Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

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

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/08.

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

Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

July 23[edit]

Page creation logs[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T288346
1947 in Vietnam

While attempting to view all public logs of "Category:1947 in Vietnam" I can only see that it was deleted, but oddly enough I cannot see who created the category before it was deleted. How can I do this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: You (all of you) are all welcome to join me in asking for page creation logs here on Commons at phab:T12331.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:, odd, when I proposed new technical features through the Phabricator (like the ability to view all images in a category and all of its subcategories) they get turned down because "The Phabricator is only for reporting bugs", anyhow, I think that it would be wise to start a new Phabeicator task for Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I suggest creating a new ticket with #Commons and #wikimedia-site-requests for maximum visibility. Commenting on a closed ticket would be the equivalent to commenting on a closed discussion here on wiki. Phabricator of course accepts new feature requests, not only bugs, but it is not a good software for discussion among many people, plus it doesn't have a lots of anti-vandalism/anti-abuse features, so wiki is much better for that to make sure people agree on something+for awareness of the affected community. New page creation was (is) disabled on Commons (and wikidata) because the high amount of bot activity may slow down queries to logs- it is not just hidden at the moment, logs are not being collected on these 2 sites. Requesting enabling it only for human activity (non-bots) or for "real wiki pages" (namespaces other than media, including categories and galleries), in a wiki with as much activity as this one, will likely be attended faster, as I believe that is the need here and won't impact performance as much as duplicating most bot activity. Cheers, --JCrespo (WMF) (talk) 07:02, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
    @JCrespo (WMF): Thanks, please see phab:T288346.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

!Voting (add page creation logs)[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, did the people at the Phabricator really asked for "community consensus" for a technical feature that just allows people to view more information???!!! Wow, basic improvements always need "community consensus" but mass-deletion and mass-blocking tools ⚙ get introduced with minimum discussion because of "community needs". I think that before someone at the Phabricator asks for "consensus" for these things they should first ask themselves "How would this feature possibly disadvantage anyone?". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a no-brainer. More information is better, and page creation logs are an invaluable tool.  Mysterymanblue  17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnat (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Per Donald Trung, is there is a downside to including this? My impression was that the database already has this information but isn't displaying it on Commons on a technical level. Else, it's fine if starting it will have page creation logs from now. I also don't get why it wouldn't also be a tool in reconstructing or discussion category organization, which is the main source of issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:56, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --アンタナナ 14:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Diffusion of categories of artists[edit]

Hi Autofun6, I’m struggling to understand why you created this category containing 5 files. We only have 14 paintings by this man. Why do we need to look in two different categories to view them. One of the advantages of being an independent catalog rather than a museum website is that we can offer a viewing of all the paintings of an artist in one place and you’ve just thrown that away. It’s maybe ok if you have multiple screens. How can you compare pictures against each other, if you split them up? We already have a problem with people uploading the same picture multiple times, because of poor or no appropriate filing. These pictures were already catted to Yale. There was no need to diffuse this mans work by separating them out. Again what are you trying to achieve here. Please tell? Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It was to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art. If you want to be able to see all of the artist's works in one place, I would think a gallery would be the place for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, however the paintings are not defined by their museum rather they are by by their artist. You have diffused the artist in this case.
A painting is defined by its content, not by the wall of some museum its hanging on.
This over diffusion of of cataloguing images is robbing us of the opportunities of matching a painting to its original draft; be it sketch or wash. We can no longer see it against it's lithographic version either. Or its companion piece in a set if we only have a painting of one and an engraving of the other. To do that we need multiple screens, 4 or more as described here in this paragraph. Separate screens may be required, open, to view a single image's different versions I.E. sketches, paintings, wash (watercolour), Lithograph / engraving. etc, aquatint, other picture in a set...
If you want to do something like this, obviously you legally can. Should you not also copy the images in the main cat, as we do by images from Google art project?
As an aside galleries are a waste of resources, they need maintenance and that's seldom done. They get in the way of search, because they have precedence they are always presented first. They are fundamentally more suited to Wikipedia than here. They're for a far different audience. Anybody that's catting unknown files in a serious way just doesn't use them. Broichmore (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the "over diffusion" complaint, especially that such diffusion is "robbing us of the opportunities of matching". I have felt the same way. This applies to other categories as well. Perhaps one of the problems of using Cat-a-lot without actually looking at each image? Krok6kola (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The "diffusion of categories" complaint seems to be a case of wanting to see the images instead of wanting to find them. The category system enables us to search in more dimensions, including the question of where, when it comes to items like paintings. At the time of writing, the category Category:Paintings by museum by artist covers the location of the works of 538 painters, and - when fully categorized - the works of Marcellus Laroon the Younger would fit neatly there. So the category provided by Auntof6 is just one step in the right directon, and should be applauded instead of criticized. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I pondered this myself, when I considered creating Category:Paintings by Gustav Klimt in the National Gallery, Prague. It would have exactly 2 paintings (Category:Water Castle (Klimt) and Category:The Maiden (Klimt)), if their online catalogue is up-to-date. It seems that creating the category is one step in the right direction (towards completeness). Aavindraa (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rsteen:Paintings by Pablo Picasso are spread over a 1000 museums.
Rather than have one place to find them, your advocating that creating 1000 sub cats to store and separate them into, is an optimal improvement on seeing? The preferred way. Are you?
Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?
The only reliable search query on commons (even better than artist), is museum ownership, but that tells you nothing about the content of the file. You seem to think content is secondary, or that filing images is better served by classification rather than the visual. Really?
There is an ongoing argument on wikimedia, on whether or not "museum ownership" should be a hidden cat or not. If its hidden then its a supplementary cat as I alluded to earlier. IMO they should not be hidden cats, but they are supplementary and secondary.
If some admin makes your "by museum" cats hidden, What then? Broichmore (talk)

If you want all pictures on one page, then put them on a page (a gallery). Categories are not pages. -- Discostu (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

