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/2024/07.

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

A village pump in Cork, Ireland [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals o Archive
Template: View o Discuss o Edit o Watch
# Title Last editor (UTC)
1 import 2 2 JWilz12345 2024-07-12 05:23
2 Help needed 6 3 Sadko 2024-07-09 23:51
3 Flickr help please 7 5 Ineuw 2024-07-10 18:20
4 Belgian FOP, non-commercial?? 18 6 Ghouston 2024-07-12 11:11
5 Wikipedia to Commons 4 3 Pigsonthewing 2024-07-10 15:40
6 Files uploaded via Mobile app have wrong dates 9 5 トトト 2024-07-15 10:20
7 Propose statements for the 2024 Election Compass 1 1 Zuz (WMF) 2024-07-11 12:13
8 Two questions 2 2 De728631 2024-07-12 09:33
9 MP4 patents expiration date 9 4 Donald Trung 2024-07-16 06:38
10 How can I batch relicense my works already uploeaded to commons? 3 2 Raccoozzy 2024-07-14 12:07
11 Does the logo File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg exceed the COM:TOO Japan? 2 2 HyperGaruda 2024-07-13 07:59
12 Template:WLM India Wikidata ID 7 4 Jmabel 2024-07-16 17:42
13 Categorization help 5 2 Pigsonthewing 2024-07-14 18:40
14 File moving 5 3 Richardkiwi 2024-07-15 14:42
15 I seriously doubt that this is a photo is of the same person 1 1 Ezzex 2024-07-14 11:56
16 Problems with uploading files above 100 MiB 13 6 Aristeas 2024-07-16 08:26
17 Disable the NewUserMessage extension 7 3 GPSLeo 2024-07-15 12:58
18 Hidden links to sales sites in images 4 3 Arjayay 2024-07-16 12:38
19 Uploaded images' are displayed dark 4 3 Ineuw 2024-07-16 16:55
20 File:Анатолий Чубайс.jpg 4 2 Jmabel 2024-07-16 17:45
21 How would I best go about flagging images with obviously incorrect dates? 6 2 VulpesVulpes42 2024-07-16 19:57
22 Uploads by Wikiped Meta and some related accounts 2 1 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2024-07-16 17:03
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.
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

July 08[edit]

import[edit]

someone import this is now 30 years old iran pd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isfahan_government_logo.svg Baratiiman (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Baratiiman see [1], for your information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:23, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 09[edit]

Flickr help please[edit]

I came across an image on Flickr which I want to add to an article on WP. I see a lot of images here from Flicker but I don't know to go about using the image. What documentation is required? — Ineuw talk 01:04, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ineuw: Most images from Flickr are not acceptable on Commons, and you don't indicate what image you are talking about. For a more specific answer, please either link the image page (URL) or say what its license is. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: Also helpful would be what URL the licensing verbiage links to. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the clarification. That's why I asked a general question to begin with, if it's worth the bother: flickr re: Wikipedia Ponevezh article for the article on Wikipedia.
A similar image is already in their gallery, but I thought this would add to the perspective.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: As you can see at the Flickr page, there is a note on the lower right side: (c) All rights reserved. So unfortunately we cannot use this file at Commons or Wikipedia. Only Flickr images with a free Creative Commons licence or images without a copyright restriction may be transferred to Commons. For more information on how to find acceptable Flickr files, please see also COM:WHERE. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ineuw: Generally: Start the Upload Wizard. It has 2 buttons. The second is "import from flickr". The wizard will do all that is needed to import from flickr. A Flickr Review bot will later review the license. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to all for the info. I never explored why Flickr is given such a prominence, like its own controls on the upload wizard.— Ineuw talk 18:20, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 10[edit]

Belgian FOP, non-commercial??[edit]

Apparently, the ManagingIP article on Belgian FOP claims the Belgian FOP, which was introduced in 2016, "non-commercial."

