Commons:Village pump

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

Shortcut: COM:VP

Community portal
introduction		Help deskVillage pump
copyright • proposals • technical		Administrators' noticeboard
vandalism • user problems • blocks and protections
↓ Skip to table of contents ↓       ↓ Skip to discussions ↓       ↓ Skip to the last discussion ↓
🌐 Village pumps for other languages
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.

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

Cast iron pump with handle dated 1875 in the form of a fluted column with Corinthian capital on a profiled, square stone base [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.


June 22[edit]

Template for files potentially moving out of scope?[edit]

Is there a template to mark files, which are only used on Wikipedia pages, nominated for deletion, and it are likely to become out of scope as soon as the page is deleted? —⁠andrybak (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

  • I doubt that such a template would be useful. Most cases of a file being prefered to another to illustrate a Wikipedia article (or some such use in other project) are mere improvements and the hitherto prefered file would remain in scope; the only clear cut situation would be some (though not all) instances of vanity articles or trolling misillustration of established articles etc., but even in those cases a DR would be always a better way to deal with the matter. Some processual speed gained by the use of such template would be overwhelmed by the predictable abuse of it made by the deletionists on duty. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:43, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Can you give some examples? Deletion from all Wikipedia pages still leaves an entry at Wikidata, where an image is displayed. Commons serves all Wikimedia projects, not just Wikipedia. And deletion from English Wikipedia does not mean that another language Wiki may start an entry on the topic or that person. RAN (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    @RAN: Any good-faith editor on any non-English Wikipedia may create a policy-compliant article on any subject, whether or not an article on English Wikipedia was deleted. What makes you think otherwise?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Isn't that what I just wrote? Somehow you seem to think I wrote the opposite of what I wrote. RAN 21:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
You wrote "deletion from English Wikipedia does not mean that another language Wiki may start an entry". You seem to have meant the opposite, but he read what you wrote.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:21, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

June 26[edit]

Spoken articles template[edit]

I encountered today {{Description article audio}} which duplicates {{Spoken article}}. Former seems to be used for French articles. I think will be good idea to use one template and use bot for migration. --EugeneZelenko (talk) 14:10, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I replaced all uses of {{Description article audio}} with {{Spoken article}}. We should do something similar to other --Jarekt (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • and think about a possible property to use as well. Jura1 (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

June 28[edit]

Design of Lang-VP[edit]

{{Lang-VP}} is the header template of VP that links to other language versions. Recently, User:Verdy p introduced some new design, but disagreement between Verdy p and User:4nn1l2 over the new elements led to Verdy p being banned for a month. IMHO more users should probably join the discussions on how Lang-VP can be revamped, so hopefully the quarrel could be set aside and the real issues be resolved.

I will take the liberty of summarising Verdy p's new design. It switches the template according to a user's UI language, providing VP in the user's chosen language and some other closely related languages. For example, a Ukrainian user will see links to Ukrainian VP as well as Russian VP. All versions have a globe icon that links to the full list though. See Verdy p's latest version of code for reference.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

I think Verdy p's design may not be the best. The conditional logic of the new design attempts to predict a user's needs, but users of Commons, a global project, may have very different needs. Trying to build a complex conditional logic may not be better than showing a full list. In comparison, wikidata's chat has a longer full list, which I find pretty neat too.
On the other hand, I have just made a proposal to close inactive non-English VP. (I had noticed the issue half a year ago, but was too lazy to bring it up.) A VP is useful only if there is sufficient participation, especially experienced users' response to newbies' queries. If this proposal results in closing of many VP, much of the conditional logic could be simplified.
That said, I prefer a simple, full list rather than the conditional logic. The full list would only show one or two more lines, and save time spent on engineering the template. However, I have another idea. How about a clickable world map, perhaps using technology like en:Template:Location map+? It would be more illustrative. It can be hidden it in a dropdown menu, which saves users from opening a new webpage to find the full list like the current globe icon does.--Roy17 (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • A full list is a good idea provided that small inactive VPs get closed. Currently, there are 51 language editions of VP. I think they can be safely reduced to 37 VPs (for a list of eligible ones, see my comment at Commons:Village_pump/Proposals#The_ones_to_keep) or even less (~33).
  • A possible conditional list should give the priority to the page langauge ({{PAGELANGUAGE}}) rather than the interface language ({{int:lang}}), but that's a discussion for the template talk page. Some objective criteria should also be defined to avoid arbitrary designations.
  • A map list is not a good idea. Looking for the region associated with, say, Galician language or Marathi language is harder for most users than just finding their name in an ordered list. 4nn1l2 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
  • @Roy17: I think some conditional logic to highlight the VPs one may be interested in, based on UI language, would be helpful. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 06:08, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I’m not sure whether to blame or praise Verdy p for this, but I seriously dislike the current {{Lang-VP}}: It’s only showing English for me, plus that unintuitive blue dot. I want to be able to see the whole list all the time. Who ever feels bewildered or offended by language diversity has no place in Commons (or needs to learn a lot, i.a., in Commons!), and to cater to those, at the expense of the ones who relish language diversity, is repugnant. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 14:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Base Leonore[edit]

