Commons:Village pump

Shortcut: COM:VP

• Community portal
  • introduction
• Help desk
• Village pump
  • copyright
  • proposals
  • technical
• Administrators' noticeboard
  • vandalism
  • user problems
  • blocks and protections

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓

COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index) Commons Help desk Village pump (general discussion) Copyright Proposals Technical Graphics and photography discussion Photography critiques Image improvement Illustration workshop Map workshop Photography workshop Video and sound workshop Categories for discussion Undeletion requests Deletion requests Volunteer Response Team/Noticeboard Translators' noticeboard Work requests for bots Contact administrators Vandalism User problems (Dispute resolution) Blocks and protections Bureaucrats' noticeboard CheckUser requests Oversight requests Telegram IRC webchat Commons mailing list (archive) Commons' bugs on Phabricator 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; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2024/04. Please note: 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. Have you read our FAQ? For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming. 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). 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: Please do not make deletion requests here: use the relevant process for it instead. For technical support and graphics talks (PNG, SVG, GIF, etc.), please post on the Graphics village pump. To ask for image improvement, see: Graphic Lab/Photography workshop for photographs. Graphic Lab/Map workshop for maps. Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop for other illustrations. To ask for video or audio improvement, see Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. For translation requests, please post at Commons:Requests for translation. For media requests, please post at Commons:File requests. Search archives:       Start a new discussion

Legend
In the last hour
In the last day
In the last week
In the last month
More than one month
Manual settings
When exceptions occur, please check the setting first.

Village pump in Sabah, Malaysia. [add]

Centralized discussion See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive Proposal to prohibit political restriction templates (5 February 2024) Should PD-CQ Roll Call be used for recent images? (5 January 2024) Technical needs survey (17 December 2023) When does PDART apply to textile works? (15 November 2023) Does this image contain "love hearts"? (17 August 2023) Overhaul of categories by period (5 December 2022) Version of Saudi flag to use (11 July 2022) Concern regarding revocability of KOGL licenses (22 December 2021) Should deleting content from your own talk page be forbidden? (11 November 2021) Revise the COM:FOP Sweden section (1 February 2021) Change technical name of LRs to license-reviewer from image-reviewer(2 November 2023) User talk:湯崩正海#Image Tagging File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgとUser talk:湯崩正海#File:青島ビール放尿動画事件.jpgで議論しています。皆様のご意見を募集しています。是非、ご参加ください。(2 November 2023) 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.

April 17

Download name should always be page name, not SVG title

The download name of an SVG will be based on the title in its code, if one exists. This is not practical.

• Downloading a diagram like this will create a file called Neo4j Graph Visualization.svg.
  There are many online tools, that write their name in the title. (This includes SVG optimizers.)
• The square version of this map will download as Illinois_Presidential_Election_Results_2020-svg.svg (potentially leading to confusion with this file).
  People often download SVGs, and upload modified versions. The title is not always updated.
  

--Watchduck (quack) 09:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Depends. If you download a thumb of the SVG, or if you use download buttons, or right clicking a url and using "Save linked file as" or "Save image as" then they should not. But if you open the image directly in your browser and then choose "Save as", then the image name is determined by the browser and you will see this behaviour I think. I'm not sure if there is a good method to easily correct this. Suggestions ? —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

@TheDJ: You are right, this happens in the browser. But the problem can likely be solved here, by passing the name to the download parameter of the anchor tag.

<a href="https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a8/OOKM_car_person_reified.svg" download="OOKM_car_person_reified.svg">CLICK</a>

Can someone try this on a test page? --Watchduck (quack) 18:17, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

But that forces a download, what if people just want to view the original image ? (It doesn’t force a download btw, because the download attribute doesn’t work cross site, but wikimedia has a url param ?download that does the same.) —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

When the link says Download, that is what it should do. Below there is a link that says Original file. (A click on the image will also open the SVG.)

You mean this might not work, because of "upload.wikimedia.org" vs. "commons.wikimedia.org"? --Watchduck (quack) 19:12, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah. I think you are referring to the links provided by the StockPhoto gadget which is unique to Wikimedia Commons ? because of "upload.wikimedia.org" vs. "commons.wikimedia.org" exactly. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 21:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I have asked a question on StackOverflow about this. Maybe some CORS magic can help. --Watchduck (quack) 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I wonder if content-disposition headers can be used here to name the file even in non download mode. Bawolff (talk) 15:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, that might be a possibility.. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

I've given this some thought, but we'd have to inject content-disposition header when uploading the file to swift, and also change it in swift when moving and create a maintenance script to update all the swift entries. Possible, but not sure if that is worth the effort. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:20, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

i've made some minor fixes to the stockphoto gadget. Personally I think it requires a full makeover, but i don't have the time for that. —TheDJ (talk • contribs) 14:23, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

This is mostly relevant for mass downloads. Gladly, the download tool Imker does not have this problem. (And someone fixed it.)
So my problem is solved. If someone chooses to fix the download link, consider making a screencast as a tutorial. --Watchduck (quack) 10:58, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

April 18

watermarks and advertising

Some images on here are watermarked, which is fine. I could really care less about watermarks in general. Some of them are extremely obvious and seem to only serve as a way to promote the person or place where the image came from though. For instance the overly intrusive watermark on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg, which contains the name of the company, their logo, and web URL. All of which are done in a way that seem rather promotional. Especially given that other images on here from the same source don't have such obvious watermarking. Commons:Project scope clearly states that files used for advertising or self-promotion are not realistically useful for an educational purpose. So I don't really see how a file with a watermark like the one on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg would be in scope. Since it's obviously meant to advertise Bollywood Hungama and their website.

It seems like other users, mainly @Yann: (but he's not the only one), think watermarks can't be advertising or self-promotion for the purposes of project scope. Including the one in the image from Bollywood Hungama. So I'm interested to know what other people think about it. Are there instances where a watermark can disqualify an image from being in scope due self-promotion and advertising? Or are all watermarked images automatically in scope regardless of how blatantly promotional the watermarking is? Adamant1 (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: FYI, as I already told you, there are already nearly 17,000 pictures from Bollywood Hungama, so complaining about one picture seems quite out of place to me. These were not uploaded by Hungama, but by Wikimedia contributors interested by the Bollywood film industry. So yes, they may be indirect advertisement for Bollywood Hungama, but what's your problem with that? Yann (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And like I've already told you and repeated here, most images from Bollywood Hungama don't have the same watermarking. So I think there's a difference between the file I've brought up and the rest of the images from them on Commons. Regardless, it's called an example. I assume you know what that is. I don't really care if the images where uploaded by Wikimedia contributors interested by the Bollywood film industry or whatever. That has nothing to do with watermarking and whether it can serve as a form of advertising or not. You seem unable or unwilling to answer the question without just deflecting for some reason though. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

And what is the need for a personal attack now? Yann (talk) 16:38, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not a personal attack. I just want the question to be answered and I don't think your response was adequate or addressed my original comment. It has nothing to do with who uploaded the images or what their interested in. I don't think it's that ridiculous or insulting to expect you to stick to the point of the thread if your going to respond to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Some don't have watermark because they were cropped. Otherwise, most if not all have a watermark. If you find some original images without a watermark, it may be a clue that it is not covered by the permission. Please nominate them for deletion. Yann (talk) 16:53, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. That has nothing to do with the conversation, but whatever. Just to ask the question again since your ignoring it for some reason, are there instances where a watermark can disqualify an image from being in scope due to self-promotion or are all watermarked images automatically in scope regardless of how blatantly promotional it is? --Adamant1 (talk) 16:57, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

In some other cases, the watermark was edited out, as the original image has one. Yann (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Yann, it seems like a reasonable example of the sort of watermarking he is complaining labour. This does seem intrusive, so I think dismissing him out of hand is counterproductive. - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 10:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, Bollywood Hungama files have an intrusive watermark, but so what? Adamant1 here is complaining for the sake of complaining. They started this thread after I closed this deletion request. IMO this is a typical example of Do not disrupt Commons to illustrate a point. In addition, this comes after Adamant1 made a large number of disruptive DRs about freedom of panorama in Belgium, and I am not the only one to find them problematic. So yes, I dismiss Adamant1's writing as counterproductive. Yann (talk) 11:56, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Yann: I have a right to ask a quesiton about something on the village pump if I feel like it needs clarification. Yet your the one who keeps saying not to make things personal and then that's exactly what you seem to do in essentially every single discussion we're both involved in for some reason. Go figure. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:51, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't understand the potential resolution here: Bollywood Hungama does not upload files directly to Commons, and they have >17,000 images on Commons. Do you want to nuke all images? Prevent future uploads of a potentially useful source? The current de facto situation is people upload images made by them on Commons, and if someone doesn't like the watermark it can be cropped out/removed with editing tools or AI. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 19:15, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

