Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/10

< Commons:Village pump‎ | Archive

Marking as reviewed

Can anyone with reviewer right Mark this image as reviewed as the website of Government of Bihar may delete it in future making it difficult for me to proove that it was available there. File:Kapil Deo Kamat with Ram Balak Singh Kushwaha.jpg. Many images from this website were reviewed earlier by admins Satdeep Gill and Magog the Ogre. But they are not active right now. (As for example this File:Umesh kushwaha, khiru Mahto, Nitish Kumar.jpeg is from the same source)-Admantine123 (talk) 08:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: I believe the normal way to request this is to put {{LicenseReview}} on the file page. I've now done that for you.
I tried (and failed) to access the referenced source page. Could well be an issue of which country I'm in (U.S.), because I can't even access the domain.. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
You can click on the link twice or thrice to get the page as usually after clicking once they direct to main web page. Admantine123 (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I got a 502 Proxy Error, and then I was able to connect after some funny business with my local ISP. The file is actually from https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/cache/33/QUICKLINK/1.jpg as displayed on https://state.bihar.gov.in/biharprd/Content.html?links&page=Photo%20Gallery but with no specific license visible.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:04, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Admantine123: what exactly is the basis for the claimed license (exact text & just where it can be found)? Might make it easier for someone to find & confirm. - Jmabel ! talk 16:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The website policy of Government of Bihar says so. It allows it to be used by everyone for any purpose freely if one properly attribute them. The copyright policy is found on the bottom of the website. Admantine123 (talk) 16:11, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
[1], here you can see that they are free, as declared by Information and public relations department of Government of Bihar.- Admantine123 (talk) 16:13, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
On that page I see "Material featured on this website may be reproduced free of charge. However, the material has to be reproduced accurately and not to be used in a derogatory manner or in a misleading context. Wherever the material is being published or issued to others, the source must be prominently acknowledged. However, the permission to reproduce this material shall not extend to any material which is identified as being copyright of a third party. Authorization to reproduce such material must be obtained from the department/copyright holder concerned." So for each individual image, we need to see that it is not attributed to a third party. Also, "the material has to be reproduced accurately" makes me wonder about whether derivative works are allowed (if not, this is not a free enough license for Commons.) - Jmabel ! talk 17:06, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: That reads to me like "no derivative works". Please do the needful.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:10, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I'm hesitant to assume that, because (1) the license has clearly been accepted in the past and (2) it seems ambiguous to me. A crop identified as such is not "inaccurate". This may be more related to the "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context," which is clearly a non-copyright restriction. But I do believe we should quote the key passage on the file page, not just use {{Attribution}}, as it does now. - Jmabel ! talk 17:15, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
The language "not be used in a derogatory manner or a misleading context" isn't a non-copyright restriction. It's a constraint on acceptable uses of the work, just like "non-commercial use only", and it makes the license non-free. Omphalographer (talk) 20:22, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
@Omphalographer: I beg to differ. It's pretty much the same as par-for-the-course personality rights in many countries. - Jmabel ! talk 23:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

@Admantine123: Reviewed, with a caveat about the terms. We may want a distinct template for this slightly odd license, in part to be clear about the caveat, but also to make it easy to find these if it is later determined that it does mean "no derivative works." - Jmabel ! talk 17:25, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Using accurately stands for using not in a derogatory manner and this thing is found on all government websites of India. Wikimedia commons have thousands of images from various Indian government websites and those published by press information bureau. There also if you read website policy they say the same thing. Indian administrators who are more aware of this thing have accepted it in past. Admantine123 (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I am sure about the thing because here [2] on the official website of Press Information Bureau, you can see the same disclaimer. Thousands of images from the same have been uploaded on Wikimedia commons with their derivatives and other uses. You may find category of Images uploaded by Press Information Bureau to see those image, which was taken from PIB only with the same copyright policy.- Admantine123 (talk) 17:36, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
By the way, i am also finding a proper solution to this as i don't want to disturb Indian Administrators time and again for reviewing the photos I will be uploading from Official Website of Government of Bihar. Satdeep Gill who is well aware of the case used to review my uploads. But, he is not active right now. And Bihar Government deletes the old images, so if not reviewed it will be difficult in future. Admantine123 (talk) 17:48, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Some others images reviewed by Indian admins are File:Nitish Kumar participating in Ram Navmi Shobha Yatra.jpg

File:Nitish Kumar participating in Prakash Parv.jpg File:Nitish Kumar meeting Dalai Lama.jpg, File:Nitish Kumar meeting ailing Lalu Prasad Yadav in Hospital.jpg

Admantine123 (talk) 17:53, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
For reference in the discussion, we are hosting a large number of files under {{OGL}} and {{OGL2}} that have a term that reusers must, "ensure that you do not mislead others or misrepresent the Information or its source." This specific term appears to have been removed from {{OGL3}}. From Hill To Shore (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
That term only appears to be present in OGL1. It's absent from OGL2; I'm going to open an editprotected request to correct the corresponding template. Omphalographer (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
It means in future the images from such websites can be uploaded under OGL1 licence, isn't it.? Admantine123 (talk) 08:28, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Indian laws are heavily derived from UK's law. That's why they have tried similar rules for the government materials. Admantine123 (talk) 08:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
From Hill To Shore, thanks for your input. It means in future i can upload the image from Government of Bihar website under OGL1 licence as it fulfills all the requirements. Also, can someone give me a link of this discussion, for future reference as many reviewers in future may be unaware of this discussion that has taken place right now. This discussion will be removed after addition of more discussion with passage of time in below section, that's why.- Admantine123 (talk) 08:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Admantine123: Sorry for the confusion but I mentioned OGL in the context of another licence that includes the right to alter a file but a restriction on using it in a misleading way. If consensus is that OGL files are okay, then that strengthens your argument that Government of Bihar files with similar restrictions should be okay.
However, I don't think OGL can apply to Government of Bihar files as OGL is designed for UK copyright law and relates to files under Crown Copyright. As India is an independent country with its own head of state, British Crown Copyright is not relevant, except perhaps for pre-1947 files that are probably PD anyway. From Hill To Shore (talk) 09:31, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok Admantine123 (talk) 11:10, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistake in naming

Hi all, I've made a big mistake in over 260 photos... the category is Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore, however I have them all in the category Category:Clemenston Drive, Kemps Creek. I have moved the category, but I need to move the images into Category:Clemenston Drive, Rossmore and rename them to start with the title "Clementson Drive, Rossmore xxx.jpg" (where xxx is the number). How would I do this quickly? Or can someone do this for me? I apologise for making all this work! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

  • @Chris.sherlock2: I'll do the mass rename of the files (under way as I write), and move them to the new category. If there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 17:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I believe the mass rename, the category deletion, and moving the files to the new category are all complete. Again, if there are descriptions to be changed, can you do that yourself or do you also need that done for you? - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    Is there any chance you can help with this? I just need to change the suburb name. Is there any way I can do this in a batch if this happens in future? Thanks for your help! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:17, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    • @Chris.sherlock2: Sure. I'll do that. I did the file renames with the massrename tool, the re-cats with VFC (could have been done equally with cat-a-lot, maybe better) and will do this next piece with VFC as well. For massrename you need filemover privileges (I don't know whether you have those); however, you can certainly use VFC and cat-a-lot yourself. VFC is very powerful in terms of various wikitext substitutions, but you can get yourself in some trouble with it. Cat-a-lot is narrower in what it does (though its apparently good when you want to work on moving subcats as well as files, which VFC can't do) and therefore has less potential to go very wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 22:35, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
      Oh, that's great! I'll look into these when I get home from work. Thanks so much Jmabel, I really appreciate your assistance and advise! - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 23:50, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
    • Done. - Jmabel ! talk 22:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Error with Mediaviews Analysis?

Mediaviews Analysis show the error message: "Error querying Media requests API - Not Found" for several old files (files uploaded > 1 day). Is there ongoing improvement to this tool? Đại Việt quốc (talk) 00:11, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Images of numbers

Talking about Category:Numbers in Hindi and Category:Numbers in Telugu, both of them seem to list numbers in their respective languages, from 1 to 100, and in a very low resolution JPG format. I'm wondering if the applicable files in these categories could potentially be marked for deletion?

I don't see any purpose for them since the digits in these languages are already available as/can be easily replaced uploaded in SVG, and they also show no global use. ~ Saur (talk • contribs) 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to delete. These numerals can be represented as text (e.g. १, २, ३; ౧, ౨, ౩); there's no need for hundreds of images of text. Omphalographer (talk) 18:49, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
It's common to have files in different formats. If you think you can improve the jpgs, please upload them. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:41, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
I personally would not upload them in any format. JPG (low res!) is the only format these are available as of now and I want to determine if these are worth keeping; they are well within project scope but fall short of serving any practical purpose. ~ Saur (talk • contribs) 12:32, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Image deleted for 'no license' even though VRT ticket was sent

Hello, last week I uploaded an image of the actress Stacie Mistysyn with permission from the actress via email. She used the Interactive Release Generator and a VRT ticket was pending when it was deleted for having 'no license'. ToQ100gou (talk) 03:40, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

@ToQ100gou: presumably you are talking about File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022.jpg and File:Stacie Mistysyn 2022 (cropped).jpg. You never tagged those with {{PP}} or {{Permission pending}} (as discussed in the first paragraph of Commons:Volunteer Response Team#Licensing images: when do I contact VRT?) so it's no surprise the were deleted. Sounds like something to take up at Commons:Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard (if at all) rather than here. Whether you do so or not, though, if the rights are sorted out via VRT the image will be undeleted. One thing here that seems odd (and I don't need a response, just pointing it out to you for your process of moving this forward): it is unusual that an actress would be the holder of the relevant copyright, rather than a photographer or an organization. - Jmabel ! talk 04:01, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Jmabel, I'm afraid you are mistaken here. Both files are tagged as Permission Received in the last version before deletion (ticket:2023092310000496) - they were deleted because the bot did not detect a license tag on the page. Having quickly reviewed the ticket: the emailer says to have chosen Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International, but VRT is waiting for a response since Sept 28 because of an outstanding question to complete the verification procedure. Ciell (talk) 18:14, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ciell: sorry about that, you are correct. I just noticed the lack of {{Permission pending}} on the last version before deletion, didn't realize that it had been there ane was removed. Anyway, I presume these will be undeleted once that outstanding question is resolved.
Kind of weird to remove {{Permission pending}}, tag them as {{Permission received}}, but not add the license. @Krd: is this expected behaviour? It was your bot that did that. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The bot can't read our VRT-tickets. ;-) Ciell (talk) 08:53, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Question about inappropriate images. Where do we report it?

