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/2023/03.

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

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Delete an old version according to uploader's wish 8 4 Tuvalkin 2023-04-02 16:26
2 Get QID from page title? 0 0
3 Category:French-language surnames 21 5 Broichmore 2023-04-01 12:12
4 What is a hood? 17 7 Adamant1 2023-03-28 18:17
5 NoUploads, No-FOP templates, and categories of structures of no-FOP countries 25 3 JWilz12345 2023-04-03 04:46
6 Should I just move this category ? 3 3 Ricky81682 2023-03-27 22:05
7 Graphic lab icon 1 1 Manjiro5 2023-03-27 19:05
8 Category:Gray 7 6 LPfi 2023-03-30 10:02
9 Category:year maps of Austria-Hungary 11 6 Jheald 2023-04-03 11:34
10 Cat-a-lot + GalleryDetails not working 2 1 Tuvalkin 2023-04-02 15:01
11 overwriting pdf problem 8 3 Hanooz 2023-04-01 11:19
12 Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2023-03-30 12:27
13 Protected files needing some changes 4 2 Jmabel 2023-03-30 17:17
14 West Midlands Fire Service (England) 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2023-03-30 18:29
15 Irregular rfa 2 2 Jameslwoodward 2023-03-31 14:19
16 V2C uploads from computer, any success？ 2 2 Jmabel 2023-03-31 23:00
17 UK disclaimer for the usage of coat of arms 4 3 LPfi 2023-04-01 20:19
18 Commons Gazette 2023-04 2 2 Jmabel 2023-04-01 14:47
19 Media containing deceased Indigenous Australian people 8 6 Abzeronow 2023-04-02 16:25
20 Flora Danica - more categorization needed 1 1 LA2 2023-04-01 18:31
21 Accessibility consideration of commons pages？ 2 2 Jmabel 2023-04-02 23:42
22 Categories per city per day 3 2 Ymblanter 2023-04-03 05:19
23 Overwriting with cropped versions 11 9 King of Hearts 2023-04-03 07:55
24 Flickr license history now shows timestamps 3 2 JWilz12345 2023-04-03 05:49
25 Unwanted hint 1 1 Sarang 2023-04-03 09:03
26 Need help with reverting vandalism 1 1 Jeff G. 2023-04-03 10:30
Legend
  • In the last hour
  • In the last day
  • In the last week
  • In the last month
  • More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur,
please check the setting first.
Old manual pump in Fetonte Place Crespino, province of Rovigo [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.

March 24[edit]

Delete an old version according to uploader's wish[edit]

Is it possible to delete the old version of image in the same file according to the request/wish of the file uploader? I am talking about File:The constitutional names as well as the native names (in Eastern Nagari and Latin transliterations) of the 3 official languages of the Indian Republic that use the Eastern Nagari writing system as their official scripts.jpg. This file is used in multiple articles in various wikis. Unfortunately, in some articles, the old version image of the file is appearing instead of the new version. Haoreima (talk) 16:40, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I only see the current version in all 5 articles. Have you tried emptying your browser cache? --Rosenzweig τ 17:09, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: I did it but it appears to be of no change in my device. If possible, please delete it. This issue is happening from the time ever since the new version is re-uploaded. I really worry if my situation is happening in some others' screens or not. Haoreima (talk) 17:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, I did. In general, you might want to try to delete the server cache in such cases (the * in the panel at the top of the page). --Rosenzweig τ 17:53, 24 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Rosenzweig: It’s not working, just like last week: Thumbnails get created but wont be readily updated when the original file changes: For the past 2h, I’m experiencing the same issue with File:5×4clicksBeachKhoekhoe(TNR).png, which filepage is showing two outdated thumbnails (and zero current ones), each from a separate past version. One needs to click on the main thumbnail or on one of the «Other resolutions» to get the newest version. This matter needs urgent fix. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not having any issues like that (again). I've cleared the server cache to be sure, but beyond that, waiting is probably what will help. --Rosenzweig τ 14:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Haoreima, Rosenzweig, and Tuvalkin: Please see COM:PURGE, and also purge the pages where the file appears.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<sarcasm>Oh, gee, thanks!, how didn’t I ever think of that?</sarcasm> (Incidentally, the mentioned File:5×4clicksBeachKhoekhoe(TNR).png has had finally today, one whole week later, its 600×600 px thumbnail rerendered; its 220×220 px thumbnail hasn’t yet, and nor for lack of refreshments, cache purges, or null edits.) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 26[edit]

Get QID from page title?[edit]

Currently running into a bit of a hiccup. I know there's Template:QID, which fetches the QID of the current page, and Template:GetQID which fetches the QID of the category's main topic. However, I want a template that gets the QID of a specified page's main topic. For example, {{getQIDfrompagename|Category:Minecraft}} which would return Q49740. Does this exist, or is there a potential alternate way of going about this? Thanks in advance.— Preceding unsigned comment added by OmegaFallon (talk • contribs) 16:06, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:French-language surnames[edit]

I stumbled on this category today. Back in 2019 this category was created by Olybrius, apparently as a unilateral decision. Later that year :Surnames by ethnicity and/or nationality to Category:Surnames by ethnicity was performed. E4024 quite rightly queried this asking: Which ethnicity? What about Belgians, Swiss et al?

Today Arnout was moved by Abxbay out of Surnames to this category.

Surely, this is absolutely pointless and spurious. Surnames as a result of the mass diaspora are no longer pinned to any specific country, or language (if they ever were). I can see Chang existing in Surnames but the same name in Chinese characters also being in Chinese-language surnames. However that doesn't apply to French.

The surnames category was created in the first place for administrative universal filing identification reasons, it's no longer that, if its going to be separated out into the 6500 languages that exist in the world.

