Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/12.

Please note:

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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

 

Start a new discussion

A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

November 28[edit]

Created a template for PD collection at Library of Congress but unclear on one part[edit]

Hello. I just created this template, PD-Angel, for a public domain collection from the Library of Congress, copying another template that I'd been using for a different collection (example image). However, the part where it says "This template will categorize into Category:PD-Angel." that category is a red link, and I'm not sure how categories in WC are created and I maybe missed a step? Do I need to request this or ask someone with more privs than me? Any help would be appreciated, thank you. Jessamyn (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I have answered my own question and will read up on the tutorial. Jessamyn (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That explains why none of my messages answered! --RAN (talk) 06:06, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 29[edit]

Intimate images without subject's consent[edit]

When I say "intimate images", I am referring to images of genitals, buttocks or breasts, where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy. This appears to be the case in Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Matt Bio Research, and I cannot believe what I am seeing there: one user is arguing that these images are OK because just because they are not "identifiable". I argued that there is doubt as to whether the subjects consented, and the other user has not disputed this: they are simply pressing on with the identifiability argument. I am not convinced that distributing these images is even legal.

The only thing more shocking than that discussion is the fact that we don't have a policy on this. Brianjd (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • How are these images different from the >10,000 other images we have on the same subject? And why are you giving these images the Streisand Effect by telling everyone they are too naughty for us to host? --RAN (talk) 06:10, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )
    • How are these images different from the >10,000 other images we have on the same subject? The uploader has produced evidence of bad faith.
    • why are you giving these images the Streisand Effect by telling everyone they are too naughty for us to host? The deletion request itself does that. But perhaps it would have been better to wait until it was closed before bringing attention to these images. Brianjd (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion was closed as delete based in part on COM:DIGNITY. It seems like we resolved the issue. If there are other images like that, list them for deletion. If you want to chance the policy, then suggest a change at Commons talk:Photographs of identifiable people. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ricky81682 I don't think this guideline is getting the attention it deserves, but I will try anyway. Brianjd (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brianjd Well, that's why I said list them for deletion. It's not like the images were kept. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that the images were deleted because the person is identifiable, can someone tell me who the person was? How did you identify the person? --RAN (talk) 05:54, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) I don't see any claim that the subject(s) are identifiable. Brianjd (talk) 06:47, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that what "privacy" and "identifiable people" means? Otherwise it is just one of >10,000 anonymous intimate body part photos we have. I am not sure how the consent argument is invoked, we never required consent forms be signed and submitted for any identifiable people, and these photos are not of an identifiable person. --RAN (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): My understanding is that these are images of random people's body parts without the uploader writing "my body part" or "a model" or something to give some context. Others may be things like images at a nudist parade which has an identifiable person clearly without their consent. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • We have over 1,000 nude images that do not contain the words "model" or "body part", what will be the fate of those images? From a legal perspective, consent can only be determined if we have a signed model consent form, which Commons has never required for any image. We have over 1,000,000 images of people. --RAN (talk) 02:38, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Piggyback photographers
  • It is not always appropriate to ask for written consent for a photgraph. I am a 70-year-old retiree. In order to take the photograph unposed, I did not seek the young ladies' consent until after I took the photograph. Given our age differences, I started off the converstion with "I do not want to know your names or where you live". Fortunately they spoke English. I then explained why I took the photograph and helped them bookmark my upload page on their Smmartphones". Although this example does not involve nudity, the pricipals are the same - the young ladies concerned are the focus of the image, they could be identified (though with difficulty) but unlike people in a parade (nudist or otherwise), they were not exhibiting theselves to the general public nor were they interacting with the photograher until after the event. Martinvl (talk) 17:11, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • " we never required consent forms be signed and submitted " - The opposite is true: Commons (OTRS now VTRS) does not accept model releases to be submitted. A fotographer may have one in them own archive, but not at commons. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November 30[edit]

Category:Linguistic maps of Algic languages[edit]

