Commons:Village pump

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
(Redirected from Village pump)
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/2024/05.

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

# 💭 Title 💬 👥 🙋 Last editor 🕒 (UTC)
1 Mandatory captions 14 8 Animalparty 2024-05-31 01:04
2 Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering 5 4 RZuo 2024-05-30 11:36
3 How is this possible ? 5 4 Alexpl 2024-05-24 15:32
4 Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy 24 8 Rosenzweig 2024-05-25 10:25
5 Category:Steamboat Willie 14 5 Trade 2024-05-30 17:27
6 File upload wizard 3 3 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-25 13:31
7 Another Person Image 3 3 Jmabel 2024-05-25 15:42
8 Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature 9 4 Sannita (WMF) 2024-05-27 10:50
9 Scope question 5 4 Jmabel 2024-05-27 01:07
10 Upload Wizard, likely again... 13 6 Marsupium 2024-05-30 12:33
11 Privacy issues for faces and car license plates 9 7 Mr.choppers 2024-05-27 03:13
12 Add coordinates to images (bot task) 3 2 Fl.schmitt 2024-05-28 21:19
13 Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit 2 2 Asclepias 2024-05-26 21:41
14 Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia 2 1 Jmabel 2024-05-27 23:32
15 Strange PDF-Preview behaviour 2 2 Animalparty 2024-05-27 23:08
16 Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming? 3 2 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2024-05-30 19:33
17 Category:Film characters by actors 6 4 ReneeWrites 2024-05-30 19:29
18 Categories for photos by photographers 10 7 Zache 2024-05-29 18:21
19 French pop culture 1 1 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2024-05-29 18:15
20 Categorization issue 10 3 Enhancing999 2024-05-30 14:03
21 Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg 5 4 KylieTastic 2024-05-30 16:30
22 Enabling MP4 3 2 Yann 2024-05-31 08:17
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.
Turkey Beypazarı district Hırkatepe Village pump. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

May 18[edit]

Mandatory captions[edit]

Hi. Apparently, captions are now mandatory, at least when using Upload Wizard. Has this issue been discussed before the implementation? Strakhov (talk) 05:49, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Strakhov: I believe that's a bug. See Commons:Upload_Wizard_feedback#Caption_same_as_Description:_boring_and_confusing. If this is something different, that's still the page on which to bring it up. - Jmabel ! talk 16:25, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This bug seems to force some veteran users to leave this platform. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 10:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you are a veteran user, just ignore the "Wizard" and use Special:Upload. - Jmabel ! talk 13:54, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this isn't the reasonable excuse for abusing the power in developing without debugging. N509FZ Talk 前置，有座！Front engine with seats! 15:29, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Special:Upload is not practical if you have multiple files to upload, sadly UW is the only tool available (without needing to download Java). Bidgee (talk) 19:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it is. You just ping-pong between two tabs and copy-paste the same text (or adjust as needed). Even for this I find it far easier to use than UW, which I've never liked at all. - Jmabel ! talk 05:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not practical for me, since the tab/window (if I have two separate browser windows) will suspend and refresh. I have found UW simple enough (until recently) to use. Bidgee (talk) 20:16, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went back to the old form as well. Ymblanter (talk) 21:47, 20 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel, Upload Wizard is apparently the standard upload tool for quite some time (at least since 2020, I'd say). It's perfectly possible to be a "veteran", or at least an experienced user, and to prefer uploading files through Upload Wizard. Those updates on the tool are just making it worse. Jesus, can't I simply write the descriptions and upload the photographs? RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:21, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not saying that there aren't plenty of veterans who use UW. I'm just suggesting that if you are a veteran and find it (increasingly) annoying, just go around it instead of being frustrated or, more drastically, leaving the platform. - Jmabel ! talk 21:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, that (compulsory captions) is a temporary problem, and if it is not fixed by now, it will be in a few days. - Jmabel ! talk 21:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely harmful change. The more time it takes to upload, the fewer files will be uploaded. These "captions" - third duplicate of the descriptions and filenames - are hardly needed at all. Sneeuwschaap (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, some people need to feel useful. And don't forget our robot overlords. --Animalparty (talk) 01:04, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Changes in UploadWizard: lost autonumbering[edit]

So far, when loading many files, the number ending the names was increased by 1 in subsequent files. Now you have to renumber the names of all files manually. Why? Kenraiz (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a known problem and will be fixed with the next MediaWiki update. GPSLeo (talk) 12:04, 18 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a phab ticket at hand by chance? Thx in advance! —Marsupium (talk) 09:48, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kenraiz @Marsupium it's fixed now.
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --RZuo (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
RZuo (talk) 11:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 23[edit]

How is this possible ?[edit]

How is this possible ? The File:Silvermynt - Skoklosters slott - 109422.tif was rotated in 2019 but still appears upside down ! --DenghiùComm (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It shows the correct alignment, the problem seems to be on your side. Alexpl (talk) 15:32, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Italian cultural heritage law application outside Italy[edit]

