Commons talk:Overwriting existing files/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Mirror pronunciation re-upload/overwrite issue

File:Ja-kagami.ogg does not update to the re-uploaded version, which is 7 kilobytes more. Wonder why this is happening. ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 03:06, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

@Poketalker: I see it, so it is probably a problem with your navigator cache. Clear your cache, and reload the page. Regards, Yann (talk) 07:32, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Great! Just checked on another computer, and it did play the revised one. Thanks, ～ POKéTalker（═◉═） 13:22, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Removing redundant titles and captions

How does COM:OVERWRITE apply to the removal of a caption within the image? If there's a language-neutral graph of shoe sizes in Bulgaria which has an in-image title of "Shoe sizes in Bulgaria" at the top, and if the graph itself isn't a historical document, is removing that text a minor crop, or the kind of "aggressive crop" that would be better served by uploading a second copy of the graph which omits the title but is otherwise identical?

I figured this was uncontroversial so long as the cropped text was still clearly present in the file's description, and in any pre-existing usage on Wikipedia projects. But I've just noticed someone reverting me on this last year at File:Pyramid scheme.svg, where "This chart shows how pyramid schemes are impossible to sustain:" was repeating the file description and Wikipedia captions, and struck me as redundant. --Lord Belbury (talk) 10:32, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd say key is "itself isn't a historical document": if people would use the file only for its content, not for its origin or history, then one can crop away titles without uploading a new file, keeping the caption in the description. The problem might be if some have left out the in-file caption from their caption as redundant, but as you checked, there is no such problem.

Anyway, if somebody disagrees, the original is still in the image history, and if somebody disagrees about cropping away the caption, it is simple to upload the crop as a new file. No need to question their revert, unless they are reverting systematically, out of principle rather than practical needs.

–LPfi (talk) 13:16, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Overwriting File:ETH-BIB_Com_FC26-0001-263_Aarau_Bahnhof_240589.jpg (and others from Category:ETH-BIB Comet Photo AG-Luftbilder)

with border

without border

How much border should one remove and still overwrite the upload?

At: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/9/9f/20220728134737%21ETH-BIB_Com_FC26-0001-263_Aarau_Bahnhof_240589.jpg

There are two different borders on the left, a large section on the right, some annotation at the bottom left. Also, the image on top and bottom right included a hill and car that extended beyond a rectangle. I cropped all this and overwrote the image. Is that ok?

At File:ETH-BIB Com FC26-0001-367 Neugutviadukt xx0590.jpg another user did a similar crop, but uploaded it separately (see images to the right).

Category:ETH-BIB Comet Photo AG-Luftbilder has many similar ones. @NAC, Albinfo, and ETH-Bibliothek: Enhancing999 (talk) 13:58, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

@Pechristener overwrote File:Rathausen Reusskanal 1991.jpg Enhancing999 (talk) 14:01, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Currently, I would rather choose a different option for File:ETH-BIB Com FC26-0001-367 Neugutviadukt xx0590.jpg: I would rather overwrite it, as now information is deleted.

In case of File:ETH-BIB Com FC26-0001-263 Aarau Bahnhof 240589.jpg, both options would have been possible.

--Albinfo (talk) 20:10, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is correct to overwrite the Neugutviadukt-File. It comes from a serious GLAM organisation and will also in future be accessible in its original version. I do only not overwrite the files if I make a real crop focusing on details. Pechristener (talk) 05:21, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Good practice for files in Category:ETH-BIB Leo Wehrli

original file: slide with black border and manual annotation

cropped to actual image

These files all include an annotated frame. Personally, I'd upload the new cropped image separately, as done for the one of Kappelbrücke (see two images on right side). However, I doubt the images with the borders are useful to Wikipedia. So a case for overwriting existing ones can be done. I noticed a few images have been already been cropped, overwriting existing ones.

Depending on what we agree is good practice for these, we could add either of the following, where needed:

• {{Remove border}}
• {{Border is intentional}}

@À mots dhu hameau d'en-haut, Agaath, Angelgreat, Cobatfor, and Georgfotoart: @Gestumblindi, Hadi, HerrAdams, Joalbertine, and Joostik: @Karmakolle, MIGORMCZ, NearEMPTiness, Pechristener, and Pmau: @Reinhard Kraasch, Sebastian Wallroth, Tibet Nation, Zinnmann, and ETH-Bibliothek: Enhancing999 (talk) 17:44, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an easy decision, indeed. The main purpose of Wikimedia Commons is, to supply pictures for an encyclopedia, i.e. pictures without a frame. It could be cosidered to remove the frame and save them as *.jpg, as commonly done by photos of the Library of Congress. In this specific case, the handwritten captions are informative and interesting. Therefore, I would endorse keeping each picture with and without the frame and possibly in different formats, i.e. tif with frame and jpg without frame. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 17:57, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I prefer uploading such files separately, as I have done with File:ETH-BIB-Ponte Capriasca, Campanile von Osten-Dia 247-13955 (cropped).tif. In my opinion, the original files with the manual annotations are important source material; Commons, after all, isn't just about what is "useful to Wikipedia", as we're a general repository of free media for everyone to use, which just happens to have Wikipedia as its main "customer", so to speak. Gestumblindi (talk) 18:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I prefer overwriting. The files on Commons are mostly used by people who prefer an easy access: a cropped, sometimes retouched image for easy re-use. Those who want to work with the original are usually tech savvy enough to click on the image. This will take them to the file page, where they will find the version history further down. There they can download the original. -- Sebastian Wallroth (talk) 06:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Sebastian Wallroth: With overwriting, our primary audience on other projects can't use the original files with normal syntax, and COM:OW is a Commons Guideline established with consensus.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 07:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

