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/2021/09.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

 

Start a new discussion

Village pump in Rzeszów, Poland [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.

September 06[edit]

Scuplture i[edit]

some of categories are misspelled Scuplture → Sculptures--Albedo (talk) 18:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Albedo: You can rename such categories using "Move"->"Move" in the top right. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:25, 8 September 2021 (UTC)[]
but files remains in old category. Also misspelled Numer 7349 on objects --Albedo (talk) 10:42, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Consumer behaviour (−) (±) (↓) (↑)Human behavior --Albedo (talk) 12:33, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 15[edit]

Journal de l'Empire[edit]

File:Journal de l'Empire, NG-NM-11649-X-1.jpg I want to create a new category: Journal de l'Empire. Wich uppercategory should I put it in? For a newspaper after the French revolution, Publications of the French Revolution, does not seem appropiate. It seems to be published in Paris. I suppose there where also local 'imperial' newspapers in countries annexed by France. The distribution in the whole of Europe would not be technicaly posible at that time. A have the 9 july 1809 issue I want to scan and publish in the Commons. I am surprised there are no other issues in the Commons.Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Should I bother to scan the issue as it is availaible under gallica (found via Fr Wikisource)?Smiley.toerist (talk) 09:08, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This should be uploaded as DjVu if possible. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If no DjVu exists, it has to be created. Unfortunately the text is of low grafic quality and OCR does not work relialably. Most letters would have to be manualy inputted. This is very labour intensive. I have done this for three Journal de Bruxelles issues (example: https://fr.wikisource.org/wiki/Journal_de_Bruxelles_(1790-1800)/76-1799) Each issue took me several weeks (working several hours a day. This has to be worth the investment.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:46, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Rotation bug?[edit]

I requested rotation of File:The Philosophy of Beards - Thomas S. Gowing - frontis (cropped b).jpg; this has been done, but in the process, some of the content has been lost. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I reverted and resubmitted it; the result shows the same error. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:07, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Moved from VP/technical, as I've had no response there in over a week. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:23, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Seems like a bug with the rotation bot, though I can't say why exactly that happened. I know the crop tool can be finicky about dimensions when you choose lossless mode, so maybe this is a similar problem. You'll probably need to talk to Steinsplitter directly, since it's their bot. In the meantime, I've uploaded a version I rotated manually with ImageMagick that preserved the content and quality. clpo13(talk) 18:00, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have already notified Steinsplitter. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The same thing just happened albeit with less drastic effect)) at File:Catherine M. Clark - A Carved Morris-Dance Panel from Lancaster Castle.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:31, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Chinese state media propaganda on Wikimedia commons[edit]

As many of you already know about the recent action by WMF to ban and de-sysop many Chinese Wikipedia mods. Some of the banned users uploaded many propaganda files sourced from Chinese state media. Are we not gonna delete those files? Example : Check uploads by User:Walter Grassroot -- Chen Quanguo (talk) 12:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Chen Quangu: How are these out of scope (I'm guessing the issue would be more to describe them accurately). - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
(Edit conflict) I would very much be against deleting such content, perhaps add a note about it being uploaded by Wumao's but not outright delete them. Why censor such things? Interestingly enough, I've talked about Chinese Communist Party infiltration on Wikimedia to people off-wiki for years, I'm surprised that it took this long for the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) to actually act. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:47, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Chen Quanguo: @Jmabel: @Donald Trung: Much of these early uploads are historical, including many scarce images. I oppose any mass deletion(s) of these files. Deletion requests should only be on an individual file with full justification(s). "Propaganda" efforts on Commons can also include targeted deletion of truthful historic files that conflict with current propaganda and efforts to re-cast Chinese history with a "correct view." --Ooligan (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Are we also going to delete promotional media from the UK Ministry of defence, the US Dept of Defence, the French..? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Pigsonthewing: No, we are not. Every experienced user who has chimed in here has agreed that at most this calls for changing a description. The OP is someone with literally no prior edits on Commons, at least not from this account. - Jmabel ! talk 17:57, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Can I make {{Roads are for cars}}?[edit]

There is {{Tracks are for trains}} as warning template for photos taken on the tracks.

