Wikimedia Commons

Commons:Village pump

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/2023/01.

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 Objectification 34 12 Jmabel 2023-01-19 15:51
2 Wiki Loves Plants 2023 27 7 Discott 2023-01-17 11:06
3 Slight issue with template acting up in image caption 0 0
4 Missing data in Authority Control in Infobox 4 2 Chris.sherlock2 2023-01-15 09:23
5 Iconic photographs 6 5 Pigsonthewing 2023-01-16 17:39
6 Pointless file renames 7 2 Roy17 2023-01-18 20:10
7 Categories versus ‘depicts’ statements 15 4 Jmabel 2023-01-14 19:00
8 The Negro Motorist Green Book 1949 4 3 Jmabel 2023-01-19 15:47
9 Tool to help patrolling new uploads 11 4 Ladsgroup 2023-01-19 07:34
10 How to implement "Quality imports"? 2 2 Ricky81682 2023-01-15 22:53
11 Removal of POV structured data 3 3 Tuvalkin 2023-01-15 14:09
12 Blocking people for behavior on other projects 6 3 Brianjd 2023-01-17 13:27
13 WikiProject Council 3 2 El Grafo 2023-01-17 12:34
14 Gallery of new files: ‘Flickr check’ 7 3 Brianjd 2023-01-18 05:37
15 I need help with an old map 7 5 Jmabel 2023-01-17 21:38
16 Removing parent category from DR and it's archive page 4 2 Jeff G. 2023-01-18 05:10
17 Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of Conduct 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2023-01-18 12:09
18 Gallery in categories for ships (watercraft) with the same name 9 6 Tuvalkin 2023-01-18 20:40
19 Millions! 3 3 CKoerner (WMF) 2023-01-19 15:21
20 Polish voivodeship road signs 3 3 Glrx 2023-01-20 20:09
21 German railbus 4 2 Andy Dingley 2023-01-20 15:33
22 Computer-aided tagging feedback 1 1 Brianjd 2023-01-20 10:58
23 Steam locomotives by by-RaBoe 4 3 From Hill To Shore 2023-01-20 17:00
24 Stephenson College, Durham images 2 2 Andy Dingley 2023-01-20 22:30
25 Wrong blue and green in rendered SVG 3 3 Glrx 2023-01-21 03:05
26 Category:Breast implants 1 1 Trade 2023-01-21 01:00
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.
Women at the well, India, early 20th century. [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals   ■ Archive
Template: View   ■ Discuss    ■ Edit   ■ Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

December 19Edit

ObjectificationEdit

A photo I took of a reasonably prominent writer about music, File:Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg has had its categories modified over time by User:Chenspec, User:DerHexer (one small edit), User:Albedo, and most recently User:Joshbaumgartner, so that it now has categories such as Category:Female human hair, Category:Women's faces, Category:Women looking at viewer, and Category:Women with opened mouths. These seem to me to be terribly objectifying categories. We don't add comparable categories to photographs of men, or (with rare exceptions) older women, but photos of young women are often treated this way. I find this objectionable (especially in this case, where it is a photo from what was basically a feminist music conference).

Yes, these categories are technically accurate, but they are some combination of useless/inappropriate. For example, almost every portrait photograph is going to show someone's hair and face.

This is repeatedly done specifically for photos of young women and, no, I don't think the right solution is to equally objectify everyone else. Jmabel ! talk 16:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

@Jmabel There is a discussion at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/05/Category:Men with opened mouths but strangely not one for the women one. The parent categories deserve discussions as well. Ricky81682 (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
  Comment My involvement has merely been to apply the results of closed CfDs to effect certain name changes on these categories, and should not be taken as endorsement or otherwise as to the validity of their existence. Additionally, the CfD cited above should be expanded to cover both genders since ostensibly it would apply to both. Josh (talk) 19:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Joshbaumgartner: as I figured, but didn't want to leave you un-notified if you felt you had a stake in this. & I agree about the CfD. - Jmabel ! talk 23:51, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel: I appreciate that and no worries, I just wanted to clarify my role. It turns out there is a discussion for the women as well at Commons:Categories for discussion/2022/12/Category:Women with opened mouths, so I'm linking it here as well as cross-referencing the two discussions. Josh (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Jmabel that sorting identifiable individuals by body details is highly questionable (and IMHO without much use anyway). But the fault may not be in the category itself but in the loose ways images are attached to it: If hair is the central topic of an image and the person has obviously confirmed to be used as a symbol for "hair" (e.g. as a model at a haidressers competition) I´d have no objections. Category:People with opened mouths is fine for images that are targeted at illustrating dentistry methods or singing techniques, but not for any snapshot where someone conincidentally hasn´t closed his mouth fully. And Category:Smiling women is fine for Mona Lisa, where the specific smile has even found scientific attention, but that´s a rare exception. I suggest not to delete the categories but to define their scope more clearly and to amend Commons:Categories with guidance that objectifying categorization should not be applied to identifiable individuals unless there is documented consent or specific justification. --Rudolph Buch (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@Jmabel, Ricky81682, and Rudolph Buch: Similar issues were discussed at Commons:Categories for discussion/2021/06/Category:Upskirt in sports, which has been open for far too long. Brianjd (talk) 05:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
We have plenty of files in Men looking at viewer and subcategories. ‘Looking at viewer’ is more about behaviour than the person’s inherent appearance; I don’t think it is objectifying. Brianjd (talk) 05:22, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
The other categories are about appearance, but are accurate, are not derogatory and are not indecent, so I do not see the problem. The file used as an example here, Evelyn McDonnell 02.jpg is a picture of (not merely depicting) a woman’s face, or at least a woman’s head, so the category Women's faces is fine. It also prominently shows a significant amount of hair, so Female human hair is fine. Both of these categories may require diffusion or other pruning, but that is a separate issue. Other categories like Women with opened mouths should be discussed on a case-by-case basis (I will add a comment to that category’s discussion as well). Brianjd (talk) 06:38, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Eigentlich (Eigentlich) sind die Kategorien ja obsolet. Ersetzt durch SDC und depicts. Und depicts für dieses Bild wären "Frau", "offener Mund", "feministisches Event", "Gesicht", "Portrait", "Blick auf den Betrachter" und würden es erlauben mit der Such-Anfrage "Alexa/Siri": Zeige mir Portraits von Frauen auf feministischen Events, die auf den Betrachter schauen und gerade sprechen. Dieses Bild und alle anderen Bilder auf Commons zu finden, die der Anfrage entsprechen (unabhängig von der Sprache, denn SDC sind im Ggs zu Kategorien multilingual). Insofern ist der Streit um objektivierende Kategorien müßig. Im Gegenteil kann aus diesen Kategorien teilautomatisiert auf die einzutragenden SDC geschlossen werden und dann können diese seltamen multi-begriff-kategorien verschwinden. --C.Suthorn (talk) 20:10, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

