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/2021/10.

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

Stone village pump in Rinnen village (pop. 380), Germany [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 27[edit]

"No valid reason for deletion"[edit]

Can someone explain to me how File:Mur12.JPG is not a copyright violation? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:46, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I think per "Commons:Freedom of panorama", check the table for Germany, everything except for public interiors is allowed, which would make graffiti acceptable as a permanent public artwork. Just my guess. This is not legal advice, but just for educational purposes. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yup. If that's in public space in Germany, it's fine. - Jmabel ! talk 16:11, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's what's being claimed for File:Doppelhausfassade in Hagen-Westf. IMGP8309.jpg and probably others in Category:Astérix as well. Didn't keep INeverCry from deleting a bunch of them, though. --El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

So if we wish to display copyright artworks or characters in future, all we need to do is paint them on wall, somewhere with FoP? Will this work for Disney characters, also? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:41, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I think Andy's point is that the mural itself is a derivative work of an album cover and thus a copyright violation. A photograph of the mural is covered by FOP, but the resulting photo is a derivative-work-of-derivative work. Andy: it would really help if you mentioned what the mural is a derivative work of. MKFI (talk) 17:42, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I haven't been able to find much in this respect, I found this FOP review. I don't think that this is something that is explicitly covered, generally speaking I would go with the PCP but if FOP laws are so vaguely worded that it doesn't differentiate between "original artwork" and "derived artwork" it might be something that we won't know the answer to until we see a lawsuit in this direction (which further strengthens the PCP argument in this favour). Again, not legal advice. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:20, 27 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes; my bad, I'm so familiar with the subject that I forgot that not everyone would recognise it - though it is in Category:The Wall. It is a copy of Pink Floyd album artwork (very much non-free) by w:Gerald Scarfe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:53, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Wall. A featured picture and ... copyright violation?
@Pigsonthewing: Is every graffito with such imagery copyright? What about the featured picture of the actual wall with presumably-somehow-copyrighted marching hammers? GPinkerton (talk) 13:02, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Not sure whether this has bearing but: if, for example, a record store in Berlin had a copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall in the window, I'm pretty sure that would be OK to photograph under the German approach to FOP. Certainly would be if there was some context in the photo, not just the artwork itself. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That would be de minimis; this is not. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:08, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
A copy of Pink Floyd's The Wall in a window store wouldn't be OK, because it is not permanent. A graffiti is permanent: it is displayed until it is overpainted or the wall is destroyed. Regards, Yann (talk) 20:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"resulting photo is a derivative-work-of-derivative work" but - as far as I know - this does not really matter, and is overriden by FoP (at least in some places! Note that 2D artworks are exempt in some countries and this loophole is closed there) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"overriden by FoP" do you have a citation for that, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"So if we wish to display copyright artworks or characters in future, all we need to do is paint them on wall, somewhere with FoP?" - note that FoP in at least some cases applies to "works on permanent public display". So it would be also necessary to keep this mural for quite long time. Note that someone who made such mural may be committing a copyright violation, but it seems a viable and interesting loophole. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Interesting ancillary issue; do we have any evidence that the mural depicted in Mur12.JPG was "kept for quite a long time"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

September 28[edit]

"Barnstars are not educational"[edit]

I have been noticing a trend here that official policy like "COM:INUSE" is repeatedly being ignored for the Wikimedia Commons to become some sort of "Content police" that censors what other Wikimedia websites are allowed to see, a good recent example would be "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hot sex barnstar.png" this barnstar had been in use for years and earlier widely discussed deletion requests ruled in favour of its inclusion but all of the sudden "Barnstars are not educational".

So should we just start deleting all "wiki-files" like barnstars, template images, Etc. and tell local projects to upload them locally now? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:34, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