Where do we report inappropriate images? Starlighsky (talk) 04:18, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

File:World laws pertaining to homosexual relationships and expression.svg

Hello, I wonder if it is too soon to call a change of border with Somalia and Somaliland? If not, Caawiyahaderon's edit may need to be re-rendered in text editable state (from the preceding revision), as I took the map out of Inkscape earlier this year. Sorry for the rushed message, but I am sleepy. --Minoa (talk) 00:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there some reason why you are overwriting the same file and not creating new ones? That would avoid the entire problem of how soon it is to declare a border change. There will be one file with the previous border and another version with the new border. Individual Wikis can then choose which version best suits their page. They could even include two versions to show how the map has changed over time. From Hill To Shore (talk) 06:45, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The file is marked as always up to date and therefore this file should be overwritten. If old versions are needed they need to become uploaded as new files. GPSLeo (talk) 08:16, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
FYI: I asked a similar question below (see Commons:Village_pump#Rules_regarding_unrecognized_countries). I think it's too soon, reading Wikipedia the border change doesn't seem recognized by most reliable sources. In Caawiyahaderon's map, Somaliland, Khatumo State, and Somalia appear as three independent countries, even though I understand that Khatumo State could be a state of Somalia (instead of being part of Somaliland before). poke @Caawiyahaderon A455bcd9 (talk) 07:34, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons Gazette 2023-10

  • 7 September was the 19th anniversary of the founding of Wikimedia Commons.
  • Currently, there are 186 sysops.
  • Commons:Adiutor is a new tool for maintenance tasks.
User:Vikipolimer was appointed temporarily as administrator and interface administrator from 4 to 11 September to facilitate set-up of Adiutor.

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) 11:56, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Rules regarding unrecognized countries

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)

Should Artsakh set a precedent?

{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)
This link doesn't even mention Khatumo... Is there a map in a reliable source showing SSC-Khatumo as an independent state? A455bcd9 (talk) 14:17, 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)

Does CCBY-NC-ND permitted on commons

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)

Photographs by date by country as a task for bots

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)
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)

Subcat not showing

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)
& so do I now, so it was just a weird caching issue. - Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 15:24, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Image brightness

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)

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)

Template:Extracted from deleted

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)

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)

Need help with WLM submission

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)

This file did not pass file verification

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)

Reflective signs

 
Reflective sign

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)

Speedy deletions nominated by user Doclys

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

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)
The latter. Ruslik (talk) 20:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

Burger King recall PSA copyright

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)

Images cropped to remove timestamp and other

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)
Thanks for info! Beao (talk) 21:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
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)

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)

Show red line for road on infobox

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)

What change was made?

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)
Oh! That's interesting. Thank you for the explanation. // sikander { talk } 🦖 03:32, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Review of India.gov.in photos

{{GODL-India}}

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)

Copyright question

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

Hi 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,

~ Keegan (WMF) (talk) 16:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Okinawa

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)

Your Feedback Needed: Upcoming Design Improvements to UploadWizard

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)

Identifying Tuscany 2002 trains

 

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)

Found: is Category:LFI EABiz 7–9 in a new livery.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:25, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo of Naval Base Yokosuka

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)
@Artanisen: Yes, it should be public domain per COM:JAPAN, The National World War II Museum is perpetrating copyfraud in this case.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:32, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I do not see the organization making a copyright claim on their website, so not copyfraud. They are just charging for hires images, organizations have server/bandwidth costs, just like us. --RAN (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators by recent activity

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)

@Yann: Per Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/09#Stalled category moves, Steinsplitter was emailed on 24 September, but has not been heard from since 12 September. Also, please merge (or delete the existing pages) for the categories you requested to be moved to existing pages on COM:CDC.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:44, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Gift card pseudospam

Have seen multiple users uploading banner ad type images in the past couple of days ("Do you qualify for a free phone?", "Your opinion is important!", "You have been chosen to participate in our Loyalty Program for FREE!"), in each case with a short "asdgjhg" type description and no link attached.

(Samarajack and ERHERHR10 are definitely uploading the same images.)

Is this a bot spam scheme - but where the bot is either broken, or intending to return and add the links later on if the images aren't deleted (so that we're less likely to blacklist the domain)? A human spammer trying to use Commons as an image host for embedding offsite? Or something else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belbury (talk • contribs) 11:50, 12 October 2023‎ (UTC)

My bet is on a human spammer. 1) the file names have repeating characters as if someone is smashing buttons on a certain spot on the keyboard - truly random looks different. 2) They are using UploadWizard. It might be possible to create a bot to use that interface for uploads, but it would be so much easier to just use options for Commons:Command-line upload instead. El Grafo (talk) 12:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
  Comment I blocked Sabrinamodnzu as VOA, Samarajack for reuploading files after warning, and ERHERHR10 for socking. Yann (talk) 12:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Uncategorized categories

  1. Does anyone know what process (a bot, I presume) fills Special:UncategorizedCategories and who might be responsible for it? Is this documented somewhere?
  2. Does anyone have any idea why some categories that have had parent categories for years show up there? (e.g. Category:November 2011 in the United Arab Emirates.

Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of making some errors, 1.) special pages are just populated by the MediaWiki software itself on a semi-regular (weekly?) basis and 2.) this kind of thing usually happens due to caching errors and if you purge the page, it should fix it (...?) and these kind of things are much more common when categories are transcluded from templates. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Presumably if the page itself has had the parent categories visible for months (which in this case it has), purging won't change anything, but I'll try it and I guess in a couple of days we'll see. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel and Koavf: When categories are transcluded from templates, the templates should also be purged if purging the categories didn't work. Null editing may also help, but that is not logged, either.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 03:01, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

openfoodfacts.org

This website states: Products images are available under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike licence. They may contain graphical elements subject to copyright or other rights, that may in some cases be reproduced (quotation rights or fair use). Is this enough to upload copyrighted packaging images from there onto Commons or it's a kind of Commons:License laundering? Examples: File:Huile olive citron de menton.jpg; File:Tom yum pate.jpg; File:Sorbet calamansi.jpg; File:Kumquats confits.jpg; see more: Special:LinkSearch/*.openfoodfacts.org. Komarof (talk) 07:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

There are countless photos of packaging on WMC so this would be a broader question and probably has already been discussed. I think all those images should be in Category:Images from Open Food Facts and it would be nice if you added them to there. There are also similar populated cats for similar products/food-related open content websites. Prototyperspective (talk) 10:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
These would be OK if not cropped or focus on the copyrighted label. I nominated 2 files. Yann (talk) 11:02, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I added all I could find to Category:Images from Open Food Facts as suggested above. Probably, there are some more focused on the copyrighted label ones now. --Komarof (talk) 11:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't go quite as far as to call this license laundering, but it's a sloppy way of handling licensing on the part of Open Food Facts and it should be approached with caution. Open Food Facts may have received a valid license for the photograph from their contributors (or perhaps an invalid license, if users copied an image from another web site), but they certainly didn't create the product labels, so they cannot license that content for reuse if it's above the threshold of originality. Omphalographer (talk) 00:25, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.

I have found a problem with some files uploaded via the WLM greece upload form. The files look like they are not uploaded localy in Commons, like File:Ναός Αγίου Γεωργίου στο Γυμνό 1635.jpg. When clicking on the link instead of a picture there is a File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public message. There is also an error message while publishing, local-swift-eqiad. How can it be fixed? --C messier (talk) 19:51, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@C messier: All looks fine to me. What exactly is the URL that you are saying was problematic and gives you a "file not found"? - Jmabel ! talk 21:01, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7a/%CE%9D%CE%B1%CF%8C%CF%82_%CE%91%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85_%CE%93%CE%B5%CF%89%CF%81%CE%B3%CE%AF%CE%BF%CF%85_%CF%83%CF%84%CE%BF_%CE%93%CF%85%CE%BC%CE%BD%CF%8C_1635.jpg C messier (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Works fine for me. Probably some sort of problem sync'ing servers, which will presumably work itself out. I'd suggest checking it again in 24 hours. - Jmabel ! talk 23:00, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Echallens‎ vs. Échallens‎

Hi, How should we name this category? Both French and English Wikipedia use en:Échallens‎ while the German one uses de:Echallens. But this is a French speaking region. Yann (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Yann: Whatever is decided here, please make room for one or the other with a merge so that COM:CDC can be processed by mere mortals.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
 
French Wikipedia appears to use both spellings, but it's unclear which referenced it uses. It even mentions some references with "Échallens‎" that are actually using "Echallens".
"Echallens" is the locally used spelling (see logo to the right). When searching for references with Yann, we noticed official Swiss topography goes with "Echallens" and blog he found has "Échallens". I'd stick with the local spelling. Enhancing999 (talk) 12:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Accents are usually omitted with capitals only, that's why the logo has no accent, but accents should be used whenever possible. Yann (talk) 12:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It may be a rule they follow on French Wikipedia, but not by locals (or the Swiss Federal Office of Topography). Enhancing999 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Disclaimer for non-copyright restrictions on pictures of Greek antiquities

The question came up in Commons:Deletion requests/Acropolis photos uploaded by User:Schminnte as to whether or not a legal disclaimer similar to {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} is needed for images of Ancient Greek sites considered property of the Greek State (see also COM:NCR Greece). Basically, these images are allowable under Greek law to be posted for educational and non-commercial purposes, but commercial use requires a license from Greek Authorities. Per COM:NCR, that sort of non-copyright restriction doesn't make a CC-by-SA license invalid, but it seems responsible to flag the issue for others who might want to reuse the image. {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} provides that sort of warning for images of Italian monuments similarly protected. Thoughts and comments as to whether or not a similar disclaimer is needed for Greek monuments and antiquities would be welcomed. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

IBM Research

Hi dear community!

I found the YouTube Channel "IBM Research" (https://www.youtube.com/@ibmresearch). As they have CC licensed videos, maybe there are useful contents for Wikipedia or Commons?

Greetings --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:36, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Nagorno-Karabakh village name categories all being changed into Azerbaijani