"According to the provision, FOP duly authorises the reproduction and communication to the public of works protected by a copyright, but said reproduction and communication to the public should not affect the normal exploitation of the work, nor cause an unjustified prejudice to the author. This limitation intends to create a good balance between the purpose of the freedom of panorama on the one hand, and the author's rights on the other hand. This limitation notably narrows the exception to non-commercial purpose, as confirmed by the preparatory discussions of the Parliament. It means that any third party cannot invoke the FOP to commercially exploit reproductions of works located in a public area or communicate it to the public without the author's consent."

Is this the real meaning of Belgian FOP clause of: "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author"? Perhaps Wikimedians from Belgium should clarify this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the reason why SABAM still has the guts to restrict free culture uses of the famous Atomium of Brussels. See https://atomium.be/copyright (now claims Belgian FOP is non-commercial). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: If this is true, we should restore {{NoFoP-Belgium}} and delete {{FoP-Belgium}}, many photos of buildings and sculptures, other public arts in Belgium. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow clarification from Belgian Wikimedians is needed first before making any immediate conclusions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I think it's good to have a discussion here too. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, who are Belgian Wikimedians? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow that is what I call to every Wikipedian / Wikimedian editor, user, contributor, and photographer from Belgium in general sense. Wikimedia itself is composed of WikiCommons, all Wikipedias, and other wiki-sites managed by Wikimedia Foundation, like Wikivoyage and Wiktionary. I call Wikimedia "Wikimedia-verse" or "Wikimedia universe." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: "Wikipedian" was a typo. I want to see Belgian Wikimedians who know Belgian copyright laws well. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow no, Wikipedian refers to one who is a regular contributor or user of a particular Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is the most-recognized site of all under "Wikimedia-verse," there has been a tendency to call everyone involved in "Wikimedia-verse" as Wikipedian even if Wikimedian is a more proper term. Nevertheless let's focus on the Belgian law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AnneJea, Taketa, Sam.Donvil, and Geertivp: FoPbelgium has been nominated for deletion for being non-commercial only. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The clause was mentioned in the discussion back in 2016 when the FoP law was introduced. It apparently wasn't considered a show-stopper. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Belgium. --ghouston (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ghouston is right. The Belgian Copyright Act, Art. XI 190 is clear. Please don't waste your time on old discussions. Vysotsky (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: however, both the ManagingIP article (apparently contributed by a Belgian lawyer as per the author info) and the SABAM management of Atomium seem to disagree that Belgian FOP allows commercial exploitations of works in public space. Or does the so-called lawyer missed an important point in parliamentary discourse back then? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they disagree: they earn their money in the field of copyright. And no, the lawyer didn't miss an important point: she just framed the law in a way more suited to (supposed) copyright owners. Vysotsky (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this was discussed in 2016, does not mean it was thoroughly and conclusively discussed and that we should dismiss new insights made afterwards. The key part of the clause seems to be ...geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk... / ...ne porte pas atteinte à l’exploitation normale de l’oeuvre... ("...does not affect the normal exploitation of the work..."). Let's say Atomium inc. sells postcards. If someone else takes a picture of the Atomium per FoP and starts selling it as postcards too, they are competing with Atomium's own postcards, thus affecting Atomium's exploitation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The conditions are mentioned in the template. It's not unusual that works published under FoP have restrictions that wouldn't be present in purely freely licenced works. E.g., the condition in Dutch FoP that an object must be depicted as it appears in its public location, or unclear status of derivative works (e.g., you probably can't use photos of a statue to make a copy of the original statue without violating the copyright). --ghouston (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the web whether Atomium has started legal action, but I did not find anything. Just wait until they do (which I assume they will not, because the FoP is clear). They could easily write a letter to the legal dept of the Wikimedia Foundation without any cost. Still they claim you should pay, per their website. (@Ghouston: By the way, "Dutch" refers to a language, common to a part of Belgium and the Netherlands. If you talk about "Dutch FoP" you will probably mean to say "FoP in the Netherlands, but we can understand, like we understand "Holland" as a pars pro toto for the Netherlands. The low countries have a complex geographic history... our language was even spoken in the Northern part of France, the Flanders area) Ellywa (talk)
en:Dutch, it's idiomatic in English for it to refer to the Netherlands, as well as the language. --ghouston (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia to Commons[edit]

