured at a May Day parade showing a small group of protestors highlighting the unfairness of the Australian/East Timorese Maritime Oil Lease). They had a graphic. Maybe they drew it themselves or maybe it came from other sources. However, that photo was used to illustrate discussions on the issue in several journals and in a film. That debate triggered change. I'm not saying I was responsible for anything meaningful but I was glad to have played a tiny part. I really appreciate Wikimedia for making the images available. Similarly (although not protest images) I was happy to see my Australian bat images being used early on in journals discussing COVID-19 or other bat-borne viruses. The fact that it's been so valuable is why the deletion of otherwise useful images makes me so disappointed.
-::Once again - the copyright argument is spurious. As mentioned, these types of images are used by the media and others every day without issue since we do have fair use within our legal doctrine. Even without it, our judges and legal professionals here are very smart and reasonable people (Hooray for us antipodean countries without political judicial appointments :-) ). I had the pleasant experience seeing that first-hand working within the NZ judicial system for over a decade.
-::''The problem is that Commons enforces over and above what copyright law actually requires''. Policies are aimed at making everything commercially viable. That's not going to always be the case with documentary images. Look - we know that images with identifiable people can't be used in all commercial scenarios because of '''Personality Rights''', and we've found a way to still include them through availability of the Personality Rights Warning. Maybe something similar is needed to protect documentary images where there's some other potentially copyrighted recognisable image. I have used Personality Rights in my protest images where I have faces that are visible (thanks @[[User:Yann|Yann]] for having pointed that option out to me some years ago). Anyway - as per my original post, I see the current round of enforcement will result in removal of many valid images - not just mine. It will purge images of important protests on European and Middle-Eastern issues, and many of the January 6 images with visible banners. In the meantime, I'll need to explore other options for hosting my images. Thanks for the discussion. [[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] ([[User talk:Bald white guy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] one possible but potentially tedious option is to contact the artists themselves. I assume that the protesters who held the materials were the artists themselves, and if you have acquaintances with them you may try to ask them to have your images of their artistic paraphernalia released under the free culture CC licensing mandated by Wikimedia Commons. The email template for them to use as well as Wikimedia VRTS email address is at [[COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file]]. If the artists of the paraphernalia have no plans to gain royalties from commercial re-users reusing images of their works, then it is a green light for the licensing permission to proceed. Note that the permission should not be restricted to non-commercial or non-profit uses only. <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> 04:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-* Remember nothing actually gets deleted, just hidden from view to non-administrative editors. Should Commons display rules change to allow fair-use of protest signs, or Freedom of Panorama copyright laws change, those images will be restored. And in 95 years those images will enter the public domain and be visible. --[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|RAN]] ([[User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|<span class="signature-talk">talk</span>]]) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
-*:@[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] most protest art are temporary only and are not permanently-situated in public places. So unless the demonstrators decide to permanently showcase their artworks in an open-air museum (to fulfill outdoor requirements of around 60+ yes-FoP countries), FoP is not applicable. And note that there is no chance of Australian FoP extended to 2D flat arts. If some art societies there already oppose sculptural FoP in the Australian copyright law, what are the chances of 2D FoP being introduced there? 0%. <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> 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::: @[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] "these types of images are used by the media and others every day": absolutely. And we could '''legally''' publish them on Commons, under the U.S. fair use doctrine. For that matter, it would be perfectly legal for Commons to publish works that are available under an NC license, since we are ourselves non-commercial. However, Commons '''policy''' has been from the outset, and remains, that we are specifically a repository of material that, at least in terms of copyright, is available for commercial use and for derivative works. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 07:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+Thoughts? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
-:if more people know about cc licences...
+:Interesting question I have also seen images deleted as "Taken clearly without consent" [[User:Oxyman|Oxyman]] ([[User talk:Oxyman|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
-:if more people know about commons...
-:if these people will then add a caption underneath their poster art: "released under ccby/ccbysa 4 licence"... :) [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:These seem fairly high quality, non-promotional, and with possible illustrative uses (people laughing, hugging, etc.) and obviously you have plenty of legit contributions, so I'm not sure what the issue is? [[User:Gnomingstuff|Gnomingstuff]] ([[User talk:Gnomingstuff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+:At first sight, I would indeed nominate them for deletion because of "personal photos" and unknown/not notable people. But I am not an expert at all on portrait photography, street photography and art photography, if they fit the criteria for one of these genres, that might be reasons to keep them (but then the genre should be attached to the files as a category). And they might be a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, but then you'd better create a category for the six of them, in which these aspects are reflected in the category name and the parent categories. [[User:JopkeB|JopkeB]] ([[User talk:JopkeB|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
-::The idea that a major website would care in the slightest about copyright without an DMCA request is still unthinkable to most [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:: The categories would presumably be more like things about fashion in a particular time and place, more or less what we do with equivalent century-old photos, which we always consider to be in scope. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+= May 26 =
-Bald guy, having photos deleted is not at all a slight against nor an attack against. It's just simply an unfortunate side effect of Commons strict enforcement against copyright. My suggestion would be to upload your photos to Flickr as well as Commons. That way people can still access the ones that occasionally gets deleted.--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 00:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+== Upload Wizard, likely again... ==
-:yes that's also what i occasionally do. photos of things like packaging, non-fop-covered art... are uploaded to my flickr.
-:i dont care about my copyright (of my photos), but i dont have the copyright of the artworks i depicted. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:57, 28 April 2024 (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.