More than once a museum has a picture and exhibits it to the public, but it is not the property of the museum. The heirs of some famous artworks have no place to keep it safe and they often want the public to be able to have a look on the picture and can not do it in their own homw. So there is some kind of agreement that the museum takes care of the security, pays insurance and in return can show it to the public.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Broichmore. To answer your question: "Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?" No. I am definitely not saying that. You should be able to find a painting (or other works of art) by an artist, according to its subject, its location and the time of its inception. That is why I write about organizing categories along different dimensions. For an example, see Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi rsteen, Picking out a simple artist like Carl Frederik Aagaard doesn't really prove your point. The cats represented look very neat, but the content of each is easily found in the commons database using simple SQL or even simpler search terms ...
Where is it shown that File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Rosenborg ved vintertide - 1853.png is representative of a snow scene; (for example) by being assigned to Winter in Denmark (its only suggested by the title in another language), or Snowy landscapes in Denmark, and or in Trees in snow in Denmark.
What about File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Parti fra Capri.png where does it indicate this is of Paintings of palms.
To find these, you have to see them, if your catting is not driven by including key words into the descriptive text.
Surely that's what users are presumably looking for, and need from our catting; stuff that defies a simple search.
One good thing, is that, though you don't say it, the entire body of work is located in one place at Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Sadly to get to it, you have to click through Category:Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard by subject, and finally to Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard to find it.
I know that it (Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard) represents his entire collection here, because I have 3 screens. Not everybody does.
Still its an improvement on your other showpiece Category:Carl Locher where there is no central focus, anywhere.
This sort of catting IMO is not helpful. Just an opinion. It might not do any harm with simple one trick ponies like Aagaard or Locher, but it is inadequate for Picasso, or Turner, or indeed almost any 19th century engraver you could name.
Going back to the main point about the more interesting Marcellus Laroon the Younger, why are we hell bent on diffusing any artists body of work into separate cats, when there is no need for it. prost. Broichmore (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The underlying issue here is the fetish for creating multi-dimensional intersection categories. There should be a better solution. Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art really only needs to be an intersection of Category:Paintings and Category:Collections of the Yale Center for British Art. Category:Paintings might be a bit big and difficult to navigate without a decent tool. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to the policy about over-categorization. Section: Major categories. Its clear that museum ownership is a different branch from an artists body of work. Therefore its a necessity to copy the files from "Paintings by Marcellus Laroon the Younger in the Yale Center for British Art" back into "Marcellus Laroon the Younger"?
A sign of over catting is where you have to open two screens to see the same subject matter or not?
Again this artist is defined by their body of work not the museum he's hanging in. Broichmore (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to COM:CAT there seems to be an attempt made to explain branches without following through how it should be applied. The subject of Art is a branch of its own, it can be tied to museum or type of artwork, but does not need to be tied to defining characteristics such as cars, trains, events, etc.
Every artists body of work should be in its own cat, as should depictions of a battle, or a ship.
We have sea battles hundreds of miles from land, before the days of photography, where only a few images exist; and yet these images can be diffused into multiple art cats.
This is a common reason why we have multiple files of the same art image or photograph scattered over the project.
We have 4 identical jpg's of Manet's painting of the Kearsarge. The painting is attached to 16art cats. Each jpg showing 4 to 6 art cats. This cant be right.
In summary we need to treat Art as a branch of its own.
We perhaps need to stipulate a list of types of base cats that should not have subcats, art or medium being the culprit...
This project seems to be pandering to pinterest type viewers , when it should be bent towards subject researchers. Broichmore (talk) 19:06, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@Rsteen: I'm sorry, I cant help myself. After all that's been said. Why is File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Rosenborg ved vintertide - 1853.png not catted against Rosenborg Castle? Why instead is it more important to assign it to 4 art cats, none of which explain content of the file. Broichmore (talk) 12:40, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Broichmore. You are so right. If should also have a Rosenborg cat - and it has now. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 13:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Get notifications about a single discussion thread[edit]

Hello, all.

Soon (early August), the Beta Feature for "Discussion tools" here will be updated. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. If you enable the Beta Feature, then you will get this. Otherwise, you won't see it.

You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL. For example, if you click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump?dtenable=1 you will see new [subscribe] buttons. If you click to subscribe to this thread, then every time someone adds a new comment, you will get a notice via Special:Notifications. (It won't annoy you with separate notifications for typo fixes or additions to comments, just for new comments.)

I'll be subscribing to this thread, so please feel free to subscribe and reply here, if you want to test it out.

I have found this especially helpful for cross-wiki communications, so I have asked the Editing team to prioritize Wikidata and Commons for this feature. I am very interested in learning what you all think, and if there are changes that would help you. You can reply here, ping me to another page, or post your thoughts to mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications (the central page for this feature).

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

let's see what happens when the section heading is changed.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
I have tested it and the button shows. This is just what I needed now in an individual Discussion where the the participants keep forgetting to ping me. Ta Zezen (talk) 10:28, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Changing the section heading should not cause any problems for the notifications. I note that you only changed the spaces in the markup, which is probably not a representative test, but even if the heading was really renamed, you should continue receiving notifications. The software relies mostly on timestamps and comment authors to identify the subscriptions, because unlike section headings, they usually do not change. Matma Rex (talk) 12:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
tested one more time. how about now? :) --RZuo (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
test edit after changing heading.--RZuo (talk) 12:46, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
Passed for me.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
do u still get notifications if someone doesnt sign? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RZuo (talk • contribs) 12:28, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo Nope. An unsigned comment can't be reliably distinguished from some formatting corrections, and we don't want to notify about those. (I work on this software.) Matma Rex (talk) 12:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I can confirm and I am sending my thanks directly to Matma hereby : I have signed up for notifications for this very thread as a test and I have received 2 of these, not 3. (Which is more than fine by me.)
As a side note: I have also noticed that this tool is also working in at least one smallish project that seems to not have received the relevant Tech News thereof yet. Zezen (talk) 12:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
The ?dtenable=1 "secret code" should work on all the wikis, but you have to put that in for every page individually, which is inconvenient. The Beta Feature automates the code for 7 wikis so far (including Meta-Wiki). I hope that Commons will be the next to get this automated. Eventually, I think it will turn out to be very helpful for all those Wikipedia editors who drop a drive-by comment on Commons and then never come back to see your reply. (In fact, I think you're going to want occasional editors to be auto-subscribed to all discussions they participate in.)
In terms of how it works (tech stuff here), it's primarily keying off the timestamp of the first comment. This is more reliable (less likely to change, more likely to be unique) than the section heading. Also, through some sort of dev magic ✨, if someone decided to do a cut-and-paste move of this whole conversation (or at least the first post) to another page, all of ours subscriptions would transfer with it. This means that if someone posts on the wrong section of the Village pump, you can re-locate the discussion without people being upset that they lost track of it. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:36, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
amazing work! thx to all coders!--RZuo (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
By the way, if as you're trying out topic subscriptions, you notice new thoughts coming to mind (e.g. "Wouldn't it be nice if..." or "This is making this thing I'm used to do a lot easier") please do share them here, @Whatamidoing (WMF) and I are keen to hear how this new tool impacts you. PPelberg (WMF) (talk) 17:49, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
@PPelberg (WMF), Whatamidoing (WMF): Thank you for coding this and being so open to suggestions. Wouldn't it be nice if the name of the page was visible in each notification (or summary, if grouped)? We get lots of "Delete" and "File:Example.jpg" named sections here. It would also be nice if https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Steward_requests/Global?dtenable=1 had "subscribe" links.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:34, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T288749
Hi, @Jeff G. About the Meta-Wiki page, unfortunately it only works on ==Level 2== sections, which I suspect isn't what's really wanted for that page. Also, as the page isn't in a "talk" namespace, it'd need the __NEWSECTIONLINK__ code added (and I don't know if the Stewards want that).
I've filed a request for your idea about including the page name. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. An option to add level 3 sections would be helpful, especially on that page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

