Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/09.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   
 

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Redundancy 'Wikidata Infobox' and 'Object location' in category descriptions 16 5 Tuvalkin 2023-09-08 13:52
2 Fæ's talk page 28 17 Yann 2023-09-11 18:47
3 Best way to have images reviewed(?) and permission made clearer 9 3 Crowsus 2023-09-06 19:30
4 Commons and the upcoming Wikimedia Summit 3 3 Tuvalkin 2023-09-06 01:37
5 Cropping 14 8 Tuvalkin 2023-09-06 01:34
6 Barriers to Cross-Platform Collaboration - Wikipedia / Commons 5 5 Jim.henderson 2023-09-07 23:51
7 Odd thumb/display problem 6 3 Jeff G. 2023-09-08 07:25
8 Cats for lit lamps 9 5 Jeff G. 2023-09-08 07:29
9 Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration 16 6 Jmabel 2023-09-10 17:40
10 Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine 4 3 Pigsonthewing 2023-09-06 13:39
11 Different pictures, one file 13 8 Tuvalkin 2023-09-06 01:25
12 Guidelines for naming visual arts works 14 5 Omphalographer 2023-09-05 23:02
13 Degrading of a postcard by a blocked? user. 8 3 Broichmore 2023-09-08 08:50
14 Elon Musk family tree removed 5 4 Jeff G. 2023-09-08 06:57
15 Multiple better quality duplicates nominated for deletion by bot. 16 6 Enhancing999 2023-09-08 11:38
16 Iranian copyright law 3 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2023-09-05 17:47
17 File names 10 7 Jmabel 2023-09-11 19:14
18 Train-the-trainer course: OpenRefine-Wikimedia 4 4 RZuo 2023-09-10 17:16
19 New guy here - updating an SVG diagram image and I'd like to contribute it to the commons. 1 1 Jmabel 2023-09-06 19:35
20 COM:ADT 1 1 Kadı 2023-09-06 16:54
21 Gallery intro refs 4 2 Jmabel 2023-09-07 17:47
22 Malformed deletion nominations 3 2 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2023-09-06 21:23
23 Search for files not in category 4 3 Asclepias 2023-09-07 11:02
24 I guess I posted a copyright violation perhaps 5 3 Koavf 2023-09-08 06:14
25 Commons anniversary 3 3 PantheraLeo1359531 2023-09-10 19:44
26 File:Chess edt45.svg again 3 3 Double sharp 2023-09-08 08:12
27 File names in series 11 7 RZuo 2023-09-10 17:16
28 Check location 2 1 Smiley.toerist 2023-09-10 11:08
29 Fix Licensing tutorial en.svg 1 1 RZuo 2023-09-10 17:16
30 identification request 6 4 GeorgHH 2023-09-11 13:55
31 Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found) 6 3 Cl3phact0 2023-09-11 12:39
32 Help in cropping the image 2 2 Broichmore 2023-09-11 12:05
33 Largest file? 3 2 Yann 2023-09-11 21:07
34 Are we sure podcasts are in scope? 2 2 Jmabel 2023-09-11 21:44
35 Copyright question regarding set of images 6 2 Jmabel 2023-09-12 00:08
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.
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

August 24[edit]

Redundancy 'Wikidata Infobox' and 'Object location' in category descriptions[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hi, there is a general redundancy in many categories having two coordinates, one from WD via {{Wikidata Infobox}} and the other via local {{Object location}} (~175.000 matches). Besides redundancy there is sometimes a layout problem with {{Object location}} below {{Wikidata Infobox}} (e.g. Category:56 Wiśniowa Street in Warsaw, ~1500 matches).

In many cases coordinates in {{Object location}} are

Bots are cleaning up stuff shown in the {{Wikidata Infobox}} elsewhere in the category description, but not for {{Object location}}. I'm consolidating redundant coordinates and removing {{Object location}} manually when I stumble accross. But in general it would make sense to

  • remove {{Object location}} per bot in the two cases above (where nearness of coordinates due to rounding should be used instead of identity)
  • and afterwards consolidate coordinates wherever necessary. Let's see what is left after first step. Coordinates should be corrected on WD and {{Object location}} should be removed from the category description.

--Herzi Pinki (talk) 05:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In principle, that's reasonable. The problem is that I think there are more eyes watching Commons for vandalism than watching Wikidata, so at this time getting rid of explicit coords in Commons probably makes us more vulnerable to vandals. But we've already accepted that risk for birth & death dates, so I guess we've crossed the bridge. - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Support. I have often wondered about this situation, but rarely dared to remove {{Object location}} due to a lack of relevant guidelines/precedence. Personally, I think coordinates attract less vandalism than other data on Wikidata, so I am not too concerned. --HyperGaruda (talk) 23:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HyperGaruda: but, like changing a date, it is very insidious vandalism when it happens, because it is so hard to tell a legitimate correction from vandalism. - 02:24, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
At least changes in coordinates are fairly easy to doublecheck with map services like OpenStreetMap or GoogleMaps. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:49, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HyperGaruda: Only if there are landmarks to go by. If we have (for example) an old picture of someone hiking in a forest, and someone changes the coords, it is very hard to tell a correction from vandalism. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Would the categories in question not almost always be for landmark-type features? At least I have a hard time coming up with other categories that need coordinates and I don't think Cat:Hiking in forests will be one of them. How would you tell the difference in the current Commons-based situation anyway? --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:15, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@HyperGaruda: You are right, I am wrong. I was thinking of an issue that has arisen for photos (moving coords into the SDC), not categories. (There might be the occasional category for an event that has a particular location, but that's an edge case.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:50, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, now I understand where you were coming from. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:18, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
if vandalism is the concern, and hinders us removing / consolidating duplicate and eventually contradicting coordinates, we are done. I do it manually anyway. Wasn't there a feature planned to protect some properties by special rights? I check the compactness of coordinates on WD from time to time using something like this query. BTW, if there is an infobox with a map, I do not have a look at other coordinates (unless I'm there for checking purposes).
Some bots do copy coordinates from the descriptions to SD and nobody seems to care for the messages when the redundant information is not in sync any more. I suppose, we have a much bigger problem with wrong coordinates than with vandalism on coordinates. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Oppose: Ever since Wikidata and SCD were inflicted on us, I have solved countless «discrepancies» between the geolocation data in a file’s {{Object location}} or {{Camera location}} or a cat’s {{Object location}} and the geolocation data transcluded thereon from Wikidata via {{Wikidata Infobox}}. In all those cases, the latter was wrong — that maybe due to Wikidata’s porosity to spammers and vandals, to its smaller community, to its own workflow… I don’t know and I don’t care: What I care about is accurate geolocation data in Commons’ file and cat pages, and that can be achieved by {{Object location}} and/or {{Camera location}}. Should a discrepancy occurr, it should be manually fixed by human users who actually know the subject, and Wikidata is very welcome to syphon off that sanitized info back to its GIGO machine (as it did and does with with so much of Commons’ content), to be therat eventually mangled and confused again at which time rinse and repeat. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you synchronize back to WD discrepancies you have found, @Tuvalkin: ? Or don't you care for the discrepancy and fix only the commons location? (Until someone comes around and fixes it the other way round).
If the commons coordinates are much more reliable than the WD coordinates, and we can agree on that, we could as well remove the coordinates from the Wikidata Infobox instead for the purpose to solve the redundancy. My process is to fix the coordinates on WD and than remove the {{Object location}} here on commons. I admit, I do not care for the location copied to SDC. Your point Tuválkin is about data quality and not about vandalism (if we assume good will for all those automatized copy-pasters). {{Camera location}}, btw, is something completely different and not in the scope of my proposal. --Herzi Pinki (talk) 09:24, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do attempt to synchronize every time I notice one of those distance/discrepancy notices in a file or cat. When Wikidata and global login are working properly (so, about 90% of the time), I successfully enact that synchronization. There might have been cases when that correction was later undone on the WD side, but right now I cannot track any example.
While I’m no friend of Wikidata, even I can see how having that discrepancy warning can be beneficial to both projects. Is it confusing for the casual browser? Maybe, but Commons is a wiki, we don’t hide the wrinkles: «Hey look, right now two repositories curate this item’s geolocation with different values, it will be fixed.» The casual browser should become used to this kind of things.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
ok. thanks. My primary proposal was to remove {{Object location}} when the location is identical or nearby to the WD location (or even just taken from WD by using parameter wikidata=). In this case either both are correct of both are wrong, but wrong location will not jump into your eyes. Then as a second step to manually consolidate divergent locations. There is no sense in keeping them just to make readers 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get used to this kind of discrepancy. I think, this does not in any way contradict your intentions. best --Herzi Pinki (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you remove {{Object location}} from a page, trusting Wikidata will keep the data carefully curated by human users, experience says it will not work. Keeping both sets of values causes no harm when they agree and is a useful warning to curators when they don’t.
Even in the odd case that vandalism or honest mistake currupts the data on Commons’ side (it can happen), having its previous value in Wikidata as a sort of backup would simplify a later correction.
I cannot see any advantage in the proposed removal and I ask for this section to be closed: This deceased equine is pinning for the fjords.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's not really redundant as the template provides a link to view coordinates.
Another advantage of {{Object location}} there is that it's prefilled for use on images.
Obviously, both points could be addressed differently. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, and also, it interacts with {{Geogroup}}. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 25[edit]

