Commons:Village pump/Archive/2023/01

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

COM:CONSENT is ambiguous

COM:CONSENT redirects to Commons:Email templates/Consent. The latter page should, as for other targets of ambiguous redirects, contain a note about this. Something like:

COM:CONSENT redirects here. For information about consent to deal with photographs of people, see Commons:Photographs of identifiable people.

Is this a good wording? And what is the correct way to add this note (and {{Shortcut}})? (I don’t really understand how the translation stuff works.) Brianjd (talk) 07:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

sounds fine to me. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel I have added that line to the text parameter of the first template in {{Email templates/Consent/en}}. Did I do that right? And how do I add {{Shortcut}} (which presumably does not require translation)? Brianjd (talk) 10:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- @Brianjd: Looks fine. - Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 19:06, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mislabelled Photo: Antoine-Charles Taschereau

Hi, I think that a photo is mislabelled, but I don't know how to change it, so I thought I would post here. The photo is: File:Antoine-Charles Taschereau.png

It says that it's a picture of Antoine-Charles Taschereau, a Quebec official and politician, who was born 1797, died 1862, but I think there are two reasons to think that is an incorrect identification.

First, the details for the image say that it came from the Quebec Archives, and was taken "between 1902 and 1903", forty years after Antoine-Charles Taschereau died.
Second, the image strikes me as a picture from the early 20th century, based on the clothing and tie. That's more subjective, of course, but I would say it's an Edwardian period, not mid-Victorian style of clothing.

I think this is actually a picture of a different Taschereau, Antoine Taschereau, born 1864, but who doesn't have a Wikipedia page: https://www.nosorigines.qc.ca/GenealogieQuebec.aspx?genealogie=Taschereau_Antoine&pid=1598647 . The fellow in the picture looks about 40, which would fit with the "between 1902 and 1903" date from the Quebec Archives.

By way of background, the Taschereaux were a very big Quebec clan, who were influential in law, politics and government for two centuries. The Taschereaux were so prolific that they even have their own categories, here and on Wikipedia, so a mix-up like this doesn't seem surprising: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Taschereau_family https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Taschereau_family

Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: So are you just saying the title should be changed to remove "-Charles" or something else? Because I don't see any other bad assertions on the Commons page.
It looks like it is used (similarly) incorrectly in several articles, but that is a separate question, and has to be handled on the respective wikis. - Jmabel ! talk 19:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, I think so. I think it should just be Antoine Taschereau. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the Quebec Archives so I can't check it in more detail. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 19:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I just noticed that the birth and date years should also be deleted in the "Comment" box of the description. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 20:16, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I suppose he is the Antoine Taschereau, brother of the Prime minister Louis-Alexandre Taschereau. Antoine Taschereau was one of the main attractions in the scandals that contributed to the resignation of his brother. It seems that he was usually referred to as "Antoine Taschereau" but also sometimes as "Antoine-C. Taschereau", as in this excerpt from the inquiry on public accounts, reported in the newspaper Le Devoir on 6 August 1936, page 2: "Je constate qu'il y a plusieurs comptes au nom du frère du premier ministre M. Antoine-C. Taschereau." [1] The "C." may be for "Caron", which was the family name of his mother and apparently part of his full name, as he is probably the person mentioned on page 147 of the 1901 book La famille Taschereau by Pierre-Georges Roy [2]. This photo was part of a mosaïc of photographs, where this photo is identified as "Ant. C. Taschereau" [3]. That probably explains the mistake of the Archives, where someone guessed wrongly that it meant Charles. Mistakes at the Archives happen. We spot some from time to time. They manage a lot of material and they probably don't have resources to research and check all the facts. I agree that the file name should be changed to Antoine Taschereau. -- Asclepias (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Fascinating bit of detective work, Asclepias - thanks very much! His age and style do match more closely with being Premier Taschereau's brother. And, the genealogy article I linked to mentions that he was the brother of the Premier. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) has now moved the photo to File:Antoine Jean Thomas Caron Taschereau (1864-1949).png. - Jmabel ! talk 01:43, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And it looks like User:Asclepias has removed the incorrect usages. - Jmabel ! talk 01:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It seems correct, looking at the family tree. I will migrate the image to Familysearch and Findagrave also. I added a category for the shirt collar popular from about 1900 to 1910. You can still buy them today. --RAN (talk) 01:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Mr Serjeant Buzfuz: Please peak at File:Antoine-Charles Taschereau (1797-1862).jpg which looks like a 60 year old man in 1860s. They all have at least 3 given names as nobles, but most images just use 1 and we have 200 years of recycled names. --RAN (talk) 03:26, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This looks much better - age and clothing style match someone who died mid-Victorian. Thanks for finding it! Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: Jmabel ! talk 01:54, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category:Lula da Silva (surname)

The Category:Lula da Silva (surname) is currently being used to categorize the Brazilian president and his family. Lula da Silva was born Luiz Inácio da Silva. Lula is a nickname he received in his childhood, and his name could then be properly written Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva. In 1982 he decided to officially include Lula as one of his names. Therefore, his name is "Luiz Inácio Lula" and his surname is simply "da Silva", not "Lula da Silva". How can we fix this confusion? —capmo (talk) 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:Minerva97 created this.--RZuo (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Lula" is not only a nickname anymore, now it became a surname: Lula's wife is called Rosângela Lula da Silva, his previous wife was called Marisa Letícia Lula da Silva, his son is called Marcos Cláudio Lula da Silva and the other son too Fábio Luís Lula da Silva. It started as a nickname, but it changed. The whole family bears the same surname. And, YES, it is now a surname. Minerva97 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Jusbrasil is a website that reproduces public cases of Brazilian justice that have already been closed. All persons are referred to by the same name as in their official documents, for example Marcos Cláudio Lula da Silva. Minerva97 (talk) 20:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Names don't become surnames out of thin air. The Lula in his name (and in his children's names) is just a name, not a surname. For Portuguese readers, these two links discuss it in depth: [4] [5]. Most importantly: the National Library of Brazil clearly states that the president's name is sorted as "Silva, Luíz Inácio Lula da", as does the Bibliothèque Nationale de France, reinforcing that Lula is just one of his names. The fact that his sons and wife have adopted it does not make Lula a surname. The National Library of Brazil must be accepted as the authority on this subject. —capmo (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, Commons and Wikidata still cannot wrap its head around this simple notion that the names of 230 million people may consist of multiple words but the sorting key should be, in 99.9% of the cases, the last name word — "Silva" in this case, and never mind the rest.

Please stop creating useless misleading categories consisting of multiple name words for the whole or part of the surname section of a Portuguese name. Anyone whose dad was Fulano Something da Silva and whose mom was Sicrana Somethingelse Lula will be dully named Whatever Lula da Silva and wont be a relative of the Brazilian President, while any of his daughters will still be categorizable as a relative even after they get married and routinely change their surnames. Create a new cat for Category:Lula’s family if needed, but finally quit creating these useless hybrid cats made up random pairings of Portuguese surnames.

(There are a few exceptions worth noting, but let those be dealt with by editors who know the matter.)