-:@[[User:Trade|Trade]] @[[User:JWilz12345|JWilz12345]]@[[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]]@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] @[[User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )|Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )]] @[[User:Prosfilaes|Prosfilaes]] @[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]
-:''Thanks for discussion. Look I'll just let those photos get deleted, and stop uploading. I'll find somewhere else more conducive.'' At the end of the day, I'm just a contributor, and just want to take photos and make them available to my community. I really don't want mess around with someone else's internal organisational politics and agendas. Everyone says I've gotta do ''this'', or I've gotta do ''that''. They say it's a copyright issue - but I feel that's BS, since it's a complete non-issue for everyone in the media, photo library business or legal professionals.
-:From my side, I see there's a simple remedy with '''Fair Use''' defined in our legal system - and it would be very simple for Commons to set up a tag for this type of image in exactly the same way as has been done already for Personality Rights. That tag would highlight that there might be a copyrighted graphic within the image that might impose some restrictions on usage. However, the powers that be within Commons have chosen to avoid that route. The only defence that I saw was a silly argument that someone (somewhere) might want the right to put my protest images onto a postcard! Seriously?! That's a very weak excuse. I'm not sure what postcard images they have in your part of the world - but here, in Queensland Australia, no rational person would ever put that on our postcards. Our tourists prefer their postcards with cuddly koalas, kangaroos, parrots, dolphins, the obligatory pretty landscape/cityscape, and pretty girls in bikinis on a white sand beach.
-:Thanks to those of you who've helped me through the years and who've made many great contributions of your own both in uploaded photos and your time. However, with this policy, it just isn't the place for me ... and I'm deeply saddened by the deletion of what I believe to be important images by the documentary photographers around the world whose work I've seen come up in those Pending Deletion pages. The way that its done is very disrespectful - maybe the elements in mine were kinda obvious, but the ones for [[:File:President Sisi - Go Killer. (22811218425).jpg|Abdel Fatah el-Sisi]] or [[:File:"Until our last breath" Woman, Life, Freedom - 52741975299.jpg|Women's rights campaigners in Iran]] were blanket deletion requests never specifically calling out which element was at fault within the image. I saw comments on others but never got to see the images as they'd already been removed. Anyway, I'll find another home for my images going forward. Thanks again. [[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] ([[User talk:Bald white guy|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-::I won't try to convince you to stay. You have a fundamental disagreement with one of the key principles of Commons that was introduced at its creation. We can't change the whole project to suit the demands of an individual.
-::The key reason for me in maintaining the ban on fair use is that Commons files are automatically copied into websites and databases all across the internet through Wikidata and Wikipedia clones. Those sites and databases place trust in Commons to keep its files free of copyright issues (and remove copyright violations as quickly as possible). Allowing fair use images will break that trust and will require a lot more effort than a single warning template to fix.
-::There was some talk a couple of years ago about setting up another Wikimedia project for fair use files, but I haven't read any updates about it in a long time. If it does ever launch, that may be a suitable place for you.
-::Failing that, there are plenty of image archives out there to store your files. It is a shame that we can't accept your fair use contributions but we can't be everything to all people. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-::@[[User:Bald white guy|Bald white guy]] "...it's a complete non-issue for everyone in the media, photo library business or legal professionals."
-::it's not bs. it's not non-issue. pretty sure you can find common law precedents (and quite likely australian ones) when artists sue for compensation for violation of copyright by photos depicting their artworks being distributed without their permission.
-::see https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Photography-&-Copyright-INFO011 . [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?
-* Likely this was said before in this lengthy thread, but here my take: I had a look at the 5 samples given initially. All but the last one (which isn't listed for deletion), they seem to be images of specific posters or banners rather than protests in general. As such, the question in their deletion requests is correct. If there happen to be posters in images showing people at protests, the question would have been different. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:25, 1 May 2024 (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)
-= April 28 =
+:{{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)
-== Users who request files to be renamed to another language, are convinced they are right ==
-What to do with this message, I get back: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:L%C3%A9ah_30]. This is not the only user who does this, but they think they are right. (an admin once said something like: "it is forbidden to change the language, the original uploader gave to the file") I'm tired of discussions like that, with users that are so convinced. What is the best thing to say at comments like that?? Thanks for your time! - [[User:Inertia6084|Inertia6084 (talk)]] ([[User talk:Inertia6084|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) PS My main language isn't English too, so
+::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:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]],
-I'm not going to translate text into French, I'm Dutch. That's not unfriendly, but if I write in my main language, other users would probably say "please use English". - [[User:Inertia6084|Inertia6084 (talk)]] ([[User talk:Inertia6084|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::* Why would you need other licenses for own works?
-: Ignore them. You're right, they're wrong, but no action is needed here. You could go mad concerning yourself every time someone is wrong on the Internet. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 00:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::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...
-::According to the user in question, the name of the files aren't even the title of the works [[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::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)
-:::The user somehow seems to mistaken Commons for Wikipedia. "Not the work title" or "given name of artist" are not listed on [[Commons:File renaming]], [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::Renaming images of artwork to include the author's name and their chosen title for the piece (or the most commonly used name for it), rather than something different like a translation of that title into another language or a description of its subject matter, seems like a straightforward case of rename criteria 4 (harmonization). Translations of artwork titles can be given in file descriptions; having multiple images of a single piece of artwork exist with different titles just makes things unnecessarily hard to find. [[User:Omphalographer|Omphalographer]] ([[User talk:Omphalographer|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+::::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)
+:::::* Things like {{tl|multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers.
