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:


 
The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch


April 27Edit

Autoarchiving in Village PumpEdit

For your information: I just now activated autoarchiving with the SpBot here in the Village Pump. (The timespan will later be reduced to 7 days as before – edit 18:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC): ✓ Done).

This has the side effect that the level 1 section headers with the dates will not be removed, so it has to be done manually.

Should the issues with the ArchiverBot get solved we can switch back to the old routine.
— Speravir – 19:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe the empty section headings will be deleted in future by Hazard-Bot who already adds the new sections. At least a test run was successful: Special:Diff/350162226/350162432. — Speravir – 16:40, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
In fact, the bot works quite reliable now. So I unprotected this short thread. — Speravir – 03:02, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 09Edit

Partial blocks, is there consensus for them?Edit

Apparently the ability to block users from only certain pages has been live for quite a while but is disabled by default for whatever reason. So before proposing this is in the proposals village pump I would like to see if there is consensus for the idea and what the arguments against partial blocks on Wikimedia Commons.

Of course, I am not suggesting that these should be used in lieu of simple warnings or that we should lower the standards of what solicits a block, as in a user who moves a couple of hundred files into bad categories shouldn't be indefinitely blocked for editing "Category:" Files indefinitely (which usually is for life) while in the current system they would have only received a 2 (two) weeks siteblock. Partial blocks could be used to prevent generally constructive users who are less constructive to be blocked from the pages where they are being disruptive, for example a user who uploads high quality photographs and helps newcomers could be disruptive at the QI nominations and would then be blocked from these nominations without also blocking him/her from editing spaces where they are not disruptive.

Are there arguments in favour and against this? I'd love to hear/read them before proposing it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:22, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2018/09#Partial_blocks was a prior discussion here, but I had thought that there was a more active discussion about this. -- (talk) 11:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Donald Trung, : I Symbol support vote.svg Support a proposal about enabling partial blocks.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
For a proposal to fly, it would need to layout realistic benefits. Commons is not the same as Wikipedia, so the rationale from the WMF for introducing it, which was all about addressing behavioural issues on Wikipedia, are debatable for this project. -- (talk) 14:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
An Anti-Porn Warrior user could be a productive uploader but might annoyingly report good faith users who upload nudes or something as "trolls" at the administrators' noticeboard, this behaviour would warrant a full siteban but if their uploads are fine and they are productive in other spaces then why exclude them from all of the Commonswiki if they are only disruptive in one area? Blocks are supposed to prevent disruptive edits but now thousands of good edits are also blocked as "collateral damage". This is just an example, but a user who repeatedly catches copyright violations but only uploads selfies 🤳🏻 could also be blocked from only uploading until they've convinced the sysops that they have learned their lesson.
I actually have a lot of named examples in mind who are productive uploaders but less productive in other areas who can't upload their great content now. A Chilean vector uploader, a Polish man who frequents museums, an American who makes the women in red blue, a Japanese man who badly nominated many images for deletion because he couldn't understand policy. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure, hypotheticals are fun, however a credible proposal should highlight real past cases where the current system hampered administrators from acting effectively. If zero real cases can illustrate a proposal, then it may as well be parked as an idea until someone can actually prove it has significant benefits over the current system and will not be more complex, confusing or subject to unfortunate misuse compared to what happens in practice now. -- (talk) 19:51, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Blocking should only be used as a last resort, when discussion failed to fix the issue. So a partial block should not be used as a way to avoid discussion, even if that discussion is difficult. Regards, Yann (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I agree that it should be a last resort, partial blocks should also not be used in lieu of discussion, but it would isolate the area of disruption. And would leave the user less bitter, so more likely to engage constructively. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I've read about partial blocks before but I cannot really see a use for it on Commons. Similarly, Commons doesn't really go in for topic bans or interaction bans and there are good reasons for that. The community on Commons is small and each individual file does not require much (if any) discussion or cooperation. Commons is not a collaborative editing project wrt the media it hosts. Though multiple editors may make contributions to the File pages (categories, descriptions, translations, licence review, etc) they generally do that independently and not in a collaborative manner. If there are certain areas or activities that a user demonstrates problems at, then they may be blocked, and required to agree to avoid such conflict areas as a condition of lifting the block. There aren't so many of us that we'd need to automate such. There are of course people who upload (and themselves take) valuable images for Commons who have otherwise behaved badly enough to be blocked. I disagree that a partial block permitting them to continue to upload but not participate in other forums would make the user less bitter. They'd likely just create a sock account anyway. Better to tell such people to go away. And keep telling them to go until they find another hobby. -- Colin (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
    • That same argument can literally be made for any other wiki's, but blocks are not meant to tell people to look for another hobby, but to cease disruptions. If these people were meant to be banned forever than unblocks wouldn't exist. They'd likely just create a sock account anyway." not all blocked/banned users engage in sockpuppetry, nor do all users who are banned from certain spaces Sockpuppet to avoid their namespace bans. Jan Arkesteijn never sockpuppeted and from what I can tell, assuming good faith is a pillar of Wikimedia (even though it is rarely done) and just because abuse could continue doesn't mean that "because abuse keeps continuing we shouldn't use more tools to stop abuse". Wikimedia Commons would be richer if people who are uncollegial in some spaces be barred from just those spaces than the entire website. "If there are certain areas or activities that a user demonstrates problems at, then they may be blocked, and required to agree to avoid such conflict areas as a condition of lifting the block. There aren't so many of us that we'd need to automate such." this doesn't mean that Wikimedia Commons will stay small forever and where people meet, ego's clash and it's better to have a toolset and not need it than need it and not have it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:08, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
      • I explained why/how Commons is different to encyclopedia wikis, where this feature is aimed at. You gave the example of someone who was disruptive at QI but otherwise participated well. It is already possible for someone, in their unblock request to say "OK, I have problems with QI so I'll not participate any longer in that forum" and an admin to agree that as terms of their unblock. I don't recall this ever happening, so why the need for automated tools to police such a "Block QI". Your arguments "Not all..." don't impress me on any level of logic. I don't agree with your approach to try to pick and choose which roles someone is allowed to play here. People are often blocked for character flaws that manifest themselves in certain areas. They show a lack of respect for others, for community-agreed rules, or for the law, they are dishonest, they are abusive when they don't get their way, they cheat. Commons is not a machine but a community of people. I'm quite happy that we block the whole person, not just take away their access to FP or QI. -- Colin (talk) 12:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
        • Which is entirely against the spirit of the Wikimedia Commons blocking policy which states "blocking is designed to be a preventative measure and not a punitive one" punishing a person over isolated disruption is against both the spirit and the word of the policy, a bug which could easily be solved with partial blocks. And partial blocks can also be administered for single pages, if two (2) users are engaging in an edit war on only a single file then blocking both of them from editing the file for a reasonable period of time would be preferable over losing two (2) productive users for any period of time. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
          • No Donald it is totally in keeping. Two users edit warring over a file is a symptom of two users who don't understand how to behave on Commons. You seek to treat the symptom rather than the cause. The problem is not with the file, but with the people. Sorry, but your approach seems to me to be appeasement of users who are rightfully blocked. -- Colin (talk) 10:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
            • But how can a user completely banned from Wikimedia Commons prove that they have learned from their mistakes, once you throw someone out there simply is no way to get them back if you lock the door. A user blocked indefinitely 10 (ten) years ago for edit warring can't show that they won't edit war and any appeal today would most likely be denied because all the sysops see is their old behaviour. Partial blocks most likely won't be used for serial harassers and serial copyright violators, but it makes no sense to punish a user incapable of understanding one aspect of the the website such as categorisation oe how to rename a file equally as severe as someone sending rape and death threats (as an example). If you already believe that a person who repeatedly makes a mistake on one file as a person is flawed so bad that they shouldn't be able to contribute anywhere else than all it does it take passionate volunteers at rom the project. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:59, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Let's say one is productive on one part of a project, and also is a BS on other part. Then you get partially blocked and you can act like as if nothing happened on the other side of the project. This is not acceptable. — regards, Revi 11:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Curious, but why is it not acceptable? If it stops the disruption and the user remains productive while ceasing all forms of disruptive behaviour then what do we as a community lose from having them around? And what would we gain from completely excluding them? Partial blocks don't condone bad behaviour (in fact the opposite is true), a user partially blocked who would still be able to be productive in other areas is incentivised to not sock as they still have something to lose (their hobby), meanwhile a user completely banned from Wikimedia Commons would sock because they have nothing left to lose further. Also blocks aren't designed to be punitive but preventative so preventing good edits in one area because of bad edits in another seems counterproductive. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 15Edit

