Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Delinker

Does anyone know what's up with User:CommonsDelinker/commands and moving categories? I'm not sure I've seen any of these succeed in the last week or more. Is this still an effective way to move a category? If not, do we have anything else better than doing everything by hand? - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Joe, link fixing and cat moving are two different engines under the same hood. The latter might have been stuck, pinging Steinsplitter. The first entry Category:Anonymous-EU is done but has a caching problem. I touched 10,000+ files, but then I didn't feel like working on that anymore... --Achim55 (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Achim55: Thanks. Yes, I was aware that they are separate. Looks like they are now working. - Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 16:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy new year!!!

Is there any way to see the statistics for 2021 like how many files were uploaded and / or deleted, how many new users Vs. blocks and retirees, and how many edits were made, file depicts and file captions were added, and just general statistics about Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) for the previous year? Maybe having an annual January 1st (first) "Last year in data" would be a good idea. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is year of death not mentioned in Category of Cas Oorhuys?

I don't see a year of death in the categories of Cas Oorthuys' category? This info is included in Wikidata and in the info box of the Commons category. Is there an explanation why this data is not included in Commons from Wikidata in this case? Wouter (talk) 15:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may have been as there were several date of death statements and this despite that they had the same year.

As some of the ranks of statements with P569/P570 of the item were incorrect, I adjusted them and the year of death category appears. See d:Help:Ranking for details. --- Jura1 (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! For me, this is an incentive to check whether all data from Wikidata is properly entered in Commons. Wouter (talk) 16:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To confirm what Jura1 suggested, this is normal behaviour for Wikidata and Commons. The Wikidata Infobox template on Commons sees two dates in Wikidata with the same rank and doesn't know which one to use for the category. If one date is marked as preferred rank on Wikidata, the template will retrieve the preferred date and ignore the rest. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:29, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a bot marking full dates as preferred rank, but it stopped running because the search took longer than the 1 minute computational limit for searches. If anyone has suggestions on how to get around the 1 minute limit, here is the place to discuss it. Several other error detection searches have come up against the limit and no longer run. One trick was to break the searches up into smaller parts and concatenate them, but now they too are at their computational limit. --RAN (talk) 20:49, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A weakness of the ubiquitous {{Wikidata Infobox}} is that when Wikidata has multiple values for critical dates (e.g. when the true value or even a "best value" is unknown), even if they are all in the same year, the infobox fails to add a year category. There was a bot (perhaps still is) that removed pre-existing manually added year of death/birth categories simply because the info was in Wikidata. This doesn't seem to have been the case here, but when the Wikidata infobox fails, manual categories are called for, even if its a less precise category like Category:1910s births. --Animalparty (talk) 22:19, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Public domain cutoff date reference, appearing on a Wikipedia Upload file wizard, needs to be changed from 1926 to 1927

For the Wikipedia Upload File wizard, starting at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:File_Upload_Wizard the date for the first option listed under "This file is not my own work/The copyright has definitely expired in the USA" needs to be incremented by a year (now that we've started a new year) to read "First published in the United States before 1927".--Thomas H. White (talk) 19:32, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas H. White: This comes from MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us. Commons doesn't locally override it, so Commons uses the value from TranslateWiki. It has already been updated on TranslateWiki (see translatewiki:MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-pd-us/en), but the updated translations haven't reached Commons yet (or EN wiki, etc.). I don't know the method by which translations at TranslateWiki reach Commons or how long it takes — I'll keep an eye on it and maybe temporarily insert a local override if it is still wrong after the Wednesday deployment to Commons. —RP88 (talk) 20:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas H. White: There are tickets for this at phab:. If you need the specific ones, I can find them for you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photomontage

Hello there, Im trying to photomontage and I cant seem to figure it out. Im trying to replace one of the photos, the one with the bridge in it, in this picture File:Cincinnati Photomontage V1.jpg with my photo File:Cincinnati Ohio.jpg. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 21:54, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Hi, and welcome. You would have to download the montage, replace the bridge photo in it, upload another version with a new filename (and attribution for all the component photos) consistent with COM:OW, and then convince 10 projects to use it. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 23:00, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and do you know what I can download or use to replace that one image. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 23:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Note that you should not overwrite the existing montage unless you have a goahead from the person who created it; you should create a similar one of your own and upload under a distinct filename.
Assuming you are working on a typical computer with a typical browser, you should be able to right-click and get a choice of "save image as...". NOTE that you will want to go to the full-resolution version of the montage before downloading that (although you might want to start with some smaller size for your own image, if you are recapturing it from Commons). - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Im using a chromebook. but where do I go to do this editing like a website or something? Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 03:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Have you considered using a gallery instead? Broichmore (talk) 16:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: Not sure what you mean by "where do I go to do this editing like a website or something?" You don't normally edit images on a website. You edit them with software like GIMP or Photoshop. - Jmabel ! talk 16:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: What image editing software does a chromebook come with? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 16:31, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

To butt in, Chromebooks are made to be very cheap online netbooks and they by default force users to use Chrome Canvas. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:42, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Chrome Canvas is what I was looking for when I asked that question. Note I have no experience in editing pictures on a laptop/computer. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 18:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot photomontage on chrome canvas. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 22:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Translation problem: what is 'debt' for ?

Hi all. I just get this landing page here after following redirections from UploadWizard's discussion page.

And that is my question: what is 'debt' for in 'Solve bugs & technical debt' of section 'Goals' ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 13:28, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does en:Technical debt/fr:Dette technique help? El Grafo (talk) 15:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

sounds good - because 'debt' was a notion I ve never met before. Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 20:15, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

all MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page are broken

Hi all, the MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page, (i.e Funnel Metrics for Upload Wizard...) section 'More metrics' are all broken with following message.

Dark mingle logo
Can not find page you are looking for.

Trying the server url gives us the following reason:

MINGLE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE
We've stopped supporting Mingle and have deleted all Mingle SaaS instances as of July 31, 2019.

Can someone realign them ? Thanks. Christian 🇫🇷 FR (talk) 19:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency and similar cases

I found a user called ""Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency", now blocked (for smaller screens), which purports to be the marketing account for a company named Growzillas. Now I actually can't find a single logged action to this account's name so I'm assuming that it was blocked for "spamming" on the basis of its username. My issue with this practice is that we might be shooting ourselves in the foot here.

Companies often hire top photographers and top graphic designers who can create high quality images, often stock images. There is a clear lack of stock images and if companies would refrain from uploading things that are only meant to make investors happy there might be a mutual benefit from having corporate accounts around, namely if they are VTRS confirmed they can upload collections from their archives or stock photography of their products, in many cases lots of products make "mundane" things that are copyrighted and no free image exists of.

I just wonder how we can maximise the amount of high quality stock images of things we can expand, I just don't think that our current conduct of immediately deleting anything even remotely promotional is a good model, for example a couple of months ago a Vietnamese cinematic company released behind the scenes images of a film production to the Wikimedia Commons and Vietnamese Wikipedians attempted multiple times to have those images deleted because they were seen as "spam" at the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia, but here local admins saw them as having educational value. Having photographs or even 3D designs of modern copyrighted things actually donated by the corporations that sell them might be better than blanket banning any company, in fact we should probably welcome such open displays of a corporate conflict of interest (COI) over an undeclared one that goes under the radar. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:41, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The account was blocked because it created a spammy userpage. Ruslik (talk) 10:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the "descrption" field of file is required

Usually the "caption" field can play the role of description, and it is used more commonly. So I don't think "description" should be required. --SolidBlock (talk) 11:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SolidBlock: No, actually the description field is probably the much more used. Caption is "structured data" and probably over time will become quite useful, but most Commons users are a lot more focused on wikitext than structured data. Obviously for many photos the two can be identical, but look at something like File:Lowman Building and Lowman & Hanford, ca 1909 (MOHAI 5990).jpg. You wouldn't want all that in a caption. - Jmabel ! talk 16:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hvordan lægger jeg et uploaded billede ind på en side?

Hej! Jeg har uploaded billeder, som jeg gerne vil have flyttet hen til en bestemt side: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig". Hvordan gør jeg det?

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 12:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels, billederne ligner fotografier af fotografier. Ret? Hvis det er tilfældet, skal vi have en tilladelse. --Achim55 (talk) 13:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valnød: Bemærk venligst at Commons her er et internationalt projekt og at jeg løbende har flyttet dine billeder til de respektive kirkers kategorier (Det kræver lidt erfaring at finde disse kategorier). Hvad mener du med "Døbefont i Sydslesvig"? . Vi har så vidt jeg kan se ikke pt en sådan kategori. Dine billeder ser ud at være fotos af papirbilleder, er det korrekt? Bemærk at Commons i forvejen har billeder af en del af disse døbefonte.--Hjart (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Ja, billederne er fotografier af mine egne fotos, der er taget med film, før digitaliseringen. Når jeg uploader samtidig med, at jeg har siden, der hedder: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig" åben, er der nogen af billederne, der automatisk bliver lagt ind på siden, mens andre ikke gør. Det er dem, jeg gerne vil kunne overføre til siden. Jeg går ud fra, at jeg skal indsætte det enkelte billedes filnavn på siden, men der er kun søgefeltet, hvori jeg kan indsætte filnavnet? og det virker naturligvis ikke. Når jeg på Wikimedias Commons søger: "Døbefont i Sydslesvig", fremkommer pågældende side.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

Jeg har fundet følgende vejledning, men kan ikke få det til at virke:

Billedbeskrivelse

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 15:38, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sydslesvig er nu den nordlige del af Slesvig-Holsten, så der finder vi kategorier som Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein. --Achim55 (talk) 15:56, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

-- Achim55

Hej!

Ja, det er fine billeder. Jeg har imidlertid efter megen farten rundt i Sydslesvig for flere år siden taget billeder med film af samtlige romanske granitdøbefonte i Sydslesvig, som jeg gerne vil have lagt ud på nettet. Det ser ikke ud til, at der er andre, der har lagt en tilsvarende samling ud. Derfor har jeg affotograferet dem med digitalt kamera.

Mit spørgsmål er igen, hvordan lægger jeg billederne ind på en given side?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Niels, der er ingen side Døbefont i Sydslesvig, hverken her eller på da:Døbefont i Sydslesvig, heller ikke "Døbefonte ...". Misfortolkede du søgeresultaterne som en side? --Achim55 (talk) 17:32, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Det er på denne adresse, at jeg finder: Døbefont i Sydslesvig.

Venlig hilsen

Niels

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=D%C3%B8befont+i+Sydslesvig&title=Special:MediaSearch&fulltext=S%C3%B8g+&type=image Valnød (talk) 17:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Det der er ikke som sådan en "side". Det er en søgning du har kørt og som har fundet nogle relevante billeder. Jeg vil anbefale at du kategoriserer dine billeder i Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein.--Hjart (talk) 18:18, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Svar til Hart!

Hej!

Tak for svaret. Det vil jeg prøve. Så håber jeg, at det kommer til at virke.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:00, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Nu har jeg prøvet at uploade endnu to billeder og under kategorier skrevet Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten, men billederne vises ikke på pågældende side?