This whole system needs to be dismantled and reverted back to the simplicity of Category:Surnames as should all these other spurious categories (should they still exist). Broichmore (talk) 16:53, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Surnames are tightly connected to language. I’m sure you can come up with many exceptions, but those are… exceptions. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:06, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you really want a flat category for surnames, then go ahead and do create and populate Category:Surnames (flat list) — nothing against that. Any attempt at dismantling will be met with the same opposition as any other vandalism attempt would. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@E4024: The United States which seems to dominate this project is full of people with French, Italian, and Spanish surnames, who cant speak those languages. So surnames are not tightly bound to language. As I hinted at earlier, that goes for Europe too, increasingly so. Must we be the slaves of too many cats whose only purpose is to satisfy OCD issues of people here with little or no imagination; at the expense of practicality.
Again, with respect, the surnames category was created in the first place for gathering in one place like surnames (labels) for identification of specific individuals, if its going to be separated out into different languages; then it's no longer going to do that. It needs to be functional.
What practical use, does French-language surnames serve, too someone who does not know that Duval is french? Broichmore (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I once compared some Commons curation activity I dislike to OCD, too, and that was cause for me to be blocked for a few days. As soon as I find the relevant diffs, I’ll open a section with your name on it in AN/U. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Again, with all the respect you deserve, if you really want a flat category for surnames, then go ahead and do create and populate Category:Surnames (flat list). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:07, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to do that, the ‘’Surnames’’ cat is completely adequate already, understandable and efficient.
Abxbay has still not commented why Arnout cant be in both ‘’Surnames’’ and ‘’ French-language surnames’’. They need to look again at their edits and include for both. Broichmore (talk) 11:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It’s due to COM:OVERCAT. Which, regardless of how one feels about it, is set policy and one of the very basics of categorization. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Too me Surnames is a different thing to French-language surnames, it certainly has a different usage. If that's not the case then com:overcat needs to be redifined. This is a good example of where sub-dividing things too far has become destructive, rather than practical. Go back to an exemplar of Martin", having it in one category has to be preferable to it being in several -language surname cats. Having it in ‘’ French-language surnames’’ answers no question, of why it is necessary to have it, in such a category. It's of no use use to anyone. Broichmore (talk) 12:12, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Even if the U.S. and the future Europe you dream about were indeed a monolingual melting pot, most surnames would still retain an etymology (especially so when the quaint U.S. custom of incomplete anglicization is in use), and that warrants separate categorization to allow each by-language cat yo have its own different parent cats. Furthermore, that glottofagic hellscape of yours, even if it were to take place, would not apply to the whole globe and would not retroactively apply to past eras of more widespread translation/assimilation of “foreign” surnames — and Commons needs to cover those situations, too. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 00:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Martin (surname) is a member of eleven different subcategories along with being in Category:Surnames. There is no English page nor any source for any of this and Wikidata only has English, French, German, and Spanish so I could start by removing Category:Italian-language surnames, Category:Surnames from Ireland, Category:Scottish surnames, Category:Swedish-language surnames, and leaving it to a fight about Category:Surnames from Spain (which is separate and distinct from Category:Spanish-language surnames), Category:English-language surnames, Category:French-language surnames (which is broken down into the individual department of France without any sources) and so on? How much ridiculous pointless time needs to be wasted policing guessing games about which department of France does the Martin surname come from, especially when it looked like this lunacy before the first round of "you can't made a category of every surname in Argentina" made sense? Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sure, but is this about surnames by language, as the section title suggests, or about surnames by country and subdivision thereof? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm speaking about the general categorization point. Swedish-language isn't sourced and the sourcing is me hunting around on Wikidata since there is no Martin (surname) page on English or somewhere else where this is clear. The fact that this isn't something settled is why the Arnout fight above is going to become common and something that will require CFDs and discussions and the question is whether this is worth it in terms of the larger project. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:16, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Normans and their surnames invalidated that premise as far back as 1066. Their surnames are worldwide. Etymology as far as a databank is concerned is merely another label. We cover that already with a multitude of Country (origin) labels. The Martin surname just goes to reinforce that view, being a Norman name brought to England, that possibly may well have derived from Norse or Scandic roots; even the Romans lay some claims to its roots. Broichmore (talk) 11:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Don't put words in my mouth. I'm not dismantling any useless system, that’s why I’ve brought up the issue, I‘m promoting the use of common sense, cats should serve a practical purpose. Broichmore (talk) 12:00, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
both current systems on wikidata and commons trying to group people with the same names together are jokes, because they only consider latin-alphabet scenarios.
Category:Yán (surname) corresponds to at least five different surnames 严、言、阎、闫、颜. they have the exact same pronunciation.
the same surname like 梁 have different pronunciations in different languages leading to different romanisations leung, liang, neo... which by its romanisation alone is considered different surnames in wd and commons systems because these systems only think in terms of latin.
then there is the problem about the names written with the same kanjis but have different pronunciations in japanese, because kanji have many ways of being pronounced in japanese. are they the same name because they have the same kanji or are they different because pronuncation is different?
then some names are written with the same kanji but in different languages (hence different pronunciations), like a chinese and a japanese both named 俊雄. an analogous problem is the english jean vs the french jean. are they the same name?
then there's naomi (hebrew) vs naomi (japanese), ben (short for benjamin) vs ben (本 or 奔 or 賁...), Robert E. Lee vs Ang Lee...
instead of OCD trying to assign ethnicity/nationality/language/gender to a name, how about just put everything in either "surnames" or "given names"? dismantling this whole system? that at least solves some of your problems, but still not the problems about names of different origins having the same romanisation.
(before you suggest creating kanji titled cats for kanji names, gentle reminder: there're 1000~3000 commonly used kanjis, and 30000~50000 occasionally used kanjis. often a kanji name consists of one or two kanjis but could be more. so 2-kanji permutations can easily go beyond 1000*1000=1 million, most of which would only contain a few or only one subcat. an analogous problem is whether Hailey, Hailee, Haleigh, Haley, Haylee, Hayleigh, Hayley, Haylie... these variants of a name are considered different names.) RZuo (talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RZuo: on the Wikidata side of this: they need to model even a badly conflated category that is actually in use. There is nothing internal to Wikidata preventing modeling distinct kanji/ideographs for distinct names, and in fact they probably would want to. - Jmabel ! talk 21:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, a second use of OCD as an insult. Did the rules change ever since I was blocked for this same reason? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:53, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What is a hood?[edit]

Ginetta G15 (1974) - 9700724442.jpg

Hi all,

I considered placing this image in Category:Automobiles with open hoods but not being a native English speaker I am unsure whether or not the term hood also applies to lids and hatches covering rear engines. If not so, what would be the correct term or description?

