Commons:Village pump/Archive/2022/07

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

havelshouseofhistory

The site appearing as the source of various autographs and illustrations is given as http://www.havelshouseofhistory.com but links now lead to https://ivanteevka.org/ which appears to be a gambling site. Mcljlm (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could we blacklist that along with boxrec.com?   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 16:14, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The last stable URL in Internet Archive appears to be July 2012, after which it briefly turned into a Turkish website before redirecting to a domain registration site and finally becoming the Indonesian gambling site of today. What a trip! If current dead/hijacked links can be archived, that would be ideal. --Animalparty (talk) 22:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Updated UAE law

The UAE copyright law was recently updated last year, coming into force in January this year. The 2003 law is now repealed. Impacted page is COM:CRT/United Arab Emirates.

but I'll not prolong Wikimedian photographers' expectations: no freedom of panorama still in UAE even in the new law. They just changed "broadcasting programmes" to "broadcasts."

The link: https://www.moec.gov.ae/documents/20121/376326/copyright.pdf (found on the "notes" of the WIPO lex entry of the law that only contains the Arabic edition). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:02, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Results of Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is out!

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

Hi, Greetings

The winners for Wiki Loves Folklore 2022 is announced!

We are happy to share with you winning images for this year's edition. This year saw over 8,584 images represented on commons in over 92 countries. Kindly see images here

Our profound gratitude to all the people who participated and organized local contests and photo walks for this project.

We hope to have you contribute to the campaign next year.

Thank you,

Wiki Loves Folklore International Team

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:12, 4 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Repository of 400k pictures under CC-BY, mostly from underrepresented countries

MV Likoni, uploaded via Crowdsource, and best picture of this ship we have so far
We had "Textile Mills in ..." categories for most US states, but zero picture for Pakistan, the 4th largest textile producer in the world

Hi all,

Here is a repository of 400k pictures under CC-BY: https://crowdsource.google.com/images

Pros:

  • Mostly from Africa and other underrepresented regions. These are the regions from where Commons and the Wikipedias need pictures the most.
  • All pictures are recent.
  • More than 30% of the pictures are of good photographic quality.
  • A good 5% of the pictures show something that has a Wikipedia article but no Commons picture yet.

Cons:

  • No geolocation nor description. This limits us to pictures where the subject can be identified, for instance ships/military/devices/streets/signs/etc.
  • Labels are unreliable.
  • No date. You only know that all pics were uploaded between 2016 and now, so please mention that in the description.

Please use the search bar to find relevant pictures, flex your detective skills and Google Street View to identify the place with 100% certainty, and upload them where they fit :-)

Pictures imported from the Crowdsource app dataset so far: Category:Contributed via Google Crowdsource app

Thanks! Syced (talk) 01:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Great! As for date: {{other date|between|2016|2022}}. - Jmabel ! talk 02:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another "con": all faces are covered in Gaussian blurs. While this is sometimes desirable, it's super-inconvenient in terms of any picture of a particular person. - Jmabel ! talk 02:13, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • If you click on the source link to check if the license fits, you are suggested to log in on Google. I don't think this is a proper way to go: source page and license should be visible to everyone, not just to those who happen to have a Google account and bother to login. Therefore, the pictures should be deleted due to licensing issues, and not uploaded from this source anymore. Regards --A.Savin 07:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @A.Savin: I disagree. We allow uploads of pictures scanned from books that not everyone can access, and a picture from a Web site that only some people can access is similar. COM:EVID doesn't have any requirement for a lack of paywall or similar. It might be a good idea to put these pictures through Commons:License review, though, so that one licence reviewer with a Google account can confirm the licence for everyone else. --bjh21 (talk) 10:45, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Syced another con: much of the public space in Pakistan is ok here because of {{FoP-Pakistan}}. For Africa, unfortunately, the number of countries with suitable freedom of panorama can only be counted by one's hands: Algeria, Angola, Egypt, Gabon, Guinea-Bissau, Eswatini, Kenya, Lesotho, Mauritania, Nigeria, São Tomé and Príncipe, Tunisia, Uganda, and Zimbabwe. For other countries, perhaps only sceneries, nature, flora and fauna, very old / ancient buildings, ordinary houses or structures with no artistic touches, and cityscapes (where individual architectures are de minimis) are OK. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 09:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it really a con of the dataset itself? :-) It is true that a lot of the pictures are from Africa, but most seem to not be pictures of buildings, see for instance https://crowdsource.google.com/images?labels=africa Thanks for the reminder! Syced (talk) 12:49, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Syced: you're welcome. And, take note of some concerns opened by other editors above my message. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 17:51, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can we not get a bot to import all these images, and put them into a holding category for review? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Pigsonthewing: While there is plenty good here, the majority are not worth having and (by my quick estimate) well over 10% will involve copyvios because of what they portray. So I'd be really hesitant to bring them all into Commons on a fully automated basis. - Jmabel ! talk 18:33, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      • After browsing a few hundreds pictures (and importing 26 of them), I agree with Jmabel's estimation numbers. A bot would have to be really smart to identify whether the picture should be imported or not without any human help. Browsing 400k pictures manually is not realistic either, so maybe something semi-automatic could work, for instance pre-selection then import using the right settings? It is a lot of work, but the opportunity to amend our geographical bias is hard to ignore. A link and explanation with sufficient warnings at Commons:Free_media_resources/Photography#General_collections could be a good start. Syced (talk) 00:42, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to re-nominate photos as a quality image?

