Open main menu

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction
Help deskVillage pump
copyrightproposalstechnical
Administrators' noticeboard
vandalismuser problemsblocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=--~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives.

Please note:


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

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:


Search archives:


 
A village pump in Burkina Faso [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

.

July 12Edit

Wiki Loves Africa 2019 results are out !Edit

Playing in the Nuba mountains.jpg
And the Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019 WINNERS are .... 1st place prize goes to the image Playing in the Nuba Mountains by Marco Gualazzini taken in South Sudan. 2nd Prize goes to Peekaboo by Summer Kamal taken in Egypt. 3rd prize goes to Teenagers in street by Mohamed Hozyen Ahmed (also from Egypt). The prize for Women in Sport goes to Girls fighting by Yvonne Youmbi from Cameroon. Finally, the prize for capturing a traditional form of play goes to Horses by Sofiane Mohammed Amri in Algeria. Congratulations to all the prize winners and all participants :)

All winners may be found here : Commons:Wiki Loves Africa 2019/Winners

Anthere (talk)

July 19Edit

Category:Israel by year (2)Edit

As an outcome from Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/03#"Category:Israel_by_year" user Huldra removing the template {{Israelyear}} her. It is very common in Commons to use category of a country by year. Even if the country does not exist then. For example see Category:1375 in Russia, Category:1375 in Azerbaijan, Category:1750 in Croatia etc. Israel is not differ from others. These countries by year is might be a long side with other entities like kingdoms, principalities, HaYisuv, British mandate etc. Huldra, you may add categories of the region by year like Category:Palestine (region) and Category:Palestine (state) by year etc. Non of them is instaed of categorisation of Israel by year. Similar issue was raised in Commons:Village pump/Archive/2019/06#Israel in 1375, or 1590?. -- Geagea (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

I think there was a general majority preferring leaving such categories be in that previous discussion. Again, it quite irks me that for something being done for supposed consistency reasons, stuff like Category:14th-century maps of Saudi Arabia (Saudi Arabia being named after the 20th century family that founded it, and thus being especially anachronistic) gets left alone and instead it starts with the hot-button topic of Israel.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:56, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Israel was a country that came into existence in 1948. Note that on en.wp, you have "Israeli by year" that starts in 1948 (link). To add "Israel in 1931" is like adding "Category:Rhodesia in the 11th century" to [[Category:Great Zimbabwe]]: this is "fake history", an attempt to give a state a history it doesn't have.
Having said that, I am sure there are a lot of other places that needs updating, too, (eg Saudi Arabia). I have started with Israel/Palestine because that is the region I know best.
And saying that you can just add "Category:Palestine (region)" doesn't really answer it. "Palestine" has through the millennia also named a geographical area, while "Israel" has always been named after a state. The closest would be to call it en:Eretz Israel, or Category:Eretz Israel, which denotes a (undefined) geographical area,
In short: I could agree that the place in 1385 or 1931 should both have "Category:Palestine (region)" and "Category:Eretz Israel" (in addition to, say "British Mandate of Palestine" for 1931, etc). But having "1931 in Israel" is simply fake history. Huldra (talk) 22:01, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not "fake history"; it's an anachronism that may or may not be acceptable. Effectively, "1931 in Israel" is a shorthand for "1931 in the territory that is Israel now." In this particular case, that is especially controversial, but it is the same thing we are doing with a category like Category:Built in Washington (state) in 1859. There was no Washington State in 1859, but it's a lot simpler to shorthand it this way. - Jmabel ! talk 19:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Or else Category:1964 in Saint Petersburg. Back then it was called Leningrad. I think it would be a lot of work to change it all, and I do not see that much added value to it. I agree with Prosfilaes here.Jeff5102 (talk) 19:52, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

