Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
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/2022/02.

Please note:

  1. If you want to ask why unfree/non-commercial material is not allowed at Wikimedia Commons or if you want to suggest that allowing it would be a good thing, please do not comment here. It is probably pointless. One of Wikimedia Commons’ core principles is: "Only free content is allowed." This is a basic rule of the place, as inherent as the NPOV requirement on all Wikipedias.
  2. Have you read our FAQ?
  3. For changing the name of a file, see Commons:File renaming.
  4. Any answers you receive here are not legal advice and the responder cannot be held liable for them. If you have legal questions, we can try to help but our answers cannot replace those of a qualified professional (i.e. a lawyer).
  5. Your question will be answered here; please check back regularly. Please do not leave your email address or other contact information, as this page is widely visible across the internet and you are liable to receive spam.

Purposes which do not meet the scope of this page:

Search archives:

 

Start a new discussion

The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

January 18[edit]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact spatnaik@wikimedia.org.

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony (Talk), Tuesday 15:41, 08 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

—Preceding undated comment was added at 10:19, 18 January 2022‎ (UTC)

February 20[edit]

cc-by < 4.0 not ok any more[edit]

w:Cory Doctorow was targetted by a copyleft troll. as a consequence, doctorow, former european director of creative commons, discourages the use of CC-BY licenses prior to 4.0 in his post A Bug in Early Creative Commons Licenses Has Enabled a New Breed of Superpredator. should pre-4.0 be discouraged on wikimedia commons as well? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 06:48, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion here a few weeks ago which unfortunately didn't result in any actions: Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/01#Cory Doctorow post on "copyleft trolls" mentions Commons. I think it's worth discouraging pre-4.0 at Commons, and taking some form of action in the 3 areas Doctorow recommends: to prompt users to upgrade to 3.0+ upon upload, prompt existing users to upgrade their existing content (ideally with a tool), and warn re-users on the importance of complying exactly with pre-4.0 terms. -M.nelson (talk) 10:27, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
sorry for my spelling error, pre-4.0 it should have been and not pre-3.0. 4.0 and onwards have the "heal" clause and easier reference. i changed it in my text, and yours M.nelson if it is ok for you? --ThurnerRupert (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then we would no longer allow uploads from Flickr, which still only allows licensing media under 2.0 licenses. --Jonatan Svensson Glad (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I feel that would be a major pushback for Commons since Flickr is one of our major sources for useful uploads of third-party works by non-Commons users. Instead of disallowing the earlier CC versions, we should better adjust the licence tags with a warning as M.nelson suggested. Also, on a general note, Flickr has Public Domain Mark and PD images too which are not subject to this issue. De728631 (talk) 16:21, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My feeling (and I've not yet organised this feeling as far as a proposal) is that our templates could do a much better job of making it easy to reuse CC content. The licence templates have a single "attribution" field, where the licences specify explicit lists of information (varying by licence version) that are required for attribution. --bjh21 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"discourage" should be not the same as "not permit". i love @Glrx: s proposal to include the metadata within the image files, which then permits viewers then display additional info without wasting screen space, is fool proof, as many people just copy paste images. there is even a phabricator ticket for it. i created another phabricator ticket to remove cc-by 3.0 from the default upload form. could be cool to get other ideas and create tickets for them, or edit, just like M.nelson suggested. --ThurnerRupert (talk) 07:45, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding bjh21's thoughts about the licence template, I fear that we might have a general licensing problem that has been ignored so far: CC licenses require you to indicate if changes from the original work were made if you create a derivative work. So e.g. still pics and audio tracks that were extracted from YouTube videos or cropped image uploads where the original is larger might need a special hint in the licence template like "This file was extracted from the original work". It may seem obvious to a reuser that a single JPG file is not the whole original video, but the licensing terms do ask for such a disclaimer. See e.g. the "Attribution " section for CC BY 3.0. An automated note in the template should make such files less prone to attacks by copyleft trolls. So what may be needed is a |derivative= parameter for the CC templates where "yes" triggers a message like this. De728631 (talk) 10:19, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
like User:Geni said in the last discussion, i dont think enforcing the licences (by demanding money) is 100% wrong. on the other hand, this business model of issuing legal threats can be used quite broadly, not just in the area of copyright. they could send out millions of emails alleging "you have been caught red-handed in buying counterfeit products online! pay us or we will sue you!" and definitely some people will pay.
so i'd say there's nothing so wrong about the licences, and their tactics will still work with 4.0 or whatever versions. alamy does the exact same thing with PD photos https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1060341513#Criticism .--RZuo (talk) 11:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that if for 15 seconds I published photo without attribution and fixed problem immediately after spotting it means my license is actually terminated! It is not just a lie that I have a legal problem! (I am not a lawyer, maybe I misunderstood the article) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:54, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I support strong discouragement (make impossible to select it for own work in upload wizard, notify all people who uploaded work licensed <4.0 CC, on upload of <4.0 CC work send message asking to relicense). That is a nasty trap and I was unaware about it (feel free to notify me about my own images that I uploaded under this license) Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 17:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]


