Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

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

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator Welcome to the Village pump This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/01. Please note: If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer). Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam. Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

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.

Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [add]

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

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

November 26

Special:UncategorizedCategories

We now have 2,544 uncategorized (parentless) categories, down from about 8,000 in the beginning of September. At this point, most of the "low-hanging fruit" is taken care of. User:Billinghurst and I have done the bulk of the cleanup, although a few others have also helped in various degrees. We could definintely use more help, most of which does not require an admin as such.

• Most of the remaining listings are legitimate categories, with content, but lacking parent categories. They need parent categories and they need incoming interwiki links from any relevant Wikidata item.
  • A disproportionate number of these would best be handled by someone who knows Hungarian or Estonian.
• Some categories just need to be turned into cat redirects ({{Cat redirect}} and have their content moved accordingly.
• A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates.
• Some categories probably either call for obvious renaming or should be nominated for COM:CFD discussions.
• Some empty categories (not a lot of those left, but new ones happen all the time) need to be deleted.
• At the end of the alphabetical listing (5th and 6th page) are about 75 categories that have names in non-Latin alphabets. It would be great if people who read the relevant writing systems could help with these. Probably most of these are candidates for renaming.

Thanks in advance for any help you can give. - Jmabel ! talk 03:21, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about something @Jmabel: I checked the page and some of the categories on there are for example Category:April 2016 in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté (through 2023), but these were created years ago in some instances and already had parent categories from the start. How do categories like that end up there? ReneeWrites (talk) 02:09, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Insufficient follow-through and patrolling, combined with out of control back end processes.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:48, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@ReneeWrites: Actually, in this case this appears to be some sort of flaw in the software that creates the Special page. As I wrote a couple of days ago, "A few categories listed here will prove to be fine as they stand; the tool messed up and put them in the list because it didn't correctly understand that a template had correctly given them parent categories. Many of these are right near the front of the (alphabetical) list, and involve dates." It looks like today's run added a bunch of these false positives and that (unlike the previous bunch) they are more scattered through the list. I believe all of the 100+ files that use Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté are on today's list; none of these were there three days earlier. That probably has something to do with User:Birdie's edits to yesterday to Template:Month by year in Bourgogne-Franche-Comté; those are complicated enough that I have no idea what in particular might have confused the software. The categories still look fine from a normal user point of view, but the software that creates Special:UncategorizedCategoriesn is somehow confused.

Other than that: we're a couple of hundred fixed or deleted categories closer to where we'd want to be, compared to a couple of days ago. - Jmabel ! talk 04:23, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Server-purges should fix this but apparently it doesn't. Some categories that didn't appear last time after purging the cache have disappeared now so I'm more confused as to what the problem could be since the iirc the refresh time was after some pages were updated (it has problems when pages get all their categories from a template). There should probably be a phrabricator issue about this, albeit it's possible things work fine once there are always just a small number of cats there which seems increasingly feasible. Prototyperspective (talk) 12:35, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G., could you explain what "... out of control back end processes" means, so I can understand your comment? --Ooligan (talk) 16:54, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: As I understand it, there are processes that run on WMF servers that run too long or get caught up in race conditions or whatever, and that get terminated after running too long. I think updating this special page may be one such process, sometimes. Certainly, updating the read / not read status of stuff on my watchlist seems that way, especially when using this new reply tool. Turning off the big orange bar before displaying my user talk page would be helpful, too. <end rant>   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 19:26, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Jeff G., thank you. --Ooligan (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Ooligan: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 20:11, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Even with those 100 or so "Bourgogne-Franche-Comté" false positives, we are now down to 2079. Again, we could really use help from people who know languages with non-Latin scripts, all of which are grouped toward the end of the list. Also, Hungarian and Estonian, scattered throughout. - Jmabel ! talk 23:08, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Now down to 1905, again including 100+ false positives. Still really need help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

And now to 1701, again with the same number of false positives and still with the same need for help from people who read Estonian, Hungarian, or languages with non-Latin scripts. Those are probably now the languages for about half of the remaining categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Now 1471, with the same provisos and the same needs for help. - Jmabel ! talk 18:42, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

We are making major progress. As of today, we are down to 1031 (and seem to be rid of the false positives, so maybe the progress looks more dramatic than it is, but it's still nice). Only a few left in non-Latin alphabets. Still need a bunch of help with Estonian and Hungarian.

Thanks to whoever fixed the "false positives" thing. - Jmabel ! talk 21:36, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

As of today, we are (amazingly) under 1000, with only two remaining in non-Latin alphabets. 947 as of today. I suspect that anyone who speaks languages from Central and Eastern Europe could still help out considerably here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

BTW, we are still getting some false positives, e.g. Category:Letters with "e" as diacritic above and other similar categories. This makes me guess we are also getting some false negatives (parentless categories that don't show up in the report). - Jmabel ! talk 20:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out. While many uncategorized categories are useless ones that should be deleted, there is indeed some low-hanging fruit in there, including ones that can be linked to an article on a Wikipedia. – b_jonas 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

At this point, the remaining categories are probably about 80% or more either simply needing parents, or needing some sort of clarification or merge. Very few are outright deletions. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Progress continues. We are at 777. - Jmabel ! talk 20:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

i think we could deploy a bot to monitor this page, send reminders to users who create uncategorised cat pages and add the uncat cats to a maintenance cat.--RZuo (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: We have {{subst:Please link images}} for the reminder.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:37, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That's really about categories on images, though, not categories on categories. FWIW, a lot of these happen in one of two ways:

1. a small number of users create a fair number of categories and, as far as I can tell, can't be bothered to learn to do it right, or don't care that they leave a ton of work for others. They are not unaware of the situation: they've been told, but they keep doing it. I could name some names, but I'd rather not.
2. a lot of people seem to think the correct way to get rid of an unused empty category is just to blank it, which of course leaves a parentless category. This group is generally "educable", and for that purpose we have {{How to delete empty categories}}. - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

As of the start of the year we are down to 680; probably 100 of these have been dealt with in the last couple of days but others have doubtless come into this state. The vast majority of these are appropriate categories (mostly for individual people) that just need appropriate parent categories and, in some cases, should be attached to a Wikidata item or have one created. You don't need to be an admin to help out, just good at categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow! Down to 456, again leaning heavily toward Central East Europe, especially Hungarian. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

And down to 190, some of which are doubtless false positives or current CfDs. - Jmabel ! talk 01:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

We are now below 100 (89 this morning). It would be great if it can stay down to numbers like this. Eyeballing, I'd say about half of these are recent, and of course things like this are going to keep coming up, but we've caught almost all of the long-time backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 21:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories with members, but no parents

more interesting cats for maintenance: Special:WantedCategories.--RZuo (talk) 16:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 08

Photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu

Hello, this photo of Bunsaku Arakatsu (this one) was taken on 1 July, 1943 by Kyodo News. Is it public domain? Because 1. It was published before 1 January 1957. 2. It was photographed before 1 January 1947. There is more info here of a different version of the same photo. -Artanisen (talk) 04:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is most probably covered by {{PD-Japan-oldphoto}}. Yann (talk) 10:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Selfies of "Wikipedians"

Some people post selfies here without categorizing them. As a person who likes to give pictures some meaning, I and (some others, I noticed) categorized them as "Wikipedians." The logic is simpleː by uploading a selfie, people became contributors to the project, and therefore automatically can be categorized in the Wikipedian-category. But now I have my doubts.

Roughly, we can divide the selfie-uploaders in four categoriesː

1. Those who upload one or more selfies, and are never seen again;
2. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile and are never seen again;
3. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, make a few edits on the same day, and are never seen again;
4. Those who make a selfie, use it in a Wikipedia-user-profile, and start editing.