  • The point is that "Israel" denotes a specific political entity, while "Palestine" is a name which has been used for centuries (if not millennia) for a geographical area (It is has also, lately become associated with a political entity.) We can therefor compare using "Palestine" for one area with using St. Petersburg/Leningrad for another area. But we can not compare using "Israel" with using St. Petersburg/Leningrad: that would be like classifying "Great Zimbabwe" under Rhodesia.
  • Also, we have Category:British Mandate of Palestine by year where everything between 1917 and 1948 should go. Huldra (talk) 23:06, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
  • PS: and the argument that "it is also wrong other places" isn't really very convincing, to say the least, Huldra (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Commons does not make history. Commons is a media file repository. We are sorting media files and making them available. We are sorting everything by country and year and it is very useful for finding media. Israel is no differ from other countries: Category:1475 in Spain, Category:1476 in Russia, Category:1476 in India, Category:1476 in Italy, Category:1576 in Slovenia, Category:1576 in China, Category:1576 in Peru or Category:1576 in Japan. And there is no community consensus to break this category structure. -- Geagea (talk) 10:40, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Huldra -- I think there's a consensus that due to certain sensitivities, Israel CANNOT be the first guinea-pig case, or be uniquely singled out from all other nations. I'm not sure that there's any general will to eliminate such quasi-anachronisms from Commons at all, but if there is any degree of support for such, then you need to start with someplace OTHER than Israel... AnonMoos (talk) 17:37, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that at the present Commons does "make history". The examples mentioned above, (like "Category:1476 in Italy", or "Category:1576 in China"), we can associated them with a roughly geographical area. "Israel" is associated (in modern times only with a special political entity (which does not even have fixed borders), which started to exist in 1948. (Scholars regularly refer to the region as en:Palestine (region))
And I cannot see that "Israel CANNOT be the first guinea-pig case" is really a valid argument, As the The Palestine Exploration Fund writes here, the "Israeli equivalent" to "Palestine" is not "Israel" but "Eretz-Yisra'el" (or Eretz-Isra'el, en:Eretz Israel), Huldra (talk) 20:49, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
First of all, as was discussed here before, "Palestine" is completely anachronistic for any year before 135 A.D., while during most of the Ottoman Empire period, the word was used far more by Europeans than by the actual inhabitants of the area. But leaving all that aside, whether or not "Israel CANNOT be the first guinea-pig case, or be uniquely singled out from all other nations" is a valid argument in the abstract, it reflects the consensus of a number of people on Commons now, because the extreme selectivity of certain editors has raised suspicions of bad faith. All that elevated abstract hi-falutin' rhetoric of the Palestine Exploration Fund may be fine in its own place, but it has nothing to say on the subject of bad-faith editing on Wikimedia Commons. AnonMoos (talk) 03:51, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
We can associate Israel with a roughly geographical area that existed back before Palestine was a name. If Israel doesn't have fixed borders, than China (cf. Tibet, cf. Taiwan, cf. Aksai Chin) doesn't either.
If you want to change how languages are handled, don't start with Montenegrin. If you want to change how death dates are handled, don't start with Elvis Presley. And if you want to change how countries are handled, don't start with Israel. Moreover, if you're not going to do these changes everywhere, don't start them in a place you're interested in. If you're not going to fix the Saudi Arabia or Washington examples, don't start changing the Israel examples. That's how we get inconsistency, and if it's even a slightly contentious example, that's how you get heated arguments about bias.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
According to PEF, "Palestine' is first attested in extant literature in the 5th cent. BC, when it appears in the Histories of Herodotus (Hist. 2: 104, etc.) as Palaistinê. It seems to have its origins in the root form p-l-s-t , denoting the land of the Philistines, though it has generally in Western usage referred to a much wider region than coastal Philistia, including the area that is known in Biblical, Rabbinic and Samaritan literature as the Land of Israel (Eretz-Yisra'el) or ancient Canaan. The term 'Palestine' has over many centuries retained its relevance as an apolitical geographical term regardless of the nation-states and administrative entities that have existed in this region. It has no political associations when used by the Palestine Exploration Fund." As for earlier Biblical "Kingdom of Israel" reference, "In contemporary scholarship the united monarchy is generally held to be a literary construction and not a historical reality, pointing to the lack of archaeological evidence." (to quote from the lead of en:Kingdom of Israel (united monarchy))
So what is used by scholars ("Palestine") is "completely anachronistic", while a made up Israeli history is not.
You really couldn't make this up, (eh, or rather, that is exactly what is being done!), Huldra (talk) 21:33, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
Huldra, I'm sure that you're well-intentioned at some level, but the PEF stuff is irrelevant right now, because the basic fact is that people on Wikimedia Commons simply don't want you to do this in the way that you've been doing it so far -- i.e. uniquely singling out Israel alone among the 200 nations of the world. That means that you can start working on some nation(s) other than Israel, in order to build up a track record to show that you're not unduly singling out Israel, or you can leave off. All the PEF rhetoric in the world won't help you in this immediate situation. AnonMoos (talk) 10:22, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
I don't particularly want it done at all; modern political lines are the clearest, easily recognized way to precisely divide up the world, even if they are anachronistic.
All this argument is just reinforcing in my mind the point that you aren't concerned about the general case, you just care about this case. And completely deleting "Israel in year" and not messing with other anachronistic names, even way, way more anachronistic names, is just not going to fly.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:33, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
As I have said: I started with the "Israel pr year", as I mostly edit the Israel/Palestine subjects; that there are other areas that needs "cleaning up", too: undoubtedly.
And it is rather amusing that you seem to take this as a "eternal categories", when in fact, AFAIK, they only came into existence 3, or 4 years ago; all, AFAIK, created by User:Geagea. It is rather frightening that one editor can create so much "fake history", Huldra (talk) 23:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
Really? Because Category:1576 in Slovenia wasn't created by Geagea at all, nor was Category:1843 maps of Washington (state). You don't have consensus that this is a "clean up" at all, and making this change for just one nation is very problematic.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, you misunderstood: I never thought Geagea created the Slovenia or Washington (state) categories......only the ones relevant to Israel. And again: the Middle East is the area I know, so of course I start there. I know next to nothing about the history of Slovenia or Washington (state), or indeed many (most?) other countries outside the Middle East.
I feel this is like pointing out a mistake in, say, chemistry figures, and are met with the protest "Hey, there are mistakes in the physics and biology figures, too! Clean them up first!" ....but, but, but.... I hardly know any physics or biology....Huldra (talk) 22:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
It's not a mistake. It's a design decision; do we have anachronistic "Location by year" categories? As a design decision, both sides have their positives and negatives, and it's important to be consistent throughout the site. IN BIG BOLD LETTERS, LET ME REPEAT: THIS IS NOT A MISTAKE, IT IS NOT AN ERROR, IT IS A CHOICE. You've got to address the global choice, not just this little chunk of it.
The fact that you want to call out Geagea here despite me pointing out that there's nothing inconsistent with what he was doing compared to what was going on in the rest of Commons smells of the toxicity of these battlezones, where good faith is rarely applied. Of course he created those categories, because that's the area he knows.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
And I reacted against it, because that is the area I know, too. But me pointing this out (and not dealing with all other areas which I know nothing about) "smells of toxicity"? Huldra (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘

Huldra -- I feel slightly sorry for you, but not really too much, because there are good ways and bad ways of approaching politically sensitive issues, and you chose one of the bad ways... AnonMoos (talk) 05:10, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Well then, can somebody please point me in the direction where/when this global CHOICE was made? (AFAIK, all the categories I have reacted agains have been made in the last 5 years.) Huldra (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
Some of the “anachronistic” categories exist since 2011 (Category:1799 in Poland, Category:1250 in Germany etc.), many more of them have been created in the last 5 years. Anyway, a system that has been used for last five years without being questioned and which as for now covers hundreds of categories worldwide shouldn't be changed by one editor's decission for one specific country without a community consensus (all the more contrary to explicit objections). Especially if the country in question is a hot topic and the editor in question obviously has an issue with it. I agree that an anachronistic labeling system for categories of countries is (at least) questionable and probably should have been discussed before. But a private guerilla against one specific case is not the way to change it. Even if you'd succeed, sooner or later some editor or robot will change it back for the sake of consistency, unless you question the structure as whole.--Shlomo (talk) 06:52, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Shlomo, I do not have "an issue with" any country in the Middle East (I don't live in the region, I am neither an Arab nor a Jew (neither is anyone in my extended family, AFAIK), BUT: I have a great interest for the history/geography of the region, and I know it "a bit" after about 80-90K edits about the region during the last 14 years. (Also, Geagea, (who started these "Israel in the 13th century etc"), state that s/he lives in Israel, but it is me you say "have an issue"? Hmm.)
And I am certainly not starting a "private guerilla", and I object to such language. But I am passionate about Wikipedia giving the correct information: Wikipedia should reflect reality, to a "wished for reality".
Today Israel is defined as a "Jewish state"; but in the 1870s about 3% (if I recall correctly) of the population was Jewish. To add "Category:Israel in the 1870s" to any file is simply wrong: if gives any reader a completely false impression. If there was anything relating to Jews in the area in the 1870s, then we have [[Category:HaYishuv in the 1870s]] covering that, Huldra (talk) 22:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
Are you implying that everyone lives in Israel has an issue? That whole paragraph strikes me as highly inappropriate.
I don't want to hear more about Israel. I would like to talk about the general theory of how Commons should handle these categories. I want a solution where (a) people can find what they're looking for and (b) the solution offers a clear decision, instead of endless arguments. Using modern country borders lets us give locations consistent categories throughout time. Using arbitrary geographic names that happen to coincide with modern country names seem to be about the worst; there's no clear borders, and lots of argument. Let's label parts of the Ottoman Empire as Greece and Macedonia and have no clear rules on the border; that won't be controversial at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:24, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
What I am tired off is constantly being accused of "having an issue" by editors who for some reason see no issue with their own opinions, or the opinions off those they agree with.
And I am certainly not stating that Israel is the only issue; eg, in "my area" (ie, the Middle East) I see categories like Category:1850 maps of Saudi Arabia. Now, that is just as absurd as Category:1850 maps of Israel. That some people have created a lot of false and nonsensical commons categories should not be an argument for not cleaning them up. Huldra (talk) 21:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Then why didn't you start with Saudi Arabia first (instead of singling out Israel alone among the 200 nations on the planet, something which created suspicions as to your motives)? AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
About 80-90% of my total edits are about Israel/Palestine (or is direct neighbouring regions: southern Syria and southern Lebanon), while, say, about 1-3% of my total edits are about Saudi Arabia (and exactly 0 of my edits are about, say, Italy, China or Montenegro.) So for me is was obviously natural to start with Israel/Palestine.
And I was told this was a CHOICE commons have made, but then it turned out that the first time apparently this was discussed was earlier this year, while these categories were made 3, 4 years ago. And to repeat: There is a way to list this, and that would be to list it by "HaYishuv" year. (I know that many people on commons have a distain for en.wp, but at least on en.wp you have quite a lot of editors (with all sorts of opinions) who actually KNOW the Israel/Palestine history/area. That simply seems to be lacking here. (You would never see, say, "Israel in year 1875" on en.wp.) ) To list it by "Israel by year" (before 1948) is simply fake history. If commons is happy with that: then so be it. Huldra (talk) 23:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
en-wiki has a different approach to this, and different goals. Our categories exist mainly to help people find images; theirs serve a bit more of a historiographic purpose. A (presumably less controversial) example of this is that whereas for locations in present-day Washington State en-wiki uses "Oregon Country," "Oregon Territory," "Washington Territory," and finally "Washington (state)", within a span of 50 years, we choose to refer to "Washington (state)" throughout, despite the anachronism. - Jmabel ! talk 23:59, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
So 0 of your edits are about Italy, China, or Montenegro, and yet when told that your changes will have an effect there, you complain that not enough people know about the Israel/Palestine area? Listing something by "HaYishuv" doesn't help the larger world at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Category:HaYisuv links to en:Yishuv, with would be correct for say, any part of the Yishuv in the area in, say, the 18th hundred. While say, Category:Israel in the 1850s links to exactly nothing on any other wiki. How is that helpful?
Also, this policy is not written in stone: from what I understand, it is no older than 3 or 4 years, and actually any discussion about it was first done earlier this year(!) (that is at least what editors here have pointed to). It looks to me as if some editors just have implemented a new policy, unique for commons, and then people here have made it "the rule" "post factum". That is not very reassuring. Huldra (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
That's the way Commons works, and in fact it seems like most projects work that way. Someone implements something, then it becomes a defacto standard and either gets formalized or people propose and define alternate standards. This particular "policy" is far from unique to Commons; opening up an old Dewey Decimal System, 973-979 is United States and territories, and 973.1 is AD 896-1607. History of New Orleans? The index gives that as 976.3, which is US/South Central or Gulf/Louisiana.
This is not 3 or 4 years old; Category:New Orleans, since 2004, has been part of Category:Louisiana (now it's deeply nested, but it's still a subcategory), which since 2004 has been part of some variant of Category:States of the United States. (This is for a city founded in 1718, and was not part of British America.) That's a slightly different case, but it's quite parallel to the maps one.
You don't have a consensus for an exception in the field of Israel, and you're not discussing the general issue.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
It's not your opinions, for me it's the fact you keep singling out other people.
I've explained to you why I think such categories are useful; it'd be nice to get more than a dismissal as "false and nonsensical". I'd point out the claim that in the 21st century (which is of interest to us all because that is where we will spend the rest of our lives) Israel is a purely political name and Palestine is not political at all is pretty false; as is the claim that China or Italy is a neutral apolitical name for an area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
Huldra -- you were a participant in the previous discussion on Village Pump (the reason why this thread has "(2)" in its title)... AnonMoos (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Let's go back to that claim that "The examples mentioned above, (like "Category:1476 in Italy", or "Category:1576 in China"), we can associated them with a roughly geographical area." There's a YouTube video that shows this better, but looking through maps the Yuan empire, late 13th/early 14th century, is the first to really reach the size of modern China, and lots of land was lost and lots of land was gained by the Qing Dynasty, and some was lost by the time of the modern People's Republic. China Proper throws another wrench in the works; apparently long after the Yuan empire, there's still a big difference between the western territories and the eastern China. Large areas were once part of China or Chinese states that aren't part of the People's Republic of China, and large areas that are part of the People's Republic of China have for most of history not been a part of China or what are generally considered Chinese states. I don't know how labeling part of, say, the Tibet Empire as "China" is not "fake history". There may be a lot of points that are simple; Rome is part of Italy. What about Nice? Milan (part of Austria for decades)? Ticino (Italian speaking, surrounded by Italy but annexed by Switzerland in the 14th century)? Which is part of the reason this needs to be discussed on more than just a single case.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:02, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
As for the points that are simple: Rome hasn't been part of Italy (as a country) until 1870. And I agree that using roughly geographical area as criterion would cause a lot of quarrel worldwide. Besides, the categories are usually decorated with flags of the countries, connected with articles and Wikidata items of the countries, so the statement that they are defined by roughly geographical areas is quite untenable.--Shlomo (talk) 10:43, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
All this reminds me of this less controversial discussion https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Categories_for_discussion/2019/04/Category:1973_in_Cumbria It would seem like a good idea to make some decision about what happens to 'Categories pertaining to a not yet existing entity' Oxyman (talk) 13:07, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
A general discussion leading to a general policy would be fine; however, a number of people consider singling out Israel alone not to be the best way to start... AnonMoos (talk) 13:43, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The Cumbria "keep" seems to me a sensible one, and the implications for the present case would be clear. (Also per Jmabel's well-made comments above). Nothing to change here. Jheald (talk) 08:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