August 07[edit]

PD-old-architecture[edit]

I've just created {{PD-old-architecture}}, meant for images of buildings from countries with no suitable freedom of panorama but are now in public domain. This relies on {{PD-old-auto}}, while the lower part is based on {{PD-US-architecture}} (as said by some users, for US compliance). Files tagged with this will be categorized under Category:PD old architecture, not to mention the already-existing categories used by PD-old-auto. This is what has transpired from both Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/03#PD-US-architecture for Icelandic buildings? and Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2021/05#Proposal for a PD-architecture tag or similar. Because in reality I believe {{PD-US-architecture}} and the accompanying Category:PD US architecture must be confined only to images of pre-December 1990 US buildings themselves (like those of Empire State Building, Willis Tower, or U.S. Bank Tower); it may just cause some confusion because images of buildings from no FOP countries are tagged by a template that is supposed to be exclusive for US buildings only (as indicated at COM:FOP US).

If the template I created needs fixes and other refinements, feel free to do so. Besides I will not use this for a while until several users say so.

Ping the two participants from the March 2021 discussion, @Brainulator9, Ymblanter:. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:03, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, seems useful. There was indeed a lot of confusion about the point.--Ymblanter (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ymblanter: I made a correction to the documentation, as I actually used the whole {{PD-old-auto}} as the main body of the template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: That's good idea. One more suggestion. What about Template:PD-ineligible-architecture, which can be used in copyright-free buildings due to its simple structure? This too is for countries that do not have freedom of panorama. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:50, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: that is highly impractical in my opinion. Threshold of originality varies country by country, even to countries with no freedom of panorama. In some no FOP jurisdictions like France, the courts have already set the TOO standards in their rulings. I don't see the need for a PD-ineligible tag for tangible architecture as of this moment. Unlike this PD template, which is both flexible (as I used the PD-old-auto as its main body) and compatible with the copyright durations as stated in the copyright laws of the countries. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@JWilz12345: Oh, I see. How about {{PD-old-sculpture}}? It's used for sculptures whose author died a long time ago. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:36, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
@Ox1997cow: not possible to create PD-old-sculpture. For one thing it is highly impractical and wastes time of users and admins to tag such. And another thing, sculptures are copyrightable works in the United States. Perhaps you might be familiar with the infamous 2012 takedown notice by the camp of sculptor Oldenburg which led to mass deletions of nearly all images of his sculptures here during that year (as such we rarely see pre-2013 images of his works). Even works in countries with suitable FOP provisions (e.g. Germany, Israel, and Spain) were nuked too! The takedown notice is found here, which led to a discussion at Commons:Requests for comment/non-US Freedom of Panorama under US copyright law. That discussion concluded with the creation of {{Not-free-US-FOP}}, which is supposedly for all images of all protected works of sculptures, murals, and other non-architectural works from countries with freedom of panorama. This means sculptures of "no-FOP countries" that are in public domain in their physical jurisdictions may not be allowed here as they may be unfree in the United States (and U.S. courts are known to apply the doctrine of w:lex loci protectionis by applying US law over international works of art). Further complicating matters is the so-called American copyright restorations through the Uruguay Round Agreements Act or URAA. As sculptures are not works of architecture (architectural works are not applicable for URAA), these are all at mercy of copyright extensions, which vary depending on what period these were created (a guide for the copyright extensions is found here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for this. As an aside, it might be best to redo the template so both messages are part of the same template, much like {{PD-old-auto-expired}}. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:16, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Brainulator9: that seems to technical for me hehe. I don't know who are the template editors here and if they are active here in VP or not. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd probably be the one to try to pull that off. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 20:50, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting info.svg Info I have replaced all instances of {{PD-old-auto}}+{{PD-US-architecture}} tagged in recently restored files of non-US buildings with {{PD-old-architecture}} (thereby the files are now categorized at Category:PD old architecture). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:10, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Cross-wiki & Commons search for medieval texts possible?[edit]

How to search for Johannes Hartlieb's das puch aller verpoten kunst, ungelaubens und der zaubrey, 1450s across Commons, en.wikisource, de- and all the other ones, at once? I have tried to do it manually, with disappointing results. I know it exists offwiki and could upload it (somew)here but I do not want to create a duplicate.

Recently I have had the same problem with a scan of a famous Belarussian/Polish/Russian letter from under the gallows.

Zezen (talk) 08:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

File:Tratactus Induciarum Cessationis omnis hostilitatis actus, ut Navigations ac Commercipariterque succurssus factus, initus conclusus Hagae Comitis die duodecimâ Iunij 1641.pdf[edit]

Any clues on how this should be categorised?? File:Tratactus Induciarum Cessationis omnis hostilitatis actus, ut Navigations ac Commercipariterque succurssus factus, initus conclusus Hagae Comitis die duodecimâ Iunij 1641.pdf. My Latin is not up to it!--Headlock0225 (talk) 09:45, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It appears to be a 1641 peace treaty to enable commercial trade, or trade agreements, negotiated in the Hague. The filename needs fixing to be better Latin than a literal transcription. --Fæ (talk) 10:30, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
It is apparently en:Treaty of The Hague (1641). I am not familiar with categorization of ancient treaties, but Category:Treaties with Portugal as a party and Category:Treaties with the Netherlands as a party (or some subcategories that probably do not exist yet) as well as Category:Events in The Hague (or some subcategory) could be good. A an appropriate subcategory of Category:Treaties by year for 1641 might be good as well. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, Fæ and Robert Flogaus-Faust. I am not going to attempt a correct Latin file name though! "Treaty of The Hague (1641)" will do just fine.--Headlock0225 (talk) 10:19, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

First photos available from WIPO on Commons[edit]

Hi all

I'm very pleased to say that WIPO (part of the UN) have agreed to release photos to Commons, the first 110 photos are now available of cultural and technology exhibitions and their buildings. If you could help encourage them to release more by adding them to Wikipedia articles I'd really appreciate it. Category:Photographs_created_by_WIPO

  • Snapshots taken during the Assemblies of WIPO Member States, which met from September 30 to October 9, 2019. 1.jpg
  • Piña-Seda- Pineapple and Silk Cloths from the Philippines 13.jpg
  • Viet Nam – The Colors of Traditional Brocade and Silk 1.jpg
  • Behind the Scenes of the WIPO Assemblies 2018.jpg
  • The Baltic States Centenary- Creativity and Innovation Inspired by Nature 1.jpg
  • PolandIn Exhibition.jpg

Thanks John Cummings (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Why reduced in size?[edit]

File:PsychologicaBelgica.jpg has a size of 150 × 221 pixels. It has been obtained by reducing in size from 1.161 × 1.710 to the 150 × 221 by a bot. The present file is used in w:en:Psychologica Belgica but there the picture is worthless because you can hardly see anything on it. Is there a special reason for it (fair use?). Wouter (talk) 15:13, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

