Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES
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/2024/11.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

   

Start a new discussion

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Google's semi-censorship of Wikimedia Commons must end 34 11 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 15:57
2 Your input... 13 5 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 21:53
3 Views through mobile phones 7 5 Prototyperspective 2024-11-03 12:28
4 Almost 400k files need license review 30 11 Felix QW 2024-11-09 09:52
5 Obtuse bot created categories 22 10 Enhancing999 2024-11-09 17:36
6 Derivative works (FOP etc.) 6 6 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 10:39
7 Special:Uploads/Claudiupt 1 1 Strainu 2024-11-02 10:19
8 Help needed with a new userbox template 1 1 David Osipov 2024-11-02 11:54
9 Provinces of China by month and year 3 3 RoyZuo 2024-11-02 23:58
10 Edit summary on project chat 6 4 ReneeWrites 2024-11-03 22:35
11 file description pages from IA Flickr stream 1 1 Enhancing999 2024-11-03 14:30
12 New page for establishing textured meshes on Commons 1 1 PantheraLeo1359531 2024-11-03 18:16
13 FYI 7 4 Enhancing999 2024-11-06 21:15
14 New law in Costa Rica: "Public Domain of Information" 3 2 LuchoCR 2024-11-07 01:04
15 Moscow State University Herbarium 1 1 Yann 2024-11-05 15:36
16 {{TOO-US}} 3 3 Dronebogus 2024-11-09 12:17
17 Commons:Oversighters/Requests/Kadı 2 1 1 Kadı 2024-11-06 14:58
18 External link detection is now live on Commons 1 1 Sannita (WMF) 2024-11-06 16:36
19 AI generated and licensing 19 7 Belbury 2024-11-08 18:10
20 Invitation to the upcoming Commons Community Calls -- November 21, 2024 1 1 Sannita (WMF) 2024-11-08 10:33
21 Implicit dual-licensing 2 2 Omphalographer 2024-11-09 04:13
22 Please remove Category:Depreradovich family from Category:Zora Preradović 2 2 William Graham 2024-11-08 15:25
23 Template:CR cooldown 6 5 Jmabel 2024-11-09 18:34
24 Upload a new version 3 2 Jmabel 2024-11-08 23:04
25 Remove 1911 in Ternopil Oblast and 1911 establishments in Ukraine by region from Category:1911 establishments in Ternopil Oblast, and Category:Young people in Cuba from Category:Children in Cuba. 2 2 Jmabel 2024-11-09 18:40
26 About Category:Lakes in the canton of Zurich. 3 3 Rudolph Buch 2024-11-09 18:40
27 2024 open letter to the Wikimedia Foundation 7 5 Gråbergs Gråa Sång 2024-11-09 19:17
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.
Broadwick St, Soho, London: a water pump with its handle removed commemorates Dr. John Snow's tracing of an 1854 cholera epidemic to the pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 13

