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/2023/10. 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. |
 Water pump next to the church in the town center of Doel. Doel, Beveren, East Flanders, Belgium. [add] | |||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
 |
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days. |
September 30[edit]
Commons in 20-50 years - a look into the future[edit]
Hi folks!
I want to hear your opinion: What do you think Commons will look like in 20 or even 50 years? Will it only grow like before or will there be new impulses, milestones, functions or even revolutionary aspects? And what about other projects like Wikipedia or the movement of free knowledge in general?
Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 20:01, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- There's so many interesting things to speculate, address or discuss in that regard and maybe there could be some charts or reports with some work on that.
- We'll have more sophisticated scripts, AI, bots, and tools that populate the category structure that we establish now and only much less so in the future. These identify plants, animals, categories, etc automatically and import huge amounts of media.
- WMC will be filled with many terabytes of porn videos and gore that get displayed for everybody at unexpected searches and categories, an issue which I have repeatedly raised but which so far has not been constructively engaged with. I suggested, for a start, a policy that requires media of nude people to not be put in irrelevant categories like children's games or specific foods, amending the policy that currently only discourages "low-quality" "amateur" porn.
- Lots of other media beyond gore and porn will lose copyright protections.
- More code issues will get implemented by that time. For example, it could be more easily possible to modify existing images such as via allowing the upload of attached xcf files so other users can directly edit elements of media. For further speculations, just look at the code issues and wishlists.
- You'd have to specify things more clearly in terms of which aspects you're interested in. Prototyperspective (talk) 20:26, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
- 50 years? Imagine trying to say in 1973 what some computer thing would look like in 2023. Even the people at SRI and Xerox PARC would have been seriously off the mark (though probably closer than anyone else). - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Doesn't mean we can't speculate. Moreover, there's trends and plans to look at and not everything is equally hard to extrapolate...especially when considering that we may have useful/substantially-correct prediction for one half while being completely off or not expecting another half.
- Concerning correct IT-related predictions, read about Philip K Dick's broad ideas, or predictions of smartphones and video chatting etc almost a hundred years ago. Not all time periods, subjects, etc are equal – what and how we speculate now can differ from how we did so in the past.
- I didn't list everything I was thinking about btw. In such discussions, people usually put too much focus on AI when there's e.g. so many code issues that are also or even equally important (such as being able to have a wall of images from all subcategories sorted by best/most relevant within a category). Things like that would drown if people just talked about how useful WMC can be as artificial intelligence training data or how one could use natural language to navigate/retrieve from/make use of it etc. There also is collective intelligence, and AI is not autonomous but tools.
- @Broichmore: That's already an issue, see Category:Generative photography to see how realistic these images can look, we should have at least a policy that requires these images to be put in a subcat of Category:AI-generated images (we don't even have such a policy for porn and gore). Not sure if that is what you mean with "false" AI images – I think they need to be identified and marked as AI-generated and sooner or later it would be good if we had a tool that could detect these automatically, I've been adding all images not yet in that cat but being AI-generated but I won't be able to do so anymore and few images may have gone under the radar and are still put here as if they were genuine photographs. I don't think we should focus so much on which specific tools we need (like a script detecting likely AI generated images) but how we get people to actually code and implement them. For example, tools like AI software that automatically identify plants or insects are out there for many years but it seems like, and I may be wrong, to this day nobody has put them to use on WMC (excluding external pre-upload w:INaturalist#Automated species identification). Prototyperspective (talk) 11:17, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- 50 years? Imagine trying to say in 1973 what some computer thing would look like in 2023. Even the people at SRI and Xerox PARC would have been seriously off the mark (though probably closer than anyone else). - Jmabel ! talk 03:08, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- How we react to the uploading and retention of fake (false) AI images, and qualitative issues of modern day photographs (with a camera in everyone's pocket) is going to be crucial. Broichmore (talk) 09:43, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- In 50 years we will finally ditch the stupid category system in favor of structured data. Alternatively, the database will break upon the creation of Category:Black and white photos of pink chameleons in Suriname taken with a Canon Z93-D on 2073-10-01. Nosferattus (talk) 19:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
- Pretty sure the category system will be used for structured data and that some structured data is displayed (and navigable) beneath media. I'd suggest that cats are better kept in sync with structured-data by bots/scripts/tools and that it's made more easily accessible for everybody to combine "Black and white photos" and "Photos of chameleons" (e.g. via well-built-in petscan; note that each of these cats should also be populated to completion by bots for such to display results). Prototyperspective (talk) 08:54, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- Wiki's contain more and more information. There will be people/organizations/countries that do not like that so much. I expect that more and more effort will be put into preventing and fighting professional vandalism. Here I am thinking not only in vandalizing, for example, articles on Wikipedia or changing data at Wikidata but also by paralyzing servers. Wouter (talk) 09:53, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
- My take: in terms of freedom of panorama, more countries will introduce that legal right (see the current efforts in South Africa as an example). But looking at what happened to FOP rights in Nigeria and Vietnam, I expect a few countries to go backwards in favor of artists and abolish FOP. That depends on the vigilance of Wikimedia chapters and user groups around the world. Remains to be seen if UAE would finally introduce FOP that would allow photos of the world's tallest skyscraper to be finally hosted here. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:16, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- I won't even try to predict what Wikimedia will look like in 50 years. Some general thoughts on what things could be like in 20 years: Wikimedia will probably have to navigate an internet that has more censorship from authoritarian countries, may have to obey whatever whims American politicians demand of it so there could be some form of censorship because ultimately what's allowed under the First Amendment is whatever the courts say can or cannot be done. I think there will be some progress on freedom of panorama but there will probably also be countries that revise their copyright laws to exclude FOP. Disinformation will probably get even more sophisticated. I think in 20 years, we'll have better tools for sourcing where a file came from, and we'll have more useful formats for audio and video since patents would expire. I will be hopeful that in our future, the learning curve for new contributors is made less steep. Abzeronow (talk) 02:11, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
October 02[edit]
October 03[edit]
Rules regarding unrecognized countries[edit]