  1. @C.Suthorn: No, categories are not obselete. So far, they still function a lot better than structured data, at least for a human trying to find an image. If you are telling me that I should rely on a commercial company's AI to help me navigate Commons, then I'll refrain from answering that, because any response that seems appropriate to me would probably get me blocked for incivility.
  2. I stand on my original remarks about these categories and the way they are applied in practice constituting objectification. - Jmabel ! talk 01:08, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    +1 on both points. SDC is a long way away from even being a semi-functional replacement for categories, much less supplanting them altogether. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:16, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    I have a gadget that moves categories to the top of the screen, and I routinely read them, and they make sense to ordinary humans. But structured data? Do I want to click on another tab every time I open a page, just to view some confusing screen that looks like it’s full of technical details for data scientists/librarians/something like that? (We are getting off-topic here, but I could not resist bringing a bit of common sense to the SDC discussion. Objectification concerns should apply equally to categories and SDC, so categories vs SDC is irrelevant.) Brianjd (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    If you can use a gadget that changes how categories are displayed you could use a gadget that changes how SDC is displayed. Please don't conflate content with presentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Pigsonthewing I agree that we must separate content from presentation, but I think presentation is a huge practical problem for SDC. The default display for categories is still much easier to read than SDC, while the only site-wide gadget I see for changing the presentation of SDC is one that removes it completely. Brianjd (talk) 07:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
    (applause) -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
    @Jmabel: I agree with your points. This is obvious objectification, and it's absurd that we have categories like Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent, soles exposed as if Commons was a porn site for very specific fetishes. (FYI: Commons:Categories for discussion/2020/06/Category:Nude women, bare feet apparent, soles exposed.) What do you think we can do about this? Nosferattus (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
    There is no other solution than to do the hard work of nominating these categories for deletion and arguing about them on principle grounds. It's no surprise that it's easier for create a objecting category and have fun filling it up than to suggest deleting it and having someone find some rationale no matter how absurd the category for its use (even if it is just a blatant 'no censorship' opposition to any deletion). I wonder if we should start sorting CFD discussions like we are doing for file image discussions so we can formulate categorization rules better. Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 7 January 2023 (UTC)
    This discussion raised many important arguments, but it seems that they can be concentrated into two central issues. The first question is the legitimacy and necessity of a certain category. This should of course be checked for each individual case. If a category is found inappropriate, it should probably be deleted with all the tags in it. That way you can save many separate discussions on the same topic. The individual inspection of the files and images themselves should only be done for categories that have been decided to be kept. In this context, I definitely agree that it is better to leave in a certain category only images that have a clear connection to it and at the same time delete tags for images that have a marginal connection to the category. Chenspec (talk) 13:30, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
    CFD? Trade (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
    The fact that it takes a category deletion request with four deletes and zero keep almost three years to get deleted seems to be the bigger issue when it comes to categories like these Trade (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

At the risk of saying more or less the same thing over and over: File:Fremont Solstice 2012 - 184.jpg (probably NSFW, depending where you work): categories include Category:Nude or partially nude women wearing flip-flops, Category:Nude or partially nude women with bicycles, Category:Nude walking women, Category:Nude women smiling with teeth, Category:Nude women smiling while standing, Category:Front views of nude standing women, Category:Nude standing women with unshaved genitalia, Category:Nude women with brown hair, Category:Nude women with long hair, Category:Nude women wearing flip-flops, Category:Nude women with bracelets. Geez! But beyond that, there is exactly one "depicts": female pubic hair (Q116174568). By my estimation, the pubic hair takes up less than 1% of the photo. Nothing about depicting a bicycle, or body paint; and, now that I look closer, nothing in the cats or depicts that would let you know that there was a body-painted male anywhere in the photo (some categories do refer to the clothed male photographer at right). - Jmabel ! talk 23:33, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

It would be a lot easier for others to understand if you linked the images in question. Trade (talk) 23:40, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade: My most recent remark is about exactly one image, and it is linked in the first sentence of the remark. My remark that started this section was also about exactly one image, linked in the first sentence of that remark. What, additional to that, do you think I should have done? - Jmabel ! talk 03:37, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel That’s not the best example, given that all those categories refer to the most prominent person in the image.
I agree that the ‘depicts’ is a problem. But it was added by Trade in a batch edit. I doubt that Trade or anyone else looking at this image specifically would have edited the structured data that way. So the answer is simply to add more appropriate ‘depicts’ statements to this file. Brianjd (talk) 08:23, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Following from my comment about the nude woman being the most prominent person in that image, I had a quick look through the category Solstice Cyclists in 2012; it seems that the category itself has a massive gender bias. Brianjd (talk) 08:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Most of the images comes from a third party FLickr user. What are we are supposed to do about gender bias? Trade (talk) 11:24, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade The subset of photos taken by Jmabel seems to have a gender bias too. That doesn’t answer your question, but hopefully we can at least get a comment about it. Brianjd (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I took the bulk of the photos (including the ones imported from my Flickr account). Basically, anything that isn't Flickr's notion of "safe" is uploaded directly to Commons.
@Brianjd: Could you tell me what you see as gender bias among those photos as such? Basically, I was trying to photograph everyone I could. If you are saying just that there are more female breasts than male genitalia, that is because there are a lot more people (of both genders) exposing the top half of their body than the bottom, because male genitalia are hidden by legs from most shooting angles, and because in many cases male genitalia even when technically visible can barely be seen because (1) they are a lot smaller than female breasts (2) they are often hard even to notice because of body paint (if that portion of someone's anatomy is painted a solid color, you probably won't notice genitalia unless you are actively looking for them. Really annoying for Flickr's "safety" requirements: having to closely look at every detail of my photos to work out whether someone else closely looking at every detail might see a stray penis that I hadn't even noticed!). - Jmabel ! talk 16:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jmabel My judgement was based on a quick assessment of the gender(s) of the most prominent person/people in each image, based on thumbnails zoomed to 250% on the category page. Brianjd (talk) 06:44, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd: There may well have been more men than women in the contingent, or they may have been more interestingly painted (I probably didn't take all that many pictures of guys who were just painted a solid color), but if there was any "bias" on my part it was unconscious. - Jmabel ! talk 16:32, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
Looking quickly at the first 60 or so from 2017, it runs somewhere between 40% & 60%. If someone wants to do a larger sample and a careful count, I'd be interested in the result, but I don't have the patience. Certainly not something I'm consciously focusing on when I'm shooting or selecting, but I'm a heterosexual male, and it wouldn't surprise me if I notice women more than men. - Jmabel ! talk 16:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Looking at some other images here, I came across the widely used file Topless blonde sunbathing at the beach.jpg. Its categorisation is a bit different to another file showing the same subject, Blonde Woman at the beach.jpg. But more to the point, it was the subject of a bizarre featured picture discussion that kept referring to her buttocks. Brianjd (talk) 12:57, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Wow. Talk about objectification. - Jmabel ! talk 15:51, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