Looks like the catogory has a lot of duplicates. 217.117.125.83 20:03, 30 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Doesn't look that way to me. Similar maps, one with and one without modern borders, are not duplicates. Not to say that there couldn't be a duplicate somewhere in here, but it didn't leap out at me. - Jmabel ! talk 01:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • But some images appear in the category more than twice. 217.117.125.83 11:40, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 01[edit]

Many coloured ligths[edit]

Granollers Centre station 2021 3.jpg

Any idea what these ligths are used for?Smiley.toerist (talk) 23:13, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i tried googling "railway signal five light". it does appear that there are real railway signal machines that look like these five light combos, but it's kinda weird that ten of these are put together? and facing no rails? and all switched on?
my wild guess is they're probably being tested?
maybe you could ask the station operator's social media https://www.instagram.com/renfe/ https://twitter.com/Renfe ? RZuo (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: I haven't found anything here nor there. I'm pinging ping @CFA1877 and Savh: , Spanish "rail" users. — Draceane talkcontrib. 09:59, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm sorry, but right now I don't remember seeing such a case like this. I mean, I don't understand what (and why) are all the lights on and in that position, out or range. My impression is that these lights are not in regular service. And if they are in service, I do not know the purpose. CFA1877 (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think it has nothing to do with signialing, but is some kind of monitoring system for the same of electricity supply for the different railway line sections. But why this would be needed to visible on the outside is a mystery. It makes me think of the monitoring ligths you often see by banks of computer hardware.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, that makes more sense. But, as you say, it is a mystery that it is on the outside. CFA1877 (talk) 12:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 02[edit]

Category autocomplete is now case sensitive?[edit]

Hello, in the last few days I noticed that Category autocomplete has become case sensitive for a number of subjects (for instance - "Fishing boats of Portugal", but many others). I noticed this at home, and now in a different computer at the University, so it's not something from my system. Anyone else noticing this, too? What may have caused this (unwanted) change? -- Darwin Ahoy! 17:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed the same thing. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have also. It could lead to starting unnecessary categories perhaps. Krok6kola (talk) 19:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing that this is due to a change in Cat-a-lot. I've added a comment here. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 19:35, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, using HotCat for a while already, has something changed recently? There are no longer all auto-suggestions for case-sensitive input - for example when I go by "Openstreetmap maps of fran...", there is no suggestion to continue with "...France", but just "...Frankfurt". I have to manually click and correct each letter that need to be upper case in order for the suggestion going with France, in that case "OpenStreetMap maps of France". This has become quite a hassle, because I now have to second-guess categories a lot more often. What do I need to change in my preferences; or is this something that Programmers need to fix? --Enyavar (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

i dont know whether this is related to hotcat, catalot or the search bar.
right now i also find that, if you type in the search bar in the upper right corner "Category:Videos from W", no matter whether the W is upper or lower cased, you cant find Category:Videos from Washington, D.C..
maybe some part of mediawiki broke.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I can not at upload choose Category:August 2020 in Baden-Württemberg, already "August 2020 in Ba" does not give enything. It soed not matter which case I choose. This has been occurring for a few days. May be someone can file a Phab ticket?--Ymblanter (talk) 12:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Same here, the case doesn't matter, I guess (working with HotCat). — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:08, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Cat-a-lot has reverted to the previous behavior for me. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can confirm; it is frustrating to not know what caused this though. Thanks to whoever fixed it. --Enyavar (talk) 00:22, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 05[edit]

New user script: Warn you before opening large files[edit]

Hi, everybody! I have just created a new user script that gives you a warning if you're about to open a very large file from a file page. The default setting in the script is to give you a warning (a popup box asking you if you really want to open the file) if the width or height is larger than 10,000 pixels, or if the file is larger than 100 MB, but these are both configurable per user (see instructions on the script page). If you want to try it out, add the following line to your common.js: 

mw.loader.load( "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Jon_Harald_Søby/warnOnLargeFile.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript" );

