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:


 
Village pump in India. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch

Contents


April 27Edit

Autoarchiving in Village PumpEdit

(This not will not be archived for a very long time.)

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)

May 07Edit

Category:Pages transcluding "Template:Exif date" with "location"Edit

I created this cat to trap any lingering cases of misuse of |location= in {{exif date}}, added by mistake and intended to work as {{taken on}}. It has been catching way more photos than I thought it would, though. Should I just run VFC on all files in this cat to replace

{{exif date| with {{taken on|source=EXIF|

or does anyone have a better idea? (The cat name has "data" instead of "date" — that needs fixing.) -- Tuválkin 01:25, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  • @Tuvalkin: Apologies: I can't make any sense of what you just wrote. Can you take a step back and put this in a broader context (tangible example of what was done wrong and what it should be)? - Jmabel ! talk 04:59, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
    Sure: This category is populated thanks to an #if clause I added to {{exif date}}: It marks pages (typically photo file pages) where this template is used with the additional parameter |location=. That is of course wrong because this template does not make any use of location data to generate date/place cats (like {{taken on}} does) and it would be wrong if it did — because the template’s name is EXIF+date while location is not date nor EXIF usually contains location as text (it often includes georeferenced latititude and longitude but for that we use rather {{location|lat.|long.|source:EXIF}}).
    So, the contents of this cat need either
  • To have the data "|location=Some place" removed, losing the user-entered location info, or
  • to be left alone, rendering this additional info about location useless since the template will not transclude it, or
  • to be enhanced by changing {{exif date}} so that it will make use of a |location= argument, infringing however its expected use, or
  • to be edited to change the call to {{exif date}} to point instead to {{taken on}}, as probably intended by the users adding the |location= argument in the first place.
I favor the latter, but didn’t want to go ahead before others have the opportunity of suggesting a better approach. (Meanwhile I simplified and corrected the projected batch replace in my OP above.) -- Tuválkin 05:34, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
I think I understand, and it seems reasonable. Do I understand correctly that, for example, date={{EXIF date|2013-09-25|location=Italy}}}} would become date={{taken on|source=EXIF|2013-09-25|location=Italy}}}}? - Jmabel ! talk 16:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Jmabel: Yes, exactly. (Meanwhile some more dozen photos got added to this cat, suggesting that we a lot of photos with some location info added to their filepages’ wikitext that is being neither displayed nor transcluded as a template argument, being effectively buried. The proposed change will rescue this data and make it useful.) -- Tuválkin 20:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • ✓ Done (for now; it keeps getting populated)
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tuvalkin (talk • contribs) 20:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
(I did not read this thread before, but got caught be the {{Done}} addition without signature.) Tuvalkin, on the cat page Pages transcluding "Template:Exif data" with "location" I read that the incarnations of {{According to Exif data|…}} should be replaced with {{Taken on|source=EXIF|…}}, but in the template source of {{Taken on}} I do not see such a parameter source, so that’s rather useless. Fortunately it will be ignored. — Speravir – 17:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Sorry for overlooking my sig. An edit request was posted in order for {{Taken on}} to make use of |source=EXIF. When completed it will display "according to EXIF" after the date, as expected; meanwhile several hundred photo file pages affected by this problem were already modified to rescue the hitherto unused location info, by transcluding date/location cats. That’s a good outcome. -- Tuválkin 21:37, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
m( Oh, sorry, that I did not look on the talk page, Tuvalkin. ●°.°● — Speravir – 23:05, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Depicts statements now available in the UploadWizardEdit

The ability to add optional structured "depicts" statements in the UploadWizard is now available. When opening the UploadWizard, the first major change you'll see is the introduction of a tab for adding data to a file towards the end of the process.

UploadWizard add data tab.png

Once you've reached the point to add data, you'll see the ability to edit depicts statements.

UploadWizard add data step.png

Please note that adding structured data is not required, and files are uploaded and published before the step to add data. The step can be skipped completely.

Feedback about the release - questions, comments, bugs found, design concerns, etc. - can be posted at the Structured Data on Commons talk page.

Thanks to all the community for the help in planning, designing, and testing this new feature. Additional statement support for file pages and the UploadWizard will be added in the coming weeks. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, this is way more convenient than it was before. It looks like I became one of the first adopters (noticed the feature before I boticed this announcement).--Ymblanter (talk) 21:31, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Keegan (WMF),
I asked you before, but I'll ask again.
How to add this massively? GLAM projects normally are the ones that have more potential to include this metadata, however we normally include several images...
And all the images already uploaded? Will have a effort to develop a tool by WMF, or we will have to relay on the community?
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hello. We do have APIs available that can be used to implement structured data additions on 3rd party mass upload tools like Pattypan, etc. We expect that to start happening once we've finished releasing all the basic features (we'll also tweak UploadWizard at that point). As for existing uploads, a few prominent community members (like Magnus) have already volunteered to do some mass conversions of data when we're ready. Look for more discussions about that to happen in the second half of the year. RIsler (WMF) (talk) 17:12, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 08Edit