-:::::"Harmonization" isn't for going through categories and renaming all files to your liking.
+:::::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.
-:::::Besides, they are actually removing the artist's full name. Removing catalog numbers isn't actually making things easier. Some works are in American museums and known by the English titles written under the works there.
+:::::* The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
-:::::In any case, we have descriptions and categories for that. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 05:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+:::::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)
-:::::: "Harmonization" is for things where they need to be uniform for a pattern relied on by a template, or where there is a clear sequence of files, or things like that. We do not normally "harmonize" file names just because they represent works by a single artist. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-Ok, thanks to all above. Most I already know, but how to say it, is difficult, but I just can ignore it, as have been said. Thanks to Hypergaruda, for the message on the talkpage of the 'requester'. - [[User:Inertia6084|Inertia6084 (talk)]] ([[User talk:Inertia6084|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:55, 28 April 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)
+:::::::::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]].
+: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)
+::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)
+Crumbs for @[[User:Sannita (WMF)]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
-:My comments weren't particularly for you, but rather in response to other replies. I'm aware of your extensive work in the field. Thanks for that again, btw! [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+== Privacy issues for faces and car license plates ==
-== Freedom of panorama for 2D picture taken in Australia of 3D object by Japanese artist ==
+''Privacy issues'' concerning modern day ''faces'' of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently ''above here on this page'', for faces of attendees at weddings.
-I have several works of pottery by Japanese living national treasure Kinjō Jirō and I would like to upload pictures of them to Commons.  Per [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan]], Japan does not have artistic FoP, so in Japan I could not do this.  However, the objects are physically located and would be photographed by me in [[Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Australia|Australia, which does]].  Does [[:Template:FoP-Australia]] apply? [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-* Japan does not enter into the matter. For FoP, it doesn't matter where the artist is from. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-: Assuming the works of pottery are works of artistic craftsmanship, the problem will be that {{tl|FoP-Australia}} will only apply if the pottery is permanently situated in a public place or in a premises open to the public. For example, you could take pictures and apply {{tl|FoP-Australia}} after you've donated the pottery to a museum open to the public and the pottery is on permanent display at the museum. —[[User:RP88|RP88]] ([[User talk:RP88|talk]]) 07:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
-::Per [https://humanrights.gov.au/our-work/disability-rights/frequently-asked-questions-access-premises], the Australian legal definition of "premises" is quite wide, so if I attach a statement saying I welcome the public to inspect the objects by appointment (and follow through when requested), this should fit the letter of the law? [[User:Jpatokal|Jpatokal]] ([[User talk:Jpatokal|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+I know that {{u|Mr.choppers}}, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.
-== Photos in png resulting in big filesize ==
+However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored ''fuzzed up replacement''. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
-i stumbled upon a user uploading new photos in png, so a typical photo takes up nearly 100 Mb (whereas jpg is normally less than 20).
+:Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+::I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide ''as in'' overwrite. [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). [[User:Bidgee|Bidgee]] ([[User talk:Bidgee|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, [[User:Mr.choppers|'''mr.choppers''']]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mr.choppers|talk]])[[:en:User:Mr.choppers|<span style="line-height: .1em;"><sup>-en-</sup></span>]] 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+::@[[User:Mr.choppers|Mr.choppers]] FoP is ''not'' relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. <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> 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{u|JWilz12345}} You're right, I should have referred to [[COM:CSCR]]. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. [[User:Mr.choppers|'''mr.choppers''']]&nbsp;([[User talk:Mr.choppers|talk]])[[:en:User:Mr.choppers|<span style="line-height: .1em;"><sup>-en-</sup></span>]] 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+:If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. [[User:Alexpl|Alexpl]] ([[User talk:Alexpl|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+:: {{color|green|"can force wikimedia to delete it."}} This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+== Add coordinates to images (bot task) ==
-what's the community's opinion about this? [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+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":
-:examples https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=filemime%3Apng+hastemplate%3Aown+filesize%3A110000
+* 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?
-:you can find more by lowering the filesize number. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+* 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?
-::In principle, it is perfectly fine. We welcome high resolution images in uncompressed/low compression formats link PNG and TIFF. For the purpose of archiving, the higher the quality the image we can obtain, the more future-proofed we will be as display technology improves. JPEG are good for making thumbnails but the compression can cause frequent artifacts after repeated editing. It is best to copy the original uncompressed file and edit that and then save as JPEG, which produces usable files with no artifacts. Whether I would have gone to the effort of making such high quality PNGs of plain packaging is another question. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
+* 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.