  • If it's a copyvio, I don't think shrinking it changes that, and it should go back to en-wiki where it can be used on a fair-use basis.
  • If it's not a copyvio, then we should have the larger version.
  • User:Magog the Ogre, since your bot was involved, anything to say about this? - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Also, it is very hard to see any scenario, either for Commons or en-wiki, where that license by an en-wiki user would be valid. User:SteveMajerus, on what basis were you in a position to grant a license to use this image? - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Probably as editor-in-chief of the publication, assuming that his issuance of the license attributing personally to himself the entire contents shown in the image is conform to the facts, to the policies of the publication and to the legal contracts with the publishing company, which is something that VRT member Krd apparently accepted as all satisfactorily proven. According to the log, the reduction in size was made by the original uploader himself minutes after his original upload. Maybe he wanted to license only the small version and forgot to request the deletion of the larger version, or maybe he thought that uploading a small file was necessary to display a small image in the Wikipedia article. It would be useful if he clarified what he was doing, if it's not already specified in the VRT communication. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:57, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Why is there any reason to reduce it in the first place? It's the cover of a publication with extrenely simple design: titles as text, and graphic design way below COM:TOO. Just what is even protectable here? Andy Dingley (talk) 00:00, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the type of mistake the inexperienced user might have made. Apparently, he was unfamiliar with the infobox syntax (and with the "Show preview" button). Comparing the timestamps in the article history and in the file log, it can be seen that, after several attempts, he managed to display the image in the infobox of the article. And, a few minutes later, he uploaded the reduced versions, possibly thinking that would adjust the size of the display in the infobox. Since he claims a copyright, his evaluation of the the copyrightability of works in Belgian law would apparently differ from your evaluation. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I'd missed the VRT ticket. Was this recently changed in appearance? I don't think the icon was the one I'm used to seeing for this purpose, but maybe I'm having a lapse of memory (or maybe multiple icons are attached to such templates and I didn't know this one). - Jmabel ! talk 02:38, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Aha! yes, it was changed about 3 months ago, and after many years of looking at the other, I hadn't yet noticed this as being an icon to look out for. - Jmabel ! talk 02:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I reverted it to the higher resolution image. Wouter (talk) 12:41, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

August 08[edit]

Are there any attempts for FOP introduction in UAE?[edit]

As of my writing, there are hundreds of thousands of images from UAE that were deleted due to lack of suitable freedom of panorama there. And as of today this batch DR relating to images of Burj Khalifa has reached more than 20 threads (with hundreds of images within each). Just in case someone will refer me to an old discussion at COM:FOP talk page, I already read that and just only reaffirmed the lack of FOP status. To date the only provision there states that works are only allowed to be depicted through broadcasting media (which I think only encompasses television-related media). De minimis may be one thing, but it is not relevant to my questiom that follows.

My only question is, are there any attempts by Arab Wikipedians and Wikipedians based in that desert kingdom to have FOP introduced there, at the very least architecture-only FOP? (Similar to countries like U.S. and Russia.) So as to finally allow images of two famous icons of Dubai (Burj's Khalifa and al-Arab) here on Commons and restore thousands that were deleted from 2010 up to now. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:11, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

I doubt that the UAE, ranked the 145th most democratic country by the Economist Intelligence Unit in 2020, would be responsive to a grassroots movement to change the nation's copyright law. Best of luck to those who push for this.  Mysterymanblue  09:36, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
step1: befriend the emir. step2: convince him to change the law.--RZuo (talk) 17:44, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: I just only asked a question, since I am particularly concerned about more deletions and more nominations (some batch nominations like the one I provided may impact accessibility on daily listings). Of course it is up to the Arab World Wikimedians or Wikimedians based in that country to push for introduction of FOP there (or perhaps other countries like Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and Kuwait). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:59, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Moiré effect in photographs of old printed photographs[edit]

Can anyone advise on how to limit or eliminate the moiré effect in images such as this one? That image is photographed from my copy of the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. The glossy paper of the plates has warped a little in the last 110 years, and I imagine that the pattern is caused by that distortion, in combination with the original printing screen. Any advice welcome! Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 20:57, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

@Justlettersandnumbers: Have you tried an unsharp mask in a program like the GIMP or Photoshop?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Take it to Commons:Graphic Lab, who should be able to do something a little more subtle with the work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:20, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
@Justlettersandnumbers:
PEI (Picture Elements, Inc.?) work for Smithsonian?
A discussion on Commons: Graphics village pump at section "Artefacts at certain resolutions of scanned images". That points to other sources.
Smoothing a Halftone Photo using FFT, Matz, 8 August 2015. Matlab processing. Do DFT, find halftone peaks in frequency domain, erase those peaks, and do IDFT.
Matz points to a PhotoShop FFT plugin, pluging by Alex Chirokov.
Using GIMP: GIMP/Remove Coherent Noise at Wikibooks.
Discussion of en:Aliasing and en:Spatial_anti-aliasing.
Glrx (talk) 22:29, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you all for the advice, much of which went over my head. I tried unsharp mask in Photoshop (vintage version) with no success, probably because I don't know how to use it. But applying Blur more... four times in succession seemed to fix it – for me at least – so I've now uploaded that version. Any comment welcome, otherwise thanks all round. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep trying with the tutorials on "coherent noise". You need to install a couple of plugins, but then the process per image is easy. The Gimp tutorial is pretty clear.
The point with Moiré noise is that it has this regular-spaced appearance to it. This means that a tool that's sensitive to that repetition (i.e. something based on Fourier) will have a much better noise reduction effect, with less general blurring. It's worth learning this, as a trick for cleaning up old scans, especially if you're working with newspaper or halftone images. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • I'll second Andy's comments.
Unsharp masking should not be used because it would increase the moiré pattern noise. The purpose of unsharp masking is to sharpen an image, and that sharpening would make the halftone dots stand out more.
Blurring the image will tend to merge the halftone dots and reduce the moiré pattern. However, it also blurs everything else in the image. It essentially defocuses the image.
Glrx (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

August 09[edit]

UK Newspapers: 1 Million become free-to-view (registration required)[edit]

The British Library have today announced:[1]

"Today's the day - one million 19thC newspaper pages free to view (and download) on the British Newspaper Archive. And this is just the start. https://blogs.bl.uk/thenewsroom/2021/08/free-to-view-online-newspapers.html"

and:[2]

"...Essentially, you need to register to access the free content, but won't be charged anything"

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing Sounds useful! I haven't been able to log in; keep getting "Sorry, an error occurred while processing your request." Is it working okay for you? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:54, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like it was probably the fact that I was including non-alphanumeric characters in my password. Is working now. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Can we thus upload them here? This Poor Man's Guardian advertised there seems not to be in Commons yet. Zezen (talk) 17:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Update: It does not work for me. I used to have a Wikipedia (free account), I logged in after some years' break and now I see only
Get unlimited access to the British Newspaper Archive. There are hundreds of millions of incredible stories just waiting to be found. Get your subscription today to start exploring over 300 years of history.
after the first free page. Sigh. Zezen (talk) 17:39, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It says the same for me, but searches come up with lots of hits, and I've not yet found any article that's not accessible. Maybe the message about subscriptions is out of date. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the have 230 issues of The Poor Man's Guardian, from the first issue on 9 July 1831. It seems to be possible to download only one page at a time, unfortunately. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:58, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ↑ https://twitter.com/BL_newsroom/status/1424719234815434754
  2. ↑ https://twitter.com/BL_newsroom/status/1424730642512809993

(Revising my viewpoint) Some works are marked as public domain, regardless of the website terms, this should override any other legal claims.