Bonjour, les images de la base Leonore sont soumise à autorisation préalable Toute diffusion, gratuite ou payante, est soumise à l'autorisation préalable des Archives nationales. Y a t'il une convention avec WP permettant de les utiliser, ou les images en venant doivent-elles être supprimées (ou validées au cas par cas)? Doubleclavier (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Base Leonore

Hello, the images of the Leonore base are subject to prior authorisation Any distribution, free or paid, is subject to the prior authorisation of the National Archives. Is there a convention with WP allowing them use, or the images coming from it must be deleted (or validated on a case by case basis)?
translator: Google Translate by Vulphere 04:53, 29 June 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Can you please ask about a category or specific file names? De728631 (talk) 21:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Doubleclavier: Il faut évaluer au cas par cas. Avez-vous un exemple ? Par ailleurs, les discussions en français sont ici. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@De728631: for exemple this picture [1] along with 12 companions updated roughly at the same time by the same contributor. Doubleclavier (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Yann: Merci pour le lien! je le garde précieusement! Doubleclavier (talk) 06:47, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Alphagto, Doubleclavier: Pas de souci pour ces pages. Il n'y a pas de contenu suffisamment original pour avoir un droit d'auteur, et c'est ancien de toute façon. Mais la licence est fausse, et doit être corrigée. Il faut utiliser {{PD-ineligible}} et/ou {{PD-France}} + {{PD-US-expired}} dans ce cas. Il faudrait aussi renommer les fichiers avec un titre qui a un sens. Voir {{Rename}} pour cela. Cordialement, Yann (talk) 06:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I think Yann has summed it up. These documents are too old to be copyrighted or were exempt from copyright from the beginning. De728631 (talk) 19:35, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

June 30[edit]

Marking of images that are embedded in a Wikidata object (Part 2)[edit]

Moin Moin together, I wanted to ask if there is a tool or script that shows whether an image is associated with a Wikidata object. I would like to see in the category (Category:Media needing categories), preferably by color highlighting whether this is so. Is there such a thing or such a thing? King Regards --Crazy1880 (Diskussion) 18:39, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Does anybody have any idea? --Crazy1880 (talk) 09:22, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Crazy1880, contact Ederporto to this.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 04:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton, Crazy1880: Unfortunately, I don't know any of this. I suppose it would involve some .js witchcraft. Ederporto (talk) 04:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Crazy1880: let's see if I got this right. You want to know all files in Category:Media needing categories that are in use on a Wikidata item? That is possible with a database query. You have to combine the categorylinks table with the globalusage table. You can use https://quarry.wmflabs.org/ for that. I used this query to create this list of 39909 uncategorized files used on Wikidata. Multichill (talk) 09:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Multichill:, if I try it in quary, I become
You have an error in your SQL syntax; check the manual that corresponds to your MariaDB server version for the right syntax to use near 'CONNECT commonswiki_p commonswiki.labsdb; SELECT CONCAT("* [[:File:", page_title' at line 2
Is there no possibility of highlighting in the category? Thanks --Crazy1880 (talk) 11:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
I already put the result online for you so no point trying to redo that in Quarry at the moment. You can just paste that list somewhere and start working on the list. Once you got that done, it might be interesting to do it yourself in Quarry. Multichill (talk) 14:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks @Multichill:, I saved the list local and work on it. Regards --Crazy1880 (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Removal of Category:Files from 500px needing review[edit]

This category was created by Elisfkc on 28 April and Elisfkc also started filling it with files that day (if I may add, in an improper way, inserting {{Licensereview}} in the wrong place), until Rodrigo.Argenton told them to stop.