Creator templates deleted

When we delete the only file of a Creator, should we be deleting the Creator template also? See Creator:Hanna Kunsch. RAN (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This should not have been deleted. It seems she died in 1945, so her works are already in the public domain. Yann (talk) 19:13, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was the image file that was deleted, I don't have access to deleted images. As a general rule, should we keep creator templates even if we have no images that link to them? --RAN (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
COM:L still says that "Wikimedia Commons only accepts media ... that are in the public domain in at least the United States and in the source country of the work." And virtually all of her works first published between 1927 and 2002 will be in copyright in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There seems to be some confusion about when Hanna Kusch died. Is it 1945, after 1949, after 1960? This needs to be sorted out first, before we can decide whether or not to delete her works and creator template. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:16, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 1945, that is an outlier copied from an image catalog without any explanations how they got that year. The German authority file and German biography portal have her as still active as a photographer in 1949, and she is listed as living in Göttingen in the 1960 Göttingen address book (city directory). And that is not "a person with the same name" as claimed elsewhere. The name is not common at all (I couldn't find any other person with the same name using both Ancestry and Google), and she is specifically listed as a photographer in the 1960 address book. --Rosenzweig τ 07:43, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
She died in 1961, see my comment at COM:UNDEL. --Rosenzweig τ 10:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I always appreciate a nice piece of detective work; well done! Guess this is then the end of the story, undeletion in about nine years. An admin should also have a look at the remaining files in Category:Hanna Kunsch. --HyperGaruda (talk) 19:01, 14 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, excellent detective work, still unanswered: Do we delete the Creator template because we have no images, or do we always make a Creator template for creators? I think we should keep them, eventually all images will be PD, and this way they will already be linked to a creator template when restored. Any one disagree? --RAN (talk) 20:04, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Commons:Criteria for speedy deletion#Template T2. Unused template is clear about this: “Unused templates (except maintenance/project templates that are substituted), are subjected to speedy deletion.” The text “Unused and unlikely to be needed Creator template (T2)” is even preconfigured among the rationales when deleting a creator template. Similarly, empty categories are deleted as well. Both can be restored as soon as they are needed. --Rosenzweig τ 22:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
needless bureaucracy.--RZuo (talk) 08:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It says: "Unused templates (except maintenance/project templates that are substituted), are subjected to speedy deletion." But {{Creator:John Smith}} and {{Creator|wikidata=Q}}, are in use at Wikidata and at Commons, even if it is not connected to an image that is currently on displayed for the general viewer. The Utility being that when the images are restored, when they are in the public domain, they are already attached to a creator template with the proper life and death dates. Remember, an image is never deleted, just hidden from view from most viewers. When the suggested restoration date is reached, the editor will want to be looking at the birth and death dates in the Creator template to confirm the restoration date. Doe anyone else agree? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 17:49, 26 November 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]
Just why are people so hell-bent on keeping empty categories and unused templates? Restoring them is no problem at all if and when they are actually needed. Or even creating them afresh, creating a creator template when there is a WD entry is only a matter of seconds. All these arguments like "in use at Wikidata" or "in use by deleted files" are simply ludicrous. --Rosenzweig τ 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not "ludicrous", just a different opinion than yours. Postponing maintenance work in the hopes that someone in the future will do it, doesn't always work. Our deletion cue is always 6-months behind and some stay in the cue for almost a year. These also, only take seconds, but, seconds add up to minutes, hours, and days of work. that someone has to do. --RAN (talk) 02:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
exactly. here's an example, result of bureaucratic deletionists: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=Category%3AMia+Khalifa . how much time, how much "a matter of seconds" was wasted in properly setting up the category over and over?--RZuo (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Quite little. Might have added up to 2 or 3 minutes. Each time appears to have been a simple undelete. I probably spent more time looking through the history to answer your question. - Jmabel ! talk 22:13, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
how simple is the undelete? are you aware how long the bureaucratic sysops sitting at COM:UNDEL would wait until they comply with this simple undelete? here's an example: Commons:Undeletion_requests/Archive/2022-05#Category:Instagram_influencers. from 19:56, 12 May 2022 to 13:54, 13 May 2022, first cat was undeleted after 18 hours! second cat undeletion was never fulfilled to this date!
by the time of 2032, how much time will it take for a future user to check whether the order to undelete in 2032 was correct (that there was no changes to the person's year of death, no changes to the governing laws, etc.)? RZuo (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
in the case of Category:Instagram_influencers, to be honest, i'm not gonna fix it until the old versions are undeleted.
i had worked on the category before, including linking it with the same cat on wikipedias Category:Instagram celebrities (Q105702909). then came some joker who emptied the whole cat, and then it was deleted by User:Túrelio along with other plausible cats Category:Relations of the Dominican Republic and Morocco Category:Relations of Cuba and Sweden Category:Ambassadors of France to the Republic of the Congo Category:Relations of Cuba and Kazakhstan (for which i created Category:Ambassadors of Kazakhstan to Cuba to make a point).
i requested undeletion, which is not fulfilled to this date, so i never bothered linking it with wikidata again, and the cat remains disconnected after 7 months. i added Q105702909 to my watchlist, just waiting to see how long it will take until these errors due to bureaucracy and idiocracy are fixed. RZuo (talk) 23:03, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo: In case you were wondering why there are no page creations in that log, please see Phab:T288346 and Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/07#Page creation logs.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:55, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