Fæ's talk page[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

This got much too far beyond its initial purpose. Let's not resurrect old disputes. If the shit hits the fan, everybody looses. Yann (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

User:Fæ is long departed, and User talk:Fæ is breaking under the number of template transclusions. Can anyone see why a bot is not archiving it, as is supposed to happen? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's getting bot-archived just fine – last archive was a few hours ago, at 07:55, 25 August 2023‎ by User:ArchiverBot. The oldest thread there is only five days old. The problem is that ~ 270 different deletion notices have been served in the past week or two. Jdforrester (WMF) (talk) 19:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait what happened to him Trade (talk) 23:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Trade: After the Nth time that they (Fæ's preferred pronoun, though I'm sure I've also slipped and used "he" at times) were a tar澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get of what they, at least, perceived as homophobic remarks, they quit. Some of the remarks were definitely exactly that. Oddly, the one that put them over the edge was something I think they misconstrued, but I can see how they read it that way in the context of what had gone before. - Jmabel ! talk 02:11, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's really horrible! :( -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 23:41, 26 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too bad User:Fæ/Civility, Commons:Civility, Commons:Harassment, and Commons:No personal attacks never went anywhere. Nosferattus (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, all that went somewhere. It was used to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get rid of other “undesirables”, such as AlexisJazz (blocked at 1st strike over a transparently bogus accusation), while it was pointedly not used in order to keep around someone’s darlings like INeverCry (finally blocked after their 3rd serious meltdown). Fæ had almost always managed to present a formidably thick skin against all those slings and arrows, but it eventually become too much. It’s a huge loss for Commons, but we know that both the WMF and even some of our admins have the goal of seeing the end of this project, or at least its transformation into something most of us would not want to be a part of. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be exact, Fæ left the project so abruptly that at the time a batch of them was running, which was then cancelled. Fæ takes the view that the reasons for them departure are open for all to see, if only they wanted to see it. There has been doxxing and death threats and no active help or solidarity. Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 22:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@C.Suthorn, you wrote, "Fæ would perhaps return if these problems were acknowledged and addressed by the community."
Toward that purpose, in what form could action(s) be taken at this time? -- Ooligan (talk) 10:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For a start, the person who doxxed Fæ, could be repremanded. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 21:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel and C.Suthorn: Could you point to a specific diff, please? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: My remark wasn't related to any one diff, but it was this discussion that led to Fæ's departure. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: The lack of Admin action against Beeblebrox in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox appears to have contributed.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:09, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision? This user is now also globally banned. We should not reopen the request, but something like this should definitely not happen. GPSLeo (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@GPSLeo: Please feel free to open a new request on Fæ's behalf. I don't have access to the source materials. Pinging @Beeblebrox as mentioned above.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:41, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I wrote, I do not want to open a two year old case. I would only take this into account if there would be a new compliant on new problematic behavior. There are no deleted pages connected to this case and of course I do not have access to the information of the banning T&S team. GPSLeo (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Strange. So potentially T&S wasn't even aware of it?
Seemed to me that Fae was one of the most productive contributors to Commons. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, if not the most. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Rodhullandemu’s closing note at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems/Archive 94#Beeblebrox says «it should go where it belongs: WMF T&S. And it has.» -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don’t think this is a matter of nobody having noticed: Rodhullandemu (the globally banned former admin you mention) was sanctioned several months after their closing of Fæ complaint against Beeblebrox, and, if anything, their stance as the closing admin appeared to be sympathetic to Fæ. (To muddle the matters further, both Beeblebrox and I, who would sharply disagree about Fæ’s merits, did oppose sanctioning Rodhullandemu…: see User talk:Rodhullandemu/Archive 4/Block.)
Be as it may, I support any action that would cause Fæ to reconsider his leaving Commons.
-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
who wanna tackle an enwp checkuser and the gang on wikipediocracy? next thing we know would be those users evaporate from wikis and become the next victims... (if i disappear, you know who...)
keep in mind that wikis collect your ip etc. so not only your online presence but also your real life might be affected.
"Why did no one notice that the request was closed by a user with admin rights removed by community decision?" did you also notice that user's closure was actually reluctant? because the gang had quickly mobilised to derail the original complaint? RZuo (talk) 17:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm trying to parse out whatever it is this comment is supposed to mean, and as far as I can tell it is saying that I, in my capacity as a CU on en.wp, use that position to doxx people so I can destroy their lives. I'd like to suggest that this discussion be closed and that this inflammatory lie be stricken. This is nasty, unfounded personal attack. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:41, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From what I can tell of the bot configuration on that page, it will all be swept away within a week. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:02, 27 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I'm not sure exactly what is being asked of me here? This is all very old news and I don't have anything to do with how Fae's talk page is archived. Beeblebrox (talk) 16:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @Beeblebrox: I'm going to assume good faith and suggest you read the thread. You were not mentioned in terms of the original subject (the archiving of the talk page, which has been worked out) but in terms of what several people see as your role in hounding Fæ off of Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Fae was trying to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get me kicked off of Commons, by claiming I was directly encouraging people to doxx them or throw bricks at their house or some nonsense like that, which, if I had done, would certainly be something I should be kicked out for, but it simply was not true, and when it didn't work, they dramaquit. That isn't hounding someone off.
    I admit I do not care for Fae, who, just like rodhullandemu, is quite skilled at playing the victim and the bully at the same time. That is not a trait I enjoy encountering. I'd ask again what it is anyone wants from me all this time later. I'm not stopping Fae from returning, that option is 100% open to them whenever they wish to do it. Beeblebrox (talk) 06:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    #MeToo. Actually a huge injustice that RHE is banned and Fæ is not. Either both or none, dear WMF... --A.Savin 09:07, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[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.

August 29[edit]

Best way to have images reviewed(?) and permission made clearer[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I came across some files I later realised were part of the Miles Glendinning Tower Block archive. Although many were good-quality images, it wasn't at all clear to me whether the source link supported the claimed CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. (Since this is the default license, it quite often appears on copyvios).

A bit of checking showed that they were indeed legitimate and part of a collection. The site says:

The images on the site are made available under a Creative Commons Attribution licence, meaning they may be distributed and re-used as long as credit is given to the original creator, Prof. Miles Glendinning.

However, I don't think all this is sufficiently clear on the image file pages themselves.

My thoughts were that we should have these formally reviewed and possibly the description amended with a link to the permission page and others. But I don't want to jump in and bulk edit all 167 images(!)

Any thoughts?

I'd like to thank Crowsus (talk · contribs) for the upload of these useful images and make clear that no criticism is intended here, I just want to help make the status of these images clear so we don't run into any problems in the future. Ubcule (talk) 18:26, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Additional; Category:Tower Block Archive appears to be an alternate upload of the same material in Category:Miles Glendinning Tower Block archive, but with far more files and a dedicated template that makes the source and status clearer. Not sure how this affects what I said above...! Ubcule (talk) 19:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can link (and quote) https://www.towerblock.eca.ed.ac.uk/about/archive in the "permissions" section of {{Information}}. - Jmabel ! talk 20:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: - That's one idea, thank you. As I mentioned, I'm not sure how finding out that there seems to be a separate and much larger upload of the same archive- partially overlapping with this one and with its own dedicated template- changes what should be done. My gut reaction is that the two categories should be combined anyway. Ubcule (talk) 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The two categories can merged, they are exactly the same thing, I just uploaded ones I wanted in 2018 (those are in the Miles Glendinning folder) whereas the other is a bulk upload of everything in the collection 3 years later (obviously I'd not have gone to the trouble had I known that was in the pipeline!) Obviously the higher quality images should be retained and the more formal (original from site I think?) labelling and permissions should be used too. I would like the categories of 'my' versions to be retained if possible as they are much better than the bulk set's generic ones. I don't even mind copying them over manually before mine are overwritten - if that is what is to happen - if someone could give me a heads up when that is likely to take place. Crowsus (talk) 22:12, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crowsus: - Yes, I noticed that the categorisation of your images was more comprehensive, so we'd want to keep that. (Also, your filenames are more descriptive as to the specific details, e.g. File:Trottick.jpg vs. File:Tower Block UK photo sc 1141800.png. The bulk uploads all include the original literal filename but nothing descriptive, so they're less clear in that respect.)
However, the example above also draws attention to the fact that the versions of the images in your upload aren't identical to those some of the files in the bulk upload by PaulineDataWard (talk · contribs). I notice that yours come from towerblock.eca.ed.ac.uk (e.g.) whereas the bulk ones come from datashare.ed.ac.uk (e.g.).
The example above:-
  • is a PNG (rather than JPG) file,
  • has higher resolution, and
  • has noticeably different colour rendition- while the bulk version appears more saturated (vivid), its colour also looks distinctly less natural in the sky and especially the grass (i.e. it's not just the same as your version with the saturation turned up).
(Side note on that last point- which those not interested in the technicalities can ignore!- my gut reaction was that this looked more like a colour space issue than colour balance or saturation. And lo and behold when I loaded up the bulk version- whose profile was "Adobe RGB"- and assigned the standard "sRGB" profile to it it then looked identical to yours other than the higher resolution.)
tl;dr - The versions of the files from the two sources are different, higher resolution versions are probably better though there may be some minor issues with colour? A few of the bulk upload images are different, most are not(!)
Ubcule (talk) 19:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Edit above; it appears that this only applies to a small proportion of images in the bulk Tower Block Archive category (see [this page onwards]) rather than all of them. Ubcule (talk) 19:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Crowsus: - I've looked into this and there are a few points:-
  • Turns out that none of your original uploads are exact duplicates of files still on Commons. Any files within the bulk upload which were identical to any of yours were deleted and redirected to your (older) upload (e.g. this edit by Túrelio (talk · contribs)).
  • Only problem is that your original uploads (i.e. the ones that were retained) don't have the full descriptive text scraped from the website that the bulk uploaded versions did. It'd be good if there was an easy way to recover and combine that with your upload automatically (while keeping your categorisation), but I can't think how.
  • I've partially renamed your uploads in Category:Miles Glendinning Tower Block archive for greater consistency with the bulk upload names, but retained the descriptive parts (e.g. "Airdrie 1988-2.jpg" became "File:Tower Block UK photo cl1-07 (Airdrie 1988-2).jpg") and everything else. (They remain within your original category for now until I've double-checked that each of them have been correctly added to Category:Tower Block Archive or one of its subcategories.)
  • Ignore what I said above about the .png/.jpg versions as this only applies to circa 20 images (all associated with Dundee for some reason) so likely isn't worth worrying about.
Ubcule (talk) 16:38, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK thanks for the update. If need be, it will be a lot quicker to recategorise as I got Cat A Lot last year and I can recognise most if not all of the towers I uploaded by sight, so wouldn't take long. But will wait til whatever needs fixed is completed of course. Crowsus (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons and the upcoming Wikimedia Summit[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Wikimedia Summit 2024 will be happening in April, and will probably be the last meaningful chance for input to the Movement Charter, which will probably determine a great deal about Wikimedia governance going forward, including (indirectly, but almost without a doubt) a lot about how money and resources are allocated. Because the "community" (vs. Foundation) involvement for the conference is entirely through affiliates and user groups -- not through "projects" such as Commons -- there is no overt representation for Commons at the Summit. When I raised this question, someone pointed out that there will be a representative of the Commons Photographers User Group (I'm not sure whom, and there is no indication on that page), but of course the focus (so to speak) of that group is much narrower than that of Commons as a whole.

