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/2021/07.

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

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 06[edit]

Why can't we have individual pages for undeletion requests?[edit]

Per:

User Xover noted that they wanted to be pinged here if they got a response because a lot of changes happen to this page and you don't always get relevant notifications. Why can't undeletion requests just have individual pages like deletion requests have had for probably over a decade? Most people only file one (1) or two (2) undeletion requests at a time and it would make sense to hust leave those in a tab rather than be forced to watch every undeletion request that is currently filed. It just seems highly impractical for no apparent reason.

I also noted that the page is practically impossible to use for mobile users, simply going to the most recent request forces you to scroll through all the other requests. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Amen! The really high-volume pages are pretty hopeless through the watchlist even on desktop, and watching them drowns out all other pages to watch. Trying to follow a specific undeletion request (e.g. because I filed it) is a nightmare. Xover (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll also add that the page is currently large enough to constitute a performance problem. Even using the reply tool (which aiui save partial page content through the API and is usually much faster) there is a noticeable lag when replying. Xover (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, this page is impossible to use for us mobile users because of its (deliberate?) bad organisation, if you don't believe me then click on this link:

And actually try going to the most recent request, Wikimedia websites are full of apathy and antipathy towards mobile users, but this page takes the cake. It seems that the regular contributors to it simply do not want to discuss its issues or wave them off because they likely never have to deal with them. I think that the reason we don't see many undeletion requests by users that aren't new users that simply don't understand "Commons:Licensing" or the regular experienced users is because the organisation of the page is so uninviting. Seriously, would we have accepted this for deletion requests that if you want to find a deletion request that you go to a single page and keep scrolling until you might find it and get notifications about literally all ongoing deletion requests? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support separating COM:UDR down to one page per current UDR section (undeletion request). The current situation forced me to specifically ask for a ping in my preload nearly four years ago because some Admins could not or would not comply with the regular ping request in my sig.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Steinsplitter, as SteinsplitterBot would require adjustments to correctly archive the page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
the problem is on the stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests, not whether the page is split. stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed.--RZuo (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Replying to "stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed." you're right, this has been discussed, I proposed it earlier and at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/03#Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request" it had 3 (three) support votes and 1 (one), your, oppose vote. An earlier discussion from 2016 found at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request" has 4 (four) support votes and no oppose votes. Other than you literally nobody has opposed it during any prior discussion. This has half a decade of community support, just no technical implementation yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
people can agree on as many impractical ideas as they want. when the bot is not changing, people can of course implement such ideas thru manual labour.
do it, now or never.--RZuo (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: I see no basis on which you can demand "now or never" here. Am I missing something? Why would the possibility go away if this is not done right now? - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, out of curiosity, can you please explain to my why requests for checkusers can have separate pages for each case which sees far fewer new sections than UnDR? You haven't made any actual case for why the current status quo of undeletions is desirable over the alternative other than the admins should work harder (or in your words "stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests") and ping users more, which is simply more work for everyone. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: i doubt this would ever be implemented, neither now nor in future. he can keep talking but nothing will come to fruition.
for one last time i am replying, @Donald Trung:
  1. this is unrelated to checkusers.
  2. even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent.
  3. the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages.
  4. you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone".
  5. it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for. they are supposed to be efficient and not nitpicky. i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job. take a look at an example that's still waiting on the page right now special:permalink/574953586#File:Raül_Romeva_al_Parlament_de_Catalunya.jpg: the lazy user wouldnt even scroll the webpage and so make the requester tell them to scroll, but even after that three days has passed and the request is still sitting there.
splitting pages wont solve the human problem, the root cause of all these troubles. -- RZuo (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, replying to "even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent." The analogy is appropriate as checkuser cases are far less frequent and usually it is "User:A uploads the same kind of images as User:C" (the fact that both these usernames are of German-speaking Vietnamese people interested in Vietnamese history is coincidental, as I didn't refer to the actual users but examples), undeletion requests concern content which is at the heart of Wikimedia Commons, not its community while CUR's are a purely community affair. Most deletion requests are also simply "DW", Out of COM:SCOPE", and "Obvious copyvio." without much more added. In response to "you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone"." How? One person writes a bot, it saves work as the "Kept" template can then directly link to pages rather than long archives and it makes discussions easier to watch as you don't get every irrelevant notification (irrelevant to your request(s)) in your e-mail, and "it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for." everyone here is an unpaid volunteer that invest our free time into the project, seeing the small number of admins that patrol undeletion requests I wouldn't be surprised that not many admins want to invest their free time into it because they don't get notified about what they are experts on and often valid UnDR cases tend to be the really complicated ones.
Finally at "the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages." the same could be said about most deletion requests, most of them are simply one sentence nominations and then "Deleted, per nom." but those pages easily help preserve an archival record. Regarding "i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job." makes me believe that you just have a personal hatred towards the process and simply don't want to see it improve because of it. Splitting pages benefits everyone involved, it helps the admins keep tabs on the UnDR they have more knowledge about (local copyright law, personality rights, VRT tickets, Etc.), it is easier to link individual pages to VRT tickets on the VRT noticeboard, and those that make requests actually only gets notices relevant to them making them more engaging rather than ignoring any further enquiries because after a while they stop checking every "irrelevant" diff. Sometimes I genuinely wonder how many people would engage with DR's if they had the same inefficient system. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.:, should I file a bot request for a bot to "adopt" this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Do you have the skill and resources to code and run it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, isn't it possible to ask someone with a bot to already do this? I will ask at VPT if someone with the technical skills to do so is available. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Steinsplitter was already pinged here, but has not edited any WMF wiki for 10+ days, since 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, Please see "Implementation" at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request", this user was unwilling to change his bot for this request when it had community consensus back then. We shouldn't be dependent on a handful of people to do all the tasks, it's like with the InternetArchiveBot, its operator was unwilling to do so for Wikimedia Commons but another user did so with their bot. We cannot be dependent on people who don't plan on investing their free time and have no obligations to do so, it is best to ask for someone who is willing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: If you're envisioning a setup akin to COM:DR you might want to talk to Krd since archiving there is handled by Krdbot. If I understood Steinsplitter's comment in the 2016 thread correctly, SteinsplitterBot would need a major rewrite to handle that kind of setup which we cannot presume they have the free time to do.
    I would also suggest you ping the most active admins processing undeletion requests to gain their perspective on the setup. From my perspective as a "end user" of it it seems clearly better with a split setup, but it would also need to be practical for the admins who are actually managing that process. There's not all that many sharing the workload there (hence the backlog) so if the change would make the workflow less efficient for them it'd tend to make the backlog worse. Xover (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't know how to address the people at the UnDR page, as basically everyone ignores the talk page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Go through the history a bit, and on the talk page ping people who have been significantly active. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 14[edit]