I seem to remember an experimental one-click tool to migrate images from Wikipedia to Commons without downloading to your hard drive. Do we still have a tool to perform that function? --RAN (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): AFAIK this is now a built-in function. E.g. have a look at en:File:UKExpenditure.jpg. It should have a tab that says "Export to Wikimedia Commons". De728631 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, thanks! I never noticed the tab before. --RAN (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): See also w:en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 10 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 11[edit]

Files uploaded via Mobile app have wrong dates[edit]

Many of the files uploaded via Mobile app have wrong dates. I have corrected some manually but things are getting out of hands. Please creat a bot which automatically corrects these dates, preferably based on the Upload Wizard engine. --トトト (talk) 01:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my piece of advice, do not use the Wikimedia Commons mobile app, simply use the mobile version of the MediaWiki Upload Wizard whenever you're on a mobile device. I tried the mobile app a few times and it completely misrepresents what content can be hosted here (it says that only own works are allowed, despite the fact that free works in the public domain exist), it messes with your uploads, and it's not user-friendly at all.
Meanwhile the website works just like the website. Sure there are quite a lot of things that the website does better for desktop users that mobile users don't get, but at least it's functional. I'm convinced that a lightweight web-wrapper would probably make for a better mobile app than the one we have now. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News ) (WikiProject Numismatics ) (Articles ) 19:56, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your advice. I have notified a user to do so. Why doesn't WMF stop this application from using ? A crap app bringing a mess to the community should be demolished as soon as possible. --トトト (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings, thank you for your heads-up. I will definitely look into this carefully. A quick glance shows that the dates are correct in several of my updates - but as I say, I will definitely look at this carefully. Again many thanks, Daderot (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The app uses an exif date, but if there are more dates than one, it may chose the wrong one ("digitized at" - may be the date of fotography. "last edited at", ...). A foto taken with the smartphone will normally not have different dates. C.Suthorn (talk) 16:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the app uses the upload date, but claims it is the EXIF date. Is that what you mean? For my purposes, the app is much easier to use than the website from my phone. There seem two things that should be done: 1) fix the app; 2) write the bot described above to correct the erroneous info in commons. Probably many people use the app, so a bot would be much better than hand corrections. cheers, Daderot (talk)
Generally I agree with you. But if nobody fixes it, nor develops a bot for the correction, nothing changes. I myself cannot creat such a bot. Why didn't WMF do anything until now? --トトト (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we have a link to any other file with the same problem, preferably uploaded by a different user? The files reported above were uploaded using an old app ("3.1.1~1c9267ca0" - this dates back to September 2021). This might suggest that the particular version had a bug, but it's also possible that that the two were using the same version might be coincidence. Having more data points would help debugging it. whym (talk) 11:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info Two files I have encountered are via 3.1.1~1c9267ca0.
So, how about this one?
Why a photo taken on 9 July 2024 16:24 (JST, +UTC 9:00) should be in Category:Photographs taken on 2024-07-10? It doesn't make sense. --トトト (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting info.svg Info File:Archibasis oscillans male 10.jpg via 2.13.2~757c7b008, much older version.
--トトト (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose statements for the 2024 Election Compass[edit]

More languages o Please help translate to your language

Hi all,

Community members in the 2024 Board of Trustees election are invited to propose statements to use in the Election Compass.

An Election Compass is a tool to help voters select the candidates that best align with their beliefs and views. The community members will propose statements for the candidates to answer using a Lickert scale (agree/neutral/disagree). The candidates’ answers to the statements will be loaded into the Election Compass tool. Voters will use the tool by entering in their answer to the statements (agree/disagree/neutral). The results will show the candidates that best align with the voter’s beliefs and views.