Gallery move requestEdit

According to COM:NAME and common practice, every country's gallery is titled in it's official language (日本 (Japan), مصر (Egypt), Ελλάδα (Greece) etc). Previously, Israel had two official languages, Hebrew and Arabic, so it's gallery was titled either in two languages with "/" between, or in English. Since last year, Israel has one official language, Hebrew, (BBC) so I request to move it to "ישראל". --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 15:24, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

If Arabic still has "special status" and its previous uses will not be affected, that means that it will still be used on currency, postage stamps, and many street signs. The whole Netanyahu law thing seems to be annoyingly symbolic. I don't think there's any need to immediately rush to change the gallery name... AnonMoos (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
It's not a place to express political opinions. The law is not titled "Netanyahu law", it wasn't even initiated by Netanyahu. Hebrew is more widespread in Israel than any other language, and it has higher status (official language) than Arabic (recognized language). The only reason why the gallery wasn't titled in Hebrew only is that Israel formally had two equally official languages. Now that Arabic lost its status, it should be renamed because nobody would say that Israel's main national language is other than Hebrew. It's common sense. en:Lebanon has a recognized language (French) in addition to its official Arabic, yet the gallery is in Arabic only. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 17:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
I would like to note that COM:NAME does not mention the "official" but the "local" language when it comes to galleries. So there is no need to change established names at Commons because of a new legislation in Israel. Although Hebrew is the prevailing (and now the only official) language, Arabic is still a minority language afaik. De728631 (talk) 17:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
What "established names"? It's English now. Israel. --Triggerhippie4 (talk) 19:52, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Triggerhippie4 -- French in Lebanon is a former colonial language and currently-useful international language, like English in Israel. French in Lebanon is a foreign language, while Arabic in Israel is not a foreign language, so I don't see how the two cases are comparable. AnonMoos (talk) 16:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Is this policy legit?Edit

Commons:User galleries, penned by a sock maybe?--Roy17 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

I would say that this is an essay, not a policy. Ruslik (talk) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I went ahead and marked it as {{Essay}}, as it is certainly not a policy. Huntster (t @ c) 21:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't quite see the point of that page, as it only paraphrases a portion of COM:USER (our actual policy on that matter) in more casual language. It does no harm, however, as it is in line with the policy, to which it also links. --rimshottalk 20:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps just make it a redirect to Commons:User-specific galleries, templates and categories#Gallery pages? Mkdw (talk) 18:16, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 17Edit

ImageAnnotator brokenEdit

…or at least behaving differently than usual: In the last few days, ImageAnnotator has been showing me error messages («Version inconsistency after saving») at every attempted use, stating that the addition was unsuccessful and offering the wikicode I can insert manually myself later (which is A-OK with me but would wringle a few noses among the influential crowd upstairs), and then turns out that the note was successfully inserted after all. -- Tuválkin 11:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I had the same problem today. It told me Exception Error: Version inconsistency after saving and Could not save your note (edit conflict or other problem), even though the annotation was successful.--Roy17 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Crickets… -- Tuválkin 14:06, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
    I've been having exactly the same experience. Remarked on it elsewhere (can't remember where), also got no response. FWIW, if you just refresh the page, it's fine, but it's certainly poor user experience. - Jmabel ! talk 16:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk pages consultation: Phase 2Edit