When I saw this template, I have a good idea.

It's to make {{Roads are for cars}}.

{{Roads are for cars}} is warning template for photos taken on the roads.

The contents are as follows.

Roads are for cars: please take your photos where it is safe

Walking or passing over roads is dangerous. Cars can travel at high speeds and often cannot stop upon seeing you.

Take caution when photographing near roads, and only cross when it is safe to do so. If you use this image, consider including it alongside a similar warning message to inform others.

Can I make {{Roads are for cars}}?

Ox1997cow (talk) 15:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Ox1997cow: are you serious, or is this proposal satiric? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Not really a fan of the "Tracks are for trains" template. Photographers need to use their common sense (I know what an outdated concept). Don't really see it as commons responsibility to police photographer's actions Oxyman (talk) 15:57, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel, Oxyman: I'm proposing a template that can be used for photos taken on roads where sidewalks and roadways are not distinct, on crosswalks, etc.
I'm not particularly objecting to your suggestion, can't see how we can object as "Tracks are for trains" exists. Now presumably we need "Runways are for airplanes", "Launchpads are for spaceships", "Volcanoes can be rather hot" and "Lions can bite" Oxyman (talk) 16:37, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]
There are probably several hundred photos here on Commons I have taken while standing in streets, possibly over 1000. (Oh, and a few dozen on train tracks, but mostly on disused or little-used lines.) But really? Streets are note necessarily just for cars, and cars brake a lot more easily than trains. In my neighborhood, for example, probably more pedestrians walk on the little-used side streets than their narrow sidewalks. As I was writing this, a woman went by with a toddler in a stroller and a car slowed down from 20 or so miles an hour to maybe 10 as it passed her. I know there are places where streets aren't used this way -- there are places in this city where streets aren't used this way -- and if I'm photographing from the street in those, I've got a spotter.
With many shots where the point of view is an street, we have no way to know whether the photographer was on foot, in a car, or on a bicycle; in a parking lane or a traffic lane; etc.
What next? Warning people who take aerial photos not to try this without an airplane? - Jmabel ! talk 00:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel, Oxyman: However, in the case of an airplane runway or a rocket launcher, it seems difficult to make a template because it is a place that is difficult for the general public to access. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
{{Tracks are for trains}} as a template seems a bit odd to me as it implies that the photographer was doing something wrong. There are plenty of reasons why photography on or close to train tracks may be safe and appropriate (official photographs by the railway operator being a prime example). {{Roads are for cars}} is even worse as the core premise is wrong; only a small minority of roads are only "for cars." In many places bicycles or pedestrians have priority over motor vehicles. We should not be implying that the photographer was doing something wrong based on the unsound opinion of a Wikimedia editor. Nor should we be discouraging people from taking photographs in roads when we have no knowledge of the circumstances. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Roads aren't just for cars. Cyclists, horseback riders and pedestrians (even entire armies of foot soldiers) are als known to use them. In fact, roads existed long before the invention of the automobile. Maybe {{Roads are for roadkill}} conveys the sentiment? Guido den Broeder (talk) 12:40, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel, Oxyman, From Hill To Shore, Guido den Broeder: I was greatly misunderstood. Therefore, I will not make it. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]