For a few years now, I have nominated several of my photographs to be Quality Images. Some 121 received the affirmative vote, and a few did not pass the filter, some because they were not centered (it was fixed by cropping them) or they needed a perspective correction.

These days I am learning to handle the Gimp, and I wonder if it is possible to nominate these photos again, in case I make the pertinent modifications that, due to my ignorance, then I did not know how to do. --Drow male (talk) 07:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Drow male: Probably better to ask at Commons talk:Quality images. - Jmabel ! talk 15:21, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thank you. Drow male (talk) 17:27, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use and Commons

Why is it impossible to upload fair-use files on Commons? If I correctly understand, Commons was created to simplify usage of the same file in multiple Wikipedia projects, but It’s need for fair-use files too. 31.131.194.249 10:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Because only some marginalized areas (the state between Canada and Mexico for example) allow fair use and only very few wikipedias (en for example) have a rationale for use of fair use. And: For each case that you actually use an image under the fair use rationale you have to write an individual text explaining the rationale for the specific use of the specific image. That does rule out reuse and therefore it does make no sense to lobby for fair use in commons. It is not simple and it cannot be simple. C.Suthorn (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See also COM:FAIR and the WikiMedia Foundation Licensing Policy Resolution of 23 March 2007.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 11:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But there's more to it than that. Commons is not just a repository for Wikipedia. The intent is to host content that can freely be reused. Inherently, material used on a "fair use" basis cannot be freely reused. - Jmabel ! talk 15:23, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Crop tool

It's obvious from several recent, and unresolved, posts on Commons talk:CropTool that the near-essential Crop Tool is badly broken. Can someone fix it (perhaps by rolling back changes), or should it be disabled and links to it removed from other pages? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:54, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

maybe only remove it from tif-file-description-pages. jpeg works mostly. --C.Suthorn (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It's failing on jpegs for me. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayaraj user categories

Vinayaraj has kindly shared a great number of images with commons, and has categorized them in his own user categories, which is also great. Unfortunately, however, he named these user categories by simply adding "Vinayaraj" to the end of them, which is frequently confusing since many of these categories are latin names for plants and animals. These were nominated for discussion by Charlesjsharp and then Vinayaraj asked me to rename them all to "by Vinayaraj" for clarity. I deleted the first one, but I didn't realize just how many there were. Can anyone help do this mass renaming with a bot? Thanks! -- Themightyquill (talk) Themightyquill (talk) 08:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion script/tool/gadget

Like in en WP, where there are Twinkle, Ultraviolet, and RedWarn among others which provide for one-click speedy deletion nomination, are there any such things here on Commons? I couldn’t find any such thing on preferences. MxYamato (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MxYamato: "Quick Delete" under preferences/ Gadgets - but I see you use an iPad, and that may not be available on mobile, only desktop, view. See Help:QuickDelete. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:32, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help nominating personal photos for speedy deletion