I would propose to use the speedy-deletion-template "db-selfie|help=off" for the selfies in first two categories, since those are only self-promomotion. Meanwhile we can keep the selfies in the latter two. We could discuss the third category, but then we might get endless discussions on how many "a few"are. What do others think about this? Regards, Jeff5102 (talk) 08:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Per current policy the third type should be deleted as well. However, keep in mind that people may contribute to other projects than Wikipedia. For that same reason, this may also not be the best category. Guido den Broeder (talk) 08:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that. Including deleting selfies in the third category. A few edits could easily be defined as "X amount of edits over Y time" if anyone has an issue with it. But there's no reason someone who only makes 3 or 4 edits on the same day and then is never seen again should have a selfie on their profile. Otherwise people uploading for clearly promotional purposes could just it, make a few edits, and then someone couldn't have the image deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

In "Media_needing_categories" I regularly see low quality Category 1 selfies. Is it worth nominating the photo for deletion and then having someone else delete it? In my opinion, the effort would be better used for more important things. Wouter (talk) 15:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

1. I'd go for "Wikimedians" rather than the more specific "Wikipedians".
2. perUser:Wouterhagens, if there are only a couple of images from a given person, I probably wouldn't bother with the hassle of deleting. If they are uploading a ton of useless personal images, and doing nothing else, that merits the process to delete. - Jmabel ! talk 20:06, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   For me it also depends on what they write on their user page. If the only contribution is to create the user page and introduce themself as "business men" or "famous rapper" I delete the photos and the user page. If they write something about photography or open knowledge I assume that they are really interested in contributing here and would not delete anything. GPSLeo (talk) 20:53, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

   @GPSLeo: yeah, I'm also a lot more likely to DR if their only other action is to start a category about themselves. - Jmabel ! talk 01:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

To me it looks like what COM:F10 is already saying, so what exactly is being proposed? An amendment to COM:F10? Supplementary information? Instructions to be added to {{Db-selfie}}? In other words, how do you intend to process the results of this discussion? --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi, There was a discussion some time back about how many contributions are needed for personal images (not just selfies) to be accepted. Then there was an agreement that around 300 useful contributions across all Wikimedia are needed to consider someone active, and to accept personal images. Yann (talk) 21:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think that actually adding a specific number is actually wise. A user who contributes 3 (three) or 4 (four) large high quality Wikipedia articles, each launched as a single edit will seem "less active" than a user who makes 300 (three-hundred) largely cosmetic edits. Then the question is, are selfies actually that largely of an issue that they require constant deletion? Obviously personal images without any educational value of non-contributors should be actively excluded, but placing an objective number on what makes someone "a contributor" as opposed to "a non-contributor" actively promotes the idea that quantity of edits are more important than quality of edits. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It depends on whether you define "that large of an issue" in terms of importance or of how many there are. Even using the most conservative definition here -- categories 1 and 2 -- there are thousands and probably tens of thousands. The main value of having a number here is doing less work -- going through 50 edits to various pages that may not be in English takes a lot more time than going through 20 edits to someone's userpage.

In terms of importance, that probably comes down to how much you personally relate to the Terrible Trivium scene. Gnomingstuff (talk) 08:08, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Selfies of the third type are not eligible for speedy deletion; COM:CSD#F10 is clear to specify "no constructive global contributions". However, they could be eligible for regular COM:DR. This is for good reason, as it is often controversial how many edits are required before considering that a "user is or was an active participant on that project" (COM:INUSE). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:43, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

If we start defining things, we should also define how much time we give people to return for more edits. Do we delete after a week? A month? Several months? This all feels super bureaucratic and unnecessarily so. I'd rather leave things as they are and trust the existing processes. --Kritzolina (talk) 08:30, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's kind of basic maintenance isn't it? Like take this guy. He only had three edits in 2021. Uploading a selfie and two other images are probably COPYVIO. Maybe he'll come back eventually, but so what? At least IMO 2 years and no contributions other then uploading a selfie and COPYVIO should be enough to justify just deleting the selfie. Maybe it's not necessarily and could be construed as bureaucratic, but then there's also no reason to think the user will ever actually contribute to the project in any meaningful way either. So what's the issue with deleting the selfie in that case? --Adamant1 (talk) 08:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

This semmes to be a pretty clear cut case. Like I said - we can deal with these cases without creating new rules. But if we start creating new rules, we would need to deal with the grey areas and everything would become complicated. Kritzolina (talk) 09:28, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently, if a new user creates an account and uploads a selfie a minute later, that selfie becomes immediately eligible for F10 (and I do in fact see taggers applying this criterion this way in practice). I think this is unnecessarily BITEy, and we should give them time to become a productive user. I suggest making F10 a "delayed" criteron similar to F5; the uploader will have 7 days to rectify the situation by either 1) using the image on a page that is not a user page or talk page; or 2) becoming a constructive contributor. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Would support this (and apologies if I've mistagged anything in this way) Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:23, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Types of files covered

I'd like to start a new thread on a different issue. Currently, it says "F10. Personal photos by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal images of or by users who have no constructive global contributions." I often see other types of files such as PDF resumes which ought to be speedily deletable but technically do not qualify. Also, if some notable person uploads a selfie and adds it to their Wikipedia article, we shouldn't speedily delete that. May I suggest a revision: "F10. Personal files by non-contributors: Low-to-medium quality selfies and other personal files of or by users who have no constructive global contributions, which are not legitimately in use." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Could you give some examples? What do you think of this one File:Chandolin (Switzerland, November 2020) - 103 (50898939036).jpg. It's a photo of a person beside a famous mountain. Not used anywhere. Or File:Switzerland-01767 - Beautiful Place and Friend (22285389512).jpg, a Flickr upload of two people in front of a famous lake. They are not selfies, but in my opinion they could qualify as well. I come across many of such or similar files when I am categorizing and I also wondered what they are doing here, that's why I ask. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support Yes, obvious out-of-scope files should be covered under F10. Yann (talk) 10:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:07, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Adamant1 (talk) 12:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment I deleted such kind of files unter the G10 (advertisement) criterion. With the proposed change F10 and G10 would basically become the same. We could make this change and then use G10 for pages only and F10 for files. GPSLeo (talk) 12:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Support Makes sense. Signatures are another common offender here, as are professional photos that aren't "selfies" but out of scope. Gnomingstuff (talk) 19:24, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 10

Reusing references: Can we look over your shoulder?

Apologies for writing in English.

The Technical Wishes team at Wikimedia Deutschland is planning to make reusing references easier. For our research, we are looking for wiki contributors willing to show us how they are interacting with references.

• The format will be a 1-hour video call, where you would share your screen. More information here.
• Interviews can be conducted in English, German or Dutch.
• Compensation is available.
• Sessions will be held in January and February.
• Sign up here if you are interested.
• Please note that we probably won’t be able to have sessions with everyone who is interested. Our UX researcher will try to create a good balance of wiki contributors, e.g. in terms of wiki experience, tech experience, editing preferences, gender, disability and more. If you’re a fit, she will reach out to you to schedule an appointment.

We’re looking forward to seeing you, Thereza Mengs (WMDE)

Should files have "panoramio" in their names?

I've seen a lot of files like File:白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja - panoramio.jpg with panoramio in their names. I think this is related to the original image source.

With that in mind should they be moved as per criteria 2:

An example given is "File:Flickr - law keven - Anybody know a Good Dentist^......Happy Furry Friday Everybody...-O))).jpg (no relation to file content) -> File:Lion-tailed Macaque, Colchester Zoo, England.jpg" but that one is a lot longer than these ones. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:53, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't move them just to remove "panoramio" from the filename. However, if there is another reason to move the file (such as correcting errors), the "panoramio" should be removed from the filename during that move. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:06, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Concur with Pi.1415926535. It's an accurate indication of source, there's nothing terribly wrong with it, but it's not particularly a plus. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: Agreeing with the above, I'd just mention that criterion 2 applies to the file name as a whole. In this case, "白山神社（新潟市） Hakusan jinja" adequately describes what the picture shows and so criterion 2 doesn't apply. The presence of spurious words in the name doesn't change that. --bjh21 (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

January 11

Description of files

Hello, anybody hanging around who might be able to clarify what to do with for example the text (describing the text in today's English)? Keeping the original text is not would make it easier to retrace texts, and on the other hand, the actualized English would make it more comprehensible. Thank you for your time. Lotje (talk) 09:28, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the source text, it was written using en:Long s (ſ). The OCR capture of the scanned text has recorded those characters as "f" (as the computer couldn't distinguish between ſ and f) which is what was inserted into our description here. The text has now been updated to replace "f" with "s". Retaining "f" is clearly wrong as that wasn't correct English either then or now. The choice then is between using "ſ" to preserve the original text or "s" to reflect modern uses of font sets. I'd suggest using the "s" to be of more use to a modern audience - those interested in the original text can always refer to the source file. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:17, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Y're a star From Hill To Shore I should have brought my question to the village pump earlier, but then again, I do not want to be too much of a hassle to all of you. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 10:21, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just playing Devil's advocate here. If you were to alter the old text into modern English without retaining the original; in the more august British museums. You would be in deep trouble for vandalism, it's very frowned upon. They take great care to retain old spellings and even inherited mis-sorting, etc.