July 28Edit

Category:Lychakiv Cemetery – KEdit

Should the files be deleted as there is no FOP in Ukraine? In addition, are tombstones counted as artworks? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 08:14, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

It is an 18th century cemetery. There are bound to be PD-Old tombstones in there, so you cannot just wholesale delete the files in there. --HyperGaruda (talk) 04:44, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
I'll check through the files in the cat, nominating the tombstones of people the died recently as FOP (taking that tombstones are arts). (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 13:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't art require more than a name and date on a tombstone? Modern tombstone use a programmed lathe to carve in text typed from a computer onto a block of granite, it isn't really art, unless choosing a font is an act of creation. Only elaborate tombstones with carved figures are art. RAN 05:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
"Art" --HyperGaruda (talk) 20:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

August 03Edit

This is quite embarassing, but I inadvertently clicked the wrong box in Catalot and emptied the catalogue Category:Second Politionele Actie. How can I restore these files? There should be a revert button, but somehow I cant find it. --Joostik (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I solved those. Still don't understand where that revert button went. Joostik (talk) 06:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

August 04Edit

Movement Strategy online surveys - opportunity to share your thoughts about reworking movement structuresEdit

Community conversations are an integral part of movement strategy “Wikimedia 2030”. They have been ongoing in multiple formats and in numerous languages over the last 2.5 years. Now it is possible to also contribute to the development of recommendations on structural change via an online survey. We are keeping the survey open for additional 2 weeks and post it to wikis to provide wider opportunities to participate for people interested in it.

The survey is available in 8 languages: Arabic, English, French, German, Hindi, Portuguese, Simplified Chinese, and Spanish. They contain designated questions about each of the nine thematic areas that the working groups are analyzing and drafting recommendations for. You can freely choose the thematic areas you want to contribute and respond to. The survey questions have been created and designed by the members of the working groups.

Here is the link to the survey.

Here you can find more information about the survey.

With any questions, please contact me on my meta user talk page.

Thank you for your kind attention! --KVaidla (WMF) (talk) 14:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

p.s. If this is not the right place to post such message on your wiki, I apologize. Feel free to move it where appropriate according to your guidelines. Thank you!

