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/2021/07.

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

The last town pump to be in use in Saint Helier, Jersey, until early 20th century [add]
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive
Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 1 day and sections whose most recent comment is older than 7 days.

July 06[edit]

Why can't we have individual pages for undeletion requests?[edit]

Per:

User Xover noted that they wanted to be pinged here if they got a response because a lot of changes happen to this page and you don't always get relevant notifications. Why can't undeletion requests just have individual pages like deletion requests have had for probably over a decade? Most people only file one (1) or two (2) undeletion requests at a time and it would make sense to hust leave those in a tab rather than be forced to watch every undeletion request that is currently filed. It just seems highly impractical for no apparent reason.

I also noted that the page is practically impossible to use for mobile users, simply going to the most recent request forces you to scroll through all the other requests. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:13, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Amen! The really high-volume pages are pretty hopeless through the watchlist even on desktop, and watching them drowns out all other pages to watch. Trying to follow a specific undeletion request (e.g. because I filed it) is a nightmare. Xover (talk) 13:35, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
I'll also add that the page is currently large enough to constitute a performance problem. Even using the reply tool (which aiui save partial page content through the API and is usually much faster) there is a noticeable lag when replying. Xover (talk) 09:10, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Also, this page is impossible to use for us mobile users because of its (deliberate?) bad organisation, if you don't believe me then click on this link:

And actually try going to the most recent request, Wikimedia websites are full of apathy and antipathy towards mobile users, but this page takes the cake. It seems that the regular contributors to it simply do not want to discuss its issues or wave them off because they likely never have to deal with them. I think that the reason we don't see many undeletion requests by users that aren't new users that simply don't understand "Commons:Licensing" or the regular experienced users is because the organisation of the page is so uninviting. Seriously, would we have accepted this for deletion requests that if you want to find a deletion request that you go to a single page and keep scrolling until you might find it and get notifications about literally all ongoing deletion requests? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 06:56, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support separating COM:UDR down to one page per current UDR section (undeletion request). The current situation forced me to specifically ask for a ping in my preload nearly four years ago because some Admins could not or would not comply with the regular ping request in my sig.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:54, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @Steinsplitter, as SteinsplitterBot would require adjustments to correctly archive the page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:01, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
the problem is on the stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests, not whether the page is split. stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed.--RZuo (talk) 21:29, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
Replying to "stop making impractical proposals when they've already been discussed." you're right, this has been discussed, I proposed it earlier and at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2021/03#Create separate pages for every individual undeletion request" it had 3 (three) support votes and 1 (one), your, oppose vote. An earlier discussion from 2016 found at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request" has 4 (four) support votes and no oppose votes. Other than you literally nobody has opposed it during any prior discussion. This has half a decade of community support, just no technical implementation yet. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 21:58, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
people can agree on as many impractical ideas as they want. when the bot is not changing, people can of course implement such ideas thru manual labour.
do it, now or never.--RZuo (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo: I see no basis on which you can demand "now or never" here. Am I missing something? Why would the possibility go away if this is not done right now? - Jmabel ! talk 02:03, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, out of curiosity, can you please explain to my why requests for checkusers can have separate pages for each case which sees far fewer new sections than UnDR? You haven't made any actual case for why the current status quo of undeletions is desirable over the alternative other than the admins should work harder (or in your words "stubborn and slow sysops processing undeletion requests") and ping users more, which is simply more work for everyone. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:17, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jmabel: i doubt this would ever be implemented, neither now nor in future. he can keep talking but nothing will come to fruition.
for one last time i am replying, @Donald Trung:
  1. this is unrelated to checkusers.
  2. even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent.
  3. the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages.
  4. you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone".
  5. it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for. they are supposed to be efficient and not nitpicky. i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job. take a look at an example that's still waiting on the page right now special:permalink/574953586#File:Raül_Romeva_al_Parlament_de_Catalunya.jpg: the lazy user wouldnt even scroll the webpage and so make the requester tell them to scroll, but even after that three days has passed and the request is still sitting there.
splitting pages wont solve the human problem, the root cause of all these troubles. -- RZuo (talk) 17:43, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
@RZuo:, replying to "even if you cannot think but only draw analogies. every checkuser case is noteworthy, and quite often followed up by recurrent requests, but 90%+ of undeletion requests are run of the mill. new users' requests are even often incoherent." The analogy is appropriate as checkuser cases are far less frequent and usually it is "User:A uploads the same kind of images as User:C" (the fact that both these usernames are of German-speaking Vietnamese people interested in Vietnamese history is coincidental, as I didn't refer to the actual users but examples), undeletion requests concern content which is at the heart of Wikimedia Commons, not its community while CUR's are a purely community affair. Most deletion requests are also simply "DW", Out of COM:SCOPE", and "Obvious copyvio." without much more added. In response to "you're talking as if your proposal isnt "simply more work for everyone"." How? One person writes a bot, it saves work as the "Kept" template can then directly link to pages rather than long archives and it makes discussions easier to watch as you don't get every irrelevant notification (irrelevant to your request(s)) in your e-mail, and "it's a duty for the sysops to work properly. they dont need to work harder, but just live up to what they were entrusted for." everyone here is an unpaid volunteer that invest our free time into the project, seeing the small number of admins that patrol undeletion requests I wouldn't be surprised that not many admins want to invest their free time into it because they don't get notified about what they are experts on and often valid UnDR cases tend to be the really complicated ones.
Finally at "the large number of invalid requests if separated into pages are just junk pages." the same could be said about most deletion requests, most of them are simply one sentence nominations and then "Deleted, per nom." but those pages easily help preserve an archival record. Regarding "i hate udr a lot because the handful of users frequenting there need people to spoonfeed them even the most obvious detail and still argue and do not do their job." makes me believe that you just have a personal hatred towards the process and simply don't want to see it improve because of it. Splitting pages benefits everyone involved, it helps the admins keep tabs on the UnDR they have more knowledge about (local copyright law, personality rights, VRT tickets, Etc.), it is easier to link individual pages to VRT tickets on the VRT noticeboard, and those that make requests actually only gets notices relevant to them making them more engaging rather than ignoring any further enquiries because after a while they stop checking every "irrelevant" diff. Sometimes I genuinely wonder how many people would engage with DR's if they had the same inefficient system. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 18:49, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Jeff G.:, should I file a bot request for a bot to "adopt" this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 10:12, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Do you have the skill and resources to code and run it?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:28, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, isn't it possible to ask someone with a bot to already do this? I will ask at VPT if someone with the technical skills to do so is available. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:17, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Steinsplitter was already pinged here, but has not edited any WMF wiki for 10+ days, since 17:16, 9 July 2021 (UTC).   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:28, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Jeff G.:, Please see "Implementation" at "Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2016/12#Convert Undeletion Requests to one page per request", this user was unwilling to change his bot for this request when it had community consensus back then. We shouldn't be dependent on a handful of people to do all the tasks, it's like with the InternetArchiveBot, its operator was unwilling to do so for Wikimedia Commons but another user did so with their bot. We cannot be dependent on people who don't plan on investing their free time and have no obligations to do so, it is best to ask for someone who is willing. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 13:57, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: If you're envisioning a setup akin to COM:DR you might want to talk to Krd since archiving there is handled by Krdbot. If I understood Steinsplitter's comment in the 2016 thread correctly, SteinsplitterBot would need a major rewrite to handle that kind of setup which we cannot presume they have the free time to do.
    I would also suggest you ping the most active admins processing undeletion requests to gain their perspective on the setup. From my perspective as a "end user" of it it seems clearly better with a split setup, but it would also need to be practical for the admins who are actually managing that process. There's not all that many sharing the workload there (hence the backlog) so if the change would make the workflow less efficient for them it'd tend to make the backlog worse. Xover (talk) 13:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
    I genuinely don't know how to address the people at the UnDR page, as basically everyone ignores the talk page. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 14:14, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
    @Donald Trung: Go through the history a bit, and on the talk page ping people who have been significantly active. - Jmabel ! talk 15:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 16[edit]

Why has Welsh appeared and how do I remove it?[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T286679

Hi, some apparently random parts of my user interface are now in Welsh (I think) in Commons and on various Wikipedias. The tags added to edits on my watchlists, for example, are now in Welsh, and the "Support us" entry in the main sidebar on Wikipedia is now "Cyfranwch", although none of the other items on that list are translated. I can't think of what I may have done to cause this, and I can't find a way of changing it: I can't find anything on my preferences which indicates a choice of Welsh that I could change. I did add an image to an article on Welsh Wikipedia some time ago but it seems unlikely that that could somehow insert a new language interface on some parts of most Wikimedia pages. I'm also not near Wales so it's not a location thing ... GPinkerton (talk) 09:59, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this also. If my language is set to "en-GB - British English" in Preferences then I see bits of Welsh in parts of the interface. If I set it to "en - English" then the Welsh goes away. - Htonl (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Interesting. Is this overlooked vandalism or a technical fault? GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Someone contributed translations to the wrong language on translatewiki.net. Switching to en - English from en-gb - English (UK) in Special:Preferences is a temporary solution if you don't like Welsh for the time being. Nthep (talk) 12:53, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
See phab:T286679. The wrong translations have already been deleted on translatewiki.net and now they’re waiting to be removed from Wikimedia wikis as well. I hope the removal will happen at latest with the weekly software update on Wednesday. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