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

July 8 - 20: Community members propose statements for the Election Compass

July 21 - 22: Elections Committee reviews statements for clarity and removes off-topic statements

July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements

August 2 - 4: Elections Committee selects the top 15 statements

August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements

August 15: The Election Compass opens for voters to use to help guide their voting decision

The Elections Committee will select the top 15 statements at the beginning of August. The Elections Committee will oversee the process, supported by the Movement Strategy and Governance team. MSG will check that the questions are clear, there are no duplicates, no typos, and so on.

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

This message was sent on behalf of the Board Selection Task Force and the Elections Committee

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions[edit]

  1. How do I remove From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository posted bellow my nick on my user page?
  2. Is there a way to organize my list of created categories via A-Z template, akin to this sr.wiki version?

Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:58, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know how the table with your articles and categories was created at the Serbian Wikipedia, but I can answer your first question. The string "From Wikimedia Commons..." comes with the skin you are using to view the Commons website. You can change the general appearance in Special:Preferences → "Appearance", where the MonoBook skin for example does not show the Wikimedia Commons credit in that particular place. However, there is no way to remove just that line of text and keep your current skin. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MP4 patents expiration date[edit]

The "MPEG-4 Part 14" (also known as "MP4") format was released in October 2001, as far as I know US patents expire 20 (twenty) years after publication. But assuming that they got some crucial patents that stay in force until Late 2024 and early 2023 would that mean that the Wikimedia Commons could then finally host ".MP4" files?

Or is it a lot more complicated than that? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News ) (WikiProject Numismatics ) (Articles ) 20:02, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

According to Meta-wiki page (m:Have the patents for MPEG-4 Visual expired yet?), the mp4 patents haven't expired yet. If unsure, call your legal expert. --George Ho (talk) 23:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is more complicated. ".mp4" is a container format and a camera developer could decide to create his own video or audio encoding and only publish the decoder, but not the encoder, as free software. In that case the MediaWiki-Software would accept some ".mp4"-files, but reject others. Most uploaders would not understand, why this is happening and how to fix (i.e they have to transcode a stream in the file) it. --C.Suthorn (talk) 09:19, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
C.Suthorn, Well, that doesn't sound like a copyright-related restriction. Can't someone theoretically do that for any file type? -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News ) (WikiProject Numismatics ) (Articles ) 17:01, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Basically only for container filetypes. In the case of .mp4-files recently HEVC-encoding has been added by smartphone companies. WEBM is also a container format, but is has been created to only include streams with a free format. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Going over all the reasons for banning MP4 uploads to the Wikimedia Commons I realised something, the "non-free" part isn't a lack of freedom restricting copying, it is a lack of freedom because it's patented proprietary software. This is essentially "a non-copyright restriction" and not an issue of letting re-users copy whatever they want. Non-copyright restrictions are explicitly allowed under the rules of the Wikimedia Commons specifically because a lot of them never expire (think trademarks). If new patented encoders can always be made by new companies but that these videos can still be played on other media players made by unrelated companies, then how would the patented underlying software matter to the encoded content?

I genuinely don't see why we have been shooting ourselves in the foot for decades now over non-copyright restrictions. MP4 is the industry standard and even with all the patents on it basically everyone uses it as the de facto standard because the restrictions placed on it neither harms educational re-use, it doesn't prevent others from altering MP4 content, nor does it prevent people from using MP4 commercially, so what is being restricted here? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News ) (WikiProject Numismatics ) (Articles ) 17:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To edit a mp4-file you need to reencode it. mp4-decoders are free, mp4-encoders can be free or not. WM phiosophy says, that everything needed to create an entity at MW (article, file, script) has to be free (while a jpg can be created with Photoshop, you can use Gimp instead) --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:12, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Donald Trung: See Commons:Village_pump/Proposals/Archive/2019/11#Proposal 2: Allow uploading of MP4 files, only provide transcoded Webm files to download/stream. Nosferattus (talk) 03:47, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nosferattus, which at the time was overwhelmingly accepted, so why isn't it implemented?;There are tonnes of educational videos not being uploaded to the Wikimedia Commons today purely because that proposal which was overwhelmingly voted for wasn't ever implemented. -- Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News ) (WikiProject Numismatics ) (Articles ) 06:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 12[edit]