Depending on the answer the category may be renamed or split. Your thoughts? → bertux 17:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

file:1948 Tucker - 15715915860.jpg is the opposite: front lid covering no engine. Is it a hood or what? → bertux 17:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably in the first image it would be the trunk lid. Although I just refer to it as the rear hood. I don't think it matters which one you use. Either works. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:08, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If I want to create a category for rear engined cars with open engine covers what would be a suitable name? Just Rear engined cars with open engine covers? → bertux 18:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Probably. Front engine is such a norm that I don't think there is any good common term for this. - Jmabel ! talk 19:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
"Rear engine cover" seems like a good safe compromise. Broichmore (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:Cars with open rear engine hood covers would be an interesting category name to say the least. Especially once you get to down more fined grained sub-categorization. Category:2017 Red sports cars with open green rear engine hood covers in Los Angeles County, California anyone? Lol. Not that I know what a good alternative would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 08:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good alternative would be to not create Categories that intersect subject x place x time at all, but I'm afraid that ship has sailed long ago. El Grafo (talk) 10:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I totally agree with Adamant1 and El Grafo on the weirdness of the category system. Its fundamental flaw is that it is subtractive: if you just want a fine picture of a green left hand drive car you could probably find it in Category:Mercedes-Benz C197 if only you could. It should be replaced by an additive system with tags: #car #green #left hand drive would easily do the trick.
In Wikipedia the category system is totally useless and maintained by people who don't mind spending their life on a dead end but In Commons it still makes sense, mainly for lack of a viable alternative. Hopefully the depicts tags wil become user friendlier over time with decent interfaces for editors and searchers → bertux 12:59, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories are useful as buckets that contain images of the same topic. It starts to break down once you get down to the more fine grained parts of an image though. I've seen instances where someone created a category with like 9 nested child categories that were all inside of each other like a Russian doll just so they have a category at the bottom of it for something in the image that was totally meaningless and would never allow for other images besides that one being put in the category. Which isn't really a sustainable way to do things. It's also just needless micro-categorization. I'm not sure if depicts will necessary solve things, but it is an improvement. At least I believe it will be one once it's more widely used and whatnot. Although the whole interface for adding Wikidata items kind of sucks, but whatever. There's always a catch somewhere with this stuff lol. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:28, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not the Russian dolls which make it break down, they are just the symtoms. It starts to break down if you have over a million pictures. The system is simply not scalable. The only way to avoid Russian dolls is to have many cats with 1000+ pictures which isn't helpful either.
A tag system on the other hand scales quite naturally, surely someone will have proposed that before. Do you know of any discussions on this topic? → bertux 13:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why every discussion of “tags” presupposes that categories must be distroyed? Want tags?, create tags, then, and leave alone categories and editors interested in mantaining them. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:04, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Any good and ergonomic tag system would strip the category system off its last sliver of usefulness → bertux 14:54, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That’s your opinion; mine is the exact opposite. Why don’t you go play with your tags and leave categories to be maintained and used by those of us who see in them way more than a just a «sliver of usefulness»? I mean, you obviously feel superior to us and think our prefered workflow is childish and useless — but be asured that the feeling is mutual. The only difference is that we never say that tags are useless and impractical (although we know they are): we just want to live and let live and you should really do the same. Wikidata is right there to be used as a tag management system: It just needs to be populated; I suggest you go work on that instead of disparaging other editors’ prefered curation methods. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 23:56, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Getting back onto topic. The word "hood" is the American term for the hinged bodywork that covers the vehicle's engine. In The United Kingdom it is called a "bonnet". There are many other such differences see for example en:Comparison_of_American_and_British_English#Road_transport. Martinvl (talk) 21:44, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Can either bonnet or hood be used for hinged bodywork over a rear engine? Merriam-Webster suggests this is okay for both hood and bonnet but the answers I get in this topic suggest otherwise → bertux 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Technically? Yes. In practice, probably not since Category:Bonnets is being used for the women's headgear and I don't think it would work to the category into a disambiguation page. Whereas there's already Category:Automobile hoods, but Category:Automobile bonnets doesn't seem to exist and rightly so IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:17, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

NoUploads, No-FOP templates, and categories of structures of no-FOP countries[edit]

I think we should have more concrete rules regarding the use of {{NoUploads}} and "No-FOP" templates. The documentation page claims the NoUploads is intended for categories and articles (resident galleries) of artists only. But since around 2020 (or so), several users like @A1Cafel: have been using it in categories of some public structures from countries with no freedom of panorama, like this.

Personally I disagree with such use as the content of NoUploads indicates it is only for categories of artists as well as resident galleries of artists. But I think we should have more crystal clear rules on the proper use of this template, because if we don't have such rules, the template can be used in places where is should not be used. @Ox1997cow: even suggested its use in a currency-related category, but this was promptly rejected.

Another thing, several categories of the same concerned structures are lately being attached with no-FOP templates that are meant for filespaces only. Examples: Category:Burj Khalifa, Category:Milad Tower, and Category:Lotte World Tower. If the no-FOP templates are not structured to be used in categories (unlike those of {{NoFoP-Japan}} and {{NoFoP-Philippines}}), are the likes of {{NoFoP-UAE}} for use in probably de minimis-eligible photos? The structure of no-FOP templates suggest these are intended for the purpose of tracking of erring files. If the structures' categories are to be retained, against the wishes of some users who said those categories should not exist in the first place (because additions of country-specific FOP/no-FOP templates only messes up categories), would it be wise to create a new general template for the intended purpose of being a warning banner on top of categories? That template should be good for all countries with no complete FOP, except the Philippines, in which a dual-purpose no-FOP template was made for temporal purposes (yes temporal since it will be taken down soon – upon my planned deletion request – once we have FOP maybe in the latter part of 2023 or early 2024, so there is no need to "beautify" that template). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:46, 26 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it's good to use NoFoP templates in categories of buildings and monuments located NoFoP countries. Many people often upload photos without knowing that there are no FoP in some countries, and this use is a great way to indicate that the country where the building or monument is located has no FoP. Ox1997cow (talk) 07:42, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
So, how about using FoP templates in categories of buildings and monuments located FoP countries like Category:One World Trade Center, Category:CN Tower and Category:The Shard? Ox1997cow (talk) 07:49, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow: I don't know if there has been some statistics if these no-FOP templates indeed warned uploaders or uploaders either ignore them or challenge our licensing policy (by purposely uploading photos testing if their photos or imports are going to be nominated). Regarding FOP templates, I once did that but eventually discontinued after one Wikipedian expressed reservation that such templates cause clutter in the structure of categories (see the link above I provided). Thus I stopped adding FOP templates to categories. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:10, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In fact, I made the case for deleting {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} and replacing it with NoFoP templates in this deletion discussion. {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} is not suitable for use in categories of modern buildings or monuments, so I thought it would be nice to have NoFoP templates used in the category as well as the files. Ox1997cow (talk) 08:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow: the NoFOP templates, if not structured to be category-only templates (like {{NoFoP-Japan}}), were not meant for category namespaces. These were originally for keeping track of problematic photos so that problematic photos tagged as such can be sent for deletion. A general template good for structures and sculptures of all no-complete FOP countries (like France and UAE, but except the Philippines) might be more appropriate. Something that has wording like: "This is a category of a copyrighted architecture and/or artistic work in public space from a country that does not provide Wikimedia Commons-acceptable freedom of panorama (that permits free licensing of images of such works). Please do not upload more photographs or videos of such works, unless their presence is incidental or trivial to the overall image." Such template is applicable for categories from Category:Burj Khalifa to Category:Monument to the Motherland, Kyiv, provided that the indicated works are from countries that have no complete or no commercial FOP in totality. I cannot think of a good template title though. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
How about adding a variable to NoFoP templates and using them? It is indicated "image" in the file namespace and "category" in the category namespace. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:15, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For Example:

(in the file namespace) -> (in the category namespace)

Copyright warning: A subject in this image is protected by copyright. -> Copyright warning: A subject in this category is protected by copyright.