Hvad skal jeg gøre?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Jeg retter lige: Jeg har uploadet to billeder og under kategorier skrevet: "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten", men billederne vises ikke på denne side.

Hvad skal jeg gøre?

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels. Der er ingen kategori "Romanske døbefonte i Slesvig-Holsten" som du skrev på File:Havetoft kirke i Sydslesvig, granitdøbefont.jpg. Det skal du redigere som Achim55 beskrev ovenfor. Det skal være "Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein" på engelsk pga alle kategorier her på Commons bør have engelske navner. De728631 (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Tak for hjælpen.

Det var lige den oplysning, jeg manglede.

Nu fungerer det.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 11:54, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixed up coordinates of two pictures, corrected it, but now there is a discrepancy with SDC

I just found out that I mixed up the coordinates for File:Groene Hartpad between Alphen aan den Rijn and Aarlanderveen.jpg and File:Groene Hartpad view of The Hague from Zoetermeer.jpg. I have swapped them; now they are correct. But now I get a message that there is a discrepancy between the coordinates and the ones stored in SDC. (Which is, of course, correct.) What should I do now? MartinD (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just copy paste the coordinates from the template into the structured data field. --GPSLeo (talk) 09:15, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could also remove the SDC data completely. Probably a bot will eventually restore it, but it may take weeks or months. You also should watch out if the picture is used in any Wikidata items or in templates that now have the old coordinates.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 09:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I'll give it a try. I don't think these pictures are used in templates. They are merely illustrations of a Dutch hiking route. MartinD (talk) 11:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It worked, thanks a lot! MartinD (talk) 15:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How do I change the base text to talk about disputed identification in images?

See: Template:Disputed identification --RAN (talk) 20:47, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: How is that supposed to differ from {{Disputed}}? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 20:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That tag is for disputing the copyright! We have at least a dozen images where people believe that the person named in the title of the image is the wrong person, and others believe it is the right person. It is good to have them together with the same tag so that they can be looked at with new evidence in the future. We need to keep the images and discuss the evidence for and against, because other sites have copies our images, especially Alamy. --RAN (talk) 22:59, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Are you looking for {{Fact disputed}}? From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is the closest, I think we should have a new tag for disputing the identification of a person, as opposed to the date or location. The bulk of the images in the old disputed category are old cars, and flora. I temporarily redirected the new one to the old one, but I would like a new category and a new tag just for potentially misidentified people. --RAN (talk) 23:01, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a parameter for the type of dispute would work, adding it to a specific category but keeping the same template otherwise. We could easily get dozens of such templates (cars, flowers, fungi, flags, maps, ...), which would lead to problems e.g. keeping them all translated to all languages. There should be a discussion on what categories of disputes need their own subcategories etc., but I think it would be quite easy technically and much easier maintenance-wise. –LPfi (talk) 18:32, 2 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps specific categories would do the trick, so experts can sort through the hundreds of images and see the category that they are experts in. --RAN (talk) 07:23, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Urdu Translation (Cat-a-lot)

Please add Urdu transltaion of this toll. Translation is here >User:Obaid Raza/MediaWiki:Gadget-Cat-a-lot.js/ur.Obaid Raza (talk) 08:25, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing…, a few fixes still to be done. --Achim55 (talk) 12:41, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Achim Please see now, I fixed it.Obaid Raza (talk) 17:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Many thanks! --Achim55 (talk) 20:03, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kan jeg omdøbe billedets tekst?

Hej! Jeg har lagt billeder ind på nedennævnte side, men vil gerne have filens navn på nogle af billederne omdøbt, så kirkens navn står først, og at der desuden kommer til at stå granitdøbefont og ikke kun døbefont. 1)Kan jeg selv omdøbe filen? 2)Er der en anden, der kan og vil omdøbe den? 3)Kan jeg slette filen og derefter lægge den ind igen med et nyt navn?

Category:Romanesque baptismal fonts in Schleswig-Holstein

Venlig hilsen

Niels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Valnød (talk • contribs) 09:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Niels, gå til filsiden (for eksempel File:Aventoft kirkes døbefont.jpg) og tryk Shift-Alt-m . Så kan du tilføje et bedre filnavn. En anden vil derefter omdøbe denne fil. --Achim55 (talk) 10:35, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hej!

Tak for hjælpen. Det fungerer.

Venlig hilsen

Niels Valnød (talk) 15:09, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dotted line does not appear in SVG

Hello, I have a problem with Libre Draw. On my screen, I see in my drawing dotted (dashed) lines as I drawed them. But when I convert it to SVG and upload it to Commons, the dotted lines appear as normal, continous lines. How can I solve this? Ziko (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Edu.gov.ru

Moin Moin together, this template has a parser error. Can someone tell me, how i could fix it? Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 18:46, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is no template:Edu.gov.ru/en. You should follow Help:Autotranslate in setting up the autotranslation. Ruslik (talk) 20:39, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Problems finding the railway museum in Nuremberg

Nuremberg picture looking for a home category

There is a railway museum in Nuremberg; kidseropuit.nl. I tried all manners of categories for acces but I cant find it. From Category:Nuremberg, Category:Rail vehicles in museums in Germany, Rail transport, Museums, transport in Nuremberg, etc, etc.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:14, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DB Museum Nürnberg - Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Rail vehicles in the DB Museum Nürnberg to make it easier to find historic rail vehicles in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Between building

Anyone knows anything about this strange buiding and its function?Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's an office building with a triangular floor plan, wedged in between two other buildings: [1]. Goes into Category:Steckelhörn 11. --El Grafo (talk) 16:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright on a photography from Louvre Museum

I uploaded a better version of this file File:AphroditeHeadKaufmannCl010277188.jpg, but I realize that this version, with free access on Louvre museum's web site, is in fact under copyright (for the photography, metadata : © 2000 RMN-Grand Palais (musée du Louvre) / Hervé Lewandowski). I reverted the page to the previous version, but I donnot know how to request for deletion of only an upload. There is no indication for the source of the preceeding version of 2019 (it cannot be the "own work" indicated), clearly it is the same photography, but with a lower resolution, so perhaps free copyright because of that ? Proz (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Deleted. Yann (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

thank you ! Proz (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikidata-based category redlinks being auto-added

A number of PDFs and DjVu files have been automatically included in redlink categories, the links to which seem to be based on Wikidata item statements of these files. See:

Category:Artworks digital representation of version, edition, or translation (9000+ files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of literary work (1400+ files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of short story collection (15 files)
Category:Artworks digital representation of posthumous work (3 files)

Can someone track down the source of this? Most likely it's some template used by the Book template.

I'm not sure if there's a policy about doing something like this, but IMO these are low quality categories. -- Veikk0.ma (talk) 22:42, 3 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veikk0.ma: that would be me! Please ignore the mess while we're cleaning up and remodeling. Will remove them soon. Multichill (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Veikk0.ma: These tracking categories have been removed. It will probably take some time for them all to empty out again. Multichill (talk) 19:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How many selfies are allowed?

Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)

However, I understand that it is allowed to upload selfies for the purpose of decorating user pages on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons.

How many selfies are allowed?

And if you upload a selfie, what category do you set it to?

Ox1997cow (talk) 14:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I'd say the number of personal images to decorate one's user page would be assessed on a case-by-case basis. For exmple if you are active on many projects (Wikidata, Commons, Wikipedia etc), then maybe more personal pictures would be okay, whereas if you're only active on one wiki then it probably isn't justified to have 10 out-of-scope pictures for decoration. Regarding categorization I'd say just marking all personal pictures with {{User page image}} below the {{Information}} template is enough.Jonteemil (talk) 15:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We don't seem to run into a "limit" for this. It's more about people who do contribute never having had more than anyone thought was reasonable, and the ones that raise an issue are from people who just didn't use any project for more than uploading them and trying to use their user page as a CV or band advert. And yet this second group also seemed to want a vast number of awful photos to try and illustrate it. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Uploading selfies on Wikimedia Commons is generally not allowed unless you are famous enough to be documented on Wikipedia. (See COM:SCOPE)" is probably not the most accurate way to phrase this. There are many situations where a person is close enough to some topic discussed on some Wikimedia Project that would make their selfie reasonably useful for an educational purpose. Remember that there is no "notability" standard for Commons and we inherently include a lot more content than other Wikimedia projects.

I know of one administrator who has uploaded many, many personal photos of the food they eat, the kind of thing many people post to Instagram along with their selfies. If we're going off of their uploads of personal photos, I would guess the allotment should be in the hundreds. Mysteryman blue 17:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd be surprised how many foods are not represented on the Wikimedia Commons, there are many Wikipedia articles about random pieces of food from a country that are not covered here at all, probably because people have the idea that "Uploading photographs of food is for Instagrammers", we should probably only use the term "personal image" when an image really has no realistic educational value, a selfie of a person in a traditional costume that isn't represented anywhere else on the Wikimedia Commons is in scope. Just click "random" on a Wikipedia and see how many articles lack any images, even if they're about a subject that is very common like a brand of a chain of stores with thousands of locations visited by millions of people every day, in fact such an image may have already been deleted as "promotional" and "spam" before. Limiting selfies is a good idea, but it's also wise not to be overzealous in deleting them. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Before nominating an image for deletion or deleting it, think "do we have a use for this?" regardless of it being a selfie, a family album photo or promotional content. User selfies are allowed even if they are useless, other selfies need to have an educational use, and many have. The main problem is that random selfies are too badly described to be useful.

For promotional images, I'd say that if they have been used elsewhere in serious marketing, they are in scope, and we do not have too many. E.g. Advertisements in the Netherlands has next to no contemporary content, and Advertisements in the Netherlands by year and by decade end in the 1960s. This is of course mostly for copyright reasons, but if some company or established party lets us have their promotional material under a free licence, that is a valuable contribution.

–LPfi (talk) 16:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good example of a quality image (and rightfully so) that if it were uploaded by a new user it would most likely have been tagged with a speedy deletion tag as an "unused personal image".

The definition of "educational" is subjective, this doesn't just extend to advertisements (an issue I brought up last week) but to basically anything the person doing the patrolling might not have any interest in. A couple of years ago I uploaded files of a nationally active organisation in the Netherlands and first a logo image was nominated for deletion and then the deleting admin wanted to empty the entire category as "out of scope", despite multiple users pointing out to them how these images could be used and I eventually writing a piece on Wikipedia about this article (which I rather have not done as I didn't want to give the organisation more attention as it promotes pseudoscience) and the original file was undeleted but because the discussion was controversial it was closed as "no concensus". What is and isn't "notable" enough for the Wikimedia Commons (despite having no notability policies and guidelines) depends on the beholder, even being mentioned in a Wikipedia article isn't enough for some users. My largest issue with hunting selfies is that we don't always know if the person is notable or not, a cricket player famous in India might not be known to a Mexican file patroller and all they see is "a personal image", this is why deletion requests are generally better than speedy deletion templates as at least there is a chance that someone knowledgeable about the subject will come across it.