No, I could care less about Bollywood Hungama or any images related to them. I simply mentioned the image as an example of a watermark that at least IMO is promotional and like I've said most of their images aren't like that. Apparently people are incapable of understanding the question or not making this about Bollywood Hungama even though I've retaliated the question multiple times now and said more then once that it has nothing to do with them. My bad for thinking it would be helpful to include an example of what I was talking about though. Is really that hard to just say if watermarks can be promotional or not? --Adamant1 (talk) 19:43, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I can't tell what you think is the problem with hosting this image. Would we prefer if it weren't watermarked? Sure. Is it available without a watermark? As far as I know, no. So unless you think it is out of scope, or redundant for all intents and purposes to some other file, there is no issue here. - Jmabel ! talk 20:59, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Forget the file. It was tangential to the question about watermarking anyway. Its a simple yes or question that doesn't depend on or have to do with any particular file. Can watermarking on an image make it advertising/self-promotion or not per the sentence in Commons:Project scope "files used for advertising or self-promotion are not realistically useful for an educational purpose"? --Adamant1 (talk) 21:11, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

I could imagine a watermark having that effect (e.g. a portrait shot with a blatant watermark across the face, like the ones professional photographers sometimes send out as proofs, precisely to prevent anyone from simply using the proof and not paying them, though I guess we could keep a handful of those precisely as examples of that practice). But it would be a pretty extreme case. - Jmabel ! talk 02:09, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: That seems reasonable. I like Jarekt's solution, but then it would be helpful if there was some kind of note about where the line was in a policy or guideline somewhere. Since I do think there is one. Even some people disagree as to whether specific examples cross it or not. Otherwise I could see it being a problem at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

One way to deal with watermarked images is to either crop them or use photoshop, GIMP or some other tool to remove watermarks. Often the results are not ideal but better then not having some image. All Wikipedia-compatible licenses allow it. I just tried this tool on File:Sunny Leone snapped at Mehboob Studio.jpg. --Jarekt (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jarekt: Thanks! It's actually kind of crazy how well that works. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

All are welcome to read and comment upon Template talk:BollywoodHungama#Permission deprecation.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:31, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

April 22

Ambiguity of the term "cars"

Since there has been a CFD on Category:Automobiles at Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/07/Category:Automobiles with no consensus, I don't want to open another CFD to discuss the name. Instead, I want to discuss whether the term "car" is inherently ambiguous, since consensus can change and many of the oppose comments are little more than !votes. As per my analysis of that discussion, many users agree that the term "car" is more common than "automobile" even in the USA. Therefore, it makes sense to use "cars" instead of "automobiles". However, the arguments against this proposal are that the term "car" has several related meaning other than an automobile, that the cognates of the term "automobile" and its clipped form "auto" are common in many European languages, and that the name change would be disruptive for Commons. My counterargument is that although Commons is a multilingual project, English, like in many other domains, is the lingua franca of this project. Many of our categories are named according to the common usage in English. Not only that, if the term "car" is inherently ambiguous, we can stick with the term "motor car". However, the term "motor car" may also be used for Category:Railcars, which is no big deal. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 13:50, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Looking at Category:Automobiles by function, I've found that there are already some categories using the term "cars" in their names despite the term being de jure deprecated in Commons. As said before, some users have complained that the name change wod be disruptive for Commons. However, as one can categorize files quickly using Commons:Cat-a-lot, the potential disruption will be more manageable. You can refer to the example of how we move away from the technical term Category:Rolling stock to use the more common term Category:Rail vehicles. We can do the same thing with Category:Automobiles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:00, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

 Comment Category:Car and Category:Cars both are category redirects through to Category:Automobiles. To also note Category:Cars (Q7238000) and Category:Automobiles (Q6491972)  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sbb1413: I am seeing an argument in search of a problem. What is your issue? What sort of solution are you looking to have? Tell us what is the problem that you are seeing with the categorisation, and how we could be implementing a fix.  — billinghurst sDrewth 14:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem is that the technical term "automobiles" is less common than the term "cars", even in the USA. Many newcomers will be frustrated to find that we use "automobiles" instead of "cars". If we use the term "cars" instead of "automobiles", none but non-English-speaking Europeans will complain about the usage. We can always use {{Translation table}} for such users. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:17, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

As a user from India, I had never heard of the term "automobile" till 2020, when I started to contribute in Commons extensively. I've always used the term "car" outside Commons and I always rent for a car instead of an automobile. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 14:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, I'm one of the older Wikimedians, but I still to some extent have the older connotation of "railroad car", especially when dealing with older material. I agree that it's an archaism now, but if someone referred to "Franklin Delano Roosevelt's car" I would guess that was as likely to mean rail as road. - Jmabel ! talk 14:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

For what I worth, I have already created Category:Railroad cars for rail vehicles carrying passengers and/or cargo. I have used the term "railroad cars" in line with Wikidata and Wikipedia. However, for Category:Automobiles, neither the Wikidata item nor the English Wikipedia article is titled "automobile". The Wikidata item is titled "motor car", while the English Wikipedia article is titled simply "car". English Wikipedia uses "car" for automobiles even though it can have other meanings. Similarly, Bengali Wikipedia uses গাড়ি (gāṛi) for automobiles even though it can also mean bullock carts (গরুর গাড়ি garur gāṛi), horse-drawn vehicles (ঘোড়ার গাড়ি ghoṛār gāṛi) or trains (রেলগাড়ি relgāṛi). As long as the context is obvious, the English word "car" and the Bengali word গাড়ি (gāṛi) would specifically refer to automobiles. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 03:06, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but the top parent category should be Category:Automobiles. Otherwise you have people putting images of trucks into Category:Cars, which is just weird. There should be two separate category trees for cars and trucks. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I will open a CFD on automobiles vs cars if there is no prejudice against it. Sbb1413 (he) (talk • contribs) 07:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

a no-no in specifying disambiguation categories

in Category:Disambiguation categories we have

• Category:Disambiguation categories of artists (140 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of churches in Sweden (20 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of naval ships of the United States (22 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of populated places (20 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of saints (36 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of sportspeople (10 C)
• Category:Disambiguation categories of taxonomy (4 C)

and essentially these are nonsensical.

Disambiguation is of the word/phrase in whatever, and every, form it is used, so to sub-categorise these is contrary to their purpose of the word/phrase not having a specific meaning [for disambiguation is essentially a label without meaning]. It would also mean that if there was a term that aligns with the disambiguation page that you are going to split it? Change its form? What? We should just appropriately explain the linked categories with suitable explanations.

I propose that we remove these intermediary categories and align all the subcats to the top-level cat. The reason that I note it here is for that higher level discussion, and that there is no other realistically useful place to have this conversation appropriately.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Assuming that by "the top-level cat" you mean Category:Disambiguation categories, I agree. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd like these to be kept. They are useful when someone wants to work on disambiguating a specific kind of topic. They are similar to the subcategories on English Wikipedia in en:Category:Disambiguation pages.

The subcategories are, as far as I know, all in Category:Disambiguation categories as well; if they aren't, that is easily fixed.

By the way, it would be nice if you would notify the creators of each of these pages. I created some (although I did so only after others had been created), but there are at least two other people who created some of them. -- Auntof6 (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I find them very useful, just as they are useful in Wikipedia, too many ships, cemeteries, and churches have the same name. Wikidata should do the same thing, list all the entries for Saint Mary Church or Evergreen Cemetery. Currently we only do this in Wikipedia but in the past the red linked ones were deleted. Commons has entries not in Wikipedia. --RAN (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

That's not how Wikidata works; you can query Wikidata for the sets you describe. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:08, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support. Disambiguation pages are navigation tools, not content. Time spent placing them into highly specific categories is time wasted. If anything, having all the disambiguation categories on a single level makes it easier to spot the ones which aren't empty like they should be. Omphalographer (talk) 05:36, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: They are all on a single level, or they can be in addition being in the categories being discussed. English Wikipedia doesn't have trouble with the ones they have (and they have many more than this). Each of theirs is in a category for all disambiguation pages as well as in a more specific one, and the ones here can be managed in the same way.