-:::I agree with [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]]. PNGs, TIFs (and lossless compressed WebP files) are very good for archiving purposes (and to edit from them). As interchange format (like embedding images or nominating for QIC/FPC), JPG is better. I used PNGs for the historical cellar of our town hall and TIFs for HDR images, to handle the brightness differences. --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-:I think it's ridiculous. I like my files to be 1 to 5 MB or so. I might use PNG for images that are fit for PNG such as maps. Even then they should be smaller than 10 MB for sure. But who knows, maybe I'll feel different after buying a 4k monitor? My monitor is 1680 × 1050 so it's really small. A PNG file sized my monitor size is 2,9 MB at the most. [[User:Konijnewolf|Konijnewolf]] ([[User talk:Konijnewolf|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+--[[User:Fl.schmitt|Fl.schmitt]] ([[User talk:Fl.schmitt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
-::Everyone has their preferences. I would not use PNG for "ordinary" pictures (landscapes, people, etc.), but for technology, i.e. [[:File:PC-Hardware HOF1969 RAW-Export 000165.png]], I could imagine the use lossless images. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::PNG is typically very useful for cartoons and so, that have large areas of same color. A photo of a processor has no large areas of same color. [[User:Konijnewolf|Konijnewolf]] ([[User talk:Konijnewolf|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::PNG offers fortunately adding transparency to the image ;) (as I did in recent computer hardware images often) --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:44, 2 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.
-I use to scan and upload images of postcards in Tiff format, but it just took to long and the upload would time out. So now I do it in JPEG. I thonk that's a good use for loseless images. Since there's details in the original postcard that can be distorted or lost otherwise. I'm not sure about the benefits of loseless images of packaging though. As there really isn't finer details that need to be preserved. Maybe with the actual CPUs, but I don't think so. But its not like there's a file size limit on here either. So to each their own. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+: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)
+== Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit ==
-:@[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]]: Please see [[COM:HR]] and [[Commons:Why we need high resolution media]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 23:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
-::As time passes by, so do the technical standards. Screens with 1680 × 1050 pixels are out of date for example now, 3840 × 2160 is a standard (I work with two 4K screens for example). I am categorizing the images of CPU, and it is a pity, that resolutions like "720 × 260" were used back then. Might be appropriate for 2005, but now, in 2024, it is far too low. There are so many reasons for and against filetypes, it only depends on the manner of use. For archives, high-quality images are preferred (usually lossless compressed), for use and reuse JPG fits probably best. On the other hand, we have limitations and additions on different filetypes. JPGs compresses lossy, only allows 8 bit per channel, has now transparency, and cannot safe different color spaces (AFAIK), TIF is suitable for HDR images, etc. And I can say out of my experience, 100 MB per image is not necessarily much in 2024. Even JPEGs can reach 60 or even 70 MB with a high-resolution camera --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::I created pages with arguments for and against high-resolution/high-quality images in German: [[:User:PantheraLeo1359531/Argumente für große Bilder]], [[:User:PantheraLeo1359531/Argumente für kleine Bilder]] --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rear_deck_of_MV_John_H_(ferry)_0_(9360694885).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=879388942 : not sure what is going on here, is this a correct edit or should it be reverted? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
-= April 29 =
+:Revert. And looking at [[Special:Contributions/178.78.252.98|other edits by the same IP]], it looks like there's vandalism. The IP was already [[User talk:178.78.252.98|warned twice]] too, but it continues.  -- [[User:Asclepias|Asclepias]] ([[User talk:Asclepias|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
+= May 27 =
-== "Ruditapes philippinarum" ==
+== Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia ==
-Likely a simple one for those familiar with wikicommons process, but i hit a roadblock on my desire to move (plus further curate) the wikicommons for this creature (a clam) linked under this name [[:Category:Venerupis philippinarum]].
+I'm adding a bunch of photos to [[:Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol]]. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a [[:Category:Traditional music of Catalonia]] or [[:Category:Folk music of Catalonia]], which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
-I'd like that moved under [[:Category:Ruditapes philippinarum]], but that exists as redirect back to the other - saying "For  WoRMS, Ruditapes philippinarum is a synonym of Venerupis philippinarum".
+: Lacking any response, I'll create [[:Category:Traditional music of Catalonia]]. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+== Strange PDF-Preview behaviour ==
-Of course, the source doesn't say that - but rather the opposite, i.e.  ''Venerupis philippinarum'' -> ''Ruditapes philippinarum'' as i want to implement. See:
-https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=231750
-reflecting this database
-https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=231750
+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.