Accounts like the "Swiss National Library" were simply lucky that no anti-shared account admin was patrolling when they registered (even though shared accounts aren't against the rules here, many admins still act as if they are), what can and can't be considered "educational" is always difficult to tell, I know nothing about Maram Pitti and currently there are no images of it at the English-language Wikipedia, but if someone would upload images of a game of it and a Polish or Hungarian patroller sees it they might think that someone is just uploading personal images of a game they played.

What would be interesting is if a Wikimedian would upload a selfie of themselves every year to show how they age and how their style changes over the years, but it would be problematic if hundreds of people did this... At least, I can imagine it being so, although I think that we already have a different policy for Wikimedian at Wikimedia-related events as I have found many images of random Wikimedians at some "community" event.

A couple of years ago I tried to save a selfie uploaded by a woman I would ascribe Poe's Law to (as in I couldn't tell if I were dealing with a low competency user or a troll, but assuming good faith I assumed she was the former), she uploaded a number photographs of herself in a United States military uniform with an award she won, as she was a Non-Hispanic African-American female and basically all other depictions of people with that award were Non-Hispanic White-American males I argued that her inclusion would be different, or at least "representative" of a different demographic but most were still against the images' inclusion simply because it was a new user uploading selfies in ALL-CAPS and seemingly unaware that the Wikimedia Commons wasn't Twitter. I can't remember if the images were kept or not or what the award was she won, but selfies are always a difficult subject because it's difficult to tell when a selfie crosses the vague line between "educational" and "non-educational". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines regarding file redirects to a different filetype

Hello!

I found File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png and Com:Deletion requests/File:Flag_of_Romania_(1965-1989).png which made me curious. I've always thought that there isn't a problem with keeping both vector and raster versions of a file. This raster was deleted and redirected to the vector version. Is this according to guidelines? I couldn't find any answer on Com:File redirects nor on Help:File redirect. Pinging @Missvain: as deleting admin.Jonteemil (talk) 14:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: per COM:REDUNDANT, redundant or low-quality files only get deleted on a case-by-case basis after they are listed at Commons:Deletion requests. --HyperGaruda (talk) 05:23, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Coins of China

Should this tag's year be updated to "before 1972" on this category page here: [2] This tag:

Attention: Upload only photographs of currencies which were designed before 1972.
Photographs of currencies used in China can only be uploaded to Commons if the copyright on the design has expired, because terms of use of China forbids the use of photographs of copyrighted currencies. The copyright term in China for currencies is the year of designed + 50 years + the end of the calendar year. See COM:CRT/China#Currency for more information. Photographs of other currencies will be deleted if unfree.

Thanks, --Ooligan (talk) 21:41, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

~~Can you clarify?~~ Ruslik (talk) 08:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this was a caching issue. Ruslik (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Homes for wayward girls": category?

Do we have a category for what used to be known as a "home for wayward girls" (usually meaning young, unmarried and pregnant, sometimes broader than that)? Examples: Category:Home of the Good Shepherd, File:Lebanon Home, ca 1920 (MOHAI 1096).jpg, File:Group on porch of Florence Crittenton Home, Seattle, circa 1900 (MOHAI 8844).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 01:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For Ireland, there's Category:Magdalene asylum. --Rosenzweig τ 02:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which has as its only parent category Category:Religious scandals. As far as I know, the three I've given as examples do not have scandals associated! (In the case of the Home of the Good Shepherd, I'm quite sure of that; it lasted until 1973, and I know several women who passed through it, all of whom are more positive than not about the nuns who ran it.) - Jmabel ! talk 04:35, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photo challenge November results

**Top views of vehicles: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Taxi Driver pull car to the front line to pick up passengers	An old Nissan Sunny with cats taking a rest on it.	Sport boat below Bamberg lock in MD canal
Author	Mojtabagolestani97	Annatsach	Ermell
Score	37	17	14

**Hedges: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Hedges protecting on the Vieux chemin de Lille.- Bailleul (Fr)	Landscape with hedges in the snow near Alfreton, Derbyshire, England	Snow-covered hedge
Author	Pierre André Leclercq	Kmtextor	Sudzie
Score	18	16	13

Congratulations to Mojtabagolestani97, Annatsach, Ermell, Pierre André Leclercq, Kmtextor and Sudzie. -- Jarekt (talk) 04:28, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, @Jarekt. This is good news that makes me glad. Happy new year 2022 Pierre André ^(talk) 09:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for merging

Hello all, while working on Wikidata I discovered some pairs of categories which might be candidates for merging. They however all need a human eye, some may be two different people with similar birth and death dates.

If you'd like, you can move these to a different place where it's easier to track those which have already been fixed. Cheers,--Vojtěch Dostál (talk) 17:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, to anyone who picks these requests up, it is probably better to redirect than to delete, as many category names will likely be searched for by others and if you use HotCat the software automatically categorises the file in the correct category (plus a bot automatically re-categorises files in redirected categories). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Some cases fixed, mostly with redirects. Exceptions were non-English category names and over-specific disambiguations that are not needed. --Marsupium (talk) 23:41, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion requests default action

What happens to Deletion requests that get no response? Is the final action deletion or kept? How long are they kept open before final action is taken with no responses? --RAN (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

they are open until they are decided; Commons suffers from a shortage of good admins, that's why it may take a while --Isderion (talk) 22:57, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The closing admin makes a judgement call. If the case is obvious and the admin agrees with the nominator's argument (usualy citing breach of law, policy or precedent), they will delete. Like many Wikimedia projects, we have a shortage of admins and there is a backlog of deletion cases. For cases that aren't clear cut, the admins will wait till the case gets to the end of the backlog, when other users may jump in and comment. The current backlog is up to May 2021. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to the hard work of admins like Ellywa, the backlog is now actually up to June 2021! Mysteryman blue 23:22, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And like Rosenzweig, and perhaps more, as I do not check all efforts, but I had a friendly DR-edit conflict with admin Rosenzweig with the DR's from May 2021. Ellywa (talk) 10:30, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ImageNotes

I'm not seeing the ImageNotes at File:Seattle - Pedestrians outside Bon Marche, 1951 (51765882752).jpg, nor do I seem to be able to add more. Does anyone know what is going on? - Jmabel ! talk 00:31, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about Help:Image-Annotator? If so, I'll have to leave it to others to reply as I have never used it. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I use it a lot on old Seattle photos from the Municipal Archive. - Jmabel ! talk 01:29, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at the image again. The ImageNotes still weren't showing up but then I clicked the image to enlarge it. When I clicked back into the main image screen, the ImageNotes suddenly appeared. It may have been a caching issue. Can you check if it is working for you now? From Hill To Shore (talk) 03:04, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see all twelve notes. Tested on two different browsers. --77.50.104.110 03:27, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jmabel: I can see them, too, but it took some time for them to show up, after lots of JavaScript loaded. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:51, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So it must be some sort of caching or timeout issue. Still not working for me. I hope to remember to get back to it in a few days & see if it works again, there were still more notes I was planning to add. (Other images with annotation work fine for me, and of course I did try a hard refresh of the page on my browser, which accomplished nothing.) - Jmabel ! talk 16:42, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted military building photo

I remember that I posted a photo of a Brazilian Navy headquarters in January 2016. Looking for that photo today, I realized that it was deleted and they didn't notify me. Are there any Wikimedia Commons rules that prohibit photos of military buildings? That photo was in a public place, not in a restricted area. I want to get it back or give some good explanation, please. --Porto Neto (talk) 03:36, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Porto Neto: Hi, and welcome. I don't see any record of any of your uploads in January 2016 having been deleted. What was the filename? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 03:48, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I don't remember but probably "Sede da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 03:55, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Or "Prédio da Marinha do Brasil em Aracati". --Porto Neto (talk) 04:01, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: --Porto Neto (talk) 04:07, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Porto Neto: looking at you deleted contributions (admins only), the most recent deleted files you edited are the ones listed at Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Porto Neto from 2015. You can see all your uploads. Unless it got oversighted (which I doubt), you either didn't upload the photo here or you used another account. Multichill (talk) 12:41, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I probably separated the photo to upload at the time but I ended up forgetting to upload that one. Unfortunately I no longer have the photo. Thank you, @Multichill: . --Porto Neto (talk) 23:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Please help translate to your language

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

You can also organize a local contest in your country and support us in translating the project pages to help us spread the word in your native language.

Feel free to contact us on our project Talk page if you need any assistance.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do we still need language links under templates?

If this sounds interesting, consider reading MediaWiki talk:AjaxTranslation.js#Do we still need language links under templates?. Thanks! --Krinkle (talk) 23:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Copy written?

Is this file:Shami and Kumar.png copy written? I would assume so. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 12:49, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a source is given, but there's no indication at that source of the claimed free licence. I've tagged it for deletion as a copyvio. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Thanks, but please notify the uploader when you tag a file as a copyvio. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When did that become a policy? Isn't this why we run 'bots? Andy Dingley (talk) 14:33, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey I just want to make this clear. That is my IP address and somehow I wasn’t signed in when I made that question. Just saying that so I am not accused of sock puppetry. Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible to get rid of that account? Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 16:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: I replaced that signature for you. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Jeff G.: ! Kaleeb18^Talk_Caleb 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kaleeb18: You're welcome. I moved your reply per COM:TALK. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: "the uploader should be informed of the impending deletion" has been a part of COM:DP exactly since this edit 08:35, 24 July 2006 (UTC), and mostly since this misspelled edit 18:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC), both 15+ years ago. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Deletion policy#Overview of procedures (and 2006 is the same), that's regular deletions via {{Delete}} and COM:DR though, not speedies as copyvios. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy Dingley: Ok, then. "copy the displayed {{Copyvionote}} template to the end of the uploader's talk page to notify them" has been a part of that same policy exactly since this edit 14:15, 20 May 2019 (UTC), and mostly since this edit 12:26, 29 March 2018, as derived from the Admin-supported consensus archived at Commons talk:Deletion policy/Archive 1#Clearer instructions for the copyvio template. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 17:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Community Wishlist Survey 2022

The Community Wishlist Survey 2022 is now open!

This survey is the process where communities decide what the Community Tech team should work on over the next year. We encourage everyone to submit proposals until the deadline on 23 January, or comment on other proposals to help make them better. The communities will vote on the proposals between 28 January and 11 February.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can write proposals in any language, and we will translate them for you. Thank you, and we look forward to seeing your proposals! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How to download a full resolution image hidden behind a canvas?

Hello, I'd like to download the full version of this. I remember there is a tool for that which I can't find. Does anybody know where to find it? Commons:Download tools doesn't help here. Thanks in advance, --Marsupium (talk) 11:31, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: Please see User:Fæ/dezoomify, which works with that URL directly. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 11:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! That worked, image is now at File:La rue Chérif Pacha (ruines).png. :-) --Marsupium (talk) 11:36, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: For pictures, JPEG is better. I completed the license {{PD-old-100-expired}}. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Marsupium: You're welcome! The reason any png photo here will look fuzzy when scaled down is due to design decisions discussed in phab:T192744. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 12:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: Thanks for your improvements of the file page! I wasn't sure if 1889 is the death year … now we've done the same research at the same time it seems.