I would like to discourage the use of all templates with general life-advice. {{Tracks are for trains}} should be deleted. Relevant information about files should not be hidden between useless clutter. We could just a well tell people about the health hazards of drug use, to be careful with firearms, or that some harmless looking plants and animals are actually poisonous. (The latter might actually not be completely stupid. But even that should not be bigger than an icon.) --Watchduck (quack) 20:15, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • "Can I make" and "Should I make" are different questions. IMO, the answer to the second is No. The "Tracks are for trains" template is dubious and up for deletion discussion. "Roads are for cars" is even more dubious, since cars are not the only authorized users of roads - and indeed many roads were originally built for foot, animal, or bicycle traffic rather than for automobiles. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 18:08, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
To be clear, I took File:Holy brakelights, Batman!.jpg and File:Turkey Vulture on suburban sidewalk, Elmwood Park, NJ 2017-08-10 132509.jpg safely from inside stopped vehicles.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • There are any number of situations where photography is dangerous or illegal. For example, you should not take photos while driving (in a car on a road), and it is illegal to do so in some jurisdictions. Warnings of dangerous photography situations are probably still more helpful than hurtful though. If thinking twice before taking a photo on a train track saves a single life, it's worth it. That being said, I think the danger from train tracks might be less evident than that of a vehicular road. People are often taught from a young age to "look before you cross" (and you can safely take photos from a crosswalk). Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Ongoing Issues Uploading A Video[edit]

I seem unable to upload a video. Everytime I try it goes through fine up to the "publishing" stage when it takes an age then gives "Internal error: Server failed to publish temporary file.". I've repeatedly tried the "Retry" button as well as starting again from scratch re-uploading but always exactly the same. Tried repeatedly yesterday and today. Uploading a webm file through the standard "Upload file" system (which has always worked in the past. It might be a bit larger than previous videos (runs longer time). It uploads fine (so not a "chunking" issue. I'm put the webm file on my website, link to the file [https://psamathe.net/temp_images/sept_2021/02-Grey_Squirrel_2021-09-13_nX1.webm] (the viewable mp4 files on my web site accessed through web pages are already reduced quality and the webm is generated from a high quality original). I'd appreciate any thoughts as I think it would be a useful video (not much like it available). Sound arrogant but I'm quite proud of my amateur efforts and keen to have the attribution set to me). Thanks PsamatheM (talk) 17:29, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Problems still persisting. Retried many times and always getting the same error (as above).PsamatheM (talk) 13:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 16[edit]

Women of the Day "from en:wiki screenshots"[edit]