December 26Edit

Wiki Loves Plants 2023Edit

Wikimedia South Africa is planning to launch Wiki Loves Plants 2023 in January. The event will run from mid-January to the end of February 2023. The event will take place on iNatralist so as to get the correct taxonomy of the plants submitted. A requirement of the competition is that all images will be submitted under a copyright licence compatible with Commons. This will allow us to upload qualifying submissions to commons, from iNatralist, so that they can be used to illustrate articles on Wikipedia. I have put in a submission for a banner ad to run from mid-January to mid-February. I apologise for only posting this here now but, I am ashamed to admit, it only occurred to me to post about it on the Commons Village Pump now. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this event.--Discott (talk) 13:37, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the banner needs more discussion. As far as I know we never had a competition promoted in a banner campaign running outside of the Wikimedia projects and where a separate account is needed. GPSLeo (talk) 14:56, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
GPSLeo, that is a good point. I will ask the admins at central notice to hold off for a bit until a decision has been made on the banner ad campaign. We did at first plan to run this event in Commons like we did with the Wiki Loves Fynbos event last year (a sub-event of Wiki Loves Science 2021 in South Africa) which was a test event for this one. However we really struggled with getting the correct taxonomy of submitted photographs. iNatralist was a suggested by multiple botanists we approached for that event as it solves the problem of getting lots of pictures correctly identified whilst also opening the event (and participating in the Wiki movement) up to a broader community of people interested in the natural world. It was at the suggestion of some senior community members at iNatralist that it was decided to move the focal point of the competition from Commons to iNatralist as it a) streamlined the process of identifying submissions, b) made it easier for that community to learn about and participate in the event, and c) increase awareness amongst this community of why using a Commons compatible CC licence is a good thing. --Discott (talk) 16:47, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
@Discott: CentralNotice banners require a landing page in a domain owned by WMF or recognized affiliate (see FAQ). Ciell (talk) 13:06, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Ciell, understood. That is why we created this page on Commons. Perhaps we should then keep the landing page to the one on Commons but stating that those who wish to submit photos need to do so through iNatralist? The downside of that is that it will be a two step process to entering which will mean we will loose a fair number of participants. Discott (talk) 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
@Discott: agree, and also I think for you as organizer it is much harder to track participants and metrics when people use iNaturalist? If they can provide the info, I don't see a problem.
With WLM and other in-Commons photocomps, the banners point to a country specific landing page with national lists and a specific upload campaign, so there are also several steps to take. I am not familiar with the iNaturalist process: would this be much more complicated? Ciell (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Ciell, I am also not very familiar with the iNatralist process and have been relaying on the assistance of a WMZA chapter member and a very helpful iNatralist volunteer administrator and botanist to guide me through the process. The main metric we are looking to track is a) the number of identified photos that get submitted, b) how many of them get to Commons, c) how many of them get used on Wikipedia, and d) how many participants we have. Metrics a and d are easy to measure on iNatralist and metrics b and c can only be measured on Wiki projects. Pointing the banners to country specific landing pages might be a bit ambitious at this stage as the event is still quite experimental and I it is only three of us all based in South Africa at the moment. We could do a list but that currently feels unnecessarily limiting for this event (we also don't really know where to start with a list) although it is something we could do, but it would likely have to wait until the next event which, if it happens, would be in 2025. We did originally intend to focus just on South Africa (like we did with the pilot event last time) but I was convinced to drop the local focus as was seen as arbitrary given the need. Discott (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
I was absolutely not trying to design the process for you, my comment on the workflow for WLM was only meant as an example here. There are more (WLA, WLF) that work without lists, I just meant to illustrate that people almost always have to go through a two- or multi-step process when uploading for a photo-competition. Ciell (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks Ciell, I apologise if I came across as a bit defensive, I did not mean to sound critical. I think your point is a good one, I should not be too put off by having more than one step in the participation process. As WLM has shown, people will participate even if there are multiple steps so long as it is clear enough, for the public good, and not too hard. Discott (talk) 14:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
Isn't that more an 'iNaturalist loves' kind of thing, then? Since it's not on-wiki? I also wonder, if iNaturalist is better than us at identifying plants (automatically?), there might be a way to run uncategorised photos of plants here through their approach to help sort out that backlog? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 12:51, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mike Peel, in answer to your questions, yes (I guess) and yes (for sure). Yes I guess in a way it is kinda like an 'iNaturalist loves' kind of thing even though the primary purpose of the event is "photographs for use on Wikipedia". However I don't think we can use the iNatralist name in that way without having a big iNatralist community discussion. Having said that I think that would be a good thing to do for the next iteration of this event and it is a nice bridge building exercise between the Wiki and iNatralist communities. As for running uncategorised photos on commons through iNatralist to get the correct taxonomy, I can see that working well. The iNatralist community and site is almost entirely geared for that purpose and they would be delighted to have the extra pictures. On a different issue, one of our chapter members who is very active on iNatralist has suggested that we (WMF + community) should ask iNatralist to build in a button that would allow for automated uploads of submitted photos from iNatralist to Commons if the author of the picture so chooses. I really like that idea but I can see it taking some time to get done.--Discott (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Such button exists. Just check any category page of a species. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
@Discott: I think there's a tool called iNaturalist2Commons for that. Nosferattus (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
I've used this one a few times in the past, and my experience with it was quite positive! There is also a (semi-automated?) License review procedure for the imported iNaturalist images. Ciell (talk) 13:09, 30 December 2022 (UTC)
Oops, yes, you’re right: I see it in every category page of a species because I have installed iNaturalist2Commons in my preferences. To be able to use it, Discott should do the same. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 10:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
I was meaning the other way around: take images from, say, Category:Unidentified plants and pass them to iNaturalist to see if they could help ID them. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 15:30, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
That would be groovy! -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 17:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Tuvalkin that is fantastic news, thanks for letting me know about iNaturalist2Commons! This is a great tool and one I will definately start using, it is also one I will be promoting as much as possible. Seems like a most excellent fit with the Loves Plants event being hosted on iNatralist. I suppose we could focus the Wiki part of the event on getting people to help us move photos from iNatralist to Commons. That way we could resolve multiple problems at once. Solving the taxonomy issue through iNatralist, soling the moving of images over to Commons issue and the competitions connection to Wiki issue by encouraging people to use this tool.--Discott (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
What a great initiative!! May I use the opportunity to introduce Wikiproject Biodiversity? Fun fact, this group started as Wikiproject iNaturalist during Wikimania in South Africa in 2018. @Mike PeelIt is exactly because of the iNaturalist community being better in identifying images that we started the project to use that leverage. Currently within the project we actively use iNaturalist projects to collect observations to identify observations that lack Wikipedia articles. Examples of such projects are: Wikiproject biodiversity and Wiki mentor africa. In both case we use jupyter notebooks to identify missing Wikipedia articles, we than start. In the latter specifically for sub-saharan africa in local languages. Long story short, cross polination between the wiki and iNaturalist community is very interesting. We renamed the project from Wikiproject iNaturalist to Wikiproject Biodiversity, to also give love to other resources, such as for example plantnet or the Biodiversity Heritage Library. Andrawaag (talk) 20:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi Andrawaag, this is why I love doing these sorts of events and talking about them with the community. One always learns of exciting and interesting projects they would have otherwise might not have been aware of before. I would love to talk to you some time about Wikiproject biodiversity. :-) Discott (talk) 14:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
As for the banner, I love the idea. Don’t care if it’s not really an WMF idea. It will be a great addition for the project and should be supported and widely announced (unlike several less-than-great WMF ideas whose banners spam us so often). -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 16:11, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. :-) --Discott (talk) 14:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Andrawaag, Tuvalkin, Ciell, GPSLeo, Nosferattus, and Mike Peel (apologies if I missed anyone) I just wanted to know if we are any closer for forming a consensus on the issue of posting a banner on Commons and Wikipedia to promote this event? The new start date has been moved to 15 January 2023 (same date as Wikipedia's 22nd birthday). It would be nice to start the campaign, if it is agreed to, on that date.--Discott (talk) 16:44, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I still do not think that we should start doing this, because following campaigns could do this more and more. But if the link is not directly to the external site I would not veto on this. GPSLeo (talk) 16:56, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
No problem, I will change the link to point to the event page on Wikimedia Commons then. However the Wikimedia Commons page will still point people to the iNatralist page to enter the event. Is that okay? Discott (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
I have just relised that the banner add already points to the Wikimedia Commons page however I will ensure that it continues to remain that way. Discott (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
Since I haven't received a no yet and I have resolved the issue GPSLeo raised I am going to move ahead with the banner add request. I don't think I can wait much longer. I am already 2 days past the new start date of the event and 17 days past the original one. Discott (talk) 11:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 07Edit