Yann, Jeff G., the 130 MB PNG is what I got by using http://ophir.alwaysdata.net/dezoomify/. Looking deeper into it now, I've noticed, the AUC Collections use IIIF with the respective full res file at https://digitalcollections.aucegypt.edu/iiif/2/p15795coll9:149/full/max/0/default.jpg. Is it worth to upload the JPEG and delete the PNG? --Marsupium (talk) 13:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We can have both. PNG is better for archiving purpose. Yann (talk) 13:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fictional flag, real issues

There is a file called "File:Royal Flag of Vietnam (1802–1885).svg", it is of a flag of which no historical sources attribute it to be the flag of the Nguyễn Dynasty. The image is educational and it's in scope, but I thought that might it be wiser to request for it to be deleted for a week at the Wikimedia Commons and then only restore it on articles discussing its existence as it is essentially an unsourced myth anywhere else. And with how little evidence actually exist about its usage during the Nguyễn Dynasty and the only actual contemporary source confirming its existence pointing to it being half a century older than its purported use and claiming it as the flag of the Revival Lê Dynasty, I think that it's safe to say that there is no historical basis for this flag ever being associated with the Nguyễn government or its Emperors. I really like this flag, it has a beautiful design, but as far as I can tell it's 100% (one-hundred percent) fiction to attribute it to any Nguyễn Lord or Emperor.

It came to my attention because more recently some people have started inserting it into different articles. I found the original propagation of this myth, I think that user "Editorfree1011" probably just took the unsourced claims by user "Ngockhanh6bnt" at face value and inserted them into the English-language Wikipedia. Usually user "Lệ Xuân" would have reverted it but she's less active lately. This issue is systemic and can't be blamed on one user anymore, but we need that file to debunk it. I still think that my "Commons cleanse" idea might be the easiest solution.

Note that this flag is educationally valuable and at a Wikipedia page that debunks it's historicity the file should be used, but it shouldn't be used elsewhere. The thing is, Vietnamese-language Wikipedia admins have tried to delete it here, but the issue with deleting it here and then restoring it to be manually inserted into relevant articles is that it would essentially be the Wikimedia Commons dictating which free educationally useful content other Wikimedia websites are allowed to use. Which is why I wanted to open up a village pump discussion about it. User "Greenknight dv" thinks that this might be a good idea.

Note that I'm not advocating for it to stay deleted, only for a sort of "cleanse" where it would be removed from pages where it spreads misinformation and we'd then manually restore it where it actually does serve an educational purpose. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's in scope, then keep it. It's obviously valuable to make the description accurate or even to warn about obvious fallacies, but it's not Commons' role to second-guess other projects, nor are we particularly equipped to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only way to resolve media being used improperly in other projects is to post on the talk pages of said projects. The reality is that sometimes, misleading or even outright false associations will be made between media posted here and what is included in other wikis (including, of course, wikis that are unrelated to the WMF but use Commons content). As long as we locally have accurate information and descriptive file names, that's all that we can do here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:06, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might want to add "fictional" to the filename. - Jmabel ! talk 04:47, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Koavf's / Justin's proposal, I actually posted a proposal in the proposals village pump to have a bot leave talk page messages on files where such an issue was raised (similar to files that are being up for deletion now), there seemed to be consensus for it. But the only way to actually have a global bot that operates like that is through the Community Tech Wishlist which I am unable to submit anything to. If a "new" user (as in a user with not much edits locally) randomly starts removing a file and leaves a message in another language then it's very likely that they'll get blocked and as I don't want to be globally banned I wouldn't go around removing a fictional flag just for encyclopedic integrity. Unfortunately we don't have a system that alerts users that a file is disputed (which would also bring more conversation here from diverse perspectives who have access to different sources). But yeah, I think that requesting it to be renamed might be better as its current name is highly misleading and a jihad against fictional and proposed flags isn't a good idea as many are in scope for other reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:02, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now open and will close on 7 February 2022.

With this Call for Feedback, the Movement Strategy and Governance team is taking a different approach. This approach incorporates community feedback from 2021. Instead of leading with proposals, the Call is framed around key questions from the Board of Trustees. The key questions came from the feedback about the 2021 Board of Trustees election. The intention is to inspire collective conversation and collaborative proposal development about these key questions.

There are two confirmed questions that will be asked during this Call for Feedback:

What is the best way to ensure more diverse representation among elected candidates? The Board of Trustees noted the importance of selecting candidates who represent the full diversity of the Wikimedia movement. The current processes have favored volunteers from North America and Europe.
What are the expectations for the candidates during the election? Board candidates have traditionally completed applications and answered community questions. How can an election provide appropriate insight into candidates while also appreciating candidates’ status as volunteers?

There is one additional question that may be presented during the Call about selection processes. This question is still under discussion, but the Board wanted to give insight into the confirmed questions as soon as possible. Hopefully if an additional question is going to be asked, it will be ready during the first week of the Call for Feedback.

Join the conversation.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance Zuz (WMF) (talk) 15:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ageism in category definitions

On Category:Old men , Category:Old women and subcategories, we have, for example:

"
Definitions

1. Babies (female) (birth – 24 months)

2. Girls (2–12 (puberty))

3. Adolescent girls (13–17 years)

4. Women (18– )
5. Young women (18-39 years)

6. Middle-aged women (40-59 years)

7. Old women (60+ years)

Definitions come from, but are slightly modified from, the Physical stages of human life as found at Wikipedia:Human development (biology)."

The designation of anyone 60 or over as "old" strikes me as ageist. The cited source no longer says whatever it once may have done about such age-bands.

There are BLP issues in categorising people in such a manner; and doubly so if it is done by a subjective assessment of their appearance, rather than a known DOB.

[In resolving the matter, the repeated text should be templated]. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:56, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find any policy or guideline applicable for Commons that can handle this possible matter. The closest I can think are COM:IDENT and COM:CAT. Also, the BLP issue is ~~something that Wikipedians should handle~~, and meta:Living persons is now redirected to an essay. --George Ho (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2022 (UTC); edited, 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unclear why you think this is a matter or Wikipedians; many of the images in these categories are not used on any Wikipedia. Commons users are bound by both Commons:Photographs of identifiable people (from which: "Defamation: Images must not unfairly ridicule or demean the subject. This may result simply from the content of the image but can also arise by poor choice of title, description or category.")) and, more forcefully, by this Wikimedia Foundation resolution. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

...Good point, and COM:BLP redirects to COM:IDENT. --George Ho (talk) 15:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yeas, this whole classification is wrong. Unless we know exactly when the picture was taken, and the date of birth of the person, these categories should not be used. Yann (talk) 21:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These definitions are also cultural, I have seen Dutch textbooks use "Baby (birth - 18 months), Peuter (18 months to 3 years), Kleuter (3 years to 6 years), Etc." (They also used "tiener (12-17)" and "Adolescent (18-21)" while I have also read Dutch definitions like "Baby (birth to 12 months), Dreumes (12 months to 24 months), Peuter (slightly different dates than before), Etc." Age groups are largely cultural and as society changes I wouldn't be surprised if adolescences gets pushed back to 20~25 years in the future and if human longevity can be extended then 80 (eighty) might be considered the minimum age for "old" in the future and for a 4 (four) year old a 12 (twelve) year old is incredibly old to them. So not only are all these terms cultural and can differ significantly within the same culture, but whatever can be seen as "young" or "old" is subjective. I am not against these categories, but I can see how they can be confusing to people as different cultures maintain different concepts of age groups. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:31, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From the Dutch-language Wikipedia article "Adolescentie": "

De leeftijden die beschouwd worden als onderdeel van de adolescentie, verschillen per cultuur. In de Verenigde Staten beschouwt men adolescentie als beginnend rond de leeftijd van 13 jaar en het duurt tot ongeveer 24 jaar. De Wereldgezondheidsorganisatie daarentegen definieert adolescentie als de periode van iemands leven tussen de het 10e en 20e levensjaar. De Van Dale stelt dat een adolescent een jongere is van ca. 15 tot 20 jaar.

" Which acknowledges this difference, from what an older Dutch friend told me the term "

tiener

" and "

puber

" were historically used in the Netherlands but thanks to Americanisation (or perceived Americanisation) the term "adolescent" is used for the entire age range, which according to Wikipedia is being pushed by Dutch child psychologists. There appears to be no singular definition for many age ranges, and most of the above examples are just for the European Netherlands, let alone if one would include other cultures. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 23:36, 4 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm far from convinced that we should be labelling a 60-year old, even one known to be that age, as "old". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There is also the issue that we are labelling, for example, images of people drinking alcohol as "adolescents", and therefore under 18, apparently based solely on visual appearance. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:15, 5 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not all photos of alcohol-drinking people need to conform to the ludicrous notion that one needs to be older than 18 to be able to do so (while driving motor vehicles at 16 and killing civilians abroad at 17 is A-OK). I had my first beer at 14, thanksverymuch — I didn’t care for it and it was legal there and then, but am I under arrest now? Tl;dr: what do you even mean? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Satellite images of New Zealand

Hi all - I note that several hundred images in Category:Satellite pictures of New Zealand are simply titled in the form (e.g.,) File:ISS016-E-14445 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg. I'd like to start identifying some of the locations and changing the titles accordingly, but I'd first like to know whether I should keep some of the ISS catalogue information in the titles. If so, what would be a good format for the titles? I'd like to keep them consistent if possible. Here are several options:

Which would be best - or is there a yet better alternative? Personally, I prefer option 3, as it indexes alphabetically by what the view is of. Grutness (talk) 09:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a crazy thought, but would it be possible to use the object location in a map as http://wikimapia.org, whereby the images are indicated as red dots. With the cursor you can go to such a point that gives then a very short description. By clicking you can get the satellite image. Wouter (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Probably beyond my capabilities. I edit a lot on En:Wi but my skills on Commons are pretty limited. If I can rename the files with actual locations, though, it'll be easier for someone with more nous on Commons to do that later. Grutness (talk) 10:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with choice 3. And you probably should keep the redirects, because some of these are likely to be referenced from outside of the WMF sites. - Jmabel ! talk 18:14, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Grutness: your renames are not in line with the principle of file renaming that files shouldn't be renamed unless something is wrong. Renaming just to improve file names like you did at File:ISS014-E-13796 - View of the North Island of New Zealand.jpg shouldn't be done. Multichill (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: I think that this falls within criterion 2, specifically "The only piece of meaningful information is a broad location, such as a city, province, or country". "North Island of New Zealand" covers half a country. @Grutness: I'd go for the first or third of your options so as to keep the whole catalogue number together.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjh21 (talk • contribs)

@Multichill and Bjh21: That's exactly the reason why I want to do this. It's pointless having 1000 images simply saying they're of half the country when they're clearly of a specific location, and it's no help to people who want to use the files if they have to trawl through all of them to find a particular image. Criterion 2 seems to apply to this task. It's analogous to having a photo of the a specific street in Liverpool with the title "England". Grutness (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the "daily category" of a file?

Hello. Could anybody tell me what is the "daily category" of a file? Sometimes, I see a message like this one, in capital letters:

WARNING, NO DAILY CATEGORY FOUND, PLEASE MAKE SURE DATE IS CORRECT AND MONTH IS IN ENGLISH OR A NUMBER.