How can I batch relicense my works already uploeaded to commons?[edit]

Hello everyone, I want to relicense some of my works to CC BY, which were previously licensed under CC BY-SA. How can I do it except modify them one by one? --Raccoozzy (Talk) 14:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that with VFC (Visual File Change). Enter your user name to get a list of your uploads, than choose replace text from the drop down box. However you should not replace the license, but add the new one as a service to existing reusers. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll try the VFC.--Raccoozzy (Talk) 12:07, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Does the logo File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg exceed the COM:TOO Japan?[edit]

(TOO = Threshold of originality)

Nintendo has not licensed the logo under the CC licence (and it's unlikely they will licence their images under CC licence), but I'm not sure if it exceeds COM:TOO Japan or not. Do you think the lamp dots on the "Super" text exceed the Japanese TOO? Stylez995 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Given the examples at COM:TOO Japan (in particular the cup noodles with the wavy line through the text), I'm leaning toward below TOO. If File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg is to be kept, it will need the {{PD-textlogo}} "license" instead of its current CC license. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:WLM India Wikidata ID[edit]

Template:WLM India Wikidata ID forces every image into the main category for the building being pictured. For example, this image is fixed into Category:Taj Mahal even though it is another subcategory, and this one is fixed into Category:Red Fort. You literally cannot diffuse those main categories and in theory since every image within the Taj Mahal category structure could use the template the main category would contain every image inside it and be unmanageable. Does this make sense? There are 4600 transclusions and for a number I saw, the building is the only category so this will require a manual duplicate categorization before we remove this from the template. I don't think this template is alone in doing this. Ricky81682 (talk) 22:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

{{Kenya Monument}} has the same issue.
There probably should be an argument that lets you override this "automagic" categorization. - Jmabel ! talk 02:34, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The template's maintainers probably won't see what you've posted here. Either ping them, or, better, post in its talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing Already did that. Yeah, it's a larger issue I can see. I just wanted to see if the principle issue was problematic to anyone else. Ricky81682 (talk) 19:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's long standing practice to never use templates to add topic (non-hidden) categories. New users not aware of this practice discover the magic of templates and introduce it again.
I've cleaned it up many times before. A bot can directly add the template. In this case replace "{{WLM India Wikidata ID|Q9141}}" with "{{WLM India Wikidata ID|Q9141}}[[Category:{{subst:#invoke:Wikidata|formatStatementsE|item=Q9141|property=p373}}]]" (slightly more complicated to get the new category at the bottom).
After it updated all files, the offending category logic can be removed from the template. Multichill (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Ricky81682: Done the bot added the categories directly and I removed the template based categorization.
@Jmabel: are you sure about {{Kenya Monument}}? Looking at the source it only adds a hidden tracker category. Multichill (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Multichill: You're right, I was wrong. - Jmabel ! talk 17:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 14[edit]

Categorization help[edit]

I'm going to categorize File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 47.jpg to something more specific to the image subject, to at least make Category:Balete Drive less "crowded." While it may seem a fence, PropertyCasualry360 says otherwise: According to Merriam-Webster Online, a fence is “a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards.” A wall is “1a: a high, thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for defense —often used in plural; b: a masonry fence around a garden, park or estate; c: a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth); 2: one of the sides of a room or building connecting floor and ceiling or foundation and roof; 3: the side of a footpath next to buildings.” If this is not a fence, then maybe a wall, but what is the most suited category for this (perimeter/outdoor) wall? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "fence" category you add, the image still belongs in Category:Balete Drive. Or were you thinking of "Fences on Balete Drive" as a subcategory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I don't think letting it remain on the category supposedly for the road itself is good in the long term. It causes overpopulation to the category. The road segment adjacent to this structure is File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 45.jpg itself. It is one of the uploads of the infamous uploader Judgefloro (talk · contribs), and doesn't even depict the road itself. But I find it useful, and I think of categorizing it based on the structure is the best way to help slightly depopulate the road category (but raising its quality based on image content). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:38, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likely category is Category:Walls in the Philippines as it also includes File:Banga National HS Field SoCo td (2019-12-18) 02.jpg. Perhaps I have found a suitable category for it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily removing images from valid categories, or moving them to orthogonal categories, is not how we deal with overpopulation of categories; indeed to so so is damaging to the project. In any case, even with the image included, Category:Balete Drive has just 296 members; hardly a bothersome quantity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File moving[edit]

