Commons:Village pump

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:


 
Thatched water pump at Aylsham, Norfolk [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

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


May 16Edit

RFC: Acceptance of the Brazilian Flickr photostream mturdestinos (163189519@N03)Edit

For the sake of settling this problem once and for all, I request comments from the community to decide

Are photos from https://www.flickr.com/people/163189519@N03 accepted or rejected on Commons?

Fact: https://www.flickr.com/people/163189519@N03 is operated by the Brazilian Ministério do Turismo (Ministry of Tourism).

I believe they are acceptable on Commons for the following reasons:

  1. Todas as fotos com a tag MTurDestinos são de domínio público e tem permissão de uso livre e por tempo indeterminado para uso total e irrestrito e gratuito em praça nacional e internacional, exceto as imagens com a tag “fotos humanizadas 2018” que possuem pessoas onde o direito de uso é pelo período de 05 (cinco) anos a contar do dia 03 de Abril de 2018.
  2. Ministério do Turismo released a statement, which confirmed the authenticity of this Flickr account and its licences.

If the decision is accept, then this section will be a useful reference whenever someone DR such files.
If the decision is reject, then please list 163189519@N03 at COM:QFI so no future import is possible.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I would like to invite @Érico, Marcos Elias de Oliveira Júnior: because they had dealt with photos from this account.--Roy17 (talk) 11:20, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
My English is not the best, so I am using the translator. As mentioned, MTur images are in the public domain and can be used freely without any restrictions. Based on that, I uploaded these images to Commons. Soon after, I received a warning from user @Ronhjones: on my discussion page that the images could be deleted, thus questioning the veracity of the license. As @Érico: is a Commons administrator and I have a certain affinity with him on Wikipedia in Portuguese, I decided to ask him about this question and suggested using {{Attribution}}. The suggestion was accepted, so I asked him to restore the images to include the respective tag. Marquinhos talk 14:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)
Clearly we'd have to stay away from the “fotos humanizadas 2018” since those have rights that expire (I've never heard of such a thing, bizarre: if you use it in a book is the book supposed to vanish in 2023?). I think probably we should make up a special template for the uploads from this account, much as we do for particular open-ended OTRS tags. - Jmabel ! talk 17:37, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Jmabel. The statement of Brazilian Ministry of Tourism clearly allows the use of these files under our licence. Érico (talk) 13:09, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

It seems that the Brazilian Ministry of Tourism legitimately wants to share these images freely. The only thing they have done wrong is they have mistakenly tagged their images with the CC Public Domain mark rather than a CC license. Since it looks like they are at least requesting attribution ("Crédito obrigatório"), using the {{Attribution}} tag seems appropriate. They definitely shouldn't be deleted. Kaldari (talk) 00:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

May 23Edit

United Kingdom General Register Office certificatesEdit

Are these certificates okay for Commons?

Are GRO certificates of birth, marriage, and death okay to be uploaded to Commons (from a copyright perspective)? An example of a GRO birth certificate is at right: it was issued in 2007, but the actual content of it dates from 1868. I'm assuming it's covered by crown copyright, and the UK government advice used to be that "copyright in the layout of certificates is owned by the Crown. The Crown does not assert any rights of ownership in the contents of the forms." and that users "are authorised to reproduce the layout of the form in any format including on the web, in films and in print." But I haven't been able to find the same information in a non-archived web page. Can anyone help me? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 07:30, 23 May 2020 (UTC)

Crown copyright does not apply to works that were published before 1970. So, if the design of this form hasn't changed since 1969 or earlier, then these certificates would be ok. Otherwise I'm afraid they're still copyrighted and non-free. There is a chance though that the meta:Open Government Licence would apply, but I'm not certain about this. De728631 (talk) 16:33, 23 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Hmm, interesting, thanks! I'll see if I can dig up some examples from pre-1970 then. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 05:07, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@Samwilson: That would be great. On another note, would you mind uploading File:Birth Certificate - George Edward Meek 1868.jpg with a higher resolution? In its current state it is almost not readable and so the file is hardly useful for our purposes. De728631 (talk) 13:49, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: no can do, I'm afraid: I didn't upload it. I was just using it as an example (found in Category:Birth certificates of the United Kingdom) because I have a dozen of these certificates that I'd like to upload (mine are all high-res). I'll do some more research first. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 00:12, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
@Samwilson: Oops, my bad. It was in fact uploaded by one Ggbarber and not by you. De728631 (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
the design should be either pd or not original enough for copyright. birth certs from Hong Kong from early 20th century look the same.--Roy17 (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

May 25Edit

Categorisation loop related to moviesEdit

There are two kinds of cats that will lead to loops—filmography of XYZ and actors of movie ABC. Example: cat:Ewan McGregor → Ewan McGregor filmography → Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) → Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors → Ewan McGregor.

How should this be avoided? Which one of these two kinds of cats should be banned, or both, maybe?--Roy17 (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

After some pondering, I think it makes more sense to have filmography of XYZ rather than actors/cast/crew of movie. Each film/TV series/play is a work of the artist. Person -> Person's artistic creation. This flow seems to obey the hierarchic principle better.--Roy17 (talk) 17:11, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
  • That kind of loop is fully acceptable. -- Tuválkin 22:22, 25 May 2020 (UTC)
    • Not only acceptable, but desired. Going from an actor’s work to the actor is just as useful as going the other way. Brianjd (talk) 12:42, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
Loops are a problem when categories have a diffusing relationship, meaning that if category A is in category B, then all files from category A also could be considered part of category B. Here Ewan McGregor → Ewan McGregor filmography and Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) → Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors are non-diffusing relationships, while Ewan McGregor filmography → Beauty and the Beast (2017 film) and Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors → Ewan McGregor are diffusing relationships. Unfortunately, it seems like Commons does not have a good way of distinguishing between them. I've started a thread a few days ago on this topic: Commons:Village pump/Technical#Mark subcategorization as non-diffusing. -- King of ♥ 14:14, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
loops are forbidden. the cat tree is to put things in a hierarchic or causal order, not to link/tag things to any related topics.--Roy17 (talk) 23:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Roy17, Tuvalkin, King of Hearts: Well, this is interesting. I turns out that the relevant policy actually supports what Roy17 said:
    There should be no cycles (i.e. a category should not contain itself, directly or indirectly).
I’d like to think that Tuválkin, King of Hearts and I are all reasonably experienced users (one of us is even an admin), yet we all failed to pick up on this. Does anyone know the origin of this policy and if there are recent discussions to support it? Brianjd (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Brianjd There are exceptions to every rule. Why did you delete Emma from the 2017 film only. She was in that particular movie. The studio system is dead, she is not under contract by Disney in a larger way. There will be other trees that the 2017 film features in. I would say that Beauty and the Beast (Disney) actors is limiting if not superflous or in fact separate.Broichmore (talk) 15:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