From the contents of that deletion discussion, the barnstar alluded to included nude or lewd photographs and, despite the claims made above, was not in use. Extrapolating from this one discussion that something is "repeatedly being ignored" seems wholly specious and wrong. "So should we just start deleting all "wiki-files" like barnstars, template images, Etc. and tell local projects to upload them locally now?" is a straw-man argument that veers onto ridiculous pearly-clutching. If you are concerned about files being deleted, then you should make you concerns known during the deletion discussion; I don't see any reason to overturn such a discussion simply because you are applying a "slippery slope" logical fallacy. GPinkerton (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The Barnstar was in-use and two (2) previous deletion nominations ended with it being kept, how is "Barnstars are not educational" not a slippery slope? The nomination claimed that the barnstar wasn't in use in an educational way (as in it was only used on user talk pages) "the barnstar alluded to included nude or lewd photographs and, despite the claims made above, was not in use" including nude material doesn't automatically make it less educational. Also, it was transcluded per this page here:
  • User talk:Paddy (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Niabot (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Spermasklave (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • Template:The Hot sex barnstar (redirect page) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Paddy (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Niabot (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Sinnamon ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User:Sinnamon ‎ (← links | edit)
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Hot sex barnstar ‎ (← links | edit)
  • Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/2013/05/10 ‎ (← links | edit)
  • Commons:Administrators/Requests/Fæ2 ‎ (← links | edit)
  • User talk:Spermasklave (transclusion) ‎ (← links | edit)
  • Template:The Erotica barnstar (redirect page) ‎ (← links | edit)
I fail to see how this was" not" in use. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 08:32, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Donald Trung: You say "including nude material doesn't automatically make it less educational" but that's not the point. Barnstars are not educational anyway; there are other reasons for them to exist, but they are not to be treated as though they have off-wiki educational value. According to COM:INUSE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace)". According to COM:SELFIE: "images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted". Whatever the rights and wrongs of this particular deletion (the discussion was not broad-based in this instance), it can't be argued that files are educational because they are barnstars or that files are "in use" simply because they appear on talk pages or user pages. GPinkerton (talk) 08:56, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@GPinkerton: , literally every example you named could be cited to delete any barnstar, the reason for deletion also alluded to barnstars not being educational. You are literally making a case for my assertions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Indeed, but your assertions appear to consist, in essence, of statements like "I don't like the policy to be applied" or "I don't like the policy at all" or "I don't like in this case the consequences of applying policy". My "examples" are merely quotations from the policy. If such reasoning is being used to delete files, then the policy is working properly, I don't see a problem. GPinkerton (talk) 09:28, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Under current policy the Wikipedia Teahouse logo should not be hosted on the Wikimedia Commons. Using the same rationale as the deletion request in question this logo can also be deleted. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』
You're missing the point entirely, why do we have barnstars here at all then, and this also goes for any local WikiProject files and other "Metapedian" content like files related to the presentation of wiki-specific pages. These policies essentially means that the Wikimedia Commons cannot host any files to be used outside of article space of other Wikimedia websites. Arguably, the logos of Wikisource, the Meta-Wiki, Wikinews, the Wikimedia Commons itself, among others would also fall under this (well, now they have their own Wikipedia articles, but these files were first invented here). For example the logo of the WP Teahouse has the same level of educational value as any barnstar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:35, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
No, you're missing the point. The point is that the file was deleted because of gratuitous nudity not excused by any educational use. What have any of the other files got to do with anything? I explained before that a slippery slope argument is a logical fallacy. Bringing up the Treehouse emblem is completely irrelevant; no-one is suggesting deleting anything of the kind except you. If you want the file to be undeleted, request that. If you don't, don't. Its deletion has no bearing on any other file, why should it? GPinkerton (talk) 13:40, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Again, according to COM:INUSE: "An otherwise non-educational file does not acquire educational purpose solely because it is in use on a gallery page or in a category on Commons, nor solely because it is in use on a user page (the "User:" namespace)". According to COM:SELFIE: "images that are being used on a talk page just to make a point can be discounted" (to quote your quotes), the deletion rationale was that barnstars in themselves aren't educational, these policies reinforce this. The nudity depicted on the barnstar is irrelevant to its deletion. Everyone that has spent a day at "COM:UDR" knows that it doesn't exist to actually undelete files but to reassert deletions. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Donald Trung: The nudity depicted on the barnstar is irrelevant to its deletion is absolute nonsense. The second nomination stated "This is pornographic nonsense and denigrates the person depicted"; you yourself actually then said "I understand this argument". The third nomination stated "Image isn't used for educational purposes, therefore, it is in violation of COM:CENSOR". A comment on that occasion was: "COM:CENSOR notes that "Photographs of nudity including male and female genitalia are sometimes uploaded for non-educational motives, and such images are not exempt from the requirement to comply with the rules of Commons' scope." This is meant as a "trophy" of sorts to praise contributors for their work and not necessarily of educational value. Not to mention that by the looks of it, it's more like a crude and puerile collage of sex acts straight out of PornHub than a scholarly illustration of human sexuality". Your reading of this as irrelevant to its deletion is frankly highly tendentious. If you want to test your slippery slope fallacy theory go ahead and nominate the Treehouse image for deletion, see what a fallacy it is! If you want to relitigate that particular deletion discussion, go to undeletion requests and make these spurious arguments. Your problems in that venue are not a reason for policy to change. GPinkerton (talk) 16:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
It may have been discussed but it wasn't the cited reason for deletion, "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia community, such as user meetings, are also allowed." barnstars are such things as they relate to Wikimedia contributions, users who upload a lot of sexual content sometimes received this barnstar. None of the people in the Hot Sex barnstar looked like they were "non-professionals" so such a derivative use wasn't violating their personality rights. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am in agreement with Donald Trung. Wikimedia projects have long had a history of using barnstars. Wikimedia Commons absolutely should not be deleting barnstars and other images that are in general use in other Wikimedia communities because we deem them to be uneducational. The implications of this reasoning are problematic.  Mysterymanblue  09:11, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Of course, it will be recognized that "barnstars and other images that are in general use in other Wikimedia communities" does not apply in this case, since the image was not COM:INUSE. GPinkerton (talk) 09:14, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I am using the commonly understood definition of "in use", not the narrow meaning outlined in COM:INUSE. Clearly files that are in use on many user/discussion pages have more of a community endorsement than a single file used on a single user page. Policy should either be interpreted or changed to make this differentiation clear.  Mysterymanblue  20:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have undeleted the image, as it met the literal definition of COM:INUSE on Template:Sexuality barnstar as of the time of DR closure; there is no exception for templates perceived to be "frivolous", but rather one should attempt to get such templates deleted before any images used on them can be deleted. Additionally, agree with the above that use on multiple unrelated user pages or talk pages meets the spirit of COM:INUSE as well. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:00, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I agree with the deletion done by User:Ellin Beltz and I strongly disagree with the undeletion by User:King of Hearts. This is just trolling junk from a banned user and has no place on Commons. Multichill (talk) 08:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I just found out that this barnstar was mentioned in an older post by The Daily Dot, someone on the Dutch Wikisage quoted it here on the talk page about their article about Russavia, namely "To understand just how inseparable pornography is from Commons culture, look no further than the “Erotica Barnstar,” formerly the “Hot Sex Barnstar,” an award given to Commons users who “tirelessly upload good sexual, nude, and erotic content to Commons. The star is adorned with three illustrations: a woman sodomizing a man with a dildo (otherwise known as pegging), an erect penis, and a spread vulva. All the source files are available on Wikimedia Commons, of course. The star was nominated for deletion in May, but the Commons community decided to keep it. There is a lot of porn out there to upload, and Commons users want to reward each other for their hard work: At one time, porn or explicit content account for 60 of the Commons 100 most-visited pages, including entire categories like “Autofellatio, “Facial cumshot,” and “Female genital piercing.” The exhibition culture is dominated by men, much like the rest of Wikimedia. There are so many dick pics uploaded to Commons every year, in fact, that the site actually calls out the practice in its community guidelines. “Commons does not need you to drop your pants and grab a camera,” it reads. “If you want to, try to fill a real gap in our collection.”" which specifically talks about this barnstar and the common nature of pornography on this website. This is not to say that the deletion didn't have any merit if it was based on the stated nomination that the nudity itself has been superseded by a more abstract barnstar, but since this barnstar has been mentioned in external media in a way to discuss the prevalence of "porn culture" on the Wikimedia Commons I'd say that its educational value has been extended to include discussions of this topic, note that it has existed since 2012 and in those years had been awarded without any issues until a more recent (perhaps dare I say "pornphobic" "pornophobic") change in the culture. Unfortunately I can't find the original Daily Dot article but I would highly doubt that this barnstar no longer has any educational value outside of the Wikimedia websites. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:41, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
First you say: "The nudity depicted on the barnstar is irrelevant to its deletion" and now you're claiming "a more recent (perhaps dare I say "pornphobic" "pornophobic") change in the culture is behind it. Make up your mind! GPinkerton (talk) 11:34, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Did you even read what I wrote? "This is not to say that the deletion didn't have any merit if it was based on the stated nomination that the nudity itself has been superseded by a more abstract barnstar" The deletion reason what not the nomination reason, the reason for deletion was "Barnstars are not educational" so my earlier comments still stand. If you want to be contrarian just for the sake of being contrarian you're free to do so, but but your comment should have substance rather than just another strawman argument by taking a quote out of context. Plus with this barnstar being discussed in Wikipedia-notable external websites it has gained more educational value for it, overriding the exceptions at "COM:CENSOR". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:04, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Trying to argue the nomination and the deletion are somehow unrelated is tendentious as. Deletions take place after the discussion and the nomination and in all cases the latter are affected by the former. That this obvious fact was not noted in the deletion summary is irrelevant. taking a quote out of context is what one is doing by trying to claim the deletion was not affected by the nomination, a claim you reiterate above. GPinkerton (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The reason for nomination don't have to be the same as the reason for deletion, files nominated due to scope issues can still be deleted due to copyright issues or vice versa, the reasoning for deletion is still "Barnstars" are not educational, plus before its deletion it was also used on other Wikimedia websites (at least I still need to check the delinker log) and that would have made it "COM:INUSE", there is a different between deleting an unused file and a used file, especially when the reason for the deletion is not copyright © related. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Note that this barnstar is no longer "a Commonswiki exclusive", I found a lot of mentions about this particular barnstar on other websites and while the Wikimedia Commons doesn't have any "notability" standards if it had then this barnstar would be "notable" (well, notorious). From the page "Topless image retention -don't give up" from the Narkive (Mailinglist Archive): "To give an example, Commons has a "hot sex barnstar", present on a number of user talk pages, which does not appear to have violated any Wikimedia policy, judging by its existence for more than a year now. The imagery is grossly pornographic, and would be unacceptable in almost any workplace outside of the adult entertainment industry" & "This allows editors to introduce everything to the work environment that is allowed in a porn shop. Hence the "hot sex barnstar" in Commons, which if challenged would no doubt be defended with gleeful jeers of NOTCENSORED.", (note while the Hot Sex Barnstar here is blamed for being one of the factors that contribute to the Wikimedian gender gap, these people are Sex Negative Feminists, for Sex Positve Feminists "Pornagraphy and sexuality are liberating for women" so they would likely argue the opposite, while Conservative Christian women, yes those apparently exist, would likely agree with the Sex Negative Feminists that such depictions of pornography are "gynophobic" or discourage women from participating, this advocacy for the exclusion / inclusion of pornography is more ideological), it was also discussed at Larrysanger.org at "Other weird stuff" (note that Larry Sanger is the co-founder of Wikipedia): "Consider also (as was recently pointed out to me) that the activists-for-free-porn on Commons have been awarding each other the new, outrageously gross, "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW!) for their efforts. There are clearly some (to me) extremely unsavory characters involved who have made it their mission to make Commons, and Wikipedia as well, as free as possible to host the most explicit sorts of imagery on this tax-exempt, non-profit 501(c)(3) website.". It has also been mentioned on a number of websites and blogs critical of Wikimedia websites such as the article "Boycott Wikipedia - Monday, February 23, 2015 - Examples of Bias in Wikipedia" from the website boycott-wikipedia.blogspot.com the author wrote "Wikipedia Commons, which collects public domain images, has drawn extensive criticism for sexually explicit material, including nude photos and photos of various acts. The editors of Wikipedia Commons have created a "Hot Sex Barnstar" to reward those people who upload particularly explicit images. When a former member of Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee asked to have it removed, many people opposed his suggestion.", on the website "Wikipedia Sucks! (And So Do Its Critics.)" in the article "Thursday, February 4, 2016 - Vladimir Mozhenkov: an Overview" where the author wrote: "There was a lot of drama that spring, in the middle of which Vova created the "Hot sex barnstar" (NSFW) for his friends who supported his pornification of Commons, along with asking if Wikpedia could expand it's BDSM coverage. I kid you not." So this barnstar has been mentioned by multiple outside parties for a number of years now.