Now the category has 1208 files in it. But before I effectively undo those 1208 edits by Elisfkc (removing the {{Licensereview}} and category), I'm asking here if it's okay. If we would decide those files need a review, all 108K+ of them need a review. (and would need to be tagged properly) I think our license reviewers can be dropped off at the looney bin if we ask them that. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 10:27, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cue They're Coming to Take Me Away, Ha-Haaa!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 13:25, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm curious as to how you think license review was added in the wrong spot. Also, I feel like a bot could be made fairly easily to run through these images. However, since I suck at code, I asked for help. --Elisfkc (talk) 15:37, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: you just stuck it somewhere in between the categories. In some cases a bot grouped categories at the bottom after your batch edit. LR should be after the license, on a new line. If this were highly controversial, I suppose someone would have said something by now, even though it's only been a few hours. So in a few hours, I'll reverse your edits. All you've done is waste the time of license reviewers with this as some of these actually did get reviewed. This should be done by a bot, or not at all. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 21:57, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Alexis Jazz: Most of them didn't have categories at the time, and the license review templates were supposed to be on their own line.--Elisfkc (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@Elisfkc: you can't count on that. In that case (short of whether this was a good idea to begin with) you should have filtered out files that already had categories. Or better yet, do a smarter replace. And yes, {{Licensereview}} should have been on a new line. Anyway, the category is empty now. Leoboudv had reviewed 59 files, Christian Ferrer had reviewed 23 files and Discasto 2. Pretty much all in vain. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Even if the photos did need reviews, Elisfkc's insertion was bad because the {{Licencereview}} template overlaps with the category, which was created by Elisfkc without concensus. I wanted to undo Elisfkc's insertion but I did not want to jack up my edit counts for pointless stuff, so I did special:diff/351373783.
It may not be entirely Elisfkc's fault though. I could not find a summary page that tells me how reliable the import tool is in terms of copyright, or how to find the licence from the source code of 500px either. I reviewed one and avoided others from 500px.
Today I learned that Rodrigo.Argenton had reported the problem back on 28 April, but wrongfully dismissed by User:Jcb, that Elisfkc is a LR himself/herself!, and that s/he has reviewed only one from 500px!
Screw you for wasting our time.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Roy17,
"I could not find a summary page"
Commons:500px licensing data
Yes, the rote to the page is not clear as crystal, however is not a dark rote.
If we took any file as this
We have this "[..] imported from 500px with import-500px"
That have this "Read more about the application of the tool at Wikimedia Commons here."
That explain how the copyright verification works... -- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 20:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
@Rodrigo.Argenton: No, it doesnt tell me how reliable the import tool is. I dont rely on a second intermediate (500px -> wayback -> import-500px) of which reliability is unknown. I also tried the steps suggested on an archived 500px page. It didnt go well and took me a long time to find the licence. This says saving CC-licensed images, which might include ND/NC.--Roy17 (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
"took me a long time to find the licence"
That's why we create a page at tools to this:
[2]
It's quite reliable, as it only scan the page, and show us the license that the user include at the 500px, than creates a page to guarantee the manual verification. Than I manually select files, of course, some I will not have knowledge about the copyright, as freedom of panorama in some countries, but most of then, I can see copyright violations and out of scope files. And yes, we need to check one by one to upload here, is not flicker2commons.
"which might include ND/NC"
Yes, and one strange license also (PDM), but we did a work of selecting only cc-by, cc-by sa and cc0.
you can see in the archive.org, that they have a away more files saved, as they took the nc and nm files.
-- Rodrigo Tetsuo Argenton m 21:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting a Large-scale Courtesy Deletion of Personal Images of Myself[edit]