The script also works for old versions of files in the file history table on file pages. Hope it will come in handy! Jon Harald Søby (talk) 01:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

looks like a great tool! i propose making this into a gadget.--RZuo (talk) 11:58, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This should become a tool, because for users using mobile data opening such a large file can become very costly for them (I assume). --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hiddencat or not hiddencat?[edit]

@Achim55, 4nn1l2, Verdy p, and Auntof6: and others is it certain that Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is an administrative category and hence should be provided with hiddencat-tag?--Estopedist1 (talk) 07:54, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly not an administrative category and should not be hidden! Brianjd (talk) 08:03, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See the policy at Commons:HIDDENCAT, which mentions that many non-topical categories are hidden, but doesn't say what categories should be hidden.
This category seems non-topical and administrative to me. Spot-checking some similar categories, I see several that are hidden and one that's not. But in the absence of any guidelines/policies of what categories should be hidden, I'd say it's up to individual editors. Not ideal, I know. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:58, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Auntof6 I don't see how this is any more administrative than, say, the subcategories of Maps by source. But perhaps I am simply demonstrating your point, that this situation is not ideal.
Also see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2021/11#Categorization question, which points out another inconsistency and suggests that this is a larger problem. There are also countless other discussions about hidden categories. Brianjd (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Brianjd and disagree with Aunt6 here. This is a category by source, and there's no need to hide it. Hiding categories are those needed for maintenance purpose, and that do not provide metadata classification. But the indentification of sources is an important goal of Wikimedia, and it should not be hidden (even if these sources imply some possible maintenance to assert their legal right for imports).
Things would be different if these sources are jsut from individual users (private categories created by them for their own purpose, even if I think that these categories should not even exist, unless that user has a known, verifiable and asserted identify with public interest, e.g. from known artists, that decide to make their creations opensourced or in the public domain, in that case we'll need a proof from them and an assertion securely checked: in that case knowing these sources should not be hidden because we'll need that to preserve neutrality and correctly tagged contents that may be oriented so that reusers will know who has an interest, posibly commercial, to publish that content; but most users in Commons create opensourced contents or uploads photos from the observable public space and we can still track them by the fact that they are the uploader, without needing any categorzation; but some users upload a lot of things and want to organize their work and present it by subcategories, or to track their current work progress, and possibly add their own maintenance categories in their TODO lists, and in my opinion they should better just create subpages in their users pages to collect links to these contents, and otherwise categorize them in normal categories for general topics).
For now this category for contents uploaded from a public museum are properly tagged and subcategorized as a subcollection for that museum, and this does not need to be hidden at all; it is clearly not "administrative" and clearly not for maintenance purpose, and it has excellent value for metadata purposes and labelling, just like we have categories for images in the public domain coming from US agencies (such as the CIA) which are not neutral when they are built as a large colelction supposed to cover a whole domain of knowledge and present it according to their view (such collection may not be really exhaustive to cover these domains, even if these sources are considered "reliable" only because they are wellknown and easily verifiable as their sources, rather than for the content itself which may be tweaked and politically oriented, for example the presentation of borders and international claims as they are recognizd by the US, but not necessarily every country in the world)! verdy_p (talk) 10:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, on the other hand, a category that currently contains 6000+ files is rather useless for people searching for images, the original purpose of categories. --Túrelio (talk) 10:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is also the case for categories created for various US or UN agencies... This does not mean that categorizing content there is enough! We need other categorization scheme by topic (subjects, epochs, artistic styles, colors, materials...). The same is true for categories related to public libraries. May be that category is now overpopulated and could be improved by splitting it further in subcollections. verdy_p (talk) 10:26, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio Not necessarily. Having this category displayed in the categories lists on individual files might be useful. Some people can apparently scan long lists of images quickly; this might be useful for them. But most importantly, there are tools that can combine multiple categories and other criteria, such as FastCCI and PetScan, and categories like this could be very useful with such tools.