Slight issue with template acting up in image captionEdit

See this discussion on the file page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Noliscient (talk • contribs) 14:34, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

January 09Edit

Missing data in Authority Control in InfoboxEdit

On Category:443 Hume Highway, Casula there is an identity NSW Heritage Database ID, but it isn’t appearing into the Wikidata Infobox. Does anyone know why this is? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 20:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Polite ping... - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
@Chris.sherlock2: The normal place to ask questions about the infobox is Template talk:Wikidata Infobox, I don't normally watch here. In this case it's because NSW Heritage database ID (P3449) is not included in the list of authority control properties that the infobox uses. I've added it in the sandbox, it shows OK in this category with {{Wikidata Infobox/sandbox}}, and will appear more widely when the next batch update is done. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Ah! Thank you so much Mike, still working out where to ask on Commons :-) - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 09:23, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

January 10Edit

Iconic photographsEdit

Category:Iconic photographs seems an arbitrary collection, and no guidance on how to apply it is given there.

Perhaps we should create a definition; maybe photos that are the subject of an article in at least one Wikipedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind deleting it (or keeping it around), but if it is to be kept, it should definitely be a container cat containing no images directly. If an image is not important enough to have a category, then it's not important enough to be considered an "iconic" photograph. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:55, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Seems like a good idea for a gallery, though. Anyone interested in making a gallery and getting rid of the category? - Jmabel ! talk 00:21, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
Agreed, that's clearly gallery territory. El Grafo (talk) 08:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
I think we should just start a CFD and continue the discussion there. This will fall off the VP page long before it's settled. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:23, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

@King of Hearts, Jmabel, El Grafo, and Ricky81682: Now at Commons:Categories for discussion/2023/01/Category:Iconic photographs; I have no faith in a resolution being achieved promptly, there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

January 12Edit

Pointless file renamesEdit

Some users are requesting renames that do nothing but only translate from one language to another, or only make cosmetic changes, in the name of "criterion 4 harmonising filenames". Meanwhile some filemovers are not doing their job by blindly renaming. I didnt bother raising this up since too many users are doing this kind of crap; and I, one person alone, dont have the time or energy to monitor all these; and damage had already been done after the blind renames. But since this has been brought up in Commons:Administrators/Requests/Nihonjoe, I will address these here once and for all.--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Japan logosEdit

https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&tagfilter=RenameLink&target=SpinnerLaserzthe2nd&limit=3000 https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&tagfilter=RenameLink&target=Xeror&limit=3000

Many filenames were originally in 3 situations:

  1. in Japanese
  2. in a wrong English translation (e.g. File:Kosei Shiga chapter.JPG). Error occured because the Japanese word 章 can mean either an emblem or a book chapter.
  3. in a good English translation (e.g. File:Symbol of Sanyoonoda Yamaguchi.svg), because someone had corrected the "chapter" error before.

To correct the error is perfectly fine. But then these users started requesting those filenames in Japanese or "Symbol of xx" be renamed. I know nothing about vexillology, so I dont know what the difference is between emblem and coat of arms, but one thing is certain -- these Japanese diagrams can be logos, symbols or emblems. There is no "official" translation of the terminology. If ambiguity were to be avoided, then it's better to harmonise them to Japanese names (章)!--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

SVG coats of arms of municipalities of Emilia-RomagnaEdit

Category:SVG coats of arms of municipalities of Emilia-Romagna Sorted from new to old. The oldest file File:CoA Città di Ferrara.svg used a naming format consistent in its own! Then some user started requesting renames because they are now doing their system which these files should harmonise to. Bullshit!--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

My view in short:

  1. Never make cosmetic changes unless it's necessary. Neither criterion 4 nor criterion 1 can be used to justify frivolous cosmetic changes.
  2. Different naming systems (especially due to different authors) can co-exist as long as they are precise on the same level. Harmonisation only if it's necessary for mediawiki maintenance (like wikisource pages) or template design (that cannot tolerate filenames in other formats at all. If template can be redesigned to accommodate different filenames, change the template.).