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 09:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Capmo: @Tuvalkin: YES, there are cases where names become surnames. The case of President Lula is one of them. If you disagree and want to undo it, you'll have to do it yourself, I won't remove anything. Good luck. Minerva97 (talk) 12:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You obviously didn’t read a word of what I wrote. Yes, nicknames can become surnames, but that’s my point at all (I’m not even sure that is the case here) — and that’s why I replied directly to the o.p. and not to the followups. I suggest you move you quip upwards, as a reply to Capmo’s comment of 21:09. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 12:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks, Tuválkin, for your considerations. And Minerva97, I'll do as you suggest and restore Silva as the surname. Regards, —capmo (talk) 12:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section was archived on a request by: —capmo (talk) 13:09, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg

Could somebody check out the copyright for the above image. It’s been uploaded by User:Hogyncymru as their own work, with an acknowledgement to Alexander Bassano. It’s clearly Bassano’s original photo, although it’s been re-touched/coloured. This would suggest that the copyright for the original image sits with the National Portrait Gallery, [6]. Many thanks. KJP1 (talk) 00:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The copy owned by Gwrych predates the purchase by National gallery in the 70's, you targeted my content because you got disgruntled with me on Mari Lwyd's talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mari_Lwyd), you mocked my contribution (and even mentioned in the comment that it may offend me), you really shouldn't be targeting other editors like this. Hogyncymru (talk) 01:48, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link to File:Lady Grizel Winifred Louisa Cochrane.jpg. Hogyncymru, that is a confusing description in the licensing. It looks like this is the original 1909 photograph which would be public domain because en:Alexander Bassano died in 1913. Did you restore and modify it yourself? If so, why did you write under permission "Gwrych Castle Preservation Trust"? Did the trust restore it or did you do it as a work-for-hire that requires that trust's approval? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:29, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Gwrych Castle preservation trust owns an old copy to which I scanned in and edited, the edited version (the one you see uploaded) was done so by myself. I volunteer for Gwrych and the content I created is made for them, they have given me the permission to upload the final piece to wikimedia. the person in the image was the daughter of the countess who lived at the castle, to which; Gwrych has an extensive archive which holds old items related to that family.
(Feel free to contact the trust directly to ask; if I volunteer, if they own a copy, did I colour the copy for them, was I authorised to publish it to wikimedia) Hogyncymru (talk) 14:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
there're three ways that help verify the permission, which you could have done:
com:vrt

Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes a statement on their website https://www.gwrychcastle.co.uk/ or social media accounts to explain that this wiki account is authorised by them.

Gwrych Castle preservation trust publishes the files on flickr and then you import the files using Special:UploadWizard or com:F2C.
as for the photo, its photographer seems to be anonymous according to https://www.npg.org.uk/collections/search/portrait/mw213580/Lady-Grizel-Winifred-Louisa-Hamilton-ne-Cochrane . then, either "If the work is a photograph with an unknown author taken before 1 June 1957 then copyright expires 70 years after creation or, if during that period the work is made available to the public, 70 years after that.", or "For commissioned works made prior to 1 July 1912, the 1862 Fine Arts Copyright Act governs, stating that copyright of a painting, drawing, or photograph done for or on behalf of another person "for good and valuable consideration" belongs to the commissioner.". the commissioner Alexander Bassano died in 1913 and so copyright expired.--RZuo (talk) 14:54, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks RZuo, will send an email through via the trust to validate. regards. Hogyncymru (talk) 15:47, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons Gazette 2023-01

Happy New Year! Happy Public Domain Day!

Staff changes

In December 2022, 2 sysops were removed. Currently, there are 189 sysops.

User:Seddon (WMF)'s temporary sysop expired on 2 December. We thank him for his service.
User:4nn1l2 was globally banned by WMF on 6 December and subsequently removed.

(The global ban was applied to 16 users. Some statements about the global ban by WMFOffice: 1 2 3.)

Other news

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T36928

After more than 10 years and campaign efforts by many Commons users, user right sboverride was finally created in July 2022. This user right would allow users edit while overriding m:Spam blacklist.

Edited by RZuo (talk).

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

--RZuo (talk) 07:04, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Chubut province copyright

According to Copyright rules in Argentina, contents from the Government of Chubut website are licensed under a CC-4.0 license. But the site (https://www.chubut.gov.ar/) has a copyright notice at bottom (with no mention of a CC license).

As a result, {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} would not be a valid template anymore. How could this be solved? Does this template need a redirect (as it was done with PD-AR-Gov tag on this previous discussion? Your feedback and advices will be very useful. Fma12 (talk) 20:34, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It's only used 9 times. Replace with {{Cc-by-4.0}} and {{LicenseReview}}. For the files that the web archive has a copy, we can do the review and keep them. The other files and {{CC-AR-GobChubut}} should probably be deleted. Multichill (talk) 22:02, 1 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG claims it is being used in Category:Bridelia mollis, but I cannot see where

File File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG was being linked wrongly to Bridelia_mollis, therefore I made some edits to sort out this misleading information so that the picture points to B. micrantha and no other species. However, file URL keeps reporting under section "File usage on Commons" that file is used in Category:Bridelia mollis. I've purged both category and file pages but "Category:Bridelia mollis" still appears under "File usage on Commons". Is this a bug or file is actually being used somewhere in "Category:Bridelia mollis"? If the latter is true, just out of curiosity, where exactly is the file used?. Thank you in advance. --Canyq (talk) 23:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Canyq: I did a null edit to Category:Bridelia mollis, and that appears to have removed the stale reference at File:Bridelia_micrantha_leaves_12_08_2010.JPG. —RP88 (talk) 00:03, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@RP88: Then, I guess it was some kind of bug... Thank you very much for your action to fix it. --Canyq (talk) 00:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with name of an artist

Can anyone help with the name of the artist in the corner at File:BENET ANDREU i PONS.jpg, it looks like Porch Fabregas or Porch Fabreguss. We are trying to connect the name to a known artist. RAN (talk) 00:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Fabregius", I think. - Jmabel ! talk 01:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I read "Pons Fabregues". —capmo (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A writer of one book is Miguel Pons Fábregues, odd that this painting isn't in any museum catalog. --RAN (talk) 13:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also read "foto." in the first line and "pinx." in the second. Could it be painted (pinx.) by someone called just Pons, based on a photograph (foto.) by Pons Fabregues? --HyperGaruda (talk) 13:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You are right, they both look like "Pons" now that you point that out. --RAN (talk) 20:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello from your new Community Relations Specialist

Hello everyone👋🏽

My name is Benedict Nnaemeka Udeh from Nigeria, a recently hired Community Relations Specialist (CRS) for Wikidata and Commons.

I'm a member of the Igbo Wikimedians User Group, the Founder of IG Wikidata Hub, and the Founder of Wiki Mentor Africa, a mentorship program that seeks to bring more African developers and technical writers into the technical space of Wikimedia. I'm passionate about community growth and capacity building. Like you, I'm incredibly spirited about the free knowledge movement.

In my new position as CRS, I will focus on collaboration and communication with you about Wikidata and Commons product development, the user-facing changes and roll-outs, and sometimes on projects with special needs for collaboration with Volunteers. In other words, I am here to serve you (the editors, contributors, and readers of Commons and Wikidata projects) and the working groups at the Foundation that support Commons and Wikidata. I've already started sharing some updates; you can find them on the Product and technical support for Commons Portal. Please feel free to use the discussion page to discuss these updates.