I tested upload wizard, it still allows to select cc-by-sa-3.0 and cc-by-3.0 for own work. Is there any good idea for allowing this nowadays? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 12:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It shouldn't be banned outright, there are a lot of reasons people may specifically choose CC-BY-SA 3.0 instead of 4.0. For instance, what if they disagree with 4.0's notion of "moral rights"? What if they originally created the work for a CC-BY-SA 3.0 project? You can port 3.0 to 4.0 but you can't do the opposite, so if you want to contribute to something that's 3.0 you need your source material to also be 3.0.
As mentioned above, sure, you can discourage it, but forbidding it in the UI is just going to annoy a lot of people with legitimate reasons to use 3.0, or who have already released it as 3.0 and simply want to upload the works on Commons with the correct metadata. aismallard (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 21[edit]

The absurd redundancy of categories and structured data[edit]

Can I rant for a minute about how unfortunate it is that we have two separate, largely overlapping systems for describing our content? This comes from a place of occasionally trying to encourage friends to share some of their photos to Commons, and the thing they invariably say after checking it out is that the upload process is too long and complicated. They're used to services like Google Maps, which makes it extremely easy to upload photos since they want you to do it: just click on a place and upload your photo of it. Some things unavoidably make our process more complicated, such as the fact that we actually care about licensing, but asking people to add categories and then also structured data on top of that is just a self-inflicted wound. I'm not familiar with the history of how structured data got introduced (links welcome), but I wish it was done in a way that was integrated, e.g. adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188) because of the value of category's main topic (P301) at Category:Empire State Building (Q8412843). The structured data would be so much more comprehensive if we'd done that. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Symbol neutral vote.svg Neutral I am not sure if our systems are sophisticated enough to achieve this. There are cases where categories are added that are unrelated to what is depicted, such as date, location, creator and collection categories. Can system logic be written to correctly filter those many categories out of the depicts statement? If not, this suggestion will just be migrating our messy category structure into the structured data. From Hill To Shore (talk) 08:19, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My issue has always been that we can't synchronise the data, nor mark things as "prominent" and "not prominent", for example a photograph of New York City where the Empire State Building is in the background could have a Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) tag of "Empire State Building" marked as "not prominent", but the complete lack of having a comprehensive system that takes the best of what came before it makes using Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) less useful than it could be. I think that as a system it has a lot of potential, but it's currently underutilised because of the fact that the legacy MediaWiki category system doesn't synchronise with the Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons (SDC) system. An automated system could mark all assigned categories as "prominent" structured data and then users could manually add "less prominent" tags such as minor things included in a photograph and other things where the inclusion wouldn't "overfill the category system". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 09:14, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Donald Trung: Whats wrong with just adding a cat such as Remote views of the Empire State Building or Empire State Building from Rockefeller Center? Broichmore (talk) 11:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"adding something to Category:Empire State Building automatically gives it the structured data depicts: Empire State Building (Q9188)" should never be assumed. Suppose the subject is, for example, an audio file which someone discusses the ESB. Or is a photograph of the view from the ESB. Or is a picture of a model of the ESB. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is extremely fraught with danger to automatically give "depicts" structured data based on category. There is a huge amount of poorly categorized or miscategorized content already (almost no files in the top level of Category:United States depict the United States for instance, but rather miscategorized people who live there, or towns in the country). Also, many categories contain related files that do not depict the subject named by the category, for instance PDFs of works by an author, or pictures of the subject's, spouse, children, house, commemorative plaque, etc. that don't warrant devoted subcategories of their own. It would be helpful if some model uses categories as starting points for suggestions in various human-operated structured data games (e.g. asking a thinking human: "this file is in Category:X: does it depict X?"). Automation is only as good as the input, and when bots (or humans) add incorrect or impractically vague structured data it becomes twice as hard to remove/correct it (see the countless thousands of 100-year-old photographs with "inception" date being the date some dunce uploaded it to Commons, and some bot mindlessly copied to SDC). --Animalparty (talk) 01:26, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May I point out this discussion? We seem to have surrendered the right of any user to edit commons successfully. Category:Gartenlaube (Magazine) for example has been made particularly tedious. As for structured data within commons, the majority of it seems to be detail on scanners, and cameras used in making the image; detail of no use whatsoever to the substance or significance of the image. I have seen no evidence those enhancemets or wikidata's take over of the project has in any way enhanced or improved search. Having said that I do find it useful for displaying profile data of an artist. As I alluded to, in my earlier query herein, we need to keep the project simple and accessible. Broichmore (talk) 16:16, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've found it actually throws up more false positives in search, since it searches for aliases of items it has identified with the search term in addition to the string itself, and one of the purposes of aliases is to correct mistaken names for things. Arlo James Barnes 12:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that simply tying Wikidata to categories is not going to be helpful. I think what is really needed is simplifying the default upload wizard for new users, and providing hints for power users who are getting used to Commons and want to start doing more advanced things with it. aismallard (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 22[edit]

English synonyms can now be used in MediaSearch[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T301559

Hi all! I have a new announcement to make, this time regarding MediaSearch: research with the new engine will now be easier, since now also English synonyms can be used to find results.