New report for images in en-wiki rejected drafts[edit]

There is a new bot report (https://heber.toolforge.org/drafts/filter) for images in en-wiki rejected drafts (thanks to @William Avery: for making it). Rejected drafts often contain problematic images which sometimes are left to linger after the draft has been deleted.

Note that when checking the report it may be better to select a past date, as the current date report may update as drafts get rejected. MKFI (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Wow, that's a goldmine of potential copyvios, great idea and thank you William Avery. Is it possible to look at a range of dates, and/or sort by date? Or even better, automatically tag files associated with rejected drafts for manual review? I suspect files will leave this list if/when the draft is deleted for inactivity after 6 months, but the files will remain. -M.nelson (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
I am holding the data in a separate database on Toolforge, so things won't leave the list. I'll be increasing the amount of information shown, and indicating which drafts and images have been deleted. William Avery (talk) 19:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
@William Avery: Is it possible to show a whole month's declined drafts instead? --Minoraxtalk 11:21, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I am intending to allow a search on a date range when I find the time. William Avery (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
This is awesome. Thanks William Avery! (not pinging to avoid having their alert-counter explode:) DMacks (talk) 11:47, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I can't stress enough that this was done at the suggestion of user MKFI. William Avery (talk) 18:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Why has Welsh appeared and how do I remove it?[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T286679