A WIR Woman of the Day "from en:wiki screenshots" in 2018 and 2021

I wonder if a third party can offer some advice to try and resolve a dispute. I have created banners for en:Women in Red which feature a "Woman of the Day". They were created by taking en:wiki screen shots of en:wiki pages and that is how the source is recorded - about 3 years ago the first set were available. They were used on the @wikiwomeninred Twitter page, Wikidata and now on the Wikiproject page for Women in Red. There were 365 of them but there are probably maybe 600 or so as variations of jpg /png and improved subjects have come along. In the last few months the set have been changing to a 500 x 1500 format. Occasionally I have incorporated a Wikipedia page that includes a "fair use" image. As this derivative image has no license on commons then this has been pointed out to me and the image was replaced with an alternative. In this case the matter was resolved to everyone's satisfaction. This, to my mind, demonstrates consensus as the images have been widely seen by hundreds of Wikimedians and the sourcing was not challenged in all of the cases where a "fair use" image was not used. In the last couple of weeks templates have been added to about twenty of so images and this has lead to some debate. There has been a discussion where it has been requested that the sourcing should be improved. I have no objection to improving the sourcing in future although I dispute @Andel: that the current images are infringing commons policies and/or copyright. The damage that would be done by the proposed deletion would not be trivial and is (IMO) a disproportionate and unnecessary (mis)use of power. Would someone care to offer a resolution? Victuallers (talk) 11:33, 16 September 2021 (UTC) N.B. I have proposed a sample image for deletion here. Victuallers (talk) 12:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Andel is correct that you can't claim the image as your own work without citing the source works of the deivative images. In other situations we would call that license laundering and the images would be deleted. For the article text included in the images, I would suggest saying, "This image includes text published in the English Wikipedia article [insert article name and link] as it appeared at [isert date and time] (UTC). A permanent link to the version of the article included in the image is provided here [insert permanent link to version of the article]." For any article images contained within your image, use {{Derived from}}. That will allow you to comply with your legal obligations. Please note that there is no intention to be awkward here; there are plenty of examples of people being sued for breach of copyright where the source was not attributed correctly. From Hill To Shore (talk) 13:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also Woman of the day screenshots are also a great way to show how the crediting should be done. In any case, I think that the Woman of the day screenshots are great and I have actually used them couple of times when I have needed women themed Wikimedia screenshots. Thank you for your work. --Zache (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree that the current attribution is inadequate, but I think it will be fairly easy to fix. Based on en:Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, I think the minimum requirement for attributing the text is a link to the source Wikipedia article. For images, a link probably isn't enough and we should name the author on the derivative file page. The same format can be used for most of the pictures, so I think it's worth getting it right. I've made a rough attempt at adding proper attribution to the first of the files: File:Apr01 Wangari Muta Maathai.png. If others agree that that's sufficient, or improve it so that it is, it can form a basis for fixing the others. --bjh21 (talk) 20:46, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That is a good starting point; there are several ways we can do this and that seems as good as any. However, there also needs to be some attribution to the authors of the other articles used in the image, not just the one in front.
In addition, I have spotted a second issue at File:Apr5 Woman of the Day.png that we need to consider. The file originally created in 2019 has been overwritten with a 2021 version. I think the new version should be uploaded as a separate file as that is going to make a mess of the attribution and licensing very quickly. Any user who reuses the file externally would have to hunt back through the file history to locate the correct attribution that applied to the previous version. It is much cleaner to keep each version under a separate file name. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:16, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@From Hill To Shore: I disagree about the pages behind the front one. We get at most scattered words from them, which I think destroys any creative content they may have. If that's not de minimis, it's something very similar. Regarding old versions, Commons:Overwriting files says that a new version shouldn't change the licence, and I think that extends to not changing the required attribution precisely because it make proper attribution of old versions hard. I don't think there's a problem where both versions are based on the same Wikipedia article and picture (like File:Oct5 Woman of the Day.png above), but for File:Apr5 Woman of the Day.png either the two versions should be split or the first one should be revdel'ed. --bjh21 (talk) 22:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Bjh21: The amount of text visible in the background varies between images. For example, File:Oct5 Woman of the Day.png shows more background text than File:Apr5 Woman of the Day.png. The de minimis test includes an element of subjectivity, so we can't expect to have a catch-all format for all of the images unless we plan for images that pass de minimis. However, rather than a single format, we could instead phrase it as a set of requirements. First a link to the source article, then a link to the original image; editors then have to consider de minimis and use their judgement on whether a second set of links is appropriate. Naming the authors in the new file page is a nice step but not always a requirement; so long as the new work is clearly labelled as a derivative and the source works are linked, that covers most situations. For your next point, you summarise what I was trying to say; where there is no change in the source works, the attribution remains constant even if a new version of the image is uploaded. I'd be a little wary about using revdelete after replacing versions based on different source works though; if these have been used externally (as mentioned with Twitter in the first comment) we should preserve the original version and licensing so that someone who has reused the file can check the original release licence and terms. Splitting/uploading new works under new file names would be my preference. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:32, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for your views and @Zache: in particular. I have added extra words to the images (under immediate threat) but I suspect these may not satisfy those who want everything as they want it. These images are/were a donation to the project, but they don't seem to regarded as such. It has been alleged that these images "just create work for other volunteers" which seems unfair but I suppose it could be true. I have offered to help, in time ,to improve the sourcing, but if that proves insufficient then I propose that we delete all the images in this category as they are ~useless if there is not one for every day. @From Hill To Shore: proposes that someone (and I think s/he means the person who donated the images) should add "First a link to the source article, then a link to the original image" - this is not stuff I have the time/skills/priority to do as other issues like gender bias on Wikimedia are much more important IMO. I would be willing to help, but as that has proven unconvincing then can someone tell me how to donate the deletion of all the images in that category as I want to leave this tidy. Another solution would be to move the images to the en:wiki but that would prevent them being used easily on the wiki projects where they are used. If anyone has a tool for copying them to a safe place where they can be held for archiving reasons (eg on Flickr) then that would be useful. It is important to keep the original release license for historical reasons as they are mentioned on several other wiki projects. Victuallers (talk) 13:58, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Victuallers: Can you explain why these are "useless if there is not one for every day"? That is not our approach to (for example) scans of a run of a magazine. - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Hi @Jmabel:, thanks for the interest - they were created to be used everyday. To be Woman of the Day when there has only been one last Tuesday is hardly an accolade, moreover its like a jigsaw or a set of playing cards that are incomplete. As it is, you name the day, and there is an image. To illustrate this I have automated this, for example on my talk page and these would just be trash if there was the occasional missing image. I had plans to develop them further, hence my recent release of updated images, but I wasn't aware that they were used by anyone else, so its nice to know that they are. However dealing with requests/demands/threats for additional sourcing as the rules are refined creates an overhead that I'm not sure is worth it, given that I thought their primary use (on Twitter) was in the past. Victuallers (talk) 16:34, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