  • The report starts by saying that talk pages are «baffling to newcomers and annoying for experienced editors». Which doesn’t say much about talk pages (indeed one debatable statement and an utterly false one) but speaks volumes about where we are going with this. Meanwhile actual problems remain unsolved and new ones pile on. -- Tuválkin 18:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

May 18Edit

Categorisation specialistsEdit

I would like to draw your attention to contributions by Tris T7 (talk · contribs) (don't click the CPU-heavy user page). His/her commitment is commendable, but I hate to say, it does not help much with categorisation. For instance, separating by file types is mostly redundant, because files are categorised based on their contents. I was first alerted of such categories on 22 April. User:Themightyquill has tried to explain to him/her.

I think Category:Illustrations files needing categories as of 2018 and Category:Illustrations files needing categories as of 2019, two of his/her three recent categories, may not be very useful either. Illustrations is a very broad term, so it would include media of very different characteristics, which defeats the purpose of an interim. I would rather expect someone moving files straight to Maps of XX, Diagrams of XX, etc. In contrast, Category:Logos needing categories as of 2015 is specific and better.

@Tris T7: I have some suggestions:

  1. All interim categories should be marked with {{hidden category}}.
  2. When you move stuff to interim cats using cat-a-lot, you should switch off removing {{uncat}}.

Others, please help empty Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2018 and Category:JPEG files needing categories as of 2017.--Roy17 (talk) 15:45, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

off-topic discussion on edit counts
I pretty much agree. However you fail to see the point. The perpetrator is interested in amassing a gigantic edit score, so called maintenance is the only way of amassing stupendous scores. -Broichmore (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
WTF is an "edit score"? Sheer number of edits? Who cares? And what is the gain (to anyone) in amassing edits? - Jmabel ! talk 01:20, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Please see en:WP:HIGHSCORE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 01:51, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Geez. I'll admit to having a count of "top uploads" on my Commons user page, so I guess someone could say I resemble that in (exactly) one respect, but actual images on Commons is a very different thing than edits. I have no idea how many edits I've made. Looked it up once (years ago) when dealing with someone who (ridiculously) tried to suggest I wasn't a significant contributor to en-wiki, but that's about it. - Jmabel ! talk 05:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jmabel: You have 238,167 live edits on Commons, 86,160 on enwiki, and 331,735 globally.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 05:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds about right. Mostly shows how "cheap" edits on Commons can be. - Jmabel ! talk 06:01, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
In terms of quantity of edits your still a comparative baby against some others. You seem to spend a lot of time policing people here, possibly why edits are so cheap. Quality constructive edits are not cheap here if your editing unidentified files, and it comes with added benefit of not chasing away newbies. At least your not (as is common here, vandalising files by over categorization. Example Category:1951 on the Isle of Man Railway which holds only two files, and is the only cat in Category:Isle of Man in the 1950s which is four steps away from it; do you think you could use your energies to policing that kind of nonsense? As I said earlier, most high scores, comprise completely useless admin edits or destructive ones as mentioned, It annoys me that these people have such undue influence on the project. I think it high time for Admins to face re-election every three years, rather than have the lifetime rights of Supreme Court justices. Broichmore (talk) 11:00, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
If you have a good rationale to change policy to either encourage or mandate confirmation votes for use of sysop tools, then put up a proposal at COM:VP/P. Keep in mind the lack of enthusiasm in the most recent proposal in this area of Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2017/04#Proposal_on_de-adminship_for_cause. -- (talk) 11:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Broichmore: I presume that comment is directed at me, since it is immediately under my remark. You say, "You seem to spend a lot of time policing people here": can you give an example of what you consider inappropriate "policing" by me? Also, saying that I spend a lot of time on "policing" seems bizarre, unless everything that isn't an upload is "policing": other than my own photos, mostly I research, describe and categorize archival photos.

You appear to characterize my edits as "useless" and "destructive"; have you actually had a look at my edits, or are you just firing off randomly? And why is it somehow my responsibility more than yours to deal with the bad categorization you mentioned in an area unrelated anything I've done here?

If you would like me to face recertification as an admin, fine, please propose that formally, I have no objection to such a process. Otherwise, if you want to criticize my behavior, please give concrete examples of that behavior, not a string of unsubstantiated adjectives. - Jmabel ! talk 16:03, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

I unreservedly apologize to you. My two or three spot checks let me down. More fool me. I was unfairly firing off at someone else. I think that your edits are of a high quality. No I don't think there is a need for recertification in your case. I also take note of what Fae has said on the matter. Broichmore (talk) 18:53, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Searching in structured outputEdit

Zandmotor meer 2016 7.jpg
I have added Q23397(lake) to the file. I am curious if there other files in the Commons with structured data (lake). How can I find them?Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
PS: The location is know corrected.Smiley.toerist (talk) 19:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: [1]. This is already explained here. Cheers. Strakhov (talk) 21:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Smiley.toerist: Note that generic depictions like "lake" are discouraged per Commons:Depicts#What_items_not_to_add. There are untold thousands of images of lakes on Commons. The more specific name of the lake would probably be more useful, e.g. perhaps sand motor (Q1393347)? --Animalparty (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That note is not discouraging generic depictions, but adding generic depictions when there is already a more specific one. Not exactly the same. Since sand motor (Q1393347) is not an instance of lake (or an instance of a subclass of lake...), tagging this image as lake IMHO is OK (if this is really a lake), unless someones finds an item about this specific lake. Having untold thousands pictures of lakes hosted in Commons is not a problem, it's a fact. A good one, I may add. Have in mind there's room in the future for a "location"-property (see "Items expected to be covered by other statements"). I do not know if that one would refer to "administrative entities" or "more generic places". Strakhov (talk) 23:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
There is a Category:Zandmotor meer but not a Wikidata item. There are two bodies of water. One lake, originaly an enclosed sea, but It has become a fresh water lake. The other is a lagoon wich is reached by seawater at high tide. It is drained by a narrow undeep channel, except by very high tide when the lagoon is refilled. There where occasions when the channel is filled over after a sandstorm. How do you type in structured output: File:Zandmotor januari 2016 14.JPG, File:Zandmotor januari 2016 01.JPG, File:Zandmotor januari 2016 07.JPG, File:Zandmotor januari 2016 09.JPG? It is to small to use 'bodies of water'. 'Tidal pools' or 'salt marsh' dont really cover it. Maybe puddle (Q152841), but it is larger and has structure (river like) and certainly not when it flows.Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:13, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
The strong point of the structured data is to find unusual combinations such as File:Paardenpauze bij strandtent.jpg.Smiley.toerist (talk) 18:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)