--Roy17 (talk) 21:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Your view is fine and all but are you proposing a policy change or something? Harmonizing seems fine to me but it seems odd when we do have the ability to do redirects. We do redirects for categories and pages in various languages so I don't see an issue with file names. As to these, do you want these renames to be undone? Meanwhile, you troll VP and make demands that people don't touch your uploads but refuse to engage with an active discussion at File talk:1949之後 右派狗崽子話當年.mp3 but have an issue with another uploader requesting renames for their own system of file names. It seems inconsistent. Either way, I don't see a need to add more to footnote 4 for COM:FNC#4 at this time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Striking those remarks. I will focus on the fact that I don't see an issue necessarily at this time but redirects are cheaper and easier to implement. The file name doesn't even matter for the most part. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
I'll copy this again from https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&diff=724773018 .
"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."
After I posted this for a week, no responsible user responds to this thread. No one reverts those problematic file renames e.g.
  1. File:上野原市市章.svg
  2. File:Coat of arms of Soliera.svg
  3. File:Coat of Arms of Serrungarina.svg
  4. File:Coat of Arms of Saltara.svg
Since a Japanese system of filenames can be renamed to English, and an English system of filenames can be renamed to Italian, all in the name of harmonisation,
then why not rename all files in Category:SVG sovereign state flags, for example "Flag of Argentina.svg", from English to Spanish (which is one of the 6 UN official languages and has more L1 speakers than English), or Chinese (another UN official language with the largest number of L1 speakers), or Yahgan language? As long as the new filenames are a system, it's valid to "harmonise them to a system".--Roy17 (talk) 20:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

January 13Edit

Categories versus ‘depicts’ statementsEdit

Do we have any guidance on how categories compare to ‘depicts’ statements? For example, the file You are currently unable to edit Wikipedia0.jpg, which was already in the category Vandalism in Wikipedia, just had a ‘depicts’ statement added for vandalism on Wikipedia (Q6180). While it might relate to vandalism and therefore belong to the category, it certainly does not depict vandalism; it depicts a block notice. Brianjd (talk) 06:25, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @Brianjd: Yup, bad use of "depicts". In my experience on what people do on my own photos, between 25% and 50% of "depicts" are bad. People seem unaware that there are other properties they can use to describe photos.
  • The guidance is Commons:Depicts and Commons:Structured data. It isn't really vs. categorization, they are described independently. - Jmabel ! talk 16:45, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Trade: I have switched your depicts (P180) statement for a main subject (P921) statement.[1] These two wikidata properties are similar but main subject (P921) holds the nuance that the image is about something that may or may not be in the image. For depicts (P180) you need to see the related item in the image. From Hill To Shore (talk) 23:07, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    It's ok, i'll stop using structured data now. Trade (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    Well, I'm not asking you to stop. I just wanted to show you that someone was commenting about your edits and give you an alternative method for dealing with these situations. None of us are perfect and we just need to learn as we make our edits. As long as you have the aim to improve as you learn more about structured data, I don't see any problem here. A few bad edits out of thousands of good edits is nothing to be concerned about. From Hill To Shore (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    What property are you thinking of? Trade (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
    • @Trade: From Hill To Shore's link was a little wonky because it was from mobile, but this is the diff for what he did. Looks to me that what they did is the right way to go. - Jmabel ! talk 00:06, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      I was talking about the images you uploaded. Guess its about that nude festival you mentioned earlier? Trade (talk) 03:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
      • Trade (talk · contribs) Was that addressed to me? (1) I had nothing to do with the file User:Brianjd was asking about. (2) Assuming by "nude festival" you mean the Summer Solstice Parade in Seattle, it is hardly a "nude festival". It's a parade put on by an arts organization. A few people started showing up for it naked on bicycles. Eventually a compromise was reached (at least with most of them) that they'd at least paint themselves (or one another) artistically, which pretty much all complied with. Over time the contingent expanded from a dozen or so to about a thousand, maybe a third of the total number of people in the parade (and certainly now more famous than the parade itself). - Jmabel ! talk 04:09, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        'In my experience on what people do on my own photos, between 25% and 50% of "depicts" are bad.' I just wanted you to elaborate on that Trade (talk) 04:16, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
        • @Trade: a wide variety of ways of being bad, from truly wrong (e.g. identifying a butch woman as a man, or saying that a picture depicts something that it literally does not in any apparent way related to) to way off the point (saying that a picture depicts a stop sign -- with no other depicts -- when you'd practically need a magnifying glass to seethe stop sicne and the picture mainly depicts a car) to saying that a picture that is mainly a portrait depicts a particular city or country, to adding a uselessly generic value like "depicts person" to a picture of an identified individual who has a Wikidata item, to ones like what came up here, where the item is related to the photo, but the relationship is not "depicts". - Jmabel ! talk 08:07, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
          You might wanna start a new discussion on what statements NOT to use as structured data if you feel some of them are useless Trade (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    I'll love to use the other properties as well but the tool is still buggier than i hoped Trade (talk) 03:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
    @Jmabel It seems to me that users are generally confident with categories but see structured data as a weird new thing; that’s why I thought it would be good to compare them. Brianjd (talk) 05:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

January 14Edit

The Negro Motorist Green Book 1949Edit

We already have File:The Negro Motorist Green Book 1949.pdf. Recently, User:DPLA bot uploaded this work separately in a set of one-page JPEGs File:The Negro Motorist Green Book, 1949 - DPLA - 0714b2993c48adf98a5a592c7468d23e (page 1).jpg. At least one of these -- that very first page -- is an improvement over what is in the PDF (which has a big sticker on the cover). However, most of this seems pretty redundant. They aren't true duplicates in the sense we usually mean on Commons: different file format, distinct scans of a different copy of the book, and on some pages (e.g. File:The Negro Motorist Green Book, 1949 - DPLA - 0714b2993c48adf98a5a592c7468d23e (page 5).jpg you can see a distinct "Seattle Public Library" stamp.

The situation is essentially parallel for 1956.

I'm inclined to keep these, but I'm also inclined not to want to make it hard to find the PDFs.

I see a few ways to go, and was wondering if anyone has a strong inclination:

  1. Separate out a subcat for PDFs (+ DJVUs, etc.): files that represent full volumes.
  2. Separate out a subcat for files showing individual pages or portions of pages.
  3. Both of the above.
  4. Separate out subcats by year.

And I wouldn't be surprised if someone else has another idea.

