Commons:Village pump
|
This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/05. Please note:
Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:
Search archives: |
| Legend |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
| Manual settings |
| When exceptions occur, please check the setting first. |
.svg){kind=link}
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
May 18[edit]
Mandatory captions[edit]
Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
- This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel, Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
- Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
May 23[edit]
Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy[edit]
Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a non-copyright restriction-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute as well as in this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA, regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American lex loci protectionis defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are not subject to the laws of Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, which ruled that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Links:
- -- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- @King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)- @Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- "No" can mean "I agree that the answer is negative" and "Yes" can mean "I agree with you" in that context. So basically they can mean the same thing in that sentence in English.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
May 24[edit]
I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
- Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: They could enforce their ToS. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @REDƎYE, WikiSyn. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:28, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us
- We have nothing to do with this IP address, and we only cover topics that affect us on Commons/Wikidata, which is not the case here. We agree to have all of our connections checked, if necessary (the only person who sometimes logs in from our office (based in Roanne, France) is WikiSyn, as mentioned on our page). However, we noticed this IP's actions a few days ago, as it intervened on some categories we created, and even created one that concerns us.
- We think what we're doing here probably inspired this person, just as we've been inspired by a multitude of users (but maybe not in a good way, even though we make sure each category leads to related images). We based ourselves on general categories to establish an identical scheme, with the desire in mind to be as accurate as possible. We still have files to upload but perhaps should we have published them first and created the categories after. If we have not acted in the right way, please accept our apologies. We remain attentive to your advice.
- For the moment, we are stopping our edits, waiting for all this to be resolved and in order to avoid wasting time if our work has to be deleted (which we will accept, if that is the decision).
- Thanks for your understanding,
- Kind regards,
RED🔴ƎYE (talk) 06:40, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jeff G., thanks for pinging us
- Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: They could enforce their ToS. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Created CfD's for the following:
- In total these cover over 500 categories.
- --ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- One would expect the user who created so many empty categories to have some plan to populate them. If not, I agree with deletion.
- Empty Category:Steamboat Willie screenshots (from May 13) duplicates Category:Screenshots of Steamboat Willie (from March 26). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:21, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Nah, most of them have never had any content in them. ReneeWrites (talk) 00:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I am pretty sure they are empty because other users depopulated them. Most of them Trade (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Applied a anonymous only block to Special:Contributions/2001:8003:DD56:0:0:0:0:0/48. I hope the person will create an account and join the conversation. I'm just assuming Telstra uses the (old) standard /48's for end users (rfc). Multichill (talk) 20:05, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
May 25[edit]
File upload wizard[edit]
Hello everyone,
I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.
Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Pinging @Sannita (WMF). — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Ooligan AFAIK, it should be ready for next week. We did the testing in beta for sure, I'll ask on Monday more info about that. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 15:50, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF), has this "bug" been fixed? Thanks, -- Ooligan (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature[edit]
Hello Everyone,
I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.
Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanahia123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kanahia123: you might want to create a page parallel to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
- @Sannita (WMF): is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Kanahia123 and Jmabel: I suggest Commons talk:Mobile app as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for COM:APP. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Good idea, better than what I suggested. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.
--KEmel49 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)- @KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel
here is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel
- @KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
May 26[edit]
Upload Wizard, likely again...[edit]
While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, but nothing happened.
Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?
Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @ITookSomePhotos, Jmabel, ZandDev, Strakhov, N509FZ, Bidgee, Ymblanter, Kenraiz, GPSLeo, Marsupium, Riad Salih, and Sannita (WMF): pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo,
- Why would you need other licenses for own works?
- Why wouldn't I? {{Multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable...
- In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers.
- I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least.
- The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
- Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). Bidgee (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @GPSLeo,
- Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @RodRabelo7: In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
- When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "This is someone else's work and is free to share." and then select "Enter a different license in wikitext format", add the license template and the other fields just add {{Own}} to step 2. and then Bidgee to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --Marsupium (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Privacy issues for faces and car license plates[edit]
Privacy issues concerning modern day faces of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently above here on this page, for faces of attendees at weddings.
I know that Mr.choppers, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.
However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored fuzzed up replacement. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ Broichmore (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). Bidgee (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- JWilz12345 You're right, I should have referred to COM:CSCR. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. Alexpl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- "can force wikimedia to delete it." This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Add coordinates to images (bot task)[edit]
Regarding a recent bot request (add coordinates to images), i've started to write some pywikibot code (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice":
- Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums?