Hi, some apparently random parts of my user interface are now in Welsh (I think) in Commons and on various Wikipedias. The tags added to edits on my watchlists, for example, are now in Welsh, and the "Support us" entry in the main sidebar on Wikipedia is now "Cyfranwch", although none of the other items on that list are translated. I can't think of what I may have done to cause this, and I can't find a way of changing it: I can't find anything on my preferences which indicates a choice of Welsh that I could change. I did add an image to an article on Welsh Wikipedia some time ago but it seems unlikely that that could somehow insert a new language interface on some parts of most Wikimedia pages. I'm also not near Wales so it's not a location thing ... GPinkerton (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this also. If my language is set to "en-GB - British English" in Preferences then I see bits of Welsh in parts of the interface. If I set it to "en - English" then the Welsh goes away. - Htonl (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this overlooked vandalism or a technical fault? GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone contributed translations to the wrong language on translatewiki.net. Switching to en - English from en-gb - English (UK) in Special:Preferences is a temporary solution if you don't like Welsh for the time being. Nthep (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
See phab:T286679. The wrong translations have already been deleted on translatewiki.net and now they’re waiting to be removed from Wikimedia wikis as well. I hope the removal will happen at latest with the weekly software update on Wednesday. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This all seems fixed now. I'm a little puzzled about how it seemed to take so long to fix – ~2 weeks (did it take that long to break?) – but the language is too technical for me and all good now anyway. Thanks all. GPinkerton (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved

Nope, copyright templates and file description headers are all now in Welsh for me ... GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: File:Diplocaulus_skull_WMNH.jpg (found with Special:Random) looks good to me. Either the wrong version has been cached (try appending ?action=purge to the file description page’s URL), or you accidentally selected Welsh in your language settings. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Tacsipacsi That's in English for me too. (For now ... ?) Maybe it was just a relict page I was seeing. GPinkerton (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 21[edit]

Is there any FlikrCommons alternative for Wikimedians?[edit]

To just dump all images from Camera as free images, including redundant and low quality ones, before uploading to Commons. It should also offer virtually unlimited storage space to Wiki users who do not abuse it. Thanks. —Vis M (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @Vis M: Do I understand that you are saying you want to "dump all images…"? The alternative presumably is to load them onto a drive of your own, no? Not to put to fine a point on it, but why would someone give people infinite free cloud storage space to put junk? What would be the value in that to anyone but the person on the receiving end? Flickr, for one, offers basically that at a rather cheap rate (US$60/year). - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Because it would remove the barriers and is cheaper than any other means. People can focus on taking photos even when they cannot afford harddrives. I am asking specifically for easier sharing images under a free license, akin to how FlikrCommons was before. It would be of particular use before uploading to other collaborative websites such as inaturalist.org that compresses the quality images heavily. —Vis M (talk) 16:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Perhaps you are referring to something I'm unaware of. I thought that by "FlikrCommons" you were proposing some hybrid of Flickr and Commons, but you say "was done before". Could you be clear exactly what you are referring to? If you mean what Flickr was before SmugMug took it over, it was losing money hand over fist. The model didn't work.
      • @Vis M: It would make more sense to have some sort of grant for Flickr Pro accounts for significant Commons contributors who cannot afford the US$5/month rather than building a new infrastructure of our own. - Jmabel ! talk
        • Flikr Commons is part of Flikr, and lets users share images under a Free license [1],[2] . It was like that before as well, but their recent policies of limiting maximum uploads to 1000 files per user adversely affected the free image sharing and deleted a lot. "grant for Flickr Pro.." - the issue is that it is annual subscription, so once it expires, all the images will vanish. Anyway, better not trust just-for-profit/copyright companies.
        • For now, I am using archive.org [3], but I am not sure if I am violating some policies. I hope there is some other free image website as well —Vis M (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
          • I very much doubt archive.org wants that kind of use. Do you need to store your junk images for long times? Otherwise a single ordinary drive (external if you don't have the space for one beside the small SSD) will provide space for more photos than what you want to wade through selecting those you want to upload or otherwise save. I suppose this is no issue for most people with a computer at home, but may of course be if you just have your camera, phone or tablet. –LPfi (talk) 18:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
            • Not junk images actually, primary purpose is to share to the internet under free license for those who might find it useful. —Vis M (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
              • You said "redundant and low quality ones, before uploading to Commons", so I supposed a big share was junk. Also good shots are often worthless if they are redundant or not categorised/described. Anyway, the question is whether you need space just between taking the shots and choosing the ones to use (read: upload to Commons or similar), or whether you want to keep more or less all, in case you'll want them later. –LPfi (talk) 20:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
                • Both actually. To make selecting for Commons easier, as well for future. Useless ones will be deleted. —Vis M (talk) 22:29, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
                  • @Vis M: "The Commons" on Flickr (which as far as I know was never called "FlikrCommons" or "Flikr Commons") is not and, to the best of my knowledge, never has been a place where just anyone can put anything. It's so far from that that I didn't think it was even possible that was what you were referring to. It is specific to content that is in significant collections, typically from GLAMs. And I agree with what User:LPfi said about "junk," it is a correct gloss on my remark above. Obviously, the images that are good enough for Commons, you can upload to Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 22:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