Finding deleted picturesEdit

This is happening a lot on the Women in Red project and although I've been around for years here I don't know how to solve this. A wikipedia user has noticed that (for instance) Professor_Shohini_Ghose_October_2018.jpg has just disappeared. They don't understand why, but I can see that it has been deleted from commons. My guess is to put this title into a commons search but commons denies any knowledge of Professor_Shohini_Ghose_October_2018.jpg. Now, this has probably been deleted for good reason.... but what reason? How can I find out? Thanks. Victuallers (talk) 08:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Going onto the file page (File:Professor Shohini Ghose October 2018.jpg) it has a warning bar (or you can view the log) that shows who deleted (Jcb), when (18 December 2018) and the reason (No permission since 8 December 2018). Bidgee (talk) 09:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thing is that it would probably be very helpful for the uninitiated if the information "We don't have a file of that name, but there previously was one that has been deleted. You should be able to find the reason for that in the deletion log." would be available directly from the search results. Possibly instead of the "Create the page "File:Foobarredlink.jpg" on this wiki!", which is really not very useful for the File: namespace anyway. --El Grafo (talk) 09:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We don't want to do that, because then someone can could and have deleted a file called something like "File:El Grafo smells.jpg" (or much worse) and have that at the top of the results every time you name is searched for. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:02, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I checked the file. EXIF data says that the author is Dawn Bazely, who doesn't seem to be the uploader, that's why we need a permission. Regards, Yann (talk) 10:20, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for replies, appreciated. Its Dawn Bazely who is complaining! - what did she do wrong? We tell notable people to come to commons and donate a selfie of themselves and they get deleted. They then tweet about the experience and that gives a poor (accurate?) image of our project. I like User:El Grafo's idea - I consider myself a commonist and I couldn't find this info easily and the blank return would deter any newbie from asking for more info. Users only get one file deleted and that understandably is the end of their good will to donate to free information. It also gives misinformation to the person deleting the file who might assume that it was a fair deletion of an invaluable image. What can can I and Dawn do now? How can I advise future loaders to avoid this cul-de-sac to donating to commons? Victuallers (talk) 10:34, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
We tell notable people to come to commons and donate a selfie of themselves Well, given our current processes that's something we should really not do. From a copyright patrolling perspective it is impossible to determine whether that selfie uploaded by User:Robert Downey Jr. official was uploaded by Robert Downey Jr., his agent, or some random guy who copied it from the subject's instagram feed. Unfortunately, the latter is by far the most likely scenario, which is why these things get deleted easily. The safest way currently available is probably to send the file to COM:OTRS together with a proper permission, stand by for questions, and have them upload it as soon as it has been assessed. That may take quite a while though. --El Grafo (talk) 11:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: I've proposed deletions as well of files by @Carries mum: because it was not obvious that she is Dawn Bazely. She should have reacted before or had his account verified instead of complaining at you (however I don't find any trace of complain by her, are you sure of that?). By the way where do you read that Commons endorses users uploading selfies? --Patrick Rogel (talk) 11:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
This is disappointing. Who is telling people to load selfies? We are!!! I find OTRS completely inadequate for loading a single picture of someone. Its OK for a GLAM who has 5,000 pictures. Very few people have the tenacity to complete a process that at best takes weeks, usually months. The only viable route for a notable (i.e. busy) person is to donate a picture they took. I can see that this isn't fool proof and overchecks show that some are maybe lying, but this used to be covered by AGF.... and the route through Flickr is usually addressed in this way. It appears that somebody has changed the process but forgotten to take the larger project consensus with them. WMF advises to load selfies and picture people have taken. I'm not recognising this conversation within my experience of Wikimedia's objective. Can you explain how Wikipedia's advice can get so out of kilter with this commons village pump conversation? Victuallers (talk) 12:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Where "WMF advises to load selfies and picture people have taken"? Are you aware that people can post permission for their selfies and other works on their websites or social media presences and then refer to those posts on file description pages or DRs or UDRs, as an alternative to OTRS?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jeff, I am. That is a good route but many academics, for instance, have web pages on their organisations page and that comes with a thoughtless "all rights reserved" put on by the web developer (I'm trying to fix that). If I have a Prof on Twitter or on email who is willing to donate images then I would send them the advise that is on the en:Wikipedia. If WikiCommons has changed its policy then it needs to get this advise changed on wiki and en:wikipedia needs to stop moving images to commons in case they get deleted. I hope this is a misunderstanding. Victuallers (talk) 12:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@El Grafo:@Patrick Rogel: I would really like to get this sorted out Patrick. You ask "Am I sure of it"??. Yep! We talk most days. Deletions of files is a regular cry of help/frustration on the Women in Red project twitter feed. There users are not "speaking up sooner" because they have less faith in the process and assume that they are just being treated in a random way. This is all symptomatic however. What really worries me is the mismatch between your advice about not loading selfies and en:wikipedia. If your interpretation is what is being used (in "current processes") then you need to advice en:wiki so we can stop advising these people to use commons and find a different route (en:wiki?) that supports the wiki objective. Can you advise? Victuallers (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: You still haven't answered exactly where "WMF advises to load selfies and picture people have taken". Unless I can find it, I can't address it there.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, here's some real practical advice from a pragmatic mass uploader:
  1. Do not use OTRS, it takes too long for any human.
  2. As the photographer, publish your photograph on Flickr using your own account. If you don't have a Flickr account, they are free, quick and easy to set up, just make sure that in the profile you say who you are and link to a respectable work page, personal blog or similar so that the profile looks "official" and anyone wanting to verify that it really is you can email in.
  3. Upload your photograph to Flickr, make sure you pick a license that works on Commons, i.e. NOT non-commercial and NOT public domain mark, but CC-BY-SA through to CC-0 are all good options. Make sure that the image is publicly viewable, not restricted or friends only (public is the default)
  4. You or anyone else can now upload the photograph to Commons, giving the Flickr upload page as the source. A bot will come along shortly and approve it without you having to do anything more by verifying that the image on Flickr matches and the license there is appropriate.
✓ Done
Advising people to load selfies to Commons is, frankly, a nightmare. Advising them to release selfies on Flickr using an attribution license is a lot easier and it's really easy for Commons regulars to upload them with the built in wizard on request.
-- (talk) 15:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Flickr accounts are pretty much the same as Commons accounts, aren't they? Anybody can create one with any name they like? I'm not sure what is gained by going through Flickr vs creating a Commons account with the same information. --ghouston (talk) 06:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
It is. but thats the irony. Flickr images are basically never deleted if the license there is correct. But if you upload here as a new user you'll get the otrs permission tag which people will not understand and then your image will be deleted. Amada44  talk to me 12:36, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Can I restate the problem, or can someone tell me where to discuss it. It seems to be agreed that its a mess.

