Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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/2022/06. Please note: 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. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. 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). 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: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:   Start a new discussion

Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive Meta: Create Global file deletion reviewer global user group (31 March 2022) Should "China" without disambiguator be used to mean a country or a cultural region? (25 December 2021) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) File:Flag of Afghanistan.svg redirect target (9 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Indonesian laws on copyright (21 August 2020) Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 11

freedom of panorama in the US: paintings on buildings

Hi, newbie here doing some research about FoP. I've understood that freedom of panorama in the US only applies to buildings, which do not include other 3D arts and 2D art. However according to Leicester v. Warner Bros., paintings on the exterior of buildings are integral parts of the buildings, thus included in the FoP. Is it safe to say that those paintings, murals and graffitis are with FoP so suitable for Commons (talking only about paintings right on the buildings, not about posters or separate paintings which are not parts of buildings)? Taking the mural in Quebec City for example, if this were located in the US and within time period of copyright protection, would this mural still be under FoP in the US because it's an integral part of the building? Thanks --Suiren2022 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

• @Suiren2022: Probably better asked at Commons:Village pump/Copyright where more of the people with copyright expertise check in. - Jmabel ! talk 14:49, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

June 01

Café in Prague

Wich café is this? Does it stil exist?

I have scanned/uploaded some december 1991 slides of Prague. Some street categories are missing in Category:1991 in tram transport in Prague.Smiley.toerist (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Smiley.toerist: Seems to be Café Imperial. Greetings from Prague. — Draceane ^talk_contrib. 08:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's the Obecní dům restaurant: File:Obecni dum, Praha 2009 10711.jpg. --HyperGaruda (talk) 16:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

June 06

Computer is not happy at Commons:Rotation

It is giving an error message, too many Lua or something, and it shows me the problem... but I do not know what exactly is wrong with it. It is immediately visible if you go to the page. ~ R.T.G 21:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@RTG: That's quite a long and syntax-heavy nutshell.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I wanted to write less but my lawyers insisted I keep talking. And I could swear I never paid them last week... The actual error:

"Lua error: too many expensive function calls.

Backtrace:

1[C]: in function "getExpensiveData"
2mw.title.lua:209: ?
3Module:Autotranslate:67: in function "chunk"
4mw.lua:525: ?
5[C]: ?"

That's not a wiki markup issue is it..? ~ R.T.G 09:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

The error is in the {{Header}} template but there were no changes on this template. --GPSLeo (talk) 10:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• I fixed it by swapping it with {{shortcut|COM:ROTATEFIX}} that we use in other "Commons:" entries. --RAN (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

June 07

Are there exceptions to overwriting?

Can you correcting any details of a flag or coat of arms is considered to be COM:OW? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Unless you have reached agreement with the original uploader, things like this should almost always be uploaded as a new file with a distinct filename. Then each Wikipedia or other reuser of the image may choose the one they prefer. When there is a dispute, Commons tries to remain neutral and provide both options to the reusers. - Jmabel ! talk 00:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  What if the original uploader isn't active anymore? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: You could try to contact them anyway, they might surprise you.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Should I leave them as message to let them know about that I am correcting their files if they aren't able to respond to me? SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 03:20, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Please explain the problem first (with an online source), link their user talk page with the file's talk page, and give them at least a week to respond.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 03:33, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  I would say that if you can't get hold of them, and this amounts to a factual disagreement, not uncontroversial cleanup, then the "normal" case applies: upload with a distinct filename. - Jmabel ! talk 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

• @SpinnerLaserzthe2nd: Taking two files from your contributions:

  File:City of Fribourg-coat of arms.svg

  The back and forth here shows a substantial difference in the shape of the shield. The original should not have been overwritten.