This all seems fixed now. I'm a little puzzled about how it seemed to take so long to fix – ~2 weeks (did it take that long to break?) – but the language is too technical for me and all good now anyway. Thanks all. GPinkerton (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Resolved

Nope, copyright templates and file description headers are all now in Welsh for me ... GPinkerton (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: File:Diplocaulus_skull_WMNH.jpg (found with Special:Random) looks good to me. Either the wrong version has been cached (try appending ?action=purge to the file description page’s URL), or you accidentally selected Welsh in your language settings. —Tacsipacsi (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Tacsipacsi That's in English for me too. (For now ... ?) Maybe it was just a relict page I was seeing. GPinkerton (talk) 00:51, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

July 23[edit]

Page creation logs[edit]

1947 in Vietnam

While attempting to view all public logs of "Category:1947 in Vietnam" I can only see that it was deleted, but oddly enough I cannot see who created the category before it was deleted. How can I do this? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:04, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: You (all of you) are all welcome to join me in asking for page creation logs here on Commons at phab:T12331.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 17:12, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
@Jeff G.:, odd, when I proposed new technical features through the Phabricator (like the ability to view all images in a category and all of its subcategories) they get turned down because "The Phabricator is only for reporting bugs", anyhow, I think that it would be wise to start a new Phabeicator task for Wikimedia Commons and Wikidata. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 17:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

!Voting (add page creation logs)[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support as proposer.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:24, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support, did the people at the Phabricator really asked for "community consensus" for a technical feature that just allows people to view more information???!!! Wow, basic improvements always need "community consensus" but mass-deletion and mass-blocking tools ⚙ get introduced with minimum discussion because of "community needs". I think that before someone at the Phabricator asks for "consensus" for these things they should first ask themselves "How would this feature possibly disadvantage anyone?". --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 16:19, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support This is a no-brainer. More information is better, and page creation logs are an invaluable tool.  Mysterymanblue  17:33, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --Agnat (talk) 22:25, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support --SHB2000 (talk) 12:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Symbol support vote.svg Support.--Vulp❯❯❯here! 07:10, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
  • {{{s}}} Per Donald Trung, is there is a downside to including this? My impression was that the database already has this information but isn't displaying it on Commons on a technical level. Else, it's fine if starting it will have page creation logs from now. I also don't get why it wouldn't also be a tool in reconstructing or discussion category organization, which is the main source of issues here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 26[edit]

Files without content[edit]

These 2,300 files all have no content (1x1 Pixels) and should be deleted. But I don't know how to create a batch deletion request on this list. -- Discostu (talk) 21:16, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Discostu: I am not certain if they should be deleted. As originally uploaded these were quite normal files, if blank (empty pages from a book). They were overwritten by other users with 1x1 pixel image. But since they are part of document series and presumably genuinely blank pages originally I think they should be kept to avoid gaps. MKFI (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Discostu, MKFI: at each file it says "The following 2,361 files are duplicates of this file" - I'd suggest that if not deleted, they could at least all be made redirects to one file, rather than 2,362 duplicates - MPF (talk) 14:12, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: I don't think the templates at Wikisource can handle them as redirects.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 14:31, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: They are duplicates now since the original contents have been replaced; they were not (binary) duplicates when uploaded, although all the images are different variations of a blank white page. MKFI (talk) 18:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MKFI: Yep, I realised that - but I really don't see the value of keeping 2362 blank pages, whether identical or not; if a placeholder is needed for the blank pages, then better to have one placeholder for all of them, than 2362 separate ones :-) - MPF (talk) 20:06, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@MPF: Why would that be better? What is gained? - Jmabel ! talk 20:58, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The files (all being a part of DPLA) have different names (including DPLA id and page number), different categories (for the different archives in the DPLA) and different descriptions (replicating the archive name and DPLA id). Redirecting them all to a single page would cause endless confusion for editors and users, now if that is not better? Just like the Brexit benefits. --C.Suthorn (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
OK then! Yes, definitely [:Category:Empty files] for brexit benefits :-) MPF (talk) 21:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