Hi, @Caawiyahaderon modified dozens of maps to reflect recent fights in the disputed w:Sool region of Somalia/Somaliland. Is it how things should be done? A455bcd9 (talk) 08:14, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
To be more accurate, I modified them to reflect the proclamation of Khatumo state earlier this year.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 12:57, 3 October 2023 (UTC)- @Caawiyahaderon: Usually, unless you are making a clearly uncontroversial improvement or have the consent of the original uploader, you should create your own derivative version of a file rather than overwrite. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Understood. The majority of the files I overwrite were on files that were styled as present-day/ current, and as such were suitable as being kept up to date. Nonetheless, although the real life border situation is stable, the political situation continues to mature. As such, I am motivated to discontinue overwriting.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 22:45, 3 October 2023 (UTC)- Do you have reliable sources backing the status of Khatumo state as an unrecognised country? Wikipedia presents it as a state of Somalia. I'll revert some of your edits in the meantime and I think you should do the same. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
As of this moment, Khatumo is in talks with Somalia about unifying the territories, however the talks have not been conclusive, with FGS not recognising Khatumo as one of its federal states. By extension, the de facto status of Khatumo is one of provisional independence until unification is formalised. As Commons-wikimedia editors the most logical step we can take henceforth is see whether talks to change the provisional status of Khatumo between FGS and Khatumo are fruitful. The most unconstructive (and dangerous for travellers) step we could take is to revert maps to the outdated status of 2021 when Sool was under Somaliland control. Already earlier this year a traveller was in a conundrum assuming Sool was in Somaliland, which put him in a lot of trouble. Please @A455bcd9: , it is imperative that you do not revert maps to the outdated status of 2021 because (a) the provisional status of Khatumo hasn't been solved hence controversial, and (b) the jeapardy this poses to travellers. The projection for the current provisional status of Khatumo to be solved is either late 2024 or early 2025. Until that time, neither me, nor you should alter the maps of Sool / Khatumo as that would fall under the bracket of controversial edit. Thank you.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 11:05, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- @Caawiyahaderon: That is an extremely flawed argument. No one should be relying on a Commons map to tell them the precise details of a political situation at any moment in time. We are not a government or news service. We bear no responsibility for people deciding to enter a militarily contested region and your implied argument that we should expand Wikimedia Commons' scope to take on that responsibility is a dangerous move. All we can do here is make a simple decision; make a map showing a contested border or don't make a map showing a contested border.
- In these types of situations, I think it is wiser to create separate files. One shows a border recognised by group X and the other shows a border recognised by group Y. The idea that there can ever be a single version of a map showing political boundaries is flawed. It will either be correct or incorrect depending on your perspective. Commons has the ability to store both versions and reusers can decide which version is appropriate. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree, and concur; my main submission is that Khatumo as a status is (a) transitional (b) provisional and we will arguably get a conclusive information on its status probably in late 2024 as talks between president Firdhiye and the SFG are ongoing at the moment. I myself pledge to refrain from making further edits on the contested status until such an agreement has been reached between SFG and Khatumo.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 12:59, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- You modified almost 250 maps to add a border that you acknowledge is still imprecise ("we will arguably get a conclusive information on its status probably in late 2024"). I think you should revert all your edits and upload separate files instead. Then let users choose and decide whether they want to display the ongoing Khatumo conflict or not. I assume that those interested in the diplomatic missions of Abkhazia, the legality of cannabis for medical purposes, the percentage of adherents to Hinduism, or the availability of Mozilla VPN in the World would prefer the current versions... A455bcd9 (talk) 13:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Do you have reliable sources backing the status of Khatumo state as an unrecognised country? Wikipedia presents it as a state of Somalia. I'll revert some of your edits in the meantime and I think you should do the same. A455bcd9 (talk) 07:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Caawiyahaderon: Usually, unless you are making a clearly uncontroversial improvement or have the consent of the original uploader, you should create your own derivative version of a file rather than overwrite. - Jmabel ! talk 18:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Should Artsakh set a precedent?[edit]
{ping|Golden}}, {ping|AntonSamuel}}, {ping|Ecrusized}}, {ping|彭鹏}}, {ping|Koavf}} . I started a discussion at File talk:2023 Nagorno-Karabakh War.svg where I noted that changes in borders for the Artsakh region were swift. However that page probably doesn't get a lot of onlookers. So yeah, the title of the thread, should Artsakh set a precedent for disputed area situations such as Crimea, Ambazonia, Khatumo etc.? If yes, then we could all act uniformly on border changes. If not, it forecasts disharmonious decisions on border changes. I have pinged editors whom have recently overwritten or updated the Artsakh situation. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 13:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Read the description of the map that you referred to: Map of the 2023 Nagorno-Karabakh war showing Azerbaijan day-to-day advances. That's why changes are reflected quickly there. But you don't see people editing random maps on Commons to add, remove, or change the Azeri borders. Especially on totally unrelated maps such as File:Availability of Mozilla VPN in the World.svg (wtf...). (btw: You might be interested in reading w:Wikipedia:Wikilawyering if you haven't already) A455bcd9 (talk) 13:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
The people I pinged are edited multiple Artsakh files. SSC-Khatumo has been in control of Sool since January 5; thats 10 months. I'll wait on the Artsakh editors on whether 10 months of control is compelling enough for border changes.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 14:06, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Content issues about how and if the borders of such territories are to be represented on maps are not resolved at Commons but in the respective Wikipedia projects. Any kind of overloading files should be avoided if this is likely not to find the consent of the original uploader, see COM:OVERWRITE. If in doubt, it is best to upload new maps under new file names. At Commons, we take only action if COM:OVERWRITE is violated and/or if there is consensus in a deletion request that an unused(!) map appears inaccurate and thereby out of COM:SCOPE. --AFBorchert (talk) 14:20, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Here's a Somalia flag being flown in Las Anod, capital of Sool. Here and here are sources that this opposition call themselves SSC, an alt name for Khatumo. This source says Villa Somalia chief of staff describes Sool revolution as "gathering of people of SSC". Here's a map showing SSC / Khatumo as distinct from Puntland or Somaliland. Here's a reliable source tribally distinguishing Harti inhabitations from the rest of Puntland or Somaliland. Here's a map distinguishing the Sool, Sanaag Cayn regions from both Puntland and Somaliland.Caawiyahaderon (talk) 14:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)- Check w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Anyway, as noted byAFBorchert: I think it's better here not to COM:OVERWRITE and "it is best to upload new maps under new file names". A455bcd9 (talk) 14:31, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I struck through my former comments as I feel like the people in this thread are in concurrence. Caawiyahaderon (talk) 15:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks @Caawiyahaderon. What about reverting your 250 edits and upload new maps under new file names (or find the consent of the original uploader) per COM:OVERWRITE? A455bcd9 (talk) 09:55, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