WE ARE ADVISING PEOPLE ON WIKIPEDIA TO LOAD PICTURES WHICH VOLUNTEERS HERE DELETE.

- This needs fixing. Is it commons policy to deny anyone from loading a picture? - Cos I do it all the time with no issues. What is the policy. Is Flickrwashing officially OK? Are @El Grafo:@Patrick Rogel: correct, or do they need to take a different line. Victuallers (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Per my list above, it's never called Flickrwashing if someone verifiably links their real information in their Flickr profile, so there is a professional website and an email contact to check if there are licensing questions.
Yes, basically though it is not a deliberate Commons policy to deny anyone from loading a picture, there is effectively an assumption of bad faith for selfies. If you are advising volunteers to upload to Commons without warning them about quite likely deletion unless the license is nitpicker proof, then it's not good advice. However once a Flickr bot has rubber stamped a reasonable looking upload as Flickr license verified, it become highly unlikely that anyone will ever look at the upload.
Commons is not going to change, these licensing policies are fundamental. The advice on Wikipedia needs to become more robust or follow a different workflow for the same outcome.
A pragmatic reframing might be for you to set up an "official" WiR Flickrstream, where you are in control and WiR volunteers (and perhaps some Commons regulars) upload photos and double check the validity of the release, before uploading to Commons. At the end of the day, it's not an unmanageable number of photos. -- (talk) 13:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: Yes it needs cleaning: a Wikimedia UK member has enacted his own text back in 2016 which is neither a rule or a recommendations (and I don't know why it's on English Wikipedia main) and seems contradictory ("This usually means that you took the image yourself (...) You must not upload pictures taken by professional photographers, even if you or your employer paid them, if you did not agree a transfer of copyright.) to an official Commons policy ("Private image collections, e.g. private party photos, photos of yourself and your friends, your collection of holiday snaps and so on. There are plenty of other projects on the Internet you can use for such a purpose, such as Flickr. Such private image collections do not become educational even if displayed as a gallery on a user page on Commons or elsewhere."). So IMO you should rather rely on WMF official guidelines and people afraid of OTRS may follow Jeff G. or Fæ recommendations. --Patrick Rogel (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
There's more than one way to skin a cat. I think there should also be an official, easy but robust way to have pictures uploaded by newbies to Commons with a correct license, apart from external companies like Flickr. I guess you all know Wikiportret, an initiative by the Dutch Wikimedia chapter. This is a website with a low treshold, while at the same time applying the same Commons copyright rules. Result so far: 4,500 uploads. I think a Commons initiative like commons.wikiportrait.org could be one of the solutions for this problem. Vysotsky (talk) 14:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Patrick Rogel: If you're going to discuss me, have the courtesy to ping me. If you're going to quote something I wrote, please do not quote it out of context. And please explain why you think my being a member of Wikimedia UK is relevant? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:08, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: I suppose Victuallers was refering to Wikipedia UK when saying "we are!!!" (telling people to load selfies) since he was chair of Wikimedia UK too. You should rather explain him why he thinks you are "telling people to load selfies". --Patrick Rogel (talk) 15:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
LOL, as another past Chair of Wikimedia UK, what I write here has as much to do with that local chapter. Don't confuse our projects from several years ago with our current volunteer activities and associations. -- (talk) 18:32, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I would agree Fae's Flickr-based workflow above.
One further point to it is that it can also be used to maintain some degree of privacy. Flickr offers some privacy, and is relatively light on stalking. OTOH, WP editors should not release their own names in their account names or userspace, as WP isn't a safe space - especially not if you're near WiR or simply female.
What Yann has done here is to WP:OUT a Commons account which had chosen to not personally identify themselves. And to delete their uploads as long as they refuse to. WTF? How is that in any way acceptable, and how can it be seen as any sort of reason for deletion?? Do they really require EXIF data to say "Carries mum", on pain of deletion? Andy Dingley (talk) 15:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: In most cases when EXIF contains something that's very different from the uploader's user name, the photos are suspicious enough and warrent deletion per COM:PCP. It takes extra work to find out w:Dawn Bazely is notable and mom to a Carrie. This information is too obscure. Most admins wont and shouldnt be expected to do extra work in this case.--Roy17 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • "In most cases". Are we discussing the general issue, or what has happened here?
In most cases, the EXIF is blank. It is not a widely used channel, other than for technical metadata. I know I've uploaded some here with someone else's name on, because I'd borrowed their camera, in their house, to take a photo of their robot, so that I could upload it to Commons (over their wifi). Others have a university's name on, because I was using a pretty specialist camera, which again I'd borrowed. I don't know if I've ever bothered to set it to my own name on any of my uploads.
In this case, there is still no reason for "Dawn Bazely" to contradict "Carries mum". Let alone to delete such content immediately, without even a DR. It doesn't even say "Carrie", it says "Carries mum" (of whom we don't know their name, but "Dawn" is an entirely plausible name for them). We do not require EXIF data. We do not require EXIF data to match some other value, such as the account name (we do not require account names to be personally identifying). There is nothing suspicious about this EXIF (as "Copyright of the East Podunk Daily Chipwrap" might do so). Yann was entirely wrong to delete it on that basis alone, and was particularly wrong to do so without using our regular community-visible process to do so.
And in this case, it turns out that Googling does answer the question pretty rapidly.
Yes, there are cases when EXIF inconsistencies can make us suspicious. But this was not such a case. Nor should admins behave in such a manner and delete immediately, ignoring both the community deletion process, or any requirement to notify the uploader User talk:Carries mum. All for a fatuous and easily disproven suspicion. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
@Andy Dingley: to be fair, it was not Yann but User:Jcb. User talk:Carries mum was notified when it was tagged npd. Yann was just checking upon concern highlighted by this thread. I believe a UDR is justified.
To be honest, I have not come across a sysop that's willing to do the kind of Googling I do. I do this all the time out of curiosity and because I always try to keep photos on Commons. Honestly my habit wastes my life though.
It is not uncommon to find non-technical EXIF, authors, organisations, file descriptions, contact info and whatnot.
It's pretty common to find cases like this too. Students/staff grab photos from professors' websites and upload here. Carrie's mom could well be a former student or staff of Professor Bazely. Then, COM:PCP.
Even with this information that Bazely is indeed mom to a Carrie, some sysop would still insist on OTRS. I guess for example Jcb is almost certainly one.--Roy17 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Jcb deleted on the basis of lack of permission, last year (I can't see any more details). It was Yann who raised the EXIF as a reason. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I would propose an alternative strategy to Fae's. For any notable individual who owns an official webpage/blog/whatever and wishes to upload images to Wikipedia/Commons without the hassle of OTRS:
  1. Register a wiki account. On his/her Commons/wikipedia user page, write down I am John Doe (or John Doe's representative).
  2. On his/her official webpage, put up a subpage/blog that contains the wiki user page link.
  3. Put link#2 on userpage#1 too.
  4. Start uploading pictures.
Isn't this a much simpler way to verify personal identity/authorisation? To be extra safe, back up link#2 on archive.org once. Step#1 is better to be a Commons user page, because enwp seems to be so stringent on COI/imposters/scam that they often strike down new user pages containing too much personal details and indef ban them.--Roy17 (talk) 17:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I want to add my support to Roy’s suggestion above. As said OTRS is slow and crowded and should be suggested only for the thorniest cases (like heirs wanting to post family photos and such); publication on a recognized institutional or personal website allows the matter to be solved much faster, by enabling any user with the COM:LR flag to accredit the permission. The mentioned fact that most websites have an ARR notice should not be a problem if the Commons-compatible license for the file in question is clearly identified as such, excepting it from the remaining no-license content. -- Tuválkin 01:07, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