Good afternoon,

I was advised by the helpdesk to write this request out here. I don't know how to use any of the code/jargon, so it's just going to be in written form. I am a complete neophyte to Wikimedia Commons, image licensing, and the like. I have a hobby where I meet (take photos and get signatures) various "celebrities" of film, TV, music, sports, etc. I have been posting images to my Flickr account (https://www.flickr.com/photos/greg2600) for many years. I never assigned a license to them. Again I truly had no concept of what the rights signified or cared, it was just a way for me to backup my photos. I happened to like Flickr's interface and phone app. From time to time, I would be asked by people (Flickr message) if they could use a photo on Wikipedia. I would allow it but implore that they upload a pre-cropped image without me in the photo. This was usually done as I requested. I'd also have people ask me to change the license to such and such, but I never understood any of that, and was concerned about doing so.

I stopped paying for Flickr Pro awhile ago, then they announced the changes to limit you to 1000 photos. However, if they were CC licensed, it wouldn't count on the limit. So I changed the license, but again, really didn't fully understand what it meant. Over the course of about the last 8-9 months I think, several users began mass uploading of my photos to Wikimedia Commons, without cropping me out of them. In some cases, users DID crop them, so they could be used on Wikipedia. However, even in those cases, the original image remained on Commons. Many are frankly terrible photos, out of focus, and cropping them still would look horrendous.

I had no idea any of this was going on until recently, when a couple friends informed me that I "was on Wikipedia." Sure enough, I spotted several pages of celebrities where the Info Box Photo was of myself and that person. Frankly, this makes no sense. What informational reason would Wikipedia or otherwise have to use a photo of a celebrity with a stranger? I then searched "greg2600" on Commons, and found over 1000 hits where I was listed as the Author on the image. To say I was shocked was an understatement.

So I've been told that CC licenses are not revocable, which also was a shock to me. Again, I'm not a media person, I don't work in the press, this is totally foreign to me. I told someone this kind of feels like someone hacked my phone. What am I seeking here? Well, frankly, I wish any representation of myself could be erased from Commons. I'm not a celebrity, nor do I work, manage, promote, or do anything like that with any of them. My face does not belong here. I use Wikipedia all the time, and if I get a nice recent photo of a celebrity, I'm more than happy to have their pages updated with it. However, I myself, do not want to be IN that photo! I don't even want attribution. I would prefer if the original image doesn't get kept either. I'd more than willing to contribute, but I truly feel like I have been grossly taken advantage of here.

For reference these are all the photos attributed to me: https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&profile=default&search=greg2600&advancedSearch-current={}&ns6=1&ns12=1&ns14=1&ns100=1&ns106=1&ns0=1

At the end of the day, I don't wish to see MYSELF if I were to do a search like that. I would prefer if the original uploaded files were deleted. I'd assume that would be the easiest approach. It's not my problem that so many photos of mine were uploaded in bulk and then not edited. Most of these photos were uploaded months ago, and never edited.

1. Can any up-cropped photo attributed to me be deleted immediately?

2. If images have to be cropped, or have already been cropped, can the full/original images be deleted? Here's an example where the image was saved as cropped, but the original remains. Why is the original still there?

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Michelle_Monaghan_(42734734175)_(cropped).jpg https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Greg_and_Michelle_Monaghan_(42734734175).jpg

I already made a few requests on images that were taken from my friend's Flickr profile, where they were cropped but the original remains. My requests were denied, although I didn't outright say the photos were of ME. Again, I'm new to this.

3. Can linkage (attribution) to my Flickr site on each photo be removed? Please consider that while my photos are on there, I can still control whether I wish to simply delete them all. I have no control over photos on Wikimedia now. This could potentially jeopardize future relations or employment for myself. Essentially through a misjudgment on my part, my privacy has been greatly affected.

I appreciate the assistance, and please understand that this has caused a great deal of stress for me. I do not see how the community gains at all from my emotional distress over this matter.