November 18

November 26

November 29

November 30

Wrong orientation

https://flickr.com/photos/36380617@N06/6674221779 loaded to Commons as File:Glotzbach, Rockne, Millett (6674221779).jpg with the wrong orientation, how did that happen? RAN (talk) 05:44, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I don't see that as an option at CropTool, do I need to activate something in my preferences? --RAN (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Preferences > Helferlein (the last third index tab) > 2nd paragraph > CropTool (the last third entry). --Túrelio (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): assuming you are successfully accessing CropTool:
  1. Select "lossless".
  2. Slide the rotation bar to the desired position.
  3. Adjust the borders to include the whole image.
  4. Click "Preview".
  5. Then use the result of that to do an overwrite (vs. uploading as a new file).
Jmabel ! talk 19:14, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Excellent, thank you. I always chose the default settings and never noticed the options under lossless. Now all we need is for CropTool to be able to take oval crops. --RAN (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
why not let SteinsplitterBot do it? croptool's lossless mode has been fake (actually precise/lossy) for some time already.--RZuo (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I am working with a museum that received a donation of some beautiful images recently, and the museum director would like to upload these to Wikimedia Commons. The images are of mixed race children who were living in an orphanage called Holnicote House during WW2 in the UK. The images were donated to the museum by the widow of one of the children pictured. Her late husband was given the photographic prints by his carer at the orphanage, who he considered a foster parent. The photos passed to his wife when he died.

The donor and her family are also very keen to share these images widely on Commons and improve the Holnicote House Wikipedia article with them.

We cannot establish whether the photos were taken by the Holnicote House employees in the course of their employment (and would therefore be the property of the employer) or if the photographers were not employed by Holnicote House (and therefore copyright would be owned by the photographer or their heir). Either way, because this information cannot be firmly established, these photographs are not able to be uploaded to Commons under existing rules.

I’m very grateful for the advice already given by Michael Maggs on this matter.

What I’m hoping the community will consider is this: An unintended consequence of the Commons rules as they stand is that they exclude these people’s histories because they were put into care. If these children had been photographed by their parents, the copyright would be clear and the images could be uploaded to Commons. Because the children were photographed by carers who were paid or by others with whom there is no family relationship, the copyright is unclear and they are excluded.

Mixed race and Black children in Britain are disproportionately overrepresented in the care system (https://www.ethnicity-facts-figures.service.gov.uk/health/social-care/adopted-and-looked-after-children/latest) and so this issue will impact the family photographs of mixed race and Black people more than others.

Images are a powerful part of telling the stories of mixed race people and there is great excitement about improving the relevant Wikipedia page with these images and making them available for education and research. Is anyone interested in discussing any way that these images could be included on Commons despite the risk involved? Does anyone else have collections of photographs which are impacted in the same way? I believe that the case for inclusion is strong.

This is one example of a wider implication of excluding images where copyright cannot be established. Where family relationships follow a strict norm, copyright of family photographs can be clearly established. But where family relationships are more complicated and, frankly more realistic, with estrangements, adoptions, multiple parental relationships etc., copyright can be impossible to establish. Tenuous tree (talk) 13:03, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of many problems with our decision not to allow images with orphaned copyrights, but there would be equal problems with going the other way, namely that we'd like reusers of our material to have a reasonable expectation that if they conform to the stated licenses, they will not be breaching copyright law. The problem of orphaned copyrights is more a problem of copyright law than a problem with Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 16:06, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Tenuous tree: We accept images from Flickr Commons under a "no known copyright restrictions" license, this would require obtaining a Flickr Commons account first and loading them there. We also accept {{PD-UK-unknown}}, which is for images more than 70 years old that have no person's name attached to the image as a known photographer. Images taken "during WW2 in the UK" would fall under "PD-UK-unknown". The cutoff date is 1 January 1952. --RAN (talk) 16:16, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't Flickr washing if the statement is true. The Library of Congress uses "no known copyright restrictions" on the Bain Collection, they have the negatives; Getty Images licenses the images, because they have prints of the images. Even with that strong counterclaim the LOC uses: "no known copyright restrictions", and we accept it. --RAN (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you have a file where you don't know whether Commons would accept it because of copyright reasons, and you upload it on Flickr as having "no known copyright restrictions", then use your own Flickr upload as your "authority" to upload here, that is absolutely Flickrwashing. This is why the "PD" mark on Flickr is not sufficient for us to accept files without knowing the basis of why they are PD.
Again, in this case {{PD-UK-unknown}} should cover it. - Jmabel ! talk 16:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your replies and for engaging in a conversation that arrived at a measure of consensus about using {{PD-UK-unknown}} - this is an option I'm looking at more closely. It feels good to have a possible way to get these images onto Commons.
I think you hit the nail on the head in your first reply @Jmabel, in that the issue lies with copyright itself. I am hoping the community will bear examples like this in mind both as it comes to decisions about how to apply and interpret copyright law and when it considers which risks Commons and its users can take. Tenuous tree (talk) 16:00, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • All museums should load their "no known copyright restrictions" images to Flickr Commons, which is independent of any decision to upload the images to Wikimedia Commons. There is no legal or moral conflict with "no known copyright restrictions" at Flickr Commons and {{PD-UK-unknown}} or any other public domain tag, here at Wikimedia Commons. As I have said multiple times, it isn't Flickr washing if the statement, "no known copyright restrictions", is legally correct for the images under discussion. The only legal or moral ambiguity would be if they uploaded them to Flickr Commons under a Creative Commons license, which some museums have done for photographs in their collections, where they are not the creator; or if they claim a copyright for images in the public domain, as some museums do; or claim a copyright for themselves, where someone else is the legal owner of the copyright. --RAN (talk) 02:36, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 01