This file did not pass file verification[edit]
An external partner gets the error message This file did not pass file verification when uploading a video *.mpg with about 690 MByte. No further information available in Upload Wizard. Any help is appreciated. best --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 13:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Christian Philipp (WMAT) not sure if it's helpful but the limitation on size are describe in this page Commons:Maximum file size. If I get it correctly you should use Chunked uploads. PierreSelim (talk) 14:37, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks, the description in Commons:Maximum file size states: The maximum file size for any file on Commons is 4 GiB (4,294,967,296 bytes[1]). Uploads using the Upload Wizard, other tools that support chunked uploads, and server-side uploads must be smaller than this limit. - I understand that the upload Wizard supports chunked uploads and thus can be used for large files (see also Help:Chunked upload). I remember an option in the Upload Wizard to use chunked uploads, but I did not find it, I think it is standard now. --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 14:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
better hints? --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 04:13, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is pure speculation but it might be that Commons doesn't recognise the video codec. There are lots of different video encoding methods that claim to produce .mpg files but without the right codec, you can't play back the file. Does the "external partner" know which .mpg codec was used to create the file? Alternatively, are they sure that the video file is not corrupt? Can it run on other devices than the source camera/recorder/computer? From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:01, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Otherwise the file may be converted to VP9 before uploading --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I think its unlikely to be a codec or file size issue. What is the name that the file was going to be uploaded under and which user tried to upload it? Is the file available to view somewhere else on the internet? (If not, and you know how to do it, can you post the output of running ffprobe (from the ffmpeg command line tool) on the media file?) The most likely cause for this issue is if the file had an extension of .mpg but was not actually in mpg format. Bawolff (talk) 00:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Bawolff: best hint so far. The user is User:ÖGLB-Benutzer, file File:AnteroomUNESCO_1.mpg. The file is not available on a public url :-( I will forward your ffmpeg hint. best --Christian Philipp (WMAT) (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- hey there,
- thx for your infos.
- so it's an MPEG container with
- MPEG-2 video and
- MPEG audio. That should be fine. Here are a few extra details:
- 1920×1080/25fps/pro gressive/max bitrate is 50.
- audio is at
- 384KBits/s/48kHz/ste reo/16-bit.
- everything without metadata.
- actually I have already reformatted the video at least 10 times and tried everything possible. also from other computers (including my colleague from work).
- Unfortunately, we're really stuck.
- the video is 'tiny' and only have approximately 700mb.
- there is a version on the internet (Vimeo) but with other upload specifications. if it would help, i can send you the link.
- best, ca ÖGLB-Benutzer (talk) 05:52, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
October 04[edit]
Image brightness[edit]
I've noticed when uploading files that the image as displayed on a Wikicommons page is slightly darker than the image displayed directly on my monitor when viewed side-by-side. I'm using an Apple studio monitor. Anyone else noticed this or is it just me? Murgatroyd49 (talk) 12:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Is it a png file? The thumbnail problem with png files is already known. --RAN (talk) 13:04, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not to answer for Murgatroyd49 but I have the same issue with JPEG files. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
- This is due to the fact that the preview size of any file on Commons is only 800 pixels, but when viewed on a computer it depends on the resolution of your monitor, which is usually larger. I have 3200x2000 pixels monitor resolution. Commons itself doesn't edit the file code. Юрий Д.К 19:28, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Not to answer for Murgatroyd49 but I have the same issue with JPEG files. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
October 05[edit]
Does CCBY-NC-ND permitted on commons[edit]
I am from the Global South. I've been around for some time and play a role as one of the local organizers for the Wiki Loves campaigns within our region. While I have not actively participated in discussions on the platform, I have greatly appreciated the substantial knowledge exchange among contributors here. It is indisputable that a significant portion of the content submitted by participants in these campaigns consists of low-quality images. In response to this challenge, we have formulated a strategy involving engaging professional photographers. However, we have identified a significant issue regarding the compatibility of most licenses authorized by Wikimedia Commons, particularly in terms of commercial use, which has not resonated well with professional photographers who have shown interest in collaborating with us. See here Commons:Licensing Additionally, I have observed instances where images bearing the CCBY-NC 2.5 license have been uploaded to Wikimedia Commons without facing deletion. This observation has aroused my curiosity about whether professional photographers can utilize the CCBY-NC 2.5 license. Clarifying this matter can attract more experienced photographers and elevate the overall quality of the photographs in our collection.
CC @Kaizenify
Olaniyan Olushola (talk) 10:46, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olaniyan Olushola: See Commons:Licensing. Non-commercial or no-derivative licenses are not permitted. If nothing else, this helps to protect those who reuse our content, probably most of which don't really have a great understanding of the licensing. It's not their fault really. It's complicated. But not understanding the terms of the license isn't a defense if they get dragged into court. GMGtalk 10:53, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- (After edit conflict) We can't accept any files licensed as "Non-Commercial" or "No Derivatives" as they are against the core spirit of Wikimedia Commons. The only way I can think of for files with either of these conditions to be on Commons is if the files have been dual licensed as both Non-Commercial & Commercial, or both No Derivates and "Derivatives acceptable." In the case of dual licensing, we could note both licences for information but would be retaining the files under the more permissive licence. It is more likely though that the NC files you have seen on Commons are in breach of our policies. Please nominate any such files for deletion. Feel free to seek advice here if you are unsure if deletion is the right route. From Hill To Shore (talk) 11:00, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Olaniyan Olushola: See also the justifications at COM:LJ. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:04, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Images cropped to remove timestamp and other[edit]
Images like File:SBB Historic - F 122 00736 001 - Niederteufen SGA AB Haltestelle Bahnseite.jpg got cropped by @Beao: to remove some minor element, reducing image sizes by 10% or more leading to a loss of perspective and the like.
As I lack to time to follow up with the user (beyond leaving them a note), maybe someone else wants to look into their contributions. Surely some may be perfectly reasonable, but the above clearly isn't and the volume requires checking, the user apparently not doing it.