May 26Edit

Copyright questionEdit

I am looking at this page, and it claims that this video is Public Domain. I intend to spend my own money to purchase this video and upload it to Commons (which, given that it's allegedly Public Domain, should be fine). Please tell me why I cannot do that. ;) -- Wesha (talk) 00:54, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

  • Anyone can say a video is in the public domain. Do you trust them? I’m not convinced. Brianjd (talk) 01:29, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
    • And that's why I'm talking to you guys here. I want assertion that my purchase will be accepted on Wikipedia as PD before I spend my money buying it. As such, please specify what sort of evidence will convince you, and I will demand that evidence from the company along with my purchase. ("none" is not an acceptable answer). -- Wesha (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wesha: I am not a lawyer, and I don' think anyone here is operating as one. Personally, I would not recommend spending your money on this. If it is public domain, there is probably somewhere to obtain it without that sort of expenditure. If you want more expertise on copyright information (but it will still be short of being advised by an attorney), Village pump/Copyright is a better place to ask than this page. - Jmabel ! talk 02:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        • You see, the film reel itself may be public domain, but the high-res scan of it may be not readily available (As in, if I was to buy an expensive film scanner, go to a library that stores that reel, and convince them to feed that film reel through it, it will be "free" - but I will still spending money. So if somebody has already done it, why not just pay them?) -- Wesha (talk) 02:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • @Wesha: Before you try to convince us, convince yourself. Are you convinced? If so, tell us why and we might be able to work from there. Note that, under the relevant Commons policy, the burden is on the uploader to demonstrate that the work is in the public domain or under a free licence.
      Also note that this is not Wikipedia. Not that there is a single Wikipedia to begin with – there are many Wikipedias, one for each language. This is the Wikimedia Commons. All these projects are run by the same organisation but all have their own rules, sometimes very different rules. Brianjd (talk) 08:18, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      The problem is, I have convinced myself many times before, but the deletionists always win so I'm tired of wasting effort. These cases are crystal clear to me, but one copyright troll is pretty adept of convincing others (especially about the Russian copyright law s/he has no understanding of), refusing my offers to hire a professional lawyer -- with my money -- so it hurts me deeply when I see items in my possession get lost for humanity forever (I'm not immortal, you know), but when it's my effort spent that is wasted, it's fine - humanity's loss not mine, but here we are talking my money. -- Wesha (talk) 12:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • All the deletion requests you linked to are still open, so the “deletionists” haven’t “won” (yet). Also none of them has a coherent argument for keeping the files. Brianjd (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
      • Wesha has since converted “offers to hire a professional lawyer” into a link to a DR as well. At least this one is closed and has some attempt to argue this issue, although the arguments offered there seem ridiculous, as does this discussion. I expect that this will be my last comment. Brianjd (talk) 12:36, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
        1) Discussion of that DR is where I for the first time offer to hire the professional IP lawyer; anybody who cares can find my exact words there. 2) You are saying that as if the copyright law in its current form (completely ignoring the concept of "abandoned IP", like the proverbial "dog on a pile of hay") isn't ridiculous. -- Wesha (talk) 16:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
The footage is credited to U-I News, I can't find any renewal notices for them, does anyone have information on the company? I see them credited here. I can find nothing at the LOC, they must have a longer name. Can Anyone help? I am assuming that the company selling the footage has done their due diligence. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:17, 27 May 2020 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia Universal-International's owner MCA, made the decision In 1974, to donate all its edited newsreels and outtakes collection of the era in question to the National Archives, without copyright restrictions... Broichmore (talk) 14:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

May 29Edit

Maps of Georgia (Country)Edit

Hello. The parliament of Georgia has just passed an amendment to the Criminal Code of Georgia. According to the amendment, [translation is done by me, I will post the official translation when availiable]. Digital maps or printed maps, violating the principle of Georgia's territorial integrity, also creation, advertising [...] of goods with this image, as well as misinfromation regarding Georgia's territorial integrity will be punished by a penalty or improsonment up to two years. [...] the fine is 1000 usd for a physical person, and 50*1000 for legal entities." Is there anything that should be done on commons in this regard?--Melberg (talk) 10:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