I'll give at least 48 hours for people to weigh in before I pick an approach and start categorizing the couple of hundred individual-page files from Seattle Public Library. - Jmabel ! talk 00:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I think a category for the volume and put both the PDF and the individual pages in it together are fine which I think is option 4. We do that with newspapers all the time where we have an issue of the newspaper, separate images for images extracted from the newspaper and maybe even JPGs of each page in the newspaper. See Category:Duluth Herald, Vol. 38, No. 194 for an example. That way all the items that are jointly the same (the date of publication, the title) are all under a parent category while the individual files are left to have unique characteristics. I could see individual pages discussing various cities or states in that year going into the state or city of that year category as a cool way to find that information. In the category I did, the individual advertisements are categorized by the movies they advertise while the parent keeps it connected Duluth on that day in November 1920. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Checking:
The newly create category for the book (pdf/djvu and jpgs) is indeed useful.
  • This should be added directly by the uploading bot.
  • Can the jpgs also be "baked" into a pdf/djvu?
  • Beyond the file name, shouldn't there be some indication on the individual pages' file description the page it relates to?
  • Is Template:Artwork correct?
  • Title and description don't seem to relate to the individual page or whatever is represented on them, but the book.
In general, uploading books (consisting mainly of text) page by page as jpg doesn't seem a good idea.
Further uploads from the bot should be halted until the above points are addressed. Enhancing999 (talk) 09:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Tool to help patrolling new uploadsEdit

Hi, I made this toolforge tool called NewFilesPatrol (NFP) to make it easier to patrol new uploads for copyvio and such. It's like PageTriage/NPP but for Commons. It's in early stages and right now more of a prototype because I want to make sure it'd be helpful to patrollers before I invest more time in it. A couple missing parts: OAuth integration to avoid showing "block" or "delete" to non-admins and even maybe later I'd incorporate ability to delete the file in the page instead of opening a new tab in the wiki. Also adding support for limit and continue, a more mobile friendly design (and maybe a system of one-by-one for mobile), ability to skip files you don't want to act on etc. I'd be happy to do this if patrollers think this is useful and better than Special:NewFiles or newbies-uploads tool. The source code (MR is welcome) or report bugs, feature requests, etc. If anyone wants to help co-maintaining it, I'd be more than happy to add them. Please let me know if you find it useful or not. Thanks. Amir (talk) 02:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Would it be possible to make the tool tag new uploads that lists it's source or author as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram or IMDB.com? Those images typically require VRT Trade (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
I am afraid that this will become a very large list. To avoid that, we might exclude uploads from experienced/trusted users, like uploaders who have more than x uploads, active for more than y days on Commons and never have been blocked anywhere. Would it also be possible to give information about former deletions of uploads by the uploader because of copyvio or other violation reasons? JopkeB (talk) 08:43, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
In all honesty i can not think of many experienced users who take their pictures from social media websites. Trade (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Ladsgroup: Thanks. I filed phab:T327003.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 09:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade It should be doable, please file a ticket. @JopkeB This tool only shows you unaptrolled files. If a user is autopatrolled (like most of trusted users), it won't show their uploads. If someone is missing, admins can give them autopatrolled rights. Also if a file gets marked as patrolled, it won't show up there again. @Jeff G. I will comment there. Thanks. Amir (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
Could you fill one on my behalf please? I have little experience with the ticket system Trade (talk) 15:52, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
@Trade phab:T327377 Amir (talk) 07:34, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, good to know. JopkeB (talk) 05:42, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

What do you think of adding a link to it at the top of Special:NewFiles? Amir (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Added there Amir (talk) 12:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

How to implement "Quality imports"?Edit

Main gallery: Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2022/09#Quality imports.

As y'all can see above the proposal to create "Commons:Quality imports" was approved, how should we implement it now? I am not sure if it is just blindly copying the existing "Commons:Quality images" infrastructure or creating a parallel system. While the proposal succeeded, the details of the implementation wasn't thoroughly discussed. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 22:15, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Which part of the structure? For the page itself, it looks like this is sort of "Quality images but that weren't created by the uploader" so I would start the page with just a link to the Quality images page to have a start but we should have four options for later searching: country, subject, uploader/user, and source. I don't think you need to copy the existing infrastructure but just start that it's a basis for now. Keep it very basic with a very simple Commons:Quality imports candidates and then let's start having discussions about what media to include and see if there are different criteria (something like the amount of work to get or the transformative nature from the original could be important or it could be irrelevant). Start simple because the hardest draft is always the first and I think the first goal should be to see what people consider as candidates and then see what people make up as criteria from there. QI wasn't built in a day. :) Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

January 15Edit

Removal of POV structured dataEdit

Hi all, I cannot remove the PoV item from the stuctured data of File:Orphan_Rock,_Katoomba_(2485154006).jpg. It's wrong, and given this is a historical photo the actual subject of the photo has now been included. Can someone help? - Chris.sherlock2 (talk) 08:55, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  Done. Editing the camera location structured data has been buggy for a while now... Somehow, the workaround is to set your language to something else, then edit/delete the entry. --HyperGaruda (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
Just wow. Thanks for the tip, HyperGaruda. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:09, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

January 16Edit

Blocking people for behavior on other projectsEdit

Hi. There's been several users blocked recently, where the main or only justification for the blocks seem to come down to behavior they supposedly did on other projects. Which IMO seems like a bad precedent to set since a lot of users start editing Commons because of problems or sanctions elsewhere. Also, I don't see anything in Commons:Blocking policy that says anything along the lines of "behavior in other Wikimedia projects is grounds for a block." So, I guess I'm wondering what the policy or consensus is when it comes to blocking people mainly or purely because of issues they have had elsewhere. Is how someone has acted on another project an acceptable reason to block them? Or should it be the other projects' responsibility to deal with the person if their behavior outside of Commons is really that intractable? Adamant1 (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it really depends on what they did on the other projects. Racist bullying? Made-up sources? I don't think we should wait till they do it here. Repeated edit warring? Undisclosed paid editing? We should wait till they break a rule here. - Jmabel ! talk 17:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 Other projects? Or other Wikimedia projects? What’s the difference?
If the offending behaviour is on other non-Wikimedia projects, then even discussing it here could be grounds for a block. Cross-posting personal information from other Wikimedia projects is just as bad, but linking the behaviour via username is OK, so discussing the behaviour is OK. But that doesn’t explain why that behaviour should be actionable here. Brianjd (talk) 12:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 I think I can name one of those users; that block was lifted after multiple users strongly opposed the block, claiming that the block had never been properly justified to begin with. What happened in the other cases you are thinking of? Brianjd (talk) 12:19, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been more clear. What I meant was other Wikimedia projects. For instance ru.Wikipedia or be-tarask.wikipedia.org. The users I'm talking about are Kazimier Lachnovič and Лобачев_Владимир. Both of them were apparently blocked due to problems on other projects. At least that's how it seems since there isn't any evidence of either of them doing anything recently to deserve the blocks. Plus, multiple people involved in Kazimier Lachnovič ANU complaint cited his behavior on be-tarask.wikipedia.org. Including the blocking administrator. That said though, I didn't really start this to relitigate the ANU complaint. Since IMO it's more of a general issue outside of those specific blocks. Although they are good examples of what I'm talking about. Especially with Kazimier Lachnovič's block. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1 You were clear enough to start with. My question was kind of rhetorical. I was really saying: If we don’t (in fact, usually can’t) block users for their behaviour on non-Wikimedia projects, then we shouldn’t block them for their behaviour on other Wikimedia projects either. Brianjd (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject CouncilEdit