This image features an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in (country name). -> This category feature an architectural or artistic work, photographed from a public space in (country name).

If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in this image and it is a substantial reproduction, this photo cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing this image to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation. -> If a copyrighted architectural or artistic work is contained in images in this category and it is a substantial reproduction, such photos cannot be licensed under a free license, and will be deleted. Framing images in this category to focus on the copyrighted work is also a copyright violation.

Before reusing this content, ensure that you have the right to do so. -> Before reusing contents in this category, ensure that you have the right to do so.

How about it? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow: too technical and you're only giving categories clutter, just like what Bidgee told me before (on usage of FOP templates in categories). My proposal is more simpler and does not consume too many category space. We are also warning uploaders, not end-users in this case. This may not eliminate all possible violations (as some uploaders may be "gaming or testing Commons' house rules on licensing policy"), but at least this reduces the amount of workload for image reviewers and admins, as there are many files with copyvios and improper licensing that need to deal with. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I've been thinking about that in terms of being able to reuse an existing template, but it's too complicated for me to see. Creating a new template looks good. The new template is named {{NoFoP-category}}, replacing {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} with {{NoFoP-category}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, how about make {{FoP-category}} for categories of buildings and monuments located FoP countries? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow simple common sense means we do not need to add such templates on categories of copyrighted structures from countries with relevant freedom of panorama legal rights, because anyone can freely upload photos of such works. We are just providing some warning to uploaders regarding works from countries without freedom of panorama. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: So, only {{NoFoP-category}} will be made. What would be good content? Ox1997cow (talk) 07:04, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then, why both {{NoUploadsStamps}} and {{UploadsStamps}} are exist? Ox1997cow (talk) 07:06, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow: the case of stamps are different from the case of physical structures like buildings and sculptures. Rules on stamps are rigid and unchanging, but rules on FOP are changeable depending the countries' tendencies to introduce or restrict/abolish FOP (like Belgium in the former and Vietnam in the latter). We have a map on FOP statuses so there are lesser chances of wrongful deletion nominations, so no need for superfluous FOP category template. Unlike in stamps, both templates are needed since wrongful nominations are greater. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: rules on U.S. stamps have changed within my lifetime. They used to be public domain. - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: still I think there is no need to add category-header templates on top of categories of copyrighted structures from yes-FOP countries since, like what Bidgee told me before, unnecessary clutter is made. But for categories of copyrighted structures from no-FOP countries, a simpler category-header template is preferred over "no-FOP templates", which are meant for use in file description pages only. At least this is more lenient approach instead of Bidgee's suggestion that such categories should not exist in the first place just because they contain incidental photos. The use of templates for categories of stamps, as raised by Ox1997cow, is a totally different matter. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:23, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I've been thinking a lot about {{NoFoP-category}}. First of all, the icon contains red copyright icon, the flag, and warning sign icon. Among these, the flag is a variable, and the flag varies depending on the country. (For example, South Korea, France, the UAE, etc.) What would be good about the content of {{NoFoP-category}}? --Ox1997cow (talk) 07:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow the suggested wording I gave above, plus the red copyright icon and the warning sign icon. No need for varied flag icon; the template is meant for general use as a warning template to uploaders. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I see. Then, how about stop hand icon? Ox1997cow (talk) 10:13, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And how about deleting {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} and replacing {{FOP-buildings-category warning}} with {{NoFoP-category}}? Ox1997cow (talk) 10:19, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow an exclamation point icon is sufficient, since stop hand icon is an overkill. For the existing FOP-buildings-category template, just redirect it to {{NoFOP-category}} of the new template now exists. Deletion does not help Wikimedia servers. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 11:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I see. I will make a draft of {{NoFOP-category}} Ox1997cow (talk) 16:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I made a draft of {{NoFoP-category}}. See it. If there is something to be edited, you can do so. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ox1997cow done making some changes to the text as well as the layout. The layout must be identical to {{NoFoP-Japan}} since it is a category-handler template, not file-namespace template. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:46, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 27[edit]

Should I just move this category ?[edit]

There is presently a Commons Category for the beetle endemic to New Zealand: Scolopterus penicillatus The Wikipedia article en:Scolopterus penicillatus and the Wikidata item D:Q21299586 both use the spelling "penicillatus". However, the spelling of the Commons Category currently differs and is: Scolopterus penciliatus. The file names of the images in this category ALL use the spelling in Wikipedia/Wikidata.

Should I just move the Commons Category to fix this, or is there a protocol to follow first ? Marshelec (talk) 03:07, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yes, just move it, because Wikipedia and wikidata both give the correct latin spelling for beetle. There's no need for a re-direct even. Broichmore (talk) 09:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Move it. If there is a fight, that's a separate issue but I don't think it's controversial. You could ask the person who created it but I wouldn't even bother for a misspelling. Much thanks for noticing something so minor though. :) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Graphic lab icon[edit]

Hello, I would like to propose the change of the icon of the graphic lab. Here is the icon I propose : Logo wikigraphiste.svg. For comparison, here is the current icon: Crystal Clear app gimp (vector).svg. I think this addition will give a facelift to this page, but my proposal is also more readable and accessible than the current logo. What do you think of that ? Regards, manȷıro💬 19:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) PS: I also put this message in the graphic lab chatReply[reply]

Category:Gray[edit]