If we, as a community, have concerns that we would like represented in Berlin in April, we would do well to identify those concerns, and either (1) organize them in a way that they can be brought into the discussion by one or more of us who are already attending, or (2) see if we might be allowed belatedly to form a Commons User Group and be represented that way. I think a lot of Commons' likely concerns are different than those of the various Wikipedias, and may be very underrepresented in what is largely a gathering of geographical and topic-based groups.

Just in general, it concerns me that the basis for representation at the Summit seems to completely ignore the many users, probably the majority of users, whose involvement is strictly on-wiki. I raised that issue in today's "engagement session," and while some other participants clearly shared my concern, the response from those running the session was somewhere between "the train already left the station" and a massive shrug. I don't question their good intentions, but it appears to me that if Commons as a community has concerns about the Charter, we are going to have to make a very active effort to bring those forward, we will not be pro-actively consulted. (Similarly for anyone not involved in affiliates or user groups, and whose participation is strictly on-line.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

thx for the tipoff.
as i saw the location could be conveniently reached, i jumped to the page you linked, only to find out, as you did, that users without any affiliation are not eligible at all. there're not even any wildcard or first-come-first-serve walk-in places. seriously? it appears not only commons but also wikidata doesnt have affiliate groups? so the two most important cross-project wikis cannot have representation? what the fun...
without your tipoff, i'm totally unaware of such things taking place either, even though i'm active on-wiki almost daily. yet this is the sort of the things that make decisions about wiki projects?
with all that money spent on talking shops, when will wmf finally put aside a bit for developing essential tools like video2commons. RZuo (talk) 08:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless Commons Photographers User Group walks the extra mile to cover also interests of other Commons uses (and why would they?), most Commons users will not be represented at the Summit at all. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cropping[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I noticed people cropping (particularly automobile) photos a lot over the last few years. Sometimes it is beneficial, where the subject otherwise only occupies a small section, but sometimes it seems wholly unnecessary and just makes for pointless additional files. See a few examples. Are there any relevant guidelines for when it's worthwhile to create new crops? Thanks, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Original

    Original

  • Crop

    Crop

  • Original

    Original

  • Crop

    Crop

The first is such a minimal crop as to be a bit bizarre; hard to see why anyone would care about the few pixels difference, but apparently the person putting it in an article did. I see you are the original uploader: did you ask the person who did this why they did it? The second: well, I probably wouldn't have uploaded that photo if I'd taken it -- hard to see a use for it -- but the cropped version is probably a bit better composition.
Do keep in mind: storage is cheap. I believe the only downsides to additional files are possible clutter in categories, and possible dual maintenance issues if further edits are to be made to the files. - Jmabel ! talk 05:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Totally agree with the sentiments made here, these particular croppings are as good as downgrades. As an aside we shouldn't be blurring out license plates on cars, rather we should upload the original with the plate, and then overwrite them with a smudged version. After 25 years revert them, the plates are historical items in their own right. I also don’t hold with the right to privacy bollocks that comes out about blurring the plates either, I doubt very much whether the owners would even know or even care. I'm guessing they would be as pleased as punch to see their car here. Broichmore (talk) 09:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The first example makes a difference of 2% in pixel dimensions. I think crops should only be exeucted to show a detail inside an image or to crop out irrelevant space like white paper without content. The thing with the license plate is that unfortunately there is no option to publish an image 25 years later right now. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also Commons:CROP --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 21:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sometimes very slight crops make sense (e.g. to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get rid of some inconvenient artifact very near an edge of a photo), and if you don't have the original uploader's/photographer's permission it is probably best to do that under a new filename. But here I see no obvious good reason. PageOrganizer, can you explain why you made this crop? - Jmabel ! talk 22:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you all, I feel the same way. Broichmore, I always blur the license plates as that is what I tell people when they catch me photographing their cars. You'd think people would like having their car on WP, but I have been threatened on many occasions (and it's not just Americans, a German once was upset that I uploaded a picture of her car with her face blurred and demanded 200 Euro), a guy showed me a gun once (upstate NY), so if it makes car owners more comfortable to have the plates blanked then I will certainly do so - FOP be damned. Look here for another unhinged example. I believe they think that I will take a piece of their soul by photographing their publicly parked vehicles. If I upload the original and then overwrite, someone could always revert it and make a liar out of me. I have twice gotten out of uncomfortable situations by showing my WP uploads with anonymized photos. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 10:58, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mr.choppers, @XRay, @Ralf Roletschek: for situations with upset Expats there is the project v:de:Fotorechte DACH, that aims at creating a brochure to give to people not familiar with the legal situation in Germany, Austria and Switzerland. It is unfinished and everyone is invited to contribute to it. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Germany: As far as I know, it is not necessary to make license plates unrecognizable if no information about private persons is disclosed via the license plate. The plate itself is therefore usually not a violation of privacy or data protection, since it usually does not reveal any information about the owner. However, the location of the car with a license plate may reveal something if the vehicle is parked on private property. In short, an identifiable license plate is a violation of privacy rules only under certain conditions. Only the police can look up who the owner of a car with the corresponding license plate is. See more here (German): https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/autokennzeichen-auf-fotos-erlaubt-update-17-11-2022-203209.html --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
See also: https://www.gutschild.de/blog/kfz-kennzeichen-fotografieren-und-veroeffentlichen-was-ist-erlaubt/ --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi Jmabel, the reason I had made two crops is because when I made the first crop, it was squished (it was only squished for me, which I didn't realise until later), and I didn't know how to revert it back to original, so I had made a copy of the image. Sorry about this PageOrganizer (talk) 11:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PageOrganizer: Your crops are too tight; a little bit of background makes it look more natural. Thanks. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 12:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Images sometimes take up too much vertical space on wiki pages (desktop), so I tend to remove as many pixels as possible above and below the subject. --Sitacuisses (talk) 12:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s epic-level infringement against the principle that Commons should not editorialize in other projects… I would say that this concern is to be addressed when, in another project, the editor thereon choses a suitable illustration from Commons, picking the desired ratio — be it square or oblong, portrait or landscape — among a wealth of available options, and then judiciously tweaks the |upright= image parameter for the best result. Cropping all images in Commons to be squar-e/-ish or landscape seems to be the worse way to go about it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

August 31[edit]

Barriers to Cross-Platform Collaboration - Wikipedia / Commons[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

In The Signpost an interesting article based on interviews with editors on Commons and (English) Wikipedia:

Perhaps we can start some action on reducing the barriers. Ellywa (talk) 08:51, 31 August 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