August 08Edit

Overdiffusion of categoriesEdit

This is a pressing matter, the policy on commons:Categories does not seem to cover over-diffusion of categories It has been discussed before on the Village Pump, See Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories which went into the subject at length. This is a terrible blight on the project. I have seen many times one image put into a category of one, and then nested in as many as 4 preceding empty cats. Or small villages with 20 images, diffused into as many as 16+ categories. All the images hidden away from sight... So many categories and nesting as to make images useless and difficult to find. For example look at category:19th-century people of Brazil; this is a good case for saying the image should appear twice, once in 19th-century people of Brazil and again in whatever obscure category editors want to waste their time with, like People of Brazil in 1898. We need to cut down on useless / obscuring nestimg (example: category:People of Brazil in the 1820s. Surely this needs to be addressed? -Broichmore (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Could we add excessive creation of person by year categories? In many cases, all images of a person are diffused into "John Doe in <year>", even if there's only one image of the person for one or more years. --Auntof6 (talk) 11:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I can't see any problem with those categories Oxyman (talk) 11:49, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
If there are very few file by century is OK, for many by decade is often enough (if not overkill). There must be very few subjects on the project that demand by year; not even the Taj Mahal. Broichmore (talk) 21:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think this is a symptom of a wider problem - that if I want to find an image representing a broad category such as Category:Automobile maintenance, I necessarily have to browse a multitude of child categories to find the best image for my needs. FastCCI can only show a limited set of images and PetScan is not very user-friendly and you just have to know that it exists. If we had a solid integrated solution for this problem we could get uniformly detailed with each category tree without having any issues.
For the immediate purpose of this discussion, though, I agree that the number of available files should be considered more directly when deciding how many subcategories should be used, but keep in mind that there are probably categories that should be diffused despite having small population, like Category:People of Grenada. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:55, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
A solution can be to create pages such as Campanula with links to the subcategories. A problem is the maintenance of the pages. Wouter (talk) 17:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
You Tuvalkin seem to miss the point that Over-categorization is an entirely different subject. If you care to look at the link I posted here in my first sentence you'll notice I did not originate the concept. You can also notice from here at overdiffused categories that I'm not the only person to raise concern on the issue. The size of the project is a victim of its own success, it was not envisaged that it would get to its current size and policy has to adapt and evolve to accommodate that. I realise that, to some filers, not being able to access, find and thereby use files is not an issue, but to others it is. You'll notice that Getty or Alamy don't fall into this trap. We are the only aggregator of images on the web that does. Again we are hiding away images from plain sight and rendering them useless; and trivialising the subject by calling it my pet notion is not going to change that. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
In many instances there is no need to split by date, when all you need to do is sort the files by using pipes. See Category:History of Portsmouth. I.E. History of Portsmouth|1813. Meanwhile 1914 in Portsmouth has only one file, last time I looked you shouldn't make a category out of one file. Not to mention that the file itself is probably a scene off Southsea, which just makes my point even better, about hiding files. Broichmore (talk) 15:01, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Categories by year do have an advantage as well, as they allow to integrate the local files into the wider area's history. Category:1914 in Portsmouth holds only a single file, but is part of Category:1914 in Hampshire. Note that File:AE1 (AWM P01075041).jpg has been added to six categories that provide access via various paths, compared to the single category File:Tower Bridge 2004 3 edit1.jpg is in; see below. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Is "Tower Bridge in 2004" really the best possible and only category for this file? Is it helpful? Why is such a beautiful image hidden in one of dozens of subcategories of the "History" branch?

It's not only the diffusion in itself, it's also what criteria are chosen to subdivide a category. "By year" is an easy choice, but I don't think it's always the best. In many cases it doesn't matter if an image of the Tower Bridge was taken in 2014, 2015 or 2016. A building doesn't change its appearance that fast. More relevant questions for someone looking for a picture would be: From where was it taken (which side does it show, what's in the background)? What time of day is it? Does the sun shine or is it cloudy? Is the facade sunny or is it a backlit shot? When you diffuse a category, better create several relevant branches and routes from the top category to the files that have been diffused to subcats. Categorizing by year is a task a bot could fulfill. If you're a human being with a brain, create categories that actually help users find relevant images. --Sitacuisses (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

This is a genuine problem that has been discussed before see Commons:Village pump/Archive/2018/08#Overdiffused categories (link also provided by originator of this discussion) If there was any consensus to be derived from that I think it is that by date categories are OK but media should also have another category be that from angle or part details or some other aspect. The problem with Tower Bridge is that no one has created these categories. But we need more categories to solve that problem not less. I do not think it helps to mix this problem with the alleged over-diffusion of categories problem this project supposedly suffers from Oxyman (talk) 11:08, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I see no reason why in Category:History of Portsmouth for example the images cannot reside in that master category and in different places such as (angle or part details or some other aspect) I.E. Views of Gosport from Portsmouth. Certainly if filed by year they should also reside in the main cat. My point is we should be able to scan through hundreds of images on a page rather than open an endless list of cats to see anything. May I also point out that dates cant be separated by a bot with accuracy, The most common fault of any image dating from before the mobile phone era is accuracy of date. Just one example: Images are commonly dated by the year of publication, even if the image is already 10 or 100 years older. It's also self evident that a poorly designed category or one in the wrong place will create an excessive amount of admin just to keep it up to date. A good example of that is Category:Ships by name which was renamed and made into a hidden category. It has since had to be continually revisited to to keep it up to date. Broichmore (talk) 12:45, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

The real problem is not the over-diffusion of categories, but rather the fact that MediaWiki (without using third party tools) is unable to display ALL images of a category and all sub-categories. With such a functionality, properly implemented, there would no longer be any need to go through all the sub-categories to get an overview of all the existing content. Okki (talk) 13:29, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I agree with you, have you requested such? Again, the project is growing at an ever escalating rate. I don't see that there is the software out there for the task, or the funding / commitment for a new database to accommodate what your suggesting. Meanwhile it doesn't solve our immediate problem. I have to say which only became an issue for me when I noticed it on hunting for images to populate Wikipedia. Broichmore (talk) 13:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
It seems to me that having more categories is useful because "the project is growing at an ever escalating rate" Oxyman (talk) 19:25, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I would agree with you but (in practical terms) only from the birth of the iphone, from that point the sheer quantity of available images starts to go through the roof. Prior to that there are surprisingly few images out there. Broichmore (talk) 11:38, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
A tool show images of category up to sublevel (1,2,3, etc to be chosen)... is wishful. Wo can create that tool within commons? --Havang(nl) (talk) 19:12, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Ideally, the foundation, which receives millions each year and should be able to hire enough developers to solve this kind of problem. But unfortunately I have the impression that Commons is completely neglected :( Okki (talk) 06:40, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Edit

Hi, can be there on Commons this Czech logo of Simpsonovi (The Simpsons)? --Patriccck (talk) 15:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

As long as the logo shows only text and not any of the Simpsons characters, this should be ok. Can you please provide a link to an example? De728631 (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
De728631: Link to the file: File:Logo Simpsonovi.png. Can be there on Commons this logo without background (see this)? (Someone will delete background of the file.) Will be this file OK (after deleting background)? --Patriccck (talk) 06:25, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
@Patriccck: Yes. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:42, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks. This file is probably OK. --Patriccck (talk) 09:22, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 10Edit

Check on FoP-DenmarkEdit

It seems that FoP only applies to buildings. In Category:Sculptures in Aarhus I see several modern artworks that dont seem to be FoP. Or am misinterpreting the rules?Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