Okay, it should be possible to "hack" the website as tiles can be queried directly using links like https://tiles-api.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/API/dz?Q=BL/0000097/18310716/0007&p=m1c8f9qbrpt45686s6lam9itplb26s2sgbnmsengsj0ppa2v1gvrllo19re4r7kov0g53ea9vg6m83ff5q61mne4pitkooou5qohu2o%3D&t=_files/11/2_2.jpg.

The "t" parameter is the tile with <zoom level>/x_y at the end and I presume "p" is the session reference that tracks users. You can actually plug the tile reference into Dezoomify and it'll create a PNG for the newspaper page, no programming talent needed. However, you can automate the browser session and download the PDFs, which could be an approach to download thousands of pages in PDF, but with an annoying and unnecessary "public domain" watermark. Another presumption is that the "3 free downloads" does not count public domain files, though if it does, then directly "reading" the (jpeg) tiles would not be counted as downloading anyway, it's part of the display function and if someone writes a dezoomer to recreate the full jpeg originals, these would be easy to upload to Commons and have no watermark.

Bizarrely, the "official" downloadable PDFs just look like they are generated on the fly from the jpegs and don't even have the OCR text, which exists in the system for their searches to work and the text is displayed in their zoom viewer. That just looks lazy. Someone could probably hack the searchable text, considering that there's a text highlighting function in the viewer. However there MIGHT be a potential claim of copyright over the derived text, even if the creation of it is the product of some off-the-shelf OCR tool. I have no idea why the only downloadable format they offer is PDF, especially considering the originals sitting in the image database are jpegs, again that's lazy.

I'm not volunteering to do any of this at this time. --Fæ (talk) 14:05, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

The above URL is now returning "405 Not Allowed". Given that, and the fact that the BL's blogpost includes the statement "The fact that we consider newspapers made before 1881 to be in the public domain does not mean that we can make all pre-1881 digitised titles available for free—the BNA is dependent on subscriptions to maintain the considerable effort required to sustain it, and the one million pages per year arrangement [[SIC: read "limit"] is intended to protect that model", I suspect that laziness is not the motivation here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
The "p" parameter will vary by user session, probably, which means it will timeout. This can still be mass uploaded with an automated browser session, or someone might work out how to get around it as the OpenResty instance looks pretty open to me, not that I'm intending to hack it myself. I don't agree that the Findmypast company needs us to pay them £8, or that the British Library's decision to hand over these public domain public records to a private company (DC Thompson Ltd) so their directors can get rich is a "good thing". --Fæ (talk) 18:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
If things cost money to produce they need to be paid for. If you're not the product, and there's no advertising... Secretlondon (talk) 19:04, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice that going on the last time I was at the British Library.
DC Thompson Ltd is a commercial publisher, they exist to make a profit, not to provide public services. --Fæ (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
We should adopt the policy of not downloading newspaper archives wholesale, or even in major part I.E. whole daily issue. These collections cost an enormous sum to create, the software required to curate and search them is highly specialized and a lot more sophisticated than what we have to offer. Last but not least it takes a proprietorial organization with substantial funding and systematic patience to create these databases in the first place.
If we disrupt their funding / fiscal model by plundering them for free, they will not be incentivized to create or maintain them, or add to their collections. Past newspaper archives would be lost forever.
This is one of the reasons google stopped or limited access to their book project.
Commons should be aware that it cant do it all, plundering museum sites (funded by the public) and auction houses (who do not rely on exhibition of pictures for revenue), is one thing. Copying an entire catalogue of a newspaper collection is quite another and is destructive.
They already allow (sic) us to to publish individual photos from their collections, and we should be happy with that.
Considering the huge expense of these curations, they are remarkably cheap for the public to access.
This exception, to the policy on downloading PD images, needs to be written into our policy, urgently.
This is the proverbial sleeping dog that should never have been woken up. Broichmore (talk) 11:29, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@User:Broichmore. I quite agree with you on this! It is important to keep in mind that (our) commons is in the first place a repository for things we use, or might use in the future, on our Wikimedia-projects. It is not a repository of everything that is (more or less) freely available in the world. We don't want to be a group of Robin Hoods, that roam around and plunder what we find on our way. There is still something like an equilibrium of Quality and Quantity. Thanks for your intervention.
Apart from that it is very interesting to hear that The British Library has opened the Newspaper Archive for the 19th century. Thank you for that hint, @User:Pigsonthewing. That is exactly what we want and what we need, and that is something we surely can use to enhance the quality of our projects. I'm going to take a look now immediately. --Dick Bos (talk) 07:32, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Or we can choose to believe that Public Domain is Public Domain and organizations that post-hoc rubber stamp "non-commercial use only" over Public Domain media are copyfraudsters and should be called out for it.
I'll just get on with populating Commons with useful educational material like today's Newspapers in Italian while you think of new funny names to call me like "Robin Hood" to make me feel and look like a criminal.
Thanks for your interest. --Fæ (talk) 10:17, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with User:Dick Bos that we should be something less than a universal PD host and that we probably should not swallow up all of this material simply because it is legally possible. However, I disagree that our purpose is limited to serving other WMF projects. There are many legitimate educational/academic uses that we support that have nothing to do with WMF. For example, thoroughly documenting the floats in a parade or the speakers at a conference is presumably not going to be useful to any other WMF project, but it might be very useful to an academic researcher with a specific scope and focus. - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

August 10[edit]

Unduly motivated renaming request declining[edit]

Recently I requested file renaming for the three last entries of this list upon COM:FR-4 "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs"

  1. Ingenuity flight 4 real-time animation.gif
  2. Ingenuity flight 5 real-time animation.gif
  3. Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (39 seconds).gif
  4. Ingenuity flight 7 real-time animation (48 seconds).gif
  5. Ingenuity flight 8 real-time animation (75 seconds).gif
  6. Ingenuity flight 9 full real-time animation.gif
  7. Ingenuity flight 10 full real-time animation.gif
  8. File:PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 3 real-time animation.gif
  9. File:Black-and-White View of Ingenuity's Fourth Flight.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 4 animation (vertical).gif
  10. File:Ingenuity flight six navcam imagery showing last 29 seconds in flight along with navigation anomaly.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (29 seconds).gif

However, TommyG declined all these requests on the grounds that they allegedly "do not comply with renaming guidelines" — cf. diffs 1, 2 and 3.