General purpose import tool[edit]

Wikimedia Commons hosts a lot of content imported from other websites that have ascended into the public domain, many museums actually post images of their collections with licenses compatible with Wikimedia Commons online. Other websites contain thousands of scans of public domain literary works that have to be manually downloaded one-by-one in order to be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons, this situation isn't really desirable and batch requests go unanswered for years.

The best solution for this would be to have a general purpose import tool that can choose to indiscriminately import files from any website. The tool should by default only select images and could be tweaked to select non-image media files, files from or until certain file sizes (for websites that have a lot of small non-educational images or large background images), among others.

Currently we have the Flickr2Commons (F2C) tool that can import free images from Flickr, unfortunately it cannot import images from any other website and this makes sense, as other websites all have different copyright © rules and most websites primarily host copyrighted content. While most imports from Flickr could be reviewed by a robot 🤖 most content from other websites would likely need to be reviewed by humans. So it would make sense that a general purpose import tool would tag all files uploaded using it to be reviewed by a human. This tool can be maintained in the same way that the current MediaWiki Upload Wizard software is maintained or it can have "an open feedback forum" if demand for such a thing would exist.

I have been thinking about this for a while now (probably years), there are multiple ways to implement this, what I think might be the best way to do so would be to have "a button" in the MediaWiki Upload Wizard where one can add any URL and it would then give a selection of media files which users can then manually (de-)select (it might be better to have everything de-selected by default or have such a thing be an option before inserting the URL).

Personally I would prefer such a tool to be accessible to all users but it would make a lot of sense to limit it only to certain user groups or a user could have it enabled after a certain number of uploads / edits. Although in general I would say that the benefits outweigh the negatives if implemented well, I am just posting this here for feedback as I regularly encounter websites with free content but because no such tool exists it always requires the user to first manually download and then upload everys image, for websites with multiple free images or even hundreds on a single page this is tedious. In fact such a tool would make batch requests obsolete like how thế Flickr2Commons tool made the Flickr batch requests obsolete. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:26, 16 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Donald Trung: The problem here would be that there in no generic way to bring in even such basic metadata as date and description, let alone having a situation where, as on Flickr, a bot can validate the stated license. @Fæ: would I be right that you already have a tool that amounts to this technically, but which you have to "tune" with info on how to get relevant metadata from each source you access? - Jmabel ! talk 01:24, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Any archive worthy of the name exposes its metadata pretty clearly through some obviously embedded flavour of Dublin Core / or (at worst) MARC. That's an easy part of the problem. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:16, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Donald Trung: I don't know if this helps but I use the URL2Commons tool whenever I don't feel like downloading multiple files from an external site. howdy.carabao 🌱🐃🌱 (talk) 05:09, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Howdy.carabao:, wow, I wasn't aware of this tool, I tried to run a simulation with the Rijksmuseum and it doesn't seem to work for me at all, my suggestion is basically this, but more user-friendly, perhaps URL2Commons + the MediaWiki upload wizard, it currently already supports Flickr so I can see it supporting generic URL's, but I don't seem to be able to run anything with the URL2Commons tool. I will try it with a number of other URL's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:13, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

