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 ↓
COMMONS DISCUSSION PAGES (index)
Welcome to the Village pump

This page is used for discussions of the operations, technical issues, and policies of Wikimedia Commons. Recent sections with no replies for 7 days and sections tagged with {{Section resolved|1=~~~~}} may be archived; for old discussions, see the archives; the latest archive is Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/06.

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:


 
Centralized discussion
See also: Village pump/Proposals • Archive

Template: View • Discuss  • Edit • Watch
# Title Replies Participants Last editor Date/Time (UTC)
1 Desktop Improvements update 2 1 SGrabarczuk (WMF) 2022-06-23 21:42
2 Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images 19 5 Jmabel 2022-06-26 15:45
3 Old, vintage, historical, or what?... 7 4 RTG 2022-06-28 02:25
4 Copyright question 8 2 Jmabel 2022-06-23 20:27
5 Maquettes 13 7 RTG 2022-06-26 21:20
6 Commons Archive 3 2 Yann 2022-06-24 15:51
7 Spectrum 3 3 RTG 2022-06-26 10:30
8 Questionable & useless 2 2 Yann 2022-06-25 13:33
9 Is re-licensing own work possible? 3 3 RTG 2022-06-26 10:27
10 Annotation bug ? 3 3 Wouterhagens 2022-06-26 19:48
11 Move category with silly name 4 4 Pigsonthewing 2022-06-28 18:41
12 Name mountain river in the Tatra mountains 5 4 Lotje 2022-06-27 15:49
13 File update still displays old image 3 3 Jeff G. 2022-06-27 19:07
14 SUL not working 9 7 Robert Flogaus-Faust 2022-06-29 17:58
15 Tagging for misstated PD 2 2 Jmabel 2022-06-28 19:31
16 Bot request that might merit more input 1 1 Bjh21 2022-06-28 19:56
17 Graphic lab icon 3 2 Donald Trung 2022-06-30 05:15
18 Adjacent maps 3 2 Jheald 2022-06-29 20:35
19 Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Liberia, Africa 2013 5 3 Jmabel 2022-06-30 15:31
20 How to download audio files from the Library of Historical Audio Recordings at i78s 4 2 Yann 2022-06-30 18:16
21 Can anyone find more info on what looks like "Sig. Greene" 5 3 Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 2022-06-30 12:06
22 Object location 3 3 Jarekt 2022-06-30 12:02
23 Facial recognition of holocaust victims 1 1 Pigsonthewing 2022-06-30 10:46
24 Locations in Slovakia 4 2 Draceane 2022-06-30 18:19
25 "recent changes" query 1 1 Conny 2022-06-30 20:17
26 Category moves 1 1 Schlosser67 2022-06-30 20:58
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.

June 22[edit]

Putting a CC 1.0 license automatically for North Macedonian official images[edit]