You are right. In Denmark Freedom of Panorama only applies to building. In case of artworks the creators has to be dead for 70 years before the artworks becomes free. That goes no matter where the artworks happens to be. Unfortunately I don't known the creators in question but I have asked at da:Wikipedia:Landsbybrønden/Moderne kunst i Aarhus. --Dannebrog Spy (talk) 21:25, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

August 11Edit

anomaly categorisation personsEdit

Hello, there is an anomaly in the categorisation of persons in Category:Inscriptions on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile, which interferes with Petscan intersections. This is related to an overcategorisation (parent category <=> subcategory). Exemple Category:Jean Charles Abbatucci <=> Category:Inscriptions on the Arc de Triomphe de l'Étoile. Is it possible to split the categorie into photographs of the monument (Arc de triomph) and into persons, in a way that the persons are no longer in the Arc the Triomph parent Categorie:War memorials in France. --Havang(nl) (talk) 08:28, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Imperial War Museum Non Commercial License ...Edit

Iconic photograph of Wright brothers first powered flight, 1903. Today still subject to a copyfraud claim of commercial rights by the Imperial War Museum even though the photograph was never donated to the museum, and still demanding money for the bizarre copyright claims, despite past correspondence on precisely this photograph.

I've uploaded lots of Canadian and US images, from World War 2. Canadian images are public domain due to age. US images, taken by DoD employees are public domain because all images taken by DoD employees, as part of their official duties, are public domain.

I thought some UK WW2 images were also free, due to a decision about Crown Copyright... When I went to download an image from the Imperial War Museum I read it was released under a non-commercial license.

Which, if any, UK WW2 images are free to re-use?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: See User:Fæ/email/IWM. There have been related discussions over the years, search our archives. You may choose to ignore copyfraud claims and "watermarks" by the IWM for works that are clearly expired Crown Copyright, or public domain for other reasons. My own uploads include the (unenforceable) claims by the IWM for completeness, and some irony. All evidence is that in the years since my original emails, the IWM has doubled down and become even more unapologetic for its copyfraud claims, even when this causes alarm to its own curators and professionals. Middle management whose primary concern is selling postcards and charging academics over 100 quid a pop for a reproduction of a public domain photograph, rule the roost. Thanks -- (talk) 10:11, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@: If the IWM claims copyright on items which are Crown Copyright, the Queen's Counsel may be interested.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Which Queen's Counsel? There are 1695 of them. Rodhullandemu (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Rodhullandemu: Whichever party is responsible for enforcing Crown Copyright in the IWM's jurisdiction.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:50, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Literally, they are not Crown Copyright. -- (talk) 13:52, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: I think you mean the Queen's Printer (Controller of HMSO and Director of OPSI) who manages Crown Copyright. Nthep (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Again, literally not Crown Copyright. Once rights have expired, HMSO have no say on republication. -- (talk) 14:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
FAE is totally correct in every aspect here. What's saddening is that I've noticed commercial stock image houses, take images from Commons and put them up for sale on their own sites. Something quite common on eBay as well. I have also seen out of copy-write images owned by institutions loaned out to stock image houses for sale. Indeed I could point you out images that clearly (by photogrpher, view, camera, and date) could only have come from the IWM that are not to be seen on their site but can be bought exclusively through particular third parties. The IWM is not the only culprit there are others world wide. Broichmore (talk) 13:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Broichmore, I have seen stock image companies sell photos I took personally, and placed in the public domain. Do a google image search using your own commons ID and you too may find these companies are re-selling your free images. Geo Swan (talk) 22:32, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
  • , thanks for your link to User:Fæ/email/IWM. I thought you combined tact and clarity. If they didn't respond to your 2nd email message, do you think they realize you were right, and they were wrong? Or do you think the manager you corresponded with just didn't understand copyright?
  • So, for World War 2 images, from the IWM, what license do you recommend?
  • Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:59, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
The museums, know what they are doing, as do the stock houses; they look for revenue. Commonly magazines and book publishers will prefer to pay the museum or stock house for use of PD images. For several reasons, they save time, they don't have to worry about legal clearances, they can defer any potential liability back to their source, and of course they can write it off on the tax man as expenses anyway. Broichmore (talk) 19:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
You could take a look at licence PD-UKGov. You must take care to ensure the artist / photographer was on active service at the time of creation, and paid to do the art by the government. If there is any doubt you will have to defend it. If he was in the army for all of WW2, lived till 1990 and painted a scene outside of a government installation of a warship on the Clyde in 1943, on his time off you will probably see it deleted. If the artist died by 1948 and came from a country with the 70 year rule, then your OK. Historical images have to be assessed on a one by one basis for Commons eligibility. That goes the same for any other worldwide institution. Broichmore (talk) 11:27, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Symbolic categoriesEdit

I categorise this image on the basis of the elements in the picture. However there are deeper meanings such temporary nature of most things. Is it posible to classify images for the deeper meaning. This is of course subjective, but could be usefull to illustrate some philosophical concepts.Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

I think if anyone categorised an image such as this beyond what is actually visible, yes, that would be subjective. The problem would be "where do you stop?". You could certainly use it in some article to illustrate some deeper or abstract concept, and that would be up to the other editors of that article to argue, but here I think we prefer to deal with concrete categories. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

August 12Edit

Need template about typographic arrangements from UKEdit

I don't know which venue to request a template to show that typographic arrangements ("published editions") published in the UK lose copyright after 25 years of first public release of that particular edition. I've been using {{PD-because}} and copied-and-pasted it in files, like File:Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da by The Marmalades UK vinyl Side-A.png and File:Pick Up the Pieces by Average White Band UK vinyl Side-A.png. I even used this webpage explaining the copyright status of "published editions". If anyone can create the template, that would be a great pleasure. Thanks. George Ho (talk) 02:30, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Recommendation to host NC and ND media on CommonsEdit

This Commons proposal has been raised to ensure a vote exists on Commons for the recent Diversity Working Group recommendation to change Wikimedia Commons licensing policy.