A problem with files in Category:ETH-BIB Leo Wehrli is that they are tiffs and most people might access them in a converted form. This isn't possible in the file history though. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:36, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I prefer overwriting for easy use. The other users can go to the database of the ETH library and get there the original file via the permanent DOI-link shown in these WMCommons pages. --Hadi (talk) 09:23, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

@Hadi: See my reply of 07:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC) above.   — Jeff G. ツ _{please ping or talk to me} 09:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Same opinion like Hadi regardless off Jeff G.‘s replay. Pechristener (talk) 05:16, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, then the current state of the replies to Enhancing999's question is that different approaches are preferred: At least in the specific case of these Wehrli images, NearEMPTiness, Jeff G. and I agree that it's better to upload crops separately, whilst Sebastian Wallroth, Hadi, and Pechristener prefer to overwrite. However, I think that the official guideline Commons:Overwriting existing files cited by Jeff G. is pretty clear: "existing files should not be overwritten with substantially different content, whilst minor improvements should overwrite the previous version". Removing the historical hand-written captions is, in my opinion "substantially different content" and not a "minor improvement". Gestumblindi (talk) 11:23, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

slide with frame (modern one, not from discussed category)

Thanks for the helpful input.

Re-reading Commons:Overwriting_existing_files now, I'm still not that sure what one should do. The removal of the frame can be seen as a "minor improvement".

Do we mention that the files are scanned "slides" (diapositives, dias, likely all Category:Colored photographs taken on black-and-white reversal films).

The annotation on the frame is not a caption the image was originally displayed with. One could consider the following applies: "If there are annotations or markings in the image that weren't part of the original composition, these can be removed and placed into the {{Information}} template". For the Kappelbrücke exemple, most information is included in the template (number, title, photographer, colorist, year).

In any case, we should try to have a consistent approach across these images. Enhancing999 (talk) 10:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

IMO, removing the borders or otherwise cropping the images is wrong. Especially in the cases like File:ETH-BIB-Luzern, Kappelbrücke-Dia 247-10815.tif where the cropped version leaves out important information like the photographer and serial number. In the case of postcards such information is often on the outer edge of image and there's zero room to crop them without losing it. Which is exactly Enhancing999 did when they cropped File:SBB_Historic_-_F_VARIA_00002_028_Gütschbahn_Luzern.tiff. You also can't reliably crop a scanned image without losing large parts of the image because they are never scanned straight. For instance with File:SBB_Historic_-_F_116_00001_109_-_Caux.tif Enhanncing999 cropped out like 15% of the bottom of the image because it wasn't perfectly aligned when it was scanned. Both cases obviously go against what the template says about how images where information would be lost shouldn't have their borders cropped because it violates the original artistic intent of the image.

While I can understand the argument that cropped images are "better" on Wikipedia, that's extremely subjective, highly dependent on the individual image/use case, and at the end of the day I don't think anyone really cares anyway. If anything I'd assume people are more willing to deal with a border then they are an image that's missing part of the bottom. In the meantime there's places like Wikiproject Postcards where the recommendation for scanning postcards has been to do it with a border. That also seems to be how most GLAM projects have done it. So whatever the benefits to Wikipedia might be, and again their extremely questionable, the general consensus seems to lean towards having/keeping the borders when it's a scan of a physical object. Otherwise, your just needlessly alerting the original. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:45, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting points, but not all of them are directly relevant to Wehrli's "dias" (slides). Enhancing999 (talk) 13:59, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure but most of the images that you added the template to and cropped aren't slides. At least not from what I can tell. Nor have I removed the template from any slides that I'm aware of. So I don't see what your point is. That said, even in a case of a slide like File:ETH-BIB-Luzern, Kappelbrücke-Dia 247-10815.tif you still cropped out some of the bottom of the slide and it's better to retain the photographer/publication information in the image then not. Otherwise you should be able to say why retaining the information doesn't matter. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:40, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you mixed up talk pages. Can you limit this here to Wehrli's (and possibly read what was discussed above). If you want cover other topics, please use a new section. Enhancing999 (talk) 18:44, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