From "Re: Controversial content software status" from the website "Mailing List Archive":

"The other day e.g. I noticed that Wikimedia Commons administrators prominently involved in the curation of adult materials were giving or being given something called the "Hot Sex Barnstar" (NSFW) for their efforts:"

Now I am not saying that any of these mentions are positive, but this barnstar has often been cited as an example of the Wikimedia Commons' voyeuristic pornographic culture, so it could most certainly be used to illustrate this Commonswiki subculture. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:09, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Pretty much anything discussed by Larry Sanger is worthy of deletion, although of course that's not policy (yet). Everything he writes to denigrate Wikimedia is wrong-headed and inspired by envy and his politics. What is this information-gathering supposed to achieve? There are doubtless dozens of files whose existence has been noticed outside Wikimedia, I don't think that gives them permanent immunity from deletion. Why would it? Hoax articles are not kept on Wikipedia just because they've been noticed by non-Wikipedians. GPinkerton (talk) 13:24, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
"Pretty much anything discussed by Larry Sanger is worthy of deletion, although of course that's not policy (yet). Everything he writes to denigrate Wikimedia is wrong-headed and inspired by envy and his politics." Wow, that is extremely denigrating to the co-founder of Wikipedia who has plenty of well-thought criticisms of Wikimedia websites, a reason why these websites are slow to improve is because of such inarticulate dismissals of their critics. "There are doubtless dozens of files whose existence has been noticed outside Wikimedia, I don't think that gives them permanent immunity from deletion. Why would it? Hoax articles are not kept on Wikipedia just because they've been noticed by non-Wikipedians." Completely unrelated things, the educational value of this particular barnstar is unrelated to hoax articles (which obviously should be deleted). This barnstar is commonly used as an illustration of a pornographic voyeuristic culture that exists on the Wikimedia Commons. Barnstars are associated with Wikimedia websites as a form of reward editors receive, to quote "Some Wiki-based communities give their users an award called a "barnstar", as a continuation of the "barn raising" metaphor. The practice originated on MeatballWiki and was adopted by Wikipedia in 2003." - The English-language Wikipedia's "Barnstar" article sourced at "Zhu, Haiyi; Kraut, Robert E.; Kittur, Aniket (2016). "A Contingency View of Transferring and Adapting Best Practices Within Online Communities". Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing. CSCW '16. New York, NY, USA: ACM. pp. 729–743." So this means that this practice is well-known among wiki-communities, what makes this barnstar unique is just how absurd it is and what an absurd culture must have produced it, such a barnstar would be considered "pure vandalism" and "a denigration of barnstars" on literally any other website, but on the Wikimedia Commons administrators give them to each other for uploading pictures of their dicks, this is just such an absurd concept that to illustrate how such a culture can exist (and to be fair, a lot of users from the period when the Hot Sex Barnstar reigned supreme have since retired, think Russavia (WMF banned / SanFran Banned), Fæ, Saibo, among others are no longer among us). While I do think that this barnstar is "a relic of another time" it is an often discussed point in the history of the Wikimedia Commons that other websites have often discussed (namely that this is "just another free porn website") and while the community has changed, this image would still serve an educational purpose to discuss this culture. The idea is that this particular image has no educational value which is inherently false, in fact this is probably the only Wikimedia barnstar I've ever seen being discussed or even mentioned outside of Wikimedia websites. I don't think that any barnstar has more of an educational value than this one. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Just repeating "the co-founder of Wikipedia" doesn't make Larry Sanger less reprehensible. In any case, you've confused a handful of trivial mentions with "an often discussed point in the history of the Wikimedia Commons that other websites have often discussed" and then added a whole load of irrelevant material about barnstars and further exaggerations of this very niche file's importance "the period when the Hot Sex Barnstar reigned supreme". Your claim that "this is probably the only Wikimedia barnstar I've ever seen being discussed or even mentioned outside of Wikimedia websites" is hardly surprising, but I bet if you had looked specifically for trivial passing mentions of other wiki-trivia as you have apparently been doing for this thing, then I suspect more could be unearthed, though I say again, that wouldn't mean such items are to be permanently hosted forever. I ask again though, what is this supposed to achieve? GPinkerton (talk) 00:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Larry Sanger is a freakin' God, I am getting pretty sick of you blaspheming him and taking his name in vain. Wikimedians don't give that awesome and amazing genius the recognition he deserves, everything he says should be written down in a book made of gold. Again, I am demonstrating that this is a controversial image associated with "the pornographic side of the Wikimedia Commons" being the face of an image of Commonswiki administrators awarding it to each other for taking their trousers and taking pictures of what's between their legs (as the numerous mentions above prove), it is "the face" of this "boy's club porn culture" and has been frequently seen as something that should be deleted in order to make this website more welcoming to women and basically anyone that isn't a voyeuristic pervert. Yes, this doesn't sound like a case for its inclusion but it's a controversial part of the Wikimedia Commons and this gives it educational value. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Larry Sanger is a jaded extremist and ideologue and his diatribes are not to be taken seriously. The embarrassing outpouring of adulation just above is best ignored. Quoting trivia about trivia does not make anything more than trivia. I won't bother asking a third time what you're trying to achieve with this discussion, it clearly has no purpose. GPinkerton (talk) 01:24, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
When you can't formulate a proper argument and have to resort to ad hominems tells me that you don't have an argument and as for your opinion about Larry Sanger goes, the bitter tone and unsubstantiated dismissive comments about him are seem utterly foundationless as he did more for Wikimedia websites than almost anyone here. "Quoting trivia about trivia does not make anything more than trivia." Of course one can dismiss any information as "trivia", for a Pakistani that 1776 is the foundational year of the United States of America 🇺🇸 is "trivia", while for an American knowing who Muhammad Ali Jinnah is is trivial, "trivia" is always relative and one can define "trivia" as "any knowledge without any direct practical implementation". "I won't bother asking a third time what you're trying to achieve with this discussion, it clearly has no purpose." If you can't deduce that from the rest of this thread then you clearly haven't been reading it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:51, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Now live at Wikipedia:

  • At Wikimedia Commons, a website owned by the Wikimedia Foundation, a controversial sex-themed structural anchor plate "barnstar", known as the Erotica Barnstar (which is formerly known as the Hot Sex Barnstar), is typically awarded to contributors who “tirelessly upload good sexual, nude, and erotic content to Commons.”[1] The award is shaped as a structural anchor plate adorned with an erect human penis, a spread out vulva, and a woman pegging a man using a dildo.[1] In May 2013 this controversial "barnstar" was nominated to be deleted, but the community of the website decided against it.[1]
  1. ↑ a b c Kevin Morris (25 June 2013). How Wikimedia Commons became a massive amateur porn hub. - Exhibitionists have used the Commons as their personal playground, turning the repository into a sprawling junkyard of disturbing photos and videos. (in en). The Daily Dot. Retrieved on 1 October 2021.

In other words, it is now educational for other Wikimedia websites as I had already noted that "The Daily Dot" is a reliable source. Yes, I know that linking it here will get some anti-porn warriors to immediately undo my edits, but it's fully within the scope of that article, it is in a section about internet "barnstars" and it's listed as a controversial one. In fact, I haven't been able to find that many reliable sources that talk about the normal barnstar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:16, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Donald Trung: "Consider whether content from this publication constitutes due weight before citing it in an article.". 80% of section on this one trivial barnstar is not due weight! A mountain out of a molehill. GPinkerton (talk) 10:43, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Something tells me that this is also how you judge the sources of what you perceive as "fantasy" or "trivial flags" the article is about how the Wikimedia Commons had an entrenched amateur pornographic culture and uses the "Erotica Barnstar" / "Hot Sex Barnstar" as a prime example of how deep this culture existed (in 2013) at the Wikimedia Commons, as the article is about barnstars and not about pornography ảnything else from that article would have been out of place. As the section is about internet "barnstars" and this being an internet "barnstar" its inclusion is wholly appropriate. Most articles about history quote sections from an entire history book about "minor events" in those articles about "minor events". The article discussed the Hot Sex Barnstar and I included it. This is appropriate weight for the topic discussed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:55, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Some additional context, the original deletion nomination from 2013 referred to above is "Commons:Deletion requests/Template:The Hot sex barnstar", there was no consensus for deletion after widespread discussion and the main argument of the deletion request that ended in its deletion was based on the fact that a more abstract barnstar was created and if one looks at the original (2013) arguments along the line of "I don't like it" were commonly expressed (note that Wikipedia literally has a policy named "WP:IDONTLIKEIT" that essentially tells reviewing admins to ignore such "votes" as they are not real arguments), I must confess that I do understand such arguments. Personally whenever I see pornographic material or human bodily fluids I feel a sense of disgust 🤢 and the feeling one gets when one has to vomit, but I never saw my own feelings as a reason to censor content, likewise I am deadly afraid of arachnids but still wrote a couple of Wikipedia articles about spiders. The idea of replacing the barnstar was discussed at "Template talk:Sexuality barnstar#Proposal to change the image in the barnstar" and a number of users noted that multiple templates could be created. Quite a number of users received this barnstar and if they found it "an unwelcome barnstar" I am sure that they would have removed it from their talk pages, yet as the delinker log shows many users didn't have any issue with it. Note that the nominator later cited "COM:NOTUSED" as a claim that the image should be deleted as "Barnstars are not educational" but this is a fallacy as that policy itself states "legitimately in use as discussed above" and "COM:INUSE" notes "Files relating to projects or events of the Wikimedia community, such as user meetings, are also allowed." and this barnstar was specifically used for users who uploaded sexual content.
The issue I have with a lot of this is that the nominator wanted to see a different barnstar used for the template and thus nominated this barnstar because they personally didn't like it and deliberately misinterpreted policy in their nomination, in almost a decade that this barnstar has been around users who upload in this category have used it and now a choice is being made for them that another barnstar is better despite the nominator being able to create a new barnstar template themselves. When someone points out that this deletion goes in contrast to established policy it is either "trolling" or "stupid" despite years of discussions around this image resulting in it remaining kept.
Also note that Beta M's status as a banned user was brought up by the deleters. It is quite funny how if a user gets banned all their creations are suddenly devalued and called into question, but when another user like "INeverCry" gets banned their deletions (many of which were against policy) never get questioned at all, but that's a whole different discussion for another time.
Note that I am not saying that this is the best barnstar for sexual content and I have always found it to be a somewhat absurd barnstar myself, I just don't see how either the nomination nor the deletion of this image hold up as they don't seem to conform with the cited policies. Had this barnstar been a new creation I would have understood the decision, but a barnstar used on dozens of pages? Of course this sets precedent, if someone wants to replace another Wiki-specific image they don't like they can always nominate it for deletion citing this one, this has nothing to do with the image itself and everything to do with selective application of policies whenever users see fit. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Special:MediaSearch broken?[edit]