Thank you, Greg2600
— Preceding unsigned comment added by PaunchStevenson (talk • contribs) 17:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
I support courtesy deletion. IMHO, there's one way to both delete photos containing the user, remove attribution and keep cropped photos. User:PaunchStevenson could send an email via COM:OTRS, declaring all Commons photos transferred from his flickr stream before a cut-off date (like today) are released under {{Cc-zero}}. Then, we would apply OTRS verified tags to the photos and remove the attribution, and delete the uncropped photos.--Roy17 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting info.svg Administrator note: The village pump is not the correct venue to request deletion of photographs. Support or not nothing can really be done from here. There are over 1,000 photos in question here, many of while have already been cropped so a blanket deletion is unwarranted. If someone wants to go through them and file a DR that would be the best course of action. Photos that just require a deletion of one of more versions should be noted. The removal of attribution can be done post DR with VFC. --Majora (talk) 21:30, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
    • Flickr user Greg2600 had already requested deletion of some images individually, but not spelled out the issues so throughly. I have linked to this discussion from some of the individual deletion requests. I think this is useful to village pump regarding some issues with bulk uploads from Commons to Flickr - an example where "technically correct" per Commons guidelines may not be the best kind of correct, since it is not in the interest of Commons to alienate the photographers who create the photos. -- Infrogmation of New Orleans (talk) 21:42, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
      • (Edit conflict) I'm aware of what is "in the interest of Commons" and I support the courtesy deletions per our guideline. I am usually sympathetic to such requests and have processed them in the past. To continue to post "support" comments here is rather moot though. As the image cannot be deleted from here. I'm simply stating that fact. If we want to have a greater discussion on the use of bulk uploads from any site (Flickr, YouTube, etc.) that should be split off into something at COM:VPP. I've been exasperated by people scrapping free sites for everything they can find regardless of what is actually pictured for quite some time. This type of thread just isn't the best vehicle for such a discussion in my opinion. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
  • I was wondering who that guy was ;) When I came across one, I hadn't replaced the image, as I thought it was actually the best one available. Still, I'm not sure what to write to convince him to change his mind. Maybe one could try to work out a way to improve the overall quality of the selection and credit some pseudonym. Jura1 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • I posted the first comment because IMHO this involves too many photos and the request to remove attribution is tricky. Attribution is necessary and it protects reusers from legal troubles. I think the only way to omit attribution safely and keep photos is cc-zero aka PD, and the OTRS tag would hide the photographer in the publicly inaccessible OTRS system. If the community agrees to a general strategy, then the whole batch can be dealt with swiftly.--Roy17 (talk) 11:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
    • Ah. I uploaded a number of these images, and was arguing against deletion of the uncropped versions, but that was because I misunderstood that they were pictures of you; the request was written in the third person, and "Greg" and "Paunch" don't immediately lend themselves to assumption of equivalence. I'm fine with removing them. Oh, and thanks for the many fine images of notable people. --GRuban (talk) 13:26, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @PaunchStevenson: (Greg2600): we have an automated system to verify that the images we import from Flickr have not been tampered with and have the correct license on Flickr: User:FlickreviewR 2. If we upload pre-cropped images, FlickreviewR 2 gets confused and calls for a human. We have a lack of humans, so we'd rather that didn't happen. As such, we usually upload the image as we find it on Flickr. When we crop the image, by default the crop becomes a new file. So the original remains. The original is also needed because FlickreviewR 2 doesn't review those crops, they depend on the original. Considering some crops were done poorly, I'm not particularly in favor of a blanket deletion. I'd rather overwrite everything with fairly wide lossless crops. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 13:40, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
    • I would support overwriting all the original files with crops. That seems like the least destructive solution. Kaldari (talk) 14:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Cropping the pictures and uploading them as new versions of the original uploads may be the best way to handle this, in my opinion. --Hmxhmx 17:23, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

A customary licence for The Stand News[edit]

I would like to seek a broader community concensus on this customary licensing statement by The Stand News. They say 各機構及個人，可隨便使用《立場新聞》 facebook 專頁的直播片段，不用聯絡我們尋求授權，使用後亦不需要通知，唯望避免歪曲事實的刪剪 (my translation: Every organisation and invidicual, may use live streams from The Stand News' facebook page at will, without contacting us and seeking authorisation, or notifying us after usage. We only hope that editing that distorts the facts can be avoided.) If the community agrees this can be accepted, then files such as File:Man protesting Hong Kong's extradition law in Pacific Place 20190615.png can be licence-reviewed.--Roy17 (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