Hello.
I am trying to upload two albums from Flickr (this one and this one), using Commons:Flickr2Commons. I made a test by only uploading File:Премиерот Ковачевски во дводневна посета во Рим и Ватикан -23.05.2022- (52092992938).jpg.
However, I have an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0. What should I do to have Flickr2Commons add a {{cc-zero}} into the licensing section of all the images I want to upload from this user which are under CC 1.0?
The image belongs to Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream, which has no problem with the CC 1.0. Veverve (talk) 07:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, from their "About us" section, "Published photos/videos are available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International license." I think there might be a way to change all the licenses at the upload stage with Flikr2Commons, but if not, archive the "About us" section on the Wayback machine, and get someone with the ability to write a script or program AWB and swap out all the tags automatically in a few minutes. Alternatively you just upload them all and spend a couple of hours copy/pasting the appropriate tags. ~ R.T.G 09:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: thanks for your input!
  • The individual pictures are given as being under CC 1.0 (e.g., this one); and all pictures on WCommons imported from this Flickr account are marked as such in Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream. So, which statement of license has priority, CC 1.0 or 4.0?
  • Who do you think I should contact to make a script? Apparently, Flickr2Commons is very easy to use; and for what I want to do it does the job very well, except the part with the licensing problem. So, I would prefer not to have to try other Flickr import scripts.
@Magnus Manske: sorry to bother you. Since you are the script's screator, could you tell us if there is a way to accomplish what I want? Veverve (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: We know of eight different "CC 1.0" licenses per COM:L#Well-known licenses (the unnumbered ones start at 1.0), please be more specific.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's not "cc1.0", it's "cc0 1.0" (or PD1 or something like that). I have come across this before and if the uploader is active, they generally change the licenses for me, if it is their own work. Send them an email on Flickr and explain that you are trying to upload to Commons for Wikipedia, that cc0 is not sufficient, that you need cc1 or better. I think they have a way of changing the licenses as a batch, I'm not sure how that works though. ~ R.T.G 11:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If you are only trying to upload a small portion of the streams images, use the Commons uploader. It can handle a few hundred images and you can copy paste the relevant license. Bit of work in that if there is hundreds of images but if there is only a few dozen it might be feasible. ~ R.T.G 11:34, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@RTG: The uploader is active... but the uploader is also the official Flickr of the state of North Macedonia, so I do not have much hope for an answer or that the team behind the account will go throught the administrative red tape to change the license of their 30 000 images.
I am trying to upload around 100 images, so doing i manually is not something I will do.
All images within Category:Files from the Government of the Republic of Northern Macedonia Flickr stream are marked on WCommons as either under the {{cc-zero}} or CC 4.0 license, and are from the same uploader. @Alex Cohn: even reviewed this image and marked it as being under CC 4.0 (despite the page of the image stating it is under PD). So, are the licenses used and their inconsistency really a problem? Veverve (talk) 12:15, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just using the {{PDMark-owner}}? This is used for many organizations for some reason publishing their photos with PDMark instead of CC-Zero. In 2020 we decided to accept this. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@GPSLeo: The issue is manually adding the license for hundreds of photos. Copy/pasting for an hour can be a daunting task I guess. @Veverve: Their "About us" says cc-by-4, but they have selected public domain tags consistently. The confusion with the Flickr PD tags is: one is for the author, and one is for someone who promises it is public domain. Macedonia government are either releasing to the PD, or they know for sure these images are PD, otherwise they are liable for any sales lost, not to mention the cost of deciding in court how much that liability should cost. If these 33,000 images are in copyright, that is a LOT of mistakes on their part. So it is public domain (for those marked as PD identified), under the direction of a government body. ~ R.T.G 13:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with VFC this would not be much work. The different license in the description is an other problem. For videos from YouTube we always use the license written in the description or the video itself if these license differs to the selected one. --GPSLeo (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit difficult to follow there. They've used this public domain tag up to 33,000 times as a recognised government body. Government bodies are authorities on legal matters. They do have the authority and responsibility to license these images to the best of their ability. If the authors are not working on the governments/publishers behalf, that is 33,000 accidents. They'd have had a few complaints by now. It is definitely right to use PD on the ones published with a PD tag on Flickr in this circumstance. ~ R.T.G 13:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeff G.: by chance, do you have a solution to how I could add {{cc-zero}} top those one hundred images? Maybe you know someone able to make a script? Veverve (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Veverve: I'm not sure I follow all of the above (including how you are confident that change would be correct), but assuming there is a sane way to find them either via a category or a search, it should be easy enough to make the change with VFC. - Jmabel ! talk 03:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Jmabel: thanks! I will try it whenever I can.
    including how you are confident that change would be correct: I do not see how it would not be correct, or how all all the pictures uploaded on WCommons from this account for years would have the wrong license. Veverve (talk) 04:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Exactly what makes those 100 file description pages unique?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 11:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: the fact I get an alert message at the licensing part, due to the image being under CC 1.0, i.e., I get this error: Template:Flickr-public domain mark. Therefore, I must manually add a {{cc-zero}} as a license for each image. Veverve (talk) 11:07, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Veverve: Sorry, I was not precise enough. How exactly may we find them?   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 12:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.: I have put the URLs to the albums in my first message: this one and this one. Veverve (talk) 12:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Pin VFC won't work from a list of URLs. We need a search that will find these, or who uploaded them in some particular time frame, etc. It's OK if the search includes some other files, but inconvenient if it includes (say) thousands of other files. - Jmabel ! talk 15:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Old, vintage, historical, or what?...[edit]

Hello!