So, I noticed the Commons:WikiProject Council doesn't have members... So does this mean you can't currently start a new WikiProject on the Commons, or is there an alternative process in place now that isn't mentioned?--The Navigators (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@The Navigators Yeah, looks like that page was a good idea that never really took off. I'd suggest to go present your project idea at COM:VP/P. El Grafo (talk) 12:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
I've marked that page as inactive, as I don't see this ever taking off on Commons. WikiProjects are just not much of a thing here, so a meta page for organizing them will not attract enough people. The few proposals for new WikiProjects can easily go to COM:VP/P. We should probably edit Commons:WikiProject accordingly. El Grafo (talk) 12:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 17Edit

Gallery of new files: ‘Flickr check’Edit

In the gallery of new files, the file 20220921 Fröttmaning 01.jpg (and only that file) has a link labelled ‘Flickr check’, which apparently requires a Flickr login. What is this? Brianjd (talk) 12:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I was searching the page for ‘Flickr’, which is how I found that link, but now I notice it also has a unique ‘pbase check’ link. That link points to http://www.pbase.com/image/20220921, which says:
Unknown Image
There might be a mistake in the URL you entered. Please check the address and try again.
There is no image with id 20220921.
That doesn’t sound very promising. Brianjd (talk) 12:09, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @FlocciNivis as uploader. Brianjd (talk) 12:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd The image is taken by me and I have never uploaded it to Flickr . I think it was just algorithmically matched because the name contains 20220921, which is just the date it was taken on, and this apparently is the ID of a former file on Flickr or pbase. FlocciNivis (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Brianjd: These are special features of Special:NewFiles as a part of this site's MediaWiki version 1.40.0-wmf.18 (00e0651) dated 19:17, 9 January 2023. See the sparse documentation at mw:Help:New files.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 15:34, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G. The key word is ‘sparse’. I have never understood how people are supposed to maintain software if no one even understands what the software is supposed to do. Brianjd (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I need help with an old mapEdit

Appreciated community:

I'm considering to upload into Commons a map featured in a French book of 1922, called "Nouvelle Géographie universelle". However, I couldn't find enough biographical information about Ernest Granger (the author of the book) in order to determinate the appropiate course of action.

What can I do in regards to this? I need an answer as soon as possible.

Thanks in advance, greetings from Colombia and may God bless you. Universalis (talk) 18:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Universalis: Hi, and welcome. Per en:Ernest Granger, he died 21 May 1914.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 19:03, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
@Jeff G.: The guy you said was a politician. I'm refering to another guy, a professor in history and geography. Universalis (talk) 19:10, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ernest Granger (1876-19..) [2] --Raugeier (talk) 19:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I started in on fully marking up the EB1 world maps. I found that (a) they're exact duplicates of a better map available in more detail and (b) that I could handle helpfully marking the cities that were considered revelant for inclusion at the time in the Wikidata instead of the categories. I was in the process of moving most of that over and cleaning up the cats when User:Enyavar took it upon themselves to blank an entire day or two worth of work—including entirely unexpected and important categories like phantom islands, Khoikhoi, Negroland, Carpentaria, &c.—out of a misguided sense of gatekeeping and cleanliness.

If everyone here agrees and prefer that I not make this series of maps available in (eg) France and South America because we don't normally bother for most world maps, fine, and you guys can mark and sort everything to your desired level of nonspecificity. If anyone does understand what was undone and does still want me adding, tagging, and sorting things, this was obviously badly and obnoxiously handled and it'd be nice to have an admin explain BITE, IAR, and related policies to Enyavar before they send more people entirely off the deep end and off the project. — LlywelynII 20:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

  • @LlywelynII: can you provide some links to what you are talking about? I have no idea what are "EB1 world maps" and little of the rest of this makes much sense. - Jmabel ! talk 21:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Oh, I think I see. File:Dury Atlas Maps 1 and 2 The World.jpg that you've been working on says it was reprinted in the first Encyclopædia Britannica, not at all obvious from the file name when I looked at what you'd been editing. So what, if anything, has that got to do with Univeralis's question that started this section? - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

January 18Edit

Removing parent category from DR and it's archive pageEdit

With this this DR the page for the deletion request and the archive page it were both automatically added to the files parent category Category:Ross-Verlag. I'd like to remove the pages from the category, but there doesn't seem to a be way to since there's not the usual code for categories at the bottom of either page or the interface options. So does anyone know how I make it so Category:Ross-Verlag isn't used as a category for the pages? Adamant1 (talk) 04:36, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Adamant1: I defanged it like so.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 04:59, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Awesome. Thanks. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
@Adamant1: You're welcome.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 05:10, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Voting now open on the revised Enforcement Guidelines for the Universal Code of ConductEdit

Hello all,

The voting period for the revised Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement Guidelines is now open! Voting will be open for two weeks and close at 23.59 UTC on January 31, 2023. Please visit the voter information page on Meta-wiki for voter eligibility information and details on how to vote.

For more details on the Enforcement Guidelines and the voting process, see our previous message.

On behalf of the UCoC Project Team,

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:09, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Gallery in categories for ships (watercraft) with the same nameEdit

A few things can probably be said about the categories for ships (watercraft) with the same name. But I got the idea that adding a gallery in the category page with a representative image of each watercraft could make categorization easier. I tried it at Category:Ships named Tacoma. I am absolutely not sure that combining galleries and categories like that is a great idea, though. What do you think? Blue Elf (talk) 12:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Fine by me. It'll be more relevant in some cases than others, but on the whole I think it's a good idea. Maybe link the names to the relevant categories though. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it is a good idea to have a gallery in a parent category like Category:Ships named X, to show a photo of each of the subcategories. That sure makes categorization easier. If it is about a few photos (max ±10), I think the gallery can be in the category (though this is not a Commons policy, but mine never have been deleted). Otherwise you can make a gallery page and refer to it in the category (this is the policy). JopkeB (talk) 15:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
I rather like that solution, especially as you did it in a chronological order. This approach feels better than messing with a separate gallery page for such a use-case. I agree with Andy that linking names to categories would be good. — Huntster (t @ c) 15:43, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Re chronological order, it would be best to have all the dates of manufacture launch with the names, not just some of them.   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 16:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Good point. Rather than the captions mirroring the category names, just link to the categories and provide name and year of build. — Huntster (t @ c) 18:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes, a good idea. And not a new idea, either — see: Category:Categories with a gallery for a better choice of sub-categories. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 20:40, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have linked the names to the categories now. For the naval ships I kept the pennant numbers but added the building year, to make it as clear as possible. We do have some ship (watercraft) names that have been very popular, with probably more than 20 ships with the same name, but most of these categories will have two or three or four ships in them. Blue Elf (talk) 19:57, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

@Blue Elf: Category:Ships named Enterprise has 22 subcats and is sorted by date of launch. :)   — 🇺🇦Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me🇺🇦 20:24, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Millions!Edit

At the spam factory that is https://wikimediafoundation.org/wikipedia-desktop/ , it’s said that there are «68+ million Media files on Wikimedia Commons» and people are invited to tweet this patent falsehood.