July 27[edit]

Flickr account holder request[edit]

Anyone with a Flickr account, could you ask the uploader of this Flickr file (File:Little BeeEaters by Bob Wagener (49494648073).jpg at Commons) for the location where it was taken, please? The answer should be somewhere in Africa, but Africa is a huge place, and the file is pretty useless without the location - but very useful with it. Thanks! - MPF (talk) 12:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Looks like the Flickr account is a club, not an individual, which could make this tricky. - Jmabel ! talk 15:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Still worth a try though! The request might get through. I'd do it myself if I had a flickr account. - MPF (talk) 17:53, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

✓ Done -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Infrogmation: - excellent, thanks! Now to wait and see if there's any reply . . . :-) MPF (talk) 08:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

Diffusion of categories of artists[edit]

Hi Autofun6, I’m struggling to understand why you created this category containing 5 files. We only have 14 paintings by this man. Why do we need to look in two different categories to view them. One of the advantages of being an independent catalog rather than a museum website is that we can offer a viewing of all the paintings of an artist in one place and you’ve just thrown that away. It’s maybe ok if you have multiple screens. How can you compare pictures against each other, if you split them up? We already have a problem with people uploading the same picture multiple times, because of poor or no appropriate filing. These pictures were already catted to Yale. There was no need to diffuse this mans work by separating them out. Again what are you trying to achieve here. Please tell? Broichmore (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

@Broichmore: It was to diffuse Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art. If you want to be able to see all of the artist's works in one place, I would think a gallery would be the place for that. --Auntof6 (talk) 09:07, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I see, however the paintings are not defined by their museum rather they are by by their artist. You have diffused the artist in this case.
A painting is defined by its content, not by the wall of some museum its hanging on.
This over diffusion of of cataloguing images is robbing us of the opportunities of matching a painting to its original draft; be it sketch or wash. We can no longer see it against it's lithographic version either. Or its companion piece in a set if we only have a painting of one and an engraving of the other. To do that we need multiple screens, 4 or more as described here in this paragraph. Separate screens may be required, open, to view a single image's different versions I.E. sketches, paintings, wash (watercolour), Lithograph / engraving. etc, aquatint, other picture in a set...
If you want to do something like this, obviously you legally can. Should you not also copy the images in the main cat, as we do by images from Google art project?
As an aside galleries are a waste of resources, they need maintenance and that's seldom done. They get in the way of search, because they have precedence they are always presented first. They are fundamentally more suited to Wikipedia than here. They're for a far different audience. Anybody that's catting unknown files in a serious way just doesn't use them. Broichmore (talk) 09:37, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree with the "over diffusion" complaint, especially that such diffusion is "robbing us of the opportunities of matching". I have felt the same way. This applies to other categories as well. Perhaps one of the problems of using Cat-a-lot without actually looking at each image? Krok6kola (talk) 16:10, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
The "diffusion of categories" complaint seems to be a case of wanting to see the images instead of wanting to find them. The category system enables us to search in more dimensions, including the question of where, when it comes to items like paintings. At the time of writing, the category Category:Paintings by museum by artist covers the location of the works of 538 painters, and - when fully categorized - the works of Marcellus Laroon the Younger would fit neatly there. So the category provided by Auntof6 is just one step in the right directon, and should be applauded instead of criticized. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I pondered this myself, when I considered creating Category:Paintings by Gustav Klimt in the National Gallery, Prague. It would have exactly 2 paintings (Category:Water Castle (Klimt) and Category:The Maiden (Klimt)), if their online catalogue is up-to-date. It seems that creating the category is one step in the right direction (towards completeness). Aavindraa (talk) 05:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
@Rsteen:Paintings by Pablo Picasso are spread over a 1000 museums.
Rather than have one place to find them, your advocating that creating 1000 sub cats to store and separate them into, is an optimal improvement on seeing? The preferred way. Are you?
Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?
The only reliable search query on commons (even better than artist), is museum ownership, but that tells you nothing about the content of the file. You seem to think content is secondary, or that filing images is better served by classification rather than the visual. Really?
There is an ongoing argument on wikimedia, on whether or not "museum ownership" should be a hidden cat or not. If its hidden then its a supplementary cat as I alluded to earlier. IMO they should not be hidden cats, but they are supplementary and secondary.
If some admin makes your "by museum" cats hidden, What then? Broichmore (talk)

If you want all pictures on one page, then put them on a page (a gallery). Categories are not pages. -- Discostu (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