Most of us long believed that the Italian cultural heritage law (a non-copyright restriction-related law from 2004) only applies uses within Italy. This is finally untrue: the law has jurisdiction outside Italy as well. It is documented at w:en:Vitruvian Man#Legal dispute as well as in this article by Belgium-based COMMUNIA, regarding a successful case against a famous German toy manufacturer. Whether the same applies to the Internet is a gray area, however, but I may feel the Italian courts will abhor American lex loci protectionis defenses just as they abhored the German toy manufacturer's defense that they are in Germany and are not subject to the laws of Italy. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:39, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It appears the German toy manufacturer got an ally from a court in Stuttgart, which ruled that the company has the right to reproduce a public domain work, much to the fury of the Italian ministry of culture, which now argues they are prepared to challenge the "abnormal" ruling made by Stuttgart court, even in the European or even the international legal arenas. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 21:59, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links:
-- Asclepias (talk) 23:14, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it doesn't affect us unless US law recognizes it, right? We only have to follow US law. We choose to follow non-US law as a courtesy, but if we decide as a community that the law "represent(s) an assault on the very concept of a public domain", we can feel free to ignore it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:46, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@King of Hearts that may be, unless either the Italian art gallery sends a cease-and-desist letter to Wikimedia, or if an international court (assuming the Italian officials have already filed complaint on the international stage) ruled that the law of the artwork's country if origin is honored, not the law of the countries of the "infringers" (be it German or U.S. laws). But, yes, it may be a matter for the next generation of editors, as this may become the very first of cases where extraterritoriality of a law is involved and may change the perception of lex loci protectonis principle. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 00:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Italian entities do not target Commons anyway (for now), because their rules target commercial uses (for now). But they might try to target people who reuse Commons files commercially. The saying that we only have to follow US law is used specifically in the context of copyright law (because treaties provide that a website is assumed to be publishing in the country of the servers for matters that relate specifically to copyright, although there are nuances), but not necessarily in the context of other laws. In matters other than copyright, if something published on a website violates a law in a country, the usual rules can apply in that country. The Italian cultural assets code is not based on copyright. (It's doing something with effects similar to copyright without calling it copyright so it circumvents the limits of copyright.) In general, a country's laws must be complied with in that country. What's special is that the Italian entities claim that the Italian cultural assets code applies even to uses occurring entirely outside Italy and that non-Italian courts do not have jurisdiction to decide about it even in their own respective countries. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For mitigation reason, the templates {{Italy-MiBAC-disclaimer}} and {{PD-Italy}} should include a warning (probably a separate box below the relevant box holding the PD text) that states reusers globally should exercise caution when reusing Italian public domain works if those works are works of art and architecture, due to the cultural heritage laws of the country, and with link to COM:General disclaimer. Note that due to the situation, the scope of the warning should be international and not confined to the Italian reusers. And ICYMI, Getty Images might be the first of U.S.-hosted media repository sites to be targeted by the expanding Cultural Heritage Code: read here. The impacted work is the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence, and the Florentine court is ordering the Italian-language edition of Getty Images to take down all images of the statue, using the Cultural Heritage Code as the basis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:08, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If they are really enforcing this I this this will soon go to the European Court of Justice and I do not think that this rule complies with the copyright directive. GPSLeo (talk) 05:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is hubris on the part of the Florentine court.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 08:38, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: The MiBAC-disclaimer template is already the warning made for that. The scope of the PD-Italy template is to describe the copyright status in Italy. Adding text about something else would be confusing. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:22, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template does not seem to have a strong language, however. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The two Florence cases seem to be about the validity and the application of the Italian code within Italy. In that sense, they are not really out of the ordinary. The Da Vinci cases are those where the Italian ministry of Culture claimed to rule what is done in the entire world. -- Asclepias (talk) 10:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Asclepias Getty Images is not hosted in Italy, however. It is hosted in the U.S. just like Wikimedia sites. Getty is HQ-ed in Seattle, Washington. The Italian language-version of the site is no different from the projects Wikimedia Foundation currently hosts (enwiki, Commons, idwiki, itwiki et cetera). Several of Wikimedia projects have made it a rule to only comply with the U.S. law since the servers are in the U.S., using lex loci protectionis principle (except a few ones like dewiki which mostly follows German law, ruwiki which follows Russian law, ukwiki which follows Ukrainian law, and us Commons which mostly follows the work origin's country's law in terms of artistic works and architectural works). The fact that Getty immediately complied and made such images unavailable, even if the Italian language-edition of Getty is most likely hosted in the U.S., means that in recent times the lex loci protectionis (to only follow U.S. law) seems to be evaporating. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:40, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder what they would have to say about 3D reproductions of the famous Statue of David by Michelangelo in Firenze/Florence (and other Italian statues) that Caesar's Entertainment has put up in it's hotels and casinos.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The German publisher disagreed with the Italian court ruling that said they were not allowed to use this Leonardo drawing in a commercial way, both in Italy as well as abroad. So the publisher pre-emptively went to a German court to get a ruling in their favor. The German court then ruled that Italian laws only apply in Italy, but not in other nations like Germany. So while some Italian authorities seem to think Italian laws give them some worldwide authority in these matters, so far no court outside of Italy has agreed with that. --Rosenzweig τ 13:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I note that they went to Stuttgart, not Köln. ;) -- Asclepias (talk) 14:16, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprising, the publisher is based close to Stuttgart, and unlike the press or Internet cases this is about a (possible) civil lawsuit, for which Stuttgart would be the venue. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig still, like a typical Filipino TV drama series stereotype, the Italian authorities-made legal drama isn't yet over, as they are pondering to contest German court ruling either in a European or international venue or court. At least, the German court ruling has given a hard slap to the faces of the Italian cultural authorities seeking to privatize anything in public domain, and concerned free culture advocates, like several Wikimedians, should remain vigilant and continue to counter the cultural heritage restrictions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:27, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
NoYes, it most likely isn't over. Italian authorities apparently like drama. --Rosenzweig τ 14:33, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig I said it isn't yet over. I didn't said it's over. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:41, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I know, I probably used the wrong word here. --Rosenzweig τ 10:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like a comment in the page linked above: Next thing Egypt will be demanding licensing fees for photos of the pyramids. I bet this to backfire in a big way if they try to enforce it worldwide, like a Streisand effect. Yann (talk) 19:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While it's interesting to conjecture how this may play out, may I assume that the only real consequence for Commons at present is a template about a non-copyright restriction, possibly linking to somewhere that the status of this is discussed at length? - Jmabel ! talk 00:08, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On Commons, yes. Commons adds the MiBAC template. The consequences on the use of Commons files may vary. it.wikipedia does not use some Commons files. -- Asclepias (talk) 01:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 24[edit]