The offered number is wrong, of course (over 90 million as of writing), as wrong as the misuse of the plus sign and as wrong as promoting one specific microblogging platform. And of course there’s no simple way to see who penned this absurdity, nor when. (The 68 million number was accurate by early 2021.)

As a Wikimedia Commons volunteer I do not feel represented by this kind of corporate-esque “outreach”, at all.

-- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 21:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Seconded. - Jmabel ! talk 03:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)
Noted. I'll pass the request along. CKoerner (WMF) (talk) 15:21, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

January 19Edit

Polish voivodeship road signsEdit

I have recently started using voivodeship roads signs on Wikipedia from Category:Diagrams of Voivodeship road signs of Poland, however I have noticed that images in the mentioned category have different dimensions and different types. As a result, placing them next to each other does not look well.

I suggest they be standardized, such as with the US interstate shields or Polish national road signs. This would make them look more properly in articles. PRmaster1 (talk) 20:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

@PRmaster1 Indeed, that looks quite ugly. Maybe start a request at Commons:Graphic Lab/Illustration workshop? People there should be able to help you... El Grafo (talk) 11:29, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
The issue is about wide variation in Category:Diagrams of Voivodeship road signs of Poland.
Height is consistenly 270, but widths are all over the map.
The SVG files also use anisotropic scaling.
The Polish sign font is Drogowskaz. See en:Polish road signs typeface. Font is not on Commons. Arial is a reasonable facsimile: 0123456789. The "9" is very different. The en.Wiki article has links to Polish sign specs, but I cannot load the PDFs and do not read Polish. The specs should state some dimensions.
Here is much simpler SVG that uses fallback fonts and a 2:1 width to height ratio. 
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<svg
   xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"
   version="1.1"
   viewBox="0 0 540 270"
   font-family="Drogowskaz, Arial, sans-serif"
   font-size="230"
   font-weight="bold">

  <rect x="6" y="6" width="528" height="258" stroke="black" stroke-width="12" rx="27" fill="#fafd4a" />
  
  <text x="50%" y="220" text-anchor="middle">100</text>
</svg>
Glrx (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

January 20Edit

German railbusEdit

 

Wich type of railbus is this?Smiley.toerist (talk) 00:34, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:MAN-Schienenbus of Südwestdeutsche Verkehrs-Aktiengesellschaft Andy Dingley (talk) 01:24, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, there where minor differences with the newer images of railbus, but these must be modifications.Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I think they have two different ends, one with a gangway door (crew only), so that they can be run in multiple, but only in pairs. The other end just has an equipment cubicle with a vent grille on it, but the window frames still have this distinctive layout of 3 panes, with a narrow door-width one in the middle.
There's also a variety of engines and two transmissions (mechanical and hydraulic), and they're also pretty old now, so changes would be likely. Was the one you saw still in regular service, or was it more of a preserved museum piece? I know there are a few like that. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:33, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Computer-aided tagging feedbackEdit

Did the computer-aided tagging feedback page quietly die, just like the Upload Wizard feedback page? Brianjd (talk) 10:58, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Steam locomotives by by-RaBoeEdit

 
 

There (01 to 22) 2014 images of steam engines without location. These are nearly remaining images in Category:2014 in rail transport in Germany. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

That is a bad Computer-generated rendering of Hannover Hbf. The real Hannover Hbf is not so tidy (compare: File:Dampflok 41 096 Hannover Hbf 1803241122.jpg). from september 2013 according to EXIF. C.Suthorn (talk) 15:18, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I moved the files to Category:2013 in rail transport in Lower Saxony and Category:Trains at Hannover Hauptbahnhof. There are only two file without location information left in Category:2014 in rail transport in Germany.Smiley.toerist (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
File:DBAG 429 RE9 Rostock-159148.jpeg The sign on the train says it is the RE9 Rostock Hbf service, which appears to run from Sassnitz. A sign in the background on the right suggests the train is between Sassnitz and Bergen when the photo was taken. From Hill To Shore (talk) 17:00, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Stephenson College, Durham imagesEdit

The page w:Stephenson College, Durham had a series of edits from someone clearly associated with the college, editing as w:User:Stephensoncollegedu (banned under username policy), then as w:User:129.234.0.50 (blocked for adding unsourced promotional content), then as w:User:Kstobbs (banned from editing that page due to block evasion and conflict of interest). As part of this, they uploaded four images to Commons, two of which remain on the page:

These are fairly clearly official Durham University marketing photos - two of them appear in an official university publication, and a photo obviously from the same photoshoot appears on the university website.

It's possible that, as someone who appears to be a representative of the college, the uploader does have permission to release these - and if so, that's fantastic because they're great images; but we have no evidence of that other than the upload declaring them "Own work", and a query I put on w:User talk:Kstobbs 10 days ago hasn't had a reply. Thoughts on the best way to proceed? Should we take the copyright release declaration at face value until shown otherwise, or do these need to go? (Let me know if there's a better forum for this.) TSP (talk) 17:35, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Delete. We are here to act as an unpaid publicity agency (it's within SCOPE), but only if they play ball and file the paperwork right. Otherwise we should just save our efforts. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Wrong blue and green in rendered SVGEdit

correct wrong
blue #0055ff      #4800ff     
green #00d300      #00ea28     
 

In the raster previews of vector files blue and green are rendered in wrong shades. This probably affects all files, e.g. File:AdditiveColorMixing.svg. I just realized it in images like the one on the right, and earlier in the image set of overlay numbers. Any chance this can be fixed? --Watchduck (quack) 21:32, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

This seems like a phab: issue to me. I don't think anyone locally can fix this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:07, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
I believe this is Phab:T26768. librsvg does not output an sRGB chunk, so the browser believes that the PNG color space is RGB rather than sRGB. Glrx (talk) 03:05, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

January 21Edit

Category:Breast implantsEdit

Dumb question but is this category supposed to be only for images related to the procedure of breast implants? Or is it also for images of women with implaints just in general? The fact that Breast Augmentation 3mo post-op.ogv is in the category makes the scope of the category unclear to me. --Trade (talk) 01:00, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=726582351"