  File:Oberdorf-coat of arms.svg

  Is more nuanced. Generally, SVG files should not be edited just to make them W3C valid. The original file has some extended elements and attributes. Generally, RDF metadata just produce warnings and should be retained. The Adobe Illustrator knockout attribute is harmless and not a reason to modify the file. The Adobe Illustrator pgfRef element may be large enough to justify an overwrite. However, it is only 16 kB for this file, so I'd leave it alone. The file has other changes. A stroking error in the upper central constellation has been fixed. The width of the shield's stroke was changed; I see that as a minor improvement. I would not expect the original uploader to object, so I would overwrite the file. The second version also cites to using standard colors. (Perhaps an example of CoA blazon "argent" not being silver but rather white?) I also consider that change to be minor and a reasonable correction. If an upload does change the appearance of an image, then it is OK to remove W3C "errors" at the same time. Consequently, I see the 9 April 2022 as reasonable. The reversions to the original should have stated their reasons for the revert. Glrx (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  Okay, Thanks. SpinnerLaserzthe2nd (talk) 04:11, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

  D'accord to Glrx. At least minor changes like the adjustment of strokes stated above and internationally used FIAV standard CoA blazon colors and really minor adjustment may be corrected according to CC-by-sa attributes (adapt/transform) - IMHO including W3C errors because W3C are web standard technologies. Meanwhile I agree, that bigger changes should be finished into a new file upload. Thank you, – Doc Taxon Disk. • 10:30, 7. Jun 2022 (UTC)

June 08

help on exporting to commons

can someone export Netease logo 2.svg (enwiki) to commons since because i cant and that im trying to put the logo on vietnamese wikipedia? thanks Dulken (talk) 07:40, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

en:File:Netease logo 2.svg is stored on English Wikipedia with a claim of fair use. Fair use images are not allowed on Commons. For it to be moved here, we need to establish if the fair use claim is valid. To do that, we need to know which country it is from and whether it is below the threshold of originality in that country. The left of the image appears to be two Chinese characters (or foreign language derivations of the original Chinese characters) and the right appears to be plain text in the latin alphabet. As the Chinese characters appear to be drawn and stylised (rather than an application of a standard font) there may be enough creativity there for it to be protected by copyright in some countries. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, NetEase is indeed a Chinese company, so Chinese law should apply. The question would be whether this qualifies as calligraphy. From the examples given at COM:TOO China I would guess no, but I'm by no means an expert. El Grafo (talk). 09:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Remini AI

This topic is also being discussed at the French village pump.

Before/after

Hi there,

Madelgarius is currently retouching and overwriting images with a software called "Remini AI" that tries to guess what is pixelized or blurred in a picture in order to sharpen it, it sometimes gives weird results like this. This makes me think about the sort of glitches we see with thispersondoesnotexist.com (see these articles: [1][2]).

When overwriting a file, Madelgarius doesn't specify that he used this kind of software, just "restauration image", "restauration photographie" or "meilleure [best] résolution", giving the impression that he found a better source or retouched the picture himself but actually just used an AI to "enhance" the picture that does the job for him and often don't reflect reality since the AI have to guess, I find this extremely problematic. It's until someone asked on his talk page where did he find a better resolution of a picture, that he revealed that he's using Remini AI.

Anyway, what do you think? Do we have a policy on using this kind of software? Should we revert his overwrites? Thibaut (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Would restricting this to "restore" damaged/"bad" photography a reasonable/suitable use of this tool?🤔

Could this tool restore only areas of a picture, too? J. N. Squire (talk) 13:09, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

If this is uploaded as a new file and the changes are explained I think this is fine. But the original files should never become overwritten with such changes. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:25, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

It seems that this software also add some light blue in the pupils of the subject on B&W pictures ([3][4][5][6][7]). Thibaut (talk) 14:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The center on in the example on the right also has quite a bit of color added if you look closely. El Grafo (talk) 14:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. It's fascinating what you can do with machine learning (I assume), but this must be noted clearly on the file description page. {{Retouched}} will not do for this, there needs to be a more specific template for this. Overwriting is not OK here, but maybe instead of reverting (i.e. outright rejecting) a history split might be a better idea. El Grafo (talk) 14:16, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, this is not so different from colorizing black and white images, which has been done manually for ages. Not a problem if (and only if) properly marked as such. {{Colorized}} could use some enhancement and translations, though. El Grafo (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@Thibaut120094: indeed, we should completely revert those changes. These are historical images whose authenticity must be preserved. Commons is not a testing ground, much less a place that should prioritize personal processing of information over its educational and accurate value. Isolate the subject of a photograph by erasing pointless elements when the background is "indisputable" actually improves the quality (for example, see my recent change on File:Церковь Воздвижения Святого Креста.jpg). But adding imagined elements significantly alters the quality of the photograph as an information carrier. Furthermore, many of these images are of sufficiently good quality and don't need this kind of "restauration"; the background blur produced by camera lenses not only highlights the subject of the photograph but also gives perspective cues.