The recent decision - apparently agreed by fewer than eight people - to rename the child categories of Category:Gray has been taken too far to the extreme; meaning we now have hundreds of cases of nonsense like Category:Grey doors in England renamed to Category:Gray doors in England, when "Grey" is the British spelling. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:36, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It was an open discussion for four years. It seems like an overly broad close to me but I can't argue too much either. If you want to try again, we could maybe resolve it again by 2027. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The only nonsense is to have two different spellings for the same word. I don’t care which gets to be used nor which is prefered in the UK or the US or wherever. I only want it to be the same word to be used in all situations: Pick one and stick with it.
If you are saying that the ideal situation is to have simultaneously both
well, now, that is nonsense: We need terminological stabiliy and coherence, and this is its Level 1, trivial to achieve. (And we’d still have to pick a primary default to be used in cat names pertaining to non-English speaking areas/times.) This has been under discussion for at least 8 years: Are we there yet? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 01:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just remember to make redirect so nonative speakers will not be confused Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:18, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"apparently agreed by fewer than eight people" - note how long discussion lasted. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As someone who didn't partake in the CfD, I am disappointed in how a "consensus" was reached by one account pinging all participants, and closing it when ONE participant agreed with support. Yes, they did wait 50+ hours for more responses which didn't come, but still. I didn't read everything, but noted that "Grey" is indeed the lemma of en-WP, which should have been binding for Commons as well - imho. I am fine with the opposite result as this is a grey area to me, but I concur that you MUST create proper redirects. Afaik, most schools in the world teach BE first, and "gray" isn't that popular a word in the global AE-dominated media. --Enyavar (talk) 22:36, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
While the name on Wikipedia and related discussions can be used to guide decisions here, I don't think we should let Wikipedia decide our category names. There should be redirects from the names chosen by Wikipedia, but I see no reason (nor any policy) to move category trees just to conform.
The other question here is that of the Universality principle: do we want Category:Lorries in the United Kingdom (now a redlink) and Category:Trucks in the United States? The discussion on grey vs gray wasn't the place to change policy. Should we change it? Redirects should solve most problems also on this issue.
–LPfi (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 28[edit]

Category:year maps of Austria-Hungary[edit]

To be divided into:

Category:year maps of Austria-Hungary shown

Category:year maps of Austria-Hungary made

--Io Herodotus (talk) 08:12, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Io Herodotus Did I get this right: you would like to distinguish between maps that show Austria-Hungary and maps that were made in Austria-Hungary? How to we usually handle that with other countries? El Grafo (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We do not distinguish where a map has been made in any map category tree I am aware of. That idea should go nowhere, imho.
What we ARE doing is "maps by language" (Russian-language maps of China, Japanese-language maps of Korea...).
I think this proposal is not about the location the maps were made, but the time it was made: "old maps of..." amd its subcategories have a requirement to be contemporary to the shown content, for example "1886 maps of Austria-Hungary" must be made/published in that year (the publication cycle back then was long enough that I always advocate to use decades: "1880s maps of..."). Whether by year or decade: such category should never include later maps showing Austria-Hungary in 1886: Those maps belong into "Maps of the history of..." and may be sorted by key of the year shown. If there are enough maps of the history, they are to be sorted into "Maps of 18th-century France" vs. "Maps of 14th-century France". In fact, a map my be a "1880s map of 14th-century France", which needs three categories: "Maps of 14th-century France", "1880s maps of France" and "1880s maps showing history". Only for maps made in the 2000s onwards, we currently do not distinguish by the year the history maps were drawn. One contributor once pushed "Maps showing <year>", which I suppose could also be useful if more widespread, as long as this category is only applied to history maps. --Enyavar (talk) 15:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Category:year maps of Austria-Hungary would be poorly named. It be Category:Maps of Austria-Hungary by year; subcats would be [[:Category:<year> maps of Austria-Hungary]]. That might be what you meant, but I wanted to clarify.
Normally a map of a place made in one year but reflecting another year would be (for example) Category:1920 works (or a subcat of that) plus (again for example) Category:1914 maps of Austria-Hungary or (if the decade scheme is preferred) Category:1910s maps of Austria-Hungary- Jmabel ! talk 15:13, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The origin of my question is simply that I was looking for a category showing the history of Austria-Hungary by year. --Io Herodotus (talk) 16:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The point is that "made" isn't a proper split. Category:Maps by year shown does exist but isn't broken down further. Category:Maps by year created is very sparse but also doesn't break down into countries. Even though it isn't technically the same, we have Category:Maps of Austria by year and Category:Maps of Hungary by year but not broken down further. I have seen some people use a Category:year works in Austria-Hungary type category if there is a significant difference which I think is better than maps by year created. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Io Herodotus, I totally agree that the current structure of Category:Maps of Austria-Hungary is far from perfect. There are "Maps of A-H by year" which lists exactly the same categories we also find under "Old maps of A-H" except they are better organized there, by decades. Also, there are a lot of maps that aren't old maps, but history maps, and thus should be sorted directly into the "Maps of..." category (there is not "Maps of the history of...", because it is a former/historical country in the first place, so every new map is at the same time also history map).
In your place, I would start with creating only the following six categories at first: "Maps of A-H showing the 1860s/1870s/1880s/1890s/1900s/1910s". These categories would have the "1860s maps of A-H" as sub-categories, and "Maps showing the 1860s" and a new "Maps of A-H by decade" as the parent categories. You then categorize each and every "Map of A-H" which is not a contemporary map, into one of the six categories, and key them by year if possible. The old contemporary maps that aren't yet properly categorized, should be treated as well, to fill out the subcategories. Maps that are so general that you cannot pin them down to a decade (like most locator-maps etc), must be left out of the exercise.
As a result, you afterwards have cleanly organized "maps showing decade" with "maps made in that same decade" as a distinct subset. (For 'maps made in the 1940s showing A-H': now that is way too specific I think, but at least there is this cat here to help.)
if you then realize you have enough maps to warrant a further split into "Maps of A-H showing <1913>", I think you should proceed similarly, but with years, creating up to sixty more categories. I am strongly arguing to have at least ~10 files per category, so for "weakly populated" years, you should leave the stuff in the decade-cats, just as well as the maps that don't have a definite reference year. If you go for this whole idea, I volunteer to help with the navigational template if you don't know how to create it yourself.
In fact, it is a great idea to use A-H as the example country for this kind of experimental structure, because of its very limited time of existence from the 1860s to the 1910s. (France, Russia, Poland or Sweden would be vastly more difficult to implement, spanning many hundred potential year-categories). If this kind of experiment succeeds, I think nothing would speak against doing it again for the "Austrian Empire" that preceded "Austria-Hungary", and doing it again for "Austria" for all maps after 1919... And then begin to sort Ottoman Empire history maps that are currently only organized by centuries. --Enyavar (talk) 22:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Use the appropriate category for maps showing all or a large part of Austria-Hungary. See subcategories for smaller areas:
Where to categorize or find maps of Austria-Hungary
If the map shows Category to use
Austria-Hungary on a recently created map Category:Maps of Austria-Hungary or its subcategories
Austria-Hungary on a map created more than 70 years ago Category:Old maps of Austria-Hungary or its subcategories
the history of Austria-Hungary on a recently created map Category:Maps of the history of Austria-Hungary or its subcategories
the history of Austria-Hungary on a map created more than 70 years ago Category:Old maps of the history of Austria-Hungary or its subcategories
General principle: "Maps of X by year" categories are an abomination. They make it impossible to browse the range of maps over a particular period, nor to see the historical sweep of their development. Even "Maps of X by decade" are generally a bad idea. All such categories should be ruthlessly eradicated with fire. Here endeth the lesson. Jheald (talk) 22:58, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
cc @Io Herodotus, El Grafo, Enyavar, and Jmabel: . Also @AnRo0002: who first created most of these horrors. Jheald (talk) 23:08, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A bad idea, that will result in total chaos. And by which year would you even sort them: File:Austria-Hungary by Ludó.png could be both sorted as 1914 and as 2023. You also contradict yourself when you posted the TFOMC template, because that one advises against your suggestion that all "Maps of A-H" belong into "Old maps of A-H".
Yes, a few misguided folks create categories with only a single map which is an abomination. NO, a category with 4500 maps in them is not easier to browse, it is simply another type of abomination. Once you get more than 200 maps in the same category, things start to become unwieldy instead of more browseable, and I'd argue that 100 maps are bad enough. It's not even as if such maps all show the same area, either. Also, I hardly ever see keys being used, unless I start to set them, and setting keys for a category of 400 maps is easier said than done. Give me 40 maps and I may set keys to order them. Give me 4000, and I'll be much more likely to create you a few appropriate sub-categories. For example, when some other misguided folks begin to create 30 detail cutouts per map - see for example here. Ugh, but that's another topic. I don't have a full count for A-H, but we have certainly several hundred old maps at least, so I'd argue a split by decade (made) is highly reasonable.
But that is not even the point: If I understood Io Herodotos correctly, they wanted to split/merge maps by the year made (which we have), and by the year shown (which we don't have). An SVG map made 2010 and a map created in 1880, can both show Austria-Hungary in the 1880s, which for that reason may fit into the same category. And so far, we simply don't facilitate that (strict division between old and history maps). Io asked how it can be done nevertheless. --Enyavar (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If it helps, it's easy enough to write a bot script to set keys. (Cf Commons:Bots/Requests/JhealdBot (7), though with other projects having taken most of my focus since, I never got round to really running it).
TFOMC is quite clear: maps older than 70 years old, that depict A-H as it was at that time, belong into "Old maps of A-H".
Maps older than 70 years old, that depict A-H as it was at some previous time, belong into "Old maps of the history of A-H".
A category with up to, say, 400 maps shouldn't be a problem. That's nearer to the number of maps of A-H we actually have, not 4000.
'Cut-outs' should go into a category for the place they actually show, not a category for all of A-H. (Plus maybe a category specifically for the map they were cut out from, if 30 cut-outs have been made. Jheald (talk) 11:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 29[edit]