If you still want to divide this category into subcategories, go ahead. Creating this category was obviously the first step towards achieving that.
So however you look at it, this is a good category to have. Brianjd (talk) 10:33, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, that this is clearly not an administrative category. Not to mention, that by marking this hidden nearly 1400 images got first marked as uncategorized and were then categorized under "Estonian Museum of Natural History" which is plain stupid. Yes, it would not be enough to mark images only into that geological collection category, but that [i.e the fact that this category contains a lot of images] does not make it an administrative category. That should be so obvious, that I don't see what is there to even ask about it or to make that kind of edit in the first place. Kruusamägi (talk) 14:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection is a tracker category added by {{EMNH geo}} and according to Commons:Categories source categories are hidden. This has been standing practice on Commons for many years.
Images should be categorized by topic too and not only be in this category. You might find Commons:Guide to batch uploading & Commons:Guide to content partnerships useful. Multichill (talk) 16:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Clearly just placing something in this category would never be sufficient categorization.
  2. @Multichill: So are you saying that if someone takes an image of something in that collection at that museum themself, they should not add this category? - Jmabel ! talk
Exactly, source categories are to track who took or contributed a file. So for example Category:Images from the Rijksmuseum should only contain image that are from the Rijksmuseum (https://www.rijksmuseum.nl/en/rijksstudio) and not photos by people who visited the Rijksmuseum. Every file, regardless of it's source, should also have one or more topic categories like Category:Paintings in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam or Category:Models of ships in the Rijksmuseum Amsterdam.
Generally source categories are used for tracking and not split up and diffused into subcategories like normal topic categories because that would make it harder to track these files. Tools like https://glamtools.toolforge.org/baglama2/ work on these (flat) tracker categories. Multichill (talk) 20:52, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is kind of common, that images should often be placed into multiple categories. Only this one category would not be enough anyway, but that is not a reason for it to be a hidden category.
For instance, we have this file. There are categories "Sapphire", "Images from the Estonian Museum of Natural History geological collection", and "Photographs by Tõnis Saadre". In my opinion, only the last of them should be hidden category and not the one with the museum. Why should there be a big number separate categories (like "Gemstones in the Estonian Museum of Natural History" and similar)? And if a visitor takes a photo of an item in that museum, then that visitor is also an image source. Why should that be treated differently? (that is: visitor images in main categories and museum-made images in hidden categories) Kruusamägi (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC) [reply]
@Multichill Which part of Commons:Categories says that source categories should be hidden? Brianjd (talk) 06:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not hidden. We should hide "non topical" categories. Many categories arrive as a result of some non-topical source (a particular museum, a particular specialist photographer) but they then turn out to have strong topical value too, either from some specialism, or simply because the originator is so prominent in themselves that the group becomes significant.
This category (>6k) is too large to be of much navigational value though, so these images need some additional sub-categories adding. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Since the previous discussion I initiated was mentioned here, I spot-checked random members of Category:Men by name by country and discovered there's no consistency whatsoever, if anyone cares.RadioKAOS (talk) 10:54, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 07[edit]