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)
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)
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)
I don't think a user with 9 total edits in Commons should be telling anyone what the correct way to handle place names on the site is, much less label someone as "echoing goverment propaganda" simply for following Commons guidelines. — Golden talk 21:44, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, it seems likely nobody else is going to chime in, so let me give/summarize 3 suggestions for consideration. As I've said a few times, this wiki is a robust format and we can easily incorporate both names so that it is easy for everyone to find what they're looking for. I am fine with various approaches to this, including what Butcher 2021 suggested, what I originally suggested which was Azeriname (Armenianname) and I have been thinking that alternatively we can just put both village names as separate categories for each village. Then the Azeri village name category would go under the larger Azeri regional category like "Villages in Khojaly", and the Armenian one would go under "Villages in Askeran" and then the Armenian one would stop at the next level of say "Villages of Nagorno-Karabakh". That would make it simple to categorize and find villages and regions for both parties. This last option, which I had not suggested before is actually my favorite option. Simple, clean, and only doubling up at the village level. RaffiKojian (talk) 05:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Just my opinion, but naming the categories something like Azeriname (Armenianname) just seems weird. There's basic rules about how to name categories and the don't involve naming them multiple things or doing it in a way that incorporates multiple subjects. What it does intitled though is going with which name is popular and if you look at how much each name is used there's a clear winner, which probably depends on the circumstances but is most likely Azerbaijani, and that's fine. But putting multiple languages in the name of the category would just be obtuse and unhelpful. The same goes for having categories for both names, which would just lead to people being confused as to what images should go in which and in the best case lot of duplication, if not also files being put in one of the categories randomly when they don't belong there. Again, the rules are clear that there should only be a single category per subject.
An alternative though would be to create redirects for the least popular names. That's what we do in all other cases and there's no reason to make an exception just for this instance. Especially if it involves turning category names into a complete translation string or whatever of the locations name. Like where would end at that point? In the United States there's places that are named in English, Spanish, and Native American depending on the time period and who your talking to. It would be ridiculous to have a category name that amounts to "English (Spanish) (Native American) (Whatever else)" though. You have to draw the line at English if it's the most popular even if that puts people who speak other languages. -Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
The thing is that your examples are quite different from the situation I'm describing. There aren't American settlements where all the inhabitants call the place some other name, and have used it exclusively both in their lives and even officially in their government for decades.
I the case I'm describing, many Armenian villages have had one name for hundreds of years, and those were the names at the municipal and regional level, and no other name was used, and now that they've been ethnically cleansed, suddenly this foreign name that in practice has not been used in decades, if ever, should be canvassed across this site? These are places that don't get written about a lot in the western press obviously, but the name Kyatuk (where I was uploading some of my photos to) has some other name that so far as I can tell was imposed by Azerbaijan at some point when they weren't even in charge there, and now suddenly the name should be something that nobody who is from Kyatuk for well over a century has even heard? I can't even tell you what it is, I'd have to look it up. So that's why I'm saying, this is a pretty unique situation and the renaming is part of the effort to stamp out the Armenian identity and history there. Personally I'd suggest what I suggested on Wikipedia long ago, which is that for villages that were all or majority Armenian before the first war, we use the Armenian name, and villages that were all/majority Azeri before the first war we use the Azeri name. In time we can see what happens with the region and if a different solution makes sense, but again, just putting both names either in the way you did not like, or as a mirrored category structure (which I also suggested) seems like an easy win for anyone who is looking for files related to these settlements. RaffiKojian (talk) 11:28, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's that different to the example I gave you in America. The Native America's called specific places something for hundreds, if not thousands, of years. They were subsequently ethnically cleansed and pushed out of those areas, but often still call them by their original names. Whereas, the white European settlers who live there now don't. But it wouldn't work to just go with Native American names regardless of if it's "right" or whatever because know one outside of a small minority uses them. Plus, it's not our job to use the platform as a forum to right great wrongs or whatever by changing everything to their original names before colonialism happed. No offense to locals, but at the end of the day this is a global project and categories need to be findable by people who aren't part of an extremely small minority of local towns folk.
And just an FYI, it's not that I don't like your suggestions, I could really care less, but they don't work and go against the policy about how to name categories. The same goes for the suggest that the name should be based on if the town was majority Armenian before the war or not. What matters is if it's majority Armenian now and if the name is recognized outside of the village. Not what the prominent ethnic group in the area was before the 90s. If I'm looking at the right village Kyatuk only has 6 people anyway. Regardless of if it's "right" or not, it would be ridiculous to change the name of the category just for those six people (who probably don't even use Commons BTW) at the cost of literally everyone else. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:41, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Well in fact nobody ever will look up Kyatuk, much less an Azeri, that was just a random example. But I disagree with you on 2 points. 1) You're saying there are places in American that Native Americans call one thing, and the white settlers who live there now call another. In this circumstance, there is nobody else that lives there. They were just cleansed 2 weeks ago and there is no new inhabitants, Azeri or otherwise, nor is there any plan for such so far as I know. 2) You are assuming the world is looking for these villages under the Azerbaijani names, but in most cases I don't think they are, but that is irrelevant since my double category solution includes both. So I'm not sure why you say "it's not going to work". It would work rather elegantly I think. But putting all of that aside, these categories we just changed in the past few days. I don't see why the rush to go and rename them all exclusively to names that are neither known to the locals many times, nor are they the most commonly used names in many cases. But rather than try to figure out for each and every village which is the most commonly used name, why not just put two categories for each village, and everybody finds what they want and we have a simple solution. Even Google Maps uses this same, very unique solution in Nagorno-Karabakh if you take a look. RaffiKojian (talk) 18:13, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I get the feeling that the main issue here is that you're viewing Commons as similar to Wikipedia, and you believe that changing category names will have a significant effect. But Commons isn't really used for learning new information. We change category names to what the controlling party uses because people who will visit these places, take photos, and upload them to Commons will likely search for the name they saw on a road sign and that's no longer the Armenian name. To address your concern, we could include the Armenian name in the descriptions within the village categories. — Golden talk 18:32, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
If the Azeri names are now official (are they? or is this still informal?) we probably have to use them. But, yes, every category for a place that also has a well-known Armenian name should have an {{Ar}} template with the Armenian name, and should have a redirect from an Armenian-language category name. - Jmabel ! talk 18:39, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I've applied Jmabel's suggestion to the following category as an example: Category:Badara. I've included descriptions in three languages: English, Azerbaijani, and Armenian. The Armenian description uses the Armenian name for the village, and a redirect from the Armenian name to the category also exists: Category:Patara, Nagorno-Karabakh (Category:Patara is already used for a village in Turkey in this case). I don't know Armenian, so I used Google Translate but I believe RaffiKojian does know it, so I would appreciate his assistance with the translations. — Golden talk 09:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@RaffiKojian: is this solution acceptable to you? I know you don't love it, and I don't blame you, but it feels to me like the best way to follow Commons' rules and still not lose the Armenian names. - Jmabel ! talk 17:56, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
It's true I don't love it. I have made a tweak (also in the Badara category) which will make it at least a fair bit more manageable/livable for me. See what you think. I created a new category which Badara will fall into called "Settlements of the former Askeran Region", and that falls into the new category "Settlements of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast". It still will be extra work for many users to figure out the names of the villages in each category that they want to visit, but at least having them all in one place helps a little. And still not sure why the Basque model is not usable here, and why there's so little flexibility when the wiki allows so much robustness, but anyway, here we are. Oh and also I assume there will be no problem with adding the transliteration of the Armenian names as I have done in Badara, so that if someone types them in Latin characters they come up in a search. RaffiKojian (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm uncertain about the necessity of a category for something that no longer exists (re: Settlements of the former Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast and Settlements of the former Askeran Region). Following the same reasoning, we could create categories such as "Settlements of the former Russian Empire" or even "Settlements of the former Persian Empire", both of which controlled the territory of these villages at some point in history. This makes no sense imo. However, I won't debate this further. I'll begin applying our agreed-upon version to all other village categories. — Golden talk 16:18, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
In theory, cats for photos of anything permanent in any place should at minimum be for the smallest available jurisdictions the places were in at the time of photography, de jure, to facilitate questions of which copyright rules were in effect at the time of photography. We can have cats for de facto control to ease navigation, too, but that should not affect copyright.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 17:56, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There are quite a few parts of the world we we track former jurisdictions, in various degrees. I think this is reasonable, especially when we have plenty of media from the relevant era. - Jmabel ! talk 23:54, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There are Category:Constantinople, Category:New Amsterdam. They are not redirects to Istanbul or NYC.
Files that are created when the villages were Armenian do not directly belong to the Azeri-titled categories.
On the other hand, people trying to erase Armenian history should stop right now. Butcher2021 (talk) 17:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
+1 Lupe (talk) 17:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
You can't seriously be comparing New Amsterdam vs New York to this. It's interesting how this user, who has only made eight edits outside of this discussion, managed to find and comment on this thread, especially considering their last edit was seven months ago. — Golden talk 18:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not compare? These are two very large, historic cities, which have categories with their prior names. And I'm asking for essentially the same thing, and am being told it's just not the way things are done around here. And yet... it is? And someone else mentioned something about this too. All of that was totally dismissed, while it turns out that it is quite normal here, and what I was suggesting is not even really new? Ooooookaaay. And personally I find it quite interesting that you've twice now pointed out how few edits that user has, and now implied so far as I can tell that maybe I summoned them. That's a hard no. But thank you Butcher2021 for pointing out these rather significant precedents (I mean, it can't get a whole lot larger than those). I don't know if everyone telling me that it was not standard policy here knew about this or not, but yeah, let's revisit this, shall we? I'm happy to put my photos, that I took, and I uploaded, back into the original category names that I created, which in fact appear to be the correct names for them after all. RaffiKojian (talk) 19:15, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
There's a notable historical distinction between New Amsterdam and New York. The former was a modest coastal Dutch settlement, while the latter is a contemporary American metropolis. It's not reasonable to expect images of the initial settlement in New Amsterdam to be categorized under New York. Separate article even exists for New Amsterdam on the English Wikipedia. The only thing that's changed about these small villages you're arguing about is the de facto ownership. The essence of the villages and their structures remain the same, regardless of whether they are controlled by party A or B tomorrow. Take a look at a picture of New Amsterdam vs New York and then take a look at a picture of Kyatuk vs Ağgədik (spoiler: nothing has changed in pictures of Kyatuk/Ağgədik). — Golden talk 19:38, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I am being told that the Basque solution to the naming shouldn't work for us because "reasons". That the New York and Istanbul solution shouldn't work because "reasons". But despite the fact that I've explained the special circumstances of this situation, a few of you refuse to agree because of, well, "reasons". We have two very good examples of how it can work, and other proposals, so I don't see why we can't implement our own solution here, just like there are special solutions for those other two cases, and just like Google Maps has implemented for Nagorno-Karabakh. It's very clear that we can use a solution with both names, without doing any harm whatsoever, and that it's not some kind of extraordinary, unprecedented solution. It would have practical value for me and everyone else who has ever lived in or visited these places, while having zero downside. My "reasons" are quite valid as well you know. RaffiKojian (talk) 07:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I know this is slightly offtopic, but I'm not sure what is happening: yesterday there was a mass-speedy-deletion of categories named after "Republic of Artsakh", while today I see mass-speedy-deletions of categories named after "Nagorno-Karabakh Republic‎" while the "Republic of Artsakh"-Categories were restored. I can not find a CfD besides Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/11/Category:Nagorno-Karabakh? --Enyavar (talk) 17:39, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
EDIT: Issue returning today in Commons:Village_pump#Nagorno-Karabakh. Hugo en résidence (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Large number of fails

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)
​ There are also problems with Pattypan uploads recently. It might be related... — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone know the fix for this. I cant see the thumbnail or the image? If I were to change the file size, I can upload over image, then I can see the thumbnail and the image, for the second upload, and confusingly the thumbnail and image for the first. Must be a better way. This is two days running this has happened. --Broichmore (talk) 11:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I reuploaded it, but the issue remains. It is indeed a MediaWiki bug. All thumbnails are OK, except 640 × 443 pixels. Yann (talk) 12:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I forced the creation of a 650px thumbnail, and it looks OK to me now. Yann (talk) 12:41, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I have the errors especially for files above 700 MiB still (at least often)--PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 19:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Still a daily occurrence. --Broichmore (talk) 16:07, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Was it possible to achieve some progress here? Many users are experiencing errors in uploading, thumb generation etc. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 15:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Happened again. I also successfully loaded an image, but still got an error message Could not acquire lock. Somebody else is doing something to this file. Yes, me.
I have reported this bug. --Broichmore (talk) 17:05, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Uploading of large files works for me again --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 16:34, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Review and comment on the 2024 Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.
More languages • Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

Please review and comment on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees selection rules package from now until 29 October 2023. The selection rules package was based on older versions by the Elections Committee and will be used in the 2024 Board of Trustees selection. Providing your comments now will help them provide a smoother, better Board selection process. More on the Meta-wiki page.