I look forward to working with and for you all and can't wait to see the fantastic things we will do together. Udehb-WMF (talk) 09:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Midjourney

Hi there! is there already been some discussion about Midjourney and IA generated images on Commons. I see there is already some images coming from Midjourney and seeing the Terms of service, it pose no problem with the CC licence of Commons. However it pose some questions like: how foreseen the possible high number of upload unrelated to Wikimedia projects ? and more importantly, who is the author of such images? Triton (talk) 18:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please join the dicussion at Commons:AI generated media and its talk: page. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Great, thanks! Triton (talk) 18:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload form says I am already uploading

The upload wizard form, on a cell phone, always says "There was an error in your submission You are already uploading the file "....jpg". Maybe I am on a too fast connection today. Anyway it's just a minor bother, because I can still upload the file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jidanni (talk • contribs) 08:21, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jidanni: Hi, and welcome. That looks like a bug, please see mw:How to report a bug and COM:SIGN. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If its the UploadWizard, then it is a bug, that I reported a number of times to phab over the years. You can upload up to 150 (500) files with the UW in one go. After that the UW asks, if you want to upload more files. If you say yes, you can select another bunch of files and after the first upload starts, it will complain "you are already uploading this file". You can (must) click away this message and the upload will go on. The chances that this gets fixed after another bug report are rather low - it works in a way. C.Suthorn (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn: Do you have a list of links or URLs for those Phabricator report tasks for Udehb-WMF? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, but the would be phab-tickets started by me, accessible from my user profile at phab. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:07, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Addition: Today at 19:00 MET there will be a video conference about problems of commons (incl uplaoding). the second hour will be in english and WMF personnal will attend. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Digitaler_Themenstammtisch#63._Digitaler_Themenstammtisch_Wie_kaputt_ist_Wikimedia_Commons?,_5._Januar_2023,_19:00_Uhr C.Suthorn (talk) 13:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Not sure if it helps to add here but just in case, I'm seeing the same error message. I thought I was doing something wrong but if someone else is having the same experience I guess not. Whenever I select photos to upload from my computer, I get the message Jidanni describes, and have to click "OK" to continue. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:03, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Uploaded file "File not found"?

thumb of the file cannot display as well

This file cannot be found: File:SSID-12923924 明史藝文志 1.pdf.

While the description page has been created, link to the file says:

File not found: /v1/AUTH_mw/wikipedia-commons-local-public.3e/3/3e/SSID-12923924_%E6%98%8E%E5%8F%B2%E8%97%9D%E6%96%87%E5%BF%97_1.pdf

This is weird because file information is shown: "452 × 850 pixels, file size: 27.01 MB, MIME type: [pdf], 108 pages".

So is there an error when uploading?

I want to find out if it happened to more files I uploaded. How can I search for such files so that I can reupload them? Upload for Freedom (talk) 00:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Upload for Freedom: it works for me. Possibly some temporary problem? MKFI (talk) 08:10, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@MKFI: It still does not work for me. Other files do. Can you tell me what you get by clicking [7]?--Upload for Freedom (talk) 10:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Upload for Freedom: your link downloaded a 27 MB PDF with 108 pages which displayed fine. Also the thumbnail which you posted on this thread shows up fine. MKFI (talk) 11:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Upload for Freedom: My experience in New Jersey (USA) matches that of MKFI in or near Finland. This may be the fault of a WMF cache in your part of the world or your firewall. The thumb here and all the thumbs on the file description page display page 1, but have no text; page 2 displays with text. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 11:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

might be similar to en:Wikipedia:Village_pump_(technical)/Archive_140#Redirect_one_image_link_to_Commons.--RZuo (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks all of you! I have tried an online proxy and it works.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 12:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Upload for Freedom: I'm glad it works. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 12:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Moving the files in 2017 in rail transport in Germany to the lander subcategories

I finished the work but there remains one file without location:

Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grouping together deletion discussions

Can a non-nominator group together a series of deletion nominations with the same rationale, even though the discussion has already begun. Cutting and pasting the same rationale/response/followup into a dozen discussions is a waste of time. See: Commons:Deletion requests/File:Vasily Blyukher 1919.jpg and Commons:Deletion requests/File:Элеонора Гальперина.jpg and at least a dozen others. The rationale is about when an image is originally made-public versus republication in a modern book. --RAN (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Assuming they are all from the same day, you can group them by transcluding them into a common page (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/WHATEVER) and then transcluding that page instead of the individual pages in the category for deletion requests that day (e.g. Commons:Deletion requests/2022/11/16). - Jmabel ! talk 00:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: I tried here: Commons:Deletion requests/Russian copyrights but I don't think it transcluded properly, can you help? --RAN (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): should be sorted out now, but it was trickier than I thought. I didn't realize these had originally been scattered over multiple days, and even the ones on the same day were scattered within the respective files. I think it's OK now. - Jmabel ! talk 01:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wow, that took a lot of work, thank you. --RAN (talk) 02:13, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Library of Congress

The US Library of Congress has a large collection of material they label as "free to use". From a quick look at their explanation, I think that means public domain.

Should some of that be uploaded here? Is there a way to make it indexed & accessible here without uploading? Pashley (talk) 09:19, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That is great. I think all of them should be uploaded here systematically. See Commons:Batch uploading.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 10:58, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Commons:Library of Congress.--RZuo (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We have a template: Template:PD-Bain and we say "no known copyright restrictions", we should have one for LOC that is for any image with "no known copyright restrictions". --RAN (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See {{Library of Congress-no known copyright restrictions}}. This should be used if no more specific LOC templates are available, and the image is indicated as such, and can be used in conjunction with other general templates such as {{PD-US-expired}} if applicable. Of course the LOC hosts large amounts of material in copyright. More templates and background info are at Commons:Library of Congress. --Animalparty (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shabbat assignment

At Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ayeka9 we have images of historical Rabbis that need research to match to an existing Wikidata entry or create a Wikidata entry. It would be great if we could find this book scanned online to see where published, one copy of an image has it listed as Hungary in 1929. RAN (talk) 23:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Convenience link Commons:Deletion_requests/Files_uploaded_by_Ayeka9. - Jmabel ! talk 00:28, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Doubts about some maps

Appreciated community, I have a doubt:

I'm considering upload to Commons some of these maps, from an Anglo-Polish world atlas from 1968. However, I don't know if these maps are admissible in Commons under the current circumstances.

My question is: can I upload these maps to Commons in the near future? I'd like to receive an answer as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and God bless you. Babelia (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Babelia: Most works from 1968 are still copyrighted. Is there some reason these wouldn't be? - Jmabel ! talk 19:30, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Commons:Copyright rules by territory/Poland#NOP? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:20, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Poland rules were that maps were not copyrightable. I imagine if a map had some new creative element, a court may rule it was copyrightable, like the abstract New York City subway maps that don't reflect a physical reality, like those created by Massimo Vignelli. --RAN (talk) 23:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Babelia, Pigsonthewing, and Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): Clearly OK in Poland, but not clear to me that it's OK in the U.S. which we also require. If (as I understand to be the case) Pergamon published the same book that same year in the U.S., then it would still be in copyright in the U.S. Am I missing something? - Jmabel ! talk 00:27, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

They didn't need to publish it in the United States to be copyrighted there. The book has a copyright notice. For Poland, how would it be OK? -- Asclepias (talk) 13:52, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Asclepias: It's OK for Poland because they don't allow maps to be copyrighted. And if it had been published only in Poland, there'd presumably be no registration in the U.S., which at that date would mean if it wasn't copyrighted in its home country (Poland), then it wouldn't be copyrighted in the U.S. But if it was simultaneously published elsewhere, in a country where maps can be copyrighted, and was copyrighted under the laws of that country, then I'd presume it remains now copyrighted in the U.S. I'm not a lawyer, though, and not all that expert in copyrights, and it seems like a very tricky case. Simplified greatly, of course, if it was published and registered in the U.S. - Jmabel ! talk 16:53, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- Poland: We would have to look at Polish sources to be sure, but from C:CRT/Poland, "photographs of maps, documents, medals, memorial plates do not enjoy their own copyrights." I read it as a photo of such work is not copyrighted but that does not mean that the photographed work is not copyrighted.