For a Frenchy like me it's some times hard to find the right Commons' english denominations. That's for all vehicles (land, air, water) I can find in 'uncated'.

How may I be sure it's an historical truck, a vintage automobile or just an old bike??? Before 1900? Before WWI? WWII? B&W pics? Before Diesel? Before Hybrid? After this world? Question of dates of production? If they are still made? If they are so rares?

Please, let me know? Thanks. lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 22:53, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

None of those terms should be used in categories on Commons - they're fundamentally subjective, and what things qualify will change as time passes. Categories should be precise and stable: 20th-century trucks, 1930s automobiles, etc. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:19, 22 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree with Pi.1415926535. This isn't a foreign vs. native-speaker issue, it's a fuzzy vs. clear thinking issue. These are poorly named categories. - Jmabel ! talk 00:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Llann Wé²: Before cars were called "diesel" and "hybrid", they had another name, like "steam locomotive". ~ R.T.G 10:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I know but I'm lost... Historical vehicles in Archaeological objects, Vintage vehicles Obsolete technologies...
So, I'll leave that like it is and will continue to add in these cats...
lol LW² \m/ (Lie ² me...) 15:51, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Vintage" tends to be of a specific date or period. It is used, particularly in fashion and prose to describe something not quite ancient, but that is for the feel rather than the accuracy. "Historical" is often used to describe anything within the range of recorded history, but it tends more toward significance, recorded or not. I would set the bar pretty low for entry to that "historical" category but that would be what sort of bar certainly, significance, perhaps even changing it to "Historically significant" whereupon it might balance itself out, but that is not enough for this dilemma. "Vintage" says "cars made between 1919 and 1925 or 1930"... What we call old cars in English is, "Classic cars" isn't it. Vintage, as applied to that category, 20s/30s, that's sort of a clothing and fashion sales term, and I don't think it is always so narrowly defined. And even if you used it like that it is still insufficient for "all vehicles" material. There is no definition as to what date, or stage of development for instance, before which these vehicles are part of the category. That could even be a way to get the best names though, "pre-" vehicles, or vehicles "before X". "Classic" tax and insurance tends, or used to tend be between 25-30 years old. Which isn't enough for horse drawn carriage, but it might help set a bar over which vehicles should not be included. So after that I am looking at synonyms and trying to get something which includes both horse drawn carriage and combustion, while also including things like ships and helicopters per your request, but also very specifically past and all of the past. "Earlier generation vehicles" seems clunky at first but, after going through a lot of synonyms, most words that have a nice feel for this narrow your options to items specific to the historical timeline, or else they are more conversational than categorical like, "Precursory" and "Archaic" or "Bygone" and "Timeworn". "Earlier generation vehicles" can be defined pretty easily for each specific type of vehicle. In terms of combustion driven cars, well today it is, just about, the introduction of microchip controlled motors. Before that, arguably the introduction of ignition systems and so on. So it is up to you but I went through it and that's what I got. Best of luck with it. ~ R.T.G 18:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must apologise for the meandering start to the paragraph. The issue is simple, but it is not at first obvious, so I try to explain my thought process, as it needs to be an agreeable solution rather than a totally new idea. So I am just adding, "Generation" is becoming more and more the specific term for progressing technology. You've heard it in phones first, then gaming consoles and others... and it actually fits technology broadly because of commercial competition. A technology gets updated to the latest thing. Even in todays world where you cannot simply copy anothers inventions, the rival companies, in phones for instance, find a way to more or less match the new standard, so the update occurs across the board in a relatively short period of time. This happens with almost all progressively updated technologies, phones, gaming consoles, PCs and laptops, cars, vacuum cleaners, cameras, light bulbs... They go through generations, so there is a generation of today. What is the latest phone generation? Um, multiple cameras and wireless charging, right? So any phones made before the generation that came with the option of multiple cameras and wireless charging are "earlier generation"? Maybe that's not quite what defines the latest phone generation, but something defines it, and you can tag all of the others from the past as "Earlier generation", and the term is more popular year on year. People don't mention "earlier generation" very much because they are focused on the latest, or a specific stage, but the term has definitely spilled out into other technologies broadly. If you were using computers at the turn of the millennium, you'd notice that PC tech was not using that term much even though the consumer waited year on year for the next generation, for over a decade. Now they use it all the time for anything it is relevant to, so it is going to stick. "Earlier generation vehicles". They are all old. The only requisite is that they are not as advanced as the latest. It's totally good terminology. It's an interesting and important niche to bring up and get solved too. Category:Earlier generation vehicles ~ R.T.G 02:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 23[edit]