- There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute:
Nodes,WaysandRelations. If it's aNode, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of aWay- for example a building, mapped as area (or even aRelation)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node? - What about adding {{On OSM}} to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value.
--Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons.
- Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog.
- For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Glad about your reply, @Enhancing999 - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
May 27[edit]
Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia[edit]
I'm adding a bunch of photos to Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a Category:Traditional music of Catalonia or Category:Folk music of Catalonia, which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- Lacking any response, I'll create Category:Traditional music of Catalonia. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
Strange PDF-Preview behaviour[edit]
According to the archived village pump post Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer i have the same problem on c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected. does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, Mfchris84 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Animalparty: That looks like a bug for the first file (the second displays fine for me), please wait longer for the thumbnailer or see mw:How to report a bug. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?[edit]
Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to Commons:File naming even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)
- just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. RZuo (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- O.k., thanks! The link seems to have been there since the very first version of the template from 2015. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
May 28[edit]
Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in Category:Space Jam, Category:Mickey Mouse and a bunch of others.
I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think this category structure is invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.
- The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:
- Category:Actors by role - the inverse relationship of "film characters by actors"
- Category:Films by actor - same concept, organized by films instead of characters
- Category:Films by shooting location - encoding minor facts about films into categories
- Omphalographer (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Categories for photos by photographers[edit]
It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).
What's the current thinking of that? @Vysotsky, @Swiss National Library. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- Currently when we are uploading photographs from Finna we are creating creator templates, wikidata items and photos by photographer categories for all authors. There is no distinction between if the person is notable photographer or not. --Zache (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)
- There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- At Category:Photographs by photographer about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't.
- If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)
May 30[edit]
Categorization issue[edit]
File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg and File:Pitura Freska 02.jpg are shooted with different of some moments each others, but Pitura Freska 01.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1992 and Pitura Freska 02.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1997. What is the exact year? --93.47.37.200 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg has 1997 as well. Category is at Category:Pitura Freska. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- It's 1997. The original date of File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg was 1997 but this was changed by an IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [1]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? ReneeWrites (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Clearly the IP knows stuff about the group and shares it. The pictures were uploaded two decades later.
- Unless the year can be confirmed in another way, I'd leave the question in the file descriptions, on the uploader's talk page and on the discussion page of it:Pitura Freska. Maybe in another 10 years, someone answers. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg[edit]
.svg){kind=link}
Proceeding with rename. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 14:24, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ok, this is getting a bit ridiculous, but this rename request has been at some sort of limbo state for 5 months so I'm bringing it here so it can gain more attention. Should we rename the file to File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg? I quote Fry1989's reasoning:
"This flag is currently in use, so the year of introduction should not be included in the file name. This is as per Commons' long-standing practice of naming flag images "Flag of XXX.svg" without a year of introduction unless the flag has been retired from use. It also can be confused for implying this flag was only used in 2023, as per the naming styles for flags such as File:Flag of Burundi (1966).svg, File:Flag of Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).svg, and File:Flag of Jamaica (1962).svg, which were only used for 1 year or less and for that reason include both their year of introduction and year of retirement as a single year."