png to svg[edit]

What is the best free online png to svg converter that gets it right the first time, there are a half dozen online that do a poor job. I want to convert File:CGA Örbom.png. --RAN (talk) 13:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I spent years working in computer graphics (CAD, to be specific) and I'm pretty confident in saying that there is no great way to convert raster to vector. At best, you can get some degree of approximation. - Jmabel ! talk 16:51, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see that image as a good candidate for vectorization. Digitizing the individual lines would require a lot of coordinates and would make the file huge. In addition, the vectorization would start copying the noise in the cross hatching rather than giving the expected sharp and colinear edges. Unlimited scaling also does not seem reasonable. At small scales, all the lines blur together to give a good image. At medium scale, we can appreciate the image and see the lines. I suspect at large scale, the lines would overwhelm the image unless one stepped way back. Glrx (talk) 19:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks! I was able to do an etching into a nice svg, but it took me a long time to get it right. I will see if I can find the image to show you. --RAN (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 08[edit]

Server error for old revisions of file[edit]

Looking at the description page File:40_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg, the File history table is not displaying previous revisions, but instead the text "Thumbnail for version..." as a clickable link. Clicking on it gives an error message, such as "File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.e3/archive/e/e3/20060220184425%2140_Bank_Street_Heron_Quay_London.jpg". I don't see any deletion or revision-hiding in the log for that file. I spot-checked a few other files with old revisions, and they seem to display properly, so it's not a universal problem with file-history display. DMacks (talk) 05:26, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Language clarification on UK legislation uploads by Fae.[edit]

Courtesy link to a Bot request. Commons:Bots/Work_requests#Language_clarification_on_UK_legislation_uploads_by_Fae. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:19, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 09[edit]

Copyfraud vs. watermark[edit]

I was cleaning the Copyfraud category and there are several examples of institutions adding watermarks to images so that you have to pay if you want a clean copy to publish in a book. I don't think that is copyfraud, no one is falsely claiming they own the copyrights, they are just making a monetary decision to force you to pay if you want a higher resolution, watermark-free copy to publish in a book. Most of the other examples are clear claims of copyright of public domain images. See: File:Copyfraud darmstadt.jpg (watermarked with the name of the institution) versus File:Hiram Boardman Conibear obituary.png (rote notice added to every article from every year) and File:British Museum Fortuna statue, with copyfraud notice.jpg (my favorite). I want to remove the watermark ones from the category, unless the watermark specifically makes a copyright claim. What do you think? I will add in the category "Images with watermarks". --RAN (talk) 04:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Eizabethan Prosthetic Arm
  • This is a good example of Alamy making money from a photgraph that is freely available on the internet - compare it with the image on the right. I know for a fact that the original photgrapher does not receive a penny from Alamy (or anybody else for that matter). In their blurb, they claim that their fee is for "for access to the high resolution copy of the image".
Would the watermarks on this image, were it to be loaded from Alamy, be construed as "Copyfraud". Martinvl (talk) 16:45, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say not fraud, just a smart business model, find something free and then find a way to charge for it. In economics class, it was called "selling ice to the Inuit", now it would be called "selling bottled water when water from the fountain is free". P.S. I just warned a person at Wikidata that dedicated a photo collection to the public domain, that they should have done it by creative commons with attribution since Alamy does not always pick up the attribution data from Commons if it isn't formatted consistently. --RAN (talk) 20:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have separated the images that are "watermarked to prevent free use" from those making a false claim of copyright ownership (copyfraud). Museums and archives use both techniques to prevent free use, and to encourage paid licensing of a higher-resolution, watermark-free image for commercial purposes. --RAN (talk) 21:10, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned bot[edit]

Hi, The "Unsigned bot" stopped working. Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:55, 9 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: I have not yet gotten a response from Eatcha about this request.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:33, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 10[edit]

Insufficient data from a SPARQL request on wikidata[edit]

I pull images through a SPARQL request on wikidata, to access the license, and to give proper credit I use the following request:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3a##FILENAME##

Like:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aAnnunciation%20(Leonardo).jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&prop=imageinfo&iiprop=extmetadata&titles=File%3aLa_belle_ferronni%C3%A8re,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg

Now I noticed a problem on File:Annunciation (Leonardo).jpg. I am not getting the author (the photographer), but only the artist, and in the data I receive the author (photographer) is only mentioned in the Categories field and nowhere else. On File:La_belle_ferronnière,Leonardo_da_Vinci_-_Louvre.jpg (from the same Artist and the same author) I can access the author (photographer) via the artist field because there is a separate Photograph object. How can I reliably access the Author via the API to give proper attribution? Thanks. DarthBrento (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adding data + document file formats[edit]

Have there been recent discussions about what data + document file formats to add to the list of "acceptable file types"? --SJ+ 20:20, 10 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 11[edit]

Porn in commons[edit]

Someone please would enlighten me about the status of pornographical images in Commons?

I have noticed several dead proposals (COM:SEX, Commons:Pornography and many linked discussions), and occasional references to various very generic policies about censorship. Despite the vast amount of discussions there is no policy saying yes, porn is allowed, because <reasons> or no, porn is not allowed because <reasons> and the threshold is <this_and_that>. I was thinking of actually linking some of the images here (one can start from here) but I believe many people would be extremely shocked to see those in this open and common discussion. And I guess that is also my point here.