No. This is a non-copyright restriction we ignore. There is no way we can keep all sides happy on maps, and it would be a violation of our responsibility to the truth if we were to seriously try. I realize I'm a privileged westerner in a country that recognizes the right to free speech, but that is the way Commons has worked and works.--Prosfilaes (talk) 10:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: well, the idea of this question was to protect Wikimedia Foundation and users from possible legal charges. I don't think there is a necessity to bring the idea of White privilege or Freedom of speech into the conversation, since it is utterly irrelevant to the purely legal issue. --Melberg (talk) 11:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
It is not a purely legal issue; Freedom of Speech is the motivating factor for ignoring such laws, as is Commons' practice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: - again - I am not here to discuss moral grounds of the law or the Commons' practice. As the users below have fairly indicated, there is a {{Nazi symbol}} used on commons, and I assume that my message was both communicated and received proper reaction. It would also be nicer to have a constructive approach instead of this privileged westerner attitude perceiving everyone else as freedom fighters with misjudged perception of another user's motivation. --Melberg (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Melberg: You asked a question "Is there anything that should be done on commons in this regard?" that is both a question about morality (you should not do immoral things, by definition) and about Commons' practice. I'm sorry if I misjudged your motivations, but that's on the speaker as well as the listener, and it's always a risk. It was a constructive answer; the answer was that we do not insist that maps match any local law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:06, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: - it would be even more constructive without an orientalist bite that was entirely misplaced and a bit offensive. Anyway, the users below have indicated proper course of action, and I consider my job of informing the community of possible legal unpleasantries done.--Melberg (talk) 06:17, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Is there anything that should be done on commons in this regard? Yes, encourage Georgia citizen not to update maps, and alert Wikimedia Foundation people not to travel to Georgia. --Jarekt (talk) 15:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
See meta:Talk:Legal#Heads_up:_New_Law_in_country_of_Georgia_might_make_some_files_illegal --Jarekt (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Also, we should probably create a tag along the same technical lines as {{Nazi symbol}} (not that the two case are otherwise comparable). - Jmabel ! talk 15:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes that is a good idea. --Jarekt (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, especially when there are other countries (notably China) punish mapmakers not following their territorial claims.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: - I don't think that WMF people will have any trouble in Georgia, just as they don't have trouble in Austria or France or Israel. @Jmabel: - thank you, since I have not been very active on commons for a while, I am not that much familiar with current practices - this is the main reason why I decided to post.--Melberg (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
Melberg, you are probably right but if organization is breaking a law, than they should be aware of it. Just in case someone actually decides to enforce the law. --Jarekt (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jarekt: - I do not consider myself an expert of legal interpretation, but as far as I can predict the law (even if properly implemented) will target not the WMF, but specifically the image uploader. Also, there is a law banning usage of totalitarian (nazi and soviet) symbols in Georgia, but this usage is permitted for academic purposes (I didn't bring examples of France, Israel or Germany by chance - each of them is banning usage of Nazi/Soviet symbols). That's what my assumption that WMF has nothing to fear in Georgia is based on - just as it has nothing to fear in Germany or Israel for using totalitarian symbols in corresponding articles. Anyway, I consider my job done, since I communicated the changes and now I will let more experienced users to deal with it. --Melberg (talk) 19:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

File:Grossgliederung Europas-fr.svgEdit

Help - did I just overwrite this file with my translation from SVGTranslate? Please revert? --Andreas (talk) 23:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Andreas: I think it's fine. It shows an upload having occurred, but the images appear identical, including French captions. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)
hmm... interesting. Do you (or anyone) have any idea where my translated captions ended up? --Andreas (talk) 00:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Nothing to see at [1]. --Achim (talk) 09:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Each of them are identical...interesting!. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Andreas, FYI, Read Commons:Translation_possible/Learn_more, or did you apply the translation extention as indicated, or other external tool? Translated with the suggested extention will save your translation in the section _other languages_ but will not overwrite the original, in this case /fr File. Omotecho (talk) 22:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

May 30Edit

Merge proposal of Template:PD-MacaoGov and Template:PD-MacaoGov-textEdit

{{PD-MacaoGov}} marks media files which are released into public domain by the Macau government, in which its scope is defined in {{PD-MacaoGov/detail}}. Meanwhile, {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} marks text files that are in Macau governmental public domain, and almost contain the same scope of PD-MacaoGov.

As both {{PD-MacaoGov/detail}} and {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} stated that only official texts are in public domain, this means that only media files that are included in these official documents benefits from such public domain (such as this map, as an appendix of a legislation). Therefore, I believe {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} is redundant.

I propose to have the following modifications:

  1. Delete {{PD-MacaoGov-text}}, and change all files licensed under {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} to {{PD-MacaoGov}}.
  2. Insert {{PD-MacaoGov/detail}} into {{PD-MacaoGov}}. (So that people won't simply tag normal images from the government of Macau and upload to here, we've already get two bunches of "public domain" images deleted at here.)
  3. After 2, delete {{PD-MacaoGov/detail}}.

廣九直通車 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I cannot not estimate this, though it sounds sensible, but in case of merging: Better first convert {{PD-MacaoGov-text}} into a redirect to {{PD-MacaoGov}} (and maybe do not even delete it later; but the several subpages could be deleted). Then check for usage (apparently only 38: all: hastemplate:"PD-MacaoGov-text"). Then check and edit other pages that link to this template: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-MacaoGov-text. Similar approach for {{PD-MacaoGov/detail}}; there is no use as template, but Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:PD-MacaoGov/detail shows linking. — Speravir – 02:27, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Well, as both templates are fully protected, so I can't directly make any edits. That's the reason why I made a proposal here, in order to seek for other comments and get a consensus.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support We just need one Macao Govt's Public Domain template, as their criterias are too simple to allow multiple templates for me. --Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 03:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Unable to upload taken by phone cameraEdit

Unable to upload images taken from my phone camera and says "error" after prolonged time. The Supermind (talk) 08:01, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

  • @Supermind: Could just be a too-slow connection, but for anyone to help you, you are going to have to be a lot more specific. You don't even say what upload tool you are using. Also, did this previously work & stopped working, or has it never worked? - Jmabel ! talk 17:23, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
  • @Supermind: Also try to email the photo you took to yourself, then upload via computer using Special:UploadWizard. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

Category:Draughtsmen by countryEdit

I see that the category Draughtsmen by country contains many subcategories which should be re-classified in Drawers (artists) by country, which I just created. Following English Wiktionary, a draughtman is "a person skilled at drawing engineering or architectural plans" and the persons classified there seem to be "drawers" = artists who primarily make drawings. --Lucyin (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