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
.svg){kind=link}
Pinging previously involved editors: @Fry1989, KylieTastic, Paine Ellsworth, and Billinghurst. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=link}
Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)- Support Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Leaning toward support pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has changed since January? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Support as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
.svg#Discussion_about_rename){kind=link}
- The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Enabling MP4[edit]
Hi, Ten years ago, there was Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. I think it is time that we consider enabling MP4. At least some of the patents expired, according to the discussion. And video2commons is broken for the last 2 weeks, and nobody seems to be able to fix it, or even working on it. In addition, it seems that WEBM format creates larger videos than MP4, which has for consequence that big videos can only be uploaded in a reduced quality. Any idea how to proceed? Yann (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- Nobody are able to fix it or nobody wants to? Two very different things Trade (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @Yann MP4 can be H264 or H265. WEBM can be VP9 or AV1. AV1 is to VP9, what H265 is to H264. H264 and VP9 are old. AV1 and H265 are more efficient. If you transcode from H265 to VP9 the result is of course larger. If you transcode from H264 to AV1 the result is smaller. If you transcode from H265 to AV1 the result is more or less same size. The patent for H264 has expired. The patent for H265 has not expired. For some time now MW has full support of AV1. Most people are not aware about the H264 vs H265 isssue. If MP4 is allowed, people will start to complain that they cannot (must not) upload some MP4 files (and are unaware of the H254/H265 issue). All modern iOS and Android devices use H265 (in a MOV or MP4 container). However you can transcode your own uploads with AV1 transcoding and they will have small size and high quality. v2c can be altered to use AV1 instead of VP9. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 20:19, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Per en:High Efficiency Video Coding, the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- its always going to be a UI problem that video (container) formats are more like zip files then a specific format. Mp4 can have all sorts of formats inside, and will probably have new formats in the future. For that matter VVC/H.266 is already the newest thing. That said just giving the user an error message doesn't sound that terrible. Bawolff (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Per en:High Efficiency Video Coding, the first version of HEVC/H265 was released in 2013. Patents usually run for 20 years. So I'd guess not before 2033, but probably later than that because of subsequent patents. --Rosenzweig τ 09:57, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @C.Suthorn: When does H265 patent expire? Yann (talk) 20:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- How about the middle ground where commons allows uploading of such files but automatically converts them to webm, discarding the mp4 version. Bawolff (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes. V2C allows for more too, but alas now it's broken. Result is, I have several videos pending that I would like to upload, but I can't. I could if either V2C would work, or if the size limit for basic upload form was higher AND mp4 was allowed (or automatically converted). Regards --A.Savin 21:11, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- for reference, current size limit is 5gb if using upload wizard (or certain gadgets) Bawolff (talk) 20:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- +1 also support this. If the ability to convert files to webm was previously a gatekeeping mechanism to prevent the site from getting flooded with useless mundane videos and copyvios, other mechanisms should be added. I think there already is a problem with most video uploads being nothing useful and nearly no videos ever getting DRd. I don't know if video2commons has code to convert non-webm files to webm but if so, that could be used; either way converting video files on the server should be a relatively simple common sense thing to add. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I would support this (unless mp4 gets allowed anyway); and also, the maximum size of a file upload from the computer should be MUCH bigger than the current 100 MB; at least 500, better 1,000. --A.Savin 10:30, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Video2Commons[edit]
Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Yes, several people reported this: phab:T365154. And it is in this state since May 15th. Yann (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
May 31[edit]
Statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons: beyond Wikipedia[edit]
In direct response to the new Wikimedia Foundation Annual Plan 2024-25, a group of Wikimedians has co-authored a statement about the scope of Wikimedia Commons, beyond Wikipedia. We would like to see WMF staff support for Wikimedia Commons in its own right (not just to illustrate Wikipedia), and proper resourcing for Wikimedia Commons. You can read the statement in two places and endorse it in any (or both) places if you agree.
More context on the essay's page and talk page.
Best, Spinster (talk) 13:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
Category:Men of the <country> by name, where "the" isn't needed[edit]
This was brought up here last year for category "Men of the France by name". There are now over 53,000 links to it -- not entries in it, but links to the category. There are also over 50,000 links to "Men of the Germany by name". I see similar ones for other countries. (You can find them under Special:WantedPages.) None of the categories actually exist. I gather that a module was changed to fix this problem, but the problem has apparently recurred. Can someone help? -- Auntof6 (talk) 14:24, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
It looks like the Special:WantedPages are cached and only updated twice a month. I assume the use of the category was due to a template error that has since been fixed. I would wait to do anything until the next update of wanted pages.I think I'm wrong with my previous comment. Please disregard. William Graham (talk) 19:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)- This may be an issue with {{Wikidata Infobox}}. I would ask on the template talk page and see if the maintainers have any idea what is going on. I know that from previous go arounds on this, the template/Lua script checks for instances of "the" country categories at some point in the execution. William Graham (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- Possibly the check for existence adds it to the "wanted" list. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- William Graham You are correct {{Wikidata Infobox}} and Module:Wikidata_Infobox in lines 1283-1294 does exactly that. It checks for existence of category with and without "the", and the first check is for the options with "the". User:Mike Peel and User:LennardHofmann maintain that code. Mike and Lennard I suspect that some countries always use "the" and some don't so you should be able to create a lookup table of maybe all the countries that use "the" and at least have a good guess which one of 2 options to try first. If you want I can write a patch to fix this. --Jarekt (talk) 01:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm unable to use the image I just uploaded.[edit]