There's no requirement to create lower-level disambiguation categories for every possible topic, so no one has to do so. People can create the ones they want to have available to work on. Having them grouped into subcategories makes it easier to find them. I really don't see what problem these cause. -- Auntof6 (talk) 08:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support. @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): no one is suggesting getting rid of the disambiguation pages, just that categorizing them like this is inappropriate. For example, if we had a Category:Saint Augustine (which, surprisingly we don't) it should include not only all saints with this name, but also the city in Florida. - Jmabel ! talk 08:17, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

 Support The whole point of disambiguation pages is that they cover more than one thing sharing the same name. I agree with moving these pages to the main cat and deleting the subcats. ReneeWrites (talk) 09:34, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Comment There is some commentary about English Wikipedia's similarity. At enWP they are disambiguation pages, they are not disambiguating categories. There is a whole heap pof difference between main ns content pages and categories. Here I am specifically talking about categories that disambiguate categories.
  @Auntof6: It seems like what you are wanting is more like what we are seeing in Special:PrefixIndex/category:Things_named they are more like listings (which can be a separate issue for another day). Disambiguation is best just being clean simple disambiguation, otherwise it is becoming some weird morphing. When things morph they are confusing to many in my experience. Already have enough issues with people populating disambiguation pages.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Billinghurst: That's not equivalent, or even very helpful for the kind of thing I use the dab categories for.

  Also, I see that you removed a lot of things from the various categories under disambiguation pages of saints, and as a result all of those categories are now empty. I think doing that while this discussion is going on was in bad faith. Also, doing that isn't helpful unless you replace the dab category with a category for a specific saint, which you didn't do in all cases. Please undo those changes, except in cases like this one which already had a specific saint category on it. -- Auntof6 (talk) 06:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Disambiguation categories are not hold all categories until someone comes and does a better job. They are neither Template:CatDiffuses nor Template:Meta categorys.
  The only cat pages where I took out the categorisation of "Disambiguation categories of saints" is where they were not just about the people, instead were about the term, and they should never have been categorised so. With regard to my removing files from disambiguation categories, they should never have been populated with files (in the first place). Disambiguation categories are to be empty. I don't believe that I have removed any pages from standard categories. I have been slowly depopulating disambiguation categories for weeks, and up J.  — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you, I understand how the cat diffuse and meta cats are different. I work with all them all the time.

  And yes, ideally disambiguation categories should be empty, but for the most part they aren't deliberately populated with files. They get populated when the a person or bot either 1) doesn't understand categorizing or 2) doesn't understand that many terms have multiple meanings and they have to pay attention to what they're doing. There are people, me included, who regularly look at the non-empty disambiguation categories and fix the categorization -- not just remove it, but fix it. You're making those fixes impossible. -- Auntof6 (talk) 09:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

While we're at that, can we get cat-a-lot to handle disambiguation categories? --Enyavar (talk) 07:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

•  Oppose Per Auntof6. I don't really see what the issue with sub-categories is or how it can't just be resolved with something like a flat list. Plus they seem helpful in the meantime. There doesn't seem to be a clear reason to delete them either. Since unless I'm misunderstanding something even if I buy that it's inherent to disambiguation pages that the word or phrase not have a specific meaning, that has nothing to do with what parent category said page is in. It's not like they can't just be put in multiple parent categories in that case either. Although I think it's a rare case anyway. Most of the time categories in disambiguation pages have to do with the same broader topic. Otherwise there's something like Special:PrefixIndex/category:Things_named for organizing them in a coherent listing. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Crop tool

Commons_talk:CropTool#Not_working --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 18:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

• Still not working. :( --Rosiestep (talk) 13:33, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

For a replacement, see Commons:Village_pump/Technical#New_tool_for_cropping_and_rotating_images_(proposal). Enhancing999 (talk) 16:30, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Now working. --Lewisiscrazy (talk) 21:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

April 24

create a new category

Hi, I'm trying to create a new category called "Archeofuturism" for the picture I uploaded, "A_Martian_colony_with_a_medieval_village.jpg," but I haven't been successful. Can someone assist me with this?--Raresvent (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Convenience link: File:A Martian colony with a medieval village.jpg.

@Raresvent: before getting into your specific question, why is that image within scope? In particular, how is it educational? It seems like a hypothetical imagining of something that certainly does not now exist, and is very unlikely ever to exist. - Jmabel ! talk 09:41, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, it's probably a mistake. Where do you see that the image is within scope?--Raresvent (talk) 10:03, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

@Raresvent: Please read COM:SCOPE. AI images are essentially personal artworks - they generally lack educational or historical value and most should not be uploaded to Commons. (Because generative AI is simply mimicking elements and patterns from other images without understanding their meaning, it is not equivalent to "artist's renditions" where all details of the image are intentional decisions by the artist, and should generally not be used for illustrations in Wikipedia articles.) I have nominated this image for deletion as out of scope. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:22, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Archeofuturism, what does it mean? As far as I know this is a made up word, peddled by a few recent books and articles. I don't think it has a reasonably defined definition yet, never mind the exposure and acceptance, sufficient to make it into a dictionary. Existing SF categories already cover it. Broichmore (talk) 10:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Very large batch upload should get some consensus beforehand

i think, users who might not be familiar with commons maintenance, should not do batch upload without first getting more opinions or even approval. occasionally i see files getting dumped into major topic categories or left uncategorised.

is this recommendation valid? i guess it's just an extension or application of Commons:Bots#Permission to run a bot? RZuo (talk) 11:38, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, How large are you talking about here? Bots need a permission anyway. Yann (talk) 11:51, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

i think anything more than 500 is too much and should seek a consensus. RZuo (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why 500? Msb (talk) 16:20, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Any upload where a human is not individually checking every file name, description, author, date, and categories at the time of upload should be considered a bot edit and treated accordingly. That means community approval - either of the specific upload, or of the user in a discussion akin to a bot request for a approval - to ensure that a plan is in place for properly curating the files.

Commons has a longstanding issue of uncurated and poorly-curated mass uploads that are equal in scale to bot uploads but lack the same community oversight. This results in large numbers of files with major issues – useless filenames/descriptions/categories, incorrect author/date information, scope and copyvio problems, and/or being placed in overly-broad categories – that the uploaders refuse to fix. There has been general agreement that the problem needs fixing, but no specific policy has been advanced.

I would prefer a more tailored policy, but as an initial effort, setting an arbitrary limit like "over 500 files needs community discussion first" may be useful. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:05, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

How does a policy like that get enforced, though? Without any sort of automated enforcement, it's only going to effect users who are aware of the policy, and whose batch uploads are less likely to be a problem. If it is enforced (e.g. by an edit filter), that's going to add a lot of administrative toil in approving batches - and users who hit the limit will still have uploaded a few hundred potentially bad images before they get stopped.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of treating batch uploads with a little more weight than we do now. (I've still got a batch of ~2k bad images from earlier this year that I need to bring back to DR a chunk at a time.) I'm just not sure how we could effectively make it happen. Omphalographer (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Omphalographer: The single most effective restriction would be on flickr uploads. They have inherent curation issues (because upload tools will copy the filename and description, neither of which tend to be particularly useful, from flickr), and the vast majority of uncurated flickr uploads are from a very small number of users. Put a reasonable rate limit on flickr uploads (say a few hundred over a few hours), and that will vastly decrease the problem edits without affecting those who do properly curate files they transfer.

In general, I think it's possible to use edit filters pretty effectively, especially with an edit notice that explains the reasoning. Edit filters can rate-limit as well as outright restrict edits; the actual number of good-faith users who are likely to upload at a high volume for long enough to upload a large number of files is, again, pretty low. For users that prove they can mass upload responsibly (either by curating before upload, or by uploading into cleanup categories that they then curate from), it shouldn't require much administrative work to have them approved.