RestorationEdit

Why hasn't the image in the OP been restored, yet? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:34, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

  • So why it is that we accept images from people who use an anonymous name without question, why dont we demand that every user be identified surely every user is equal. On that note I know a user who works in the "professional broadcast media" and contributes photographs of notable people taken while interviewing them and has never once been questioned this person uses an anonymous name. There is a select group of people that are no different to us and want to contribute anonymously but because they may be "famous" as soon as someone get a whiff of that potential they roll out OTRS & COM:PCP and demand complex rituals to let them continue. Gnangarra 23:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I don't have the time to really dive into this discussion, but I'd like to hint at another possible solution for some cases: The German language Wikipedia handles this kind of thing through verified accounts in a spirit similar to what Twitter, Youtube etc. are doing. --El Grafo (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Some useful advice here but I don't think we have nailed the issue here. Just as an aside, when is say "We do" I mean the whole wikimedia project. The whole shabang. Commons provides a valuable service to other projects so it needs to make its entry routes clear. Several editors here talk to real people. We are so convinced that we are talking to Professor Made-up-name, that we are embarrassed to ask for proof (but we do). These are real people with real lives. Now I am going to assume that no one thinks that OTRS is a great solution here. We cannot get it to work efficiently and busy people are going to lose interest with a process that takes more than a day or so.
So we are talking to real people and they are more than willing to give us a picture. They will say "there it is on my web page on the university of oxbridge". We explain that we cannot use that and we would then point them to agreed instructions. On wikipedia we have clear instructions as to what to do. The consensus here appears to be that this won't work - but you are not correcting the instructions. I think that its a pity that the gatekeepers here are unrepentant that we are deleting selfie files that our project wants those people to load. But OK. So if selfies are banned then we can cope with that. They can get their secretaries to take pictures of them and then load them under the secretaries name - I can see that there is now a bigger proof of consent, but we will have to ignore this. Obviously this particular file that prompted this discussion is important but its not the point. Commons needs to have clear instructions as to what to do
The conversation goes like this
us) Hi Professor Made-up-name could we have a rights free pic for Wikipedia?
them) Sure, what do I have to do?
us) Well we have to load it to a project called Wikimedia Commons, it is run by very nice people who want to help. They say that in order to get it loaded quickly we need to prove that you give permission
Professor Made-up-name) I do
us) and that you are who you say you are
Professor Made-up-name) Thats odd, but OK
us) We have this page on Wikipedia called "en:Wikipedia:A picture of you" and IT NOW says ...
What should it say? Victuallers (talk) 17:26, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@Victuallers: That page "Wikipedia:A picture of you" says nothing, as it does not exist. "en:Wikipedia:A picture of you", on the other hand, gives a warped view of reality on Commons. If you are notable and the picture is a selfie, you probably have some sort of web presence (website, social media, whatever) where you can post permission for that selfie, which you can then refer to when uploading on Commons. If it is not a selfie, then we need permission from the photographer, either directly (they would upload) or indirectly (a copy of the contract transferring copyright, sent via OTRS).   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
The latter is what that page says. The former is not a requirement. And snarking over Victuallers's broken link (now fixed) is really unnecessary and unhelpful. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:05, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: Regarding restoration, please post a request to COM:UDR.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:53, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
My question was "Why hasn't the image in the OP been restored, yet?". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:01, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Funny, two topics of the same issue. To giant projects being affect by Commons volunteers that want to delete, and delete. And the solution is to create bureaucracy. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 22:25, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