A user, @Ambika kushwaha simraungadh has posted a good deal of personal photos, som explicitly labelled as “Ambika fb” (fb for Facebook I guess). See this. Can someone please help me nominating them under CSD F10, and notifying the user on their talk page. I’m a little new to Commons and couldn’t find a tool/script like Twinkle or Ultraviolet over here. Thank you. MxYamato (talk) 14:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MxYamato: In general, I find the best tool for this is VisualFileChange. Takes a little learning, but if you are going to do this sort of thing it's worth it.
However, in this case this user has all of seven uploads. Surely that is not too much to do by hand. - Jmabel ! talk 14:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see, thank you. He has seven, yes, but I use an iPad and its keyboard has a small trackpad. My wrist pains. MxYamato (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MxYamato: Hi, and welcome. Reporting of a copyright violation here is with {{Copyvio}} is generally accompanied by a post of a notification to the user talk page of the uploader using {{Copyvionote}}. Alternatively to using those manually, you can click the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, under the "tools" section, which does all of the work for you. Please do one of those. If you don't see the "Report copyright violation" link in the left sidebar, you can use the JavaScript method of enabling AjaxQuickDelete on Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets once and then refresh once (to see my extra buttons, search User:Jeff G./common.js for "window.AjaxDeleteExtraButtons"). TwinkleGlobal has some rudimentary function here (search m:User:Jeff G./global.js for Xiplus to see my implementation). To notify users, use the User Messages gadget. See also COM:TOOLS.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:03, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, @Jeff G. for the information. However, the issue at hand is related to personal photos posted users who have no constructive contributions, and their deletion per CSD F10. Your provided info is useful to me still, thanks. MxYamato (talk) 15:06, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@MxYamato: I use my 'Speedy F10' button for that.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 15:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, trying to put those things on my script file now. MxYamato (talk) 15:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse filter overwriting artwork

Is there any easy way around this? I don't upload over originals, but it's not uncommon for me to be doing a restoration, someone changes the information template to an artwork (or the original I've created a copy of used it already), and then, if the files are greater than 100MB, I can't use the chunked upload script (because of the abuse filter), and I can't use the regular upload (because greater than 100MB, and simply removing the Artwork template doesn't seem to remove them from the filter. If it helps, File:Thure de Thulstrup - Battle of Shiloh.png is the file in question in this case.

I think someone presumed Artwork = painting, which would be fine if people didn't keep slapping it on every lithograph, poster, photograph and illustration they could find. Honestly, I kind of dislike the template for several reasons (its fields don't fit well with a lot of use cases people try to force it onto) but I can live with the rest. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:12, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Adam Cuerden: You just need to include the word "overwrite" or "overwriting" in your edit summary. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:47, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Really? Well, that's useful knowledge. Adam Cuerden (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately that abuse rule is in place to prevent people from overwriting artworks when they shouldn't be doing that. It's only a warning so you can choose to ignore it, but I can understand it's a bit annoying to have to upload a 100 MB file again. I looked into adding an exception if the same user is adding a new version, but I'm not sure if that is possible in the abusefilter. Multichill (talk) 17:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Italian law change may impact images of cultural heritage subjects

"Reusing images of Italian cultural heritage from Wikimedia Commons will become more difficult".

"According to the new Italian National Plan for the Digitization of Cultural Heritage (Piano Nazionale di Digitalizzazione, PND) images can be published on the Wikimedia projects, but to reuse them for commercial purposes you need to ask for permission and pay a fee."

