Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/04.

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

Village pump in Diepenheim, Netherlands, being packed in straw to prevent freezing (1950) [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.

March 26[edit]

Defaultsort of churches[edit]

Four years ago, there was this discussion:

It's my belief that categories are there to assist users in finding media we host. So it should be a given that users should find media where they expect to. However, we seems to have inherited a system from en:WP of default sorting churches and pubs by location first, then name. So "St Bernard's church, Sometown" is defsorted so that it appears under "S" rather than "B" (obviously sorting under "St" is unhelpful because most would then sort under "S", which would be overwhelmed and thus useless). Similarly, "The King's Arms, Anytown" appears under "A" rather than where a user would expect to see it, i.e. under "K" (Again, "The" is redundant). There is one user who persists in perpetuating this error, as I see it, claiming that "it's the way it's always been done" is a taxonomically valid reason for the current system. So my proposal is this:

Churches and public houses in the United Kingdom should be sorted by name first, then location, except where the name is part of the category, in which case sorting by location is used..

I realise it may take some time to correct this error, but I don't see that as a reason for not doing it, as I'd prefer to get things right than confound our users, and I invite all to participate in a straw poll to determine consensus. Rodhullandemu (talk) 08:32, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rodhullandemu: Who is the "one user"?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:49, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I don't want to embarrass him by naming him, but I confirm he has been made aware of this proposal. Rodhullandemu (talk) 17:10, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more contributions in the last two weeks- would someone kindly close this please? Rodhullandemu (talk) 18:19, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This section was archived on a request by: ReaperDawn 12:08, 12 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support by four people, in 2018
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support As proposer. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support Because we already have Category:Churches in the United Kingdom by city which makes it possible to find what you are looking for if you only know the city. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ ✍ ⏿) 17:57, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support The location isn't part of the name, for "The King's Arms, Anytown" it would be under "King's Arms" then under "Anytown" (such as here when the name of the topic is the same, we then go by location), since the "The" is not useful, the same with "St Bernard's church, Sometown" where the "St" is redundant it should be under "Bernard's", then "Sometown". Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:02, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support. ReaperDawn 02:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Convenience link to original discussion: Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2018/09# for UK churches and pubs --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Plea[edit]

  • Pubs and churches are two very different types of facilities.
  • Many churches are protected culural heritage.
  • Even on pubs, the preference of the name is doubtful, as the same pub may have had variuos names in its history.
  • On churches:
    • To understand the landscape of architecture,it is necessary to know the location of each single church.
    • In historic cities and towns, the churches form an ensemble. Some places have a cathedral, some churches were built for parishs, some for convents. It is useful to see in the list of a county, whiich place has how many historically important churches.
    • In some regions of England, most churches have one of oy six or seven requently used names.
    • Though, in some cases, the patron saint indicates something on the sponsor or on the economy of rthe parish, these relations are no strict rules.

Therefore, to use the sorting as a vehicle of scientific information, the location ought to have the preference. --Ulamm (talk) 12:39, 26 March 2022 (UTC) Fortunately, in a lot of counties, the defaultsorts mainly use the preference of the location, actually.--Ulamm (talk) 18:45, 26 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion[edit]