MediaSearch already leverages Wikidata items to find images that depict entities that match the search criteria. Now, MediaSearch will make another step forward, by including also those items that match English labels or aliases on Wikidata for the original search term. We expect this to be helpful in discovering media for subjects known under multiple names (for example, scientific and common names), as well as in other languages where we often don’t even have descriptions.

Just to make an example: when a user searches for “bat”, MediaSearch will also show media where searchable text includes the word “Chiroptera” (their scientific name, and also an alias on Chiroptera (Q28425)) - and this even if the text doesn’t include “bat”. Another example would be a Somali user searching for “fiidmeer” (the Somali word for “bat”) that will get media, through Chiroptera (Q28425), that include either “bat” or “Chiroptera” - again, even if the text doesn’t include “fiidmeer”.

For the time being, the feature will include only English labels and aliases, because of the possible clash in meanings between words across languages, increasing the odds of false positives. For the same reason, the current implementation will be very conservative in its searches, when using aliases.

I am here in case you have any questions or requests for more information. --Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sannita (WMF): How does one turn this off? (Yes, terrible idea, but hey, the myth of eternal improvement needs to be fed…) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): - yes, this definitely needs an option to switch off. In the example above, if you were looking for "bat" (as in the item used to play cricket or baseball with), you definitely don't want the search results cluttered up with hundreds / thousands of Chiroptera files... - MPF (talk) 09:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): crickets were mentioned above, but there’s no need to be so litteral. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 15:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuvalkin and MPF: thanks for your messages, and I'm really sorry for the late reply. Unfortunately, the feature cannot be turned off individually, nor at the moment is it possible for single users to tweak this feature individually (as in disabling individually the option for synonym search). I will rely your request to the dev team, but I cannot promise you a positive answer. Will do my best though.
Anyway, data from the tests conducted showed no particular negative effect on searches - and definitely none of the ones that were cited in the previous replies. Scores for synonym matches are very conservative, meaning that they will not usually overtake direct matches, and that will usually just appear near the end of the results.
I hope it was a sufficiently clear answer, but please ping me if needed for any need! Sannita (WMF) (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 26[edit]

Format of 3D models[edit]

Currently, the only accepted form of 3D model on Wikimedia Commons is .stl. However, there are a number of 3D models uploaded in other non-model formats, for example in GIF rotating animation, or in static image with either side by side or color-differentiated stereoscopic form. Is there anyway to request and ask the creator of these models or someone else to recreate them in STL format, much like how static graphs are now being asked to be converted into SVG format with a dedicated template? C933103 (talk) 17:52, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The template {{Convert to SVG}} does not ask specifically authors, it asks any person who has the necessary skills. Probably such a template should created for the stl format as well. Ruslik (talk) 20:06, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Like {{Convert to STL}} which I just created? C933103 (talk) 21:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

February 27[edit]

Best practice for indicating when an image is part of a set?[edit]

In {{Information}} I've used the |other_versions= parameter for derivative works like when there's also a cropped, color balanced, or whatever version. But sometimes an image is part of a set of related images. What's currently the best way to indicate "hey, this photo is just one of several in a closely related set"? The documentation for |other_versions= says "very similar content" so I suppose that counts but it seems unsatisfactory. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:44, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jason Quinn: They might fall within the concept of Commons:Image sets, in which case it seems that the usual thing is to have a category for the set, tagged with {{Set}}. Looking through Category:Image sets I haven't spotted any other way that files in a set are linked together. --bjh21 (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jason Quinn: Alternatively, if the set is small you can do what I've done here: File:Parkour 01-1.jpg. - Jmabel ! talk 16:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for you replies. Both ideas are interesting. This is an important issue and one where we should have a more or less standard way of doing it. Jason Quinn (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecation of unused files, "Category:Superfluous images"[edit]

I have an ongoing discussion with one user about Category:Superfluous images and moving images into it only because they are not used anywhere for the time being. When for example searching for a broken link in a chain, I can no longer find Broken link.png because it is no longer in the Category:Icons of broken chains where it should be. Taylor 49 (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That seems to be some personal project. We have {{Superseded}} for this. Taking perfectly valid images outside of the category tree is not acceptable. Just revert the bot and tag the category for deletion. Multichill (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Taylor 49: Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/02/Category:Superfluous images. Multichill (talk) 17:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's unclear why a bot account, Sarangbot, was used for these edits, and Commons:Bots/Requests/Sarangbot sheds no light. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment We regularly delete unused JPEG and PNG logos, even if there is no SVG available. These files fall in the same category: unused poor quality non-SVG images, and should be deleted. Regards, Yann (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 01[edit]

Extremely contentious category[edit]

Category:Gifts Ukraine Needs (Ukraine War)

I would like to see this category removed as quickly as possible, but felt it would be too precipitous for me to do it unilaterally with no consensus at all. CFD seems too slow. While I personally wish Ukraine the absolute best outcome, and I despise Putin, this category amounts to taking sides in a war, which Commons should not be doing.