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are non-copyright restrictions. Ruslik (talk) 21:02, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree. Commons should only host media that can be re-used, even commercially, for free. The above proposed restriction clearly prohibits free commercial re-use. -M.nelson (talk) 22:34, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@M.nelson: So are you saying we should not host trademarked but uncopyrightable logos? You're welcome to propose that, but I can tell you pretty confidently that you'll be voted down. - Jmabel ! talk 01:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Jmabel: If trademarks prevented all commercial re-use, I would agree. But I believe trademark infringement only applies to "mis-using" the trademark (for example re-using it in a way that misleads a consumer or implies sponsorship), and therefore there are legitimate ways to re-use trademarked content. -M.nelson (talk) 10:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment It may be a form of COM:Non-copyright restrictions, but the dictates of the upcoming Italian law already do not conform with the principles of the Definition of Free Cultural Works. There are four such freedoms — "freedom to use the work and enjoy the benefits of using it," "the freedom to study the work and to apply knowledge acquired from it," "the freedom to make and redistribute copies, in whole or in part, of the information or expression," and "the freedom to make changes and improvements, and to distribute derivative works." The under-review law will trample upon the first, third, and fourth freedoms.
As per what is indicated on the Wikimedia blog article, it is the first time this media repository was mentioned. The law mentioned it as: "The download of cultural heritage reproductions published on third-party websites is not under the control of the public entity that holds the assets (e.g., images of cultural heritage assets downloadable from Wikimedia Commons, made “freely” by contributors by their own means for purposes of free expression of thought and creative activity, and thus in the full legitimacy of the Cultural Heritage Code). It remains the responsibility of the cultural institution to charge fees for subsequent commercial uses of reproductions published by third parties." In the original Italian text ([1]):
Il download di riproduzioni di beni culturali pubblicati in siti web di terze parti non è sotto il controllo dell’ente pubblico che ha in consegna i beni (ad es. le immagini di beni culturali scaricabili da Wikimedia Commons, realizzate “liberamente” dai contributori con mezzi propri per fini di libera manifestazione del pensiero e attività creativa, e quindi nella piena legittimità del Codice dei beni culturali). Rimane nelle competenze dell’istituto culturale l’applicazione di corrispettivi per i successivi usi commerciali delle riproduzioni pubblicate da terze parti.
_ JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is a substantial restriction on freedom, but I think we just have to roll with it, if that's the law as passed. It is unreasonable for us not to host copies of ancient works because Greece and Italy want to enact some form of eternal copyright-like protections. Our current copyright rules block uploading some files we potentially could, but we're talking 25-40 years at worst, usually for hundreds of millions of people, not eternal protection of BCE works for laws of one country.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:49, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Prosfilaes anyway, Wikimedia Italia is doing its best to stop this cultural heritage law from being implemented. From the Wikimedia blog article: Wikimedia Italia sent an open letter to representatives of the Italian government, calling out not to add restrictions on images of cultural heritage in the public domain licensed under an open license on Wikimedia projects. We will keep asking that, to push our country to align to international standards on openness and civil society participation to the conservation of its own heritage. There is already no FOP there, but adding such restriction adds fuel to the no-FOP-in-Italy fire. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:19, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
If this rules are as strict as I understand from the discussion and quotes here I think they would be in conflict with with European contracts because of restriction of press and research freedom as there is no exception for education, research and reporting. I understand that they want some restrictions for commercial use like there are for pictures of identifiable humans. But with this they would prohibit nearly every publishing and using of photos of old buildings. --GPSLeo (talk) 15:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

New Sign language videos not displayed properly

Hello all,
Is there a (new) known issue with video display ? Making video files being displayed as audio files ?
We uploaded videos produced by the same programing tool in 2018 and 2022. The early video is displayed properly in Commons / Wikipedia. The later one is displayed as an audio file, but when we open it in a browser ( ), the browser displays it as a video file. When we inspect the html code, the first one is considered by mediawiki a `video`, the second one is considered an `audio`.

  • Old videos show as videos.

Any hint to share ? --Yug (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Link: File:LL-Q33302 (fsl)-Yug-chinois.webm. Probably the upload is incomplete. If you download the file from the media-link you provided and compare it to the file you uploaded, you will most likely find, that the uploaded version is some bytes smaller. --C.Suthorn (talk) 02:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Yug  ? C.Suthorn (talk) 12:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is this image good for commons?