Hi I don't seem to be able to use the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:M_F_Gervais_Holy_Roman_Empire.pdf It show up in Commons but in Wikipedia I'm not able to use it. Why? It happened for my last file and someone 'did' something... I don't know what was done but it worked. What should I do to fix it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by M F Gervais (talk • contribs) 18:45, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- @M F Gervais: It is there and it functional however due to how big and unwieldy it is as a pdf it takes a while to render, especially whern it has to develop the image cache first:
- Now because PDFs are typically multipage document it can need extra formatting if you are trying to do it through standard wiki formatting. mw:help:images. PDFs should not be used if you want to display an image, please upload an image file per Com:File types — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billinghurst (talk • contribs) 07:59, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Transparency in the Checkuser Process[edit]
The checkuser process is not open to auditing. From a technical perspective, there is no page to confirm that the checkuser process was performed because it likely involves not only the internal technical aspect handled by the MediaWiki tool but also a human element in analyzing user behavior patterns. I believe there should be a task list available that can at least ensure the technical checkuser was conducted and found no connection. It is not clear to me that it was done just because the administrator said so. I think this step is necessary to prevent human errors. --Wilfredor (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The checkuser process is open to auditing by other checkusers, stewards and the ombuds commission, and is fully logged and auditable and visible to these groups. The whole process is meant to have confidentiality, personal protections, and to stop users gaming the system. The tool is meant to be as lightly used as possible, and CUs would just be saying NO to users where the checks should not be run. Checkusers are among the most trusted users through Wikimedia, so if they say what they say, then please believe them and move on. [Spoken as a former checkuser]. Please inform yourself better at m:Checkuser policy. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- I understand that other checkusers can authenticate themselves but I was talking about a more transparent automatic tool that will simply show that the technical evaluation was actually done, but available to everyone without giving details of how the tool or the automated technical evaluation works internally. I believe it's technically OK to say that 'a checkuser' has checked something, that is, saying that a check was done without disclosing in any way which other party ran the check Wilfredor (talk) 11:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- checkuser is not the worst, because there're always multiple checkusers who can check on each other.
- the worst is WMFOffice, banning people without any reason given and other users can hardly ask for the reason. RZuo (talk) 07:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo: That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward] — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- did what you said contradict what i said? "banning people without any reason given". "other users can hardly ask for the reason".
- i want to know why a commons sysop was recently banned, while at the same time user is complaining another death threat was not acted upon after over a year Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_95#c-Ymblanter-20240514175400-Jmabel-20240514172100. RZuo (talk) 07:54, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- actually 2. i cant trace User:Mardetanha's ban to anything.
- i think as commons users (which are eligible voters in rfa), voters have a right to know why users they once voted for got banned. RZuo (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. RZuo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- The User:Benoît Prieur case is public (fr:Wikipédia:Bulletin des administrateurs/2024/Semaine 17#Benoît Prieur suite). GPSLeo (talk) 10:53, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Yes we do. It’s the legal entity ultimately responsible for the websites. The ones that get sued in court. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- "we dont even know who's behind that shared account." —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 20:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Whenever stuff like this comes up, I really wonder what kind of rock people live under where they never have had to deal with people that harass and god forbid exhibit behavior that borders on or is actual criminal conduct. Must be nice, but start organizing an event or something and have the “I guess this is why we can’t have nice things”-moment. Maybe then you’ll understand. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 11:16, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- The other side of this is power really does corrupt, and there are plenty of examples elsewhere where people put in these types of powerful positions with limited oversight act inapropriately or unfairly (just look at ebay). Trusa does important work and to the best of my knowledge they have carried out their duties with professionalism & integrity. However, i can understand where the fear comes from. Bawolff (talk) 20:44, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @TheDJ: I can't tall what your "Yes we do" is replying to (clearly not the comment immediately above), could you clarify? - Jmabel ! talk 18:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- on the other hand, WMFOffice is not elected. we dont even know who's behind that shared account. RZuo (talk) 08:00, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @RZuo: That is not the case. The reasoning is undertaken and performed within the WMF Office team, that it is not made public doesn't mean that there is no valid and justified reason, just not shared with you. That others cannot ask is that it is not your business, and that you have an interest is just that, an interest. There is a rigorous internal process undertaken within that office, and you can enquire with them about that process in a generic sense. That process is not secret. These cases are typically also (mostly) shared and discussed with stewards, as our representatives, so there is also that next level of review. [spoken as a former steward] — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@RZuo: The statement on user accounts says that if you have queries about the ban, then email. So, if you have questions then email. The email will be somewhat generic. They are banned typically for breaking the rules, though you cannot expect staff to go into the specific details of how a person broke the terms of use, nor how they found out they broke the rules. Not only does privacy have to be maintained, once you start making statements about people, they also have the right of reply, was when banned is contrary.