Pinging @Lupus in Saxonia as category creator.

Jmabel ! talk 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Can the truth in this matter not be tolerated on Wikipedia Commons?-Maybe the world feels better if truths are not mentioned here either? What is the point of what you do? Heartfelt greetings from - --Lupus in Saxonia (talk) 19:38, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, these kinds of categories are not helpful for organization and are created reflecting recent events rather than memorializing useful information about media on Commons. I'm in support of getting rid of them. aismallard (talk) 21:34, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Commons is a repository of media. It is not an advocacy organization, not a directory, not an encyclopedia, and not a magazine of opinion. --Animalparty (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Lupus in Saxonia, while I understand your sentiment und your well-meant intention, this is not the purpose of our category-system, as well summarized by Animalparty. Therefore tagged for speedy deletion. You might consider creating a paragraph/section about this subject in :de/:en Wikipedia article about this terrible war. --Túrelio (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • (After edit conflict and possibly redundant now the categories are flagged for speedy deletion) I also support removal. If Commons takes sides in one war, what is to stop another editor causing Commons to take sides in the next war? This will inevitably lead to contentious category trees as the supporters of opposing sides in any conflict turn Commons into an extension of their information war battleground. As stated by others, the remit of Commons is to store files that enable others to present meaningful information, such as news outlets or encyclopedias. Commons must not take on the role of the news outlet or encyclopedia itself. From Hill To Shore (talk) 07:52, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support deletion as a bizarre unsourced category. People are just going to make up which belongs in which and I agree, fight on it. Either way, I'm doubtful that a Commons admin will speedy this so I suggest a DR on both. And Commons is very minor is contrast to the various wikis of various languages. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedia Commons Query Service (WCQS) beta 1 now decommissioned[edit]

Effective today, 1 March 2022, WCQS beta 1 has been decommissioned, with all traffic being redirected to WCQS beta 2. Thanks! MPham (WMF) (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 02[edit]

Data:*.map[edit]

These files, creating a map using GeoJson data, have very poor possibilities to add "meta-data". I think it would be nice to have similar functionality as in ordinary "File:*.jpg". What I am missing is the sections from image-objects in commons:

Summary (where it also would be possible to add a legend)
File usage on Commons
File Usage on other projects

It could be shown below the map-window/coding window. I guess this has been discussed, but I cannot find where.--LittleGun (talk) 07:05, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could Commons host the Zelenskyy /Ukraine war video files?[edit]

Every day of the war Zelenskyy is posting ~7 minute videos to Facebook giving daily updates.

Who is interested or who would support some kind of effort to contact the Ukrainian government to ask for Wikimedia compatible copyright licenses so that we could host these videos on Commons, and translate subtitles?

The Russian invasion of Ukraine is ongoing.

By the traffic and as usual, Wikipedia is probably the single most consulted media source for information on these topics in all languages.

As best as I can tell, Facebook is the most official outlet distributing the videos. While there are news outlets and individuals grabbing the videos and redistributing them, other than Facebook I am not seeing another way to access original copies. Also, to watch the videos in Facebook, an account is required. The Ukrainian government websites seem down all the time.

I know it is always complicated to ask for copyright to videos, but I am posting here to check community interest in making a request to the Ukrainian government for Wikimedia compatible licenses to host the videos in Wikimedia Commons. If they are here then we could coordinate subtitle translations. I think everyone is aware that Wikipedia is a major information outlet in war. I am not finding other places to access the original high quality video copies, and I think Wikipedia is a suitable host. New outlets run ads before the videos, usually cut them to be shorter than 7 minutes, dub the audio, create barriers to redistribution, and in general alter the videos and context of them.

If we made a request, ideally we could check the videos in advance for copyright issues beyond government permission. I think there is no music, other images, etc. in them. See Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Ukraine. The request might need to happen through Facebook, but other channels could help. I think the government only posts messages in Ukrainian, and they have no English language outlet. The request would need to be in Ukrainian. I think a short message is fine to see if they bite.