After a cursory reading, it seems that categories is the culprit. Heh, not even in my most dishevelled curmudgeonly of rants I would resort to hyperbolize that the WMF would try to mask their failiures in Commons by pointing a finger to “power users” and our work with categories. And yet, here we are. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 02:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
One of the main solutions suggested in the article is to increase our use of Wikidata. I hope as it becomes more prominent, it will indeed help us in the ways suggested. Regarding the Boeing 777 section, I don't think there's actually a problem there needing solving. It is overwhelming, but there's lots of positives to our extensive collection of pictures of Boeing planes. I think our "Good Pictures" system, though a bit hidden away, can be a great system for letting users find the quality pictures for general usecases. ~Mable (chat) 07:36, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't realize until reading this article that I had only checked English Wikipedia for requested photos, despite the fact that I live in Japan. Checking the Japanese Wikipedia there's many more requested photos for places in Japan including even in my town.Photos of Japan (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seldom look at Requested Photos at all, because they are so sparse and seldom accompanied by geographic coordinates. WikiShootMe shows a map with red dots. It doesn't depend on a particular language, except whatever languages are used to describe a particular Wikidata item. The majority of the red dots are unimportant, being for things that no longer exist or don't need a photo. And some of the green dots could use a second or third picture, but on the whole it's a rich list of targets.
As for putting pictures in our tangled category tree and finding them, I've often wondered why we don't use #HashTags. Our two most used systems of tagging require some kind of registration in advance. Category, or Depicts, must first be created in Commons or as a WD Item. Categories must fit into correctly determined places in the existing tree, and Wikidata Items must fit into an existing Properties network. Hashtags just grow spontaneously; the uploader need not understand the existing structure. The majority of hashtags end up not really mattering, but there are usually enough good ones to work modestly well. And, once established, they could be connected to, or perhaps replaced with, Cats & Items by habitual cat wranglers such as me. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 01[edit]

Odd thumb/display problem[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

File:Ketchikan, AK - Fire Engine No. 1.jpg: underlying image seems fine, but no thumbnails for me. Duly purged & it won't let me re-upload as a new version, says it's an exact duplicate, so I don't see much I can do from my end. Is this failing for others or just for me. - Jmabel ! talk 00:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I can see all thumbnails of that. --ŠJů (talk) 01:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And now so can I. Guess it was a short-term glitch. - Jmabel ! talk 02:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But now I'm having the same problem with File:Ketchikan, AK - taxidermied wolf in entrance to a shop on Water Street.jpg, and this time I can't even see the underlying image (instead I 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.60/6/60/Ketchikan%2C_AK_-_taxidermied_wolf_in_entrance_to_a_shop_on_Water_Street.jpg"). Commons obviously has it, because I can't upload a "duplicate". I'm guessing there is some sort of server-synch'ing issue.- Jmabel ! talk 02:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
& a similar problem for File:Ketchikan, AK - waterfront along Water Street 05.jpg. Click-through for full image gives "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.ba/b/ba/Ketchikan%2C_AK_-_waterfront_along_Water_Street_05.jpg" - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: These are all working for me. OTOH, phab:T345285 is still unresolved.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cats for lit lamps[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

This photo shows a lamp turned on during the day. I wanted to categorize it as such, but we seem to lack even a cat for lamps (or any lighting fixture) in on state, ans also in off state. Seems like a glaring absence, pardon the pun. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Tuvalkin: If no one has yet created such a category at any level, it means that users have not yet considered such a category necessary, and they did not consider it appropriate to complicate the categorization with this distinction. Even with many other machines and devices, we do not have separate categorization branches for on (functional) and off (non-functional) state. However, Candles have a subcategory of Category:Burning candles. --ŠJů (talk) 10:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I suspected that such a category does not exist because it was never created, as one could say about… well, most anything. I suspect that the paucity of contents in cats like Category:Vehicles in motion is that Commons deals mostly with static images, whereon the on or off state of most devices cannot be easily (or usefully) ascertained — a glaring exception (heh) being exactly lighting devices. Therefore I do think that such a new cat is warranted.
What I meant with the o.p. is to stirr up ideas about the new cat’s name and categorization; mentioning Burning candles as part of Candles is a useful analogous, and a good candidate for a subcat.
In terms of English, what would be the suitable wording?
(Of course, the new cat I originally sought will be the one chosen from above +" in daylight" or somesuch, with {{See also cat}} to Category:People wearing sunglasses at night, with some shared parent cats.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Tuvalkin: Such a category would certainly be useful, but we probably have to assume the fact that no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories.
I'm not very good in English, however, if there is a choice of more synonyms, preference should be given to the term that is as internationally comprehensible and unambiguous as possible. According to my vocabulary, the word "lit" is a bit ambiguous - it can mean both, shining object and (passively) illuminated object. Another requirement is that it should be possible to attach the relevant criterion in the same way and in the same form to the names of all subcategories, including categories with long descriptive names, e.g. "Exterior lighting fixtures at train stations" or "Luminous road signs". --ŠJů (talk) 14:08, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point about "lit". Maybe "alight", then? The most generic cat should not be constrained to electrical lamps, so "on" might not be ideal.
I cannot share your concern about the possibility that «no one will be enthusiastic about sorting thousands photos of all subcategories», though: That’s what many of us do every day, and love it. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I came across the interpretation that the word "alight" is inappropriate for electric lights. The available online dictionary does not even indicate this possibility.
If you are willing to sort photos of lamps and light objects into a deep categorization, I wish you a lot of perseverance. --ŠJů (talk) 15:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Lit lamps" is probably the most colloquial English. - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
it's probably best to have a similar or identical format for all kinds of "electrical devices that are switched on". most devices cannot be lit.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Energized in American English, or perhaps synonym Category:Energised in Commonwealth English?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 07:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for temporary ui-admin and sysop right for Adiutor integration[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hello everyone, I hope this message finds you well. I am writing to request temporary interface administrator and administrator rights for the purpose of integrating and deploying the Adiutor tool to Wikimedia Commons. I would like to have these privileges for a duration of one week. You can find comprehensive information about Adiutor through this link. I believe that having these privileges will greatly assist in the successful adaptation and deployment of Adiutor, and I am committed to ensuring a smooth and efficient process throughout the integration. Thank you for considering my request. I look forward to your positive response. Best regards. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 17:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Vikipolimer, Thanks for notifying us. Your contributions for Adiutor improved many Wikis. We can use this tool here also, it would be very beneficial because tagging and reporting process is hard in Commons. I am pinging bureaucrats in order to evaluate this request: @99of9, @Ellin Beltz, @EugeneZelenko, @Jameslwoodward, @Krd, and @Odder. Kadı Message 18:11, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Context for those who (like me) had no clue what Vikipolimer was talking about: meta:Adiutor. - Jmabel ! talk 21:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that all existing rollouts are on Wikipedias, and that Commons is a bigger project than the existing venues. Are we confident that it is well suited to Commons? For example, has the list of speedy deletion reasons been customised to suit Commons deletion reasons? --99of9 (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@99of9, yes you can test the gadget. Commons:Adiutor I've already start the adapting process. If you want new features for commons, I can add lovely. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 05:56, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I have enabled the gad澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get and will try to test it out a bit (so far I've found that things like: "CopyVio check" means only checking some text on the page, nothing to do with the image, so does not hit 99.9% of Copyvios on Commons). If the gad澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get already works, what is it that you need to edit with interface administrator rights? --99of9 (talk) 06:12, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@99of9, I am currently in the process of adding templates and configuring settings that will be applied universally across the gad澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get files. Authorization for this task was granted a couple of hours ago, and I have just completed the initial setup. There are only a few minor tasks remaining, and once I finish those, my work will be complete. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 06:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to be very cautious with suggestions of this sort when it seems that whoever designed it doesn't really understand the Commons situation and the assurance "everything is fine" is how many major disasters have started. I would like to see a test period of several weeks rather than a speedy rollout. At present I do not have sufficient information to vote in favor of any rights for this deployment. I reviewed the page linked to us by Jmabel, since the proposor didn't. I see three things which are listed for Commons. All three things are currently quite automated and I fail to see any reason to implement a second layer of code on top of what is currently working well. Perhaps Vikipolimer would be so kind to explain what exactly the benefits are of a system which reproduces what we already have? I would ask that folks take a quick look at the amount of information provided by the devs for this, see https://gyazo.com/892670f648c5b03d0884e46a6adaaa77 for a screenshot. "Adiutor: a tool that assists users in various operations" is insufficient information when compared with other existing addons. Cheers. Ellin Beltz (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello @Ellin Beltz, I believe there might be a misunderstanding. The features mentioned on the Meta page regarding Commons are actually additional enhancements specifically designed for Wikimedia Commons. Additionally, most of the features listed in the section above are already in operation on Wikimedia Commons. I must admit that I find the assertion that I lack an understanding of Wikimedia Commons a bit discouraging, if I may be candid. I kindly request that you take a moment to visit this page to gain a better understanding of what is actively available in this project. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 01:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm also a bit concerned. Just for one example, the list says, "Editors can request page move". How will that differ from the current "Move" tab in our existing UI? - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, This gad澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get module (Page move request) serves the purpose of facilitating page transfers to new destinations. Typically, auto-approved users have the capability to execute page moves via the [move] tab on pages. Nevertheless, there are instances where the tar澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get page boasts a multi-version history and the source page is subject to move protection. In such scenarios, only administrators possess the authority to carry out the transfer. This tool is specifically designed for the submission of requests for these unique migrations that require administrative intervention, as well as requests from users and newcomers who lack the ability to execute page migrations independently. 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 03:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: Which sounds like a description of exactly how Commons "Move" tab already works (possibly minus the existing "Move and Replace" option, I can't tell whether that was an oversight in your description or a difference in the behavior). How will this differ? I am concerned, looking at the list, that this is a solution to which there is no known problem. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, It's just puts a template to the page. So than I have a question for you, why you need this template on Wikimedia Commons? 𝗩𝗶𝗸𝗶𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗲𝗿 ℣ 04:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Vikipolimer: Are you describing current behavior, or what your tool does? Because current behavior is:
  • If you have filemover capabilities, it offers "move and replace": on your own authority, you can move the file to a new name, and implicitly edit all instances where any other WMF wiki references the file to use the new filename instead.
    • And, yes, there are some circumstances where the move will fail, mainly if you try to move to a blacklisted filename, or if the filename you want to move to already exists; in the latter case, if the move really is correct, and if you can't just move the interfering file, you need an admin to delete it; I'm not going to try to cover every edge case here.
  • If you don't have filemover capabilities, then it simply adds {{Move}} with the appropriate arguments. Among other things, this categorizes it to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get the attention of an admin or filemover.
How does that compare to the behavior of your tool?
(I am very concerned that you are ready to go live with this when we don't even have a list of how its various capabilities compare to the tools we already have. I see nothing on the list for which we do not currently have a tool in our UI. And tools break, and tools need to be maintained, and I really don't want to see a bunch of dual maintenance. But first, please address my specific question about the comparison for this particular feature.)- Jmabel ! talk 04:22, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
maybe the tool duplicates other existing tools, but it's good to have something with better design, upkeep, and one-for-all functionality.
i enabled it as soon as i saw it was added in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition and tested it. so far i'm mostly satisfied. it seems decent. but i continue using the existing old tools just because i'm more familiar with those and dont have the time to learn this new tool for now.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: my concern isn't so much where it may duplicate other tools as where it may almost duplicate them, but with less functionality. Conversely, I'd be very interested if there is anything actually new here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:40, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 03[edit]

Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

User:Cactinites recently moved Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine to Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine with a justification of "As per the Wikipedia page". Was this discussed? Is Cactinites perhaps unaware that Russia also invaded Ukraine in 2014? Or that many Wikipedias (including both Ukrainian and Russian language projects) still use the title with "2022" included?

I think the move, and all the associated recategorisation, should be reversed. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Concur. If this was done without a CfD or equivalent, then it should certainly just be moved back, and if someone wants to move the category they need to develop a consensus to do so. This is obviously not an uncontroversial move, and no one should be making controversial moves unilaterally. - Jmabel ! talk 18:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not that I think the files should have been moved, but at least the description in the inbox for Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine says "ongoing military conflict in Eastern Europe since 2022." It's also a sub-category of a lot of other ones for events that took place in 2022. So as things currently are it seems like Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine doesn't include the pre-2022 conflicts. Again, that's not to say files should have been moved, but the description in the infobox at some of the parent categories at least need to be removed or changed in the process of restoring things so it doesn't seem like Category:Russian invasion of Ukraine is just for things that happened after 2021. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's because the description more properly belongs to Category:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine . Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:39, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Different pictures, one file[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

A user has packed several different images into one file. Not sure what to do with that. --2003:C0:8F0C:7F00:F4DB:9305:33F3:9ECD 19:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There are five separate files. Ruslik (talk) 19:41, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing wrong with a quasi-gallery like that, but it belongs in the description, not in "other versions". "Other versions" is for other versions of the same image, not other images of the same object. - Jmabel ! talk 19:50, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Pinging @Zoerides, and I'll fix that placement. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's an extremely narrow interpretation of the "other versions" field I don't agree with. As the documentation says "Links to files with very similar content or derived files;". Having photos of the same car in other versions is no problem at all and shouldn't be moved to the description. Multichill (talk) 21:53, 3 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: But they are not "very similar". They are just of the same vehicle. File:Aeolus Haoji 006.jpg is so different you wouldn't even guess it had any relation unless it were linked like this. "Very similar" is thing like a colorized postcard based on a particular black-and-white photo, or two shots from the same camera position taken seconds apart. I've absolutely never seen "other versions" used the way it was on this photo. I see you've reverted, and I won't edit-war, but I think you are wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 00:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For objects like sculptures it's common to have the other views also in the "other versions". Just a different view of the same object, just like with this car. Multichill (talk) 18:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Multichill: Never seen it, but then I don't do a lot of work here on other people's photos of sculptures.
Question: why isn't that (multiple images of the same sculpture) just done as a category? That's certainly what I would do. - Jmabel ! talk 19:54, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As long as it's open ended, yes it makes much sense to create a category for a sculpture, or for a vehicle model. Most importantly, you don't need to update each of the other versions whenever a new version is made. A big plus for categories! But I can't see any harm in creatively using the "other version" parameter like in this case. Naturally, editors should be discouraged from making really extensive galleries that way, but a couple photos of the same object from a different angle... well that is (imo) what may be expected right there. Just compare the crop-feature, it allows the embedding of hundreds of cutouts from the original file, in the original file's description-block: and yes, as "other versions"! Prime example I encountered today: this PDF with 160+ other versions. Another one is this JPG with 60+ other versions. Yes I think this many cutouts are annoying and counterproductive, but someone made them.) --Enyavar (talk) 21:33, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's the same car, at the same time, and in the same place. These photos are more closely related to each other than they would be to photographs of other cars of the same model; linking them to each other like this seems like a reasonable thing to do, and it certainly doesn't harm anything. Omphalographer (talk) 03:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree with the linking, just would have put it in "description" not "other versions". At File:Ferry approaching Seattle August 2023 - 01.jpg I did something just like that the other day. - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"other versions" is so often used as "related files". maybe it can be renamed as such.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Nothing to do about this, IMO. "Other versions" is just other related files, loosely defined. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:25, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 04[edit]

Guidelines for naming visual arts works[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I've found some works by Félix Vallotton that are misspelled ("Valloton"). Is there a guideline for naming works of this kind or is ot completely up to the uploader/renamer?

For example:

or:

--Carnby (talk) 05:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

--Carnby (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, I stand by my statement that changing the language of a filename is a way to start a war. If you insist on doing it I won't stop you, but I certainly won't participate. - Jmabel ! talk 17:31, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
These files are images of works of art which have original names, assigned by the artist, in French. Including those original names in the filename should not be controversial, especially if there's other reasons the filename needs to change anyway (like the artist's name being misspelled). I agree that renaming other files, like photographs, can be controversial, but this isn't one of those cases. Omphalographer (talk) 20:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Omphalographer: So do you also believe we should rename (for example) the roughly 40% of subcats of Category:Sculptures by Auguste Rodin that are named in English? - Jmabel ! talk 21:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I would be in favor of that change. That being said, those category names are established and there's no immediate need to change them, whereas these file names need to change anyway to correct the spelling of the artist's name. Omphalographer (talk) 23:02, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Carnby: No, don't go there. File names should only be renamed when incorrect and never to just improve them. See Commons:File renaming: "In general, Commons aims to provide stable filenames as there might be external file clients and file moving involves significant human and computing resources. Thus renaming should be used with caution."
You're welcome to add a correct caption. Multichill (talk) 18:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So just correct Valloton in Vallotton?-- Carnby (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wouldn't even do that because the sources seem to mix both variants. Multichill (talk) 18:28, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
AFAIK "Valloton" is just a common mispelling. Another mispelling is "Valloiton".-- Carnby (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Vallotton's last name is signed in three of these five pieces (the other two are signed "FV"); there's no ambiguity in how it should be spelled. Omphalographer (talk) 20:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Degrading of a postcard by a blocked? user.[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

This so called upgrading of a postcard is a comprehensive degrade, and should be uploaded as a different image. The label in the bottom left is not a watermark, the yellow sky is typical of the house style printing back in 1890-1905. I have contacted @Jan Arkesteijn: about it.

Apologies too him, but this issue is too important to leave, just on his talk page.

Also when you edit his talk page a pop up appears indicating this user was blocked on 8 November 2018. Is this some unwanted artefact? It certainly took me by suprise. .Broichmore (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Embarrassingly enough, I just noticed the edit was back in 2008. However nobody has reverted this type of work it would seem. Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: that user was blocked for unwanted behavior which included overwriting files with horrible versions, just like what happened here. These files are tracked in Category:Image overwrites by Jan Arkesteijn for independent review. Why did you remove it without reverting it to the original file? By removing the category and not reverting you're saying the current version is fine. If you encounter such a horrible overwrite by another user you can just undo it with a link to COM:OVERWRITE. Multichill (talk) 18:23, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now reverted to original file. - Jmabel ! talk 20:01, 4 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had already sorted this out by uploading the original postcard as a new file and linking it into this so called improved file, so please revert your edit. Many thanks. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a particular procedure for doing this type of correction? I just relied on deleting the check this cat, which has loads of files in it... Broichmore (talk) 10:45, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Broichmore: Please feel free to revert me with appropriate comment. Since you hadn't said here that you had sorted this out, I assumed your initial issue still stood unaddressed. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see now that your strategy of reverting back to the original is the best method, So I've gone along with it and added two extra files, a cropped version , and a modified version. Broichmore (talk) 08:50, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 05[edit]

Elon Musk family tree removed[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

This edit https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Elon_Musk&oldid=726496691 removed the Elon Musk family tree from his category. The remover described it as clutter, but for people with extensive family trees, we do have trees embedded in the category. It is a visual navigation device to move through the family. We don't take a screenshot and post it, because it is dynamic. People are currently working backward and adding to it. We have these trees for almost everyone with an extensive tree with Wikidata/Commons entries. I have no objection to it appearing collapsed with a click to open, but I do not remember how to add a collapse feature, can anyone help? --RAN (talk) 02:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Probably reasonable to have it there, but it definitely should be collapsible. You can just stick it inside an HTML DIV element with class="mw-collapsible". There are probably templates to do this more cleanly, but that will work. - Jmabel ! talk 04:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Yann (talk) 15:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • @Yann: The problem now is that the reader isn't aware that the chart exists when it is collapse using this method. See: w:Sir Hector Og Maclean, 15th Chief where the collapse feature was baked into the template, and it leaves behind a title and an outline box. I think the collapse feature needs to be baked into the template. Unless you think of a way to make it more like the one at Maclean, any ideas? I haven't edited the template in years, the last time I edited it I worked on the colors. --RAN (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    @RAN: We keep our collapsible templates in Category:Collapsible templates; see also Category:Archival templates.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Multiple better quality duplicates nominated for deletion by bot.[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I left a message on the bot owner's talk page, but I wanted to let someone here know before they 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get deleted.