There is related discussion in T286896. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 17[edit]

Chris Farley imitates Newt Gingrich at the House Republican Conference[edit]

Is this video alright for Commons? (https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4462349/chris-farley-imitates-newt-gingrich) It seems like it would be Public Domain. JamesTheLaptop (talk) 16:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @JamesTheLaptop: why would it be in the public domain? - Jmabel ! talk 02:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • It looks like it is because it was taken during a House Republican Conference at the House of Representatives, and the PD-CSPAN tag says "This file is in the public domain in the United States because it is a video… from the chambers of the US House or US Senate as published by C-SPAN." JamesTheLaptop (talk) 10:16, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question about a category[edit]

There is a category called Category:Göreme seen on the move Is this a legitimate category? Krok6kola (talk) 17:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Anti-Vaccine protest selected for main page - MOTD (again)[edit]

Why are we allowing anti-vaccine propaganda on main page? See Template:Motd/2021-09-25. I request to censor the video and de-platform the uploader like reddit/twitter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Real name as your username (talk • contribs) 18:10, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I agree with this user, as far as this film should not feature on the main page (I am against censoring). Perhaps this is somebody who doesn't dare to speak out loudly with their usual username. There are now three video's planned with ani-vacc demonstrations. Is it true these can simply be replaced with alternatives? This has been discussed before, see archive. Elly (talk) 20:14, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I had no objection to one such file being used as MOTD, but we should not be coming back to the same controversial theme over and over. No problem with the media being on Commons.- Jmabel ! talk 02:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I switched it out with File:MRNA vaccines against the coronavirus.webm, which should hopefully provide some balance. Nosferattus (talk) 07:11, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Category is redirected to incorrect name[edit]

Please, see here:[1]

This should be a sub-category, not a redirect to a incorrect name. The "Louisville, St. Louis and Texas Railway" currently has two files with that exact name. If this railway corporation was purchased by or merged with another railway/ railroad, then it should be a sub-category of that successor corporation. If it went out of business, then it should be sub-category of defunct railways of xxxx state or country.

What is the proper way remove an incorrect redirect? Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 23:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Ooligan: Just edit the Category:Louisville, St. Louis and Texas Railway and replace {{catredirect|Louisville, Henderson and St. Louis Railway}} with [[Category:Louisville, Henderson and St. Louis Railway]]. That will change Category:Louisville, St. Louis and Texas Railway from being a redirect to Category:Louisville, Henderson and St. Louis Railway into being a subcategory of it, which I think is what you want. --bjh21 (talk) 14:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 18[edit]

"MediaWiki-powered FanArt-Wiki via InstantComnmons"[edit]

What does this mean? This tip provided by an experienced COM user was completely disregarded by Thuresson in my undeletion requests. But what is this about? - Coagulans (talk) 03:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Coagulans: InstantCommons is a way for non-Wikimedia wikis to use Commons images easily, but that kind of file usage is not shown in file information. I guess the original commenter was concerned that the images were in use in some external wiki and opposed the deletion due to this. MKFI (talk) 06:45, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Thank you for the supplied link, is quite a thing. - Coagulans (talk) 04:54, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

How do I go from the list of deletion of the day to the gallery version?[edit]

I want to go from Commons:Deletion requests/2021/09/17 to the gallery version where I see the images, rather than just the name of the file. I don't remember how I did it in the past. --RAN (talk) 03:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Deletion_requests_September_2021&from=17 --RZuo (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @RZuo: Thanks! Is there any way you can add the link from one page to the other in Commons:Deletion_requests template, so it appears there each day? --RAN (talk) 02:03, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Upload new version does not work?[edit]