- U.S.: Are we sure that a 1968 work with a copyright notice needs a registration? -- Asclepias (talk) 17:33, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Crime minister Benyamin Netanyahu

I have been watching ctv news and saw an image of a demonstration with a large sign saying:"Crime minister Benyamin Netanyahu", so I immediately came here and looked at: Category:Demonstrations and protests against Benyamin Netanyahu, but no luck. Does anyone know if an image like this is available anywhere in wmf-land?

Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech (talk) 23:59, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Try Flickr Trade (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photos from Facebook

Hi! I would like to upload some PD (old) photos from Facebook. Do I have to worry about:

1) the fact that the media is from a "closed group" (so normally the content can't be viewed by non-registered users)? I think I won't do harm because I create a direct link to the photo which is hopefully not connected to a personal account (see 2)) and the photos itself do not show any relevant private contexts
2) the direct link is a fbcdn link with _nc_cat=...; _nc_sid=...; _nc_ohc=...; oh=...; oe=... I tried to get rid of this but it didn't work. Are there any problems with those tags (like personal data stored (e.g. mine or of the uploader), ...)? --P170 (talk) 13:40, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do you want to link to Facebook as a proof, that the images are public domain? I don't think, that will work. Publishing an image on Facebook does neither make it PD nor is it a proof that it was PD already. If it is PD another source will be needed to show it is PD. If the Facebook user owned the copyright and gave it into PD probably a VRT permission from the Facebook user will be needed?

Apart from that, there are tools that remove tracing info from social media URLs (i think search for "URL cleaner" or something like that). --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:48, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Do not upload images from Facebook. Ask the original photographer(s) to upload the original pictures with EXIF data. Facebook is de facto not reliable regarding authorship and license. The only exception is when there is another evidence (age or another source) saying that the image is under a free license or in the domain public. Yann (talk) 15:45, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn: @Yann: I am sure that the photos itself are PD (-70, etc.). That's not the problem and it was not part of my questions. Further I don't want to prove the license through the link but just giving a source. URL cleaner: All attempts failed so far, I get "Bad URL hash" when I try to cut it. But maybe, it's not necessary? --P170 (talk) 16:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@P170: If you can't source it better, you can just say, "Private group on Facebook", but obviously that does nothing to contribute to your demonstration of PD status, which must be demonstrated independently of that. You don't say here what they are pictures of, or why they would be PD, so no one here can say anything useful about whether they'd be OK. - Jmabel ! talk 16:56, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I will consider giving that statement "Private group...", thank you for that suggestion. PD-status: Again, I know it - to make it clear: e.g. by the year of death of the photographer. P170 (talk) 17:03, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"year of death of the photographer" may not be enough in the U.S. (and a few other countries) if it was published posthumously. You don't say what country, or really much at all, so it's impossible to say anything definitive. - Jmabel ! talk 19:24, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

afaicu fbcdn links are temporary or "dynamic"(?), which means those links will not work after just some days. but i have no idea whether or not those long numbers can be reversed to find out personal info.

to give proper credit to the photos in facebook, you need to use the url to the posts, which you can get by right clicking the timestamp below username on a post and choosing "copy link", e.g. https://www.facebook.com/ufhkc/posts/pfbid02S5KZ1CW94ggtaTZQ1mzo64piryJA7a89QUVHsuguKjhFq4vHWme81DBYx3kiHkrkl . RZuo (talk) 20:25, 7 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is probably the permanent URL for above. Yann (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Meta cats

Hi at all. I have a little edit war with @Orijentolog: about double categories "...by ... by...". In my opinion these categories must have two metacats (e.g. "Category:Architecture of Italy by century by style" (metacat|century|style) because they are a double category. For Orijentolog instead they must have only the last one. Which is the correct rule and policy about this ? Thank you for your help. --DenghiùComm (talk) 07:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would think that in that case style would be much more primary than century. That is, someone is much more likely to be looking for a particular style than a particular century, and century is more a breakdown to prevent the categories from getting too big. If they wanted by century, they'd probably have come straight in from Category:Architecture of Italy by century, no? - Jmabel ! talk 20:23, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: I was myself putting multiply criteria at first (until a year ago), and then I noticed that Auntof6 was recently removing everything except the last one, so I follow her. Obviously at the beginning I misunderstood the sentence For example, on "Category:Buildings in Moscow by period and style", you would use {{MetaCat|period|style}}. It's "by period and style", or "by style and period" (thus both criteria), NOT "by period by style". To simply, if title of some category ends with "...by country" it should have listed only countries, if ends with "...by century" it should have listed only centuries, and so on. That means that everything before is irrelevant for flat lists. If DenghiùComm is right, then category Bridges by function by type by material by country should include even four criteria, as I mistakenly inserted it at first, despite technically template works only with max two criteria. It ends with "by country", has listed only countries, so criteria should actually be just a "country". --Orijentolog (talk) 18:06, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The metacat criterion should be the thing that is different among the subcategories. For example, in Category:Architecture of Italy by century by style, all of the subcats are "<Foo> architecture in Italy by century" so the only thing that is variable is the style.

Usually the variable item should be last, but in some cases it isn't. An example is Category:Months in Bretagne, where the variable item is "months" (although you only put "month" on the metacat template). Also, sometimes a metacat is created with two "by" criteria that are in the wrong order for the subcats. The metacat criterion should still be the thing that is different in the subcats (and the metacat should be renamed, but that's not the scope of this discussion). -- Auntof6 (talk) 18:57, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, but IMO categories with more than two criteria are crazy and not useful. Nobody can understand theyr names ! DenghiùComm (talk) 19:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Auntof6: that's because "Months in Bretagne" is as same as "Bretagne by month". But such case has just one criterion and I can not remember any similar case with double criteria. Thanks for clarification anyway. :)

@DenghiùComm: categories with 3 or 4 criteria are indeed hard to understand at first, but if you're opening category by category, let's say Architecture by city, Architecture by city by country and Architecture by city by country by century, all makes sense. In this particular case an alternative is to have 28 categories keyed in the second category (instead of triple criteria), which is not a good solution. --Orijentolog (talk) 20:05, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

William W. Naismith

There is a photo of en:William W. Naismith at this page: https://www.smc.org.uk/archives/pioneer?name=william-wilson-naismith it is taken around 1900 give or take a couple of decades. Should I put it as an unfree photo on en or can I assume that it is free? How should I go about? Email the website owners to ask ? Jabbi (talk)

@Jabbi: If they can pin down a date or a photographer that might be enough. In the UK, if the photographer died before 1953, the work is public domain; if the photo is 120 years old (before 1903) and we don't know who took it, we go with {{PD-old-assumed}} on the basis that it is unlikely they lived another 50 years after they shot the photo (though of course that is not impossible. I have photos on here I shot over 50 years ago). - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jabbi: I would say it is PD under "PD-UK-unknown", The UK makes images PD, 70 years from the time they were made public (pre 1953) if due diligence cannot find a name attributed to the image. --RAN (talk) 03:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposal for a new Main Page in Portuguese

Hello everybody!

Sorry if this isn't the right place. I come here to propose for your appreciation a proposal to update the Main Page of the Commons in Portuguese (pt). The proposal is currently at this location. Feel free to suggest changes and improvements.

Background

The last change to the layout of the Main Page dates back to May 2014 (it's been almost 9 years without major changes). Currently, it appears to be in an outdated format compared to Commons Main Pages in other languages (English, French, Italian, etc). Also, the current Main Page doesn't look good on mobile devices (responsive design), especially with regard to the buttons at the top of the page, which are formatted incorrectly on these devices.