Refer to Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#Proposal to introduce Non-Commercial media on Wikimedia Commons. -- (talk) 10:03, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

‎Created claimEdit

Although I usually filter out WD edits from my routine watchlist view, this queary is being flooded by thousands of edits tagged with ‎Created claim: (d:P179). The edits are legitimate (BSicons), but I would expect them to be filtered out when the checkbox labelled "Wikidata" under the section "Hide" is ticked off. Any ideas? -- Tuválkin 11:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

@Tuvalkin: Did you turn it off in your watchlist preferences? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
  • @大诺史: Thank you, that fixes it. However the mentioned checkbox in Special:Watchlist is rendered useless (and misleading) when WD edits are filetred out in Special:Preferences, making it cumbersome to casually filter WD edits on and off on the fly. I would rather have ‎Created claim (and other such) edits properly disappeared/reapeared by means of said checkbox — and I’m sure I’m not the only one. Is this a bug, or is ‎Created claim (d:P179) not a Wikidata thing? -- Tuválkin 11:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tuvalkin: So you're finding a way to just filter out claims? (Talk/留言/토론/Discussion) 11:58, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Automatic categorisation of annexed territoriesEdit

{{Videos from Crimea by year}} places the media file only in "Russia" category after 2014 (the year when Russian military has moved into the peninsula). To the best of my understanding Commons has never taken a stance on the annexation, and all other categories have been categorised in both countries, thus making it easy to find what one is searching for with the minimum chance for flame wars. Has this approach changed? If so, I have not seen any discussion about that, and I would like to figure out how I can see if the concensus is to revert back to dual categorisation after the annexation. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 12:51, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

It is to handle same way as all the categories with {{Crimea notice}}. --A.Savin 15:08, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
I have now edited the template, hopefully it is more rational now. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: What is your reason for breaking my edit with <noinclude> and then after that protecting the page? You can trivially see on Category:Videos of 2018 from Crimea the notice no longer shows up after your edit, and it worked after mine. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:21, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason is, categories "Ukraine" and "Russia" require permanent diffusion and shall not be included in the categories using this template. --A.Savin 10:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
@A.Savin: Then why not use |nocat=yes ? ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Duplicated image with conflicting attributionEdit

Actually, both could be right. If I understand correctly, the first one is present in an archive of an investigation about the en:Kazakh famine of 1932–33. It does not state that the image is from that time. So it might be that images from the en:Great Famine of 1876–1878 were also present in the Kazakh archive. --MarioGom (talk) 16:59, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Judging from clothing and general appearance I wouldn't think they are from Kazakhstan. Joostik (talk) 07:52, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I agree it's unlikely that the image was taken in Kazakhstan; they are not exactly known for wearing loincloths, I'd say. --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
We have yet another version, this one with correct attribution: File:Inmates of a relief camp by WW Hooper.jpg. Author is en:Willoughby Wallace Hooper and the photo was shot in Madras. Should we merge them? --MarioGom (talk) 19:46, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania meetup?Edit

There is a picture taking walk arount Stockholm, but somebody would be interested in Wikimedia Commons meetup? We can talk about our issues, have a look on the tools, Structured Data, etc. Juandev (talk) 23:10, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

August 13Edit

QuestionEdit

I have checked this page; it's an Indonesian govt website and there is no mention of copyright. I thought that it will be okay to upload the pictures from the page here. However, I need to double check; if any experienced wiki-commons user can confirm, that will be appreciated. Dhio270599 (talk) 10:35, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Absence of a copyright claim means that all rights are reserved by the percieved or implicit publisher; this is so since 1973, at least. -- Tuválkin 11:44, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually, this is a case of {{PD-IDGov}}. But the image quality is a bit... meh... Are you sure you want to upload those? --HyperGaruda (talk) 17:47, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
      • @HyperGaruda:: That's probably the best non-copyrighted picture on the topic that I have found. I mean, yeah, that's fairly ugly, but.... better than none. By the way, thank you Tuvalkin and HyperGaruda :)
        • ps: I unironically love grammar nazis (hahahaha). HyperGaruda, if you have time, it might be good to ask for constructive criticisms on that matter from you in the (near?) future. Gotta polish my article before that; the article's awful. :( Dhio270599 (talk) 12:45, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 logo.pngEdit

Moved to Help desk. --Patriccck (talk) 17:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

August 14Edit

Recent actions by User:Techyan against User:ShizhaoEdit

Hi to all,

This is to raise concern over recent actions by User:Techyan against User:Shizhao in the deletion of two photos.

The User, zh:User:K.Y.K.Z.K(at the Chinese Wikipedia) (formerly known as User:TSVC1190(zhwiki user page)), used his legal sock-puppet (User:RochesterS) (whom is listed as a dope at zhwiki [1]) to initiate a deletion request of his own picture due to violation of his own portrait at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:全青岛市最中二的骚年.jpg.

After that, User:Techyan reuploaded the picture with the some parts of the original picture pixelated. The picture did not pixelate the member whom wanted to have his picture removed. It led to another request for deletion by another member of the Chinese Community at Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Qu_Tianxiang_Victor_Chyu.png.

Both pictures were deleted by User:Shizhao.

After both pictures were deleted, User:Techyan initiated a verbal attack at the Chinese Wikipedia at his Chinese Wikipedia's user page in big-character poster style (where he is an admin there), which translated as actions of Shizhao, PhiLiP and myself were problematic, and contained personal attacks against myself, PhiLiP and Shizhao, with bullying content against User:K.Y.K.Z.K. I didn't see my comment stating that the pic was "group bullying" got any problem as I received out-of-site direct requests (direct-message-style-request).