When I use Special:MediaSearch and search for "mestgoot" I get two results. But when I use Special:Search with the same search term I get five results. All of them are images and one of them even contains the word in the title. To me it seems obvious that Special:MediaSearch should find all five of them.

Is this behaviour a known bug? I often look for images and I used Special:MediaSearch in the past. Sometimes I had the impression that Special:MediaSearch performs less than optimal, but it never occured to me to make the direct comparison with Special:Search. Now that I am aware of the behaviour, it feels like a dealbreaker for Special:MediaSearch. --Slomox (talk) 09:06, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Nobody? --Slomox (talk) 07:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
"Special:MediaSearch" is still in active development, you can mention issues at the "Phabricator.wikimedia.org" or at "Commons talk:Structured data". While it's an inferior product now it will gradually improve based on user feedback and through more users working with the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) programme. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Is there a way to see all images in category and subcategories?[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T292061

I know that "Good pictures" in top right have dropdown next to them allowing to select "all images". Sadly it is broken and not working. At least when I tried it on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Speed_bumps Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 20:49, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

i made a new gadget that could do this job: MediaWiki talk:Gadget-DeepcatSearch.js, but it's still waiting for someone to create it. -- RZuo (talk) 22:26, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I've been requesting this feature for years, I wanted to create a new task for this but I didn't have the time yet (busy in a number of real life lawsuits), perhaps someone else can author a feature request in the Phabricator or I will try to do this now. I've seen users request this for a long time so I wonder why it hasn't been implemented yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 12:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Such a tool would be great. I can't stress enough what a benefit such a tool would bring to users, and in facilitating the in discovery of media. Commons tends to be good at segregating media into tiny isolated boxes: what is needed is a way to dump out all those boxes on the floor at once and visualize/sort/compare them in an intuitive fashion to find suitable images for a purpose at hand, and inspire new uses. Maybe some additional keyword searches can help in narrowing down especially large category trees. Humans are really good at visual comparison, while machines suck at it, and categories and structured data will always be lagging, incomplete, and inconsistent. Special:MediaSearch can do a pretty good job of showing lots of related images at once (e.g. 'Barack Obama speech'), but might overlook images lacking detailed descriptions, and precludes the serendipitous discovery of unexpected media deep within subcategories that might be perfect for a certain purpose (or lead to more discovery): a previously uncatalogued but noteworthy person in the background of a crowd, a flock of birds flying in a particularly aesthetic formation, or a particular expression on a face that can convey more nuance than a thousand categories and keywords. --Animalparty (talk) 06:25, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
My current workaround approach is PetScan - but it is quite annoying to configure. See say https://petscan.wmflabs.org/?common_wiki_other=&edits%5Banons%5D=both&interface_language=en&edits%5Bflagged%5D=both&cb_labels_any_l=1&since_rev0=&language=commons&edits%5Bbots%5D=both&categories=Speed%20bumps%20by%20country%0A&project=wikimedia&search_max_results=500&combination=union&cb_labels_yes_l=1&ns%5B6%5D=1&cb_labels_no_l=1&depth=100&templates_no= And https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T45424 is open since 2012 but WMF is not going to care about issues actually impacting users and editors (while spending millions on rebranding) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]

IA books[edit]

Hi, Would there be a consensus to move User talk:Fæ/IA books to Commons namespace? This project needs a lot of work, and it would help to be taken over by the community. Fæ is not active for nearly a month, and hasn't answered to my request. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:21, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Obviously, if Fæ objects, then we should abide by his wishes, but otherwise no objection. @Yann: Is there any indication that Fæ objected to a similar move in the past? - Jmabel ! talk 21:33, 28 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Of course. I would not move the page if Fæ objects, but since he is not currently active, I think it can be moved if there is a consensus for that. Yann (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • If moving it into the "Commons:" namespace isn't possible then copying might have the same effect, right? Copyright issues can just be solved through attribution per "By saving changes, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license." (although I'm pretty sure that Alexis Jazz is screaming somewhere because someone just saved another edit with the GFDL license, a joke, obviously). I wonder what could have happened to poor user "Fæ" that they decided to suddenly quit, I really hope that they are both mentally and physically fine, and if people are willing they should be able to continue Fæ's wonderful work, so I would support any initiative that would help in this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The process is really simple, really.
  1. First go to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:F%C3%A6/IA_books&action=edit
  2. Then click "Control + A", then click "Control + C".
  3. Then go to: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:IA_books&action=edit
  4. then click on "Control + A", then click on "Control + V", write as an edit summary "Copied from: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:F%C3%A6/IA_books" (which is sufficient attribution), and then click "Publish".
  5. Then come back to this forum and add "{{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}}".
This should resolve all the issues, I don't think that it's any more difficult than this as the author already gave permission for copying the moment they published their edits here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:58, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
That's precisely what I'd like to avoid doing. The page history will be lost. Yann (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
The page history won't be lost, nobody is advocating for the deletion of Fæ's user page, the first edit is already a redirect to their user page and the copying would directly link to it, so the page history would be preserved at Fæ's IA Books, while a separate page would exist that links to it for attribution. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:13, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Why does it need to be moved? There is a talk page there so people could work there. If you want to create a separate Commmons page, maybe use the old one Commons:IA books. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:42, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I think that for the project responsibility to be taken over by the community, it should be in Commons namespace. Fæ did a great work, but the review and corrections are really too much work to be done by one person alone. Regards, Yann (talk) 18:02, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • I don't really see the problem here. This is a wiki, nobody owns anything here. Be bold, leave Fæ a friendly message and then move it to where ever it's most useful. If Fæ returns and for some reason wants it back in their user name space, just move it back. --El Grafo (talk) 14:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Actually Fæ moved it first so we would need an admin to do the move I think. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:36, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, I moved the page. Thanks for the comments. Yann (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Does that mean that this issue is now resolved? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:39, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

September 30[edit]

What is wrong with PetScan?[edit]

Just hours ago this query was working fine. Has something changed or is it (hopefully transient) issue? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:03, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Works for me. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:31, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Works for me too, but Petscan is infamously unstable for silently refusing to return anything.
Also I haven't seen it deliver thumbnails in ages. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:40, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Yes check.svg Resolvedit works intermittently - and thumbnails work for me Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:15, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I opened https://github.com/magnusmanske/petscan_rs/issues/106 though I have no great illusions Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 10:23, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

How can I distinguish between "photo of speed bump" and "photo of speed bump traffic sign"?[edit]

I use PetScan to list Category:Speed bumps.

Is there some way to allow excluding cases like File:Henderson raised zebra.JPG - there is a speed table and a traffic sign. The problem is that Category:Bump warning road signs in New Zealand can be present without actual speed bump (as it is used also for speed tables, the same category would be used when both speed bump and its warning sign are on a photo).

Is there a viable, Commons-compatible way of categorizing images that would allow following search

  • find images of speed bumps
    • limiting to ones where speed bump is the main focus would be fine
  • exclude photos where there is a bump road sign, without bump being visible on a photo
  • include ones where there is both bump road sign and a speed bump itself

?

Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Question about a category[edit]

This question regards a category discussion on File talk:Harmandir Sahib, Amritsar, India.jpg - whether the category Category:Bathing with regular clothes" is an appropriate category for a religious worker cleaning a temple pond in India. I feel it does not fit the category description, Wetlook and is an unnecessary category for this image. Krok6kola (talk) 15:34, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

The category suits the content of the image admirably. The man is clearly bathing with regular clothes; there's nothing unusual about the clothes (for Sikhs anyway) and the temple tank is used for bathing. What other activities might be accomplished while bathing in with regular clothes (cleaning, etc.) is not really pertinent. The category's name could be improved or simplified, but the category itself is clearly the right one: all the other images show people in water with clothes on doing whatever. GPinkerton (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Without commenting on the merits of the category, I don't think A.Savin should have protected the file description page on his preferred version. This is one of the key tenets of w:WP:INVOLVED. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I suspect this might be solved by having cats (either subcats or linked by see also) that more precisely describe the nature of the activity, if "bathing" is not entirely appropriate. And I agree that as an involved party, A.Savin should not have done this this way. Protection like that might be appropriate in dealing with a vandal, but clearly this is a legitimate dispute in good faith. FWIW, unless it is absolutely blatant vandalism, if I'm an involved party and want protection I go to Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Blocks and protections even though I'm an admin myself. Here's a recent example. - Jmabel ! talk 17:52, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@GPinkerton: Perhaps this is a language issue, American vs. British English. To me "bathing" means washing oneself, as in taking a bath while "ablution" would be the word for religious washing. The image of the man in question is described as working, and so is not "bathing" to me. He is not doing anything recreational, such as "bathing" in an ocean or a fountain as are the images of other people in that category. So should all the people in Category:People at the Harmandir Sahib who are in water also be in Category:Bathing with regular clothes"? And images of people in water in other temples also? Why only this particular image? Krok6kola (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Krok6kola: I would say that anyone bathed in water with regular clothes (rather than a wearing a bathing suit) is bathing with regular clothes. "Ablution" is simply Latin for washing. As for the all the people in Category:People at the Harmandir Sahib who are in water I would say not, because all the pictures I could find of that description show men and boys with their shirts off, or just wearing lungi, or in some other way prepared for bathing and not "in regular clothes". GPinkerton (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: Could not the file in question be in another category such asCategory:Ablution? (As to be consistent, should all images of people in temple ponds be in that category? (As noted above, other "bathing" people in Category:People at the Harmandir Sahib be in that category? Why only this one whose photographer initially objected to that category?) Krok6kola (talk) 20:18, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
If he's there as a worker, I'm not sure "ablution" is the right term either, but I wouldn't call it "bathing". I don't really have an overall answer here, but I do have a few thoughts:
  • Bathing as a subset of body washing is not appropriate; body washing is not the reason one wears a bathing costume or goes to the public baths. Sun-bathing is also not any kind of washing. Ablution, on the other hand, is a kind of washing but I agree clearly not what is going in that picture. GPinkerton (talk) 22:49, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
@Krok6kola: how the work is considered in religion is not an essential part of the photograph's contents. How are users wanting to find an image of a man fully clothed in water going to find this file? "People in water" is too general. GPinkerton (talk) 23:12, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
I have removed Category:People in water and added Category:Men in water as obviously better. I suggest re-adding Category:Bathing with regular clothes because there is no Category:Men in water with regular clothes. GPinkerton (talk) 23:19, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]
+1. People in water in general are commonly photographed, but seldom people standing in water with regular clothes on. Regards --A.Savin 23:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 Category:Bathing with regular clothes looks to me like quite a mess. Quite a bit of this is not what one would normally call bathing and quite a bit is not what one would normally call regular clothes. - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Category:Bathing is the act of washing one's body.
this man in this photo is not washing his body.
so this category is not accurate.
for those who say it is, just because the man is partially submerged in water, here is a question: are those people trapped in floods also "bathing with regular clothes"? 🤣 --RZuo (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
since there is Category:People_running_in_water, there could also be "People at work in water" for this kind of photos.--RZuo (talk) 07:26, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@RZuo: The issue is that "bathing" does not mean "the act of washing one's body". This is wrong. Bathing also includes activities such as can be seen in File:Bathing in the sea (20966569733).jpg. The dictionary defines the verb "to bathe" as follows:
I. transitive. (Now mostly reflexive or passive.)
  • 1. To immerse, as in a bath:
    • a. literal. To immerse (the body, or any part of it) in water or other liquid, for the sake of some effect (e.g. health, warmth, cleansing) promoted by the action of the liquid.
    • b. To immerse in other elements or substances, e.g. sand, fire.
    • c. To plunge, or dip, without reference to the action of the liquid.
  • 2. To apply water or other liquid to anything so as to wet it all over, or moisten it copiously; to lave, perfuse, suffuse, wet, moisten:
    • a. literally.
    • b. said of the action of a river or the sea upon the adjacent banks or land.
    • c. said of the action of tears, perspiration, or any secretion, in flowing over and wetting the body or its parts.
  • 3. The phrase ‘ to bathe in blood’ includes and often blends 1 and 2, and is generally used figuratively to express the great quantity of blood shed.
  • 4.
    • a. To suffuse, envelope, or encompass, like the air or the sunshine.
    • b. said of mental influences.
II. intransitive (from reflexive use of 1.)
  • 5.
    • a. literal. To take a bath, to plunge or immerse oneself in water or other liquid, so as to enjoy its influence; in earlier usage also, to lie or remain so immersed, to bask.
    • b. in various transferred and figurative senses: see the transitive uses above, 3-4.
In other words, "washing one's body" is no part of the meaning of the verb "to bathe", and consequently, "bathing in regular clothes" is category which does not need to have anything to do with washing, either wahsing onself or any other thing. GPinkerton (talk) 10:53, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
this man photographed is not doing any of these definitions.
clearly voluntarily going swimming/bathing
just your everyday regular clothes, which obviously include a helmet and a life vest.
and by your words you would agree that "people trapped in floods are bathing with regular clothes"? you would agree that people in these two photos are all bathing? -- RZuo (talk) 12:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@RZuo: Your claim that "this man photographed is not doing any of these definitions" is clearly diverging from reality. The man is immersed in water, as in a bath. Bathing is defined (primary defination) as: "To immerse, as in a bath". It is more than obvious that the man clearly perfectly suits the dictionary definition. Your list of irrelevant pictures (none of the people shown is wearing "regular clothes") is unhelpful: despite your claims, nothing I have said indicates I believe "voluntarily going swimming/bathing" is in any way connected with the general meaning of "bathing". GPinkerton (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There's no such thing as the dictionary. Our dictionary, wikt:bathe, offers as definition 1 "(intransitive) To clean oneself by immersion in water or using water; to take a bath, have a bath." The dictionary you've copied from without citation mentions "cleansing" in 1.a., in more general "for the sake of some effect (e.g. health, warmth, cleansing) promoted by the action of the liquid", which would exclude people trapped in floods.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:52, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Prosfilaes: There's no such thing as Our dictionary. Don't you try and associate me with that mass of opinions and misconceptions! I have never suggested anyone trapped in floods should be described as "bathing". Where did you get that strawman? 1.a. is only one instance of use 1: "To immerse, as in a bath". The "for the sake of some effect (e.g. health, warmth, cleansing) promoted by the action of the liquid" is not a necessary part of the definition of 1., only of 1.a. The inapplicability of one specific definition does not invalidate the applicability of the verb "to bathe" to anyone "immersed in water, as in a bath". This definition applies to anyone in your photos, but none of those has anything to do with the subject at hand, which is "bathing in regular clothes". GPinkerton (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There most certainly is such a thing as our dictionary. You may exclude yourself from the WMF community, but we have our dictionary.
A word used in a category doesn't stand for every definition; it has a specific meaning. This category doesn't include people walking around in air in daylight, despite sense 4 including that. Even sense 1 "immersed in water, as in a bath" is not "immersed in water"; it includes that unclear specifier "as in a bath". It then specifies 1.a as literal, which probably means this is the definition we should be using for a category name. Moreover, let us take "immersed in water" as the definition; why then are people in floods not properly described as bathing?--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Prosfilaes: "why then are people in floods not properly described as bathing?" this is the same strawman as you used before. I don't see what's unclear about "as in a bath". 1.a. is an example of the literal use of 1. It is not the only possible meaning. People going to the swimming baths, for example, for their bathing, are not doing so for any "for the sake of some effect (e.g. health, warmth, cleansing) promoted by the action of the liquid" (quite the opposite in chlorinated water) but it would be quite obviously wrong to argue that that activity is not included in the verb "to bathe". GPinkerton (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Actually, in contemporary U.S. usage it would be very unusual to call that "bathing". The word is hardly used here except for specifically cleaning yourself by immersing in water (or in compound constructions like "sunbathing"). - Jmabel ! talk 14:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It is not a strawman, it is a question. If you are in the middle of a flood, you are immersed in water. Why then is it not bathing? I do not understand your definition.
We don't have swimming baths in the US. We have swimming pools. It is quite obviously correct to me to say that activity is not included in the verb "to bathe", which sounds like the problem is we're using different dialects which define this word differently.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Prosfilaes: We don't have swimming baths in the US. The w:Asser Levy Public Baths is the first one Google came up with. @Jmabel: Meriam-Webster (an American dictionary, I've heard) has for the verb bathe: "intransitive verb:
1: to take a bath
2: to go swimming
3: to become immersed or absorbed
Even the Wikipedia article on w:Public bathing (written, apparently, in American English) has the short description: "Buildings with swimming pools or other facilities for bathing", while the article w:Sea bathing rather speaks for itself but specifies still further that the purported health effects make it "Unlike bathing in a swimming pool". I don't think this "different dialects" stuff is going to wash ... but that's beside the point because the category's name should be altered anyway precisely because "bathing" is such a wide sematic field, not because certain of its meanings are disavowed by speakers of some regional dialect. GPinkerton (talk) 16:13, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • @GPinkerton: We use "bathing beach" and certainly used to use the increasingly archaic "bathing beauties" (now typically "beauty queens", insofar as it's used), but I literally do not thing I've once in my 66-years-and-counting life heard an American say something like "I'm going bathing" or "I bathed" (or "I went bathing") today meaning they went into the water at the shore or a pond, unless it was specifically to wash in a pond. If the topic is just about being "immersed in water" it should use the wording "immersed in water," which is a lot more dialect-neutral. People are not setting up straw men here: they are saying that you seem to be drawing the line in a place that does not fit their understanding of the word. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Jmabel: I completely agree. Aside from the "bathing" issue, the "regular clothes" might also be improved. The women in their wedding dresses in the category at present are not exactly in "regular" clothes. GPinkerton (talk) 01:52, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • The category name does seem problematic as it requires some interpretation, and I think the point has been made that it has been added to multiple images where people are clearly not "bathing" in the normally understood sense of the word. What this really is is "people in water with clothes other than bathing attire on." Beeblebrox (talk) 18:04, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Bathing? no. Regular clothes? also no.
@Beeblebrox: I agree, as apparent in my first comment. Disagree that your image should be characterized as "Bathing? no.". I would say that's a classic illustration of bathing costumes (if that's what they've got on) being used for their stated purpose. GPinkerton (talk) 23:31, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It's labeled as "underwater cosplay" so I take it to be some sort of performance art. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:02, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]
There're still "immersed, as in a bath" though. Regular clothes: definitely not. GPinkerton (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Croptool is broken[edit]