  • If you are proposing to overturn the consensus from the original discussion to defaultsort by name, in favour of defaultsorting by location: I oppose this and support the original outcome. As is mentioned in the original discussion, grouping by location is done by using a super-category for that location (i.e. Category:Churches in [location]). Sorting by place rather than by the category's name goes against all indexing conventions we usually find in books and other works. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are wrong: Typically, scientific books on architectural history have an index of places. For each place, the buildings, there, are listed by their names.--Ulamm (talk) 20:06, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • See the structure of the volume on Gelderland in the series Monumenten in Nederland:
Voorwoord – 7
Ten geleide – 8
Historie – 12
Stijl en verschijningsvorm –20
Materiaal en constructie – 33
Regio's – 40
Steden, dorpen, monumenten – 60
Beknopte literatuuropgave – 374
Verklaring van enige termen – 380
Topografisch register – 388
Register van personen – 394
Verantwoording van de afbeeldingen – 411
--Ulamm (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The list you provided is the table of contents found at the beginning of a book, which is sorted according to page number. If you meant for use to look at the Topografisch register you emphasized, I have some bad news for you: places and buildings are all sorted alphabetically. For example: the building Aardhuis, Het (Hoog-Soeren) is found among entries starting with the letter "A", not under its location Hoog-Soeren further down the list. --HyperGaruda (talk) 10:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • You neglected the content of the list, Ive copied:
    • The main text is "Steden, dorpen, monumenten", page 80 –373.
      • In the text, for each place, buildings are grouped by types, and in each type, they are grouped aphabetically.
      • In the rating of a Commons category by location it is similar: Buildings are primarily rated by place, only buildings in the same place are rated by their names.
    • After the text, on page 388, there starts the topografisch register, the list of places.
Monumenten in Nederland is avalable as PDF, and therefore easy to copy.
  • Günther Binding, "MASSWERK", the most common German handbook on tracery, has after the text the "Bautenverzeichnis", that is index of buildings. Its first column is:
"Albi, Kath (i. e. Cathedral): 82, 84; Abb. 73, 99
Alençon, Notre-Dame: 104
Atlenberg, Zisterzienserkirche: 24, 169, 216, …
Amiens, Kath.: 23, 27, 44ff, …
Amiens, Saint.Germain: 101; Abb. 94
Annweiler, Pfarrkirche: 255; Abb.94
Auxerre, Kath.: 25, 29
Avignon, Papstgrab, 27, 97
Bacharach, Wernerkapelle: 264; 296
Bampton: 142
Barholme: 101
Barnack, St. John the Baptist: 144; Abb. 152
Bar-sur-Seine, Kirche: 103
Basel, Münster: 204, 354
Basel, Barfüßerkirche: 299; Abb.338
Basel, Predigerkirche: 217; Abb. 251
Basel, St. Peter: Abb. 394
Basel, St. Theodor in Kleinbasel: 287; Abb. 323
Bautzen, Dom: 349; Abb. 323
Bautzen, Nikolaikirche: 349."
Scanning it would cause a problem of copyright, I'm afraid.
--Ulamm (talk)+Ulamm (talk) 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Then I think we have reached an impasse. The Topografisch register supports sorting by name, the Bautenverzeichnis by location. Ignore the main text; categorisation is a navigational tool and the best "real life" examples to look at would be other navigational tools such as indexes. In any case, I strongly advise you to set up this proposal at the correct venue (Commons:Village pump/Proposals) and to also take into consideration Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2020/05#Defaultsort for UK buildings RFC, another inconclusive discussion on this subject. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The topografisch register supports sorting by location, too, such as the main section of the volume, "Steden, dorpen, monumenten" does. Within each place (that is the lower level!), the monuments are sorted by kinds of building, and within each kind of building by name.
In large cities, the location is more specified, by sub-chapters for suburbs.
The volume could provide a register of churches by denominations (patron saints or the typical "Grote Kerk", "Broerenkerk", "Oude Kerk", "Nieuwe Kerk" that were chosen to overcome the totemist attitude of Catholic parishs to their patron saint.), but it does not.
The presently more common sorting within Commons categories, with preference of the location above the name, ha the same effect: Normally, onroerend objects are sorted by the places. If there is only one object by place, this provides a sure identification. Where there is more than one object (here church) in a place, they are sorted by their names.
The sorting preferred by that gang creates groups of sometimes more than 20 objects with the same name, that have to be sorted by their places. Therefore, you have almost as much sorting by place, as if you use this preferrently.
The difference is: The location of each building is scientifically relevant, and the better identificator, whereas the patron saint is nothing but a not very good identificator.--Ulamm (talk) 13:04, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
∑:
  • For users who like groups of churches of the same denomination, the "Curches by patron saint"-categories ar eprovided.
  • In "Listed churches"-, "Curches by century"-, "Churches by architectural style"- and "Churches by shape"-categories, the sorting by denomination creates large groups of homonymous churches that on the lower level are sorted by location.
  • A sorting by location, in these kinds categories, creates only one sequence for mot villages churches. Where in one location there is more than one church in this category, this local group provides the information, that the churches in this place have some common properties, this information is provided without a complicated system of sub-categories.
  • The obvious priority of location (as upper level of sorting) above denomination in scientific printed books is denied by @HyperGaruda:
--Ulamm (talk) 20:54, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ulamm: May we assume that by "denomination" you mean "name", not religious denomination? Or are you suggesting yet another sorting criterion? - Jmabel ! talk 00:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    In UK, most categories of church buildings are formed like "St Peter's Church, Littleton". This way, the denomination is the name of the patron saint.
    But, as I've mentioned, in the lemmata of most such categories, the location suffix is more specific (less homonymous) than the patron saint.
    And in real life, people say "the church", if they talk of the church of their own parish, and "Littleton church", if they talk of the church of a neighbouring village. In a city, they call the church of a neighbouring parish by its patron saint, of course. Ulamm (talk) 17:14, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
2nd ∑: Actually, the churches of much more counties are sorted by location than by denomination. This has been done by active users, probably the majority of them. Therefore, the voting of four people in 2018 can't be called the decision of a representative majority. It has to be called the destructive initiative of a little gang.--Ulamm (talk) 08:39, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I had a long conversation with Rod shortly before he died. One of his regrets was that he was unable to finish the work he'd started to apply the 2018 consensus mentioned above. I think he said he'd reached "D" in an alphabetic process. That is probably why "the churches of much more counties are sorted by location", and as he said in the quoted original text, "it may take some time, but thats no reason not to do it." So it's no surprise that the chaos in categories he hadn't yet reached from "E" onwards actually precede his work. But the consensus of those who took part in the 2018 discussion was never intended to be global, nor can it have been, and it was left for two weeks during which nobody added any opinion either way, and then closed. So, unless overturned, it remains consensus. It's alsovery unhelpful to describe a consensus as a "gang". If Rod had lived longer, perhaps he'd have tackled, but without much enthusiasm, the damage caused by Motacilla in sorting categories alphabetically rather than by their function. RIP, mate. Sadly missed 94.174.111.230 21:37, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The majority has sorted by location, since long. That is a kind of consense.
Four people are a non-siginificant minority.
Most "users" of the Commons did not notice the "polling" of October 2018.
Therefore the practice of the great majotity has to be considered the real vote.
Some very few people had begun to create chaos by beginning to sort by denomination, before 2018. They are the problem.--Ulamm (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The alleged consensus of the longevity of the majority is irrelevant. Throughout history, the consensus of the majority has been shown to be wrong. Take, for example the German Election of 1932. Take the election of Donald Trump in 2016.
Four people, with nobody objecting, is de facto and de jure enough to constitute a valid consensus according to COM:CONSENSUS
All users of Commons could have contributed if they were interested enough. They weren't.
The "real vote" consisted of doing something here that was on Wikipedia. Commons categories are mostly different from those on Wikipedia.
The problem is not those who sought to get it right, which the consensus reflects, but those who unthinkingly followed the wrong thing.
I don't see this discussion going anywhere, and it should be shut down, for Rod's sake if nothing else. He would be turning in his grave if the coroner had not embargoed his body until the outcome of the inquest. 94.174.111.230 22:34, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The decision tof hose four people was presented to me dug out of the archive. That shows that except of a handful of persons nobody knew of it. That situation is quite different from general acceptance.
Many, probably most users visit the village pump very seldom. I was active in WM Commons also in autumn 2018, uploading own photographs, searching, categorizing, but I was too busy to visit the village pump.
I have objected against that decision on sorting pubs and churches in UK, as soon as I got informed of this gang decision. The problem is, how to cause publicity for this matter.
I have shown that the sorting of immobile objects by denomination rather then location contradicts scientific practice, and that in the case of churches (as well as pubs), it creates groups that (beside the denomination) have nothing in common that distinguishes them from other objects (of the same class). Sorting by location, in contrast, provides an addtional information and creates groups with effective common properties.The location registers usual in scietific books on architectural heritage have a good reason.
These books have registers of artists, of scientists and, sorted by location, of the buildings, but no registers of denominations.--Ulamm (talk) 22:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)+--Ulamm (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, how to cause publicity for this matter. - As mentioned earlier, you should make an official proposal at COM:VPP. If accepted by the rest of the community, some sort of rule should probably be added to COM:Categories or even an entirely new policy/guideline page, lest you get lost in endless discussions. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:16, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

March 27[edit]

Create {{Z symbol}} or not?[edit]

It looks like publicly using letter Z on e.g. posters can be more and more dangerous and criminal, should we consider showing it may face-to-face {{Nazi symbol}}-like issues, and then create a tag to let remote users know such issues?