@Lucyin: Instead, we could make a redirect from Category:Drawers (artists) by country to Category:Draughtsmen by country. --Red-back spider (talk) 22:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
"Drawers" in this sense barely exists as a word in English. Perhaps you wanted "Illustrators"? Category:Illustrators. - Jmabel ! talk 23:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes, however please note Draughtsmen and Illustrators are two different distinct vocations. Drawers are something you find in furniture. A draughtman delivers ale? Seriously. I agree best to split between Draughtsmen and and Illustrators. As for drafters of technical or Engineering drawings in the modern sense; I very much doubt as individuals, CAD operators or the like that they are notable or even known, they get filed under Draughtsmen of whom they are the modern equivalent. These drawers cats should be deleted. Broichmore (talk) 11:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
In Wikidata we have drafter (Q683754) for people drawing technical drawings, illustrator (Q644687) for book illustrators and drawer (Q15296811) for person doing artistic drawings. In Polish language those terms do not overlap much, but in English: drafter, illustrator, draftsman, draftsperson, draughtsperson, and draughtsman are some of the English aliases of drawer (Q15296811). I think "illustrators" should be kept separate and the terms draftsman/draftsperson/draughtsperson/draughtsman is more associated with technical drawings, So the only thing left is "drawer", which I agree that it "barely exists as a word in English". --Jarekt (talk) 12:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
If that's the case then Wikidata is plain wrong. Drafts by drafters (sic) are rough sketches made as a basis for finished art work, underlying paint. Superior drawers (as you like to put it ) are draughtsmen. Leonardo was a draughtsman, in part; as are Category:Thomas Badeslade and Category:Augustus Hageboeck or virtually most architects. Part of the problem is exemplified by this man (for example en:Jan van der Vaardt) who is not a draughtsman; he's only that in a fit of enthusiasm by a fan who wrote a book, he is not even an illustrator. An illustrator strictly speaking is a commercial artist who illustrates books etc. Artistic drawings is something all artists do, as do they also breathe. We don't categorize them as breathers. The dictionaries are clear it is exceptional line drawing talent capable of selling finished drawings as work that are draughtsmen. If it "barely exists as a word in English" there's a reason for it, it doesn't exist. For the umpteenth time it is not within our remit to invent terms. drawer (Q15296811) should not include illustrators, it should be separate. Again An artist who practices or works in technical drawing may be called a draftsman or a draughtsman. Effectively thats drawings of record employing in the main straight lines and regular shapes in practise. Broichmore (talk) 13:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Broichmore I agree with most of your statements. Drawing is something most painters and other artists do, and we do not need to add them to specialized categories, unless that is what they are most famous for. And the word drawer as someone who is doing artistic drawing is problematic. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary it is one of the meaning of the word but according to Cambridge dictionary it is not. We still need the agree if we should have Draughtsmen by country or Drawers (artists) by country category and it seems like your vote is for the first one or none. I think we need it, but I am not sure which term is less confusing. --Jarekt (talk) 14:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Jarekt Your right I would prefer Draughtsmen by country. Rather than drawers, or are you meaning sketchers? Nevertheless all artists draw sketches. Their finished compositions would normally be filed under "artist" in categories such as "Drawings by ..." and or '"Sketches by ..." Drawers as a term is best left without mention IMO, otherwise they are draughtsmen by any definition. Broichmore (talk) 15:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
You have me thinking. Gainsborough, for example, is often described as being an excellent draughtsmen, but you wont find him in such a category because all his drawing work were preparatory studies for painting in the main. Drawing is on of those ancient fuzzy terms like ships, best left sleeping. Like I said all artists draw. Broichmore (talk) 15:43, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