Category:Steamboat Willie[edit]

I feel like the category have been falling victim to overcategorization. Any suggestions?--Trade (talk) 17:47, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you weren't kidding. This is wildly excessive. Cross-cutting categories like Category:Steamboat Willie artworks by language by type are completely unnecessary, especially when there's only a few "artworks" being categorized; all these categories are doing is making files harder to find.
Most of this system of subcategories was created by an IP editor about two weeks ago; this isn't a long-standing situation. I'll see what I can do to start getting this cleaned up. Omphalographer (talk) 20:41, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the Scooby Doo and Space Jam categories suffers from similar issues. Trade (talk) 21:58, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All from the same user. If we just delete all the categories this one guy made it solves every problem at once. ReneeWrites (talk) 22:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right, this user edited via 2001:8003:DD56:5500:A199:3CE6:9012:1D9A (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), and then other addresses within 2001:8003:DD56:5500::/64 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). It is a part of the problematic 2001:8003:C000::/35 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log), as well as the problematic 2001:8000::/19 (talk • contribs • WHOIS • RBL • • guc • stalktoy • block user • block log). Pinging @Graham87, Albertoleoncio, who blocked them on other projects, for input.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 22:34, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a different user from the one I was after with my block. Those IP ranges are used by Australia's largest phone company so they're going to have a lot of users. Graham87 (talk) 06:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Graham87: Thanks. Do we have any Australian Commoners who could have a word with Telstra about this?   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 10:38, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: That probably wouldn't help. On the English Wikipedia they tried that sort of thing with the Abuse response team, but it never went anywhere. Graham87 (talk) 14:56, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What could Telstra even do? Trade (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: They could enforce their ToS.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:45, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Getting an ISP to take action against a subscriber is extraordinarily uncommon, even for long-term abusers who are obviously engaged in inappropriate activity (e.g. deliberately evading blocks, posting violent threats, etc). None of that is even the case here; while creating useless categories is undesirable it doesn't rise anywhere near the level of taking action against the user. Omphalographer (talk) 18:19, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Any chance this IP and REDƎYE is the same person? Both seem to share similar habits Trade (talk) 17:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect they are. At the very least they have a relationship of some sorts considering their shared penchant for subcategorizing things excessively, and the IP user also having a thing for Boozy O's. I started a CfD here: Category:RED_ƎYE ReneeWrites (talk) 11:02, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wanted to make a list here of all the subcategories this affects, but thought the better of it after finding out The Space Jam category alone has over a hundred subcategories for what are maybe 20 images. I started a CfD here. --ReneeWrites (talk) 07:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Created CfD's for the following:
In total these cover over 500 categories.
--ReneeWrites (talk) 13:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 25[edit]

File upload wizard[edit]

Hello everyone,

I've recently noticed a new upload interface in my account. Previously, when I didn't provide a title for the image during the upload process, the file name would be automatically used as the title. However, with this new interface, I have to manually re-enter the file names. This change is not practical in my opinion, and I'm wondering if there's something I may have overlooked or if there's a way to revert back to the old interface.