CropTool on Wikimedia Commons gives the error message Curl error: SSL certificate problem: certificate has expired Is this a lasting problem? /Yvwv (talk) 20:28, 30 September 2021 (UTC)[]

I just notified the Commons:Village pump/Technical page. I got the same error message. This tool cannot be used. Thanks --Ooligan (talk) 00:36, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 01[edit]

Commons delinker mishandling links[edit]

Hi. An example is here.

That is, when I move a file on Commons, and Commons changes the name in all WPs linking to the file, sometimes (not always), the "file:" part get dropped, along with the first letter of the file name. This has happened with at least two files, and on multiple WPs for each, including those using Latin script (e.g. here, also French, Spanish, Swedish).

On some WP's (e.g. the Turkish one), my fixes are pending review, whereas the name change has gone through.

I don't know how to trace the changes, since the broken WP's no longer show up as using the file, but this has likely affected dozens of projects.

Kwamikagami (talk) 05:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Also, can you move File:Irene symbol.svg to File:14 Irene symbol.svg, to be consistent with other asteroids? The target is just a rd. Kwamikagami (talk) 06:03, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Thanks. I'll check there for any cleanup. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:12, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Unfortunately, 'Global user contributions' also appears to be defective. It doesn't show a single one of the errors, and only shows a fraction of the wikis that the global replace affected. I'm sure there are lots of fixes I need to make, since I only noticed them if I manually visited a page (and even then probably missed some), but this unfortunately didn't work. Kwamikagami (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That surprises me. I've never used Global Contributions to check my own contributions, but I've used it to check others'. Does anyone know what's up with that? - Jmabel ! talk 02:19, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The edits are in the contributions of User:CommonsDelinker bot, so they will not show up in Kwamikagamis contributions. In the turkish Wikipedia diff the wiki used translated name for File namespace (Dosya). CommonsDelinker certainly should be able to handle that. @Kwamikagami: could you give a few more examples to compare? MKFI (talk) 07:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
 User:CommonsDelinker contributions are listed separately for each WP. That's part of the problem with giving more examples: I don't know where to look for more until I run across them.

I'm checking the Wikis for just the 'asteroid' article, for just the Pallas img, where the error occurred for Armenian and Turkish. Sorry, I don't recall what other files generated errors when I moved them, and this one was probably in more than just the main asteroid article. But this should give some idea.

Vietnamese, Russian, Indonesian, Sundanese,

but no error at Belarusian, Afrikaans,

Weird that Russian would generate an error but not Belarusian, since it's 'Файл' in both.

Kwamikagami (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I have left a note in User talk:CommonsDelinker, there was also one older example where the file name also started with a 2. I suspect this is some regex problem. Note how in the vietnamese example the local file namespace has a space, and the latter half was removed. MKFI (talk) 07:40, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Just had it happen again. Different WP, different file: [1] In this case [[Kuva:8 Flora ... was miscopied as [[ Flora .... Kwamikagami (talk) 11:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
[2] [3] [4]
Sometimes these show up in my user contributions, sometimes they don't. Maybe it depends on the wiki? Kwamikagami (talk)
Ah, here's one on English WP, so it's obvious that the language or script of the wiki is not the issue: [5] [6] Again, no error when there is no leading digit: [7] Kwamikagami (talk) 04:38, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
@Kwamikagami: I have created a bugzilla report: https://bitbucket.org/magnusmanske/commons-delinquent/issues/81/commonsdelinker-strips-file-namespace, although I now notice that there were already similar existing reports. MKFI (talk) 13:06, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 02[edit]

Unclear provenance[edit]

What should be done about an important file with unclear provenance? (See File talk:Lake nyos.jpg)

If it helps, I found a possible substitute image by Jack Lockwood of the US Geological Survey. (See PD-USGS) https://web.archive.org/web/20060203220519/https://volcano.und.nodak.edu/vwdocs/volc_images/africa/nyos.html

Thank you for your time! --Mbrickn (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Mbrickn: I nominated File:Lake nyos.jpg for deletion. Apparently there was no PD licence at the original source. De728631 (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]
The question is, did he take the photograph as his official duty as an agent of the government of the United States of America? If not then the image isn't in the public domain at all, if he did make it in his official capacity it is. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:47, 3 October 2021 (UTC) Struck, I clicked on the wrong link. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:48, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 03[edit]

How do I request deletion of >only< an older image from earlier in the File History?[edit]

I just uploaded an image to Commons, but afterwards I discovered that my location was attached with the metadata. I have now replaced it with a purged version, but the old version with my private information is still available in the File History. How do I petition a deletion of ONLY that old file? --Christoffre (talk) 09:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

✓ Done. Usually you should post such a request at COM:AN and ideally specify the to-be-deleted version by its time-stamp .--Túrelio (talk) 10:23, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

100,000,000+ pages at the Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I was checking out some website statistics comparing the Wikimedia Commons, the English-language Wikipedia, and Wikidata and from what I can find the Wikimedia Commons seems to be the only Wikimedia website with more than 100.000.000 pages (although Wikidata has around 20.000.000 more content pages). I guess that a lot of this has partially to do with all the Deletion Requests (DR's) and other maintenance pages, but as only a couple of months ago the Wikimedia Commons had significantly less pages than Wikidata (this was due to Wikidata quickly making A LOT of items for basically every known celestial body (think exoplanets, asteroids, nebulae, Etc.) and other major expansions), but the Wikimedia Commons' growth seems to be meteoric.

My guess is that this is likely due to the Internet Archive's legal troubles during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, but I can't seem to find any month-for-month statistics on uploads, deletions, overwrites, Etc. Where can I find those?