More than once a museum has a picture and exhibits it to the public, but it is not the property of the museum. The heirs of some famous artworks have no place to keep it safe and they often want the public to be able to have a look on the picture and can not do it in their own homw. So there is some kind of agreement that the museum takes care of the security, pays insurance and in return can show it to the public.--Giftzwerg 88 (talk) 21:39, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Broichmore. To answer your question: "Your saying a painting is defined by its museum, not by its content?" No. I am definitely not saying that. You should be able to find a painting (or other works of art) by an artist, according to its subject, its location and the time of its inception. That is why I write about organizing categories along different dimensions. For an example, see Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Cheers Rsteen (talk) 02:22, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi rsteen, Picking out a simple artist like Carl Frederik Aagaard doesn't really prove your point. The cats represented look very neat, but the content of each is easily found in the commons database using simple SQL or even simpler search terms ...
Where is it (for example) enabled that File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Rosenborg ved vintertide - 1853.png is representative of a snow scene in by being assigned to Winter in Denmark (suggested by the title in another language), Snowy landscapes in Denmark, and Trees in snow in Denmark. What about File:Carl Frederik Aagaard - Parti fra Capri.png where does it indicate this is of Paintings of palms.
To find these, you have to see them, if your catting is not driven by including key words into the descriptive text.
Surely that's what users are presumably looking for, and need from our catting; stuff that defies a simple search.
One good thing, is that, though you don't say it, the entire body of work is located in one place at Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard. Sadly to get to it, you have to click through Category:Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard, to Category:Paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard by subject, and finally to Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard to find it.
I know that it (Category:Landscape paintings by Carl Frederik Aagaard) represents his entire collection here, because I have 3 screens. Not everybody does.
Still its an improvement on your other showpiece Category:Carl Locher where there is no central focus, anywhere.
This sort of catting IMO is not helpful. Just an opinion. It might not do any harm with simple one trick ponies like Aagaard or Locher, but it is inadequate for Picasso, or Turner, or indeed almost any 19th century engraver you could name.
Going back to the main point about the more interesting Marcellus Laroon the Younger, why are we hell bent on diffusing any artists body of work into separate cats, when there is no need for it. prost. Broichmore (talk) 09:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
The underlying issue here is the fetish for creating multi-dimensional intersection categories. There should be a better solution. Category:Paintings in the Yale Center for British Art really only needs to be an intersection of Category:Paintings and Category:Collections of the Yale Center for British Art. Category:Paintings might be a bit big and difficult to navigate without a decent tool. Railwayfan2005 (talk) 17:59, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to the policy about over-categorization. Section: Major categories. Its clear that museum ownership is a different branch from an artists body of work. Therefore its a necessity to copy the files from "Paintings by Marcellus Laroon the Younger in the Yale Center for British Art" back into "Marcellus Laroon the Younger"?
A sign of over catting is where you have to open two screens to see the same subject matter or not?
Again this artist is defined by their body of work not the museum he's hanging in. Broichmore (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

July 28[edit]

Isn't forcing file's title to be its url a previous limitation[edit]

Hi, isn't the Common's feature of having the image's title as its url a previous limitation of mediawiki software? I think this issue was resolved specifically for Wikidata q-items.

Now that Wikidata have the feature of changing title without having to change url, shouldn't Commons also adopt it? So that photographers will be able to upload without having to worry about giving the best title before uploading. Sadly uploader crashes often when uploading several/big files. Wish there was a Draft feature for files to keep them before giving titles and detailed discriptions —Vis M (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

@Vis M: You should be able to draft a file description page and filename locally before uploading with our experienced uploader page.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Introducing aliasing is always problematic and always causes problems at the same time it offers solutions. Having one official name for an image is a feature, not a bug. If once uploaded, a file name is needed, there's always {{Rename}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 15:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Something like first uploading to a draft area akin to Special:UploadStash (mw:Manual:UploadStash), and then given a name and description before publishing would be very useful. —Vis M (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
Youtube also has a "draft" space before publishing. I think same should be implemented for Commons, where the photographer needs to specify only the license & source when uploading. Perhaps then the community also can help to add title, complete description, categorization, etc. This would increase productivity, decrease crashes, and result in more uploads as it is currently a tedious process. This would also help with uploading unidentified organisms, which have to identified using inaturalist.org, etc. —Vis M (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 29[edit]

Museum object not an artwork[edit]

What template can I use for a museum/archive object that is not an artwork, lets say an ordinary object kept in a museum or archive. I want a template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". I can only see template:artwork. Any suggestions? --RAN (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