About this Fae "tips" to upload at Flickr, pleas don't!!!
The only way to have Flickr maximum quality is paying for the account, otherwise the size and quality of the image will decrease!
Also, anyone can create a Flickr account and upload, not a solution.
How about we do not remove the "source" as was this case (and the case above also)??
If you could find any other online source showing that this was a violation of copyright, we do not delete, how difficult is that?
You are deleting files with no strong evidences of copyvio, you are going to very a very bad path.
OTRS is not a good solution, is a huge bureaucracy, serious, we should over this modus operandi of remove the source and then delete. This is an absurd.
If this is a clear copyvio, finding the source, okay delete, strong suspicious, {{delete}}, kind of suspicious, because of the quality, let it go, you don't have evidences, do not bother the volunteer. -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 02:28, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Thanks for finding the error in my link. You say that it gives a "warped view of reality on Commons". That was my point! You can claim that this is not "your" project, but no one outside wikimedia is going to notice that. They will notice that THE page on Wikipedia which advises about loading pictures of yourself just sets newbies up to fail. I work for Loughborough University and I have a page there - but I cannot change the license. I have a page on Wikimedia commons - but I cannot change the license. I have a page on Twitter - but I cannot change the license. I understand html. I can use Microsoft word to knock out a web page and load it under a domain I control and I can change the license. Does that convince you that the picture was taken by me? I really want some advise for newbies. If the answer is that that commons doesnt allow selfies then lets see that written down so we can get them stored elsewhere. At the moment I'm assuming than commons wants to help notable people have free to use pictures.As @Fae: notes we CAN get these pictures loaded to Flickr or similar sites but does that really convince anyone? I have loaded pictures of myself to commons and no one is bothered. I don't think its acceptable that you say that the current advise is "warped". Compared to what? What is commons policy? I would like to see as @Rodrigo.Argenton: proposes that commons policy should use AGF but can you make it work? I have other ideas but I don't want to confuse THE question.
I have a notable person who is willing to donate a picture to commons - how can they do this in 24/48 hours or less?

Is there no answer to this question? Surely commons should have a policy or how do we/you justify deleting other people donations? Victuallers (talk) 17:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

@Victuallers: I don't know what kind of instruction you cannot find. Suppose a person lands on Wikimedia Commons for the first time. There is a blue button of Upload on the main page. Click it. It tells you Please log in to upload files. Click Log In. Click Join Wikimedia Commons. All set. Since the notable person or his/her secretary has 24 hours, File:Licensing tutorial en.svg shouldn't be too hard to read. If the graphic and the uploadwizard are not helpful, there is a link right on top that says, Please visit Commons:Help desk if you need to ask questions about uploading files.
Tell them to spend a little time walking through the process, please.--Roy17 (talk) 18:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Ummm , I know its a long thread above. But the editors who control this process say that you cannot load selfies and that they will delete them, and they do! even though they have no evidence to support copyright infringement they assume it. This is not one lost file, this is happening repeatedly. I cannot refer donators to a process where our volunteers believe that the instructions are not correct. Read the comments about the advice given on en:wiki. If only you were correct. I believe commons has a set of instructions on the home page that the gatekeepers feel is too lax. I would love it if you were correct. Victuallers (talk) 22:34, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
Just to confirm there are no answers here. Please ping me if you find one. I will point out that commons continues to allow en:wiki to advise users to donate files which its volunteers then delete. I am going to look elsewhere for a resolution but I am concerned that no one is really bothered about this. We have notable people in the real world who we have convinced that it may be A WASTE OF TIME TO DONATE IMAGES TO COMMONS even if you know that the image is free to use. I can only agree with them at the moment. Which saddens me no end. Victuallers (talk) 13:59, 12 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 10Edit

Cleaning up Russavia's crapEdit

See also Category talk:To do.