Proposal

I propose standardizing the Main Page of Wikimedia Commons in Portuguese, following the formatting and style of the Main Pages already present in most languages on this wiki. This solves the natural lag of the current Page and the visualization problems on the mobile site.

I look forward to the opinions of other users.

Yours sincerely, Fúlvio^diz!-fiz! 17:28, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Marking gender in categories

I´ve suggested a change to Commons:Category scheme People at Commons talk:Category scheme People#Marking gender in categories. As this is a rather hidden place, please allow me to refer to it from here. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upcoming vote on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zuz (WMF) (talk • contribs) 08:22, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hello all,

In mid-January 2023, the Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct will undergo a second community-wide ratification vote. This follows the March 2022 vote, which resulted in a majority of voters supporting the Enforcement Guidelines. During the vote, participants helped highlight important community concerns. The Board’s Community Affairs Committee requested that these areas of concern be reviewed.

The volunteer-led Revisions Committee worked hard reviewing community input and making changes. They updated areas of concern, such as training and affirmation requirements, privacy and transparency in the process, and readability and translatability of the document itself.

The revised Enforcement Guidelines can be viewed here, and a comparison of changes can be found here.

How to vote?

Beginning January 17, 2023, voting will be open. This page on Meta-wiki outlines information on how to vote using SecurePoll.

Who can vote?

The eligibility requirements for this vote are the same as for the Wikimedia Board of Trustees elections. See the voter information page for more details about voter eligibility. If you are an eligible voter, you can use your Wikimedia account to access the voting server.

What happens after the vote?

Votes will be scrutinized by an independent group of volunteers, and the results will be published on Wikimedia-l, the Movement Strategy Forum, Diff and on Meta-wiki. Voters will again be able to vote and share concerns they have about the guidelines. The Board of Trustees will look at the levels of support and concerns raised as they look at how the Enforcement Guidelines should be ratified or developed further.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 07:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Commons-Category

@Designermadsen and Hjart: Perhaps I missed it, but I only see now that there is a new Template:Commons-Category. Looks good, especially the geo link to a map with links to photos about the subject (in this case Category:Overcast in the Netherlands). So I think this is a good feature. But in the talk page is a remark that this template is now redundant, though a Wikidata Inofbox does not offer a link to wikimap.toolforge.org, let alone to links to photos about the subject. So I am confused: what is the status of this template and can I use this template or not? If yes, can there please be a kind of instruction, as there is for other templates? (Like: when to use, I guess only for categories with a Wikidata item for a category about a location with geo coordinates.) --JopkeB (talk) 14:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh no, that breaks so many things. Will nominate for deletion shortly. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Now at Commons:Deletion requests/Template:Commons-Category. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And just to reply to "though a Wikidata Inofbox does not offer a link to wikimap.toolforge.org" - the link you are looking for is named, um, 'Wikimap' - just below authority control. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK, then I have another question: How can I keep abreast of new developments, like new links on Wikidata items and new templates? I mean not about all the technical stuff, but only about new features for end-users (looking for images for Wikipedia or other purposes, uploading small amounts of files) and for simple editors like myself (maintenance/adding/changing categories, galleries, initiating of and participating in discussions and deletion requests, using templates but not making them). --JopkeB (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JopkeB: The best thing I'm aware of is the weekly Wikidata status updates/newletter, which you can subscribe to at m:Global message delivery/Targets/Wikidata. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. JopkeB (talk) 08:53, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --JopkeB (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:FoP and Template:FoP-unknown

{{FoP}} and {{FoP-unknown}} templates are commonly understood to tag either Commons files or files imported from local wikis that may show public art or architecture from an unknown or undefined country. The former categorizes files at Category:FOP, which is supposed to be tracking category.

I can always notice the similarities in both templates, and both imply that the status or location of the works must be defined. I can see the redundancy of "FoP-unknown" to "FoP". The clumping of image files at the category generated by "FoP" template also becomes problematic if the files exceed 100/200/300 or more in quantity. I can notice this situation occuring whenever Wdwdbot dumps local files from German Wikipedia.

Since FoP is more aligned to equivalent templates in other wikis such as the one used in German Wikipedia, I am proposing to merge contents of {{FoP-unknown}} to {{FoP}}, so that "FoP" becomes an effective template. In fact, the users are supposed to use country-specific templates like {{FoP-Germany}} or {{FoP-Australia}} instead of {{FoP}} which is vague in reality and does not encourage users to review the dumped photos at Category:FOP (because the template does not provide emphasis). If "FoP" becomes something like "FoP-unknown", then users are compelled to review the files and clean Category:FOP up – through use of country-specific templates, removal of "FoP" if the work is found to be simple, or conduct deletion requests if the image file fails. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 14:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If the point of it is that the country (or FoP status) is unknown, then wouldn't {{FoP-unknown}} be the clearer name? - Jmabel ! talk 20:26, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking more closely, though, it seems that {{FoP}} currently means that the tagger believes it to be an FoP violation, and {{FoP-unknown}} means just what its name implies: status unknown. - Jmabel ! talk 20:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jmabel: in terms of FOP statuses, as per FOP map we have already determined the statuses of virtually all countries, inclusive of Somalia which is currently gray on map because of unstable status (see COM:FOP Somalia). This means in the CRT pages of at least 196 out of 197 countries (Palestine being exception), FOP rules are already outlined. Therefore, I cannot see the necessity of {{FoP-unknown}} today. Nevertheless, I would suggest merging its contents to {{FoP}} to transform the latter into a template used for work license review. Dozens of German Wikipedia files are being imported by Wdwdbot annually, and ended up being dumped at Category:FOP (which I recently reviewed yesterday).

Once {{FoP}} becomes a review template it will compel some users or license reviewers to conduct yearly cleanup of Category:FOP Other users, like @Ox1997cow: , may make more country-specific FOP templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:18, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However, I think {{FoP-unknown}} is useful. This is because it is sometimes impossible to tell which country a building, sculpture or mural was taken in. Ox1997cow (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel and Ox1997cow: if {{FoP-unknown}} is to be retained, I propose turning {{FoP}} into a template similar to "FoP-unknown", but in this case adding a message stating that files tagged as such for a very long time will be submitted by users or image reviewers for deletion request, so as to clean up Category:FOP which is supposed to be a tracking and maintenance category (and not a designation category like Category:FoP-Belgium that is generated by a country-specific FOP template).

In my proposal, the grace period before the nomination will be 7 days, or 14 days (or 1 month, whichever is desired). If failed to be tagged with either a country-specific FOP template or other template like {{PD-old-architecture}} or {{PD-structure}}, the photos with {{FoP}} tag can be freely nominated by users or reviewers, regardless of eligibility for hosting on Commons. However, the users need not to wait for grace period to end, if they believe the shown artwork or building in the photo is unfree enough, like a modern sculpture from Norway or showing "Burj xyz".

This should help in cleaning up Category:FOP, which is not supposed to be a dump category for an indefinite period. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 07:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JWilz12345: {{FoP-unknown}} is useful until we know what country the work is located in. If we don't know which country a building or sculpture is located in, we can use a Google image search or the coordinates recorded in EXIF data to find out which country it is located in. Here are three examples where {{FoP-unknown}} was attached. In this case, I did Google image search and found out that the rabbit sculpture was located at Disneyland Paris in France, and it was deleted because there is no freedom of panorama in France. In these two cases(case 1, case 2), I found out that the work was located in Switzerland through the coordinates recorded in EXIF data, and although Switzerland has freedom of panorama, it only applies to outdoor works, so the indoor work is not applied freedom of panorama, so these photos were deleted. So, when {{FoP}} is useful? Ox1997cow (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ox1997cow: in your opinion, should {{FoP}} be instead redirected to {{FoP-unknown}}? Because by the contents of the templates they have similar intent and purpose, yet "FoP-unknown" has more emphasis. {{FoP}} seems redundant as there are already specific templates to use with, like {{FoP-Belgium}} or {{FoP-Poland}}. Some special-case templates like {{PD-old-architecture}} or {{PD-old-70}} can be used for public domain ones, or {{PD-structure}} for simple ones.