-Help welcome to get content as ''Venerupis philippinarum'' -> ''Ruditapes philippinarum''
+does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, [[User:Mfchris84|Mfchris84]] ([[User talk:Mfchris84|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+:I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{tl|Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance [[:File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf]] and [[:File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf]]. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. [[User:Animalparty|&#45;-Animalparty]] ([[User talk:Animalparty|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
+::@[[User:Animalparty|Animalparty]]: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see [[:mw:How to report a bug]]. &nbsp; — 🇺🇦<span style="font-size:115%;background:#FFA">[[User:Jeff G.|Jeff G.]]</span> ツ<small> please [[Template:Ping|ping]] or [[User:Jeff G./talk|talk to me]]</small>🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+== Why does the popup for file renaming refer to [[:Commons:File naming]]? ==
-I'd guess maybe a request to delete the existing ''Ruditapes philippinarum'' then a move, but i'm unfamiliar with the best practice on here in such cases! Thx. [[User:Sjl197|Sjl197]] ([[User talk:Sjl197|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 02:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-:{{ping|Sjl197}} Done, though as of this moment I still have some content to move. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-::{{Reply to|Jmabel}} Awesome thanks. Made some tweeks now to the names in a few links, looks mostly sorted now except for issues with some titles/headers of photos (some renames requested). The contents of the subcats mostly look ok - some poorly named but maybe i missed something [[User:Sjl197|Sjl197]] ([[User talk:Sjl197|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
-: Everything now moved. Please do look at the subcats of [[:Category:Venerupis philippinarum]] and see if there are descriptions there that needs to change, I believe there are. This is normal editing that you can do yourself. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 15:05, 29 April 2024 (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)
-= April 30 =
+: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)
-== Crowding of categories by date ==
+:: 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)
+= May 28 =
-Hi to all, I would like to apologize if I write inaccuracies using the English language, a language I know well enough but not enough to use in a fluent discussion, so I am getting help from a good online translator. I think everyone is aware of the problem of overcrowding of any category in Commons, overcrowding that complicates the choice of an image that is useful, I recall, both to Wikimedia projects but also, thanks to the choice of license, to any sphere even commercial and usable with some ease even to those who are not familiar with Wikimedian dynamics. If this is well understood in a mother category, such as [[:Category:United States]] or [[:Category:Mountains]] or [[:Category:Churches]] or [[:Category:Women]] etc, in a category by date it is perhaps less felt, since very often those who upload multimedia content do not also categorize by the date of the photographic shot. I don't know how many people like me spend a lot of time in working these specific categories, I find them very useful because they fix a particular moment in time, so you can see the evolution of an image such as, for example, the maintenance and change of painting of a building, as in the more or less philological restoration of a church, or of the deterioration of a mural that, of course, being exposed to the weather becomes discolored until it disappears. It has also been useful to me on several occasions in identifying the location and/or subject of the shot when the information provided was minimal, making a joint search between the photographer and the dates of the shot. In conclusion, I find it very difficult to tackle the job of emptying the parent categories by date as it is often not possible to use the cat-a-lot toll as templates such as {{tl|Taken on}} or {{tl|According to Exif data}} do not allow it, forcing me to edit every single file with a huge investment in time. I am therefore asking for help to make this work easier for me, and I have a proposal if someone creates a bot for this purpose, even if only by doing a test run to see if everything works smoothly. Since human intervention might be necessary, it would be sufficient to create a temporary over-categorisation, so that they coexist, for example, [[:Category:Photographs taken on 2024-04-30]] (mother) and [[:Category:Italy photographs taken on 2024-04-30]] (son), and where the bot, recognising this situation would enter |cat=|location=Italy}} at the end of {{tl|Taken on}}, {{tl|According to Exif data}} and similar, by also removing the mother category. I invite you to scroll through the categories by date to make you aware that some are full of hundreds and hundreds of images which, if catalogued IMO more accurately, could improve their visibility and traceability. One of the problems is the large number of institutional images uploaded, reports of meetings of political personalities representing other countries or at international meetings, such as at the European Parliament, images that clog up these categories by the date taken. Sorry for the length of my intervention, thanks for reading.--[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-:PS: I would like you to go and see [[Special:Contributions/Threecharlie|my contributions]] to better understand what I am talking about, I think it is illustrative of the work I do.--[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-::{{ping|Threecharlie}} given your link here I looked at some of what you are doing, and the first three files I looked at raised questions for me, so let me come back to you with some questions:
-::* [[:File:Secretary Blinken Arrives in Amman - 53689658570.jpg]]: what is the point of putting this in a [[:Category:2024 at Queen Alia International Airport]] if you are not then going to create the category?
-::* [[:File:Entrada de escuela primaria el día de las infancias.jpg]], [[:File:Hervás 3.jpg]]: for both of these, in the {{tl|According to Exif data}} you added, there is a "cat=" with no value. What is that about?
-::You are correct that when things are catalogued through templates, Cat-a-lot is not the right tool. Are you familiar with [[Help:VisualFileChange.js|VFC]]? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-:::* For the subcategory of Queen Alia International Airport I have sorted it out now, unfortunately sleep comes every now and then and I am forced to stop working on Commons.
-:::* cat= I always add it because, even if in a very small percentage of cases, I have seen it exploited, and by reporting it as indicated by the template, I think I am urging those who find it in front of them to deepen their use of it and, if necessary, supplement it; if it doesn't cause trouble, it is better to propose one more alternative than one less, or they wouldn't have created the template that way (but if somewhere it is indicated as deprecated, I will comply and remove it)
-:::* No, I am not familiar with VFC and now that you have pointed it out to me I study it and see if I can understand how it works, forgive me but at almost 61 years of age and although I have been on the web for at least 25 I have no computer training and have to apply myself a bit more than a millenial.
-:::A note Jmabel, I know it makes more noise a tree falling than a forest growing but I think it deserves more attention what I do rather than what I DON'T do, don't you think? ;-) [[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-::::{{ping|Threecharlie}} FWIW, since you bring it up, I'm almost a decade older than you.
-::::You said to look through your contributions and it would be clear what you were doing; I picked the latest three that were at the file level and looked. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::::{{ping|Jmabel}}, I wanted to thank you for your suggestion to use VSC, with which I was able to achieve what I set out to do. I'm sorry it's not so intuitive to know these tools, if I had been aware of them of course I wouldn't have come to 'torment' you at the Village pump, but I guess the way Commons is structured it's not easy to create a 'for dummies' section (I'm going to die a newbiee). I'm afraid I'll be using this new little toy a lot. ;-) --[[User:Threecharlie|Threecharlie]] ([[User talk:Threecharlie|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 04:15, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+== [[:Category:Film characters by actors]] ==
-== Mirrored image ==
+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.