Even if some unknowing users do upload a few hundred files before they hit a limit, that's still an amount that they can reasonably go back and curate if asked. It's the handful of users that upload thousands of uncurated files at a time - and know very well the issues they're causing - that the community has repeatedly expressed concerns about. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:11, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The problem description shows that we are only talking about imports not about the regular upload of original content. The import of content from Flickr was and is still restricted to users with autopatrol rights, but only with built in tools of MediaWiki. External tools are currently not limited to approved users. GPSLeo (talk) 05:37, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Presumably because, one can see 500 thumbnails on one page, enabling an overview for initial assesment. Broichmore (talk) 09:48, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

because

1. category pages can show 200 per page. 500 is actually already 3 pages.
2. i vaguely remember that uploadwizard or something can allow up to 500 uploads in one go. anything more than that is most likely done thru a script or by a bot.

RZuo (talk) 21:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The generic upload tool is the upload wizard. This allows batches of 500 uploads and even for new users uploads of 150 files. And the upload wizard can upload any number of batches in succession with the same settings. If it reaches a rate limit, it slows down but continues the uploads. This was not always the case. It is therefore a deliberate decision to make it easy to upload a large number of files as quickly as possible. I also don't see the problem on the side of poorly done uploads: Commons is for finding images and then using them. Images without categories or with bad file names will not be found. However, this does not impair the findability and usability of well-categorised files. On the other hand, a user who is thrown a spanner in the works when uploading will often not start to categorise them files afterwards, but will stay away altogether or upload them to Flickr, leaving it to the idealists at Commons to first import these images and then process them. Scaring off uploads in this way will not make Wikipedia more popular with the public.

In my opinion, the better approach is not to restrict uploads, but to provide better tools for editing files that have already been uploaded. For example, an easy way to find suitable categories without having to know what the first letters of the category name are in an arkane and alien language called "English". Luckyly thousends of new categories in chinese language have been created in the last month (Chinese is a language understood by a large part of the earth population). C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The important thing is finding a middle ground between not allowing for batch uploads of junk that will be categorized or used for whatever reason while also not discouraging people from uploading images here to begin with. That's allowing people with certain rights to batch uploads is a good idea IMO. Its not like we don't do that for other things anyway. Otherwise what's so special about allowing for 500 images to be uploaded at once and who says that can't be reduced to a more managable number on the uploaders end without them just using another website? Say 100 or 200 files at a time is still a lot while allowing for better review and curation on top of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@C.Suthorn: This is not an issue that generally affects newbies - it is very rare for a new user to engage in mass uploads. (The few that I've seen doing so were, unsurprisingly, sockpuppets of blocked users.) Most newbies have a relatively small number of files to upload; while I fully agree that making it easier for newbies to properly describe and categorize their uploads is important, that's separate from the issue being discussed here. Uncurated mass uploads are a problem caused almost entirely by experienced users who refuse to care whether they are actually improving Commons.

Files with poor filenames, descriptions, and categorization are not neutral - they are actively harmful to the purpose of Commons. If a user browsing categories or looking at search results sees a bunch of files that don't have any useful indication of their contents, they will be unable to pick out the useful files they actually need. Flickr descriptions in particular often contain lengthy pieces of text with little/no relation to the file (very often, the entire copy-pasted text of a Wikipedia article), advertising for other projects by the photographer, and personal commentary. All of those cause the files to show up in search results that they absolutely don't belong in.

Poorly curated mass uploads also take up volunteer time: they force responsible users in that subject area to either clean up the mess, or to accept that their previous time curating files has been rendered a waste by the influx of uncurated files. These mass uploads have a lot of out-of-scope and copyvio images that must be nominated for deletion, and duplicate files that would have been noticed immediately had the uploader properly named/described/categorized them. All of this wastes the time of volunteers, who have more important things they want to do, just to get back to the same standard of quality that existed before the mass upload. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:20, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure if everyone involved in this discussion is aware of the following: MediaWiki is free software. That means that anyone in the world can write software that does bulk uploads and write that software to appear as the Upload Wizard. Especially if sockpuppets of experienced users act maliciously and make mass uploads, the consequence of upload restrictions will be that such users with multiple accounts and a software that pretends to be the Upload Wizard may upload many more files. This could be effectively prevented by making MW non-free and requiring an app key and an api key for the upload, both of which are only issued after effective checks. Or by limiting the number of uploads with the Upload Wizard (or, strictly speaking, each upload), e.g. to 50 uploads per day.

However, I think it would be better to provide people who want to upload files with tools that make it easier for them to make good uploads. For example, a tool could carry out automated checks when importing Flickr files (is the location and date of a photo named in the data imported from Flickr, is the description very short or very long, does it contain URLs) and then give the uploader hints during the upload as to what can be improved.

WMF is currently working on improvements to the UploadWizard, so it's a good time to make suggestions to the team working on it. C.Suthorn (@Life_is@no-pony.farm - p7.ee/p) (talk) 06:18, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

There should be two upload wizards, we need one for artwork and/or museum derived images. Broichmore (talk) 09:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Uncurated mass uploads don't come from maliciousness - they come from irresponsibility. It's very easy to push a button and see the file number go up; it gives the satisfaction of accomplishing something without having actually done the work. I don't find it likely that someone who's unwilling to spend 30 seconds per file curating them will take the significant effort to develop software just to allow them to do so. This isn't like serial sockpuppeteers who have a specific fixation that motivates them - even the most prolific mass-upload sockpuppeteer got bored after half a dozen blocked socks. Cut off the low-effort low-quality edit opportunity; some will find something low-effort but more useful like tagging spam, some will decide it's worth the effort to properly curate their uploads, and those unwilling to contribute productively will go elsewhere. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

April 25

Vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Dear all,

I am writing to you to let you know the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open now through May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 20:19, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone help me out with a task using AWB?

I want to edit these files to add the categories specified in the list. I think AWB can help but it is tedious otherwise. Can someone help User:Immanuelle/Toki Pona categorization Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 21:40, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

@Immanuelle: any reason not to use Cat-a-lot? - Jmabel ! talk 01:44, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel the structure of the list makes cat-a-lot not useful. There are 107 files and 107 categories, each file needs to be added to exactly one category with no overlap. I might be misunderstanding what AWB does, but I thought you could write queries with it that could categorize all of these in a few seconds. Immanuelle ❤️💚💙 (please tag me) 03:19, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

And they can't be found with a search, nor were they uploaded in more or less the same time frame by a single user? Because Cat-a-lot works fine with search results and user upload pages, too.

I don't work with AWB, so I can't say whether it might be better for this. Looking at Commons:Requests for comment/Technical needs survey/"Building block" tool to select files, I don't see much in particular that AWB can do and Cat-a-lot can't. - Jmabel ! talk 15:02, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

April 26

My 2024 Wikimedia Summit report

meta:Cascadia Wikimedians/2024 Wikimedia Summit report. Written for Cascadia Wikimedians, but presumably much of interest here to people on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I just did a major expansion of meta:Cascadia Wikimedians/2024 Wikimedia Summit report#Representation and access, which may be of particular interest to people on Commons. - Jmabel ! talk 15:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Pictures OK to use?

• This picture of Eddie Charlton has "Restrictions on use: Permission granted for public access and copying." specified.
• This picture of Eddie Charlton has "Copyright status: In copyright - Life of creator plus 70 years. Copyright holder: State Library of New South Wales. Rights and Restrictions Information: May be copied for reference and publication. Please acknowledge: Mitchell Library, State Library of New South Wales."
• This picture of Horace Lindrum has "This item may be used freely for research and study purposes, for all other uses contact Northern Beaches Council Library Local Studies. Please acknowledge that the item is courtesy of Northern Beaches Council Library Local Studies."

Are any of these OK to upload to Commons? Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 15:45, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This is very slow to load for me, so I can't see the sources, but reference and publication and research and study purposes are usually not sufficient for Commons. Public access and copying is vague. Are modifications and commercial uses allowed? Yann (talk) 17:12, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

None of these are ok to upload to Commons IMO, because they are not free to be used by anyone, anytime, for any purpose (COM:Licensing). --Rosenzweig τ 17:39, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@BennyOnTheLoose I second in motion to @Rosenzweig: 's input. No permission granted for commercial reuse of the images, something that free culture licenses like {{Cc-by-sa-4.0}} mandate. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all. I guessed as much, but thought it was worth a try. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Not sure what to do about this

Ltalc (talk · contributions · Statistics · Recent activity · block log · User rights log · uploads · Global account information) (assign permissions) spends a lot of time nominating pictures of naked people for deletion. Not sure what to think. Evrik (talk) 16:01, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done User warned, most DRs closed. Yann (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Trentino" and "South Tyrol" or "province of Trento/Bolzano"?