See also en:Z (military symbol) Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 14:17, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbol support vote.svg Support A disclaimer to notify reusers of potential risks may be a good idea. We might include a hint though to use this only for the actual military symbols and not for apparently similar logos like File:Zurich Insurance Group Logo Horizontal.svg. De728631 (talk) 14:24, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Make sure not to apply it to File:The Mark of Zorro (1940 film poster).jpg or similar ;-) --Rosenzweig τ 15:01, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Nobody has banned the Z symbol yet. Lithuania is considering banning it and others may follow, but any talk of adding a reuse warning is premature. Nosferattus (talk) 17:35, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read Z (military symbol)#States? De728631 (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well I was wrong about that. Regardless, it looks like the context of the use is important in the jurisdictions that have banned it, so I would still be reluctant to create a generalized warning for the letter Z. Nosferattus (talk) 04:26, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, based on "Z (military symbol)#States" (as mentioned above), apparently Low Saxons and Bavarians using it can get up to 3 (three) freakin' years in prison. We should be warning people about this. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose It is very unlikely that an image from Commons is going to be used in a way that would trigger a reaction from the police without your anticipating it when planning the use. If you show support for the Russian invasion in e.g. Germany without being a German citizen, you should understand that you may get yourself a problem (and check up on it), and if you are a German engaged in the conflict, you should know of the swastika laws and understand the issues with the Z without the help of Commons. –LPfi (talk) 09:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support but must only be used for cases where the context is clear. --GPSLeo (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose using Z does not mean supporting Russian invasion of Ukraine. I would be OK with adding warning in the description of files in Category:2022 Russian Invasion vehicle markings that in some countries displaying those symbols might be illegal, but we do not need it on all the files displaying letter Z, like the ones below
  • Låvedør Grue gård.jpg
  • MO-supp-Z.svg
  • Brno, Lazaretní, věž se znakem Zbrojovky.jpg
  • KaZantip yellow box.jpg
  • Listed building, pharmacy sign. - 9 Zalár Street, Eger, 2016 Hungary.jpg
  • MTA Union Tpke Parsons Bl 12 - Parsons Manor.jpg
  • Pomalá jízda.jpg
  • US Navy 011007-N-3390M-001 Commander Navy Region Northwest Rear Adm. Bill French and Naval Station Everett Commanding Officer Capt. Eddie Gardiner holds the base's fifth consecutive Five Star Admiral Elmo R. Zumwalt Award.jpg
  • NYCS-bull-trans-Z.svg
  • Williamsburg Bridge 2015 2.JPG
  • Flag of Zwartewaal.png
  • Switzerland flag Z.svg
  • POL COA Zet.png
  • Wappen Remshalden-Hebsack.svg
I think {{Z symbol}} template is premature. --Jarekt (talk) 12:50, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that any of the symbols above would be more likely to be shown in a way breaching the law than those images actually depicting the Russian symbol. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, for NYCS' Z service route, I contacted MTA by their online contact us form, that whether MTA is currently considering to change it to another alphabet (or e.g. the number 8). Likely I plan to ask Tokyo Metro and Kintetsu by the like way, to know that whether change the route marks of Hanzōmon Line (Q1376030) and Nishi-Shigi Cable Line (Q8140289) are currently considering (both are marked Z, see 1 2). However I'm having no idea if JR West is also considering it or not due to Fukuen Line (Q899394). Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 13:41, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    This is why context matters. We also do not add {{Nazi symbol}} to old Celtic objects with a victory rune or temples in India. --GPSLeo (talk) 14:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Your talking about putting warnings against a letter of the alphabet??? An unwelcome precedent. Its not yet a symbol but just a hand daubed mark on a tank, and not any of the illustrations here. We don't need to do anything. I'm sure Germans know already what to do, without our help. --Broichmore (talk) 13:34, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Not only german, but also Czechia and Kazakhstan are banned Z. PS: Pennysylvania, the hometown state of US President Biden, is also considering to disallow showing "lonely Z" on public transport signs. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support creation of such a disclaimer/warning-template. It should be used diligently, like the existing Nazi-symbol-template. Per recent legal-expert opinion[1], use of "Z" with the above described intention was already punishable in Germany per §140, no.2 Strafgesetzbuch (penal code) of Germany. --Túrelio (talk) 10:05, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose can people in the free world please not fall for self-censorship so easily? for now i see no need to use a template to play up some countries' hysteria and paranoia. RZuo (talk) 08:21, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
May be you don't understand the proposal. Nobody here asks for banning this symbol. This is about placing a warning for re-users that in some countries, such as in Germany, the use of this symbol (not simply the letter Z) is illegal and might be prosecuted. And thanks for attacking other sovereign countries. --Túrelio (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Túrelio: you clearly dont understand the proposal, as well as my reply. many countries have various laws banning display and use of all kinds of things, but commons dont need such templates to warn users of blasphemy, lèse-majesté and whatnot. why the obsession with european laws? and in this case, the absurdity of the laws affecting parts of the alphabet is in itself controversial.
on the other hand, this proposal is yet another attempt for mockery by this user.--RZuo (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RZuo Even oneday the Benz got banned? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 12:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No Wikimedia project should ever have warning templates against letters of the alphabet. Thuresson (talk) 21:29, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support States having banned the symbol is definitely relevant to many viewers, similar to common practice with communist symbols. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:29, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mil.ru[edit]

IMO, some template similar to {{BArch-biased}} (e.g. {{Mil.ru-biased}}) would be needed more for tagging new images (after 2022-02-24) from mil.ru such as this (description uses biased term special operation instead of invasion/war). — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And also to prevent from edits like this (using derrogatory term "Moskal"). This is a pure war propaganda. — Draceane talkcontrib. 14:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. --Túrelio (talk) 07:46, 29 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would be similar template applied to media from Ukrainian sources? Same for any media produced by military forces of any country. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:54, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support a template warning about war propaganda, but not all documents from Mil.ru are war propaganda. Yann (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I admit that it would apply probably only on majority of material uploaded after February 24th. — Draceane talkcontrib. 07:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support. Such tagging is definitely needed. --Sneeuwschaap (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
it should be a template akin to the "xyz is sponsored by abc government" banner on youtube/twitter, rather than a template arbitrating on the content of the file and the page. it's impossible for commons to judge in every case what is biased and what isnt.
commons has a lot more propaganda contents, including but not limited to Category:Videos from China News Service (1516 videos already!!).--RZuo (talk) 15:10, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose Free people of a free world should make their own judgement. No warning templates for any reason. Thuresson (talk) 08:25, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Thuresson Yep, we should deprecate such NCR symbols, as we don't really need NCRs, right? Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 04:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t have an opinion about en:National Catholic Reporter Thuresson (talk) 14:11, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder, in which case you think that I'm discussing the "National Catholic Reporter" or other hurr durr names that have acronym NCR? What I'm discussing is absolutely-than-god the Commons:Non-copyright restrictions. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:29, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol support vote.svg Support Just a NCR tag, no hurts to any current users. Liuxinyu970226 (talk) 06:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Symbol oppose vote.svg Oppose No reason for implementation, judging whether a source is biased or not (even though it clearly is) is not commons' job. Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 01[edit]

png and jpg vs. svg[edit]