I'm guilty myself of cleaning up OCR errors of spelling in text, but really, those errors should be retained. When you want to find that text, in a page in the reference document, you can only find it, if you include the spelling errors. Food for thought! Broichmore (talk) 19:54, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Broichmore: I inserted both the old and the modern English in the same text with a reference to George E. Koronaios and would appreciate your comment/thoughts. Thank you so much. Lotje (talk) 05:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Broichmore: Excellent and valuable work. See below. Broichmore (talk) 10:34, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Lotje: Can you please clarify your intent here? We have three versions of text, so it would be useful to understand which version(s) you would like us to preserve. An example of the original source text would be, "Hiſtorians." An example of the erroneous OCR text (which includes errors from limitations of the technology) is "Hiflorians." An example of correcting the OCR text using modern character conventions would be, "Historians."

You have advised against "vandalism" to protect the original source text of "Hiſtorians," but also advocate not fixing the OCR text of "Hiflorians," which is an error from the scanning software. Which option are you advocating here? From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:47, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Without getting into a long treatise on this subject. If you search in The British Newspaper archive with the following text "thte. Yoik ; also by ihe' uther si,,,ksel,eis in' thi* City", you find this page and this page alone. You will not find it with the cleaned up text. Incidentally, Google can do nothing with that search.

By all means clean up the text, here, but by doing so, it is incumbent upon the editor to leave references and links to the original in your wake.

People need to be aware of these issues before they wade in with well meaning edits.

On an anecdotal level, while researching in the National Archives, I was handed a box of A4 sized maps of airfields from WWI. They were mostly out of order. So of course I started sorting them out, why not!. I was reprimanded for being helpful, as the mis-filing was in itself a historical artefact. Some officer at the end of the war, had deemed the papers to be of no further interest and had treated them accordingly. Therefore leaving researchers with an insight on the period!!!

I suppose I'm advocating the old English, and new English texts, side by side, along with permanent links to source.

This sort of thing, in this instance, would not be particularly useful to me as an English speaker, as I don't have a particular difficulty with old English. However I would find it invaluable, if Gothic German text, were translated, side by side with modern German. In that case, it would also help commercial search engines. Broichmore (talk) 10:30, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Broichmore: probably also here, a text side by side would be very usefull, because now, the text reads weard. . Would you know howe to do this? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 12:58, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This file is properly cross referenced to the image and the book page. It's in modern English. The book is popular and much referenced, there are several ocr versions, it's not obscure. In this case you could go for broke, correct the OCR, leaving only the text appropriate to the image. You could even add to the text where any is missing. Broichmore (talk) 18:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

copyright whitelist

I asked some weeks ago about the licenses status of archive.org magazine rack collections.

The answer I got was that it is up to me to do research on the license status.

This answer is not satisfactory. A project such as this here would do good to keep a list of collections that are ok to use. There are several compelling advantages:

1. Entries in the whitelist will be more competently researched. Such an entry will exist for years, while my own research for one image will last a couple of minutes or it will not be worth it.

2. It allows work to be done by users that don't want to invest into a crash course in copyright law. As I understand, commons expects its users to do just that, even though it would not be necessary.

3. An entry in the whitelist can be referenced by a file. If the entry is found to be in error, files that were uploaded in error can be tracked down. This list would then also serve as a service to license holders and it provides a place were they can go on record with their claim. Nowakki (talk) 09:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not possible to produce a whitelist of the copyright status of magazines. A magazine is a collection of works all potentially subject to their own licensing and copyright situation. Because Commons policy is that we require files to be suitably licensed (or out of copyright) in both the country of first publication and the US, it is not possible to set a universal rule. Sure, you may find that the September 1940 edition of a US magazine didn't follow copyright registration correctly and therefore should be PD, but that same magazine could include copies of photographs first published in London and subject to UK copyright. You must examine the situation of each file individually and articulate a rationale for upload. It is not possible to create a shortcut process to absolve uploaders from having to think. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

1. But it is possible to create a whitelist for the first step: determining the copyright status of the magazine itself.

2. If such a magazine follows the policy of tagging works under copyright protection where and when they are published, that could be mentioned in the whitelist and then the list would cover steps one and two. Also true for content that is clearly an own product of the magazine staff. Nowakki (talk) 10:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

But then your suggestion is no longer a "white" list where everything is safe from copyright but a "grey" list where the answers are ambiguous and people will still need to conduct the same research. As uploaders will continue to require an understanding of copyright principles, I think Commons' approach on providing guidance on copyright principles is the right one. Feel free to work on your list if you want but it will be a herculean effort for limited benefit - it will all come back to the principles. From Hill To Shore (talk) 10:26, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If a magazine publishes images without a copyright notice and without stating the author, how am I supposed to determine the copyright status? Nowakki (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

That is the difficulty we all face as volunteers at this project. We find a file we think is useful to upload, we consider the circumstances and apply the copyright principles set out in our guidance. If we think we have a clear justification and can meet COM:PCP then we upload and include all relevant details in the file information. Many times we conclude that we don't have enough information to continue the upload and the file is never added to Commons. Sometimes we do upload but get things wrong; the consensus of a deletion discussion may decide that the file should be deleted. We can think of improvements to the guidance we offer but there are no easy answers here. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

What about: "The copyright owner can request the file be removed".

That's not on COM:PCP. The copyright holder has that legal obligation, does he not? Of course assuming good faith, which would amount to:

1. Magazine issue is not protected

2. no copyright tag or author next to the image or anywhere else in the issue.

I don't know how frequently commons received complaints, feel free to give me some insight into that end of the process. Nowakki (talk) 14:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: I would suggest that rather than creating a list, a better approach is to document your research in the category page for the magazine in question. See Category:Time Magazine for an example. The category is naturally linked to and from the corresponding files, and is where people uploading new issues are likely to be looking anyway. The only thing this lacks from your proposal is bundling multiple magazines together into a list, but I don't think that's particularly useful. --bjh21 (talk) 12:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself.

I think the problem should be solved professionally and systematically. Until then i will just do something else than upload files. Nowakki (talk) 13:34, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: "Your recommendation is to do it informally and haphazardly. And for me as an amateur to do it myself." Erm, yes. Welcome to Wikimedia Commons (and the wider Wikimedia community), where a bunch of amateurs do things informally and haphazardly. If you wanted formal professionalism, I fear you've come to the wrong place. --bjh21 (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

The software we are using was not written by amateurs.

There are people who have been with the wiki projects for over 10 years.

Even if the above was not true, something approaching professionalism well enough can be created by a large enough number of amateurs. Nowakki (talk) 13:58, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Nowakki people would have to add the information to a whitelist anyway. So it's not having one would be any less work. At least not in the short term. Although it would be good information to have and it makes me wonder anyone has created such a list before. Do you know of any examples? --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I do not and the list could have been started years ago and we would not be having this conversation. Nowakki (talk) 14:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Is that something your interested in working on (maybe with other people) or are you mainly just here to criticize the project for not having one sooner? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Just to criticize.

The project has to be efficient, no?

Think of me as a hobbyist auditor if you want. I am just asking questions. Nowakki (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure. But it doesn't just magically become that way and there's a lot of different areas to work in on here. Anyway, I was going to suggest starting a Wikiproject for magazine, since it's an underserved area already, and going from there. It doesn't sound like that's something you'd be interested in though. I will say that it's a lot easier to find out what's copyrighted or not just by organizing images related to the topic. You can't really know what is or isn't copyrighted if you (or anyone else) isn't working in the area and keeping track to begin with. There is lot of ways to document and track those things just through editing in the area though. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

If it's a magazine from the United States you can probably just look at one from a year in say the 60s and if there's no copyright notice then it's reasonable to assume issues before that one won't have a notice either. The same goes for in the other direction to. Like if an issue from 1954 has a notice then the ones after most likely will also. That can narrow it down some. It's not like you have check every page either. Just the first couple, which should be trivial if your manually uploading them anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

You should check every page. For one, there's a long list of places where a copyright notice can be, including the last page of the main work. Secondly, individual works can have their own notices. Works without notice are pretty rare, and each work should be checked individually when uploading.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html offers a list of many periodicals and information about renewals in them. It's long and complex. Generally speaking, you can use US publications from before 1929, but after that it gets complex.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I mean, sure. There could be a copyright notice in the middle of the magazine, but realistically what's the possibility that there is one (at least for the magazine itself, which is what I was talking about)? I look at it like a "due diligence" thing. It's totally reasonable IMO to look at the first and last few pages of the magazine for a copyrighted and then upload it if there isn't one. That's at least better then nothing. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:53, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Please look also at the Table of Contents and the pages before and after that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jeff G.: That's perfectly reasonable to. I just don't think someone should have to look through the whole magazine with a fine-tooth comb before they can fairly conclude it's probably not copyrighted. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:58, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