@GPSLeo: If this is uploaded as a new file and the changes are explained I think this is fine. If it's restricted to a few files to show software features, why not, but I don't think it would be a good idea to systematically fill Commons with all the possible retouched versions of a photograph.

@El Grafo: Since there is no single colorization result, it is better to uploaded a colorized version as a separate file. — Baidax ^💬 16:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Madelgarius seems to have understood the issue and is now reverting his overwrites and uploading the "enhanced" version as separate files with a template indicating that the image was retouched with AI (thanks!).

He also created a category: Category:Remini.ai retouched pictures where we can find the images (the correct attribution and license are missing though, feel free to help me adding those). Thibaut (talk) 15:50, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Theatres vs Theaters

Hello everyone, leaving in Italy (and was born in) I was misled by what is found online and, unfortunately, by the parent category here in Commons which is Theaters. A dear friend who lives in the UK assures me that in the English language the term used is Theatre, see https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/ while in the USA Theater is preferred, hence the misunderstunding for a non-native language user assuming a typo or just not noticing the difference. I therefore ask, as a courtesy, if I can bold and move everything to Theaters, without this seeming like an affront to American users, because then we Europeans (non-English) are in danger of getting sick. Thanks for you attention :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 14:00, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think this is a good idea (and, by the way, it is the UK you are likely to offend by going to "Theater"). We could even adopt one standard for non-English-speaking countries, but moving any English-speaking country to use a spelling that is not normal there is almost certainly a bad idea. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agreed, but sadly though, the typical response on Commons is to invent a new name for something, which is used by no country at all. Typically taking a direct word-by-word translation from German into English, giving a phrase that is ostensibly "English", but which satisfies no-one. Telescope cranes rather than Telescopic cranes is a typical example.

In this case, Theatres is already a redirect to Theaters though. en:WP can use similar tricks to answer both terms. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:18, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Here in New Jersey, USA, we have had both in the past, with theaters showing movies on screens and theatres on Broadway (actually in New York) showing plays and other live-action entertainment. Then AMC Theatres came along and started showing movies in what enwiki calls their cinemas.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 16:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

(Conflicted) Forgive me but en.wiki, which of course has its own rules and is obviously only in English as opposed to Commons which, at least in theory, is multilingual (but has the main discussion bar in English...) the entry Theater (structure) with a banner present since 2013 and has the sources talking about theatre and not theater. It does not seem so strange to me that an Italian user who makes an effort to converse in English (also thanks to the translator programs) is at least puzzled to use a term that is not in the English language vocabulary. For me, it is enough to see whether, grammatically correct or not, we arrive at coherent categories, and I thought the most logical thing was to use a vocabulary, which could please everyone, native and non-native speakers alike.--Threecharlie (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe it is important to use consistent language and unique words, as we try to do everywhere in the categories of Commons. Standardizing a language is not an impoverishment, but it helps to improve the project and make it more and more encyclopedic. I remember that at the beginning Theatres were used for buildings, while Theaters for shows. Could such a solution be correct? DenghiùComm (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

"Theater" and "theatre" are both buildings (and occasionally theatrical companies); it's just US vs. UK. Complicating matters, individual theaters in the U.S. very often use "Theatre" in their name, but as a common noun that is not used in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 23:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• The solution is to do what Commons always does, naming start a CFD discussion asking people and in about a decade we may have it closed with no consensus. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

• See Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/11/Category:Theaters in New Zealand. --ghouston (talk) 09:32, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• We really should start at the top but four years old is a new discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:09, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think it is necessary to delete some categories. Of course, we need to bring consistency and move the wrong name into the right name. It is also important to distinguish the buildings from the shows. We can't have a mess of them in just one category. --DenghiùComm (talk) 22:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way of searching Commons for photos by camera used (in the EXIF data)?