Nataliia is the chair of the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation and she is Ukrainian. She might be able to stand in to support this request, if asked, and if she chooses. Otherwise the request could come from the Wikimedia community. https://wikimediafoundation.org/profile/nataliia-tymkiv/

Thoughts? Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Personally Yes without question and thanks for raising this. Herby talk thyme 12:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the government has no time to process your requests... Emojiwiki (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Emojiwiki: The president and his communication team definitely have time and resources to produce and publish daily videos that are difficult to access. This really could be a situation where they have no trustworthy media partner and Wikimedia Commons could fulfill that role. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:01, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
quite a lot of ukrainian gov websites were already ccby before the war, so they are definitely aware of this licensing and how it helps to propel their content. maybe they've just overlooked this for now. perhaps some public figures can relay this message to them more easily. i think https://twitter.com/FedorovMykhailo could be a start. judging from his tweets about starlink, he seems to be in charge of most internet, communication stuff. RZuo (talk) 18:06, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bluerasberry: i just remembered, they are already cc on youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPoFpdhE1NA&list=UUaDkCK6iFHPE0lmpaYL-WxQ&index=8 . please import if you can. RZuo (talk) 18:11, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should not host videos or photos of prisoners of war in custody, because of consent issues. See the discussion at Commons:Village pump/Archive/2020/11#Pictures of prisoners in custody. Verbcatcher (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Confusing categories[edit]

There is a large amount of confusion in subcategories of Category:Diving and Category:Underwater diving because the word diving is commonly used for both and as a result there are complicated miscategorizations within these two. How does one go about sorting this out so that they are separated and files can be allocated correctly? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 15:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On English Wikipedia they are disambiguated as "Diving (sport)" and "Underwater diving", which while not ideal, works better than the current system at Commons. I would really like to see something better, but would settle for the same if that is the only reasonable option. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:58, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have no better idea other than maybe additionally turning Category:Diving into a disambiguation (via {{Disambig}}). El Grafo (talk) 07:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that would help. It would show up the miscategorisations.
Would one also rename all the subcategories with "diving" in their name which could be ambiguous to show which top category they belong in?, or just ones that have a history of being confusing? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a tool to transfer all files or a batch of files in a category into another category? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I have found Cat-a-lot and seem to be getting it to do what I want. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 09:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Am I likely to get any further feedback here? Is there a better place to develop a consensus, or should I just do it? · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 06:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lakhdar Amar vs. Lakhdar Amar[edit]

Someone has removed File:Lakhdar Amar.jpg and others in the category from the Wikidata entry, saying we have no proof that the man in the image matches the man pictured in this image at his football profile (the Wikidata person), to me they are the same man maybe 20 years apart. What do you think? The person at Wikidata is Lakhdar Amar (Q111049016). He has the same shape of his face, the same hairline, and the same name. --RAN (talk) 18:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seems likely to be the same person. It doesn't seem ever to have been in the relevant category, though. Also, Wikidata should normally only have one photo of a person, occasionally two, almost never more.
  • Really, though, I'd tend to doubt the "own work" claim by User:Abdrahmane lakhdar who was here only to make a small number of uploads 6 years ago, some of them from photos as far back as 1957. Possible, but unlikely. - Jmabel ! talk 22:03, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When you scan a photo, the derivative copy you create is your "own work", we need to have room for two source entries, one for the original object itself, and one for the newly created derivative copy. Currently the template only accepts one, to the confusion of every new user, and the delight of people looking for a rationale to delete. --RAN (talk) 07:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unless you consider the "sweat of the brow" principle, which does allow a new copyright claim, which has been upheld in numerous copyright cases. Also, the Bridgeman copyright case is not part of the Berne agreement or URAA agreement, it was a court ruling that is only applicable within the United States. When Wikimedia Commons users in other countries reuse our material they need to be aware that their country may not have a similar ruling and be required to credit the maker of the derivative work, even if it doesn't restart the copyright clock. Australia adopted wording similar to Bridgeman, while the UK rejected the principle, hence our NPG - WMF disagreement which led to a compromise of Commons reducing the size of the NPG images we store. Most countries have not had a ruling and the status of exact derivative works is unclear. --RAN (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a wikidata talk page. Wouldn't it be better to have this discussion at that page (maybe not in terms of people being aware of it but for being the best place to keep a record of this discussion)? And I agree with Jmabel but I have no background in wikidata's policy on how they determine what images to include. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to add a second image to Wikidata, I had the category linked to Wikidata, and the link was removed, I want to restore it. I just restored the link. --RAN (talk) 07:05, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Govt twitter feed cc-by licensed[edit]

Found this Ukrainian Govt twitter feed "Весь контент доступний за ліцензією Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, якщо не зазначено інше". This tweet shows Dmytro Pidruchnyi in National Guard of Ukraine uniform, might be worth uploading? May be other photos worth uploading too? - MPF (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MPF: The original source is his personal Instagram account instead of Ukrainian Govt twitter, thus it is not licensed under CC license. Other photos and video may also taken from other website and I think we need to pay attention while uploading them. Thanks. SCP-2000 12:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@SCP-2000: thanks for checking! MPF (talk) 12:29, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 03[edit]

Thank you for your feedback about the Board of Trustees elections[edit]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:55, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template help?[edit]