- As I've remarked before (including, I believe, to User:Beao), this violates COM:OVERWRITE. Want a cropped version like this? Fine, upload it under a different file name. Jmabel ! talk 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Okay, I'd like some guidance on when overwrite is appropriate and not. Take these four images I just cropped, should they all be created as new images and a Template:Superseded added to the original? File:SBB Historic - F 122 00736 001 - Niederteufen SGA AB Haltestelle Bahnseite.jpg was of course a mistake, so that's obvious to me.
- File:The Confrontation - Stage 2 (10471405393).jpg
- File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg
- File:HoracioMacedo1998.jpg
- File:Deslizamiento Cerro Chitaría en Santa Ana, Costa Rica - panoramio.jpg Beao (talk) 18:28, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks for asking. For all of those I like your crop, but I probably would have used a distinct name. File:The Confrontation - Stage 2 (10471405393).jpg works out so well that I could easily see a case for overwriting, but on all of the others I could imagine someone wanting to take the effort to retouch it to rework the original at its original dimensions, and when you overwrite you make it less likely anyone will notice and do that.
- I know these are all judgement calls. And I want to mention that things like File:Northwest Mutual Fire Association office, Seattle, 1907 (MOHAI 2557).jpg--text in a border making claim to a PD photo--absolutely should be overwritten.
- You probably know better than I how often someone objects to your crops. I would guess that for every one you hear about, a few others probably thought of objecting to something but decided to let it slide. So even if this is coming up on 1 out of every 100 or so photos you are cropping, that's actually an indication that you are probably being too aggressive with this. And certainly any time someone wants to "split" these, they should win.
- The tricky thing about a rule that says "don't do this if it's controversial" is that you don't know in advance whether it will be. You (that's not a personal "you", I mean "anyone") have to adjust over time to the feedback on what is controversial. This same thing came up a few months ago in a broader sense and resulted in moving Commons:Ignore all rules to Commons:Be flexible. (You might find the discussion there interesting if you weren't following it at the time.) - Jmabel ! talk 20:57, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
- This discussion is an echo of my earlier post, where I went on at length about when to crop and when not.
- I agree with Sneeuwschaap when he says please, don't crop parts of images for removing watermarks. Such damaging of images is even worse than watermarks.
- Slicing off parts of an image destroys the overall, perspective, depth, look and feel of an image. All of the images mentioned here should not have been cropped. Again, we have the technology to remove unwanted watermarks, without cropping.
- The original creators of these pieces, cropped them before publishing them. That should tell you something.
- Deleting parts of images you don't deem informative, is not the way forward. The originator's of the images included those parts to balance the pictures.
- This picture is probably the worst affected, you've actually cropped off the road, kerb, sidewalk, and a potted plant. All of which are important artefacts.
- Here is an example of the only style of acceptable cropping. Any more than that, is 99 times out of a 100 unnaceptable.
- I also talked about cherished watermarks: Harcourt Paris (for example) is a cherished watermark. It denotes fashion photography.
- To sum up cropping and overwriting images is a last resort, a rare activity; it's not a routine specialization.
- Here is an example of why the crop tool was made available for use in the first place. It's an instance of where, and how this tool should be used. Any cropping outside of this very limited parameter is contentious to put it mildly. --Broichmore (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, I've learned a lot about the contentiousness around cropping the last few days :)
- How do you feel about my examples? I think File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg is a good example of what I would consider a good watermark removing crop, considering it's just watermarked floor being cropped out, and the image not getting "cramped" by the crop. Would you prefer the watermark be retouched away? Beao (talk) 15:34, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Here is an example of why the crop tool was made available for use in the first place. It's an instance of where, and how this tool should be used. Any cropping outside of this very limited parameter is contentious to put it mildly. --Broichmore (talk) 15:11, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
_disaster_-_The_Graphic_1888_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
The image without watermark is preferable only if it is identical to the watermarked image in all other respects. The cropping usually damages the images. There are some exceptions, but the user crops hundreds of images without any distinction. His activity must be stopped and reverted. For example, he cropped essential information from many dozens of butterfly images. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- That was because someone marked it with the "Remove border" template. The information is in the description, or do you mean the scale explanation? I can add that to the description where applicable.
- I've mostly stopped cropping, so there is no need to stop me. Beao (talk) 15:46, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean all the information in the cropped part, including the scale explanation. If "someone marked it", why did you blindly fulfilled these requests? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The catalog number is the other piece of information, and that is already in the description and file name. I guess I could add a Template:Metadata from image if that makes things clearer. That template says "Commons discourages placing visible textual information in images", but I'm not sure about what's actual decided policy and what's somebody's opinion. Unless you mean the color calibration data?
- I fulfilled the requests because they seemed reasonable. Beao (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- The colour reference scales on the butterfly pictures are crucial, they speak to the accuracy of the colours in the images.
- An invitation to remove a watermark is not an invitation to crop or trim the image. What's king here is the aesthetic and practical intention of the original creator.
- You've taught me something here I was not aware of the "Remove border" template, which leads us to this hidden cat. I'm shocked to see so many images tagged "erroneously or needlessly" in this dangerous way.
- It doesn't take much looking at random to find potentially contentious items:
- This white border on the left doesn't particulary need cropping because you cant see it on a white background. It would if you were to use it on a website with a black field. Which is not likely. However minimal cropping (actually trimming) would not be contentious.
- This is a postcard overwritten twice with two different physical cards, the same card but different printings. Personally I see no need to have uploaded the newer two. Having said that, this should be three files. The one with the black border is particularly superflous, its size undesirable., 3.18mb has not improved on the 142kb version.
- This is marked for border removal, which is highly debatable. It could be argued that the border is an artist signature, a fashion statement of the time (i.e. period piece speaking of the DDR), an official artefact,. etc. It's also marked for restoration? (do they mean modernisation or colouration?), which it plainly doesn't need, and in fact would be unwanted. Bear in mind that overwriting a file as opposed to creating a separate file, linked back to the original, doesn't save space on the server.