Hi all

I'd like to improve Wikipedia articles for different cameras by giving examples of images taken on them. Is there a way to search Commons by camera used (which is in the EXIF info)? E.g how could I search for images taken using the Hasselblad X1D-50c?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:01, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

There are categories of images divided by camera, as a subcategory of the parent category that includes camera body and lens specific images. See Category:Photos taken with Hasselblad. :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 14:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Threecharlie, super, thanks so much. John Cummings (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

@John Cummings: An alternative approach which will find a different set of pictures is to use Commons:Structured data statements. These will appear on different files from the categories, and are mostly added by bots. For instance to find pictures captured with (P4082) a Hasselblad X1D (Q63434281) you might try Special:Search/haswbstatement:P4082=Q63434281.

It's possible to search the extracted Exif metadata directly using quarry:, but it's fiddly and slow, so if you only want a sampling I think categories or structured data are a better approach. --bjh21 (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Third opinion request regarding renaming of a file

This file has been requested to be renamed multiple times (as seen in the history), and has been declined multiple times (most recently by me, due to the multiple previous declines). Please come offer opinions on whether this file should be renamed at the talk page discussion. Thanks! ···日本穣 ^{Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

June 09

Half a million were uploaded as part of the "library back up project". Welcome to participate to upload all public domain books in the world!

In 213 BCE, Qin Shi Huang destroyed all privately-held unorthodox books in by fire. In 206 BCE, Xiang Yu set a fire on the governmental library containing unique copies of the books, sounding the death of ancient Chinese thoughts and history. Yongle Encyclopedia was finished in 1408. It comprised 22,937 chapters in 11,095 volumes and 917,480 pages. Only one copy after that original copy was made. Most of them are lost in history and only about 800 chapters survive today. In 1932, 463 thousand Han Fen Lou rare books were burned in war.

To prevent such regrettable things that destroy the memory of mankind ever happen again, let's systematically back up the world's all surviving books in public domain to Wikimedia Commons.

“	Imagine a world in which every single person on the planet is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge.	”
—Jimmy Wales

Half a million book files were uploaded as part of the project. Currently only Chinese and Japanese books were uploaded, but the ultimate goal is ALL books in ALL languages from ALL countries as long as in public domain. Welcome to participate to accomplish the grand goal! --維基小霸王 (talk) 05:39, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

• Do I understand correctly that the "library back up project" is a project to preserve Chinese-language and Japanese-language texts from Japan and the area of contemporary China? Other Asian languages and countries do not seem to be included. Other regions do not seem to fall within the scope of the project? --C.Suthorn (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

  No. The scope is ALL public domain books on the planet. I have uploaded Chinese books only because it's my native language. You are welcomed to upload books in your and other languages. Modified. 維基小霸王 (talk) 06:55, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

See also : Commons:IA_books which was in progress but stalled when Fæ abruptly left Commons. The aim here was to try and mirror every confirmably Public domain work held in IA collections, to Commons. What would help the linked Wikiproject immensely, would be people reviewing the items uploaded against the Catalog of Copyright Entries. Higher quality versions (regenerated DJVU from the IA tiff/JP2 scans would be excellent) of the CCE volume would also be welcomed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:28, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

That's a great project. We all hope @Fæ: will return soon. --維基小霸王 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Fae did indeed leave most abruptly. But the reasons are visible to all users of WMF projects. And them will not return unless that is fixed. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:40, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

What reason? 維基小霸王 (talk) 09:18, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

It's of course much more complicated than this, but I guess in the end it boils down to toxic behavior within the community. Let's not get into detail right here, though, that would completely de-rail the discussion. El Grafo (talk) 09:43, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

On the subject of Chinese works, Will you you be approaching institutions in the Hong Kong, with a view to determining what can be reasonably placed on Commons from their archives? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Of course. There are many Chinese collections not only in Asia but also in Western libraries. But in those libraries, more books is in other languages. For example, I am uploading https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/chinese-rare-books , but more collection https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/ are available. It would be ideal to upload all, library by library. But only my own efforts is not enough. I hope more volunteers will participate. --維基小霸王 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Great project! My little contribution: Category:The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi (100 volumes in 3 languages from 2 different sources, around 400 files in total). And also Category:Camera Notes, Category:Camera Work, and Category:Mercure de France, whole volumes (still under way). Yann (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions. Any uploads are good. But I hope there are more systematic uploads. There are many collections in https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/ . I have just uploaded "chinese-rare-books". I hope others could follow and upload other collections.--維基小霸王 (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