-[[:File:North city wall (with piles of oranges) (Jerusalem) LOC matpc.00473.jpg]] seems to be left-right mirrored. It is possible to fix? [[Special:Contributions/93.47.36.56|93.47.36.56]] 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
-:The text added later is definitely mirrored but is there evidence to say the scene itself is mirrored? One possibility is that the Library of Congress fixed an earlier error and the scene is now the right way round. [[User:From Hill To Shore|From Hill To Shore]] ([[User talk:From Hill To Shore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
+I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
-::[[:File:Siur wikipedia in Jerusalem 080608 53.JPG]] confirms that the orientation is indeed correct, even though the text number is mirrored. - [[User:Broichmore|Broichmore]] ([[User talk:Broichmore|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:11, 2 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)
+== Categories for photos by photographers ==
-= May 01 =
-==Commons Gazette 2024-05==
-* Currently, there are [{{canonicalurl:Special:ListUsers/sysop|limit=500}} 185 sysops].
-* [[User:CGoubert-WMF]] & [[User:HNowlan (WMF)]] made improvements to the stability of large uploads ([[phab:T358308|T358308]]).
-----
-Edited by [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) and [[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>
+It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).
---[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
+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)
-== SVG and thumbnails not updated ==
-Your kind attention (and hopefully effective assistance) [[File_talk:Algol%26Fortran_Family_By_Skippppp.svg#SVG_and_thumbnails_not_updated|might be welcome here]]. Thanks in advance. —[[User:ReadOnlyAccount|ReadOnlyAccount]] ([[User talk:ReadOnlyAccount|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:42, 1 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? [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
-= May 02 =
+::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 =
-== PD-USGov-POTUS Flickr account uploading photos under a non-commercial license ==
+== Categorization issue ==
-How do we go on about this? flickr2commons won't work for obvious reasons--[[User:Trade|Trade]] ([[User talk:Trade|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 03:11, 2 May 2024 (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)
-== People of / People in ==
-Hi, While most categories are "People of ...", couples are [[:Category:Couples by country|Couples in ...]]. Any reason? [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:55, 2 May 2024 (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]] ==
-:there's also [[:Category:People by country of location]].
+{{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)}}
-:origin vs location. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:23, 2 May 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."
-: Each can make sense. Certainly almost no category about a person could be a subcat of a "people in" category, because people move. Conversely, sometimes all we know is where someone was photographed, with no idea where they may have been from (or knowing full well they were from someowhere else). - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:53, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+Pinging previously involved editors: {{ping|Fry1989|KylieTastic|Paine Ellsworth|billinghurst|p=}}. —'''Matrix(!)''' <nowiki>{</nowiki>''[[User:Matrix|user]] - [[User talk:Matrix|talk?]] - [[Special:Contribs/Matrix|<sub><small><s>useless</s></small></sub>contributions]]''<nowiki>}</nowiki> 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
-== Question about Wiki Loves Earth 2024 ==
+:{{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)
-[[COM:WLE2024]] This page has a list of participating countries, and my country is not among them. Participating countries each have their own prize pools and judges. Are these separate from the event-wide judging process, and if so, can people from countries that aren't participating still take part in the contest and be eligible for the judging process? --[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-: Probably better to ask at [[:Commons talk:Wiki Loves Earth 2024]]. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+:{{s}} Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Leaning toward {{s|support}} pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has [[File talk:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg#Discussion about rename|changed since January]]? '''''[[User:Paine Ellsworth|<span style="font-size:92%;color:darkblue;font-family:Segoe Script">P.&nbsp;I.&nbsp;Ellsworth</span>]]''''',&nbsp;[[Editor|<span style="color:black">ed.</span>]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Paine Ellsworth|<sup>put'r&nbsp;there</sup>]]&nbsp;<small>14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)</small>
+:{{s}} as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. [[User:KylieTastic|KylieTastic]] ([[User talk:KylieTastic|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
+{{abottom}}
+== Enabling MP4 ==
+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)
+: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)
+::{{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 ===
+Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+:Yes, several people reported this: [[phab:T365154]]. And it is in this state since May 15th. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+= May 31 =
+== Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia ==
+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.
+* [[Commons:Media knowledge beyond Wikipedia#Signatures|Essay on Wikimedia Commons]]
+* [[meta:Talk:Wikimedia_Foundation_Annual_Plan/2024-2025#Resourcing_Wikimedia_Commons_beyond_Wikipedia|Feedback on WMF annual plan (talk page)]]
+More context on the essay's [[Commons:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia#Why_this_page|page]] and [[Commons_talk:Media_knowledge_beyond_Wikipedia|talk page]].
+Best, [[User:Spinster|Spinster]] ([[User talk:Spinster|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
+== Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed ==
+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)
+:{{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)
+::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)
+::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. ==
+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? {{#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 ==
+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)
+:The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser].  Please inform yourself better at [[m:Checkuser policy]]. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::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.
+:the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::{{ping|RZuo}} That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward]  &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".
+:::i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year [[Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100]]. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::actually 2. i cant trace [[User:Mardetanha]]'s ban to anything.