A lot of renames give an error. Sometimes it works, when I rename it manually. One time I got this error: "[38511fb1-6b46-40bb-b0fe-bb5e17bea810] 2024-07-14 11:09:46: Fatale fout van type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"" Does anyone else have problems with renaming? Some files go easy, some not. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also experienced such errors when moving files, I guess since yesterday. Most times I get this error message: “An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".” IMHO the problem seems not to be related to specific files – most times if I try again the renaming works, sometimes it doesn’t. Can I do anything to help with fixing this problem? --Aristeas (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's issue was a "Lock timeout exceeded" issue. During the request there was no swift issues reported, so its probably unrelated. We've had occasional issues with lock timeouts when moving files for a long time now (I have no idea if its actually a deadlock, or if lock contention is just slow) so this is not really a new issue I think. On the other hand, maybe it was previously fixed, I'm not sure, which could mean something new happened. Looking at logs, there was 19 lock timeouts related to file moves on commons (many for the same file) in the last 15 days (And 1 on en wikipedia). Possibly its just a one off issue, or there was something weird about the file - so i suppose wait and see if it continues to happen. As for helping fix things - in cases where there is a sudden spike in an error that is not new, better flagging it to devs can be helpful, for example by filing tasks in phabricator since the people with the power to fix these things only read VP pages rarely. If you're not sure if an issue should be filed as a phab task, or if anyone is already working on it, you can also ask on #wikimedia-tech irc channel (That said, don't be afraid of politely filing tasks in phab even if you are not sure. If something shouldn't have a task or already has one, it will just be closed which is no big deal). That said, Aristeas: if you're interested in directly contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites, let me know, and I can connect you with resources depending on what skills you have and where your interests lie. Bawolff (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment and help, Bawolff! As far as I can tell file moving seems to work flawless again, so the problem seems to be fixed. That’s great! Richardkiwi, does it work for you again, too?
Thank you also for the information and advise about reporting such technical issues, Bawolff. Next time when such a things happens (and persists for a while) I will try to file a reasonable phabricator task.
I fear that contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites is not something I could do; I am fluent in Python (and somewhat in C++, PHP, JavaScript and some more exotic programming stuff), but I have neither any experience in handling big databases nor with all these tools which are used today for handling issues etc. ;–) But thank very much you for your responsiveness and offer!
All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No problems anymore with renaming. Great! = Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that this is a photo is of the same person[edit]

I don't think this photo[2] is of former CNN-host Riz Khan. It's probably another person with the same name. Ezzex (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with uploading files above 100 MiB[edit]

Hey dear Wikimedians,

since the 12th July 2024 (I guess), I have trouble with uploading files larger than 100 MiB. It seems to be a database error. Do you have those problems, too?