William Shatner

I notice someone have been putting William Shatner images into various categories related to 'People from the United States'. Am i missing something? Because i don't remember him having American citizenship. --Trade (talk) 22:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

His Wikipedia article states "He is a longtime U.S. resident and has a green card". If he's being categorized according to places of residence, that's perfectly appropriate. Do you understand that many editors only categorize people according to their birthplace and that this practice is extremely problematic? For example, only a Wikipedant would associate Eminem with St. Joseph, Missouri instead of Detroit, which was the case with his Commons category until I fixed it. Pointing out examples is fruitless, however, as this diseased mentality poisons a substantial portion of the site.RadioKAOS (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I asked specifically to avoid such a situation @RadioKAOS: --Trade (talk) 19:24, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

June 10

Photo challenge April results

Stairs: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Stairs to the station platform before 2013 (Mons Belgium)	Vineyard stairway in the Enz valley near Vaihingen, Baden-Wuerttemberg, Germany	Stairs at the lower entrance to the Bamberg lock
Author	Anne Debaisieux	Foeniz	Ermell
Score	11	10	8

Eggs: Entries • Votes • Scores

Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Ostrich egg versus chicken egg.	Box of eggs	Uova di lepidottero su foglie di Lonicera (caprifoglio selvatico)
Author	Annatsach	Balise42	Albarubescens
Score	16	15	7

Congratulations to Anne Debaisieux, Foeniz, Ermell. Annatsach, Balise42 and Albarubescens. -- Jarekt (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Foeniz (talk) 06:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Duplication of photographs from National Maritime Museum

I have been using the copyright book of Smith Suitall, a post card manufacturer, in the Suffolk Record Office. I have been able to identify Alicia Dathan (died 1944) as the creator of a number of photographs published as postcards and hence clarify the copyright status of her images. However with File:HMS Ganges training ships 1906 Flickr 4343894760 2dc67df409 o.jpg and File:A view from Shotley across the River Stour to Harwich with Shotley Pier and the 'Ganges' training ships. RMG P27497.tiff the same image has been reproduced twice. What is the best way to deal with this anomaly?Leutha (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Just add a link from one file to the other in the "Other versions" field of the information template. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• You can see an example of how each Library of Congress image is duplicated as a jpg and tiff: File:Card. Mundelein LCCN2014717251.jpg --RAN (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Modification of Template:PD-VenezuelaGov

Hello, I want to talk to you about the modification of the template Template:PD-VenezuelaGov that mentions the public domain license for Venezuela.

Recently in 2012, the government decreed a law that releases to the public domain all the graphic material that is made by any of the government institutions.

The law in question is the Ley Orgánica del Trabajo, los Trabajadores y las Trabajadoras (Labor Law in English), decreed in May 7, 2012. In which article no. 325 decrees (in Spanish):

La producción intelectual generada bajo relación de trabajo en el sector público, o financiada a través de fondos públicos que origine derechos de propiedad intelectual, se considerará del dominio público, manteniéndose los derechos al reconocimiento público del autor o autora.

Translated into English would be:

The intellectual production generated under an employment relationship in the public sector, or financed through public funds that originates intellectual property rights, will be considered to be in the public domain, maintaining the rights to public recognition of the author.

Can be modify this template to add this law?

-- Wguayana (talk) 13:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

@Wguayana: do you know whether that is true only for images produced after that date (or some other date), or is retroactive? - Jmabel ! talk 15:26, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

They do not specify, but living in that country and knowing the government, I can assure you that it is valid for all the material made, including those made before 2012.

In general, the laws in Venezuela are confusing and disastrous.