Lakes in WikidataEdit

Weissensee.jpg

I have been relinking the lake property of files to specific lakes. However what if the more specific Wikidata-item (Q9181844) does not have the lake property? In this case a Commons category? Smiley.toerist (talk) 13:52, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I hope I corrected the mess in Wikidata (Q9181844)Smiley.toerist (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Not really, I'm afraid. There was a second Wikidata item for this lake which I merged with Q9181844. De728631 (talk) 22:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

May 19Edit

SlowEdit

I'm trying to upload photos and since Friday I'm suffering a very slow speed of uploading. Very few files get uploaded and it takes an unsual lot of time. Is it happening only to me or is it a general problem? B25es (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Commons:BanEdit

A red link, yes – Commons formally doesn’t ban anybody within its own jurisdiction. A user having account previously blocked on Commons receives treatment depending on whether does s/he annoy anybody having the “block” right. Not based on how dangerous or disriptive s/he is in general. Just two cases for comparison.

Панн

Made several dozens stupid deletions requests and orphan categories, evaded block two times. And we nowadays see all his uploads wiped out indiscriminately.

影武者 (Nipponese Dog Calvero)

The user has record of personal attacks and socking (across all Wikimedia) twelve years long – really since 2007, not kidding! On Commons tried to disrupt delreqs. Yet, Commons hosts multiple images by him and of him, most of which were directly uploaded by 影武者’s pup accounts.

The site should distinguish between those who are banned (and whose new creations are subject to speedy deletion) from petty offenders evading blocks via IPs or making one, two, or three socks. Many can also remember how IN____–_y got quite lenient treatment in 2018 from some Commons elements, in spite of the doubly global Wikimedia ban. As long as Commons is controlled by admins’ whims more than by policy, this community will be looked upon with suspicion. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Not sure we need the sort of drama that happens on en:WP, and to a determined disruptor, there is no technical difference between a block and a ban. Indeed, some wear a ban as a badge of honour, however dubious that may seem to a sane person. So I see no need for a policy of this nature. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Because existing Commons policy is already too… complicated to grasp? :D Incnis Mrsi (talk) 09:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We don't need more bureaucracy. But see Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Jason Lin. IMO creating a page for 2 accounts is giving too much importance to them. Just do not feed the trolls. Regards, Yann (talk) 09:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose, it's probably better to create "Commons:Long-term abuse" ("COM:LTA") for long-term abusers, persistent advertisers (as in non-educational content to promote a non-notable thing such as Fouadadan Islam), and similar forms of abuse specifically designed to misuse Wikimedia Commons, or wholesale behaviours such as using Wikimedia Commons as a pirate website for films and TV series using Wikipedia Zero. But what is the actual difference between indefinite blocks and formal bans? All it does is make it harder for a banned user to appeal, or in other words, give them less of an incentive to change their behaviour thus sustaining their (continued) disruptive behaviour. The harder it is for people to come back to the community in good faith, the less likely they are to stop their abusive behaviour. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Actually, creating a directory for Fouadadan-like people would be fool – they could obtain recognition this way whereas the present regime mostly shuns them. A spammer’s credential is his/her spam – I don’t feel anything to change about this kind of abuse which is combatted rather effectively. Skilled copyvio uploaders are much harsher a trouble. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 10:23, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    Trolls like Панн probably use the same camera or have a style of uploading and naming files, listing what kind of files with file names they upload and documenting the camera equipment they use, their geographical location, and information about their uploads in a page like “Commons:Long-term abuse/Панн” could help new page patrollers catch their socks better. Their types of trolling or why they're blocked doesn't have to be listed, just general information about their editing and upload styles with like a custom tag like {{Speedy LTA|Панн}} if found by a new page patroller. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
    What? I didn’t see a single work by Панн. All his stuff is photos of persons whom he met in his TV set. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 11:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose the difference between a block and a ban is artificial. We don't need the level of wikilawyering displayed at some of our sister projects. Natuur12 (talk) 14:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose mainly what Rodhullandemu wrote above. Best --Steinsplitter (talk) 14:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No need for more bureaucracy. Vulphere 16:36, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Consider snow closed. Though Wikimedia Commons 'borrows' many concepts from the way that administration of Wikipedia works, it remains a bureaucratically simpler project. There has never been a consensus to create a system of project bans in addition to blocks. Topic bans and interaction bans have been used, however even these are very rarely considered as an option (none in 2 years). -- (talk) 08:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
We got one recently: Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:ديفيد عادل وهبة خليل 2 and the licensing policy. But because the user in question has voluntarily agreed to the restrictions instead of them being forced upon him, they're not recorded in Commons:Editing restrictions. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
So, ..., still none in 2 years then. -- (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not sure what difference bans would make compared to blocks. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 09:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
    A block can be overturned by any admin (unless there is consensus against it), while a ban requires community discussion to be overturned. Additionally, on certain Wikipedia's ArbCom can issue special bans above community scrutiny. Essentially bans make it harder to come back for an editor than blocks, it seems quite counterproductive to turn away users who are willing to change their ways and bans tend to be so difficult to overturn that very few users (if any) ever banned return, sometimes even a decade after the ban and no bad faith edits were made by them were made. A good metaphor would be that bans are the death penalty while blocks are a life in prison. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not not all that active on Wikipedia, so I don't quite understand what is being proposed here. Please elaborate: Where are our current procedures insufficient and why? What distinguishes "ban" from "block", how would that fix the issue and at what cost? --El Grafo (talk) 09:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Legacy interwiki linksEdit