Thank you and greetings, --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheraLeo1359531: I suggest using User:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js (doc at User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js). — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me
Error occurred in BigChunkedUpload
@Jeff G.: Unfortunately, this creates the same error. Seems to be a server-side error :( --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Right now I have problems uploading 20MB files. So far all were re-uploaded at a second attempt. I guess something is not stable at the moment. Ymblanter (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I uploaded 144MB File:Experience the world's first ski descent of K2 with Andrzej Bargiel.webm earlier today, with one retry. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:33, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
20240713 21 13 52-Fehler in Datenbank "local-swift-eqiad".png
20240714 15 36 38-Assistent zum Hochladen von Dateien – Wikimedia Commons.png
Hm, that's weird :o. I have some other errors like these. Do also larger files work at your upload process? --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 16:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got a similar, probably the same problem: Uploading a new version of a file (far below 100 MB) I get the error message: “An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".” I already got the same error message several times today when I tried to rename some files. Hm, sounds rather serious … and blocks me, as I wanted to upload a bunch of improved and new photos :–(. Is there anything I can do to help to fix this? Best, --Aristeas (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Supplement: On a second try the upload worked, but I am still concerned as these error messages sound (for a non-expert like me) like a serious problem. --Aristeas (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actually positivly impressed, that the Upload Wizard now shows meaningful error messages. I did no longer believe something like that would happen.
I am also experiencing errors with uploads, mostly the assembling stage fails. But with retrying I can upload 3.9GiB files. --C.Suthorn (talk) 17:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In logs, I definitely see a large spike in swift errors starting 16:00 UTC july 12. I filed phab:T313102 Bawolff (talk) 23:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Starling just restarted the server in question. Hopefully that fixes things. Bawolff (talk) 00:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bawolff: Maybe you can take a look into phab:T309094. Upload has three stages: Upload, Assembling, Publishing. During uploading you can get information from the API (info, warning, error, code fields and uploadprogress), during assembling and publishing polling the API only returns "assembling" or "publishing". There could be returned a progress information in percent and there could be returned additional information (assembling stage: "actually assembling the chunks", "reading metadata from file", "analyzing for embedded URLs or malicious data"; publishing stage: "moving the uploaded file", "inserting/updateing database table XY"). Then users could actually give meaningful error reports to developers. C.Suthorn (talk) 06:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've tested with some files I wanted to upload, now it works smooth for me. Thank you :D --PantheraLeo1359531 (talk) 15:07, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me it seems to work fine again, too. Thank you very much, Bawolff! --Aristeas (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 15[edit]

Disable the NewUserMessage extension[edit]

Its not very useful to use the NewUserMessage extension to automatically welcome newly-created accounts due to possible:

  • Spam/vandalism-only accounts
  • Long-term abuse (LTA)
  • Unacceptable usernames

So I think anyone may vote here to remove the NewUserMessage extension and instead use {{subst:Welcome}} to manually welcome new users. 105.106.72.151 12:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consecus, Meta has also removed the NewUserMessage extension for the simillar reasons above. 105.106.72.151 12:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. We have welcomed new users for at least a decade. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Welcoming a user that is not a vandal or spammer manually after days of registration is better. 105.106.72.151 12:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to take on the burden of doing that over 10 million times in the course of 14 years like User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome, and SieBot before that? We have consensus for installing the extension recorded at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. Also, proposals belong at COM:VPP. — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Version and you will see that this is an extension. 105.106.72.151 12:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the current development of the Growth tools I think there will be an alternative to the bot message in the future. While waiting for this we can keep the current way as it is not a huge problem and worked for a long time. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden links to sales sites in images[edit]

I noticed that when hovering over the top RH corner of File:Kiara Advani snapped promoting 'Bhool Bhulaiyaa 2'(6).jpg a hidden button called "visual search" appears - which, when clicked, takes me to a sales site. Assuming that we should not be linking to sales sites, please could this be removed?, and any other similar links also removed. Thank you - Arjayay (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't happen for me. @Arjayay: can you be more specific about the environment you are running in (browser, OS, skin)? - Jmabel ! talk 14:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Could be an Edge thing, if it looks anything like this. I use Firefox and this also does not happen for me. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jmabel and HyperGaruda - it turns out to be an "Edge-thing", rather than anything on the commons image - it was the first time I'd seen it, and, having turned it off, it should be the last - thanks again - Arjayay (talk) 12:38, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploaded images' are displayed dark[edit]