Best,

Katie Chan
Chair of the Elections Committee

01:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by KTC (talk • contribs) 2023-10-17 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by RamzyM (WMF) (talk • contribs) 2023-10-17 (UTC)

@KTC and RamzyM (WMF): please, sign your posts. Also: who exactly is the author of this post? Katie, as the content states, or Ramzy, as said in the hidden HTML? And why all this? Can’t you just post these messages normally? Have you any idea how these little weird details needlessly increase the distrust some of us feel about the WMF? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi there. I work for the Elections Committee, a volunteer committee of which Katie is the chair. I sent this message using the MassMessage tool globally to this distribution list. The support team (listed here) authored the message with Katie's sign-off. Hope that clarifies it for you. Thanks, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 02:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Your MassMessage tool should at least mimic the way posts are created normally — either by automaticly inserting a sig, as Flow does, or by at least reminding the poster before sending that a sig is missing. Speaking of Flow (or whatever it got renamed as when you guys finally pushed it onto the community after widespread disapproval and many bugs), what’s with the misthreading? -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 11:35, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm not involved with the development of MassMessage (or Flow, in that regard), but I sent this message on behalf of another person, and you may notice that is not possible to insert someone else's signature in a message that you are sending, so the next best option to add the name and position of the sender and five tildes (~~~~~) to produce date and time. Should you have other solution that can "mimic the way posts are created normally", please feel free to send in my way; I'm more than happy to use it in future messages to this board. Thanks, RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 12:49, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
@RamzyM (WMF): FWIW, you could have done "~~~~ on behalf of [[User:KTC|Katie Chan]]," resulting in RamzyM (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2023 (UTC) on behalf of Katie Chan. - 18:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Please, rev del the original upload.

I cropped out likely three copyrighted paintings here [3]. --Ooligan (talk) 20:01, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done Jmabel ! talk 22:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Jmabel for your help. -- Ooligan (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
  ResolvedJmabel ! talk 22:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Updating

I uploaded a file for a personal project on English Wikipedia (File link, usage link). I made a more updated version later and was wondering if there was a way to update this file or if I need to upload another file. Blocky44 (talk) 07:32, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Blocky44: You could in theory use the link "Upload a new version of this file" there, but I have nominated it for deletion as OOS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:54, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Generally, fictional flags are out of scope. @Blocky44: if for some reason this is in scope, you'll need to make your case in the DR. - Jmabel ! talk 18:29, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Iron work categories

Some iron work creations are clearly artistic, but there does not seem to be a category for it. Some Iron gates are quite elaborate.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:Wrought iron and Category:Ironwork__Broichmore (talk) 12:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Photo challenge August results

millet: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image      
Title Proso millet in Zurich Drying millet on the Bolaven Plateau (Laos) Eat it up
Author Ephramac Pierre André Leclercq Sneha G Gupta
Score 22 15 10
on stage: Entries • Votes • Scores
Rank 1 2 3
image      
Title 3(+3) dancers performing on stage Nenda & Gilewicz
live in Vienna		 Dancer on stage
Author Virtual-Pano Tsui Virtual-Pano
Score 15 9 8

Congratulations to Ephramac, Pierre André Leclercq, Virtual-Pano, Tsui and Sneha G Gupta. -- Jarekt (talk) 01:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Issues regarding using the word "terrorists" in the title of two videos

Hi, I started a discussion regarding the use of loaded words in the title of two videos. Some of you may want to participate. Thank you :) FunLater (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2023 (UTC)

The question of whether Commons should be hosting graphic videos of millitant gunmen killing civilians aside, is CCTV footage really public domain in Israel? Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:40, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
There's an active discussion about whether Commons should be hosting the video: [4]
You can probably bring up possible copyright issues there. (Edit: nevermind, you already did.)FunLater (talk) 18:03, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the impression I am getting from the discussion is that the copyright status of CCTV is a complete mess. Having read the deletion discusions surrounding the template itself Commons:Deletion_requests/Template:PD-CCTV (which was kept in 2020, despite the very similar Commons:Deletion requests/Template:PD-recording device closing as delete in 2016) there are good reasons to think that CCTV footage is public domain some places like Russia, but there's no reason to think that this applies worldwide or specifically in the United States, as the template seems to imply, and all of the AFD keep votes are not even considering the copyright legalities and voting "keep" anyway, which is poor form imo. If the copyright status of footage is not clear, then it should be deleted. However, looking at the results of Category:CCTV_related_deletion_discussions, whether or not individual CCTV videos are deleted seems to be at the whim of individual admins. Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:55, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

The relevant rules for media names are Commons:File naming and Commons:File renaming and only a very narrow interpretation of them would allow to rename such files. I think giving uploaders some freedom when naming files is good and I wouldn't rename that file just because its name agrees with the interpretation of some reliable sources but disagrees with the interpretation of other reliable sources, and I would say the same if the uploader had used "freedom fighters" instead or "terrorists".

Additionally, Commons:File renaming says that files shouldn't be renamed until the copyright status is clear.--Pere prlpz (talk) 12:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

How to add whitespace in score tag?

 
Middle C on a Grand Staff

I added this visualisation on en:C_(musical_note)#Middle_C to help readers see the symmetrical position of the note on the Grand Staff. My drawing of a note in white to let the staff continue to the right on both staves leaves a faint trace. Would anyone know how to extend a staff without the hack?

Thanks,
cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 03:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

  Done: Thanks to Michael Bednarek (talk · contribs), the answer is s. I've added the example to en:Help:Score#Adding_whitespace. cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:21, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

First edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter

Hello everyone, We are thrilled to introduce the first edition of the Language & Internationalization newsletter, available at this link: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Wikimedia_Language_engineering/Newsletter/2023/October.

This newsletter is compiled by the Wikimedia Language team. It provides updates from July–September quarter on new feature development, improvements in various language-related technical projects and support efforts, details about community meetings, and contributions ideas to get involved in projects.

To stay updated, you can subscribe to the newsletter on its wiki page. If you have any feedback or ideas for topics to feature in the newsletter, please share them on the discussion page, accessible here: https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wikimedia_Language_engineering/Newsletter. Cheers, Srishti - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:12, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Removing no-FOP countries from Commons:Freedom of panorama/table checklist

Upon realization from Commons talk:Freedom of panorama#Belarus, it seems more practical to remove all no-FOP countries from the checklist part of the table, because those are already listed at the bottom of the table. Having them in checklist generates redundancy, and some users like Altenmann begin to ask why unimportant countries like Zimbabwe and Antigua and Barbuda are iuded yet Belarus isn't. Although in my opinion all yes-FOP countries must be included even if they are unimportant, and for no-FOP ones only selected countries must be included (100+ no-FOP compared to less than 90 yes-FOP). But if more users will continue to question why unimportant but yes-FOP countries are included as opposed to relatively-large no-FOP ones, it might be best to remove all no-FOP countries from the proper part of the table, and confine them to the list at the bottom (which also eliminates redundancy).

Ping also participants in Commons talk:Freedom of panorama/table for inputs: @Pajz, Basile Morin, Nosferattus, Davey2010, Cmglee, and Jameslwoodward: JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:59, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

@JWilz12345: Thanks for seeking consensus. I'd propose the reverse: keep the checklist part and remove the list at the bottom. The checklist part lets a reader scan it both by country and by medium.
It's also subjective what one considers an "unimportant" country: someone from Zimbabwe and Antigua and Barbuda would object! Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 03:22, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cmglee that may be fine but it would result in a very long checklist that may push some contents at Commons:Freedom of panorama further down, though are you ok with that? There are 200+ jurisdictions, including 197 countries which I compiled at meta:User:JWilz12345/FOP/Global statuses. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:31, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
My position was distorted. I didnt say that Zimbabwe and Antigua and Barbuda are unimportant. And while I am here, I agree with w:user:cmglee: two tables are confusing. I didn't find Belarus at the top of the alphabetical order and I had no idea that I have to look for it somewhere else. Altenmann (talk) 04:32, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
My comment about these particular countries being unimportant was facetious: sorry if I caused offence.
Is having a large table a big issue? Articles like en:Visa_requirements_for_Singaporean_citizens and en:List_of_countries_and_dependencies_by_area have similarly long tables.
If so, would collapsing the table by initial help? E.g. having sections such as A–C, D–G etc, initially collapsed. It would be great if readers interested can click a button to expand all sections, though I'm unsure how to do that. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 09:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I say put them all in the table and make it super long! Nosferattus (talk) 18:11, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
  Info Davey2010 supports Cmglee's proposal, see here for his reply. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I like the use of {{Collapse}}. Divide the list in maybe sixths (but don't split any letters) and collapse each sixth separately. That way a user looking for information on a country need uncollapse only that section. I picked sixth because that's my guess of how many would fit on a page when uncollapsed. .     Jim . . . (Jameslwoodward) (talk to me) 20:18, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Davey2010: I've also made the table headers sticky to avoid repeating them throughout the table. Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
P.S. Another way to make the table shorter at the expense of reduced whitespace is to add e.g. line-height:80%; to its style tag (plus restoring line-height for the notes). cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 00:16, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I now agree to @Cmglee: 's suggestion. However, I may leave the heavy editing job to other users for a while. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Category:National Register of Historic Places

As of this writing there are 55 images directly in Category:National Register of Historic Places, all of which could use better categorization. All, or nearly all, are in the general area of Miami, Florida. These all came from the now-redirected Category:U.S. National Register of Historic Places. I've already categorized another 250+ images that were in that category, but I don't know the area at all, and most of the remainder are either not obvious as to what they represent (e.g. just what building) or need someone to create appropriate new categories. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Notification of DMCA takedown demand — Nebra Sky Disc

The Wikimedia Foundation recently received a takedown request under the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Due to the receipt of a counter-notice, and under the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, no files will be removed from Commons at this time; we are instead posting this note here for record-keeping and transparency.

The takedown can be read here. The counter-notice can be found linked from that page.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this action, please go to COM:DMCA#Nebra Sky Disc. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 22:42, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Cannot rotate

File:Malay dancing, KITLV 1407367.tiff cannot be rotated, perhaps because of the extention "tiff", I have tried to rename it so as to replace it rename on "jpg", it is not possible.

Question: How to rotate that pic ? --Io Herodotus (talk) 21:47, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Done. I just downloaded, rotated, and re-uploaded. - Jmabel ! talk 23:03, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
The crop tool probably could have done it too: https://croptool.toolforge.org/?title=Malay_dancing,_KITLV_1407367.tiff Enhancing999 (talk) 09:02, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
You can't change a file type just by changing its extension, say from tiff to jpg. Use GIMP to convert the file, from tiff to jpeg.
As a matter of fact, tiff files are high resolution reference files, they are used as source files. Tiff's are commonly large and don't scale well on websites, therefore best practise is to ‘’export’’ them to the jpg format, which are smaller in comparison and do scale well. When your doing that, GIMP can also rotate to whatever degree you want. --Broichmore (talk) 10:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, is there someone who can help me to create a Wikipedia logo for Dobrujan Tatar (crh-ro)?

  • Wikipedia = Wikipediya
  • The Free Encyclopedia = Aşîk Ençiklopediya

Zolgoyo (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

You can make a request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop. I would go there and ask for File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg to be localized with the text you want to a file named File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-crh-ro.svg. -- William Graham (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Can the invalid crucial SVG be fixed?