-- Wguayana (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Can I upload photos from Government of Montenegro flickr account

The Government of Montenegro maintains a flickr account, and all files have a All rights reserved tag, which accoring to Commons:Flickr files makes them not available for the Commons. But, the Government of Montenegro has written in its about section (see here): "All photos and videos are free to use and download." Does this make them freely available?--AT44 (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would say no. "use and download" does not mean "republish" or "modify". - Jmabel ! talk 18:23, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

  Hey @Jmabel thank you for the quick response. I sent a mail to the Government to ask for a further explanation. AT44 (talk) 17:24, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• "All rights reserved" is the default setting for a Flickr account, so pointing out the inconsistency may get a response, but it is rare for anyone to actually respond to an email nowadays. I often wonder why websites post webmaster@ and info@ addresses if they never are going to respond. Even a "thank you for your inquiry" autoresponse is better than nothing. --RAN (talk) 19:14, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

June 11

Changing info/license of historic images from info/license of the derivative-copy to the original object

This comes up often at deletion debates. We have an historic public domain image or object, and someone scans it. They have now have created a derivative-copy and they add in the CC license and current date for the derivative-copy and declare the scan their "own work". It gets nominated for deletion because the nominator wants to see info and the license for the original-image. See for example: File:Александр Павлович Киткин.jpg. I change the specs to info on the original. Not at this entry, but at others, I have been told to never change info when a debate is going on. The deletion queue is always backed up by 6-months, see: Category:Deletion requests January 2022. Note that we do have {{Art Photo}} that has information for the original and the derivative. See it used here: File:Egypte louvre 026.jpg. So, do we change info during the debate, or hope in 6 months that the uploader will make the changes, or hope that the person closing will make the changes? What is best for the project, doing the work up-front, or leaving the problem in the queue and hoping it may get fixed just before deletion? --RAN (talk) 19:32, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

If it is an unambiguous and factual correction supported by evidence, I would say that it is safe to make the correction during the debate. However, I have noticed that you tend to speculate on details of the image (often without evidence) and then insert your speculation on the file page. I don't know about others but coming to a debate after you have inserted your speculation has confused me about the status of an image several times now.

If you have an unambiguous source that gives the correct information then I think it is safe to update the file. If you feel that you are relying on speculation/judgement/gut feelings then place your views in the deletion debate and see if you gain consensus before updating the file page. Your judgement may be right in many situations but it avoids confusing the debate if it is kept off the file page until consensus is reached. From Hill To Shore (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Almost every image, prior to cameras capturing the date or someone writing the date on the back of an image, are missing a date. We use visual cues, the death date of the subject, the death date of the photographer if their name is known, and other interpretive techniques to estimate the date an image was taken. I think most people can estimate the year an image was taken within +/- 10 years or less, given the birth and death years of the subject. There is an entire project at the Library of Congress at Flickr Commons to date the images in the Bain Collection. You are welcome to join. --RAN (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

I am not saying that your speculation/judgement is inherently wrong. Rather it is simply confusing for other reviewers if you have adapted a file mid-debate to align with your speculative argument to retain the file. If the consensus of debate supports your judgement then you can alter the file once the discussion is closed. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• The issue is that people put "Own" and a CC license not because their work creates a derivative work. It doesn't. But because they don't understand what information is required, and how copyright works. For their defense, it is true that copyright for old documents is often very complex, and we do a poor job explaining what information is required. Yann (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

It does create a derivative-work, but does not transfer the original copyright to them. The Bridgeman case is a court ruling that said that making an exact-copy does not restart the copyright clock for this new copy, because it is an exact replica. Outside the USA, you may still be legally required to acknowledge the person that made the scan. The court ruling is not part of Berne and URAA, and most countries do not follow the USA ruling. See: Commons:Reuse of PD-Art photographs for country specific court rulings. --RAN (talk) 20:57, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

• Is possible for you to be wrong? No one is perfect and there are edge cases. If there is a discussion, then the discussion matters. I agree with From Hill To Shore that it creates confusion when you go and change it and no one knows what is going on. If you change it and people have a different opinion, congrats on creating the fight on the page and at the discussion rather than only at the discussion. A single sentence at the discussion accomplishes the same without the drama if people disagree with you. That's it. And no, just because you made a judgment that the person is wrong does not mean the discussion is closed automatically on your word. Who really cares if there is a "we are discussing deletion of this image" on a page for months? That is better than immediately deleting images and fighting over them afterwards. The issue is that people get it wrong, and that's it. That is the whole point of having discussion pages and why we have administrators who have experience reviewing and closing them. And why we have a place to review the discussions after they are closed. And why we have places to complain about the administrators if they are closing these badly. And so on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
• The debate doesn't go on for months, it is the lack of people interested in working behind the scenes in the deletion process that causes the 6-month backlog. At one time I calculated that more than 50% of all deletions have no comments at all beyond the nomination. That is why doing as much as possible as soon as possible is the preference. Let us worry about the "edge cases" when the edge cases arise. Stopping progress because of an occasional disagreement serves no one. Fix the issue at the upload stage by explaining better to the uploader that there are two dates and two authors for every derivative image, so they don't only load the contemporary date. --RAN (talk) 01:48, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