Regards. Riad Salih (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Sannita (WMF).   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 11:11, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Riad Salih, this is a known bug that we're about to fix, if everything goes right the fix will be live in a matter of a few days. We're currently testing it in beta to see if it works. We apologise for the problem. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another Person Image[edit]

I see an article in en-wiki about an youtuber,but this article has no image of this YouTuber.i personally know him. And I can get his image from his YouTube or Instagram with his permission.how can I do that formally.
--KEmel49 (talk) 12:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@KEmel49: Hi, and welcome. Please follow the advice at VRT, or have him do it with a carbon copy to you.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 12:50, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Or, possibly more simply, in a public-facing post on either YouTube or Instagram (Instagram is probably easier, because you want a static image), he can indicate a free license he is offering for a particular image, and then you can cite that as a source when uploading. - Jmabel ! talk 15:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback Invited for Wikimedia Commons Android App Upload Feature[edit]

Hello Everyone,

I am Kanahia, currently working on the Wikimedia Commons app as part of my Google Summer of Code project. The Wikimedia Commons app is an Android application that allows users to upload pictures from their Android phone or tablet to Wikimedia Commons. My GSoC project is primarily focused on improving the upload feature in the app. Therefore, I am seeking feedback related to the issues faced during upload.

Please share any issues you have encountered with the Android App for the last 6 months or suggestions for improvements by replying to this message.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kanahia123 (talk • contribs) 14:48, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Kanahia123: you might want to create a page parallel to Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
@Sannita (WMF): is your team by any chance aware of some Android upload issues that Kanahia123 might work on? - Jmabel ! talk 15:46, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kanahia123 and Jmabel: I suggest Commons talk:Mobile app as the primary point of contact for people using and developing for COM:APP.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:53, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, better than what I suggested. - Jmabel ! talk 16:00, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, my team does not work with the app. Maybe the Mobile apps team could. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 12:43, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sannita (WMF): I didn't suggest that you worked on the app, I just thought you might have heard about some issues with it. - Jmabel ! talk 21:10, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel No, I haven't heard of malfunctions on the app, but again, being that I don't work on it means my focus is not necessarily on that. I can make an inquiry, as soon as I have a couple of minutes, but I can't promise anything. Sannita (WMF) (talk) 10:50, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The current version of this mobile app doesn't display the exact upload count.and this also doesn't load the profile section and achivements levels etc.hope new version will be better.
--KEmel49 (talk) 17:30, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KEmel49: what do you mean by "the profile section and achi[e]vements levels"? - Jmabel ! talk 19:17, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel
here is an example of a good profile section and achivements levels.but the current version doesn't load this section and shows error again and again besides having superfast internet.
--KEmel49 (talk) 19:32, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scope question[edit]

A couple of months ago, I happened to be on the Plaça de Sant Jaume in Barcelona after a wedding at the Ajuntament (city hall) let out. I took a bunch of pictures of the people at the wedding, who were total strangers to me, and have uploaded the best of these to Flickr. As I understand it, there are no problems with these images under Spanish personality rights law other than the limitations that apply to all photos of people taken in that country (In Spain, pretty much exactly as in the U.S., without a model release you can't use them in advertising or imply an endorsement by the subject of the photo; you can't use them for slander; etc.): they were taken in a clearly public place, and there is nothing in them that would be detrimental to anyone's reputation. On that basis there would seem to be no problem having these on Commons.

My question is: are they within scope? It seems to me that they are a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, etc. However, I've also seen rather similar images deleted as "personal images."

Thoughts? - Jmabel ! talk 23:24, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting question I have also seen images deleted as "Taken clearly without consent" Oxyman (talk) 23:42, 25 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
These seem fairly high quality, non-promotional, and with possible illustrative uses (people laughing, hugging, etc.) and obviously you have plenty of legit contributions, so I'm not sure what the issue is? Gnomingstuff (talk) 04:15, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At first sight, I would indeed nominate them for deletion because of "personal photos" and unknown/not notable people. But I am not an expert at all on portrait photography, street photography and art photography, if they fit the criteria for one of these genres, that might be reasons to keep them (but then the genre should be attached to the files as a category). And they might be a good illustration of people of a certain class in Barcelona at this time at a certain sort of social occasion, but then you'd better create a category for the six of them, in which these aspects are reflected in the category name and the parent categories. JopkeB (talk) 06:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The categories would presumably be more like things about fashion in a particular time and place, more or less what we do with equivalent century-old photos, which we always consider to be in scope. - Jmabel ! talk 01:07, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 26[edit]

Upload Wizard, likely again...[edit]

While uploading a file through Upload Wizard, why can I only license it under CC0, CC BY 4.0, and CC BY-SA 4.0? I even tried modifying the default license on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-uploads, but nothing happened.