File:Wikipedia-logo-v2-en.svg has 45 errors. File:Licensing tutorial en.svg has 3 errors.

can these files please be fixed asap before they get translated and hence the errors get propagated even more?--RZuo (talk) 18:47, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Contents in a Category

for example "Category:Media needing categories as of 7 January 2023" has two pages of images and there is a "Contents" bar so one can look up images to categorize by first letter. I have found a Cat with up to 300,000 images. Category:Patrimonium 2 (project) has a Contents bar in the Category listing. Can a Contents bar be added to the images section? If someone wanted to find all the M or P or T images, it would take an hour to scroll forwardǃǃ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Photo Archives (talk • contribs)

The "Contents bar" ({{CategoryTOC}}) is supposed to work correctly for files in this context. However, the files in the Patrimonium 2 category seem to have unusual sort keys of the form ~Filename.ext%0AFilename.ext which CategoryTOC doesn't know what to do with. I'm not sure why this would be, or how to fix it properly, but you can work around the problem by manually adding ?from=~B to display files starting from the letter B, for example. Omphalographer (talk) 21:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok thanks. ̴̴ Photo Archives (talk) 16:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Cleanup task: ALLCAPS categories

I've written a query on Quarry that finds Commons categories with ALLCAPS names which are linked to from at least one page, but where no page exists for the category (i.e. the category is a redlink):

https://quarry.wmcloud.org/query/77062

These files are nearly all miscategorized (practically by definition), and many of them are out-of-scope as well. Anyone who's interested is welcome to help clean them up by adding correct categories and/or marking files for deletion where appropriate. (There are a lot of unused selfies, for example, and those should usually be tagged as F10.) Omphalographer (talk) 02:49, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Is there a sane way to take that output and turn it into something with links? - Jmabel ! talk 03:23, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any way to generate links directly on Quarry, but I could copy the results to a temporary page on Commons. Would that be useful? Omphalographer (talk) 05:55, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Maybe. Honestly not sure. It's certainly useful to be able to re-run the query and get a current, realtime list, so if it wouldn't fit in with that we're probably better off as it is. I'm guessing most people who would work on this are on PCs (as against phones), so they probably have browsers that will let them open a link from a text URL. If the choice is realtime query vs. overt links, I'd take the realtime query. - Jmabel ! talk 18:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Omphalographer and Jmabel: I did that with the "Wikitable" download, creating User:Jeff G./allcaps wanted categories as a test for you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 06:58, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Search accuracy

This is sort of a rant but I’m just wondering if anything is in the pipelines to improve search accuracy. I just found out that adding more search terms — or switching to more accurate search terms for that matter — can actually decrease search accuracy.

What I first searhced: “waterloo ion”. I got what I expected — pictures of the LRT, with some noise at the end. Wanting to remove the noise and perhaps get more results, I then searched for “waterloo lrt”; I was surprised to find tons of graphs of ions at the beginning, even though “ion” was not in my search; there was virtually no relevant results even though one would think searching for “lrt” instead of “ion” would make it more relevant.

I used to just feel search was bad; now I find this outright bizarre. Al12si (talk) 07:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Maybe try Special:Search instead of Special:MediaSearch? Overall I find the former more restrictive in its searching behaviour. --HyperGaruda (talk) 09:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons:List of administrators by recent activity

Hi, This was not updated since 8 September 2023. Steinsplitter‎, the bot operator, didn't answer. What can we do? Yann (talk) 17:38, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

in Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/01#Commons_Developer_Group？ i suggested we should have "a set of principles that tools preferably follow".
either we write new codes to realise the same functions, or Steinsplitter‎ reveals his/her codes so other users can debug them. i guess that's basically the only two ways how any tool can be rescued. RZuo (talk) 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Do we have anyone in or near Tyrol who can check on him? He hasn't edited since 12 September.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:21, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Magnus Manske: Would you please help?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 18:40, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

Coach of sports team displayed in the Infobox

Hello, I hope I am right here with my request. Is it possible that in the Infobox next to the stations of a soccer player (member of sports team (P54)) also the stations as a soccer coach (coach of sports team (P6087)) are displayed? That would be really helpful, especially when you want to add categories to the activity as a sport coach or sport manager. --Quick-O-Mat (talk) 16:23, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Quick-O-Mat: I'm not sure I understand what you are asking here. I'm guessing that by "the Infobox" you mean {{Wikidata Infobox}} but I have no idea what you mean by "stations" and I can't quite parse the sentence. If you are asking about adding {{Wikidata Infobox}} to the category for a person who happens to be a player or coach, sure, you can add it. Just create an Interwiki to the category in the relevant Wikidata item and place {{Wikidata Infobox}} on the Commons category page. But if you are asking something else, you'll need to be clearer. If you can't work out how to make this clearer in English, please feel free to use whatever language is easier for you. - Jmabel ! talk 00:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: In der Infobox zu einer Person auf Commons (Commons Infobox mit den Daten aus Wikidata) werden unter anderem das Bild der Person, der Name in Muttersprache, das Geburtsjahr, das Sterbejahr, der Geburtsort, der Sterbeort, das Land der Staatsangehörigkeit, die Tätigkeit (Beruf) usw. angezeigt. Bei Sportlern (siehe z. B. Category:Jürgen Klopp oder Category:Julian Nagelsmann) wird zusätzlich "Mitglied von Sportmannschaft oder -verein" ("member of sports team") angezeigt. Hier sollte auch "Trainer von Sportteam oder -verein" ("coach of sports team") zusätzlich angezeigt werden. Der Wert "P6087" ist bei Jürgen Klopp oder Julian Nagelsmann auf Wikidata vorhanden, wird aber derzeit nicht in der Infobox auf Commons angezeigt. Quick-O-Mat (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Quick-O-Mat: seems like a reasonable request. The place to make it would be Template talk:Wikidata Infobox. - Jmabel ! talk 05:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Great, thank you very much. Have a nice day! --Quick-O-Mat (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
  This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Quick-O-Mat (talk) 10:27, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Can someone explain me the copyrights about this?

I've found some category drawing anime logos in Category:Anime television series logos by year. This session is about it.

  1. I saw some page use {{PD-textlogo}}. I know sometimes there are no other things on the logo, but what should be the boundaries of simple geometric shapes or text? Do you think File:Hametsu_no_Ōkoku_Logo.png is should use PD-textlogo? For me, the shape in this file is not simple.
  2. Some file use PD or CC-BY-SA lisence, but the official site or even the summary says the file is copyrighted. e.g. File:Atelier_Ryza_logo.png. Can these files be uploaded here?
  3. Some logos were removed some element to using pd-textlogo. Is that ok? File:Gaikotsu Kishi-sama, Tadaima Isekai e Odekakechuu Logo.png removed the skeleton using in the kanji
    骸
    . as you see that the upper left corner of this kanji is not a solid square. File:Is the Order a Rabbit? Logo.svg and Related files was removed the rabbit shape.(By the way, why the coffee cup shape can be kept but the rabbit?) Do these customized logos that have been modified and cannot be seen on any official platform still have the meaning of being saved as logos?

I mean, COM:TOO Japan says "Japanese courts have decided that to be copyrightable, a text logo needs to have artistic appearance that is worth artistic appreciation." I wonder if there is some misunderstanding. I hope someone can help me answer it so that I can understand it better. LaMagiaaa (talk) 12:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The subtleties here might better be discussed at Commons:Village pump/Copyright, but since you raised it here...
I personally would not consider File:Hametsu_no_Ōkoku_Logo.png as a valid textlogo, especially because of the feathery thing at right.
I see no basis for the CC license claimed for File:Atelier_Ryza_logo.png, but I read very little Japanese. If you read Japanese and don't see the basis for the claim, nominate it for deletion. The background certainly means it is not a textlogo.
On the other hand: there is no contradiction between something being copyrighted and having a CC license. In fact, only the holder of a copyright can legitimately offer a CC license.
I can't confidently parse your statement "Some logos were removed some element to using pd-textlogo," but I'm guessing you mean "Some logos had one or more elements removed in order to qualify as textlogos." Yes, that is fine, but the description should make it clear that this is a modified, simplified version of the logo in question.
Also: pretty much all present-day logos should have {{Trademark}} as well as a relevant license or PD tag. - Jmabel ! talk 18:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I will nominate for deletion after confirmation. LaMagiaaa (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Missing images or failed uploads?

I have uploaded a set of images with Pywikibot. Now I see that some are missing. Examples are File:Clan of medusa with twins 00.svg and File:Clan of gudeba with twins 08.svg. When I click on where the image should be, I get something like File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.04/0/04/Clan_of_medusa_with_twins_00.svg. Does that indicate that the upload has worked, and the images have been temporarily mislaid? Or has the upload failed, and I should repeat it? Watchduck (quack) 08:28, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi, This is probably a bug, either in MediaWiki, or in the servers. I have seen this with JPEG, PNG, PDF, DjVu, but it is the first time I see it with SVG. Try reuploading the same files over, it sometimes fixes it. Yann (talk) 21:02, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
This error doesn't mean that a file has been uploaded incorrectly, it is a thumbnail creation bug. Over a some time the error will be fixed automatically, see for example Commons:Deletion requests/File:Long Tailed Tit - Aegithalos caudatus (52754205465).jpg Юрий Д.К 10:55, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: There was indeed nothing wrong with the first upload. When I tried to overwrite File:Clan of medusa with twins 00.svg, I was warned, that the new file is an exact duplicate of the old one. For File:Clan of gudeba with twins 08.svg I have just overwritten the file with something else, and then reverted. Now it works. (With File:Clan of farofe with twins 12.svg and others I will wait for a while.) --Watchduck (quack) 23:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, as I said, it is a bug. This has been happening for quite sometime, and it is not clear what's the cause. Yann (talk) 08:02, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Scripts in SVG files

The image Animated clock.svg (see it in action) can be easily synchronized with the local time as explained in § Synchronizing the clock with the current time, but apparently script elements in SVG files are not allowed. Is there any way to ask an admin to insert a script inside an image? --Grufo (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)

No. Even if the security issues inherent to JavaScript content could somehow be mitigated (which seems unlikely), MediaWiki converts SVG images into PNGs when rendering thumbnails, and these thumbnails are only updated when the underlying image is changed. There's no way to force the wiki to render a new copy of the SVG every time a page containing it is viewed. Omphalographer (talk) 01:54, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Got it. Thank you. --Grufo (talk) 02:08, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
@Grufo: @Omphalographer: It might be possible to hack a solution using en:Template:CURRENTTIME24:
  1. Create 720 (24 × 60 ÷ 2) SVG files, each starting with a different minute.
  2. Upload them with names hackyclock_HH:MM.svg where HH and MM are hours from 00 to 11 and minutes from 00 to 59.
  3. Redirect equivalents from hours 12 to 23 to their corresponding morning version.
  4. Add a link e.g. 
    [{{filepath:hackyclock_{{CURRENTTIME24}}.svg}} SVG clock]
Provided the reader clicks the thumbnail within a minute of its loading, the clock should be accurate to one minute. I wouldn't recommend trying, though! cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 13:33, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I won't try indeed, but you gave quite an ingenious answer. --Grufo (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
@Grufo, Omphalographer, and Cmglee: We also have digital clock gadgets in the "Interface: Other" section of Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets for those that prefer a digital clock.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 14:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

move L'Aquila to the province of L'Aquila

I moved one category: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category%3AJuly_2001_in_the_province_of_L%27Aquila&diff=813220841&oldid=757952419, but a new template has to be created. The upper category has to be moved (2001 in L'Aquila) --> 2001 in the province of L'Aquila. The same has to be done to 2002 in L'Aquila. I have no time left for this work, as tomorrow I have to leave early for a trip. Please help.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:15, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

I have now done the province year catories voor the province of L'Aguila. I notice that the Italian regions are not subdivided in to provinces.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Template:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on navbox

I just tried to set up Template:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on navbox and Template:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on navbox/doc, basing them respectively on Template:New Zealand photographs taken on navbox and Template:Hungary photographs taken on navbox/doc because those seemed solid, but something seems to have gone wrong (as can be seen at Category:Pitcairn Islands photographs taken on 2006-02-10). Just to be clear, I created this template because there were several existing categories invoked this previously nonexistent template. I'm hoping someone else will see what I missed. - Jmabel ! talk 04:49, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Copyright status of Los Alamos photos

I came across on X/Twitter of some photos of scientists from Los Alamos from the Manhattan project era, such as Von Neumann and Feynman, and their copyright notice is {{PD-LosAlamos}}, which requires attribution. I was assuming that since the LANL was a governmental operation the license would be {{PD-USGov}}. Furthermore, the licensing template says something about "Los Alamos National Laboratory, a national laboratory privately operated under contract from the United States Department of Energy by Los Alamos National Security, LLC betweeen October 1, 2007 and October 31, 2018." which makes me believe that this copyright applies only to images produced in that timespan. In the case of the two images above, they were clearly taken much prior. So, shouldn't they be PD-USGov? --CristianCantoro (talk) 17:05, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

I think that you are right. Ruslik (talk) 20:38, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Free online color correction

What is a good free online color correction website. The two I used to use are no longer free. --RAN (talk) 17:59, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Consistent illustrated vocabulary (via Dall-e3 and JS)

Hello everyone,
It's not official yet but I'm exploring a pet project to create open illustrated vocabulary cards, with a consistent image dataset.