Maquettes[edit]

Jack Dempsey and Alonzo Victor Lewis, Seattle, ca 1923 (MOHAI 3174).jpg

We don't seem to have a Category:Maquettes. Do we have an equivalent under another name? I'd want to put it on the image shown here. Maybe Category:Models of sculptures? But I want something specific to a small preparatory sculpture, the equivalent of a sketch. - Jmabel ! talk 20:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So create the category yourself. DS (talk) 00:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@DragonflySixtyseven: in my experience, often there is an oddly-named category that I turn out not to have known about. This is one where I could imagine a lot of possible names. I don't want to create an effective duplicate. Of course, if no one comes up with something, that is exactly what I'll do. - Jmabel ! talk 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: Category:Models of sculptures should do. Alternatively, Category:Maquettes could be between (Category:Sculptures and Category:Models by subject) and Category:The Kelpies maquettes‎   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 03:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes are not, strictly speaking, models of sculptures; they are proposals for sculptures which may or may not be made. A distinct category would be sensible. (Be aware that "maquette" is also the French word for scale model, and we have many files which use the word in that context.) Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Maquettes is also the Dutch word for Category:Architectural models or Category:Scale models. See e.g. this file. --- Vysotsky (talk) 21:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It can mean that in English, too (and we all borrowed it from the French). @Vysotsky: in Dutch, does it (as in English) have the connotation of being a model of something you propose to build/make rather than a model of something that already exists? - Jmabel ! talk 00:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it does - as in this file (1981) - the Stopera (1986) wasn't built yet. Vysotsky (talk) 07:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not so sure about maquette being exclusively used for building proposals. I would also use it for architectural scale models of buildings that already exist. Our national dictionary maintains a fairly generic definition: scale model of a building, neighbourhood etc. --HyperGaruda (talk) 06:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: According to the Tate (the most prominent British gallery group), and every dictionary I tried, "maquette" is proper English. This is not unusual. English is not Anglo Saxon. It is a mixture of Anglo Saxon, French, Celtic, Gaelic, Italian and Latin, some German and Spanish, and a basket load of words from every culture that was once connected to or closely allied with the British Empire. Hindu. Hebrew. I suppose whatever the Norse spoke would have to be a main part of it too. (Norse Code maybe?) The closest words in English might be "figurine" and "statuette", but those are simply scale models. Multiple searches returned no synonyms for "maquette", but many uses and definition in English. Ignore the spell checker in a circumstance like this. Create the category. Make it clear why not to confuse the word with figurines or statuettes. ~ R.T.G 10:40, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it is proper English. Did I ever suggest it wasn't? - Jmabel ! talk 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, well I meant the proper English term as well as simply acceptable. And if you are going to include both sculptures and architecture, it would be a good idea to separate them. ~ R.T.G 21:18, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to start you off by adding Category:Art and design, but I am shocked that category does not exist yet either! ~ R.T.G 21:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 24[edit]

Commons Archive[edit]

Hi, Does anyone know why I can't upload CR2 files to Commons Archive? It used to be possible, but now I get the message IMG_9732.CR2 [9529eda1381cd250ac6b2183] Exception caught: No specifications provided to ArchivedFile constructor. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Yann: You might want to ask at the community portal there or file a phabricator task.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 14:11, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That project seems to be stalled, but good suggestion: phab:T280807. Yann (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Spectrum[edit]

Being new to the commenting on Wikipedia pages, have noticed incorrect dates for example the Zx Spectrum computer, I while not long out of high-school sold one at Morphetville and know often the dates fort information such as these are way off. Possibly reversed order and even incorrect crediting. 203.213.31.89 18:44, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know of a resource for the production history that could be linked from the root cat for the computer model line? Arlo James Barnes 15:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There is a vast range of resources for Sinclair Research and Amstrad history. Which dates are incorrect? ~ R.T.G 10:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 25[edit]

Questionable & useless[edit]

What do we do with photos that have a questionable legal status AND have become useless because the article they were meant for has been speedy deleted as promotional spam?