Thank you very much in advance for your answer: 2A02:A03F:6480:9E00:25EA:3A97:BFCF:6BD8

I've never seen that. In what context do you get that message? I see you were not logged in when you asked this. Do you have an account here, and is this about photos you yourself uploaded? Can you give a link to a photo that has this problem? Or is this something that happened during the upload process, in which case were you using the Upload Wizard or some other means of uploading? - Jmabel ! talk 02:37, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Are we possibly talking about something related to Category:Permission pending - no daily category existing? - Jmabel ! talk 02:41, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That would come up if a file was marked with {{No VRTS permission since}} and there was no valid date associated. There might be something parallel for another template that expects a date. - Jmabel ! talk 02:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  @Jmabel: Not exactly. Please see Template talk:Permission pending#Bad error message. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 10:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg

At File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg the image is showing up in the George W. Stigleman category and the Photographs by George W. Stigleman category, it may just be a caching issue, can someone else peek and see if they see both categories. When I edit the categories, I only see Photographs_by. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): , I see it too. From what I can tell the category "George W. Stigleman" can't be edited out, so a template is likely causing its inclusion. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ːː Looks like Creator:George W. Stigleman Sr. is adding this category. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the category from the Creator page. I believe the cat is not needed on the Creator page; his Creator page links the category without it via Wikidata. Glrx (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't aware of the category issue from Creator templates, thanks! I created the category problem when I created the template, only because I have seen it in other examples. --RAN (talk) 21:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki system malfunctioning?

Category moving edits of a certain file are not being reflected, i.e. realized. The file doesn't appear in the new category, but continue to stay in the old category. This is frustrating. --トトト (talk) 22:05, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@トトト: Given that you rolled it back, it's pretty hard for anyone else to check on whether it was just a caching issue. - Jmabel ! talk 23:43, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hamburg S-Bahn station

Wich stations? Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect Stellingen, as the only S3 station ending with 'en' on the station sign.

@Smiley.toerist: In the second photo, where did you see the -en ending? The sign next to the clock is a timetable announcement displaying the departure time to Neugraben, but it is not the name of the local station. As to the first pic, I don't know either. The sign above the benches is just an advertisement for some cemetery gardeners. De728631 (talk) 16:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

After playing with contrast and brightness, I found also that the sign on the very left edge of the second image says "Süßwaren" (sweets), so that's just a shop and not the station sign either. De728631 (talk) 16:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See those blue brick walls and what seems to be a railyard in photo 2? Looks like an older version of Elbgaustraße. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:19, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was also thinking about some stations in the northwest area. It might also be Eidelstedt. De728631 (talk) 17:43, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding image #1: that pointy roof to the left with a sphere on top is the tower in File:BahnhofOhlsdorf S-Bahnbereich.JPG without a doubt, meaning this is Ohlsdorf. --HyperGaruda (talk) 18:16, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

where in Hamburg?

- Is File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 3.jpg also Ohlsdorf? I suspect File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 5.jpg, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 6.jpg, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 7.jpg belong to Bahnbetriebshof S-Bahn in Hamburg-Ohlsdorf. Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, File:Hamburg S-Bahn 1989 3.jpg is also Ohlsdorf. There is a station sign just left of the train above the ticket vending machines. As to the files 5 to 6, it is entirely possible that they show the former Bahnbetriebshof. The modern hall that can be seen here was built ten years later but the track configuration looks the same. De728631 (talk) 18:13, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Update Wikimedia Commons' default markup for 'Use this image' Inbox

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T299064

I have raised a ticket to change the default text component of the markup snippet generated by our "use this image" links, on file pages, so that it will use the structured data caption, where available, instead of repeating the file name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:44, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not used files by user

Is there a tool or a gadget to list all files uploaded by X that are not used on any page in any project? Wostr (talk) 14:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Wostr: Can you give some context as to why you would want that? I'm guessing that only about 10% of all images on Commons are "used" in this sense within WMF projects. - Jmabel ! talk 17:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmabel: I have over thousand files uploaded, some of them were meant to be a replacement for files (a few thousands) that are going to be proposed for deletion. I can easily see all files uploaded by me using Special:ListFiles and in the same way files of a banned user (most of them will be proposed for deletion). However, I can't – other than manually – check which files uploaded by me are already in place, which are still not used, and which files of this banned user need to be redrawn and replaced by correct ones. Wostr (talk) 17:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why are files being deleted solely as the uploads of a banned user? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- That is not the reason for deletion, but that discussion is not about those files. Wostr (talk) 17:54, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a good editor / organizer for Wikimedia?

I've been pretty active lately uploading images and reorganizing them (categories, etc.) where nnecessary. Now I've been doing all of this manually via the website; adding categories; or editing the source text to apply multiple edits; that kind of thing. But I think I heard/read one time that there are tools to more easily move multiple images for instance. Is that true and does anyone have experience working with it? If so I'd like to know more, because that would be great for some jobs... Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

VisualFileChange (see under Preferences | Gadgets) can do a lot, but it's not the friendliest. Please ask me if I can help with anything specific. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the description of that tool it's not exactly what I was looking for, but I'll let you know if I decide to use it and need any help! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingR2: Check also Help:Cat-a-lot and Help:HotCat. I remember what it was for me to work categorization without these and other stuff such as Help:VFC and MediaWiki:Gadget-GalleryDetails.js: It got suddenly so much better! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 13:11, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, sounds great. I have enabled it but even though I emptied my browser cache I don't see it appearing on category pages yet. Maybe I am doing something wrong... I'll try again later. Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 17:03, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingR2: You may need to close and reopen your browser the first time. You will also need to enable java script for Wikimedia Commons if you use a script blocker like "No Script." Cat-a-lot should appear as a tiny icon in the bottom right of your browser screen on categories and search result pages; it is often easy to miss. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:22, 12 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

THanks, it works now! Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 23:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Structured Data on Commons: references for files' metadata are now live

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T230315

Hello everybody! A small, yet important change is coming to Structured Data on Commons: users are now able to add references to a file’s metadata.

References were always a part of the project, but until now they weren’t visible to end users, nor was there an interface to add them. This has been fixed with the current update.

References for Structured Data on Commons will work exactly like they work on Wikidata: you can use URLs or items for reference; adding, removing and changing references will share the same experience of doing it on Wikidata; and there will be no limit to the number of references that can be added.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): I'm testing the references features (which is great, btw) but still find a lot of Wikibase warnings (check this example). Is this the expected behavior? Thanks —Ismael Olea (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Olea thank you for noticing me. I'll pass this bug to the dev team, and they will investigate the problem. I guess something should be fixed, since from a Wikidatan point of view, it shouldn't behave like that. I'll keep you posted asap. ~~~~ Sannita (WMF) (talk) 18:12, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can an image with extraordinary aspect ratio appear on the front page as Picture Of The Day?

Chinese scroll showing Hajj pilgrimage routes

Posting here because Commons talk:Picture of the day is low traffic and my question there was never answered. This scroll image passed Featured Picture review last year. I'd like to be able to include it in Picture Of The Day, not least because it relates to the Hajj, which is an important topic for Muslims, who make up a quarter of the world's population. Because the aspect ratio of this image means it is not legible on the front page in its original form, I took the step that has been used in the past for FPs on English Wikipedia and extracted part of the image to act as a preview on the front page. That scheduled image was reverted since the extract did not have Featured status. This I can understand, but the question remains of how this distinctive, time-relevant Featured Image can appear as Picture of the Day. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:07, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any equivalent of {{Wide image}} for tall images? - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No, but you are welcome to develop Module:Tall image and {{Tall image}}. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm probably not taking it on but if someone wants to, the clear model is Module:Wide image. - Jmabel ! talk 16:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

unable to publish my work that i want to change something in Wikipedia

rabi crop is my website but whenever i share my website pics it got deleted please help me regarding this — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj kumar singh good (talk • contribs)

Your so far only deleted upload is File:Kharif Crops Examples.png, which was deleted as it is considered an advertisement. In addition, how should anbody here know that rabicrop.com is your website? Furthermore, having an image on your website doesn not necessarily mean, it's your own work, it might be licensed from somebody else. But whether this license is compliant to our policy COM:L, how should we know, when there is no information on your website. Finally, the terms of your website state "You must not: Republish material from Rabi crops / Sell, rent or sub-license material from Rabi crops". --Túrelio (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You could go through the COM:VRT process to establish that the web site is yours. And/or you could indicate any relevant licensing on your web site, then cite it as a source. But, in either case: we don't want advertising, and you can only license work for which you own the copyright. - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Flag of South Korea (1949–1984).svg is doubtful.

The 1949 flag law stated that the construction was the same as the current one (File:Flag of South Korea (construction sheet).svg). Therefore the flag in 1949 should look like File:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 11:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mike Rohsopht: We (Commons) don't usually try to make the judgements in disputes like this: we host the various variants. But if you think a particular image (or description) is incorrect, you can use the {{Fact disputed}} template. - Jmabel ! talk 16:07, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of a file or talking to an author should usually be the place to discuss content issues, it is not that content accuracy doesn't get discussed here (it does, as such files are commonly being overwritten with more accurate versions as new information is uncovered), but these discussions happen more often on file talk pages and user talk pages, not unlike where content is usually discussed at Wikipedia's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 01:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @Jmabel and Donald Trung: File:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg was moved to File:Flag of South Korea (1949-1997).svg twice, but each time its original uploader, who was also a file mover, moved back the name to (1984–1997). Two years ago a user started a name discussion in File talk:Flag of South Korea (1984–1997).svg but no one has answered. Few days ago, I also dropped a message on its original uploader's talk page, but he/she did not respond.--Mike Rohsopht (talk) 02:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image of the Day

Today is the 15th, but it seems the whole day the IOTD for the 14th was shown!? --84.135.119.170 20:51, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it just updated - may have been a cache related problem..

Category:May Torok von Szendro

Hello! On this page, 3 inscriptions are incorrect. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:May_Torok_von_Szendro The Muslim passport (which I sent to a Hungarian editor) is for a non-Christian name. The signature is not a signature, but a seal, and it is not countess Török but Djavidan. The image highlighted in the passport also depicts a Muslim lady, not the false Török May. How can these be improved? puskas.istvanteleheting.hu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lajokka (talk • contribs) 13:38, 15 January 2022‎ (UTC)[reply]

@Lajokka: Hi, and welcome. Please use internal links. You are welcome to edit directly or use RenameLink or {{Rename}} to correct those faults, as needed. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 14:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Jeff.

I’ve just started editing Wikipedia these days, I don’t know anything yet. Djavidan Hanum was my aunt, so I got into editing at my age of 65. People have a right to know the truth. You can reach me at: [email protected] Lajokka (talk) 22:33, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The image on the passport is the same image we already have of her, I don't think I understand what the problem is. It also matches the image found at other reliable websites like Geni and Familysearch. --RAN (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
This is a mistake. The Turkish passport bears a Muslim name, which is Princess Djavidan Hanum.

countess Marianne Török is a fatal mistake, because Marianne is the older sister to the Djavidan.

Half-sister, only their mom is common.

This lady (Djavidan) was never baptized, her only European name was established by a court, and that is "Puskás Májuska".