VRTS and anonymity[edit]

I have a friend who would like to let me upload some valuable media they have created to Wikimedia Commons. They would like to remain anonymous. Some sort of VRTS release under CC0 will be taking place. I have two questions: 1) Is "anonymous" an acceptable author on the file description page? 2) Will VRTS, under no circumstances, reveal the identity of my friend publicly? Thanks.  Mysterymanblue  04:03, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes, that works. But if the work is not previously published, why not just have them create a Wikimedia account (under a pseudonym) and upload it themselves? No VRTS required. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:59, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
If the media is valuable, copyright status should be confirmed, so VRTS (former OTRS) would be much better than an anonymous account. The system is intended to guarantee anonymity, but breaches of anonymity are always possible. I haven't heard about cases were the volunteers have compromised it, but I suppose the police can get access to the correspondence with a search warrant from a court, and other breaches are possible. The question is whether 99.9 % is enough or you really need the 100 %. –LPfi (talk) 11:30, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Anyone can create an email address, just as anyone can create a Wikimedia account. Before going the VRTS route we always need to think about what we actually intend to achieve. Are we planning to ask them to submit private documents to establish their identity? If not, then VRTS is just a fancy stamp on an image we're ultimately still relying on AGF for, no different from a direct upload without VRTS. Of course, if it's previously published that's a different story. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
True. However, the threshold for lying is substantially higher, and mistakes much less likely, and thus the correspondence is more trustworthy than an "own work" on the upload form (which often is put there out of pure ignorance). Often even e-mail from anonymous accounts can be traced to your computer, and for VRTS you should not use a throwaway account. I don't know what the VRTS policy is regarding e-mail accounts, but some accounts are quite obviously non-throwaway. You are unlikely to be able to register [email protected] without being john.doe or having a trusted position at that company. –LPfi (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your comments here. My associate signed a written copyright transfer agreement, and I, under my authority as the copyright holder, have published the files to Wikimedia Commons under CC0. Is it necessary for me to send a copy of the agreement to VRTS? Truthfully, I would rather not, since it has various personal information (for both me and my associate). The fact that a single breach in the VRTS system could results in this information getting out does not comfort me.  Mysterymanblue  22:09, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I think the best way is to redact all personal details and send in a scan. Since it's an unusual scenario and other agents may not be aware of the full context of this thread, you can include a request for the ticket to be handled by a specific agent (me). -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:07, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Thanks for your help with this. I have sent an email to VRTS with the subject line "Evidence of Copyright Transfer Agreement - Mysterymanblue". I'd appreciate if you could take a look at this when you get a chance.  Mysterymanblue  08:30, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue, King of Hearts: I assigned Ticket:2021072410002865 for you.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
✓ Done King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 15:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: Many thanks!  Mysterymanblue  17:17, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Misleading File:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg[edit]

The last version.

File:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg is described there and in محمد بن عبد الله as a user-modified version of another picture edited to hide the face of the prophet Muhammad. However, if you actually look at it, the face is visible. In the history of the picture, I can see that the first version had the face blanked indeed, but in 2016 and 2017 another user uploaded a bigger version of the picture without the blanking. I think the way to solve it would be to remove the latest unedited versions and upload the best one under a different name (if it's not already uploaded) and leave the initial picture for its current uses. Otherwise, you can edit the latest picture to hide the face.