It's about the photos by this user. Some of them have already been nominated for deletion because it seems those were pretty clear cases of copyvio: derivative work from newspaper clippings. Many of the others show not only the person the article was meant for but also other people, so personality rights might be involved. Mostly well-known people, so photos might be o.k. for some of them, but I assume we'd have to check each individual one.

The permission status of these images is also doubtful imho. The uploader has been adressed on her German WP page if she actually took all those pictures herself but hasn't replied. Especially this one looks like a professional promo photo to me, taken by a professional photographer, not a snapshot a colleague might happen to take.

So, what do we do with that? Just leave it all as is and let the images sink into oblivion? Or go through the hassle of checking each individual photo for its legal status? Or just batch delete all of them, since they no longer serve any useful purpose anyway? --217.239.5.220 10:13, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See Commons:Deletion requests/Files uploaded by Kkuschel. Yann (talk) 13:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 26[edit]

Is re-licensing own work possible?[edit]

Is such a change allowed? Veverve (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, also as the user changed the license to less restrictive (cc-by-sa-4.0 -> cc0) there should be no problem with it in any case. --Zache (talk) 03:00, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Once an item is deliberately released as PD, if it is still within copyright and the author changes their mind, most jurisdictions will uphold attribution, and sometimes protect the author if the work is being used as an attack on them. How would you explain it... if I release my work to the public domain, and you claim it is your work, I can prevent that by demanding attribution. But I cannot prevent its use or demand a fee on sales, because I released it with a contract of free use to the general public. So the reality is, unrestricted commercial attribution and public domain are basically the same thing. Attribution in the license is as much a warning to the end user as a gift to the author. Correct me of course if I'm wrong. And I've read somewhere that some jurisdictions will prevent a work being used to humiliate the author, but I am fuzzy on the details of that. ~ R.T.G 10:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Annotation bug ?[edit]

Would anybody have an idea why I can't add an annotation on this image? Thanks, — Racconish💬 10:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • There has been an ongoing bug like that on a lot of images. I've encountered it repeatedly. - Jmabel ! talk 15:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • On my iPad I have the option to add an annotation, but there I cannot do it. When using the desktop computer I don't get the option. Wouter (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 27[edit]

Move category with silly name[edit]

We currently have a category Category:Fatty tower in Adlershof. This looks ridiculous. I suggest this be moved to Category:Trudelturm in Adlershof, Berlin or just Category:Trudelturm. The Anome (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If the name is Trudelturm and it is the only one with such name (I don't speak German, so I cannot help with that) it makes sense a move to Category:Trudelturm. If there are more Trudelturme, or there are more than one, then it should be specified: Category:Trudelturm in Aldlershof.
It is not the first time that a category for something is created by describing the something. Not a great system, but sometimes somebody needs to put pictures in a place to make a distinction. B25es (talk) 11:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can determine, its name is uniquely Trudelturm, so the category should probably be moved there. Huntster (t @ c) 21:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Trudelturm. Annoyingly, I have been to the campus, but never realised the Trudelturm was there; I should have liked to have seen it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Name mountain river in the Tatra mountains[edit]

River in the Tatra mountains 1994 1.jpg

This river starts high in the mountains and passes the village Stará Lesná on the way to join the Podrad river. I walked downriver until I could take the train back at Tatranská Lesná station. There are other images numbered from 2 to 6.Smiley.toerist (talk) 11:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Second question: I noticed in 2014 a lot of dead trees in the area (File:Tatra forest dying trees 2014 1.jpg). What happened?Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:03, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: Sorry, Google Maps doesn't know.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 13:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If I read the OSM correctly, this is the Studený potok.--Ymblanter (talk) 14:31, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: toen ik langskwam zag ik je opmerking en breidde de beschrijving bij de afbeelding uit. Mocht ik fout zitten, dan hoor ik het graag. :-) Lotje (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File update still displays old image[edit]