First image featured at: https://www.yomiuri.co.jp/pluralphoto/20220708-OYT1I50091/, they say at the bottom: Articles and photographs published online in the Yomiuri Shimbun are protected by Japanese copyright law and international treaties. It cannot be used by reprinting or sending to the Internet without the consent of the copyright holder such as the Yomiuri Shimbun. © The Yomiuri Shimbun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VScode fanboy (talk • contribs) 06:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No. --C.Suthorn (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@VScode fanboy Commons canot accept contents that are not free for free culture or unrestricted commercial uses. The statement proves that it is OOjs UI icon close-ltr-destructive.svg Not OK for publication here. Unless you will ask for allowance of commercial license from the copyright holder, via correspondence or email (COM:VRTS method), which may be time-consuming. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 12:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatives to Information, for academic papers?

Is there a template like {{Information}}, or {{Book}}, for academic publications? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Upload form

The upload form, Special:Upload, is getting longer and longer. I use this very often, and it is getting annoying. Can somebody collapse the extensive introduction and delete the link to the upload wizard which is recently added? I cannot find the source. It is not used by newbies I suppose... Regards, Ellywa (talk) 21:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ellywa: Try MediaWiki:Uploadtext or MediaWiki:Uploadwizard-summary.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:00, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, thanks Jeff G.! Ellywa (talk) 22:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ellywa: You're welcome.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 22:29, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

I posted an image on my user page. It has annotations and therefore This file has annotations appeared. Is there a way to post the image without annotations? Thanks. Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 20:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Sadko: Hi, and welcome. You could reupload it as a new filename without annotations and as a COM:DW, and ignore errors.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 21:03, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Jeff; I shall do just that. Which license would fit best? Sadkσ (talk is cheap) 21:05, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Sadko: The original CC-BY-SA-2.5 Generic. Or use bjh21's solution below.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 23:46, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
You can add {{ImageAnnotations|inline=hide}} anywhere on the page to disable annotations for all inline images on the page. See Help:Image-Annotator#Inline display of annotations for more details. --bjh21 (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Your help is much appreciated. cheers — Sadko (words are wind) 23:51, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flickr help please

I came across an image on Flickr which I want to add to an article on WP. I see a lot of images here from Flicker but I don't know to go about using the image. What documentation is required? — Ineuw talk 01:04, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • @Ineuw: Most images from Flickr are not acceptable on Commons, and you don't indicate what image you are talking about. For a more specific answer, please either link the image page (URL) or say what its license is. - Jmabel ! talk 01:09, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: Also helpful would be what URL the licensing verbiage links to.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 01:34, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all for the clarification. That's why I asked a general question to begin with, if it's worth the bother: flickr re: Wikipedia Ponevezh article for the article on Wikipedia.
A similar image is already in their gallery, but I thought this would add to the perspective.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ineuw: As you can see at the Flickr page, there is a note on the lower right side: © All rights reserved. So unfortunately we cannot use this file at Commons or Wikipedia. Only Flickr images with a free Creative Commons licence or images without a copyright restriction may be transferred to Commons. For more information on how to find acceptable Flickr files, please see also COM:WHERE. De728631 (talk) 14:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ineuw: Generally: Start the Upload Wizard. It has 2 buttons. The second is "import from flickr". The wizard will do all that is needed to import from flickr. A Flickr Review bot will later review the license. --C.Suthorn (talk) 15:41, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My thanks to all for the info. I never explored why Flickr is given such a prominence, like its own controls on the upload wizard.— Ineuw talk 18:20, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia to Commons

I seem to remember an experimental one-click tool to migrate images from Wikipedia to Commons without downloading to your hard drive. Do we still have a tool to perform that function? --RAN (talk) 15:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): AFAIK this is now a built-in function. E.g. have a look at en:File:UKExpenditure.jpg. It should have a tab that says "Export to Wikimedia Commons". De728631 (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I see it now, thanks! I never noticed the tab before. --RAN (talk) 15:39, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ): See also w:en:Wikipedia:Moving_files_to_Commons. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:40, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose statements for the 2022 Election Compass

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hi all,

Community members in the 2022 Board of Trustees election are invited to propose statements to use in the Election Compass.

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

Here is the timeline for the Election Compass:

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

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

July 23 - August 1: Volunteers vote on the statements

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

August 5 - 12: candidates align themselves with the statements

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

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

Best,

Movement Strategy and Governance

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

Zuz (WMF) (talk) 12:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

import

someone import this is now 30 years old iran pd https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Isfahan_government_logo.svg Baratiiman (talk) 14:41, 8 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Baratiiman see [2], for your information. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 05:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Belgian FOP, non-commercial??