Anyway it's more work than I will take so I point to the problem here for somebody else to solve. --Error (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

It is simpler to change the description. Ruslik (talk) 19:55, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Ruslik0:: If so, it must be done in every use of the image. --Error (talk) 23:25, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
Have you checked the description on every page that uses the image? Ruslik (talk) 14:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
That's the problem when a file has been overwritten with a different one and you want to clean up afterwards: you cannot know what the captions on Wikipedia in Urdu, Chinese and Arabic tell about it. Some might be referring to the original, others to the later version. Some referenced should probably be changed to point to the new name, but which of them? –LPfi (talk) 15:29, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
While that is generally true, File:Mohammed kaaba 1315 bew.jpg is only used in a few places. Not too big of a task with a bit of help from google translate. --HyperGaruda (talk) 14:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Page creation logs[edit]

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)

!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)

July 24[edit]

Category:Operation Carol;[edit]

How do I link to this page? (Note the ";" at the end). It looks like this a a created, but empty category. I would like to delete it, but I am not able to open this page due to the ";" at the end. Thx. --JuTa 03:35, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

PS: Category:Operation Carol%3b I allready tried. --JuTa 03:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging the creator, Articseahorse: Any idea? It can be edited and has a history but apparently it can't be moved. -- Asclepias (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Thx. I deleted it now. --JuTa 07:59, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Rectification needed[edit]

Before I label File:Miss Toller - Bessie Hamilton Johnston.png for non-free frame rev-deletion, would someone kindly rectify and re-crop the original? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:07, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Magazines[edit]

Is it seriously possible to do this?

Category:Computer Gaming World issues

It's quite strange that a commercial magazine, including third-party advertising, has no copyright issues. If it's true, shouldn't it stay in Wikisource? --Bultro (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

  • They're 40 years old, and US copyright of that era required maintenance, which many things didn't get. So they entered the PD.
Wikisource? Maybe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
So the law worked as intended! There is no commercial value in those magazines any more, so no one bothers to renew copyrights, but there is historic value, so people should be allowed to copy them. –LPfi (talk) 15:34, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
Should be != are legally allowed to. Also, are we sure at all the depicted game artwork and screenshots, in reviews and advertisements, are free from copyright? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
I've advocated for a certain pragmatic view of COM:DM when it comes to works not meant to be viewed in one sitting, like multi-page documents (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf) or videos. Basically, you have copyrighted images which may have been intentionally included by the original author, perhaps under a fair use claim. My argument is that while we shouldn't encourage "normal people" to intentionally include even a trace of non-free content in the work they create for Commons, when it's an "immovable organization" like the US government or a defunct magazine it's fine if a few copyrighted images are incidentally included. The moral argument (from a free content promotion perspective) is that we have the clout to influence "normal people" to make their works more free, but not the US government or works that were already created decades ago and have merely fallen into the public domain on a technicality, so denying ourselves access to these works is a type of self-flagellation that doesn't save us from any legal risk (as a "big organization", which tends to be legally conservative, has already evaluated the risk and deemed it acceptable). In practical terms the same limitation as COM:DM applies, in that we restrict a certain type of COM:DW (namely, extracting the copyrighted portion).
To put it in other words: an external work is like a stadium. The stadium is copyrighted, but because of a copyright technicality (COM:FOP) we are allowed to make copies of it. There are copyrighted ads in the stadium, which we are not allowed to reproduce if FoP doesn't cover 2D and/or transient works. However, it is fine to include the ads if we are trying to show the whole stadium; in that case we are just representing reality. Likewise, an external work is a "reality" that we shouldn't be changing just to feel good and pure about ourselves. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:19, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Something strange with the automatic description based on SDC[edit]

i had some observations about this thing, the auto description based on COM:File captions:

  1. if the line changes immediately after the equal sign in description=, as long as a caption in any language is present, auto description will use that, regardless what UI language you're using. example: special:redirect/page/60361187.
  2. if the line doesn't change immediately, for example File:國立暨南大學學生上植物解剖課.jpg has a space after the equal sign:
    1. if a caption in a language other than english is present, when your UI language is anything but english (i tested dansk, deutsch and italiano), the auto description will use the caption, but viewed in english UI it will still show "This file has no description..." also compare special:permalink/576729386 and special:permalink/576729816 under english UI.
    2. if a caption is in english, then the auto description will use that caption regardless of your UI language. example: File:"Rolling Horse", Hauptbahnhof Berlin (9760961285).jpg.
  3. Category:Media lacking a description shows up on the file description page based on the UI language you're using. so for the example in #2, the cat shows up when your UI is english but dont when your UI is something else. i dont know whether the file would always appear on the category page. RZuo (talk) 21:48, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
actually i just tested on another file. it seems the problem of File:國立暨南大學學生上植物解剖課.jpg might be unrelated to the space after equal sign. in fact, i copied exactly the whole {{Information}} to another file but the auto description displays on that file. so weird. :/ -- RZuo (talk) 22:43, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

July 25[edit]

Derechos de autor[edit]

me han eliminado dos fotos por derechos de autor y las fotos son de dominio publico son fotos suyas que el mismo publico en twitter.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ander_Cort%C3%A9s_chikito2.jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Ander_Cort%C3%A9s_chikito1.jpg

y ahora se está realizando una consulta de borrado para decidir qué hacer con este artículo. https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ander_Cort%C3%A9s — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarlosRzo (talk • contribs) 00:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

  • @CarlosRzo: En la página File:Ander Cortés chikito2.jpg, dice que la foto es obra suya ({{Own}}, autor CarlosRzo). Entonces, para empezar: ¿es Vd. el fotógrafo o no? Porque si entiendo lo que ha escrito aquí ahora dice algo al contrario.
  • Si no es obra suya, ¿porque sea la foto en el dominio público;? Si la fecha dada no equivoca, es en el ámbito del Convención Berne. En el momento de sacar la foto, los derechos del autor pertenecen al fotógrafo. ¿Como vino el dominio público? ¿Hay una dedicación al dominio público con CC-0, o cual?
  • Y si era en el dominio público, sería imposible dar una licencia {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}}. - Jmabel ! talk 07:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)


Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is out![edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

Hi All,

The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is announced!

We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition. This year saw over 7,707 images represented on commons in over 20 countries. Kindly see images here

Our profound gratitude to all the people who participated and organized local contests and photo walks for this project, Wikimedia commons community, Administrators, Jury and all team members.

We hope to have you contribute to the campaign next year.

Thank you,

On behalf of Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--✝iѵɛɳ२२४०†ลℓк †๏ мэ 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Copyright and unrecognised countries[edit]

Main gallery: Commons:Village pump/Copyright#What constitutes copyright? (Vietnamese law of 1994) .

I started a discussion about the copyright © status of South Vietnamese (government) works, the modern Socialist Republic of Vietnam doesn't recognise South Vietnam as a legitimate Vietnamese government and instead recognises the Republic of South Vietnam (the Việt-Cộng state), but note that the United States of America (where Wikimedia Commons is based) did recognise South Vietnam but not the Republic of South Vietnam so more input into that discussion would be welcome. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:53, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Used CropTool and unintentionally produced an newer version of the old file instead of a new file[edit]

File:Vicksburg and its defences (5961384096).jpg - Essentially, I'm attempting to create a cropped version of the file that removes the white space around the edges and the purple public libraries stamp at the bottom for use on enwiki. Is there a way to get that cropped version to existing at a new file title without creating a new revision of the existing file? Hog Farm (talk) 01:09, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes of course. In the review page of the croptool select the radio box for a new filename (instead of the upload new revision radio box), then an input field for a new filename will be shown prepopulated with the existing filename with "(cropped)" appended (you can, but do not need to edit the name). --C.Suthorn (talk) 04:06, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Files without content[edit]