Hi all! As per title: the categories for the two provinces of Trentino-South Tyrol (Italy) are not uniform. For example we have Category:Churches in the province of Trento but Category:Cemeteries in Trentino, Category:Churches in South Tyrol but Category:Maps of municipalities of the province of Bolzano (and also Category:Municipalities in the province of South Tyrol, a third option that occurs only for South Tyrol). The Template:Provinces of Trentino-South Tyrol works with "Trentino" and "South Tyrol", meaning it doesn't display anything in several categories (like Category:Interiors of churches in the province of South Tyrol and Category:Interiors of churches in the province of Trento). Approximately, it's most often "South Tyrol" for South Tyrol, and "province of Trento" for Trentino, which is uneven in itself. Shouldn't this be fixed somehow? I'd go for "South Tyrol" and "Trentino", which however is not the standard for Italy (cfr Category:Churches in Italy by province). I'll link this thread in the Italian village pump; is there a German village pump or something too? -- Syrio posso aiutare? 19:55, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

For German there is Commons:Forum. - Jmabel ! talk 22:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

This story of the "Province of Trento / Trentino" and the "Province of Bolzano / South Tyrol" recurs periodically. The problem lies in the fact that the South Tyroleans do not accept being part of Italy, feeling invaded and conquered by Italy after the First World War, and therefore they would be part of Tyrol and Austria. But here we must not discuss whether that annexation was right or not; the issue here is that they are today an integral part of the territory and population of Italy. And in the Commons we need to consider this. The problem in Commons is that the German-speaking part does not accept the words "Alto Adige" and "Province of Bolzano"; and then were added those from Trento who do not want to hear about the "Province of Trento" but about "Trentino". However, this creates a lack of uniformity of the categories with the rest of the provinces of Italy. There were very heated and even lacerating discussions in the Commons in 2007 and 2009 and again in 2012 which led to the very laborious solution agreed between the various parties and different needs to use "Province of Trento" and "Province of South Tyrol" and for the region the name "Trentino-South Tyrol". Now, however, in recent years someone has silently and arbitrarily changed the names of several categories from "Province of Trento" to "Trentino" (and all "Province of South Tyrol" to "South Tyrol"), leading to the current inconsistent situation. So all these names should be changed in the way that was decided 15 years ago, and so the uniformity created then should be restored. Or a new discussion will open, that will turn out to be a new world war over these names. Who is willing to do it? I remember that a very heated discussion had taken place few years before in the English context (I think in Wikipedia), before the discussions in Commons was started. If you want to know about the discussions we had in Commons, here are the links.

2007-2009 2008-2009 2009 2011 2012. Enjoy the reading ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Jeez, I had the feeling there were some politics behind this, but I didn't think it was that much. Well. "Province of South Tyrol" doesn't exist, it's not used in Italian and, as far as I know (but correct me if I'm wrong), neither is in German. Regardless of all that, there has to be uniformity, one way or the other. It has either to be "Trentino" and "South Tyrol", or "province of Trento" and "province of Bolzano". As i said I wouldn't mind the former, but I'm ok with both, as long as it solves the issue. -- Syrio posso aiutare? 12:39, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Here in Commons I am against the use of "Trentino" instead of "Province of Trento", because then we could call Sannio the Province of Benevento, Irpinia the Province of Avellino, Polesine the Province of Rovigo, etc. In spoken language that's fine, but here in Commons we have a system that needs to be consistent. If for all the Italian provinces we use "Province of Xyz" this must also be applied to all the categories of Trentino which must be renamed correctly and consistently in "... in / of the province of Trento". For Alto Adige = Province of Bolzano = South Tyrol we will still be able to discuss and decide. But all of us together, not just you and me. DenghiùComm (talk) 15:46, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Let me leave a note, en:Polesine and en:province of Rovigo are not overlapping, the former identifies a historical territory, the latter a political one. I imagine that going through history books one finds more than one different territorial subdivision so, as of course we already do in the different wikpedias separated by language, we keep the last one institutionally correct. Returning to the therad issue I well remember the discussions and stubbornness of a single user who, in defiance of the concept of collaboration, de facto imposed his own POV. Agreed that a South Tyrolean knows the deonomy of his territory in German (but also in Ladin eh), but for the rest of the Italians who read (or used to read) a map will find Bressanone and not Brixen, as well as a native French-speaking would put us in check by imposing the place name Aoste instead of Aosta. Mixing political opinions and bibliographic needs-we are still cataloguing as if we were in a library-is not a good idea. :-) --Threecharlie (talk) 09:25, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Province of South Tyrol" doesn't exist, no wonder that a consensus on such a denomination didn't last. It's either "South Tyrol" or "Province of Bolzano", I've no preference on that, but please let's not come up with made-up denominations only to reach a sloppy compromise between users. BTW "Trentino" and "South Tyrol" are the only italian geographical regions which are defined by the administrative borders of the provinces. The other aforementioned regions such Irpinia or Polesine are a totally different story, so please let's keep them out of the discussion. Friniate (talk) 21:48, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Opinions of some admins ? DenghiùComm (talk) 16:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Friniate is correct that it would either need to be called "South Tyrol" or "Province of Bolzano". I also don't have a preference for either. Abzeronow (talk) 16:50, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

April 27

Is Commons is no longer of any value as a repository of documentary protest images?

I've been contributing images to Commons for the past decade or so, and am at the verge of quitting and deleting my profile.

• Mostly I take wildlife images of Australia - but also cultural festivals and occasional protests that I might see. I'm not a professional, and definitely not a great photographer ... but I do get lucky with some quality pictures, Featured pictures, and #20 spot in the picture of the year a while ago. Capturing images of my community, such as protests, festivals, annual commemorations and international visits such as the G20 conference here in Brisbane and its associated cultural events means that there's a pool of images for future historians and which occasionally also get picked up by academic journals.
• I tried to avoid the underbelly of Wikipedia and Wiki Commons politics as much as possible. I've seen some journals describe the toxicity and why some good people prefer simply not to deal with it. I think most people are well-meaning, but I've seen others who appear revel in those politics and in-fighting ... but I honestly have better things to do. Sadly, I seem to have been reluctantly caught up in it this week.
• My concern that's pushing me to stop contributing is that we currently have a small group of self-appointed guardians who've been deleting images of protests about the war in Ukraine (including two of my images here and here).
• In other cases, they're deleting valid protest images of Abdel Fatah el-Sisi or Women's rights campaigners in Iran. There were also recent Gaza and Iraeli protests where the uploaders have been forced to pixelate signs and photographs of hostages - which really makes the Commons version unusable from a documentary perspective.
• In all cases, the images are of an EVENT. There is a placard visible - giving context to what the protest is about, but the graphic they're complaining about might be less that 5% of the total image area! In no case is it attempting to circumvent copyright. FOP and Derivative works policies appear to being misused - the fact that someone is holding a protest sign doesn't necessarily mean that our photographic images are derivative works ... we're simply documenting a protest event, and people will generally be holding placards.
• Admittedly, one of my images has an image placard taking about 15%. I purposefully made faces in the crowd out of focus as it contained children who I was uncomfortable including ... although the protesters and their Australian plus Ukrainian flags are still visible. The resulting photograph contains an image based on a work by an NZ cartoonist from 2008. After some research, I contacted the Alexander Turnbull library who holds the work of that cartoonist (now retired) - and they have no issue with it. The image is copyrighted but even they see that I was photographing an event.
• Based on the examples that I've seen, and if it continues, I can see that Wiki Commons is set to lose a lot of documentary photographs where there are events at which people are carrying placards with images ... such as these from the January 6 insurrection: ex1 ex2 ex3 ex4 ex5

My feeling is that some of these Commons' policies triggering deletions are reducing the viability and usefulness of Commons as a repository of documentary photographs - or maybe that well-intended policies are being misapplied. These deletions are being pushed by a small number of individuals - so it's hard to tell if it's just them or if this truly was the Wiki Commons community viewpoint. The deleted images are fine on every other platform. My own photographs in Wiki Commons (at least prior to this deletion) have been used in magazines, academic journals and websites, our Australian national broadcaster, and even an Australian documentary feature film. It's just Wiki Commons admins that started making drama lately and saying that they can no longer be hosted because of some hypothetical that no-one else whatsoever has an issue with. Thoughts?? Is there any point of Wiki Commons containing documentary images if they're just going to get deleted?? Bald white guy (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bald white guy: Please have the Alexander Turnbull library send permission via VRT.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 13:14, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