June 01Edit

Over diffusion of categoriesEdit

I've whinged in the past here, about files being lost through being buried from sight by people who don't want images used, but spend their time in filing as a means to its own end. Imagine my dismay when I happened on this Category:December 1941 in Sydney. We have millions of files barely described without this nonsense. Broichmore (talk) 12:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • I don’t understand what the problem is. Including so-called “nonsense” categories doesn’t prevent you from including other, more useful categories as well. How are files being “buried”? Brianjd (talk) 13:22, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem is taking a file and putting (filing) it out of sight. If the file is effectively lost, then how is it available for including other, more useful categories? I could think of ten more useful categories for that file than December 1941 in Sydney. We are supposed to make images available, that means keep them in open sight, not bury them in shoeboxes in the attic. Broichmore (talk) 13:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Then add those categories!!! What’s stopping you? If you mean that files where this is the only category should still be tagged with {{Check categories}}, then I agree, but that’s a separate issue. Also, the file in Category:December 1941 in Sydney already has other categories. So, again, what is the problem? Brianjd (talk) 13:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Say there’s a file in Category:December 1941 in Sydney. It’s not in any other categories and it’s not tagged with {{Check categories}} or anything like that. Now the file is hard to find, and it’s hard for people to add categories to it.
Now say we delete Category:December 1941 in Sydney. The file is still hard to find. It’s still hard to add categories to it. What exactly do you propose? Brianjd (talk) 13:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Brianjd is right and this needs to be repeated over and over. This is not a problem of “overdiffusion”, it is a problem of undercategorization. Furthermore Broichmore is escalating in their agressive, offensive language and over-the-top caricaturizing of other users — now we went from insults about misundertanding of categorization (right back at you) to accusations of sabotage («people who don't want images used»). -- Tuválkin 15:23, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • That said: there is a real problem of people removing {{Check categories}} and other similar tags and categories after adding one not-very-informative category to an image. - Jmabel ! talk 15:57, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
      • Tuvalkin I was wrong of course to employ sarcasm and should have said unwittingly don't want images used, but then of course you knew what I meant. Where are these insults directed at Brianjd or the escalation? You just twisted that. To call it insulting is OTT. Nevertheless, undercategorization? I of course agree its' undercategorization, of course it is. But that's not my point. Creating new categories should be done with caution, I see very little value in Sydney's case of catting below Sydney in the 1940s, the quantity of images doesn't justify it. Far better, all the images sit in decades (if not centuries) in this case. I would suggest that filing by year alone is, in effect, destructive. The files should all be in History of Sydney and maybe copied to the year if that's what you want. Even then if someone wants to find files by year then an SQL query is the better way to go. Maintaining multiple obscure cats once made is a problem, and once made they are seldom maintained. So your suggesting it's okay to file single images in obscure categories, nested in empty ones, as we can see ever increasing examples of in the project, provided that you fully categorize every piece of minutiae in an image? How is that to be policed, when a simpler way is to say if filing by time then there should be a limit of at least 20 images eligible for posting to such a cat. Broichmore 16:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
        • @Broichmore, Tuvalkin, Jmabel: The previous comment was added in this diff: Special:Diff/423183072. It was signed with a time but not a name; I have added the name. Interesting. Brianjd (talk) 06:42, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
        • I don’t understand how bigger categories would be easier to maintain. They might, in fact, be harder to maintain.
        How many people do you know that know SQL (or anything else to do with databases), excluding people who work in a relevant field? (This is the one area where I would say you might have a point, now that we have things like FastCCI. But this alone is not a reason to make major changes to our categorisation system.)
        Categories that contain other categories are not empty.
        Finally, there’s this really cool thing called paragraphs. They make it so much easier for other people to read your messages. Brianjd (talk) 06:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
    • @Jmabel: I’m not familiar with this issue, but if these users are adding exactly one category before removing such tags, it could be because they don’t understand that files can (and usually should) be in multiple categories. Brianjd (talk) 06:56, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
      • @Brianjd: I work a lot on categorizing bot-added photos from GLAMs, and I would say that in my experience it happens to more than 10% of those. - Jmabel ! talk 14:29, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • @Brianjd: My excuse for large numbers of images in a category is that our best search tool is the human eye, but it only works if images are within its range.
The problem filing by year is, what might have been one click into a decade is now ten plus by year, and potentially 130 if by month. Thats what I mean by hiding them.
It's actually a simple matter to scan hundreds of images, I do it every day. Broichmore (talk) 15:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Finally, a decent explanation. This is actually a good point, but we should probably fix this through better software. Brianjd (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    I'd love to have this fixed by better software, but until it is here and in common use, we have to keep the category system working. And this is a real problem. If the by year categories are used in addition to other categories, there is no problem, but when a category is split by year, keeping a file in the split category is seen as overcategorisation. So now you cannot find it were it is easy to find. Splitting by year might sometimes be sensible when the main category is large, but often other criteria are more meaningful, and finding by year is much more work than just clicking for the next 200 files if you aren't interested in a certain year, especially if the by year categories are small. --LPfi (talk) 21:47, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    In my opinion, subcategorization by date can be used either to fully diffuse a main category or solely as a supplement. If the subject is a single thing (e.g. Category:Eiffel Tower) where most of the photos will look very similar to each other and there just isn't a really good way to subcategorize otherwise, then emptying the main cat into the dated cats makes sense. However, if the subject is very broad (e.g. Category:New York City), then forcing a full diffusion into date categories doesn't make sense. Instead, photos should either be double-categorized into the main category or (even better) fully diffused into non-date subcats. -- King of ♥ 22:00, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Catting by date can only be supplemental at best.
I agree with everything King of Hearts said, if we’re going to use dates by then images need to be double-categorized into the main category or (even better) fully diffused into non-date subcats.
I was accused of over-excitement earlier, and perhaps there should be some explanation for that. I almost exclusively hunt down images of ships and steamboats here. The main purpose is to upload their images if notable into Wikipedia, or make them available as a supplement to Wikipedia. A side product of that is specific categorisation of the image into (examples) HMS Foo, (Sidewheel riverboat Foo), Atlantic convoy, etc for future potential use in Wikipedia.
Ship images are very often uncatalogued as such, and are instead lying hidden inside images in major cats such as Mississippi River, Views of Foo, Marine art by Foo, Paintings by foo, Engravings of Foo. These images often have to be visually identified, there being no mention in the text of the boat. The scene may be of a river, whatever. The boat’s name if your lucky is printed on the side of the vessel, or it has to be identified by other means. This does not apply just to ships, it could be almost any object you could imagine, bridges, dresses, faces, beggars, bouquets, people playing chess, traffic lights, etc.
Too find these images requires scanning through tranches of images. Commonly in main cats holding between 1 to say 3,500 images. Entire museum collections. That’s not as hard as it sounds, when using multiple screens, at least one set to vertical orientation and scrolling through 500 images at a time, it can be tedious, but fruitful. Example File:Cincinnati, Ohio.jpg contains Steam packet ‘’Bonanza’’.
After a while of doing this you get to sense other images on the way that are likely lost. The majority of images I’m searching for or dealing with are historical images, not modern day photography. The explosion of digital photography, the sheer quantity of images, has made the overwhelming majority trivial to say the least. Not to mention the time soaking problems that copyright laws present.
On a slightly separate note, IMO the category system is at threat, by Wikidata. Infoboxes are taking over the role that was performed by categories. Where there are duplications between wikidata and commons the duplicate commons categories are being systematically deleted; because they are already represented in the infobox. As the Infoboxes expand by adding data to them the categories get deleted. Cats as we know them, could entirely disappear.
This is a problem; Wikidata is totally reliant on the input of data, and that’s only achieved by manually categorising files, it doesn’t happen the other way round.
Wikidata structured data fields are for machines (ie Google Image search) etc. However it falls short of the efficiency of the Google engine, and doesn't perform as well as its touted. Perhaps it’s too early as it’s still in development. It’s my belief that Wikidata and old fashioned categorising should be regarded as totally separate things and one cannot supplant the other. Commons categorising being the superior of the two.
It’s my contention that attempting to properly and fully categorise an image (on a minimal basis) is hard enough already without the added hurdles of taking into account information already there in infoboxes or in hidden categories. I don’t see how such a complicated environment can allow cataloguing to be done without duplication or for it to be a rewarding experience.
Deleting {{Check categories}} too early is a problem, perhaops covered by an "are you sure, warning"? As is mis-catting, many historical 16th , 17th, 18th century images of place are being taken out of say “History of Foo in the 18th century” and being put in ‘’Foo in the 18th century in art’’ for instance. Given that all historic images of place from the 17th century are art by default, moving them is a grave error. Broichmore (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

fitting category-name?Edit

We have already quite a number of recent images showing used facemasks and/or gloves thrown on the street during the current pandemic[2]. However, none of the images had specific category-name, which combined this kind of littering and the pandemic. So, for the english native-speakers: what would be a fitting and appropriate (universially understandable) category-name for that? "COVID-19 associated littering"? --Túrelio (talk) 15:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