- File:ROH Rhett Titus.jpg, this watermark is a spoiler, seeking payment for use, nothing contentious in trimming that, it adds nothing only detracts. Thie image is devoid of aesthetics, it's a rare occurence in that the bottom clipped off area adds nothing. In fact the image was unbalanced to start with IMO. Broichmore (talk) 10:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- I mean all the information in the cropped part, including the scale explanation. If "someone marked it", why did you blindly fulfilled these requests? Sneeuwschaap (talk) 16:50, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
_1890-1900.jpg){kind=link}
Photographs by date by country as a task for bots[edit]
Dear colleagues, my question is about the tree of categories Category:Photographs by date by country. As far as I understand, it must be affixed to all photographs uploaded to Commons. Template:Taken on with location parameter adds files to this kind of categories — that is how it works for the files transferred from panoramio and flickr, as far as I understand; otherwise one can add the category manually. But the vast majority of photos do not have such categories added, since they appeared only in 2016 and most uploaders do not know about them anyway. At the same time, many photographs have a date in the file description and at the same have some categories by country.
It seems to me that there is the task for a bot here: for all photographs that have exact date in the file description and belong to any category in the trees Category:Structures by country and Category:Nature by country, to wrap the date with the template Template:Taken on using the country from the category in location field. At the moment I only see two possible nuances. 1) Date in the description might be different from the date in EXIF. I believe that the date from the description is preferrable because even in my own experience camera time was sometimes erroneous and I had to correct it after uploading. 2) Template:DTZ used in a file description. Probably for the files using this template simple adding of the category instead of using Template:Taken on would be the better solution. Or might it be that this is true in any case and for all files?
I'd like to know if there are any concerns and objections considering this idea. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:05, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- The date on the page is often not the date the photograph was taken. Many times it is the date of upload (as the uploader doesn't understand what date we want). Other times it is the date of first known publication. It could also be an estimated date inserted to give a rough indication of a photograph's age. This will also partially duplicate bot work recording dates as structured data statements. From Hill To Shore (talk) 18:18, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- See, Upload Wizard automatically uses the date from the camera. This date might be wrong (and an uploader can fail to correct it) but in this case this wrong date will go also to structured data statements and in general we shall never know something is bad here; I don't think though that these cases are numerous. Or the date that the Wizard takes from the camera might be corrected manually by the uploader, and in this kind of cases we are expected to rely on the uploader. But I would not suppose that an uploader would manually replace the right date with the wrong one. If the date is estimated (only a year or a year and a month), the bot would not touch this file at all. Consequently, I estimate the share of files for which the proposed decision would lead to the placing them into a wrong category as very small. As for structured data statements in general, this is the subject for general decision: if we don't need categories from the tree Category:Photographs by date by country, let's delete them in favour of structured data statements; as far as we don't do that, it seems reasonable to care about filling these categories. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- You are thinking only of files that come to us through the upload wizard. We also have many bulk uploads of files, often with poor data quality. I have spent months fixing the data from one archive and have barely scratched the surface. Yes, if structured data makes a mistake your process will make a mistake too, but why double the workload of those of us trying to repair the data? I am not even sure what benefit you expect to gain from this by burying millions of files deep in the category tree. Are we ready to switch to structured data today and abandon categories entirely? Not really. Is it worth automatically dumping millions of files in wrong categories just to prove a point about the utility of one part of the category tree? Again, not really. It would just create more work for no gain. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I presume that the files with poor data quality as a rule would not meet both criteria I mentioned above: these files frequently don't have exact date in the file description and usually are not categorized into relatively deep categories (like, say, Category:Streets in Latvia), so their data of poor quality would stay intact if my proposal is adopted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC),
- Nope: "exact" but incorrect dates are actually pretty common. I've probably fixed a dozen in the last 2 or 3 days, and I wasn't on a hunt for them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure it happens. But do you remember if in these cases the files were categorized correctly? My point is that correct structure of the date and correct categories together provide us with a certain degree of reliability. For example, 20 minutes ago I corrected the wrong date in this file (the error came from EXIF) but it is quite typical that the categories had been wrong too. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 21:06, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nope: "exact" but incorrect dates are actually pretty common. I've probably fixed a dozen in the last 2 or 3 days, and I wasn't on a hunt for them. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- I presume that the files with poor data quality as a rule would not meet both criteria I mentioned above: these files frequently don't have exact date in the file description and usually are not categorized into relatively deep categories (like, say, Category:Streets in Latvia), so their data of poor quality would stay intact if my proposal is adopted. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:44, 5 October 2023 (UTC),
- You are thinking only of files that come to us through the upload wizard. We also have many bulk uploads of files, often with poor data quality. I have spent months fixing the data from one archive and have barely scratched the surface. Yes, if structured data makes a mistake your process will make a mistake too, but why double the workload of those of us trying to repair the data? I am not even sure what benefit you expect to gain from this by burying millions of files deep in the category tree. Are we ready to switch to structured data today and abandon categories entirely? Not really. Is it worth automatically dumping millions of files in wrong categories just to prove a point about the utility of one part of the category tree? Again, not really. It would just create more work for no gain. From Hill To Shore (talk) 20:10, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- See, Upload Wizard automatically uses the date from the camera. This date might be wrong (and an uploader can fail to correct it) but in this case this wrong date will go also to structured data statements and in general we shall never know something is bad here; I don't think though that these cases are numerous. Or the date that the Wizard takes from the camera might be corrected manually by the uploader, and in this kind of cases we are expected to rely on the uploader. But I would not suppose that an uploader would manually replace the right date with the wrong one. If the date is estimated (only a year or a year and a month), the bot would not touch this file at all. Consequently, I estimate the share of files for which the proposed decision would lead to the placing them into a wrong category as very small. As for structured data statements in general, this is the subject for general decision: if we don't need categories from the tree Category:Photographs by date by country, let's delete them in favour of structured data statements; as far as we don't do that, it seems reasonable to care about filling these categories. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 18:38, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
- Nor is this "required," just desirable. And wherever {{Taken on}} (or, when there is less precision, {{Taken in}}) can be used, I would say they are better than an explicit category.