There are still some like special:permalink/74165605. Is there a bot that takes care of these?--Roy17 (talk) 19:15, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Btw, if a bot is to link a commons category to a wikidata item, please let it add Commons category (P373) if the item does not yet have it. DeltaBot is doing that job but terribly slow.--Roy17 (talk) 19:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Category questionEdit

Do we need Category:Flags of the Confederate States by type of image - images of flags by image type, JPG, GIF, etc? Bubba73 (talk) 23:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment One of its parents, Category:Flags by type of image by country seems well-established, and I suggest that you could open a discussion. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Well, maybe it is OK then. Bubba73 (talk) 00:48, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Category discusison started at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Flags by type of image. - Themightyquill (talk) 08:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 20Edit

Categories & mobile interfaceEdit

I am one of those "holdouts" who uses a flipphone rather than a smartphone, so I have rarely seen Commons' mobile interface. Today, I was trying to show images of a particular building to someone on their phone and I could find no way to get from an image to its categories. So my question: starting from an image drawn from Commons, in a Wikipedia article on a mobile, how does one get to the categories for the image? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

I couldn't find them either, which is weird because in all other respects the mobile file description page looks pretty much like the desktop version. – BMacZero (🗩) 05:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Categories are filtered out in the mobile view, see phab:T24660. I tend to use the desktop view on my mobile to see them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 06:43, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
That's insane! That reduces Commons to almost nothing but a minor annex to the sites that use the images. It removes the main advantage of having an image be on Commons rather than just floating out there on an isolated page of its own. - Jmabel ! talk 16:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Agreed. Despite their (many) weaknesses, categories are still among the most useful things on commons, and we've removed them from our mobile app. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

180k photos from Belgium Herbarium of Meise Botanic GardenEdit

In the last few days, some 180k photos have been published in cc-by-sa by the Meise Botanic Garden Herbarium on Zenodo: https://zenodo.org/communities/belgiumherbarium/search

On http://www.botanicalcollections.be/ there seem to be 1712k photos, apparently without a license. On a random record I read "© copyright BOTANIC GARDEN MEISE". I see they crosslink https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/ so they might be on Zenodo in order to join http://biolitrepo.org/ . Nemo 05:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Nemo: I created Commons:Batch uploading/Belgium Herbarium so we don't lose track of it. – BMacZero (🗩) 15:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Encountered numerous errors when uploading with the WizardEdit

Here's the screenshot. I'm uploading some videos that I've shot on buses. In order to ensure all of them have been uploaded, I have to upload the same set of videos over and over again. Success rate wasn't high, 8~12 out of ~40 can be uploaded successfully after waiting 24 hrs.

The upload bandwidth here is 3MB/s using IPv6 connection. Not too bad for uploading them IMHO.

Regards

Tomskyhaha (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tomskyhaha: Did you try User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js yet? Documentation is on the talk page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:06, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:Trying now after seeing this message. Thanks. Didn't try before because of lacking desktop. Seems pretty labor intensive when batch uploading though. Needs to navigate to every new file page. Cheers Tomskyhaha (talk) 13:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: This tool is awesome: no longer constrained by the 4GiB limit.(no more file splitting, yay!) Tomskyhaha (talk) 13:44, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: OK so it errors out again, and the error message is quite similar to the ones Upload Wizard has prompted. 5 out of 8 files uploaded successfully.
Screenshots: 01 02 03 04 Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Found some discussion of this issue posted User:Yann phab:T200820#4826332 and phab:T212101 Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:17, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
It can't circumvent the 4GB limit, errors out every time when it uploaded ~3.9GB chunks. Screenshot click here Tomskyhaha (talk) 03:24, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

May 21Edit

Search not properly workingEdit

Hi all, when pressing the "Search" button on the search page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?search=) the URL is not updated anymore. Instead i see https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php indepedently from what i search for. This problem began a few days ago. --Arnd (talk) 07:04, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

View one's uploads by file typeEdit

It's me again. :-D

In order to add subtitles with location information, I have to find out which video has been uploaded.

For instance, a video named foobar has been attempted to upload to Commons, comprises of the following files: foobar_00, foobar_01, foobar_02.

In most cases only the second or the third file has been uploaded. And the goal is to upload the subtitle to the 00 segment. Or reupload it if not present.

A list of uploaded videos would be helpful to either add subtitle to the 00 video, or attempt reuploading the missing segments.

Unfortunately I haven't found the page with the said function. Could anyone point it out for me? Any help is greatly appreciated.