You look at it as a due diligence thing to not bother to look all the places a copyright notice could legally be? No comb needed, but look at the entire magazine. Make sure it's intact and nobody has stuck random crap in it, and you might as well look for the copyright notice while you're there.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

It really depends how large something is. No one sticks the copyright notice on page 96 of a 400-page document. It's either in the first few pages, the last few pages (& that not very often), in a masthead, or near the table of contents, and usually looking at the first and last few pages includes finding any masthead or table of contents. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

There's a few places near the beginning or end that it can legally be. It's definitely not limited to the first couple pages; I've seen magazines that bury the title page after 30 pages of ads. And sometimes works have their own notices, even buried in the middle of a work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

And I don't know what you mean by "at least for the magazine itself". If one of the stories in the magazine is copyrighted, you can't upload the magazine as a whole. s:Weird_Tales/1929 demonstrates another issue; just because a magazine doesn't have a renewal, or even a copyright notice, didn't necessarily mean that works first published in England or elsewhere effectively lost their copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

• I was going to create a property of first copyrighted issue, but never got around to it. I was going to import the data from https://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html, since we have the link in each Wikidata entry. --RAN (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

My idea was to store what issues are copyrighted or not in tabular data that could then be checked and updated by a Wikiproject or the like. That would probably be going a bit overboard though. But it would be good information to have readily available for each magazine and issue anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

January 12

Photo challenge November results

Congratulations to Debanutosh, Shougissime, Foeniz, Changku88 and Ibex73 Jarekt (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Foeniz (talk) 10:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Commented out, as this is again forcing horizontal scrolling for the entire page. I thought that had been fixed, but apparently not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:46, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Today's MotD

This probably isn't the right place for this, but today's Media of the day File:A Case of Spring Fever (1940).webm, seems to be blatant copyright infringement of an episode of Mystery Science Theater 3000. While the original film (File:CaseofSp1940.ogv) is public domain, the MST3K content isn't and doesn't seem to be even mentioned in the files description. Am I missing something here? Many thanks. Cakelot1 ☞️ talk 15:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Agree, the MST3K commentary and additions would still be copyrighted. -- William Graham (talk) 19:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: .--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

OOPS. I didn't realize that this is not part of the original. I will replace this by another version. Yann (talk) 21:15, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done I will upload an even better version tomorrow. Yann (talk) 21:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

DIY copy stands

I seem to recall one of our chapters (Wikimedia Indonesia?) published plans for a simple DIY copy stand. I can't find, them in Category:Copy stands or by searching. Can anyone oblige, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Checkuserblock

these blocks often have a summary of "Abusing multiple accounts: {{Checkuserblock}}".

i wonder if it might be better to actually link to a page that explains what it is. something like

Abusing multiple accounts: Checkuserblock.

--RZuo (talk) 20:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Which, for anyone not looking at the source, is "Abusing multiple accounts: [[Template:Checkuserblock|Checkuserblock]]". - Jmabel ! talk 22:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

No, the template is used to display the detailed reason in the block notice. See this for an example. Hide on Rosé (talk) 04:04, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

@Hide on Rosé: The question wasn't about the block notice, it was about the summary given. Templates are not expanded in summaries. Presumably, RZuo's point was that he would prefer us to write the summary in a manner that would create a live link to the template. (I'm not sure if that's a good idea, but your remark seems orthogonal to that.) - Jmabel ! talk 07:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You mean like this? Hide on Rosé (talk) 07:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that would actually be useful! - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Support.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  Then, how do we implement this? Hide on Rosé (talk) 12:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Hide on Rosé: Convince the Checkusers to change their block summaries.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:15, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

January 13

Mass rename requests

I have another 50,000+ to rename.

Prior advice i got was to state in the {{rename template that no redirect should be left behind.

I feel reluctant to go ahead and flood the queue again. People working on it are real troopers, over 10,000 requests have already been approved and the effort is ongoing (despite the action being voted against).

Or should I wait until they figure out how to write scripts?

FIles in question are recently uploaded with wrong filename. Sanborn maps using year, volume instead of volume, year. Whatever inconsistency exists in Sanborn file names, it is not necessary to keep this one. Nowakki (talk) 05:42, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm confused, and seem to get more confused rather than less as this proceeds.

1. Is there any reason names of maps from this particular source all need to follow a single pattern? Not that it wouldn't be nice, but as you presumably know, there are all sorts of issues with mass renames.
2. Unless there is a reason they all need to follow a single pattern, why would year, volume be any less useful than volume, year? - Jmabel ! talk 07:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

You'd have to keep track which file uses which format when processing the files.

For example when generating an index, when writing an application that uses commons

as a data source. Nowakki (talk) 10:21, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If you're processing files from Commons, you should avoid assuming any particular filename format. Much better to do something based on the description page or structured data. For instance, if I want to find the Commons file corresponding to a particular image from Geograph Britain and Ireland, I can look up the corresponding sort key in Category:Images from Geograph Britain and Ireland and I'll find it no matter what naming scheme the uploader has used. This isn't always possible (for instance if you're writing a MediaWiki template), but even then a redirect is usually good enough. --bjh21 (talk) 17:09, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

If the filenames are strict and all that searching becomes unnecessary that would be better.

Imagine you upload one book as 500 images, one per page. Do you include the page number in the filename or do you put it into the description only? Finding a page only requires to search through 250 descriptions on average and users will be happy to put up with an extra layer of nonsense and be more likely to write the application or process the files automatically?

If somebody does the work to make it better, why not allow it to be made better? Nowakki (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

I have tried everything possible. The Sanborn collection commons offers remains less useful than the one i made in one day on my own computer at home. There is one piece of metadata that stands out: the filename. Commons thinks the filename should be treated with very little importance. Because this works very well for random files that Joe the Plumber uploads.

MEANINGFUL FILENAMES ARE AN OPTION THAT SHOULD BE ENCOURAGED. Retrain your workforce. I am out. Nowakki (talk) 10:15, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

There's no need to shout, Nowakki. --SHB2000 (talk) 02:20, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There is no need to have the maps on commons. I can just use my own. Nowakki (talk) 03:57, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There are technical reasons, why renaming (of certainly mature) files is discouraged here. Better to seed descriptions with keywords and categorisations, so they can be made visible, useful, and facilitate keyword search. I have no objection to improved titles for newly uploaded files, especially one's that don't come from Govt. agencies or large institution collections. Broichmore (talk) 20:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

What are those technical reasons? Nowakki (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Link rot, and unnecessary burdening of resources by re-directs, etc., read the policy! Not to mention, but I will, a very large number of tiff file, which are reference files by definition in the main.Broichmore (talk) 20:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a necessary burden. The burden is not big. These are not high request volume files. Nowakki (talk) 20:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

This is a necessary burden. This is just my opinion of course, but it doesn't seem like you've shown that it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:56, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I am fairly confident that if you asked 100 random people, the new naming scheme would be preferred. And that is polite, because the old scheme is braindead. Every plate you look up will result in unnecessary searching. Un-use-able.

And that a unified naming scheme is better than having more than one, pretty sure that is true also. Nowakki (talk) 21:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: Based on the kinds of Phabricator tickets I've seen relating to file storage, I think there's an additional danger. MediaWiki's file storage is not tightly connected to its database, and files in the file storage are indexed by filename. This means that if you rename a file and something crashes in the middle or one of the requests gets lost, you can end up with an inconsistency between the database and the file store. At best that disconnects the file from its description page; at worst the file is lost entirely. --bjh21 (talk) 12:53, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

How often does that happen? Nowakki (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: I have very little idea. As I said, this is mostly an impression I've got from seeing Phab tickets related to file storage. Here's a high-level ticket about the issue: phab:T153565. And from browsing file-related tickets I've found this pretty straightforward case of a file being lost during a move (so it's not a wholly theoretical danger): phab:T336086. --bjh21 (talk) 13:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Software problem. Nothing anyone can do about it. Nowakki (talk) 15:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: Nothing anyone here who is not a WMF developer can do about it. Perhaps TheDJ might comment, though.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 15:57, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I am ready to generate a nice 50,000-sized test case for him. Nowakki (talk) 16:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what this is about, but the discussion doesn't seem very inviting to invest time in figuring it out. My overall opinion is that there should never be a need to rename 50 000 files, because then someone majorly F'ed up. I have no exact idea about what kind of load that would generate, but the overall advise it that we should avoid renaming this many files in quick succession. I'm not sure if any of these files are linked (either internally or externally) because those would require cleanup as well of course. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 16:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@TheDJ They can be renamed slowly. The question we are asking ourselves is whether many files will become lost in the process. Nowakki (talk) 16:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Nowakki: There is one highly relevant thing we can do to avoid being bitten by bugs related to file renaming: avoid renaming files. --bjh21 (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

You don't even know how often the bug appears. I wouldn't care if 50 out of 50,000 images got lost. Can always check afterwards if they are still there.