Russavia used over a dozen socks to dump tens of thousands of images in various maintenance categories. I want to take them back out. When I process all those files, putting in a few additional replacements will take little effort. So suggestions for that are welcome. I currently can't really continue as I'm waiting for my request for noratelimit to hopefully be approved. Soon after that, I want to process Category talk:To do. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 19:39, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Accounts like DarwIn or me are not Russavia socks, and our uploads may outnumber anything that Russavia had a hand in. Lots of the "check" categories are more a non-essential precaution to ensure that at some point a pair of human eyes make sure the text and categories make sense against the actual image. A bot is not the way to take those sorts of uploads out of the check category.
Keep in mind that these mass uploads for avionics were a smart move, as in many cases the licensing at source has become more restrictive, or the particular source has since vanished. Thanks -- (talk) 19:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
@: Nobody will ever look at all of them. The uploader is not planning on checking them either. Without any clarification of what should be checked for, nobody else even could check them. If these maintenance categories are to be maintained, a clear definition of what the files should be checked for has to be provided. In the case of {{Check categories}}, that template was usually added years after the actual upload. I'm not complaining about the mass uploads, but these vague "check" categories are not useful like this. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 20:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
"what should be checked for" can be put on each category page.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 08:35, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Yes, unless nobody really knows. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: The person who created each category had a reason for doing so.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: What if they are gone and we'll never figure out what that reason was? - Alexis Jazz ping plz 14:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: I imagine in most cases it's just a generic "this image was uploaded by a bot and needs to be checked for bot-related weirdness" (e.g. {{To check category header}}). Usually the only maintenance that's needed is refining the categories, but of course bots occasionally misinterpret things and get weird results. I create these types of categories a lot for my uploads. BMacZero (talk) 15:31, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Then we guess. Are there particular categories which concern you in this regard?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 20:17, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: Category:Photographs by Eva Rinaldi (check needed)‎ and Category:Photographs by the State Chancellery of Latvia (check needed). - Alexis Jazz ping plz 05:05, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Category:Photographs by Eva Rinaldi (check needed) was created by globally banned Russavia, so we can't ask him. It contains 5,644 files allegedly by Eva Rinaldi of Eva Rinaldi Photography, mass imported from her Flickrstream. From the first page, the files are all photos, mostly of people, but without {{personality}}. They should be checked for that and dws. Similarly, Category:Photographs by the State Chancellery of Latvia (check needed) contains 11,750 files, allegedly by Saeima for the Public Relations Department of Parliament of Latvia AKA the State Chancellery of Latvia, and they should be checked similarly.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:58, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
For my mass uploads around that time which are in these maintenance categories, there might have been some automatic categorization (honestly cannot remember), the reason for including the check cat is the obvious one, a pair of human eyes to make sure that it makes sense, and the image is what its title says it is.
It is an unhelpful starting position to presume that everything is "crap", a small bit of semi-automated housekeeping will probably rapidly shrink the size of the backlog, were anyone motivated to act positively on this. Effectively being shouted at for the crime of running a perfectly good mass upload gives me zero incentive to spend time helping with these. The uploads generated no serious complaints in the years since, in fact many have proved useful options for Wikipedia and journalists with respect to major stories with aircraft incidents, so maybe the best response you can expect from me here is meh. -- (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • If the recent changes were not polluted by thousands of edits which first added and then removed (?) Category:To do, it would be easier to see what's the traffic over those subcategories of Category:Media needing category review by date. Unconditionally mass-removing them serves what purpose? Nemo 12:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

May 11Edit

Need your presence at Featured video candidatesEdit

FPCandiateicon.svg We request the honor of your presence at Featured video candidates
Dear User,
Featured video candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating your videos for the FV tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating videos now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 20:47, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

This is good, I saw some people requesting this, hopefully this will inspire more people to upload video's to Wikimedia Commons. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:55, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 12:38, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Note, however, that for videos same copyright restrictions apply. That is, if in this video a probably unfree building in France is prominently visible, {{NoFoP-France}} is as relevant as for a photo of this building, I guess. --A.Savin 12:54, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

May 12Edit

Painted windows, fake windows and blind windowsEdit

Hello! As I was trying to categorize some photos, I found out that there's some confusion with painted/blind/fake windows. Currently we have Category:Painted windows and Category:Blind windows. As I understand it, it should be as follows:

Any thoughts? -- Syrio posso aiutare? 13:51, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Syrio: I have posted this for discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2019/05/Category:Painted windows. Josh (talk) 16:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
For clarity on the difference between "blind" and "bricked-up" windows, some architects deliberately incorporated blind windows to achieve a symmetrical facade. I'd say that bricked-up windows were originally not blind by design but have been obscured at a later date. Rodhullandemu (talk) 13:29, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
As for fake windows, I'd prefer "Trompe l'oeil windows". Rodhullandemu (talk) 22:28, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Hathi Trust login neededEdit

I want to add some PDFs from the Hathi Trust website, but am hitting a "Partner login required" restriction. Does anyone have a log-in, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:53, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: You can use Hathi Download Helper. This works very well for me. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