Someone wrote a great essay about why we should save the png/jpg file when we convert something to an svg file. They pointed out that the conversion, or redrawing, can lead to subtle changes, like changes in color and we need the original for comparison. Does anyone know where it is, I can longer find it, and I want to link to it from my user page. --RAN (talk) 18:04, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I vaguely recall reading something like that after following some links from category:SVG Simplified, but I can't remember where precisely; perhaps @Sarang: knows? Anyway, many rsvg bugs have been patched over the years, so some of those complaints may be less valid now. Arlo James Barnes 15:56, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I remember that the interesting discussion was formed over a bug, however, I will not agree about the complaints being less valid now. The complaints were surely posted in the end of march 2022. The discussion was on the main Commons:Village_pump page, albeit about a little down. However the discussion just vanished, BUT the discussions I remember that was posted before the great essay was indeed still accessible!
What happened, I remember that there was archive bot wipe out, but it didn't have this great essay in the edit history.
Mystery.
I remember something vague: if you found out a raster image converted to SVG and you delete it even if the PNG version is uploaded, there will be disappointment from the people who had followed links that were linked to the raster-SVG before the SVG was deleted.
I remember this crystal clear: He still have and had incidents that he himself encountered a link after following that basically said "the file is deleted". (my opinion: would a special delete template work that says a raster PNG version of the much-more-problematic raster-SVG is present here" VScode fanboy (talk) 04:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arlo Barnes: Sorry, i cannot remember that I ever read about that saving. As a matter of fact, normally the raster image is not longer needed when a good SVG is created; keeping it for comparison is one aspect, another one is that all file links like e.g. {{Based}} or {{AutVec}} will give red links when the raster is deleted. -- sarang♥사랑 13:08, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 02[edit]

Hide email address[edit]

If I create an account with my email address, will the email be publicly visible? My email address can be traced to my real name quite easily, so I don't want it public. --99.197.202.188 17:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. Even if someone uses your user page to send you an email (a facility which you can also disable), they will not see your address, until and unless you reply to them. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Or if mail delivery fails, the mail address gets exposed to the person who sent the wikimail. --C.Suthorn (talk) 16:57, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That would perhaps be a big issue. However, it seems that only the Reply-To field points to the user mailing you, so any delivery error messages would go to a WMF address and thus be harmless. The only remaining issue that I can see is that your e-mail address would be stored at WMF servers, allowing technical staff to view it. They will hardly abuse the possibility, but they might be forced to hand it over to US authorities in some cases. –LPfi (talk) 08:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help creating a template[edit]

Hola. I'm trying to make a template for the municipalities of Cantabria similar to Template:Autonomous communities of Spain, but I can't get it to work.

If someone can take a look at it and tell me what's wrong that would be great.

The template is thisː Template:Municipalities of Cantabria And I have tried it in the articlesː Santander, Torrelavega y las cateroríasː Category:Torrelavega, Category:Santander. Juenti el toju (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You omitted the second part. Ruslik (talk) 20:35, 2 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Second of what? VScode fanboy (talk) 09:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 03[edit]

How should I upload new emojis?[edit]

Twemoji is a CC-licensed emoji font developed by Twitter. Previous versions have been uploaded to Commons in Category:Twitter Emoji. But version 14 has recently been released, so there are 487 emojis that aren't in Commons yet. I'd like to upload the latest version, but I'm unsure of what the best way of doing it is.

  • Should I do what's been done in the past, and upload all emojis when a new version comes out? If I do it this way, there would be a lot of duplicates from previous versions, so that seems pretty wasteful, but at least there would be consistency.
    • This would also let me use a new file naming scheme. I've been wanting to change the filename format to something like File:Twemoji14 😀.svg instead of the currently used File:Twemoji12 1f600.svg. It would be much easier this way since you could just type the emoji instead of looking up its codepoint.
  • Should I only upload new emojis? This would prevent duplicates, but would cause a lot of problems when actually trying to use these files because you would have to look up what version the emoji you want to use is from.
  • An in-between solution would be to upload all of them once under a common naming scheme, and then in future versions only upload new ones.
    • This new naming scheme would be something like File:Twemoji 😀.svg. This filename does not reference any particular version, so it would work for any version going forward.
    • A drawback of this approach is that if an emoji is not new but is changed, you would have to overwrite the old version.

What do you guys think is the best approach? Saucy (talk) 03:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Saucy: It looks like Nikki has already started uploading Category:Twemoji v14, so my comments here may be a bit late, but here they are nonetheless:
  • You can't use names like File:Twemoji 😀.svg because at present characters outside the Basic Multilingual Plane aren't generally allowed in Commons filenames.
  • We generally have a rule that duplicate files can be speedily deleted (COM:DUPE), so there's not much point in uploading emoji that haven't changed since the previous version.
  • If you want a file to be accessible under multiple names, you can create redirects. But you still can't include emoji in the names of redirects.
  • If I were doing this from scratch, I'd include the name of the emoji in its filename (so File:Twemoji 1f600 grinning face.svg), but I think it's too late for that now.
I hope that's at least slightly helpful. --bjh21 (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of typo[edit]

Is it possible to correct the spelling of the first word of the title of the following uploaded image to Wikimedia by adding an s after the second letter? My apologies for being a nuisance. Hopefully it will not be too difficult to correct as presumably typos do occur occasionally.

'Dicussing strategy'. Oil on canvas. Signed and dated 'FM Bennett 1932' (lower right).jpg BFP1 (talk) 12:37, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done :-) Lotje (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I could not understand the recommended way of fixing things BFP1 (talk) 16:21, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry if I did not explain it well enough, but the word should be 'Discussing' not 'Dicsussing'. BFP1 (talk) 16:38, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help BFP1 (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning when the personality rights tag is relevant...[edit]

A {{Personality rights}} tag was added with this edit.

WMF projects are a learning experience, for all of us. There may be some obvious reason why this tag would be useful, here.

But it was not obvious, to me, so I asked for an explanation at File talk:Ingrid Vanderveldt speaks at Dawson College - cropped.jpg#Could you please explain.... I pointed out that Ms Vanderveldt was invited to give that talk, by members of the US State Department, who arranged for a photographer to snap pictures, of that talk. I questioned whether that left any doubt that she had consented to having pictures taken.

I pinged the person who placed the tag. They didn't return to explain their tag. I don't think they are going to do so.

Am I free to remove this tag?

When is this tag actually useful and relevant? It is scary, alarming, with its warning that re-users may be legally required to contact the original photographers, and get them to confirm the people depicted signed a legal release. However, it directs people to Commons:Country specific consent requirements, which seems to say very few countries provide protection to having one's picture re-used.

Singapore and the Netherlands are two of the countries that have legislation that may require a release. Okay, when does that legislation apply?

  1. Does it apply if the image was snapped in one of those countries?
  2. Does it apply to any image taken by a citizen of Singapore, or the Netherlands, even if they took it somewhere else?
  3. Does it apply to all images used on the Dutch wikipedia?
  4. Does it apply whenever a person living in Singapore or the Netherlands adds a picture to a wikipedia, even if it is not the Dutch wikipedia?