These 2,300 files all have no content (1x1 Pixels) and should be deleted. But I don't know how to create a batch deletion request on this list. -- Discostu (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Discostu: I am not certain if they should be deleted. As originally uploaded these were quite normal files, if blank (empty pages from a book). They were overwritten by other users with 1x1 pixel image. But since they are part of document series and presumably genuinely blank pages originally I think they should be kept to avoid gaps. MKFI (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Discostu, MKFI: at each file it says "The following 2,361 files are duplicates of this file" - I'd suggest that if not deleted, they could at least all be made redirects to one file, rather than 2,362 duplicates - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: I don't think the templates at Wikisource can handle them as redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: They are duplicates now since the original contents have been replaced; they were not (binary) duplicates when uploaded, although all the images are different variations of a blank white page. MKFI (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI: Yep, I realised that - but I really don't see the value of keeping 2362 blank pages, whether identical or not; if a placeholder is needed for the blank pages, then better to have one placeholder for all of them, than 2362 separate ones :-) - MPF (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: Why would that be better? What is gained? - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The files (all being a part of DPLA) have different names (including DPLA id and page number), different categories (for the different archives in the DPLA) and different descriptions (replicating the archive name and DPLA id). Redirecting them all to a single page would cause endless confusion for editors and users, now if that is not better? Just like the Brexit benefits. --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
OK then! Yes, definitely [:Category:Empty files] for brexit benefits :-) MPF (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Flickr account holder request[edit]

Anyone with a Flickr account, could you ask the uploader of this Flickr file (File:Little BeeEaters by Bob Wagener (49494648073).jpg at Commons) for the location where it was taken, please? The answer should be somewhere in Africa, but Africa is a huge place, and the file is pretty useless without the location - but very useful with it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks like the Flickr account is a club, not an individual, which could make this tricky. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Still worth a try though! The request might get through. I'd do it myself if I had a flickr account. - MPF (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: - excellent, thanks! Now to wait and see if there's any reply . . . :-) MPF (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

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 as described here.
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 (for example) enabled that File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Rosenborg ved vintertide - 1853.png is representative of a snow scene in by being assigned to Winter in Denmark (suggested by the title in another language), Snowy landscapes in Denmark, and 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)

July 28[edit]

Isn't forcing file's title to be its url a previous limitation[edit]

Hi, isn't the Common's feature of having the image's title as its url a previous limitation of mediawiki software? I think this issue was resolved specifically for Wikidata q-items.

Now that Wikidata have the feature of changing title without having to change url, shouldn't Commons also adopt it? So that photographers will be able to upload without having to worry about giving the best title before uploading. Sadly uploader crashes often when uploading several/big files. Wish there was a Draft feature for files to keep them before giving titles and detailed discriptions —Vis M (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vis M: You should be able to draft a file description page and filename locally before uploading with our experienced uploader page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Introducing aliasing is always problematic and always causes problems at the same time it offers solutions. Having one official name for an image is a feature, not a bug. If once uploaded, a file name is needed, there's always {{Rename}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Something like first uploading to a draft area akin to Special:UploadStash (mw:Manual:UploadStash), and then given a name and description before publishing would be very useful. —Vis M (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Youtube also has a "draft" space before publishing. I think same should be implemented for Commons, where the photographer needs to specify only the license & source when uploading. Perhaps then the community also can help to add title, complete description, categorization, etc. This would increase productivity, decrease crashes, and result in more uploads as it is currently a tedious process. This would also help with uploading unidentified organisms, which have to identified using inaturalist.org, etc. —Vis M (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Museum object not an artwork[edit]

What template can I use for a museum/archive object that is not an artwork, lets say an ordinary object kept in a museum or archive. I want a template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". I can only see template:artwork. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the "ordinary object"? Copyright subsists not in "artworks," but rather in "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (with the exception of useful articles). For example, sports trophies, taxidermy, and currency are not generally considered "artwork," but are copyrightable. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This wasn't a question about copyright templates, its about the information template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". Do we just call everything in a museum an artwork, or do we have a different template for say Abraham Lincoln's hat in a museum, or a tin of mustache wax belonging to president Taft? . --RAN (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
For a three-dimensional object, the template "Art Photo" may be preferred to the template "Artwork". Many pages on Commons use the template "Art Photo" for museum objects that may not be artworks. Although the names of the templates use the word "artwork" or "art" and their documentation says that they are for artworks, templates are tools, not rules. Those words will not be displayed in the actual use if you don't want them to be displayed. Only the fields used are displayed. Thus, the templates are adaptable to many cases. The parameter "institution=NameOfMuseum" can be used to display "NameOfMuseum" in the field "collection". If you prefer, can use the template "Information" with an additional parameter such as Other fields = {{Information field|Collection|NameOfMuseum}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021[edit]