Cat-a-lot + GalleryDetails not working[edit]

…as of just now. One moment I was selecting files based on their existing cats as shown with GalleryDetails and categorizing them with Cat-a-lot, the next I couldn’t anymore because it got somehow broken. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 29 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Looks like it’s fixed now. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:01, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 30[edit]

overwriting pdf problem[edit]

I wanted to delete a duplicate page from File:Divar.pdf (page 94 and 95 are the same in the first version) but It doesn't work now. Hanooz 11:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

what tool did you use to delete that page?--RZuo (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Adobe Acrobat Pro. Hanooz 14:22, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
that's a professional tool, which shouldnt make the pdf go wrong. i guess there might be a bug in wiki software, but there's also a small chance that it's adobe acrobat's bug. i can only suggest you write on phab:.--RZuo (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
✓ Done Hanooz 11:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Report on Voter Feedback from Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement Guidelines Ratification[edit]

Hello all,

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) project team has completed the analysis of the feedback accompanying the ratification vote on the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines.

Following the completion of the UCoC Enforcement Guidelines Draft in 2022, the guidelines were voted on by the Wikimedian community. Voters cast votes from 137 communities, with the top 9 communities being: English, German, French, Russian, Polish, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Italian Wikipedias, and Meta-wiki.

Those voting had the opportunity to provide comments on the contents of the Draft document. 658 participants left comments. 77% of the comments are written in English. Voters wrote comments in 24 languages with the largest numbers in English (508), German (34), Japanese (28), French (25), and Russian (12).

A report will be sent to the Revision Drafting Committee who will refine the enforcement guidelines based on the community feedback received from the recently concluded vote. A public version of the report is published on Meta-wiki here. The report is available in translated versions on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Again, we thank all who participated in the vote and discussions. We invite everyone to contribute during the next community discussions. More information about the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines can be found on Meta-wiki.

On behalf of the Universal Code of Conduct project team

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Protected files needing some changes[edit]

  1. Needs to have Category:2023 Rolling Fork–Silver City tornado rather than Category:Tornado outbreak of March 24–27, 2023. This is protected after appearing on English Wiki ITN. The tornado category is a sub-category in the outbreak category.
  1. Needs to have Template:PD-USGov-NOAA instead of CC-Zero for the copyright license.
  2. This should also have the following updated description: “A duplex that was completely destroyed along Collette Avenue and Worthington Avenue in Rolling Fork, Mississippi. The National Weather Service rated this damage EF4 on the Enhanced Fujita scale, with winds estimated at 170 miles per hour.”

Fairly minor changes, but since the pages are administrator protected due to appearing on English Wiki ITN, I am unable to make those changes. Noted, I was told, by an admin, to post this here from a Talk:Main Page, which is where I was told to post it on the Discord server. Elijahandskip (talk) 12:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

✓ Done - Jmabel ! talk 15:37, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey @Jmabel: , sorry to ping, but you added a “h}” at the end of the description of File:EF4 damage to a duplex in Rolling Fork.jpg. Just wanted to let you know since I’m guessing that is just an accidental typo. Also, thanks for fixing those things! Elijahandskip (talk) 15:46, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK, should be properly fixed now. - Jmabel ! talk 17:17, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

West Midlands Fire Service (England)[edit]

I notice that the West Midlands Fire Service website now has a Ts&Cs page saying:

Unless otherwise indicated, all imagery, video and other media created by West Midlands Fire Service is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

and a page footer saying :

Unless otherwise indicated, all incident imagery and media displayed by West Midlands Fire Service is subject to a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

seen, for example, on [1]. Do we need a dedicated template for this? if so, what would be a good example on which to model it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:29, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

March 31[edit]

Irregular rfa[edit]

i just noticed User:Kritzolina's Commons:Administrators/Requests/Kritzolina had an irregular closure by User:Jameslwoodward. it was closed 1 day earlier than expected and Jameslwoodward's comment was dated to 1 feb. :/ --RZuo (talk) 12:31, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems very likely that I made the mistake of closing it one day early -- I very much apologize for the error. Given the overwhelming support for User:Kritzolina, I don't think that it could possibly have changed the result. Although, as User:RZuo notes, my closing comment is dated February 1, that's impossible and the page history shows that I closed it at 22:30 on March 2. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 14:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