+::::i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::The [[User:Benoît Prieur]] case is public ([[:fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite]]). [[User:GPSLeo|GPSLeo]] ([[User talk:GPSLeo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::* {{ping|TheDJ}} I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::*:"we dont even know who's behind that shared account." —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::::Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::::::The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. [[User:Bawolff|Bawolff]] ([[User talk:Bawolff|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+{{ping|RZuo}}  The statement on user accounts says that if you have queries about the ban, then email. So, if you have questions then email. The email will be somewhat generic. They are banned typically for breaking the rules, though you cannot expect staff to go into the specific details of how a person broke the terms of use, nor how they found out they broke the rules. Not only does privacy have to be maintained, once you start making statements about people, they also have the right of reply, was when banned is contrary.<p>The membership of WMF office is not secret, in fact it is listed at [[m:Meta:WMF Trust and Safety]] and [[FoundationSite:role/staff-contractors]]. No they are not elected, they are appointed as paid staff members/contractors as staff members/contractors are appointed around the world. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 09:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+:What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::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)
+== 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)
+:The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix? &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:: It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::{{Ping|billinghurst|Jmabel}} The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at [[:Category:Commons protected edit requests]], and [[User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood]] is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --[[User:Jarekt|Jarekt]] ([[User talk:Jarekt|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::::{{ping|Jarekt}} I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [{{ping|Jmabel}} hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+:::::Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.
+:::::Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+{{ping|billinghurst}} But, for example, there are cases like [[User:Fæ]]. He's presumably alive (hi, Fæ, if you are reading this), he never formally left the project, he is certainly not blocked, he simply has chosen not to contribute lately. He's at least a contender for the most prolific uploader in the history of Commons, so inevitably some issues will come up about some of his uploads. His user talk page is the logical place for a bot to notify about those issues, so I monitor it. I would hope someone will do the same for my talk page after my departure, whenever that may be and for whatever reason. I can't really think of a way around that, unless we were to either (1) give up on having a place to notify in those circumstances or (2) add a special case for every closed/abandoned/inactive account and have a way for ''all'' bots that do notifications that indicate issues with files, categories, etc. to be able to handle that special case. That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+:{{ping|Jmabel}} If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. {{ping|Enhancing999}} I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection. &#160;— [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:90%;">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+::{{ping|billinghurst}} so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
+= June 01 =
+== Stuck in category redirects ==
+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. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (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)
+: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==
+=== Volunteer staff changes ===
+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]].
+===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>
+--[[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
-== Feedback period about WMF Annual Plan for 2024-25 is open! ==
+= June 02 =
-Hello everyone! The work of the Wikimedia Foundation is guided by its Annual Plan. We’ve now published the [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025|full draft Annual Plan on Meta]]. Please share your feedback and ideas!
+== Help with cropping borders from images ==
-This is really one of the best chances to influence how the Wikimedia Foundation works and what it chooses to focus on and prioritise, as the Annual Plan is the main guiding document for planning what to do. This is a high-level document, as it aims to find the key points for the entire organisation – this is to find the main direction, which will help the teams at the Wikimedia Foundation to find more tangible objectives.
+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)
-These are the main goals:
-* '''INFRASTRUCTURE''': [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction|Advance Knowledge as a Service]]. [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Improve User Experience|Improve User Experience]] on the wikis, especially for established editors. Strengthen metrics and reporting.
-* '''EQUITY''': [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Strategy/Wikimedia movement/2017/Direction|Support Knowledge Equity]]. [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Ensure Equity in Decision-making|Strengthen equity in decision-making]] via movement governance, equitable resource distribution, closing knowledge gaps, and connecting the movement.
-* '''SAFETY & INTEGRITY''': Protect our people and projects. Strengthen the systems that [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Provide for Safety and Inclusion|provide safety for volunteers]]. Defend the integrity of our projects. Advance the environment for free knowledge.
-* '''EFFECTIVENESS''': Strengthen the Foundation's overall performance and effectiveness. [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Movement Strategy/Recommendations/Evaluate, Iterate, and_Adapt|Evaluate, iterate and adapt]] our processes for maximum impact with more limited resources.
+:23,317 images now 🙂 [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
-You can read more about what this means in practice [[:m:Special:MyLanguage/Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025#2024-25 Goal Summary|on Meta]], where you can find both summaries of what the Wikimedia Foundation wants to achieve and links to more detailed pages.
+: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)
+: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)
+== Aligning images with strong sources ==
-You’re very welcome to share your thoughts [[:m:Talk:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025|on Meta]] or here, in your own language, and we’ll make sure they are passed on to the relevant parts of the Wikimedia Foundation and that your questions are answered. We can also set up meetings in your own language to further discuss the implication of the Annual Plan, if needed.
+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.
-Thank you very much for your participation! [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 10:23, 2 May 2024 (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?
-:How is Commons in there? In terms of people, infrastructure cost, enterprise services cost/income, development expenses?
-:I noticed it mentions improvements of UploadWizard as 2023 achievement. [[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] ([[User talk:Enhancing999|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 11:01, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-::I wonder how the Upload Wizard was improved if [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T358982 we can't even upload a new version of an image that is larger than 100Mb]. Also a complex process where we cannot enter the details of the files but have to wait for them to be uploaded (even if this means [https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T355613 waiting hours until midnight) to then enter the details of title, description, etc]. In Internet archive you can upload large amounts of files without problems, why do we have an upload wizard that does not accept large files? [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 12:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:Enhancing999|Enhancing999]] while it's not explicit in the text, some support for Wikimedia Commons is planned as part of [[:m:Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan/2024-2025/Product & Technology OKRs#WE2.3|Objective & Key Result WE2.3]]. The implication of this are still being defined by the people who will be in charge of this objective, so I can't go into detail, but there will be some support and development work going around Commons also for next fiscal year (i.e. from July 1, 2024 to June 30, 2025).