  • It’s hard to think of a good name – unless you want the name to be a whole sentence. However, I would caution against including the term “COVID-19” unless there is specific reason to believe that the images are COVID-19-related. Brianjd (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • I was trying to find inspiration in existing categories, but all I found was another problem: Category:Cigarette butts is in Category:Littering, even though some cigarette butts are disposed of responsibly, which is not littering. Brianjd (talk) 15:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Honestly, there is little doubt that it's COVID-19 associated. I've never in my life seen medical gloves and masks thrown on the ground of city streets before COVID-19. --Túrelio (talk) 15:19, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • There is little doubt that the overall trend is COVID-19-related. But my worry is that all depictions of such littering will be placed in the category, even though some specific instances of PPE littering are not COVID-19-related. Brianjd (talk) 15:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Maybe “Littering of PPE during the COVID-19 pandemic”. Notice this doesn’t say the littering is related to the pandemic, only that it occurred during the pandemic, which is easy to verify. I’m not sure about the “Littering of” bit – this is where we should examine existing categories. Brianjd (talk) 15:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    • "PPE litter during the COVID-19 pandemic"? - Jmabel ! talk 15:58, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
Is the term "PPE" easily understood? --Túrelio (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
  • According to Category:Personal protective equipment, the term “PPE” is “common”. However, it’s also clear from this category and its many subcategories that the term should not be abbreviated in category names. So our current candidate is: “Personal protective equipment litter during the COVID-19 pandemic”. No, that’s too many adjectives and nouns strung together. Let’s try: “Littering of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic”. What does everyone else think? Brianjd (talk) 16:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
    Not shorter, and makes me wonder how one does litter one's equipment. I prefer the verbless form. Hopefully somebody finds something shorter. There might also be a problem that "the" pandemic may not be well-defined (which we don't know yet). --LPfi (talk) 21:55, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
There we are: Category:Littering of personal protective equipment during the COVID-19 pandemic. --Túrelio (talk) 09:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

File:Jordan 191 rain.pngEdit

After long discussion in the German motorsport portal (Link to discussion (German)) we've an aligned decison: The picture will not used further more in the German Wikipedia! We are thinking, it's modified too strong and suspect and without any references. Maybe a warning (or more?) for other wiki should be helpful?! Regards —Pitlane02 🏁 talk 19:25, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Pitlane02: if it is edited to the point of being misleading you can use {{Factual accuracy}} to draw attention to this. In this case, the description could do with rewriting to make this more clear additionally. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 19:32, 1 June 2020 (UTC)
{{Factual accuracy}} has now been added, but the remark is incoherent "Suspect, because it’s modified to strong, see also the discussion". I can't make head or tail of that. Could someone please expand on it a bit, either in English or in German? - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps {{Retouched picture}} as well? MKFI (talk) 06:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
The remark should link to the discussion. Also the file is used on enwiki as well, so users there might be able to help (in English). Brianjd (talk) 06:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Since I got no response:
  1. "Suspect" all on its own: I'm guessing just means "This image is suspect" but isn't that what {{Factual accuracy}} means already? Or is this meant to say something else?
  2. What is "modified to strong" intended to mean? I'm not fluent in German, but my German is decent, and I'd have to translate that as "geändert nach stark" which makes no sense, surely something else was meant.
  3. Where it says "see also the discussion": what discussion? Link it (with a permalink)! - Jmabel ! talk
  1. I think your template suggestion was good, because we’re not sure, is it a fake or not, and in this situation we cannot recommending the usage.
  2. shameful, sometimes my English is not sufficient. “Modified too much“ sounds better, isn’t it?
  3. sorry, the discussion was archived yesterday, here the right link: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portal_Diskussion:Motorsport/Archiv/2020#File:Jordan_191_rain.png Thanks a lot for your support, regards — Pitlane02 🏁 talk 19:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
@Pitlane02: Please have a look at my edit on the file page, let me know whether I understood correctly or not. - Jmabel ! talk 01:16, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
@Jmabel: Great, you've put our concerns in a nutshell, from my point of view we're ready. Thanks a lot for your support and regards, --Pitlane02 🏁 talk 08:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June 02Edit

Category:Jill BerelowitzEdit

I wasn't aware that Jill Berelowitz is a male sculptor. But thank you for this information. 84.180.23.29 07:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

  • What’s the trouble? I didn’t know Jill can be a male name too, but okay. -- Tuválkin 03:18, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  • Ah, now I read up. The IP in their OP was making use of sarcasm, bless their heart. -- Tuválkin 03:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Replying to Non-English speaking users in EnglishEdit

We need to be careful when a user whose native language is clearly not English posts here, then we reply in English.

For example, from File:OgataHaruna Instagram 2020-05-20.png:

This file is uploaded according to Ogata Haruna's request(Person of photography).
She requested to update wikipedia portrait picture and hope to use Instagram(2020-05-20) picture.
(Ref. https://www.instagram.com/harunaogatajp/)
(Ref. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tC7CD47I8sg&t=72s)
For this reason, this picture never violate.
I have uploaded again, so please don't delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sango captain (talk • contribs) 02:17, 2 June 2020‎ (UTC)

Clearly this user has a very poor understanding of English. Yet we gave them this boilerplate reply:

Please do not reupload an image deleted in accordance with policy. Please also note that the copyright holder is the person who took the picture rather than the person who appears in it, unless the copyright was transferred by operation of law or by contract. For restoration, please have the actual photographer send permission and a specific release under an acceptable free licence using OTRS. Thank you for your understanding.

This has long, complex sentences (especially the second sentence) and some big words. At least the pages linked to have translation boxes at the top. But if the user is put off by the message quoted here, they might never follow the links.