Ornitologists

Hello, do we have a contributor on board with knowledge of ornithology or even better, an Ornithologist? Thanks. Lotje (talk) 10:32, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When reading a page on the English Wikipedia (in fact my own user talk page), I am seeing a banner at the top, with a slideshow of various photos and a link to "help choose the best image of the year". The only trouble is, it is for 2021. I guess that the relevant input that produces this is somewhere on Commons, so am reporting it here in case someone knows how this can be updated. (Note that this banner appears above the page title, so it is clearly not part of how the talk page's own wiki content is being rendered.) Dani di Neudo (talk) 16:01, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Isn't that exactly correct? Aren't we currently determining the best picture of the previous year, not the current year? - Jmabel ! talk 16:17, 1 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: Yes, that is exactly correct. We can't judge what happened in 2022 until it's over and all the votes for all the FP nominations for all the uploads for 2022 have been tallied. The nominating, voting, and tallying for FPs takes months.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:48, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarification. For some reason, also the link wasn't giving me the opportunity to vote, so I assumed that it was last year's competition. Tried it now (on a different computer) and it was fine. --Dani di Neudo (talk) 05:06, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 02

WD mismatch

At Category:Co-orbital objects, the WD item on the left of the page does not match the WD item transcluded through the Infobox Wikidata template. No idea why. Kwamikagami (talk) 07:27, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kwamikagami: I think this is just the infobox trying to track down the main Wikidata item for the topic. Category:Co-orbital objects (Q15216182) has its Commons sitelink and its Commons category (P373) pointing at Category:Co-orbital objects, but its category's main topic (P301) is co-orbital moon (Q1707270). The main topic is generally where the useful information in Wikidata will be, so the infobox points to that rather than to the category. --bjh21 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, didn't know if this was something that should be "fixed". If you're happy with it, I'll leave it alone. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:09, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mark for manual license review?

  1. File A is from Flickr with license review passed.
  2. File B is a derivative work of File A, but it is lacking proper reference to the original File on Flickr
  3. I add that information and mark File B for {{Flickrreview}}
  4. The bot detects that as of now the File on Flickr is all rights reserved and marks file as a non-pass (which I reverted for now)
  •  Question Is there a way to request a human license reviewer to have a look at this (other than posting here)?
  •  Question What happens if I as a non-license reviewer just copy the successful review from File A to File B? (i.e.: do we have any mechanism in place that prevents non-license reviewers from just putting a reviewed by bot template on a file description page?)

Thanks, El Grafo (talk) 09:07, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @El Grafo: No idea on your first question, but on your second is there any reason {{LicenseReview}} wouldn't work? - Jmabel ! talk 16:26, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel I don't know, I assumed the bot would jump in and reject it again since there doesn't seem to be a parameter in the template to stop it. --El Grafo (talk) 08:34, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question for the community in general: any problem with someone just marking File B as a derivative work of the already-approved File A, and leaving out file review entirely for File B? - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that's a perfectly reasonable approach. The point of licence review is to have a second, trusted person record that the file really is available at the source under the licence specified, because we can't trust that the source will keep it available. Where the source is Commons itself, this isn't really useful, because any admin thinking about deleting the derived file can look at the history of the purported source file to determine whether the derived on is correctly licensed. --bjh21 (talk) 17:44, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
copypaste the original review template. you're not forging it so it's ok.--RZuo (talk) 20:01, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Commission