The membership of WMF office is not secret, in fact it is listed at m:Meta:WMF Trust and Safety and FoundationSite:role/staff-contractors. No they are not elected, they are appointed as paid staff members/contractors as staff members/contractors are appointed around the world. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- What I propose is an automated tool that confirms the execution of the checkuser without revealing any private data. Even though there is a group of checkusers verifying the process, this is not sufficient. For greater transparency, it should be publicly shown that the checkuser was indeed carried out and not merely a decision based on other factors. Wilfredor (talk) 12:46, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't see the point to this. If an evil checkuser was not carrying out the actual checkuser, surely if this system was in place they would just run the check and not look at the results, carrying on in their evil ways. Bawolff (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Problems with deceased Commons users[edit]
It seems like user pages of deceased users get fully protected for preservation and to avoid vandalism. I support this practice. However that protection prevents any file renames (for files displayed on the page) or user category renames. Any ideas on how regular users can perform non-controversial operations like file-renames or categorization on deceased Commons userspages? See for example User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood#Please_replace_File:Ralli.3.JPG. Jarekt (talk) 23:59, 31 May 2024 (UTC)
- The problem is the bot, not the user pages. If we retain the redirect there should be no issue, so why does the bot leave a comment on a user talk page about the protected user page. That aside, the comment on the user talk page is of zero issue, and is doing zero harm. The owner of the account is hardly going to be bothered, so what are we worrying about? Anyway, why are we worrying about trying to change the user pages when we put in place redirects. What real problem are we trying to fix? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst and Jmabel: The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests, and User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --Jarekt (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [@Jmabel: hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Not sure if blocking user talkpages is helpful. Typically uploads remain and can end up in deletion requests. If one can't follow up on these based on notices on talk pages, it's unlikely that administrators will do when reviewing the deletion requests.
- Personally, I wouldn't update user pages, even for unprotected ones. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jarekt: I would suggest that 1. Those edits should be declined, and that if we are closing out accounts and blocking user pages, that blocking user talk pages is also worthwhile [@Jmabel: hope that resolves your issue.] or 2. That user talk pages should not be appearing in "Commons protected edit requests" category. That seems a pointless, make work exercise for low value. Sets a rod for our back as more people will die every year, more pages to monitor. Nope, not reasonable nor sustainable. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst and Jmabel: The issue for me is that I am working on the backlog at Category:Commons protected edit requests, and User_talk:Khalid_Mahmood is there. I can manually fulfill those edit requests, but it seems like a waste of time. Cleanup after file renames is a task that should happen automatically no matter if page is protected or not. --Jarekt (talk) 01:27, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- It is an annoyance to those of us who try to monitor the user talk pages of numerous departed users (whether through death or simply leaving the project) to make sure that no important questions are neglected. - Jmabel ! talk 17:38, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: But, for example, there are cases like User:Fæ. He's presumably alive (hi, Fæ, if you are reading this), he never formally left the project, he is certainly not blocked, he simply has chosen not to contribute lately. He's at least a contender for the most prolific uploader in the history of Commons, so inevitably some issues will come up about some of his uploads. His user talk page is the logical place for a bot to notify about those issues, so I monitor it. I would hope someone will do the same for my talk page after my departure, whenever that may be and for whatever reason. I can't really think of a way around that, unless we were to either (1) give up on having a place to notify in those circumstances or (2) add a special case for every closed/abandoned/inactive account and have a way for all bots that do notifications that indicate issues with files, categories, etc. to be able to handle that special case. That seems disproportionate to the issue at hand. - Jmabel ! talk 18:53, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: If a user has died and we have hard blocked their user page, then we hard block their user talk page, then there becomes no maintenance issue. Apart from people like to leave condolences on a user talk page, there is little else that needs to be added one month later. Re watching user talk pages of the otherwise departed, that job is just going to grow, and grow, ... having human eyes alone to manage it is never going to work. @Enhancing999: I would not normally hard block user talk pages. However, this if they are becoming maintenance burdens, then we should. Personally I pretty much think that user pages are not the editing space that many feel that they need to fix for others for some perceived level of perfection. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: so are you proposing that there be no way for anyone to monitor when there are CfDs or DRs for categories/files uploaded by a deceased user, or are you proposing some other mechanism to do that? - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
June 01[edit]
Stuck in category redirects[edit]
At Special:Permalink/880570764 a list of category redirects with files (or subcategories) that aren't moved.