However, {{FoP}} is linked to w:en:Template:Ir-FoP and w:de:Template:Panoramafreiheit which both serve as their wikis' FOP templates, via Wikidata. But this is likely because the images that were previously here before being imported here directly were claimed to comply with their home wikis' country of origin's freedom of panorama. Nevertheless there is a chance of such images being directly imported here by bots (like Wdwdbot for certain German Wikipedia-sourced photos), without considering the eligibility of the works. Therefore, I assume that {{FoP}} is supposed to be a review template just like {{FoP-unknown}}, but sadly a few users (if no one) have the courage to clean up Category:FOP which {{FoP}} generates, making it an essentially dump category instead of tracking category. Sometimes {{FoP}} is being misused in images showing unfree works of no-FOP countries. Therefore, I am proposing to just add a warning message just like "FoP-unknown", but if "FoP-unknown" has more emphasis and is good at compelling image reviewers to clean the tracking category up, then best for {{FoP}} to be simply merged to {{FoP-unknown}}, and the latter becomes the WikiCommons equivalent of FOP templates of local wikis. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:37, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JWilz12345: I asked if {{FoP}} has any other uses besides what {{FoP-unknown}} is for. Ox1997cow (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I already answered your question. Read again my reply. {{FoP}} is similar to {{FoP-unknown}} as both generate tracking categories and both serve for review of image files. But in the case of the former, virtually no one (or at most very few) here is reviewing files tagged with {{FoP}}, and worse it serves to escape image reviewers (just like a photo of an unfree Norwegian sculpture tagged as such: [8]). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@JWilz12345: So, I think it's good to {{FoP}} be redirected to {{FoP-unknown}}. Ox1997cow (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ox1997cow: I am open to that, but how about veteran users like Jmabel? We need their responses too as they have already witnessed the creations and establishment of original purposes of both templates. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 13:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I was pinged. Redirecting FoP => FoP-unknown sounds right to me. Still, not an area I focus on unless I stumble across it, so no strong opinions. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Authors without birth and death dates

Do we have a list of authors that we are actively seeking birth and death dates for? Some pdfs of books have been up for deletion because we did not know the authors' death dates, none of them had a Wikidata entry/Creator template. With a little research I was able to find birth and death dates for them and even obituaries that mention their book. If we do not have a list, we should start one. Rather than nominate these works for deletion, it would be easier to just start a list of authors needing birth and death dates. --RAN (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) We have Category:Photographers and artists with year of death unknown, a child of Category:Photographers and artists by year of death, which will help for the future. Otherwise, you may need to cross-reference your list with Category:Year of death missing. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perfect! Thanks. I filled in one already: Thomas W. Bankes, I found his obituary. I do best with English language sources. --RAN (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Fixed. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Upload wizard feedback wrong link

On Special:UploadWizard the "Leave feedback" button leads to a page that says don't leave feedback there. Jidanni (talk) 09:39, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jidanni: Hopefully, this edit by El Grafo clarified. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Structured data

Does anyone here have experience adding structures data to images? I'm still trying to figure out what is the correct way to model certain depictions Trade (talk) 20:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Trade: Have you seen Commons:Structured data? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am not thinking about the technical side as much as the community consensus on how it should be used. Trade (talk) 22:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As you can see from the navbox and the category at the bottom of that page, there are a few pages here about best practices (i.e. not just purely instructional material on how it technically works), such as Commons:Structured data/About/Why and Commons:Structured data/About/Users and Commons:Structured data/About/FAQ. I think these discuss at a hi level why it's worth doing and generally how to go about it. Did you have a specific question? I've done a lot of editing on Wikidata and here to add structured data, so while I'm not an expert, I know more than most WMF wiki editors. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How are cosplays dealt with? Do we use the cosplay (activity) item or the cosplayer (occupation) item? And what property do we use for the character being cosplayed? Trade (talk) 22:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

A given piece of media will depict the activity of cosplaying, not have the occupation of being a cosplayer. I think d:Property:P180 is perfectly valid for saying "this photo of a guy dressed as Superman depicts Superman". If the cosplayer himself has a Wikidata item, it could "Depict [person]" with the qualifier "as [character]". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If i were to add statements to the images in the category :Women with auburn hair would it be best to use P180 > woman > P1884 > auburn hair? Or should i just use P180 > auburn hair instead? Trade (talk) 23:30, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I would go ahead and err on the side of adding as many relevant statements as you can, particularly if you have a semi-automated and painless way to do so. This is also where marking as prominent is valuable: if the image is about a woman and she so happens to have auburn hair, then mark that we're seeing a woman as prominent (or who the woman is, if she has an entry in Wikidata), but if the picture depicts a lot of auburn hair and it so happens said hair is on a woman, add both statements but mark the auburn hair as being prominent. That would be my take. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Is it just me or does Undo entire group in the AC/DC tool not seem to do anything? I realized i unfortunately made some mistakes in the items and properties used for i learned more about structured data.Trade (talk) 01:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I tried to do a test and so far 0 edits undone --Trade (talk) 01:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I have AC/DC installed, I have not experimented with it, nor have I experienced this. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Could you please try and see if undoing edit group works for you? Trade (talk) 12:59, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Downloading free content from Google Books as PDF

Say that Google Books has content in the public domain that I want to upload to Commons as being within its scope. In my case, I am considering uploading old issues of InfoWorld in the PDF format. Those issues had no copyright notices and were not subsequently registered within five years, and the publisher apparently began to add a copyright notice only after its September 15, 1980, issue. Notice how, on the bottom right of the pages such as this premier issue, there is a phrase added to the scanned images reading "Copyrighted material", but it is probably copyfraud. More annoyingly, the phrase remains on too many pages as I download them at the highest resolution and convert them into PDF. Is there a way I can conveniently retrieve the page images or download the whole thing in the PDF format without the false notice, or do I have to manually edit them out using GIMP (my preferred editor)? Free Media Kid$ 21:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I apologize that this is just a guess rather than definitive, but have you checked around for user scripts for browser plugins like Greasemonkey? I would be surprised if no one had made a user script to download all images as an archive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I did not until you mentioned it. A handful did in fact write scripts meant to retrieve the images. Unfortunately, they do not remove the false copyright notice, making these methods no different from what I am already doing: copying the image links, changing the width of the images to display them at the highest resolution possible, and then downloading them. Free Media Kid$ 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There has to be some AI tool that can remove the watermark efficiently, but I'm ignorant of what it could be. In the meantime, at least for the purposes of 1.) getting the information out into the open here at Commons and 2.) scanning it for reproduction at Wikisource, then the copyfraud watermarks aren't really a concern. I could imagine the scenario where someone just doesn't pay attention and marks them for deletion here, but if your reasoning is correct, then I think they wouldn't be deleted. Sorry that I don't have something more substantial. :/ —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, it's all right. I did notice something interesting, though. When I extract Google Books pages, most of the times I would get PNG, and sometimes JPEG. The ones in PNG happen to be the ones with the copyright watermark and the JPEG ones without. This leads me to suspect that the JPEG ones are the original files and the PNG images are scaled for the reader. I am not sure whether this is true for all pages, and given the tediousness of downscaling the width of the pages pixel by pixel and the futility of understanding what makes images display in PNG and not JPEG, I am not in the mood to test that theory out. Free Media Kid$ 08:14, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

License tags

Hi all, have been going through our Katoomba images and came across this one. It seems overly restrictive, but I’m likely wrong! Can I get the input of people? Are the conditions imposed on this image reasonable for commons? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"VSM"? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

iPhone autocorrect - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 22:43, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It looks impressive, but really everything outside of the two licenses offered (CC BY-SA 4.0 and FAL 1.3) are requests, not license requirements. -- Asclepias (talk) 22:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How do you tell the difference? Trade (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

How to export my upload list?