Tomskyhaha (talk) 07:32, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Presuming you are asking to search for your uploads of videos, the trick is to use filemime. Search -- (talk) 08:07, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
@:Thanks! That did the trick. Tomskyhaha (talk) 10:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Checking for a deleted imageEdit

Hello, someone's got in touch with me after a recent editathon as one of the attendees uploaded an image which was deleted. I was hoping I might be able to take a look and work out if we have options such as sending a release through OTRS, but I'm struggling to find the deleted image. There isn't a notification on User talk:ArchAtlas and I can't spot anything in the user logs. Would deletion means it no longer shows up in the logs? Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 08:57, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Deleted images should show up but there is no sign of any contributions, deleted or otherwise, for ArchAtlas. Probably best to reupload it if it's his/er own work. Rodhullandemu (talk) 09:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
The database shows they have no deleted images and have no contributions globally. They may have been using a different account. -- (talk) 09:20, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks very much both, I'll try to work out if it was a different account or if something happened that's been missed in relaying the story. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Richard Nevell (WMUK): Their filter log has entries related to an attempt to upload a file using the cross-wiki upload form on English Wikipedia to upload a file to Commons. The filter that they encountered prevents low-resolution uploads from newly registered users using that particular upload form. The reason for this filter rule is that such uploads overwhelmingly turn out to be copyright violations. If they did indeed personally create this photo, the expectation is that they should be able to provide a full-resolution version rather than the 1462×1927 pixel miniature version that they tried to upload. If it really is their own work, they can upload it directly here on Commons. LX (talk, contribs) 09:08, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
@LX: That's it! That's a very clever filter. Excellent, now I understand what happened it's going to be easier to help them out. Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 09:14, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

NaomiEdit

A problem similar to Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2019/05#Problem_of_Chinese_surnames. Naomi can be a Hebrew or a Japanese given name. Should we separate them into different categories?--Roy17 (talk) 19:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. How would you propose to separate them in cases where the person is neither Jewish nor Japanese? Category:Jan (given name) is apparently a Catalan, Dutch, Czech, North Germanic, German, Afrikaans, Swedish, Belarusian, Polish, English, and Slovene name. - Themightyquill (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
The names are being distinguished by scripts; Catalan, Dutch, Czech, North Germanic etc., all use the Latin alphabet and the name is identical. The problem occurs when names in other scripts can be transcribed to Latin in multiple ways. However, the problem of which variant of the name to use for a particular person can be tricky, and it has been discussed on Wikidata. I think the only conclusion is that if their name is published in a particular script, that's the version that should be used. Potentially, they may be associated with multiple variants if the person is well known internationally or has published works in multiple scripts. --ghouston (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@Themightyquill: The world is multilingual but Commons categories prefers English (or Latin alphabet). John, Johan, Ivan, Evan, etc. have the same origin, but are treated separately. Then perhaps names that do not even have the same origin, like the Hebrew and Japanese Naomi, should be distinguished?
I'd say it's actually a flaw in wikidata's design to handle given names. People in the west mostly use established names, but names in East Asia are basically a combination of characters which offer far more varieties. Consequently, most Chinese and Japanese people's wikidata items do not have a given name (P735). The full name could only be stored in name in native language (P1559).
Mixing names that have different origins is fundamentally wrong. I find it absurd, but it's not a burning issue that needs immediate response. If Commons does decide they should be separated, category names could be Naomi (Japanese given name), Naomi (Hebrew-origin given name).--Roy17 (talk) 12:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
No, what would be the benefit of separating them? I could list tens of given names with the same Romanization but with completely different origins from different cultures. Take w:Mona (name) for example. Next time I see my cousin Mona, I should ask her if her name is of Persian origin or of Arabic origin! 4nn1l2 (talk) 12:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Things go into the same category because they share that quality. A Japanese Naomi and a Hebrew Naomi have nothing in common except the romanisation. Otherwise, why not just put everything from London, England and London, Ontario into the same category?--Roy17 (talk) 12:44, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Cities can be neatly distinguished by their geography. The first London is in the UK, the second one in Canada.
But this is not the case for many given names. Linguists disagree on the origin of names frequently.
Going into such details is beyond the scope of Commons, a media repository. 4nn1l2 (talk) 13:07, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Category:Naomi Taniguchi is a Japanese man. Category:Naomi Watts is an English woman. They do not have the same given name. Distinguished as neatly as the geography of the two Londons. Japanese Naomi is pronounced as nah-o-mi. How absurd it is to find Japanese people in a subcat of Category:Hebrew-language feminine given names.
On the other hand, Sean, Seán, Shawn and Shaun are the same name, pronounced the same, but spelled differently, and so categorised separately.--Roy17 (talk) 14:30, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
Special:Diff/351596184 will solve the problem of finding a Japanese man in the Naomi category. That finding is as absurd as finding Category:Senkaku Islands as a subcat of Category:Islands of China. (In my opinion, not absurd at all.)
Suppose we could solve the problem of Naomi neatly enough. What would we do about various other given names with many peculiarities? We should consider consistency. 4nn1l2 (talk) 15:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
@4nn1l2: your edit suggests to me that you have no serious intention in resolving this problem. The Naomi from Naomi Taniguchi the admiral is romanisation of 尚真. Naomi could also be (quite often) feminine Japanese names. It is not comparable to a disputed territory either: nothing is controversial about the names. Naomi is a feminine name of Hebrew origin, but also happens to be romanisation of many Japanese names.
Adding that category is technically wrong. For most Naomis in the world, their names are never both Naomi and なおみ at the same time. In other words, it might be a case for disambiguation.
Your question is exactly the one I asked. What should we do with these names? It's never been brought up. Names categories on Commons are pretty recent introduction. On most wikis I've visited, people are not categorised by names at all. Only a handful like Chinese, Vietnamese, Cantonese wikis group people by surnames.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
But London, Ontario and London, England are both English city names. w:London_(disambiguation) lumps them together with a dozen other cities named London, presumably all of English origin, but doesn't worry about where the names came from. Category:Naomi Taniguchi and Category:Naomi Watts are separate categories. Any category uniting Naomis isn't doing so because that's an important useful shared feature; it's an arbitrary name. It's because someone apparently finds it helpful to be able to look up Naomi Watts via Category:Naomi (given name), and splitting that category wouldn't help that at all.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:56, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
London is just an example. Category:Kochi, Kerala/Category:Kochi, Kochi and en:Salem are examples from different cultures.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
And en:w:Salem is another good example; it seems possible that all of them are of the same origin. India seems unlikely, but Muslims could have named the city after Jerusalem or the Brits could have named it. The en.wp articles don't seem to mention it. And what use is it to separate them based on whether the name originates in Hebrew or some further east culture?--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