If these are the only kinds of conditions where the tag is relevant, then it seems to me it should be used very sparingly. Geo Swan (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Geo Swan: Really, personality rights apply to every picture of an identifiable person. In the U.S., personality rights for a public figure mostly come does to limits on using the image in a way that implies them making an endorsement of some sort. Theoretically, we could add that template to pretty much any picture of a person; in practice, we tend to add it where there might be a valid concern that the picture would be misused. But there is no implication that the picture was inappropriately taken. - Jmabel ! talk 17:26, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Re-using images of people, in ways that implies they endorse positions, or products, they do not actually endorse? I think we all understand this is (1) intellectually dishonest; (2) disrespectful; and (3) a bad idea, that could expose the dishonest re-user to legal retaliation. Honestly, isn't this something (1) every potential re-user should already understand; (2) something it is pointless to warn people about, because people dishonest enough to pull this stunt will ignore those warnings? Geo Swan (talk) 23:27, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Geo Swan: You'd think so, but I've definitely run into people in jobs where they certainly should know better who don't understand the difference between copyright on the one hand, and other intellectual property rights on the other, and who think that the CC-BY or similar license means they can use the picture absolutely any way they want to. - Jmabel ! talk 01:45, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • Over here, a tourist bureau took a photo of a person ice-fishing on a lake and published it in their brochure. Distance was long enough that the person wasn't directly identifiable, but the court decided that people who know him would recognise him from the context, and judged they had used his image for promotion without his permission. They had to pay damages. The photo could equally well have been found at Commons. –LPfi (talk) 06:44, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • There was another case (I don't remember whether the idea was dismissed or whether it went to court), where a party in their campaign was to use an image of a crowd, to illustrate something innocent, like togetherness or whatever. That was also deemed illegal. –LPfi (talk) 06:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          • @LPfi: do you think your examples undermine the idea this tag is helpful or useful?

            Over on en.wiki, WP:NOT tells everyone that project is not intended as a source of legal advice. It seems to me the apparent unpredictability of your court allowing an unidentifiable ice-fisherman to sue for damages exposes the futility of commons offering legal advice. Geo Swan (talk) 08:50, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

            We are not giving legal advice. We only warn reusers that they should not use images of identifiable people without checking up on the issues. I think my examples show situations, where somebody might think it is a good idea to use a file from Commons, when they rather should pay for one that comes with a release. These images are still useful in many contexts. Thus I think we should have the warning. I also want the warning on photos I have taken, to relieve me from some liability would somebody abuse them. And I don't think "our court" is unpredictable: if you want persons in images to use for promotion, get their permission! LPfi (talk) 16:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
            • @LPfi: , I don't think tagging your own images provides you with one iota of extra protection from legal liability. If your use of an image, here, is legal, and properly licensed, I am sure you have no liability if it is subsequently used illegally. And, ff you fell for a flickr-washing, or otherwise uploaded an image that wasn't properly licensed, how do you see a {{Personality rights}} tag protecting you? Geo Swan (talk) 23:15, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
              I have licensed my photos for use by others. If they think I have licensed them for any use (which would mean I have got a legal release), then I may be partly culpable. If their thinking so is deemed reasonable, that would mean I have misled them. LPfi (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Jmabel: , Here are the first twenty images that transclude {{Personality rights}}. I told the individuals who placed those tags I'd appreciate them explaining themselves, as those images include images of Patrick Stewart, George W. Bush, Mariah Carey, four guys playing cards, and some other completely innocuous images... [2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

          Two of those images are of groups of happy children. Yes, I know there are contributors who worry over pedophiles, out there, who might mis-use even completely innocuous pictures of children. But is a personality rights tag an effective response to that?

          The remaining images are of fetish models. Clarification please. Would it be your position that images of fetish models are the kinds of images "where there might be a valid concern", based on the theory that some fetish models are likely victims, not willing participants? But is a personality rights tag an effective response to that?

          What about Ingrid Vanderveldt, the woman in the image that triggered my question. I really can't see her as an individual whose image would trigger a particular concern. Do you?

          The Patrick Stewart image was tagged by an anonymous contributor who added personality rights tags to about one hundreds images of Star Trek actors, and other celebrities, in July and August of 2009. That is not all they did. They also added half a dozen FOP tags. I am concerned this IP contributor was a block evader, who used other IP addresses to frivolously add the tag to thousands of images. Geo Swan (talk) 10:18, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