What would you suggest as a solution? The problem is that the protestors violate the copyright of the original artist and documenting that copyright violation is therefore a copyright violation too. When we are talking about paintings made by the protestors themself I would agree that we should write down the guideline that holding a self made painting into a camera at a protest is considered as consent for publishing the photo of the artwork. Especially as getting a written down permission is not possible in such cases. GPSLeo (talk) 13:24, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@GPSLeoThanks ... I understand that there's a challenge. But imagine if the George Floyd incident had occurred in front of a movie theatre and there just happened to be a movie poster on display in the background. Essentially there's an event that needs to be reported but it cannot (or at least not on Wiki Commons). No respected publication or image repository other than Wiki Commons would actually have a problem with it. In the Australian and New Zealand legal jurisdictions, any copyright claim would be moot as they would come under "fair use" which isn't acceptable on this site for some reason. I think there needs to be an acceptable threshold. I think it's dodgy saying that something that occupies maybe 5% of the total image space (and was incidental, and outside the photographer's control) should trigger deletion. It just seems like overkill and, again, it makes Wiki Commons unfeasible for images of protest or other similar events. I'm seriously just losing my love for Wiki Commons over policies or interpretations that don't seem to make sense. Bald white guy (talk) 13:50, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

But background or only 5% has nothing to do with the examples you linked above. At these two examples the main subject of the photo is the poster that is presumable shown without permission by the original author. GPSLeo (talk) 13:59, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Essentially there's an event that needs to be reported but it cannot (or at least not on Wiki Commons). No offense, but Commons isn't a news site. Nor is it meant to be a general media repository that hosts whatever people want to upload here. It's not even good for that purpose either. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons is the media storage site for Wikinews.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:44, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

And? That still doesn't make it a news site. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: As acknowledged by the English Wikinews image use policy (en:wikinews:WN:IUP) Commons is only to store freely licensed or copyright free works. Images with copyright restrictions can be stored locally with a fair use claim. If you are involved with another language version of Wikinews that doesn't accept fair use, then you may want to build consensus there to adopt a local fair use policy. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with you @Bald white guy. Be me, a user who has only being 6 months and has being harshly “bitten” and insulted quite a lot by seasoned users even though there’s an explicit guideline against it (literally). So this clique of seasoned Wiki users bend the rules to their convenience. What I do is just ride it out. But that’s me as a new or outsider, in your case it must feel different of course. We at the end of the day, it is a community. Miguel Angel Omaña Rojas (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Commons is, in general, a perfectly good repository of many types of protest images. However, because of our particularly strict adherence to copyright law, it is not a good repository in which to document materials that violate copyright, and protest banners and placards often disregard copyright, so those particular images can't be here without a long chain of licenses that is almost never achievable. - Jmabel ! talk 14:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bald white guy I agree with J. Mabel here. Personally, I would want Commons to be able to host images of protesters with protest paraphernalia, but unfortunately, almost all paraphernalia are essentially artistic works, like creative placards and effigies. Even one image that I imported from Flickr got deleted recently (I imported it when I still had little familiarity on derivative works). There is of no use of applying Freedom of Panorama in many images that intentionally include such protesters' artworks, since FoP rules in 70+ countries do not typically cover non-permanent artworks in public places (Australian FoP itself does not cover flat arts like posters and tarpaulins). I'd like to take note also that Commons does not accept fair use content. Only content that are licensed for commercial re-uses is allowed, and this is a major reason why images containing unfree artworks cannot be hosted here. Perhaps we are meant to host such protest images to document events, but the commercial Creative Commons licensing means there is 100% certainty of an Australian postcard maker or a web developer misusing those images, to the detriment of the artists who created those artistic paraphernalia. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:56, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

@JWilz12345 @Jmabel: You and others make good points. However, I find the copyright arguments misguided. The images aren't seeking to surreptitiously capture those works for commercial gain - they're recording an event. The record of that event may be useful for others at some future point and used to highlight an issue I'd never considered (such as a couple of images that I captured at a May Day parade showing a small group of protestors highlighting the unfairness of the Australian/East Timorese Maritime Oil Lease). They had a graphic. Maybe they drew it themselves or maybe it came from other sources. However, that photo was used to illustrate discussions on the issue in several journals and in a film. That debate triggered change. I'm not saying I was responsible for anything meaningful but I was glad to have played a tiny part. I really appreciate Wikimedia for making the images available. Similarly (although not protest images) I was happy to see my Australian bat images being used early on in journals discussing COVID-19 or other bat-borne viruses. The fact that it's been so valuable is why the deletion of otherwise useful images makes me so disappointed.

Once again - the copyright argument is spurious. As mentioned, these types of images are used by the media and others every day without issue since we do have fair use within our legal doctrine. Even without it, our judges and legal professionals here are very smart and reasonable people (Hooray for us antipodean countries without political judicial appointments :-) ). I had the pleasant experience seeing that first-hand working within the NZ judicial system for over a decade.

The problem is that Commons enforces over and above what copyright law actually requires. Policies are aimed at making everything commercially viable. That's not going to always be the case with documentary images. Look - we know that images with identifiable people can't be used in all commercial scenarios because of Personality Rights, and we've found a way to still include them through availability of the Personality Rights Warning. Maybe something similar is needed to protect documentary images where there's some other potentially copyrighted recognisable image. I have used Personality Rights in my protest images where I have faces that are visible (thanks @Yann for having pointed that option out to me some years ago). Anyway - as per my original post, I see the current round of enforcement will result in removal of many valid images - not just mine. It will purge images of important protests on European and Middle-Eastern issues, and many of the January 6 images with visible banners. In the meantime, I'll need to explore other options for hosting my images. Thanks for the discussion. Bald white guy (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bald white guy one possible but potentially tedious option is to contact the artists themselves. I assume that the protesters who held the materials were the artists themselves, and if you have acquaintances with them you may try to ask them to have your images of their artistic paraphernalia released under the free culture CC licensing mandated by Wikimedia Commons. The email template for them to use as well as Wikimedia VRTS email address is at COM:VRTS#Email message template for release of rights to a file. If the artists of the paraphernalia have no plans to gain royalties from commercial re-users reusing images of their works, then it is a green light for the licensing permission to proceed. Note that the permission should not be restricted to non-commercial or non-profit uses only. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:11, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Remember nothing actually gets deleted, just hidden from view to non-administrative editors. Should Commons display rules change to allow fair-use of protest signs, or Freedom of Panorama copyright laws change, those images will be restored. And in 95 years those images will enter the public domain and be visible. --RAN (talk) 18:51, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) most protest art are temporary only and are not permanently-situated in public places. So unless the demonstrators decide to permanently showcase their artworks in an open-air museum (to fulfill outdoor requirements of around 60+ yes-FoP countries), FoP is not applicable. And note that there is no chance of Australian FoP extended to 2D flat arts. If some art societies there already oppose sculptural FoP in the Australian copyright law, what are the chances of 2D FoP being introduced there? 0%. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:21, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bald white guy "these types of images are used by the media and others every day": absolutely. And we could legally publish them on Commons, under the U.S. fair use doctrine. For that matter, it would be perfectly legal for Commons to publish works that are available under an NC license, since we are ourselves non-commercial. However, Commons policy has been from the outset, and remains, that we are specifically a repository of material that, at least in terms of copyright, is available for commercial use and for derivative works. - Jmabel ! talk 07:10, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

if more people know about cc licences...

if more people know about commons...

if these people will then add a caption underneath their poster art: "released under ccby/ccbysa 4 licence"... :) RZuo (talk) 20:36, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

The idea that a major website would care in the slightest about copyright without an DMCA request is still unthinkable to most Trade (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Bald guy, having photos deleted is not at all a slight against nor an attack against. It's just simply an unfortunate side effect of Commons strict enforcement against copyright. My suggestion would be to upload your photos to Flickr as well as Commons. That way people can still access the ones that occasionally gets deleted.--Trade (talk) 00:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

yes that's also what i occasionally do. photos of things like packaging, non-fop-covered art... are uploaded to my flickr.

i dont care about my copyright (of my photos), but i dont have the copyright of the artworks i depicted. RZuo (talk) 13:57, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@Trade @JWilz12345@GPSLeo@Jmabel @Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) @Prosfilaes @Jeff G.