  •  
    Otter
  •  
    Skeleton
  •  
    Bone

I'm doing so by leveraging recent image generation progress, namely Dall-e 3 web UI (test it here).

  •  
    Bing Image Generator with standardized prompt
  •  
    Bing Image Results (4)
  •  
    Human-selected illustration for "otter"
Prompt example Object: one cute otter floating on its back in water with an orange in its pawn.
Style: super deformed manga, flat design. Background: pure white background. View: wide shot, isometric.

Q: I would like to inquire around if such project could gather occasional contributors-uploaders, and if I should therefore document my approach into a WikiProject to share it with potential contributors.

Github: there is also a beta code for semi-automation on github. Yug (talk) 12:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Interesting idea! But first, are we sure that images created by Dall-e have no copyright issues? Cheers, cmɢʟee ⋅τaʟκ 01:28, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
All images created by AI (and humans for that matter) can potentially have copyright issues. Such issues should be handled on a case-by-case basis for now. Nosferattus (talk) 04:32, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
I think at least in the US images created by AI can't be copyrighted. Although I imagine someone could still get sued for using an AI generated image of a prior work that's copyrighted in a commercial product, but that doesn't seem to be relevant here. So things like this should be OK. Also, really cool idea! --Adamant1 (talk) 04:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Acronyms and jargon

Do we have a glossary anywhere of Commons acronyms and jargon, so that less-experienced users have a chance of following a discussion? I'm thinking of things like "CfD", "LTA", or "copyvio" but also our somewhat specialized use of terms such as "fair use" (which we use more narrowly than its meaning in law which includes, for example, de minimis use) or "free license" (which we use specifically for licenses that meet our criteria of what is "free enough": for example, the license can't prohibit derivatives or commercial use, but it can require attribution, and use may still be limited by personality rights, trademarks, etc.). - Jmabel ! talk 05:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Commons:Glossary. RZuo (talk) 07:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Special:UncategorizedCategories

I'm thrilled to say that Special:UncategorizedCategories is now under 3,000 categories, less than half of what there were a month ago (and probably 100 or more of them are not really uncategorized, they are just glitches in the batch job that fills this page every 3 days). We still need help, though, especially from someone who is familiar with either Hungary or Estonia and/or can read the relevant languages. For each of those languages, there are probably over 100 categories (maybe well over) that are hard for anyone to fix without that.

Above all, the categories here need parent categories (or to be turned into redirects, or deleted or CfD'd as appropriate, but that's a minority). Also, a lot of them need to be connected to an appropriate Wikidata item; I've found so far that for upwards of a third of the categories that have any cntent, such a Wikidata item already exists. - Jmabel ! talk 19:40, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

38º Encontro Internacional de Audiologia

The hierarchy of categories related to the 38º Encontro Internacional de Audiologia is a complete mess. Most of them are backward, plus there are a bunch of self-inclusions, etc. I've been doing a ton of other category cleanup and would appreciate if someone else would take on this relatively self-contained task. https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=%22Encontro+Internacional+de+Audiologia%22&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns14=1 gives a list of the relevant categories. Please indicate here if you are taking it on. Thanks. - Jmabel ! talk 20:07, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, please, would some take this on? I'm doing a ton of other maintenance tasks, and this one looks pretty self-contained. - Jmabel ! talk 19:45, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel I have done the categorization work that seems reasonable for what this event was. Tm (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tm: Thanks, that looks great! - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Chronicling America

If the statement here - that all content on Chronicling America can be considered PD - is valid, then should we perhaps have a "PD-ChroniclingAmerica" template?

(I'm loath to try to make such a template myself, but if it's valid, I'd use it a lot.) DS (talk) 01:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

  • @DragonflySixtyseven: You can make a new template by copying and modifying one of the Library of Congress templates we already have, or just use {{PD-US-not renewed}}. Someone might want to count how many news articles we get from Chronicling America, so a template would be good, and a category, if we do not have one already. I like newspapers.com better than Chronicling_America, in newspapers you get individual articles and the text in ASCII. In Chronicling_America, you get a whole page. Newspapers.com is free through the Wikimedia Library. --RAN (talk) 21:59, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not so much wondering about the text as about the old photos, cartoons, and illustrations, of which I've extracted several thousand already. DS (talk) 14:34, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Painting c1870 is it public domain?

Hello, is this artwork public domain? The file details says author: (c) Print Collector. It's not on their website though. The website Meisterdrucke has a similar artwork which was made in c1870, after a work by Kawanabe Kyosai. - Artanisen (talk) 23:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

The polityka.pl and Meisterdrucke images are different photos/scans of the same artwork; the former seems to have had some digital processing applied. More information here, though the wording is unclear. It sounds like the original Kawanabe Kyosai artwork was captured on film in 1925 for The Connoisseur magazine, and that that film is the direct source of the images circulating online. Dogfennydd (talk) 09:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, yes it's the same artwork. The one on polityka.pl is higher quality. I'll search for a higher resolution version. According to the description, it was made in circa 1870 "after a work" means it's a copy of an artwork by Kawanabe Kyosai and captured on film for the Connoisseur magazine in 1925. -Artanisen (talk) 20:15, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin photos

Good evening! I have a question for you, what does the official portrait of Vladimir Putin look like - File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg and File:Vladimir_Putin_official_photo_08.jpg. In this case, the clothes and tie are the same, but the image I uploaded has metadata that allows me to indicate the time of shooting. --MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 20:41, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

His skin tone and hair has also been lightened in File:Vladimir Putin - 2012.jpg to make him look whiter (if that's the correct term) and more blond then he actually is in the original photograph (as all as likely IRL). Much bluer eyes to BTW. All of which is just miss-leading. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:17, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 So is it fair to consider them almost duplicates? MasterRus21thCentury (talk) 15:47, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
What exactly is the benefit of considering them duplicates? Am I correct to assume it's because you want to replace all the usage of the current redder image with your lighter skinned version? --Adamant1 (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Just connect them with {{Other version}}. This is a bit unusual for more-or-less contemporary photos, but happens all the time for older materials. - Jmabel ! talk 17:29, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
Bingo. That's the correct answer right there. Probably not the one MasterRus21thCentury was hoping for but correct none the less. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:16, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

help

can someone please delete the extra " from my edit summary in https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greater_Germanic_Reich.png and also make sure there is no unnecessary empty space after the removed " Gooduserdude (talk) 18:07, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Edit summaries cannot be edited. Ruslik (talk) 20:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
an admin can Gooduserdude (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
No, actually, we (admins) can't. We can hide the edit summary entirely, but we can't edit it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:00, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
just to be sure, what about Bureaucrats? or some other evern higher user group? someone must have that right Gooduserdude (talk) 21:35, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I know there's someone with the technical ability to do this (maybe oversighters? Not sure) but there is no way they will do it just because someone didn't get an edit summary quite right. Must happen a hundred times a day. If you really want to correct it, make some trivial edit to the file and add a summary saying "the previous edit should have said… etc." - Jmabel ! talk 21:53, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

File overwriting is now limited to users with autopatrol rights

In September we decided to limit the overwriting of files to users with autopatrol rights. The reason was the huge amount of violations of the Commons:Overwriting existing files guideline.

The abuse filters to prevent users from overwriting files they did not originally uploaded are now active. Users who want to overwrite files uploaded by other users now need to request ether autopatrol rights or they can request an exception for a particular file. For this there is the page Commons:Overwriting existing files/requests. These file pages get the template {{Allow Overwriting}} that can only be placed by users with patrol rights.

Please report here or on the Commons:Administrators' noticeboard if you notice any problems with the new filters. GPSLeo (talk) 08:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

@GPSLeo that's a welcoming development! This should prevent incidents like the infamous overwritings of political maps of Philippine provinces like File:Ph fil laguna.png. I am certain there are many more Philippine province maps that are still not yet reverted to their most recent decent versions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Awesome. Since I've been reverting vandalism and doing minor tweaks and such to SVG files for the past two years, and now I can't do that, do I just need to apply for autopatrol and hope to get accepted for it? Donald Trung put in a really fantastic post detailing his issues with it, and then nobody interacted with it, which honestly has bothered me even more than the now apparent requirement to get autopatrol rights.
I did a quick check of all the users that supported the resolution. Out of the past 500 file uploads of all of them (excluding reverts obv), only two (Tuvalkin and Glrx) do any SVG uploading, and both don't upload very complex files like flags or emblems (cf Trung discussing how SVGs like flags and emblems are going to be an issue now); so the users that supported this aren't the kind of people who will be affected by the type of decisions like updating the colors on a flag or updating it to match the actual constructed design. Right now, I'm currently trying to figure out what the proper colors of the South Sudanese flag are; if an update comes out, am I just now supposed to request to be able to update the file that I've been working on for the past month or to hope that I get accepted for autopatrol?
I'm going to share two of Trung's points that never got countered or acknowledged because I feel like they're really important to the now-existing issue:

At the Graphics Lab there are a fairly number of WikiGraphists with no user rights that upload high quality SVG files, many of these users barely have any uploads and edits in general but the few edits they have consists of taking on requests and / or cleaning up SVG source codes (something which can only be done by overwriting files). Another issue is that if non-autopatrolled users can't overwrite their own files they might upload a similar file and then request deletion for the original, minor cropping or censoring faces, license plates, Etc. for privacy reasons are common examples here. Further regarding SVG files we could see situations where users will upload nearly identical SVG or even identically looking SVG files and then nominating the original for deletion over errors in the code ("Bad code") or over minor colouring issues that could've easily been fixed by overwriting.

The issue with the latter is that SVG files are the files that are most likely to be overwritten, edit warred over, and vandalised, so excluding them wouldn't make much sense either. If technically feasible we should limit new users overwriting files uploaded by others (namely users who aren't currently a part of a file's upload history), but we should also find a way to allow users without Autopatrol right to help with improving them. Sometimes non-Autopatrolled WikiGraphists overwrite a current coat of arms with a better version because the current one has a minor factual error. A look at "File:Flag of the Vatican City.svg" shows how many trusted Wikipedians without Autopatrol rights helped improve this image. Personally, I'd say that the best solution that would take the least time and introduce the least unnecessary workload would simply having a daily list of overwritten files by non-autopatrolled users showing the previous iteration of the file and the new iteration. I'm fine with a template to allow overwriting, but it would also be a lot of work to manually add them to uploads where they should be allowed. As this has already passed I'm only adding suggestions as this will affect flags and coats of arms which are commonly overwritten by Wikipedians with barely any Commonswiki edits.