"Use at will" sounds to me like a free licence as in {{Copyrighted free use}}. De728631 (talk) 22:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Moved to Commons:Village pump/Copyright#A customary licence for The Stand News —De728631 (talk) 22:43, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Wikimania 2019 photo walk[edit]

Stockholm's old town – a potential destination for the photo walk…

This year's Wikimania will be taking place in Stockholm August 14–18. On that occasion, the Commons Photographers User Group will be holding a photo walk. If you're interested in attending, please add your name at Wikimania 2019 photo walk. I'm looking forward to meeting you again / getting to know you! --Frank Schulenburg (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

July 01[edit]

Non-OTRS & -administrators' noticeboards, would there be consensus for it?[edit]

A while back Roy17 proposed using the page "Commons talk:License review" as a noticeboard for license reviewers and noted that the OTRS team has their own noticeboard.

To which I responded with:

"I actually proposed something like that here (for smaller screens), quoting it here for convenience.

Wouldn't it be wise to create noticeboards for every user group (except for "Autopatrolled") such as "Commons:Template editors' noticeboard" to request edits to be made to certain templates? Well, maybe not a separate noticeboard for every group, but maybe a page named "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard" with a special section like "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard#Template editors"? This way new people or users without advanced rights can bring light issues to their attention and help fight backlog. And copyright issues related to certain templates or perhaps proposals for mass-implementing templates could also be discussed here. --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)" "

Now I actually am pretty curious if having separate noticeboards for license reviewers, template editors, file movers, and other "Commonswiki Maintainers" would be a good idea and if I should later create a draft concept for it to post to the Proposals Village Pump. Now I understand that we already have an Administrators' noticeboard and that sysops already have the ability to review license, and while every sysop has the ability to review not all are interested in doing so and I imagine that many license reviewers check maintenance categories more than the would the AN for such issues. Plus such issues are often brought up here, the Copyright Village Pump, and the help desk and having a centralised place which all license reviewers can add to their watchlist would be a more clearcut solution.

Are people in favour of creating pages like "Commons:License reviewers' noticeboard" and /or "Commons:Maintenance noticeboard"? And if not/so, what arguments would you make as to why we should or shouldn't have them? I am looking forward to your feedback. Face-smile.svg --Donald Trung 『徵國單』 (No Fake News 💬) (WikiProject Numismatics 💴) (Articles 📚) 11:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

July 02[edit]

ImageAnnotator still broken[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T226500

ImageAnnotator hasn’t been working properly for almost two months, at least: After each and every use it says «Exception Error: Version inconsistency after saving. Please reload the page. Could not save your note (edit conflict or other problem). Please copy the text in the edit box below and insert it manually by editing this page.» If one ignores this scary warning and refreshes the pages, it eventually works, but it’s not easy to guess. So, people at the WMF — what scares inexperienced users is not wikitext, it’s this kind of unacceptable technical errors. Your mission is not to reshape the wiki concept till you finally smother it into gamified irrelevance, your mission is just to keep the machines running so that we can go on creating free knowledge. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 05:53, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

This is a more serious general problem for users who rely upon the tools we have been given and can't write our own. OK, we are all volunteers, but the feedback paths for problems aren't always obvious, and when you ask the person whose name is attached to a tool, a reply can be either absent or inappropriate (e.g. the recent "Don't disturb Wikipedia" response). Much as I support local efforts and local autonomy, isn't it about time that WMF put some serious budget commitment to putting tools on to a professional service basis? Because otherwise, people are just going to drift away and find something else to do. Rodhullandemu (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Good picture tag?[edit]

Hello, Does Commons have a "good picture" tag analogous to the good article tag in Wikipedia? If so, what is the process to apply the tag? Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 15:51, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@PeterEasthope: Hi,
We have 3 assessments which are not necessarily in an order, and it is possible to have 2 or 3 of them at the same time.
Probably the easiest to obtain is valued pictures.
Then we have quality pictures, which only apply to files made by contributors.
Then we have featured pictures.
You will find all the details in the links above. Regards, Yann (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
"... files made by contributors."
 ?? Aren't all contributed files from contributors?
"You will find all the details in the links above."
Good. Thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Not necessarily PeterEasthope. Many many files here are from traditional archives like the Library of Congress or the University of Zurich, and many others are taken from online from sites like Flickr. These are uploaded by Commons contributors, but are not created by them. GMGtalk 17:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
OK; thanks, ... PeterEasthope (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