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

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

Is this the real meaning of Belgian FOP clause of: "the reproduction and public communication of visual, graphic or architectural artwork intended to be placed permanently in public places, providing that it concerns the reproduction or communication of the work as it is and that said reproduction or public communication does not affect the normal exploitation of the work and does not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the author"? Perhaps Wikimedians from Belgium should clarify this. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 01:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This may be the reason why SABAM still has the guts to restrict free culture uses of the famous Atomium of Brussels. See https://atomium.be/copyright (now claims Belgian FOP is non-commercial). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:00, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: If this is true, we should restore {{NoFoP-Belgium}} and delete {{FoP-Belgium}}, many photos of buildings and sculptures, other public arts in Belgium. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow clarification from Belgian Wikimedians is needed first before making any immediate conclusions. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 03:51, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I think it's good to have a discussion here too. Ox1997cow (talk) 03:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway, who are Belgian Wikimedians? Ox1997cow (talk) 04:02, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow that is what I call to every Wikipedian / Wikimedian editor, user, contributor, and photographer from Belgium in general sense. Wikimedia itself is composed of WikiCommons, all Wikipedias, and other wiki-sites managed by Wikimedia Foundation, like Wikivoyage and Wiktionary. I call Wikimedia "Wikimedia-verse" or "Wikimedia universe." JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:07, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: "Wikipedian" was a typo. I want to see Belgian Wikimedians who know Belgian copyright laws well. Ox1997cow (talk) 04:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Ox1997cow no, Wikipedian refers to one who is a regular contributor or user of a particular Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia is the most-recognized site of all under "Wikimedia-verse," there has been a tendency to call everyone involved in "Wikimedia-verse" as Wikipedian even if Wikimedian is a more proper term. Nevertheless let's focus on the Belgian law. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 04:38, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@JWilz12345: I see. Ox1997cow (talk) 06:30, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@AnneJea, Taketa, Sam.Donvil, and Geertivp: FoPbelgium has been nominated for deletion for being non-commercial only. --C.Suthorn (talk) 05:52, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The clause was mentioned in the discussion back in 2016 when the FoP law was introduced. It apparently wasn't considered a show-stopper. Commons:Village_pump/Copyright/Archive/2016/07#Freedom_of_Panorama_in_Belgium. --ghouston (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ghouston is right. The Belgian Copyright Act, Art. XI 190 is clear. Please don't waste your time on old discussions. Vysotsky (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Vysotsky: however, both the ManagingIP article (apparently contributed by a Belgian lawyer as per the author info) and the SABAM management of Atomium seem to disagree that Belgian FOP allows commercial exploitations of works in public space. Or does the so-called lawyer missed an important point in parliamentary discourse back then? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 15:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Of course they disagree: they earn their money in the field of copyright. And no, the lawyer didn't miss an important point: she just framed the law in a way more suited to (supposed) copyright owners. Vysotsky (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just because this was discussed in 2016, does not mean it was thoroughly and conclusively discussed and that we should dismiss new insights made afterwards. The key part of the clause seems to be ...geen afbreuk doet aan de normale exploitatie van het werk... / ...ne porte pas atteinte à l’exploitation normale de l’œuvre... ("...does not affect the normal exploitation of the work..."). Let's say Atomium inc. sells postcards. If someone else takes a picture of the Atomium per FoP and starts selling it as postcards too, they are competing with Atomium's own postcards, thus affecting Atomium's exploitation. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:25, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The conditions are mentioned in the template. It's not unusual that works published under FoP have restrictions that wouldn't be present in purely freely licenced works. E.g., the condition in Dutch FoP that an object must be depicted as it appears in its public location, or unclear status of derivative works (e.g., you probably can't use photos of a statue to make a copy of the original statue without violating the copyright). --ghouston (talk) 09:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I searched the web whether Atomium has started legal action, but I did not find anything. Just wait until they do (which I assume they will not, because the FoP is clear). They could easily write a letter to the legal dept of the Wikimedia Foundation without any cost. Still they claim you should pay, per their website. (@Ghouston: By the way, "Dutch" refers to a language, common to a part of Belgium and the Netherlands. If you talk about "Dutch FoP" you will probably mean to say "FoP in the Netherlands, but we can understand, like we understand "Holland" as a pars pro toto for the Netherlands. The low countries have a complex geographic history... our language was even spoken in the Northern part of France, the Flanders area) Ellywa (talk)
en:Dutch, it's idiomatic in English for it to refer to the Netherlands, as well as the language. --ghouston (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Two questions