I uploaded her verdict, but it went here:

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Inheritance_lawsuits,_a_claim_lawsuit.jpg

Because I'm still lame in wikipedia editing.

If you can, please help change the picture because it is outrageous to depict a queen with a passport picture. Lajokka (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The passport picture is so low resolution that it is useless. Are you asking for it to be deleted? --RAN (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello RAN! You're right, but I don't have a better passport picture. Let's change the face instead. I have a picture of a princess dress, but I don’t know how to change it. This image is also unpleasant because, according to contemporary newspapers, she was a remarkable beauty. Lajokka (talk) 21:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unexpected search results

To help with some pending DRs from a mass upload, I just tried this search — and the results are, so to say, unexpected: Isn’t -incategory:"foo" working anymore? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I thinks it does work. "-incategory" results in all files with Portugal, but not in the category. Do I miss something? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:05, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Tuvalkin: Your search link comes out as 'Portugal -incategory:"Photos_uploaded_from_Flickr_by_Matlin_(needing_check)"'. The use of the "-" character (minus in this case) removes results from Category:Photos uploaded from Flickr by Matlin (needing check), so all the files showing Portugal that were not (uploaded by Matlin and needing check). Getting rid of that minus character results in this other search, showing Matlin's uploads one might want to check if one was in or very familiar with Portugal, which I guess is what you were going for. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 13:40, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G. and C.Suthorn: Never mind, you are right: I have no excuse for overlooking that "-", been using it correctly for years. I blame the coffee! (but lack or excess thereof…?) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categories that can't be edited/removed -- any help??

Does anyone know why some of the files in this category seem to have the category "hard coded" into them? Category:Stations of the Cross in the Netherlands

1) I can't move the files to a subcategory (stations number 1 to 14) using cat-a-lot;

2) When I go to a file's page, the category shows up at the bottom, but it can't be removed or edited,

and 3) when I open the source text for those files pages, I don't see the category listed in the source. How does this work? WHY does it exist? And how do I circumvent or change it? So that I can move these files to their suitable subcategories (stations 1-14).

P.S. I have also seen this same phenomenon in categories with historical photographs in the Netherlands; i.e. black and white photographs from our national heritage service. When those photographs (or a category of them) shows up in the main category for (for instance) a city, and you want to move it to a subcategory like "Historical photopgraphs of [city]", sometimes you can't; which is pretty frustrating.

Greetings and thanks for any help, RagingR2 (talk) 14:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingR2: Some times, categorization is not simply present in a subcat’s wikicode, but transcluded through templates. When Cat-a-lot attempt to remove that non-existent reference, error ensues. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingR2: If you can point to a specific file that you are having problems with, we can identify where the existing category is coming from. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RagingR2: Looks like you ran into one of my old batch uploads. I think the clean up bot died in one of the Toolserver/Toollabs/Toolforge mishaps.

Maybe time to kill {{RCE-subject}}. In these cases the trick is to replace {{RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie}} with {{subst:RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie|subst=subst:}} (example). Things that are not mapped ended up in Category:RCE suggested categories. Multichill (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

By "kill {{RCE-subject}}" I assume you mean just remove that block of code from the source text of a specific file? If have no idea how these templates work in general ; I have never worked with them. But replacing the block of text as you suggested should be doable even for me. :) By the way if I look in the source text for File:Kruiswegstatie_I_-_Tilburg_-_20355327_-_RCE.jpg for instance, I see (at least) three templates mentioned onder the License header: RCE-license, RCE-subject|Processiepark and RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie. Are these other templates not a problem? Is it just the RCE-subject|Kruiswegstatie one that I should edit/remove???

P.S. And in the example that you linked, I see that you removed the RCE-Subject completely and replaced it with a normal category.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@From Hill To Shore: This is one example: File:Kruiswegstatie_I_-_Tilburg_-_20355327_-_RCE.jpg

The category "Stations of the Cross in the Netherlands" appears at the bottom of that page; but it can't be edited or removed; there is no (−) (±) buttons at the bottom, and if you press "edit" the category doesn't show up in the source text either.

Greetings, RagingR2 (talk) 18:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Zie Commons talk:Rijksdienst voor het Cultureel Erfgoed#Oude templates opruimen. Multichill (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Something is terribly broken in Template:Artwork

Village pump/Archive/2022/01

File:Alphonse Mucha - Poster for Victorien Sardou's Gismonda starring Sarah Bernhardt.jpg was converted from {{Information}} to {{Artwork}}, and the parameters were not changed, but here's what's being passed to the "Artist" field:

|Author={{Creator:Alfons Mucha}} Restored by [[User:Adam Cuerden|Adam Cuerden]]

But the only thing actually shown is the creator template for Mucha. The rest of the credit line is removed.

This is... obviously broken. You can't just strip credit from people. What on earth is happening here? How many files are affected? Who thought this was a good idea?

Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Actually the creator template should have been put into the |artist= parameter, but since there is a Wikidata entry, we don't need that either. I removed the creator template from the "Author" field and your work is now being credited again. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This topic has also been started at Template_talk:Artwork#This_template_is_stripping_credit. and answered over there. No need to create additional drama. Multichill (talk) 17:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Multichill: I apologise if this came off as dramatic; I wasn't sure who to contact about the template, so figured that a message here would be a good heads up. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: In the rare case where there is a need to post in two places, it's best that one post be just a link to the other, possibly with a brief comment for context. - Jmabel ! talk 02:50, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping to download a full-res map

When you expand the image at https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/digital/collection/maps/id/84/, there is clearly a very high-res map digitized somewhere. Does anyone have any idea whether there is a way for us to download it? It is a much higher-resolution version of File:The City of Seattle Harbor Department Map of Central Waterfront District, February 1918 (MOHAI 13448).jpg, which is so low-res as to be illegible. - Jmabel ! talk 17:41, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at how the tiles are downloaded, you can get a high resolution version from this URL https://content.libraries.wsu.edu/iiif/2/maps:84/0,0,20000,20000/5000,/0/default.png, increasing or decreasing the 5000 value increases or decreases the resolution. Dylsss (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! - Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 01:05, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New tool for coloring the world map

I'm moving to her the pose below from Commons talk:Graphic Lab/Map workshop#Tool for coloring the world map:
"I've created a python code that makes effortless to color the world map. Feel free to check it out:[3]--Mikey641 (talk) 22:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)"[reply]

Look like usfull tool. -- Geagea (talk) 10:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There's a similar tool for coloring the states of the U.S. (with a GUI) here: https://svg-map-maker.toolforge.org/ Nosferattus (talk) 03:16, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Scan the world

Hello. A series of 3D images have been uploaded to Commons in the .stl format. While they seem to be freely licensed, the description associated with these files seems a bit promotional. Let me quote it for you:
This object is part of "Scan The World". Scan the World is a non-profit initiative introduced by MyMiniFactory, through which we are creating a digital archive of fully 3D printable sculptures, artworks and landmarks from across the globe for the public to access for free. Scan the World is an open source, community effort, if you have interesting items around you and would like to contribute, email [email protected] to find out how you can help.
While the "Scan the World" initiative may be non-profit, MyMiniFactory certainly is not.
As you probably don't know what I am talking about, here is an example File:Burj Khalifa.stl. Cheers, --SVTCobra 01:56, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would say that moderate self-promotion is not nearly as problematic as the lack of an actual description and any categories that aren't simply about themselves and the technical nature of the file.
I would not discourage them from uploading, but I would feel perfectly free to overwrite the so-called description. - Jmabel ! talk 04:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks, but "they" (being the company) are not doing the uploads. User:RuleTheWiki is uploading them and then adding them to Wikipedia articles. It was severe enough that it was brought to WP:COIN. I brought it here as it is obviously outside the purview of a Wikipedia noticeboard. Cheers, --SVTCobra 04:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(You didn't mention the Wikipedia issue in your original post.) Wikipedia has far more concern with conflict of interest than we do on Commons. Basically, if the image is useful, we don't generally care if it's somewhat self-promotional. The uploader, especially someone uploading third-party work, doesn't have real "ownership" over the description, especially if the description as originally given is not useful. I believe the licenser actually could put a statement like that as part of the required attribution, but it appears they haven't, so we can just overwrite it with a useful description. The problem isn't with the files themselves, it's with the description, right? - Jmabel ! talk 04:31, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, indeed, Jmabel, it is the description which is visible when a thumb of these 3D images is clicked (and it's necessary to click to get the 3D experience). If I had to guess, it was mainly the email address bleeding through that got it reported to COIN. I have already told the uploader they are not obligated to copy the source's description. And at the very least it should describe the file and not be a generic text. Thanks you so much for your feedback. Cheers, --SVTCobra 05:09, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As a concession to @AndyTheGrump i have rectified the description for all files that i have uploaded. RuleTheWiki (talk) 06:23, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RuleTheWiki: Thanks for updating the description. However, at least File:Burj Khalifa.stl has an unrelated but important issue: it is not compatible with COM:L. The source provided at the file description page only leads to this user/project page. Had it been correctly pointing to [4], it would have been immediately clear that it is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 rather than CC-BY-SA 4.0. That means commercial use is not allowed, which means that per our own rules it's not allowed on Commons. Any chance they can change the license at myminifactory.com? Because otherwise we'd have to delete it ... --El Grafo (talk) 09:00, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'd have to ask @Jonathanbeck because apparently they're the person behind 'Scan The World' and their uploaded objects are under CC-BY-SA, I'm not sure if that's the correct license or the one listed on their user page on MyMiniFactory is the correct one. RuleTheWiki (talk) 11:01, 14 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see that File:Burj Khalifa.stl has been nominated for deletion as "Derivative work of the Burj Khalifa; the design is considered copyrighted by its architect(s)." No comment on whether that is valid grounds, though I would note that I'm unsure how the file (relating to a building 2722 ft high) could be the result of a 3D scan -you'd need a helicopter to scan it, which seems rather unlikely for the open-source Scan the World project. More to the point, the issue with licensing seems to apply to other Scan the World files too: both File:Big Ben (detailed).stl and File:Statue of Liberty.stl seem to be marked CC-BY-NC-SA on the MYMiniFactory website, and there may well be more. There may be further legal issues too: I note that File:Scan the World - SMK17 - KAS2036 - David With The Head of Goliath (Donatello).stl, also uploaded by Jonathanbeck has a notice indicating that "the uploader of this file has agreed to the Wikimedia Foundation 3D patent license..." No idea whether such a notice is ever necessary (it might seem unlikely for this file at least, since the object scanned dates to the Renaissance) but the fact that it is there has to be an indication that someone thought it was. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

NB: I think that patent template may be a default thing you have to agree to when uploading anything .stl. There were some concerns about this when 3D model uploads were enabled, but I can't find the discussion right now ... El Grafo (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MediaViews for files on Commons

Just fixed the pageinfo link so that for files we now have a direct link to the statistics. Take a file, click on page information in the left toolbar, scroll to the bottom and you'll find a link to the MediaViews. In my opinion much more interesting than the page views for files. Multichill (talk) 17:17, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I didn't even know this existed -- El Grafo (talk) 12:02, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Nicholas Alahverdian images

Hello everyone. On request of Wikimedia Foundation counsel, we have restored the images previously deleted following a takedown request. For clarity, this affects the following files:

File:Nicholas_Alahverdian_and_Andre_Dubus_III.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)
File:Vice_President_Mike_Pence_and_Nicholas_Alahverdian.jpg (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs)

You are welcome to discuss this action at COM:DMCA#Nicholas Alahverdian. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template Creation

I believe that the creation of templates on Brazilian political party websites that allow the reproduction of their files would be of great help. to make it clear, the parties that allow this are: PSOL [5] and PCB [6]. For me, the main reason for creating these templates is to show that a given site follows the Wikipedia Attribution Licenses, also because the sites belong to parties that are registered with the TSE. And with that, officially becoming a party.