June 12

Fishy Russian audio file

Is there a Russian speaker in the house who can comment on File:Ширк в Исламе.ogg? While I don't speak the language, it is obviously playing back too fast, but I was wondering more if the voice in this file is human or computer. --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:13, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

June 13

template:LargeImage

A few days ago I first saw that the template:LargeImage gets inserted in file descriptions, by now it has been inserted in some of my images. And it seems it gets systematically inserted in images (that do not necessarily have a large resolution, but only a file size over some trigger value).

The last content edit (not formal edit) to this template is 13 (thirteeen!) years ago. It was created only two years before that edit.

The chances that an user of Commons actually sees a large image in its large orginal resolution are near zero (0!). This will only happen if the user clicks on "download", the "original resolution" link, or the last of the thumb links that shows the actual resolution as link text. In all other cases the user will ever only get a thumb that by definition ist not a large image.

While the best thing to do would be to simply delete the template without any replacement, at least it should be redesigned to be less intrusive: It is the first entry in the information template, it comes in red and as a warning. Instead it could be a javascript that will only be visible, if the user hoovers them mouse over one of the mentioned links, that will acutually show the image in a large resolution. C.Suthorn (talk) 08:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: I think you're missing one very easy way to get the full image: click on the preview image itself. At least for me, that causes my browser to try to download and display the original file. The preview is the largest item on the page and the obvious place to click if you want to see the picture in more detail. --bjh21 (talk) 09:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And also the preview image can have javascript in the link triggered by the template. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:37, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Display issue?

Is it correct that the middle part of Template:PD-chem is displayed as Templates:PD-chem/lang? --Leyo 11:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

How can I perform bulk actions like recategorizing multiple files?

one of the affected files

Hello, I moved the category:Pan de Veracruz to category:Breads of Veracruz, but the 40 files have not been moved. Is there a way to do this in bulk or do I have to do it one by one? thank you – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 12:51, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@El Mono Español: You (or anyone else) can use Cat-a-lot for that. It's powerful but like many Commons tools not entirely friendly for novice users. --bjh21 (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much! – El Mono 🐒 (talk - es.wiki) 13:16, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Also VFC can easily be used for this. - Jmabel ! talk 14:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

And if you are moving the entire category, consider {{Move cat}} at User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. That moves subcategories as well as files. - Jmabel ! talk 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Image release via email

I recently emailed a museum asking if they could provide an image of an item they had on display as the museum is the only publicly viewable location of this item that I know of. They got back to me today and sent me two images. Unfortunately, they have not stated what the licence for the images is. I have asked them to explicitly state the licence and am awaiting a response.

My question is what do I do when I upload the images? Do I forward a copy of the email somewhere or do we just take my word? Something else? Kylesenior (talk) 15:04, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

You need them to send the permission themselves according to Commons:VRT, if they own the copyright. One scenario is that the item is old (and thus out of copyright) and they photograph it for the purpose (and get the copyright through the contract with the photographer).

(Forwarding the e-mail could be an option, but you'd need to send all the e-mail, including header lines not normally shown and thus not included when e-mails are forwarded, otherwise there is no evidence that you didn't write it yourself. I also think that the VRT folks don't want to analyse the headers to eliminate the possibility of a forgery.)

If you upload the images before them having send the e-mail you have the filenames to refer to in the e-mail. The files may be deleted in waiting for the e-mail, but they can be restored when it has been received and checked (and probably won't be deleted if the e-mail is sent in a week from the upload).

–LPfi (talk) 16:11, 13 June 2022 (UTC)