My guess is that most of this growth can be attributed to literary works from the Internet Archive. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:53, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 04[edit]

Negative category search ("deep not_in_category")?[edit]

Hi,

is there currently a way to do a "deep negative category search"? I'd like to search all media files with a certain string anywhere (file name / description) that aren't assigned to a certain category or it's descendants. I've tried -deepcat: and -deepcategory: but both yield files with an "excluded" subcategory assigned.

Example: Find all files with "Apia" in name or description, but exclude those files that are in the "Apia" Category or one of its subcategories. Goal: Find media files without/with wrong/ imprecise categories that may fit the "Apia" Category or one of its subcategories.

The "Search not in category" seems to work insofar as it ignores files that don't have the category "Apia", but it still returns files from the Apia subcategories ("People of" / "History of" / "Port of" and so on). The CirrusSearch option "-deepcategory" as well as the (deprecated?) "-deepcat" returns content from subcategories as well.

--Fl.schmitt (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Wiki loves monuments - how to repair a mistake[edit]

I am interested in participating in Wike loves monument this year. For that purpose, I have uploaded to Commons some pictures of Portuguese monuments. Only later have I realized that the uploads should have been made through the page of Wike loves monuments, using a special Upload wizard. Can someone help? Of course, I want to avoid (propose) deleting the files and uploading them again. Thanks, Alvesgaspar (talk) 12:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • @Alvesgaspar: I know you'll need to add {{Wiki Loves Monuments 2021|pt}} to each relevant file page, but I'm not sure if there is anything else you need to do as well. - Jmabel ! talk 13:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Thank you very much, Jmabel, I got it! I will also have to insert the template "On Wikidata" with the number of the monument. -- Alvesgaspar (talk) 14:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Let's talk about the Desktop Improvements[edit]

Annotated Wikipedia Vector interface (logged-out).png

Hello!

Have you noticed that some wikis have a different desktop interface? Are you curious about the next steps? Maybe you have questions or ideas regarding the design or technical matters?

Join an online meeting with the team working on the Desktop Improvements! It will take place on October 12th, 16:00 UTC on Zoom. It will last an hour. Click here to join.

Agenda

  • Update on the recent developments
  • Sticky header - presentation of the demo version
  • Questions and answers, discussion

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes will be taken in a Google Docs file. The presentation part (first two points in the agenda) will be given in English.

We can answer questions asked in English, French, Polish, and Spanish. If you would like to ask questions in advance, add them on the talk page or send them to [email protected].

Olga Vasileva (the team manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) 15:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Diffusing a category[edit]

Category:Manchester is hugely overloaded and in dire need of diffusion. It has been neglected for years and allowed to get filled up with carelessly categorised images. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands of images. It is a real mess. Is there an automated tool that can help to clear this out and categories images more accurately? Cnbrb (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]

2,008 images. Not so many. Category:Buildings in Manchester looks like it would be a start. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I would organise them by time + subject, put them in a yearly category like "2021 in Manchester" and "Buildings in Manchester" and then investigate what more specific categories need to be added. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:01, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I can't see any option to sort by time. I'm just going to go with your Category:Buildings in the City of Manchester suggestion, thanks. Cnbrb (talk) 09:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's trivial to do mechanically, therefore not worth doing – unless something is a dated event. Most of these photos are 'contemporary', but no more than that. Dating them (even if we did) should be to no more than a decade, because they're just not any more specific than that. Over-specific sub-division in just a barrier to navigation and browsing, so unless it also adds something, we should avoid it. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Dosn't help that I have to distinguish between "Manchester‎" "City of Manchester‎" and "Greater Manchester" Oxyman (talk) 22:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
That's already a mess. The category has a description saying that it means the city, and many of the subcategories are redirects from " in Manchester" to " in the City of Manchester". Yet the actual content is often Greater Manchester, or even Salford (another city). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Allot of northern towns are like this eg; "York", "City of York" The whole thing just inspires me to give up and go to another Category Oxyman (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[]
It just refers Manchester proper, i.e. Manchester City Centre, which is within the City of Manchester, which itself is a borough within Greater Manchester. Confusing at first but lots of urban places are organised like this - West Midlands county within the West Midlands region, Vienna within Vienna state...... Anyway I'm just looking at Manchester centre for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cnbrb (talk • contribs) 08:04, 5 October 2021‎ (UTC)[]
I'm afraid it's not as simple as that and not comparable to West Midlands or Vienna which are at least by now clear and constantly applied because other sorted the issue out, take another look. per Andy Dingley The category has a description saying that it means the city The category has subcats such as "Buildings in the City of Manchester‎". I never heard of the City centre being refereed to as the city name, so it's not surprising others also seem to be confused. It should really be properly described and applied consistently throughout the category tree. It's people not understanding the issue and therefore not using a consistent category tree that is such a great motivation to give up Oxyman (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
One particular cause of trouble is that OpenStreetMap links the border of the Metropolitan Borough to Manchester (Q18125), which in turn has a Commons category (P373) of Category:Manchester. This means that when GeographBot uploads a picture taken anywhere in the Metropolitan Borough, it places it in Category:Manchester even though that's probably inappropriate. Correcting the OSM→Wikidata→Commons connections would at least ensure that future uploads end up somewhere more appropriate, but it's not clear to me which of the two links is incorrect. Possibly they both are, and OSM should link to Manchester (Q21525592) while Category:Manchester should be attached to Manchester city centre (Q2166304), leaving Manchester (Q18125) as a rather fuzzy concept that doesn't correspond with any Commons category. --bjh21 (talk) 14:36, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
Following on from this, I've made a couple of bold changes. On OSM, I've linked the City boundary to Manchester (Q21525592)[8], and on Wikidata I've made sure that Manchester (Q21525592) is only associated with Category:City of Manchester and not with any other category (d:Special:Diff/1508560833). This should mean that future GeographBot uploads in the City of Manchester end up in Category:City of Manchester rather than Category:Manchester. That doesn't really solve anything, but it at least moves the problem to the correct place. --bjh21 (talk) 11:17, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
OK, well I'll just use Cat-a-lot (surprised no-one has suggested this) and a visual search to filter out some obvious things like buildings. I was really hoping for something that could tell me which images are also in another more specific category to make it easier. 09:13, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
You can use Petscan for that, or VisualFileChange for simpler cases, but the trouble with the Manchester cat is that most things are only in that one. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:58, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Is this still 2002 and we’re just spitballing here on how to use categories in Commons…? Obviously it needs to be split by year and month, obviously each photo should have 5-10 cats before it’s deemed minimally categorized, obviously more work and less hand-wringing is needed here, obviously categorization is independent from searching and from other forms of curating (such as SDC and galleries), and obviously there are thousands of uncategorized, miscategorized, and undercategorized photos in Commons that should be added to the already bloated main Category:Manchester — so that knowledgeable and hard working editors can attack the issue there and split it properly. (That said, I’ll now go back to work on the very bloated Category:Lisbon, constantly being depleted by properly done dissimination, and yet constantly replenished with new photos — and that’s a good thing!) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
One thing that a lot of users seem to forget is that categories are optional. The MediaWiki Upload Wizard doesn't stop users from uploading uncategorised files which is good, someone can always come along and categorise it, as long as the file is educational and freely licensed (with all the baggage that takes with it) it should be acceptable. If users want to categorise they are free to do so, while the level of categories here are a unique feature that sets the Wikimedia Commons above many other media websites, the "burden" for categorisation should fall on those that like to categorise. We shouldn't be discouraging photographers because they used "Manchester" instead of "City of Manchester", we should be grateful that they uploaded it in the first (1st) place. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:17, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think anyone criticised file uploaders here (Though I have been criticised for using generic cats). For me the issue is that the category tree is inconsistent about what "Manchester" means. Oxyman (talk) 16:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

OK thanks, well I'm making headway with Category:Manchester and should have it done in a couple of days. Most of my recategorising is still pretty broad, but an improvement nonetheless. Cnbrb (talk) 09:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I totally agree with Andy Dingley, when he said Dating them (even if we did) should be to no more than a decade, because they're just not any more specific than that. Over-specific sub-division in just a barrier to navigation and browsing, so unless it also adds something, we should avoid it.. Categorising beyond that, is legalized vandalism. Broichmore (talk) 10:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 05[edit]

Searching inside multiple PDFs[edit]

Category:Camera Work, for example, consists of a set of subcategroies, each containing several PDFs.