What is the "ordinary object"? Copyright subsists not in "artworks," but rather in "original works of authorship fixed in any tangible medium of expression" (with the exception of useful articles). For example, sports trophies, taxidermy, and currency are not generally considered "artwork," but are copyrightable. Эlcobbola talk 16:01, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
This wasn't a question about copyright templates, its about the information template that contains "collection=NameOfMuseum". Do we just call everything in a museum an artwork, or do we have a different template for say Abraham Lincoln's hat in a museum, or a tin of mustache wax belonging to president Taft? . --RAN (talk) 17:08, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
For a three-dimensional object, the template "Art Photo" may be preferred to the template "Artwork". Many pages on Commons use the template "Art Photo" for museum objects that may not be artworks. Although the names of the templates use the word "artwork" or "art" and their documentation says that they are for artworks, templates are tools, not rules. Those words will not be displayed in the actual use if you don't want them to be displayed. Only the fields used are displayed. Thus, the templates are adaptable to many cases. The parameter "institution=NameOfMuseum" can be used to display "NameOfMuseum" in the field "collection". If you prefer, can use the template "Information" with an additional parameter such as Other fields = {{Information field|Collection|NameOfMuseum}}. -- Asclepias (talk) 18:42, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

July 30[edit]

Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021[edit]

In Category:Media needing categories as of 29 July 2021, items of "Khalili Collection Islamic Art" appear, even if they are already categorized as Category:Khalili Collection of Islamic Art. --Io Herodotus (talk) 02:29, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

for that only User:MartinPoulter can answer why he included {{Uncategorized}}.
i remember a bot would remove the uncat template in this case in the past but i dont know if it's still active.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
@Io Herodotus: This results from how I configured my Pattypan template for a bulk upload, which I only noticed after. I am going to go through the recent bulk upload and add additional categories, removing those templates as I go. I clean my mess. MartinPoulter (talk) 07:53, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks[edit]

A proposal to limit the use of checkuser blocks so that a default of standard blocks, and therefore a standard public appeal process can apply to all cases where the checkuser evidence is not critical has been opened at:

This should be a non-controversial amendment to the block policy as our project's, and all other Wikimedia projects, ethical default is to maximize transparency and accountability whenever reasonable to do so.

Thanks --Fæ (talk) 10:54, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Get notifications about a single discussion thread[edit]

Hello, all.

Soon (early August), the Beta Feature for "Discussion tools" here will be updated. You will be able to subscribe to individual sections on a talk page at more wikis. If you enable the Beta Feature, then you will get this. Otherwise, you won't see it.

You can test this now by adding ?dtenable=1 to the end of the talk page's URL. For example, if you click on https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump?dtenable=1 you will see new [subscribe] buttons. If you click to subscribe to this thread, then every time someone adds a new comment, you will get a notice via Special:Notifications. (It won't annoy you with separate notifications for typo fixes or additions to comments, just for new comments.)

I'll be subscribing to this thread, so please feel free to subscribe and reply here, if you want to test it out.

I have found this especially helpful for cross-wiki communications, so I have asked the Editing team to prioritize Wikidata and Commons for this feature. I am very interested in learning what you all think, and if there are changes that would help you. You can reply here, ping me to another page, or post your thoughts to mw:Talk:Talk pages project/Notifications (the central page for this feature).

Thanks, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:47, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

let's see what happens when the section heading is changed.--RZuo (talk) 21:23, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
do u still get notifications if someone doesnt sign?

UploadWizard instructions do not align with actual VRT requirements[edit]

I first want to thank those who made MediaWiki:Mwe-upwiz-license-cc-subhead possible, at Commons:Village pump/Proposals/Archive/2015/06#Raise awareness of OTRS by including it in the Upload Wizard. Too often we impose an increasing number of requirements, without thinking about the UX side or attempting to ensure that those requirements are communicated clearly to the end user. Currently, the "Release rights" tab is laid out as follows:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Now, the problem here is that the stuff below "This file is/is not my own work" is collapsible, so if the user selects "own work" they will never see that VRT/OTRS is required for all previously published works even if they are the author. And when someone accuses them of copyright violations, they are rightfully aggrieved and may be discouraged from contributing further. Proposed new flow:

  • This site requires you to provide copyright information for this work, to make sure everyone can legally reuse it.
    • This file is my own work, and it has never been published online in any form.
      • I, _____, the copyright holder of this work, irrevocably grant anyone the right to use this work under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike 4.0 license (legal code).
    • This file is not my own work, or it has been previously published online.
      • Source: Where this digital file came from — could be a URL, or a book or publication. If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT and send us a copyright release. To avoid imminent deletion of this file, you should add {{subst:OP}} to this field.
      • Author(s): The name of the person who took the photo, or painted the picture, drew the drawing, etc.
      • Now tell us why you are sure you have the right to publish this work:
        • Not all Creative Commons licenses are good for this site. Make sure the copyright holder used one of these licenses.
        • If the work is already published online, but not under that license online, or if you aren't the copyright holder of the work, please follow the steps described at COM:OTRS (the copyright holder has to send an email with relevant permission) and add {{subst:OP}} to the "Source" field above.
      • etc.

Thoughts? -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 05:05, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support revised wording below only, oppose original wording: Seems likely to scare people away from uploading photos they also posted to social media. Should put a greater emphasis on the idea that photos uploaded to Flickr, YouTube, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, etc. do not require VRTS permission, but really only need the original poster to add a licensing line to the post.  Mysterymanblue  17:43, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    How about we change it to: If the work is copyrighted and there is no public evidence that the file is freely licensed, then the copyright holder must follow the steps described at COM:VRT (either by adding a free license to the location of prior publication or by sending us a copyright release via email). If you intend to ask the copyright holder to send an email to us, you must add {{subst:OP}} to this field to avoid imminent deletion. Anyways, I don't think scaring a few people away is a regression from the current state of affairs, where we give instructions which are not clear or just plain wrong and so most of those photos get deleted anyways regardless of whether the uploader is actually the copyright holder. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:50, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds good to me. I support the new wording, and have updated my !vote accordingly.  Mysterymanblue  23:52, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

July 31[edit]

Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee[edit]

Movement Strategy announces the Call for Candidates for the Movement Charter Drafting Committee. The Call opens August 2, 2021 and closes September 1, 2021.

This Committee will have around 15 members. It is expected to represent diversity in the Movement. Diversity includes gender, language, geography, and experience. This comprises participation in projects, affiliates, and the Wikimedia Foundation. You can read the full announcement here.

Will you help move Wikimedia forward in this important role? Submit your candidacy starting from next week here. Please contact strategy2030wikimedia.org with questions. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 13:11, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Are flags 3D objects?[edit]

I've always just assumed that they are and many museums prominently display copyright © symbols on scans of historical flags, but as often I see disputes arise over the historical accuracy of flags and often this stems from the fact that people just create their own drawings of flags based on sources (if they provide sources at all) it would be handy to have "the original" for comparison. But as I just assumed that flags are 3D objects I never imported scans of them to Wikimedia Commons, but then I realised, flags are flat, so are they even 3D objects? --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 19:22, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Assuming the flag is laid flat, no IMO. Yes flags can have textures, but so do oil paintings. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:27, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I do not think that flags can reasonably be construed as 3D objects, as their use of depth is typically a matter of practical necessity, minimal, unoriginal, and not an artistic choice made as part of the design process. A waving flag in the wind, however, is a 3D object, and a photograph of it can be separately copyrightable from the flag design itself. King of Hearts brings up an interesting point, though, in referencing oil paintings: sometimes painters carefully control the size of "globs" of paint to create a sense of texture or depth in an image; at what point does this make a painting 3D? The painting at issue in Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. was an oil painting, but it seemed to be rather "flat" in its style. Could a photograph of a highly textured painting be copyrightable as a derivative work of the painting? My guess is that it would have to be decided on a case-by-case basis.  Mysterymanblue  00:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Mysterymanblue:, well, I think that an image like this (attempted isolation) probably won't qualify as a 2D object because the flagpole is included, but the same without the pole would. I think. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 00:47, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure that if a photo mainly brought out the three-dimensionality of a painting, it could be copyrighted in its own right. Thinking of some Van Gogh works; also I.J. Berthe Hess and Frank Auerbach. - Jmabel ! talk 04:12, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
@Donald Trung: I am inclined to call the pole de minimis, as its visual dimensions are not large and it is not part of the main focus of the image.  Mysterymanblue  00:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 01[edit]

FPCBot user message bug[edit]

If a user gets a notification about a promoted featured picture, and the nomination is not the first attempt, the link in the message will still lead to the page name of the first failed nomination. Other bots (Quality or Valued picture) might have the same issue, haven't checked. Look at my user page discussion section for an example. Anonimski (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

@Anonimski: The best person to contact about that is KTC. 1989 (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

August 02[edit]

Has something changed in Commons search integration with Wikidata?[edit]

I have a strong memory that Commons search engine worked in a slightly different way a few months ago. When I typed something in Search Wikimedia Commons searchbox, let's say Amsterdam, one of suggestions in the drop down list was obviously related to Wikidata, it said something like "Files depicting Amsterdam (Q727)", and the search results displayed images that have "depicts: Q727" in their structured data.