I have uploaded a large number of books (User:Bot for Freedom). While they have been categorized in categories like Category:Scans_with_a_SSID and the title list under a category can be exported using https://petscan.wmflabs.org/, I want to check if any of the files has been removed from the categories. So I want to get my bot's upload list. How can I get it? Since they start with the prefix "SSID", if pages with a prefix can be exported, it will help me as well. Upload for Freedom (talk) 00:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Upload for Freedom: I can think of some jury-rigged approaches, but nothing great. Hit me up if no one gives you a good response. - Jmabel ! talk 01:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Same as Jmabel. Have you watchlisted Scans with a SSID and have category changes on? That may be a good idea for the future. Using AWB, I can pull the last 25000 edits by the account and just skip every page in that that category as a starting point as a quick jury-rigged idea.-- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for your attention. The files were not added to my bot's watchlist. There are 0.2 million files so it's not enough.--Upload for Freedom (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ricky81682: You may want to look into the NoLimits plugin. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 14:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Upload for Freedom: ~~Are they all the files listed in Category:Scans with a SSID? If so, I have a simple Python script that can scrape category contents that I can tweak to give you a list. Otherwise,~~ it's possible to use pywikibot to go through user contributions, but I haven't figured that out yet. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 08:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
- Ah, I misread your initial comment, sorry! I'll try to have a look at user contributions soon. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  - @Upload for Freedom: Here you go: script, output. 307,446 filenames (note that I haven't checked for duplicates). Let me know if you want any help doing the comparison with category contents. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:38, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Thanks a lot! I can do the comparison myself. Upload for Freedom (talk) 11:51, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Venezuela president recognition map.svg timelapse

Hi! Users that are familiar with the topic know that the presidential crisis in Venezuela has been ongoing for four years, and it hasn't been until recently that it seemingly has come to an end. Naturally, this map: File:Venezuela president recognition map.svg has changed drastically since its beginning in 2019. To reflect these changes over the time, I've thought that an animated file, such as a gif, would be ideal. Are there contributors that could help with this? Many thanks in advance! --NoonIcarus (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@NoonIcarus: probably best asked at Commons:Graphic Lab/Video and sound workshop. - Jmabel ! talk 16:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jmabel: Roger, thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 21:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Using Wikicommons photographs in a book

Am I allowed to use Wikicommons photographs in a (soon to be commercially published) book, copyright free, so long as I attribute the photo as listed in its information page? —Preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.248.96.184 (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Same question already at Commons:Help desk#Using Wikicommons photos in a commercially published book. --Túrelio (talk) 08:39, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Can we automate the conversion of author names in PDFs to Creator templates?

Can we automate the conversion of author names in PDFs to Creator templates? See for example: File:The_Oriskany_fauna_of_Becraft_Mountain,_Columbia_County,_N._Y_(IA_oriskanyfaunaofb00clarrich).pdf where we have "Clarke, John Mason, 1857-1925" that can be converted into "{{Creator:John Mason Clarke}}" and if it is a red link create {{Creator|wikidata=Q3809155}} and add it to the Wikidata entry, or would it be too difficult? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk • contribs) 14:42, 12 January 2023‎ (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): This can be semi-automated with VFC, but probably not outright automated. - Jmabel ! talk 16:43, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Insulting name" in category title and filenames: Run, Nigger, Run

These pages should be renamed (possibly to "Run, African American, Run". The pages containing the "insulting name" should be deleted.

Do you agree? Roy17 (talk) 19:34, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I do not understand. Do you want to rename songs? Ruslik (talk) 19:47, 11 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Nigger" is a bad call to African Americans.

I think the original file name is a insulting name that is not comfortable to use in the file name. Roy17 (talk) 06:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You can open a CFD but I think you will likely be opposed. The name is the actual name of the song, it is used on English, on the WikiData page and you will likely need a redirect anyways because most people will look for it. It seems weird to object to this category when we have Category:Nigger as a parent. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Something along the lines of File:Lyrics of "Run, Nigger, Run, or the M. P. 'll catch you".jpg might be more palatable. But we cannot close our eyes to the ugly parts of history and human behavior. That's why we keep around examples of Nazi propaganda. El Grafo (talk) 08:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

COM:CENSORSHIP and COM:NPOV may be applicable in this case. Commons may retain things that may be offensive for some or most, because Commons is not Wikipedia and does not adhere to the latter's "neutral point of view". We keep files under titles that may offend several of my peers here in the Philippines (using South China Sea instead of West Philippine Sea), and not to mention .svg flag images of Nazis and ISIL are also retained. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 08:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We should, however, aim to provide the necessary historic context. Files themselves can show biased opinions, but file descriptions need to make clear whose opinion that is. That's even more important for offending, racist, or otherwise disturbing content. And wrt to Wikipedia: see en:Run, Nigger, Run. El Grafo (talk) 08:30, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Nevertheless, a bit of "curatorial responsibility" seems to be missing here. Currently the page of Category:Run, Nigger, Run appears like any category-page for non-controversial content. Instead, it should include a notice that this controversial historic content is stored here for documentary reasons. --Túrelio (talk) 08:36, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think Túrelio's suggestion is a good one. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you very much for your thoughtful inputs. I am sorry that I, as any sensible user, wouldnt actually want to rename these pages, because Commons functioning like an archive takes these files as they are and does not alter or censor them. I used the n-word merely to get the attention for the following (copied from Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/05#Move_file_to_original_name).

What I wrote at the top of this thread, was exactly lifted from the nonsense that multiple filemovers and sysops accepted to temper the VOA file File:1949之後右派狗崽子話當年.mp3.--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So this was just to make a point? Congrats on wasting time rather than writing this out at the file talk page so people knew what the issue is. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please not try to Commons:POINT to archieve a consensus, thank you. Hehua (talk) 06:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Move file to original name

I request that Special:permalink/657140008 be fulfilled to restore the original episode name given by VOA. Thx. Roy17 (talk) 22:47, 23 May 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You don't even bother to comment at File talk:1949之後右派狗崽子話當年.mp3. It's been months and I suggest rejecting Roy's request until they choose to engage on the talk page. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is exactly the kind of bullshit that wastes users' time.

Throughout the rename-deletion nomination-file talk bullshit, not a single other user understood Chinese.
Firstly, they dont check the source either, otherwise it's not that difficult to see that the filename is the same as the one on VOA, right?
Secondly, no one had the decency to ask me the uploader why the name was such, whether there was some problem, etc. (Of course, because they didnt even understand the filename is the VOA original.) Instead, every stupid person just used google translate and pretended they understood everything and anything at all.
Even as I had reiterated, the original filename is the name given by VOA, not a single user did the right thing to put it back. Instead, some users started meddling, saying that now it was a "dispute" and I should waste my time to "sort it out amongst yourselves".
I took to VP and the thread stayed on VP in May 2022 for two weeks. No one bothered.