What process creates the various pixel sizes for download? Is it an app that reduces the image when clicked to display? Please note my comment about the displayed size and the original. The uploads are not displayed properly. Please see this original and this screen shot All images appeared darkened. — Ineuw talk 18:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is probably because the low-resolution image was uploaded as a .png. See Commons:File_types: "On Wikipedia... PNG thumbnails are not sharpened, but JPEG thumbnails are. For more complicated images, such as photographs, engravings, and such, PNG displays an inferior thumbnail." In my experience PNG often distorts color as well as quality in thumbnails, and I generally only use PNG for rather simple line work or signatures needing transparent background, e.g. here or here (and I'm not even sure the first example is warranted). I think images from Internet Archive/Google Books are almost always better uploaded as JPG, although there might be some good reasons to use PNG for files originally created as such. --Animalparty (talk) 18:55, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i dont think this is a sharpening issue. Looks more like a gamma issue or something to do with colour profiles. Maybe https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T106516 Bawolff (talk) 12:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC) p.s. the image is not dark for me on my phone.[reply]
Thanks for the clarifications. It's very interesting, especially about .png rendering. — Ineuw talk 16:55, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

File:Анатолий Чубайс.jpg[edit]

Whether these edits [3] [4] can be considered reasonable or should they be reverted? --Xunks (talk) 21:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Xunks: Seems weird, but since it was marked for speedy deletion anyway, and the time had expired, it's all pretty much moot. - Jmabel ! talk 03:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • The problem is the file is still in use in several projects, and it should either be deleted or returned to its original state. And, in my opinion, the initiative of a repeatedly blocked user on unauthorized shadow deletion deserves an administrative assessment. --Xunks (talk) 05:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • It should be deleted, but for some reason when I try to delete it, it fails. I believe others have tried as well, hence the current text. - Jmabel ! talk 17:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 16[edit]

How would I best go about flagging images with obviously incorrect dates?[edit]

Hello! I have noticed an alarmingly widespread problem of files whose dates (and resulting placements in categories) are obviously incorrect. Just take this one single category as an example, which features photographs which obviously were not taken in January. How would I best go about flagging images like these? —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 16:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the problem seems to be so widespread that it may be worth considering a way to flag entire categories like that as well. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 17:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, a bogus January 1 date is an "overprecise" date where all that was really known was the year. I'd just change 2003-01-01 to 2003. - Jmabel ! talk 17:48, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Thank you. But what about files where the years are wrong as well? —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VulpesVulpes42: are they things you can correct or things you need to flag for someone else to correct? Can you give an example? - Jmabel ! talk 19:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: I suppose that I could correct some of the dates myself, or at the very least replace the incorrect dates with more honest statements such as "Unknown date". The problem is that this issue is so widespread that it would probably take quite a long time to manually go through all affected files. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@VulpesVulpes42: Using (for example) VFC to change the date is exactly as easy/hard as using it to add a tag, no? Admittedly, I don't know exactly what you are running into, I'm just thinking of similar stuff I've run across. - Jmabel ! talk 22:20, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, though, you could create an appropriate subcat of Category:To be checked to mark files that need review on this basis. - Jmabel ! talk 22:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Alright, thank you for your helpful input. —VulpesVulpes42 (talk) 05:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uploads by Wikiped Meta and some related accounts[edit]

This morning I moved File:Daniel Adam Beadini, English Wikipedia File, 01.06.2024.jpg uploaded by User:Wikiped Meta from Category:Nature of Switzerland by month to Category:Daniel Beadini. This image can be also found on Mr. Beadini's Instagram account. Then I found that essentially all uploads of this user seem to be material about Mr. Beadini looking promotional, with bad categorization or uncategorized, and without any personality warnings. In addition, there is some derivative work of printed matter (non-free?), such as File:Daniel Adam Beadini - Daniel Adam Beadini Gym.jpg. There is even a file File:Missionary Daniel Beadini in his office in Zurich Seebach, Interview New York Times 17.07.2021.jpg. User:Anton Berger and User:Sir Daniel Adam Beadini uploaded similar material. Is all of this acceptable? This is clearly far from my area of expertise. By the way, there is a Wikipedia article sq:Daniel Adam Beadini with many contributions by "Sir Daniel Adam Beadini", "Anton Berger" and some IPs. The latest one is from "Wikiped Meta". --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Note: I moved this here from the copyright section because it may concern different things than copyright. Sorry. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

July 17[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=675033586"