          Please remove your questioning the tags. The tag is there to remind reusers that images of people may not be used without proper consideration. It is OK to use them to illustrate e.g. education in Afghanistan, but it is not necessarily OK to crop out a face and use it in some fun collage. A high-profile politician must accept some less nice use of his image, but there is a line also for them. If there is an identifiable person in an image and you are not the photographer or uploader, leave those tags alone. If it was placed there by the uploader, leave it there also for that fisherman seen at a distance – he was still the main subject of the photo. LPfi (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
          I am one of person mentioned above by Geo Swan. I also agree with LPfi: please remove your questioning the tags. Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I continue to question whether the tag is routinely being applied meaningfully. @Yann: , Jmabel assured me the tag was applied selectively, only to images of particular concern. You applied it to the two images of Mariah Carey that I put first in the gallery, below. I remain curious as to why you thought this tag was relevant there.
Applying this tag non-selectively, to every image of every one of the ten million or more images we have of individuals is an absolutely terrible idea. It would be annoying to readers. It would be a pointless waste of time, for those applying the tag. And, most importantly, it would strongly erode the utility of the project's image pages.
People naturally tune out stuff that wastes their time, or doesn't make sense...
When I was an undergrad, 40 years ago, computer users used command line interfaces, not the pointy-clicky interfaces popular today. My day-job required me to use a big, stupid IBM CMS command line interface. Off-the-clock I used a UNIX shell. Habit got in my way. I routinely tried to invoke a program from one system, while using the other system. I noticed I was far from the only one. I wrote a UNIX program, kind of like busybox, and I linked to it using the name of every CMS program. When invoked it would look up the name it was invoked under, and advise the user, "Argv0 is a CMS program, but you are on UNIX. Try mumble instead." - where mumble was the roughly equivalent UNIX program. It would then call a program that printed the synopsis section of the manual for that program.
I thought this was a good idea, until I saw Dave actually use it. I saw Dave type in the name of a CMS program. I saw my program tell him that wouldn't work, because he was using UNIX, and telling him the alternate program to use. Then, because it was only a PDP-11/34, there was a pause as the synopsis program was invoked.
I thought this was going to be my moment of triumph. I thought I would see Dave follow the instructions produced by the synopsis program, and successfully invoke the program he really needed.
Instead he turned to me, and said, "Geo, how do I invoke the mumble program?" And when I pointed to the synopsis, on the screen, he said, "Oh that. It seemed cryptic, and not useful, the first time I saw it. So I always just tune it out."
We should not encourage this warning to be applied to every image...
And adding the vaguely alarming, yet cryptic, {{Personality rights}} tag to every single image of an individual or individual(s) would have the same deeply negative value here. It would be an annoying aspect of every page, which experienced readers would soon learn to ignore.
Annoying stuff people ignore is not just a waste of time. Our information pages contain important information. And I suggest it is bad for the project for it to be obfuscated by alarming stuff our readers will ultimately ignore, because it is cryptic.
To the extent this tag has utility, it would only have that utility if it were used rarely and selectively, on images of particular concern.
From the first twenty transclusions of {{Personality rights}}
  • Mariah Carey13 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg
  • Mariah Carey12 Edwards Dec 1998.jpg
  • AF-kindergarten.jpg
  • George-W-Bush.jpeg
  • WikiMeet London - Jimbo talks.jpg
  • PatrickStewart2004-08-03.jpg
  • Palestinian children in Jenin.jpg
  • Moritz Bleibtreu - Filmpremiere.jpg
  • FloSch.jpg
  • Brad Pitt at Incirlik2.jpg
  • Lula mohyun.jpg
  • Lee Teng-hui 2004.jpg
  • UllaBercéwicz.jpg
  • Tuchola 037.jpg
Raymond explained he only added it to images he uploaded, but he added it to every one - a different justification than Jmabel's selective application to only images of particular concern.
Palosirkka justified putting the tag on the image of men playing cards because he thought they were (1) drinking, and (2) gambling - activities some people disapprove of. Geo Swan (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Geo Swan I do not add it to everyone. Normally to my own images depicting peope only. Raymond 05:27, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The personality rights template is correct in its warning on most images that include identifiable people. If it is too scary, then we need to tone it down (in appearance, wording or whatever). Perhaps the licensing templates should be smaller also (I have never understood why they need to be so dominating). Where do you think the template is needed? Would we need a separate template for those cases? –LPfi (talk) 16:35, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't understand your statement that only two countries seem to have legislation that may require a release. In the table, every one of the fifty countries have such legislation. The release is needed only in some cases, which is why these photographs are useful on Commons also without a release. I also do not see from where you got that you'd be "legally required" to contact the original photographers, and get them to confirm the people depicted signed a legal release. I for one don't have people sign such releases when I take photos. I hope reusers will respect privacy rights even if they use my photos in a jurisdiction where that is not required. –LPfi (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • {{Personality rights}} is not legal advice at all. It can not, as international laws on what you may or may not do with someone else's photograph differ vastly. It's pretty much the opposite of legal advice – a disclaimer telling the average Joe on the internet: "When we say that this file is OK to be used for any purpose, we mean that from a copyright perspective. When it comes to figuring out your national personality rights laws, you're on your own."
The second purpose of the template is to signal to any professional media person "Sorry, we we don't do model releases". (Model releases are absolutely essential for publishing pictures of people in some parts of the industry and completely irrelevant in other parts. The Wikipedia article is pretty bad, here is some more useful information. The closest thing to a model release we have is {{Consent}}.
We have a bunch of similar templates that give re-users a heads up like "This file is fine in terms of copyright, but there are other aspects that may make it illegal for you to use. Check your local laws." {{Currency}}, {{Trademarked}}, {{Nazi symbol}} are some examples. I know, en.wikipedia doesn't do disclaimers, but we do, and so do many other projects.
What the template admittedly fails to communicate clearly, is who it is talking to when it says "you". It is not immediately clear that this message is addressed at potential re-users, not the photographer or uploader. That should probably be rectified. Other than that, it should in my opinion be added to any image containing an identifiable person. --El Grafo (talk) 10:25, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I agree completely with El Grafo above. Noting to add. Yann (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 04[edit]

rename file[edit]

Ineed to replace incorrect file name. How to do?

Add "{{rename|new filename|3|reason}}" to the file description page. The parameter "3" is for "obvious errors" (see Template:File renaming reasons/i18n) and "reason" is whatever rationale you have for the name needing to be corrected. –LPfi (talk) 06:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If the file is a new upload of yours, you can use "1" (original uploader’s request) instead of "3". –LPfi (talk) 07:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Eitan f:  : check if you have the "Move" button ( click "More", upper right, on the right of "View", "Edit" and "History"). Move = rename. Pueblo89 (talk) 19:48, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry LPfi if you got a notification for a call from here, had tagged you a {{notif|LPfi}} after reading the history page wrongly. oops. Pueblo89 (talk) 19:57, 4 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's OK. In fact it got me to try the move entry (in another place and differently named for me, but easy to find), and it is much more helpful than the raw template (which annoyingly doesn't have the reason numbers on its documentation page). I will advice people to use this in the future. –LPfi (talk) 13:01, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 05[edit]

Commons:Placing images[edit]

After Dcoetzee was banned, the page hasn't been updated; I think it's a nice counterpart to COM:REUSE but could use some improvement (illustrations/diagrams maybe?). Arlo James Barnes 20:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Commons, free licence and "All Rights Reserved"[edit]

I saw that File:Жовна зелена (Picus viridis).jpg is marked in the EXIF info as "All Rights Reserved © Sergey Ryzhkov". Despite all the other licence tags, it's status as FP or any other signs that this or any other files by the uploader may is or is not a copyright violation I wonder if a file uploaded to Commons should have such a claim in the EXIF info.
I could understand if it's just the camera's default setting and that exactly this copyright mark is put into every image and is never changed by the used software. However, all files on Commons have to be available under a free licence. There is no chance to upload even a part of an image that stays on here as just "All rights reserved". Unlike with CC NC and ND licences, there is no option for a file to bee freely licenced as well as being "All rights reserved". Also looking toward sharing content outside of Commons and Wikipedia such an entry could hinder it's use - which is (at least as far as I recall) exactly what Wikipedia and Commons were not created for. For an external use, it also could make licencing unclear in the future.
An example how I handle this part: Many and all my recent files are tagged with "Licenced under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 licence by D-Kuru from Wikimedia Commons. See https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/deed.en for detailed information about the licence."
@Ryzhkov Sergey: Can you please drop a line where this entry comes from and what your ideas on this topic are?
--D-Kuru (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I would guess I'd say that it is indeed simply the camera settings and it might be that it's standard that it adds "All rights reserved ©" regardless of what the author wants, this license gets added before upload, so when someone uploads they waive all (or some) of their rights, in this case the EXIF data then simply illustrates the historical license prior to upload. I don't think that this EXIF data is problematic if re-users can be made aware that the license in the EXIF data might differ from the reported license above, perhaps we can update the standard notice at "Metadata". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:49, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What does such an "all rights reserved" mean legally? Is it left in photos delivered to a publisher who has bought the rights to publish an image? Then it probably is just a wordier way to say "©"? That © is implicit when not mentioned and true for all non-PD works. –LPfi (talk) 11:39, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"All rights reserved" was phrase commonly used under the Buenos Aires Convention to indicate that the creator retained the right to control the copying of a work. This is true even for works under a CC licence, since it's that right that allows the copyright owner to impose BY and SA conditions. Creative Commons caused a lot of confusion by using the slogan "some rights reserved", and Flickr made it worse by using "all rights reserved" to indicate files not under a CC licence, but I don't think that means we should treat "all rights reserved" as being incompatible with a CC licence. --bjh21 (talk) 20:25, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 06[edit]