Nardshir (historical) - opening layout.png

I just uploaded a new (corrected) version of "File:Nardshir (historical) - opening layout.png", but the main image, the updated thumbnail and the linked Wiki article all display a copy of the original. Yet if you click on the main or the update you get the correct image. And the copy here (see right) is correct too. So what's going on? Bermicourt (talk) 17:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your browser saves an image and will not update it if the name of the image hasn't changed. It will eventually check and update it. Try going to the article, press edit (and use the text based editor), then save the page without actually editing anything. That is called a "Null edit" and it is one of the best ways to get it to update. Otherwise you might be waiting two or three days. Sometimes it is just a few hours. There are a few other tricks as well but if none of those work... open the text based editor again and press the "preview" button. That should show you the new image. ~ R.T.G 18:43, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bermicourt and RTG: See also COM:CACHE.   — Jeff G. please ping or talk to me 19:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 28[edit]

SUL not working[edit]

SUL has not been possible several days now. I have to login to each project separately. Does anyone know any details? Thanks --A.Savin 08:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, SUL worked on every of the last 7 days. --Túrelio (talk) 08:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You have tried, if it is working with a different browser (or with the same browser in a private windows) on the same device and on a different device? --C.Suthorn (talk) 12:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here it doesn't work from Commons to nl.wikipedia. The other way around (from nl.wikipedia to Commons, it works). Strange, but it doesn't really bother me. I can imagine that it is annoying if it is every time and on each wiki.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 20:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work for me lately. I've only tried with Firefox, I don't have any other browser installed. --ghouston (talk) 10:55, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I mostly use Firefox too. I've saved the password in my browser, for years I didn't do that and knew like 30 passwords. Now I must watch out, I won't forget them. :-). The most important things I never save on a computer, phone, laptop or whatever, like things from the bank and things like that, I don't trust that.. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@A.Savin: this is what I got when logging earlier toda: Central user log in The provided authentication token is either expired or invalid. Seems to me it has to do with the token] Hope this helps. Lotje (talk) 11:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you have. Unless you have only a Desktop/Laptop computer or a Smartphone/Tablet, but not both. Neither a Desktop, Laptop, Smartphone nor Tablet will work without a web browser nowadays. Win 3.11 was probably the last common OS, that could be set up or used without a web browser. C.Suthorn (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For me, SUL does not work in Firefox, but it works nicely in Edge. I wonder whether this is a result of the increasingly strict privacy settings in Firefox. --Robert Flogaus-Faust (talk) 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for misstated PD[edit]

Do we have a template to tag files which are not copyvio, but where their PD status is misstated? For example File:DMC01.jpg is claimed to be {{PD-old-70-1923}}, which includes "...countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer."

However, the given author is corporate, not human. Either a different PD template should be used, or the author should be "{{Anonymous}}", or both.

In cases where a reviewing editor is unsure to proceed, and lacks time to determine that, a template to indicate the issue and apply a category would be handy. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Pigsonthewing: I doubt we have a template, but in this case I've substituted {{PD-US-expired}} which meets Commons' requirement for this US-origin image and does not have the problem you've mentioned. - Jmabel ! talk 19:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request that might merit more input[edit]

Krd has suggested that my bot approval request at Commons:Bots/Requests/Usage Bot would benefit from broader discussion about the best approach to tracking external use of Commons content. --bjh21 (talk) 19:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Graphic lab icon[edit]