Hi, I "fixed" the Template:UgandaMapsDecade (difflink) so that it includes a reference to "<decade> maps by country". Now, Category:1960s maps of Uganda are correctly categorized into Category:1960s maps by country, at least according to the Uganda-Maps category. It is however not listed in the parent category - what needs to be done? --Enyavar (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting info.svg Info You open Category:1960s maps of Uganda, remove the last indention, and save it. By doing this, the category reflects the latest edit of the template. It will, by the way, not appear on the history of your edits or the category, because removing the last indention is less than a minor edit. --トトト (talk) 16:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, so quick. Yet, this means I have to touch every category that is affected by the template. Or is it just the second line (the indention?) that leads to this error? --Enyavar (talk) 19:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Google Art Project grab[edit]

I know there's ways to do grab the full resolution copy, but I don't know them. Could someone help me out by grabbing and uploading https://artsandculture.google.com/asset/victoria-claflin-woodhull-mathew-b-brady/dgFMqP2o6wTueA?hl=en

Think it'll make a nice restoration project given our other images of her are quite low-res.

Thanks!

-Adam Cuerden (talk) 17:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can use https://dezoomify.ophir.dev/ (webapp) to download it (right-click and save the reconstructed image instead of using the download button to prevent it from using lossy jpeg compression), or https://dezoomify-rs.ophir.dev/ (command-line program) which lets you save as a tiff file. 96.241.144.171 01:46, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That got it! 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adam Cuerden (talk • contribs)
It might be wise for someone technical reading this to develop a tool that can have similar capabilities as a Wikimedia tool. Maybe it would also be handy to have a centralised page with "tips" for importing images and what tools could be used for them, as we don't seem to have a lot of technical help information pages for topics like this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 07:55, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 04[edit]

Kenje Ogata[edit]

https://memory.loc.gov/diglib/vhp/story/loc.natlib.afc2001001.76800/zoomturner?ID=ph0004001&page=1

I'm having some doubts here: on the one hand, this might well be a federal government photo. I see no evidence against this. But nor do I see evidence for. It has fairly strong evidence of anonymous creation if not, insofar as no documentation appears to exist in the archive dedicated to him. Think the copyright status is safe? Adam Cuerden (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • I guess the quandary is, is it 1) an official US photo or 2) An anonymous studio photo made public (published, in copyright legal jargon) when a copy of the negative was sent to the person sitting for the photographer. I would say that version two is the safest and the proper copyright tag would be PD-US-no notice. --RAN (talk) 22:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Thanks! Uploaded at File:Kenje Ogata 1943 - Original.png Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:24, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 05[edit]

Possible copyright violation?[edit]

File:Examples of Scribner.png contains screenshots that are still protected by copyright laws, as far as I know. 2001:16B8:2EDD:5600:92C7:C779:E059:93DB 13:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is for the US and maybe other countries, if you read the text, it says "This work is in the public domain because it was published in the United States between 1927 and 1963, and although there may or may not have been a copyright notice, the copyright was not renewed. For further explanation, see Commons:Hirtle chart and the copyright renewal logs. Note that it may still be copyrighted in jurisdictions that do not apply the rule of the shorter term for US works (depending on the date of the author's death), such as Canada (50 years p.m.a.), Mainland China (50 years p.m.a., not Hong Kong or Macao), Germany (70 years p.m.a.), Mexico (100 years p.m.a.), Switzerland (70 years p.m.a.), and other countries with individual treaties." I'm from The Netherlands, so here it's copyrighted (70 years p.m.a.). - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 13:52, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richardkiwi: Greetings from Marburg, Hessen. It's still copyrighted in den USA, where character copyright exists. See this entry in deletion log, for example. I hereby also nominate File:Falling_Hare.webm for deletion. 2001:16B8:2EDD:5600:92C7:C779:E059:93DB 14:07, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Falling_Hare is in the public domain, see below for character copyright. --RAN (talk) 09:01, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Character copyright protection" covers any details of the character that are not depicted in the public domain works, but only appear in later works still under copyright. This only applies to making new movies or writing new stories using the characters. See the case involving Sherlock Holmes where mannerisms, costuming, and other habits depicted in later copyrighted works cannot be used in new fictional works. Showing stills from a public domain work is 100% proper, and the ones deleted are based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. So, if the WB cartoons were not renewed, showing a still from them is proper and has nothing to do with "character copyright protection. To see if a cartoon was not renewed, check w:List_of_animated_films_in_the_public_domain_in_the_United_States. --RAN (talk) 08:16, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Geometric shape image[edit]

Is this image ([1]) created out of simple geometric shapes? Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 15:26, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 06[edit]

Category and User Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy[edit]

There is a problem with Category:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak in Tychy: the text should be on Wikipedia (except for the first two lines), but keeps popping up in the Commons Category. Could someone with more possibilities than I have solve this problem? This is about User:Muzeum Miniaturowej Sztuki Profesjonalnej Henryk Jan Dominiak w Tychach. --JopkeB (talk) 18:18, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 07[edit]