See File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpg and more map files here: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Duplicate

The bot applies the "duplicate" tag to delete the most recent duplicate file. However, in this instance, the newer file are actually better because they give details about "Sanborn maps." The other file does not have this valuable information. Also, the file nominated for deletion has better licensing as well. What is the best way to delete the older files instead (reverse the tagged file)? There are many of these files like this. Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 02:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ooligan: It's late, I'm tired; I suspect that just using VFC on Category:Duplicate to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get rid of the bad bot edits is the quickest way to do this; deal with the side that should be deleted later. I'd do this myself but I'm about to head to bed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, I don't use VFC. Can I just remove the duplicate tag manually? -- Ooligan (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: sure, I was just trying to save you some tedium. It's a tool very worth learning if you want to avoid repetitive editing. - Jmabel ! talk 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will try VFC. I undid some bot edits manually. Yes, "some tedium" as you said. I am unlikely to learn VFC soon enough to help with these files.
Fyi, see:
User talk:Don-vip#Multiple wrong duplicates nominated for deletion
and Don-vip note to DPLA bot owner here:
User talk:DPLA bot
and here:
https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListDuplicatedFiles&limit=5000 Thanks, @Jmabel -- Ooligan (talk) 18:56, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: Yeah, this one is a tough place to start on VFC, because it would require regular expressions, but it's very worth learning. Let me see if I can deal with this one for you. - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel, Your help is very much appreciated. Cheers, -- Ooligan (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ooligan: Done, you can look at my contribs if you want to go through by hand and set up the {{Duplicate}} tags going in the opposite direction. - Jmabel ! talk 19:32, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To fix the root cause, shouldn't one block the bot that uploads all these identical files instead? Enhancing999 (talk) 20:44, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Not necessarily, if it is uploading files with with good metadata over files the were uploaded haphazardly without that. - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's not what the bot is doing. It appears to do upload thousands of files we already have without any regard to current Commons content. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:39, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Dominic: do you care to respond to that? - Jmabel ! talk 23:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As I noted on my talk page, I have been traveling with limited availability, so I have not been able to fully respond. I shut off the bot when I was notified, so there are no longer new duplicates being generated, and I don't really 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get why it is being brought up in this thread as there is no ongoing emergency. The DPLA bot has uploaded nearly 4 million files now in the last few years. It operates at a high volume. 2000 uploads are a drop in the bucket, and can sometimes happen in just a few hours—there have been over 115,000 uploads this month. I am not saying that to be dismissive, but Enhancing999 is severely misinformed to claim it is uploading "without any regard to current Commons content", and if that were the case, this would have been a much larger problem before now. A project of this magnitude, involving hundreds of contributing institutions, has a lot of code and a lot of edge cases to handle. It's impossible to guarantee there will never be a bug. At the same time, I am always dedicated to cleaning up anything that goes awry, if given the chance. Dominic (talk) 23:50, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Several bugs me a bit here.
First, OptimusPrimeBot does its job (mostly), it marks duplicates as duplicates and let human decide what human should do with this duplication (and no, it's not a nomination for deletion, that's up for the human to decide). Don't blame the bot (or its owner, or the {{Duplicate}} template) for that. That said, given the amount of files, maybe generating first a wiki page with the list of duplicates would be better in this case. @Don-vip: would it be possible?
Then, DPLA bot also does its job (mostly), uploading pictures, again don't blame the bot. The weird thing is that duplicates are both uploaded by the same account on a short period of time and there is some data that should make the duplicate obvious "before" the uploading. For intance, File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpeg uploaded on August 2021 and File:Bellaire, Belmont County, Ohio, 1915 - DPLA - 6e29900fcb6f1fa78b41d0729043b82a (page 18).jpg on April 2022. Both have the *exact same name* (except the extension jpeg/jpg) and include what seems to be an *unique* identifier. I totally understand how big imports can be complicated (and I must say, humans - myself included - often do much more errors than that) but here, I feel that the duplication could have been easily prevented. @Dominic: (when you'll have time of course) is there anything you can do here to prevent that from happening again?
Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @VIGNERON! As long as there are less than 5000 duplicates overall, the wiki page already exists at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:ListDuplicatedFiles&limit=5000 . As I have disabled the duplicate detection until this dispute is settled and I don't risk to see my bot blocked again, the list will grow every 3 days by about ~300 files (on average) unless some user or bot performs a large upload of duplicates such as the recent one done by DPLA. vip (talk) 08:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Maybe Don-vip's bot could skip the DPLA stuff and leave it to the uploader to proceed with the promised cleanup before any further uploads. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:38, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Iranian copyright law[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

We have a large list at User talk:GTVM92 where the nominator is questioning whether Iranian copyright law applies to images of The Shah and his family. Can we aggregate them into one list? I can see where a few that are attributed to non-Iranian news agencies would not fall under PD-Iran, like File:Iranian and British royal families.jpg, we can eliminate them from the list. RAN (talk) 03:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Each of these cases are different. At least for File:Shapour Bakhtiar portrait 1.jpg, the question is valid. For other pictures, it depends where, when, and by who they were taken. We usually assume that pictures are published in the country where they are taken, unless we have information saying otherwise. Yann (talk) 14:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Those are two out about 50 nominations. I think we can aggregate the remaining ones, and leave off the ones where they are attributed to a non Iranian news agency or the image may have been taken during exile because of the age of the person pictured. --RAN (talk) 17:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File names[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I read the file naming page (and associated talk page) but cannot find any rule on naming files with the goal of having them at the top of each category. Maybe Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen covers it, but not explicitly. Benespit takes great photos of Korean cars, but they start all of their file names with a zero and a blank space - presumably to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get more eyes on them. To me, that violates the logic of the Commons. The File naming talk page doesn't appear to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get much use, which is why I am raising the issue here. I raised this question on Benespit's talk page a minute ago, so it's not like there is any conflict. No matter what, I think this would be worth mentioning in the File naming guidelines. There are a lot of uploads, so renaming them all will take a while. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 15:05, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not against the rules, but kind of annoying.
Really, if there is a matter of picking more useful images out of a large category, the right (and much more collaborative) way to do that is a gallery page rather than competitive file-naming. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
as long as files are sorted by default alphabetically, under whatever regulation you come up there will still be the first "char" allowed, and users can still exploit those "permitted" sequences of chars.--RZuo (talk) 20:08, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Having thought about it, I think that Titles of media files should be meaningful and helpful in the language chosen is actually all that's needed - adding a leading zero and a space is neither meaningful nor helpful. Car photos are usually named <year><manufacturer><model><submodel><color><view><numeral> (not all elements are always present), because it helps people find images. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 20:36, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i just have 2 ways here to add such numbers in a meaningful way. say i take 2 photos of the same car from different angles. i can just name it "01 beetle" and "02 beetle". serial numbers can be not only at the end but also at the start, right? or i change to a username that starts with a long string of "0 ", and then prefix all my uploads with my username. is that meaningful?--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the way to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get the pictures at the top of each category is not giving a bad name, it's using {{DEFAULTSORT}} in the description Hsarrazin (talk) 07:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And conversely, if you want to remove a file from the top of a category, you can {{DEFAULTSORT}} it somewhere else. Please don't rename files just because you don't like where they fall in a category, except in the limited cases listed under COM:FR#FR4. --bjh21 (talk) 20:19, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also add a sort key for selected categories -- it doesn't have to be via a DEFAULTSORT, which affects all categories. -- Auntof6 (talk) 05:33, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can also add sortkeys to individual images. And maybe just that should be done to move excellent, good and valued images to the top of the category for that they were voted as excellent. good or valued. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 11:20, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm completely opposed to the (potentially competitive) use of sort keys to bring particular images to the front of a category. If you want to select out the most useful images, that is pretty much the canonical purpose of a gallery page. Or, if there are a very small number and a good consensus, they can even be placed in a <gallery> element at the top of the category page itself. (And when there is a single clear best image, that should be the image for a corresponding Wikidata item, if such an item exists.) - Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Train-the-trainer course: OpenRefine-Wikimedia[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hi all,

Illustration remixing a vintage, 1950s-style illustration of a female teacher in front of a classroom with children. The teacher points to a 'blackboard' which actually shows an OpenRefine screenshot.