I'd like to request a clear statement here from you (from we all), people. Don't close your eyes and act like it wasn't there. Allow or limit, I don't care which one, but shall be decided, not done by handwaving. Especially for images don't linked from anywhere, just being there for... um... for whatever reason, like there wasn't any porn elsewhere on porn-oriented sites.

I was actually asked about this and these questions have triggered this request.

Thanks for your input, and please: keep discussion civilised. --grin ✎ 11:50, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Porn should de treated like any other content. The only difference is that we are more careful with low quality files and even more strict with unclear sources for personality rights reasons. And there is also a problem with indented spam and vandalism in these topic requiring more attention on all contributions there. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Should be", I am not really sure whether you mean you are not aware how porn is seen and handled in the current society, or how the legal frameworks of various countries handle it, or you simply chose to ignore that. I can assure you that porn is not like an image of a flower, and there may be legal implications providing that category of imagery to underage persons. (If you really don't know about various laws differentiating pornography then tell me and I will provide you with some examples; not that I want to.)
My question wasn't, I repeat again, why it isn't banned, nor have I complained about handling. My request was specifically to describe this category and its handling, instead of acting like it didn't exist. (If you agree, we can write into the Censorship policy that "pornography is allowed since we believe it would be censorship", so it would be a good basis for debate. <hhok/>)
(Obviously specifically writing down that "porn is allowed without restrictions" will have implications for Commons and Wikipedia generally, but it's not my job to foretell the future. Right now it's in the shadow, and there is nothing guaranteeing that it is going to stay there.) grin ✎ 15:37, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Anything under the slightest suspicion of so-called child-p0rn has to speedied instantenously, uploader blocked and WMF-legal has to be notified. See also {{2257}}. Anything under the suspicion of so-called Revenge porn should also be speedied. --Túrelio (talk) 12:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are large batches of porn images which are not referenced in any articles. Many of those has pretty dubious licenses, like "cc" license from flickr where the flickr account owner has no personal data and his/her email is at a free and usually anonymising provider, basically providing no authority behind the licensor, and most of them are "verified" by a bot. Also it is not clear how Wikipedia (or Commons) follow various laws about protecting of children from improper imagery (for whatever the present governments deem improper). grin ✎ 15:41, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the latter issue: we have no means to protect children from disturbing images. That is not restricted to porn, but includes e.g. war imagery, crime scenes and medical images. Technical measures have been discussed, but they are thought to be both ineffective and very problematic. And yes, we do want to document pornography, like any other aspect of modern (and ancient) society. –LPfi (talk) 17:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Searching my uploads[edit]

Is there a way to just search for svg files in my uploads? --RAN (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Fæ[edit]

User:Fæ is sadly no longer active, but User talk:Fæ is still very busy. Automated archiving there has failed, and the page is exceedingly long; can someone familiar with the bots that do such work please take a took, and fix it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the bot parameters, hopefully it works, and I also hope Fæ doesn't mind. :-) - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 23:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Has someone taken over Fae's role in uploading the new image releases from the Library of Congress? --RAN (talk) 23:33, 11 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
AFAICT, no-one has taken on any of the very useful tasks Fæ used to undertake; I asked about this here, recently, and got no replies. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardkiwi: Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:43, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am back to loading individual ones manually, which is time consuming, and I only do ones of interest to me. I asked him to teach me the software before he left, but I asked too late. There also was a problem with his uploads from the LOC, in that maybe one in 500 images didn't load, for whatever reason, and was skipped. I wanted him to go back and see if he could reload the missing ones automatically. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 12[edit]

Chrome extension for cropping that scrolls down past the bottom of my screen[edit]