May 13Edit

Upload wizard: "Add Data" tabEdit

Hi folks,

in late April or early May, the upload wizard got a new tab, and the last but one step of the upload process asks for data. No way, I don't support a commercial database. Where can I switch off the nasty question (ask never again)? Thanks, --Cimbail (talk) 17:01, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Ahh, forget about this question. In December Commons intrduced "structured data" with CC-0 tags, and now the embarrassing questions for data, with every new upload. My career in commons is finished, I'm not interested in data, data has NOTHING to do with knowledge, and I'm fed up with this wikidata pile of shit. --Cimbail (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Cimbail I am a bit puzzled by your reaction. Commons is modernizing the way we store data, shifting from all-text format to more organized format. That should not "finish" your "career in commons". If you do not like current upload wizard you can always go back to the uploader we used years ago or even uploader we used a decade ago. --Jarekt (talk) 17:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
For reference, this new tab was announced above at #Depicts_statements_now_available_in_the_UploadWizard.
Besides what Jarekt said, do note that this step is entire optional (it even comes after your files are already uploaded).
Jean-Fred (talk) 20:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
data has NOTHING to do with knowledge I never knew. Thank you for educating me. Presumably you're also against adding categories, machine-readable licence templates, and so on? Oh, wait, here's your latest upload: File:Red Chittagong cattle, Bangladesh (2).jpg. Lots of data there. 21:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits
Captions probably should have been moved "after your files are already uploaded" too. Said that, if Cimbail does not feel comfortable with "Structured data" and prefer "Unstructured" or "Semi-structured data"... their choice. Commons without the Structured-data-bit is commercial too, if "commercial" means their content can be used for commercial purposes. My concerns on "highly efficient databasing" are breaching contributors' privacy too easily, by allowing SPARQL-querying their contributions in the most inimaginable ways: place-wise, date-wise (...). It could be really creepy. Strakhov (talk) 23:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
  • To correct Jarekt’s snide reference to the «uploader we used a decade ago», please note that Special:Upload is termed at Commons:Upload (Jarekt’s «uploader we used years ago») as the «Upload form for experienced users» and «the main upload form». I for one never ever used Special:UploadWizard for any expedite work (although I tested it a few times, always apalled at its repulsive basic concept, that users are brainless meat bots, and always amazed at each newly added broken bell and faulty whistle) and have always used Special:Upload for all my non-mass uploads ever since DerivativeFX died. -- Tuválkin 11:35, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
  • side note @Tuvalkin:, I tried DerivativeFX at wmflabs last month and was surprised to see that it seems to be working just like it used to. --El Grafo (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    DerivativeFX has had recent maintenance/development by User:Steinsplitter. Jean-Fred (talk) 12:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
    I am totally with User:Tuvalkin here. I find Special:Upload tremendously more useful than the Wizard.
    At the Wikimedia Conference last year (and also somewhere in the Commons discussions for structured data, but it's been a while and I don't know where) I tried and failed to sell the Wikidata team on providing a serialization/deserialization approach that would allow structured data to be incorporated into Special:Upload, but they have seemed completely uninterested in doing so.
    Do we have any statistics on what percentage of uploads are done via Special:Upload? I suspect that a lot of us who are among the most active users use it a lot. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

May 14Edit

Strange file count for Category "North Yorkshire"Edit

While cleaning up Category:North Yorkshire a little, I noticed that the number of files given for this category in its parent categories Category:Yorkshire, Category:Counties of England, Category:North East England, Category:Yorkshire and the Humber, as well as in the "invisible" parent categories is off by 1718 (e.g. when the file count should read "(46 C, 2 F)", it reads "(46 C, 1720 F)"). This has been the case for some months now. What happened here, and how can such an occurrence be corrected? --Schlosser67 (talk) 10:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

It's an old bug dating back to 2008: phab:T18036.--Roy17 (talk) 14:44, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Need your presence at Featured sound candidatesEdit

FPCandiateicon.svg We request the honor of your presence at Featured sound candidates
Dear User,
Featured sound candidates needs your help and you can participate by reviewing or nominating sounds for the FS tag.

You can start reviewing/nominating sounds now. Welcome! -- Eatcha (Talk-Page ) 12:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

This is a great development, hopefully other types of media such as books and documents will also receive this treatment soon. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Storage of PDFs of Wikipedia: Books CollectionsEdit

Hi,

as known PDF Version of Wikibooks are quite common on Commons, and quite some of them were uploaded by me. Still PDF Versions of Wikipedia Articles are not allowed. What I want to do now is to upload PDF Versions of Wikipedia Books. A Wikipedia Book is a collection of Wikipedia articles.

In former days there used to be a rendering service on Wikipedia that created PDFs from Wikipedia Books. This service has been decommissioned. As detailed in the following post summarizing the discussion a replacement is not expectable in the near future.

https://www.mediawiki.org/w/index.php?title=Topic:Uxkv0ib36m3i8vol&topic_showPostId=uxsjbpkqfmgq1jyx#flow-post-uxsjbpkqfmgq1jyx

So I propose that I render a PDF for each Wikipedia Book in my home and upload the on Commons. This way the PDFs are available to the users again.

Since I need to buy hardware, write software, set up everything and let it run for a few months, I do need a definitive answer whether I can upload those PDFs before I start this process.

Possibly some official voting procedure needs to be followed in order to get a community consensus decision. So I am also very happy if you could tell me which process I have to follow in order to achieve such a decision.