No I didn't. Everything I said applies to cropping in general, slides or otherwise. There's nothing special about slides that magically makes the reason's I gave for why cropping is bad not apply. Like I said, even with the slides you still cropped out parts of the images and removed the publisher/publication year. If you think the bottom 10% of the slide and/or the publisher/publication year don't matter with slides, cool. So say and give reasons why you think they don't. Otherwise, the images shouldn't be cropped. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:09, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The question here isn't if one should crop or not. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I feel like your being super pedantic about this to deflect from addressing what I've said. That said, from my reading of the original question, it was about if depending on what we agree the best practice is we should add either {{Remove border}} or *{{Border is intentional}} to the images. I might be wrong, but as far as I know adding {{Remove border}} to a file would eventually lead to the border being removed by way of cropping the image. Otherwise I'd be interested to know how else you'd do it. Given that, I don't think {{Remove border}} should be added to the images in light of the issues with cropping that I've already provided evidence of. Otherwise, you'd have to either argue those issues don't exist or that {{Remove border}} has absolutely nothing to do with cropping. Take your pick. I'd be interested to know how the border can removed from a file like File:ETH-BIB-Luzern, Kappelbrücke-Dia 247-10815.tif without either removing the author/publication year and/or cropping out the bottom of the slide. Maybe there's a way to do it, but I don't know of one. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:55, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Noted. Thanks for your input. Enhancing999 (talk) 19:58, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

I didn't necessarily provide the input for your benefit, but your welcome anyway. I assume your non-response means there's no way to remove a border without cropping the image. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

One option might be, to categorize only the cropped *.jpg files, as currently being practized by NARA by adding Category:NARA TIF images with categorized JPGs. I, personally, find this confusing and I observe that this causes some confusion, when faithful users search for uncategorized images with the intention to reduce the number of uncategorized images. NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the same file that is being displayed more beautifully on the left hand side

A complicated method of displaying a nice version of a photo on Wikipedia without retouching the original on Wikimedia Commons

Another option might be, to provide a template on how to display the photos in a retouched version on Wikipedia, without changing the original on Wikimedia Commons, as shown here in the source text (unfortunately, the file doesn't open Wikimedia Commons yet, when clicking onto the photo). NearEMPTiness (talk) 04:14, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The general idea is not to alter the original image. Simplicity of use, categorization and maintenance of other information about the images are indeed factors to consider. Enhancing999 (talk) 08:51, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Cropping away borders

Hi, when trying use our great "# Crop Tool" to crop unwieldy files like File:2 (Zwei) Blätter Carte d'Etat-Major auf das Doppelte (1 - 40 000) vergrössert durch Überdruck mittelst gespannter Kautschuk-Haeute - btv1b101111988 (2 of 2).jpg or File:Abbildung des Wunderlichen Schiffstreits zwichen der Spanisch und Holandischen Armeen under Jacob Heimskirchen bei Gibralter den 25 Apr 1607 - btv1b53194489h (1 of 2).jpg, I get the warning "Upload failed! [api] Received error: abusefilter-warning : ⧼abusefilter-warning-overwriting-artwork⧽". Now, unless I missed the art in the white border, I don't think I am abusing the tool. What is the approach to have files like this cropped? --Enyavar (talk) 02:47, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I used croptool.toolforge.org and could crop and overwrite the second file without problems. In hinesight, I understand that File 2 of 2 does look now a bit out of place. I got the same error message as you when I tried to overwrite the first file. I think you have three options:

1. Crop and save it as a new file (that is what the original uploader intends you to do)
2. Try to find the template, by which the file has been protected against overwriting
3. Download the file, crop it with external software such as MS paint Version 2.0 and upload a new version ("Eine neue Version dieser Datei hochladen"), if you really think that this is in the interest of the project. If anyone objects, he can revert this easily. --NearEMPTiness (talk) 03:55, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

According to Commons:Overwriting existing files, images shouldn't be overwritten when there is a Major change to it. Otherwise you should just upload a new version. In the case of File 2 of 2 the image is of a book page or something. So it really shouldn't have been cropped or overwritten to remove that information from the image. As it's a major change to the original. Overwriting it also breaks consistency with File:Abbildung des Wunderlichen Schiffstreits zwichen der Spanisch und Holandischen Armeen under Jacob Heimskirchen bei Gibralter den 25 Apr 1607 - btv1b53194489h (2 of 2).jpg, which the guideline says you shouldn't do. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a "major change" when all that is done is removing empty whitespace. But, if cropping away whitespace is not allowed in order to not losing "consistency" with a single empty page? Then I'll leave the Gallica Maps alone. The files can't be used in a Wiki project uncropped, though. --Enyavar (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

In the image mentioned above, the crop most certainly removed far more than "empty whitespace". Most of the area of the photograph has been removed, as well as most of the page (!). As if this were not enough, the edit also removes the valuable information like the page number and museum stamp visible on the page itself. Not only this, but the cropped image is now landscape, rather than portrait - the opposite of what the printers intended, of what all subsequent readers saw, and of what the photographer wanted. The solution is rather to isolate the printed area with a crop to another file, but to crop on the original file only the wholly irrelevant area: the parts of the photograph that do not depict the book at all. Evidently, for most purposes, only the tight crop of the printed area is required, but the full page should be retained on the original file. GPinkerton (talk) 23:30, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

 Done Cropped and uploaded as new files. I also added the missing license for both. Yann (talk) 11:38, 22 August 2022 (UTC)