I insist that at this point honorable TommyG misinterpreted the regulations of COM:FR-4. On the contrary, as clearly follows from the abovepresented list, the present names of last three files fall out from the general naming convention for this set of animated gifs ("Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] | optional duration | optional frame rotation").

I also insist that honorable TommyG incorrectly perceived the presence of a prefix 'PIA-00000' as an attribute of some general scheme, which is broken with my local naming convention.

I also must draw attention to the inner contradiction of his motive for declining my request, as he wrote in his comments. On the one hand he insists that

  • Making all files in a category have similar names isn't a goal on Commons

But on another hand he requires to keep the naming convention in another category thus calling for similarity of names in another category.

Fot that matter I propose to browse the category which has been suggested as a template to be followed and was used as the reasin for declining my file rename request:

Category:Ingenuity flight 3
  1. 1-PIA24624-MarsPerseveranceRoverViewsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdFlight-20210425.png
  2. Black and White Image From Ingenuity's Third Flight.jpg
  3. Ingenuity's Third Flight photo in color with Perseverance rover visible.png
  4. JPL-20210425 Perseverance Rover's Mastcam-Z Captures Ingenuity's Third Flight.webm
  5. Perseverance Rover's Mastcam-Z Captures Ingenuity's Third Flight.webm
  6. Perseverance's NavCams Views Ingenuity During its Third Flight.jpg
  7. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425.jpg
  8. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425a.jpg
  9. PIA24625-MarsIngenuityHelicopterViewsPerseveranceRoverFromAir-20210425b.jpg
  10. PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-20210425.jpg
  11. PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
  12. Zoomed in, Perseverance rover from Ingenuity during it's third flight.png

Please note that prefix 'PIA-…' in this list just creates an appearance of consistency. Entries 7 through 9 and 10-11 are the duplicates of the same 'PIA-…'; thus actually we have 3 'PIA-named' files against twice more, six files named upon absolutely different pattern. Thereon I find the refusal to rename files not duly motivated.

At this point let me shed some light on certain details that are likely unknown to most of my colleagues here who did not have the chance to upload from NASA. Prefix PIA is the catalogue identificator used by NASA for a certain part of its public image archives, but by no means for every image displayed at the 'nasa.gov' domain. For this reason you may see that the swingeing majority of images uploaded upon PD-NASA terms do not have this prefix. As for the category where my files reside (being simultaneously defined also in another categories), prefix 'PIA' cannot appear there 'by definition', since all these files are animations. Thus it's a mistake to treat my desire as the only wish the similar names in one category. Here's a reverse causation.

  • Reason: no other files but animations may appear in Category:Ingenuity flight animations
  • Result: all file names in this category shall look similar being named under the same schema.

On the basis of the above I consider myself entitled to renew the request for renaming as being improperly declined, and to ask the honorable file movers to satisfy my application for renaming upon the same COM:FR-4 "To harmonize the names of a set of images so that only one part of all names differs".

  1. File:PIA24644-MarsIngenuityHelicopter-ThirdTestFlight-Animated-20210425.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 3 real-time animation.gif
  2. File:Black-and-White View of Ingenuity's Fourth Flight.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 4 animation (vertical).gif
  3. File:Ingenuity flight six navcam imagery showing last 29 seconds in flight along with navigation anomaly.gif
    → Ingenuity flight 6 real-time animation (29 seconds).gif

I keepg the same respect to the honorable TommyG and perceive his refusal only as a misunderstanding caused by haste in making a decision and hope for continued fruitful cooperation here.

P.S. Shall I renew the renaming templates in these three files myself, or it would be enough for file movers to revert them in these diffs: 1, 2 and 3?
— Cherurbino (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

UPD: I renewed the renaming request under the same COM:FR-4 (name harmonization) with an improved clear reasoning: by template "Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] • [optional duration] • [optional frame rotation]" already used for naming 7 identical animated gifs. Cherurbino (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Hi, please have a look at COM:FNC#cite_note-4 which elaborates a bit further on what criterion 4 should and shouldn't be used for. My edit comments wasn't meant as mutually exclusive, but rather that both those are reasons not to rename the files. We don't rename files just to make the filenames look good in a category listing. If you want them to be in a certain order in the category, you can use defaultsort. As for the PIA prefix, my experience is that these sort of seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters, is actually some sort of identifier which helps map the images to their source. It's desired to retain this in the name, f.ex to make it easier to check for duplicates when doing bulk uploads of files. However, if some other filemovers feel I'm interpreting the rules too strictly, they are of course free to overrule my judgement and move the files. TommyG (talk) 06:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Re: We don't rename files just to make the filenames look good in a category listing - please do not assign me the motives I did not have in mind. It's you who speaks on my behalf that I allegedly wanted "the filenames look good" while my motives were based upon the reasons I explain above.
  • As for the PIA prefix… my experience is that these sort of seemingly random sequence of numbers and letters — your exerience with the NASA storages, if any, is wrong. It's not the "random sequence". Strange to hear that from a person, who works with German archives with their Bd/Bild identifiers. But, if not 'PIA', then what pattern made you think that the name I insist upon shall conflict with what you saw as the "naming tradition" in Category "flight 3"? Did you think that PIA is a sort of user-assigned index which I am obliged to follow? Alas, it's impossible. NASA shall be against faked PIA’s
  • Re: If you want them to be in a certain order in the category, you can use defaultsort — do not think on behalf of another users. I swear, I do not need to sort them, can you beleive? In en-wiki I have more serious principles. Those who have experience in compiling and rearranging image galleries and "'multiple image'" templates shall understand me - because en-wiki is a place which needs clear file naming principles and harmonization more than any other national wiki in the world. I kindly invite you to visit Ingenuity (helicopter) to understand what I mean.
I sincerely hope for your understanding my motives for file name harnonization - at least, considering these three files. - Sincerely, Cherurbino (talk) 07:48, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Your last point would probably be something which would have been a good idea to reference in your justification for moving the files, since this is in fact one of the specific reasons for moving files under criterion 4. However, you did not. At this stage it seems like you have a problem with me and how I perform the filemover task, so I think I'll step back and let some other filemover review whether there is cause for moving these files or not. TommyG (talk) 07:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind understanding. We shall wait for another opinions, and until they appear I dared to renew my application under an improved motivation formula: by template "Ingenuity flight ## [animation type] • [optional duration] • [optional frame rotation]" already used for naming 7 identical animated gifs
Best regards and looking forward to the continualion of our cooperation. — Cherurbino (talk) 08:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

I was invited by Cherurbino to add my comment. I read the guideline and my understanding is that he refers to Which files should be renamed? #4 that proposes to harmonize the names of a set of images. The argument of ThommyG was #1 from the opposite list Files should NOT be renamed only because the new name looks a bit better. Since the change is much bigger than the example there this is not convincing to me.