- I'd be very wary of doing this with a bot, because there are quite a few pitfalls, as noted. - Jmabel ! talk 18:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been trying to deal with some of the long-neglected, switching over to {{Extracted from deleted}} as requested. It doesn't display quite as I'd expect: the UI doesn't show the second parameter (which is supposed to be a link to why the original file was deleted). See, for example File:Emma Dumont (2018).jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 23:56, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
Pinging @Alexis Jazz, TKsdik8900, Great Brightstar. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Done -- Great Brightstar (talk) 06:02, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Great Brightstar: Thanks! Much better. - Jmabel ! talk 15:06, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
October 06[edit]
Identifying Tuscany 2002 trains[edit]
also File:Arezzo station 2002 1.jpg, File:Pratovecchio-Stia station 2002 1.jpg and File:Pratovecchio-Stia station 2002 3.jpg. A picture gallery of the electric locomotives would be usefull, for people who dont have an extensive knowledge of the Italian locomotive types, as identification numbers offer little guidance. Smiley.toerist (talk) 08:47, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Need help with WLM submission[edit]
I uploaded a submission to the Wiki Loves Monuments contest. However, one of the categories is "missing author" and "missing place of creation" Would someone out there be able to help? Davest3r08 (talk) 10:57, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Davest3r08: I dealt with the "place of creation" thing (state). I don't see any warning about a missing author, what exactly are you seeing?
- Also, this certainly needs more categories: I've added Category:Restaurants in Silver Spring, Maryland, but you might be able to change that to a more precise subcategory, and I suspect there are other relevant categories (probably something more specific than Category:Diners; a category for the year it was built; maybe others). - Jmabel ! talk 15:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Reflective signs[edit]
,_Wicken_Fen_-_8_December_2013_-_03.JPG)
Unless I'm mistaken, we have no category for reflective signs or surfaces, like that depicted above. Or do we? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:59, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Pigsonthewing: I think these are grouped under Category:Retroreflective signs. From Hill To Shore (talk) 21:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most traffic signs in developed countries are reflective. Do we really want to add this to tens of thousands of images? - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
- Maybe not; but in the case of the images already in the category, or this one, where (respectively) the reflective properties or the structures that case them, are apparent, I think we should. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:26, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Most traffic signs in developed countries are reflective. Do we really want to add this to tens of thousands of images? - Jmabel ! talk 23:13, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
October 07[edit]
Speedy deletions nominated by user Doclys[edit]
The new (as of September 23, 2023) user @Doclys: has already made more than 800 contributions of which many propose speedy deletion of categories. In my case Category:Hovhannes Babakhanyan. I wonder where the images that were in the category went. Same for the other categories nominated for speedy deletion. Wouter (talk) 12:20, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- You can ask the users who proposed or requested the deletion of images from the category you created, like this one. Doclys👨⚕️👩⚕️ 🩺 • 💉 12:34, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- Category:Hovhannes Babakhanyan appears to be empty, so speedying it would make sense. Was there previously content in it? Is there content that should be in it? - Jmabel ! talk 15:53, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- I have prevented this category from SD: we had had other images of this actor, those were not categorized correctly and ended up being deleted as promotional and unused, see here. I have undeleted one of them and added it to the category. Maybe user @Krd: might consider undeleting the rest of them as long as the pictured person seems to be notable. Andrei Romanenko (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
Photo from October 1945[edit]
Hello, this photo ([photo 32) is "a panoramic view of Kure Naval Port (District) taken in October 1945." is it public domain? Because in Japan a photo is public domain if: it was published before 1 January 1957, it was photographed before 1 January 1947. -Artanisen (talk) 18:47, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- The photo should also be in public domain in USA. Ruslik (talk) 20:19, 7 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Ruslik: I can't access the linked page, but by "should also be in public domain in USA" do you mean (1) "is, in my best understanding, public domain in USA" or (2) "would need to be public domain in the USA in order to be uploaded to Commons [and I have no idea whether it is]?" - Jmabel ! talk 02:59, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
October 08[edit]
Show red line for road on infobox[edit]
I have created a relation ID for Category:Gladesville Road, Hunters Hill and added it to the wikidata it. It is not showing in the Infobox map - how would I achieve this? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 15:20, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2: it's there under "Authority File". - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I know there are roads where the road is highlighted in red. - 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2 Could you give an example of a category with a highlighted road? That might help us figure out how to do it ... El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- One example is category:Forrest Highway. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Seems like Forrest Highway (Q1437953) pulls that information from en:Template:Attached KML/Forrest Highway via KML file (P3096). However, I'd argue that using geoshape (P3896) with a GeoJSON file on Commons would probably be the cleaner solution (like with Tashkent (Q269) using Data:Uzbekistan/Tashkent City.map. Unfortunately, documentation for Commons' Data: namespace tends to suck. El Grafo (talk) 09:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- One example is category:Forrest Highway. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:08, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Chris.sherlock2 Could you give an example of a category with a highlighted road? That might help us figure out how to do it ... El Grafo (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Sure, but I know there are roads where the road is highlighted in red. - 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC) Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 00:12, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Burger King recall PSA copyright[edit]
I would like to upload the Burger King recall PSA on Commons (as there is an article of the recall on Wikipedia, this is in the scope of Commons), but I don't know who produced the PSA (thus I don't know the copyright status for this). Two parties were involved in the recall: the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, a U.S. governmental organization, and Burger King, the distributor of the toys. Davest3r08 (talk) 16:16, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
What change was made?[edit]
Can someone explain what change is made in this diff: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Starbucks_at_Earlsbridge_Boulevard_-_20230903.jpg&curid=136938522&diff=810160358&oldid=798509028 ? // sikander { talk } 🦖 23:03, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Sikander: Looks like there was an invisible left-to-right mark between Brampton and the right brackets. If you copy the highlighted text into an editor like Notepad++ that can display control characters, it'll be visible. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
October 09[edit]
Review of India.gov.in photos[edit]
Why the admins and reviewers hesitate to review the GODL-INDIA licenced photos from Government of India owned websites. I see they are tagged unreviewed for 10 years and so. I also uploaded some photos years ago from india.gov.in, which is a Government of India website. It updates itself after every new election and old photos and Profiles of parliamentarians are deleted. But they are still unreviewed. Please note Lok Sabha don't comes under Government of India but India.gov.in is a Government website.