The WP-fr graphic lab icon has changed. The icon currently used is File:Logo wikigraphiste.svg. Can you replace it with the current one in the Atelier graphique and Graphic lab templates ? Regards. Manjiro5 [💬] 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Does everything have to be more minimalist? The description reads "Icône pour le modèle Utilisateur graphiste sur la Wikipédia francophone. Version simplifiée et plus moderne File:Crystal Clear app gimp (vector).svg", the thing is, minimalist logos look like something a toddler can draw with ease, intricate logos actually require more skills as a graphic artist to make. Plus the whole idea of it being "more modern" simply means "following trends", it is also a trend to slap "Copyright - All rights reserved, you may NOT copy, archive, store, or many ANY unauthorised copies even for private use anywhere" on a website (I don't even think that copying something for private archives is explicitly disallowed, as most film and music related Copyright suits are also about the distribution of copied materials rather than the copying itself, but that's another story). I don't see any particular reason to follow a trend simply because "it's trendy".
"Version simplifiée et plus moderne" is just "Version simplifiée", C'est simplifiée pour les simplification (It's simplified for the sake of simplification). If multiple versions of the same image exist then it could simply be added as an optional thing unless there's widespread consensus that it should be changed.
I've seen what simplification does to Wikimedia websites and the Vietnamese-language Wikipedia's "Desktop mode" is nearly un-useable because of it, all for the sake of "modernisation" (simplification).
For mobile devices an argument could be made that the simplified "more modern" logo is better.
But let's objectively compare these two (2) images, they're both just paintings with a brush on it, the main argument for simplifying logos like these is that they are easier to see on small screen devices (see the attached image above / to the right), but I'm not sure if that's a good argument either. One could make the argument for consistency as logos have consistently been Simplified (page protections, OTRS / VRT logo, among others), but I'm not sure if that would be a good argument either. Perhaps this should be proposed at the talk page of the Graphic Lab to see if there's consensus for it. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:12, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly enough the mobile version of this template doesn't display any image at all, so this "more modern version" (read: mobile-friendly version) is basically only useful for people on a mobile device in "Desktop mode". I genuinely don't see the added benefit here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 05:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 29[edit]

Adjacent maps[edit]

The page at File:Map of Birmingham and its Environs OS Map name 014-06, Ordnance Survey, 1884-1891.png, for example, which represents a map, has eight thumbnails for the adjacent map sheets to the N, S, E, W, NW, NE, SW & SE. Do we have a property in structured data for indicating adjacency in this manner?

How would we indicate (in structured data) that the images are tiles, and can be shown side by side as a single map, with no border or white space (or vice versa)? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:39, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: For countries, parishes, etc we use shares border with (P47). So I also used it on the wikidata items underlying the maps in c:Category:Ordnance Survey Drawings (items such as eg Wem (OSD 326) (Q106156682)), allowing queries like the one for Adjacency map of drawings in that category header. Qualifier direction relative to location (P654) should also allow neighbouring maps to be shown in a template similar to en:Template:Adjacent_communities. Jheald (talk) 20:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also, see Gallery:Ordnance Survey 1st series 1:2500, Map of Birmingham and its Environs for a mosaic, which could be a more useful way to navigate such maps. Jheald (talk) 20:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notification of DMCA takedown demand - Liberia, Africa 2013[edit]

In compliance with the provisions of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), and at the instruction of the Wikimedia Foundation's legal counsel, one or more files have been deleted from Commons. Please note that this is an official action of the WMF office which should not be undone. If you have valid grounds for a counter-claim under the DMCA, please contact me. The takedown can be read here.

Affected file(s):

To discuss this DMCA takedown, please go to COM:DMCA#Liberia, Africa 2013. Thank you! Joe Sutherland (WMF) (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the same photographer, jbdodane/blk24ga, uploaded thousands of photos under a CC-BY license to Panoramio and then switched to selling them commercially on Alamy. There could be more takedown notices yet to come related to this photographer. Nosferattus (talk) 03:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: so do you you think the photog uploaded in the past with a free license and is trying to walk back the legitimately granted license rather than that some Panoramio user was grabbing these illegitimately? If so, this might be worth someone pursuing. - Jmabel ! talk 03:53, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: The photos at Alamy have detailed descriptions (regarding non-obvious information) that are not present on Panoramio, so I don't think it was someone just trying to resell someone else's photos from Panoramio. Here are the two photosets if you want to investigate further: https://web.archive.org/web/20161029043147/http://www.panoramio.com/user/6465408?with_photo_id=97582260 https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo/?pseudoid=%7b37481651-1769-4C51-9FBB-3FC90C779570%7d&name=jbdodane. Nosferattus (talk) 04:08, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: Oh, I'm sure it wasn't someone just trying to resell someone else's photos from Panoramio. My suspected scenario is that he put them up, free-licensed, on Panoramio. We legitimately republished those free-licensed photos. Then he changed his mind, put the pictures on Alamy, and no longer offered the free license. But you can't take back an irrevocable license. - Jmabel ! talk 15:31, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

June 30[edit]

How to download audio files from the Library of Historical Audio Recordings at i78s[edit]