Marshes and Wetlands Difference[edit]

What is the difference between wetlands and marshes? If you reply and tell me the answer, thank you for letting me learn something new. - Anynomous —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.97.188.96 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@172.97.188.96: The lede for the Wikipedia article en:Marsh seems to have an answer. In the future, en:WP:Reference Desk is a better place for this kind of question; this board is for talking about Wikimedia Commons. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is the difference between wetlands and marshes? If you reply and tell me the answer, thank you for letting me learn something new. - Anynomous —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.97.188.96 (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@172.97.188.96: The lede for the Wikipedia article en:Marsh seems to have an answer. In the future, en:WP:Reference Desk is a better place for this kind of question; this board is for talking about Wikimedia Commons. – BMacZero (🗩) 04:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a Commons relevant problem: Category:Marshes says nothing about what the category is about. To categorise something there I should click the iw link to Wikipedia. Oops, Swedish is missing. OK, clicking another language, say English. OK: "A marsh is a wetland that is dominated by herbaceous rather than woody plant species." So is there some more specific category? My image is not a salty marsh, so checking Category:High marsh, which seems to be a category that should be deleted.
OK, adding my image to Marches, hoping there is no more specific category and that Commons uses the same definition as the Wikipedia article I looked at. Now, I missed Category:Flooded grasslands and savannas and Category:Wet meadows– aren't those "dominated by herbaceous plant species"? Should they be subcategories of Marches? I suspect not; I suspect the Wikipedia definition was a bit imprecise. Perhaps a thorough reading of the article in a foreign language would have helped, but that is too much for categorising one image.
If there were a description in Marches, like there is in Category:Moorlands, bogs and swamps – if the above IP question were answered there – we'd have a larger proportion of correctly categorised images (and lesser of wrongly categorised). See alsos in the subtypes would also help.
Then the High marsh. As it's in singular, it is probably created by a novice user. There being just one image, with its name in Dutch and uploaded by the category creator, suggests there is no such thing as "high marsh" in English. The image has a flooded landscape with dead birches, not a march by the Wikipedia definition at least. One should perhaps check the word-by-word translation of "high marsh" to Dutch and get the category and description from there.
–LPfi (talk) 10:23, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
An additional problem here is that the Wikipedia articles linked from the category may describe slightly different concepts, as words seldom are perfect synonyms. Even between Sweden and Finland (neighbours with mostly the same soil and vegetation types) the scientific wetland categorisation is totally different (as the base categories use different criteria). If I am using the definition in the Swedish article and somebody else is using the Dutch one, we will end up categorising images differently. Therefore, we want to have a single definition in Commons, where the differences around the world are pointed out. –LPfi (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If you would ask for the difference between totally generic wetland and the geomorphological term marshland/tidal marsh: The marshes _naturally_ emerge from mudflats and were later protected by dikes. Artificially drained (lower than sea level) marshes are called polders.--Mya arenaria (talk) 22:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Book how to handle two titles?[edit]

File:WUL-bunko19 f0399 0088 五菩薩宝巻.pdf can be called either 五聖宗寶卷 or 五菩薩寶卷. how do i properly present this info in {{Book}}? RZuo (talk) 09:55, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For individual (sets of) files, I'd use the title from the book itself. If both are there, then use both in the same manner as the book does. If I'd want to use the template in a category for the book, then I'd choose one for the category name and use the other as category redirect, and use both in the title parameter. –LPfi (talk) 10:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When do copyrights of photos in old scientific articles expire ?[edit]

I am currently working on an article on the Namaqua Afrikaner sheep, for which currently no image is available either on flickr or Wikimedia Commons. But I have found an old article (1960) with photos in it (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1439-0388.1960.tb00132.x). The article was written by someone called Epstein and working at the time at the University of Jerusalem. The Journal in which this study is published is now called Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics and is based in Germany. If the pictures are still covered by the copyright, do you know to which I should adress my request for downloading these pictures on Wikimedia Common (the journal or the University). I guess the juridiction/laws concerning copyrights are not the same in Israel and Germany.

I'm not at all used to copyrights requests / laws, so any answer will be very much appreciated. Thanks in advance, --Braveheidi (talk) 13:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC) PS : I can read German (should someone want to point to an information in German).[reply]