I hope the community could discuss this issue, and to see whether Shizhao's action to delete both pictures were right. If Shizhao's action consisted of wrongdoings, I would also hope to know the reason, as I personally did not see any wrongdoings incurred within.

With thanks,
1233 (talk) 07:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropariate venue is COM:ANU. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Same file, different licenceEdit

Tea ceremony implements.jpg and Utensiles pour la cérémonie du thé.jpg are pretty much the same (one is brighter, the other one is darker). However, they have a different licence (one is PD-self, the other is Attribution) and were uploaded from different Wikipedia projects. Do we have en.wikipedia and fr.wikipedia admins around here who can check the (probably deleted) file history? --D-Kuru (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

  • original en-wiki upload was 03:47, January 31, 2004 by User:Exploding Boy. He just wrote "Photo by Exploding Boy" and didn't specify a license (not unusual in 2004, pre-Commons: the default license, which at that time was GFDL, would have applied). 19:07, September 24, 2004 User:TakuyaMurata took the liberty to add {{CopyrighedFreeUse}}, which User:Dromygolo corrected to {{CopyrightedFreeUse}}. While, as far as I can see, Exploding Boy never overtly confirmed that, he did make a subsequent edit, adding a category 22:41, May 13, 2006, and left that in place. - Jmabel ! talk 23:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Do we have an fr wiki admin here that can check the information (uploader/provided source/etc.) of fr.wikipedia? --D-Kuru (talk) 19:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes, there are some. @Arthur Crbz, Harmonia Amanda: Can you please have a look? De728631 (talk) 19:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I wasn't contributing to Commons at that time, and I have actually no idea how to find from which Wikipedia page it was actually imported? There is no history associated to [2], not even a deleted one. So I can check any deleted page you want, provided I can find it. --Harmonia Amanda (talk) 22:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
That is very weird, given what it says about the original upload log. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
It is there: [3]. It was uploaded to fr.wikipedia and transferred to Commons with the correct spelling, but in 2017 User:CAPTAIN RAJU renamed the file with a spelling mistake. The first upload to fr.wp from 2004 is not shown in the public logs. You probably will not find anything more than what was transcribed on the Commons description page, where it is noted that the first upload to fr.wp was on 2004-10-09 10:08 by Dromygolo with the license tag Attribution. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 15Edit

undeletion request for newbieEdit

Could someone help please. We have a Prof who has recently had a Women in Red biog written about her. We have been trying to encourage her to donate a selfie. She is trying to understand that she does not own the copyright of photos that she didnt take. I am trying to encourage her as she could be a good source once she understands our strict copyright stance. She has loaded a picture of her and her daughter which she took. Her user name is Mvgalea. Could that be undeleted? She has also tried to donate a picture of Amanda Fosang which does appear to be taken by her. Can you please leave this in place and I will request deletion if it turns out to be definately a copyvio. So if you have the time and rights .... could you undelete the picture of her and her daughter loaded by Mvgalea. Thank you. Victuallers (talk) 09:27, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

@Victuallers: You are welcome to post that info with specific filenames at COM:UDR, but it may be better if she does that.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:28, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

August 16Edit

Update on the consultation about office actionsEdit

Hello all,

Last month, the Wikimedia Foundation's Trust & Safety team announced a future consultation about partial and/or temporary office actions. We want to let you know that the draft version of this consultation has now been posted on Meta.

This is a draft. It is not intended to be the consultation itself, which will be posted on Meta likely in early September. Please do not treat this draft as a consultation. Instead, we ask your assistance in forming the final language for the consultation.

For that end, we would like your input over the next couple of weeks about what questions the consultation should ask about partial and temporary Foundation office action bans and how it should be formatted. Please post it on the draft talk page. Our goal is to provide space for the community to discuss all the aspects of these office actions that need to be discussed, and we want to ensure with your feedback that the consultation is presented in the best way to encourage frank and constructive conversation.

Please visit the consultation draft on Meta-wiki and leave your comments on the draft’s talk page about what the consultation should look like and what questions it should ask.

Thank you for your input! -- The Trust & Safety team 08:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

CC-BY-SAEdit

I believe {{CC-BY-SA}} should redirect to {{Cc-by-sa}}. This affects 5.5k files. A bot should probably be deployed to change the licence.--Roy17 (talk) 12:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

{{Cc-by-sa}} is actually not a licence template but a warning to remind the user that they forgot to specify a CC version number. The all-caps template, however, is a valid tag for CC share-alike version 1.0. So if at all, it should be redirected to {{Cc-by-sa-1.0}}. De728631 (talk) 19:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

August 17Edit

Sigma SD-14Edit

There are 10 images with the name starting 'Sigma SD-14' and ending with a big number. These are all pictures taken in Amsterdam in november 2009. I see no category 'taken with Sigma SD-14'. This can be created. This is the only meaningfull part of the names. I suggest to rename them 'Amsterdam Nov 2009 xx' (number 01 to 10)Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Category:Taken with Sigma SD14 Something like this? It existed for a long time. I am unsure about the files you are talking about, but normally I would advise against renaming unless the name is misleading. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 10:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Examples: File:Sigma SD-14 (4093646049).jpg and File:Sigma SD-14 (4093480885).jpg. I will add the category. It is not explicitly stated that the pictures are taken with this camera, but I see no other explanation for 'Sigma SD-14' in the name.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:01, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
In that case I agree. Names like this should be renamed per Commons:File_renaming per reason #2. ℺ Gone Postal ( ) 11:06, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Research neededEdit

Cascade de Coo au XVme siècle.jpg
This is obvouisly a postcard of a painting. Any idea who the painter is. The original painting must exist somewhere.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:14, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

SearchEdit

How can I add someone to the main search.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by NormanGajowiak (talk • contribs) 21:34, 17 August 2019‎ (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. If you would like to search for a person's name, you can just use the "Search Wikimedia Commons" field on top of the page. De728631 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

August 18Edit