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

Ty. — Sadko (words are wind) 12:58, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I don't know how the table with your articles and categories was created at the Serbian Wikipedia, but I can answer your first question. The string "From Wikimedia Commons..." comes with the skin you are using to view the Commons website. You can change the general appearance in Special:Preferences → "Appearance", where the MonoBook skin for example does not show the Wikimedia Commons credit in that particular place. However, there is no way to remove just that line of text and keep your current skin. De728631 (talk) 09:33, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

(TOO = Threshold of originality)

Nintendo has not licensed the logo under the CC licence (and it's unlikely they will licence their images under CC licence), but I'm not sure if it exceeds COM:TOO Japan or not. Do you think the lamp dots on the "Super" text exceed the Japanese TOO? Stylez995 (talk) 16:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given the examples at COM:TOO Japan (in particular the cup noodles with the wavy line through the text), I'm leaning toward below TOO. If File:Super Mario party Logo.jpg is to be kept, it will need the {{PD-textlogo}} "license" instead of its current CC license. --HyperGaruda (talk) 07:59, 13 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello everyone, I want to relicense some of my works to CC BY, which were previously licensed under CC BY-SA. How can I do it except modify them one by one? --Raccoozzy (Talk) 14:28, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can do that with VFC (Visual File Change). Enter your user name to get a list of your uploads, than choose replace text from the drop down box. However you should not replace the license, but add the new one as a service to existing reusers. --C.Suthorn (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I'll try the VFC.--Raccoozzy (Talk) 12:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Categorization help

I'm going to categorize File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 47.jpg to something more specific to the image subject, to at least make Category:Balete Drive less "crowded." While it may seem a fence, PropertyCasualry360 says otherwise: According to Merriam-Webster Online, a fence is “a barrier intended to prevent escape or intrusion or to mark a boundary; especially such a barrier made of posts and wire or boards.” A wall is “1a: a high, thick masonry structure forming a long rampart or an enclosure chiefly for defense —often used in plural; b: a masonry fence around a garden, park or estate; c: a structure that serves to hold back pressure (as of water or sliding earth); 2: one of the sides of a room or building connecting floor and ceiling or foundation and roof; 3: the side of a footpath next to buildings.” If this is not a fence, then maybe a wall, but what is the most suited category for this (perimeter/outdoor) wall? JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 02:03, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever "fence" category you add, the image still belongs in Category:Balete Drive. Or were you thinking of "Fences on Balete Drive" as a subcategory? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Pigsonthewing: I don't think letting it remain on the category supposedly for the road itself is good in the long term. It causes overpopulation to the category. The road segment adjacent to this structure is File:7876Balete Drive Quezon City Landmarks 45.jpg itself. It is one of the uploads of the infamous uploader Judgefloro (talk · contribs), and doesn't even depict the road itself. But I find it useful, and I think of categorizing it based on the structure is the best way to help slightly depopulate the road category (but raising its quality based on image content). JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Likely category is Category:Walls in the Philippines as it also includes File:Banga National HS Field SoCo td (2019-12-18) 02.jpg. Perhaps I have found a suitable category for it. JWilz12345 (Talk|Contrib's.) 16:45, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrarily removing images from valid categories, or moving them to orthogonal categories, is not how we deal with overpopulation of categories; indeed to so so is damaging to the project. In any case, even with the image included, Category:Balete Drive has just 296 members; hardly a bothersome quantity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:40, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

I don't think this photo[3] is of former CNN-host Riz Khan. It's probably another person with the same name. Ezzex (talk) 11:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