If you grew up in the U.S. and are of a certain age, this irresistibly reminds you of Love of Chair and its perpetual question, "What about Naomi?" SFriendly.gif -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:35, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I don't think that the issue is whether we should start looking at people named "Naomi" in England or the United States and try to distinguish them based on where their ancestors came from (which would be crazy), but whether somebody named "なおみ" and somebody named "נעמי" should be grouped with these Naomis or not. --ghouston (talk) 01:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Suppose Commons uses another language instead of English predominantly. Commons categories are supposed to be universal, i.e. choice of languages should not affect the outcome. That is true for most categories we have. However, in this case of Naomi for example, Naomi and なおみ would not be in the same category. They would be transliterated differently because their pronunciation is not the same. Now they are grouped together merely because they are spelled the same way in Latin alphabet.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I would bet that's not true for a far larger number of categories then you think; colors, to name just one thing, don't get lumped together the same way in every language or culture. And these categories are extraordinary in that they are explicitly arbitrary; there's no real property binding two people named Naomi together. If there's any value in these categories, it's reduced by splitting different origins of the name Naomi out. I don't see any problem with having a category Category:なおみ (given name), but I do object to removing people with the name "Naomi" from the category Naomi (given name).
If you're concerned about names that would be transliterated differently because their pronunciation is not the same, Naomi might be transliterated any number of different ways, depending on what language is original, what language is target (even for the same script), how the name was originally pronounced, and what standard is used. It seems to be digging into a huge mess, with no advantage but the theoretical. I'd be happy with solutions that have practical advantages.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 22Edit

InscriptionsEdit

In the spirit of being cautious, as is the guideline, I'd like to ask whether my latest contributions, adding inscriptions, are useful to the project. For example, see File:Unua_Libro_ru_1st_ed.pdf#Inscription or File:War_of_Anti-Christ_with_the_Church_and_Christian_Civilization.jpg#Inscription. While I certainly enjoy making these, I question at times whether or not I should make them. I think they can be a help to screen readers, the visually impaired, and others, but as few images have them I wonder whether or not they're truly helpful. Thoughts? Psiĥedelisto (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

  • I think this is very good work. -- Tuválkin 07:31, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think in cases like this where the original is a piece of paper this it would be called a transcription rather than inscription. This file shows an inscription (and if you were to place the text on the file description page, that would be a transcription of the depicted inscription). But apart from that: great work, keep going! --El Grafo (talk) 08:58, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • All good. If you are including text transcriptions, be cautious about copyright where these are translations or the original would need a creative reconstruction. If the text is not your own transcription, then there may be a copyright claim for it, even where the manuscript or inscription is clearly public domain. -- (talk) 09:02, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Nice job there.--Vulphere 21:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Psiĥedelisto -- for another heavily-transcribed page, see File:Wernigeroder Wappenbuch 010.jpg... -- AnonMoos (talk) 14:54, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Adding qualifiers to DepictsEdit

Testing for adding qualifiers to Commons:Depicts statements on the file page and in the UploadWizard is now available on Test-Commons: https://test-commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Main_Page

Adding qualifiers allows users to further develop depicts statements. For example, depicts: house cat can be extended into depicts: house cat[color:black]. You can find qualifiers in the "Structured data" tab on the file page, or in the "Add data" tab in the UploadWizard.

Currently supported qualifiers are: shown with features, color, wears, applies to part, quantity, eye color, and shape.

Once you've tested qualifiers, please leave your feedback on the SDC talk page with any questions, comments, or concerns you might have about the feature. When testing is complete, the qualifiers will be released to Commons both on the file page and in the UploadWizard. Quiddity (WMF) (talk) 22:18, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Good update, testing it now.--Vulphere 12:14, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

May 23Edit

Linus Pauling, a mirrorEdit

Portrait of Linus Pauling's appears to be a mirror image: on Brittanica where Linus Pauling, c. 1954. Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. (cph 3b24095) he is facing to his left. Both this one and theirs are noted to be sourced from Library of Congress. --Omotecho (talk) 21:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