-:::@[[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] Thanks for pointing this out. I'll take note of these two tickets, and see if I can get some answers about them. I do share your feeling that these problems should be fixed, I'll try to give you a response ASAP. [[User:Sannita (WMF)|Sannita (WMF)]] ([[User talk:Sannita (WMF)|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::{{ping|Wilfredor}} you might want to look at [[Commons:WMF support for Commons/Upload Wizard Improvements]] and its talk page. And, FWIW, while Sannita and I have had our disagreements about specifics, he is much more responsive and available than his predecessors, and you really should feel free to engage him, probably on the talk page there, which I think is the main place discussion has been taking place. - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 14:59, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::According to your recommendation I have created a section here although I think this will be more hidden: [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:WMF_support_for_Commons/Upload_Wizard_Improvements#Enhancing_Wikimedia_Commons'_Upload_Wizard_for_Large_File_Handling_and_details] [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 16:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::@[[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] You should try the big files again btw. Some major bugs were found and fixed by various ppl in the last weeks. See also the gazette note here one day ago. —[[User:TheDJ|Th<span style="color: green">e</span>DJ]] ([[User talk:TheDJ|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/TheDJ|contribs]]) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::No, it not was fixed [[User:Wilfredor|Wilfredor]] ([[User talk:Wilfredor|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 18:38, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+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)
-== AI generated images of Shinto deities ==
+: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 noticed that it seems the majority of Shinto deities have no images available here. Some of these deities are relatively important so I feel they should have images to give people some idea about them. Would it be acceptable to upload ai generated images for this purpose or would that violate rules of commons? [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 16:26, 2 May 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. [[User:Mikola22|Mikola22]] ([[User talk:Mikola22|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
-: {{ping|Immanuelle}} I would expect that for any Shinto deities where there is a traditional visual representation, it should be easy to find images old enough to be in the public domain and use those. What is the difficulty in doing so? If there is no traditional representation, what would be the basis to consider these AI images culturally valid? - [[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] ! [[User talk:Jmabel|talk]] 18:43, 2 May 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.
-::@[[User:Jmabel|Jmabel]] you make a very good point. I am unsure what the reason behind the lack of visual representations here is, but they are very hard to come across. Shinto is not traditionally ancionistic, but for many deities, even seemingly relatively prominent ones it seems the majority of visual representations are from Gacha games or Shin Megami Tensei. It is quite confusing. Maybe people just are not searching for and uploading enough paintings. [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 18:50, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+::: [[: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.
-:::@[[User:Immanuelle|Immanuelle]]: do you have specific deities in mind as an example? --[[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] ([[User talk:HyperGaruda|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:22, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+::: 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)
-::::@[[User:HyperGaruda|HyperGaruda]] Ame no Hoakari is the one I was thinking of. He comes up a lot when talking about the Tenson Korin, but I cannot find any images at all. [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 19:26, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:::If you could provide a list of these deities (or point us to a place where we can find which ones you mean) we can help look for visual representations in the public domain and upload those directly. I'm personally really not a fan of using AI if alternatives exist, but I don't know how other editors feel. [[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] ([[User talk:ReneeWrites|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 19:25, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-::::@[[User:ReneeWrites|ReneeWrites]] I will get back to you with a list. Thank you for your help! [[User:Immanuelle|'''Immanuel'''le]] ❤️💚💙 [[User_talk:Immanuelle|(please tag me)]] 19:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:I cannot imagine AI-generated images being appropriate illustrations for these subjects. They fall into the same category as user-created artworks, which are generally considered out-of-scope except for edge cases (flags and heraldry) where a standardized and detailed starting description is available. That does not appear to be the case here. AI-generated images have additional concerns which have been discussed at length on Commons. [[User:Pi.1415926535|Pi.1415926535]] ([[User talk:Pi.1415926535|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:02, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
-:It's probably a shot in the dark, but you might ask someone from Japan on here to take pictures of the statues of these people. I know they exist, but apparently are hard to find images of for some reason. Especially ones that are freely licensed. Maybe it could be turned into a Wiki Loves Monuments project or something though. --[[User:Adamant1|Adamant1]] ([[User talk:Adamant1|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 20:51, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
+== Guitars, bass guitars, and [[COM:OVERCAT]] ==
-= May 03 =
+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.
-== Steamboat Willie – Frame by frame ==
+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)
-Hi!
+: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)
-As the film "Steamboat Willie" is in the public domain now, would it make sense to upload the frames as single frames here? The Internet Archive offers a lossless movie file (https://archive.org/download/steamboat-willie-16mm-film-scan-4k-lossless/) from where it would be possible to extract all single frames.
+::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)
+== Category inclusion bug ==
-Greetings --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 06:09, 3 May 2024 (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)
-:how many frames in total?
+: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)
-:why not the movie directly? [[User:RZuo|RZuo]] ([[User talk:RZuo|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:28, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
-::The file is as an MOV file with a filesize of approx. 32 GiB. It should be ca. 10000 frames in total --[[User:PantheraLeo1359531|PantheraLeo1359531 😺]] ([[User talk:PantheraLeo1359531|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
+= June 03 =
-:Some specific frames, yes. All the frames separately? I don't see the point. But the whole movie, yes. [[User:Yann|Yann]] ([[User talk:Yann|<span class="signature-talk">{{int:Talkpagelinktext}}</span>]]) 07:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Commons:Village pump: Difference between revisions