The website i78s.org is a treasure trove of tens of thousands of digitized 78rpm discs from 1892 to 1939, all from David Giovannoni's amazing private collection (which consists mostly of early American pop music). Thanks to the Classics Protection and Access Act, all of those recordings published before 1923 are public domain. Unfortunately, however, the i78s website does not offer any way to download audio tracks; it only lets you listen to them via the website's embedded player. After some digging into the website's Javascript, I was able to figure out how to extract the mp3 files:

  1. Find a track you are interested in and load its "blue card" which shows the discographic information.
  2. Get the record ID. Hover your mouse over the email icon under the close box. In Chrome this should show you the URL in the bottom corner of the browser window, something like mailto:feedback@i78s.org?subject=i78s Feedback ID %2315214. You can also just click the email icon, which will open your email program and start a new email with a subject like i78s Feedback ID #15214. The record ID in either of these cases is 15214 (the %23 in the URL is a URL-encoded hash mark, not part of the record ID).
  3. Load https://i78s.org/api/audio?recordId=XXXXX, replacing the XXXXX with the record ID. This will either load the mp3 directly in your browser or start downloading it.

Note that only autopatrollers and higher level users can upload mp3 files to Commons. Nosferattus (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@, Yann, Illegitimate Barrister, and Mysterymanblue: Pinging some folks who might be interested in this. Nosferattus (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that the {{PD-US-record-expired}} template is the licensing tag you would want to use for these. Nosferattus (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Nosferattus: Thanks for the information. I only get a register form, and I can't manage to register. :( Yann (talk) 18:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone find more info on what looks like "Sig. Greene"[edit]

At File:Max Samuel Grifenhagen.jpg the artist looks like "Sig. Greene", can anyone find more on him so he can have a Wikidata entry? --RAN (talk) 01:22, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Object location[edit]

Since more than a year, I have entered object locations in this way {{object location|nn.nnnn|ee.eeee|region:LAND}}. It worked very well, the geographic data were shown in gr°min'sec. Today, everywhere a warning ist shown, "Lua error in Module:Coordinates at line 168: attempt to index local 'entity' (a nil value).".--Ulamm (talk) 08:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because of this change? @Jarekt: as the user who edited that. --Rosenzweig τ 09:18, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting keep-light-green.svg Fixed --Jarekt (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Facial recognition of holocaust victims[edit]

This resource may be useful for identifying people in our pictures of holocaust victims. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:46, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Locations in Slovakia[edit]

Very similar church to: File:Vaľkovňa, kostol.jpg

The chronological sequence can be found in Category:Smiley Toerist Slovakia 1993 trip. These places cannot be far appart as we moved mostly be foot. Smiley.toerist (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, that's not as easy I thought it would be. The photo 51 is Červená Skala railway station for sure and 62 is Vaľkovna. So I assume, that the church should be located somewhere in between (or nearby). But it doesn't ressemble any of churches: Telgárt, Šumiac, Červená Skala ([1]), Vaľkovna, Pohorelská Maša ([2]), Pohorelá. The church would be located at the side of some of 1st class roads (due to road markings), in the area being Road I/66 or I/67 (if we extend the searching area). Regards — Draceane talkcontrib. 15:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I must clarify: The pictures 49 to 51, was a restday, where I did do some local rail travel, without the group. The group travelled by train from Vaľkovňa station to Pohorelá. This was not the original plan, but it was raining and with the train one could do some distance. After the train we had to climb up the mountains. Both the church and the farm are before the train trip.Smiley.toerist (talk) 16:50, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Smiley.toerist: OK, so then it's church in Stratená. :-) — Draceane talkcontrib. 18:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"recent changes" query[edit]

Please find my search for an sample query. Regards Conny (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2022 (UTC).[reply]

Category moves[edit]

There seem to be many unanswered requests on page User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands/Category moves. Has the robot fallen asleep? --Schlosser67 (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Schlosser67: FWIW, That's a talk page, so I don't think a bot is running on these. It's up to some admin to move these to User:CommonsDelinker/commands so the bot will act on them. Looks like a backlog has accumulated. - Jmabel ! talk 22:00, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I've approved a few dozen. Let's see what happens. - Jmabel ! talk 22:19, 30 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like those went fine. So it's just a matter of admin backlog. - Jmabel ! talk 02:22, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

July 01[edit]