I feel like this is an incredibly nonsensical idea, and the lack of any actual acknowledgment or consideration of the issues from those who frequently work with detailed SVGs leaves me feeling genuinely very irritated about this change. NorthTension (talk) 21:19, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I had a look at the file overwrites and most of them violated the guideline. What would you propose to make people comply with the guideline that is not limiting that right to a certain group of users? You mentioned changes on flags and coats of arms. This was one of the main field of disputes and edit wars as people want to have their color version as the used version. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Either Trung's idea or raising the number of days or edits for autoconfirms; that seems pretty simple.
If anything ask him about it since I'm just voicing my great displeasure at a guy I seriously respect being completely ignored. NorthTension (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
So as an SVG illustrator, the majority of all vandalism I see comes from reverting or spam uploads and not the overwriting of files; for example just yesterday this user reverts six files (one PNG) for no reason. While I almost constantly have been reverting files from vandalism and reporting sockpuppets of a user doing spam uploads, as far as I can tell none of this is covered under the autopatrol overwrite rights you set up because a bad actor can just continuously revert files back because this is primarily what vandals do anyways. NorthTension (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks GPSLeo! This is a very welcome change! Maybe now we won't have to deal with daily edit wars on SVG maps. Nosferattus (talk) 00:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The crop tool was one of the main sources for bad file overwrites. Exceptions for single files are possible there is a page for requests. Commons:Overwriting existing files/requests GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
this is horrrrrrrible. overwriting files is such a frequent thing here. and you're restricting it to, what, a quarter of people here? ltbdl (talk) 04:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We did as a we did not see an other solution the get rid of the huge amount of guideline violations. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ltbdl better than letting vandalism go on the loose. Vandals like Yuiyui2001 (talk · contribs)'s vandalism of political maps of provinces of the Philippines (either thru their main account or their sockpuppets). Look how File:Ph fil bulacan.png's file history is mainly focused on vandalism and counter-vandalism. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 06:16, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
can't you just protect that file? ltbdl (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We would have to protect a huge amount of files and then also would need to unprotect them on request. Therefore it is easier to just have all files protected and still having the possibility unprotect files. GPSLeo (talk) 07:58, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
ah, so... protect every file instead of the small percentage of files that need protecting. lovely. ltbdl (talk) 09:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
The problem of bad overwriting is not limited to maps and svg files. There are much more files affected by bad overwrites. Of course the current solution is not optimal but as long as we do not have other technical solutions like merge requests and also not enough people for patrolling this is the only solution to protect our project and the Wikis were the files are used. GPSLeo (talk) 09:34, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
and also not enough people for patrolling
really? ltbdl (talk) 10:05, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Why not just ban the vandals? NorthTension (talk) 13:31, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
hmm. Unless you want admins to spend a lot of time granting auto-patrolled to people we will probably need to find a way to extend it to people with autopatrolled on any project.Geni (talk) 05:33, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Checking for the rights users have in other project is technically not possible. The time we need for granting the rights should be much less then the time needed to clean up the huge amount of bad overwrites and the dispute on the correct version of file. GPSLeo (talk) 06:14, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
But an exception for global rollbackers and of course stewards would be useful. I will add an exception for them. GPSLeo (talk) 06:22, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't files with the {{Current}} template be exceptions to this hard-rule? -- Veggies (talk) 07:04, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

This would be possible but as {{Current}} can be added by everyone I would not suggest to do this. Instead the {{Allow Overwriting}} should be added additionally to {{Current}}. GPSLeo (talk) 08:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
We could change it so that {{Current}} can only be added by those who can add {{Allow Overwriting}} (i.e. the uploader of the file and patrollers). Elli (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

I fully understand the reasons for this restriction, but I would like to apply to be grantet an exception to, from time to time, overwrite files I have uploaded. My contributions to Commons are (1) photos I have taken myself, and (immediately after uploading) used in articles on NL, (2) a number of graphs on economics, which are used in articles on NL, and which I would like to update from time to time. Please have a look at my contributions page (Special:Contributions/MartinD) for some recent examples. Please let me know how I should proceed. Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 11:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Hi @MartinD, looking at your user rights, your edits and uploads are already autopatrolled and therefore you will not be hindered by this change. @GPSLeo, am I correctly understanding the change? Ciell (talk) 11:45, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes users who have autopatrol right do not need to do anything. And overwriting of own files is also still possible for everyone. GPSLeo (talk) 13:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you (both) very much! Kind regards, MartinD (talk) 15:00, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Considering how significant of a change this is, it would have been great if people were actually notified outside of VP which is obviously only watched by v. active users, and I see a few problems with this:

  • Admins are going to be inundated with autopatrol requests
  • New users are going to be confused
  • People will just upload new files now rather than overwriting.

It would have made much, much more sense to have autopatrol protection, where certain high-profile files could be protected with autopatrolled. Even better, we could have something like extended confirmed which would mean no need for admins to grant the right. I support the idea in principle, but it doesn't seem very fleshed out and will probably just backfire. Isochrone (talk) 07:25, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The SVG arguments are also a bit selective and are unfairly extrapolating to every file. Yes, we have some files that are targets for vandals, but as someone who mainly uploads complex SVG maps I find that the contributions of others (who rarely have autopatrolled) makes them much better for everyone.
N.b. I was informed of this change offwiki but I am voting here on my own accord. Isochrone (talk) 07:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
New users are not going to be confused at not having an option they never knew they had in the first place, or one they only rarely used. I would also wager that it's new users who cause the most issues with overwriting files they shouldn't be in the first place. That people will upload new files instead of overwriting existing ones doesn't seem to be a flaw but an intended consequence.
I don't know how this decision will pan out in the long term, but I understand the reasoning behind it and I think it's worth giving a shot. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
So for the flag of South Sudan, without a clearly defined shade that I'm still waiting for an email back from the US Embassy over this, should I just upload even more variations of different shades of blue and star positions? What happens when I finally get my request answered? NorthTension (talk) 12:10, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Use the talk page or request autopatrol rights.
Worth mentioning that what Isochrone proposed (increasing extended-protection to more files to protect them against vandalism) would have led you to the same problem, with the same solutions. In my opinion the problem is with the millions of files that don't get that many eyeballs on them, by users that don't have thousands of constructive edits spanning back months or years. ReneeWrites (talk) 12:29, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't recall saying I supported Isochrome's proposal. NorthTension (talk) 12:30, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Juanqianguo (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information)

looks like someone is challenging your new rule. is it possible to prevent reversion of file versions with abusefilter too?--RZuo (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) or Monza Park

Good evening, I propose to rename the Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) page on Wikipedia Commons to Monza Park, so that any Wikipedia user can recognize it and understand the name, also due to the fact that many similar pages (Royal Park of the Palace of Caserta or Park of Versailles) are titled in English. Fefecece (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

The better place to do this is at Categories for Discussion. To do this, go to Category:Parco della Villa Reale (Monza) where you can find the option to nominate it for discussion on the left side of the screen, under "Tools". ReneeWrites (talk) 11:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Ok, thanks a lot! Fefecece (talk) 13:49, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

File:Patsy Krablenhoff, myself and Dawn on prison Road near St. Lemon, about 1941.jpg

Hi, Could anyone tell me where is this? I can't find any "St. Lemon" in USA. And may be also identify the car? Thanks, Yann (talk) 12:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Family Search genealogic records indicate a Patricia Ann Krabbenhompt born in 1932 who lived in Pima AZ in 1940 and a Patricia A Krabbenholf born in 1932 who lived in San Diego in 1950. I'm can't really get a good feeling of whether one of the women in the photo looks around 8 or 9 years old. But based on the southwestern USA looking rock formations in the photo, Pima Arizona could be a reasonable place to start looking. -- William Graham (talk) 17:17, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Visually, the rocks remind me a lot of the roads between San Diego and El Centro California. Specifically the rocky parts of Interstate 8 between Jacuma Springs and Ocotillo CA, but I am not an expert on geology or the entirety of the Interstate 8/the historic route. -- William Graham (talk) 17:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking Colorado or one of the other upper midwest states. There's four towns in the United Stated called Lemon but they are all on the east coast and don't like the place in the image. Maybe the in Idaho, but more then likely William Graham is correct it was probably taken in either California or Arizona. Otherwise New Mexico or Colorado would be mu third and forth guesses. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Update to that. Apparently there's a Mount Lemon in Arizona that use to be the location of a prison camp. So I think we have a winner. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:37, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there is a North Prison Camp Road in the low elevations of en:Mount Lemmon near 32°20′09″N 110°43′21″W / 32.3357°N 110.7226°W / 32.3357; -110.7226 that is now a camping/recreation trail area. And it's inside Pima County, Arizona and 65 miles as the crow flies from en:Pima, Arizona (the town is in Graham County). -- William Graham (talk) 21:10, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
And the prison camp was established in 1939 and used prisoner labor to build the highway. https://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/anthropology74/ce18a.htm . -- William Graham (talk) 21:20, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks a lot, great find! I added a category, but I will let you add a geolocation if you can. And what about the car? Yann (talk) 21:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
The car looks like a Category:Ford Model 81A four door. I also scrubed through Google Street view I found what looks to be the location. [5] at 32°20′17″N 110°41′26″W / 32.337942559643°N 110.69060645725°W / 32.337942559643; -110.69060645725136 looking north. -- William Graham (talk) 21:49, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Nice! That's totally the same exact rock outcropping. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:51, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
you should work for fbi or something lol.
https://www.google.com/maps/place/32%C2%B020'16.6%22N+110%C2%B041'26.2%22W/@32.337505,-110.6906672,3a,90y,334.93h,98.95t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sqr7LDqBsMK-E1bkts9cMiw!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!4m5!3m4!8m2!3d32.3379444!4d-110.6906111!10e5?hl=en&entry=tts might be the same tree to the left of the car? RZuo (talk) 10:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
So "St." should read "Mt."? Enhancing999 (talk) 10:51, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Car identification

Can anyone help please? Yann (talk) 21:47, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

The truck is probably a Chevrolet 3100 as seen in Category:Chevrolet Advance-Design pickups. See also File:Chevrolet 3100 Pick up Truck 1949 - Flickr - exfordy.jpg. -- William Graham (talk) 22:33, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Using the most common term when naming categories

Although I can't find the exact phrasing right now, Commons:Categories and general, established practice seems to lean towards using the most commonly used name for a particular subject as the name of it's corresponding category. Which is mostly fine. There seems to be an issues when an entity changes it's name where categories named after the original are quickly redirected and files are moved regardless of if they still use the older name. Again, this is mostly fine depending on the circumstances. Although it does seem to cause problems IMO when the subject of the files is still more commonly known using the older name and can be considered historically important in it's own right under that name. An example being Category:Fort Gordon, which was renamed a few months ago to Category:Fort Eisenhower. Leading to the previous category being redirected and a bunch of files referring to Fort Gordon being moved to Category:Fort Eisenhower.