But I doubt also that all files of a category should follow a certain naming template that even new uploads should follow. I would consider a set of images a very small number and tightly connected images e.g. uploaded at once.

The PIA prefix is just a leftover from the upload when the person did not choose a completely new file name. So I would prefer to have this removed.

To sum up, I support the suggestion with some doubts about future uploads.--Schrauber5 (talk) 09:22, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for coming, Shrauber, I know you as one of the most active "ameliorators" of articles about space missions with new data and especially with the new images from NASA. You know the job from the point of view of the article editor. You know what a headache is to logically rearrange the gallery from the files named in disorder. For us, editors, harmonizing file names at Commons is not an end in itself but a prerequisite of quality of the whole work under the improvement of articles.
As for 'PIA-…' prefixes, I would certainly support your doubts about their necessity in the file names. Selecting illustrations for the articles we focus only on visual content, and not at indexes. However, the present version of COM:FR-4 forces the usage of them — if I correctly understand the words "If possible, language and schema should be preserved, as well as the camera or catalogue number", so in some cases I am forced to stick with this requirement. Cherurbino (talk) 13:58, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Linking this category with [1] Wikidata item[edit]

I look for the ID of the category in Wikidata, but it tells me that it does not exist ... and I just created it! So I add the statement "Commons category" in Wikidata, but it doesn't connect either! Please can someone do it for me?
Category:Acapulco chair + Wikidata Item Q108040647
thank you, --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 19:18, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

@El Mono Español: You have to add the category next to "commons" under "Multilingual Sites" in Wikidata. I did it. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Face-smile.svg Thank you. BMacZero! --– El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 11:18, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:48, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

August 11[edit]

Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs[edit]

I added information to Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/en and Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/fr
I need to get a cs translator for Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs. The best would be fr to cs.
I could not find the correct template to put on Template:Fonds Raoul Berthelé - Archives municipales de Toulouse/cs. .... 0mtwb9gd5wx (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

I made {{Currency-category warning}}.[edit]

Copyright red.svgMoney Coin Icon.svg
Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies whose design first issued before 1951.
Photographs of currencies used in Example Country can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on design of currency has expired, because terms of use of Example Country forbids the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies. The copyright term in Example Country for currencies is the first issue year + 70 years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/Example Country#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.


This template was made with reference to {{FOP-buildings-category warning}}.

This template is used for the currency category of countries marked OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK in COM:CUR.

(For example, Category:Banknotes of Canada, Category:Coins of Canada, Category:Banknotes of North Korea, Category:Coins of North Korea, etc.)

I made an English version only. I would appreciate it if we could add another language version.

You can also modify the template if possible. (In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that.)

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:15, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ox1997cow: That seems very misleading in that it is (at best) accurate only for particular countries. See Commons:Currency. Just to name a few large countries where this is not the law: Brazil, United States, Russia.
  • Also, I have no idea what you mean by "In the case of currency, uploading is allowed only for a certain period, and it is not allowed after that." - Jmabel ! talk 19:49, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I will change the word "law" to the word "terms of use". "Allowed only for a certain period", there are countries such as Iran, which accepts only currencies older than 30 years, and Australia, which only accepts currencies that are older than 1969. Ox1997cow (talk) 22:43, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Ox1997cow: which would mean that it is demonetized, not that you can no longer upload the image, no? - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: This means that currencies issued after the allowed period cannot be uploaded. For example, it is not allowed to upload currencies issued after 1970 in Australia and 30 years in Iran. Ox1997cow (talk) 00:51, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
    • @Ox1997cow: I see. Still, this does not align with your template, does it? (I also now see that it is parameterized for country and period, which is not obvious by looking at this page, only becomes clear when you look at the wikitext here or go to the template page.) - Jmabel ! talk 05:24, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Regularly-used links now hidden[edit]

It seems we have another MediaWiki release, and the links to my watchlist, contributions, etc. are now hidden behind a "person" menu icon, requiring two clicks instead of one.

To reduce RSI, is there an option to restore the links to their previous configuration? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Pigsonthewing: What device, what browser, what skin? I'm not experiencing that. - Jmabel ! talk 19:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
    • Vector, on a Windows laptop. I'm seeing the same on en.Wikipedia, bn.Wikipedia, Wikisource, Wiktionary and Wikispecies; but not Wikivoyage nor ar.Wikipedia (other projects not tested). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
      • @Pigsonthewing: Go to Preferences -> Appearance and tick the box saying Use Legacy Vector. Nthep (talk) 10:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

We need your feedback![edit]

Hello everyone! I am writing to you because we are looking for feedback for a new Wikimedia Foundation project, Structured Data Across Wikimedia (SDAW).

SDAW is a grant-funded programme that will explore ways to structure content on wikitext pages in a way that will be machine-recognizable and -relatable, in order to make reading, editing, and searching easier and more accessible across projects and on the Internet. We are now focusing on designing and building image suggestion features for experienced users.

We have some questions to ask you about your experience with uploading images here on Wikimedia Commons and then adding them to Wikipedia. You can answer these questions on a specific feedback page on Mediawiki, where we will gather feedback. As I said, these questions are in English, but your answers do not need to be in English! You can also answer in your own language, if you feel more comfortable.

Once the collecting of feedback will be over, we will sum it up and share with you a summary, along with updated mocks that will incorporate your inputs.

Also, if you want to keep in touch with us or you want to know more about the project, you can subscribe to our newsletter.

Hope to hear from you soon! -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 20:35, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Depictions of minors in "physique magazines"[edit]

Just to be safe, I wanted to double-check to verify that certain content would not go against our policy on sexualization of minors, namely "physique magazines" of the 1950s/1960s. Wikipedia's w:Physique magazine article gives some background on the genre. Basically, they were presented under the pretense of being about bodybuilding, but their real target audience was gay men. Models for these magazines often included adolescents. There are some examples (mostly covers) under Category:Beefcake magazines. This issue of Physique Pictorial is pretty representative of the genre. The ages given for models range from 16 (including the cover model), to 28. The magazines did not include exposed genitalia or sexual contact between models (or even any references to sexuality), but the sixth criterion at w:Dost test gives me some pause: Whether the visual depiction is intended or designed to elicit a sexual response in the viewer.