I don’t know much about localisation; perhaps someone who does would like to comment on this? Brianjd (talk) 07:51, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Sango captain is Japanese. Maybe Miya can help. pandakekok9 08:00, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
It would also be useful to have a list of which Village pumps in other languages are active so we could refer people appropriately. Commons:井戸端 isn't terribly active, but it does seem that the few times people ask questions there, they get a response. - Jmabel ! talk 14:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
There's a discussion about something like that at COM:VPP#Create a Commons equivalent of Project:Embassy (Q1197883). clpo13(talk) 16:50, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
  • I don’t see here a situation that needs any major (or minor) policy fix. Admins are already required to be helpful and polite with all users and the above is certainly not the former and argueably not the latter. I understand that admins are overworked but slapping a couple of hardly useful templates on a queary is not solving it — better leave it unanswered so that it can be deal with later or by another admin. (And let me plug here my pet peeve against pushing OTRS as the one and only solution for licensing and authorship confirmation needs, instead of a last resource.) -- Tuválkin 17:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
    @Tuvalkin: That's also my view, that OTRS is primarily useful for three things: 1) confirming the authenticity of an email address for a published file; 2) receiving a COM:AGF permission for an unpublished file for a creator with no Commons account; 3) having conversations that require divulging private details or sharing private files. Anything else is better done on-wiki. -- King of ♥ 18:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

UploadStashFileExceptionEdit

Today i wanted to upload a large STL file (~80MB) with the upload wizard. The upload failes with the error "Could not store upload in the stash (UploadStashFileException): "Extension is null.".". Same file was uploaded with the simple upload form without any problems. What's the problem? Morty (talk) 19:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

June 03Edit

Getting error when trying to upoad a pdf file (same error pops up at 72%, firefox/chrome give the same result)Edit

  • Repeatedly getting a generic server error (tried like 4-5 times) when trying to upoad a pdf file (same error pops up at 72%, firefox/chrome give the same result. File can be found here https://archive.org/details/khliborobska_ukrayina_knyzhka_tretia_1921 . Any advice why I'm seeing this error? --Piznajko (talk) 05:14, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    Did you try saving the pdf with another editor, or printing to PDF, and uploading that instead? Effeietsanders (talk) 05:31, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
    • Thanks I converted to djvu and upload went through.--Piznajko (talk) 20:18, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Template:Motorräder & Template:TrainEdit

Before I start a DR: This template explains that we use the term "motorcycle" rather than "bike", similar to how {{Cattle}} works. But while the latter is used almost 130 times, this one is only being used only once across the whole category tree. For some reason it uses the German term "Motorräder".

Pinging creator @Gamemaster669: FYI. --El Grafo (talk) 12:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Update: same for {{Train}}, which is only used at Category:Train light trails by country → pinging @ComputerHotline:. --El Grafo (talk) 13:07, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
If not deleted Template:Motorräder must definitely be moved to Template:Motorcycles. BTW the German translation is also misleading for the terms themselves. Yes, for this one use it is not needed, but potentially this templatebe longs into all categories regarding motorcyle/motorcycles. (Or am I wrong here?) The issue is you cannot request a simple bot run because there are surely some proper names, e.g. I think of subcategories of Category:Motorcycle Grands Prix. The same is true for Template:Train (it has no German translation). — Speravir – 23:22, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Category:Kapuas RayaEdit

An anonymous user created this category and some others. Not sure it actually exists because id:Kapuas Raya doesn't exist and the only thing I find on Wikidata is Kapuas Raya (Q26213741). I did find en:West_Kalimantan#Proposed_new_province_of_Kapuas_Raya, but can't verify the source. Anyone feels like diving into this one? Multichill (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

Potential huge mess, how to deal with it?Edit

What do you think? Am I too fastidious here?

There is File:Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg, originally created by MissMJ in 2008 and licensed under CC 3.0 – and it is quite often used. This file has a lot language derivations. I wondered why they look different in apparently two modes and noticed that on 22 June 2013 Cush uploaded a new version, which in my opinion is against COM:OVERWRITE, and also changed the license to CC 1.0. The same happened for some language versions. Not enough Cush created derivatives without mentioning this – at least as source, probably original author; but the derivations are from the own altered version – in these:

Shouldn’t the overwrite better split into a new file? How to deal with the licenses? And allow the sources as indicated by MissMJ a CC licensing? Are the derivatives worth to be counted as own work of Cush (as long the original source would be mentioned)? Who should fix all this if I am right? — Speravir – 22:52, 3 June 2020 (UTC)

PD releases of derivative works don't need to be deleted, as it allows anyone to change the license to something that actually complies with the original terms. -- King of ♥ 23:12, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Just to be clear I have no intention that there should something be deleted, because I think everything could be fixed. — Speravir – 23:25, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
The file "Standard Model of Elementary Particles.svg" was originally created by MissJ, and her choice of license made use of her artwork subject to said license. The license for her contribution is retained because the newer chart is not available in all languages yet. The newer chart uses a different artwork while only the colors for the particle groups were adapted from ZooFari's edits. Over time, the SVG structure of the new chart has been changed from using outlines to solely using fonts, while retaining the visual appearance for usual browsers and rendering-engines. I have released my artwork into the public domain to make use and improvement by third parties easier. @Speravir what kind of fix do you have in mind? Cush (talk) 15:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Btw, the changes to the original artwork to adjust measurements of mass etc were done by numerous other editors before I restored the appearance as in AnonMoos' version (the weird 3d-blocks look was not by MissJ), and before I later fully changed the design. The overhaul of the internal SVG structure was done by Glrx, who removed the outlines that used to represent the uncommon fonts previously used. Cush (talk) 15:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Cush: First of all: I was wrong in one point – MissMJ chose CC 3.0, not CC-by-SA 3.0, so opting for a different license was allowed, sorry for confusing this. Then: Your sentence “The newer chart uses a different artwork” is exactly why I am convinced this never should have uploaded under the same name! The following “while only the colors for the particle groups were adapted from ZooFari's edits” is exactly the reason why you should have mentioned that this and after this all of these are derivations; this sentence and the following words are the reasons why the original file should have mentioned as source.
What kind of fix do I have in mind?
  1. Request a split in COM:HMS between versions from 20 June 2013 by AnonMoos and the first from 22 June 2013 by you, Cush. Choose an appropriate name yourself. (Add “light coulours”?)
  2. Then the file usages have to be checked and very probably in most cases switched to the new file. I could help you here, but for some usages we may need administrators.
  3. Add for the new and every other file listed above, that this is a derivation (template {{Derived from}}) and add the original file as source (both can be combined, but this is optional). If you consider your own work more than technical handwork you can leave you as author, otherwise you should add at least MissMJ (but, yes, then all other editors would in strict sense have to be mentioned, as well).
  4. For the files in different language a similar approach is necessary, but this must be checked individually: There was at least one file that was only uploaded in your design.
  5. Make an update of the other versions gallery.
Maybe I even forgot something. — Speravir – 18:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

June 04Edit

Request for additional translation tweak: History merging and splittingEdit

Please tweak for translation at Commons:History merging and splitting, one section title as well as buttons and the instruction following it。Tried but did not work as on enwiki:

  • section title: Current requests
  • buttons: View, Edit, Add topic
  • instruction: See also categories: Media requiring a split up and Requested merges.