V2C uploads from computer, any success？[edit]

has anyone succeeded in using v2c to upload videos (that must be converted to webm) from their computers or other devices? that is, any uploads not from an url? i checked recent changes and found none in last 30 days.

i've had this problem in march 2022, then i gave up and didnt try again until now. in march 2022 the problem was "Error: Something went wrong while uploading... try again?" https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Video2commons&oldid=744093625#Is_this_software_still_maintained? . now the problem is "Error: An exception occurred: FileNotFoundError: b"[Errno 2] No such file or directory:..." https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons_talk:Video2commons&oldid=744093625#File_not_found .

i just want to know whether it's true that for now v2c cannot upload anything from local storage, then i wont try until a fix is done.--RZuo (talk) 22:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • I've had the same problem trying to upload from Vimeo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 01[edit]

UK disclaimer for the usage of coat of arms[edit]

Should we add restriction for using the Royal coat of arms as explained:

Lord Chamberlain's Office prohibits the use of the Royal Arms, Royal Devices and other Emblems under the Trade Marks Act 1994, Chapter 26, Section 99 stated that:

A person shall not without the authority of Her Majesty use in connection with any business the Royal arms (or arms so closely resembling the Royal arms as to be calculated to deceive) in such manner as to be calculated to lead to the belief that he is duly authorised to use the Royal arms.

See guidelines for the reproduction of the Royal Arms at The National Archives.

Surveyor Mount (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just add {{Insignia}} on any relevant files. There is no need for a specific template for each legal jurisdiction. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is there a special template regarding this legal disclaimer above? Surveyor Mount (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why would we need one? Those who want to use royal coats of arms in connections where they could be seen as deceiving should check legal and moral issues for themselves. We cannot give specific enough advice. {{Insignia}} seems to cover the issue about as well as we can. –LPfi (talk) 20:19, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons Gazette 2023-04[edit]

Staff changes[edit]

In March 2023, 1 sysop was elected; 6 sysops and 1 bureaucrat were removed. Currently, there are 184 sysops and 6 bureaucrats.

Election:

Removal:

We thank them for their service.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 07:42, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Does anyone know if User:JuTa is OK? Some of their last posts mentioned health issues, and they abruptly stopped editing on all WMF projects about a year ago. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Media containing deceased Indigenous Australian people[edit]

Should we modify {{PD-Australia}} to include disclaimer for deceased Indigenous Australian people, according to Wikipedia article, Aboriginal avoidance practices refers to those relationships in traditional Aboriginal society where certain people were required to avoid others in their family or clan. The use of disclaimer warning that contain images, videos and audio clips of the deceased Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are sensitive to Australian users on Wikimedia projects. Surveyor Mount (talk) 11:52, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Surveyor Mount: Please read this Wikipedia guideline. Sahaib (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Commons has warning for certain things, for instance any symbols related to Nazis and the fact that they are illegal in some European countries including Germany. Although I don't know if this would be a thing to use one for or not. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think adding {{Personality rights}} to media taken of Australian Aboriginals would suffice. We don't need a specific disclaimer. Abzeronow (talk) 18:28, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This tag only applies to persons who are still alive. Ruslik (talk) 20:15, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yeah, you're right. I guess I was trying to find a similar principle that could be useful. Abzeronow (talk) 16:25, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think a specific warning could be valuable, only that I don't know how to make it effective. {{PD-Australia}} is not a good place, as it is for photographs over (about) 70 years old (and some other works). Most people portrayed would have died long ago. For the warning to be meaningful, it would need to be activated for a year or a few when a subject dies. Commons has no infrastructure keeping track of photographed people's deaths. For some famous persons, their photos are probably categorised as pertaining to them and their deaths are noted, but that is probably a tiny minority of Indigenous Australians whose photos we have. However, if a working solution is proposed, I might support it. –LPfi (talk) 20:10, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Alternatively, some sources may also be described:
Surveyor Mount (talk) 22:48, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Flora Danica - more categorization needed[edit]

Cornflower (w:Centaurea cyanus) is here called "Cyanus" or 2-2-039. The image should belong in Category:Centaurea cyanus - botanical illustrations.

The Category:Flora danica, det er dansk urtebog now contains all 384 illustrations from that book, with numbers, but without links (category membership) to current plant names. This is a book from 1648, a century before Linnæus, so names given in Latin are not current taxonomy. If some users interested in plants and/or Denmark would like to add categories to each illustration, please go ahead. -- LA2 (talk) 18:31, 1 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 02[edit]

Accessibility consideration of commons pages？[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Motd/Months&oldid=258579353 makes me wonder, how well our pages are designed for people with various disabilities? especially blind people who use screenreaders.

how many people with disabilities use commons?

any WMF employees or commons user groups dedicated to testing and improving accessibility designs? RZuo (talk) 19:50, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • Independent of design, one of the most useful things people could do here is to make more use of alt text (P11265) on images. (I realize that doesn't address what RZuo is asking for here, and I don't want to hijack the thread in that direction; no reply needed to my remark here.) - Jmabel ! talk 23:42, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Categories per city per day[edit]

Are edits like this okay? I am afraid hidden and non-hidden cats are badly screwed up here, but this category system existed way before I started to add them to the files. If not we probably need mass rollback for edits of @J.-H. Janßen: (courtesy ping).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • @J.-H. Janßen and Ymblanter: I think that is almost always a liability: just makes things harder to browse. I had thought there was a pretty clear consensus not to split by-day categories any lower than entire countries. - Jmabel ! talk 23:45, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Indeed, this is what I thought as well. Ymblanter (talk) 05:19, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Overwriting with cropped versions[edit]

Another user has left a comment on my talk page saying

I kindly ask you to crop images into new files, especially with the ones which have been out there for years, like this image. Cropping them into the same file can be seen as controversial sometimes.

I generally try to use (e.g.) "Unnecessary Borders" and "Substantial crop or un-crop" as a guideline; if I feel an image falls (uncontroversially) into the former category, I'll overwrite, if not, I'll upload as a new file (e.g.).

Some may disagree with where I judged the line to be in certain cases. Nonetheless, the comment seems to suggest that- since the possibility exists that *any* overwriting crop *might* be controversial- this should never be done. That's what I dispute- the fact we have a policy covering cases where it is (*and* isn't) acceptable suggests otherwise.

I also don't see anything suggesting that images shouldn't be touched simply because they're older?

This isn't a major dispute and there has been no animosity between us. I brought it here almost immediately because it's something I'd like sorted and clarified early on before (e.g.) further reversions are made.