I am not going to comment on the 7 year old, 14 watchers bug about giving files new names... Nowakki (talk) 19:24, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Bjh21 The file disappearance can be caused by double rename, for example a user clicking on a button twice.

process 1 start copy file src to dst

process 2 start copy file src to dst

process 1 update database

process 1 delete src file

process 2 update database fail

process 2 delete dst file Nowakki (talk) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

One minute, you say: I have another 50,000+ to rename. The next you say: The burden is not big. These are not high request volume files. That's not a small job.

Despite what you say the only important piece of meta data here is the unique identifier ID number.

1996609 brings up one Sanborn file, and another of some English swimming pool. This ID number appears in the source entry.

How are you going to ensure that renaming is not going to confuse our scraper bots, so that duplicates are going to be uploaded in various formats, or with diffrent checksums. How are we going to know, what items are the missing from our collection.

Again, seeding descriptions with search keywords and comprehensive categorisation is the obvious route here.

As it is your committing to 50,000+ name changes, that must be completed for any kind of consistency, plus I'm guessing an additional unique accession number as yet unknown, or it's equivalent. We already know that Sanborn's ID numbers are not unique enough. -- Broichmore (talk) 11:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, there is a lot wrong with your comment.

1. 50,000 renames at 5 per second (that's what the script achieves to insert the tag, don't know how much the server has to work to finish the move). In any case, it takes a few hours. one-time effort.

2. the map files are not high request volume files. A redirect left behind by a move will not be followed often in the next years, and the resources spent on the redirects will be small.

3. the ID number is an internal nypl.org or geograph.org.uk number. it should not be used for anything other than identifying the source of the file. I think there are many more files from these 2 sources where the ID overlap. All sanborn files specify source IDs in their source field in the description.

4. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps have used an official naming scheme since long before the first vacuum tube started the computer revolution. Each sheet of paper in the whole collection is uniquely identified by: name of town, year, volume, sheet number. These identifiers are typically printed on each sheet, like a page number in a book.

5. scraper bots, duplicate checks? First of all, a rename does not change the sha1sum of a file. second, there are duplicates among the sanborn files uploaded in 2018 that eluded your scraper bots for years. There have been 300,000 files missing from the sanborn collection since i uploaded them last december.

6. seeding descriptions with search keywords... that can still be done. this here is an effort to systematize 500,000 files so nobody has to keep around a large list to perform an extra step of indirection all the time when looking up a file. This is a minor fix to make sane and consistent a collection of 500k files. Nowakki (talk) 12:02, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposal to globally ban Guido den Broeder

Hi, this is to let you all know that there is a proposal to ban User:Guido den Broeder at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Guido den Broeder. You are receiving this notification as Guido den Broeder has made at least one edit to this wiki as per the m:Global bans policy. Best, --SHB2000 (talk) 05:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Upload Wizard wording

In the section "Please select the option that best describes the purpose of this work" of the Upload Wizard, the options are

• This work provides knowledge, instructions, or information to others.
• This work is for my personal use e.g. photos of myself, my family or friends, or I am required to upload it for my job.

Neither of these, to my mind, seems to absolutely capture the idea of a "free media repository", as Wikimedia Commons is described. I suggest that some wording such as "a resource for others to use" is added to the first option. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

The "I am required to upload it for my job" clause is also inappropriate, given the role of Wikimedians in Residence, and colleagues in GLAMs and suchlike from whom we solicit image donations. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploaded images are supposed to be realistically useful for educational purposes. Personal images or images uploaded for tbe uploader's job have a high likelihood to be deleted because they are out of scope, even though there are some exceptions. In my opinion, the wording is o.k. if chosing this option produces just a warning. GLAM people and Wikimedians in residence should know what they are doing and will not be deterred by the wording. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Personal images" seems to be a borderline case. I can upload my image of my work as long as it shows something that is educational --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 12:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Experience shows that many such people will be deterred by things like this. Your claim otherwise is without merit. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

January 14

Can someone help me with autowiki browser for categorizing toki pona logograms?

I decided to start making categories for Toki Pona logograms by word, since we have a lot of them. With the exception of certain rare words we have almost all of our images in exhaustive sets of images resembling fonts.

I created the category Category:Toki Pona logograms by word to store such categories.

I made a page here User:Immanuelle/Toki Pona categorization showing each subcategory I want to create, the content I want for the category, and the list of files I wish to be categorized in each one. This is very time intensive so is anyone up to use AWB to make it easier? I'm not knowledgeable enough about AWB to know if this is a reasonable request or not, since it might not be able to do nested tasks like this. Otherwise I'd like to work on this for a couple days, and I'll disable the categories so they are not disruptive.Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) @Immanuelle: most of what you describe can be done with the Cat-a-lot gadget, aside for creating the category pages themselves. You can activate it in your Preferences, and when not using it you can minimize it to a small box.—Odysseus1479 (talk) 00:34, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 that is what I was looking for, but I do not see the post it note thing. Is the documentation out of date? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:14, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Odysseus1479 I got it working, but unfortunately for this application it does not save time. I think AWB is the only way to make it not tedious. I created all categories though so they can be freely added if that will help the future AWB user Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 04:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I reworked the page to just a couple irregular ones that lack proper categorization due to irregular file names Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Sobsz this may concern you. The one category I was not able to get into the list is Category:Simple SVGs of Toki Pona in sitelen pona since they contain the (variable) english translations Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 00:21, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

"Not around" template

I have manually imported en.Wikipedia's {{Not around}} and modified it for use on this project.

It can be added to the talk pages of long-departed users (three months inactivity is the suggested minimum) to inform people using those pages to ask for advice or assistance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Picture of the Day (File:Caracas building.jpg)- Misleadingly labelled Photoshopped creation?

(Disclaimer; Mentioning this primarily because it got my attention as Picture of the Day and as an example of Commons' best work it raises some questions)

I just saw yesterday's "Picture of the Day", File:Caracas building.jpg. My initial reaction was that this was an outstanding picture.

However, after a while, it started to look too good to be true. Upon closer inspection, it became obvious that:

• All windows and panels- except the deliberately "odd" ones- are completely identical. (The blue panels all have the same faint light spot at the bottom left. They all have the exact same noise/artifact patterns).
• The vertical blinds in the two adjacent windows (just to the bottom-right of centre) are identical.
• Two windows (top right and bottom left) feature air conditioners which are clearly identical in both cases.

Yet there's no sign or acknowledgement that this isn't just the photograph of a real building most people would otherwise assume that it is.

This isn't a complaint about retouched images on Commons. We have plenty of those- including many I've uploaded myself (albeit not as good as this example!) However, IMHO:-

• They should be marked as such if they've modified the underlying reality beyond a trivial or inconsequential extent.
• They're not being misleading about what they are, or what they're supposed to represent.

Is such a heavily modified/sanitised image even an accurate representation of that actual building? And if- as I suspect- the entire image was constructed from scratch by cutting-and-pasting, was there ever even an "original" photo of the building (as a whole) used as its basis?

Does the building it represents even exist?

I still like it as a purely aesthetic creation, but this isn't Flickr.

Would be interested in hearing the thoughts of others (including creator Wilfredor (talk · contribs)).

Thanks,

Ubcule (talk) 15:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ubcule: You are absolutely correct about each detail. This is a thoroughly manipulated image. I like it too "as a purely aesthetic creation", but it is a fair question whether the building even exists. -- WikiPedant (talk) 17:26, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Blatantly false and misleading, as it stands. The file should be renamed and the description changed to an accurate one. ITookSomePhotos (talk) 17:46, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ubcule I tried to find some images of the actual building https://foursquare.com/v/universidad-nacional-experimental-de-la-fuerza-armada-unefa/4cb636818db0a143b5386816/photos http://www.unefa.edu.ve/portal/historia.php https://en.ultimasnoticias.com.ve/noticias/politica/controlado-incendio-registrado-este-sabado-en-la-unefa-de-chuao/?__cf_chl_rt_tk=qX_fVs8v54NdNFPXoJso_1focVdumb8w0HBJiSN7xAY-1705255883-0-gaNycGzNDSU the building clearly exists but the image looks wrong. If I counted right both of them are 16 stories, but this version looks a lot wider, and the perspective is clearly wrong, and you can clearly see proper perspective on the photos I linked. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 18:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: That's very useful, thank you for looking into that.