Hi, Could someone confirm that Category:US National Archives series: Numbered Exhibits is OK as subcategory of Category:Warren Commission. If yes, then all files which are in both categories can be removed from Category:Warren Commission. Thanks, Yann (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also what's the point to have Category:US National Archives series: Numbered Exhibits, 11/30/1963 - 9/24/1964 (hidden category) in addition to Category:US National Archives series: Numbered Exhibits, with some images of the same item in one and some in the other? That's very confusing. Yann (talk) 15:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 03

Categories of Intangible Cultural Heritage

I have started work to import all items in UNESCO Intangible Cultural Heritage Lists (Q4435332) and we are working to make a global effort to bring all items in the national inventory of intangible cultural heritage (Q113040113) to Wikidata. When the data is added, it can be used to power contests about these traditions. The activities are related to the 20th anniversary of Convention for the Safeguarding of the Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q5166256).

The data and the structures are entangled on all Wikimedia projects. The UNESCO lists, their subsets nationally and the national inventories are mixed up with list articles and other arbitrary items. I have started working on arranging the structures on Wikidata in the WikiProject Intangible Cultural Heritage (Q112898263), but I notice that also Wikimedia Commons categories will need rearranging. I created a quick class draft, and I would be willing to correct the references created during the Wikidata cleaning process to corrected Wikimedia Commons categories. I would need to rename and create categories. What are your concerns about this? – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sorry i'm a bit lost. what's the different between Category:Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity in Finland and Category:Intangible cultural heritage in Finland? also there should be a consistent cat tree (using the same preposition), unlike finland using "in" while others use "of".--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is the point I am making: Not all intangible heritage is Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity that is listed in the UNESCO lists. Some are official national inventories, and some are intangible cultural heritage without an official status (notice caps in the other and lowercase initials in the other). I think we should consider that as well. The name does not reflect to all these use cases.
I made a draft/proposal of changing the naming scheme from "of" to "in" to communicate that this is some of the intangible heritage in the country, not all. But as I think more closely about this, the UNESCO inscribed elements are finite, and therefore the name of the category that ONLY includes UNESCO inscribed elements could have it written with "of".
Previously it may not have been necessary to make the distinction, as there has been so little information to make base it on. But with this upcoming effort, I think it is only fair that the category structure can be made to follow the actual structure of the elements. – Susanna Ånäs (Susannaanas) (talk) 11:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Posible duplicate

File:218 137-8 DB City-Bahn Lackierung - DB Museum Koblenz 13.06.15 (18651127679).jpg and File:218 137-8 (Flickr 18651127679).jpg are the same but one has been 'optimized'.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:13, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done. --A.Savin 20:22, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Arabic headwear

Seen in Saudi Arabia

How do we classify this style of headwear? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:51, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably Category:Keffiyeh. --A.Savin 20:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
More specifically, it appears to be an agal. De728631 (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to warn about previous hoaxes

A few years back, we had a series of photoshopped images uploaded by different accounts/socks, in which different people were shown as standing next to a now-deceased poet. (See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ferlinghetti at Caffe Trieste.jpg and links therein.) Category:Lawrence Ferlinghetti exists, and although I haven't seen any similar images recently, I'm wondering if there is a good way to leave a note that lets other editors know about previous problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can't really think of any useful way to do that. - Jmabel ! talk 04:18, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As someone who has found hoaxes/manipulations/forgeries myself; I find the approach of "Commons will refuse to learn lessons" not okay. I think we should NOT begin to clamp down on new submissions (most uploads aren't hoaxes), but a training/guide that is linked somewhere in the Help-Section for those who find problematic files, would be great. Such a dedicated page would explain how to detect hoaxes and image manipulations, and discuss previous cases. Just from the top of my head: 1 and 2 hoaxes involving map forgery. (On the other hand, let's not get over-excited and exp­ect deception and hoaxes everywhere.) --Enyavar (talk) 12:09, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's a bad idea to expect deception everywhere, except in the part that says "own work". ;-)
I had thought about leaving a note at Category talk:Lawrence Ferlinghetti with links to the deletion requests. It might make it find-able for someone who's searching for it, but not bother anyone who is just browsing categories. I'm not sure if it's worth it, though. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a {{Hoax}} template with which you could tag relevant images. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:46, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 04