Thanks for discussion. Look I'll just let those photos get deleted, and stop uploading. I'll find somewhere else more conducive. At the end of the day, I'm just a contributor, and just want to take photos and make them available to my community. I really don't want mess around with someone else's internal organisational politics and agendas. Everyone says I've gotta do this, or I've gotta do that. They say it's a copyright issue - but I feel that's BS, since it's a complete non-issue for everyone in the media, photo library business or legal professionals.

From my side, I see there's a simple remedy with Fair Use defined in our legal system - and it would be very simple for Commons to set up a tag for this type of image in exactly the same way as has been done already for Personality Rights. That tag would highlight that there might be a copyrighted graphic within the image that might impose some restrictions on usage. However, the powers that be within Commons have chosen to avoid that route. The only defence that I saw was a silly argument that someone (somewhere) might want the right to put my protest images onto a postcard! Seriously?! That's a very weak excuse. I'm not sure what postcard images they have in your part of the world - but here, in Queensland Australia, no rational person would ever put that on our postcards. Our tourists prefer their postcards with cuddly koalas, kangaroos, parrots, dolphins, the obligatory pretty landscape/cityscape, and pretty girls in bikinis on a white sand beach.

Thanks to those of you who've helped me through the years and who've made many great contributions of your own both in uploaded photos and your time. However, with this policy, it just isn't the place for me ... and I'm deeply saddened by the deletion of what I believe to be important images by the documentary photographers around the world whose work I've seen come up in those Pending Deletion pages. The way that its done is very disrespectful - maybe the elements in mine were kinda obvious, but the ones for Abdel Fatah el-Sisi or Women's rights campaigners in Iran were blanket deletion requests never specifically calling out which element was at fault within the image. I saw comments on others but never got to see the images as they'd already been removed. Anyway, I'll find another home for my images going forward. Thanks again. Bald white guy (talk) 11:16, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I won't try to convince you to stay. You have a fundamental disagreement with one of the key principles of Commons that was introduced at its creation. We can't change the whole project to suit the demands of an individual.

The key reason for me in maintaining the ban on fair use is that Commons files are automatically copied into websites and databases all across the internet through Wikidata and Wikipedia clones. Those sites and databases place trust in Commons to keep its files free of copyright issues (and remove copyright violations as quickly as possible). Allowing fair use images will break that trust and will require a lot more effort than a single warning template to fix.

There was some talk a couple of years ago about setting up another Wikimedia project for fair use files, but I haven't read any updates about it in a long time. If it does ever launch, that may be a suitable place for you.

Failing that, there are plenty of image archives out there to store your files. It is a shame that we can't accept your fair use contributions but we can't be everything to all people. From Hill To Shore (talk) 12:25, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bald white guy "...it's a complete non-issue for everyone in the media, photo library business or legal professionals."

it's not bs. it's not non-issue. pretty sure you can find common law precedents (and quite likely australian ones) when artists sue for compensation for violation of copyright by photos depicting their artworks being distributed without their permission.

see https://www.copyright.org.au/browse/book/ACC-Photography-&-Copyright-INFO011 . RZuo (talk) 08:47, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

• Likely this was said before in this lengthy thread, but here my take: I had a look at the 5 samples given initially. All but the last one (which isn't listed for deletion), they seem to be images of specific posters or banners rather than protests in general. As such, the question in their deletion requests is correct. If there happen to be posters in images showing people at protests, the question would have been different. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:25, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

April 28

Users who request files to be renamed to another language, are convinced they are right

What to do with this message, I get back: [1]. This is not the only user who does this, but they think they are right. (an admin once said something like: "it is forbidden to change the language, the original uploader gave to the file") I'm tired of discussions like that, with users that are so convinced. What is the best thing to say at comments like that?? Thanks for your time! - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2024 (UTC) PS My main language isn't English too, so I'm not going to translate text into French, I'm Dutch. That's not unfriendly, but if I write in my main language, other users would probably say "please use English". - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 23:32, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Ignore them. You're right, they're wrong, but no action is needed here. You could go mad concerning yourself every time someone is wrong on the Internet. - Jmabel ! talk 00:00, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

According to the user in question, the name of the files aren't even the title of the works Trade (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

The user somehow seems to mistaken Commons for Wikipedia. "Not the work title" or "given name of artist" are not listed on Commons:File renaming, Enhancing999 (talk) 04:36, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Renaming images of artwork to include the author's name and their chosen title for the piece (or the most commonly used name for it), rather than something different like a translation of that title into another language or a description of its subject matter, seems like a straightforward case of rename criteria 4 (harmonization). Translations of artwork titles can be given in file descriptions; having multiple images of a single piece of artwork exist with different titles just makes things unnecessarily hard to find. Omphalographer (talk) 04:58, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Harmonization" isn't for going through categories and renaming all files to your liking.

Besides, they are actually removing the artist's full name. Removing catalog numbers isn't actually making things easier. Some works are in American museums and known by the English titles written under the works there.

In any case, we have descriptions and categories for that. Enhancing999 (talk) 05:15, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

"Harmonization" is for things where they need to be uniform for a pattern relied on by a template, or where there is a clear sequence of files, or things like that. We do not normally "harmonize" file names just because they represent works by a single artist. - Jmabel ! talk 07:12, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks to all above. Most I already know, but how to say it, is difficult, but I just can ignore it, as have been said. Thanks to Hypergaruda, for the message on the talkpage of the 'requester'. - Inertia6084 (talk) (talk) 09:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

My comments weren't particularly for you, but rather in response to other replies. I'm aware of your extensive work in the field. Thanks for that again, btw! Enhancing999 (talk) 12:22, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama for 2D picture taken in Australia of 3D object by Japanese artist

I have several works of pottery by Japanese living national treasure Kinjō Jirō and I would like to upload pictures of them to Commons. Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Japan, Japan does not have artistic FoP, so in Japan I could not do this. However, the objects are physically located and would be photographed by me in Australia, which does. Does Template:FoP-Australia apply? Jpatokal (talk) 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

• Japan does not enter into the matter. For FoP, it doesn't matter where the artist is from. - Jmabel ! talk 07:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Assuming the works of pottery are works of artistic craftsmanship, the problem will be that {{FoP-Australia}} will only apply if the pottery is permanently situated in a public place or in a premises open to the public. For example, you could take pictures and apply {{FoP-Australia}} after you've donated the pottery to a museum open to the public and the pottery is on permanent display at the museum. —RP88 (talk) 07:38, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Per [2], the Australian legal definition of "premises" is quite wide, so if I attach a statement saying I welcome the public to inspect the objects by appointment (and follow through when requested), this should fit the letter of the law? Jpatokal (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos in png resulting in big filesize

i stumbled upon a user uploading new photos in png, so a typical photo takes up nearly 100 Mb (whereas jpg is normally less than 20).

what's the community's opinion about this? RZuo (talk) 14:03, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

examples https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?sort=create_timestamp_desc&search=filemime%3Apng+hastemplate%3Aown+filesize%3A110000

you can find more by lowering the filesize number. RZuo (talk) 14:13, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

In principle, it is perfectly fine. We welcome high resolution images in uncompressed/low compression formats link PNG and TIFF. For the purpose of archiving, the higher the quality the image we can obtain, the more future-proofed we will be as display technology improves. JPEG are good for making thumbnails but the compression can cause frequent artifacts after repeated editing. It is best to copy the original uncompressed file and edit that and then save as JPEG, which produces usable files with no artifacts. Whether I would have gone to the effort of making such high quality PNGs of plain packaging is another question. From Hill To Shore (talk) 14:20, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with From Hill To Shore. PNGs, TIFs (and lossless compressed WebP files) are very good for archiving purposes (and to edit from them). As interchange format (like embedding images or nominating for QIC/FPC), JPG is better. I used PNGs for the historical cellar of our town hall and TIFs for HDR images, to handle the brightness differences. --PantheraLeo1359531 😺 (talk) 11:19, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I think it's ridiculous. I like my files to be 1 to 5 MB or so. I might use PNG for images that are fit for PNG such as maps. Even then they should be smaller than 10 MB for sure. But who knows, maybe I'll feel different after buying a 4k monitor? My monitor is 1680 × 1050 so it's really small. A PNG file sized my monitor size is 2,9 MB at the most. Konijnewolf (talk) 22:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Everyone has their preferences. I would not use PNG for "ordinary" pictures (landscapes, people, etc.), but for technology, i.e. File:PC-Hardware HOF1969 RAW-Export 000165.png, I could imagine the use lossless images. Yann (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

PNG is typically very useful for cartoons and so, that have large areas of same color. A photo of a processor has no large areas of same color. Konijnewolf (talk) 23:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I use to scan and upload images of postcards in Tiff format, but it just took to long and the upload would time out. So now I do it in JPEG. I thonk that's a good use for loseless images. Since there's details in the original postcard that can be distorted or lost otherwise. I'm not sure about the benefits of loseless images of packaging though. As there really isn't finer details that need to be preserved. Maybe with the actual CPUs, but I don't think so. But its not like there's a file size limit on here either. So to each their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

@Adamant1: Please see COM:HR and Commons:Why we need high resolution media.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 23:51, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

April 29

"Ruditapes philippinarum"

Likely a simple one for those familiar with wikicommons process, but i hit a roadblock on my desire to move (plus further curate) the wikicommons for this creature (a clam) linked under this name Category:Venerupis philippinarum.