Yes, there seem to be some noticeable differences in the windows and the blue panels below; in the photos you linked, they appear to cover the width of one pane, in File:Caracas building.jpg, they appear to cover two. Ubcule (talk) 18:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor, I'd be really interested in what you have to say about the creation of the image. Can you clarify for us, please? Kritzolina (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to participate in this discussion, I remember that at the time I took several photos of the front and then unified them with Huguin (a panorama creation tool), I remember that the camera I used was a very small censor (it is not possible to use mirror or professional cameras in Venezuela was very dangerous), so with several photos that I took I placed them within the program and it automatically unified them. Since 8 years have passed since that photo, I don't even remember the place where I took that photo, but it looks pretty much like the ones you have shared. Wilfredor (talk) 22:01, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: - Thank you for responding.

A quick seach suggests that "Huguin" is likely a misspelling of Hugin(?) which I'm not familiar with personally. I notice the EXIF on the image says that you also used Photoshop CC 2014.

I've used Photoshop CS5 (admittedly a very old version nowadays) for panoramic stitching, and while it's good that, it's never done anything like this. Maybe CC 2014 and/or Hugin works differently, I don't know.

Whether this image was created via "manual" Photoshopping or whether Hugin or Photoshop did it without your knowledge via some automated pseudo-intelligent pattern fitting, the end result clearly goes beyond legitimate stitching and into deliberate fakery.

Regardless, this should- at the very least- have been labelled as a manipulated image. It's certainly one whose veracity we can't trust since we (and you) don't know what's been done to it.

Ubcule (talk) 23:24, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Hugin is a software to stitch panoramas. It does not create an image from scratch with 990 repeated patterns. So this image is clearly a photoshopped montage -- Basile Morin (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

If you upload images created with Hugin, you should use {{Created with Hugin}}. This goes even for "honest" panoramas. If you use it in a way that is not accurately representational, you should certainly say that as part of the description. As it is, nothing you did here even indicated overtly that this was anything other than a photograph. - Jmabel ! talk 03:39, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: So you're not "Retired"?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 03:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I removed this template, thanks Wilfredor (talk) 14:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I want to add. Specifically referencing the building here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_4Sd52kUDlz7HgEqajaW7mscNfQTvuGq0FplGbDXRpQc.jpg there are 6 * 5 + 7 + 6 * 5 = 67 window segments. a group of seven in the middle, and on each side 6 groups of 5 windows, each group clearly divided by columns. The image in question has 56 windows so it technically is numerically possible, but it lacks the columns more clearly seen here https://fastly.4sqi.net/img/general/width960/67779603_bB_LLtzfh1Vcjjf92-pA3Rct1fLgwrGhvwl-c4JA74E.jpg Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 20:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

•  Info I've started a discussion on removal of its FP status. --A.Savin 23:59, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
•  Comment It is very deceiving that a long-term contributor submitted a fake image for FPC. It's QI status should also be removed. Yann (talk) 08:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I see you added a template that explains that this image was massively altered, thank you for that, Yann. Wilfredor, could you please alter the original image description to clarify, what you did? Kritzolina (talk) 08:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• I have always tried to be clear in my nominations about the alterations. In the past I uploaded my RAWs to the commons archive, but today that project does not exist and many Raws were lost. Leave a comment here to start a withdrawal process for all my FPs from these FP categories Wilfredor (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

• Definitely, with accent on "long-term contributor". Unfortunately it is not the first time Wilfredor is deeming the community stupid, I just recall that disgusting ChatGPT-generated summaries for FP noms. Long-term contributors always have earned some confidence; Wilfredor apparently has been breaching it for years. That said, there are things that may be excusable for a newbie, but in case of Wilfredor, a serious sanction up to an indef block should be urgently considered. --A.Savin 13:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Chatgpt was a way to communicate better in a language that is not my own using this tool as a translator or based on a text that I wrote, these things were not done with bad intentions. Regarding the current image, which is what this post is about, I have opened a thread here to remove all my FPs as soon as it is not possible to prove that they have not been altered, finally regarding "Wilfredor apparently has been breaching it for years" is a serious accusation and I would recommend you a block request, you can make it formally and I will accept anything that the community considers relevant in this case. My intention was never to lie, deceive, or dignify the community Wilfredor (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, A.Savin. So punishing Wilfredor for an image created and uploaded in 2016 wouldn't fly with the community. I am concerned this isn't the only such example. I seem to recall a bullfighting image that had issues, again from many years ago. But don't I think the idea of removing all their FPCs in one go, as Wilfredor has proposed, is going to help the project. Wilfredor, I'd much rather you examined the 185 FPs (and perhaps some of your other contribs) to see if you can remember if any have significant adjustments or are entirely fake like this one. Then we can get an idea of the scale of the issue. Removing them all might seem like the simplest option but it also skips this scrutiny, leaving us no wiser as to whether there are just a few bad photos or dozens of them. Also, Wilfredor, the candidate list talk page is on far more watchlists than the FP talk page, so it would be proposal if your discussion was there. Not many FPC regulars hang out at the VP. -- Colin (talk) 15:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was reviewing and found two where there are major alterations, the first is this where you can see in the history of the photo the alteration from the beginning, also in this other photo I added on the guitar a photo of a baby that the same subject in the photo showed me. The photo of the bulls that you mention is this photo in which I added a bull (see file history) and a bullfighter that were present that same day in that same bullring a few minutes before in another photo Wilfredor (talk) 15:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I was checking again, in some photos I removed some dirty dust in the sky, I removed some garbage, nothing that really alters the result in a drastic way like this current photo. Except for this nomination made a few years ago, today I always try to be sincere with my alterations, an example was this nomination where I explain and even upload the original image without alteration Wilfredor (talk) 15:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  That wasn't the one I remember, but possibly from that set of photos or similar. Maybe my memory isn't finding it. I see Commons:Featured picture candidates/File:Plaza de Toros de Maracaibo 02.jpg also sparked controversy with a gigapixel upsize leading to bad results. To be honest, I think a fair few of more recent FP by many people using AI sharpening are "fake" with entirely AI-imagined feather or hair detail. But that's perhaps a debate for another day. -- Colin (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  @Wilfredor, could you please state clearly for every picture that you altered, which alterations you did? At the moment the image of the homeless person says waste was removed by retouching, but the photo of the baby is not mentioned at all. Can you please du this as detailed, as you can, at least with those images that have the PF status? So we know what we are looking at there? Kritzolina (talk) 16:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  No, when I say waste I mean photos in general, that is, I have removed dirt from the lens or speck of dust, dirt in the sky in other photos, not in the one of the homeless man, just add the photo of the baby on the guitar from a photo that the same homeless man showed me. I think the photo of the homeless person should be removed from FP status. Wilfredor (talk) 17:15, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  My intention was not to hide it but to honor the person's baby, in the history you can see the first image without the baby Wilfredor (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  On this picture, there is a templat stating that this image was retouched, removing waste. Adding in the pic of the baby is not mentioned. Please go change this, so everyone can see what it was that was retouched. It is fine to do such things, if you are transparent about them. Will you mark such changes of images going forward clearly? Kritzolina (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I reverted the baby picture letting the original one (the first image uploaded in the history of this file in commons) Wilfredor (talk) 18:58, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you. Would you please either revert to original or clearly mark what you did on all the other FPs where you made significant changes like that? And do you promise not to do any such tamperin without clearly marking what you did in the future? Kritzolina (talk) 19:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  I promise to use the template and add in detail any changes I make in the future. I also promise to review my photos and see if I make changes. I always upload the original first without alterations, then on that original I apply noise reduction, but to add greater clarity to the matter, in the future I will soon upload my RAW file to the internet archive, in this way there is a faithful proof of the original image without alterations Wilfredor (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you very much for helping to identify and clearly lable all images that were altered. Kritzolina (talk) 09:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  I would like to second these thanks. If now all substantially changed photos are clearly labelled and described as such, we have made great progress. --Aristeas (talk) 09:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Well, that's similar like about blocks for personal insults. A block cannot change anything on the offense already taken, but not blocking would send a wrong message to the offender and to anyone. Do we wish similar cases in future, be it from Wilfredor or someone else? For sure, blocks are meant to be preventative, not punitive, I'm not questioning this. --A.Savin 16:37, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Yes and if Wilfredor was going around personally insulting people in these last few days, or had responded in this discussion that he didn't care about the pictures being fake or not, and would continue uploading fakes, then I'd support some measure. We are all a mix of angry and upset about this, but Wilfredor has apologised repeatedly, and is helping to identify which images may be problematic. I'm sure Wilfredor is now acutely aware that uploading any new images with such fakery will be viewed very dimly indeed. It is time to clean up any mess and move on. -- Colin (talk) 08:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

   Comment Using ChatGPT to translate texts from one’s native language to another should NOT be a reason to be blocked. I often do that when I’m just too lazy to think in an alien language like English. RodRabelo7 (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  Perhaps you've confused something -- ChatGPT etc. are about generating texts, not translating. --A.Savin 19:50, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  ChatGPT can translate text. I use it for that all the time. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  And so do I… For example… RodRabelo7 (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  So what? I'm talking about Wilfredor's summaries that were ChatGPT-generated from scratch and attempted to be sold as genuine comments. --A.Savin 22:10, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

  The ChatGPT FPC texts did indeed try our patience (though this one you linked seems well within the normal bounds of what many nominators say at a nomination). But again, I think Wilfredor got the message that he was pissing people off with them, and has AFAIK stopped with the lengthy novels. . -- Colin (talk) 08:48, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

  Fair enough, thank you for your assessment of this situation, much appreciated. Regards --A.Savin 14:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I've posted a comment at the FP removals discussion regarding the claimed motivation/supposed-mea-culpa for uploading the faked image which seems to somewhat contradict what was said here.