revision merging railroad maps from different years into one file

At Help Desk a user wants to merge the files for the Vienna light railway system from different years (with different lines in the different years) into a single file (as the earlier version will still be in the file history). Them gives the file File:NYC subway-4D.svg as example. It is an featured picture and picture of the day, it is used in multiple wikipedias in multiple articles and it has over time been changed to include new stations and changed lines. The rationale is, that all the articles should include the current railmap by changing the existing file. It is really meant to work this way? --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i think we should come up with a guideline (named like com:updatable images). does one already exist?
basically, i think there are two ways to handle continuous updates to a file, very often a map, logo, flag...
  1. an official version should be updated to the latest version and bear the official name, e.g. File:Flag of New Zealand.svg
  2. (significant) historical or alternative versions should have separate files, e.g. File:Flag of the United States (1912-1959, 3-2 aspect ratio).svg.
a map obviously can be designed in many different ways unlike logos/flags, so technically there is no official version, but ofc there should be a version constantly updated that will be utilised by other wikis to show the latest reality.
significant alternative versions, such as flags in different aspect ratios or colour schemes, should get separate files, just as different/historical graphic designs of the same thing should get separate files.--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

POTY mistake

Well I unknowingly voted for a picture and I don’t know what to do, since I’m not registered before 2021. It is at this post where I voted. Jellyfish picture —-SikiWtideI (talk) 02:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SikiWtideI: you can unvote by clicking the button. if you're concerned about your eligibility to vote, you dont need to worry, because that's determined by software. even if you're ineligible, organisers of the vote will take care of that. you dont need to do anything.--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 05

operation of space bar in POTY voting

I visited the POTY voting page using Chrome on Linux. After casting one of my votes, I then pressed the space bar in order to scroll down, as is normal in Chrome. However, it had the unexpected effect of removing the vote just cast. Fortunately there was then a message stating that the vote was being removed, which alerted me to it, so I cast the vote again. This time I clicked away afterwards (i.e. clicked a blank part of the page), and then when I used the space bar to scroll down, it worked properly without the problem recurring. Maybe the design of Chrome is such that there is nothing that can be done about the unintentional removal of votes (for example, if all that the server sees is that the form has been resubmitted, and there is no way for the server or any Javascript function to tell whether a space bar press or a mouse click caused this). However, if possible, it would be good to change this behaviour so that to remove a vote you have to use a mouse click, especially because the length of the page is such that most people will need to scroll down to see them all. Thanks. Dani di Neudo (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dani di Neudo: Hi, and welcome. Any time you just used a checkbox in a browser, pressing the spacebar will change the status of that checkbox because the focus is still on that checkbox. Instead, please try: tapping the pagedown button (you may have to repeat, tab, or click whitespace for this to be effective); clicking whitespace or unclickable text outside the checkbox to change the focus, then tapping the spacebar; or scrolling down your mousewheel (if you have one). Similarly, using arrow keys when you just clicked a radio button may change which radio button is selected (depending on the layout of the radio button array).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, as mentioned, on my second attempt I clicked on whitespace before using the spacebar. I was just wondering if there was a way to make the default behaviour more intuitive. Maybe not? Dani di Neudo (talk) 13:39, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Dani di Neudo: You could ask the Google Chrome and Mediawiki developers for settings to do that, but your chances are slim. JavaScript to capture the use of the space bar and not let it click might work, if you run JavaScript and can program that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, not to worry, thanks. I just reported it in case there was anything simple. Dani di Neudo (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Requests for comment: 2022 overhaul of categories by period

Commons:Requests for comment/2022 overhaul of categories by period.--RZuo (talk) 07:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)--RZuo 07:33, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting on the Wikimedia Sound Logo is about to begin

Dearest Commons community members,

In a few hours, you'll be cordially invited to vote on your favourite sound logo finalists. With 3,234 submissions from 2,094 people, we were positively encouraged by the participation and hope that the voting will be equally engaged. This is the fun part now and we are grateful to all participants that got us to this point. We are particularly grateful for the screening team of volunteers and the selection committee that helped frame and guide this phase of the project. We are so close to the identifying the Sound of All Human Knowledge. Voting begins on 6 December and ends on 19 December, 2022. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 19:33, 5 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 06

Wich paddlesteamer?