East Asian curios[edit]

Interior of G H Ando's Japanese dry goods store, Seattle, circa 1892 (MOHAI 10938).jpg

Is there an appropriate category or categories for a shop like this on in Seattle selling East Asian curios? This one is from the 1890s, but shops like this were pretty common into the late 20th Century, and there are still some now. - Jmabel ! talk 01:12, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best one I can come up with is Category:Asian shops in the United States. --Rosenzweig τ 13:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosenzweig: Thanks. Helpful. I've now used that, and I'd be open to a subcat. - Jmabel ! talk 14:44, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are a number of shops like this in Los Angeles's Chinatown, though most of their stock seems intended for Feng Shui. I mean, we can't classify the images by function because we can't assume what the customers of these stores want (curios, Feng Shui, art collection, costumes for parties, etc.). I think that subcats by country "Japanese shops in the United States" etc. are useful if that info is available for the image. Downtowngal (talk) 16:40, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming large cat tree: Panoramics[edit]

PSA: i intend to close Commons:Categories for discussion/2018/02/Category:Panoramics by renaming the cat tree to "panoramic photographs". this will affect a large number of cats. please raise any opinion on the cfd page. RZuo (talk) 09:59, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: it looks like you closed this 27 minutes before posting that you intend to close it.
FWIW: I hadn't noticed the discussion. I'm not strongly opposed, but it seems a big change for no big gain. - Jmabel ! talk 14:47, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unhelpful mediasearch[edit]

some newbie is asking how to delete his/her uploads on help desk, so i wonder what happens if i type delete in the search bar. clicking the prompted option, it leads me to a mediasearch result page of "delete". no! that's not what we intended! delete redirects to a help page which could be useful for newbies. clicking the prompt in the dropdown from search bar should go to that page! RZuo (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have MediaSearch as standard search and I get sent to help:... However the page is not really helpful for newbies, more for people, who already have an idea how commons works. Something like the tutorial in UploadWizard would be a better redirect page. --C.Suthorn (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results from the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote published[edit]

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

The Trust and Safety Policy team published the results of the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote. The vote ended 21 March 2022. See the results and read more on Meta-wiki.

Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 11:43, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting File:Pushkar Singh Dhami.jpg[edit]

I have uploaded a file File:The Chief Minister of Uttarakhand Shri Pushkar Singh Dhami on August 11, 2021.jpg few months ago. It was a government work from PIB. But now it has beeen deleted. I want to restore the file. It was derived from File:The Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi at the inauguration and foundation stone laying ceremony of multiple projects, in Dehradun, Uttarakhand on December 04, 2021.jpg. Somebody please help. --Junior Jumper (formerly Tæ) 15:42, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment Related DR: Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Pegash. Yann (talk) 15:49, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Category for Package Express or Parcel Post?[edit]

I haven't been able to find a category for the concept of package express/parcel post. That is, packages, usually boxes smaller than furniture, sent by individuals to be transported by bus, other vehicle or airplane, and delivered to the individual or a representative. I suppose that shop-by-mail packages could be included, though the historic photos are generally individual to individual. Examples are File:Taking packages to Express Office LCCN2014688662.jpg and File:HTS Systems FedEx Express parcel driver.JPG . The category is at the intersection of w:Packaging and w:Freight transport. The photos, I repeat, illustrate the concept of "package express"; they aren't just photos of the packages or the transport vehicle. Should I create this category, and if so, use the term "Package express"? Thank you for your input. Downtowngal (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with violation of COM:CSCR[edit]

Hi,

I think that File:Kim Beazley and Daniel Pocock.jpg is in violation of COM:CSCR, and I am not sure where/how to signal it. There is 3 people on the picture, but I see no trace of their consent being asked for commercial usage, and given the uploader history of using pictures from the web and uploading as their own, I do think consent need to be verified. Does anyone know what to do in that case ? --Misc (talk) 19:14, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't these public persons at a public event? Then I assume they had no expectation on privacy, and no expectation that the pictures taken would not be published. Commercial reuse might be subject of permission, but that is a non-copyright restriction for the reusers to deal with. I don't see why the photo couldn't be used in the right context, such as an article about the "campaign for native title rights", whatever that might be. –LPfi (talk) 19:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know if all of them are public persons. en:Kim Beazley is, by virtue of his position, no doubt about it. The 2 others, I am less sure, especially since we have only 1 name and 2 persons. And if commercial reuse requires permission, doesn't it contradict the license (CC-BY 3.0), and/or shouldn't it be signaled on the page somehow ? Misc (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Misc: If you really find this concerning, you could tag it with {{Personality rights}} (and probably explain why on the talk page). However, that's a non-copyright restriction. - Jmabel ! talk 21:38, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usually the CC licences are thought to only apply to copyright. While there is also some wording, at least in some of them, where the licensor waives some other rights, the licence is usually only from the photographer, not from those photographed, and thus it cannot waive any of their rights. For many use cases you need the permission of those photographed, and that's why we have the template Jmabel linked. There is nothing special with the linked file, compared e.g. with those in Category:Men facing left and looking left in the United States. –LPfi (talk) 15:05, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commons:Country specific consent requirements#Australia is unclear on this. If the hypothesis is that such an image would need a CC-nc licence or similar (and so is not FREE for Commons), the CSCR page doesn't say why, or give references that we can study in detail. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:09, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it forbidden to take and licence an image if somebody might afterwards use it illegally? I don't think so. When you license your photo with CC-BY-SA you do not license any personal rights (other than possibly your own); you assume reusers will respect the law and seek permission if needed for their use of it. The NC, if not included in the copyright licence, is a non-copyright restriction, regardless of whether there actually is such a restriction. LPfi (talk) 07:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Read-only time for Commons on 7 Apr 07:00 UTC[edit]

Hi all,

As per the latest tech news issue, Commons will be a read-only for a few minutes because of a switch of the main database. It will be performed on 7 April at 7:00 UTC. Just wanted to mention it here separately in case the tech new information got missed out.