This is generally due to categories being added by templates. I identified some at User_talk:RussBot/category_redirect_log#Template_populating_category_redirects and fixed a few occurrences. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:04, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Some of these either should probably have CfDs or the redirect is actually the correct category. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- Normally, there shouldn't be any category on that list. If one is there it means RussBot tried to move the files or subcategories, but couldn't. If the category is empty now, it means it has been fixed.
- Maybe there is a way to adapt w:Template:Resolve category redirect so redirecting categories aren't picked up by templates. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Commons Gazette 2024-06[edit]
Volunteer staff changes[edit]
In May 2024, 1 sysop was removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops.
- User:Benoît Prieur was removed on 13 May due to global ban by the Wikimedia Foundation. He had served as sysop since 18 January 2018.
Other news[edit]
- Video2commons is out of service since 16 May.
- User:SteinsplitterBot is back in service rotating files. User:Steinsplitter explained that it was out of service because ' the so called "Toolsforge" does not provide enough ressources (RAM, CPU, Storage and binarys) to run Rotatebot '.
Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!
--RZuo (talk) 13:46, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
June 02[edit]
Help with cropping borders from images[edit]
Hi. I was wondering if people could help me crop the borders from images in Category:Images from the German Federal Archive with borders. It currently contains 23,469 images that need cropping which isn't great, but every little bit helps. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- 23,317 images now 🙂 ReneeWrites (talk) 19:20, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Why, I dont see any images in urgent need of cropping, please give some examples Broichmore (talk) 19:52, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- @Broichmore: it looks like a lot of these have a watermark in a margin. - Jmabel ! talk 21:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- For those who don’t know, Commons:CropTool is handy for this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:41, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I just did several with no issues. I have rarely had problems with that tool. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:32, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- When it works, which it mostly doesn't lately. - Jmabel ! talk 22:09, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Aligning images with strong sources[edit]
We have several pictures from WWII concerning Croatian area that are described wrongly or incorrectly given that this is what the secondary sources who comment or talk about these pictures say. The source that took picture from a Yugoslav archive is United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. It is also a factual source, however, it has a description of the image that is not in accordance with modern sources, which mark such an interpretation(regardless from whom) and as propaganda.
What to do in this case, and if nothing can be changed, can the same picture be posted but with an explanation ie description based on modern high-quality sources of historians?
Images are: Corpses in the Sava river, Sisak 1945.[2], Ustaše militia execute prisoners near the Jasenovac concentration camp[3], Glina church massacre [4] --Mikola22 (talk) 06:28, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
![[2]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Corpses_in_the_Sava_river,_Sisak_1945.jpg){kind=link}
![[3]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Ustaše_militia_execute_prisoners_near_the_Jasenovac_concentration_camp.jpg){kind=link}
![[4]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Glina_church_massacre.jpg){kind=link}
- Maybe this helps: File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg reproduces the original description with a caption/disclaimer. The actual wiki-description goes in a different field. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:59, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- For starters, there is {{Fact disputed}}. If (as appears to be the case here) the matter is genuinely controversial, that's a good choice: you are not simply making a correction, you are noting that two presumably scholarly sources disagree.
- File:Bundesarchiv Bild 183-09549-0004, Leipzig, Universität, Archiv.jpg may not be the best example, because it just has a generic warning. File:1st Ave. S. looking north from S. Washington St., ca. 1876 - DPLA - 571301e7640245dfce8110b0e1b41c2c.jpg might be a better example. Note: "original description" distinct from (corrected) "title"; also, in the "description" field, note the horizontal bar separating what the original source said from Commons' own original content.