Why does the n-word attract so much more attention then? Why the same kind of bullshit happening to a Chinese file could go through, in spite of repeated protest from the uploader? I quoted the exact same bullshit to start this thread. Why can users commenting on this thread about the n-word understand the absurdity of such requests, but not a single one of those about the VOA file?

I dont even need to explain why the name was such, since not a single one of those meddling understood Chinese. As long as it's the original name given by a reputable source, the name stays.

Of course, if someone had asked me nicely, instead of vandalising the filename and creating pointless DR, I would happily explain the language and the word choice (by VOA! not by me).

But reality is, no one bothered asking, and I repeatedly made a simple and straightforward request to "Move file to original name" for more than two weeks, but my request was trashed.

From my experience, multilingualism on Commons extends to languages in latin and as much as cyrillic scripts only. I've seen far too many cases when users do not handle other languages with care, nominating files for deletion because they dont understand the filenames or descriptions, ignoring requests in other languages, not trying to communicate to other users if they dont speak English, etc.--Roy17 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Returning the topic to the VOA file. So a filemover came by and saw the rename request, but s/he didnt understand Chinese. What should s/he have done? Instead of just using google translate, can't s/he post on my talk page and ask?

Actually, I just noticed, if they had used google translate not only for the filename but also the file description, it might be possible to guess the word is a kind of "self-deprecation". Ever done that?--Roy17 (talk) 02:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Throughout the shitshow, the first filemover could be given the benefit of the doubt, but after the uploader had explicitly made clear that the original filename is the correct name given by the source VOA, there's no excuse for all the nonsense on the file talk, the DR, and so on.

And another example to explain why using google translate only is bad. I could write "母狗很漂亮" about File:FBI agent with police dog.jpg. The Chinese noun literally is just "female dog", but google translate makes mistakes because Chinese doesnt have a plural form and the words are lost in translation. Roy17 (talk) 03:05, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think that the filename is not appropriate for the policy in commonswiki although it may use in VOA. Hehua (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe it is the truth that the name is just "self-deprecation".But in fact when someone see the filename it is not comfortable but s insulting name. Hehua (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For your thoughts "not a single other user understood Chinese", maybe we can ask a Chinese filemover or sysop for help. Hehua (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

So please not move it back before we have a consensus.Your act is not helpful to solve the problem but to cause a move/edit war. Hehua (talk) 06:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think you are being a bigger source of a time waste than anyone else. There is an active discussion on the file talk page. Roy17, you were directly pinged last May and refused to respond there. Instead after it was moved, we have to waste time here with your pointless exercise and you refuse to comment with anyone else on the subject there. This discussion will be archived and no one will have any idea what this is about. Now, will you be an adult and talk where everyone else is rather than keep this argument going on in two different locations? I refuse to waste time reading and responding here. An admin or another filemover can decide if they want to encourage your little stunt by ignoring the discussion there. I suggest an admin close this discussion since there is a place where the discussion is going rather than encourage editors to engage in other games and refuse to engage with people because if you do encourage this, you will end up with people just coming to the Village Pump with other childish arguments and refusing to have discussions. Use your words and you can explain what in the world the Chinese slur is or isn't or why it should or shouldn't matter. Do not play games by making further irrelevant stunts and refusing to talk to people who are at least trying to engage with you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
By your logic (bullshit):
1. Move File:Run, nigger, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you.jpg to "Run, African American, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you.jpg"
2. Start a discussion on file talk, because now there is a "dispute" about the name.
3. The uploader should discuss why it should be moved back to "Run, nigger, run, or the M. P. 'll catch you", by analysing everything about the n-word.
But the real problem is, there's nothing to discuss. Whether the word is offensive or not, it doesnt even matter.--Roy17 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Giving in to these pointless discussions, is the source of wasting everyone's time. If the first filemover who learnt that the original name is correct as given by the source rejected the rename, I wouldnt need to waste my time doing anything about it. Were my rename requests on the file page not clear enough? "move to original name given by VOA, which is also heard in the audio at 0m50s", which part do the filemovers and sysops not understand? (VOA may not be neutral, but it's only biased against the Chinese communist government, then why would it start mistreating victims of the Chinese commies?)

None of these busibodies using google translate would understand the word is not offensive at all, and the argument initiating this "it's an insulting name blah blah blah" was wrong. Rather it's a kind of self-deprecation or reappropriation. Anyone legible in Chinese would understand. For anyone not legible in Chinese, this doesnt even matter, because all you need to know is that's the VOA original name.

Now I go fly a kite and you can enjoy conversing with whoever that is on file talk or wherever. Roy17 (talk) 09:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But the song cannot be renamed. Hehua (talk) 11:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe you are right. However, Please see File talk:1949之後右派狗崽子話當年.mp3 and @Ricky81682 advised to rename it to a neutral middle ground name.Thx. Hehua (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it is not a problem to quote the title verbatim from an external source when naming a file. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 07:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree that it is appropriate to quote a title verbatim in either of these circumstances. But I also agree that if you fail to comment where the discussion is actually taking place, your views will probably be ignored. - Jmabel ! talk 16:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Category Digital Zoom

The reason for writing is that some of my files have been categorised to Digital Zoom (in fact, they are now the majority of the files in the category). But I'm not complaining about that. Because for that I would first have to understand what is meant by the category in the first place? Because that's what I can't understand. There are crops, a computer animation and pictures that have definitely not been zoomed either optically or digitally (especially the pictures of Human Rights Day that I took 34 days ago, I remember very well that they are not zoomed). C.Suthorn (talk) 08:03, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn: You appear to be writing of Category:Digital zoom. Why did you not link it? You could ask the users who are categorizing with it. Pinging @WikipediaMaster as author of the category name. — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:02, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That was me. IMO Digital zoom is similar to, or same as, "upsizing/upsampling", for which AFAIK we don't have own category. User C.Suthorn is heavily upsizing many of their own uploads, with the result that in 100% view they look somewhat like this. --A.Savin 13:18, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@C.Suthorn: Why are you doing that? — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ_{please ping or talk to me}🇺🇦 13:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I do not upscale my images. Most jpg-images are without any alteration to the jpg-structure from the camera. The native resolution (published by the manufacturer) is 12000x9000. The effect pointed out by A.Savin is typical for the camera, i don't like it, but I have not looked into ways to get better jpg-encoding from the camera. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:41, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

12000x9000 is more than 100 Mpix, by now there's IMO no common consumer camera which could shoot single pictures of this resolution. --A.Savin 14:13, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The camera may be doing digital zoom (upsampling) internally. Some cameras do that. I had an old Nikon CoolPix that did. - Jmabel ! talk 16:47, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think these photos here are taken with a smartphone camera and some smartphones upscale the photos. Additionally the sensors are very small but have so much pixels on the sensor that the singe pixels are to small resulting in noise and artifacts. But I would also not create such kind of category, this could be done with structured data or even directly using the exif data. GPSLeo (talk) 17:04, 13 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Photo challenge November results

**Hair: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Ирокез	Hairs on a horse snout in backlight	Man with matted hair
Author	Tiraspolsky	F. Riedelio	Sneha G Gupta
Score	17	9	8

**Unfinished things: Entries • Votes • Scores**
Rank	1	2	3
image
Title	Seestadt Aspern, Vienna, during construction (December 2013).	stonemason carving letters	Детское творчество
Author	Jacek79	Virtual-Pano	Tiraspolsky
Score	12	11	10

Congratulations to Jacek79, Virtual-Pano, Tiraspolsky, F. Riedelio and Sneha G Gupta. -- Jarekt (talk) 01:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]