Yesterday I uploaded a new, cropped version of this picture: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Enrico_pitassi_mannella.jpg but the picture that appears is still the old version. Why? --Jannizzero1 (talk) 10:38, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Jannizzero1: Probably a cache issue. Clear your cache and reload the page. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:15, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Just to be clear: the only difference is to crop out the border, and you have done that successfully. - Jmabel ! talk 15:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • On a busy server day it can sometimes take up to 30 minutes for the thumbnails to be created and indexed and displayed, even when you clear the cache. Especially when a bot is uploading a large batch of images from Flickr or another source. --RAN (talk) 02:07, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 19[edit]

Verified accounts[edit]

SCNAT (talk · contribs) is verified on de:User:SCNAT. i think the verification could also be applied to the account on other wikis. would it be a good idea if the verification is added to the local user page here, or to its meta user page so it's visible on all wikis? (@Olaf Kosinsky:).--RZuo (talk) 10:00, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @RZuo: There is Template:User Personal acquaintances. - Jmabel ! talk 18:41, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • @Jmabel, RZuo:, I think that template is only to verify an account whose operator you have met in person. Verification through VRT/OTRS needs to be templated by authorised users with {{Verified account}}. Since Olaf Kosinsky was blocked indefinitely, someone else should check ticket:2021012110004263 and apply the template. @AFBorchert, Raboe001, Mussklprozz: fyi. De728631 (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
      • @De728631: Sorry, I missed the context in which RZuo was talking about verification. - Jmabel ! talk 21:31, 19 September 2021 (UTC)[]
    • I would like to understand why I am standing here, I am currently not (very) active and I can no longer read the ticket. What do I have to do? Thanks very much
    • ich würde gerne verstehen warum ich hier stehe, bin momentan zwar nicht (sehr) aktiv und ich das Ticket nicht mehr lesen kann was muss ich tun? vielen Dank Tschüß -- Ra Boe watt?? 11:43, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Ra Boe: In dem Fall dann einfach zurücklehnen und ignorieren, da kannst du eh nichts machen. "fyi" = "for your information" = "dir zur Info". --El Grafo (talk) 12:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 22[edit]

Domestic idyll category in Art by genre?[edit]

It seems to me that none of the existing categories included in Category:Art by genre include a common type of Victorian art of romanticized domestic life, such as these images Image:Nova Scotia scenery LCCN2002710682.jpg and File:Sabbath eve in winter LCCN2003654175.jpg (well, that one is a little odd). Although mainly from the Victorian period (and, I think, in the English-speaking world), this genre is still popular, with the work of en: Thomas Kinkade. Do you support adding this category? I was thinking of calling it "domestic idylls." Downtowngal (talk) 02:00, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Downtowngal: I suppose if domestic idyll is a recognized genre, that shouldn't be a problem. But if that's a term you came up with yourself, then maybe that's something you should better discuss with people from Commons:WikiProject Arts and en:Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts first. Cheers, --El Grafo (talk) 09:31, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Is this file ok from a copyright aspect?[edit]

Jobs-pic at exhibition in US embassy

I want to add this pic of an exhibition in the US embassy in Geneva to the German and English article on Steve Jobs, because there are no other pics available showing him at this age (probably early eighties). I doubt the legal status, though, as the Jobs portrait itself is most likely copyrighted. Any help/comments? Pittigrilli (talk) 10:24, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Please read Commons:Derivative works. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I did thoroughly. To be honest, I still don't have the solution. Is it allowed on Commons or not? (Just to be clear: This was NOT uploaded by me). Pittigrilli (talk) 15:35, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I would say that unless the photo of Steve Jobs is free licensed, photo as a whole cannot be free licensed. (Flickr generally doesn't worry about derivative works; on Wikimedia we need to be concerned with DW in order to assure free licensed media is actually free.) I have renominated the photo at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Ambassador Betty E. King at Steve Jobs Exhibit Opening.jpg, discuss further there. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:02, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Aha! The photo of Jobs *IS* free licensed! Reverse image search found that the photographer was by Bernard Gotfryd, who donated his photographs to the LOC and PD. [2]. Version on LOC: [3]. The point remaining, license status of derivative work needs to be established if it is a significant part in another photo. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 16:13, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]
WOW, Infrogmation of New Orleans, you're a star! As I mentioned, this is the very very first image on Commons showing him (even remotely) at this age. Great stuff! Pittigrilli (talk) 18:19, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

ggbain.34249[edit]