On the 14th july 1999 I sailed from Évian to Lausanne (D 19:00 A Lausanne 19:35) I took the pictures from File:Paddle steamer Lake Geneva 1999 1.jpg to File:Paddle steamer Lake Geneva 1999 5.jpg If I compare with other pictures it is most likely Category:Helvétie (ship, 1926) or Category:Simplon (ship, 1920). Both boats hve split lower windows and a pilot cabine with slichtly sloping windows. However in the picture File:Paddle steamer Lake Geneva 1999 3.jpg there is the engine date of 1915, before either 1920 or 1926. Maybe it is a reused engine. Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:16, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is Helvétie. As one can see in File:L'Helvetie.jpg, that ship has triple windows as opposed to the one in your image. Moreover, Helvétie doesn't seem to have a bell installed in the bow section. Simplon, however, does have a bell whose rim matches exactly the pattern that can be seen on the left edge of your photo. De728631 (talk) 19:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

4nn1l2 banned by the Foundation

The administrator 4nn1l2 was banned today by the Foundation. This was one of the users who were particularly aggressive against me here, so I can not really complain, but I though the community should know. (I am unrelated to the block). Ymblanter (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 07

Flickr2commons

I just loaded File:Portrush railway station - An Elizabethan railway station.jpg, a Robert French image from the NLI [1] with no copyright restrictions which usually is sufficient everything to be sorted out okay under the hood. This time I've just noticed its been flagged for deletion due to invalid licence (which undefined is). I can probably fix this manually in a little while. It could be this is a one-off blip or it is possible something has begun not to work with the process, which is the reason I'm posting here. Thankyou. -- Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga(a)talk 11:54, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same for me: early this morning I uploaded one photo from Flickr, no problem. Two hours later I uploaded another three, all with licence cc-by-2.0: at this moment (5 hours later) there still is no (automatical) review. So, there might be something wrong, or a very long list with uploads? JopkeB (talk) 14:50, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga: Hi, and welcome. We now have 1,096 files in Category:Flickr review needed. The bot FlickreviewR 2 usually reviews them, and is currently working on the backlog, but had a nearly 5-hour outage earlier (from 07:38 to 12:31 (UTC)). I reviewed the file for you anyway.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:14, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also User talk:Zhuyifei1999#Backlog.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i just tested Special:UploadWizard using for example File:NMRC-Asia.jpg. instead of writing {{Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}}{{flickrreview}}, it wrote "undefined".--RZuo (talk) 17:35, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously, it should not be doing that.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thats what had happened to me with Portrush railway station this morning but I fixed the license myself by comparing with another example. See Special:Diff/713144043. Also probably not relevant for the Flickr2Commons import is that a similar image pre-exists here, namely File:Portrush Rly Station, 1890s.jpg, which appears as if its a cropped lower res. image wich on close examination was probably but not certainly a different copy of the same original. I mention this in the outside chance it was relevant to the barf. -- Deirge Ó Dhaoinebeaga(a)talk 19:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting in the Wikimedia sound logo contest has started. From December 6 to 19, 2022, please play a part and help chose the sound that will identify Wikimedia content on audio devices. Learn more on Diff.

The sound logo team is grateful to everyone who participated in this global contest. We received 3,235 submissions from 2,094 participants in 135 countries. We are incredibly grateful to the team of volunteer screeners and the selection committee who, among others, helped bring us to where we are today. It is now up to Wikimedia to choose the Sound Of All Human Knowledge.

Best wishes. MPourzaki (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

December 08

This file named File:Makkasan Interchange at night by Mark Fischer.jpg it took place 11 February 2023. 2001:44C8:422B:98D0:BC73:F86C:7B24:6DE0 00:59, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No, 2023 is in the future.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:12, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In this discussion (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:Resolution_restricted-by-sa#Template%3AResolution_restricted-by-sa) the license I used for many of my works was deprecated. I have only just become aware of this. My understanding is there is concern the images are not "free" even though that was the intention with the license. However, if there is such substantial risk that they are free and I am not willing to amend or change the license, why are they still here on Wikimedia. I would suggest they be deleted and I would welcome that. Saffron Blaze (talk) 03:13, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=713297182"