True [2]. However, I suggest to just rename the image, because "LTR languages" need him to look at the center of page. Of course, the flipped image is misleading (defective tooth in his right or left?), but that is up to the projects if they want to use the original image or the one which seems more appropriate for them. We should upload the original image as well and link them together. "RTL languages" may safely benefit from using the original image. 4nn1l2 (talk) 08:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I added it to the category Category:Flopped images of persons, which has some guidance on usage, although in the absence of text or obvious asymmetric features, it's often hard to determine the original orientation (negatives may be inadvertantly flopped). I think that in any language it's extremely misguided to use a flopped (mirrored) image just to face the text. "Because it looks good" is a poor excuse for misrepresenting reality. --Animalparty (talk) 18:01, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Teeth and eyebrows
I think the current version we have, Pauling facing viewer's left/his right might be correct by comparing to this image. And I agree with Animalparty. Flipping images for text orientation is factually false and absurd.--Roy17 (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I just found another one https://paulingblog.wordpress.com/tag/ascorbic-acid/ . I cant really tell which is correct.--Roy17 (talk) 20:08, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: Don't trust Britannica blindly on this. I can't remember the article right now (hopefully it'll come back to me), but some time ago I found an image there that made it clear they don't always do proper research and may well be trusting Commons/Wikipedia. In this case, trust LoC. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: It was probably File:Musa textilis - Manila Hemp - desc-flower.jpg. Still shows on https://www.britannica.com/plant/abaca. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 22:18, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the your crisp response, and great to see the LOC image, Roy17. Yes, it’s quite hard to tell whether the Linus Pauling.jpg image is flopped or not, and no, Brittanica is not perfect for sourcing images afaik, appreciate Alexis Jazz taking time to find the wrong Manila hemp image. That said, what options do we have and choose? My bet is no.2, what are yours? Or forget the case could be the answer...
  1. keep this image without adding a note that we don’t know whether it’s flopped or not?
  2. Or weblink to LOC in image description and add a note there is a consequence ?
  3. Or delete mention about LOC in the image description?
As far as an encyclopedia goes, the original image should not be flopped according to ltr or rtl text if I may suggest, it’s risky because it gives false message/sample that you could do the same with any, copyrighted images as well. Well, as I give up to research further, Oregon State U has Pauling’s images : Human ears are better physical feature than teeth to ID as Germany had filed ear shots for permanent non-German passport residents in the ‘60s; sorry not enough samples to compare and match with LOC image/Commons’. --Omotecho (talk) 11:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Omotecho: I just noticed it was sourced from LOC to dewp and moved here, and there had been several revisions. I guess the LOC version is correct. It seems pretty common some people like to flip portraits. If that is true, I would suggest we delete and redirect the wrong version to the LOC original.
The answer to our puzzle might lie in de:Datei:Pauling.jpg and de:Datei Diskussion:Pauling.jpg. @Gestumblindi, JuTa: could you please help check these two pages to confirm if the image had been flipped? Thank you!--Roy17 (talk) 11:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I can't view the old versions of this file itself as an admin on German Wikipedia (no "Dateiversionen"), only file descriptions; I know that some very old files can't be viewed/restored by admins - not sure what the cut-off date is, but as this was deleted locally in 2006, it's presumably too old. The file descriptions don't say anything about flipping. The discussion page only contained a question regarding the image's PD status. Gestumblindi (talk) 12:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@Roy17: Now I actually found something interesting in the file descriptions. The source given was http://www.loc.gov/rr/print/list/235_pop.html - and interestingly there the preview image is "flipped"? But if you click it for full size, he looks to the other side! Gestumblindi (talk) 12:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A side question: I (as a non-native English speaker) have never come across "flopping" as a technical term for mirroring or flipping vertically an image. There is an article in English Wikipedia which seems to establish that this is the term that should be used, but the article's sourcing is sparse (and broken), and other people have questioned it on the discussion page in the past. Maybe it was a case of trying to establish something via Wikipedia? As the article was created in 2006, it's of course hard to say now, 13 years later, who has started using "flopped" based on that Wikipedia article by now... Gestumblindi (talk) 12:50, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Gestumblindi: It's good to be wary about the undue influence of Wikipedia on popularizing terms (as well as perpetuating copyright violations), but "flopped image", referring to an image mirrored on its vertical axis, has been used in graphic arts since at least the 1980s, e.g. [3],[4], [5]. Remember, Wikipedia is not a reliable source. --Animalparty (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Indeed, Wikipedia is not a reliable source, and that's why i was referring to the sparse sourcing of Wikipedia's article, which probably should be improved, then. Gestumblindi (talk) 17:33, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Interesting subject, and I agree with Gestumblindi as another non-native: flip-flop is a footware to me; talking with photo archivist in the US, it is a jargon and the term survives today as in Chandler, Daniel, and Rod Munday. 2016. flopped image. Oxford University Press. (url-access=subscription); in the US graphic arts/photo industry: Birchfield, Stan. 2018. Image processing and analysis, but as old as Griffith, P. C. 1987. (NASA contractor report, NASA CR-181382.) But in Japan, the term Flop or flip-flop applies from electronic circuits to Algebraic Geometry. --Omotecho (talk) 17:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
The term flip-flop is centuries old, long predating electronics, though it has become more common since the mid-20th century. - Jmabel ! talk 21:16, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

May 25Edit

BureaucracyEdit

I hope my English is understandable, English is not my first language. I am pretty sure this is stated in the wrong place, but I have not figured a better place. I must say Commons have made communication hard with all the templates and requiring correct usage of them and intricate codification. Templates are supposed to help, not create obstacles. In the best of Wikiprojects, it should be sufficient just to state an error, explain and maybe show proof. Pretty much anwhere and in any form. Then it will be taken care of by interested users. Not require strict usage of templates, strictly to be placed in the correct space/page/section of the project. If templates is important to the bureaucracy then interested bureaucrats can codify the requests. The important thing is to understand a request and act upon it. If it is not understood; communicate. Acting on requests should be any Wiki-projects main focus. Not bureaucracy. All you achieve with bureaucracy are fewer true improvements, more slowly taken in effect. Use any good, prefarbly free, encyclopedia and look up the meaning of Wiki.--LittleGun (talk) 13:12, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

This relates to the recent edits made at File:Enoch Thulin 1915.jpg. I think your move request was valid since the image was only used in the uploader's namespace at the Swedish Wikipedia. Billinghurst, however, may not have realised that "Användare" is the user namespace over there and may have thought the image was used in an article. Anyhow, I'm not aware of any rules that prohibit the renaming of images in use anywhere in the Wikiverse. That's why there are automated redirects. At this point, {{disputed}} came into play: Since Commons is a multilingual project, we rely heavily on automatically translated templates for standardised requests and issues. So exchanging the file move template for another service template made sense from Billinghurst's perspective. I can understand though, how this can appear to be overly bureaucratic.
Unfortunately though, there is also a copyright issue involved, so I nominated the file for deletion. De728631 (talk) 14:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
@LittleGun: You asked for a rename, and I asked for you to take it through a disputation process. You can call that bureaucracy, or we can call that a fair process where there is a level of discussion where you wish to amend another person's contribution. If you were the uploader of a file and someone asked for its rename, I would believe that you would like the opportunity to comment. This is about having an evidence-base recorded on the talk page of why an action was taken where it is not obvious. Plus due respect for users whether they are in the past, here now, or editing into the future.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

May 26Edit

Structured meta data - where ?Edit

Where in the help system of Wikimedia Commons can an outsider WP/WD editor find help info about the newly introduced feature of WMC ? Kpjas (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

@Kpjas: Commons:Structured Data.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 06:54, 26 May 2019 (UTC)