I would tend to think this would not be legally classified as child pornography given that these magazines are available at lots of research libraries (e.g. worldcat lists lots of university libraries with collections of Physique Pictorial) and images from them (including images of under-18 models) have been reprinted in books put out by reputable publishers (e.g. w:David K. Johnson's Buying Gay, published by Columbia University Press). Still I wanted to check here since I'm not familiar with how the community has drawn the line on this kind of material in the past. (There was a recent discussion about this material, but it focused only on the copyright aspects.) Colin M (talk) 20:59, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Some statements of fact.
Commons is not censored.
Commons does not host child pornography.
The Dost test (United States v. Dost 1986) has only ever been used in one US court case as part of establishing criteria for assessing photographs of girls aged 10 to 14. It appears to have not been quoted in any court case in over a decade. It makes no sense to try to use it as a way to control what international volunteers are uploading to Commons.
Physique Pictorial is not child pornography.
Scantily clad or nude photographs are not turned into pornography just because a gay man might look at it, rather than some other observer. C.f. Florida v. Brabson, 2008.
--Fæ (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughts. I brought up the Dost test only because it's specifically mentioned at Help:Sexual content#Prohibited content. Colin M (talk) 14:52, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

August 12[edit]

Photo challenge June results[edit]

Birds in Flight: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image Abyssinian roller.jpg Whinchat by Irvin Calicut IRV08445.jpg CH.VD.Bex 2007-09-02 Airshow 287 16x9-R 5120x2880.jpg
Title Abyssinian roller hunts a grasshopper at dusk whinchat in flight jump from bush to bush Geese and Common cranes fly
with Christian Moullec who
reared them. Airshow Bex 2007, Switzerland
Author Dotun55 Irvin calicut Roy Egloff
Score 22 21 20
Five: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image Mit Teleobjektive.jpg Loups arctiques DSCF4948.jpg Five fishing boats on quiet misty lake.jpg
Title Reporter bei der Arbeit Cinq loups arctiques Five fishing boats on quiet misty lake
Author Mensch01 Musicaline Foeniz
Score 27 21 20

Congratulations to Mensch01, Musicaline, Foeniz, Dotun55, Irvin calicut and Roy Egloff. --Jarekt (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

August 13[edit]

Userscript testing[edit]

I am working on a userscript, to improve Categories with features such as dynamic pagination.

Since it has a number of features, I am inviting folks to try it. Initial documentation is written here:

https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia#readme

Testing: I suggest testing categories "near-the-root" like Category:Selfies and Category:Paintings to make sense of pagination features.

As of now, I am working under the assumptions of default mw:Skin:Vector and English.

Please try it, and I welcome any users and other contributors to raise any questions or ideas.

Note: more recently, it has some support for loading Special:Contributions dynamically, which makes it useful on other Mediawiki wikis including Wikidata.

Aavindraa (talk) 05:30, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

As this is a javascript (and can be put in user name space and when complete as a gadget on commmons), why is it hosted on an external website? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:50, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I am hosting on Git for two reasons: a) because it's easier for me (and presumably other developers) to use Git to manage multiple folders/files and b) there is limited or no support today in Mediawiki projects for ES modules (re: phab:T75714), which is why I am doing things in an unconventional way. That being said, its possible to transpile the code to ES5 and load it using traditional methods, but I see little benefit in doing it at this stage. Aavindraa (talk) 14:36, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I did not know, that the dra.vin domain is owned by github. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
I (avindra) am the owner of dra.vin, which is an anagram of my first name. I am pointing the A record towards https://avindra.github.io/ , which is an instance of en:GitHub Pages. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

I cannot make out from the above what this does, and even the one phrase of description, "dynamic pagination" is very ambiguous. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I should probably make a video. I have to set up some gear so I will do that soon. I did put some screenshots and indicators on the releases https://github.com/avindra/mikiwedia/releases which may be helpful re: feature list. Aavindraa (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much clearer. Given you examples, I wasn't sure if this was about subcats or what. - Jmabel ! talk 19:18, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Subcategories are planned. I will add them as soon as I'm able. Aavindraa (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Alex Proimos images - Pixsy trolling[edit]

Moved from Commons:Help desk

I run a group that helps warn people about Pixsy trolls. For anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's basically when people put large numbers of Creative Commons images online and then hit unsuspecting users with license fee demands for hundreds of dollars through Pixsy (a copyright enforcement company) every time they make some minor error in an image attribution. Wikimedia Commons previously banned images by Marco Verch, who has been accused of doing this on an industrial scale. However, we get reports at our group of many other people doing this now on a smaller scale and I think it is important to notify Wikimedia Commons when we get a lot of reports about particular photographers who have a lot of images listed on here so you can take action.

I would like to suggest that Alex Proimos should be looked at on this basis. He has been mentioned to us on multiple occasions including some examples of him issuing Pixsy demands precisely because someone has linked to his image on Wikimedia Commons rather than his own Flickr account. The fact that hundreds of his images are listed on this site is a safety risk for ordinary users who might unsuspectingly use them and get Pixsy on their case as a result. If he complains about this, I would suggest giving him the chance to reupload them using a CC BY 4.0 license, which makes Pixsy trolling largely impossible as the updated terms specify that users have 30 days to correct image attribution errors before they can be hit with legal action. If he is an honest user and not, as our reports would suggest, a Pixsy troll then he would have no objection to this. However, allowing hundreds of his images to appear here under a CC BY 2.0 license is deeply problematic. Thomjobson (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, Alex Proimos is a Flickr user. De728631 (talk) 12:33, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

  • If this is provably genuine (the link suports that) then delete and salt with a clear warning, as for Marco Verch. We should stamp on this before it gets started. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:40, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
    • I'm with you there but I'm failing to see evidence about Proimos' activities in the link above. It's just an extensive story about Marco Verch. De728631 (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Proimos' own Flickr page indicates that he's using Pixsy, but I'd want to see clearer evidence that he has used this to troll before we excommunicated them here. @Thomjobson:, BTW Andy Dingley (talk) 12:59, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Right, there is a disclaimer in the Info section of Proimos' Flickr page, but I was thinking of the article linked by Thomjobson. Anyhow, I would also prefer to see hard evidence of copyright trolling before we take any action over here. De728631 (talk) 13:04, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
We should have a "{{Copyright troll}}" template, these are free educational images, while their licenses are free the re-users often make a small mistake and it's the author(s) that act in bad faith. The files remain free and if followed exactly won't result in a lawsuit. This is essentially "a non-copyright © restriction" and the files remain in scope. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

Do I understand this correctly?? There is a photographer, who uploads them photos at flickr with a cc-license. These photos have been imported to commons by Magnus-Manske's bot and other commons users and the flickr-license has been translated by these commons users to cc-2.5. The photographer does not have a MW account, them might not know of the existence of commons, maybe them is not even aware of a website by the name of wikipedia, but them now gets called out for trolling at commons?? If them has actually done something wrong, that would be needed addressed at flickr? --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:01, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

August 14[edit]

Help needed to correct pronunciation file[edit]

File:En-us-especial.ogg has incorrect pronunciation. The pronunciation in the file is something like "ess-peh-shee-AL", but the actual US English pronunciation is more like "es-PEH-shul". I don't know how to replace a pronunciation file; can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:55, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=580813882"