Has this changed? Is there a way to force this type of search when I need it? I tried to find it today, and failed :) --Tupungato (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Tupungato: in Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets there is an option Wdsearch: When searching on Commons, also include search results from Wikidata which could be activated. --M2k~dewiki (talk) 16:58, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi @Tupungato:. Earlier this year, we removed the "files depicting..." feature from the search box, since the new search experience uses depicts as a search input. You can read more details in this Village Pump announcement. CBogen (WMF) (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

August 03[edit]

Board Elections Postponed Until August 18th[edit]

Hello, all.

As you know, the Board election was due to open on August 4th. Due to some technical issues with SecurePoll, the election must be delayed by two weeks. This means we plan to launch the election on August 18th, which is the day after Wikimania concludes.

For information on the technical issues, you can see the Phabricator ticket here.

You can also read this announcement in other languages here.

We are truly sorry for this delay and hope that we will get back on schedule on August 18th. We are in touch with the Elections Committee and the candidates to coordinate next steps. We will update the Board election Talk page and this channel as we know more. Best, Zuz (WMF) (talk) 09:33, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Invalid and illegal wiki maps[edit]

Hello, all.

if you look at these images uploaded to WikiCommens, you will see that all of them have been uploaded to WikiCommens without reference to any credible source. And in most of them, the regions, Armenians, Kurds, Persians, Arabs, as well as other ethnic groups have been introduced as Turkic and Turkic-speaking. ([1] In this map, you can see that the regions that have never been counted as Azerbaijan have been counted as South Azerbaijan, for example, the Kurdish regions of Makrian and Kurdistan province and the Persian regions of Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, etc.) – ([2] The map explicitly refers to Kurdish, Arab, Persian, Armenian, Georgian, and Talysh regions; The Kurdish and Arab provinces of Erbil, Kirkuk, Diyala, Salahuddin and Ninawa in Iraq, as well as the Persian provinces of Qom, Qazvin and Arak in Iran. In this invalid map, even the whole country of Armenia, which has a history of several thousand years in the region, is considered part of Azerbaijan! This map shows several provinces in Georgia as well as mixed areas in Turkey.) – ([3] In this map of Kurdish areas; Kermanshah, Sanandaj and Makrian, the Talysh regions of Gilan, as well as the Persian regions of Qom, Qazvin, Hamedan, Arak, Karaj and even the capital of Iran «Tehran» are incorrectly except Azerbaijan!) – ([4] This map is also taken from [File:Idioma azerí.png|this map], but with the difference that a person whose account in Persian Wikipedia has been closed due to multiple accounts and violations of Wikipedia rules, has created it and to the Kurdish areas in the west and southwest, areas In the south and east, the Persians have invaded the Armenian regions of Nagorno-Karabakh, as well as parts of Iraq, Turkey, Syria and Georgia, and mentioned it with an Azeri majority!) – ([5] This map also has several errors in the Oghuz languages ​​regarding Turkish and Azeri. The Persian-speaking regions of Iran and the Kurdish regions of Turkey, Iraq and Iran, which I mentioned above, are among these two languages, for example, the city of Erbil in the Kurdistan region and the Kurdish city of Diyarbakir in Turkey, as well as the city of Tehran!) – ([6] The latest map also includes several mistakes in Eurasia!) Now I ask Wikinews administrators to remove incorrect files, such as the ones I mentioned, to prevent duplication between valid and invalid files. You may say that these areas may be among the disputed areas between Turks and other ethnic groups, but are Tehran, Yerevan and Erbil also among these areas? Thank you very much. Ahrir (talk) 14:46, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Ahrir: You can tag any or all of these with {{Fact disputed}} and an explanation of your issue. However, Commons does not generally try to adjudicate disputes of fact when maps conflict. We leave it up to the various Wikipedias to decide which map to use. Not infrequently, Wikipedias in different languages draw different conclusions. It is not Commons' place to tell them which is right and wrong. Again: {{Fact disputed}} lets you raise the issues you've raised here in a more relevant place. - Jmabel ! talk 18:24, 3 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=578315961"