I am not sure if I can describe this easily. I cut articles out of public domain Library of Congress newspapers for Commons, mostly obits. The LOC scans a double page and displays the double page. I want to be able to to do a screen grab of just the obituary, where I create a rectangular box to cut and paste the image of the article, but I want the box to continue to scroll past the bottom of my screen. All the Chrome screen-grab extensions I have tried so far allow me to create the rectangle for cropping, but they stop at the bottom of my screen, and I have repeat the process for the bottom half of the image. If I make the image small enough to fit on my screen I lose resolution and cannot perform OCR. Now I download the whole double page image and have to search for the obituary again by reading both pages, sometimes I can't relocate the name I am looking for on the double page. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 00:53, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@RAN: You could increase the resolution of your video card to the maximum your monitor supports, or upgrade one or both.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:33, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Another workaround I have been using is to change Graphics Options > Rotation > Rotate to 90 degrees. It has the length of the article now oriented with the horizontal length of my screen, but reversing it is difficult, my computer does not support hotkeys for the change back and forth. You are right, probably better to get a new kick-ass computer and bigger monitor. --RAN (talk) 01:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Use bigger hardware to overcome lousy software, that's one solution of course. My fvwm allows my setting a large virtual resolution. When I maximise the browser window all the image would fit on my (virtual) screen and the window manager would handle the scrolling. Might not work that well with truly huge files, but for any newspaper scan the approach works well (avoid resizing the window manually, as the normal size would then also have to be restored manually, unless you have a button for setting a default size, but such a button is easy to configure). –LPfi (talk) 13:39, 12 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RAN: would temporarily switching to a different browser be an option? In Firefox you can just right click somewhere on the page, then go "take screenshot" -> "save full page" (and then crop to the desired portion of the page afterwards). El Grafo (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, excellent, let me take a peek at that, I haven't been using Firefox in years, let me install it and see if it helps. --RAN (talk) 19:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

December 13[edit]

IPs deleting structured data[edit]

Every day there are around 30 edits by IPs just deleting all structured data of files. Is there a possibility to create an AbuseFilter to prevent this or do we need to request a new Mediawiki feature for this? --GPSLeo (talk) 13:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Street art vs Graffiti[edit]

I was trying to clean up the cat Graffiti in London when I noticed there is significant overlap between these two categories, at first i thought it was a case of duplication that has made it's way down the whole local cat structure, but en:wiki has two separate articles for the two concepts. I am having a hard time distinguishing between the two concepts in practice when it comes to categorisation Category:Street art describes it as "Street art is a subset of Public art which denotes unsanctioned artwork in the public space." Category:Graffiti states "This category is for graffiti- and street-art." One of the main differences between the two concepts is public perception, seems too subjective for a category structure. So what is the best way to categorise a spray painted picture on a wall? Oxyman (talk) 14:05, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, IMO the description needs a fix. Street art is legal, Graffiti is not. Yann (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the whole difference? As a quick search seems to indicate that street art is often illegal while I have seen a lot of legal graffiti. Graffiti just seems to mean "street paintings" while street art is a whole larger category that includes other forms of street art. At least that is what I suspect based on how "Straatkunst" and "Graffiti" are used in Dutch. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:06, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Old time graffiti
  • I understand the confusion and I wonder if there is a clear difference today. Artists like Category:Banksy are considered "graffiti artists" and "street artists". "Graffiti" was considered defacement in the past and something to be painted over, but now some of it is seen as "politic protest" and "public art". Krok6kola (talk) 19:25, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The blanking of "User talk:Rodhullandemu"[edit]

For context, user "Rodhullandemu" has recently been banned by the Wikimedia Foundation (WMF) likely for threatening a poor vandal that just wanted to have some fun. I had the idea to open up a thread here to discuss if it might be wise to unblock their ability to upload images here but in light of this ban such a discussion would be futile. In relation to this I noticed a recent trend that the WMFOffice has started blanking user talk pages as they did here. Not only did they remove other people's comments they removed the archiving system, in fact the WMFOffice seems to systematically remove anything except for block notices, sock-tags, Etc. which just seems like spiteful gravedancing to me. While blanking user pages is (unfortunately) acceptable, blanking user talk pages is something that as far as I know isn't something that is regularly done in any non-Francophone Wikimedia website.