Also, is caption now mandatory? Why? Has the community been consulted in that regard?

Can I change the way Upload Wizard works for me? I know what I'm doing when uploading something through it. The new version just makes it a pain in the neck—more than it already was. RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:01, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ITookSomePhotos, Jmabel, ZandDev, Strakhov, N509FZ, Bidgee, Ymblanter, Kenraiz, GPSLeo, Marsupium, Riad Salih, and Sannita (WMF): pinging users who have commented on topics related to Upload Wizard. I suppose the question regarding the licensing (why only three options?) hasn't been addressed yet. Regards, RodRabelo7 (talk) 05:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why would you need other licenses for own works? For not own works you can choose from all licenses. Caption and description are now merged. As the description was always mandatory this also makes the caption mandatory. More customization for the UploadWizard is requested many times and I think this is now finally on the WMF roadmap. GPSLeo (talk) 06:36, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo,
  • Why would you need other licenses for own works?
Why wouldn't I? {{Multi-license}} is a thing after all. OK, I can upload it with CC BY-SA 4.0 maybe, and then change it with VisualFileChange. But not everyone knows how to use it, especially newcomers. And the old license would still be visible in file's history, and they are irrevocable...
In regards to the caption issue, I always found it strange to have caption and description identical. As far as I'm concerned, the caption is supposed to be a short description of what's going on on the picture, while the description itself can be really extensive. Apparently that's what the policy states: Commons:File_captions#How_is_this_different_from_descriptions?. That has nothing to do with "more customization"; one year ago I could do exactly the same thing I can do now with Upload Wizard (and more!), but with more freedom. These updates are taking it from Upload Wizard, with the excuse of filtering copyright violations (they're still uploaded anyway) and making the tool more customizable (it's not). RodRabelo7 (talk) 06:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Things like {{Multi-license}} are nothing that is done by newcomers. If you want to use this in the UploadWizard you can still choose not own work an then fill the source field with {{Own}} and the author field with your name. The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare. Having the text in both description and caption is only for old tools they are not adapted to also look at the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 06:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never mentioned it's done by newcomers, but you provided a decent solution to the issue anyway. It could be more obvious, of course, but it's feasible at least.
  • The number of cases where the description is to long to also be a caption are very rare.
Still they exist and should be taken into account before Wikimedia single-handedly changes it. I didn't understand the last sentence of your comment, and translating it isn't helping me. RodRabelo7 (talk) 07:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can still give separate description. I meant that copying the caption into the description is only done for tools they expect a description in the wikitext and would fail if there is only the caption. GPSLeo (talk) 07:22, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with the captions is they they are CC0 (which is failed to be disclosed to uploaders), so unlike the description (which will be CC-BY-SA 4.0). Bidgee (talk) 08:09, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't most captions fall under PD-text anyways? Trade (talk) 18:27, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is the way it is currently setup. The description input box is automatically hidden, only the caption input box (max 250) is visible with "copy to description", so you will have people adding detailed descriptions, rather an a simple one (which is what a caption is). Bidgee (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RodRabelo7: In relation to the caption, yes the WMF UploadWizard development team made it mandatory without any community consensus. They have said that they will remove it from being mandatory but have yet to do so (see the discussions on Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.
When it comes to licensing, since I cannot use the drop down to select a CC 3.0 license I just use "This is someone else's work and is free to share." and then select "Enter a different license in wikitext format", add the license template and the other fields just add {{Own}} to step 2. and then Bidgee to Step 3. Though I'm not using the UW until the mandatory caption is removed. Bidgee (talk) 08:04, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly same "solution" for me, not to use the UploadWizard. --Marsupium (talk) 12:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Crumbs for @User:Sannita (WMF). - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Privacy issues for faces and car license plates[edit]

Privacy issues concerning modern day faces of ordinary people has been brought up a few times already regarding cars and their license plates. Even recently above here on this page, for faces of attendees at weddings.

I know that Mr.choppers, when he uploads photos of cars, blurs out faces and number plates. He has detailed at length in the past the reasons why! He's entitled to do that, as he see fit of course. It's an individual’s prerogative.