Something that also makes me make this request is that images of logos, images of party affiliates and other images involving parties are uploaded here, but there is no notice that can be included about image licenses.

An asterisk, if the creation of these templates is implemented, I would also like to mention the sites of the PSOL deputies, since they adhere to the Creative Commons License by-sa 3.0 BR, which is compatible with Wikipedia. [7], [8] and [9] Luiz79 (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Talk to the Community Tech

Hello

We, the team working on the Community Wishlist Survey, would like to invite you to an online meeting with us. It will take place on 19 January (Wednesday), 18:00 UTC on Zoom, and will last an hour. This external system is not subject to the WMF Privacy Policy. Click here to join.

Agenda

Bring drafts of your proposals and talk to to a member of the Community Tech Team about your questions on how to improve the proposal

Format

The meeting will not be recorded or streamed. Notes without attribution will be taken and published on Meta-Wiki. The presentation (all points in the agenda except for the questions and answers) will be given in English.

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

Natalia Rodriguez (the Community Tech manager) will be hosting this meeting.

Invitation link

Join online
Meeting ID: 85804347114
Dial by your location

We hope to see you! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding DR transclusions

Hello!

When a DR is created at the same page as a previous DR a problem arises. The current DR gets shown at Commons:Deletion requests/Archive/YYYY/MM/DD and the previous DR at Commons:Deletion requests/YYYY/MM/DD. This is of course because the entire DR page is transcluded onto both the current and archive DR page. When the second is closed both DRs will bo shown on their respective archive page. Is there anyway to fix this? Something like a partial transclusion?Jonteemil (talk) 04:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jonteemil: Hi. The software doesn't support partial transclusion to both pages. Noincluding any closed section would unfairly remove it from display in the archive(s). We are used to seeing the history of DRs of a page (or a mass of pages) when it is renominated for deletion. — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 06:39, 15 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

An easy technical solution would be to automatically create second (2nd, or third) pages when nominating the file for deletion (again), for example "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious file.whatev" and then "Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious file.whatev/2nd nomination" and that only the second nomination is transcluded in the current list of DR's, second pages can easily be added to talk pages using "Kept2", "Kept3", "Kept4", "Kept5", Etc. for every nomination. The first DR would automatically be "noincluded" but visible when visiting the DR page itself. Since the software can already see if a page had earlier been nominated for deletion I don't think that such a solution would be technically difficult. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 02:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: I'm confused, where would you noinclude what, exactly? — Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me} 04:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looked quite clear in my head but I can see why it might not have translated well into text, as an illustration it would look like this:

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude ==

Original deletion nomination. (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

Then a second (2nd) nomination

== <noinclude>File:Dubious image.whateverdude</noinclude> ==

<noinclude>Original deletion nomination.</noinclude> (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022, not at 30-05-2023.)

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude (2nd nomination) ==

2nd (second) nomination (only transcluded at 30-05-2023.)

Now because the second (2nd) page is a sub-page of the first (1rst) page it will change to:

== File-Dubious image.whateverdude ==

Original deletion nomination. (Fully transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

<noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious image.whateverdude (2nd nomination)}}</noinclude> (Not transcluded at 16-01-2022.)

And because the first (1st) page is already the original it is easily accessed through subsequent nominations. It is really simple and all edit buttons will remain visible and will bring you to the relevant page, the original page will be transcluded on subsequent pages but not in general deletion request lists. I hope that I've now managed to explain it clearly. So the 2nd nomination page has "<noinclude>{{Commons:Deletion requests/File:Dubious image.whateverdude}}</noinclude>" at the top. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: , it would work probably like these concept pages, I changed the "== Exmaple.jpg ==" to "; == Example.jpg ==" to not break this page.

This deletion debate is now closed. Please do not make any edits to this archive. You can read the deletion policy or ask a question at the Village pump. If the circumstances surrounding this file have changed in a notable manner, you may re-nominate this file or ask for it to be undeleted.

== File:Example.jpg ==

Example of a good argument as to why this image should be deleted. --Not Donald Trung 『不是徵國單』 (Probably some Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, an even better argument why this image should be kept. --Also not Donald Trung 『也不是徵國單』 (Definitely Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kept: Per "User:Also not Donald Trung". --Mrs. Sysop 『管理員』 (Discuss my actions 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

== File:Example.jpg (2nd nomination) ==

I believe that this image should be deleted because of (insert argument here). --Someone that really doesn't like this file『刪除宣導者』 (Come talk to me, if you dare! 🤬💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nominator. --Sick of example images『我不喜歡』 (Doesn't follow the news 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:36, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Both of these pages are transcluding each other, but could be transcluded separately. Neither page would show up in the other's DR list, so old discussions would only be visible where they are relevant. This would require so little changes that I think that the software could automatically make this a thing for new DR's. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: Both of these pages are transcluding each other, but could be transcluded separately. Neither page would show up in the other's DR list, so old discussions would only be visible where they are relevant. If this is correct I guess it's good. It's too bad that you have to create a new page each DR, eventhough it will be transcluded to the old one, but I guess this is a good solution as is possible. I think the new DRs should be transcluded onto the first one rather than vice versa though.Jonteemil (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In the above proposed system users wouldn't have to do anything, the software automatically detects if a current DR for the image or group of images exists and automatically makes a sub-page that transclude the first (1st) and / or any prior deletion discussions, the "Nominate for deletion" button would do all the work and the end user would see no difference, other than that daily lists of DR's aren't cluttered with long gone old discussions only relevant to the current discussion.

Theoretically I also want Undeletion Requests (UDR's / UnDR's) to link "See also's" to prior deletion discussions, but that would require them to also have their own sub-pages, which despite already being approved by the community doesn't have a bot doing it. So even if there is consensus for a change someone with the technical know-how needs to implement it. The above would most likely just be an uncontroversial maintenance change, but if nobody who can do it will do it it will simply remain a proposal. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 20:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Significant

Hi! I raised a question at Commons talk:Project scope/Precautionary principle about what the word "significant" mean. "The precautionary principle is that where there is significant doubt about the freedom of a particular file, it should be deleted." So as I understand it we should not delete files just because there is a small risk that a file is not free. The risk has to be significant. Question is how much significant is. Since the Precautionary principle is important I think it would be fair to make a post here as informatin. --MGA73 (talk) 16:23, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's a subjective word and different admins interpret it differently. Admin A: "Just because a file is a hundred years old with no listed author doesn't mean that it's in the public domain.", Admin B: "This file is over a century old by an unknown and/or anonymous author, it's unlikely to still be copyrighted." And both admins are right. The word probably just keeps the people that think that any suspicion is bad at bay, for example "This file has no metadata it must be copyrighted" despite scanners not always recording metadata and many image editors removing them or people removing them for privacy reasons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:33, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Donald Trung and think there will be always some room for interpretation; we will not be able to achieve full consistency in decisions based on PRP. It should, however, prevent deletions based on mere suspicion without real base. The "no metadata" issue is a good example. Often, people nominate current "own work" images for deletion because the resolution is small and there is no metadata; this can be reasonable grounds for suspicion and for a deletion request indeed (often, such images are taken from somewhere on the web), but doesn't mean automatic deletion - we first have to check whether there is anything to confirm that suspicion, as it's absolutely allowed to upload your own images in lower resolution and Exif is not mandatory. Personally, in such cases, if I don't find any web source for the image with reverse image search tools such as Tineye and Google Images, and the uploader is otherwise in good standing (not known e.g. for mass copyright violations), I tend to keep such images. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On a related topic of due diligence before nomination: When new uploaders participate, they tend to choose the default settings because our instructions are ambiguous. When you ask for the date, they choose the date of uploading, rather than the date of creation. They also choose own_work, because they think you are asking who scanned it, or who uploaded it. We can fix these things with a little research, sometimes the correct information is in the filename. Before people nominate them for deletion, they should do some minimal due diligence to see if they can fix errors. I see so many deletion nominations because a scan isn't "own work" or the the image wasn't taken on today's date, despite all the correct information in the filename or at the linked source. There are at least a dozen public domain images nominated in the past two days whose only crime was the uploader ticking the box "own work" for a scanned image. See for instance Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Cadgepole and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hemen Gupta.jpg --RAN (talk) 01:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrongly categorized photos at Category:Commodores

The category has a blend of one group and another group using the same name. One group is an American R&B; the other is some sort of military orchestral band (or something like that). I don't know who's interested in such cleanup... or suggestions. George Ho (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The correct cat would be Category:Navy Commodores, a cat, that already exists, but I don't know how a bot could possibly solve that, it's probably a task for humans. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 09:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that

It was as well two commodores of the US Navy, also in two sub-cats. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 10:24, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch. I've also requested a move on the category, ensuring that something like this doesn't happen again. George Ho (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where will this be discussed? The correct name for the cat would be Category:The Commodores, not some weird stuff with long brackets. Grüße vom Sänger ♫ ^(talk) 11:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I went to the category and found a small handful of photos from a rinky-dink concert held well after the group's prime. It suggested to me that this yet another category created solely to support a Wikidata infobox. As for any confusion, adding explanatory text and/or hatnotes to the category page worked just fine for years and years. Is there a reason why people refuse to do that anymore?RadioKAOS (talk) 13:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong preview of PDF pages

Hello everyone, the preview of pages of File:Grammatica Germanicae Linguae.pdf consists of a lot of white space. Does anyone know what the problem of this file is? Thank you in advance, --Arnd (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I hate when people scan the entire scanner bed and do not use the preview feature to set the scan boundary. This is the first I have seen it compiled into a pdf, usually after one page you notice the error and set the scan boundary. --RAN (talk) 01:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

RAN, but why within the PDF all looks fine? --Arnd (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Films of France

When does a film enter the public domain in France? There is no specific mention of films in our copyright page for France. If it is considered a collective work, who is part of the collective? Would that include everyone listed in the credits? --RAN (talk) 01:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): In France, films enter into the public domain 70 years after the author's death (usually the director, but other people involved may need to be taken into consideration, when they gave special artistic input). Regards, Yann (talk) 18:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --RAN (talk) 18:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Audio recording from Gallica