In particular, I'd appreciate input on my interpretation of the policies. I'll go over the images of mine which have been reverted:-

The *original* is already more tightly framed/cropped at top and bottom than even my post-crop version (where I left a decent amount of space). The probable reason for the space at the sides being due to camera's default aspect ratio. Possibly the photographer wanted to get as close as possible without cutting anything off, but lacked the skill or inclination to alter the aspect ratio or post-crop(?)
Ditto above; side crop doesn't exceed already-tight vertical framing, and dead space at the sides added nothing.
Flickr transfer, not even ours. Ditto comments above, but in this case, the cropped areas weren't just pointless, they contained distracting clutter.

In all three cases, the tight vertical crop suggests there was no artistic intent in leaving the large (and mismatched) amount of dead space at the sides; it's an aspect ratio limitation.

Ubcule (talk) 21:32, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Courtesy links to provided examples: File:2channel Web browsing by Nintendo DS.jpg, File:Canon EOS 1000D with Sigma 70-300mm lens 01.jpg and File:Philips portable TV and video recorder combo (8049806781).jpg. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hey, @Ubcule. Thanks for opening this topic here. I am still not totally used with Commons policies.
That said, some days ago I saw a cropping edit war on many files ([2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8] etc.). One of the arguments used in order to restore the original images was that their cropped versions may had changed aspect ratio.
Indeed, Commons:Overwriting existing files states that minor cropping is allowed. However, the only example of valid minor cropping it gives has virtually the same aspect ratio of the original version of the image. So, I was not sure if your croppings were in fact valid. Some also felt a little bit claustrophobic to me, specially the TV one.
Please note that I did not want to sound rude when I reverted them. If this topic helps to make guidelines even more clear, this will of course be great. Best regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 23:40, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ubcule: I'd say that any time you are doing something like this on images by a user who is active on Commons, you should either get their permission in advance or use a new file name. Besides any other issues: when you do a crop like this, you are overriding their aesthetic judgement, but leaving their name on the work. The only downside to using a new name is more work if you are trying to change an image that is already in an article, but using a new file name and making a change in the article keeps that burden on yourself, instead of in any way impacting someone else. Images from a truly third-party Flickr user (as against a Commons user's upload from their own Flickr stream) might be less of an issue, but really, if the uploader had wanted to crop, they probably would.
Obviously, cutting excessive borders is fine unless those appear to be a conscious aesthetic decision (as they are on some old photographs). Ditto for minuscule crops that get rid of some sort of "crud" near the edge of the photo. - Jmabel ! talk 23:55, 2 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel@RodRabelo7@Ubcule what are your thoughts on the practice of some users saving noFOP-violating files by cropping away the integral subjects like architecture and artworks, under the claim that usability still exists, despite the fact that the file name and contexts have changed. Pinging @A1Cafel, Ox1997cow, Ikan Kekek, Ooligan, and Andy Dingley: who all participated/were involved in both Commons:Deletion requests/File:Charging Bull (3883546986).jpg (now closed) and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte World morning view 4.jpg (still open). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:17, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tend to have a broader view of what might be usable than some other people do, but I don't see any way out of judging these kinds of things case-by-case. -- Ikan Kekek (talk) 00:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely case-by-case. Here's one (on a photo of my own) where I think I did it well: an art fair, with the art rendered illegible, but the overall feel of the room intact. FWIW, I tend to prefer Gaussian blurs to crops for that sort of thing. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@JWilz12345: I think it's good to crop of the copyrighted part and use it for other useful purposes. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps so. But particularly in such a case, the filename is almost certainly going to need to be changed as it's now a whole different image. We can't have an image "Copyright Tower, downtown.jpg" when we've deliberately cropped the Tower off it. See Commons:Deletion requests/File:Lotte World morning view 4.jpg Andy Dingley (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • We went over this just a couple of weeks ago, in relation to "small" (and not so small) crops to remove stickers: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/02#Cropping images Andy Dingley (talk) 07:18, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I have reverted to the original version. Policy is clear here: "If another editor thinks that a change is not an improvement (even if the editor making the change thinks it's minor), the change can be reverted. Once a change has been reverted, the new image should be uploaded under a new filename (unless the reverting editor explicitly or implicitly agrees to the contested change)." This is essentially w:WP:BRD, but unlike Wikipedia, disputes are usually resolved by giving precedence to the original and allowing alternative versions to exist under other names as opposed to converging on a single authoritative version via consensus. So my recommendation would be: keep on making crops if you feel like they are unlikely to be controversial, but if you get reverted, just shake it off and make a separate (cropped) version. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:55, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

April 03[edit]

Flickr license history now shows timestamps[edit]

Flickr started showing license history late last October. While this was a long-awaited feature, one complaint is that it didn't show timestamps. I didn't see it mentioned in the release notes, but the license history feature now shows the exact time the license was changed. Just putting this here in case someone finds it useful. Ixfd64 (talk) 05:38, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ixfd64: good feature for license review! But is that helpful in uploading original resolutions of Flickr-imported photos that were formerly under free licenses but now changed to unfree licenses? Like File:Manila by night.jpg. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wait, nevermind Ixfd64. My question is of no use since the Flickr photographer disabled the downloading of her photo. I think she was displeased of having her Flickr photo being used on Wikipedia / Commons, but that is just my opinion (since one commented that it was being used on Wikipedia). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unwanted hint[edit]

Logged-in users (may be of special rights?) get now an irritating hint to each image about possible rotation request. I do not like to see this information; when a file needs rotation I can request it without getting this hint! BTW, the rate of rotation-needing files is too low to flag each file with that disturbing remark. Please, remove it! -- sarang♥사랑 09:03, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Need help with reverting vandalism[edit]

The last two edits of the file File:Bitcoin-Genesis-block.jpg were made by an IP address that also vandalized File:Satoshi Nakamoto.jpg. I reverted those on the Satoshi Nakamoto.jpg file but on the Bitcoin-Genesis-block.jpg file the vandalism seems to go further back, however some edits looks very strange to me as an inexperienced user of commons and I cannot be sure whether they are good or not. Can somebody revert all the vandalism on the File:Bitcoin-Genesis-block.jpg page? Please make sure to go as far back as needed to also get rid of the "2023 bitcoinlife crypto" in the Licensing section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guherto (talk • contribs) 06:15, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Guherto: Hi, and welcome. ✓ Done in this edit. Thanks for letting us know about the vandalism. Perhaps an Admin can semiprotect the file.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

CropTool[edit]

I tried using it today on multiple images and keep getting the "502 Bad Gateway" message. Anyone else having the same experience? --Rosiestep (talk) 14:06, 3 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=746587169"