--Omotecho (talk) 01:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

I need help adding a license for Portuguese Government's and Public Services' publicationsEdit

Hi!

Under Portuguese Law (Council of Ministers No 95/99), any publication produced by the Portuguese Government or Portuguese Public Services can be "freely accessed and used by the public, as long as the source is mentioned", unless "specifically stated otherwise" in said publication.

I'd like to create a license tag (like the ones stated in Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal#Copyright tags) concerning this kind of publications, so they can be more easily and accurately licensed upon upload.

I know my way fairly well around WP (I'm a rollbacker in the Portuguese version), but I must admit that I don't have enough knowledge about Commons' policies to create such a thing. Can anyone help me? Thank You! JonJon86 (talk) 14:02, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Thank you! Do you think I could just create the tag and publish it? Shouldn't it be proposed somewhere first, so more experienced users could vote to keep or delete it? JonJon86 (talk) 14:51, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@JonJon86, Jmabel: I have created a draft version in English at User:De728631/workshop. I think this should get at least some consensus before being promoted to a live template. De728631 (talk) 21:54, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
P.S.: We might also want to update Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Portugal. De728631 (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@De728631: Thank you! I think you should also add the "unless specifically stated otherwise in said publication" part, because it's very important. If a government publication uses any copyrighted work, it's always mentioned somewhere within that publication, and although it can be freely accessed by the public, its distribution or comercial uses may not be allowed. JonJon86 (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing this out. I forgot about this part, but it is in fact important. It has now been added to the draft template. De728631 (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

Question on a forum for editorial disagreement regarding descriptions of images?Edit

Is there a particular forum where I should raise editorial disagreement over image descriptions? Or is this the place? There's a particular image description editorial issue that I would like to have feedback on.

Thanks, WhisperToMe (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@WhisperToMe: I think you should discuss it on the file's talk page. --Red-back spider (talk) 20:57, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: The image talk page may help, but be aware that they are easily overlooked, and rarely seen: you might wait years for a response. Without particular knowledge of the file in question, better options include discussing descriptions with the uploader, fixing/clarifying errors yourself, and/or placing warning templates such as {{Inaccurate description}}, {{Fact disputed}} or {{Disputed diagram}} to give better visibility to potential errors. --Animalparty (talk) 21:56, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@Animalparty: @Red-back spider: I have started a discussion with the other editor (who is not the uploader). The other user may dispute me adding tags to the image description, and it's not so much a question of the accuracy of the description, but rather whether the old name of a city should be mentioned: until 1930 cities in Turkey were known by different names in English than they are now. The image in question was taken in 1920. The other editor feels the pre-1930 names should not be present in the description, while I feel they should. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
I would probably start a discussion on the file talk page and post a message somewhere else (like here) summarizing the issue and inviting other editors to the file talk to discuss. That way the discussion is preserved somewhere future editors of that images can find it. – BMacZero (🗩) 01:49, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

File:İsmet Paşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa ile konuşurken (1920).jpgEdit

In my opinion a short notice at the VP can help, especially if a discussion escalated. So, now you are here and this is obviously about File talk:İsmet Paşa Mustafa Kemal Paşa ile konuşurken (1920).jpg#Angora or Ankara. E4024 even if you maybe substantially right in this case (according to English and German Wikipedias you aren’t) I think your reaction is inappropriate, but as you should have noticed I left a reaction on the file talk page. — Speravir – 23:07, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

@Speravir: Thank you. I think doing the English VP in these cases would be for the best. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:11, 4 June 2020 (UTC)
@WhisperToMe: I meant the VP of Commons, the one we are at in the moment. — Speravir – 20:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

June 05Edit

Wikimirror replacing URLsEdit

Wikimirror is apparently a way to get around various draconian internet restrictions and edit Wikimedia sites in Turkey, China, etc. However, it appears to have a bug whereby it occasionally replaces "wikimedia" with "wikimirror" in all URLs while performing an edit, which makes sense in some contexts, but definitely not in others (see e.g. User_talk:Leiem#Special:Diff/302584243/419115997 and Special:Diff/422802225/422863079). Zhwiki apparently has an edit filter exactly for this purpose (possibly zh:Special:滥用过滤器/298?). Should we use an analogous one? Storkk (talk) 07:29, 5 June 2020 (UTC) Ping @Rowingbohe, Leiem, Jameslwoodward: affected parties. Storkk (talk) 07:33, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Rollback confirmation – how to turn it off?Edit

Recently a new feature has been introduced – rollback requires confirmation. When one clicks on "rollback" link, an additional message with "rollback" and "cancel" links appears. So one additional click is required in order to revert a change. How to turn off this feature? --jdx Re: 07:55, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Jdx: This appears to be Phabricator:T254538. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:35, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Annotations deprecated?Edit

The annotations button is missing.png

I went to annotate File:Old map of York, Upper Canada, 1827, Chewett, NMC16819.jpg and clicked the button to select an area of the image to annotate - or what I expected to be the button to annotate, only to find it had been replaced with a button to Open in Media Viewer

Was a decision made to deprecate annotations? Or did this happen by accident?

Was a decision made to replace the button for annotations with a button to the terrible media viewer? Geo Swan (talk) 16:31, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, I still see both buttons: big one for media viewer and smaller one above it with "Add a Note". --Jarekt (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2020 (UTC)
  1. there is a line with links to reduced resolution versions;
  2. followed by a line with three links, to "original file" "request rotation" and "flash/no flash"
  3. the next line has the link to media viewer
  4. underneath that there is a link to "file information"...
  5. followed by a box that lets me edit captions.
No link to annotations... Geo Swan (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

Dissapeared Wikidata linkEdit

I noticed that the link to related Wikidata item dissapeared from the "tools" section of the left menu. It is meant as some improvement, or it's just a bug? --ŠJů (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)