1923 to expiredEdit

As an administrator, do you believe that replacing translations of templates using the former "1923" names with the current "US-expired" names is a worthy effort? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 16:51, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: As an ongoing effort, the Commons community is updating references to the PD-1923 template (and related templates, categories, etc.) to reference the new names (e.g. PD-US-expired) that don't assume a publication date of 1923 is the boundary date for US copyright expiration. I think the most visible uses have already been fixed, but undoubtedly there are still lots of locations remaining that use the misleading 1923 names. If this effort interests you, please feel free to contribute. —RP88 (talk) 17:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
@RP88: Thanks! This applies to all namespaces that are not archived discussions, right? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 18:33, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
That is a good rough summary, obviously you still want to use good judgement when making edits. As you say, you should avoid updating user comments on discussion pages to use the new names. Similarly, avoid editing text that is quoting someone else, such as close captioned content in the TimedText namespace that mentions an old template name (for example, a transcribed video of a WMF session on how to contribute to Commons). With regards to priority, documentation and documentation-like objects (such as visible explanatory text in templates or categories) are higher priority. Lower priority are things not directly visible, such as tracking categories or nested use of template redirects. Updating the File namespace is fine, particularly when updating a page for an additional reason or if the File is prominent for some reason (like linked from en.WP main page), but given the vast number of File pages using the old names, your time is probably best spent elsewhere (systematic updates to the File namespace is probably best done with automation). —RP88 (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
That makes sense. Thank you! I've been mostly working on templates since those affect lots of files by proxy. As an aside, may I request relevant updates to pages found under Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Use-PD-1923-warning as well as {{PD-old-100-expired}}? Thanks in advance for that, too. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 14:11, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
  DoneRP88 (talk) 19:12, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
One last thing: {{PD-old-100-expired}} is stilling using {{PD-old-X-1923}} for the body. Thanks. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:14, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Good eye, done as well. —RP88 (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for all of that! Have a nice day! -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 19:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, another thing: I replaced {{PD-old-90-1923}} with {{PD-old-auto-expired}} on File:Mauprat (Heinemann) Plate 1.jpg and File:Mauprat (Heinemann) Plate 2.jpg but that was reverted. Discussion stalled out on my talk page; any thoughts on what I should do? -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:14, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

@Brainulator9: It is not clear to me why that editor thinks replacing {{PD-old-90-1923}} with {{PD-old-auto-expired}} will lose information. I agree with you, assuming the death year of the author is known, PD-old-auto-expired is the better choice. There currently aren't any counties with a copyright term of life+90, so PD-old-auto-expired is correctly claiming PD in countries where the copyright term is life+80 years or fewer for an author who died in 1928. On 1 January 2024 works by this author will be PD in Jamaica (which is life+95) and while PD-old-auto-expired will automatically show this PD-old-90-1923 would at that point be less accurate. If before then one or more countries were to adopt a term of life+90, PD-old-auto-expired would be updated and all affected files using that tag would show the correct result. So either way PD-old-auto-expired is superior to PD-old-90-1923/PD-old-90-expired.
However, if you can't convince them PD-old-auto-expired is acceptable, it should be fine to replace PD-old-90-1923 with PD-old-90-expired to remove the redirect — it looks the same so they shouldn't have any objections. While I think PD-old-90-expired is inferior to PD-old-auto-expired in this case, it is not currently incorrect and probably not worth your time arguing over. Maybe also set a reminder in your calendar for 1 January 2024 to update these two files to use PD-old-auto-expired when PD-old-90-1923/PD-old-90-expired will no longer be correct :-). —RP88 (talk) 10:45, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I just pushed through anyway, since I imagine PD-old-90-expired can be deleted very soon as less than 60 files use that tag currently. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 15:38, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media SearchEdit


The Structured Data team is working on an alternative, image-focused prototype for media search on Commons. The prototype uses categories, structured data as well as wikitext from Commons, and Wikidata to find its results. The development team would like your feedback on the prototype, as they are looking to work to further enhance the search experience on Commons. If you have a moment, please look over the project page set up on Commons to find a link to the prototype and leave your feedback on the talk page. Thanks for your time, I'll be posting message similar to this one to other pages on Commons. The team is looking forward to reading what you think. Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Commons - Media Sarch, new feedback roundEdit


I'm following up on a message from earlier in the year about the prototype development for Special:MediaSearch. Based on community feedback, the Structured Data team has developed some new features for Special:MediaSearch and are seeking another round of comments and discussions about the tool. Commons:Structured_data/Media_search is updated with details about the new features plus some other development information, and feedback is welcome on Commons talk:Structured_data/Media_search. Media Search works in any language, so the team would especially appreciate input around support for languages other than English. I look forward to reading about what you think. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:05, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

File deletedEdit

Sorry I uploaded a copyrighted file. I didn't realise screenshots were conisdred copyrighted based off of File:DarkAppleMusiciOS14iPhone.jpg, you might want to do soemthing about that one too. Dmartin969 (talk) 01:06, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

@Dmartin969: No problem, copyright can be complex, particularly when it comes to derivative works. The issue was criteria for speedy deletion #3, namely that derivative works based on non-free content (such as screenshots of non-free content) are non-free (excluding an exception or two, such as freedom of panorama). I'll also take a look at the file you reference. —RP88 (talk) 01:14, 4 October 2020 (UTC)