File moving

A lot of renames give an error. Sometimes it works, when I rename it manually. One time I got this error: "[38511fb1-6b46-40bb-b0fe-bb5e17bea810] 2022-07-14 11:09:46: Fatale fout van type "Wikimedia\Rdbms\DBQueryError"" Does anyone else have problems with renaming? Some files go easy, some not. - Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also experienced such errors when moving files, I guess since yesterday. Most times I get this error message: “An unknown error occurred in storage backend "local-swift-eqiad".” IMHO the problem seems not to be related to specific files – most times if I try again the renaming works, sometimes it doesn’t. Can I do anything to help with fixing this problem? --Aristeas (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Richard's issue was a "Lock timeout exceeded" issue. During the request there was no swift issues reported, so its probably unrelated. We've had occasional issues with lock timeouts when moving files for a long time now (I have no idea if its actually a deadlock, or if lock contention is just slow) so this is not really a new issue I think. On the other hand, maybe it was previously fixed, I'm not sure, which could mean something new happened. Looking at logs, there was 19 lock timeouts related to file moves on commons (many for the same file) in the last 15 days (And 1 on en wikipedia). Possibly its just a one off issue, or there was something weird about the file - so i suppose wait and see if it continues to happen. As for helping fix things - in cases where there is a sudden spike in an error that is not new, better flagging it to devs can be helpful, for example by filing tasks in phabricator since the people with the power to fix these things only read VP pages rarely. If you're not sure if an issue should be filed as a phab task, or if anyone is already working on it, you can also ask on #wikimedia-tech irc channel (That said, don't be afraid of politely filing tasks in phab even if you are not sure. If something shouldn't have a task or already has one, it will just be closed which is no big deal). That said, Aristeas: if you're interested in directly contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites, let me know, and I can connect you with resources depending on what skills you have and where your interests lie. Bawolff (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for your comment and help, Bawolff! As far as I can tell file moving seems to work flawless again, so the problem seems to be fixed. That’s great! Richardkiwi, does it work for you again, too?
Thank you also for the information and advise about reporting such technical issues, Bawolff. Next time when such a things happens (and persists for a while) I will try to file a reasonable phabricator task.
I fear that contributing to the technical side of Wikimedia websites is not something I could do; I am fluent in Python (and somewhat in C++, PHP, JavaScript and some more exotic programming stuff), but I have neither any experience in handling big databases nor with all these tools which are used today for handling issues etc. ;–) But thank very much you for your responsiveness and offer!
All the best, --Aristeas (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No problems anymore with renaming. Great! = Richardkiwi (talk) (talk) 14:42, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Disable the NewUserMessage extension

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

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

So I think anyone may vote here to remove the NewUserMessage extension and instead use {{subst:Welcome}} to manually welcome new users. 105.106.72.151 12:22, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Per community consecus, Meta has also removed the NewUserMessage extension for the simillar reasons above. 105.106.72.151 12:33, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Prove it. We have welcomed new users for at least a decade.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:35, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Welcoming a user that is not a vandal or spammer manually after days of registration is better. 105.106.72.151 12:36, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want to take on the burden of doing that over 10 million times in the course of 14 years like User:Wikimedia Commons Welcome, and SieBot before that? We have consensus for installing the extension recorded at Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive 9#mw:Extension:NewUserMessage. Also, proposals belong at COM:VPP.   — Jeff G. ツ please ping or talk to me 12:45, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
See Special:Version and you will see that this is an extension. 105.106.72.151 12:52, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
With the current development of the Growth tools I think there will be an alternative to the bot message in the future. While waiting for this we can keep the current way as it is not a huge problem and worked for a long time. --GPSLeo (talk) 12:58, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ukrainian Govt image upload blocked

I just tried to upload the image from [4] which is open licensed per [5], using Special:Upload; this failed with "Copy uploads are not available from this domain" (the domain being "ssu.gov.ua"). Why is that? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:11, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: It looks like MediaWiki:Copyupload-allowed-domains includes many subdomains of gov.ua, but not that one. You can ask for it to be added at MediaWiki talk:Copyupload-allowed-domains. --bjh21 (talk) 17:02, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Checkmark This section is resolved and can be archived. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. bjh21 (talk) 00:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commons:Village_pump/Archive/2022/07&oldid=676884104"