From November 2023 until April 2024, there will be an intensive online train-the-trainer course for candidate OpenRefine-Wikimedia trainers. OpenRefine can be used to batch edit and upload files on Wikimedia Commons; it is frequently used by librarians and in the cultural sector.

The training has room for up to 8 motivated participants.

More info about the course, and a link to the application form

Timeline

  • Now until September 15, 2023: application period. Read more and apply here.
  • October 1, 2023: all applicants are notified.
  • November 1, 2023: train-the-trainer course starts with a maximum of 8 participants.

All the best! Spinster (talk) 16:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just read Commons:OpenRefine and gained a strong keenness about Commons:Pattypan. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To each their own... (and having several tools for the same thing is a good thing, if one break there is an other one ready). Personally, I strongly suggest people interrested in mass imports to at lest try and take a look OpenRefine. True it can be a bit more complicated at first but there is much more potential. Cheers, VIGNERON (talk) 06:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
bitesized youtube videos will be more useful for noobs like me. (mw video player is atrocious.) anyway thx for the guide.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 06[edit]

New guy here - updating an SVG diagram image and I'd like to contribute it to the commons.[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

This is my very first post. I am looking to replace an existing image with one I updated for accuracy and detail. If this is easy to do, I could see contributing by editing more images that need work.

I have a few questions:

1) What is the proper process for updating a SVG image file? (I updated it using Adobe Illustrator, and I'd like to replace the existing if possible)

2) Is there a "design guidelines" page that tells me what colors/fonts/styles should be used when generating imagery for the commons?

3) What are my rights to use this image in a youtube video?

Here's the image (non-updated version): https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bicycle_diagram-en_(2).svg

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spdorsey (talk • contribs) 16:30, 6 September 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Convenience link: File:Bicycle diagram-en (2).svg
  • @Spdorsey: usually on Commons, you don't want to overwrite other people's files (see COM:OVERWRITE) unless you have their consent. Instead, you want to create your own version and mark it as a derivative work ({{Derivative works}} on the file page of the original, {{Derived from}} on yours. In particular, this keeps it clearer what aspects are authored by whom. Given that there doesn't seem to be anything actively wrong with the image in question, I'd strongly recommend going that route.
  • Commons has few, if any, design guidelines, except for a preference for vector formats such as SVG where they make sense. We're a repository, and we try not to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get into fights about which version is "better". Those editorial decisions are generally left to the various Wikipedia articles, etc., that use the files.
  • If you want to use an image in a YouTube video (and, for that matter, if you want to make a derivative work) you need to abide by the license for the individual file. There are a wide variety of licenses here, but all provide for reuse, derivative works, etc. Without knowing the specific file, its hard to say what are the specific requirements for reuse.
I hope that answers your questions, but please follow up if it does not. - Jmabel ! talk 19:35, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:ADT[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hello, the tool named Adiutor coded by @Vikipolimer has been adapted to Wikimedia Commons. Those who are interested are requested to enable it in the settings. Regards, Kadı Message 16:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gallery intro refs[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hello! I wonder if any guidance can be obtained re: what is and isn't allowed in a brief gallery intro regarding references. Is it helpful to interlink to 3-4 sources to substantiate content in the brief intro's text, is it not helpful or is it even expressly forbidden? For example, can the brief intro on a gallery about a person be linked to show that what is said about h is dependable, can the wording refer to an encyclopedia such as Britannica or none of the above, if there is no Wikipedia article about h. I have tried to find a guideline or the like on this, but have not been successful. SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:36, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I don't think there is any firm rule. In many cases, you'd do better to work up a Wikidata item, though.
I work a lot on Seattle history, and things like what we have for Category:62-68 South Washington Street (Seattle) are pretty typical for the city's older buildings. Certainly a link to a Britannica article would be useful (especially in the absence of anything in any of our sister projects). Four sources seems to me to be pushing it a little, though: at that point, why not write a Wikipedia article? - Jmabel ! talk 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you so much! I'm sorry I do not know the slightest thing about how to work up a Wikidata item. Wish I did. Could you please do one at the gallery for Jacob Truedson Demitz? There is an article on French Wikipedia, but creating one in English has proven controversial, and I am too close to the subject to avoid a COI problem. A lot has happened ref-wise, though, since one was deleted years ago. Maybe someone else will do one with updated info. Thanks again! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 05:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've connected that to to the relevant existing Wikidata item. - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Malformed deletion nominations[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

See: here where they are malformed, but need to be deleted, because unfocused. --RAN (talk) 20:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've removed the manually-applied category using Cat-a-lot and created a proper bulk DR using VFC: Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Interior of Nordiska museet. --bjh21 (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Search for files not in category[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Is it possible to search for files whose page text contains string X but which are not in Category Y? Would be very helpful when diffusing, expanding categories etc. Dave.Dunford (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Dave.Dunford: You can simply use -incategory:foo in a search. For instance "Dave Dunford" -incategory:"Images by Dave Dunford". --bjh21 (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That's great – thank you so much. Is this syntax documented somewhere? (I did look, but didn't find it.) There might be other tricks that are useful to me. Dave.Dunford (talk) 08:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There. -- Asclepias (talk) 11:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 07[edit]

I guess I posted a copyright violation perhaps[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

My File:HP IL Fire District Map and oblique axes address grid.jpg file might not be in accord with Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States. I guess I should tag it for deletion?

(Assume I don't want to bother to contact the Fire Department to 澳洲幸运10破解5码公式方法✪Get permission.) Jidanni (talk) 08:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jidanni: probably so. You're a little out of the usual 7-day window to just ask for a courtesy deletion of your own recent upload. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
[I've nominated it for a deletion review]. - Jmabel ! talk 04:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, thanks. (I hope my mistake doesn't affect my "scorecard", if any.) Jidanni (talk) 06:06, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Everyoen maeks misstakes. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons anniversary[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Commons turned nineteen today, so some sweets for great occasion. EugeneZelenko (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cute :-) It sure was not super predictable as teen. Looking forward to adulthood ;-p Any bigger celebration planned? I would love for us to use the anniversary opportunity to attaract more attention, as Wikipedia had and now Wikidata does. Zblace (talk) 06:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Interesting to imagine how it will look like in 2050 --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:44, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 08[edit]

File:Chess edt45.svg again[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

See Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/08#File:Chess_edt45.svg,_File:Chess_Bdt45.svg for prior discussion. In the hope of avoiding everyone just reverting each other: User:Double sharp, can you explain why you have, over the years, repeatedly tried to make this file a duplicate of the inverted bishop file? Per Commons policy, there should not be duplicates: if elephants were truly identical to inverted bishops, then the files should just be redirects, but the edit history suggests they are not identical and the elephant file should be restored to depicting an elephant. You point to w:Ferz, which states "the ferz, represented by an inverted bishop, may move to any marked square", but surely the solution is to make pages like that use the inverted bishop file they say they intended to use, rather than to overwrite whatever different file they happen to be using with a duplicate of the inverted bishop. Pinging also the other editors who've edited this file, User:Shlomo, User:NikNaks, User:Koavf. -sche (talk) 00:16, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with User:-sche. If some picture description says "incumbent president" and there is a picture of the outgoing one, we do not overwrite File:Donald Trump official portrait.jpg with Joe Biden's face, but rather change the article to reflect the new reality. If User:Double sharp insist of the picture of inverted bishop to represent a ferz, he can edit the diagram code and change the el to Bl. Alternatively, he can change the description into "The ferz, represented by an elephant, …" Or he can choose any other picture to represent the ferz, e.g. inverted king, inverted queen or even the regular queen, as used for ferz in w:en:Tamerlane chess. AFAIK there is no convention which picture should be used for a ferz.--Shlomo (talk) 07:02, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I was trying to make it consistent with the long-standing convention at en:Template:Chess diagram to use e for inverted bishop. The two are not interchangeable: an elephant pretty much implies that we're illustrating one of the historical "elephant" pieces (and not all RS would actually draw an elephant, though some would), whereas an inverted bishop could mean "anything vaguely bishop-like" according to the problemist convention.
But yes, I mixed it up with the similar File:Chess ell45.svg and so forth, where there had not been a "B" at all and the change meant that there wasn't an inverted bishop left. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I guess the fact that it's "e" means that it's inevitably going to be associated with elephants, so I have uploaded a complete set of inverted bishops at the "B" locations, reverted the "e" locations back to elephants, and edited the en.wp articles and documentation to match. That should settle the matter; my apologies for the confusion. Double sharp (talk) 08:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File names in series[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I requested of User:Wieralee:

Please undo your August 2021 rename of File:Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843.jpg. The file is part of a set, named sequentially, and logically, as can be seen at Category:Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects.

They have declined, saying:

there's no rule that the sets must have the same naming. In my opinion names in this category are completely useless and meaningless -- users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures, because the name "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10)" describes the origin, but not the main subject of the picture. Regardless of my opinion, you can always request a rename using the "rename" template, but a rename from specific to meaningless is rarely accepted, especially when requested by someone other than the original uploader.