If I want to search for something accross the content of all of those PDFs, and nowhere else, is there a way to do so? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:57, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

@Pigsonthewing: deepcat:"Camera Work" filetype:pdf searchterm seems to work, but be aware of the PDF content search limitations: Commons:Village_pump/Technical/Archive/2021/01#Problem_with_Commons's_search_index_and_OCR_text. MKFI (talk) 18:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 06[edit]

Publications by volume[edit]

In the middle of organizing Category:Publications by volume, should there be a category for, say, volume 11 of publications? Would that then go under Category:Number 11 on objects or Category:Items numbered 11 or both? Some use Arabic 11 while a number use Category:XI (numeral) so should that be a subcategory? Also, does it make sense for every issue number to also be included under the item numbered category to distinguish from volume number? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

I'm sure your intentions are good, but you are making things twice as complicated, and twice as hard to find. Category:Volume 11 publications is functionally identical to Category:Volume XI publications. XI is the same number as 11, just a different writing system. Ditto for every other Roman numeral/Arabic numeral category pair created. --Animalparty (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

COM:NOTHOST Vs. COM:INUSE (again)[edit]

I just saw this on my watchlist, and I didn't check any further to see where this file has been delinked from, but in the original nomination the nominator asserted that the file is a user-generated fantasy flag, but how aren't we certain that it's not a mere unsourced flag? Asking if "COM:INUSE" should be applied got me accusations of "trolling" and being "not here to educate", but I am genuinely curious why the Wikimedia Commons is making decisions what content other Wikimedia websites should be allowed to use if a file is locally used and no known copyright © issues exist. As I had the impression that the Wikimedia Commons' original mission was to be the central file repository for other Wikimedia websites (but others seem to disagree). Is "COM:INUSE" not applicable if a file isn't locally sourced at the Wikimedia Commons? Proposals for the flag certainly do exist, I haven't seen the removed flag but does a file need to be sourced here or is "COM:INUSE" enough? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Let me be absolutely clear here, fantasy flags have no place on Wikipedia unless they are a common misconception that needs to be debunked, I am not an advocate for user-generated flags on Wikipedia's, my issue is that someone can source a flag locally, upload an SVG here as "Own work" and have it being deleted here as "a fantasy" as had happened with the flag of the Autonomous Republic of Cochinchina. Wikipedia's have their own sourcing standards and these are perfectly adequate to deal with most forms of disinformation, so my question is, does the Wikimedia Commons already have a de facto (unwritten) sourcing standard for symbols? As I have seen many "COM:INUSE" files being deleted over the lack of a local source (the Cochinchinese was sourced at Wikipedia). Also note that we have "Disputed" templates that essentially act like "Citation needed" templates. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    • Regarding the particular photo you brought up:
      • I can confirm that the image is similar to (but better quality than) https://tse2.mm.bing.net/th?id=OIP.Mde-ja1deKDMOe6YG9oyUwHaFY&pid=Api.
      • I see no source that this flag was seriously proposed, here or on enwiki (the page you linked was the only page it was linked).
      • I'm not aware of any requirement that the flag have a third-party source here on Commons (a) at all, but especially (b) if it is sourced somewhere else.
      • On the Commons side: the flag should not have been deleted as out of scope IMO. It "is in use on another project (aside from use on talk pages or user pages)", and "that is enough for it to be within scope". See COM:INUSE. I intend to start an undeletion request on this image for this reason. As you said, we aren't in the business of "making decisions what content other Wikimedia websites should be allowed to use if a file is locally used and no known copyright © issues exist".
      • On the Wikipedia side (which is outside of our purview here), I can't see how that image should have been in use there. There is no indication there that the flag was actually seriously proposed, which I imagine ought to be the standard for a list entry.
    In general, my opinion of what our practice ought to be with these fantasy flags is:
    • If it's COM:INUSE, absent reasons to take it down other than its fictionality, it should stay up (with appropriate disclaimers) on Commons.
    • Even if it isn't in use, if there is an indication that the flag was part of a serious proposal (as opposed to one person's idea that no one noticed), received any real-world coverage, had any measurable impact whatsoever, et cetera, it should stay on Commons.
    • If neither of those criteria are met, we ought to take it down as out of scope.
    Thoughts? —‍Mdaniels5757 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
    Agree that use on any other Wikipedia project - even use that we disagree with or think is incorrect - means that we should not delete the image. If we delete images being used by other projects, we would be extending an unwarrantable jurisdiction over the files that other projects can or cannot use. Issues of image use must be dealt with locally before they are elevated to Commons.
    Agree that the standard for inclusion on Commons is far lower than the "notability" standard required on many Wikimedia projects. A fantasy shared or promoted by multiple people outside of the Wikisphere is more deserving of inclusion than some random user's artwork. (That does not mean that I think personal fantasies should be deleted, however.)  Mysterymanblue  22:15, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
        • The "list of X flags" on Wikipedia(s) are permanently rife with problems because they are little more than scraped from Commons categories, which, because of laissez-faire attitudes to reality on Commons, are replete with erroneous, self-promotional material completely undifferentiated from the real-world images. If any of these "flags" were "shared or promoted by multiple people outside of [sic] the Wikisphere" then that might be a much more of a reason for hosting this "free web host" material than anything that is apparent at the moment. There are literally thousands of "some random user's artwork", I don't see why Commons policy demands that we facilitate a hoax just because no-one outside Commons has noticed the deception (or doesn't care). As for the various cautionary labels, it is more than obvious that these are blithely ignored; I have frequently seen files in use with two or three such labels clearly affixed. Adding them avails naught. Removing unusable flags from being in use without deleting such material will inevitably end in them being re-added to mainspace. If a file is added to mainspace by the file's own uploader, why would that count as acceptably COM:INUSE? GPinkerton (talk) 23:10, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[]
          Fraudulent files added to the main namespace of other projects may be removed, but they must be removed according to the policies of that project before they are deleted here. How those files got on the other project is largely irrelevant - we must keep the files until a local process deletes them because we presume that local projects are capable of handling things themselves. I'm certainly not saying there has to be a lengthy bureaucratic process behind every image deletion; the local process that removes these files can be as simple as an editor in good standing going and removing a poorly sourced file from an article (though these files should obviously not be removed from talk and user pages without the owner's consent). Once that process is done, the image is no longer in use and can be deleted under the most widely held interpretation of policy. If the files are truly problematic, removing them from projects in accordance with local policy should not be a hurdle to deletion and is, in fact, a good way to ensure that we don't remove valuable media from other projects.
          The issue with deleting a file added to the mainspace of another project by the uploader is that it still requires us to make a policy judgement on behalf of another project, which we are not empowered to do. We certainly will not delete all uploader-added images, only those ones we deem to be "uneducational"; that assessment can be made, but it has to be made on each project locally and not on Wikimedia Commons.  Mysterymanblue  02:10, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 08[edit]

Photo challenge August results[edit]

Contre-jour: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image Chephrenpyramide in Gizeh.jpg CH.ZG.Walchwil Walchwilerberg Heumoosegg 2016-10-30 OrigX-R gp.jpg 20210811 EchinopsisOxygona DSC08836 PtrQs.jpg
Title Chephrenpyramide in Gizeh Sunrays shining through trees and
weak fog near Walchwil, Switzerland		 Echinopsis Oxygona
Author Sadarama Roy Egloff PtrQs
Score 15 9 8
Playgrounds: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image Alp Tschingla Playground 1.jpg Детская площадка в холодное время года.jpg Tiny playground (rather playboard), Berkeley, Jan 1970.jpg
Title Playground with a view Детская площадка в
холодное время года		 Tiny playground (rather playboard),
Berkeley, Jan 1970
Author GabrielleMerk Vitaliy VK Foeniz
Score 19 11 8

Congratulations to Sadarama, Roy Egloff, PtrQs, GabrielleMerk, Vitaliy VK and Foeniz. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

InstantCommons[edit]

What is the official position of Commons with regards to InstantCommons? (i.e. com:inuse, com:host) --C.Suthorn (talk) 03:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

Can we see InstantCommons use somehow? I would suppose that COM:WEBHOST takes precedence, but if there is no pressing need to delete the file then it would be polite to not break external uses. MKFI (talk) 13:54, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]
I don't think there is an "official position" but NOTHOST shouldn't be a particular issue as long as material is within scope and credits are correctly given. Ddeep linking is generally welcome. Obviously, material on Commons still needs to meet the usual requirements for COM:SCOPE, and reuse outside of WMF projects does not automatically put the image "in scope". However, I use deep linking to Commons myself on my own sites (though not with InstantCommons), both for pictures I took and uploaded here and for other material (usually PD). See, for example, http://weillproject.com/blog/2021-09-27-burgschaft.htm. Note that besides the overt credits, any photos from Commons link to the Commons page, just like they would in one of our own wikis. - Jmabel ! talk 14:42, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[]

October 09[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=597014598"