Admantine123 (talk) 05:38, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- [https://www.india.gov.in/about-portal] it explicitly says that the website is of Government of India, yet reviewers choose to keep the images unreviewed. It is fit for GODL licence Admantine123 (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not clear if the GODL applies to all images from the Government of India, or only to some. AFAIK, there is no definitive statement from the Government of India about this. Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- GODL applies on all the information and images created or hosted by government departments. National Data Sharing and accessibility policy is clear on that. Admantine123 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- References? Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- The tag when applied to any file contains a description that writes that it applies to all data generated by Indian government agencies that were created using taxpayers money. Admantine123 (talk) 17:28, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- References? Yann (talk) 12:01, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- GODL applies on all the information and images created or hosted by government departments. National Data Sharing and accessibility policy is clear on that. Admantine123 (talk) 11:15, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- It is not clear if the GODL applies to all images from the Government of India, or only to some. AFAIK, there is no definitive statement from the Government of India about this. Yann (talk) 11:00, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Copyright question[edit]
I managed to find a set of images of a historic Australian company. The book is from the 1880s. My question, can I upload these images, given the age of the book? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:11, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, this is in the public domain. If no author is mentioned, you can use {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} or {{PD-Australia}} + {{PD-US-expired}}. Yann (talk) 10:58, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Thanks! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Opportunities open for the Affiliations Committee, Ombuds commission, and the Case Review Committee[edit]
You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your languageHi everyone! The Affiliations Committee (AffCom), Ombuds commission (OC), and the Case Review Committee (CRC) are looking for new members. These volunteer groups provide important structural and oversight support for the community and movement. People are encouraged to nominate themselves or encourage others they feel would contribute to these groups to apply. There is more information about the roles of the groups, the skills needed, and the opportunity to apply on the Meta-wiki page.
On behalf of the Committee Support team,
Category:Okinawa, which is a disambiguation category, currently contains nearly 200 images. I have no expertise on the place; someone who does might want to sort through these. Some of them may have nothing to do with Okinawa at all, since a fair number have "Phuket" in their file names. - Jmabel ! talk 18:09, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
- Got it down to 12 images now. ReneeWrites (talk) 23:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
October 10[edit]
Nagorno-Karabakh village name categories all being changed into Azerbaijani[edit]
So there is an issue with the village names of the Nagorno-Karabakh region that Azerbaijan blockaded for the better part of a year, then attacked, forcing the local Armenian government to fold and the Armenians to flee. So all of the villages have both Armenian and Azerbaijani names, and although most of the villages were all or vastly Armenian populated even before the conflict re-emerged in the 1980s, all of the category names are being changed to the Azerbaijani names, which the newly fled locals and Armenians in general are not always familiar with, and even non-Armenians who may know one name or the other probably cannot type in Azerbaijani to write Daşbulaq. This in my opinion is a type of disenfranchisement being done to the Armenians from the region, and a purposeful policy by the Azerbaijani government of erasing any trace of Armenian history or habitation there, which eventually gets carried out by users here for whatever their own reasons (be it the desire to organize things a certain way, or other reasons). In any case, I think the easy solution for this issue is to include both names, so that either name will be useful in finding what you're looking for. For example, what I just did with "CategoryːDaşbulaq (Astghashen)" and "Çanaqçı (Avetaranots)". Or I guess we can have a dual categorization system for settlements of Nagorno-Karabakh. Can we get some kind of discussion going and find a practical solution to this issue so that there is an actual policy in place we can refer to instead of changing things around or people just not knowing what to look for? Thanks, --RaffiKojian (talk) 04:43, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Usually when a category can go by two different names that are both correct, one of them will be turned into a category redirect for the other (see COM:REDCAT). Category:Astghashen is a redirect to Category:Daşbulaq, so if someone was looking for Astghashen and added their pictures to that category, it would show up at Daşbulaq as a subcategory. Putting both names in a category name isn't really how things are done on Commons, as far as I know. ReneeWrites (talk) 08:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how in most circumstances that would make sense, but in a case like this where there is a government that is trying to wipe out the name used by locals, and there is a battle on which name to use, and the only people born and raised there may have never even heard of the Azerbaijani name, I hope that the idea that being inclusive of both names would be a better solution for this circumstance. RaffiKojian (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note Category:Donostia-San Sebastián, about a major city in Spain. That category uses the Basque name first, then adds the Spanish name second. It is unusual to do it that way on Commons, but not unheard of. However, this has been done as a result of a more or less peaceful solution, not because one side military conquered the city from the other. With conquest, we usually use the name of the most recent conqueror because that is usually the most used name - but that con be nothing other than convention. In this case here I would prefer a consensual solution, and maybe like the Basques did it. --Enyavar (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's an interesting example, thank youǃ I personally think the Basque solution is certainly better than what is being done now. RaffiKojian (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Basque is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque names are recognised alongside the Spanish ones. This is not the case with Azerbaijan. — Golden talk 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- So if there can be a policy for the Basque names, there can be one for Nagorno-Karabakh, which also presents pretty special circumstances I think. RaffiKojian (talk) 20:13, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Basque is an autonomous region of Spain and the Basque names are recognised alongside the Spanish ones. This is not the case with Azerbaijan. — Golden talk 19:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- That's an interesting example, thank youǃ I personally think the Basque solution is certainly better than what is being done now. RaffiKojian (talk) 13:21, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Note Category:Donostia-San Sebastián, about a major city in Spain. That category uses the Basque name first, then adds the Spanish name second. It is unusual to do it that way on Commons, but not unheard of. However, this has been done as a result of a more or less peaceful solution, not because one side military conquered the city from the other. With conquest, we usually use the name of the most recent conqueror because that is usually the most used name - but that con be nothing other than convention. In this case here I would prefer a consensual solution, and maybe like the Basques did it. --Enyavar (talk) 10:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can see how in most circumstances that would make sense, but in a case like this where there is a government that is trying to wipe out the name used by locals, and there is a battle on which name to use, and the only people born and raised there may have never even heard of the Azerbaijani name, I hope that the idea that being inclusive of both names would be a better solution for this circumstance. RaffiKojian (talk) 09:16, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- These locations are within Azerbaijan, and the country doesn't acknowledge any names for these settlements other than the official ones. Prior to Azerbaijan regaining control of the region, the consensus was to use de facto names. Hence, when the village was under Armenian control, its category name was Armenian. But this is no longer applicable, so maintaining an unofficial name as the category name, especially when most of these alternative names were not widely used to begin with, doesn't seem logical. — Golden talk 17:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, the exact problem is that Azerbaijan not only "does not acknowledge any names for these settlements other than THEIR official ones", they have a policy of eliminating everything to do with Armenians possible, from the complete destruction of every possible monastery and cemetery of Armenians in Nakhichevan to the renaming of Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh to Azeri names, even if a single Azeri has never ever lived in it. Does that seem "logical"? Armenian names are used by the people who have always lived in those villages, and they should continue to be used in Armenian villages. You have been spending weeks completely eradicating Armenian names and regions, and I am not interested in supporting such a whitewashing of my people off the face of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. There is a precedent and it is totally fine. This site has a robust format that allows both names to be used, and there's no need to disenfranchise the actual people who the villages are most relevant to because of Azerbaijan's policy of hate. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- We're not here to right great wrongs. While I understand and empathize with your cause, we adhere to a predetermined protocol in Commons. As Enyavar highlighted, we typically use the name of the most recent conqueror following a conquest. In this case, Azerbaijan is the most recent conqueror. If we were guided by "justice", we wouldn't have categorised former Azeri-majority villages controlled by Artsakh under new Armenian names they were assigned by Artsakh. However, that was the practice for many years. — Golden talk 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- They also said, that can be nothing other than convention. There is no reason not to use both names, other than to erase the Armenian name and to disenfranchise them. I think your actions on these three categories I have worked on show you are not especially interested in a discussion in any case, you are even calling it vandalism for me to include an Armenian name at all, even next to an Azerbaijani name, while participating in this discussion. I think in any case this is a pretty unusual situation and that a slightly accommodating solution will make all of the files related to Karabakh both much easier to navigate/find and inclusive, with no downside. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I called only this edit of yours "vandalism" because you attempted a speedy deletion of the correct category version, intending to retain only your preferred version. Don't put words in my mouth. — Golden talk 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes, you did so just moments after you put a speedy deletion tag on my category. So we are here to discuss what the "correct" category is. RaffiKojian (talk) 20:11, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- I called only this edit of yours "vandalism" because you attempted a speedy deletion of the correct category version, intending to retain only your preferred version. Don't put words in my mouth. — Golden talk 20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- They also said, that can be nothing other than convention. There is no reason not to use both names, other than to erase the Armenian name and to disenfranchise them. I think your actions on these three categories I have worked on show you are not especially interested in a discussion in any case, you are even calling it vandalism for me to include an Armenian name at all, even next to an Azerbaijani name, while participating in this discussion. I think in any case this is a pretty unusual situation and that a slightly accommodating solution will make all of the files related to Karabakh both much easier to navigate/find and inclusive, with no downside. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- We're not here to right great wrongs. While I understand and empathize with your cause, we adhere to a predetermined protocol in Commons. As Enyavar highlighted, we typically use the name of the most recent conqueror following a conquest. In this case, Azerbaijan is the most recent conqueror. If we were guided by "justice", we wouldn't have categorised former Azeri-majority villages controlled by Artsakh under new Armenian names they were assigned by Artsakh. However, that was the practice for many years. — Golden talk 19:46, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Yes indeed, the exact problem is that Azerbaijan not only "does not acknowledge any names for these settlements other than THEIR official ones", they have a policy of eliminating everything to do with Armenians possible, from the complete destruction of every possible monastery and cemetery of Armenians in Nakhichevan to the renaming of Armenian villages in Nagorno-Karabakh to Azeri names, even if a single Azeri has never ever lived in it. Does that seem "logical"? Armenian names are used by the people who have always lived in those villages, and they should continue to be used in Armenian villages. You have been spending weeks completely eradicating Armenian names and regions, and I am not interested in supporting such a whitewashing of my people off the face of Wikipedia or Wikimedia. There is a precedent and it is totally fine. This site has a robust format that allows both names to be used, and there's no need to disenfranchise the actual people who the villages are most relevant to because of Azerbaijan's policy of hate. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:41, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- The correct and usual way we handle changes of place names on Commons is, in this case, keep the Armenian names as subcats of the Azeri names and put files made during the Armenian times under the Armenian names.
- Horrible to see some people above echoing Azeri govt propaganda to wipe out Armenian history. Butcher2021 (talk) 21:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Your Feedback Needed: Upcoming Design Improvements to UploadWizard[edit]
Hello everyone! We are delighted to share with you our current designs for improving the UploadWizard, particularly the "release rights" part. Your feedback is crucial.
You can see the designs and the prototype at the dedicated page for the UploadWizard Improvements.
We have specific questions that your insights could greatly help answer. Please take a look at the prototype and share your thoughts on the talk page.
For other updates on ongoing WMF initiatives and projects that support Commons, be sure to check out the WMF support for Commons page.
Thanks in advance! - Udehb-WMF (talk) 10:10, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
[edit]
Hello, This photo was taken in 1944-45 so it should be public domain, but The National World War II Museum sells a license for the high resolution version. Artanisen (talk) 20:35, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
- Anyone is perfectly entitled to sell for money an asset that's also legitimately available for free from elsewhere. Also anyone wishing to use it is welcome to obtain it from a free source, such as Commons. Part of our broad role is to explain this to consumers. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:34, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- The museum is fairly generous, you can download it as a 2.49 mb jpeg image for free, thats fairly high resolution IMO!--Broichmore (talk) 09:07, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
October 11[edit]
Subcat not showing[edit]
This could just be a caching issue (though I did purge), but Category:Cecilia Augspurger shows Category:Augspurger (surname) as a parent, but does not show up on the page for the latter category. - Jmabel ! talk 00:25, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- @Jmabel: I see Category:Cecilia Augspurger in Category:Augspurger (surname). MKFI (talk) 06:45, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC) Hi, This page wasn't updated since 8 September 2023. I contacted Steinsplitter, the bot owner, on 24 September but no answer. Yann (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Large number of fails[edit]
Hi, I get a large number of fails during upload and deletion since yesterday evening (CET). Any idea? Yann (talk) 14:12, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I don't, but have you tried using alternative methods, like Chunked Uploader? I've found that to work when standard uploads won't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:16, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I can approve that there are issues right now, especially for files above 2 GiB and sometimes very small files (stash error) --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 17:03, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I always Chunked Uploader for files above 40 MB, and that's where it fails today (phab:T328872). There are also a large number of failed deletions, see phab:T348667. Yann (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- Revert and manual revert are also affected by this phab:T348375. GPSLeo (talk) 18:36, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
- I always Chunked Uploader for files above 40 MB, and that's where it fails today (phab:T328872). There are also a large number of failed deletions, see phab:T348667. Yann (talk) 17:23, 11 October 2023 (UTC)