July 03[edit]

Good pictures button blocked by content security policy by Firefox[edit]

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T227162

Opening category like https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Conifer_leaves and clicking "good pictures" button results in nothing happening and "Content Security Policy: The page’s settings observed the loading of a resource at https://fastcci2.wmflabs.org/?c1=1685819&d1=15&s=200&a=fqv (“default-src”). A CSP report is being sent." in a browser console. Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 05:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dschwen: --Zhuyifei1999 (talk) 05:58, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Internet problems?[edit]

Is there any truth to the rumor I just heard of worldwide Internet problems today?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Not exactly the internet as a whole, but from what I read here (in German), there is some service disruption affecting the Facebook group (Facebook, Whatsapp, and Instagram). Gestumblindi (talk) 20:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gestumblindi: Thanks!   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 20:32, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

...psst...cunning plan: nobody answer him, that way he'll figure all the international intertubes are totally out of action... -- Begoon 20:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

July 04[edit]

Suppressing "If the work is not a U.S. work" warning for {{PD-US-expired}}[edit]

We made this change a while ago, but I forgot to make sure everyone who doesn't frequent COM:VPP was aware of it. {{PD-US-expired}} now has some new parameters. These parameters allow you to suppress the "If the work is not a U.S. work" error message if the file is a US work, or you provide another license for the source country.

  • country: the two-letter ISO country code of the country where the work was published. If it's "US", the error is suppressed.
  • 1: if the first unnamed parameter is a license template, the error is suppressed and the second license is also shown. The syntax is the same as you would use for {{PD-Art}}).

Examples: {{PD-US-expired|country=US}}, {{PD-US-expired|PD-France}}

You can see Template:PD-US-expired for more information. – BMacZero (🗩) 16:59, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

July 05[edit]

Is there an upload Wizard without "Add metadata" step?[edit]

I am not willing/interested in using Wikidata and I will never use it. Is there a way to make uploading less tedious by using Upload Wizard version without it? Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 08:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

  • If you look at my user page, you will see a link to upload by simply providing wikitext and file. ℺ Gone Postal (〠 ✉ • ✍ ⏿) 14:25, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mateusz Konieczny, use Special:Upload. -- Tuválkin ✉ ✇ 19:39, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mateusz Konieczny - also, if you want to replace the sidebar "Upload file" link so that it always takes you there, instead of to the wizard, you can put something like this in your common.js:

    //Use basic upload form
//remove old link
var elem = document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");
elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);
//add new link
mw.util.addPortletLink('p-participate','/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=experienced','Upload file','n-uploadbtn', 'Basic upload form', null, '#n-recentchanges' );
    -- Begoon 04:58, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
    • @Tuválkin, @Begoon - Thanks! Unfortunately scripts fails for me with "TypeError: mw.util is undefined" Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:26, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
      • Oops, sorry - try this : 

        //ensure mediawiki.util loaded
mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {
//call on page load
jQuery( function( $ ) {

    //Use basic upload form
    //remove old link
    var elem = document.getElementById("n-uploadbtn");
    elem.parentNode.removeChild(elem);
    //add new link
    mw.util.addPortletLink('p-participate','/w/index.php?title=Special:Upload&uselang=experienced','Upload file','n-uploadbtn', 'Basic upload form', null, '#n-recentchanges' );

//close functions
}); //jQuery( function( $ ) {
}); //mw.loader.using( 'mediawiki.util', function () {
        I forgot the snippet I copied was from a larger script wrapped in those functions. -- Begoon 07:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
        • @Begoon Thanks, now I got back upload without million separate steps! Mateusz Konieczny (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
          • I'm glad it helps. I've had that 'setting' in my own user .js scripts for as long as I can remember... -- Begoon 07:49, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
  • @Mateusz Konieczny: The "depicts" step can be ignored. Your files have already been uploaded at that point. Captions can be left empty. - Alexis Jazz ping plz 08:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

July 06[edit]

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump&oldid=357228371"