(In short; Wilfredor (talk · contribs) says above that they "don't even remember the place where I took that photo", yet in the FP discussion, they "liked it as a way of expressing the dictatorial regime's obsession with controlling people", something that is neither mentioned nor alluded to anywhere in the title or description which doesn't even mention that it's a military building). Ubcule (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not contradictory, and was motivated by a recommendation from Charles Wilfredor (talk) 22:25, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@Wilfredor: The contradiction in question was between

• (a) your claim that you liked it as an expression on the nature of the military/regime when elsewhere, versus
• (b) you didn't remember anything about the building and made no mention of (a) elsewhere. Ubcule (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I remember that this image was to protest the regime and I don't remember how this image was generated exactly at this moment. I know I used Hugin because it was the software I used at that time, I remember that it was a panoramic photo because I took several photos to be unified later. I don't remember the specific building in this photo or the camera I used to take this photo, or how I got there to take that photo, I only partially remember some details. Wilfredor (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Okay, I've said what I have to say on the first bit and don't plan to repeat that further.

As for "I remember that it was a panoramic photo". Well, regardless of how that image was created and whoever or whatever (Hugin, Photoshop, etc.) was responsible for the end result, the evidence makes clear beyond any doubt that it goes way beyond a simple panoramic stitch. Ubcule (talk) 23:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

The software used at that time was Adobe Photoshop, according to the metadata (copy-paste this link https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Digitally_altered_image_of_UNEFA.jpg to verify) -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@Basile Morin: - You don't need that site, Commons already shows EXIF metadata (click on "show extended details" under the Metadate heading) and I'd already noted the involvement of Photoshop above.

However, as I mentioned elsewhere, this doesn't prove anything definitively- it's *possible* that Photoshop was simply used for (e.g.) final sharpening and level adjustment of an image created elsewhere.

Not saying I think that's the most likely explanation, just that we can't claim that for sure, and probably shouldn't.

As I said at the FP, the unreliable details of *how* the image was manipulated or created are ultimately less important than the (pretty much indisputable) fact that it *is* manipulated to the point of fakery and should be clearly tagged/labelled as such. Ubcule (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Uploadwizard wiped link to user profile

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T354529

i think wizard has wiped links to user pages. i just randomly saw 3 users' new uploads, which all have no link to their user pages but only their usernames in the author field. i dont think this is a coincidence. RZuo (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

by looking at photos on User:Yahya/Entrepreneurs/2023_December_1-15, it seems wizard started making no links on 15 dec 2023. RZuo (talk) 17:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Sannita (WMF) - Jmabel ! talk 18:05, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't notice it before, but with my uploads, the wizard stopped linkin my userpage with the start of the new year. --Kritzolina (talk) 19:38, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

How is this an improvement?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 02:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

It looks like a bug that might have been introduced with the changes of the upload wizard in December. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 08:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

We know already about this bug, the team has deployed a patch one hour ago, as far as I can tell. The patch should be shipped during the week. Sorry for the disruption. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I just want to add that this is a very serious bug as fixing the missing links manually or by writing a bot will take many hours of volunteer work. GPSLeo (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with GPSLeo here that this bug could cause quite some work for us volunteers. I would greatly appreciate help from development team to fix the missing links in my uploads - could they provide a bot perhaps for all whose uploads were affected? Kritzolina (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll talk with the team immediately and see if we can support you with fixing this bug. I think the list of uploads could be something feasible, but suggestions are welcome. I'll keep you posted. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I guess these are all uploads starting Dec 12. I can check the exact time for my own uploads. Ymblanter (talk) 11:49, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

For my uploads, the file I uploaded 20:09, 12 December 2023 has the link. The next file I uploaded 20:34, 13 December 2023, and it does not have the link. I guess probably between these two times the Wizard was modified, and starting from the modification time uploaded files have no link. Ymblanter (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

A dev from the team provided me with this query, hope this helps for the moment. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:38, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The linking for the new uploads is working now, thanks again. Ymblanter (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 15

Synthesis of different licenses

Hello. I am looking to combine two images from WIKIMEDIA to create a descriptive image for an article. One of the original images is cc3.0 and the other is cc4.0. Is it possible to combine these two images? If so, which cc should I use for the finished product and are there any precautions I should take? Thank you in advance.--狄の用務員 (talk) 05:38, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@狄の用務員: I think it depends in part on the type of CC licence, in particular the SA condition. The main principle is that you can’t remove any conditions that apply to the original; specifically no BY-SA can be published under BY only. I don’t think there’s a problem relicensing CC BY-SA 3.0 as CC BY-SA 4.0. (But CC 1.0 licences can’t be ‘upgraded’ in this way.) Be sure to link & credit the sources, and it’s probably safest to mention their original licences as well. (You may get a more informed or technical response at COM:VPC.)—Odysseus1479 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for explanation. I checked and one is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported and the other is Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International, both were Share Alike, so I will release the finished product as CC BY-SA 4.0. I will make sure to include a link and credit, as well as the original license. thank you. 狄の用務員 (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Problem with File:Sefer ha-ʼiggeret ha-ḳodesh (IA b30092838).pdf

Hi, File:Sefer ha-ʼiggeret ha-ḳodesh (IA b30092838).pdf is described as one book in page but in reality is a completely different book. It's actually he:שערי ירושלים (ספר), not the claimed book by en:Gershon ben Eliezer Yiddels. What do we do to correct the error? The uploader of the file is inactive. DGtal (talk) 08:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Assuming it is still PD, just make the appropriate corrections in the description and ask for a rename. - Jmabel ! talk 22:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Problematic file names and irrelevant categorization by sockpuppet group

Hello. I have noticed that the sockpuppet group Category:Sockpuppets of Anonymous Hong Kong Photographer 1 has uploaded a large amount of files with incorrect file names (with irrelevant abbreviations and wrong place/station names), and they have also added irrelevant categories in various files that they uploaded. As moving requires a lot of work here on Commons, I would like to raise attention and request for assistance on this matter. Thank you! (Please {{Ping}} me on reply) --LuciferianThomas 16:09, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

@LuciferianThomas I enjoy renaming files. Is there any way I can see a list of them on aggregate? Like a search function for all of them? That would be very useful since we are operating with multiple users. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:28, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

There are hundreds of accounts it's kinda insane Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:32, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Sadly it does seem to be extremely hard to track down every single one of them, but I would think that it is possible to start from Hong Kong MTR station categories (e.g. Category:Hang Hau Station) and their subcategories to do them one by one. The worst thing about it is the mix of authentic and bad file names, so it just can't be simply done on batch. LuciferianThomas 01:45, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@LuciferianThomas I'm not sure if I'm knowledgeable enough to do this. I've never been to Hong Kong and don't know much about the country. Do you think we could add some kind of maintenance category to all of them? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 16:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I honestly am not sure whether they're actually sockpuppets. It's difficult to believe that one person could be doing all this, it's difficult to believe that multiple people could be doing something this specific independently, and it's difficult to believe that an organized endeavor to do this could be kept quiet.DS (talk) 21:14, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

re @DragonflySixtyseven: The general point being the very consistent naming conventions (whilst containing incorrect information), most of the sockpuppets having a very consistent user page style and image description format. Looks too consistent to be multiple people, yet very true. Anyhow, sock or meatpuppet, they are still clearly disruptive.

re @Immanuelle: if rules allow, I can definitely start scanning through files and add maintenance cats since that's how much I can do right now. That is, if someone endorses my actions so I can link to here whenever questioned. I would really request for filemover myself to fix the issues but I don't know if I am actually good to go for the right (As a rough guideline, administrators usually require editors to have made at least 1,000 useful, non-botlike edits or a large amount of justified renaming requests at Commons before they will consider granting the filemover right, maybe I have the latter part?) LuciferianThomas 00:08, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@LuciferianThomas I feel they would be blocked on Wikipedia, but images are hard enough to go wrong with that we want the uploads even if the bad itkes case a lot of issues Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 06:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Amazing resource - just found

I literally just located the CSIRO's Radio Astronomy Image Archive. For anything older than 1958, it's in the Public Domain. Anything newer than that, and it's under CC-BY-4.0.