I'd like that moved under Category:Ruditapes philippinarum, but that exists as redirect back to the other - saying "For WoRMS, Ruditapes philippinarum is a synonym of Venerupis philippinarum".

Of course, the source doesn't say that - but rather the opposite, i.e. Venerupis philippinarum -> Ruditapes philippinarum as i want to implement. See: https://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=231750 reflecting this database https://www.molluscabase.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetails&id=231750

Help welcome to get content as Venerupis philippinarum -> Ruditapes philippinarum

I'd guess maybe a request to delete the existing Ruditapes philippinarum then a move, but i'm unfamiliar with the best practice on here in such cases! Thx. Sjl197 (talk) 02:08, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Sjl197: Done, though as of this moment I still have some content to move. - Jmabel ! talk 15:01, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

@Jmabel: Awesome thanks. Made some tweeks now to the names in a few links, looks mostly sorted now except for issues with some titles/headers of photos (some renames requested). The contents of the subcats mostly look ok - some poorly named but maybe i missed something Sjl197 (talk) 17:58, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Everything now moved. Please do look at the subcats of Category:Venerupis philippinarum and see if there are descriptions there that needs to change, I believe there are. This is normal editing that you can do yourself. - Jmabel ! talk 15:05, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

April 30

Crowding of categories by date

Hi to all, I would like to apologize if I write inaccuracies using the English language, a language I know well enough but not enough to use in a fluent discussion, so I am getting help from a good online translator. I think everyone is aware of the problem of overcrowding of any category in Commons, overcrowding that complicates the choice of an image that is useful, I recall, both to Wikimedia projects but also, thanks to the choice of license, to any sphere even commercial and usable with some ease even to those who are not familiar with Wikimedian dynamics. If this is well understood in a mother category, such as Category:United States or Category:Mountains or Category:Churches or Category:Women etc, in a category by date it is perhaps less felt, since very often those who upload multimedia content do not also categorize by the date of the photographic shot. I don't know how many people like me spend a lot of time in working these specific categories, I find them very useful because they fix a particular moment in time, so you can see the evolution of an image such as, for example, the maintenance and change of painting of a building, as in the more or less philological restoration of a church, or of the deterioration of a mural that, of course, being exposed to the weather becomes discolored until it disappears. It has also been useful to me on several occasions in identifying the location and/or subject of the shot when the information provided was minimal, making a joint search between the photographer and the dates of the shot. In conclusion, I find it very difficult to tackle the job of emptying the parent categories by date as it is often not possible to use the cat-a-lot toll as templates such as {{Taken on}} or {{According to Exif data}} do not allow it, forcing me to edit every single file with a huge investment in time. I am therefore asking for help to make this work easier for me, and I have a proposal if someone creates a bot for this purpose, even if only by doing a test run to see if everything works smoothly. Since human intervention might be necessary, it would be sufficient to create a temporary over-categorisation, so that they coexist, for example, Category:Photographs taken on 2024-04-30 (mother) and Category:Italy photographs taken on 2024-04-30 (son), and where the bot, recognising this situation would enter |cat=|location=Italy}} at the end of {{Taken on}}, {{According to Exif data}} and similar, by also removing the mother category. I invite you to scroll through the categories by date to make you aware that some are full of hundreds and hundreds of images which, if catalogued IMO more accurately, could improve their visibility and traceability. One of the problems is the large number of institutional images uploaded, reports of meetings of political personalities representing other countries or at international meetings, such as at the European Parliament, images that clog up these categories by the date taken. Sorry for the length of my intervention, thanks for reading.--Threecharlie (talk) 11:09, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

PS: I would like you to go and see my contributions to better understand what I am talking about, I think it is illustrative of the work I do.--Threecharlie (talk) 11:12, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: given your link here I looked at some of what you are doing, and the first three files I looked at raised questions for me, so let me come back to you with some questions:

• File:Secretary Blinken Arrives in Amman - 53689658570.jpg: what is the point of putting this in a Category:2024 at Queen Alia International Airport if you are not then going to create the category?
• File:Entrada de escuela primaria el día de las infancias.jpg, File:Hervás 3.jpg: for both of these, in the {{According to Exif data}} you added, there is a "cat=" with no value. What is that about?

You are correct that when things are catalogued through templates, Cat-a-lot is not the right tool. Are you familiar with VFC? - Jmabel ! talk 17:47, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

• For the subcategory of Queen Alia International Airport I have sorted it out now, unfortunately sleep comes every now and then and I am forced to stop working on Commons.
• cat= I always add it because, even if in a very small percentage of cases, I have seen it exploited, and by reporting it as indicated by the template, I think I am urging those who find it in front of them to deepen their use of it and, if necessary, supplement it; if it doesn't cause trouble, it is better to propose one more alternative than one less, or they wouldn't have created the template that way (but if somewhere it is indicated as deprecated, I will comply and remove it)
• No, I am not familiar with VFC and now that you have pointed it out to me I study it and see if I can understand how it works, forgive me but at almost 61 years of age and although I have been on the web for at least 25 I have no computer training and have to apply myself a bit more than a millenial.

A note Jmabel, I know it makes more noise a tree falling than a forest growing but I think it deserves more attention what I do rather than what I DON'T do, don't you think? ;-) Threecharlie (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

@Threecharlie: FWIW, since you bring it up, I'm almost a decade older than you.

You said to look through your contributions and it would be clear what you were doing; I picked the latest three that were at the file level and looked. - Jmabel ! talk 01:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Mirrored image

File:North city wall (with piles of oranges) (Jerusalem) LOC matpc.00473.jpg seems to be left-right mirrored. It is possible to fix? 93.47.36.56 16:33, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

The text added later is definitely mirrored but is there evidence to say the scene itself is mirrored? One possibility is that the Library of Congress fixed an earlier error and the scene is now the right way round. From Hill To Shore (talk) 16:54, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

File:Siur wikipedia in Jerusalem 080608 53.JPG confirms that the orientation is indeed correct, even though the text number is mirrored. - Broichmore (talk) 08:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

May 01

Commons Gazette 2024-05

• Currently, there are 185 sysops.
• User:CGoubert-WMF & User:HNowlan (WMF) made improvements to the stability of large uploads (T358308).

---

Edited by Bawolff (talk) and RZuo (talk).

---

Commons Gazette is a monthly newsletter of the latest important news about Wikimedia Commons, edited by volunteers. You can also help with editing!

--RZuo (talk) 10:40, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

SVG and thumbnails not updated

Your kind attention (and hopefully effective assistance) might be welcome here. Thanks in advance. —ReadOnlyAccount (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

May 02

PD-USGov-POTUS Flickr account uploading photos under a non-commercial license

How do we go on about this? flickr2commons won't work for obvious reasons--Trade (talk) 03:11, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

People of / People in

Hi, While most categories are "People of ...", couples are Couples in .... Any reason? Yann (talk) 06:55, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

there's also Category:People by country of location.

origin vs location. RZuo (talk) 07:23, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about Wiki Loves Earth 2024

COM:WLE2024 This page has a list of participating countries, and my country is not among them. Participating countries each have their own prize pools and judges. Are these separate from the event-wide judging process, and if so, can people from countries that aren't participating still take part in the contest and be eligible for the judging process? --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:58, 2 May 2024 (UTC)