Now I don't necessarily think that's the wrong move in other cases, but in this one "Fort Gordon" is clearly a historical important name in military history and there's plenty of instances where people will be searching for "Fort Gordon" to find files related to the historical base or wanting to organize files contain the name "Fort Gordon" instead of "Fort Eisenhower." So I think it's worth having categories for both. Since that option would be the less likely to cause potential issues. Plus, it just makes more sense to organize images related to Fort Gordon in a category for Fort Gordon. The original user who redirect the category to begin with @Koavf: seems to disagree though and instead thinks everything should be put in Category:Fort Eisenhower regardless. Since at least according to them having a separate category for Category:Fort Gordon would be creating two categories for the same subject.

Although I'm of the opinion that there is enough of a difference at least on Commons' end between the original historical Fort Gordon and what is now called "Fort Eisenhower" to justify two separate categories. I think @Koavf: 's main issue is that having two categories would conflict with the single Wikidata entry though. Which I can understand, but my issue is that a single category makes it harder for people to organize and find files related to "Fort Gordon." Especially since the name was so recently changed, most people probably don't know it happened yet, and everything is mostly still being referred to as Fort Gordon anyway. Plus, I just don't think how things are named on Commons should be dictated by Wikidata. I'd like to hear other opinions on the subject since we weren't able to agree about it and the guidelines aren't super clear either way about how to handle these types of situations. Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Certainly in either case there ought to be a category description that also gives the other name, much as we do for the much less loaded case of Category:Safeco Plaza (Seattle, Washington). - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
wasnt this discussed just a few weeks ago: Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/10#Nagorno-Karabakh_village_name_categories_all_being_changed_into_Azerbaijani?--RZuo (talk) 15:08, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Their similar issues for sure. I wasn't exactly able to parse out what the consensus at the time was though. Except that forcing people to search for the old categories by deleting or redirect the new ones to them wasn't appropriate. That's not really what I'm suggesting though since my solution is to have categories for both the old and new name until the new one is it least common enough for people to search for it and organize files in the "correct" category. I'm also not in this to try and right great wrongs or axe grind either BTW. The name of the military base was just recently changed and I think it's to new for people to search for it or organize files under the new name. Plus the majority of files related to the base still refer to the old name, which I don't think could be said with the towns that had their names changed. So I don't think the conversations are really analogous or that anything from that conversation can be applied to this one. But if the name of base was changed to Fort Eisenhower a month ago, no one calls it that yet, and most of the files and file descriptions we have still refer it to as Fort Gordon then I don't see why we shouldn't keep Category:Fort Gordon at least for now until that changes. Again though, while also keeping Category:Fort Eisenhower so people can have the option of using either one if they want to. It's not like anything saying we have to or should get rid of a category the second there's a name change anyway. So I don't really see what the issue with keeping both for now until "fort Eisenhower" becomes more ubiquitous. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Croptool and webp

Will Croptool be supporting webp files anytime soon? --RAN (talk) 17:53, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) webp. files are typically problematic: see cases like Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Milíkov1234 and Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Aacocao. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 23:14, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The deletions had to do with the lack of provenance of contemporary images, not the format they were stored in. Historical images still follow international copyright law, no matter what format they are stored in. --RAN (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't bank on it. From what I understand, webp is a "baggy monster" of a standard, much like tiff. - Jmabel ! talk 00:34, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
WebP is a good and clean image format which allows for highly efficient storage, using either lossy (like jpeg) or lossless (like png) encoding. TIFF is a container format that can contain a variety of image formats. WebP also uses a container format, which is Resource Interchange File Format, the same as avi and wav files. The problem with tiff files is mostly that they can contain a vary diverse variety of codecs. WebP just has two major codec algorithms. To call it baggy is really overstating the variance it allows.
WebP is mostly not liked by consumers, because people are just so incredibly used to png and jpg being compatible with everything out there, that they don't want to use something that is slightly less compatible with other systems out there. It is however better than both png and jpg in terms of quality and in how much disk space it uses. It's mostly a problem of; people don't want to have to care about file formats. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 19:56, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
WebP is a fine format, but commons' support for it is poor. No EXIF data is shown for WebP images on commons, even if it exists. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) see https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reparatursommer#CropTool C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 12:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Three portraits of an unknown girl (2).jpg

Hi, This may be dated more precisely from the phone. When did this type of phone was in use? Yann (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Don´t know, ask the AI which made the picture. Alexpl (talk) 19:35, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
According to the meta data it was converted from TIFF to JPEG on a Mac with Adobe Photoshop Lightroom in 2022. AIs don't usuaally create TIFF. That is more of a GLAM thing. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 13:25, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
The image is from a well-known Flickr account that hosts "found" images (prints and transparencies). There is no reason to suppose it is AI generated. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@Yann: I doubt that will be of much use to narrow the time frame. These came into use in the 19th century, but a few were still around when I was a child in the 1950s. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
@Alexpl: why do you think this was made by an AI? If it was, then the current PD template claims the wrong basis for PD. - Jmabel ! talk 20:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Not to speak for Alexpl, but it looks like she's holding a cell phone up to her ear. Even if that's not what it is, phone receivers from that time period weren't square blocks that were held perpendicular to the side of the head. At least not that I'm aware of. You'd have to hold it out longways away from the ear since the speaker was at the end of the receiver. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It is really difficult to see which form the speaker has because it is dark and there are lots of scratches that might be misleading. However, I wonder whether the PD license tag is correct. I have very little knowledge of U.S. copyright. But how can we know that the image was published between 1928 and 1977 in the U.S.? The source might very well be a private photo that was first published in 2023. The source photo was published on Flickr under a CC BY-NC license, which would not be helpful either. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
With every upload to Commons in 2023, the burden to proof for authenticity should have been shifted to the uploader. Without sources, no upload. Btw. that is a "candlestick phone". Alexpl (talk) 21:48, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
  1. The triple portrait, in the presumably relevant era, would almost certainly have been the work of a professional. Presumably not a photobooth photo because who would have brought a phone into the photobooth for one of three shots? I'd be pretty comfortable with presuming publication at the time: remember that for that era in the U.S., even passing a copy to the subject of the photo without marking it as copyrighted is generally considered publication without copyright.
  2. Yes, I know it is a candlestick phone. As I say, they were still around (though rare) when I was young.
  3. It's hard to say definitively what she is holding because that part of the image is so dark, but the position of her hand is completely consistent with holding the trumpet of a candlestick phone. Compare File:Boyle Workman using a telephone.jpg. Again, why would you think an AI is more likely? - Jmabel ! talk 00:02, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
We are given no reason to believe it is from "that era in the U.S." - or any era. Just because it´s in black&white is somewhat blurry and features an excessive amount of suspiciously uniformly scratchmarks, is no proof for an image to be "old" anymore. No provenance = no authenticity. Alexpl (talk) 07:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
This is not AI-made. It is an old argentic print. From the dress, we can already say that this is from the first part of the 20th century, and the phone matches this. "Booth photograph" is mentioned in the metadata. RAN added "ca. 1915", but IMO it could be until 1940, although I am not an expert of fashion of that area. Yann (talk) 08:32, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Found Photos

This collection of found photos no doubt has much that cannot be used, but I'm sure there are some diamonds in there, if anyone familiar with US law around anonymous works has patience to sift for them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:41, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Some of the pictures have comments that help with identification. Quite an interesting collection indeed, but COM:HIRTLE doesn't look too promising for such mostly relatively recent photos. Most look like personal snapshots that were probably never published previously; in this case, if the first publication was on flickr (that is, in "2003 or later" as per the chart), they have a US protection term for "95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first" if the author isn't known, otherwise 70 years after the death of author. I'm afraid that this looks like very few of these photos are in the public domain. Gestumblindi (talk) 20:31, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • USA case law has sided with the concept that images found in the wild have been made public once they leave the custody of the creator. They do not need to appear in a magazine or a newspaper to be "made public". That would be up to 1989. After 1989 images no longer need to have a copyright symbol, and the year, and register a copy with the United States Copyright Office to be eligible for a copyright. --RAN (talk) 23:29, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
  • I can't imagine how this differs from "I found it on the Internet". We have no way to know the possible prior publication history of any of these photos. - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Interesting collection. My guess is that the person probably bought them on eBay, but "bought on eBay photos" just doesn't have the same ring to it as "found photos" does. Regardless, I have to agree with Jmabel about how it's no different then "I found it on the Internet." Although one could argue maybe RAN has a point about actually found photos. Who knows if that extends to images that were likely purchased on eBay though. Plus it's always possible there's a copyright on the back of the photograph that we just don't have a way of knowing about or accounting for. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
  • Up until 1989 you still had to register for a copyright (you has 5 years, up until 1994 to register for a 1989 copyright), as well as put the copyright symbol on the image. If you look through the copyright registration database, there are very, very few images. Almost all the registrations are for newspapers, magazines, and books. No one taking personal pictures would hire a lawyer to register their copyright, unless they were going to publish them in a magazine or book. --RAN (talk) 17:07, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    • It's more complicated than that. The owner of the Flickr account presumably does not own copyright on these, and probably has no real right to publish them. Presuming the Flickr posting is the first time they've been published, and regardless of whether this unauthorized publication on Flickr counts or not, I don't see why any of these would be PD. If it does count, then they are copyrighted until 95 years from publication OR 120 years from creation, whichever expires first. If it doesn't count, then they are still "unpublished" and would be copyrighted until 120 years from creation. So unless something here is from before 1903, I believe it would not be public domain. - 21:56, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    • & "found in the wild" presumably would not cover one print, made by (and kept by) the photogrpapher, that recently changed hands once on eBay, a yard sale, etc. - Jmabel ! talk 21:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
    • RAN, I think that only holds if the images were published in some form previously; if the Flickr publication is the first, see Jmabel's comment - either copyrighted 95 years from publication (on flickr) or 120 years from creation. So I also think that Yann might have been over-enthusiastic by uploading images from the 1930's and 1950's, aren't these still protected if that is the case? The 1913 photo is probably fine, though. Gestumblindi (talk) 21:52, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I uploaded a few which should be OK, either old enough, or published without a notice: File:Two women with a car, 11-1936.jpg, File:Royal Blue Travel, St Helier, Jersey.jpg, File:Locomotive in Idaho Springs.jpg. Yann (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
    The steam locomotive is this same 2-8-0 still standing in Idaho Springs as a monument. [6] [7] Herbert Ortner (talk) 20:41, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

FYI, I filed a deletion request for the images in Category:Found photos from the Thomas Hawk collection (but not for the 1913 Jersey postcard File:Royal Blue Travel, St Helier, Jersey.jpg for which we certainly can assume publication) and would suggest taking the discussion there. Gestumblindi (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

This is a very poor thought DR, for the reason I explain there. I am interested about arguments for specific images. Yann (talk) 12:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Also I carefully choose what I upload, i.e. only images where a date can be ascertained, either from a mention, or from the picture content. Yann (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
See my replies there. And, for example, File:Two men in boater hat by the sea.jpg isn't dated more specifically than "early 20th century", so we can't say whether {{PD-old-assumed-expired}} would be applicable, and certainly not the currently used {{PD-US-expired}} because this would rely on a known publication (prior to the publication on flickr). Gestumblindi (talk) 21:03, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
There's lots of photographs on here that aren't dated more specifically then "early 20th century" or at least where the date is a best guess based on less then clear evidence. There's also zero evidence of prior publication for a lot of photographs on here. Let alone is there even a consistent guideline or practice when it comes to what makes something published to begin with. So what's the difference between those images and these ones where best guesses about the date or prior publication matter here but not with similar photographs? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2023/10&oldid=821440781"