In Category:Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021, items of "Khalili Collection Islamic Art" appear, even if they are already categorized as Category:Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

for that only User:MartinPoulter can answer why he included {{Uncategorized}}.
i remember a bot would remove the uncat template in this case in the past but i dont know if it's still active.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Io Herodotus: This results from how I configured my Pattypan template for a bulk upload, which I only noticed after. I am going to go through the recent bulk upload and add additional categories, removing those templates as I go. I clean my mess. MartinPoulter (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks[edit]

A proposal to limit the use of checkuser blocks so that a default of standard blocks, and therefore a standard public appeal process can apply to all cases where the checkuser evidence is not critical has been opened at:

This should be a non-controversial amendment to the block policy as our project's, and all other Wikimedia projects, ethical default is to maximize transparency and accountability whenever reasonable to do so.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

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)

UploadWizard instructions do not align with actual VRT requirements[edit]

I first want to thank those who made MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-cc-subhead possible, at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/06#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Too often we impose an increasing number of requirements, without thinking about the UX side or attempting to ensure that those requirements are communicated clearly to the end user. Currently, the "Release rights" tab is laid out as follows:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Now, the problem here is that the stuff below "This file is/is not my own work" is collapsible, so if the user selects "own work" they will never see that VRT/OTRS is required for all previously published works even if they are the author. And when someone accuses them of copyright violations, they are rightfully aggrieved and may be discouraged from contributing further. Proposed new flow:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work, and it has never been published online in any form.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work, or it has been previously published online.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication. If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT and send us a copyright release. To avoid imminent deletion of this file, you should add {{subst:OP}} to this field.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support revised wording below only, oppose original wording: Seems likely to scare people away from uploading photos they also posted to social media. Should put a greater emphasis on the idea that photos uploaded to Flickr, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. do not require VRTS permission, but really only need the original poster to add a licensing line to the post.  Mysterymanblue  17:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    How about we change it to: If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT (either by adding a free license to the location of prior publication or by sending us a copyright release via email). If you intend to ask the copyright holder to send an email to us, you must add {{subst:OP}} to this field to avoid imminent deletion. Anyways, I don't think scaring a few people away is a regression from the current state of affairs, where we give instructions which are not clear or just plain wrong and so most of those photos get deleted anyways regardless of whether the uploader is actually the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. I support the new wording, and have updated my !vote accordingly.  Mysterymanblue  23:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 31[edit]

Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee[edit]

Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.

This Committee will have around 15 members. It is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read the full announcement here.

Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy starting from next week here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are flags 3D objects?[edit]

I've always just assumed that they are and many museums prominently display copyright © symbols on scans of historical flags, but as often I see disputes arise over the historical accuracy of flags and often this stems from the fact that people just create their own drawings of flags based on sources (if they provide sources at all) it would be handy to have "the original" for comparison. But as I just assumed that flags are 3D objects I never imported scans of them to Wikimedia Commons, but then I realised, flags are flat, so are they even 3D objects? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the flag is laid flat, no IMO. Yes flags can have textures, but so do oil paintings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I do not think that flags can reasonably be construed as 3D objects, as their use of depth is typically a matter of practical necessity, minimal, unoriginal, and not an artistic choice made as part of the design process. A waving flag in the wind, however, is a 3D object, and a photograph of it can be separately copyrightable from the flag design itself. King of Hearts brings up an interesting point, though, in referencing oil paintings: sometimes painters carefully control the size of "globs" of paint to create a sense of texture or depth in an image; at what point does this make a painting 3D? The painting at issue in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was an oil painting, but it seemed to be rather "flat" in its style. Could a photograph of a highly textured painting be copyrightable as a derivative work of the painting? My guess is that it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  Mysterymanblue  00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue:, well, I think that an image like this (attempted isolation) probably won't qualify as a 2D object because the flagpole is included, but the same without the pole would. I think. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 01[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=577832619"