  • @Braveheidi: Those are certainly still in copyright. In both Germany and Israel, copyright is author's lifetime + 70 years. - Jmabel ! talk 16:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Which would mean that to use them you need the copyright owner's permission. I think that's what Braveheidi intended to do. The copyright might be with the photographer or the journal, and I suppose the article author would be the person most likely to know, and if the photograph was taken by them, they might be able to license the photo under a free licence. However, there seems to be a big risk that the work is orphaned, with nobody knowing who owns the copyright.
      The relevant jurisdictions are those of the first publication of the image and USA (as the servers are there). According to COM:Israel#Durations, copyright for certain works would have a shorter term, but long enough for the URAA to give protection in accordance with US durations (I assume the Israeli URAA date to be 1996), i.e 95 years after first publication. It seems South Africa has a 50 years term for photographs, but 1960+50 would still be after the URAA date. The photograph may of course have been published significantly earlier than the article, but it'd need to be from the 1940s to be old enough.
      I don't think fair use is relevant for this use of the photo, but I don't know the US fair use requirements. Otherwise that could be an option on some Wikipedias (including af and en, but not nl).
      –LPfi (talk) 13:06, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://library.artstor.org/#/public/27593990[edit]

For some reason, Dezoomify isn't working on this, and given my laptop is, honestly, pretty shit for this kind of work and yet the only thing I have, if someone could grab the full-resolution copy for me it'd be helpful. Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: Have you read https://github.com/lovasoa/dezoomify/issues/433 ?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: That explains the bug, but given the only browser that works on this laptop is (sigh) Microsoft Edge (the others make it slow down too much), the console editing is a little beyond me because the cookies aren't displaying in the same manner that the bug report mentions. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam Cuerden: I managed to upload it for you at File:Nathan Francis Mossell (1856-1946), M.D. 1882, portrait photograph by H.D. Carns & Co; Image ID 27593990.jpg by using the Chrome extension, and converting the resulting png file to jpg for sharpness with Windows Paint 10.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hello there, If I would like to ask someone with a copyrighted image they have taken if they could add their image to Wikipedia themselves so it isnt copyrighted what is a page I could link them to on how to do that if they are willing? — Kaleeb18TalkCaleb 19:58, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Kaleeb18: Adding your copyrighted image to Wikipedia (or to Commons, the site on which you are writing) does not normally change whether it is copyrighted. It typically involves granting a free license that allows derivatives and commercial reuse, but that is not a waiver of copyright. In particular, if I have licensed an image under CC-BY-SA-4.0 and someone reuses it without crediting me, they have violated my copyright.
  • To address what I think is your intent: typically, if the image in question is already on the web on a page obviously controlled by the copyright-holder, then the easiest thing for the copyright holder to do is to indicate on that page that they grant (for example) a CC-BY-SA-4.0 license. Then you, or anyone, can cite that page as a source and upload the image to Commons.
  • If for some reason that approach is not feasible, there is also the COM:VRT system, but that takes a lot more work by volunteers and, in my opinion, should be considered a second choice. Someone else may have other views on that, though. - Jmabel ! talk 23:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 08[edit]

Happy Women's Day[edit]

ꯃꯩꯇꯩ ꯅꯨꯄꯤ.jpg

Hello Lady Wikimedians! I wish you a very happy women's day! Today, we celebrate your political, social, cultural and economic achievements around the world. Cheers! :-) --Haoreima (talk) 08:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Haoreima, thank you. The same wishes to you. The theme of the day is #BrakeTheBias. A lot or work to do. Dear fellow Commonors, which bias do you see today, and can you help reduce it? I changed the image on the wikidata item d:Q901 (scientist) from File:Researcher looking through microscope.jpg into File:Researchers in laboratory.jpg. The same persons, different roles. Ellywa (talk) 10:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ellywa en:Medusa with the Head of Perseus & en:Perseus with the Head of Medusa 😁😁 Unfortunately, we don't have any image of en:Medusa with the Head of Perseus in Wikimedia Commons! --Haoreima (talk) 11:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to Hubs Global Conversation[edit]

Hello!

The Movement Strategy and Governance team of the Wikimedia Foundation would like to invite you to the next event about "Regional and Thematic Hubs". The Wikimedia Movement is in the process of understanding what Regional and Thematic Hubs should be. Our workshop in November was a good start (read the report), but we're not finished yet.

Over the last weeks we conducted about 16 interviews with groups working on establishing a Hub in their context (see Hubs Dialogue). These interviews informed a report that will serve as a foundation for discussion on March 12. The report is planned to be published on March 9.

The event will take place on March 12, 13:00 to 16:00 UTC on Zoom. Interpretation will be provided in French, Spanish, Arabic, Russian, and Portuguese. Registration is open, and will close on March 10. Anyone interested in the topic is invited to join us. More information on the event on Meta-wiki.

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please also create the upper category structures![edit]

Category:September 1985 in rail transport in Munich There is a template 'rail transport in Munich-year' but nothing beyond. The jjjj in rail transport in Bavaria categories dont exist. The problem is that there are no links between the jjjj in rail transport in Germany categories and the year rail transport in Munich. These files become invisible for wikipedians who want to reorganize the year rail categories. A top down method is absolutely essential. In this example I have added an emergency link to 1985 in rail transport in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

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

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocproject(_AT_)wikimedia.org

Sincerely,

Movement Strategy and Governance

Wikimedia Foundation

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:22, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=636612903"