Hi, Does anyone know how to get the audio recording from Gallica (French National Library)? As usual, everything is done so that we can listen, but we can't download them. :(( However some are undoubtedly in the public domain in France and in USA, so OK for Commons, e.g. [10] ; publication date: 1907, composer: Umberto Giordano (1867-1948), lyric artist: Giuseppe Armanini (1874-1915). Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:08, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I think I figured it out, though I didn't test it on other entries. Just drop the parameters from the URL and append '/f2.audio'. e.g. https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1080412z.r=fonotipiaphonotypie?rk=21459;2 becomes https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1080412z/f2.audio. – BMacZero (🗩) 18:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann and BMacZero: Please mind that this is originally an Italian recording, so you could use {{PD-Italy-audio}}. De728631 (talk) 18:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alsdorf steam activity

I scanned several 1986 slides of a working steam locomotive at Anna coke plant by Alsdorf. (Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 1.jpg to Alsdorf Anna mine 1986 6.jpg). The location is close to Category:Bahnhof Alsdorf-Annapark but clearly an other subject. Some new categories are needed for the 'Coke plant', the industrial rail operator and locomotive type.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Smiley.toerist: There is Category:Grube Anna for the general mine business, and the locomotive is a Category:Henschel D 600. De728631 (talk) 22:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I created Category:Anna coke plant because all of these show parts of the coke facility too. De728631 (talk) 22:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Customizable image data for geographical maps

Sorry if this is off-topic here. I’m looking for ready-to-use but customizable image data that can be used to build your own maps. In particular this would be (SVG?) contours of countries (or regions within the countries) together with coordinate data where labels should be placed and probably other coordinate data for correctly placing the contours next to each other. (Ideally data that can also be used with LaTeX/TikZ, or that could be converted without too much effort.) Is there something like this available on Wikimedia Commons? I’d expect such data to be somewhere since many people are creating maps with all kinds of data for Commons; I’ve had a look at Commons:Map resources and think that contours may be available from (some? of) the SVGs at Commons:Map resources/Blank location maps, but I’m missing how I could get the corresponding coordinate information. Also the online tools linked there don’t seem to provide such data, they just let you create a map online and download an image file. --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:6C3E:7981:B6EC:318B 17:25, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you might find someone at Commons:Graphic Lab/Map workshop who knows more about this. - Jmabel ! talk 02:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As you've already found out, image files don't normally carry coordinates to locate them. The "proper" way to do this is using en:Geodata (vector data of country outlines, in your case). Natural Earth is a good starting point for that, and it's all Public Domain (some of that is available at Commons in the Data: namespace, but it's difficult to find and use). In order to handle that data and turn it into a map, you'll need a Geographic Information System. en:QGIS is a great GUI-based option, but there are alternatives. It takes a bit of learning to get into this whole thing, but if you're into making maps it opens up entire new worlds. And it's really not difficult at all once you've got the basics down. Whether that still counts as "ready to use" is another question ... --El Grafo (talk) 11:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t know about Natural Earth and for the moment it seems to be indeed very close to what I was looking for. Thank you very much! I’ve downloaded the 1:100 Cultural Vectors set and managed to read in the shapes and attributes file, so I’m quite confident this will do for me. Yes, further digging into the matter will take some time I think… --2A02:8108:50BF:C694:8A8:D58:68EF:5C0 22:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, good luck with that! --El Grafo (talk) 06:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Movement Strategy and Governance News
Issue 5, January 2022Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the fifth issue of Movement Strategy and Governance News (formerly known as Universal Code of Conduct News)! This revamped newsletter distributes relevant news and events about the Movement Charter, Universal Code of Conduct, Movement Strategy Implementation grants, Board elections and other relevant MSG topics.

This Newsletter will be distributed quarterly, while more frequent Updates will also be delivered weekly or bi-weekly to subscribers. Please remember to subscribe here if you would like to receive these updates.

Call for Feedback about the Board elections - We invite you to give your feedback on the upcoming WMF Board of Trustees election. This call for feedback went live on 10th January 2022 and will be concluded on 7th February 2022. (continue reading)
Universal Code of Conduct Ratification - In 2021, the WMF asked communities about how to enforce the Universal Code of Conduct policy text. The revised draft of the enforcement guidelines should be ready for community vote in March. (continue reading)
Movement Strategy Implementation Grants - As we continue to review several interesting proposals, we encourage and welcome more proposals and ideas that target a specific initiative from the Movement Strategy recommendations. (continue reading)
The New Direction for the Newsletter - As the UCoC Newsletter transitions into MSG Newsletter, join the facilitation team in envisioning and deciding on the new directions for this newsletter. (continue reading)
Diff Blogs - Check out the most recent publications about MSG on Wikimedia Diff. (continue reading)

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 08:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental duplication (more or less) of a file

Commons_talk:Featured_picture_candidates#File:Prangs_Valentine_Cards2.jpg - Just complicated enough that it's probably best to discuss before acting. Basically, a badly documented set of files led to a JPEG getting generated off a TIFF...which already had a JPEG version, and now both JPEGs, differing only in the settings chosen when converting to JPEG, are FPs. Adam Cuerden (talk) 10:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has some catalogues raisonnè published by '24 Ore cultura' during 1996-97 in the series 'Cataloghi ragionati artisti '800 lombardo'?

Somebody has some catalogues raisonnè published by '24 Ore cultura' during 1996-97 in the series 'Cataloghi ragionati artisti '800 Lombardo'?

I don't want to publish them because are still on copyright but I want to use them for improving existing pages of painters, creating a page gallery for the catalogue, and also improving some existing paintings Infos. Some examples of how the cover appears are here.

The artists in the series are one by book, six in totalː Mosè Bianchi (1996), Giovanni Carnovali detto «Il Piccio» (1996), Tranquillo Cremona (1996), Francesco Hayez (1996), Emilio Longoni (1996) and Pompeo Mariani (1997). If you even have only one of them I will be happy to work together to improve the artist in question.

P.sːEven if you have other catalogues raisonnè by Italian artists of the 19th century feel free to contact meǃ.

Thanks for your timeǃ, Niketto sr. (talk) 22:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WCQS beta 2 release on 1 Feb 2022

Hi all, this is a reminder that the next major Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS) release, WCQS beta 2, will be on 1 Feb 2022. Please see here for more details. Thanks! MPham (WMF) (talk) 17:46, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File:Port d'Ancône depuis San Ciriaco (Petit, 1903).jpg

I found File:Port d'Ancône depuis San Ciriaco (Petit, 1903).jpg looking for files without a license. I was able to find [11], which identified the date and location of creation. I can't decide if "Petit" is the name of an individual photographer or the name of a studio. The collection entry is not any more helpful. Some searching found w:Pierre Petit (photographer) with the right name and lifespan, but he seems to be more of a portrait artist. Can anyone else find anything? --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 04:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we tend to store more portrait photography leading to some bias. People prefer loading contemporary images of locations, but we need historic images of people for identification. I love how the French government website adds a rote copyright notice to each image, no matter what the actual copyright status is. Another good example of Copyfraud. The image was taken in Italy which only awards 20 years of copyright protection for images taken in Italy. --RAN (talk) 20:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I had forgotten about {{PD-Italy}}. Thanks! --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Creator template should contain the valid license

Does anyone else think that the Creator template should contain the copyright information? Currently we store that information at Wikidata. For instance at Ansel Adams (Q60809) we have "copyright status as a creator=works protected by copyrights [in] countries with 50 years pma or longer". See: Creator:Ansel Adams where we display things like VIAF and other Identifiers, less of interest. Couldn't we have "Works protected by copyrights in countries with 50 years pma or longer" appear as the bottom line of the template? I would save clicking through to Wikidata from Commons to see what the status is. It would just require pulling the information from Wikidata, and would be updated when Wikidata gets updated. --RAN (talk) 20:03, 22 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Wikidata modelling of copyright is very sophisticated at the moment and replicating it in a limited template form has the potential to cause greater confusion. For example, the Wikidata information you cite gives copyright based on a person's death but does not model whether the creator had works published in multiple jurisdictions (with separate copyright rules) or if they produced works in different media (some countries apply different durations of copyright or no copyright at all for some types of media) or if they worked for an employer who may have obtained the copyright and released it under a different term (for example, the works of government employees in many jurisdictions become PD much sooner than private creations). I don't think the data is available on Wikidata to map all of that yet and I can't think of a good way to represent it in the Creator template that doesn't expand it exponentially from its current form. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:14, 23 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01

Delinker

Happy new year!!!

Why is year of death not mentioned in Category of Cas Oorhuys?

Public domain cutoff date reference, appearing on a Wikipedia Upload file wizard, needs to be changed from 1926 to 1927

Photomontage

Translation problem: what is 'debt' for ?

all MINGLE urls of UploadWizard page are broken

"Growzillas" Digital Marketing Agency and similar cases

Why is the "descrption" field of file is required

Hvordan lægger jeg et uploaded billede ind på en side?

Mixed up coordinates of two pictures, corrected it, but now there is a discrepancy with SDC

How do I change the base text to talk about disputed identification in images?

Urdu Translation (Cat-a-lot)

Kan jeg omdøbe billedets tekst?

Dotted line does not appear in SVG

Template:Edu.gov.ru

Problems finding the railway museum in Nuremberg

Between building

Copyright on a photography from Louvre Museum

Wikidata-based category redlinks being auto-added

How many selfies are allowed?

Guidelines regarding file redirects to a different filetype

Category:Coins of China

"Homes for wayward girls": category?

Photo challenge November results

Categories for merging

Deletion requests default action

ImageNotes

Deleted military building photo

Wiki Loves Folklore is back!

Do we still need language links under templates?

Copy written?

Community Wishlist Survey 2022

How to download a full resolution image hidden behind a canvas?

Fictional flag, real issues

Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open

Ageism in category definitions

Definitions

Satellite images of New Zealand

What is the "daily category" of a file?

File:Wilbur Wright at 17 years old by George W. Stigleman Sr.jpg

Wiki system malfunctioning?

Hamburg S-Bahn station

Proposal: Update Wikimedia Commons' default markup for 'Use this image' Inbox

Not used files by user

Is there a good editor / organizer for Wikimedia?

Structured Data on Commons: references for files' metadata are now live

Can an image with extraordinary aspect ratio appear on the front page as Picture Of The Day?

unable to publish my work that i want to change something in Wikipedia

File:Flag of South Korea (1949–1984).svg is doubtful.

Image of the Day

Category:May Torok von Szendro

Unexpected search results

Categories that can't be edited/removed -- any help??

Something is terribly broken in Template:Artwork

Hoping to download a full-res map

New tool for coloring the world map

Scan the world

MediaViews for files on Commons

Update on Nicholas Alahverdian images

Template Creation

Talk to the Community Tech

Question regarding DR transclusions

Significant

Wrongly categorized photos at Category:Commodores

Wrong preview of PDF pages

Films of France

Audio recording from Gallica

Alsdorf steam activity

Customizable image data for geographical maps

Movement Strategy and Governance News – Issue 5

Accidental duplication (more or less) of a file

Somebody has some catalogues raisonnè published by '24 Ore cultura' during 1996-97 in the series 'Cataloghi ragionati artisti '800 lombardo'?

WCQS beta 2 release on 1 Feb 2022

File:Port d'Ancône depuis San Ciriaco (Petit, 1903).jpg

Creator template should contain the valid license

Navigation menu

Search