- Also, when contradicting a presumably respectable scholarly source, it is a good idea to report the contradiction back to them. They are likely to incorporate it into their archives as well (which I see has now happened with that example I gave). - Jmabel ! talk 19:02, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I don't think we can write caption/disclaimer below "United States Holocaust Memorial Museum" because this source is not an archive. It can be said that it is a secondary source. But the problem is that they took these photos from the Yugoslav Archive or sources which interpreted these photos in their own way. In modern sources of historians this method is labeled and as propaganda and with the explanation that the photographs show some other events and not the events that are presented through Yugoslav historiography. Let's say for the majority of Croats killed in Sisak, these photos are listed in the archive as pictures for Jasenovac with a note that this is how people were killed similar or the same and in the concentration camp Jasenovac, so these pictures can also be used in topics about Jasenovac, etc. Today, in fact photos of the majority of Croats killed in Sisak are placed in the context of the killing of Serbs, Jews, the Jasenovac Camp, etc. Mikola22 (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
Guitars, bass guitars, and COM:OVERCAT[edit]
I'm currently in something of a dispute with User:186.172.16.70 over guitars, bass guitars, and (implicitly) COM:OVERCAT. If this were a logged in user, I'd try to sort this out between just the two of us but, sorry, I'm not engaging over time with an account that might be a different person each time I interact.
If I understand correctly this edit is because bass guitars are, in a sense, a form of guitar, so there is an implicit argument that Category:Male guitarists from Austria is overcat for Category:Male bass guitarists from Austria. However, bass guitar is, in practice, a distinct instrument from a regular guitar, and we don't have something like a Category:No, really I meant a normal guitar. This particular person (unlike most bass guitarists) played/plays both a bass guitar and a regular guitar professionally, and in my opinion in that case someone should certainly be categorized under both, despite the theory of OVERCAT. Do others here, besides this one user, see it differently? - Jmabel ! talk 22:18, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- There is no such thing as "regular guitar". Unless there is such a thing as irregular guitar. Do you mean Spanish guitar? Classical guitar? Ritm guitar? Of course admins are always right, this is why I chose not to be one. 186.172.16.70 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- By the way, why is Category:Bass guitarists a subcategory of Category:Guitarists? 186.172.16.70 23:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Maybe you should open a Category:Normal guitarists... 😁 186.172.16.70 23:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- By a "regular guitar" I mean one with six strings, tuned in the usual register.
- I'm not sure why Category:Bass guitarists is a subcategory of Category:Guitarists, and (as a guitarist) I would not have made it so, any more than I would have made violists a subcategory of violinists. That is exactly the issue I am raising here. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Category inclusion bug[edit]
Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Bavaria correctly shows Category:1801 baptismal fonts in Germany as a parent cat, but the latter does not show the former as a child cat. - Jmabel ! talk 22:54, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- Categories included due to templates frequently have issues with updating due to cache issues or the MediaWiki software updating its index (which I believe is done weekly). So while three days is a long time for it to not display, it’s not entirely unreasonable. Have you tried purging both cats and the template (I cannot on the machine I’m using presently)? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had purged both cats. I didn't think to try purging the template; now I've done so, and it still didn't resolve this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Null edit fixed the problem. MKFI (talk) 06:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- I had purged both cats. I didn't think to try purging the template; now I've done so, and it still didn't resolve this. - Jmabel ! talk 00:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
June 03[edit]
Announcing the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee[edit]
- You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language
Hello,
The scrutineers have finished reviewing the vote results. We are following up with the results of the first Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) election.
We are pleased to announce the following individuals as regional members of the U4C, who will fulfill a two-year term:
- North America (USA and Canada)
- –
- Northern and Western Europe
- Latin America and Caribbean
- –
- Central and East Europe (CEE)
- —
- Sub-Saharan Africa
- –
- Middle East and North Africa
- East, South East Asia and Pacific (ESEAP)
- South Asia
- –
The following individuals are elected to be community-at-large members of the U4C, fulfilling a one-year term:
- Barkeep49
- Superpes15
- Civvì
- Luke081515
- –
- –
- –
- –
Thank you again to everyone who participated in this process and much appreciation to the candidates for your leadership and dedication to the Wikimedia movement and community.
Over the next few weeks, the U4C will begin meeting and planning the 2024-25 year in supporting the implementation and review of the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines. Follow their work on Meta-wiki.
On behalf of the UCoC project team,