-- Kaartic [talk] 20:36, 6 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 07[edit]

City Nature Challenge 2022[edit]

Not sure if this is the right venue for this sort of announcement, but our nature photographers might be interested in https://citynaturechallenge.org/. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 08[edit]

Sort keys of "... by ..." cats?[edit]

what's the convention on the sort keys for cats like "people by city"? is it "[[cat:people| by city]]" or "[[cat:people| city]]"? RZuo (talk) 18:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @RZuo: Insofar as there is a convention, the latter. I've never seen the former. - Jmabel ! talk 00:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 09[edit]

VFC - visual file change[edit]

How can I change/add/edit (specifically) file description Source, Author, Permisson, int:license-header, Category? For multiple files, in one go. I do not find any simple help/guide. And I have not enough time to learn reg-exp. Any info is appreciated! --Janwikifoto (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Once you have selected "custom replace" and entered a regexp, VFC displays an addditional input line for regexps. I.E. you can enter multiple replacement commands in the VFC UI. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:17, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone have like a cook-book recipe? I do not know much about Reg-exp, and I do not really have the time to learn and experiment... Anyway now I understand that each repace-regexp should do one thing, and you add many replace-regexps to do many whings. --Janwikifoto (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Janwikifoto: If the string you are trying to replace is a constant string, you don't need regex at all. Just type the string. Regex enters the picture when you need to make more complex substitutions. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are these maps already at the Wikimedia Commons?[edit]

I found this page which claims that this website has a large library of free SVG maps. It states its license as "You are free to use our SVG maps for personal or commercial use.". I suspect that some (or hopefully all) of these maps are already here, but I can't seem to find a category for them, are they already here? Or is the license not compatible? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 15:50, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IANAL but I think in theory it's a compatible license, but in practice takes a lot of effort to improve each file to get around the non-bundling clause. Arlo James Barnes 16:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

First unicode of each writing script?[edit]

i'm creating a new catTOC template and looking for the first unicode of each script. i was looking at list of Unicode characters but the list is incomplete from arabic onward. :( any help is greatly appreciated! RZuo (talk) 23:00, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RZuo: I think you can derive this from Scripts.txt in the Unicode Character Database. --bjh21 (talk) 23:05, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
awesome tip! thx a lot! then i found wikt:Appendix:Unicode based on your tip. RZuo (talk) 23:32, 9 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
whats a wikt? VScode fanboy (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Shorthand for linking to Wiktionary. --HyperGaruda (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 10[edit]

cannot change the wrong geocoding in the structured data[edit]

I want to correct the wrong geography data in the structured data of this file, but could not change it. It should be

Camera location34° 42′ 46.35″ N, 135° 29′ 47.78″ E Kartographer map based on OpenStreetMap.View all coordinates using: OpenStreetMapinfo

. What should I do?

--トトト (talk) 09:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

✓ Done The data has been successfully changed today. --トトト (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Photos with insufficient information[edit]

I regularly come across a photo of a person where the description is so general or even absent and there's nothing special about the person to give it a meaningful category. It is therefore not useful for use by others. For example File:EU Market Acces Manager.jpg. The user has uploaded many of such photos and I have asked for more information. In general, what to do with these kinds of photos if there is no accompanying information? Wouter (talk) 14:43, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If they are personal photos that are not used by any Wikimedia project, feel free to nominate them for deletion. Such images are most likely not in the COM:SCOPE. De728631 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Wouterhagens: je spreekt waarschijnlijk Nederlands? Er werden door deze gebruiker heel wat afbeeldingen opgeladen. Waarschijnlijk allemaal van een medewerkers van een of ander advocatenkantoor in Nederland. Advertising? Misschien het doornemen waard. Cheers. Lotje (talk) 16:34, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes @Lotje: , an office in Amsterdam. Wouter (talk) 07:05, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In this case there is some information available: at least name, employer, position. That makes it useful as an example of Dutch lawyers in the 2020s presenting themselves in that role. Maybe we have a load of other such photos, I don't know, but I'd assume not. I agree that when we cannot get that kind of information, the usefulness is doubtful, but many "personal photos" can be used to illustrate specific clothing styles or whatever – given that somebody is able to categorise them sensibly. –LPfi (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • We also need stock photos of random people, for the same reason that stock-photo companies are able to sell the, people need them. --RAN (talk) 12:29, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen a few of those pictures and I don't see a reason to say that they are lawyers or in the Netherlands. So at the very least, file names are misleading. I agree that they could be kept as "random" people. Very random: male/female human being with this/that look. By the pictures it cannot be stablished whether they are lawyers, policepeople, strippers or a combination of these and other professions, living in the Netherlands or any other place. I'm no technician so they might even be digital constructions (has anybody checked that?). These pictures are more of a problem than help. B25es (talk) 14:21, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

    • The portrait linked above seems to be from the same photo session as that used at the company's page presenting their staff (same clothes, same facial expression). Otherwise I don't think you could tell. If you want to see what Dutch lawyers looked like in the 2020s, the file is more useful with the information than as a random person. –LPfi (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Does a "random people" category fall within Wikimedia's policy? I think the educational aspect is hardly there and the application for commercial activities is the most important.
I don't know how the search goes with stock-photo companies, but I myself would find it important to be able to select people by gender, age and all kinds of things regarding appearance (skin color, clothing, jewelry) and posture. And of course the quality of the photo. As far as I've seen these things are rarely listed as a category. Viewing a categories like "Unidentified men" with more than 30.000 files is not easy. Hence my question whether it makes sense to create a category for "random people". Wouter (talk) 19:28, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The metadata from the image has different contact information for the photographer as stated by the uploader ("Niels" is someone else than "Remko"). This needs VRT Verification at the least, especially if the images have been published elsewhere previously. Ciell (talk) 19:43, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MultilingualCategoryTOC[edit]

i just made {{MultilingualCategoryTOC}} (1.0 version) to make jumping thru non-ascii parts of super large cats a bit easier. example usage: Category:All media needing categories as of 2022. most link texts are "internationalised", meaning you will see their names in your UI language, rather than a preset one. please feel free to improve it. i will work on it, too, but probably a long time later. RZuo (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fishing industry / Commercial fishing[edit]

Right now Category:Fishing industry and Category:Commercial fishing are each other's subcats. I'm inclined to make Category:Fishing industry be the parent; does anyone think that is wrong? - Jmabel ! talk 23:14, 10 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me "Commercial fishing" should be the higher cat. Catching 10 fish and selling them is commercial fishing but not an industry. --GPSLeo (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As a fisherman you'd still be part of the fishing industry (e.g. in statistics about a country's economy). The question is what sense of "industry" is intended. "Industrial fishing" would be a clearer name of the subcategory. –LPfi (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. You could even say that the people printing the labels for the tin cans your sardines come in are part of the fishing industry. El Grafo (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Something along the lines of that last from El Grafo is why I think Category:Fishing industry should be the parent. Fish processing ships, too. Though, arguably, we could also merge "commercial fishing" and "fishing industry" and say the distinction isn't a useful one. Anyway, I will make Category:Fishing industry the parent; if someone wants to change it around I won't argue, but please no loops. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 11 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April 12[edit]

Is there an upload bot that automatically converts HEIF files to JPEG or PNG files whilst keeping exif data?-Lallint⟫⟫⟫Talk 00:25, 12 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=648327999"