However, the correct way to do it (I feel) is to upload the original unedited image and then revise it with the doctored fuzzed up replacement. Then in 121 years or whatever, we can replace the revised version with the original. People in the future will want to see the car in the image, with its license plate. This should our policy with anything blurred out for privacy reasons. _ Broichmore (talk) 16:42, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just my opinion but it seems like that would be a hassle since regular users can't hide original versions of images. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about hiding, I'm saying overwriting. Revise/hide as in overwrite. Broichmore (talk) 16:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even overwriting the photograph, the photo isn't hidden (only a Sysop/Admin can do that at the request of the uploader, which I'm sure both parties wouldn't want to do if you have 100s or 1000s of photographs). Bidgee (talk) 20:26, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for mentioning me. FOP applies - anyone can upload whatever they like, that they photograph in public. I won't do it, because it is rude and I feel safer being able to point to anonymized photos in my uploads when people are uncomfortable about me and my camera. Even Google blurs faces and plates for Street View. In 121 years, AI will be able to add typical 2020s faces and license plates if humanity is still somehow hanging on and wants these photos to look more genuine. Best, mr.choppers (talk)-en- 17:44, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr.choppers FoP is not relevant here because there is no copyrighted sculpture, artwork, or architecture involved. And no, there is always the issue of authenticity if A.I. modification to an existing image is made. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 19:39, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
JWilz12345 You're right, I should have referred to COM:CSCR. My point was that this is entirely up to the uploader; not expecting or advocating for AI modifications. And, as is pointed out by others, different countries have different requirements and some are much more pro-privacy. Forcing Commons contributors to upload things they don't want to upload is a non-starter. mr.choppers (talk)-en- 03:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you upload it here - you publish it. It is irrelevant if you blur something in a newer version of the file, if the original version is still available for everybody to see. And ordinary people, identifiable on your photo, can force wikimedia to delete it. Not even a requirement to consult you. Alexpl (talk) 19:59, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"can force wikimedia to delete it." This really varies by country. In France, there are enormous rights of privacy in these terms. In the U.S., in a clearly public space, you may legitimately take a photo of anyone and publish it; simply being in that space is implicit consent. About the only legal issues for this in the U.S. are (1) it can be a little tricky to say exactly whether certain spaces are public (e.g. in a shop; in the audience at a performance; etc.) and (2) you can't use the picture to imply that the person is endorsing a product, political candidate, etc. Surprisingly, at least in my view, there isn't even any U.S. law against publishing such an image to embarrass with the deliberate intent to embarrass the subject of the photo (though I certainly wouldn't do that, and I don't think we should publish such an image). - Jmabel ! talk 01:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Add coordinates to images (bot task)[edit]

Regarding a recent bot request (add coordinates to images), i've started to write some pywikibot code (please bear with me - i'm new to python, it's my very first pywikibot project, and it's in a very early stage...), but I've got some questions and would be very glad to get some "community advice":

  • Are there any legal impediments to taking coordinates from OSM automatically and add them to Commons files? Would this violate any license restrictions? Maybe that's a question to ask in some OSM forums?
  • There are different types of OSM objects that may have assigned a Commons file as attribute: Nodes, Ways and Relations. If it's a Node, then the coordinates to assign are clear - the lat/lon of the Node itself. But what to do if the Commons image is an attribute of a Way - for example a building, mapped as area (or even a Relation)? There are multiple coordinates available (each node that's part of the way has its own). How to determine the coordinates to apply? The ideal solution would be calculating the geometrical center of the mapped object - but I simply don't know how to do this. Is it acceptable to take the coordinates of an arbitrary node?
  • What about adding {{On OSM}} to Files? The template docs seem to restrict the usage of that template to Categories, but I don't see a reason for this restriction. Applying that template to Files would be very useful, it may act as "backlink" and would reflect the flexibility of OSM's wikimedia_commons attribute that may take Categories as well as Files as value.

--Fl.schmitt (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking into this. It would solve an issue with these countless uploads by OSM users that lack that metadata and better integrate the images into Commons.
Users at OSM would likely have have a better take on these questions than me. Ideally they would also be invited to add coordinates directly at uploads. This however wont solve it for the backlog.
For Commons, I think even vague coordinates are better than no coordinates. So yes to ways and relations. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad about your reply, @Enhancing999 - in the meanwhile, i've found that it's quite easy for way/area coordinates: Overpass API is able to deliver "center" coordinates for a way/area, thus we should get a nice, precise location in most use cases (not sure if the area has a strange shape). Bot code is almost ready, awaiting response to the bot request. Let's wait and see... Fl.schmitt (talk) 21:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking better understanding of an odd IP edit[edit]

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Rear_deck_of_MV_John_H_(ferry)_0_(9360694885).jpg&diff=prev&oldid=879388942 : not sure what is going on here, is this a correct edit or should it be reverted? - Jmabel ! talk 21:05, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Revert. And looking at other edits by the same IP, it looks like there's vandalism. The IP was already warned twice too, but it continues. -- Asclepias (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 27[edit]

Traditional/Folk music of Catalonia[edit]