When I search for "ggbain.34249" here at Commons, I only come up with the image I just loaded. But looking through the category, the image already existed as File:A. Santos Dumont LCCN2014714401.jpg with "ggbain.34249" in the text. Why didn't I find it? Is my search only returning the string when found in the title? --RAN (talk) 18:21, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

You should use Special:Search. Ruslik (talk) 07:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@RAN: Thanks for reporting this, I've taken the liberty of copying your comment over to the Mediasearch talk page so that the developers can evaluate whether that's something they want to work on (sorry, no time to fiddle around with phabricator right now). --El Grafo (talk) 09:14, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
You are correct! Special search looks at all the text, while the default search appears to limit the search. There does not appear to be any way to change the settings in preferences. I imagine this has been why every once in a while I cannot find a Bain image searching for the ggbain number, despite User:Fae saying they should all be loaded. I will use special search. It also appears that Google Search misses the images too. --RAN (talk) 18:08, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

'ditto' template[edit]

I have imported {{Ditto}}, for use in transcritpions. It can be seen in use, for example, on File:Jack Wright - John Elwyn - exhibition catalogue - 1949 - Paul Alexander Gallery.jpg. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 22 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 23[edit]

incorrect filenames and attribution for Flickr images[edit]

Replied at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#user:NicoleSharp Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @Nicole Sharp: See Help:VisualFileChange.js. Among other things, it makes it very easy to do parallel edits on the wikitext for numerous files uploaded by a particular user. Here's an example where I used it to make edits similar to what you appear to have in mind. - Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • As suggested by "@Ser Amantio di Nicolao:" (who originally uploaded the photos), I think the simplest solution here is to delete all of the uploads, and then I can re-upload them myself using the correct file names and attribution. I don't see the original filenames anywhere on the wiki pages for the uploaded images, so they would have to be recovered from the source. I cannot upload the images to Wikimedia Commons with the correct file names until the renamed copies uploaded by Ser Amantio di Nicolao are deleted. Nicole Sharp (talk) 22:11, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

HÉV Budapest 1979 images[edit]

Budapest HÉV stations in 1979 3.jpg

I have uploaded several Budapest 1979 images. See Category:HÉV stations in Budapest. I dont remember the locations after 42 years. Could someone help me in subcategorising? Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I now starting to doubt the date. Only File:Budapest HÉV stations in 1979 5.jpg has a Kodachrome frame marked OCT 1979. The other slide frames are unmarked and could be much later. The HÉV network was a discovery for me in 1979 and I would decide to explore the HÉV network more fully in a later trip. In 1979 I only spend few days in Budapest (my first communist country visit), before I continued to Istanbul, Athens and back trough Italy (those where my wild Interrail years). I uncertainly did not visit Hungary again until after the fall of the wall (1989). The other images could be the 1990's. There is the same problem with File:Budapest rail 1979 3.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:54, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Newbie to Adding Images to Wikipedia Article[edit]

Hello,

I've never added an image to a Wikipedia article. I understand that the process starts here at Wikimedia Commons. The image I'm looking to add is an Internet Archive copy from a volume of work produced by an organization that is over 100 years old. Would this image meet the 'public domain' standard for images? Thank you --Tchula65 (talk) 16:02, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]

@Tchula65: Hi, Can you give a link to the image in Internet Archive please? Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:23, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yann https://archive.org/details/cardiffrecordsbe05card/page/n539/mode/2up. Thank you --Tchula65 (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
At worst, {{PD-old-assumed}} should apply. I know that is not a complete answer, just passing it on for whoever tries to help further. - Jmabel ! talk 18:21, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
This volume was published in 1905, so PD-old-assumed wouldn't apply yet. You're going to have to try and figure out the author, or figure out if it is truly anonymous.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:51, 23 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Sorry, I took the 1898 date at face value. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 24 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 24[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=593108396"