Yours Dirk Hünniger (talk) 15:03, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

If WMF doesn't have resources, may be one of local chapters could take over? Or dedicated conversion project should be created, if PDFs versions are so important? --EugeneZelenko (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
In my opinion PDF of wikipedia articles are not useful. They only eat up disk space but bring nothing new to the wiki projects. They may also contain unchecked copyrighted text or fair use images.--Roy17 (talk) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi, the point about fair use is an really important one. I will surely run into this problem. Excluding fair use images in the PDFs does not make much sense. So Commons is simply not a place where I can store those files due to this licensing issue. Thanks a lot for explaining this to me. I will look into different possibilities to store those files. Dirk Hünniger (talk) 21:13, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

May 15Edit

Proposed, relatively minor, change to Blocking PolicyEdit

Your feedback needed!

Gnome-stock person bot.svg

Refer to Commons_talk:Blocking_policy#Proposal_to_change_wording_for_"unauthorized_bot_accounts".

This adapts the wording of "unauthorized bot accounts", to focus on the use of blocks to halt large scale automation without implying that any such automation would always require an approved bot flag. This should better cater for disruptive events such as misuse of standard tools which have never required a bot flag. -- (talk) 11:59, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

May 16Edit

Automated tool for individual Library of Congress files?Edit

Is there such a tool/script that can import files or at least archival information on a case-by-case basis? I am moving USGov files from enwiki. Sometimes I find much better versions on loc.gov. For example en:File:Trolley at Glen Echo.jpg comes from https://www.loc.gov/pictures/item/2017745368/ . A tool that imports archival information and organises it in {{photograph}} would save much time.--Roy17 (talk) 15:15, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Pinging @.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 15:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
No. I do have a version of my LOC uploading script that can pull in very specific collections based on a LOC query, such as a search for a 'LOT' number. However I was intending rebuild how this works from the ground up. It's a background project for me that will probably take several months to get around to, depending on how many real life events take priority. -- (talk) 16:40, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

New entrance for "Captions"Edit

  • There are well established tools to describe a file in various languages in the {{int:filedesc}} by Information → {{en|…, {{de|… etc..
  • This board could be usable by innovative editors, too.
  • It has been a foolish idea to create a different entrance, which is incompatible with the wiki code.

--Ulamm (talk) 21:21, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Not that it will necessarily convince you, but you may read more on the reason for this at Commons:File captions. :-) Jean-Fred (talk) 08:37, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Ulamm: You’re absolutely right, and the points you raise now were discussed prior to the launch of this feature. To no avail, alas. -- Tuválkin 11:37, 17 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)

National Gallery of ArtEdit

Hi, Has anyone any idea how to get such a high resolution for File:House of Père Lacroix E11039.jpg, File:Flowers in a Rococo Vase A24470.jpg, and File:Le Garçon au gilet rouge, par Paul Cézanne, National Gallery of Art.jpg? The ones available for me are much lower, around 2500 x 4000 pixels. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:26, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Apparently, AAvindraa is the uploade of these 3 images, so he should be able to tell, but it will be related to Help:Zoomable images. — Speravir – 22:12, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh dear spelling mistake, it is Aavindraa. — Speravir – 22:15, 17 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)

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)

Translation requiredEdit

Can someone translate this File:13. البحيرة المسحورة بمحمية وادي الريان بالفيوم .. مصر.jpg first? It is some lake in the sand.Smiley.toerist (talk) 20:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
A lake in Wadi Al Rayyan covers it. Broichmore (talk) 21:20, 18 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

File:Ray Strachey.jpg vs. File:Ray Strachey restored.jpg and File:Ray Strachey restored.pngEdit

I understand that one doesn't want the {{FlickrVerifiedByUploadWizard|Flickr-no known copyright restrictions}} template added to new images without it being verified, but it does seem odd that I have to remove it in order to save a file that's a derivative of it. I'm not sure there's a perfect solution to this, though. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

May 20Edit

Request to add Ottoman Turkish name label to textEdit

When using "ota" (Ottoman Turkish) the name "لسان عثمانى‎" does not yet display

العربية: ABC
Ota: ABC

Would an admin mind adding the label "لسان عثمانى‎"? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 01:46, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

WhisperToMe, this is perhaps better asked in Commons:Administrators' noticeboard or even in Phabricator. Ottoman Turkish is actually also written right to left, isn’t it? Then this has to be fixed, too. — Speravir – 21:56, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Oops, phab:T59342 is claimed to be resolved. — Speravir – 22:00, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

File:Fredrikke Mørck.jpg, File:Fredrikke_Mørck.png, and File:Fredrikke Mørck - Original.jpgEdit

This is a... bit oddly licensed if you ask me. Can someone please review this? The user, Magnunor has some files of... dubious status like File:Trygve Knudsen.jpg, so I'd really appreciate a license check against Norwegian law. and {{PD-Scan}}, because I don't claim my restorations' copyright generally, and wouldn't here, but... Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)


Given Commons:Copyright_rules_by_territory/Norway talks about the old photograph law - "Under the former photo law, protection ended 25 years after creation, provided that more than 15 years had passed since the photographer's death or the photographer is unknown. The image is in the public domain if this older term already had expired as of 29 June 1995." - I think we're almost certainly fine here, but I'd like to be sure. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:51, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Anyway, if someone can help, please don't worry about my rights as a British restorationist - I'm very happy to release my rights in this case and any other that I haven't explicitly claimed them. Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:55, 21 May 2019 (UTC)