I'm adding a bunch of photos to Category:Castells a la Plaça del Pi for the Festes de Sant Josep Oriol. A fair number of my photos show the musicians who accompany the castellers. (For that matter, I also have some photos of such musicians in other contexts.) We don't seem to have a Category:Traditional music of Catalonia or Category:Folk music of Catalonia, which seems surprising for a region so conscious of its folk traditions. Am I just somehow looking under the wrong category names, or is this an area of the category tree that needs building out? - Jmabel ! talk 04:28, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lacking any response, I'll create Category:Traditional music of Catalonia. If something is out there, we can always merge later. - Jmabel ! talk 23:32, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strange PDF-Preview behaviour[edit]

According to the archived village pump post Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2024/05#Strange_behaviour_of_PDF_previewer i have the same problem on c:File:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf i am pretty sure, that there were the preview images after uploading the pdf on May 15 and btw it is possible to fetch page based images (see s:de:Index:ZentralGut 995739210105505 Moos Schriften Hofbruck.pdf), but the preview on the file page lacks. i have purged the file page multiple times, no changes are affected. does someone have any ideas about this behaviour? thanks in advance, Mfchris84 (talk) 09:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have recently been having trouble viewing the thumbnails of pdfs, whether on the file page themselves, in the {{Book}} template, or category infoboxes, for instance File:History of Santa Cruz County, California (IA historyofsantacr00harr).pdf and File:Two volunteer missionaries among the Dakotas ; or, The story of the labors of Samuel W. and Gideon H. Pond.pdf. Sometimes purging cache restores the preview image briefly, but after a few page refreshes it vanishes again. This problem seems to occur in both mobile and desktop views, without regard to browser or device. --Animalparty (talk) 23:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the popup for file renaming refer to Commons:File naming?[edit]

Hi everyone, I wonder why the popup window for file renaming (Alt-Shift-M on an image page) refers to Commons:File naming even though this page still says that it is just a proposal (after a vote on its talk page from 2010!) --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 22:45, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

just saying, that text is from [[Template:File renaming reasons/i18n]. RZuo (talk) 11:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
O.k., thanks! The link seems to have been there since the very first version of the template from 2015. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 28[edit]

Category:Film characters by actors[edit]

Most of these categories contain no media of their own, but subcategories of characters (that are often played by multiple actors), and the structure is often circular in nature (e.g. the category "Whoopi Goldberg" has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg characters", which has the subcategory "Shenzi", which has the subcategory "Whoopi Goldberg"). Most if not all of these were made by the same IP user who created a huge amount of category spam in Category:Space Jam, Category:Mickey Mouse and a bunch of others.

I don't think this category tree structure is inherently invalid, but I feel it's mis-applied and excessive in most of these cases. I'd like to hear more people's thoughts on this before I take this to CfD though. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:19, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The whole thing seems rather ambiguous and pointless. Like the parent is called "Film characters" but then the subcategories aren't even characters. Or maybe they are. Is a category like suppose to be for "characters of Chris Rock" or "Characters played by Chris Rock"? It's not really clear. Then on top of it a lot of the sub-categories only contain one child category but no files, which I'm not really a fan of. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this category structure is invalid, and these categories should be deleted. The purpose of categories on Commons is fundamentally to categorize media files. These categories don't organize media; instead, they attempt to represent abstract relationships between subjects. But that's what we have Wikidata for! We don't need to create a clumsy imitation of it on this site.
The same probably goes for the following categories, at a minimum:
Omphalographer (talk) 17:58, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the categories in Category:Actors by role were made by the same guy who filled Category:Film characters by actors and made the over 500 categories for Space Jam, Mickey Mouse, Scooby Doo etc. I took to CfD earlier. ReneeWrites (talk) 10:19, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CfD plz Trade (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Trade: Created a CfD for Film characters by actors and Actors by role. ReneeWrites (talk) 19:29, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for photos by photographers[edit]

It seemed to me these are meant to be hidden (meaning "visible", but below the topical categories).

What's the current thinking of that? @Vysotsky, @Swiss National Library. Enhancing999 (talk) 20:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If they're Commons users those categories should be hidden, yes, but if they're notable photographers I believe they can also be mainspace categories. Which categories is this about? ReneeWrites (talk) 20:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's a general question. Also, images appear as categorized when the category isn't in the second line. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:01, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, but there are quite often user categories of private hiking or cycling (travel) tours that are not hidden. Is there actually a real rule as to when user cats have to be hidden or not? --Msb (talk) 21:10, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same thoughts with me. If a Wiki article is written about a photographer (like about Bruno Wehrli) or the photographer is notable in other ways, the category should not be hidden; if he or she doesn't have one, it is likely to be a hidden category. (And be sure: I might have made some mistakes in the past re this stance, either on one side or the other. I don't mind to correct these mistakes.) Vysotsky (talk) 21:13, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The photographer must be notable as a photographer, not as anyone else. There are articles on several Wikipedias about me, but I am not notable as a photographer, and my photo categories are hidden and should remain hidden. Ymblanter (talk) 10:45, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that is tricky, depending on for what reasons that person is notable other than being a photographer, and how notable they are. For example, Pablo Picasso is not notable as a photographer, but if we had photographs here that were taken by such a notable visual artist we would certainly want a topical category for those under Category:Works by Pablo Picasso. Similarly, if we had photographs by a head of state or of government (e.g. a monarch or prime minster of the UK), we would probably want a topical category for those. - Jmabel ! talk 18:10, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Currently when we are uploading photographs from Finna we are creating creator templates, wikidata items and photos by photographer categories for all authors. There is no distinction between if the person is notable photographer or not. --Zache (talk) 18:21, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is, you can find the policy on user categories at COM:USERCAT. ReneeWrites (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At Category:Photographs by photographer about 2100 direct subcategories are hidden, the other 1700 aren't.
If the photographer has a category about themself, that category wont be on the second line, even if it only includes a category for their photographs. Enhancing999 (talk) 21:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 29[edit]