They specifically state:

Images in the archive that are owned by CSIRO are made available for appropriate publication and re-publication, including media, Open Access books and offline electronic formats, with no limitations in duration.

For images taken on or after 1 January 1955 the copyright is held by CSIRO (@CSIRO). These are provided with a Creative Commons by 4.0 licence. These images must include a credit line ‘Image Credit: CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive.’ There are no other copyright restrictions on these images.

Under Australian law, for images owned by CSIRO, taken prior to 1955, the copyright period has expired and there are no copyright restrictions. However, CSIRO requests that the credit line ‘Image Credit: CSIRO Radio Astronomy Image Archive.’ be included with all CRAIA images.

There are thousands of photos. I just thought folks might be interested! Some of the photos are interesting not just for the scientific endeavours, but actually they show places in a historical context we otherwise may never have seen. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:24, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Holy crap - there's images of a Mark I computer, Sir Edward Appleby, another I just came across has one of the directors of the CCIT in animated discussions with another scientist.... the historic nature of these photos is incredible! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 16:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hmm:

Low resolution versions of the scanned images are provided on this website through an interactive application described below. These are made freely available.

High resolution digital files for the images in this archive are held by CSIRO Space and Astronomy. Please read the following notes when making requests

(my emboldening)

Maybe our friends in Wikimedia Australia can coordinate a formal request for the high res images, en masse? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would ask, but they kicked me out as a fully paid up member. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your most memorable shot 2023 (January / February 2023)

It’s that time of the year again: since 2018, we have shared our most memorable shots of the past twelve months with each other. Now in its sixth iteration, the “Most Memorable Shot” has become a tradition we cherish at the beginning of each new year. Please feel invited to share your most memorable picture of 2023 on this page. -- Suyash Dwivedi (talk) 18:00, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Are you allowed to nominate your own images for Valued or featured image?

I just nominated two of my images for Valued image Commons:Valued image candidates/Masakaki with Sword.jpg and Commons:Valued image candidates/Masakaki with Mirror and Jewel.jpg as they are the highest quality existing images of the objects in question. Am I allowed to do this? Likewise can I do the same for featured image? I saw a guy above had nominated his own images but he was also not on good terms with the rest of the community. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 22:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated my own images and they were promoted. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Immanuelle, yes, you can nominate your own images on the Featured picture candidates page. Most FP candidates are nominated by their creators, so this is absolutely common. You can even vote for your own candidate images there. Please read the FP rules before nominating; e.g., you can nominate max. 2 images at concurrently. Best, --Aristeas (talk) 10:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@Chris.sherlock2 thank you. Can you look over those two images and see if they qualify as good valued image candidates? Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 17:19, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

I’ll be back in a few days, look then. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk)< Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 02:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

January 16

New discussion related to "Describe" step in UploadWizard

Hi all! We are collecting feedback regarding the usage of the "Describe" step in UploadWizard, and its challenges to newbies. You are kindly invited to participate! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

January 17

Question about Category:Søren Rasmussen (politician)

Søren Rasmussen has an unusual amount of photos for a local politician who never exceeded the rank of deputy mayor of a city of 62K. That's fine, of course, as they do seem to be free (though I have some worries about Flickr white-washing for some of them). I write here because I found the election posters to particularly obnoxious and redundant. I organized them here: Category:Election posters of Søren Rasmussen. They could not just be in the parent category of Category:Election posters in Denmark because they would dominate it visually if not otherwise. Commons is not my home project. Am I worried about nothing? Or is this some form of spamming? Thanks for your thoughts on this. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the number is not that unusual for someone who puts out a steady stream of media. Here where I live in Seattle, there's Category:Tim Burgess (politician) (175 files), who served multiple terms on the city council, then briefly as mayor during a transition; Category:Sally Bagshaw (over 450 photos for another longtime member of the city council); Category:Rob Johnson (138 photos, and he served all of four years on the council, and never held any other public office). Admittedly Seattle is a bigger city but it's mostly a matter of a steady stream of media. And I bet we have more photos of all of the above, because 1,912 photos are simply categorized as "Seattle City Council".

I think you did well to put the posters in a subcategory. - Jmabel ! talk 08:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Letter of consent for portraits

Dear contributors, following a discussion regarding the consent to take a child portrait on an FP nomination, I would like to encourage discussion on the substance and form of the letter of consent that photographers should provide in order to upload portraits. The author of the portrait raised concerns that Commons:Photographs of identifiable people and Commons:Personality rights are very vague, and they do not give any guidance on what should the letter of consent look like, what should be its substance, what should be the language, should there be a signature and who performs the check of its veracity. In fact, the problem is that the author was able to provide proof of consent, but there was no clear guideline on how to do it. Your thoughts are welcome. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 11:24, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

While I have no opinion about child portraits in particular there should at least be a letter of consent from the model with images containing nudity if not in other instances. Although it would probably be good policy to require them with portraits of children to. At least modern ones where the person has a high chance of still being alive and/or a child. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

MediaSearch dysfuncional

I am sure there was a page on commons to discuss MediaSearch with the people in charge of it, but the link on the search page only links to the mediawiki website and it does not look that there is much traffic.

Here is the thing: On https://article.wn.com/view/2021/01/27/factbox_the_brexit_impact_so_far_8211_paperwork_process_and_/ is a reuse of one of my fotos. It is attributed with " Protests against Brexit at the Brandenburg gate in Berlin, Germany on 7 September 2019." So I thought, if I enter "2019-09-07 C.Suthorn" in MediaSearch I will find all the fotos I made on that day and published at commons (this specific image has my name and the date in the descrtiption page, in SDC, in the category and in the connected "depictrs" wikidata entry. So the MediaSearch has a number of ways to make the connection between the query and the image i was looking for). But actually MediaSearch returned a large number of images by me and many of them about brexit. But it did not only not return the image i was looking for but none of the images from 2019-09-07 i published at Commons. It is a search result of images not from that date! Whats wrong? --C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=%222019-09-07%22+C.Suthorn&title=Special:MediaSearch . RZuo (talk) 14:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

@RZuo: Thanks! @C.Suthorn: It appears to be File:StopTheCoup 23.jpg, which does not bear that form of date.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:33, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

from the info template: "|date=2019-09-07 12:31:08". Also it should not matter, if someone who does a search enters 2222/11/11, 11.11.2222, 11.September 2222, 11th of september 2222. MediaSearch should be able to interpret a date as the given date and search for the date, not for the string that was entered. That is what SDC is for: structured data: a machine interpretable data. I really was under the impression if there is an intersection between the date in a file "2222","22222-11-11","2222-11-11 11:11", "2000-3000" and the date in the query "2222","22222-11-11","2222-11-11 11:11", "2000-3000" all files within that intersection will be considered possible search results and all files outside that intersection will be excluded from the results. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 15:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

The search engine does not use and semantic interpretation of the input. It just compares differences in strings. If I search for "GPSLeo 2022-09-06" I get over 2000 results. The files taken on this date are among this result but also files wit name like "Name 2022-03-09 06" or "Name 2022-09-23 06". The first 10 results are not taken on the 2022-09-06. But all these files are uploaded much earlier then the ones of the 2022-03-09. As the files are sorted by relevance and the first files have more media views. The first file has less media views but a redirect to the file. GPSLeo (talk) 16:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Macedonia

Category:Macedonia is supposed to be a disambiguation category. It currently contains 212 files. I would be great if someone familiar with that part of the world would help get these into their proper categories. - Jmabel ! talk 19:37, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Name for a graphic art style

Do we have a category for this graphic art/lettering style, common on posters from the late 1960s (especially in the Western U.S.)? I've placed it in Category:Psychedelic art and Category:Hippie art and design and it could imaginably go somewhere under Category:Pop art, but there should be something more specific here, and I don't have a name for it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:21, 17 January 2024 (UTC)