I think this is wrong for several generic reasons:

  • We have hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of images from third party sites, named in series in the manner of this image's original upload. Many, as in this case, use the title of the work for which the image is an illustration.
  • Series names are meaningful
  • Arbitrarily renaming images from series can be detrimental to the work of colleagues who collaborate with GLAMs and other partner organisations on mass uploads
  • The claim "users can't illustrate wikipedia using these pictures" is clearly bogus.
  • The original uploader is no longer active; but I collaborated with them on a number of aspects of their bulk uploads.
  • An undiscussed name change should if challenged in good faith, be reverted and a discussion opened.

I think we should discuss the generic points, and if necessary document a policy that such naming should be preserved (if necessary; we could adopt a model which preserves the original name and appends the new label; say: "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843"). I also maintain that the specific image should have its original name restored. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:04, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your right, we should name files the way the Museum describes them, which is the case here. This has been reinforced over time by our uploading bots. I notice he's named the file, by what would normally be the caption, and he has additionally dispensed with the BM identifier suffix. The latter is considered a unique identifier in itself. Also to mention the subject is identified as being (the archaic) Shaj Soojahool Moolk, if a rename were to be sanctioned this would be it Portrait of Shaj Soojahool Moolk (BM 1970,0527.2.4).jpg . Broichmore (talk) 13:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see some situations where it wouldn't be useful to files exactly how the Museum describes them. For instance, say I scan and upload a couple of hundred images of a postcard series and name them all as "author, series number, title", but I'm missing a few. Then someone uploads a the two that I'm missing from a museum and name their images something like "British Museum, Prints and Drawings collection, Accession number 1970,0527.2.4." I don't really see how that's at all helpful even if that's how the file is named on the museums end. Not to mention we already have the file description for that information anyway.
I can kind of understand why it would be useful for bots so they don't upload duplicates, but at the end of the day file names should be descriptive and it's not like bots can't just read file descriptions to ascertain the exact accession numbers of similar files to what they are uploading. "Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects (BM 1970,0527.2.10 - Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843" doesn't describe what's being depicted in the image though. Plus it's just needlessly obtuse on top of it. I guess you could name the file something like "Lithograph of Shah Shujah in 1843 (BM 1970,0527.2.10).jpg", but again I don't see what actual good it does to have the accession number in the file name. If were me I'd just name it something like "Lowes Cato Dickinson 1843 lithograph of Shah Shujah" and call it good there. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) Commons:File naming: "Names should be descriptive, chosen according to what the image displays or contents portray".
2) All these files are grouped in a Category:Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects. Why should the file names repeat the category name? This doesn't bring anything new... Wieralee (talk) 23:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wieralee: files are not necessarily seen in the context of a particular category. It as often as not appropriate that the name of one or more of the categories of a file belongs as part of the file name. - Jmabel ! talk 03:29, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
1) My point is that Commons:File naming is inadequate in these circumstances. 2) The image in question depicts a late from Prison Sketches. Comprising portraits of the Cabul prisoners, and other subjects. 3) I am not arguing that files should necessarily repeat the category name; I'm arguing that files named in series should preserve that naming. 4) The file is in Category:Shuja Shah Durrani - the current name repeats that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 9 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
depicts a late @Pigsonthewing: I have no idea what you meant by that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: Perhaps "is a file which shows the appearance of a late prisoner"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:03, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My guess is that he meant "plate." As in a full page illustration that was printed separately from the book's text. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"plate". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
this rename by Wieralee is ok. retaining the identifier id string might be better, though.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 10[edit]

Check location[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

I used the board on the train in

to identify Category:Ciano train station. I cant match with the other features in the category. There are sheds but no shed with a railtrack besides it. File:Ciano d'Enza station 2002 2.jpg is the same place. The same train type leads me to the conclusion, that this should be Reggio Emilia station. Be again I miss identifying elements to confirm.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:02, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

this train station should be around Parma as it is obviously the same train as File:Parma station 2002.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:08, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fix Licensing tutorial en.svg[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

could someone plz fix errors in the codes of File:Licensing tutorial en.svg? i'd like an error-free version for translation into another language.

the same request had been made at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Graphic_Lab/Illustration_workshop&oldid=800212376#Licensing_tutorial_en.svg Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_93#Fix_Licensing_tutorial_en.svg.--RZuo (talk) 17:16, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

identification request[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Maybe someone knows these gentlemen? I found a handful of pictures with him in the uncategorized files, but they lack a precise description. GeorgHH • talk   17:34, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No idea, but the license of this file is wrong. It can't be PD-US for a 2004 photograph. Yann (talk) 19:54, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This is the former EPA administrator Michael O. Leavitt. --Animalparty (talk) 20:35, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I fixed the license, but the creator field claims "Environmental Protection Agency. Office of the Administrator. Office of Public Affairs. Office of Multimedia. (10/15/2014)", while the file's metadata claims 2004. Is this because the photograph was published or perhaps donated in 2014? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:01, 10 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all for helping. GeorgHH • talk   13:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --GeorgHH • talk   13:55, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

September 11[edit]

Thumb/rotation bug (error: Duplicate IFD0:Orientation tags were found)[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

c:File:Canada Permanent Trust Building Sept 2006.jpg displays incorrectly in the article w:Canada Permanent Trust Building. If this is something I could repair myself, please let me know how to so. Otherwise, if someone could fix the problem, it would be appreciated. Cheers, Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Cl3phact0: I used rotate template's parameter 'resetexif' (instead of degree number) to reset the EXIF orientation information of this file for you. Let's see how that works.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Jeff G., my tech-savvy here on Commons is limited (not sure if there's something that needs to be re-set or a cache than needs clearing). The enwiki article uses the thumbnail version of the file, which is still displaying rotated 90 degrees clockwise. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 10:26, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cl3phact0: You're welcome. Steinsplitter's bot can run every 10 minutes, but it has not run in the 98 minutes since 09:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gravity defying photo now properly oriented. Thanks again. -- Cl3phact0 (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help in cropping the image[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Can someone crop this image File:Lipisingh.jpg. Basically, above her head the background shows people. I want to cut that portion. Bring it upto hat worn by her.-Admantine123 (talk) 11:40, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done Broichmore (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Largest file?[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

Hi, Let's try some useless competition. ;o) What's the largest file on Commons? File:Atlas der Alpenländer, 1874 (14243013).jpg is 3 Gigapixels. Yann (talk) 19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

These are larger:
    • Disclosure: I used the search function to return any image bigger than 50000 by 50000 pixels ;)
    --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:18, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Ah yes, computer-generated images can be created arbitrary of any size. It doesn't count. ;o) Yann (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Are we sure podcasts are in scope?[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

    I recently noticed that we have a lot of podcast audio files under Category:Podcasts and its subcategories. It's unclear to me whether most of these files are in scope, and I'm inclined to suspect that they are not. Some notable podcasts may be in scope as a topic (e.g. a Wikipedia article about "99% Invisible"), but this doesn't mean that every individual episode is in scope as well. Additionally, it's likely that some of these files contain excerpts of copyrighted content; the sheer volume of the podcasts makes them infeasible to review.

    Is there any clear educational use case for this content, or should I start nominating some of it for deletion? Omphalographer (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Probably some of it -- maybe much of it -- is out of scope, but it would take a long time to work through. I'd say you'd want to give any of them at least a fair amount of sampling before nominating.
    Seems to me that any appropriately licensed episode of a Wikipedia-notable podcast is probably in scope, just like almost any photo of a Wikipedia-notable person. - Jmabel ! talk 21:44, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Copyright question regarding set of images[edit]✪dsn彩乐园ll安卓下载

    Would the images in this article be suitable to be uploaded onto the project? They were taken by an individual from the United States military and released by the FBI following a FOI request, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} might be applicable.--WMrapids (talk) 21:31, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    • @WMrapids: Probably OK for the ones that are, as you say, taken by an individual from the United States military, but do note that is not the case for some images there. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      @Jmabel: The "Courtesy" and other copyright lingo is unclear to me, so which ones would be OK to upload? (There are 8 images in the article, so you can say image 1, 4, X of 8 if that is helpful) Thanks for the quick response! WMrapids (talk) 21:52, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
      • @WMrapids: 1-unclear because uncredited. Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 2-unclear: came through FOIA, but they don't say whether the original photographer was known to be a federal gov't employee. Again, Vice might be willing to clarify if you write to them. 3,4: clearly no, non-gov't sources. 5-8: taken by an individual from the United States military, so {{PD-USGov-Military}} applies. - Jmabel ! talk 21:59, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        @Jmabel: Image 4 is was taken by Clarence Cooper, with the article saying "Many of these photos were later taken by a helicopter pilot with the US Army named Clarence Cooper". Would {{PD-USGov-Military}} apply for image 4? WMrapids (talk) 23:00, 11 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
        • @WMrapids: Missed that. If it's clear that he took it in the line of duty, that would be fine. But it sounds like he might not have, and the credit suggests that they believe it is copyrighted. Note that the military/gov't is not the source. - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    September 12[edit]

    The Flickr Commons team is stumped trying to identify this man named "Higgins" who appears to be in Manhattan in 1925 and would have been a newsworthy person: File:Higgins LCCN2014718609.jpg. Can anyone identify him? --RAN (talk) 04:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=800868340"