French pop culture[edit]

See: https://www.pop.culture.gouv.fr/notice/joconde/01810001243 It appears to be an open source project in France, but I cannot find a copyright statement. It appears that the images are copyrighted and only the text is open source: "© Laurent Chaintreuil" for the image credit, but I would like to see what the text says so it can be placed in the category to prevent confusion in the future. Commons:Deletion requests/File:Buste JB Deschamps par Claude Marie Devenet.png RAN (talk) 18:15, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 30[edit]

Categorization issue[edit]

File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg and File:Pitura Freska 02.jpg are shooted with different of some moments each others, but Pitura Freska 01.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1992 and Pitura Freska 02.jpg is categorized in Musical groups in 1997. What is the exact year? --93.47.37.200 10:20, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Pitura Freska 03.jpg has 1997 as well. Category is at Category:Pitura Freska. Enhancing999 (talk) 11:37, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's 1997. The original date of File:Pitura Freska 01.jpg was 1997 but this was changed by an IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The changes seems to have been done first on itwiki: [1]. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:32, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This was done by the same IP vandal. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:34, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What leads you to conclude that the IP is a vandal? Enhancing999 (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the person who took these pictures and uploaded them knows more about the circumstances in which they were taken than a random IP user. ReneeWrites (talk) 13:43, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ideally, yes, but there can be exceptions. Enhancing999 (talk) 13:51, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are those exceptions in the room with us right now? ReneeWrites (talk) 13:59, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the IP knows stuff about the group and shares it. The pictures were uploaded two decades later.
Unless the year can be confirmed in another way, I'd leave the question in the file descriptions, on the uploader's talk page and on the discussion page of it:Pitura Freska. Maybe in another 10 years, someone answers. Enhancing999 (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of File:Air Force Ensign of India (2023).svg[edit]

Ok, this is getting a bit ridiculous, but this rename request has been at some sort of limbo state for 5 months so I'm bringing it here so it can gain more attention. Should we rename the file to File:Air Force Ensign of India.svg? I quote Fry1989's reasoning:

"This flag is currently in use, so the year of introduction should not be included in the file name. This is as per Commons' long-standing practice of naming flag images "Flag of XXX.svg" without a year of introduction unless the flag has been retired from use. It also can be confused for implying this flag was only used in 2023, as per the naming styles for flags such as File:Flag of Burundi (1966).svg, File:Flag of Zimbabwe Rhodesia (1979).svg, and File:Flag of Jamaica (1962).svg, which were only used for 1 year or less and for that reason include both their year of introduction and year of retirement as a single year."

Pinging previously involved editors: @Fry1989, KylieTastic, Paine Ellsworth, and Billinghurst. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Support as proposer. —Matrix(!) {user - talk? - uselesscontributions} 13:57, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support Fry's reasoning is sound, I'm surprised at the amount of pushback he's getting. ReneeWrites (talk) 14:03, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward  support pending editor billinghurst's present rationale to see if it has changed since January? P. I. Ellsworth, ed. put'r there 14:27, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
 Support as long as a redirect is left for all the current uses of the dated version. KylieTastic (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Enabling MP4[edit]

Hi, Ten years ago, there was Commons:Requests for comment/MP4 Video. I think it is time that we consider enabling MP4. At least some of the patents expired, according to the discussion. And video2commons is broken for the last 2 weeks, and nobody seems to be able to fix it, or even working on it. In addition, it seems that WEBM format creates larger videos than MP4, which has for consequence that big videos can only be uploaded in a reduced quality. Any idea how to proceed? Yann (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Video2Commons[edit]

Speaking of Video2Commons being broken: if you try to upload, it just sits perpetually in a state that tells you your upload is pending. If it is indeed broken, we oughtn't let people go through the whole process of describing & queuing up their upload, then waiting whatever amount of time it may take to give up on it being processed. We ought to have a clear message that says it is broken. - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, several people reported this: phab:T365154. And it is in this state since May 15th. Yann (talk) 08:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May 31[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=880376343"