Would it be wise to make a policy or guideline against the blanking of User talk pages and then ask the WMFOffice to respect that? I personally do not see what benefit it has to blank user talk pages. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment, I am afraid to talk directly to the WMFOffice as I am convinced that they simply ban-without-appeal anyone that interacts with them, the fact that Rodhullandemu stated multiple times that he was talking to the Trust & Safety Team makes me believe that this was the case, if anyone would talk to them do not mention that such a policy was my suggestion. As the growth of users getting WMF banned seems exponential with no transparency, so I can only assume that very little or no reason could be a cause for a ban. So this policy suggestion is not something against the WMFOffice simply weighing in if the current practice is beneficial to the community or not. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:02, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: FYI, I corresponded with them via email in 2019 about Hasive, and my account lived to tell the tale.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:15, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, While I find the ban warranted (i.e. among other reasons for exporting the conflict on WD), I have to objection to restore the archiving system of his talk page. Since he uploaded many images, there is a need to send a DR notice somewhere, if anyone wants to monitor his page. Regards, Yann (talk) 21:18, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. That is one reason. We should also not hide history. We cannot just pretend these users never existed.
For the user page, I believe we should not blank them either, as long as the content isn't objectionable (if edits during the conflict were, restore an older version and add the template to that).
I think the spirit of the attribution clauses of many free licences require that we attribute the users' presentation of themselves (including possible links to an external site), not a blank page with a "banned" template. If I cannot trust WMF to keep my user page, then I would have to make the author line point to an external page inste4ad of to Commons.
–LPfi (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Recordings of EmacsConf in Wikimedia Commons[edit]

I've contacted the organizers of EmacsConf through #emacsconf to ask them about uploading the recordings to Wikimedia Commons. For what I could perceive from their answers is that they are willing to do what would be more beneficial to the community and these are some questions that popped up.

  • Will it be useful to Wikimedia Commons?
  • What would be the differences to uploading them to archive.org?

It is worth mentioning that all the recordings can be found in the official site of EmacsConf. In addition to that, anyone can contribute to that site as explained in the Edit section of the page (this requires running some commands in the command line).

Additional context: Some of my reasons for proposing this idea were (1) People can contribute by adding subtitles in 444 languages (2) Subtitles vandalization can be easily reverted by contributors to this site (3) Contributors don't need an account (4) Adding subtitles to a video is frictionless thanks to the user-friendly interface of Commons (5) Videos can have structured data which make them easier to find (i.e. part of (P361) EmacsConf (Q103942956), instance of (P31) lightning talk (Q926186), language used (P2936) English (Q1860))

I would appreciate any information to make a better decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rdrg109 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 December 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

  • Just an aside so no one else needs to check: these are licensed CC-BY-SA-4.0. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

RfC Structured Data on Commons Stable Interface Policy[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T290671

Hello everybody! The Structured Data engineering team would like to share with the community the draft of a new operational policy, regarding the stability of public interfaces and data formats here on Wikimedia Commons. The policy is largely based on the same operational policy established on Wikidata back in 2016.

This policy will not impact the project's content, nor the community processes, but the team wants to follow community process for its adoption. Any user interested in providing feedback on the policy can do so in the relative talk page.

We would like to wait until Sunday December 19 for any feedback on the proposal. If there are no objections by the end of the week, the policy should be considered adopted. -- Sannita (WMF) (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Website[edit]

Hello, what type of license do the images on this site have? Can I use them in wikipedia? Your admirer --AngryBiceps (talk) 21:09, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • I see no indication of any free license at all. @AngryBiceps: do you have some reason to think that they are anything other than copyrighted with all rights reserved? - Jmabel ! talk 21:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Much thanks :) AngryBiceps (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@AngryBiceps: Hi, and welcome. Technically, they are offered under the "Standard YouTube License", which we do not accept, per COM:YT.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:08, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you :) AngryBiceps (talk) 22:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=613728968"